[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.