[Pages S5932-S5943]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

EXECUTIVE SESSION

______

PROTOCOL TO THE NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY OF 1949 ON THE ACCESSION OF THE
REPUBLIC OF NORTH MACEDONIA

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the following
treaty, which the clerk will state.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

Calendar No. 5, Treaty document No. 116-1, Protocol to the
North Atlantic Treaty of 1949 on the Accession of the
Republic of North Macedonia.

Pending:

McConnell amendment No. 946, to change the enactment date.

[[Page S5933]]

McConnell amendment No. 947 (to amendment No. 946), of a
perfecting nature.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 12
noon will be equally divided between the two leaders or their
designees.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Recognition of the Minority Leader

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.

Appropriations

Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, the Republican leader in recent days
has charged that because the House of Representatives is now engaged in
its constitutional duty to examine Presidential wrongdoing, that
somehow Democrats are not interested in legislating.
It is a curious criticism coming from Leader McConnell, Democrats not
interested in legislating, from the man who proudly calls himself the
``grim reaper.'' Since the midterms, the Democratic House majority has
passed hundreds of bills with bipartisan support while Leader McConnell
has deliberately focused the Senate on anything but legislation. He has
turned this Chamber into a legislative graveyard.
Democrats want to vote on things. Gun safety, how about it?
Healthcare, how about it? Infrastructure, how about it? Improving our
democracy. On none of these things will Leader McConnell even dare put
a bill on the floor, let alone the House bills, which would have a
chance of getting something done.
This very week, we have an example of how Democrats plan to work with
our Republican colleagues to advance legislation. The Republican leader
has indicated, finally, alas, that he may bring several appropriations
bills to the floor this week. Democrats want to move forward and debate
those bills in an open and vigorous fashion.
There are several appropriations bills that don't have any bipartisan
support. The Republican leader knows why. We need to have bipartisan
support on the 302(b)s, the allocations to the various agencies, to
move forward on bills like Homeland Security and Health and Human
Services, Military Construction, and Defense. That negotiation, to
succeed, must be bipartisan. That is what the history of this Chamber
shows. That is what commonsense and logic shows. House leaders have
suggested a conference--Democrats and Republicans, House and Senate--on
these 302(b)s. That is a good idea. If Republicans are willing to
engage with us on 302(b)s, we get negotiations back on track to fund
the government.
In the meantime, Democrats want to move forward on the
noncontroversial appropriation bills--the bills that have had
bipartisan agreement--and we hope Leader McConnell will allow a fair
and robust amendment process. It would be nice to consider something on
the floor besides an endless parade of rightwing judges--who side with
a special powerful interest, time and time again, not working
Americans--and Executive appointments.

Turkey and Syria

Madam President, on Syria, today the 5-day pause on hostilities in
northern Syria is set to come to an end. What happens next is
completely unknown. Will Erdogan continue his military incursion into
Syria? Will the Kurds--facing another Turkish offensive--leave their
posts guarding ISIS prisoners to once again defend themselves, allowing
ISIS prisoners, dangerous to America, to escape? Will Presidents
Erdogan and Putin cut a new deal that is bad for America and our
allies? Nobody knows the answer to any of these.
What we do know is that the situation has rapidly deteriorated
compared to just a few weeks ago.
What caused this deterioration? One thing: the President's abrupt
decision to withdraw U.S. troops from the region after a phone call
with President Erdogan. When ISIS had been degraded and more than
10,000 detainees--many of them hardened ISIS fighters--were under lock
and key, to undo that is putting America's security at risk. That is
what President Trump has done. This so-called tough warrior backed off
in a call with a much lesser power, President Erdogan. He has done this
before. We don't know how many of these 10,000 detainees and their
families have escaped. We don't know where they have gone, nor is there
any plan to get them back into detention facilities. These are
dangerous people--dangerous to our homeland, dangerous to New York and
Chicago and Miami and Dallas and Denver and Los Angeles--and we don't
know where they are or what they are doing all because of President
Trump's precipitous action. I get excited about this--angrily excited,
negatively excited--because my city has suffered from terrorists 7,000
miles away, a small group, who did such damage.
As the New York Times reported after ISIS had been on the run, ``Now,
analysts say that Mr. Trump's pullout [of U.S. troops from northern
Syria] has handed the Islamic State its biggest win in four years.''
President Trump has handed ISIS its biggest victory in 4 years. How
can any American support that? How can so many of our Republican
colleagues and Republican supporters of President Trump shrug their
shoulders?
Let me repeat: President Trump's ``pullout has handed the Islamic
State its biggest win in more than four years and greatly improved its
prospects.''
The President's incompetence with Erdogan and Syria has handed ISIS a
``get out of jail free'' card and has simply put American lives in
danger. For the sake of our national security, President Trump and his
administration need to get a handle on this situation.
I believe Senators from both parties have been trying to get the
administration's top officials, including Secretary of State Pompeo,
Secretary of Defense Esper, and General Milley, to give the Senate a
briefing on its Syria policy and a plan to contain and further degrade
ISIS. They canceled the scheduled briefing last week, pulled the plug
on a briefing that was supposed to be this afternoon, and have so far
refused to commit to a new date. We need that briefing to happen.
Secretary Pompeo, Secretary Esper, General Milley, and CIA Director
Haspel have the responsibility to report to Congress on what is
happening in this dangerous situation, and, once again, this
administration is withholding vital information. It is a disgrace. It
is probably because they don't have a plan, so they don't know what to
do. But bringing them here may help formulate that plan or push them to
get a plan.
In the meantime, Democrats are set to meet with Brett McGurk, the
Presidential envoy in charge of countering ISIS, at a special meeting
Wednesday so that we can try to come up with some answers, even though
it should be the administration doing that.
The American people should be very concerned that the Trump
administration does not seem to have any plan to secure the enduring
defeat of ISIS in Syria. Senate Democrats will try to learn as much as
possible from the experts available to us--folks like Mr. McGurk--but,
ultimately, the President alone has the authority to correct our
Nation's course.
So it is still very important for the Senate to pass the House
resolution condemning the President's decision to precipitously
withdraw from northern Syria. The President tends to listen when the
Republicans here in Congress express their disapproval. That is what
happened in the House, where over 120 Republicans voted with Democrats
on a bipartisan resolution, including Leaders McCarthy, Scalise, and
Cheney, hard-war Republicans, but at least they knew how bad this was
for America. I wish our Senate Republican colleagues would have shown
the same bit of courage that McCarthy, Scalise, and Cheney showed.
If the House resolution is tough enough for House Republican
leadership, surely it is good enough for the majority of Senate
Republicans. So we will keep trying to pass the House resolution here
in the Senate because it means we could send a bill to the President's
desk that shows him a bipartisan majority of Congress is against his
reckless decision to consider it in Syria. This is extremely, extremely
troubling, and I am very angry--very angry.

[[Page S5934]]

Congressional Review Act

Madam President, later this week, Senate Democrats are going to use
their authority under the Congressional Review Act to force a vote to
repeal the IRS's harmful rule that effectively eliminates State
charitable tax credits all across the country.
I know my Republican colleagues want to frame this CRA vote as a vote
on the State and local tax credit cap they put in place in tax reform.
I disagree. I vehemently disagree with that policy and will look to
change it as soon as possible.
It has hurt so many people who are middle class and not wealthy in
New York and also in suburbs throughout the country. By the way, it is
probably one of the major reasons the House flipped from Republican to
Democrats. So many of those districts in New Jersey, California, New
York, and Pennsylvania were affected by the SALT cap, and people
throughout rebelled against their Republican Congress, and they put new
people in.
But it affects other things as well. The regulation we will be voting
on impacts State charitable credits virtually across every State,
ranging in areas from education to conservation, to child care, and
more.
Do not take my word for it. In Kentucky, the Community Foundation of
Louisville, a major philanthropic organization, has warned that IRS's
rule will effectively extinguish the endowed Kentucky program, which
has generated more than $31 million in charitable donations.
Look at South Carolina, where my friend Senator Graham has made clear
that this rule will have devastating consequences for the South
Carolina Research Authority, which helps startup companies in his State
create new jobs.
Let's go to Colorado, where the Boys and Girls Club of Chafee County
warned that ``these proposed regulations will severely limit the
effectiveness of our Colorado Chile Care Contribution Tax Credit,''
which they say will ``limit our ability to address an issue which is
fundamental to the economic health of the community.'' The list goes on
and on.
I ask my Republican colleagues, before we vote on the CRA tomorrow,
to look at how it affects their State, not just in terms of State and
local taxes but charitable contributions, education, homeschool, and
many other areas.
The vote is about getting rid of an IRS rule that hinders State
programs, like the ones I have mentioned. My Republican colleagues have
always proclaimed that they are defenders of States' rights and the
10th Amendment. Here is an opportunity for them to walk the walk and to
stop the IRS from making life harder on both taxpayers and local
economies. I urge them to vote with us to repeal this rule.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.

Prescription Drug Costs

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, over in the House today, the Ways and
Means Committee is marking up Speaker Pelosi's drug bill, the latest
installment in Democrats' campaign for government-run healthcare.
Like Democrats' other plan for government takeover of healthcare, the
so-called Medicare for All vote, the Pelosi drug bill will ultimately
leave Americans worse off when it comes to access to care.
There is no question that the American healthcare system isn't
perfect. High drug costs are a problem, and one in four seniors reports
difficulty affording medications. Stories of patients being forced to
ration pills or abandon their prescriptions at the pharmacy counter are
unacceptable, but upending the entire American healthcare system is not
the answer.
A strong majority of Americans are happy with their health insurance
coverage and the quality of the healthcare they receive. Americans have
access to treatments that individuals in other countries simply don't
have access to. Take cancer drugs, for example. Between 2011 and 2018,
82 new cancer drugs became available. U.S. patients have access to 96
percent of those new drugs. In Germany, by contrast, patients have
access to just 73 percent of those new cancer drugs. In France, it is
just 66 percent, and in Japan, patients have access to only 54 percent
of these new cancer drugs. In other words, Japanese patients are
missing out on access to roughly half of the new cancer drugs that
emerged between 2011 and 2018.
So why do Americans have such tremendous access to new drugs while
other countries trail behind? Because the U.S. Government doesn't
dictate drug prices or drug coverage. That is also the reason American
companies lead the world in medical innovation.
Back in 1986, investment in drug research by European drug companies
exceeded U.S. investment by approximately 24 percent, but all of that
changed--all of that changed--when European governments stepped in and
started imposing price controls.
Today, European investment in drug research and development is almost
40 percent lower than U.S. investment. It was 24 percent higher in
1968, and, today, it is 40 percent lower.
Speaker Pelosi's bill would start the process of destroying the
system that has produced so much access and innovation for American
patients. Her legislation would impose government price controls on as
many as 250 medications.
If progressives in her caucus have their way, the bill would impose
government price controls on all medications. Either way, the result is
likely to look much the same as we have seen before--reduced access to
lifesaving treatments and substantially reduced investment for the
prescription drug breakthroughs of the future.
Under the Pelosi bill, Americans could look forward to a future where
we might be the ones losing out on a quarter or more of the new cancer
drugs that are coming to market.
There is no question that we need to find solutions to drive down
drug costs, but the answer to the problem of high drug costs is not to
destroy the system that has given American patients access to so many
new cures and treatments.
Republicans want to develop bipartisan legislation focused on
lowering prescription drug costs without--without--destroying the
American system of access and innovation.
The Senate Finance Committee, the Senate Health, Education, Labor,
and Pensions Committee, and the Senate Judiciary Committee have spent a
lot of time this year working on this issue, and work on truly
bipartisan solutions remains ongoing.
Earlier this year, House committees advanced drug pricing legislation
on a bipartisan basis, but, unfortunately, House Democrats have made it
clear that they are more interested in playing politics than in
cooperating on legislation to address the challenges that are facing
American families.
Democrats know that the Pelosi drug bill has no chance of passing the
Senate, but they have chosen to pursue this socialist fantasy instead
of working with Republicans to develop a bipartisan prescription drug
bill that isn't just price controls and that might actually go
somewhere.
Like the Democrats' larger socialist fantasy, Medicare for All, the
Pelosi drug bill will ultimately hurt the very people it is supposed to
help, in this case, by restricting their access to lifesaving drugs and
future prescription drug innovations. The Pelosi drug bill is a bad
prescription for the American people.
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. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Drug Caucus Hearing

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, this Congress, I have the great honor of
cochairing the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics with my friend
and colleague from California, Senator Feinstein.
As our country continues to battle the scourge of the opioid
epidemic, fight drug trafficking at our borders, and attack illicit
drug sources abroad, the work of this caucus could not be more timely
or more important. We must do more, I believe, to treat addiction, and
we need to do more to stop Americans from using illegal drugs in the
first instance.

[[Page S5935]]

Earlier this year, we had a hearing to examine the global narcotics
epidemic--and it is a global one--and discuss our country's
counternarcotics strategy. At this first hearing, we were lucky to have
the Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, as a witness. He spoke in depth
about the scope of this problem and how the State Department is working
with our friends and allies abroad to curb the supply of these illicit
drugs. We learned a lot from Secretary Pompeo and our other expert
witnesses about the complexity of this problem and a need for a whole-
of-government approach. It was a strong way to kick off our agenda.
I am looking forward to our second hearing tomorrow, which I will
talk about briefly, where we will have experts testifying on the public
health effects of the most commonly used illicit drug--marijuana.
A 2018 report found that an estimated 43.5 million Americans used
marijuana in the last year. That is the highest percentage since 2002.
While marijuana is still a prohibited drug under Federal law, we know
that more than half of the States have legalized it in some form,
making the rise in usage not all that surprising.
Now, there is no shortage of people who claim that marijuana has
endless health benefits and can help patients struggling with
everything from epilepsy to anxiety to cancer treatments. This reminds
me of some of the advertising we saw from the tobacco industry years
ago where they actually claimed public health benefits from smoking
tobacco, which we know, as a matter of fact, were false and that
tobacco contains nicotine, an addictive drug, and is implicated with
cancers of different kinds.
We are hearing a lot of the same happy talk with regard to marijuana
and none of the facts that we need to understand about the public
health impact of marijuana use. We have heard from folks here in
Congress, as well as a number of our Democratic colleagues who are
running for President, about their desire to legalize marijuana at the
Federal level. But for the number of voices in support of legalization,
there are even more unanswered questions about both the short-term and
long-term public health effects.
Between 1995 and 2014, THC concentration--that is the active
ingredient in marijuana--has increased threefold, making today's
version of the drug far stronger and more addictive than ever before.
It is true that for some people marijuana can indeed be addictive.
There has been an effort throughout the medical and scientific
communities to learn more about the public health effects of marijuana
use, but the results of these studies haven't provided any definitive
evidence. I must say that among all the discussion at the State and
Federal level about marijuana use and its benefits and its hazards,
Congress really hasn't had an opportunity to soberly and deliberately
consider this question, which, hopefully, we will be enlightened about
tomorrow, about what the public health benefits are of this trend in
our country.
A few years ago, the National Academy of Sciences convened an expert
committee to review the health effects of cannabis and cannabis-derived
products. The committee members were experts in the fields of marijuana
and addiction, as well as pediatric and adolescent health,
neurodevelopment, public health, and a range of other areas. Their
findings were released in January of 2017, and while I will not read
you the entire 468-page document, I will tell you that it raised more
questions than it provided answers.
For many of the claimed medicinal uses of marijuana, the committee
found that there was insufficient evidence to conclude its
effectiveness, which is a pretty basic question. The benefits aren't
the only thing clouded in mystery--so are the risks. There is simply a
lack of scientific evidence to determine the link between marijuana and
various health risks. That is something, I would think, Congress and
the American people would want to know before we proceed further down
this path.
This is especially concerning when it comes to marijuana's youngest
users and the impact, for example, on the adolescent brain as it
develops. We don't know enough about how this could impair cognitive
function or capacity or increase the risk of mental illness or perhaps
serve as a gateway for other drugs that are even more damaging to the
health of a young person.
With increasing use and a growing number of States giving the green
light for marijuana use, we need better answers. At our hearing
tomorrow, I am eager to dive into this subject and learn more from our
witnesses to help us fill the knowledge gaps that exist when it comes
to this subject.
We are honored to have Surgeon General Jerome Adams among our
distinguished witnesses. Surgeon General Adams has raised concerns in
the past about the increasing use of recreational marijuana among
adolescents and its impact on the development of cognitive functions in
a growing and developing brain.
We will also hear from Nora Volkow, who is the director of the
National Institute on Drug Abuse.
Our second panel includes experts in the fields of psychiatry,
psychology, pathology, and epidemiology. So we will get a holistic look
at the potential health implications. There is simply too much we don't
know about the risks and the claimed benefits of marijuana use, and I
am looking forward to hearing from our witnesses tomorrow to get a
better sense of the facts as Congress contemplates future legislation.
I appreciate the bipartisan commitment of my colleagues on the
committee, particularly the cochair of the Caucus on International
Narcotics Control, Senator Feinstein, so that we can get to the bottom
of the risks and benefits associated with marijuana use, and I believe
tomorrow it will get us moving in the right direction.
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.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Scott of Florida). Without objection, it
is so ordered.

Election Security

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to urge the
Senate to take action on election security legislation immediately.
It has been 1,005 days since Russia attacked our elections in 2016,
and we have yet to pass any kind of comprehensive election security
reform. The next major elections are just 378 days away, so the clock
is ticking. We must take action now to secure our elections from
foreign threats.
Let's review what happened.
In 2016, Russia invaded our democracy. They didn't use bombs, jets,
or tanks. Instead, they spent years planning a cyber mission to
undermine the foundation of our democratic system. This mission has
been called ``sweeping'' and ``systematic'' by many, including Special
Counsel Mueller. Our military and intelligence officials from both
Democratic and Republican administrations, as well as Special Counsel
Mueller, made clear and confirmed over and over again that Russia
launched sophisticated and targeted cyber attacks that were authorized
by President Putin. This includes former Director Coats, President
Trump's former intelligence head; Director Wray, the head of the FBI;
and the head of Homeland Security. One by one, officials in the Trump
administration have confirmed that this happened.
What exactly did Russia do? They conducted research and
reconnaissance against election networks in every single State. We used
to think it was just 21 States, but this year, the FBI and the
Department of Homeland Security under the Trump administration issued a
report that confirmed that all 50 States were targeted.
Russia was successful in hacking into databases in Illinois. The
Chicago board of elections reported that names, addresses, birth dates,
and other sensitive information on thousands of registered voters were
exposed. Russia launched cyber attacks against U.S. companies that made
the software we use to vote, and they tried to hack into the email of
local officials who have elections in their purview.
Investigations are ongoing, but we know Russia hacked into election
systems in the Presiding Officer's home

[[Page S5936]]

State of Florida. Senator Rubio has publicly confirmed that Russian
hackers not only accessed voting systems in Florida but were in a
position to change voter rolls.
These are just the attacks on our election infrastructure.
So we should look at it this way: No. 1, they tried to get into the
infrastructure. No. 2, we know they spread propaganda about things. One
of the main ways they did that was through social media. This month,
the Senate Intelligence Committee released a bipartisan report
detailing Russia's widespread social media campaign to spread
disinformation and divide our country. Remember, you have hacking into
things at the local level and at the State levels, and then you have
this disinformation campaign. These are two things with the same
intent--to interfere in our democracy.
Think about what I just described. A foreign country attacked our
democracy in multiple ways. Our military leaders and law enforcement
officials all say that Russia hasn't paid a sufficient price for the
attack, so they are now ``emboldened,'' in the words of former Director
Dan Coats--a former Republican Senator--in continuing efforts to
undermine our political system.
Congress hasn't passed a law--aside from providing election equipment
funding with no strings attached--to address the problem. This isn't
just wrong; this is legislative malpractice. We have a common set of
facts about what happened. Now we need commonsense solutions to make
sure it doesn't happen again.
This week, a number of us are coming to the floor to urge the
Republican leader to bring election security legislation to a vote.
That must happen, but much more must happen as well.
Today, I am going to focus on the need to improve transparency and
accountability for online platforms like Facebook and Twitter, but
before I turn to that, I would like to take a moment to describe why it
is imperative that we update our election infrastructure.
Right now, the majority of States rely on electronic voting systems
that are at least 10 years old. In 2020, voters in eight States will
cast their ballots on machines with no paper trail, so there will be no
reliable record to go back and audit the election results. So if
something goes wrong, if they hack in, there will be no paper ballots
to back up what actually happened. Problems for that State or that
county? Yes. Well, how about problems for our national Presidential
election?
By the way, am I telling any secrets? No. Russia knows exactly which
States and counties don't have backup paper ballots.
Sixteen States have no statewide audit requirement to confirm the
results of the election. These statistics are alarming because experts
agree that paper ballots and audits are the baseline of what we need to
secure our election system.
FBI Director Wray recently testified in the Senate. I asked him
whether he thinks having things like paper ballots makes sense in the
event that Russia--or any other foreign country, for that matter--
decides to go at us again. He said, yes, that would be a good thing.
Maybe we should think of listening to the head of the FBI and figure
out what we can do to make this better. Even the President has
expressed his support for paper ballots. But I think we need more than
words; I think we need action. We need this body to say to those
States: It is time to get your act together now and get those backup
paper ballots.
I have introduced multiple pieces of legislation--some of them
bipartisan--that would secure our election by requiring paper ballots,
mandating postelection audits, and modernizing our election
infrastructure. One of those bills, the Secure Election Act, is
cosponsored by my colleague Senator Lankford and also by the head of
the Intelligence Committee, Senator Burr, and Senator Warner, the
ranking member, as well as Senator Graham, the chair of the Judiciary
Committee, and Senator Harris is also a cosponsor. In spite of all of
these leaders being on this bill, it was blocked last year by Senator
McConnell, who made calls, along with the White House general counsel,
to Republican Senators asking them not to support the bill. This is
wrong.
I am glad that my colleagues Senators Wyden and Durbin will be coming
to the floor this week urging the Senate to take up the bills, such as
the bills I introduced, the SAFE Act and the Election Security Act,
that would modernize our election infrastructure.
Remember, Russia didn't just try to hack into our elections system;
they also launched an extended and sophisticated information war
designed to divide our country and destroy America's confidence in our
political system. Russia also knew that our social media platforms
would be easily exploited for that purpose.

I am going to ask unanimous consent to pass this bill, which is a
bipartisan bill that I lead along with Senator Graham, the Republican
chair of the Judiciary Committee, and that is also cosponsored by
Senator Warner, the ranking leader on the Intelligence Committee.
Why are we doing this bill about the social media platforms? Well,
the place where Russia was most successful in undermining our democracy
was right there in front of you on your Facebook page. We know that
some of the brightest minds in our country built remarkable platforms
where people can share information, like Twitter, Google, and Facebook.
Unfortunately, these platforms failed to build adequate protections
against the bad guys, kind of like building a bank but not putting any
locks on the doors, and our democracy is worse because of it.
Our social media platforms are not well regulated. In fact, they are
hardly regulated at all and are ripe for exploitation. Countries like
Russia, Iran, North Korea, and China are taking advantage of that as we
speak.
The Senate Intelligence Committee, led by Chairman Burr and Vice
Chairman Warner, recently released its second report on Russian
interference in the 2016 election. This wasn't a partisan report. No
one could call it that at all.
The first report details attacks and threats to election
infrastructure. This second report details the sophisticated
disinformation campaign Russia used to pit Americans against each
other, and the committee found that Russia's targeting of the 2016 U.S.
Presidential election was ``part of a broader, sophisticated, and
ongoing information warfare campaign designed to sow discord in
American politics and society.'' The report notes that Russia conducted
``a vastly more complex and strategic assault on the United States than
was initially understood.''
What did they do? They hired trolls. They hired buildings full of
people to go online and pretend to be Americans and then submit things
and buy things and buy ads that ended up on your Facebook pages and
your Twitter feed. Russia specifically focused on hot-button issues and
used falsified stories and memes to foster distrust of our democratic
institutions. So maybe they would target a conservative person and put
up a bunch of things that would make that person mad, but they were
fake or maybe they would target a liberal person, and they would put up
a bunch of ads about rallies and about things like that which were
actually fake.
They targeted African-Americans more than any other group through
individual posts, location targeting, Facebook pages, Instagram
accounts, and Twitter. Their internet research agency focused on
stoking divisions around race.
One of my best examples is an ad that they bought in rubles. Facebook
let them buy it in rubles. It was an ad that we didn't even see until
months after the election. It had an innocent woman's face on it. I
know because she called our office later when it came out in Judiciary.
She was just a woman. They found her face--an African-American woman--
and put it on the ad. The ad reads: Why wait in line on election day?
You can text your vote for Hillary Clinton. They gave the text number.
That is a lie. It is more than a lie. It is a crime. They are trying to
suppress people's votes and make them not go vote, and instead, text to
a fake number. That is a crime. People have gone to jail for simply
jamming the lines on election day. That is what this is. It is a high-
tech version of a crime. No one was prosecuted because we didn't even
know the ad existed that was targeting African-American Facebook pages
in

[[Page S5937]]

swing States until way after the election. They could do the same thing
on the conservative side of the aisle.
That is why I am simply asking for some solution, because one time it
is going to be one side, and the next time it will be the other. Why
would the people in this Chamber let this go on? Why would we do that?
We have sworn and taken an oath--an obligation--to stand up for our
country. That is what this is about.
It continues. Intelligence officials are once again sounding the
alarm that adversaries are using social media to undermine the upcoming
elections. Just yesterday, Facebook announced that it removed a network
of Russian-backed accounts posing as locals weighing in on political
issues in swing States. It never ends. Russia has a playbook, and they
are using it to attack us. We have to stop them. How do we do that?
Well, I have a very good solution. It is not the only solution. There
are a lot of other bills we can do too.
But this is called the Honest Ads Act, which I am leading with
Senator Graham. I want to thank Senator Warner for all the work he did
on this bill as well. The goal is simple: Bring our laws into the 21st
century to ensure that voters know who is paying to influence our
political system. Right now, the political ads that are sold on TV,
radio, and newspapers are disclosed so that the public knows what they
are. They are actually kept in an archive so campaigns and reporters
can go over and see what they are. They can actually figure out what
this ad is and why somebody was putting this ad against me. I believe
in the competitiveness of our election system, and if you disclose
things, then, you are going to get more information about what is wrong
with those things.
The ads also have to say who paid for them. That is why you see those
little disclaimers at the bottom or you see elected officials or their
challengers saying who paid for this ad: My name is this; I paid for
this ad. That is what that is.
Guess what. If those things go on radio, TV, or newspaper, you have
to follow all those rules. If they end up on Facebook or Twitter or
another large social media platform, there are no rules in play. Sure,
a few of those companies right now are voluntarily disclosing it, but
there are no actual rules in place about how it should be done.
When I asked them why they wouldn't favor the bill, some of them have
since changed their minds and do favor it, but when I asked at the
beginning, they said they couldn't figure out what an issue of Federal
legislative importance is. That is what the standard is. It is about
candidate ads and the issue ads that you see on TV that bug you all the
time. When asked about ads and why they couldn't do it, they said they
couldn't figure out what that was. I said: Really? My radio station in
Deep River Falls, MN, can figure it out. These are some of the biggest
companies in the world. Please tell me you don't have the expertise to
figure that out.
That is why it is important that we pass this bill. It is about issue
ads, and it is also about candidate ads. All it does is this. As we
look at where the money is going to go in advertising, in the last 2016
Presidential election, $1.4 billion was spent online on these kinds of
ads. It is supposed to go to $3 billion or $4 billion in 2020, and
there are no rules of the road. It is not only unfair, but it is
criminal if this continues.
It is so easy to do. This is something we could fix right away. This
is why John McCain led this bill with me. When we introduced it, he
said:

I have long fought to increase transparency and end the
corrupting influence of special interests in political
campaigns, and I am confident the Honest Ads Act will
modernize existing law to safeguard the integrity of our
election system.

This Congress, as I mentioned, Senator Graham took his place. It is
time to get this done. There are many other bills that I will come back
and discuss in the next few weeks that would help on foreign influence
in our elections, but, today, I want to focus on this one because
election security is national security, and it is well past time that
we take action. The American people should expect nothing less from us.
We should be able to get this done.

Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1356

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules
and Administration be discharged from further consideration of S. 1356
and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; further, that
the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no
intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senate majority whip.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, there are Members who object to this. They
can't be here to object on their own behalf. I object on their behalf.
I say to the Senator from Minnesota that, like her, I also want to do
everything we can to ensure that our elections are fair and transparent
in this country. I think there are a number of solutions, as she
pointed out, that are out there. I think there is a lot of good work
that is being done and can be done, hopefully, on a bipartisan basis.
As a former chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, I have worked
with the Senator from Minnesota on a number of issues where we have
been able to fashion solutions that are bipartisan in nature. I suspect
work on this will continue.
As I mentioned, we have a couple of Members on our side who do have
objections to the bill in its current form or the process of trying to
do it this way. I do think there is a way in which we can come together
and work toward solutions that will help do what I think all of us have
as an objective, and that is to keep our election process in this
country fair and transparent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Minnesota.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I appreciate the words from my colleague from South
Dakota. I point out that the act is a bipartisan bill, with the other
cosponsor being the Republican chair of the Judiciary Committee, and I
think we should be focused on election security instead of protecting
these social media companies. I think we should be protecting the
American people.
We need to be a united front. I appreciate his words, and I look
forward to working with him to get this bill to the floor.
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. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Election Security Act

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the Mueller report made crystal clear that
the Russian Government interfered in the Presidential election of the
United States of America in the year 2016. They called it a ``sweeping
and systematic fashion'' of interference.
I know this better than some because, in my home State of Illinois,
the Russian intelligence service literally hacked into our State Board
of Elections' voter file and gained access to a database containing
information on millions of voters in my State. Then the Russians
extracted the data on thousands of those voters. They also targeted
other State election authorities, county governments, and election
equipment and technology vendors.
Federal law enforcement and intelligence officers have repeatedly
warned us that these interference efforts will continue into the
election of 2020. In fact, former KGB Agent Vladimir Putin recently
mocked us and openly joked that Russia would definitely interfere again
in the U.S. elections. Congress cannot sit back and ignore this threat.
We must take action to help State and local election officials prepare
for the 2020 elections and those beyond.
I am pleased that the leader, Mitch McConnell, of Kentucky, finally
relented on his opposition to any further funding to assist State and
local election officials with election security efforts. Yet the $250
million included in the fiscal year 2020 Financial Services and General
Government appropriations bill is clearly inadequate. We need to boldly
invest in our election security. It is literally the cornerstone of our
democracy, and we need to provide sustained funding to State and local
election officials so they may respond

[[Page S5938]]

to these threats that are far beyond any State's capacity to deal with.
There are 40 of us who cosponsored the Election Security Act that
Senator Amy Klobuchar, of Minnesota, introduced in May. I was proud to
join her as one of the original cosponsors.
The legislation would provide critical resources to election
officials through an initial $1 billion investment in our election
infrastructure, followed by $175 million every 2 years for
infrastructure maintenance. It would also require the use of voter-
verified paper ballots, strengthen the Federal response to election
interference, and establish accountability measures for election
technology vendors.
Let me bring this down to Earth in simple words. If we cannot trust
the outcome of an election to accurately reflect the feelings of those
in America, we have lost the cornerstone of our democracy. There are
nations, including Russia, that have proven they are doing everything
in their power to stop us from having safe, accurate election counts.
The question for this Senate and for this Congress is, Do we care? Do
we care enough to spend the resources so our States can protect the
integrity of voters? I am not just talking about blue States from the
Democratic side of the aisle. Every State, red and blue alike, would
benefit from this legislation. If the Republicans want to demonstrate
that they are joining us in putting country over party, they should
join us today and protect our democracy by passing this legislation.
I have been asked to make a unanimous consent request at this point
before I finish my remarks, and I thank the Senator from Louisiana for
being on the floor.

Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1540

Mr. President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent
that the Committee on Rules and Administration be discharged from
further consideration of S. 1540, the Election Security Act; that the
Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; that the bill be read a
third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered
made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, in reserving the right to object and with
all of the respect I can muster, this bill has more red flags than the
Chinese Embassy. Despite my great admiration for the senior Senator
from Illinois, I am objecting for three reasons.
The first reason I can best explain by telling you a story.
An oilman was talking to his banker one day, and the banker said: Mr.
Oilman, you know, the bank loaned you $1 million to rework all of your
old oil wells, and they went dry.
The oilman said: It could have been worse.
The banker said to the oilman: Mr. Oilman, we loaned you a second $1
million to drill brandnew wells, and they all went dry. What do you say
about that?
The oilman said: It could have been worse.
Then the banker said to the oilman: Our bank loaned you a third $1
million to buy new drilling equipment, and it all broke down. What do
you say about that?
The oilman said: It could have been worse.
The banker was now very upset. He said: What do you mean it could
have been worse? We loaned you $3 million, and you lost all of it. What
do you mean it could have been worse?
The oilman said: It could have been my money.
The cost of this bill is $1 billion--nine zeros. If I started
counting to a billion right now by one numeral a second, I wouldn't
finish until 2051. I would be dead as a doornail. I wouldn't make it. A
billion is a lot. We toss around ``a billion'' these days like it was a
nickel. A billion seconds ago, it was 1986. Ronald Reagan was
President. That is how much a billion is. A billion minutes ago, the
Romans were conquering Mesopotamia. As I made the point the other day
on the Senate floor, a billion hours ago, the Neanderthals were roaming
the Earth. A billion is a lot.
We have a $22 trillion deficit--12 zeros. We have to pay this money
back. I am running out of space, and we are probably going to run out
of digits if we keep borrowing.
My first concern is the money. Now, if we had not given any money to
our colleagues at the State level, that would have been one thing. Yet,
as my good friend knows, 2 years ago, we gave the States $380 million
to combat election fraud. They haven't even spent it all yet. So, yes,
I have concerns about the money.
Point No. 2, we did have problems in 2016, and I join the senior
Senator in wanting to do everything we possibly can to keep it from
happening again, which we did in 2018. We all had a classified briefing
down in our room. I don't know the particular name of it, but it is in
the Capitol Visitor Center. It is classified. You have to leave your
phone and your iPad outside. We had the Director of National
Intelligence there and the FBI Director, and I think we had every
general there from the Western Hemisphere. We went over the 2018
elections. They went off without a hitch.
Have you read any articles about our having problems in 2018 like we
had in 2016? No. Do you think if we had problems in 2018 that the
members of our press would have pounced on it like a ninja? Yes. Yet
you haven't seen those articles because 2018 went off without a hitch.
This was, in part, because we gave the States $380 million to solve the
problem, and they have not spent it all. So a reasonable person would
wonder why we would want to give them another $1 billion of American
taxpayer money at this juncture.
We also asked the Director of National Intelligence, the FBI, and
every general who was there: Are you ready for 2020? Every single one
of them said, categorically, unequivocally, unconditionally, yes. Every
single Senator, both my Republican friends and my Democratic friends,
walked out of that classified hearing impressed.
The third reason I, regretfully, have to object to this bill--and I
am not ascribing this intention to the Senator from Illinois. I am
not--is that some of my friends on Capitol Hill would like nothing
better than to take over elections in America, to have our election
system federalized. Right now, we don't have one election system; we
have 50 election systems. Every State runs its elections its own way,
usually by the Secretary of State. Now, I believe that is a matter of
federalism. I don't see anywhere in the U.S. Constitution or in the
Federalist Papers where it reads the U.S. Government ought to be
running elections for States.
No. 2, our States do a great job. Yes, we had a lot of activity on
Facebook and Google and within other aspects of social media, but we
haven't heard one allegation--or at least any proof of an allegation--
that any votes were stolen in 2016, much less in 2018. That is because
our Secretaries of State did a good job. It is also safer to have every
Secretary of State and every State in charge of its own election system
because, if a foreign government wants to hack your system, it has to
go to 50 different States. It has to do it 50 times. If we nationalize
elections--yet again, give the Federal Government more power--all a
foreign national has to do is to hack one system.
Again, I am not ascribing this motive or this intent to my good
friend from Illinois. I am not. Yet there are some who would like
nothing better than to nationalize State elections and have them run by
the Federal Government. Then the Federal Government could tell the
States what to do--what kinds of machines to use, whether they need
paper ballots, how to order the ballots. If they have electric machines
and one has to walk into a booth, the Federal Government could tell the
States what kinds of and what color of curtains they would have to
have. Then they would have a Federal agency get involved, and it would
start promulgating regulations. Before you would know it, casting a
vote would be like building a bridge.
It is a matter of federalism. Those who disagree with me will say:
Oh, Kennedy. You are exaggerating. This bill doesn't do that. It
doesn't federalize elections.
Yes, it does.
Do you know how we federalize things around here? We get the object
of the federalization hooked on the money. Those who want the Federal
Government to run everything never go right at it. They sneak up on
them. We say we are going to give them $380

[[Page S5939]]

million, and they get a little addicted. Then we are going to give them
$1 billion, and they get a little more addicted. Sooner or later, they
are addicted to the money, and then the Federal Government has got
them.
And that is what worries me about this bill.
I am going to offer another bill after we are done today that I hope
my good friend from Illinois will at least consider supporting. This
bill is not going to cost $1 billion, I can assure you. This bill is
going to require the chief election official of every State--usually,
that is the Secretary of State, as the senior Senator knows better than
me--to disclose to the Election Assistance Commission the identity of
any known foreign national who has physically handled ballots,
machines, or has had unmonitored access to storage facilities or
tabulation centers used to support elections or unmonitored access to
election-related information or communication technology.
What does that really mean? That means that if a foreign national at
any stage of the chain of custody has access to the machine or has
access to the ballot, that has to be disclosed.
Now, if you want to do something to stop foreign nationals from
interfering with our elections, we don't need to spend $1 billion. We
need to pass this bill.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, is there an objection?
Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, sir. I am getting to that.
For the reasons I described and with great respect for the senior
Senator from Illinois, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. First, let me say this. I do respect the Senator from
Louisiana. We have been cosponsors on important legislation. I hope we
will be again. We see eye-to-eye on many things but not on this bill.
A billion dollars? The Federal Government spends $1,500 billion every
year. Is the integrity of our voting system worth $1 billion?
Do you know what it has cost us to reach this point in our history
where our democracy is reliable and respected around the world? It has
cost more than money. It has cost the lives of men and women who went
to war to fight for that, to make sure that we had the last word when
it came to the future of our democracy.
A billion dollars is an overwhelming number; right? Divide it by 50,
and understand what is at stake here. What is at stake here is whether
we care enough to invest money in our election process--not with
Federal mandates. We say to the States: You decide how to spend it. You
have the authority over the State election procedure and the color of
the curtain on your booth. If you want to mandate that by State law, be
my guest.
But what it comes down to--and I have to disagree with my friend from
Louisiana--is that the money we have sent to the States already has all
been obligated, and it is going through the purchasing and procurement
policies of each of the States. It isn't as if they can't figure out
what to do with it.
Upgrading our voting machines to make sure that they reflect
technology today makes a difference. Have you bought a new cell phone
recently? Have you watched any ads on television talking about the
security of your cell phone? Have you listened to anyone talk about the
privacy of you as an individual? It is because every single day, every
single minute, and every second someone is trying to figure out how to
get into your mind and into your life, and we are trying to keep
technology up with this reality.
Now, what is the reality of the technology we use for voting? In my
State, we have paper ballots to verify what is actually cast, but our
technology is 20 years old. The Russians know that; the Iranians know
that; and the Chinese know that, and they are mocking us. They are
laughing.
If you were amused by the story of the Senator from Louisiana--and he
is the best storyteller in the Senate--think about how amused Vladimir
Putin is to listen to this debate.
We can't afford to spend the money to ward off Vladimir Putin's next
attack in 2020. That is what I hear from the other side of the aisle. I
disagree. I think what is at stake here is so basic and so fundamental
that shame on us if we will not invest the money to make sure we keep
up with the attackers.
Now, people say: Well, 2018 went off without a hitch. It was not only
the good work of State election officials. It was the hard work here in
Washington of our intelligence agencies, and the Senator knows that. We
didn't sit back and say: Well, I sure hope they don't hit us again. We
went after them. I can't be more specific because we are told not to be
more detailed in our response.
We invested a heck of a lot of money in stopping them from ruining
the 2018 election, and we are bound to do it again, and I hope we do.
But to say we can't afford to protect the integrity of our vote--then,
what is a democracy worth? What is it worth?
It is worth human lives, and it is worth our investment in this
generation to make sure that those votes count, whether you live in a
red State or a blue State. I am not talking about just sending this to
Democratic State officials. I am talking about across the country. I
want an election to truly reflect the way the American people feel
about candidates and issues that are before them, and that is why I am
so disappointed by the Senator's objection.
Yes, I will carefully consider his bill. Maybe there is some room
here. But when we say $1 billion disqualifies you from being considered
seriously, when it comes down to the integrity of our voting system--$1
billion is too much--it turns out the Republican leader has suggested
one-fourth of that amount, and nobody blinked.
I happen to think $1 billion is more realistic in terms of helping
our voting systems across this country. Shame on us if the result of
the Presidential election is later found to have been tampered with by
our enemies overseas. Shame on us if we didn't do everything we were
supposed to do in the Senate, in the House, and in this government to
protect that God-given right for a democracy that we cherish so much.
The Mueller report made crystal clear that the Russian Government
interfered in the 2016 presidential election in a ``sweeping and
systematic fashion.''
In Illinois, the Russian intelligence service hacked into our State
Board of Elections, gained access to a database containing information
on millions of Illinois voters, and then extracted data on thousands of
those voters.
They also targeted other State election authorities, county
governments, and election equipment and technology vendors.
And Federal law enforcement and intelligence officials have
repeatedly warned that these interference efforts will continue in
2020.
In fact, former KGB Agent Putin recently mocked us, openly joking
that Russia would definitely interfere again in the U.S. election.
Congress cannot sit back and ignore this ongoing threat--we must take
action to help State and local election officials prepare for future
elections.
I am pleased that Leader McConnell finally relented on his opposition
to any further funding to assist State and local election officials
with election security efforts.
But the $250 million included in the FY 2020 Financial Services and
General Government (FSGG) appropriations bill is not nearly enough.
We need to boldly invest in our election security--and we need to
provide sustained funding to State and local election officials to
respond to these evolving threats.
That is why 40 of us have cosponsored the Election Security Act,
which Senator Klobuchar introduced in May. I was proud to join as a
lead cosponsor.
The legislation would provide critical resources to election
officials through an initial $1 billion investment in our election
infrastructure, followed by $175 million every 2 years for
infrastructure maintenance.
It would also require the use of voter-verified paper ballots,
strengthen the Federal response to election interference, and establish
accountability measures for election technology vendors.
If Republicans want to demonstrate that they are capable of putting
country over party, they should join us

[[Page S5940]]

today and protect our democracy by passing this legislation.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I agree so much with what the Senator
from Illinois has said, but we are on top of this.
Let me say it again. We gave the States $380 million to address the
problems in 2018. They haven't spent all of it. It is 3 gallons of
crazy to give them another billion dollars.
We have been assured by all of the relevant Federal officials that we
are ready for 2020. I am going to repeat once again: We had no problems
in 2018.
If I thought for a second that our voting system was in jeopardy, I
would be joining with my good friend the Senator, but I am not much for
just spending taxpayer money, with a $22 trillion deficit, just to be
spending it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to
speak for up to 15 minutes, followed by Senators Johnson, Risch, and
Menendez, for 5 minutes each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.

Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty of 1949 on the Accession of the
Republic of North Macedonia

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, today, we will vote on whether or not to
admit North Macedonia into NATO. I, for one, think we already have
enough dead weight in NATO and that adding North Macedonia to NATO adds
absolutely nothing to our collective security.
In his farewell address, George Washington stated: ``It is our true
policy to steer clear of permanent alliance with any portion of the
foreign world.'' This was echoed by Thomas Jefferson in his inaugural
address, who wished for ``peace, commerce, and honest friendship with
all nations . . . entangling alliances with none.'' As we watch the
most recent developments in Syria unfold, it is a good moment to
remember the guidance that Washington and Jefferson attempted to pass
along.
Turkey, a nation that we have been locked in a permanent alliance
with since the Cold War, has launched an offensive, a war of choice, by
further invading Syria.
While they are clearly acting in their own self-interest, their
actions place our Nation one mistake or one small incident away from a
hot war with at least one major global power. Does it make sense for
American men and women to potentially have to defend Turkey over their
war of choice?
I believe that when Jefferson spoke of entangling alliances, one
could not pick a better example than how we have expanded NATO. Since
2004, we have expanded NATO ever closer to the border of Russia. In the
process, we have added the so-called military might of countries such
as Slovenia, Latvia, Albania, Montenegro, and now, today, North
Macedonia.
What benefit is it to the United States to add countries that barely
have enough military might to defend themselves? I say that adding
North Macedonia to NATO adds absolutely nothing to our national
security.
The best-case scenario we can hope for with these countries is that
an incident that triggers a major land war never occurs. If you think
this is far-fetched, remember that World War I began when a Serbian
nationalist assassinated the heir to the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
Within months, the very system of entangling alliances that our
forefathers warned about turned Europe into a killing field, which
ultimately killed upward of 19 million people. Adding yet another small
country to NATO does nothing to dissipate the chances of catastrophic
war and, in fact, encourages that possibility.
What military capabilities does North Macedonia bring to the table?
Some 8,200 active-duty soldiers. Additionally, in 2018, they spent a
whopping $120 million a year on their military. By comparison, the
Chicago Cubs spent $221 million on their payroll. Additionally, 15
other Major League Baseball teams spent more on their rosters than
North Macedonia spends on defense. Even if North Macedonia brought
their military spending in line with NATO guidelines, it would still
only be $227 million.
But if the goal of NATO is to have these countries spend 2 percent,
why don't we wait until they are spending 2 percent to admit them
instead of admitting them and saying: Please, increase your defense
spending.
If they come up to 2 percent, they would only be spending $227
million, which is $103 million less than Bryce Harper's contract with
the Philadelphia Phillies.
NATO is supposed to be about mutual defense, not just blanket
security guarantees to smaller states.
How much would North Macedonia give in monetary terms to NATO? Less
than $1 million. We foot the bill. We pay for everything. We are going
to get less than $1 million of direct contributions from North
Macedonia. It doesn't seem hardly fair; does it?
It is clear that North Macedonia adds little, if any, value to the
NATO alliance in terms of manpower or military capabilities, which
means that the only reason they are being added is to be a tripwire
that would only ensnare us in a rapidly escalating wider war in which
they would not be able to carry their own weight. So I don't think
North Macedonia adds anything to our national security, but they are
out there on the edge of Europe as a tripwire to ensnare us in a wider
war.
If the recent events involving Turkey were not enough to validate the
guidance laid down by our Founding Fathers, then adding North Macedonia
to a tangled network of permanent alliances certainly is. We would be
wise to revisit and heed our Founding Fathers, who said getting
involved in entangling alliances in Europe does not add to our
security; it threatens our security.
I urge a ``no'' vote. I don't think we need to expand NATO. We
certainly don't need more people that the American taxpayer will be
asked to pay for.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of North
Macedonia's accession to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
North Macedonia's path to NATO accession has been a long one. Despite
being regarded early on as a leading candidate for NATO membership,
Macedonia's name dispute with Greece became a huge roadblock. A
disagreement over a country's name may not seem like a big deal to
those looking in from the outside, but getting over this hurdle
required significant political courage.
In 2017, Greece's Prime Minister Tsipras and Macedonia's Prime
Minister Zaev displayed that level of political courage when they
committed to settle the nearly three decades-long dispute. Because of
their leadership, these two nations signed the Prespa agreement last
year. Greece agreed to remove its objection and approve Macedonia's
accession to NATO in exchange for Macedonia agreeing to change its name
to North Macedonia.
This dispute resolution between Greece and North Macedonia
demonstrates that NATO is not only an effective defensive alliance, but
it has been a tremendous force for stability in Europe. North Macedonia
is poised to soon become NATO's 30th member because it worked to
resolve a longstanding bilateral disagreement.
I support NATO's longstanding open-door policy, and I hope that the
goal of NATO membership will continue to guide other aspirants to solve
longstanding disputes, fight corruption, and make difficult necessary
domestic reforms.
Beyond North Macedonia's accession, I would like to speak more
broadly on how important the NATO alliance is to the United States.
NATO is based on the principle of collective defense. Article 5 of the
North Atlantic Treaty states that an attack against one member is an
attack against us all.
NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg detailed NATO's value when he
addressed a joint meeting of Congress earlier this year and both
started and ended his speech by saying: ``It is good to have friends.''
I couldn't agree more.
In the wake of the attacks of 9/11, our friends, our NATO allies,
invoked article 5 for the first and only time in the alliance's
history. Our NATO allies and many of the aspirants stood shoulder to
shoulder with us in Afghanistan. They lost 1,000 of their sons and
daughters in honoring their commitment by fighting alongside us. The
United States should never forget our NATO allies' contribution and
sacrifice.

[[Page S5941]]

A strong NATO alliance is just as important and relevant today as it
was at its founding in 1949. I am pleased that the full Senate is
taking up this measure to approve North Macedonia's accession to NATO,
and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor with a resounding yes.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.

Nomination of Andrew P. Bremberg

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I come to the floor to express my
opposition to the nomination of Andrew Bremberg to be Representative of
the United States to the Office of the United Nations in Geneva. He is
not qualified for this position, and his views on women's rights and
access to reproductive healthcare conflict with longstanding positions
of the U.S. Government and more than three-quarters of the American
public.
I take my position as ranking member for the Foreign Relations
Committee seriously. I have a duty to thoroughly vet all nominees who
come before the committee whether they be political nominees like Mr.
Bremberg or career civil servants.
The criteria I use to determine their fitness to represent our
country abroad include their foreign policy experience, their core
values, and whether they will be responsive and honest with Congress as
we conduct our oversight. I am disappointed to say that Mr. Bremberg
fails even these basic criteria. He has no relevant foreign policy
experience.
I repeat, the nominee to represent the United States at Geneva has no
foreign policy experience. Mr. Bremberg has served as Assistant to the
President and Senior Advisor for Domestic Policy at the White House and
as a political appointee to the Department of Health and Human Services
in the Bush administration.
When it comes to Mr. Bremberg's core values, his nomination hearing
left me deeply troubled. Our voice at Geneva must stand up for the core
principle that reproductive rights are human rights; yet Mr. Bremberg
made clear that he opposes access to reproductive health services for
women and girls who are victims of sexual violence in conflict in the
world. This radical view of women's rights and access to reproductive
healthcare is totally outside the mainstream, not just for the
Democratic Party but the Republican Party and the American people at
large. That is why 40 reproductive health groups wrote a joint letter
opposing Mr. Bremberg's nomination.
Moreover, in his positions at the White House, Mr. Bremberg led and
advanced divisive and incendiary policy proposals, such as the infamous
Muslim ban Executive order and the addition of a citizenship question
on the census.
When questioned on these subjects, Mr. Bremberg frequently cited
confidentiality interests and declined to elaborate further. When
pressed by Senators on whether he was exerting any form of privilege or
executive privilege, he insisted he was not; yet he continued to refuse
to answer questions. Clearly, we cannot rely on this nominee to be
honest and forthright with this body.
Beyond Mr. Bremberg's lack of experience, his extreme far-right
views, and his lack of respect for Congress, there is the issue of his
erroneous declarations on government documents. Indeed, his nomination
was significantly delayed because my staff discovered Mr. Bremberg's
claim that he had terminated from his political consulting company--of
which Trump for America was a client--when the truth is he did not. In
fact, Mr. Bremberg did not terminate his political consulting firm
until forced to as part of the Foreign Relations Committee's vetting
process.
Once again, the Trump administration has displayed a basic inability
to conduct even the most cursory vetting to ensure that a nominee is
qualified and fit to hold office, free from potential financial or
ethical conflicts of interest.
We have nominees with restraining orders, nominees who have failed to
mention sexual harassment lawsuits, and nominees whose virulent, troll-
like approach to social media should disqualify them from holding any
office, much less a Senate-confirmed representative of the American
people.
Unfortunately, the Trump administration has decided to advance
unqualified and unfit nominees even as it withdraws a number of
qualified civil servant nominees from consideration.
The failure of the political leadership at the State Department to
stand up and defend qualified, veteran Ambassadors when they come under
fire from the White House is nothing short of cowardice.
It was reported last week that Fiona Hill, the former White House
foreign policy adviser, concluded that one Trump administration
Ambassador was so unprepared for his job that he actually posed a
national security risk. Mr. Bremberg is cut from the same mold.
If his performance before the Foreign Relations Committee
demonstrated anything, it is that his views are completely outside
those of mainstream America. He is unprepared to represent our Nation
on the world stage, and he has little to no respect for the Senate and
the role of Congress as a coequal branch of government. Surely, we can
do better than this. The American people certainly deserve better than
this.
I urge my colleagues to oppose his nomination and to demand that this
administration nominate an ambassador to the United Nations
organization in Geneva who is worthy of representing our country on the
world stage.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cruz). The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. RISCH. 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. RISCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment Nos.
946 and 947 be withdrawn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments (No. 946 and No. 947) were withdrawn.

Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty of 1949 on the Accession of the
Republic of North Macedonia

Mr. RISCH. Mr. President, I rise today to support the accession of
the Republic of North Macedonia to the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization and to encourage my Senate colleagues to vote in favor of
this protocol.
As we know, this past April marked the 70th anniversary of the NATO
alliance, the world's strongest and most successful political military
alliance in the history of the world.
In honor of this, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a
hearing to reflect on the alliance's successful past and to consider
its future. The Senate also passed and recognized NATO's many
accomplishments, and the resolution I authored, S. Res. 123, did so. I
am grateful to have another opportunity to demonstrate strong Senate
support for NATO by welcoming North Macedonia as a new member. As we
all know, this matter has been in the works for a long time.
NATO was founded by the United States and 11 other countries after
the shock of the Soviet blockade of Berlin. The Berlin airlift in 1948
made us realize the significant and real threat that the Soviet Union
posed to peace and prosperity. That conflict is far behind us, but NATO
has remained a critical piece of the framework that supports our
collective security.
NATO worked to help the United States in Afghanistan after the
attacks of September 11 and has ended genocides and maintained peace in
the Balkans. It has trained troops of the new Iraqi Government; it has
run air policing missions on Europe's eastern flank; it has helped end
the genocide in Darfur; and it provided assistance to the United States
after Hurricane Katrina. Most importantly, it has maintained a period
of unprecedented peace among the major European powers.
NATO has proven to be not only a military success but also a
political and economic one. NATO's security umbrella has provided the
kind of stable environment necessary for economic growth and
investment. Former Soviet bloc countries clamored for--and continue to
clamor for--NATO membership, not only for the protection against Russia
that they sought and seek but for the economic strength that membership
could foster.
U.S. trade with fellow NATO members remains vital to the U.S.
economy. NATO allies remain the largest

[[Page S5942]]

source of foreign, direct investment to the United States.
NATO is not perfect. It faces several challenges from within. First
is the need to invest more in defense. Those of us who serve on the
Foreign Relations Committee have for many, many years urged our friends
and colleagues--the majority of whom are not in compliance--about the
need to invest more in defense. But the number of allies spending 2
percent of their GDP on defense and 20 percent of their defense budget
on equipment has increased, adding more than $100 billion in European
defense spending. Eight allies currently meet this pledge, but it is
critical that all allies meet their Wales Summit commitment by 2024.
Second, NATO faces different security threats in different parts of
the alliance. Southern Europe is understandably worried about migrant
flows, while Eastern Europe faces the challenge of Russian military
buildup along its borders and domestic disinformation campaigns sowing
disorder by the Russians, just as we know Russia has attempted to do
here in the USA.
NATO has recently begun to think about security risks that China
poses to individual allies and the alliance as a whole.
Tackling all of these security risks will be challenging. But if NATO
allies commit to the alliance and needed reforms, NATO will be up to
the task.
Bringing a new member into the alliance also prompts us to reassess
the status of current members, and I feel compelled to address the
growing discussion regarding NATO allies that do not uphold the
democratic principles enshrined in the treaty's preamble.
I agree that there are NATO allies whose democracies are weakening
instead of strengthening and whose recent behavior does not demonstrate
a commitment to the alliance. To fix these issues, the alliance must
work from within.
There is no other alliance in the world like NATO. China and Russia
do not have allies. They have short-term, transactional-only partners
they have bullied into cooperation. NATO's strength and success come
from its commitment to the allies and to working through problems when
they arise.
On the expansion of NATO itself, which is what we are here to deal
with today, since 1949, NATO has expanded 7 times and now includes 29
countries. The entrance of North Macedonia will make 30. Adding a 30th
member during the alliance's 70th year sends a strong signal to our
fellow allies and enemies alike of the continued strength of this
alliance.
The U.S. Senate's consideration of North Macedonia as a member of
NATO is a piece of long-delayed and unfinished business. North
Macedonia was originally eligible for NATO entry in 2008 and was to
have joined the alliance alongside Croatia and Albania. As we know, an
ongoing dispute about North Macedonia's name prevented that from
happening. But the leaders of both North Macedonia and Greece
demonstrated great political courage in concluding the Prespa agreement
earlier this year, which has made today's decision possible.
The courage of Prime Minister Zaev and former Prime Minister Tsipras
to move the situation in the Balkans forward should be applauded. I met
with both leaders this year to thank and congratulate them.
Not only does Prespa pave the way forward for North Macedonia into
both NATO and the European Union, but it is an excellent example of how
other conflicts in the region could be resolved.
When the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held its hearing earlier
this year to consider North Macedonia's eligibility for alliance, the
committee heard strong and unequivocal testimony from top officials at
the Departments of State and Defense that North Macedonia would be a
strong partner to the allies and is ready for the requirements of NATO
membership.
After reviewing all relevant facts and holding hearings and meetings
with NATO, U.S., and North Macedonian officials for the better part of
this year, I am confident that North Macedonia is ready to fulfill its
NATO obligations and will benefit the alliance. It was ready in 2008
and is ready now. North Macedonia has a credible plan to meet the 2-
percent spending requirement by 2024 and is already on track to spend
20 percent on equipment. It hosts the Krivolak training area, a top-
notch Army training facility that has already been utilized by many
U.S. soldiers. Strategically, North Macedonia's membership would
provide NATO a direct land path from the Aegean to the Adriatic Sea,
facilitating military movements should they ever be needed. It will
continue to contribute soldiers to NATO's international mission as it
has done in Afghanistan and Iraq since 2002.
North Macedonia isn't perfect. As a small country with a young
democracy, it will certainly require further government reforms and
military modernization as have most new NATO allies. For example, it
will need to continue its transition from legacy Soviet equipment,
further reform its intelligence services, and above all, resist Russian
interference and continue to strengthen its anti-corruption efforts. I
urge North Macedonia to make these reforms and to continue on its
positive path inside the alliance with the help of its other democratic
NATO allies.
Expanding NATO to include North Macedonia is about what the country
will bring to the alliance and what the alliance brings to North
Macedonia, but it is not just about North Macedonia and its
qualifications for membership. Through its open-door policy, NATO has
promised membership to any European country that fulfills the
requirements of the alliance. Accepting North Macedonia as a new member
is a strong symbol and a message for European countries with NATO
aspirations that with hard work and perseverance, along with the
willingness to make tough reform decisions, they can provide a better
future for their people. As long as countries honor this commitment,
NATO's door should and will remain open.
It is important to note that this is a strong anti-Russian vote.
Standing here today, I can tell you the Russians are very much opposed
to this, not the least of which is exemplified by the way they resisted
this and pushed back against this as North Macedonia attempted to get
this done for their people.
I say to the Presiding Officer and colleagues, this day is a long
time in the making, and I am pleased it is finally here.
I urge all of my colleagues to support North Macedonia's bid to
become our newest NATO ally, No. 30, by voting in favor of this
protocol.
Thank you.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will state the resolution of
ratification.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read 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 the Republic of North Macedonia, which was
opened for signature at Brussels on February 6, 2019, and
signed that day on behalf of the United States of America
(the ``Protocol'') (Treaty Doc. 116-1), 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 70 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

[[Page S5943]]

(F) United States membership in NATO remains a vital
national security interest of the United States.
(2) Strategic rationale for nato enlargement.--The Senate
declares that--
(A) the United States and its NATO allies face continued
threats to their stability and territorial integrity;
(B) an attack against North Macedonia, or its
destabilization arising from external subversion, would
threaten the stability of Europe and jeopardize United States
national security interests;
(C) North Macedonia, 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 North Macedonia 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 North Macedonia), 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 north macedonia's reform process.--The
Senate declares that--
(A) North Macedonia has made difficult reforms and taken
steps to address corruption, but the United States and other
NATO member states should not consider this important process
complete and should continue to urge additional reforms; and
(B) North Macedonia and Greece's conclusion of the Prespa
Agreement, which resolved a long-standing bilateral dispute,
has made possible the former's invitation to NATO, and the
United States and other NATO members should continue to press
both nations to persevere in their continued implementation
of the Agreement and encourage a strategic partnership
between the two nations.

SEC. 3. CONDITIONS.

The advice and consent of the Senate under section 1 is
subject to the following condition: Prior to the deposit of
the instrument of ratification, the President shall certify
to the Senate as follows:
(1) The inclusion of North Macedonia in NATO will not have
the effect of increasing the overall percentage share of the
United States in the common budgets of NATO.
(2) The inclusion of North Macedonia 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.

SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

In this resolution:
(1) Nato members.--The term ``NATO members'' means all
countries that are parties to the North Atlantic Treaty.
(2) Non-nato members.--The term ``non-NATO members'' means
all countries that are not parties to the North Atlantic
Treaty.
(3) 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.
(4) 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.
(5) 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 North Macedonia.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the adoption of
the resolution of ratification of Treaty Document No. 116-1.
Mr. RISCH. 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 senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet),
the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from California
(Ms. Harris), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), the Senator from
Massachusetts (Ms. Warren), and the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr.
Whitehouse) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Johnson). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 91, nays 2, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 327 Ex.]

YEAS--91

Alexander
Baldwin
Barrasso
Blackburn
Blumenthal
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Collins
Coons
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Duckworth
Durbin
Enzi
Ernst
Feinstein
Fischer
Gardner
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hassan
Hawley
Heinrich
Hirono
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Jones
Kaine
Kennedy
King
Klobuchar
Lankford
Leahy
Manchin
Markey
McConnell
McSally
Menendez
Merkley
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Perdue
Peters
Portman
Reed
Risch
Roberts
Romney
Rosen
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Schatz
Schumer
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shaheen
Shelby
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Udall
Van Hollen
Warner
Wicker
Wyden
Young

NAYS--2

Lee
Paul

NOT VOTING--7

Bennet
Booker
Harris
Isakson
Sanders
Warren
Whitehouse
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 91, the nays are 2.
Two-thirds of Senators present, a quorum being present, have voted in
the affirmative. The resolution of the ratification to the protocol of
the North Atlantic Treaty of the Republic of North Macedonia is agreed
to.
The Senator from Indiana.

Order Of Business

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
recess following the cloture vote on the Bremberg nomination until 2:15
p.m. and that if cloture is invoked, the postcloture time expire at
2:45 p.m. and the Senate vote on confirmation of the nomination;
finally, that if confirmed, 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.

____________________