In Opening Skirmish, Republicans Shoot Down Anti-Putin Resolutions

WASHINGTON — Republicans in Congress blocked a series of measures put forward on Thursday by lawmakers — largely Democratic — who are desperate to isolate Republican leaders and publicly rebuke President Donald Trump over his summit meeting with President Vladimir Putin of Russia this week.

In the Senate, Republicans objected to two nonbinding measures that would have put the body on record as being in support of intelligence agency conclusions that Russia interfered in the 2016 election, called on Trump to fully impose sanctions against Russia and pressed for oversight of the summit meeting, including the production of any notes taken by Americans.

“If ever there was a moment to think not of just your party but for the country, this is it,” Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., implored his colleagues before his bipartisan resolution was shot down.

In the House, Democrats sought to push the same points with different tactics, but saw no more success. Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee voted down a request to subpoena testimony from the State Department interpreter who accompanied Trump into his private meeting with Putin. And on the House floor, Republicans blocked a Democratic effort to add hundreds of millions of dollars in grant funding for election security to a spending bill.

“The flashing red light calls us to action,” said Rep. Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, the No. 2 House Democrat. “Surely we can rise above pandering to party and Putin to act on behalf of our freedom and our security.”

Hoyer’s remarks stirred Democrats to chants of “USA” on the House floor.

The flurry of votes came as lawmakers in both parties continue to cast about for appropriate responses to the fallout from the Finland meeting. Standing next to Putin on Monday, Trump signaled that he took the Russian president’s word over his own intelligence agencies that Russia did not meddle in the 2016 election. On Tuesday, Trump said he misspoke and that he did believe the intelligence agencies. And then on Wednesday, he further confused lawmakers when he seemed to say the Russians were no longer targeting American elections, then backtracked again.

Republicans, many of whom are outraged by Trump’s undercutting of the intelligence agencies, have indicated that they may prefer to address the situation with more sanctions, rather than potentially embarrassing oversight exercises or measures of censure. They announced steps in that direction on Thursday.

Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Senate Republican leader, said that he had asked the chairmen of two important committees to hold oversight hearings on Russian sanctions passed into law last year and begin discussions on the potential for new measures to supplement them.

It was far from clear if senators could reach an agreement on such a measure in time to deter malfeasance before November’s election. The most popular bipartisan sanctions proposal is thought to need rewriting to avoid unintended consequences.

But in publicizing his request in a statement, McConnell clearly intended to send a message that the Republican Congress takes the issue seriously and stands prepared to act.

Both resolutions considered on the Senate floor were offered by unanimous consent. That parliamentary technique allows senators to avoid debate and a roll-call vote, but also empowers a single senator to object and kill the measure.

A bipartisan resolution to commend the Justice Department and reaffirm the Senate’s support for the intelligence community’s findings was blocked when Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, the No. 2 Republican in the Senate, objected.

Cornyn’s move caught the sponsors of the resolution — Sens. Flake and Chris Coons, D-Del. — off guard. It came after Flake, an outspoken critic of the president, delivered an impassioned speech on the Senate floor accusing the president of “giving aid and comfort” to Putin.

“By choosing to reject object reality in Helsinki, the president let down the free world by giving aid and comfort to an enemy of democracy,” Flake said. “In so doing he dimmed the light on freedom ever so slightly in our own country.”

Among Cornyn’s objections was that the measure was largely symbolic — a remark that brought protests from Flake when he and Coons greeted reporters afterward. The chagrined pair said they intended to introduce the measure again next week.

Flake said symbolism was precisely the point.

“This simply says, in a symbolic way, that we in the Senate don’t buy Vladimir Putin’s rejection or his denial of election interference,” Flake said. “We here 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’s symbolic, and symbolism is important.”

A Republican also blocked a more expansive resolution introduced by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., that would have made it the position of the Senate that Trump must work with American allies to aggressively combat Russian aggression, warn Putin not to interfere in November’s elections and cooperate with the special counsel’s investigation.

“Nobody is excusing Russia’s meddling in our elections,” said Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., who objected to the request. “But simply bringing the hatred of the president to the Senate floor in order to say we’re done with diplomacy, we are going to add more sanctions and more sanctions. You know what? I would rather that we still have open channels of discussion with the Russians.” On Thursday afternoon, the Senate was expected to vote on a third resolution related to a discussion between Trump and Putin about the possibility of the United States allowing Russia to question U.S. citizens that it says were involved in an illegal scheme with William F. Browder, a financier and critic of Putin, in exchange for allowing U.S. authorities to question Russian intelligence officers indicted on a charge of cyberattacks. One of those citizens is Michael A. McFaul, an ambassador to Russia under President Barack Obama.

The measure, offered by several Democrats, would express the view that “the United States should refuse to make available any current or former diplomat, civil servant, political appointee, law enforcement official or member of the Armed Forces of the United States for questioning by the government of Vladimir Putin.”

The efforts in the House infuriated Democrats, who pleaded with Republicans in the majority before quickly turning around to turn their vote against the funding into a talking point.