Carol Shea-Porter

Mr. Speaker, due to an illness, I regret that I was unable to make votes from December 19, 2018 to December 21, 2018.

Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 446, Roll Call No. 463, Roll Call No. 467, Roll Call No. 468, Roll Call No. 469, Roll Call No. 470, Roll Call No. 472, Roll Call No. 494, Roll Call No. 497, and Roll Call No. 498.

I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 436, Roll Call No. 437, Roll Call No. 438, Roll Call No. 439, Roll Call No. 440, Roll Call No. 441, Roll Call No. 442, Roll Call No. 443, Roll Call No. 444, Roll Call No. 445, Roll Call No. 447, Roll Call No. 448, Roll Call No. 449, Roll Call No. 450, Roll Call No. 451, Roll Call No. 452, Roll Call No. 453, Roll Call No. 454, Roll Call No. 455, Roll Call No. 456, Roll Call No. 457, Roll Call No. 458, Roll Call No. 459, Roll Call No. 460, Roll Call No. 461, Roll Call No. 462, Roll Call No. 464, Roll Call No. 465, Roll Call No. 466, Roll Call No. 471, Roll Call No. 473, Roll Call No. 474, Roll Call No. 475, Roll Call No. 476, Roll Call No. 477, Roll Call No. 478, Roll Call No. 479, Roll Call No. 480, Roll Call No. 481, Roll Call No. 482, Roll Call No. 483, Roll Call No. 484, Roll Call No. 485, Roll Call No. 486, Roll Call No. 487, Roll Call No. 488, Roll Call No. 489, Roll Call No. 490, Roll Call No. 491, Roll Call No. 492, Roll Call No. 493, Roll Call No. 495, Roll Call No. 496, Roll Call No. 499, and Roll Call No. 500.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to read a column by Max Boot, conservative, and very well known. I am quoting completely.

``President Trump is willing, under duress, to briefly and begrudgingly admit that Russian meddling took place in 2016 before reverting to calling it a `big hoax.' But he always maintains that the plot against America had no impact; he describes it as a `Democrat excuse for losing the '16 election.' Faithfully echoing the President, other Republicans, such as House Speaker Paul Ryan, say it's `clear' that Russian interference `didn't have a material effect on our elections.' White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders even claims that the U.S. intelligence community reached that conclusion.

``Not quite. Here is the intelligence community's assessment, partially declassified in 2017: `We did not make an assessment of the impact that Russian activities had on the outcome of the 2016 election. The U.S. intelligence community is charged with monitoring and assessing the intentions, capabilities, and actions of foreign actors; it does not analyze U.S. political processes or U.S. public opinion.'''

To continue the story that Max wrote: ``When then-CIA Director Mike Pompeo claimed last fall that the `intelligence community's assessment is that the Russian meddling that took place did not affect the outcome of the election,' his own agency rebuked him.

``While the intelligence agencies are silent on the impact of Russia's attack, outside experts who have examined the Kremlin campaign, which included stealing and sharing Democratic Party emails, spreading propaganda online, and hacking State voter rolls, have concluded that it did affect an extremely close election decided by fewer than 80,000 votes in three States. Clint Watts, a former FBI agent, writes in his recent book `Messing with the Enemy,' that `Russia absolutely influenced the U.S. Presidential election,' especially in Michigan and Wisconsin, where Trump's winning margin was less than 1 percent in each State.

``We still don't know the full extent of the Russian interference, but we know its propaganda reached 126 million people via Facebook alone. A BuzzFeed analysis found that fake news stories on Facebook generated more social engagement in the last 3 months of the campaign than did legitimate articles: The `20 top-performing false election stories from hoax sites and hyperpartisan blogs generated 8,711,000 shares, reactions, and comments on Facebook.' Almost all of this `fake news' was either started or spread by Russian bots, including claims that the Pope had endorsed Trump and that Hillary Clinton had sold weapons to the Islamic State.

``Elsewhere on social media, tens of thousands of Russian bots spread pro-Trump messages on Twitter, which has already notified 1.4 million users that they interacted with Russian accounts. The Russian disinformation, propagating hashtags such as #Hillary4Prison and #MAGA, reflected what the Trump campaign was saying. The Russian bots even claimed after every Presidential debate that Trump had won; whereas, objective viewers gave each one to Clinton.

``Russia also hacked voting systems in at least 39 States; and while there is no evidence that vote tallies were changed, Russians may have used that stolen data to target their social media or shared the results with the Trump campaign. The Senate Intelligence Committee found that `in a small number of States,' the Russians may have been able to `alter or delete voter registration data,' potentially disenfranchising Clinton voters.

``And then there was the crucial impact of the Russian hacks of Democratic documents disseminated primarily by WikiLeaks. The first tranche of stolen documents, more than 19,000 emails and 8,000 attachments, was strategically released on July 22, 2016, 3 days before the Democratic Convention. The resulting news coverage disrupted the Clinton campaign's plans by creating the impression that the Democratic National Committee was biased against Bernie Sanders and forcing DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz to resign.

``The second tranche of stolen documents was released on October 7, just 29 minutes after The Post reported on the `Access Hollywood' videotape in which Trump is heard boasting about grabbing women by the genitals. These emails, stolen from Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, distracted voter attention by revealing the transcripts of lucrative speeches Clinton had given to Goldman Sachs, a populist boogeyman.

``A third release of stolen emails, on October 11, revealed that Democratic operative Donna Brazile, while working at CNN, had provided debate questions to Clinton during the primaries and that senior Democratic operatives, who were themselves Catholics, had exchanged emails disparaging Republicans who cherry-picked their faith for political gain. This fueled Trump's narrative that the election was `rigged' and that the `Clinton team' was, as he said, `viciously attacking Catholics and Evangelicals.' The latter charge, unfair as it was, proved especially important in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, swing States with lots of Catholic voters.

``Little wonder that Trump said `I love WikiLeaks' and mentioned its revelations 164 times in the last month of the campaign. `This WikiLeaks stuff is unbelievable,' Trump said on October 12. Eight days later, he marveled, `Boy, that WikiLeaks has done a job on her, hasn't it?'

``Now, by contrast, Trump and his apologists pretend Russian intervention, including WikiLeaks, was no big deal. That beggars belief.''

The end of this is--and I am sorry I have to skip over some of it-- is:

``That is the inconvenient truth that Putin Republicans won't admit.''

Mr. Speaker, I would like to read an op-ed from former EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman, who worked for Richard Nixon and George Bush:

President Trump's disgraceful performance in Helsinki,

Finland, and, in the days since, is an indication that he is

not fit to remain in office. Trump's 2016 ``America First''

platform might be more aptly named ``Russia First'' after the

disaster that occurred last week.

Trump's turn toward Russia is indefensible. I am a lifelong

Republican. I have campaigned and won as a member of the

party, and I have served more than one Republican President.

My Republican colleagues--once rightfully critical of

President Obama's engagement strategy with Russia leader

Vladimir Putin--have to end their willful ignorance of the

damage Trump is doing, both domestically and internationally.

We must put aside the GOP label, as hard as that may be, and

demonstrate the leadership our country needs by calling on

the President to step down.

Trump's sycophantic relationship with Putin is unsurprising

given his previous comments about Russia and its dictator.

What is shocking is how long he has possessed, and

disregarded, hard evidence of Putin's direct role in

undermining our elections. According to New York Times

reporting, he saw dispositive emails and texts early in

January 2017.

Trump's repeated public dismissals of the intelligence

coming from his own deputies is deeply disturbing. Along with

his walk back

of statements last week, and then walking back the walk

backs, it's impossible to keep up, and his behavior warrants

a fresh evaluation of whether the President can be trusted

with the future of the United States.

His apologists will argue that the current outcry is just

another attempt by moderates and ``establishment''

Republicans to discredit the President. But what does this

man have to say or do for his supporters to finally see that

his actions are detrimental to the country?

We must put aside the GOP label, as hard as that may be,

and demonstrate the leadership our country needs.

Trump's avowed respect for the word of a dictator who has

spent decades undermining the U.S. and its allies is utterly

dangerous. Putin is not our ally. Despite the President's

dismal attempt to change the narrative by explaining that he

misspoke in Helsinki, the pattern is clear: As a candidate

and as President, he has constantly praised Putin just as he

has constantly undercut the core of our democracy: the

courts, the media, and the FBI. He has a history of

discrediting members of his own Cabinet and the agencies they

lead. These are not the actions of someone who should be

navigating delicate diplomatic discussions and setting

foreign policy.

If the President did genuinely misspeak on Monday, it

demonstrates his inability to articulate accurately U.S.

foreign policy at the highest level, for the highest stakes.

As the leader of the free world--as ridiculous as that title

sounds when applied to Trump--his words matter. If he cannot

take his place at a podium next to an adversarial foreign

leader and stand up for America's interests and principles,

he should not be President.

Trump has alienated our true allies in Europe and

undermined the United States' reputation as a consistent,

reliable moral force for good in the world. He disdains

democracies and admires dictatorships. What appears to matter

to him is not what leaders represent but how they flatter

him. North Korea's Kim Jong Un and Putin have cracked that

code and fan Trump's ego in a way that respected heads of

state do not.

Yet many Republicans continue to defend him. In this

election year, opposing Trump is risky for GOP candidates.

Invoking the need to choose country over party is an overused

trope. But it is essential now.

The Republican majority in Congress can fully implement

promised sanctions against Russia to show its opposition to

Russia's meddling in our election. Putin needs economic

growth in Russia because it benefits the oligarchy. Tougher,

tangible sanctions would weaken him and hurt those who

benefit from his power. House Speaker Paul Ryan indicated

earlier this week that additional sanctions were on the

table. This would be a start.

Congress can also ensure that the Robert S. Mueller, III,

investigation is not compromised. Any interference in it

after this week should raise many red flags. The special

counsel and his team, who, despite the President's attacks,

show every sign of unbiased professionalism, need to finish

their work without tampering.

Finally, even if the Russian efforts to undermine State

voting systems were unsuccessful in 2016, this is a

vulnerability that may be exploited in the future. With the

help of Congress, States must strengthen their processes

and security to stop future meddling from Russia or other

foreign actors.

Republican voters, including those who supported Donald

Trump, have the obligation to demand action from their

elected officials. Vocal opposition is expected from

Democrats, but it is Republicans' disapproval that will have

the most sway on Capitol Hill and at the White House.

Those Members of the party in Congress who have stood up to

the President should be commended. More must follow, with

more than private talk and tepid tweets. Only bold leadership

can put the United States back on a path that values freedom

and democracy, and truly puts America first.