Floor Statements

Madam President, it has now been more than 6 weeks since Special Counsel Bob Mueller, the former FBI Director, concluded his investigation into Russia's interference in our 2016 election and delivered his findings to the Justice Department. It has been 2 weeks since Attorney General William Barr made the 450-page report public. This investigation went on for 2 years. It is finally over.

Many Americans were waiting to see how their elected officials would respond. With an exhaustive investigation complete, would the country finally unify to confront the real challenges before us? Would we finally be able to move on from partisan paralysis and breathless conspiracy theorizing or would we remain consumed by unhinged partisanship and keep dividing ourselves to the point that Putin and his agents would need only to stand on the sidelines and watch us as their job would actually be done for them? Regrettably, the answer is pretty obvious.

So that is what I want to discuss this morning--Russia's interference in American elections, the special counsel's and the Attorney General's work, and how we can finally end this ``Groundhog Day'' spectacle, stop endlessly relitigating a 2\1/2\-year-old election result, and move forward for the American people.

Now, it bears remembering what this investigation was actually supposed to be about--Russian interference in 2016. For many of the President's opponents, it quickly morphed into something else--a last hope that maybe they would never have to come to terms with the American people's choice of a President. In some corners, Special Counsel Mueller came to be regarded as a kind of secular saint who was destined to rescue the country from the inconvenient truth that the American people actually elected Donald Trump. For 2 years, many of the President's opponents seemed to be hoping the worst conspiracy theories would actually be true. They seemed to be hoping for a national crisis for the sake of their own politics.

Look, I will say it was at least heartening to see many of my Democratic colleagues and the media abruptly awaken to the dangers of Russian aggression. Remember, not long ago, the Democrats mocked Republicans like John McCain and Mitt Romney for warning about the dangers posed by Putin's Russia.

Remember President Obama's quip back in 2012, when then-Governor Romney emphasized his concerns with Russia? Here is what President Obama said when Mitt Romney emphasized his concerns about Russia back in 2012: ``The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back.'' That was President Obama in 2012. Well, I think many of us now see that President Obama's approach to Russia could have used some more of the 1980s--more Ronald Reagan and less Jimmy Carter.

We would have been better off if the Obama administration had not swept Putin's invasion and occupation of Georgia under the rug or had not looked away as Russia forced out Western NGOs and cracked down on civil society; if President Obama had not let Assad trample his redline on Syria or had not embraced Putin's fake deal on chemical weapons; if the Obama administration had responded firmly to Putin's invasion and occupation of Ukraine in 2014, to the assassination of Boris Nemtsov in 2015, and to Russia's intervention in Syria. Maybe stronger leadership would have left the Kremlin less emboldened. Maybe tampering with our democracy wouldn't have seemed so very tempting.

Instead, the previous administration sent the Kremlin the signal it could get away with almost anything. So is it surprising that we got the brazen interference detailed in Special Counsel Mueller's report or a concerted effort to divide Americans through social media campaigns or the hacking into the email accounts and networks of the Clinton campaign and the Democratic Party?

Thanks to the investigation, we know more about these tactics. Thanks to the investigation, 13 Russian nationals, 3 Russian companies, and 12 more

Russian intelligence officers have been indicted. These are the people who really did seek to undermine our democracy. Yet, curiously, many of our Democratic colleagues and most of the news media don't seem to care about that. New insight into defending America? Russian nationals being indicted? These don't seem to interest my colleagues across the aisle-- no interest--just like there has been little interest in the steps this administration has taken to make Russia pay for its interference and strengthen America's hand.

Election interference was just one part of Russia's strategy to undercut the United States, and this administration has taken the problem head-on. We have a new, coherent national security strategy and national defense strategy that actually take the threat seriously.

We have new sanctions. We have provided Georgia and Ukraine with weapons to better defend themselves--capabilities the previous administration denied our partners--now listen to this--out of fear of provoking Russia. We have worked against pipeline projects like Nord Stream 2 that would further expand Putin's influence. We have strengthened and reformed NATO so the alliance can present a united front. We proved Russia's noncompliance with the INF and walked away from a treaty that Moscow had turned into a sham. Over Russian objections, the Trump administration has also twice enforced President Obama's redline in Syria after Assad's use of chemical weapons.

With respect to election security, Congress appropriated hundreds of millions of dollars to State governments to shore up their systems. The administration increased information sharing from the Department of Homeland Security in cooperation with the States. According to press reports, the Department of Defense has expanded its capabilities and authorities to thwart cyber threats to our democracy. No longer will we just hope Moscow respects our sovereignty--we will now defend it. These are just a few examples, and there is already evidence they are having an effect.

We just had the 2018 midterm elections. Thanks to this administration's leadership, all 50 States and more than 1,400 local election jurisdictions focused on election security like never before. The DHS provided resources to localities for better cybersecurity, and private social media companies monitored their own platforms for foreign interference. Thanks to efforts across the Federal Government in 2018, we were ready. Clearly, that is progress. The Mueller report will help us as will the upcoming report from the Select Committee on Intelligence. These threats and challenges are real. Our responsibility to strengthen America is serious, and it requires serious work.

Speaking of serious, seriousness is not what we have seen from the Democratic Party in recent days. What we have seen is a meltdown--an absolute meltdown. We have seen an inability to accept the bottom-line conclusion on Russian interference from the special counsel's report, which read that the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian Government in its election interference activities. That was the conclusion--2 years of exhaustive investigation and nothing to establish the fanciful conspiracy theory that the Democratic politicians and TV talking heads had treated like a forgone conclusion. They told everyone there had been a conspiracy between Russia and the Trump campaign. Yet, on this central question, the special counsel's finding is clear--case closed.

This ought to be good news for everyone, but my Democratic colleagues seem to be publicly working through the five stages of grief. The first stage is denial. Remember what happened when the Attorney General released his preliminary letter that described the special counsel's bottom-line legal conclusion? Denial. Immediately, there was totally baseless speculation that perhaps Attorney General Barr had not quoted the report properly.

Then comes stage No. 2--anger. Welcome to Washington in recent days. The Democrats are angry--angry that the facts have disappointed them, angry that our legal system will not magically undo the 2016 election for them. They have opted to channel all of their partisan anger onto the Attorney General. They seem to be angrier at Bill Barr for doing his job than they are at Vladimir Putin. This is a distinguished public servant whose career stretches back almost 50 years. He is widely respected. Nobody claims he has any prior personal allegiance to this particular President.

Why are they angry? Why are they angry? Did the Attorney General fire the special counsel or force him to wind down prematurely? No. Did he sit on the Mueller report and keep it secret? No. He quickly reported out his bottom-line legal conclusions and then released as much as possible for the world to see. Did he use redactions? Did he use redactions to mislead the public? No. Working with the special counsel's team, he released as much as possible within standard-- standard--safeguards. So it is hard to see the source of the anger.

Maybe our Democratic colleagues are thinking of some strange new kind of ``coverup'' where you take the entire thing you are supposedly covering up and post it on the internet. The claims get more and more utterly absurd. There are baseless accusations of perjury and laughable threats of impeachment.

We all know what is going on here. This is the whole angry barrage that Democrats had prepared to unleash on President Trump--except the facts let them down. The facts let them down. So the left has swung all these cannons around and fired them at the Attorney General. It is not for any legitimate reason but just because he is a convenient target.

There is this ``outrage industrial complex'' that spans from Capitol press conferences to cable news. They are grieving--grieving--that the national crisis they spent 2 years wishing for did not materialize. But for the rest of the country, this is good news. It is bad news for the ``outrage industrial complex'' but good news for the country. So now they are slandering a distinguished public servant because the real world has disappointed them.

Instead of taking a deep breath and coming back to reality, our colleagues across the aisle want to shoot the messenger and keep the perpetual outrage machine right on going, even undermining the institution of the Attorney General itself in the process.

Remember, Russia set out to sow discord, to create chaos in American politics, and to undermine confidence in our democracy. But on that front, given the left's total fixation on delegitimizing the President Americans chose and shooting any messenger who tells them inconvenient truths, I am afraid the Russians hardly need to lift a finger--hardly need to lift a finger.

The last stage of grievance is acceptance. For the country's sake, I hope my Democratic friends get there sometime soon. There are serious issues the American people need us to tackle. There is more progress for middle-class families we need to deliver.

For 2 years, the Democratic Party held out hope that the legal system would undo their loss in 2016. They refused to make peace with the American people's choice. But the American people elected this President. They did. The American people voted for change. The American people sent us here to deliver results for their families. That is what Republicans have been doing for the past 2 years and counting. That is what Republicans will continue to do. Whenever our Democratic friends can regain their composure and come back to reality, we look forward to their help.

Madam President, I understand there are two bills at the desk due for a second reading en bloc.

In order to place the bills on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to further proceedings en bloc.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, on behalf of myself and the distinguished Democratic leader, Mr. Schumer, I send to the desk a resolution authorizing the production of testimony and representation by the Senate Legal Counsel, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, this resolution concerns a request for evidence in a criminal action pending in Nevada State court. In this action the defendant is charged with threatening or attempting to intimidate public officials in voicemails he left with the Las Vegas office of Senator Cortez Masto. A preliminary hearing is scheduled for May 8, 2019.

The prosecution is seeking testimony from one of the Senator's staff assistants who listened to the voicemails at issue. Senator Cortez Masto would like to cooperate with this request by providing relevant employee testimony from her office.

The enclosed resolution would authorize that staffer, and any other current or former employee of the Senator's office from whom relevant testimony may be needed, to testify in this criminal action, with representation by the Senate Legal Counsel.

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

Mr. President, over the weekend we were given yet another tragic reminder of the daily

threats that face our friends and allies in Israel.

While American families enjoyed a spring weekend, those who make their home in the border regions of the Jewish State were subjected to a barrage of hundreds of rockets and other projectiles launched from within Gaza.

The attacks were carried out by Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. They targeted civilian populations. They killed a worker at a cement factory, a truckdriver in a border village, a man in the yard of his own home, and a rabbi as he left his car to run for cover.

They caused countless Israeli citizens to scurry to bunkers for safety, unsure whether rockets would rain upon their farms, apartment buildings, schools, or hospitals. These attacks, we should remember, are targeted at Israel's innocent civilians. They are intended to kill, to maim, and to terrorize.

In the face of such brazen acts of terror, it is of course Israel's right to take swift and decisive action to defend its people. Frankly, it is an existential necessity.

And it is the responsibility of every peaceful nation to condemn the terrorist organizations behind them and to continue to expose those governments and private entities that provide illicit support for their actions. Foremost among them is Iran, which has become a critical lifeline for the terrorist activities of Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

I know my colleagues will join me in expressing sympathy for the families of the victims and for the communities left to rebuild the wreckage of these latest attacks. Furthermore, I hope this weekend's attacks could at least spur some action here in Congress, where Senate- passed legislation to renew and strengthen our partnership with Israel is still sitting over in the House, where it has not been permitted a vote. That thoroughly bipartisan legislation contains several provisions to strengthen our security ties to Israel and also to combat the scourge of anti-Semitism.

Behind these attacks lurks the same hatred that motivated the violence at Chabad of Poway last month and the Tree of Life synagogue last year--the same ugly bigotry that takes refuge within the BDS movement while masquerading as a legitimate political stance. It is the same tide of discrimination that an overwhelming majority of European Jews report is on the rise in their own communities, even as the Holocaust remains a vivid living memory. This disturbing trend has already taken its toll on communities of faith and on peaceful Jews in Israel and around the world, but when America does any less than our level best to confront it, we further undermine the cause of our friends and allies in this free Jewish State.

I hope this terrible violence can again spur my colleagues in the House to act on the bipartisan legislation that has been languishing over there for weeks. It was the first item we took up this year.

Clearly, the need to reaffirm our commitment to the safety, security, and sovereignty of Israel is just as important as it ever was.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 162 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 190, submitted earlier today.

I know of no further debate on the measure.

I ask unanimous consent that the preamble be agreed to and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 191, submitted earlier today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I understand there are two bills at the desk, and I ask for their first reading en bloc.

I now ask for a second reading, and I object to my own request, all en bloc.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m., Tuesday, May 7; further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, morning business be closed, and the Senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the Bianco nomination; further, that the Senate recess from 12:30 p.m. until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly conference meetings; finally, that all time during recess, adjournment, morning business, and leader remarks count postcloture on the Bianco nomination.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. President, in March, the Senate narrowly passed a resolution that would have misused the War Powers Act and actually hampered efforts to bring the conflict in Yemen to a close. Fortunately, the President vetoed it.

So today, Members will have a second chance to send the right message to our partners in the region, to important humanitarian missions, and to eradicating al-Qaida from the Arabian Peninsula. I urge my colleagues to vote to uphold the President's veto.

The resolution before us starts from false premises. We are not parties to the civil war in Yemen. We are no longer providing even air- to-air refueling.

More important, the resolution would make it actually more difficult to prevent the loss of innocent lives. This resolution would require U.S. advisers to cease training and intelligence sharing operations that help pilots avoid civilian casualties. And it would dry up U.S. noncombat support to the weakened, U.N.-recognized government in Yemen.

The resolution would also create serious new problems for the U.N.- led diplomatic mission that is doing all it can to negotiate an end to the bloodshed.

Abandoning our Yemeni, Emirati, and Saudi partners just as diplomatic efforts are starting to make progress is hardly the way to give them the confidence to take the hard diplomatic steps that are necessary.

An abrupt withdrawal of U.S. support for the coalition would be good news for Iran, for the Houthi rebels they support, and, of course, al- Qaida, as well.

I share many of my colleagues' serious concerns about aspects of Saudi Arabia's behavior, but the best way for us to encourage better behavior from our partners is to remain involved with Saudi Arabia and the UAE, not push them into the arms of Russia and China.

The War Powers Act is a blunt tool, and not at all the right vehicle to productively or diplomatically express concern about the behavior of close partners of the United States.

The Senate passed a more nuanced resolution in December of last year, and it has many other tools to register concern and disapproval. If Senators want to play a productive role in this conflict, I would encourage them to meet with Saudi, Emirati, and Yemeni officials, to travel to the region, and to hold hearings on this important matter.

But for all the reasons I have laid out, this particular resolution is a particularly bad idea. I urge each of my colleagues to join me in setting it aside and upholding the President's veto.

Mr. President, a few weeks ago, a majority of the Senate took a modest step to revise some of our institutional traditions and process the President's nominees for lower level positions in a more fair and expeditious manner. At the time, our Democratic colleagues protested angrily. They had gladly supported a

nearly identical procedural step in 2013 when it stood to benefit President Obama. Now, with a different occupant in the White House, apparently the same principle just doesn't apply.

They said their unprecedented delays and obstruction were justified because this administration's nominees were so controversial. They said there were legitimate reasons why they had forced cloture votes on 40- plus different positions for the first time in history and wasted so much floor time.

My Democratic colleagues insisted these were highly controversial people. Well, Republicans knew better, so we took the sensible step to expedite the proceedings for these lower level nominations. It is time to take a look at some of the individuals who have been moving through under these new procedures and how controversial they are.

This week alone, we have now confirmed the Energy Department's general counsel by a vote of 68 to 31; the Director of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 72 to 27; and an Assistant Secretary of State, 90 to 8. Yesterday afternoon, we advanced the nominations of three district court judges with 64 votes, 89 votes, and 94 votes. Obviously, they are really controversial people we have been talking about here.

We aren't talking about lightning-rod partisans here. These are abundantly qualified, noncontroversial public servants. They are the kinds who used to go in big groups by voice vote. The two leaders would put together packages and voice vote them. Well, our friends across the aisle aren't letting that happen.

Now we are beginning to make better progress, nonetheless. Now that we are finally able to get these people voted on, our Democratic colleagues mostly don't oppose them. It would be almost comical if it weren't a sad reminder of just how totally pointless the past 2 years of obstruction have been.

But it is also a hopeful sign as we move forward. After studying and considering these nominees, the Senate will keep on filling traditional vacancies. We will keep confirming the President's team. We will keep giving the American people the government they actually voted for back in 2016.

Mr. President, as I have mentioned, there has been a remarkable development this week in the House. The Rules Committee held the first hearing to discuss Medicare for None. It was another demonstration of how disconnected our Democratic colleagues' agenda has become from the best interests of working Americans and middle-class families.

The last 2 years have been a case study on how much American families benefit when Republican policies get out of the way. Helped along by tax reform, regulatory reform, and other efforts, the country is seeing starkly low unemployment, faster wage growth--more opportunities for more families to get ahead and build their lives.

Rather than admit the obvious, our Democratic colleagues are choosing to double and triple down on jacking taxes back up and making families cede a larger role for Washington in their daily lives.

We have heard the pitch on healthcare. They want to trade seniors' Medicare and all private, employer-sponsored health insurance plans for a one-size-fits-all Federal plan and the higher taxes needed to pay for it.

Just yesterday, a new report from the CBO confirmed that such a scheme would substantially increase Federal spending and could lead to longer wait times, worse quality of care, and a system less responsive to patient needs.

On top of that, we know what our Democratic colleagues tried to sell families when it comes to the Green New Deal: a Washington, DC, war on our domestic energy that would cost Americans their jobs, increase families' bills, forcibly change the homes Americans are allowed to live in, industries they are allowed to work in, and, of course, the cars they are allowed to drive.

Let's remember that all of this self-inflicted economic pain would not really buy any meaningful gains in terms of carbon emissions. For the better part of the last decade, as U.S. emissions actually declined--emissions have been going down--our largest competitors, like China, continued to emit more and more.

Hog-tying the U.S. economy in the name of further emissions reductions would do nothing but give the largest emitters license to keep on emitting while poaching American jobs in the process.

I don't think real progress is actually the point here. Facts are not the motivating factor. My colleagues on the left think these self- inflicted national injuries just feel like this greening of America is the right thing to do. They just feel it.

Case in point, I understand that House Democrats are planning to pass a measure today that would try to force the Trump administration to remain in the 2015 Paris Agreement on greenhouse emissions. This is the big international deal that the Obama administration cheered on. It doesn't even pass the laugh test.

One expert analysis noted this week that even a generous estimate puts the impact of America's participation on global temperature reduction well within the margin of error: One-hundredth of 1 degree Celsius. In other words, he points out, it is a completely unmeasurable effect--tons of redtape and real economic damage for zero measurable effect. That is my friends across the aisle in a nutshell on this issue. Tie America's own hands for no benefit, while China and our other international competitors go roaring right by, all so a few pockets of high society can pat themselves on the back at the next cocktail party.

House Democrats may see this as exciting political theater, but the middle-class Americans I represent give it two thumbs down. So this futile gesture to handcuff the U.S. economy through the ill-fated Paris deal will go nowhere here in the Senate. We are in the business of actually helping middle-class families, not inventing new obstacles to throw in their paths.