Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, we are talking about the subject of justice, and I thought it would be appropriate to take a couple of minutes here, before we get ready to vote, to signify a unique injustice that occurred in the State of Florida 70 years ago.

In July of 1949, a White couple was driving their truck when it broke down on a rural road near Groveland, FL. Two Black men, Walter Irvin and Samuel Shepherd, stopped to help the couple. What would follow would be a horrifying injustice that haunts Florida and truly the Nation to this day.

Norma Padgett was the White woman in that truck. She was 17 years old. She told police she was abducted and raped by four Black men. Many locals at the time doubted her story. Her estranged husband was known to be a drinker and to become violent with her. Many suspected she made up these accusations to cover up for his abuse. The sheriff's office, nevertheless, detained three men for this alleged crime.

Walter Irvin and Samuel Shepherd, the two men who stopped to help the couple, were both World War II veterans. They both denied abducting or raping the woman. Nevertheless, they were detained, and they were brutally beaten in the basement of the sheriff's office, in the jail, until they confessed to a crime they did not commit. A few days later, Mr. Shepherd's family home was burned to the ground.

At the time that truck broke down, a third man, 16-year-old Charles Greenlee--so, really, a boy--was 20 miles away, which was a fact that was testified to by a store watchman. He didn't even know Mr. Irvin or Mr. Shepherd. The woman's own husband testified he was not one of the four men whom he alleged had brutally beaten him and abducted and raped his wife. Yet he too was taken to the basement of that jail and was brutally beaten.

A fourth man, Earnest Thomas, was never arrested because he was hunted down for over 30 hours by an armed posse of over 1,000 men, including the county sheriff. They found him sleeping under a tree in Madison County, FL, and they shot him to death.

Greenlee, Irvin, and Shepherd were tried. The judge who presided over that case denied their attorney access to exculpatory evidence. The judge in that case barred testimony about how they had been beaten until they had confessed. Then an all-White jury convicted them. It sentenced Irvin and Shepherd to death and sentenced 16-year-old Greenlee to life in prison.

A young attorney named Thurgood Marshall took up their case. He appealed it to the Supreme Court of the United States, which found they did not receive a fair trial. In fact, Justice Robert Jackson said the trial was ``one of the best examples of one of the worst menaces to American justice.'' The Supreme Court ordered a retrial.

A few months later, the same sheriff who was part of that posse picked up Mr. Irvin and Mr. Shepherd from jail in order to transport them from prison to a hearing before the trial. He pulled his car over and pulled the two men--handcuffed to each other--out of the car and shot them. Mr. Shepherd died. Mr. Irvin played dead. The FBI later found evidence that he had been shot while lying on the ground, handcuffed to Mr. Shepherd. By the way, lying wounded, his treatment was delayed. The hospital refused to transport him because he was a Black man.

Mr. Irvin was eventually retried. He was again convicted in another sham trial and was again sentenced to death. By 1955, the facts of the case were so troubling that Florida Governor LeRoy Collins took him off death row and commuted his sentence to life in prison. Finally, in 1968, he was paroled by Governor Claude Kirk. One year later, Mr. Irvin returned to Lake County for a funeral. He was found dead in his car.

Mr. Greenlee, the 16-year-old, at the time of the manufactured crime, was paroled in 1960. He left Florida and died in April of 2012 at the age of 78.

In 2017, the Florida Legislature unanimously voted to issue what is now known as the Groveland Four a formal and heartfelt apology, and they asked the State's cabinet to undertake an expedited review of the case and issue pardons.

I come here today to talk about this case because, while there is nothing we can do to give Mr. Thomas or Mr. Shepherd back their lives and while there is nothing we can do to give Mr. Irvin or Mr. Greenlee back the years they spent in jail for a crime they did not commit, we can give these men back their good names.

What we can do now in Florida, as a State, is to seek the forgiveness of their families and of them for the grave injustice that was committed against them. This is why I come to the Senate floor today-- to urge the new Florida cabinet to do this as soon as possible, after they take office next month, because after 70 years, it is time for Florida to do the right thing for the Groveland Four.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, before I speak on the topic that I came to the floor to speak about, which is the resolution currently before the Senate, I wanted to just echo the commentary made about our colleague Senator Heller. I have enjoyed our time working together.

I spent 6 years of my childhood growing up in Las Vegas, so we have a lot of mutual friends. He knows a lot of the people I grew up with and is a part of our family. He will be sorely missed here. I am sure he will be warmly welcomed back home to the community and to his family. We all look forward to seeing the future endeavors lying ahead for him. I know he still has much to offer the Nation and the State of Nevada.

S.J. Res. 54

Madam President, one of the things that makes service in the Senate meaningful is when we get to discuss big issues of great importance. I want to start by thanking the authors of this War Powers Resolution on Yemen because, while I may not agree with it--and I am going to describe why in a moment--I think it is important that the Senate have big debates about big topics and play its rightful role. The Senate and the legislative branch have an important role to play in setting the foreign policy of the United States.

I actually don't think the War Powers Act is constitutional. I believe it is an unconstitutional restraint on the power of the Commander in Chief, and even if it were constitutional, I do not believe that our engagement, or what we are doing in Yemen with the Saudi UAE coalition, rises to a level of triggering it.

That doesn't mean that Congress should not be involved. Frankly, the one way to be involved if you wanted to, if you wanted to pronounce yourself on a matter of this topic, you should file to cut off the money. I wouldn't support it, but that is where Congress's power really comes from. Shut off the money; say that no money can be spent on this effort. Few people are willing to do that, so we rely on these other mechanisms that exist in our law.

But I want to talk more about why I think it is bad idea to vote for this and why I hope more of my colleagues will join me in opposing it.

First of all, I understand what is happening. This resolution is not new; it has been discussed before. It existed for a number of months, well before Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi's brutal murder at the Saudi consulate in Yemen. So this is not a new issue, but it has become for many Members proxy--a vehicle by which they can express displeasure at the way the administration and the President have responded to the murder of Mr. Khashoggi.

I think what has happened to Mr. Khashoggi is an outrage. I don't need a smoking gun or an intelligence briefing to tell me that the Crown Prince is responsible.

If you know anything about Saudi Arabia, if you know anything about how their government works, and if you know anything about the Crown Prince, you know that there is no way that 17 guys close to him get on an airplane, fly to a third country, chop up a guy in a consulate, dispose of the body, and fly back, and he didn't know anything about it. It is just not real.

It is also consistent with a pattern of behavior by the Crown Prince. He literally kidnapped the Prime Minister of Lebanon about a year and a half ago. He has jailed multiple members of his family and government because they weren't in support of his being the successor to the King. This is a pattern of behavior that needs to be dealt with. I do not believe dealing with it requires us to shatter the Saudi-U.S. alliance.

Foreign policy is hard because it must be infused with our values and

the defense of human rights. And I say this with humility--I hold my record up to that of anyone in this Chamber when it comes to fighting on behalf of human rights and humanitarian causes, and we have a lot of great champions of that in the U.S. Senate. But we also have to recognize that this has to be balanced sometimes with realism, and it requires us to make difficult decisions.

The interesting thing about foreign policy is that it is often not a choice between a great idea and a bad idea; it is often a choice between two less-than-ideal outcomes, and you are trying to figure out which one would do the least harm and make the most sense. In many ways, that is what we are facing here in this debate about the Saudi- U.S. alliance.

I have long recognized and condemned the horrifying human rights violations that occur at a systemic level in Saudi Arabia, and I will continue to do so. But I also recognize that there is a threat in the Middle East posed by Iran and their ambitions that must be confronted, and it must be confronted now, regionally, or eventually it will pull the United States into direct conflict. Saudi Arabia and our alliance is a key part of that coalition, so it would be a mistake to shatter it.

In the case of Yemen, this has become a proxy issue for the broader issue of the murder of Mr. Khashoggi. Hopefully later today, there will be a resolution offered by the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and the majority leader--I hope others will join in--that makes very clear that the vast majority of Members in this Chamber condemn what happened to Mr. Khashoggi and hold the Crown Prince responsible for his murder.

There is no disputing that what is happening in Yemen is a horrifying humanitarian tragedy. The numbers speak for themselves. Over 57,000 human beings have lost their lives. Half the country's population of 28 million people is starving to death, including many women and children, and 2.3 million people have been displaced from their homes. It is horrifying, and there is plenty of blame to go around, including Iran and their Houthi surrogates.

The first question I would ask is, If this resolution passes and were to become law, would it end this conflict? If we pass this and the White House were somehow forced to do what we are asking them to do, it wouldn't end this conflict. This conflict will continue, this fight will continue, and the reason why is pretty straightforward: The Saudis view the Houthis as agents of Iran. They already see agents of Iran via Hezbollah, Syria, and Iraq obviously for a long time in Lebanon, and now, to their west and south, Yemen. They are not just agents of Iran. They have launched rockets and ballistic missiles into Saudi Arabia, at their civilian populations, including efforts to kill members of the Saudi royal family and government leadership. They have threatened global shipping in the region, where over 400 million barrels of oil a day transit--critical to the world's energy supplies. So they are going to have a war. There is no way Saudi Arabia or the UAE or any of these countries are going to allow themselves to be encircled by Iranian agents.

This conflict will continue irrespective of what we do, and the Saudis will have no problem buying weapons. One of the sad facts about the world today is that countries have plenty of sources from which they can buy this weaponry and plenty of countries and arms dealers who are willing to sell it to them.

Will this resolution, if it passes, end the suffering? The answer, sadly, is no, it will not. In fact, it is the Houthis who have blocked the two access roads that lead to the port, making it difficult to deliver aid. It is the Houthis who have placed mines at the entrance of the port. It is the Houthis, by the way, who are torturing people-- torturing people. We have seen reports of faces being smashed by batons, of people hanging from chains by their genitals and by their wrists for weeks in places, people being scorched with acid. That is the Houthis. That will continue.

Will this end the warfare? It will not. It will not end the warfare. In fact, I think it has the potential to trigger broader warfare.

First of all, it won't end the warfare because right now they are having peace talks. Put yourself in common sense for a moment, and ask yourself: If you are the Houthis and you just read in the newspaper that now the U.S. Senate has voted to end support for Saudi Arabia--do you know what they are thinking? We don't need a peace deal; we might be able to win this thing now. They don't know that it is not going to become law, that the House is not going to take it up. They don't know any of that. They just read that the United States is weakening in its support of Saudi Arabia, and they think, we don't need a peace deal. It is going to embolden them to not strike a peace deal.

But here is where I think it really gets dangerous. The United States stops its support of Saudi Arabia. Houthis establish more control and more stability in their control in areas of Yemen. What are they going to do then? Are they then going to go and rebuild the country, build roads and bridges, and move on to an era of prosperity and peace? They are not. They are going to become what they are but in an expanded way--agents of Iranian influence and of Iranian-sponsored violence.

Here is what you can expect to see if the Houthis establish control of key areas of Yemen and are able to reach a stalemate or, worse, are able to solidify their grip on power: You are going to see hundreds of ballistic missiles launched against Saudi Arabia--missiles that, by the way, in a contingency where there is a crisis between the United States and Iran, would also be able to target American service men and women serving in the region. You are going to see these explosive UAVs that they have already used in attacking Saudi Arabia.

Do you know what Saudi Arabia is going to do in response? They are going to hit them back even harder. In fact, they may even hit Iran, triggering an even broader war. And it gets worse. It gets worse because you can also see them using explosive boats and anti-ship missiles to cut off shipping lanes in the Arabian Gulf. At that point, you will see the U.S. Navy called upon to go in there and reopen shipping because the global energy supply is relying upon it, and the world looks to the United States as a guarantor of the freedom of the seas.

In essence, this could very well lead, in the long run, to an even broader and more dangerous conflict that could involve us and could pull us in. That is the way we need to think about these issues--not just what is before us now. You have to think two or three steps ahead, and two or three steps ahead is that this could become a broader conflict that forces us in.

Imagine it for a moment. We know for a fact that Iran's plans are to use surrogates to attack the United States in instances of a crisis. That is why these Shia militias in Iraq are so dangerous. At a moment's notice, they could decide they are going to start attacking American troops in Iraq, and Iran is going to say: It wasn't us; it was the Shia militia. That is why Hezbollah in Syria is so dangerous. That is why Lebanese Hezbollah is so dangerous. That is why they have cells all over the world ready to be activated at a moment of crisis as an asymmetrical way for Iran to attack the United States without direct attribution. And now we are going to give them one more--the Houthis in Yemen to target our service men and women and our allies in the region, and then we will have to respond, and then we will be in a war involving American service men and women.

Nothing we are doing now guarantees that won't happen anyway, but I am telling you that if we pull out of this effort, it makes it likely. I think it makes it likely that we will see a broader conflict in the very near future that will directly involve the United States of America.

On this final point, I will say that it is important for us to think about these things pragmatically because we lose our influence over the conduct of this war. The Saudi authorities and their military do not do a good job of respecting the rules of war. In fact, they have a military culture in Saudi Arabia where you are more likely to get punished for not taking the shot than for blowing up a bus full of children or hitting a residential project.

You are more likely to be punished for not taking the shot than for taking the shot that kills innocents. That has to change, and we have some level of influence now, given the fact that we are engaged with them, to sort of steer them in that direction and explain to them what troubles our alliance here in Washington. We lose that influence if we walk away.

I do sympathize with the two points behind this resolution: reasserting congressional authority on foreign policy--I agree we need to have more oversight and engagement, and I agree that the conduct of this war in Yemen is horrifying and that what is happening to civilians there is terrible. I just don't think our pulling out makes it better. I actually think it makes it worse, and I actually think that in the long run, it sucks America into a much broader and more dangerous conflict. That is why I hope more Senators here today will oppose this resolution.

We do need to send a clear message to Saudi Arabia that what the Crown Prince did to Mr. Khashoggi is unacceptable, but this is the wrong way to do the right thing.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, we have just heard the words of the senior Senator from my State, and I wanted to just take a moment because it reminded me of a truism that came to mind as I heard him speak and as I reflected back on our almost 8 years of service here together.

Political divisions have existed in our country since its very beginning. What has changed is, there was a time not so long ago when Americans knew each other; when Americans had political differences, but they also served on the PTA board together; when we disagreed about whom to vote for, but we coached each other's kids in Little League or we were members of the same church and worshiped together or we lived side by side as neighbors.

When all you know about someone is whom they voted for or what their political positions are, it is easy to dislike them, but when you know them as a fellow parent, as a neighbor, as your children's coach, as someone you live side by side with, then you know them as a person. It is a lot easier to dislike a political opponent than it is to dislike the whole person.

I raise that point with you because I am very proud of the relationship, the working relationship, we have had in our 8 years here together. One of the things that made that possible is that I knew Bill Nelson as a person. If all I knew about him was that he and I did not always vote the same way on every issue--that is what most people know about us who serve here. That is one of the challenges we so often face. The men and women we represent in our representative parties and in our representative political leanings usually only know about our colleagues in the 3 minutes they may see us in a television interview, but we get to know each other as people. We get to know each other outside of politics.

I knew Bill Nelson, and I know Bill Nelson, as a person and as a man. I am an enormous admirer of his knowledge of Florida. He knows every nook and cranny of the State. He might not remember this, but we were together on a Coast Guard aircraft after one of our storms, and as we overflew the State from above, he was pointing out and identifying down at the street level every corner of the geography of the State. I remember thinking: I have been in Florida politics for awhile. I know the State fairly well, but he knew it down to the street level. So to try to keep pace, I went back and opened up the Atlas and tried to replicate 25, 30 years of State service to try to at least be in the same neighborhood as he is in his knowledge of our State. It is incredibly impressive. It wasn't something he memorized by looking at a book. It was because he had been to all of these places at some point during his time of service to our State.

I would say that certainly in the last quarter century, there has been no greater champion not just for Florida's space industry but for the space program; not just for NASA but for all of it, for the belief that great nations do great things; that they explore the heavens. There has been no greater champion for it.

His leaving the Senate will be a tremendous loss and will require all of us to work harder to ensure that America remains a nation active and engaged in space.

Above all else, I knew him--and know him--as a good man. I emphasize the word ``man'' because I think oftentimes in our modern culture we have developed a warped sense of what it truly takes to be a strong and good person.

We live in an era in which we celebrate pride and arrogance, but I have learned, through the example of watching him up close, that Bill Nelson is a man with the kind of humility that our common faith tries to instill in us.

He is a man that, at a time when it is so easy to be indifferent to the suffering of others, in his service here, has been a man of compassion.

He told you just a handful of stories. There are so many more real human beings with whom he has stayed engaged in cases involving them, without cameras, without press, without bumper stickers, without documentaries, or any sort of recognition that so often people seek in the political process.

We live in a time where being crude and abrasive is celebrated as strength, while decency is oftentimes ridiculed as weakness. Bill Nelson has been an example of decency. I cannot recall a single time in our 8 years of service together in which he did anything to harm me, embarrass me, or in any way create unnecessary conflict--in fact, any conflict--on a personal level. In fact, I would say the worst thing he ever did to me was he once, in front of an audience, accused me of being a moderate.

It goes further than that. Our staffs would travel together across the State. Sometimes people would be shocked by it. They would gasp when my regional director and his regional director would share a ride to wind up at an event together, as if somehow Republicans and Democrats are supposed to be allergic to each other, when, in fact, in the end, no matter how we view our politics, we are all going to be in this Nation for the rest of our lives, so we better figure out a way to work together on the issues that will impact us all.

I will greatly miss the opportunity to continue to serve with him. I know his service to our Nation and our State is not finished. I know he will find new endeavors. I know this simply because he is not one who is going to sit back and rest and reflect. He is going to keep working. I am excited to see what God's plans are for the rest of his years. I believe there will be many more because, despite the differences in our dates of birth--I am not saying he is old; I am saying he is older than I am--he could probably still beat me--in fact, he probably could always beat me--in a pullup contest or a pushup contest. This is actually not an exaggeration. It is true, which is why I have never challenged him to one. I will greatly miss working with him in the Senate, but I look forward to working with him beyond it.

I will say this, and I think this is no exaggeration. When the history of Florida politics is written, the name Bill Nelson will be among the giants of Florida's political history, for few who have ever served at any level have done more for a longer period in the service of the people of the Sunshine State than the senior Senator who, moments ago, bid his farewell to a place and a Chamber where he has done so much good for our State, for our Nation, and for the world.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I recognize the Florida State University Women's soccer team on securing its second NCAA National Championship, becoming one of six schools in NCAA women's soccer history to win multiple championships. Head coach Mark Krikorian led the Florida State team to the 2018 College Cup for the ninth time in his 14 seasons at Florida State, including four appearances in the national championship game. FSU defeated each of the last three national champions in the 2018 tournament on the way to the title, delivering a stunning end to Stanford University's 45-match unbeaten streak in the semifinal game. In the championship game against the University of North Carolina, Dallas Dorosy scored the game's only goal on a pass from Deyna Castellanos, in the 60th minute. This NCAA title complements the team's 2018 Atlantic Coast Conference championship win, the sixth in the past 8 years.

I extend warm congratulations on their hard-earned national championship to players Caroline Jeffers, Megan Connolly, Kristina Lynch, Anna Patten, Jaelin Howell, Dallas Dorosy, Kirsten Pavlisko, Deyna Castellanos, Gloriana Villalobos, Kaycie Tillman, Taylor Hallmon, Natalia Kuikka, Olivia Bergau, Gabby Carle, Malia Berkley, Macayla Edwards, Kristen McFarland, Alexa Orrante, Bella Dorosy, Makala Thomas, Emily Madril, Clara Robbins, Yujie Zhao, and Brooke Bollinger, as well as head coach Mark Krikorian, assistant coach Mike Bristol, assistant coach Morinao Imaizumi, and director of operations Nathan Minion.

Madam President, we saw yesterday that the vote on the Yemen War Powers Resolution has brought to light the broader issue of our alliance with Saudi Arabia. This is an issue that people have heard a lot about, obviously, in the last few weeks with the murder of a journalist, and the Yemen resolution vote has become a proxy over that matter.

I have been outspoken in the past about why it matters that we speak out strongly about and against the murder of this journalist, Khashoggi, but also that we talk more broadly about what we need to do about it and how it applies to our alliance with Saudi Arabia.

I want to tailor my comments today by briefly talking about exactly what the implications are based on the questions I get from people. Why does the murder of Khashoggi matter, and why should we care about it?

First, this is part of a pattern. The Crown Prince, who is effectively governing Saudi Arabia now, has been continually testing the limits of the world's patience and also the limits of our alliance. There is a pattern here. We have seen it. He kidnapped, over 2 weeks, the Prime Minister of Lebanon. He has fractured an alliance that once existed with the Gulf Kingdoms. All of it has implications on U.S. national security. So this is just one more escalation in a pattern of testing the limits of our alliance.

Then there are human rights. Why do human rights matter? For a practical reason, human rights matter. From a practical perspective, when human rights are violated, the result is a humanitarian crisis, as we have seen often around the world, which often leads to mass migration.

Let me they tell you something else a violation of human rights leads to: radicalization. When you violate a group of people, you mistreat them and abuse them; you leave them ripe for radicalization--for a radical group to come in and basically pull them in and say: We are the ones with the power, the weapons, and willingness to fight. Join us to go after your oppressors.

In fact, if you look at what is happening in Yemen, much of it and the Houthis comes from years of abuses against the Shia. It doesn't justify the radicalization, but it explains that, as it does what we have seen in Iraq and in Syria.

Here is one other thing that happens with human rights abuses. The abusers often get overthrown. Here is the problem. When an abusive government that violates human rights gets overthrown, the people who take over hate us because we have been supporting their abusers. These are practical reasons why human rights matter.

And there is a moral one. Perhaps in the ranking and order, that is the most important one--the moral one. It is because that is what makes us different from China and Russia and other countries around the world. This is what makes America different. In fact, I would say that the murder of Mr. Khashoggi is more about us. When it comes to our debate, it is about us. It is not just about him. It is about us and who we are and about whether we, as a nation, are prepared to excuse, overlook, or sort of brush away this horrifying incident because somebody buys a lot of things from us or produces a lot of oil.

Assuming we can mostly agree on that, the question is, What do we do about it? There is this false choice that has been presented to us. This false choice is that there are only two choices: Either ignore it or abandon and fracture the Saudi alliance. That is not true. There are other choices. It is not just either-or, those two. That is a false choice.

What I do believe is the wrong thing to do about it is to pull and yank away our support for Saudi operations in Yemen. Let me explain why. The first is, right now, the only hope of ending that is not winning an armed conflict; it is a peace negotiation. And the people who have to be at that table aren't just the Houthis but the deposed Yemeni President, who is in Saudi Arabia. If we yank our support, the chances of that peace happening diminish significantly. In fact, the Houthis probably say: The Saudis no longer have U.S. support; they are not as strong as they used to be; I think we can beat them; we don't need a peace deal. So it actually makes peace less likely.

The second thing, from a practical perspective, is that we will have less influence how the Saudis conduct the war, meaning that we will have no standing to have any influence whatsoever who they bomb, how often they bomb, and who they target. Some people argue that they will not have the

weapons to do it with. That is not true. If you don't think you can buy weapons from immoral and amoral regimes around the world, you are wrong; they can. If you think that somehow this will end their engagement, you are wrong. The reason they are involved in Yemen is that they feel it is an effort by Iran--and, rightfully, they feel this way--to encircle them.

If you look at it today, Iran is their enemy. Iran now controls large parts of Syria and is probably the closest government in the world to the Syrian regime to their northwest. Iraq is closer to Iran than it has ever been in the last 20 years to the north. Iran is to their east. Yemen would be to the south with the Houthis operating from there. They feel that they are being encircled by Iran. They are going to fight, whether we help them or not. We could lose our influence over how they do it.

I want to tell you one more thing that will happen. If we pull our support, the chances of a broader, catastrophic conflict increases dramatically. I will lay one scenario out for you. If we pull our support, the Houthis get confident, and they start launching rockets into Saudi Arabia, targeting civilian populations and members of the royal family and killing people.

The Saudis respond with disproportionate force or the same level of force, and we begin to escalate. They will not just respond against the Houthis. They may respond against the Iranian interests elsewhere. Suddenly, you have a real live shooting war that extends beyond this proxy fight. In response to that, the Houthis and Iranians use their presence on the coast and that port city to close off an important chokepoint, the Bab el-Mandeb, that choke point in the Red Sea that connects the Mediterranean to the Indian Ocean, where over 4.8 million barrels of oil a day go through. They start bombing oil tankers. They start hitting those, and all of a sudden, the world has to get engaged to open that up. This holds the real potential for a rapid escalation that could involve a much broader conflict than what we are seeing right now.

I know that many of my colleagues yesterday voted for this resolution out of deep frustration. It was a message to the administration that the way they handled this Khashoggi incident is unacceptable. I hope that message has been received. But this is the wrong way to do the right thing, and that is to ensure that we recalibrate our alliance with Saudi Arabia into one where they understand they can't just do whatever they want. The Crown Prince cannot do whatever he wants.

We have leverage in that regard. There is legislation that the Senator from New Jersey, Senator Menendez, and others offered. In addition to that, there are things we can do. The leadership of the Foreign Relations Committee asked for the imposition of Magnitsky sanctions. That is a powerful tool. I assure you, there are people in Saudi Arabia around the royal family, around the government, who deeply enjoy being able to invest and spend their wealth in the United States and around the world. They are going to care a lot if, as a result of this murder, they lose access to their money, to their property, to their visas. That is a real leverage point that we have.

We have additional tools: religious freedom sanctions and visa bans against other individuals who may not have been involved in the Khashoggi incident but, again, another leverage point.

We have leverage points in restricting U.S. investment. One of the biggest proposals the Crown Prince is making is that he wants to diversify their economy and encourage U.S. and Western investment into their economy. Placing restrictions on that investment is a significant leverage point.

We should use this opportunity to use those leverage points to achieve real changes in our alliance and real changes in their behavior. For example, the release of Mr. Badawi, an activist in Saudi Arabia who has been repeatedly flogged in the past and unjustly held in prison--he should be released. The release of Saudi women activists who have been tortured and sexually harassed while in custody--they should be released. Education reforms--Saudi Arabia should finally stop publishing these textbooks encouraging and teaching anti-Semitism and radicalization and dangerous religious notions and theologies that encourage violence against others. We should require them to restore the Gulf alliance and restore their relationship with Qatar. If they don't, we will. We should force them to stop funding these Wahhabi schools around the world, in which they are exporting radicalization.

All of these things need to happen. There may be other conditions we haven't thought of. These are real consequences that will begin to realign this alliance and make very clear that this is an important alliance, but it is not one that is unlimited or without restrictions or expectations on our part.

If we fail to do this, the Crown Prince will take further escalatory and outrageous actions in the future. He will keep pushing the envelope. This is a young man who has never lived anywhere else in the world. He is a Crown Prince, which tells you, not only is he wealthy, he has rarely faced disappointment in his life or ever not had something he wanted. He has never lived abroad. I think he is largely naive about foreign policy and thinks he can get away with whatever he wants because at home, he can. We have to make clear that with us, he can't.

You don't have to blow up the alliance to make that message clear. If we don't make that message clear, he will do more of this in the future, and one day, he may pull us into a war. One day, he may fracture the alliance himself because he goes too far. He needs to be stopped now. He needs to understand that there are limits or he will keep testing those limits. If we fail to do that at this moment, we will live to regret it, and its implications will be extraordinary, and it will be a gift to Iran.

That is my last point. What happened here has been a gift to Iran. What they have done has been a gift. Instead of weakening their enemy, they have empowered them. We do need to take positive action on this. We do need to take things that change and recalibrate this relationship, but yanking support at this moment from the Yemen campaign is the wrong way to do the right thing.

I hope that many of my colleagues, who yesterday voted to discharge this bill to the floor to send a clear message to the administration that they are unhappy with the response so far--I hope they will reconsider an alternative way forward that doesn't lead to these consequences I have outlined but allows us in the Senate to lead the way with the administration to reset this relationship in a way that avoids these problems in the future and lives up to our heritage as a nation whose foreign policy is infused with and supports the defense of human rights all over the world.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, due to Hurricane Michael's direct hit on Florida's panhandle, I am traveling to northwest Florida to survey the devastation that has occurred in my home State. Yesterday, Hurricane Michael made landfall as a devastating, high-end Category 4 hurricane, near Mexico Beach. Initial reports indicate more than 400,000 utility customers in Florida are without power and areas within the storm's path have been decimated.

Therefore, given these circumstances and the fact that my vote would not have been determinative of the outcome of the measures before the Senate, I will survey the damage firsthand and help coordinate efforts between Federal, State, and local officials.

Mr. President, as a Member of the U.S. Senate, my role in providing advice and consent to the President on his or her nominations to the Supreme Court is among our most important constitutional duties.

In fulfilling that duty, I have a pretty clear criteria on how I go about making these decisions. The first is whether the nominee has the character to serve on the Supreme Court; the second is whether the nominee has the intellect and the experience and the academic credentials to serve on a Court that hears complex and difficult questions of law; and the third is does the nominee believe in the proper role of

the Supreme Court, which, in my opinion, is to interpret and to apply the Constitution, not to change or manipulate it to reach a certain policy goal.

There is broad bipartisan support for the first two parts of my criteria. We can all agree that people who serve on the Court should have the character to do so. We can all agree our nominees and those who serve on the Court have to have the intellect and the experience and the academic credentials to be on the Court.

Much of our fights around here center around the third part of my criteria. In fact, it goes to the heart of most of the nomination fights we have. There are some who would like the Supreme Court to become a policymaking branch, a place that makes policy and makes laws, but I believe the job of an appellate court is to decide whether a policy decision of the political branches is constitutional. Appellate courts and trial courts are different. Trial courts are triers of fact. Appellate courts are triers of law.

The debate about the proper role of the Court plays out most vividly on some of the most divisive cultural issues, and it always has. For example, on the difficult issue of abortion, the question before the Court in Roe v. Wade was not whether it was good or bad for abortion to be criminalized or constricted, the question was whether the Constitution gave the State or Federal Government the authority to pass laws that banned or restricted abortions.

The question before the Court in Obergefell v. Hodges was not whether same-sex marriages were good or bad for America. The question was whether the Constitution allowed States to define marriage as being between one man and one woman.

In deciding these kinds of questions, I believe Justices, both on the Supreme Court and appellate-level judges, should apply the strictest interpretation of the Constitution according to its original intent, irrespective of whether the policy result of their decision is something they personally agree with. The reason for that is because if the Constitution can mean whatever people at a given moment want it to mean, then the Constitution doesn't really mean anything at all. We can change our laws. That is why Congress has to respond to the electorate, why we debate laws, and then are held accountable for it, but the Constitution has to be something that is constant, irrespective of the political tides of the moment.

Now, you can change the Constitution. The Founders gave us a process to do that through Article V, the constitutional amendment process, and that has been used in this country. They would not have given us that process if it were their intent that the Supreme Court be the one that could change the Constitution.

The reason I outline that criteria is because that is the criteria I used to evaluate Judge Kavanaugh's nomination when it was first presented. I found myself with no doubts about his intellectual ability or his academic credentials, and I don't think anyone has raised those.

I have seen seven FBI background checks that turned up no issues with his character, and I had 12 years of his service as a Federal appellate judge as proof that he shared my criteria for the proper role of the Court and the proper standard for constitutional review.

So it was based on that and on those facts that in August I announced I supported Judge Kavanaugh's nomination.

Then, several weeks ago, the allegations, first by Dr. Ford and then by others, emerged. Sexual harassment and assault is something I feel very strongly about. It is, for example, one of the reasons I have been involved for a number of years now in a bipartisan effort to reform and improve how we handle claims of sexual assault on our college campuses. Our Nation is now facing a reckoning for decades of not addressing sexual violence appropriately.

While I obviously will not betray anyone's confidence or privacy, I have personally seen how victims of sexual assault often find their claims dismissed and ignored. I have seen how sometimes they are told things like: You are partially to blame for putting yourself in that position. I have seen how so many never came forward and don't want to come forward because they don't think anyone will believe them or they don't believe anything will ever happen.

That is why I believe anytime anyone comes forward with allegations of sexual assault or harassment, abuse, these allegations cannot be swept aside, and they cannot be ignored. When these allegations emerged in this case, my immediate reaction was to say these claims should be taken seriously and his accusers should be fully heard. I said I would have no further comment on his nomination until we knew more about these allegations. What that meant was, my support of Judge Kavanaugh was now contingent on the information that emerged from the hearings and the investigation and the work that needed to be done.

I will say today what I said at this time last week. I believe neither Dr. Ford nor Judge Kavanaugh have been treated fairly in many instances. Some--I saw you--immediately basically dismissed these claims as a political ploy. Others went on television almost immediately and said they believed Judge Kavanaugh was guilty without any information before them.

Despite the shameful behavior of so many, a process did ensue. Through all the noise, that did produce additional information. The Senate's Judiciary Committee and then the Federal Bureau of Investigation gathered and made available to every single Member of the Senate additional relevant information.

The committee took sworn testimony from several named witnesses. I know for a fact they chased down and investigated a seemingly endless stream of incoming information every single day, and it provided both Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh the opportunity to give written statements and then participate in hours of public testimony, not just before the committee but before the entire Nation.

When that hearing ended last Thursday, the information before us was as follows: The sworn and unequivocal allegations by Dr. Ford, the sworn and equally unequivocal denial from Judge Kavanaugh, no witnesses with knowledge of these allegations, and no independent evidence to corroborate them.

After the hearing, a week ago today, some of the Senators on the committee wanted a short delay. I watched that hearing. It was agreed to by everyone there, a short delay, 7 days, so the Federal Bureau of Investigation could gather even more information, and I had no objection to that.

Over the last week, the FBI interviewed 10 additional witnesses and gathered additional relevant information for every single Senator to review.

First, I was briefed on these interviews and information; then I had occasion to review them for myself. Here is what I know now about the allegations against Judge Kavanaugh. I have the sworn and unequivocal testimony of Dr. Ford and Ms. Ramirez making these allegations against Judge Kavanaugh. I have the sworn and unequivocal denial of these allegations from Judge Kavanaugh. I now have before me the testimony of 10 additional witnesses, including those identified by Dr. Ford and Ms. Ramirez as having been present when Judge Kavanaugh allegedly assaulted them, and not a single one of them had any recollection of the alleged gatherings, much less any knowledge of these allegations, and I still have no independent evidence which corroborates these allegations as well.

That is the information before me as I stand here at 1 p.m. eastern time on the 5th of October with regard to the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court of the United States. That is the same information that is before every other Member of the Senate who has access to the exact same information that I saw, that I read, and that I was briefed on.

I have listened to the arguments made by some of my colleagues and others urging me to still vote against the nomination. The most direct argument made to vote no is that the FBI did not interview enough people.

First, my view is that the only people who could corroborate those claims are those who were there when it happened because anything other than that is hearsay. If you didn't see it happen, all you can testify to is what someone else told you. The only people who could corroborate that something happened are either people who received physical evidence or people who

witnessed it. From what I read yesterday, every single person the accuser said was present when it happened testified that they do not know anything about it.

By the way, the other point I would make is that these interviews that we saw yesterday, the 10 additional ones--it would be unfair to view them in a vacuum, as if they were the only information we have to go off of. Here is a fact: Over nearly the last two decades, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has interviewed over 150 people, asking questions about Judge Kavanaugh's background and past. Over 150 people have been interviewed about Judge Kavanaugh over the last two decades and across seven background checks, and not a single one of them has ever testified as to any sexual assault against anyone at any time.

It struck me that there isn't a single Member of the U.S. Senate, I think--maybe I am wrong, but I doubt seriously that there is any Member in the U.S. Senate who has had the FBI question over 150 people about what they have done throughout their life. In fact, I would venture to guess that there are probably few, if any, Americans who have had the FBI interview over 150 people about what they have done throughout the course of their lives. I believe it is reasonable to assume that if Judge Kavanaugh was someone who had engaged in a pattern of abusive behavior toward women--on a pattern--at least one of these 150-some-odd people would have noticed and would have said something about it. Yet not a single one of them did.

I would be remiss if I didn't mention that there is clearly another factor that is driving much of the anger and passion around this nomination, and it has nothing to do with partisan politics or politics at all, for that matter. It is the fact, as I mentioned earlier, that, sadly, far too often, particularly women who come forward with allegations of harassment, abuse, or assault are ignored, dismissed, and even blamed. The fact is, because of this, there are potentially millions of victims who have never come forward and who suffer in silence.

I understand that for the victims and for those who love them and for those who are survivors, to hear about these allegations brings back powerful and painful memories of what happened to them, of how they were ignored, how they were not believed, how they were blamed, and how their abuser got away with it. What has happened to these survivors is an injustice. It is wrong. It is something that we as a nation must reckon with and we as a people must fix. But the solution to injustice is never injustice, and it would be unjust to turn this nomination into a proxy fight over the broader, important issue of how we have treated victims of sexual assault in America. As important as that topic is, this debate is about a specific case involving specific people and specific allegations. Fairness and justice require us to make our decision on this matter based on the facts before us on this matter.

It was wrong for some to immediately dismiss these allegations almost as a reflex, but it is also wrong to claim that a vote for Judge Kavanaugh's nomination means that you do not care about and do not as a matter of course believe victims of sexual violence.

My colleagues and my fellow Americans, this case is about this case, and although the ways in which both the accuser and the accused have been treated are shameful, we must still make our decision based on what we know.

I want to make one thing abundantly clear: I do want people on the Supreme Court who believe that the proper role of that Court is to interpret the Constitution according to its original intent, but if I had any evidence--or if any evidence emerges that corroborates these or any allegations of this kind--I would have voted against this nomination in a heartbeat because someone who has committed sexual assault shouldn't be on the Bench, they should be in jail. If you lie about it to Congress, you should also be charged with perjury. But after 7 background checks and over 150 people having been interviewed, we don't have any independent evidence to corroborate these allegations against him--none.

So with regard to this specific case, on the basis of the facts that I have before me, that we have before us--on the basis of what facts am I supposed to not just vote down this nomination but in the process of doing so, render what will forever be perceived as a verdict of guilt? On the basis of what facts can anyone say or do that?

It is legitimate to vote against him because you don't agree with his judicial philosophy, but it isn't fair to say you are voting against him, as some imply, because we are on the verge of putting someone who is a confirmed and verified sexual abuser on the Bench. That isn't justice, and no matter how just the cause is, a just cause never, never justifies an unjust means.

Based on the specific facts before us regarding this specific nomination and this specific case, I already voted to end debate on the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh, and tomorrow I will vote to confirm him as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I recognize Charlotte Weber for being named the National Breeder of the Year by the Thoroughbred Owners and Breeders Association.

The Thoroughbred Owners and Breeders Association presented Charlotte with this award during the 33rd annual national awards dinner at the Woodford Reserve Club in Lexington, KY. She is the owner and sole operator of Live Oak Stud in Ocala, and for the first time, a broodmare based outside of Kentucky received this recognition.

Live Oak Stud is a 4,500-acre thoroughbred farm and commercial cattle operation that Charlotte has guided since 1995. Her breeding and racing operation's distinctive black, red, and white silks have become a nationally recognized racing symbol. Over the years, Live Oak Stud has seen its record of success grow. Charlotte's horse, Win Approval, dam of World Approval, was also named Broodmare of the Year by the Thoroughbred Owners and Breeders Association. This horse has become a central part of Live Oak Stud's success.

I extend my best wishes to Charlotte and look forward to hearing of Live Oak Stud's continued success as she brings prestige to Florida horse breeding.

Mr. President, today I pay tribute to the memory of Frank Bradley, a lifelong Tallahassee, FL, resident who owned a famed local country store and was well regarded as a consummate southern gentleman.

Frank Bradley was born on July 11, 1925, in Tallahassee and served his country honorably in the U.S. Navy during World War II. When he came home from the war, he began working in his father's family store, Bradley's Country Store. In 1970, Frank added a packinghouse to the store, with products still made from his grandmother Mary's 1910 recipe.

He also began to host the store's annual Old Fashioned Fun Day, which brings in thousands of visitors each year. Frank retired from the store in 2008, leaving it in the hands of his daughter Janet. His lesson for her was to treat their customers with respect as if they are always right.

Frank was dedicated to improving his community and worked to address issues affecting residents, including leading the charge to pave a portion of Old Centerville Road. While he sought for the entire road to be paved to the Georgia line, he accepted a compromise of 2 miles.

I express my sincere condolences to his wife Lillian, two daughters Janet Bradley Parker and Julie Bradley Obrecht, six grandchildren, and one great-grandson. May God bless his family during this time of loss.

Mr. President, today I recognize the Sunrise Sting 2000 Girls Soccer Club, who won the 2018 United States Youth Soccer National Championship.

Sunrise Sting 2000 is comprised of talented young women from Sunrise, FL. Several of the players have been together since they were 8 years old, under the direction of coach Juan Laureano. Sunrise Sting has existed since 1975; yet this is their first time winning the Southern Regional and National Championship tournaments.

After winning the Southern Regional Championship 4-0 against Mandeville, LA, the team entered the final stage of the National Championship series. In group play, the Sunrise club defeated CDA Slammers FC from California 1-0 in their opening match. They rebounded from losing a close contest to Campton United of Illinois with a 3-1 victory over the Scottsdale Blackhawks of Arizona. In the semifinals, they won 3-0 over CDA Premier 00 of Ohio.

In the National Championship game, they avenged their previous loss to Campton United by defeating them with a 3-2 victory, despite trailing at halftime. The team considers itself a family and refused to quit in the face of adversity because of their strong teamwork.

I extend my best wishes to head coach Aguinaldo Ferreira, coach Juan Laureano, Victoria Burbrick, Stephanie Cuan, Taylor Dobles, Marlee Fray, Liliana Fernandez, Kayla Fernandez, Madison Grushoff, Jordan Horacek, Cassandra Lawson, Chloe Laureano, Elizabeth Matei, Maiya Matos, Megan Morgan, Sylvie Prepetit, Evanthia Spyredes, Amber Tam, Samantha Wald, Sydney Waiters, and the entire Sunrise Sting organization on this impressive accomplishment.

Madam President, I am now halfway through my eighth year in the U.S. Senate, and in my time here, I have never once spoken against, voted against, or opposed in any way any of the National Defense Authorization Acts that have come before the Senate. The reason being, despite whatever flaws one might find on most occasions in any piece of legislation, the defense of our country is a fundamental obligation of our Federal Government. It comes before everything else.

State governments run schools and build roads and do all sorts of activities at the State level. Communities do all sorts of things at the local level, but nothing is more important than the defense of our country in terms of a Federal obligation. So I never have opposed a National Defense Authorization Act, and I supported every single one of them, despite the fact that it didn't have everything I wanted and everything I liked, until today.

There is a lot of good in this legislation, and it makes it difficult to be an opponent of it. For Florida, it authorizes over $200 million for military construction in the State--the littoral combat ship facilities at Naval Station Mayport, air traffic control towers at Whiting Field, F-35 facilities that are important at Eglin Air Force Base, KC-135 flight simulators at MacDill Air Force Base.

It authorizes the Secretary of the Air Force to build a cyber space facility at Eglin. It authorizes the conveyance of land for the Air Force Enlisted Village, which is a nonprofit corporation consisting of approximately 80 acres next to Eglin for independent living and apartments.

It authorizes the continued development of the B-21 Bomber--work that is being done in Melbourne, FL. It fully supports the Joint Gulf Range Complex, a true treasure for our country, and it is the largest military range in the continental United States.

As for the country, it also has all sorts of other very important things: an over 2.6-percent military pay raise. It increases the Active-Duty workforce by 15,600 personnel, bringing the total to over 1.3 million. It tries to address the pilot shortage. It authorizes $10.7 billion to buy 77 more F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, $193 million in research and development funding for new software and improvements to be incorporated in future years in that program.

It authorizes new missile defense, including $175 million intended to integrate the THAAD and Patriot Systems batteries in South Korea. It authorizes $23.7 billion for Navy shipbuilding, an increase of close to $2 billion over what the President requested. To go on and on, it does many important things in rebuilding our military strength in this country, but it failed on one important front, and that is what I believe to be a very significant and serious threat to the national security and the future of this country--one that we are only beginning to wake up to. For the first time since the end of the Cold War, the United States is engaged in a geopolitical competition with a near-peer adversary.

Since 1991, there has been no other nation on Earth that can project power anywhere close to what the United States could do--until now.

Unlike our country, China is a nation with an ancient history, one that leaves them with a longstanding sense of victimhood but also one that leads them to believe they have a preordained destiny to, once again, be the most powerful nation on Earth. This is what they mean when they constantly use the phrase ``historical determinants.'' In summary, what they are saying is, they are predestined to be the world's most powerful country, and, therefore, they believe they are predestined to surpass the United States geopolitically, economically, and militarily.

This is not a new ambition, by the way. For two decades, they have followed a strategy called hiding their power and biding their time, but all of that changed last year.

In October, at their party congress, their President for life Xi laid out a vision for China and did it in clear, nationalistic terms. He said:

Backed by the invincible force of 1.3 billion people, we

have an infinitely vast stage of our era, a historical

heritage of unmatched depth, and incomparable resolve . . .

we have arrived at a new era, where China is now in a leading

position in terms of economic and technological strength,

defense capabilities, and composite national strength . . .

and with a military which can fight and win.

I will state that you see evidence of this belief in their impressive and massive military buildup and quantum leaps in technological advances. You see how they are working to destroy the current world order that was built by America and our allies and now seek to replace it with one they build and one that will be led by them.

That is how they offer loans--not just to get their companies more business but to give them leverage and footholds in countries, and they do so with no questions asked about democracy or human rights. That is what the Asian Infrastructure Bank is all about. That is the Belt and Road Initiative.

You also see what they are doing to overtake us economically. Their state-led economy runs large trade deficits with everyone while at the same time prohibiting market access to China. You see it in the widespread force technology transfers and the cyber theft, and it is working--5G, for example, will dominate most of the industries of the future, and they are on course to be the world standard on 5G.

By 2020, China Mobile will be the only company in the world that can build a standalone 5G network. Huawei was the first company to gain approval to sell 5G stations in the European Union. They are moving hard to dominate pharma research and genome editing and all sorts of other leading industries for tomorrow. What is outrageous is how much of these advances are built, not just on ingenuity and hard work but on the theft of intellectual property from American companies, oftentimes through research funded by American taxpayers. They do it through cyber espionage. They do it through the forced transfer of technology, where they tell companies who do business in China, not only do you have to partner with a Chinese company, you have to give them the secrets to their trade. See how they are now buying up companies, buying off researchers in American universities and their research.

Now, this is what they are moving toward--to become the most powerful country in the world. Why is that an issue, despite the fact that we seek to not be in second place to anyone? Because you can see what kind of country they will be and what kind of world we will have if they become the world's most dominant power.

You see it, for example, in the conquest of the South China Sea through the military harassment of Southeast Asian nations. You see how they cut tourism to South Korea as leverage over our missile defense deployments; how they restricted exports of rare-earth minerals to Japan as leverage over the East China Sea disputes. We saw Filipino agricultural products rot on the docks during the South China Sea fights because they wouldn't let it come in.

You see the threats to our businesses to deny them access to Chinese markets even further if they dare speak in support of President Trump's 301 investigations of Chinese unfair practices.

You see it in a U.S. citizen living in the United States of America-- not in China, not anywhere outside our borders--a U.S. citizen living in the United States of America was fired by Marriott Hotel because of a social media post that China complained about. That happened.

You see it most recently by American and United Airlines being forced to change how they describe Taiwan on their website or they would not be allowed to continue to fly to China.

The tactics they use over and over again are not sweeping changes; it is

typically slow but incremental yet more assertive demands, but over time these demands end up establishing a new normal. It is very much like the example of the frog in a boiling pot of water. If you throw the frog in the boiling pot of water, it jumps out right away, but if you put it in cold water and slowly boil it, it will boil to death and not even know it is boiling. That is what China is doing to the United States and to the world.

There are only two things that China responds to when you confront them. The first is a committed and sustained escalation across the entire relationship between us and them, and the other is invoking the help of our foreign partners. That is why I strongly believe the U.S. should have worked with the European Union, Canada, Mexico, and Japan to confront China, not to start a trade war with them as well. I am happy to see that progress is being made on negotiations with Mexico, and there has been a pause in the challenges of Europe. Perhaps now is an opportunity to be able to do that second part of invoking the help of our foreign partners and confronting these cheating and stealing and unfair practices.

What about a committed and sustained escalation across the entire relationship? I would say to you that, by and large, that has been what this administration has done, and it is having an impact. Just this morning, the New York Times reports about rare rebukes to President Xi's leadership inside of China because these disputes are beginning to have an impact on their economy.

There is one glaring exception, and that is an ill-conceived deal to grant amnesty to a telephone and telecommunications Chinese company called ZTE. To have a committed and sustained escalation across the entire relationship means we can't make threats and back down, and we can't carve out one part of the relationship for a special accommodation. Sadly, that is what happened here.

ZTE is a telecommunications company that was caught--not once but twice--in helping North Korea and Iran to evade U.S. sanctions. As a result, the Commerce Department imposed a penalty on them that basically was an equivalent of a business death penalty. It said that you can no longer buy American microchips. Without that, you can't function and the company was brought to its knees. I would argue that sanctions should have been imposed on them even if they didn't help evade sanctions because of the threat they pose to this country.

If we allow these companies to embed themselves in the telecommunications infrastructure of the United States, it is a severe and significant national security threat to this country and one that grows every single year moving forward. Yet, inexplicably, at some point, for some reason, a deal was struck that allowed ZTE to survive. So the argument was, well, we are going to put a really big fine on ZTE, and we are going to put people on their board to make sure they are no longer violating sanctions. I will state that if this were only about sanctions relief, that penalty would be sufficient for me and should be sufficient for all. If it were Samsung, Nokia or Ericsson or some other company that had done this, I would say maybe it went too far.

The problem is, those two measures will do nothing to contain the threat that ZTE poses to the United States and our national security. A fine--when they are backed by the Chinese Government, a multibillion- dollar fine is nothing. You can put all the businesspeople you want on their board. It is not the businesspeople we should be concerned about, it is the technical people in these companies, the ones who can get ZTE routers embedded in American telecommunications, create backdoor access to our universities so they can steal our research, get into our communications systems so they can intercept our communications in military affairs and economic affairs. They can conduct cyber espionage, commercial espionage, and, potentially, denial of our command and control of our military one day if left unaddressed.

Think about embedding these Trojan horses inside of our telecommunications systems and networks in America. Any company that poses that threat should not be allowed to operate, much less remain in business, and ZTE is one such company.

Even if ZTE tells the Chinese Government we don't want to do this, they will have no choice or they will cease to exist or their leaders will be in jail, and somebody new will replace them who will do it. This is why this is so critical and why in the bill, as passed by the Senate, we reimposed these penalties, and it was taken out in conference.

The threat posed by China and by telecommunications companies are so severe and so significant that it regrettably brings me to the point where I cannot support a bill I have always supported in my time here.

We need to wake up to the threat that China poses to this country because we are running out of time to do so.

Madam President, may I inquire how much time is remaining?

I yield time to the Senator from Maryland.

Madam President, may I inquire how much time I have remaining?

Madam President, I will be brief in closing. I note that the manager of this needs to get through some things to get to our vote.

There are three quick points I want to make. The first thing is that the Chinese have learned how to work our system and how to play us. They know, for example, that they can just go to American companies, go to Washington, go to the White House, go to Congress, and tell them how bad this is for you, and you will get them to change their minds or they just hire lobbyists, as the Senator from Maryland outlined.

One company involved here was Qualcomm. They are the largest seller of chips to ZTE. They were involved in saying: Don't do this. Obviously, they were a customer, they didn't want to lose this customer. Qualcomm had a deal pending in China to purchase a Dutch company. I believe the understanding was if you allow ZTE to survive, not only do you get to keep this company as a customer, but you will probably help yourself get that deal in China with the Dutch company purchase.

Guess what. On the day after it was announced that the conference committee had dropped this provision, Qualcomm announced it was dropping its pursuit of that deal in China because they couldn't make headway. The Chinese Government doesn't play. They got ZTE to stay alive, and they still blocked the deal.

The second point is this issue: They are a cell phone maker, but the hand-held devices they make are the least problematic part of this. They make servers and cameras, and these are embedded in our telecommunications network. That is the way we communicate with each other on commercial secrets or, potentially, military secrets. If it is unclassified or sensitive information, all of it is potentially vulnerable to a company. They don't even need spies anymore. We brought them into our network and continue to do so, not to mention the role they play in networks around the world, which brings me to the last point.

ZTE is a big danger. They are small compared to Huawei, which is a company even bigger than ZTE that poses an even greater systemic risk. If we can't even take on ZTE because they lobby and because of American companies coming here, how are we ever going to take on Huawei or any other dangers they pose to us?

It is time we open our eyes. We are engaged in a geopolitical competition, not with some poor agrarian country trying to catch up but with a global superpower that is quickly nipping at our heels and doing so unfairly, with the intent of replacing us in the world as its most powerful country militarily, economically, geopolitically, and technologically.

The history of America is short in comparison to the great empires of history and the great countries of history. Some 240-odd years in the scope of history is but a blink of an eye. History is full of examples of nations that became complacent and lost their standing and their way of life.

I am not claiming that ZTE alone will be that, but it is a part of a broader problem; that is, we have yet to realize what a significant threat China poses to this country in every realm and every sphere. Until we do, we are going to continue to be in danger of surrendering and forfeiting our way of life and our place in the world. If we do that, the world will be worse off for it. We will have no one to blame but ourselves for failing to act.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session for the consideration of Calendar Nos. 1017 through 1029 and all nominations placed on the Secretary's desk in the Air Force, Army, and Navy; that the nominations be confirmed; that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order; that any statements related to the nominations be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. President, one of the interesting developments in our public debate in America today is Russia and the elections of 2016. Lost in all the noise and all the debate and all the legitimate issues that arise from it is this perception that if you are taking on Russian interference, that is a Democratic position or an anti-President Trump position, and that if you think this is all much ado about nothing, then you are taking a pro-President position. Nothing could be further from the truth. Vladimir Putin is neither a Republican nor a Democrat. He is not interested in making America great; he is interested in making America weak.

The reason Vladimir Putin is interested in making America weak is because while America is not at war with Vladimir Putin, Vladimir Putin is at war with America. You may say: Well, that doesn't sound right because war means bullets, rockets, missiles, aircraft, and launching attacks. This misses the broader point. For Russia, under the Russian doctrine of conflict, information is a weapon; information war is a part of war. We are not in an armed conflict, but sadly, while we Americans go on about our lives and do not spend all day obsessing about Russia--until 2016 and some of the issues that arose there-- Vladimir Putin is obsessed with America, and those in his government who surround him are as well.

We Americans look at Russia and say they are an important country. They have nuclear weapons and significant conventional military capabilities. But they have a very small economy of $2 trillion--about the size of Italy's or Spain's. They are not really geopolitically relevant in many parts of the world. They still can't project power the way they used to during the Soviet Union. Yes, they are involved in Syria and other places, and they are doing more of that than ever before, and they have a veto vote on the United Nations Security Council. They are not really a relevant nation. Culturally, their people have much to be proud of and have contributed a tremendous amount to the world. On a daily basis, Russia may be a nuclear and somewhat military peer competitor of the United States but not economically, not commercially.

But the Russian Government's view of America is very different. They view America as an aggressive power that seeks to destroy Russia. I know that sounds bizarre to Americans who know that we spend little, if any, time thinking about how to go to war with Russia, but in their mindset, we do. They view us as an aggressive power that wants to fight and degrade them. They hold us responsible for the end of the Soviet Union, which, to them, represented power--not so much ideology, but power--for the current leaders. They blame us for expanding NATO in a way they feel encircles them. They blame us for the color revolutions throughout Europe, and they believe we want one of those to happen in Russia as well. Most of all, they think we are seeking to take advantage of Russia and humiliate them. This is the view of Russia's leaders. This is why, while we are not at war with Russia on information, Russia, under Vladimir Putin, is at war with the United States.

We keep talking about this issue as if it were espionage. I have had people come to me and say that everybody spies on everyone. This is not about espionage--trust me. Many countries in the world spy, and on each other, including our allies. This is not about espionage; this is about information warfare.

Information warfare is a part of the Russian doctrine of confronting an enemy and weakening them from within. What happened in 2016 and what is

happening now is nothing less than an information war against America-- not for purposes of electing Donald Trump President or having Republicans win or vice versa but for purposes of dividing us among each other so they can weaken us from within, opening a permanent front domestically in order to hurt this country.

They do this all over the world. They do this in Eastern Europe. They do it all over the world where they have an interest, and it takes different forms. In many of the countries in which Russia is involved in information warfare, one of the things they do is openly and strongly financially support pro-Russian candidates, pro-Russian parties, or they may support pro-Russian separatists the way they did in parts of Ukraine.

We don't have a pro-Russia party in the United States. We don't really have pro-Russian constituencies in American politics--certainly not in large numbers that yield any power or influence. Instead, the way to weaken us is to divide us from within by pitting us against each other. The weapons they use in this war are their goals. Let me start with their goals.

How do they weaken us? The first is they seek to amplify political and social divisions in our country. You will see that both in 2016 and in the current efforts I am about to show that they focus largely on issues of race, immigration, and gun control. They know the issues that pit Americans against each other. They know the hot-button issues that get us to fight and call each other names and accuse one another of horrible things, and that is why they focus on those issues.

Another goal they have is to undermine confidence in our democracy-- to be able to go around saying that our elections are rigged--so that we may come to doubt that a winner of an election really won.

The third is that they seek to weaken our image globally--for example, making up stories about how American troops in some country are killing civilians or committing war crimes and things of that nature, doctoring photos and video, and spreading fake news through their Russian propaganda outlets.

This is how they seek to weaken us. The methods they use are enlightening because they used them in 2016, and they are using them even at this very moment that I am speaking to you now. How do they amplify our political and social divisions? What do they do to get us to fight with one another? Because if they just put a bunch of segments on RT--everyone knows RT is the Kremlin's television station, but they are keen watchers of American habits. What do they know? They know a significant and growing percentage of Americans get their news and their information from social media.

In the old days, if you wanted to start a rumor, you started a rumor, and people had to tell someone else. Propaganda and informational warfare is not new. What is new is the ability to spread it to millions of people instantaneously by using platforms that were not available just a short time ago. They know Americans increasingly, as I said, get information from social media.

The first thing they do is they develop networks of followers for fake social media accounts. ``Fake'' meaning they are real accounts but fake in that it is not the person. It is a Russian operative who creates a social media account. Initially, the account may not even have anything to do with politics. It might have a variety of different topics in order to attract people to follow it, until you get to 10,000 15,0000, 20,000, 30,000 followers. Once they have reached a critical mass--and they have dozens of these--then, they use those platforms to inject divisive or false content or memes. They can use that, for example, to just sow instability and get us to fight with one another, but they can also use it to target specific candidates.

For example, they are using these networks, potentially, to leak stolen documents from a computer they hacked; or email doctored documents, where they change a few words and make it sound like you said something you never said; or, an even greater and growing threat, potentially, one day develop deepfake videos that you will watch on your news feed. You will look at the video, and it looks like someone saying and doing something, but it was carefully doctored and only an expert can tell. By the time a campaign or candidate bats it down, the election has passed, and that video has been spread far and wide and probably even found its way into regular media.

They know how the metrics work. How does the story pop up on your news feed, for example, on Facebook? It is based on how many people click and look at it. They unleash automated bots and even potentially paid advertising to drive traffic to those sites so those fake stories or that false content and that divisive content begins to rise on the news feed, meaning more people will read it. The result is, you have started a massive internet rumor that you know is going to get Americans to fight against one another.

This is not a relic of 2016. This is happening now. This is happening today. We were reminded of it earlier this morning, earlier today.

I want to show you two slides that Facebook revealed--two slides of content that Facebook has now removed because they have identified it as the work of Russian intelligence and their informational war against the United States.

Our first slide, under a fake account named Resisters, was posted on the 1st of September of last year. It says: Millions of indigenous people died during the conquest of America. History is history. But if we want integrity and equality, we have to erase these bloody memories and start over. Congratulations, Louisiana.

What it posts is a picture--a picture with a sign on it that says: Christian terrorism begins in 1492.

Sorry. It says, Congratulations Los Angeles because what it was referring to was Los Angeles canceled Columbus Day. Columbus Day is no more in the Nation's second-largest city.

Why do they put that on Facebook? Why would they post that? Because they know it is going to get us to fight. Some people will see that and be outraged about Christian terrorism. It will make them angry that this kind of thing is happening, and they will ascribe this as the work of the political left. Others, potentially who agree with this message, will send it to their group of followers, saying: Look, this is exactly right. This is what we have been saying all along.

The point is, this is a message that would divide Americans against each other. It will get us to fight along religious lines and potentially ethnic lines. That is the purpose of this kind of stuff--a fake account they boosted with automated bots so it got on people's news feeds.

By the way, they do dozens and dozens of these sorts of posts. This is just one example of it. This may reach 4,000 there, 18,000 people over there. This stuff adds up.

Let me show you a second slide. This is a slide from Aztlan Warriors. As you can see, it is pictures and the names of various Native American figures from America's past giving thanks to our vets in the 500-year war against colonialism.

Look at that one. Why would they post that? Geronimo, Crazy Horse, Chief Joseph, and the like. Why would they post that? Again, this is just two examples of things they were pushing to get people to fight. Maybe they are hoping some political or well-known figure will like it and then create a scandal about them in the press, but they know this will outrage people.

This is an outrageous message. This is a message designed to generate outrage. This is not a pro-Trump message or pro-Democratic message; this is an outrage message. This is informational warfare. They know we have a First Amendment. This is protected speech, oftentimes. They use it against us. You can't do that in Russia. This stuff is censored in Russia, but they have figured out how to use this information to get us to fight against one another.

There are dozens of other ads like this that today were removed. One of them attacks President Trump as a Nazi--a divisive message designed to get us to fight. Again, these are not ads designed to win a campaign.

This ad is not going to lead you to directly go out and vote for your Congressman or against him or for your Senator or against him. This is designed to drive conflict, along lines in this country that they know drives

conflict. These are conflict messages. This is informational warfare. This is what they are doing now year-round. In campaigns, they may tailor it for something else, but this is what they are doing to us year-round.

This is what they did in 2016, with the primary objective of getting us to be divided, with the primary objective of ensuring that no matter who won that election--Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump--the next President of the United States was going to take office with a dark cloud over their head and a nation continually debating these issues and divided over it.

This is how you weaken an adversary from within. This is 21st century information warfare, and this is what is happening to our country. The target of this campaign is not the Democratic Party. It is not the Republican Party. It is you, the American people. A foreign country, under a foreign dictator, is coming into your homes, across your computer screen and your mobile phones, and targeting you for psychological and informational warfare. That is what we have to fully accept, as well as the implications it has for our country, for its future, for our Republic, for our elections, and for our ability to do work here.

They are better at this today than they were 2 years ago. Imagine when they start using that to try to influence the debates in the Senate or the House--contemporary issues. It is coming.

I don't have a magic solution for how to stop it. This is a 21st century reality. We have to address it and be prepared for it. I know this. I don't like Vladimir Putin. I don't respect Vladimir Putin. I don't consider him to be a great leader or anything like that. I largely consider him to be a weak and very corrupt man whose government is largely based on corruption and the ability to provide wealth to those who surround him, as long as they give him some of their money. He is largely an organized crime figure in charge of a nuclear arsenal and a great nation of great people. He has empowered himself with that. I do know he is a calculated actor. We have every reason to believe he makes decisions by weighing the benefits and the costs.

I believe, in 2016, he looked at the efforts in 2016 and said: I think weakening America from within through an informational warfare campaign will yield great benefits at a cost I am willing to pay.

I believe as we get closer to 2018 and future elections, he will have to make that decision again. I believe one of the things we can do is something that the Senator from Maryland, Mr. Van Hollen, spoke about earlier and we are working on together; that is, we have to do what we can to ensure that when he makes a decision about what to do in 2018 or beyond, the price of doing it is substantially higher than the benefit he thinks he will gain from informational warfare.

That is the purpose of the DETER Act, a bill we have filed together and continues to gain cosponsors. It is to make sure Vladimir Putin knows how high the price will be in comparison to the benefit before he decides what he wants to do about 2018 or beyond.

The bill is pretty straightforward. It doesn't deal with 2016. It doesn't look backward. It looks forward. It says two things. The first is, after every election, the Director of National Intelligence has to issue a report, after consulting with the Attorney General, with the White House, with all the heads of the intelligence agencies, about whether Russia attempted to interfere in our elections.

I am not talking about five Russian guys on Twitter. I am talking about a real campaign to interfere in our elections and conduct informational warfare for the purposes of disrupting our election, for the purposes of undermining confidence in the ballot box, for the purposes of driving divisions in America. If the answer is yes, it defines very clearly a set of specific, very hard-hitting sanctions in waiting--sanctions in waiting--that will be imposed if, but only if, there is interference. Sanctions are important as a penalty for what has been happening in the past, but deterrence happens when people know it is going to happen in the future.

He has already paid the price for 2016. Those sanctions are already in place. That is already baked into the equation now. You can't reimpose the same sanctions. Vladimir Putin is well aware what will happen if he conducts a massive cyber attack on our infrastructure. He is well aware of what will happen if he launches a rocket, a missile against one of America's cities. He knows very well what will happen if he tries to shoot down one of our airplanes.

Right now, he is kind of wondering what will happen if ``I did this again because they seem pretty divided about this whole thing. Maybe I can get away with it.''

We have to change that equation, and that is what this bill is about. The best way to prevent these things is to change that calculus. The best way to deal with this or any problem is to prevent it from happening in the first place. I cannot guarantee that if we pass a strong deterrence bill, he will not still wage informational warfare, but I can almost guarantee that if we don't, he will at some point in the future, and the target could be the Republicans the next time or anyone, for that matter. Vladimir Putin is not a Republican. He is anti-American, and he seeks to destroy this country from within, with driving an informational warfare campaign.

We are prepared to change and tailor our bill. There are some parts of that bill that need to be altered and refined. We recognize that. We are working to do that. We are willing to take ideas from anyone. The purpose of this is not to do something reckless or irresponsible. I am not interested, and I know Senator Van Hollen is not interested, in a talking point or a messaging exercise. We want to pass a law, which means it has to have 60 votes in the Senate, a majority in the House, and something President Trump can sign.

We are willing to change the bill so long as it can pass, and it will actually have strong enough deterrence. That is good public policy without unintended consequences. That is the purpose of this.

I will close where I began. We make a terrible mistake if we think this somehow is an effort by Vladimir Putin to engage himself in a partisan competition in the United States. His goal is not to elect one party or any individual candidate. His ultimate goal is to divide us against each other.

I ask everyone this. If a stranger came into your home--no matter what problems you may have with your family member or your children-- and actively encouraged you to fight with your spouse and fight with your kids and fight with your relatives, constantly trying to instigate, I know most people would tell this person: Listen, we are family, and we argue with one another, but you are not. You have no place to come into our home and get us to fight with one another.

We need to do that with our country. We need to do that with America. That is what we are hoping we can do here; 2016 is being dealt with. The Intelligence Committee that I sit on continues to do its work. We learn more every day that I think will help us be stronger for the future.

Is the independent counsel doing his work? I think the best thing that could happen is that all the truth can come out. The best thing for the President, the best thing for the country is that he be allowed to finish his work and that we know everything that happened in detail. The truth, I truly believe, is what is in the best interest of everyone, including the President of the United States.

We can't change the past. We can react to it, but we can't change it. We have a chance to influence the future, and that is the point of the DETER Act and why I hope we can make progress.

The election in the fall is less than 100 days away now. We are running out of time to put in place the things we need to put in place to ensure that this does not continue to happen.

We already are pretty irritated about these issues in America. The last thing we need is for some foreign, malign power, which seeks to weaken us, to have a foothold in making things worse and, in cases like what I just showed, getting us fighting with one another over things that aren't even real. We are the target of a psychological and informational war. It is time we stand up for ourselves, and I hope we will pass something like the DETER Act to do so.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I recognize Elijah Cole Batson, a 2018 summer intern in my Orlando office, for all of the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the people of the State of Florida.

Elijah is a student at Lake Wales High School. He is a dedicated and diligent worker who has been devoted to getting the most out of his internship experience.

I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Elijah Cole Batson for all the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. President, today I recognize Meggie Li, a 2018 summer intern in my Orlando office, for all of the hard work she has done for me, my staff, and the people of the State of Florida.

Meggie is a student at Winter Springs High School. She is a dedicated and diligent worker who has been devoted to getting the most out of her internship experience.

I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Meggie Li for all the fine work she has done and wish her continued success in the years to come.