Floor Statements

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak about an emerging crisis in our hemisphere in the nation of Venezuela. It has been covered extensively in the press. I wanted to come today with an update and a suggestion, a request of the administration about a step we can take.

First of all, I am very pleased that today our Ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, scheduled a discussion at the U.N. Security Council with regard to Venezuela. It was not an open press discussion. Again, it showed extraordinary leadership, and I thank her for her work and for doing so. This deserves attention.

By the way, Venezuela is a country that is blessed with natural resources. It was once Latin America's richest country, but today the people of Venezuela are literally starving, its financial system has collapsed, and there are, as you have seen from the press reports, massive protests in the streets. Its once proud democracy is now in the hands of a dictator, Nicolas Maduro, and his cronies and thugs, who have plunged that nation into a constitutional crisis. They are using violence and bloodshed to suppress and silence citizens speaking out against the regime's corruption and its abuse of political prisoners.

What the people of Venezuela are calling for is pretty straightforward: free and fair elections as called for under the Constitution of that country, a return to representative democracy--the democracy they once had. They are paying for these requests with their blood and even their lives. According to the most recent reports, dozens of people have been killed, including teenagers. The Washington Post reported yesterday the recent deaths of 18-year-old Luis Alviarez, who was killed by a bullet to the chest, and 17-year-old Yeison Mora Cordero, who died from a bullet to the head.

There were two reports today in the press of great interest, one from the New York Times and one from the Washington Post. Both documented the plight of members of the national guard who have been tasked with the job of suppressing the protests in the street. The gist of the articles was this: These people who are putting on these uniforms--they didn't sign up for this. They signed up for security. They signed up to protect the people of Venezuela, not to oppress them.

They, too, are suffering from poor food. There was one article that said that basically breakfast in the morning for the national guard in Venezuela consists of a boiled carrot or a potato, and then they are sent to the streets for hours. Then they come back and maybe have an arepa, which is a corn cake, and, if they are lucky, some butter. They, too, are suffering from this.

Here is the most enlightening part of this: A lot of their family members--their mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, loved ones, husbands, wives, girlfriends, and boyfriends--are on the other side of the protest lines. Their fellow Venezuelans are on the other side, and they are being tasked to do this.

I just say to them: Remember what your oath was. To the members of the national guard in Venezuela, remember that your job is to protect the people of Venezuela, not to oppress them.

Beyond what we see there--the innocent people dying because of the dictatorship trampling the will of the people and destroying their democratic institutions--one of the specific things that Maduro has done to become a dictator is he has undercut and frankly tried to wipe out the authority of their National Assembly, which is their unicameral legislative body. The way he has done that is by highjacking the supreme court of the country, and they call it the Supreme Tribunal of Justice. It is packed with puppets who do his bidding. As an example, these puppets recently ruled that they would rescind the democratic powers vested to the elected members of the National Assembly by the constitution of that country. In essence, they ruled that the National Assembly no longer had legislative authority. The protests were so massive, even within the government, that they had to backtrack from that ruling.

Here is what is interesting. This is a recent opinion piece written by Francis Toro and Pedro Rosas in the Washington Post which said it best: ``Beware Maikel Moreno, the hatchet man who runs Venezuela's supreme court.''

Here is what they wrote:

Moreno, a former intelligence agent, was tried and

convicted of murder in 1987, though the corroborating

documents from the court system are no longer available. . .

. He spent just two years in jail before being released. He

was then immediately implicated in a second killing, in 1989,

for which he was charged but never tried.

He was a loyalist of Hugo Chavez, and he became a judge in the early 2000s. His ``career as a judge hit a snag in 2007,'' Toro and Rosas note, ``when he was removed from the bench for `grave and inexcusable' errors after releasing two murder suspects against orders from the Supreme Tribunal. The government handed him a new job as a diplomat abroad. After a few years out of sight, he was appointed a supreme court justice in 2014.''

Then in 2017, Moreno--not once but twice a killer--was appointed the chief justice of Venezuela's supreme court. The Venezuelan supreme court is run by a murderer. Think about that. A convicted criminal is presiding over Venezuela's supreme court. So it is no wonder that the court's members have acted as a rubberstamp for Maduro's illegitimate power grab, and they have created a political and a humanitarian crisis.

Venezuelans, as I said, are struggling to get basic goods, like food and medicine, and access to basic services. The Wall Street Journal reported that Venezuelans have lost, on average, 19

pounds in the last year--not due to some incredible new diet, but due to the country's food crisis. This is staggering. It is appalling. It is unconscionable. It cannot be tolerated.

The Venezuelan people deserve a return to democracy. They deserve a government that respects the rule of law and the constitution.

I believe it is the responsibility and the duty of the nations of the Western Hemisphere, including our Nation, to help the Venezuelan people. Article 20 of the Inter-American Democratic Charter states:

In the event of an unconstitutional alteration of the

constitutional regime that seriously impairs the democratic

order in a member state, any member state or the Secretary

General may request the immediate convocation of the

Permanent Council to undertake a collective assessment of the

situation and to take such decisions as it deems appropriate.

This is what must be done because if we fail to help the Venezuelan people in their time of need and if the worst comes to pass, what will follow will not be confined to the Venezuelan borders.

The United States as a result, I hope, should impose sanctions against corrupt individuals--not the government, not the people; individuals--responsible for human rights violations, narcotics trafficking, money laundering, undermining the country's democratic process. President Obama began that process. President Trump actually sanctioned some additional people earlier this year, including the kingpin drug dealer who is now the Vice President of Venezuela, Tareck El Aissami.

Here are some people who should be sanctioned by the current President. He should target for sanctions Chavista officials within the judiciary--all of these magistrates who have enabled Maduro's takeover. That includes the murderer who is the chief justice of their supreme court, Maikel Jose Moreno Perez, and others like him who are part of that so-called constitutional group within the supreme court of Venezuela, many of whom have access to money and use visas to travel freely within the United States. Among these names are Calixto Ortega, Arcadio Delgado, Federico Fuenmayor, Carmen Zuleta, Lourdes Suarez Anderson, and Juan Jose Mendoza. These are the people who have helped in this coup d'etat that has canceled the democratic order in Venezuela, and they should be punished for what they have done.

I will close by pointing to two things that are of deep concern. The first is this report today in El Nuevo Herald in Miami, which basically cites that Maduro has now ordered the militarization of a border region with Colombia. We are concerned about that because we have always feared he would create some sort of a military pretext to distract people from the crisis within the country.

Then there is this unusual behavior on the part of Maduro. For example, yesterday he said that the Chavistas--the followers of Hugo Chavez--are the new Jews of the 21st century. Basically he is comparing the Chavistas with the Jews who were exterminated during the Holocaust in World War II. These comments were broadcast on state television last night. It is incredible.

By the way, this is the same man who about a week ago was caught on camera, with a straight face, asking a cow to vote for a constitutional referendum he is seeking to pass. I don't even think the cow would support him at this point in Venezuela.

Mr. President, I hope President Trump in the next few days or weeks will act against these individuals who have carried out this coup d'etat against democracy in Venezuela and have plunged this proud nation and proud people into a constitutional, humanitarian, and economic crisis.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I have come to the floor today as part of my office's Expression NOT Oppression initiative, which highlights human rights abuses around the world and the plight of individuals imprisoned or oppressed for simply exercising their God-given rights.

Earlier this month, we observed World Press Freedom Day, which serves as a reminder that freedom of expression is a fundamental, universal human right and that a free press is vital to a free society.

We should never take for granted the freedom of the press we enjoy here in the United States. These rights are an integral part of the bedrock of any healthy democracy, and in too many parts of the world, they are nonexistent or under assault.

According to Reporters Without Borders' 2017 World Press Freedom Index, press freedom is threatened now more than ever. Governments around the world continue to crack down on their citizens' access to information. Out of 180 countries, Burundi dropped from 156 to 160. Most problematic for press freedom, Egypt dropped from 159 to 161, and Bahrain dropped from 162 to 164.

Additionally, Reporters Without Borders has reported that at least nine journalists have been killed already in 2017. Several were killed in Mexico, here in our own hemisphere. It is hard to believe that people are being thrown in jail or worse simply because government officials don't like what they write or publish, but that is what is happening, especially in countries like China, Russia, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, just to name a few.

The case I come to the floor today to highlight is that of Huang Qi, who has long been targeted by the Chinese Government because of his advocacy for the rights of ordinary citizens and his coverage of the Chinese Government's violation of those rights. In November of last year, the police reportedly burst into his residence and ransacked his home and took him to detention. In December of last year, Chinese prosecutors authorized Huang's arrest for allegedly ``illegally providing state secrets overseas,'' a charge that can result in a sentence of life imprisonment. The Committee to Protect Journalists described his detention as part of ``an intensified crackdown on online journalists and bloggers who report on protests and human rights abuses.''

Huang founded the 64 Tianwang human rights website in 1998. The Chinese Government has blocked access to 64 Tianwang since 2003, according to Radio Free Asia, because the site covers issues deemed politically sensitive by authorities, such as protests and government corruption.

Authorities previously sentenced Huang to 3 years in prison in November 2009 for ``illegal possession of state secrets''--this in connection with his work assisting parents who lost children during the 2008 Sichuan earthquake. In addition, Chinese authorities sentenced Huang to 5 years in prison in 2000 for ``subversion'' for his advocacy on behalf of the families of the 1989 Tiananmen protest victims--a solemn anniversary we will mark next month.

In short, Huang, a veteran activist, is no stranger to the Chinese Government's silencing of dissent. His life's work is a testament to fearless reporting regardless of what consequences may follow. While his own government views him as a threat, outside of China, his work is widely praised and recognized. Reporters Without Borders awarded the 2016 Press Freedom Award to his website. His case has been championed by Human Rights Watch, Freedom House, and others, including the Congressional-Executive Commission on China, which I am proud to chair. His case is featured in the Commission's Political Prisoner Database, which presently contains more than 1,400 active prisoner records--a staggering but far from exhaustive number.

Huang is committed to reporting the facts--facts that describe the daily struggles of Chinese citizens. For this, he has suffered greatly, including reported torture and mistreatment in detention, unjust imprisonment, and deprivation of his most basic rights.

The Chinese Government should immediately and unconditionally release him. The United States should make this case and the cases of many others like him languishing unjustly behind bars in China or tortured into ``confessing'' to ``crimes'' they did not commit, priorities--we should make these priorities in our bilateral engagement with Beijing.

It is the second point--the torture and mistreatment of rights defenders--that brings to mind another troubling case, that of prominent rights lawyer Xie Yang. His wife, who recently arrived in the United States with her two young children, will testify before the House Foreign Affairs Committee later this week. Xie has bravely taken on sensitive cases, including land grab victims and advocates for democratic reform. Chinese security agents detained him as part of the 709 Crackdown--a sweeping, nationwide campaign against Chinese rights lawyers and advocates that started on July 9, 2015.

The plight of 45-year-old Mr. Xie burst onto the international scene in January 2017 when his attorneys released transcripts of their meetings with him. The transcripts recount the threats of his inquisitors. They said: ``We'll torture you to death just like an ant.'' Another warned: ``I'm going to torment you until you go insane.'' He told his lawyers: ``I wanted to end their interrogation of me as quickly as I could, even if it meant death. . . . Later, I wrote down whatever they wanted.'' As if foreshadowing the fate that awaited him, he had earlier written a letter in detention in which he cautioned, ``If one day in the future I admit guilt . . . that will not be a true expression of my thoughts.''

Fast-forward to last week. He was charged with ``inciting subversion of state power and disrupting court order'' and pled guilty in a recorded video released by the court and widely reported in major media outlets. He said: ``I want to take this opportunity to express to other rights lawyers my view now that we should give up using contact with foreign media and independent media to hype sensitive news events, attack judicial institutions and smear the image of the nation's party organs while handling cases. . . . `'

He continued in that same coerced statement: ``Everyone should take me as a warning to certainly stay within the framework of the law and avoid being exploited by Western anti-China forces.''

Yet, despite these warnings and the Chinese Government's unyielding assault on human rights, there are still men and women committed to reporting on the government's abuses and steadfast in defending the powerless and the marginalized. Their courage is an inspiration, and it must summon our solidarity.

I look forward to the day when the Chinese Government upholds rather than tramples the rights of its own citizens, abides by the rule of law at home, and respects the international rules-based system globally. However, that day has not yet arrived. Until it does, we must signal to the Chinese people that whatever our broader diplomatic and strategic aims may be as it relates to North Korea or any other issue, America is under no illusions about the iron-fisted leadership of President Xi and his utter disregard for the rights and dignity of his own people.

As President Trump continues fulfilling his duty and appointing individuals to key positions, I will keep raising these issues with each and every relevant nominee whom I meet with

both privately, as I did with Governor Branstad, and publicly, as I did during his confirmation hearing. It is critical that the United States keep human rights for all people as a core pillar of our foreign policy.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I rise to speak briefly this afternoon on the ongoing crisis in Venezuela. There is a growing interest in the matter here among my colleagues in the Senate and the White House and other places--certainly, in the press--and thankfully so. This has been going on now for a significant period of time.

Just to put it in context, a lot of times, when we talk about these sorts of showdowns around the world--these sorts of internal strife-- there is this notion that there is this government in place and there is this group that does not like the government and that they are arguing with each other about the future of the country. What is interesting in Venezuela is that both the opposition and the ruling party are in government. The government, obviously, at the Presidential level is controlled by someone who has turned himself into a dictator. He is a successor of Hugo Chavez's--he is the President, Nicolas Maduro--and those who surround him. Then there is the National Assembly that is elected by the people of Venezuela, the majority party in their legislative branch.

What has happened over the last year and a half is that the President of Venezuela, Maduro--the now dictator--has nullified the legislative branch. He basically refuses to recognize the laws they have passed and has stopped allowing transfers. So, basically, today, those in the National Assembly in Venezuela are not getting paid. They have no funds for offices, and they have no funds for material. They will pass a law, and those laws are ignored. That is the ongoing crisis.

The second part of it is that, under their Constitution, Venezuela's Constitution, if you had collected a certain number of signatures by December of this year, by the end of the year, they had to hold a referendum on the President, a recall referendum. They refused to certify the signatures even though the people who collected them turned in four times as many signatures as were necessary.

The third is that they are supposed to have a Governor and legislative elections this year in Venezuela. Maduro has canceled those, and there is no telling, but it does not seem as though they are going to have a Presidential election either.

Here is the bottom line: The strife in Venezuela that is going on today can be solved by having an election of the people of Venezuela, by basically following their existing Constitution, but that is not what they have allowed to have happen. On the contrary, not only are they not allowing these elections to happen, but anyone who protests against them has been jailed; press has been kicked out of the country; CNN has been kicked out of Venezuela, as an example. Now we are seeing reports of there being escalating violence in the streets, and it is extraordinary. What is interesting, though, is that fissures are beginning to develop.

The message we send here today--first of all, to those who are in the streets who are fighting for democracy and for following the law and having elections in Venezuela--is that we stand with you. We will never let your cause fall, and we will never accept these ridiculous moves that Maduro is now taking to rewrite the Constitution, yet again, through a flawed and fraudulent process.

The second message we have is to the people in the Venezuelan Government who do not want to be a part of what is happening. We now see examples of the Attorney General, Luisa Ortega, who is part of the Maduro government and has been largely friendly but who, lately, has begun to break away from the government, going so far as to criticize the government's escalating repression.

You see it increasingly among the rank and file in the National Guard of Venezuela, who are all armored up like G.I. Joe, facing down these unarmed protesters, but on the other side of the protests are their mothers, their fathers, their brothers, their sisters, their wives, their husbands, and their friends and neighbors. What is really troubling now is that these armed groups--irregular groups, these militias--that Maduro has armed and trained with the help of Cuban intelligence have spun completely out of control.

These groups are going around randomly beating people up, setting up roadblocks, and committing all sorts of acts of violence. They are not uniformed. These are collectives, as they call them--basically, these armed militias--outside of the government who are funded, created by Maduro and who have now begun to spin out of control, even to the point at which they, themselves, I believe, are potentially threatened by these groups who, in addition to funding themselves through the government, have found other ways to fund themselves through illicit means, including through street crime.

This situation is reaching a breaking point, and I think it is an important moment to remind the men and women in uniform in the National Guard of Venezuela that their job is to protect the people of Venezuela, not to oppress them; that their job is to protect and uphold the Constitution of that country, not to cancel it out; to remind them that the men and women on the other side of these protests are their families and their fellow Venezuelans.

Now the time has come to tell the men and women in the Venezuelan Government--many who, perhaps, sympathize with Hugo Chavez and Maduro up to a point--that they do not want to go down with this ship, that they do not want to wind up on the list of people who have participated in this crackdown and in this oppression.

I hope that my colleagues here will continue to work hard. I am encouraged by the amount of bipartisan support that we have begun to create on the issue of Venezuela. I know my colleague, Senator Cardin, and I have worked out bipartisan legislation that urges the Maduro regime to release all of its political prisoners and express support for a solution to the crisis. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in cosigning this bipartisan legislation.

We also support the administration's efforts at the OAS to continue to work

with regional governments in Argentina, Colombia, Mexico, Peru, Chile, Brazil, and others who have taken heed of this issue and have played an extraordinary leadership role in raising this in international forums.

Beyond that, I encourage the administration to continue to look for names to sanction. They have the authority under the law--passed not once but twice by this Congress--that allows them to identify specific individuals within the Venezuelan Government who are stealing the money of the Venezuelan people and committing grotesque human rights violations and have real estate and other personal property and cash deposits and bank accounts around the world from what they have illicitly stolen from the people of Venezuela.

Here is my closing point: Maduro's government is now relying on credit from all parts of the world in order to continue to sustain itself.

To any private investment banks and any of these large global banks that are thinking about lending money to Venezuela, you are abetting this regime and its repression, and you will be singled out and named if you participate in continuing to lend them money to fund this.

To the Russian Government, I say that you are not going to get your money back. These guys cannot pay you back.

It is the same for the Chinese Government.

If you continue to lend money to the Maduro regime, they will not be able to pay you back, and you are going to be embarrassed.

The Chinese Government is going to be embarrassed if it continues to loan money to Venezuela.

They cannot and will never pay you back.

The Russians cannot afford to continue to lend money to a government that will not pay them back either.

I urge them to look at that very carefully before they continue to embarrass themselves by lending out their people's money that they will never get back.

This is an important issue. It is in our own hemisphere, and the answer lies one election away. If only the Maduro regime would follow its laws and its Constitution, Venezuela would be on a better path that its people would choose. The alternative to this situation will continue to spiral out of control.

We in this Chamber and in this country will continue to be on the side of the men and women who seek nothing but democracy and seek nothing but peace and reconciliation and a way forward for this nation, which has a deep history of democratic order.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, while not perfect, this bill includes important provisions that will benefit Florida, strengthen our national security, increase resources for our national defense and the fight against ISIS, and give our military men and women the largest pay raise in 6 years.

Given the threats our Nation faces from the likes of North Korea and radical Islamic terrorists, a government shutdown would send exactly the wrong message to the world at a time when it is counting on America to lead.

I am pleased to see this bill funds the Department of Defense to levels authorized by Congress and includes increases for ship building, operations and maintenance, and military readiness. It also incorporates the fiscal year 2017 Intelligence Authorization Act, IAA, that provides essential guidance and authorities for our intelligence community. This year's IAA requires the President to establish an interagency committee to counter Russia's active measures against the U.S., maintains resources for our intelligence community's counterterrorism capabilities, and requires the Director of National Intelligence to complete declassification reviews of terrorist activities of each individual who has been transferred or released from the U.S. detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

This bill will ensure Florida can continue combatting the Zika virus and the opioid epidemic that is devastating so many families in our communities. I am committed to continuing to fight against Zika and have begun working with the Senate Appropriations Committee to establish an emergency health fund to provide funds for infectious outbreaks, like Zika.

This appropriations bill will also support Everglades restoration and improvements to the Herbert Hoover Dike and our State's ports. Florida's citrus growers will get the help they need to counter the terrible greening that is hurting their crops.

The bill also includes my legislation to protect public housing residents and reform HUD's broken inspection process. I saw firsthand the appalling conditions at Eureka Gardens in Jacksonville, Windsor Cove Apartments in Orlando, and Stonybrook Apartments in Riviera Beach, so I am glad this bill will help ensure the people at these properties finally see real changes for the better.

These provisions make the bill worthy of my support, but as I have said before, we cannot continue to run our country in this way, with one temporary bill after another. Republicans and Democrats in Congress must work together with the Trump administration to restore fiscal sanity, set a long-term budget, and address our Nation's unsustainable and growing debt.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to complete my remarks prior to the vote.

Mr. President, I am honored to speak here today in support of Alex Acosta, and I wholeheartedly encourage my colleagues to support his nomination to be our next Secretary of Labor. I know this nominee well. As a fellow Floridian and as a native of Miami, I have been familiar with his work for many years. As I said when the President nominated him, I think he is an outstanding choice to lead the Department of Labor.

Alex has an impressive academic record. He has two degrees from Harvard--the first from Harvard College and then from Harvard Law School.

He also has a sterling record of public service in the State of Florida and in the United States of America. He was a member of the National Labor Relations Board. He was appointed by President George W. Bush and served from 2002 to 2003. From there, he was selected by President Bush to serve as Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, where he also served as Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General in that office. He also served our Nation as the U.S. Attorney in one of the most challenging districts in our country--Florida's Southern District.

Most recently, Alex has served the State of Florida as the dean of Florida International University College of Law, where he has been instrumental in raising the still young school's profile and in its graduating young men and women who are now well prepared to excel in their legal careers.

With every challenge he has confronted throughout his distinguished career, he has demonstrated his ability to effectively tackle with ease the problems at hand. He is a brilliant legal mind, someone with a deep knowledge of labor issues, and he is a proven leader and a proven manager. It is for these reasons and many more that I am confident that Alex Acosta will serve this Nation admirably.

He was--listen to this--previously confirmed unanimously by the Senate for three different positions in the U.S. Government. This man is not even 50 years old, and he has already been confirmed unanimously by the Senate for three separate positions. I believe that in a few moments, he will be one step closer to being confirmed to his fourth. He is well qualified for this role, and I look forward to working with him to ensure that Americans are equipped with the skills they need to be successful in the 21st-century economy.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, as a part of my office's ``Expression NOT Oppression'' initiative, I come to the floor today to highlight once again both a good news story with regard to human rights and a continuing challenge.

First let me begin by highlighting the good news. Aya Hijazi, whom I have spoken about before on the floor, is an American-Egyptian citizen whom Egyptian officials had imprisoned on trumped-up charges almost 3 years ago. She was released, and she was able to return home to the United States last week. I am pleased that she was set free, as are many of my colleagues in the Senate who had been calling for the Egyptian authorities to release her. I know this was a topic of conversation during Egyptian President Elsisi's visit to the United States 3 weeks ago.

I want to also take this moment to thank the Trump administration for working to ensure her freedom. They were instrumental--in fact, they were key in this being possible. They made it a priority in their private engagements with regard to President Elsisi.

Sadly, there are still many more political prisoners who remain jailed in Egypt. We here in Congress as well as the administration should continue to raise these issues with the Egyptian Government until all of them are released, regardless of their citizenship status.

As the leader of the free world, the United States must work to safeguard the freedoms and liberties of all people. We must speak frankly with our allies, with our partners around the world, and we must work with governments to improve their human rights records.

It is ultimately in America's national security interests to have stable democracies that observe the impartial rule of law and that respect the rights of their people.

Mr. President, I would like to highlight the horrific reports on the pro-Russian Chechen Government's brutal campaign against LGBT people and others over the last several weeks.

Human Rights Watch recently reported that ``law enforcement and security agency officials under control of the ruthless head of the Chechen Republic, Ramzan Kadyrov, have rounded up dozens of men on suspicion of being gay, torturing and humiliating the victims.''

There are reports that at least 100 men have been arrested. At least three men have reportedly been killed since the campaign began. Chechen LGBT individuals, as well as those suspected of being gay, have been taken to unofficial secret detention facilities where they have endured heinous abuses.

They also face the danger of so-called honor killings committed by their own relatives.

Instructive in that vein is a statement from a spokesman for the Chechen leader. Here is what he told the Russian news agency, talking about gay men, in particular, in the LGBT community: ``If such people existed in Chechnya, law enforcement would not have to worry about them, as their own relatives would have sent them to where they could never return.''

Unfortunately, this is not a new reality for those living under the brutal tyranny of the Chechen leader who, by the way, happens to be a loyal ally of Vladimir Putin. There have been reports in the past of similar abuses, although these reports seem to be the most brutal and should provoke anger in all of us.

We should never, ever tolerate human rights violations against any person for their political views, their religious beliefs, or their sexual orientation.

According to reports today, Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov said that Russian officials had not seen information to confirm the reports. Additionally, Putin's spokesman said: ``We have no reason not to trust the head of the republic''--talking about the Chechen Republic--``until there are actual complaints in this regard, not abstract, anonymous but actual complaints.''

Well, the actual complaints are all around us. They have been well documented in publications throughout the world, but instead, Vladimir Putin is choosing to prop up Kadyrov, the Chechen brutal dictator, and prop up his brutal regime instead of holding them accountable.

The United States and other responsible nations should do more to ensure that all people are protected and those who harm them are held responsible. We should use our voice on the global stage to call attention to these horrifying acts and to ensure that they are condemned in an appropriate way, ultimately in the hopes that they will be stopped.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to discuss the issue of human rights as part of my office's ongoing effort on what we call the Expression Not Oppression Campaign, where we highlight human rights abuses around the world and tell the stories of political prisoners and other brave leaders who are being repressed, jailed, beaten, or even worse, simply for criticizing the government of a nation in which they live.

This is an important week for human rights. Two nations with concerning records regarding human rights--Egypt and China--have sent their heads of state to meet with our President. And I will have, I hope, a chance later on this week to discuss the issues we confront in China, and they are many.

Today, I want to discuss the state of human rights and our general relationship with Egypt.

Over the past 2 days, the President of Egypt, President Elsisi, has been visiting our Nation's Capital. He had the opportunity to meet with the President and other officials in the administration. Earlier today, I had the opportunity to visit with him as part of a meeting with members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Before entering my remarks, I want to make abundantly clear that we are incredibly impressed and grateful and supportive of the efforts that President Elsisi and Egypt are undertaking in battling radicalism and in particular ISIS. They are undertaking this effort, for example, in the Sinai, and it is quite a challenge.

I also understand that the ongoing ability to defeat radicalism in the world depends on the stability of our partners internally. That is why the human rights situation in Egypt is concerning. I believe it is fair to say it is at its worst in decades, and that is saying something. It is important.

Some may ask ``Why does America care about that?'' beyond, obviously, our moral calling to defend the rights of all people. It is that it is counterproductive behavior. These abuses--the conditions that exist in Egypt and in other places around the world--are actually conducive to jihadi ideology, which is the ability to recruit people who feel vulnerable, who feel oppressed. They become more vulnerable to those campaigns when they feel they are being mistreated.

The current Government of Egypt, under the leadership of President Elsisi, has cracked down on civil society. On that, there can be no debate. They have jailed thousands of political prisoners, including, sadly, some Americans, and it has responded with brute force to those who oppose that government.

Again, I reiterate that a strong U.S.-Egypt relationship is important to America--to advancing our interests in the Middle East. I am here to speak on behalf of American interests and why this is so important in our relationship with Egypt and in the stability of the region, but I must do so by describing the situation on the ground.

In the national interest of our country, we cannot turn a blind eye to the ongoing repression of Egyptian citizens by their government. It weakens our moral standing in the world, and, as I have already said numerous times, it makes Egypt less secure. If Egypt is less secure, ultimately America will be less secure. Today, I said that to President Elsisi.

Over the last decades, the American people have provided Egypt with more than $77 billion in foreign aid. This includes what is currently $1.3 billion per year in military aid. But as the human rights situation in Egypt continues to deteriorate and the government refuses to take the serious and necessary steps of reform and respecting the rule of law, then this Congress, on behalf of the American people--who are giving $1.3 billion of their hard-earned taxpayer money--must continue to pursue the reform of our assistance to Egypt to make sure that not only is it allowing them to confront the challenges that are posed by radicalism today but that it also promotes progress in a way that does not leave Egypt unstable and ultimately vulnerable in the future.

It is in the interest of both our country and Egypt and the Egyptian people to implement reforms and to release all of its jailed political prisoners, including all jailed Americans. Nations cannot thrive and they cannot prosper if their citizens are oppressed or are unable to express themselves freely without fear of being jailed, tortured, or killed.

Inevitably, if these conditions continue, there will be a street uprising in Egypt once again, and it could very well be led by radical elements who seek to overthrow the government and create a space for terrorism.

Human rights abuses in Egypt take on many forms. An example is the lack of press freedom. In 2016, Egypt joined other nations in rising to the top of the rankings as the world's third highest jailer of journalists. According to the Reporters Without Borders' 2016 World Press Freedom Index, Egypt currently ranks 159th out of 180 countries in terms of press freedom. The media, including journalists, bloggers, and those active on social media, are regularly harassed and arrested. There are currently 24 journalists who are jailed on trumped-up and politically motivated charges. Their ``crimes'' have included publishing false information and inciting terrorism. Censorship has grown as they continue to interfere in the publication and circulation of news--although, by the way, a lot of Egyptian news coverage is very anti-American. These are just a few examples of the ongoing repression of press freedom in Egypt.

There are also human rights abuses the Egyptian Government continues to commit with regard to freedom of association and of assembly. In November of 2016, the Egyptian Parliament passed a draconian law that, if signed by President Elsisi, would ban nongovernmental organizations from operating freely in Egypt. The law would essentially eliminate all independent human rights groups. It would make it nearly impossible for charities to function by imposing strict regulations and registration processes. Individuals who violate this law could face jail time simply for speaking out and fighting to defend human rights. Passing laws like these has a chilling effect on dissent.

Here is the good news: President Elsisi has not signed it over 4 months later, and I truly hope it is because he is having second thoughts about it, because he recognizes the terrible impact it will have on his country's future, on their perception around the world, on their ability to make progress and reform, and ultimately because he also recognizes the impact it will have on free nations, like the United States, which desires to work with Egypt on many issues of common interest. I strongly encourage President Elsisi to reject that anti-NGO law.

There is the issue of political prisoners. According to the Project on Middle East Democracy, since 2013 at least 60,000 political prisoners have been arrested in Egypt and 1,800 people have received death sentences in what many

organizations have described as being politically motivated sentences.

In 2014, President Elsisi issued a decree that expanded the jurisdiction of military courts over civilians. According to Human Rights Watch, since the decree was issued, the military courts have tried over 7,400 Egyptian civilians.

Additionally, individuals who have been victims of enforced disappearances in Egypt have claimed that they were tortured and subjected to other forms of abuse when they were taken. There has been little accountability for this excessive use of force.

Egypt's repression is not limited to its own citizens. There are currently a number of Americans who are jailed in Egypt. There is one American in particular whom I would like to raise: the case of American-Egyptian citizen Aya Hijazi.

Aya was arrested in May of 2014, along with her husband and other members of her organization, which is called the Belady Foundation, which works with abandoned and homeless youth and rescues these young children off the streets. Three years ago, she was arrested and charged with ridiculous allegations, including sexual abuse and paying the children to participate in demonstrations against the government. To date, no evidence has been provided to back these horrible allegations. Almost 3 years later, this American citizen remains in prison.

Throughout that time, I and others here in the Senate have been calling for her release, and it is time that the charges against her be dropped and her husband and the other workers be released immediately because her case and many others like it are an obstacle to better relations.

The Egyptian people deserve better than the brutal treatment they are receiving at the hands of their government. All human beings do. It is incumbent upon us, the elected representatives of the American people, to make clear to friends, allies, partners, and foes alike that no matter what issues we are working with you on, negotiating a resolution to, or dealing with you on in some other way, we are not going to look the other way when human rights are being abused. We are going to encourage you to reform because in the long run, that is in your interest and ours.

We have seen in recent history the consequences when governments do not respect their citizens. It creates instability in those countries. Instability is the breeding ground of terrorists and radical elements around the world. Ultimately, those terrorists train their sights on us.

As I told President Elsisi today, Egypt is a nation rich in culture and history and has made extraordinary contributions to the world. It has played a leading role in fostering peace with Israel. But it faces a dangerous future if it does not create the conditions within the country in which its people can live peacefully and securely without fear. Otherwise, Egypt remains vulnerable to the kind of instability we have seen in Syria, Libya, and other countries. That is why it should matter to the American people.

I am disappointed that this issue of human rights did not come up publicly when the President met with the President of Egypt. I hope that will change in the weeks and days and months to come, for it is in our national interest to further these goals. Otherwise, sadly, we could very well have yet another and perhaps the most important country in the region destabilized and ultimately left vulnerable to becoming a breeding ground for terrorism that ultimately targets our people and our Nation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate resume executive session and then resume legislative session following the remarks of the Senator from Oregon, Mr. Merkley.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, tomorrow morning or tomorrow afternoon at some point, we will, I believe, vote to confirm Judge Gorsuch to be a Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court. There is so much that has been said about him and his qualifications. I have been listening to the speeches all week. Even headed to the committee hearing, I think so much had been said about him. This is a mainstream candidate. This is a mainstream judge. He is someone who voted with the majority 99 percent of the time during his time on the bench. He is someone who 97 percent of the time, in 2,700 cases, was a part of rulings that were unanimous. He most certainly, I believe, is someone who believes the Constitution should be interpreted according to its original intent of the writers, but he is certainly not someone outside the mainstream of American legal thinking, and he is certainly eminently qualified. It is interesting in that you see a broad array of individuals come forward and talk about his qualifications.

I also thought it was interesting that there really was no coherent reason for

opposing him. There are a lot of different opinions on the floor that claim he would not commit to certain decisions that people would like to see him make on the Court. That would be true of virtually everyone who has been nominated to the Court over the last quarter century.

There is no doubt that he is someone who has certain beliefs and views about the Constitution that are reflective of the President's party, but that is what elections are about. Obviously, the great people whom President Obama appointed reflected his thinking. That is our system.

A lot of the attention, though, in this debate has been about the process that brought us here. There has been tremendous consternation about the change that no longer would there be a requirement of 60 votes in order to end debate. I think a lot of people have a fundamental misunderstanding of what has happened and how we have gotten here, and I thought it was important for the people of Florida and others who may be interested to know how I approached it, because it was something that I am not excited about or gleeful about or happy about. I would say that is probably the sentiment of most of the people here in the Senate. Yet it happened anyway.

I saw a cartoon by one of these editorial cartoonists; I am not quite sure who it was. It had this picture of both sides basically saying: This is terrible, but we are going to do it anyway.

I think it is important to understand, first and foremost, about the Senate. It is unique. There is no other legislative body like it in the world. Unlike most legislative institutions, it does not function by majority rule. It actually requires a supermajority to move forward. That was by design; it was not an accident.

The people--the Founders, the Framers--created a system of government in which they wanted one branch of the legislature to be very vibrant, active, representative of the people. They represent districts, and they have 2-year terms. Then they created another Chamber which was different in nature. At the time, the U.S. Senate was designed, first of all, to represent the States. Where the House was the people's House, the Senate was the place the States were represented.

The other thing they wanted to design was a place that was at some level possibly immune from the passions of the moment. They wanted a place where things would slow down for a moment, where we would take a deep breath and make sure we were doing the right thing. It was a wise course.

Our Republic is not perfect, but it has survived for over two centuries. In the process, it has given us the most dynamic, most vibrant, and, I believe, the most exceptional Nation in all of human history. While not perfect, the Senate has been a big part of that endeavor.

By the way, at the time, Senators were elected by the legislature; they were not even elected by people. Of course, that changed. I am not saying we should go back, but that is the way it was.

That Senate was also unique because it had this tradition of unlimited debate. When a Senator got up to speak, they got to debate as long as they wanted, and no one could stop them. Then, at some point, that began to get a little bit abused, so they created a rule that required a supermajority, and that supermajority was further watered down. Then we arrive here, over the last 4 years, to see what has happened.

Basically, what happens now is that there are two ways to stop debate, which is as a result of a procedure that was undertaken on the floor first by Senator Reid when he was the majority leader and now by the majority leader today on what is called the Executive Calendar, where there are nominations for the Cabinet, Ambassadors, the sub- Cabinet, courts, and now the Supreme Court. No. 1 is by unanimous consent, when everybody agrees to it, or, No. 2, through 51 votes, a majority vote.

I think that is problematic in the long term, not because of Judge Neil Gorsuch, for I believe that in any other era and at any other time, he would not have just gotten 60 votes or even unanimous consent to stop debate; I think he would have gotten 60-plus votes, maybe 70 votes, to be on the Court. I think it is problematic because we do not know who is going to be the President in 15 years or what will be the state of our country. Yet, by a simple majority, without talking to a single person or getting a single vote from the other party or the other point of view, they are going to be able to nominate and confirm and place someone on the bench of the Supreme Court--to a lifetime appointment to a coequal branch of government--without even consulting with the other side. I think, long term, that is problematic--in the case of Neil Gorsuch, not so much, but for the future of our country, I think it could be problematic.

The argument has been made that this has never been used before, so all of the stuff brings us back to where we once were. I think technically that is accurate, but this is not exactly where we once were. Where we once were was that there were people who worked here who understood they had the power to do this. They got it. They understood that if they had wanted to, they could have forced the 60 votes. They understood they had the power to do it, but they chose not to exercise it. They chose to be judicious because they understood that with the power, there comes not just the power to act but sometimes the power not to act, to be responsible, to reserve certain powers for extraordinary moments when it truly is required. And over the years, it has been abused.

This is not going to be a speech where I stand up here and say that this is all on the Democrats, although I most certainly have had quarrels over some of the decisions that have been made by the other side of the aisle. I think it is a moment to be honest and say that we all have brought us here to this point, both sides, and it has required us to do this.

The reason I was ultimately able to vote for the change today is that I am convinced that no matter who would have won the Presidential election and no matter which party would have controlled this Chamber, that vote was going to happen. Both sides were going to do this because we have reached a point in our politics in America where what used to be done is no longer possible, and that has ultimately found its way onto the floor of the U.S. Senate.

Rules are rules, and ultimately the Republic will survive the change we have seen here today. I think the more troubling aspects are the things that have brought us to this point.

A couple of days ago, while at a lunch with my colleagues, I said that one of the things, I think, we are going to have to accept is that, quite frankly, the men and women who served in this Chamber before us--20, 30 years ago--were just better than we are. They were human beings who, quite frankly, had deeply held beliefs. I do not know of any Member of this Chamber who was more conservative than Barry Goldwater or Jesse Helms. I do not know any Member of this Chamber who was more progressive or liberal than Hubert Humphrey or Ted Kennedy or others. Yet somehow, despite their deeply held principles, these individuals were able to work together to prevent what happened here today.

The fact is, for both sides, that is not possible anymore. Today, our politics require us to use every measure possible, even if it is for symbolic purposes. That is just the way it is. That is more of a reflection of our political process than it is of the Senate.

I have seen these articles that have been written of ``the end of the Senate'' or ``the death of the Senate.'' It is a little bit of an exaggeration, but I think it is actually just reflective of the fact that this is the way politics has become, that as a nation today, we are less than ever capable of conducting a serious debate about major issues in the way we once were able to do. I think everyone is to blame.

I think the way politics is covered is to blame. Today, most articles on the issues before us are not about the issues before us; they are about the politics of the issues before us. Today, most of the work that is done in this Chamber and in the other Chamber has more to do with the messaging behind it than it does with the end result of where it will lead us. That is just the honest fact.

Before people start writing or blogging: Well, look at all of these other times when the Senator from Florida--when I did some of these things--I admit it. I do not think there

is a single person here with clean hands on any of this. I admit that I have been involved in efforts that, looking back on some of these things, perhaps, if we knew then what we know now, we would have done differently. I think it is important in life to recognize and learn from those experiences and to adapt them to the moment before us.

I think, moving forward, the biggest challenge we will face in the country is that our issues are not going to solve themselves. They will require people from very different States, very different backgrounds, and very different points of view to be able to come together and solve some pretty big deals. It is ultimately not about silencing people or having them compromise their principles but about acknowledging that in our system of government, we have no choice but to do so. We have no choice.

I think it also requires us to take a step back and understand that the people who have a different point of view than ours actually believe what they are saying. They hold it deep, and they represent people who believe what they are saying. I say this as someone who will admit that, in my time of public service, perhaps I have not always applied that as much as I wish I had. I try to. You certainly live and learn when you get to travel the country and meet as many people as I did over the last couple of years. I certainly think that impacts us profoundly.

I have a deeply held belief in limited government and free enterprise and a strong national defense and the core principles that define someone as a conservative. But I have also grown to appreciate and understand the people who share a different point of view--perhaps not as much as I hope to one day be able to understand and respect it, but certainly more than I once did, simply because the more people you meet, the more you learn about them, and the more you learn and understand where they are coming from.

Are we capable as a society to once again return to a moment where people who have different ideas can somehow try to figure out how to make things better, even if the solutions are not perfect? I hope so, because the fate of the most important country in human history is at stake. Are we capable of once again having debates, not that aren't vibrant and not that from time to time people may say things or even do things that they may regret, but certainly ones that at the end of the day are constructed for the purpose of solving a problem, not winning an election. I hope so, because if we don't, we will have to explain to our children why we inherited the greatest country in human history and they inherited one that is in decline.

I don't mean to exaggerate, because ultimately this is a rule change. We don't vote on the Supreme Court every day, every week, every month. Sometimes we don't vote on it for long periods of time. But I think it exposes a more fundamental challenge that we face today in American politics, and that we better confront sooner rather than later, and that we should all confront with the understanding and the knowledge that none of us come to it with clean hands.

We were reminded again this week by the images that emerged from Syria of what a dangerous world we live in, and we are reminded that the threats remain.

I ask people tonight--no matter who you write for, who you blog for, what political party you are a member of, or whom you vote for in November--to ask yourself a question and to be honest about the answer. If, God forbid--and I mean this, God forbid--there were another 9/11- style attack on the United States, how would we honestly react? Because September 11 was a scary day, and on that day I remember there weren't Democrats or Republicans. Everyone was equally frightened and everyone was equally angered. There was a sense of unity and purpose that we had not seen in a long time and have not seen since.

I honestly believe, sadly, that if today there were another 9/11- style attack on America, one of the first things we would see people doing is blaming each other, saying whose fault it was. You will have some people saying: Well, this terrorist attack happened because President Obama didn't do enough to defeat the terrorists. And others would say: It happened because the Republicans and the new President, President Trump, has not done enough, or has done things to provoke them. I honestly believe that. I think that is what the debate would look like. I hope I am wrong.

Just think about how far we have come in almost 20 years, 15 years. That is the kind of debate I believe we would have. Think about how destructive that is.

I also think we would see a plethora of crazy, fake stories about what was behind it. And here is the craziest part: Some very smart and educated people would believe those stories because we have reached the point now where conspiracies are more interesting than facts.

I know that people may see this and say: Oh, I think you are exaggerating. Maybe, I hope so. But I honestly think that we are headed in a direction that is actually making us--not us the Senate, but us, Americans--incapable of confronting problems.

I will just say this. What I really hope will happen soon is that we are going to get tired of fighting with other Americans all the time, that we will finally get fatigued with all of this constant fighting against other Americans. Americans are not your enemies. Quite frankly, I hope we have no enemies anywhere in the world, other than vicious leaders, and we hope to be a part of seeing taken them out of power at some point for the horrible things they do. I hope we will reach a point where people are saying, I am just tired of constantly fighting with other Americans. We will have differences and we will debate them. Thank God that we have been given a republic where we have elections every 2 years and where we can have these debates. But, in the interim, whether we like it or not, none of us is going anywhere.

The vast and overwhelming of majority of Americans will live in this country for the rest of their lives. This is their home and this is their country. We are going to have to figure out how to share and work together in this unique piece of land that we have been blessed with the opportunity to call home. If we don't figure out a way to do that soon enough, then many of these issues that confront America will go unsolved, and not only will our people pay a price and our children pay a price, but the world will pay a price.

So I know that is a lot to say about a topic as simple as a rule change and ultimately a vote for the Supreme Court, but I really think it exposed something deeper about American politics that we had better confront sooner rather than later, or we will all live to regret what it leads to, and that is the decline of the single greatest Nation in all of human history.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have a question for the Senator from South Carolina. It is very important.

Is the Senator aware that Frank Martin, an incredible coach for the men's basketball team is from Miami, FL?

I just wanted you to know.

I will.

Florida.

South Florida.

I have. Coach Martin is a good friend, and I think a testament to how much Florida has to contribute to South Carolina.

I would say to the Senator from South Carolina, South Carolina has gotten better results for Frank Martin than it did for me. But we are very proud of Coach Martin. I would just add that, given the litany of athletic success this year by the State of South Carolina, I find that to be highly suspicious. I know I just spoke about conspiracy theories, but statistically, it is very unlikely that a State would have that many championships. I am not calling for a congressional inquiry, but I think it is an interesting topic of conversation.

That is highly unlikely. But in all seriousness----

I do want to restate that Frank Martin is really an extraordinary person. Much more, Senator Scott and I both had a chance to interact with him on a number of occasions. I don't mean to single them out among all of the other suspicious athletic accomplishments in South Carolina that are certainly worth noting, but I would say, with Frank, one of the things that really impresses me is not what he does with these young men on the court but the kind of influence he is in their lives off the court and the impact he has.

He was a high school coach in Miami and won State championships there. He comes from a hard-working family of Cuban exiles who made their home in South Florida. So we are very, very proud of what he has achieved. But what I am most proud of is the way Coach Martin has been able to influence those young men.

He did defeat the Florida Gators to make it to the final four, and I was not happy about that. But I would say this--and I have said it to others--if the Florida Gators had to lose, I would want it to be to Frank Martin because of the extraordinary work he does. So I can't wait to see which Florida university hires him away.

Thank you.

I was going to say, I am not going to invoke that rule.

I think it is a good opportunity to say nothing--but congratulations, and we will be back.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased that in the Senate we are about to take a vote on ratifying the protocol of the accession of Montenegro to NATO.

What I wanted to do was to take a few moments to explain to people why I think this is an important vote and an important moment for our security as a nation but also to protect our interests abroad and that of our allies.

We all know that NATO--the North Atlantic Treaty Organization--was started right after World War II. It was primarily designed in the Cold War to confront the threats posed by the Soviet Union and its allies in the Warsaw Pact. Of course those threats have changed since the end of that Cold War.

Here is what hasn't changed. What hasn't changed is the need for America and her allies in a strong way to remain engaged in the world. That need has not changed. What has not changed is the need for democracies to be able to come together and collectively defend not just their interests but the interests of all people around the world where freedom is threatened. The difficult, painful lesson of history is that dictators and tyrants are never pleased with what they have. They always want more. They always need more. That is why it is so important that those nations on Earth--luckily and in a blessed way, more people than ever before find themselves living in societies where the people get to choose their leaders.

These alliances we have around the world--NATO being chief among them--help advance our strategic and economic interests, but most importantly, they help to keep our country safe.

There is a lot of talk about how much countries are paying into NATO, and it is true that the United States is by far the largest contributor to NATO. I think that is a combination of two things: one, decisions that were made by some of our allies in Europe on how they want to spend their government's money, and the other is just the reality that we are the United States of America, and as the United States of America, we will always find that we are always making a disproportionate share and contribution on everything, from global aid to fight off hunger and disease, to collective security.

While we can urge our allies, encourage our allies, and ask our allies to make a greater contribution to their own defense, we should not fall into the trap of diminishing what they are doing and what they have done.

First of all, in Europe today, many of our NATO allies are increasing their defense spending. They are doing so in response to Russia's aggression in Ukraine and its increased aggression elsewhere in the region. Their soldiers are joining ours in deploying to Central and Eastern Europe to reassure our allies who are facing aggression and potential aggression from Vladimir Putin.

With all this talk about NATO and money and how much everyone is giving, I think it is important to take a moment to also understand that our NATO allies have fought beside us and have died beside Americans in Afghanistan, where more than 1,100 soldiers of the NATO- led coalition paid the ultimate price with their lives. It is important to note this because on September 11, 2001, Paris was not attacked, Berlin was not attacked, and London was not attacked on that horrible day; yet these nations and others, our partners, invoked a shared commitment that led them to stand beside us on the other side of the world in an effort to prevent another attack like September 11 from taking place again on American soil or anywhere in the world.

Montenegro is not even a member of NATO yet. Yet it sent hundreds of servicemembers to join the American-led coalition in Afghanistan.

I have always argued that when our alliances, such as NATO, are under pressure from our potential adversaries and foes, we need to continue to expand and allow countries that meet the standards set by the alliance to join. That has never been more important than it is now, given the uncertainty and security challenges we face in Europe, especially as Vladimir Putin continues his aggression and continues to threaten stability in the region.

To be frank, Putin would love nothing more than to destroy NATO. In fact, you can see him trying to do that on a regular basis. He has tried to divide these countries, turn them against each other. He supports candidates throughout Europe who would take their countries out of NATO, constantly calling into question its viability. Vladimir Putin wants countries like Montenegro to remain in his sphere of influence and what I would call his sphere of threat, as his recent attempts to deploy his asymmetrical tools to influence Montenegrin politics have shown. That is why it is so important that we are moving to ratify Montenegro's access to NATO and to strengthen our relationship with Montenegro through NATO.

As the Senate and as a country, we are sending a clear message to Vladimir Putin that we will not accept the establishment of a Russian sphere of influence over countries that desire to

ally themselves with the free and democratic community of nations.

Today, I have tried to refrain from using the term ``Russian'' sphere of influence or ``Russia'' because the fact is, as I said to someone earlier today or yesterday, there is a difference between Russia and Vladimir Putin, and the events of the last 48 hours remind us of that. We are watching as many Russians who also desire to join the community of nations have turned out in cities and in places across Moscow and in other places in the thousands. They have turned out to protest the rampant corruption that fuels the Putin regime. And the Putin regime, as all totalitarian regimes do, has cracked down. They have arrested and detained hundreds of peaceful protesters. I ask you to compare that to Montenegro, whose membership in NATO will help the United States and Montenegro deepen our already strong bilateral relationship.

The stakes here are extraordinarily high for the United States and for our European allies. The Senate needs to send a strong message of solidarity with those in Europe who are standing up to the anti- democratic tactics of Vladimir Putin and his cronies.

That is why today I will be proud to cast my vote in support of Montenegro's accession into NATO, and I hope my colleagues here in the Senate will do the same and join me in doing so as well.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, Seema Verma has a proven track record of helping States create patient-centered healthcare systems that improve quality and access and give individuals and families more control over their healthcare. Due to a family commitment, I was unable to participate in the cloture vote. However, I strongly support Ms. Verma's nomination and look forward to working with her on the many important healthcare issues facing Florida and our country.