Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, in the 3 days since the President returned from his humiliating display of obsequiousness in Helsinki, he has offered numerous explanations for his behavior.

First, he said the media was too focused on the negative and that his summit with Putin was a great success. Then, admitting there was, in fact, a problem, he attempted to walk

back some of his comments, but even he couldn't commit to that and ad- libbed that other people could also have been responsible for interfering in the 2016 elections. A mere 24 hours later, the President was back to claiming it was not his fault and that the media was biased.

Then, astoundingly--the President not having learned his lesson--when he was asked yesterday whether Russia was still attacking our election system, the President replied ``no.'' This was, of course, followed by yet another implausible clarification when--surprise--his Press Secretary told reporters that was not what the President meant. Although, when you actually look at the tape, it is clear as a bell it is what the President meant. He was saying Russia was not still attacking our election system--once again, disbelieving all of the fine men and women who have reported this, who labor quietly, diligently in our intelligence agencies.

The constantly shifting, insincere, and thoroughly unconvincing explanations for the President's performance reveal that the President and his team do not understand the depth of President Trump's blunders with Putin. Frankly, any post hoc clarification cannot substitute for or repair the President's failure to confront Putin face-to-face. All of his walk backs, which then get undone, are done in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Where is this man who prides himself on being strong but is then afraid to say these things to Putin and has to wait until he is 6,000 miles away to say them? It is unbelievable.

One of the most stunning things about the summit was the President's openness to a request by President Putin to question former U.S. Ambassador to Moscow Michael McFaul and other Americans. In Helsinki, the President described the request as part of an ``incredible offer.'' The President's spokeswoman was asked about it yesterday. She confirmed the President and his team would discuss it.

That President Trump would even consider handing over a former U.S. Ambassador to Putin and his cronies for interrogation is bewildering. No President should have the power to gift wrap American citizens, let alone former Ambassadors, to our known adversaries. How can President Trump and his team spend even a moment considering Putin's request? How can they equate the democracy and rule of law and system of open and fair prosecution we have in this country with what Putin does? It is just amazing.

Every day, this President demeans the United States. So many Americans are saying they are ashamed to have him as their leader when he behaves like this.

Certainly, if the President were to agree to such a request, Congress must do everything in its power to block it. There can be no room for debate, no room for discussion. We must be clear--and clear quickly. This morning, Senator Menendez, Senator Schatz, and I plan to offer a simple resolution that states: ``It is the sense of Congress that the United States should refuse to make available any current or former diplomat, civil servant, political appointee, law enforcement official, or member of the Armed Forces of the United States for questioning by the government of Vladimir Putin.'' This body must agree on the importance of protecting our Ambassadors. We should pass it today, not wait, not show any equivocation.

This incredible offer, as President Trump so casually and incorrectly called it, raises other serious questions. What else has President Trump agreed to behind closed doors? What else has he discussed with President Putin? President Trump and President Putin met for nearly 2 hours behind closed doors. No one else was present but a translator, and hardly anyone knows what was said.

Has Secretary Pompeo been briefed on that private, behind-closed- doors meeting? Nobody knows. He hasn't said so. Does our military know if President Trump made commitments about our nuclear arsenal? Nobody knows. Defense Secretary Mattis hasn't said whether he has been briefed. Do we know if President Trump made commitments about the security of Israel or Syria or North Korea or about any of the other issues the President said he discussed with Putin?

It is utterly amazing that no one knows what was said. This is a democracy. If our President makes agreements with one of our leading-- if not our leading--adversaries, his Cabinet has to know about it and so do the American people. These questions and more need a full and complete accounting before Congress, in an open setting, as soon as possible

That is why I have called on the Republican leadership to demand that Secretary of State Pompeo, Ambassador Huntsman, and, crucially, the translator who was present at the closed-door session be made to testify before the Senate. They should come immediately--now. What are our Republican friends waiting for?

The events of this week raise serious questions about the President's ability to responsibly and safely conduct this Nation's foreign policy, about his ability and willingness to defend the United States and her citizens, about his very ability to govern in so many areas.

Confronted with these grave questions, I believe the Senate must act to show our country's resolve to punish Putin for his interference and never allow such a thing to happen again and to ensure the President is doing what is necessary to stand up for American interests.

So I have proposed--and many of my colleagues on this side of the aisle have proposed--a bunch of things we can do right now to take action in the wake of President Trump's indefensible summit with President Putin. Democrats are not in the majority. We don't control the floor. We need our Republican colleagues, who control the Senate floor, to join us on these measures. The lack of action--action, not just words--by our Republican colleagues is stunning and deeply disappointing not just to Democrats but to all of the American people.

Since Monday, sadly, we haven't seen movement from our colleagues in the majority, just more slow-walking. I understand my friends, Senators Coons and Flake, are working on introducing a resolution to support the consensus of our intelligence agencies and to request congressional oversight. We are all for it. I hope it passes with the unanimous consent it deserves. My Republican friends can and must do more-- actions, not just resolutions and statements of disapproval. We shouldn't need this resolution. The things asked for in this resolution should have been happening already.

The burden of patriotism and of protecting America's security is on Leader McConnell's shoulders. I know he has a difficult situation. I know he has a President who can sometimes be vindictive. The bottom line is, our country's security, our country's direction, our country's honor demand it.

We need to bring Secretary of State Pompeo, Ambassador Huntsman, and the rest of President Trump's national security team from Helsinki, including the translator who was present in the one-on-one meeting with Putin, right here before the Congress, in open session, so we all will know what happened.

We need to pass legislation to protect Special Counsel Mueller. There is bipartisan legislation already that was passed out of the Judiciary Committee under Senator Grassley's leadership and support. It is on the floor. What is our Republican leader waiting for?

We need to see the President's tax returns, which has been the common practice of all Presidents in recent memory, but it is needed far more now because one of the most logical explanations of the President's obsequious and almost inexplicable actions toward President Putin is that Putin has something on him. Maybe it would be revealed in the tax returns, and if there is nothing there, the President should have no problem with releasing them.

We need to implement sanctions against Russia, not weaken them. We need to demand that Putin hand over the 12 Russians who have been indicted for election interference. We also need to harden our election infrastructure so that what happened in 2016 never happens again.

These are all commonsense measures, and most of them have bipartisan support already. They will accomplish for America what the President has been unwilling or unable to do. If my Republican colleagues refuse to pursue any--if not all--of these items, they are de

facto consenting to the President's capitulation in Helsinki. They cannot stand by. The American people will not allow it.

Madam President, finally, on healthcare, ever since Republicans have been handed the keys to both Houses of Congress and the White House after the 2016 election, they have engaged in a protracted campaign of sabotage against our healthcare system. Premiums are going up, coverage is going down, and it is all falling in the laps of our Republican colleagues in the House and Senate.

President Trump and congressional Republicans proposed legislation that would have gutted Medicaid and allowed insurers to charge more and deny coverage just because a person had gotten sick. The legislation would have excluded critical benefits and imposed lifetime or annual limits on care.

Under cover of night, the Republicans dismantled the healthcare law's coverage requirement without putting anything in its place.

The Trump administration canceled the Federal program that helped low-income customers afford insurance and expanded the availability of junk insurance plans that sucker Americans in with low premiums but that hardly cover anything. When people have these plans, they ask: Why did I even buy insurance? They were duped.

Now, worse yet, the administration has directed the Justice Department to stop defending the constitutionality of protections for Americans with preexisting medical conditions--turning its back on the most popular and humane advancement in our healthcare system over the last decade.

I would say to my Republican friends: Go to your constituents. Ask if people have someone who is sick in their families. You will get a lot of hands. Then ask them if they should be excluded from gaining health insurance to help that sick member and see how many support these ideas.

If they try to do this in the dark of night, it is not going to work. In August, we Democrats are going to be talking about this over and over again. Believe me--this will probably be the most important factor in the 2018 election as the American people will rebel from the taking away of healthcare.

Imagine going back to the days when a mother with a child who has cancer can no longer find affordable healthcare for her daughter. When hard-working Americans who fall on hard times are made to suffer by being denied healthcare coverage precisely because they need it, how wrong, how backward, how immoral. That is where President Trump wants to take us, and that is where all of our Republican colleagues seem to be following.

Later this morning--actually, right now--a group of Democrats is announcing how we plan to fight back against this lawsuit and preserve the protections for up to 130 million nonelderly Americans who have preexisting conditions. The elderly, fortunately, are protected since we still have Medicare, despite some efforts by some on the other side to cut it back.

As millions of Americans watch their healthcare costs go up, as they read the news about the latest Republican effort to undo healthcare protections, they fear for the future and wonder who in Washington will be fighting for them. In November, they will have the chance to vote for a party that will check the President's dangerous healthcare sabotage, that will work to bring down costs and improve quality, that will never undermine the protections of Americans with preexisting conditions.

I look forward to the response to my colleagues' announcement.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I want to thank my friend, the Senator from Vermont, for this outstanding resolution. It is a resolution. I don't see who can object to it. We ask for five things in this resolution: that our government accept the assessment of our own Intelligence Committees about Russia's interference; that we move aggressively to protect our election systems; that the sanctions that this body passed 98 to 2 finally be implemented by the Trump administration; that there be no interference in Mr. Mueller's investigation; and that there must be cooperation.

Who in America would object to that? Maybe a small group of hard- right ideologues, but no one else.

Who in this body will object to it? This is an outstanding resolution.

I know my friend from Vermont would agree with me. We need action in addition to resolutions, but this is an excellent start. I urge all of my colleagues to support this fullheartedly. Our country is at risk.

The Senator from Vermont is sounding a clarion call and saying in a bipartisan way that we should strengthen our country, not weaken it, as the President has done over the last week. I hope this will get unanimous support from every Member of this body--whether they be Democrat, Independent, or Republican; whether they be liberal, moderate, or conservative. If you love America, if you care about our security, support this resolution.

I thank my colleague for yielding.

Madam President, first, before I talk about the resolution Senators Menendez, Schatz, and I have authored that will be voted on at 1:45 p.m., I would like to say a few words about the work the Senators from Delaware and Arizona did and my severe disappointment that there was objection from the Republican leadership.

The bottom line is very simple. President Trump has put our country in a foreign policy crisis. President Trump has weakened the security of this country. A resolution is the minimum we can do. We should be acting.

The idea that we cannot even pass a resolution in this body because of the objection on the other side, when this was done in a bipartisan, careful way by the Senators from Arizona and Delaware, shows something very bad. Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are so cowered by a President that they cannot stand up for national security. They cannot stand up to Vladimir Putin, just as the President seems not to be able to.

I have one more point. From what I am told, one of the major objections from the other side was that Congress wished the contemporaneous notes from that secret 2-hour meeting be made available. That is key.

What are they hiding? What are they afraid of? The American people have a right to know what went on in that meeting, particularly when President Putin gets up and talks about some agreements that it seems not even our high-ranking officials in the State and Defense Departments and intelligence agencies know about. This is amazing.

We have come to a really low moment in this body when a bipartisan resolution that is rather modest and limited--I had talked to the Senator from Delaware. He knows I wanted much more in this resolution, but in an effort to get something done, we limited it.

In my view--the view of most Americans--the notes should be made available. The translator should be made available. The translator wasn't specifically referred to in this resolution, but when they talked about relevant people coming, my view--and I believe the view of the Senator from Delaware--was that would include the translator. I am not sure if it was the view of the Senator from Arizona. It doesn't matter. We are not even passing this resolution.

I have to say, this was a moment for bipartisanship. This was a moment for America pulling together. This was a moment, when the President doesn't served the country well, that Americans of all parties, all ideologies come together and fill that void and undo the misdeeds that occurred in Helsinki.

Unfortunately, because of weakness, fear--my guess is, if you looked inside the hearts and minds of every Member on the other side, all but maybe one or two would feel this is the right resolution, but they are afraid. Fear will not get us anywhere. Letting a bully push us around, meaning President Putin, as he pushed President Trump around, will not serve this country well. It is a sad moment that this resolution was rejected.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 584 as under the previous order and that I then be permitted to speak briefly about it.

Mr. President, I am hopeful that we will come together on this resolution, which I introduced with the Senator from New Jersey and the Senator from Hawaii, that it is neither the policy nor the practice of the United States to submit our citizens, let alone our Ambassadors, to the interrogation of a foreign adversary.

Let this resolution be a warning to the administration that Congress will not allow this to happen. I call on President Trump to say once and for

all--not through his spokespeople--that the lopsided, disgraceful trade he called an incredible offer is now off the table. There should be no equivocation on the matter.

One more point. I am so disappointed in the failure of the resolutions earlier today. We had a real chance for bipartisanship. The resolutions were modest and mild, and they were just resolutions, but we couldn't even come to agreement on those. Our Republican colleagues, given the crisis we have in foreign policy, have to step up to the plate and join us not just in resolutions but in bipartisan action that is so important.

I was told that one of the reasons the resolution was objected to was because we couldn't--they didn't even want us to get the notes, let alone hear from the translator of this 2-hour, mysterious meeting where nobody seems to know what happened. The American people should know what happened. The Senate should know what happened. Our leaders in the State Department and Defense Department should know what happened. Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle seem to be too afraid to let us bring that up. That is so wrong for the security of America.

I am hopeful--there are bipartisan efforts going on today--that we cannot do what we did earlier and block the resolution by the Senator from Vermont and the bipartisan resolution from the Senators from Arizona and Delaware but move together in real action to undo the damage--try to undo the damage that the President has done to this country this week.

I yield the floor.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, yesterday, President Trump went through a walk back. President Trump's walk back performance was pathetic. It was weak, insincere, and thoroughly unconvincing. The President read a scripted clarification yesterday like he was in a hostage situation. All you had to do was look at his face. He couldn't even fully commit to it, adding off-the-cuff that other people could also be responsible for election interference in 2016. That is hardly a walk back, and it was concerning only one particular comment. The President did not address his lavish praise for Vladimir Putin in Helsinki. Is he going to walk that back? He blamed both countries--the United States and Russia--for the sour relations between us. Is he going to walk that back? He said U.S. stupidity and foolishness, not Russian aggression, was the reason our relationship with Russia was so bad. Is he going to walk that back? He did not address his brazen attacks on the FBI while on foreign soil. Is he going to walk that back?

Now, late last night and this morning, the President is back to celebrating his meeting with Putin. He is walking back the walk back. That is what he did this morning. This is like Charlottesville redux. We all know what the President really thought. We know what he thought at Charlottesville. The walk back was unconvincing, and he went back to his old ways. We know what he thought at Helsinki. The walk back was unconvincing. And now, with his tweets this morning, he is back to his old ways.

The only reason there was a walk back is that the President was forced by pressure from many of my Republican friends here, from his allies in the media, and his own White House staff. They all pressured him to give that temporary walk back. But it is clear from today's tweets that he doesn't mean it, that he doesn't believe it, and, frankly, neither does anybody else. It is clear that he still believes President Putin over the consensus of the American intelligence community, and that puts Americans' security gravely at risk.

The President's reluctant, ham-handed, half-hearted ``clarification'' yesterday--almost entirely reversed this morning--is woefully inadequate. His behavior in Helsinki continues to demand a response from Congress, and there are many things we can do. But later this morning, if anything is true to form, the President will hold a Cabinet meeting, and his advisers will shower him with thanks and praise--this is what he craves--and will provide, perhaps, another version of what happened in Helsinki.

Given what happened in Helsinki and given that the President's walk back was so weak, there are several things we as a Congress can and should do. Talking the talk is not enough. Walking the walk is what is so important here. We need to act, not simply say ``tsk, tsk; bad President'' and then go back to business as usual, because the American polity, the American security, and the view of America in the eyes of the world have taken a severe setback. It is up to us in the Congress to try to undo that.

I mentioned a whole host of actions this body can take to counter Russia's malign activity, punish Putin for interfering in our elections, prevent him from doing it again, and ensure that the President is doing what is necessary to stand up for American interests. The Senate is not powerless to take action in the wake of President Trump's indefensible performance at his summit with Vladimir Putin. Let me reiterate and suggest some things we should do, and I believe we should do all of these.

First, our Republican colleagues need to join us in demanding immediate public testimony from the President's national security team--those who were in Helsinki and those who would have knowledge of what happened in Helsinki.

We need to have immediate public testimony from Secretary Pompeo, from DNI Director Coats, and from Ambassador Huntsman.

Above all, we need the translator who was present at the one-on-one meeting with President Putin to testify openly before Congress. That is not usually done, but there are almost always other people in the room, so you don't need the translator. But for some reason--a reason that Americans and the world are wondering about--President Trump wanted no one else in the room. Having the translator come testify and tell us what happened there is an imperative. It is so important. It is rare for translators to come before Congress, but in this case, it is warranted--A, because no one else was in the room, by the President's direction, and B, because what happened there might have been so important, given what happened in public a few short hours afterward. The translator works for the Federal Government, works for the taxpayers, and may be the only person who can accurately report what President Trump said to President Putin behind closed doors, what concessions were made to Vladimir Putin. We want to know. Did the President make concessions that hurt our national security? What did he agree to?

Congress has a duty to conduct responsible oversight of the executive branch, particularly after what the President did in Helsinki. The President's summit calls for oversight. Having these people-- particularly the translator--come testify is important. I understand Secretary Pompeo will appear before the Foreign Relations Committee next week, which is good, but we need to hear from others, including the translator. I urge Leader McConnell and his leadership team to immediately request a hearing of the people I mentioned.

Second, the Republican leadership should soon place on the floor-- ASAP--bipartisan legislation, led by Senators Booker, Graham, Coons, and Tillis, to protect the special counsel from political interference. This legislation passed out of the Judiciary Committee with bipartisan support. It has four sponsors--two Democrats, two Republicans. If Leader McConnell is serious about the checks and balances and if what he said in the last day or two were not just meaningless words, he will put this legislation on the floor. It will pass.

Alongside demanding testimony from the President's national security team, passing legislation to protect the special counsel is probably the most important thing this body could do to ensure that President Trump's recklessness does not precipitate a constitutional crisis.

Third, we should ratchet up sanctions on Putin and his cronies, not

water them down. The sanctions this body passed by an overwhelming bipartisan margin of 98 to 2--and I salute Leader McConnell; he helped to bring it to the floor even though the President didn't like it--have not yet been fully implemented by the Trump administration. On our side, Senators Menendez and Van Hollen have some very good ideas about sanctions, and we should act on them.

Fourth, our Republican colleagues can and should insist that the President finally release his tax returns. We all know that the President broke decades of practice when he didn't release those returns--so damaging because his economic interests outside of the government are so large, complicated, and varied and so important because he deals with international finance in these situations.

There was no good reason not to release his tax returns then. Yet President Trump's inexplicable behavior in Helsinki has many Americans asking: What does Putin have over him that he is behaving in a way that is, basically, inexplicable by any rational, logical line of thinking? That is why his tax returns will be so important. We should pass legislation that requires the President to release his tax returns. It was important before, but it is much more important now, after Helsinki.

Fifth, the Republicans should demand with us that the President insist the 12 Russians who have been indicted for our election interference and information warfare be handed over. Putin may not do it, but at least we ought to show how serious we are as a country. The President ought to show how alarmed he is that this happened, and the best way to do that is for our Republican colleagues to join with us. They will have more influence than we will have in asking him to do so.

Finally, we should have bipartisan legislation on election security. Together, in a bipartisan way, with the help of my friend from Tennessee--a senior member of Appropriations--in the last omnibus bill, we passed $380 million for election security. As I understand it, that money is now being sent out to help the States, but we have to do more. There is bipartisan legislation. Senators Klobuchar and Lankford and Senators Van Hollen and Rubio have good legislation that could help beef up our election security. We ought to move on it.

Our country--our cyber networks and our election systems--is under constant attack from adversaries like the Russians. There is bipartisan consensus that we must harden our election infrastructure. This has led to the legislation I mentioned by Klobuchar, Lankford, Van Hollen, and Rubio. There is other legislation by Senators Harris and Wyden. I urge the Republican leader to let us move on one or more of these bills.

We should do all of these things, not just one or two--all of them. I can't think of a logical reason not to do any of them other than out of fear of offending the President. Times like these call for us to do more. We have already heard some of our Republican colleagues say ``let's move on'' after what the President said yesterday--as I mentioned, his so-called walk back was not a walk back at all--and that if we cared about our Nation's security, we would move forward.

The final thing I would say to my Republican colleagues is this: This is a moment that will be remembered in American history. It is not going away. This is a moment that will be remembered next week, next month, in November of 2018, in November of 2020, and way beyond. The Helsinki summit is now an unalterable fact in American history--a moment when, unfortunately, an American President humiliated his own country and himself before a foreign dictator. It was a terrible sign of weakness by this President, and it, unfortunately, weakens the office he holds.

Yet it can be remembered as a moment when a bipartisan majority in Congress--Democrats and Republicans in their dropping all trappings of party--links arms and stands up for our country after our President has refused to do so. Let's hope it is. Let's hope it is.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President:

[Yesterday's summit] was one of the most disgraceful

performances by an American President in memory. The damage

inflicted by President Trump's naivety, egotism, false

equivalence, and sympathy for autocrats is difficult to

calculate. . . . President Trump proved not only unable but

unwilling to stand up to Putin. He and Putin seemed to be

speaking from the same script as the president made a

conscious choice to defend a tyrant against the fair

questions of a free press, and to grant Putin an

uncontested platform to spew propaganda and lies to the

world.

Coming close on the heels of President Trump's bombastic

and erratic conduct towards our closest friends and allies in

Brussels and Britain, today's press conference--

Yesterday's press conference, actually--

marks a recent low point in the history of the American

Presidency.

No prior president has ever abased himself more abjectly

before a tyrant. Not only did President Trump fail to speak

the truth about an adversary; but speaking for America to the

world, our president failed to defend all that makes us who

we are--a republic of free people dedicated to the cause of

liberty at home and abroad. American presidents must be

champions of that cause if it is to succeed. Americans are

waiting and hoping for President Trump to embrace that sacred

responsibility. One can only hope they are not waiting . . .

in vain.

Those are very strong words. People would say: Well, Chuck Schumer is the Democratic leader. Of course, he is going to criticize President Trump. But those strong, biting, and effective words are not mine. Those three paragraphs I quoted come from John McCain, who is probably the leading Republican expert on military security, national security, and foreign policy.

When Senator McCain said that, it should be a clarion call to every Republican to not just speak up but to take action because the national security of America is in danger.

I ask unanimous consent that Senator McCain's statement, in its entirety, be printed in the Record.

It is still difficult to comprehend what transpired yesterday in Helsinki. Because of his actions, it was one of the worst days for any President of the United States in recent memory. On foreign soil, President Trump said the United States was to blame for the state of the relationship between Russia and America.

He trashed American intelligence and took the word of the KGB over the word of the men and women of the CIA. Can you believe it? Can you believe it? He said Russia's intelligence agency, which murders, steals, lies, and cheats, is better than ours. There is no rational explanation for an American President to do such a thing. It was the act of a man who seems incapable of distinguishing between his own narrow personal interests and the interests of America's national security.

Can you imagine if President Kennedy believed Khrushchev when he said there were no missiles in Cuba? Can you imagine if President Reagan believed Gorbachev without verifying that the Soviet Union would reduce its missile stockpile? We would be living in a much different world than we are today. Thank God President Kennedy and President Reagan showed strength in the face of tyrants--but President Trump shows abject weakness and sycophancy.

Let me explain to the President why he is being so strongly criticized when he embraced Putin's strong and powerful denial. The reason, President Trump, that you are being so criticized when you accept Putin's word is, Putin is a trained liar. He lies brazenly, shamelessly, and repeatedly about big things and small.

Putin lied about the presence of Russian troops in Crimea. He lied about the Malaysian airplane being shot down by a Russian rocket. He lied about Russian athletes doping at the Olympics. He lied about Russian behavior in eastern Ukraine. He lied about Assad's use of chemical weapons. He lied about interference in the Brexit vote. Just last week, he lied about the Kremlin's involvement in a recent nerve agent attack in the United Kingdom.

Yet when President Putin gives President Trump a ``strong and powerful denial'' that he didn't meddle in our elections, President Trump immediately accepts Putin's word over the considered judgment of America's dedicated intelligence professionals. It is almost as if Donald Trump is embracing Putin's needs. I am ashamed of it, and every American should be. No previous President would be that naive or that weak. No serious leader would allow themselves to be taken in so easily.

The only person with cause to celebrate is Vladimir Putin. Putin got to stand on the stage with an American President who refused to hold him accountable for anything. He watched President Trump careen through Europe, carrying out Putin's dream agenda--torching old alliances, interfering in the domestic affairs of the United Kingdom, weakening NATO and American power in the region. Putin skated through a bilateral summit and press conference without facing any consequences for deliberately meddling in our elections. Putin could not have scripted a better result.

I am from Brooklyn. If we learned anything, we learned one thing there: When there is a bully around, as Putin is, you show strength. President Trump showed abject weakness. Do you know what that means? The bully will continue to take advantage of it. If Donald Trump was such an easy mark in Helsinki, President Putin will realize he is an easy mark elsewhere.

The behavior of the President is just inexplicable. Everyone in the United States is scratching their heads. There seems to be no rational explanation for President Trump's behavior, and so millions of Americans are left wondering if Putin indeed has something over the President. That is the most logical explanation of the President's bizarre and weak behavior so deleterious to American interests.

If there is another credible explanation for why President Trump behaved the way he did, it would behoove the President to let the American people in on it; otherwise, so many Americans are going to continue to wonder, does President Putin have something over President Trump that makes the President behave in such a way that hurts our country so?

We know the President doesn't like to prepare much, but even the most basic preparation would lead a President away from the erratic behavior we saw yesterday. The truth is, the summit yesterday was like an x-ray machine, revealing that ``America First'' is really just ``Trump First,'' no matter what it means for the country he is sworn to defend from enemies foreign and domestic.

So the question looms: What will the Senate do in response? What will my Republican colleagues do in response? A few of them have echoed Senator McCain's sentiments, and they deserve recognition for that, but those Senators who are not John McCain, who are here in the Senate wielding an immense power to shape events, I say to them, words are not enough. Our response to the debasement of American interests before a foreign adversary demands a response, not just in word but in deed. Our Republican colleagues cannot just talk the talk--some of them have done that, most haven't--but, as a body, they need to walk the walk. The American people are demanding it.

Our country needs to see Republicans in the Senate and the Republican Party stand up and show through action that unlike our President, they will not tolerate Russian aggression or accept Putin's lies. They need to act in the spirit of Ronald Reagan, not in the spirit of Donald Trump. Too often, when the President goes off the reservation, the Republican Party has lightly rebuked his behavior and waited for everyone to move on. Given the crisis, given Trump's horrible actions, that is not good enough. Our Republican colleagues cannot just go tsk- tsk. They must act if they want to help America.

Yesterday, I outlined four things we could do immediately in response to the President's disastrous summit. Let me repeat them and add a fifth.

First, ratchet up sanctions on Russia, not water them down. The sanctions we passed 98 to 2 have not even been fully implemented. Some in the House now want to reduce those sanctions. We need to strengthen them.

Second, and very importantly--probably most importantly--our Republican colleagues need to join us in demanding testimony from the President's national security team that was in Helsinki, and we need to do that immediately. We need hearings as soon as possible to assess what President Trump might have committed to President Putin in secret. President Trump's public statements were alarming enough. The Senate needs to know what happened behind closed doors. Does anyone believe he was tougher on Putin in secret? You can't assume anything but that as weak as he was in public before President Putin, he was even worse in private. Why else did he not want anyone in the room?

President Trump and President Putin met one-on-one behind closed doors for nearly 2 hours. Where are the notes from the meeting? What did the President agree to? Was Secretary Pompeo briefed afterward on what happened? Were any other members of the President's team briefed? The American people need to know what is happening. The American people deserve to know what is happening. It is our security at risk.

I am calling on Leader McConnell and his leadership team to immediately request a hearing with Secretary of State Pompeo and the rest of the President's national security team from Helsinki so we can find out what the heck happened there--the explanation for what happened openly, and even more importantly, what happened in that meeting behind closed doors.

Third, our Republican friends must end the attacks on the Department of Justice, the FBI, and the special counsel. Those have mainly emanated from a small group in the House.

Given the indictments, given the indictment yesterday, not from Mueller but from mainline Justice, we have to let this investigation go forward. President Trump's actions yesterday lead many more Americans to suspect that something was amiss; that there may have been collusion. What else would explain President Trump's actions and protestations in a foreign country?

We need to end these attacks and let the investigation proceed unimpeded and encourage the President to sit down for an interview with Mueller.

Fourth, the President must insist on the extradition of the 12 Russians recently indicted for election interference. In one of the more bizarre of many bizarre incidents yesterday, Putin suggested that Americans come and interview the Russians in Russia or actually watch as Russian agents interview the Russians in Russia. Is Russia known for a free and open judicial system? Is Russia known for the rule of law? Of course not. It was an absurd suggestion. Any other President would have rejected it out of hand.

We need to bring them here, and the President, to represent the honor and the strength of the United States--something he has failed to do thus far--needs to demand it.

Finally, election security. Our elections are at risk. We have now had indictments of Russians interfering in the 2016 elections. Everyone in America, except Donald Trump, admits that happened--Democrats and Republicans, Speaker Ryan, Leader McConnell--that Russia tried to interfere and interfere, most everyone believes, on President Trump's behalf. Why? Well, we heard Putin's explanation.

We can't have that happen again. We must move election security legislation immediately.

To its credit, in a bipartisan way, this Chamber and the other put $380 million in the last omnibus for election security, but there is very fine legislation. One is sponsored by Senator Klobuchar, and she has worked with some of the Republicans on that. Another is sponsored by Senator Chris Van Hollen. I believe Senator Rubio is a cosponsor of that. We need to move that legislation--hopefully, with bipartisan support--quickly.

These are five simple things we can do together, Democrats and Republicans.

Now, yesterday, I saw my good friend--I see him sitting here--Senator Cornyn say that we have done most of these things already. I wish it were so. It isn't. We haven't done any of it. Leader McConnell has not called for hearings to bring Secretary Pompeo and others here. We have not increased sanctions, which we should do. In fact, there is a move in the House to decrease them. We have not asked the President to demand extradition of the Russians. We have not urged some Republicans, particularly in the House, to stop interfering with the Mueller investigation. We haven't done any of the four items I mentioned yesterday or the fifth I mentioned today. I hope Senator Cornyn and others will lead the charge and help us get those done, in a bipartisan way, for the sake of this wonderful and great country.

The bottom line is that we need to act. A few statements will not change President Trump's behavior and will not stop President Putin from continuing to make a mess of our alliances around the world and our elections here in America. Action is required. The eyes of America are on the Republicans in the Senate to join us in the actions I have outlined or other actions they might feel appropriate.

Madam President, turning to SCOTUS, I will conclude this morning by adding that at this very delicate time, Senators from both parties should carefully scrutinize President Trump's Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh. Not only has President Trump promised to select judges who would overturn Roe v. Wade and undo the healthcare law, Judge Kavanaugh has some troubling views on Executive power and accountability.

We have all just witnessed the behavior of a reckless President who has shown he is willing to test the bounds of Executive authority at home, just as he is willing to depart from all wisdom and sense on foreign soil.

Judge Kavanaugh has demonstrated in several writings that he believes the President should be above civil and criminal indictment while in office and that the President should be granted broad deference to enforce or not enforce laws he ``deems'' unconstitutional.

Consider for a moment what it would mean for the Supreme Court to rule that this President is immune from indictment or that he should be allowed to exercise his authority so wantonly as to decide which laws to enforce or not. That is all the more reason, given what Judge Kavanaugh has written, that he get careful and rigorous scrutiny before we move on any vote.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I join with my colleagues this afternoon to talk about the President's deeply embarrassing and disgraceful meeting with President Putin yesterday.

But first, allow me to comment on what we just heard from the President. A few minutes ago, President Trump seemed to say that he accepts the findings of the intelligence community that Russia meddled in our election. Well, welcome to the club, President Trump.

We have known since the middle of the 2016 election that they meddled. For the President to admit it now is cold comfort to a disturbed public that has watched him bend over backward to avoid criticizing Putin directly. President Trump may be trying to squirm away from what he said yesterday, but it is 24 hours too late--and in the wrong place--for the President to take a real stance on Putin's election meddling.

Amazingly, President Trump, after reading his statement that he accepted the intelligence community's conclusion that Putin meddled in our election, added, in his own words, ``could be other people also. A lot of people out there.'' This is just like Charlottesville. He made a horrible statement,

tried to back off, but couldn't even bring himself to back off. It shows the weakness of this President. It shows the weakness of President Trump--that he is afraid to confront Mr. Putin directly. Like a coward, he tries to squeal away from it when he is several thousand miles away.

What is President Putin going to take out of the President's actions today? That the man is weak, that he is afraid, that he is cowardly, and that Putin will feel he can take even further advantage of Donald Trump.

The President is now asking the American people not to believe their own eyes and ears about what he told the world in Helsinki yesterday. Even in his completely implausible effort to ``correct'' his own words, he departed from his text to again claim that the hacking could have been done by someone other than Russia. If the President can't say directly to President Putin ``Mr. Putin, you are wrong and we are right; our intelligence agencies are right,'' it is ineffective, and worse, it shows such weakness. It tells President Putin to continue to take advantage of the United States because President Trump doesn't have the courage, the strength, maybe not even the conviction to say to President Putin's face what he tried to say a few minutes ago.

The President's comments a moment ago changed very little. The question still remains: What will the Senate do in response? I have seen a few of my Republican colleagues shrug their shoulders, claiming they have done all they can. That is bunk. As Senators, we have a responsibility and an ability--an incredible power given to us by the Founding Fathers to check and balance this President.

As I said this morning, here are a few things the Senate can do immediately in response to the President's disastrous summit. We can ratchet up sanctions on Russia, not water them down. Sanctions we passed 98 to 2 have not even been fully implemented by the Trump administration. And now someone has inserted a loophole to water them down in the House defense legislation.

Second, our Republican colleagues need to immediately join us in demanding public testimony from the President's national security team that was in Helsinki. Secretary Pompeo, DNI Director Coats, Ambassador Huntsman, and anybody else who was part of that team ought to be testifying openly, publicly, and directly to Congress. We need to know this because, as frightening and damaging as the President's comments were to the public in Helsinki, what he said behind closed doors is, in all likelihood, even worse. Why did the President want to close the doors? There are lots of explanations. None of them are good. Does anyone believe that President Trump was tougher on Putin in secret? Why else did he not want anyone in the room?

Next, where are the notes from that meeting? What did the President agree to? Can we have the translator come in and testify? Was Secretary of State Pompeo briefed afterward on what happened? Did he take notes? Were any other members of the President's team briefed? The notes need to be turned over to Congress immediately.

I am calling on Leader McConnell and his Republican leadership team to immediately request a hearing with Pompeo, Coats, Huntsman, the rest of the President's national security team in Helsinki, and with the translator, so we can learn the full extent of what happened behind closed doors. Our national security is at risk. It is an unusual request for unusual times.

Next, our Republican friends must end attacks on the Justice Department, the FBI, particularly the special counsel, and let the investigation proceed unimpeded. The best way to do this is to pass the legislation, authored by a bipartisan group led by Senators Coons and Booker on our side and Senator Tillis and Graham on the Republican side, which passed out of the Judiciary Committee.

Leader McConnell, if you are serious about checks and balances, if you are serious about making sure President Trump obeys the law and protects our security, put that bill on the floor now. It will pass.

Fourth, the President must release his tax returns and insist that the 12 Russians indicted for election interference are handed over. The President has refused to release his tax returns, but these bizarre actions he has taken seem to indicate that President Putin has something over President Trump, something personal, and it might be financial. We need to see the tax returns.

Finally, we must move the election security legislation immediately. Senator Klobuchar has bipartisan legislation. Senator Van Hollen has bipartisan legislation. Senator Harris has legislation. We need to move it. Leader McConnell has talked about it a little bit. Let's move it quickly, but remember, the President still has control because the Director of National Intelligence has the ability to put out this report, and he is, after all, a Presidential appointee. I have some faith in the integrity of Mr. Coats, but he may not even be there after November, particularly given the way President Trump treats his appointees. So that legislation is good and necessary, but hardly sufficient.

I hope our Senate will move; I hope our Republican colleagues will not just talk the talk, but walk the walk. ``Tsk, tsk'' is not enough when national security is at stake. Action--bipartisan action--is required.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise alongside my colleagues tonight to speak on two incredibly controversial circuit judge nominees that the Senate considers this week.

The first, Ryan Bounds, of the Ninth Circuit, has not received the approval of either home State Senator. The majority is unfortunately moving forward with his nomination anyway, breaking a tradition that goes back 100 years--a bipartisan tradition, a moderating tradition, a tradition we need.

This is merely the latest example of the majority's sustained effort to toss aside the rules and the customs that have guided the judicial nomination process for 100 years. In May, Michael Brennan became the first circuit court nominee to be confirmed over the blue-slip objection of a home-State Senator.

If Judge Brennan's confirmation wasn't proof enough, the majority, by moving to vote on Bounds over the objections of both Oregon Senators, is signaling loud and clear that future Presidents need not work with Senators to ensure the selection of consensus nominees to fill these lifetime appointments.

For the past 20 years, including during the Bush administration, the Oregon Senators have convened a bipartisan judicial panel to interview candidates. Although Bounds was one of the candidates approved by the committee, it was later discovered that Bounds misled the committee about a number of highly controversial articles he wrote while in college. The majority unfortunately is moving forward on his nomination anyway.

Five of the seven members of the committee--a bipartisan committee-- including the chair, said they would not have recommended Bounds if they knew of his writings at the time they interviewed him. The majority is unfortunately moving forward with his nomination anyway.

In light of these inflammatory writings--and they were truly inflammatory and nasty, unbecoming of someone being a town circuit judge, let alone a court of appeals judge--and the bipartisan committee's assertion that they should be disqualifying, Senator Merkley and Senator Wyden, correctly and wisely, refused to support his nomination, but the majority is moving forward on his nomination anyway.

I might say about Bounds that he is not a judge. He doesn't have much of a history. He practiced in a private law firm. It seems he is a member of the Federalist Society--hard right. That is his only real qualification. Is he a thoughtful jurist? Obviously not. Is he a moderate jurist, neither far right nor far left? Obviously not. This is what we are doing on the bench these days. The hard right, the Federalist Society, which is probably in the 10 percent furthest to the right in America, chooses the judges, and nobody objects on the Republican side.

Now, another nominee, Mr. Andrew Oldham, for the Fifth Circuit, is even more disturbing for a lifetime appointment on the Federal bench. Mr. Oldham's career leaves no doubt that, if confirmed, he would be the living embodiment of a judicial ideologue. This is a hard-right warrior. He helped to defend a Texas law that would make it virtually impossible for women in rural areas to exercise their constitutionally guaranteed freedom to make decisions about their reproductive health. It was a law designed to tell rural women that they couldn't have freedom of choice. It was an absurd law, struck down by the Supreme Court in 2016. This is the kind of man we are putting on the bench.

As the Texas solicitor general, he defended the State's extremely restrictive photo ID laws, which a Federal court of appeals ruled created an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote, had an impermissible discriminatory effect against Hispanics and African Americans, and was imposed with an unconstitutional discriminatory purpose. The purpose that this nominee had in this law was to prevent people of color and poor people from voting. There was very little evidence of any fraud. This is the kind of person we are adding to the bench?

Mr. Oldham helped to lead the charge on litigation challenging the constitutionality of our healthcare law--a law that most Americans support. He lost at the Supreme Court, once again. Now the Republicans want to give him a promotion, putting him in a position to rule on future cases concerning the law.

Here is what Mr. Oldham said about the EPA: It is ``illegitimate.'' He repeatedly helped Texas to join Oklahoma--and then-Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt--to sue the EPA. Let me repeat that. Oldham considers the EPA illegitimate. The rightwing media has gone crazy about ``Abolish ICE.'' Meanwhile, the Senate Republican majority is about to vote to give a lifetime appointment to a man who wants to abolish the EPA.

``Abolish the EPA'' is a position I think none--none--of my Republican friends would dare support in public, would dare vote for-- get rid completely of the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act? But they are happy to vote for a judge who believes in it and might help do it for them.

Mr. Oldham is so far out of the political mainstream that he doesn't represent the average Republican, let alone the average American. I hope his nomination will be objected to.

The truth is that Bounds and Oldham are part of a decades-long campaign by the hard right to install conservative ideologues on the Federal bench. They started it. Bork did not start this. It started when George W. Bush became President and his deal with the hard right was this: I will put these new nominees on the bench who are ideologues. They don't want to interpret law; they want to make law. That is what the Republicans have been doing.

When Clinton was President and when Obama was President, most of the judges they chose were moderate to liberal. They were not extreme. But the hard right has such a grip on the Republican Party these days--the Federalist Society, the Heritage Foundation, way out of the mainstream.

Most Americans don't believe in repealing Roe v. Wade. It is the mission of the Federalist Society. Most Americans don't believe the government should get out of healthcare altogether--Medicare, Medicaid, ACA. It is the goal of the Heritage Foundation. But they put these judges forward. President Trump has gone along with their lists and their nominees. Unfortunately, we don't hear a peep out of our Republican colleagues as the hard right hijacks the judicial bench in America.

The goal of this campaign is to achieve by judicial fiat what Republicans have been unable to accomplish through legislation. This hard-right agenda--extremely pro-corporate, extremely anti-consumer, anti-environment, anti-gun safety--must be pursued through the courts because the hard right--the Koch brothers and all of these hard-right groups--realize that they never get things through even a body like the Senate, where they have a majority of the Republicans, or the House. They want the one nonelected branch to turn the clock back decades, if not centuries. It will hurt America. It will fractionalize America. The middle class will be worse off. But the hard-right knows that these types of nominations don't get much focus.

An apotheosis of this is the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court as well. Kavanaugh was groomed as a partisan lawyer in the Clinton and Bush eras. He was added to a list of 25 judges vetted and approved by these two groups--the Heritage Foundation, dedicated to getting rid of Medicaid, getting rid of Medicare, getting the government out of healthcare altogether and letting people struggle,

letting those parents who have kids with illnesses never get insurance; and the Federalist Society, dedicated by its leader, by its own admission, to repealing Roe v. Wade. An analysis of the judicial philosophy of Kavanaugh by Professor Lee Epstein found that Judge Kavanaugh would be the second most conservative Justice on the bench, even to the right of Justice Gorsuch and second only to Justice Thomas, one of the most extremely conservative judges who has ever been on the bench.

That political and judicial history is key to understanding how Kavanaugh would rule as a member of the Supreme Court. On issues like healthcare and reproductive rights, on which the President has been crystal-clear about picking judges who are anti-Roe and hostile to healthcare, Judge Kavanaugh will have an enormous and unfortunate impact, if confirmed. After what the President has said, after knowing what the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation stand for, does anyone think Judge Kavanaugh would have been nominated by those parties if they weren't sure he would repeal or dramatically limit the ACA or Roe v. Wade?

Judge Kavanaugh, like Mr. Oldham and like Mr. Bounds, is outside of the political mainstream--dramatically outside--even outside of the Republican mainstream. It is part and parcel of the hard-right campaign that Republicans bow down and go along with to install conservative ideologues on the bench.

So I would say to my fellow Americans: No matter what your political persuasion--Democrat, Republican, Independent--everyone should want a more representative process for choosing judges and Supreme Court Justices in the Senate. Instead, humming in the background of the Senate's more newsworthy business, the Republican majority has confirmed a conveyor belt of nakedly partisan, ideological judges to the bench. Senators from both parties, in an America that wants moderation, should lock arms and put a stop to it.

I yield the floor.