Jeff Flake

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 627, submitted earlier today.

Mr. FLAKE. 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. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 628, submitted earlier today.

Mr. FLAKE. 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. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn, to then convene for a pro forma session only, with no business being conducted, on Thursday, September 13, at 9:45 a.m. I further ask that when the Senate adjourns on Thursday, September 13, it next convene at 2 p.m., Monday, September 17, and 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, and morning business be closed; further, that upon the conclusion of morning business and notwithstanding the orders of September 6, the Senate proceed to the consideration of H.R. 6 and that debate time on H.R. 6 and S. 2554 run concurrently, be equally divided in the usual form, and be considered expired at 5:30 p.m., and that the Senate then proceed to votes in relation to S. 2554 and H.R. 6, with all other provisions under the previous orders remaining in effect.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. 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. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration and the Senate proceed to S. Res. 525.

Mr. FLAKE. I know of no further debate on the measure.

Mr. FLAKE

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, until the very end, he served his country-- until the very end. ``Service,'' to John McCain, meant living something unique in all the history of the world. It meant living in service to something unique--the American idea. E pluribus unum--``from many, one''--might seem like a quaint vestige from a more idealistic time when compared to the brutal and determined divisions of our time, but it was an idea that defined John McCain's life. In and through his service, he defied categorization; frustrated the tired conventions of the way party loyalists were supposed to behave; acted against his own political interests time and again in a way that, from our vantage point today, is nothing short of awe-inspiring; and he recognized that democracy was hard but that living in bondage to tyranny was far harder. We talk a lot in this Chamber about freedom. No one in this city and few in American history knew as much or as vividly about the price of freedom as did John McCain. Our words are too often cheap and eminently forgettable, but John McCain paid our freight with his body and with his soul. To our shame, he lived long enough to have to take to this Senate floor to inveigh against the rank tribalism that we have fallen into lately. He knew that giving in to our worst impulses to score pyrrhic political victories was as easy as it was dangerous and was and is a tangible threat to American democracy--a democracy to which he gave every bit of his life. If I may, and with your indulgence, I will read from Senator McCain's last speech from this room. On July 25, 2017, while bearing the fresh wounds from his last battle, Senator McCain stood in this Chamber. Thinking not of himself but of his country, he exhorted, inspired, pleaded, and cajoled all of us in an attempt to shake us to our senses in order to reject the prevailing ugliness that seized the Capitol. One last time, he was standing alone to do what was right. In a sure sign of just how desperate he was, he even appealed to our decency and to our reason-- qualities that seem to have long fled Washington. That day last summer, he said in part: We are the servants of a great nation, ``a . . . nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.'' More people have lived free and prosperous lives here than in any other Nation. We have acquired unprecedented wealth and power because of our governing principles, and because our government defended those principles. He went on: America has made a greater contribution than any other nation to an international order that has liberated more people from tyranny and poverty than ever before in history. We have been the greatest example, the greatest supporter, and the greatest defender of that order. We aren't afraid. We don't covet other people's land and wealth. We don't hide behind walls. We breach them. We are a blessing to humanity. He continued: What greater cause could we hope to serve than helping keep America the strong, aspiring, inspirational beacon of liberty and defender of dignity of all human beings and their right to freedom and equal justice? That is the cause that binds us and is so much more powerful and worthy than the small differences that divide us. Until the very end, he served his country. Now, as we consider the life of this man, in stark relief to what now passes for our politics, he continues to serve as a beacon to who we are and what we can be when we are at our best. If John McCain can forgive the North Vietnamese torturers, we can at least forgive each other. But that gesture of Senator McCain's was not merely a gesture of conciliation for conciliation's sake; it was reflective of a world view that saw the humanity even in his enemies, of a sometimes unfathomable decency that could overcome most any difficulty, of a deep dedication to another American idea--the idea that character is destiny--and to the eternally optimistic preference for tomorrow over yesterday. I don't know whether Senator McCain--whether John--subscribed to the ``great man'' or ``great woman'' theory of history, the notion that the story of humanity is written by the actions and choices of great individuals. I don't know if he believed that, but I do know this: He lived it. I know this because it was my great honor of a lifetime to serve in this body with Senator McCain as the other Senator from Arizona. Long before that privilege was accorded me by the people of my State, I was John McCain's constituent. When the necessity presented itself to point up examples for my daughter and my four sons of lives lived with principle and purpose, of role models, I had to look no further than my own Senator. I have a pretty good idea that such approbation would be mocked most loudly by John McCain himself. I imagine he would have some choice and colorful language in response to the outpouring of love and tributes since he has left us. We know that, like all of us, the Senator was not perfect. In fact, if you are interested in an inventory of his failings, McCain himself was the most eager to provide it. Yet, as a former aide of his said in the past few days, McCain was not perfect, but he perfectly loved his country. Words are a poor measure of any life, much less a life the size of John McCain's and the swath he cut on this Earth. Yet we must try. We may never see his like again. For the sake of the country he loved, we owe it to his memory to try to be more like him so that when the season of mourning is over, we don't merely dispense with our earnest tributes and go right back to our venality. Because the poverty of our words notwithstanding, we have lately wasted a lot of words in this town doing and being everything that John McCain was not. We would do well to allow this moment to affect us in ways reflected not merely in our words but in our deeds. We would do well to reflect on John McCain's example today and ask ourselves if we are living up to it or even coming close. We would do well to honor him by emulating his example. We, of course, will never have his extraordinary comic timing. He ribbed me without mercy--and with only a little exaggeration--that the only way I got elected to anything was because of my hundreds of siblings and thousands of cousins. I would have laughed harder if there wasn't some truth to it. We will never possess his grace in both victory and defeat. We will never have his servant's heart nor his power and clarity about the daily effort that freedom requires. John McCain knew firsthand the epic global struggle for freedom, and so he was freedom's greatest champion in the Senate. He also knew that history is not a straight line and that the ghosts of the great ideological struggle of the 20th century are still here haunting the 21st. As he recently told Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic, ``There's always a Putin somewhere in the world, and you're meant to oppose them with all the skills God gave you.'' As we say goodbye to John McCain, let us take up his banner. His was always the good fight. We are fortunate to have known him best in Arizona, but he was bigger than any one State. He always belonged to America and to the world, and now he belongs to the ages. Farewell, Senator. Farewell, John. I yield the floor.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, have you heard the one about the three robots that walk into a bar? No, you haven't. It is not a joke but rather a project that has been paid for, in part, by the Department of Defense. These robots, called beer bots--and you will see a depiction here-- are programmed to serve cold beers to graduate students. Researchers say programming methods used for beer bots can be applied to other multi-robot systems in restaurants and bars. As you can see, the private sector has already developed robot bartenders, or robartenders. They have been mixing drinks at bars--and even on cruise ships--for years now. With our national debt now exceeding $21 trillion, taxpayers should not have to pick up the Pentagon's tab for beer bots and for many other unnecessary spending items which are in the bill that we are considering right now. This minibus bill provides over $800 billion in funding to the Departments of Defense, Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education. Yet, over the past 3 days, we have considered just four amendments to the bill, and not a single one has offered a reduction in spending--not a single one. I have introduced a handful of commonsense amendments that if adopted, would reduce Federal spending by nearly $500 million. One would limit funding for the Littoral Combat Ship Program, which has been plagued by cost growth, construction issues, and underperformance on mission effectiveness. Even though the Navy has only requested funding for the procurement of one of these ships, this bill has needlessly provided funding for two ships. My amendment would simply reduce the Department of Defense's budget by $475 million to align with the Navy's request. I understand that Senators are trying to protect jobs in their States by forcing the Navy to procure more of these unwanted ships. Sailors are going on longer and longer deployments because the ships that are actually needed to rotate them on are not ready to sail. It is important to remember that the priority of this bill is not the parochial interests of Members of Congress but, rather, the needs of the Armed Forces. I am proposing an amendment under this bill to also keep the costs of the military parade that the President would like to put on next year at a reasonable amount. Recent reports have indicated that local DC officials claim the parade would cost up to $92 million, which is significantly higher than the $10 to $30 million originally estimated by the White House Office of Management and Budget Director, Mick Mulvaney. I should point out that the last military parade was held in 1991 to celebrate the end of the gulf war. That cost about $8 million. The Federal Government paid $3 million, and the remainder was paid by private donations. My amendment would cap the amount of money DOD would have to allocate for the parade to $15 million. That is a significant growth--far more than inflation--over the past parade that was held in 1991, and I think this is reasonable, and I think most of us would. Another amendment I filed would prohibit the Department of Health and Human Services from subsidizing the construction of fast food franchises. You might wonder, what in the world is Health and Human Services doing subsidizing this? And you would be right to question it. A Healthy Lifestyles Initiative, funded with more than $1.1 million in grants from HHS, is subsidizing fast food franchises in a Kansas county that year after year ranks as one of the State's most unhealthy. This is Health and Human Services, by the way. Grants are supporting the construction of two buildings--a combination Wendy's and Pizza Hut and a stand-alone Dunkin' Donuts. This project contradicts the mission of HHS, which is ``to enhance and protect the health and well-being of all Americans.'' Federal nutrition guidelines recommend the consumption of about 2,500 calories per day for males and 2,000 calories for females. Just one Dunkin's doughnut contains 290 or more calories. Wendy's Dave's triple burger contains 1,090 calories. A side of french fries adds another 400. A medium-sized soda is another 300 calories. A single slice of pepperoni pizza from Pizza Hut contains 370 calories. Despite the source of funding, the executive director of the organization overseeing the project admits that ``this is not a health initiative,'' arguing that it is about ``economic health, not physical health.'' Why in the world is the Department of Health and Human Services spending money--taxpayer money--on these types of initiatives? It is really just corporate welfare for 3 of the top 10 most profitable fast food franchises in the United States, each of which earns billions of dollars a year in profits. Why is the Federal Government subsidizing it? I am disappointed that I am unable to call up any of my amendments and debate the merits of these items and the importance of addressing our out-of-control debt. We need to get serious about how we are spending taxpayer money. We need to open up the amendment process and allow real debate on our national priorities. I do appreciate the Appropriations Committee's willingness to consider including my amendment to prohibit further Pentagon funding of robot bartenders in the managers' package. I hope it stays in the package. At the very least, this may be the last call for the beerbots. I yield back.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I want to rise briefly to address something that happened overnight that the President tweeted with regard to South Africa. I serve as chairman of the Africa Subcommittee on the Foreign Relations Committee. The President tweeted the following: I have asked Secretary of State @SecPompeo to closely study the South Africa land and farm seizures and expropriations and large scale killing of farmers. ``South African Government is now seizing land from white farmers.'' I think it is important for the President, if he is going to conduct foreign policy by tweet, to be more careful and to not base something on one news report. These things matter. South Africa is, in fact, the ruling party and has proposed land reform measures in South Africa's Parliament. I hope they think long and hard about some of the proposals that are coming forward and not mimic what happened in Zimbabwe 15 years ago that Zimbabwe is still recovering from. In my view, this would not be a good road to take, to expropriate land without compensation. Having said that, it is simply a proposal. It has not been implemented. On the second part of that, ``There is a large scale killing of farmers,'' there is no evidence to suggest there is a large-scale killing of farmers. Of course, the death of one farmer is too many, but it is wrong to suggest there is somehow a large-scale killing going on, when the evidence suggests that the number of farmers who have been killed over the past year is about one-third the level that was reached in the 1990s. I would encourage the President to be more careful when he tweets, to not conduct foreign policy by tweet, and to certainly say to our South African friends--a new government we are working with on a number of issues, with which we have a good relationship and want to remain close to--that we in the Congress believe we are their friends, and we want to move forward in ways that will bring the best to South Africans and a good partnership with our country. I yield back.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Madam President, who wants to eat bugs for lunch? I am hearing crickets, even among the pages here. Now, there is a reason for that, but the National Institute of Food and Agriculture at the USDA is spending more than $1.3 million to support cricket farming in the development of bug-based foods for human consumption. This sounds like a headline straight out of The Onion, but it is not. It is your hard-earned taxpayer dollars being used to try to develop a taste for crickets and other bugs. This initiative is trying to determine which bugs taste best, which bugs are most nutritious, and the best methods for farming bigger, tastier crickets. Now, while the USDA has no plans to inspect cricket farms and the FDA has ``no special rules for edible insects'' at this time, multiple bug- based companies have received Federal funds to research and develop techniques to put bugs in your food. For example, Bugeater Labs--I am not joking here--Bugeater Labs of Nebraska has received $100,000 of taxpayer money--this is a grant--to identify the most edible insects. With support from the USDA, Bugeater is testing bug-based pasta, ramen, and macaroni noodles. Now, to get bugs into the food, the crickets are ground into a powder and mixed into pasta dough. Bugeater hopes to secure another $600,000 in Federal funds to cover the cost of developing and manufacturing a commercial-ready product made from bugs. Now, separately, All Things Bugs of Georgia--I am not kidding. Again, that is a real company--has received nearly $1.3 million for reducing the cost and improving the efficiency of farming crickets as food ingredients. They currently produce and sell cricket powder with ``mild aroma, neutral flavor, and minute particle size that can be added to recipes.'' Four pounds of crickets are required to produce 1 pound of powder. A pound of cricket powder produced by All Things Bugs, which boasts ``the most affordable wholesale price,'' sells for about $35 a pound. By comparison, the average retail price for 100 percent ground beef is about $3.80 a pound. The United States has more than 2.5 billion pounds of beef, pork, poultry, and turkey being stockpiled. This is a record level. Clearly, a new source of protein is not needed and, in this case, likely not wanted. In fact, the CEO of one of these cricket cuisine companies said yesterday: Realistically, as much as we wish people would behave differently, Americans won't buy significant amounts of insect protein. If most were asked to volunteer to eat a bug, the response would be-- As we heard here-- crickets. With, I should note, the annual commemoration of Pioneer Day in Utah, I think I can speak for many of my own ancestors, who nearly starved thanks to swarms of crop-destroying crickets, when I say inspect-based food development will not be stomached well by taxpayers. Today I am proposing an amendment to end the Federal agriculture subsidies for farming of insects and to prohibit spending taxpayer dollars to develop bug-based food for human consumption. I can't believe it takes an amendment to do this kind of thing. It is my understanding it is being included in the manager's amendment and will likely succeed if it is. I would just say this is not going to balance the Federal budget, but at a time when the Office of Management and Budget is projecting trillion-dollar deficits in 2019 and beyond, how can we pay money and have grants of over $1 million to pay companies to try to get people to eat bugs? It doesn't pass the laugh test, and people simply have to have more faith in their government than that. I hope this amendment will pass. I hope we aren't forced to eat crickets. That doesn't seem like anything anybody wants to do, and we shouldn't be forcing taxpayers to pay for it. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FLAKE

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

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, in January of next year, when I cast my final vote and look back on 18 years in the House and the Senate, one of the things I will value most are the friendships made during my time here. I have been fortunate to have an incredible staff to work with for every year that I have been here: from the interns who answer the phone calls, not all of those phone calls pleasant, mind you, to the staff assistants who make constituents and visitors feel welcome in my office and in the Capitol; to office managers who make things run smoothly and build comradery among the staff and the team; to legislative correspondents who skillfully explain the nuances of bills and resolutions I have sponsored or those I have avoided; to legislative assistants who delve deep into the issues, much deeper than I have the time or sometimes the inclination to dig into; to a press shop that tries and often succeeds in making me look better and more thoughtful than I am; to legislative directors who try to focus my attention on issues where I might make a bit of a difference; to schedulers who gently remind me, without judging, of family birthdays and anniversaries and who keep me out of the middle seat more often than not; to expert staff in Arizona who endure protests and provide skilled outreach, sometimes to lonely posts across the State; to caseworkers who work to solve Medicare, Social Security, veteran, and immigration issues for constituents who later thank me in the grocery store for tireless work that I scarcely knew was done. Now, to keep this ship moving in the right direction, there has to be a leader at the helm who is accomplished and skilled, equal parts firm and kind. It has been my good fortune that Chandler Morse has filled that role for many years. Chandler will be leaving for greener pastures at the end of this month. Chandler first came to my House office in 2005 as a legislative assistant. I remember looking at his resume and wondering if his background at the National Association of Homebuilders would lend itself to working on a broader legislative agenda. But as soon as I met Chandler, I knew that he had the intellect and the work ethic to do whatever I asked of him. I have never been disappointed. Chandler moved from legislative assistant to legislative director to deputy chief of staff and, eventually, to chief of staff here in the Senate. Along the way, he has handled natural resource issues, trade issues, homeland security issues, U.S.-Cuba policy issues, and, perhaps most difficult and vexing of all, immigration issues. The Members and staff making up the Gang of 8 in 2013 relied heavily on Chandler's work and expertise during months of negotiations that led to the successful passage of a good bipartisan bill. I would like to think that Chandler has enjoyed climbing aboard the Marc train in Baltimore to come to work in Washington every day. I would like to think that, but about this I am certain: He is much happier climbing back on that train every night because he knows that his beautiful wife Annie and his precious kids, Parker and Talie, are waiting for him to come home. I know that as much as he likes drafting good amendments, blocking bad legislation, or crafting lame puns about earmarks or wasteful spending, Chandler would prefer to be hiking or camping with his family or taking in the outdoors in his beloved Maine. This speaks well for his priorities. When Chandler Morse takes his leave at the end of next week, this institution will lose a loyal public servant. My Senate office will lose a leader and a mentor, but as for me, I will retain a friend for life, and for that I am grateful. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, last week, the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Coons, and I submitted a resolution commending the Department of Justice for its investigation into the interference by the Russian Federation in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election and maintaining that the Russian Federation should be held accountable for its actions. This simple resolution simply expresses support for our intelligence community, showing them we are behind them, we agree with them, we have trust in them, and we reject the words of a dictator, Vladimir Putin, who denies that they interfered at all. The resolution denies the words of a dictator, Vladimir Putin, who maintains there was no Russian interference in the election. Russian interference in the election is not a debatable fact. This occurred. We have evidence. Anybody who has seen simply what is public recognizes that this happened. Any of us in this body who have sat through classified briefings on this surely knows that it happened. Forensic evidence digitally and otherwise is simply not debatable. The reason for this resolution is that in Helsinki, it appeared our President seemed to take the word of a dictator over the word of our intelligence community. He later walked that back but then still later--the next day--again talked about election interference as a ``hoax.'' This resolution is nothing more than simply to say it happened, we know it happened, and we stand with our intelligence community, which has said over and over again consistently that there was election interference. Last week, I cited George Orwell's ``1984,'' where he said: ``The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears.'' Today our President said, what you are seeing and what you are reading is not what is happening. We need to let the agencies of government know we in the Senate stand behind them, that we understand there was election interference, and by doing this--by knowing this--we can prepare ourselves better for election interference that we know is coming because it is still in the works. As the Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats said, ``The red light is blinking.'' This interference occurred, and it continues. So by knowing the truth, then we can better prepare for what is to come. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Foreign Relations Committee be discharged from further consideration and the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 583. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Delaware for his very forceful articulation of the reason for this resolution. Again, I repeat what was said by the President today: ``Just remember what you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening.'' Continually, the topic of election interference is being muddied and being further clarified and then further muddied. That is why it is important for this body to stand up and say: We know what happened, and we don't want it to happen again. That is what this resolution is all about. The Senator who objected noted that we have a lot to do in Congress and we can't waste our time with resolutions like this. If this simply passes, it is done. We have stated what we came here to state. But as it stands now, since it has been objected to, we will bring it back. So if we are really concerned about the agenda for the rest of the year, let's simply agree to it and let the intelligence community know that we stand with them. That is what we are doing here. Why object to it? There is not one sentence in here, not one word that says anything about whether the election interference by the Russians was dispositive, if it had any impact on the election. That is not implied in any way by this resolution. It simply states what is obvious, what the Senator who objected acknowledged, which has been repeated again and again by this body, by the House Intelligence Committee, and by every intelligence agency that we have. Because there was such a muddied statement in Helsinki, why not state once again here that we in the Senate know what happened and that we stand with those in the intelligence community who have brought this forward? With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, we are here to put forward a resolution and ask unanimous consent for its adoption. This is the Flake-Coons resolution, which Senator Coons will speak on and I will take it from there.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Coons, for helping to get together and working on this resolution and for working with his colleagues. I hope that we can pass it today. There may be an objection to moving forward. If there is, we will bring it back again and again. This needs to be passed. The Senate needs to speak here. Mr. President, in his dystopian novel ``1984,'' George Orwell wrote: The party told you to reject the evidence with your eyes and ears. It was their most final, essential command. Well, what we saw on air this week in Helsinki was truly an Orwellian moment. What we saw earlier this week in Helsinki is what happens when you wage war on objective reality for nearly 2 solid years, calling real things fake and fake things real, as if conditioning others to embrace the same confusion. Ultimately, you are rendered unable to tell the difference between the two and are at critical times seemingly rendered incapable of thinking clearly--your mind a hash of conspiracy theory and fragments of old talking points deployed in response to a question no one even asked. Ultimately, you fail to summon reality in the face of a despot in defense of your country. It wasn't a hard question. An American President was invited by a reporter to denounce the Russian attacks on our elections and, in doing so, to defend the country that he was elected to lead. This should have been not much of a test at all for any American President. Yet it was, and our President failed that test. The findings of our intelligence community regarding the Russian aggression are not matters of opinion, no matter how powerful and strong Putin's denial. To reject these findings and to reject the excruciatingly specific indictment against the 12 named Russian operatives in deference to the word of a KGB apparatchik is an act of will on the part of the President. That choice now leaves us contemplating a dark mystery: Why did he do that? What would compel our President to do such a thing? Those are questions that urgently beg for an answer, and it is our job to find that answer. But what isn't a mystery is that, by choosing to reject objective reality in Helsinki, the President let down the free world by giving aid and comfort to an enemy of democracy. In so doing, he dimmed the light of freedom ever so slightly in our own country. Such is the power that we vest in the Presidency. Such are the consequences when a President does not use that power well. I can add no further to the extraordinary and thoroughly justified response of my fellow Americans from across the political spectrum to the events in Helsinki, ranging from heartbreak to horror. But I will say that if ever there was a moment to think of not just your party but for the country, this is it. This is not a moment for spin, deflection, justification, circling the wagons, forgetting, moving on to the next news cycle, or for more of Orwell's doublespeak. No, when the American Government offers an onslaught on unreality, it puts the whole world at risk. That is the lesson of Helsinki. That is the dose of reality that hit hard. We have indulged myths and fabrications and pretended that it wasn't so bad, and our indulgence got us the capitulation in Helsinki. We in the Senate who have been elected to represent our constituents cannot be enablers of falsehoods. This bipartisan resolution from the Senator from Delaware and me, which we have here today, commends the Department of Justice for its thorough investigation that has led to the indictment of 12 Russian operatives who on behalf of the Russian Government interfered in the 2016 election. It acknowledges that such efforts by the Russian Government to undermine our elections, as confirmed by our own Director of National Intelligence, continue. Specifically, the Flake-Coons resolution rejects the denial of election interference by Russian President Vladimir Putin, something that our President failed to do when given the opportunity in a public forum in Helsinki on Monday. This resolution calls for the full and immediate implementation of mandatory sanctions, passed by a vote of 98 to 2, to deter and punish election interference by the Russian Government. If there are waivers that are needed--and there are some needed for the Indian Government, for example, for weapons they purchased from the Russian Government or for hardware--there is a waiver process already in law for that, and I would support that. Finally, the resolution calls on the relevant committees of the Senate to exercise oversight, including prompt hearings and obtaining relevant notes and information to understand what commitments were made by the President in the summit and the impact it will have on our foreign policy going forward. The Russian Ambassador last night said that ``important verbal agreements were made.'' We need to know the details of those agreements. Empirical, objective truth has taken a beating for the last 18 months. I said from this pulpit in January that ``the dissemination of untruths has the effect of eroding trust in our vital institutions and conditioning the public to no longer trust them.'' As we saw in Helsinki on Monday, entertaining the untruths of a dictator has the same effect. Passing this resolution will let our constituents, the administration, our allies, and our adversaries know that here in the Senate we do not entertain the deceit of dictators. The truth is that Russia interfered in our elections in 2016, and these efforts continue. Accepting that truth is the first step in preparing us to confront this malign activity. Let's pass this resolution. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 583, submitted earlier today. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. FLAKE. Madam President, I think it is regrettable this was objected to. We will bring it back. The majority leader said this is just a symbolic vote. It is. Symbolism is important. Obviously, we have underlying sanctions we ought to fully implement. If there are waivers needed, there is already a waiver process in the NDAA authorization. I support those waivers with regard to India. This does not affect that. This says, in a symbolic way, that we in the Senate don't buy Vladimir Putin's rejection or his denial of election interference. That was put in question this week, whether our government believes that or not. We in the Senate should stand and say: We don't believe it. We know the intelligence is right. We stand behind our intelligence community. We need to say that in the Senate. Yes, it is symbolic and symbolism is important. Our agencies of government need to know that we stand behind them. That is what this is about. I hope we will pass this. I note, regretfully, that there has been an objection to it, but we will bring it back. I believe this should pass, and I believe it ultimately will pass. I yield back.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Thank you. I will just be a moment. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments from my Democratic colleagues and hope that more of my Republican colleagues will speak about the spectacle yesterday in Helsinki. I said yesterday that I never thought I would see the President of the United States stand with the President of Russia and blame the United States for Russian aggression. I said yesterday that that was shameful. I feel the same today. Today, the President said that the press conference had been misinterpreted by the fake news media. I would say to the President that we all watched the press conference, and it wasn't the fake news media that sided with the Russian President over our own intelligence agencies; it was you. This body must stand and reaffirm that we stand with the men and women in the Department of Justice who have brought these 12 indictments against individuals from the Russian Federation who interfered with our elections. We must say that we stand with our NATO allies and we stand with those in the EU; that they are not foes, they are friends. We must stand up to the real adversaries we have. Right now, Russia is an adversary. I hope the President will realize that. I hope he will take the word of the men and women of the Department of Justice and the entire intelligence agencies rather than the empty words of a dictator. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss a matter of great import, given the events of the past few days in Europe as they relate to friends, foes, and peace. Global peace is not a zero-sum game, and global alliances ought not be subject to whim, impulse, opaque machinations, or material threats of cancellation over internal disagreements. The world relies on the United States for stable and reliable leadership, and we have in turn benefited greatly from the peace and stability for which we have been the chief guarantors. This is not a subject that is even debatable. Lately, the President of the United States has been characterizing our most vital relationships around the world in purely transactional terms, asserting that America has been taken advantage of, and he has gone so far as to suggest that when it comes to our relationship with our NATO partners, we get nothing for our troubles. Nothing for a stable and peaceful Europe? This is the danger in viewing these relationships as mere transactions, absent our shared values. Absent values, the world is nothing but a cruel and cold place of warring camps and territorial ambitions and no durable alliances whatsoever. To view the world this way requires a frightening unawareness of the postwar security order that we ourselves created. This posture of antagonism and suspicion toward our partners and peace can be held only when you blot out 70 of the most consequential years of the world. Apart from our shared sacrifice and our shared security, what we have been through together over those 70 years cannot adequately be reflected on any ledger or list of petty grievances, and a seeming ignorance of the scale of that history is blundering and strange. The mindset that comprehends a trade deficit as a grievous offense or an unfair act of aggression is the same mindset that can upend vital security relationships that have been similarly misperceived. Sometimes, if I didn't know better, I might say that we are purposefully trying to destabilize the Western alliance and to turn the world upside down. I might come to this conclusion because, by a process of elimination, no other answer would make any sense. If this is some kind of stratagem, what good could possibly be achieved by heedlessly making friends into enemies, and who, exactly, would benefit? What would this President replace the Western alliance with? There simply is no better order that could be achieved by this destabilization. Today, I rise to pose a few questions, and I believe there is much riding on the answers to these questions. A couple of days ago, the President of the United States said that his upcoming meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin would likely be easier than his meeting with America's most important allies at the NATO summit. Why would a President--any President--say such a thing? The Russian President, at the very least, personally directed a propaganda campaign and an extraordinarily ambitious series of cyber attacks aimed at the integrity of our elections in 2016, and we have been told that these attacks are continuing. He has shown no signs whatsoever of changing his behavior. The Russian President is a man schooled in treachery and espionage. He jails and murders his opponents, presides over a mafia state, and he is an enemy of democracy. Why would a meeting with Putin be easier than a meeting with the allies we rely on most to be a bulwark against him? Vladimir Putin is not ``fine,'' as the President recently asserted. And singing his praises for no good reason sends a terrifying message to our allies, especially those countries that share a border with Russia. Flattering such a man, who has demonstrated his hostility toward us and contempt for our values and has recently annexed parts of neighboring sovereign countries, is simply bizarre. That the admiration comes from an American President--well, that is unconscionable. The President, of course, continues to entertain Mr. Putin's denial of election interference and otherwise hardly mentions the Russian attacks on us, other than to talk about the Russia hoax or to refer to Mueller's investigation into the attacks as a ``witch hunt''--this, in spite of conclusive and overwhelming proof of Russian involvement generated from investigations conducted by his own government. Why? Then, before the recent G7 meeting, the President called for Russia to be readmitted to the G7, in spite of the fact that Moscow continues to occupy Crimea and has shown no remorse whatsoever for its behavior toward the United States. Why? Then, yesterday in Brussels, the President offered a twisted interpretation of how NATO works and how it is financed in order to frame a grievance against our NATO allies, supposedly on behalf of the American taxpayer. Why? Why would an American President create such conflict? Why does the President's complaint about our closest friends on the global stage unnervingly echo the Russian position? Mr. Putin's singular foreign policy goal is to weaken democracies and destroy the Western alliance. Could we possibly be helping him any more in his quest than by baselessly attacking our own allies? The antipathy and hostility toward our friends and allies are simply inexplicable, but it is not good enough for us just to say that. It is our job and obligation in this body to try to end it--to reassure our allies that they are still our allies. Over the Independence Day holiday, I had the privilege to lead a bipartisan and bicameral delegation to the Nordic and Baltic states to talk to our friends whose view of the Russian threat is much more intimate than ours and to hear of the concerns of the leaders there-- NATO allies and partners. We wanted to assess the threat for ourselves. In Latvia, where 40 percent of the population is ethnic Russian, the propaganda from Moscow is strong and unrelenting: The NATO alliance is weak. It will not last. The United States is an unreliable ally. These themes have lately become very familiar on this side of the Atlantic as well. The people of Latvia, ethnic Russians, and otherwise, pay close attention when an American President is reported to have said things like Crimea is rightfully part of Russia because the people in Crimea speak Russian. Well, there is a lot of Russian spoken in Latvia too. Does that mean that the United States would concede to Russian aggression against Latvia on this basis? Vladimir Putin presides dictatorially over the remains of a collapsed empire. All he has now are nationalism and territorial ambitions and nostalgic appeals to former glory. He is not a strong leader for his people, as our President has said, any more than Kim Jong Un's people love their dictator, as he has also said. If we fail to see these things clearly, then we fail the world, and we fail ourselves, and we dishonor those from our own country and from our allied countries who kept the Soviet menace at bay for half a century as the world hung in the balance. We are now told that the President will be meeting one-on-one with Mr. Putin. He will have no staff present, no press, no one to make a record of the event. Why? If the White House is as confused about the nature of the threat we face from Mr. Putin as it seems to be, a meeting between our President and his Russian counterpart for which there is no record could not be more concerning. It is vital that even the most private meetings between leaders not be lost to history, especially when once again the world seems to be hanging in the balance. NATO is one of the greatest and most visionary investments our Nation has ever made, and anybody who says differently is simply wrong. Any counternarrative about NATO is willfully destructive and does real and lasting damage to us in the world. I join my senior Senator, John McCain, in the sentiments he expressed just weeks ago. To our allies: Bipartisan majorities of both parties support our alliances based on 70 years of shared values. Americans stand with you. Now, I would be remiss if I did not, here today, remind my colleagues that the only time article 5 of the NATO Charter has been invoked has been by the United States after the attacks of 9/11/2001. Our allies accompanied us into battle to defend our country and our way of life, and they paid an eternal price for their commitment to our shared security. Of the more than 3,500 casualties sustained thus far in Afghanistan, roughly a third are the sons, the daughters, the husbands, and the wives of our NATO allies. In the spirit of NATO, those casualties are our casualties. We cherish them and their sacrifices as if they were our own because they are our own. Let us honor them not just in memory but in deed--in the way we conduct ourselves here in this place, in our commitment to the values for which they died, in the clarity of our purpose, and ultimately in our basic ability to tell right from wrong no matter the cost. I yield the floor.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that with respect to the Ney nomination, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I join my colleagues today. I thank Senator Toomey from Pennsylvania and Senator Corker from Tennessee especially for working this out. Let's be clear. This is a rebuke of the President's abuse of trade authority. The President has abused section 232 to impose tariffs on steel and aluminum, impacting our allies, such as Canada, Mexico, and countries in the EU. Can you imagine being in Canada and being told that your steel and aluminum exports to the United States represent a national security threat? Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau rightfully called the President's recent tariffs an ``affront to the longstanding security partnership between Canada and the United States'' and, he continued, ``kind of insulting.'' Canada is the largest consumer of U.S. goods. It buys more goods from the United States than China, Japan, and the UK combined. Canadian companies operating in the United States directly employ 500,000 Americans. Canada and the United States share more than 5,500 miles of a peaceful border. Close to 400,000 people cross that shared border each day for business, pleasure, or to maintain family ties. Canada has been our partner in the War on Terrorism since 2001. More than 40,000 Canadian Armed Forces members served alongside us in Afghanistan between 2001 and 2014. Canada has been our ally, our partner, and our friend, and now they are told that their steel and aluminum exports to us represent a national security threat. That is an abuse of section 232 of the Trade Act. I am so glad that Congress is finally pushing back on this. We have neglected our constitutional role. We gave the President authority years ago, under the 1962 act, to exempt from that act imports that represent a true national security threat. These imports do not. This is an abuse of that authority, and that is why Congress needs to speak up today. This is a nonbinding resolution. This will not have an effect that will actually get to the President in legislation. That is the next step, and we need to go there. We have to go there. Those voting on this today need to know that is where we will go. We have to rein in an abuse of Presidential authority and to restore Congress's constitutional authority in this regard. I thank my colleagues for bringing this to the floor. I urge all of my colleagues to support it--not just that, but once we go from here, taking this symbolic step, this nonbinding resolution, to take actual steps on legislation that will return the actual authority to Congress once again to impose or to manage tariffs. With that, I yield back.