[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 36 (Wednesday, March 1, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1523-S1525]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



        President's Address to Congress and Russia Investigation

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, last night, I joined most of the Members 
of Congress to hear President Trump give his first address to a joint 
session. His speech lasted about 60 minutes, and I listened carefully, 
as did everyone in the Chamber, to the President's first remarks from 
that historic setting as he addressed a joint session of Congress.
  There were some omissions, which I found very interesting. Not once--
not one time--in the course of an hour did President Trump ever say the 
word ``Russia''--not one time--even though we have been told by 17 of 
our intelligence agencies that Russia made an overt effort to influence 
the outcome of the last Presidential campaign. That has never happened 
before in American history. A foreign country attacked the sovereignty 
of the United States in the election process for the highest office in 
the land. I think that is noteworthy. It is certainly historic. It 
would certainly be worth at least a mention when a President speaks to 
a joint session of Congress just a few months after that election. 
Instead, there was radio silence, mute button, crickets--nothing about 
Russia.
  What do we have in terms of congressional response to the possibility 
that Vladimir Putin was trying to pick our next President? We have the 
suggestion by the Republican leaders in the Senate and the House that 
this matter should be taken up by the Intelligence Committees.
  It sounds reasonable on its face. Having served on Intelligence 
Committees, I can tell you it is an awesome responsibility and 
assignment. I can also tell you we have some extraordinarily gifted, 
talented, patriotic members of those committees from both political 
parties in the Senate and in the House, but there is a fundamental flaw 
to this approach. If you went searching on Capitol Hill to find the 
room in which the Senate Intelligence Committee meets, you would come 
up empty. There is no sign on the door. It is basically kept 
clandestine, confidential, and secret. For 4 years, I entered that 
door, sat down in closed hearings, with no one from the public able to 
hear or even appreciate what we were doing. It is a lonely assignment--
unlike any other committee on Capitol Hill.
  I wonder: Is that what we want to do to explore the involvement of 
Vladimir Putin in our Presidential campaign--to go behind closed doors 
in secret and meet clandestinely? I think not.
  There is an aspect of this that will require some intelligence 
gathering, some discussion of intelligence--and certainly that would be 
secret--but there is much more of it that is public in nature that will 
never be disclosed if we rely on the Senate Intelligence Committee. It 
is an invisible process, and that invisible process does not serve the 
needs of a democracy that wants the truth--the straight talk, the 
answers.
  Secondly, the work of an Intelligence Committee ends up in a report 
that is classified, which means the public doesn't get to see it. We 
have seen some renditions of it--heavily redacted pages, where one or 
two words might escape being crossed out.
  How do you move from a classified document on Putin's involvement in 
our Presidential campaign to a public document the people can 
understand? It takes declassification. Who makes the decision on 
whether we declassify the information from the Intelligence Committee 
investigation? The White House.
  So, with the possibility--and I underline that word--with the 
possibility that some people in the President's campaign may or may not 
have been involved in this, the President has the last word as to the 
American people ever hearing the results of an Intelligence Committee 
report.
  Many of us believe this is serious, and many of us believe there 
should be an independent, transparent commission, just like the 9/11 
Commission. Let's call on people we respect, such as GEN Colin L. 
Powell, Sandra Day O'Connor, a former Supreme Court Justice, and many 
others just like them, who could get to the bottom of this and answer 
the basic questions: What were the Russians up to? We hear they had 
1,000 trolls sitting in offices in Moscow dreaming up ways to hack into 
the computers and Internet of the United States and to disclose 
information to try to influence the outcome of the election. It is not 
a new tactic from Russia. They have done it over and over again.
  The last couple of weeks I visited Poland, Lithuania, Ukraine. They 
know these tactics oh so well. Under Soviet times and since, Russia has 
tried to invade their space when it comes to election decisions--
overtly, covertly, through propaganda, through cyber attacks. They have 
done it in many countries around the world. Sadly, they are good at it. 
Now they have decided they can do it in the United States. They can 
decide who our President will be or at least try to. Are we going to 
take this sitting down?
  November 8, 2016, election day, was a day that will live in cyber 
infamy in the United States. The Russians invaded the U.S. election 
process. The President of the United States spoke to the American 
people last night and never mentioned one word--not a single word--
about this.
  How many Republican Senators and Congressmen have come to the floor? 
I don't know about in the House, but I can tell my colleagues I know 
about the Senate. None. Not one has come to the floor to even address 
this issue.
  So when President Trump ignored it last night, refused to even 
mention it, I wasn't surprised, but it is not going away. It is a fact.
  We currently have an investigation underway in our intelligence 
agencies. I just met with former Senator Dan Coats of Indiana. He has 
been designated by the President to be the DNI--the Director of 
National Intelligence. He made a statement publicly yesterday before a 
hearing in Congress that he is going to cooperate with the committees 
and with Congress in disclosing information they have accumulated in 
our intelligence agencies as to this Russian involvement in our 
election.
  We also know the Federal Bureau of Investigation is involved in this 
same exercise to find out exactly what happened and to disclose as much 
as possible and take action--prosecutorial action--if necessary.
  There is a problem, though. The Federal Bureau of Investigation works 
for the Attorney General. The Department of Justice has the power to 
impede or stop any FBI investigation. Our former colleague Jeff 
Sessions was deeply and personally involved in the Trump Presidential 
campaign. He should recuse himself. He has an obvious conflict of 
interest on this issue. For the integrity of the office and for his own 
personal integrity, he should step aside and appoint a special 
prosecutor who can follow up, if necessary, with this FBI 
investigation.
  This is a serious matter that was not addressed at all last night by 
the President of the United States speaking to a joint session of 
Congress.
  The Associated Press went through some of the claims that were made 
by the President last night, and I want to give them credit for their 
homework on this. It is important for the Record that some of the 
things the President said be explained.
  The President said:

       According to the National Academy of Sciences, our current 
     immigration system

[[Page S1524]]

     costs American taxpayers many billions of dollars a year.

  The Associated Press writes:

       That's not exactly what the report says. It says immigrants 
     ``contribute to government finances by paying taxes and add 
     expenditures by consuming public service.''
       The report found that while first-generation immigrants are 
     more expensive to governments than their native-born 
     counterparts, primarily at the state and local level, 
     immigrants' children ``are among the strongest economic and 
     fiscal contributors in the population.'' This second 
     generation contributed more in taxes on a per capita basis, 
     for example, than non-immigrants in the period, 1994-2013.
       The report [that the President unfortunately 
     mischaracterized] found that the ``long-run fiscal impact'' 
     of immigrants and their children would probably be seen as 
     more positive ``if their role in sustaining labor force 
     growth and contributing to innovation and entrepreneurial 
     activity were taken into account.''

  So to argue, as the President did yesterday, that the National 
Academy of Sciences, as he said, stated that our current immigration 
system costs American taxpayers many billions of dollars is, at best, 
incomplete and misleading.
  The President then went on to say during the course of his speech 
last night:

       We've saved taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars by 
     bringing down the price of the F-35 jet fighter.
  I remember when he said that.
  The Associated Press says as follows:

       The cost savings he persists in bragging about were secured 
     in full or large part before he became President.

  He has taken credit for something he didn't do.
  According to the AP:

       The head of the Air Force program announced significant 
     price reductions in the contract for the Lockheed F-35 
     fighter on December 19--after [candidate] Trump, [President-
     Elect Trump] had tweeted about the cost but weeks before he 
     met with the company's CEO.

  The AP goes on:

       Pentagon managers took action even before the election to 
     save [this] money. . . . Richard Aboulafia, an analyst with 
     the aerospace consulting firm Teal Group, said there is no 
     evidence of any additional cost savings as a result of 
     President Trump's actions.

  Here is another statement made by the President last night:

       We will provide massive tax relief for the middle class.

  I remember that one. That is something I hope we all can aspire to, 
but let me tell my colleagues what the Associated Press says about that 
claim.

       Trump has provided little detail on how this would happen. 
     Independent analyses of his campaign tax proposals found that 
     most of the benefits would flow to the wealthiest families. 
     The richest 1 percent would see an average tax cut of nearly 
     $215,000 a year, while the middle one-fifth of the population 
     would get a tax cut of just $1,010, according to the Tax 
     Policy Center, a joint project with the Brookings Institution 
     and Urban Institute.

  Here is another statement the President made last night:

       Ninety-four million Americans are out of the labor force.

  The Associated Press says:

       That's true, but for the vast majority of them, it's 
     because they choose to be. That 94 million figure includes 
     everyone aged 16 and older who doesn't have a job and isn't 
     looking for one. So it includes retirees, parents who are 
     staying home to raise children, high school and college 
     students who are studying rather than working.
       They are unlikely to work regardless of the state of the 
     economy. With the huge baby boomer generation reaching 
     retirement age many of them retiring, the population of those 
     out of the labor force is increasing and will continue to do 
     so, most economists forecast.
       It's true that some of those out of the workforce are of 
     working age and have given up looking for work. But that 
     number is probably a small fraction of the 94 million 
     President Trump cited.

  Another statement the President made: He said his budget plan will 
offer ``one of the largest increases in national defense spending in 
American history.''
  I will not dwell on this other than to say that the absolute number--
a $54 billion increase, or about 10 percent, is the largest single 
number. On a percentage basis, there have been larger increases in 
previous years, like 2002, 2003, and 2008.
  Here is another claim made by the President last night:

       Since my election, Ford, Fiat-Chrysler, General Motors, 
     Sprint, Softbank, Lockheed, Intel, Walmart, and many others 
     have announced they will invest billions of dollars in the 
     United States and will create tens of thousands of new 
     American jobs.

  The Associated Press reports that ``many of the announcements reflect 
corporate decisions that predate [Trump's Presidential] election,'' 
making it unlikely his administration ``is the sole or even primary 
reason for the expected hiring. . . . In the case of Intel, 
construction of the Chandler, Arizona, factory referred to by Trump 
actually began during Barack Obama's presidency. The project was 
delayed by insufficient demand for Intel's high-powered computer chips, 
but the company now expects to finish the factory within four years 
because it anticipates business growth.
  Another statement made by President Trump last night in his speech:

       We will stop the drugs from pouring into our country and 
     poisoning our youth, and we will expand treatment for those 
     who have become so badly addicted.

  The facts:

       Addicts and mentally ill people who gain access to 
     treatment programs for the first time as a result of 
     ObamaCare--the Affordable Care Act--are worried about repeal 
     that President Trump has called for. Repeal could end 
     coverage for 1.8 million people who have undergone addiction 
     or mental health treatment, cut $5.5 billion on spending on 
     such services according to estimates by economist Richard 
     Frank, a former administration official under Barack Obama, 
     now with the Harvard Medical School.

  The AP goes on to say:

       The key question is what will happen to Medicaid as a 
     result of changes Republicans are pursuing? Broadly speaking, 
     Republicans want to transform the health insurance program 
     for low-income people from an open-ended Federal entitlement 
     to a system that provides States with a limited amount of 
     financing and gives them latitude on how to spend it.

  The AP goes on to say:

       If Congress is too stingy with State allotments, States 
     would be hampered dealing with the emergencies like the 
     opioid epidemic.

  The next statement by President Trump last night:

       According to data provided by the Department of Justice, 
     the vast majority of individuals convicted for terrorism-
     related offenses since 9/11 came here from outside of our 
     country. We have seen the attacks at home, from Boston to San 
     Bernardino to the Pentagon, and yes, even the World Trade 
     Center.

  The Associated Press responds:

       It's unclear what Justice Department data the President is 
     citing. The most recent government information that has come 
     out doesn't back up his claim. Just over half the people 
     President Trump talks about were actually born in the United 
     States, according to Homeland Security Department research. 
     That report said of 82 people the government determined were 
     inspired by foreign terrorist groups to attempt to carry out 
     an attack on the U.S., just over half [of them] were [born in 
     the United States] native-born citizens.

  The AP goes on to say:

       Even the attacks Trump singled out weren't entirely the 
     work of foreigners. Syed Rizwan Farook, who along with his 
     Pakistani wife killed 14 people in the deadly 2015 attack in 
     San Bernardino, California, was born in Chicago.
       It's true that in the immediate aftermath of September 11, 
     the FBI's primary concern was with terrorists from overseas 
     feared to be plotting attacks in the United States. But 
     that's no longer the case. The FBI and Justice Department 
     have been preoccupied with violent extremists from inside the 
     U.S. who are inspired by the calls to violence and mayhem of 
     the Islamic State group. The Justice Department has 
     prosecuted scores of Islamic State-related cases since 2014, 
     and many of the defendants are U.S. citizens.

  Another statement by President Trump last night:

       ObamaCare is collapsing . . . imploding Obamacare disaster.

  The AP writes:

       There are problems with the 2010 health care law, but 
     whether it's collapsing is hotly disputed.
       One of the two major components of the Affordable Care Act 
     has been a spike in premiums and a drop in participation from 
     insurers. But the other component, equally important, seems 
     to be working fairly well, even if its costs are a concern.
       Trump and congressional Republicans want to repeal the 
     whole thing, which risks leaving millions of people uninsured 
     if the replacement plan has shortcomings. Some critics say 
     GOP rhetoric itself is making things worse by creating 
     uncertainty about the future.
       The health law offers subsidized private health insurance 
     along with a state option to expand Medicaid for low-income 
     people. Together, the two arms of the program reach more than 
     20 million people.
       Republican governors whose states have expanded Medicaid 
     are trying to find a way to persuade Congress and the 
     administration to keep this expansion, and maybe even build 
     on it, while imposing limits on the long-term costs of 
     Medicaid.

[[Page S1525]]

       While the Medicaid expansion seems to be working, the 
     markets for subsidized health insurance are stressed in many 
     states. Also affected are millions of people who buy 
     individual policies outside the government markets, and face 
     the same high premiums with no financial help from the health 
     law. Larry Levitt of the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation 
     says ``implosion'' is too strong a term. An AP count found 
     that 12.2 million people signed up for this year, despite 
     the Trump administration's threats to repeal the law.

  I might add, that it is despite all of the speeches made on the floor 
of the Senate and the House, promising that it would be repealed as 
well.
  The last point I want to make is this. I was troubled last night by a 
recurring theme in the President's speech. It was a theme about 
immigration in the United States. We are a nation of immigrants. My 
mother was an immigrant to this country. I am proud to serve as a 
Senator from the State where she and her family settled. I am proud of 
the struggle they went through--coming to this country, not knowing the 
language, going through some pretty rough times, facing poverty, taking 
the dirtiest and toughest jobs. Because of that, the second generation 
of my family--the one I represent--has brought some great people to 
this world in our own families and perhaps even added to the benefits 
of the United States for others.
  Last night, if you listened to the characterization of immigrants, it 
was negative, virtually from start to finish.
  In the audience last night, I had a young lady as my guest. She is an 
extraordinary lady. Her name is Aaima Sayed. She is Pakistani, and she 
was brought to the United States at the age of 3 by her parents from 
Pakistan. They settled in Chicago and eventually moved to New Jersey. 
It turns out the family had its difficulties and the mother and father 
split and separated. When the father left, he left behind his 
paperwork--which was in place or at least in the process--of trying to 
legalize the presence of his family, and nothing was done.
  It wasn't until she was in high school that this young lady realized 
that she was undocumented. That creates obstacles for any young person. 
In her case, a special obstacle was the cost of higher education. As an 
undocumented child in America, she didn't qualify for government 
assistance--Federal Government assistance--and limited State 
assistance. Yet she aspired to go on to school and to borrow the money, 
if necessary, at high interest rates from private sources in order to 
finish her education. She graduated from Rutgers University magna cum 
laude and then wanted to go to medical school.
  There weren't many medical schools accepting undocumented students, 
but there was one. I am proud to tell you that it was Loyola University 
of Chicago, the Stritch School of Medicine. There were about 65 
undocumented young people in medical school in the United States, and 
30 of them were at Loyola in Chicago. I have met most of them. Each and 
every one of them is more inspiring than the next.
  They opened up the competition. They didn't give them slots to fill. 
They said: Compete with everyone. These students were so outstanding 
from across the United States that they made it to Loyola.
  This young lady, in her third year, faces another 6 years of 
education before she completes her medical degree. When she is finished 
with those 6 years, it isn't over. In Illinois, we told her she could 
go to school, but it was part of a contract. She could attend school, 
and we would reduce the interest payments at a later part in her life 
if she gave us 1 year of service in an underserved community in 
Illinois for each year of medical school. She has 6 years of school 
left and 4 years of serving in a rural community or an underserved 
neighborhood clinic in the city of Chicago or nearby.
  She signed up for it. She is an amazing young person. She is 
determined to get this medical degree--despite the debt, despite the 
obstacles. The only reason she can do this is because she is protected 
by something called DACA.
  Let me explain. Some 16 years ago, I introduced a bill called the 
DREAM Act. It said that if you were brought to the United States, like 
she was, under the age of 16, you had a good life, no criminal record 
or history of a problematic nature, and completed your education, you 
can stay in the United States and eventually work your way toward 
legalization.
  President Obama took it up and created an Executive order called DACA 
and said to the young people in that situation: Come and apply, pay a 
$600 filing fee, then go through a criminal background check, and if 
you make it, we will give you 2 years to live in the United States 
without fear of deportation, with a work permit.
  She signed up. That is how she can go to medical school. You need to 
work to go to medical school. She is going through a clinical 
experience where she is actually working in these hospitals. Without a 
work permit, she wouldn't be able to complete medical school.
  The obvious question is this: What is going to happen to this program 
under President Trump? In fairness, the President has said positive 
things about DACA and DREAMers. I thanked him personally. I have only 
met him three times, but I thanked him personally twice for doing that. 
I hope that it means that ultimately there will be some path for the 
750,000 young people, just like her, who are simply asking for a chance 
to be educated and be part of America's future.
  I hope that, as people who listened to the speech last night think 
about immigrants to the United States, they will think about this young 
woman, as well, who has worked so hard her entire life to better 
herself and to be able to help others at a later point in life.
  She is an extraordinary person, and there are so many more just like 
her. They are immigrants to this country. In this case it is Muslim 
immigrant to this country who someday will be an exceptional doctor, 
who is going to give 4 years of her life back to my home State and then 
is going to help others all across the United States. That, to me, is 
an image of immigrants that shouldn't be lost with the negative 
connotations that were raised last night.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.