[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 80 (Tuesday, May 9, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2822-S2824]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                          Russia Investigation

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this weekend we saw a peaceful democratic 
election in France, one of our key Western allies in the bedrock of 
European stability after two terrible wars in the last century. What 
happened just before the Sunday election in France? There was a massive 
cyber attack on the leading candidate, the one who prevailed, Emmanuel 
Macron. Whom do experts suspect was behind this cyber attack trying to 
manipulate another Western election, trying to foster mistrust in that 
nation's democratic institutions? Not surprisingly, Russia.
  Yet none of this should surprise anyone. Not only had Russia been 
subsidizing Mr. Macron's opponent, Marine Le Pen, who is seen as more 
sympathetic to Moscow, not to mention trying to interfere in Dutch and 
German elections as well, but we were warned about this by our own 
intelligence agencies 6 months ago.
  In early October last year, the U.S. intelligence community detailed 
Russia's attack on America's election and warned us that other attacks 
would follow. During a recent trip to Eastern Europe, a Polish security 
expert warned me that if the United States didn't respond to an attack 
on its own Presidential election by the Russians, Putin would feel 
emboldened to keep up the attacks to undermine and manipulate elections 
all through the free world.
  What has this administration and this Congress done to respond to the 
cyber act of war by the Russians against America's democracy? Has 
President Trump clearly acknowledged Russia's attack on the U.S. and 
forcefully condemned the actions? No. Has President Trump warned Russia 
to stop meddling in the United States and other democratic elections in 
France, Germany, and other countries? No. Has President Trump proposed 
a plan to help the United States thwart any future attack on the next 
election and to help our States protect the integrity of their voting 
systems? No. Has the Republican-led Congress passed sanctions on Russia 
in response to this attack on our democracy? Has it passed meaningful 
cyber security legislation? No.
  Quite simply, the failure of this President and Congress to address 
the security threat is a stunning abdication of responsibility to 
protect the United States and our democratic values.
  As if the conclusions of 17 U.S. intelligence agencies weren't enough 
to raise concerns, let's review what emerged just over the recent April 
recess. For example, Reuters reported that a Russian Government think 
tank, controlled by Russian dictator Vladimir Putin, developed a plan 
to swing our 2016 Presidential election to Donald Trump and undermine 
voters' faith in our electoral system.
  The institute, run by a retired senior Russian foreign intelligence 
official, appointed by Putin, released two key reports, one in June and 
one in October of last year.
  In the first, it argued that ``the Kremlin launch a propaganda 
campaign on social media and Russian state-backed global news outlets 
to encourage US voters to elect a president who would take a softer 
line toward Russia than the administration of then-President Obama.''
  The second warning said:

       [P]residential candidate Hillary Clinton was likely to win 
     the election. For that reason, it argued, it was better for 
     Russia to end its pro-Trump propaganda and instead intensify 
     its messaging about voter fraud to undermine the US electoral 
     system's legitimacy and damage Clinton's reputation in an 
     effort to undermine her presidency.

  It was also recently disclosed that the FBI obtained a Foreign 
Intelligence Surveillance Court warrant to monitor the communications 
of former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser Carter Page on the 
suspicion that he was a Russian agent. Add this to the ever-growing 
list of suspicious relationships between those in the Trump circle and 
Russia, from Michael Flynn to Paul Manafort, to Roger Stone, to Felix 
Sater.
  In fact, just last month, the Republican House Intelligence Committee 
chair, Jason Chaffetz, and the ranking Democratic member, Elijah 
Cummings, said General Flynn may have broken the law by failing to 
disclose on his security clearance forms payments of more than $65,000 
from companies linked to Russia. Yet, incredibly, the White House 
continues to stonewall requests for documents related to General Flynn.
  White House ethics lawyer during the George Bush administration, 
Richard Painter, wrote of this stonewalling: ``US House must subpoena 
the docs. . . . Zero tolerance for WH [White House] covering up foreign 
payoffs.''
  Is it any wonder why, in recent testimony to Congress, FBI Director 
Comey acknowledged an investigation of Russian interference in our 
election, which

[[Page S2823]]

he said included possible links between Russia and Trump associates.
  Finally, over the recess--on tax day, to be precise--there were 
nationwide protests calling on President Trump to take the necessary 
step to dispel concerns by releasing his taxes once and for all. The 
concern over his taxes goes to the serious question as to how much 
Russian money is part of the Trump business empire. In 2008, Donald 
Trump, Jr., said Trump's businesses ``see a lot of money pouring in 
from Russia.'' This was despite his father incredibly saying this just 
a few months ago: ``I have nothing to do with Russia--no deals, no 
loans, no nothing!''

  It appears that the Russians were some of the few willing to take on 
the financial risk required to invest in Trump's precarious business 
deals. Any such Russian money, combined with the President's refusal to 
formally separate himself from his business operations during his 
Presidency, demand the release of his tax returns. Trump's response to 
the mounting calls to release these returns--the usual--is to attack 
everyone asking questions and blindly dismiss the issue as being 
irrelevant.
  Of course, the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee had compelling testimony 
yesterday from former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates and former 
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. Miss Yates discussed 
the urgent warning that she delivered to the White House Counsel on 
January 26 that the National Security Advisor to the President of the 
United States, General Flynn, had been compromised and was subject to 
blackmail by the Russians. It was a warning she repeated in two 
meetings and a phone call.
  What did the White House do in response to the Acting Attorney 
General warning them that the highest adviser in the White House on 
national security could be blackmailed by the Russians? Nothing. For 18 
days, General Flynn continued to staff President Trump for a phone call 
with Vladimir Putin and other highly sensitive national security 
matters.
  Think of that. After being warned by the Attorney General that the 
man sitting in the room with you, the highest level of National 
Security Advisor, could be compromised by the Russians, President Trump 
continued to invite General Flynn for 18 days in that capacity. White 
House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said:

       When the President heard the information as presented by 
     White House Counsel, he instinctively thought that General 
     Flynn did not do anything wrong, and that the White House 
     Counsel's review corroborated that.

  Let's be clear. It is bad enough to have a National Security Advisor 
who is subject to blackmail by the Russians. The fact that the Trump 
White House didn't see that as an urgent problem is deeply troubling.
  I am glad the Senate Crime and Terrorism Subcommittee held this 
hearing yesterday, but the occasional subcommittee hearing is not 
enough. Let's make sure we know for the record that this subcommittee--
chaired by Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican of South Carolina, and 
Ranking Member Sheldon Whitehouse, a Democrat of Rhode Island--did a 
yeoman's duty--not just yesterday but in a previous hearing, without 
being allocated any additional resources for this investigation, 
without being given additional staff. They have brought to the 
attention of the American people some important facts about what 
transpired in the Trump White House after it was clear that General 
Flynn had been compromised by the Russians.
  But the occasional subcommittee hearing like this is not enough. We 
need an independent, bipartisan commission with investigative resources 
and the power necessary to dig into all of the unanswered questions. 
Until we do, the efforts of this committee or that committee are not 
enough. It has to be a conscious effort on a national basis by an 
independent commission.
  For President Trump, these issues do not appear to be relevant, yet 
there is a simple way to resolve the many questions that are before us.
  First, disclose your tax returns and clear up, among other questions, 
what your son said in 2008 about a lot of Russian money pouring into 
your family business.
  No. 2, answer all the questions about campaign contacts with the 
Russians, including your former campaign manager Paul Manafort, former 
National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, and former policy advisor 
Carter Page.
  No. 3, quite simply, explain the reports of repeated contacts between 
your campaign operatives and Russian intelligence.
  No. 4, answer all the questions about your close friend Roger Stone's 
comments that suggest he had knowledge of Wikileaks' having and using, 
in strategically timed releases when your campaign was struggling, 
information that had been hacked by the Russians from your opponent's 
campaign.
  No. 5, explain your ties to Russian foreign businessman Felix Sater, 
who worked at the Bayrock Group investment firm, which partnered with 
your business and had ties to Russian money.
  No. 6, provide all requested documents to Congress related to Michael 
Flynn, who concealed his payments from the Russian interests. If there 
is nothing to hide, this is your chance to clear up things once and for 
all.
  To my Republican colleagues I say again that these Russian 
connections may constitute a national security crisis. We need to have 
the facts. How long will we wait for these desperately needed answers 
before we establish an independent commission investigation, as we have 
done when faced with previous attacks on America?
  Finally, how long will we sit by before passing additional sanctions 
on Russia for their cyber attack on the United States of America? That 
attack makes November 8, 2016, a day that will live in cyber infamy in 
America's history. It is time for the Republicans and the Democrats to 
show the appropriate concern for this breach of our national security.
  We have a bipartisan Russian sanctions bill ready to go to the Senate 
Foreign Relations Committee. What are we waiting for?
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Flake). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in opposition to the 
nomination of Dr. Scott Gottlieb to lead the Food and Drug 
Administration.
  The FDA Commissioner is our Nation's pharmaceutical gatekeeper, but 
for years the FDA has granted unfettered access to Big Pharma and its 
addictive opioid painkillers to the American public. The result is a 
prescription drug, heroin, and fentanyl epidemic of tragic proportions 
and the greatest public health crisis our Nation currently faces.
  At a time when we need its leader to break the stronghold of big 
pharmaceutical companies on the FDA, Dr. Scott Gottlieb would be 
nothing more than an agent of Big Pharma. Dr. Gottlieb's record shows 
that he doesn't support using the tools that the FDA has at its 
disposal to minimize the risks to public health from the misuse of 
prescription opioids.
  The current opioid epidemic is a man-made problem. It was born out of 
the greed of big pharmaceutical companies and aided by the FDA, which 
willfully green-lighted supercharged painkillers like OxyContin. But, 
in order for us to understand this public health emergency and the 
critical role that leadership at the FDA has played and will continue 
to play in this crisis, we need a brief history lesson. We need to 
understand where these opioids come from.
  In 1898, a German chemist introduced heroin to the world--a 
reproduction of an earlier form of morphine believed to be 
nonaddictive. The name ``heroin'' was derived from the German word 
``heroisch,'' which means ``heroic.'' That is how men described the way 
they felt after taking the new drug.
  In the first decade of the 20th century, doctors were led to believe 
that heroin was nonaddictive and prescribed it for many ailments. But 
heroin addiction soon became prevalent, so the government began to 
regulate its use, including arresting doctors who prescribed it to 
those who were already

[[Page S2824]]

addicted, and the medical community began to stop prescribing it. 
Inevitably, the addicted turned to illegal markets to feed their 
dependence.
  Wariness toward prescribing opioid-based painkillers for anything 
other than terminal illnesses continued through the 20th century, all 
the way up until the late 1970s and the early 1980s. At that time, the 
international debate broke out on pain management. The question was 
asked: Was it inhumane to allow patients to suffer needlessly through 
pain when opioid-based medications were available?
  Many advocates for increased use of painkillers pointed to a 1980 
letter to the New England Journal of Medicine, which concluded that 
only 1 percent of patients who were prescribed opiate-based painkillers 
became addicted to their medication. Known as the Porter and Jick 
letter because it was named after the two Boston researchers who 
conducted the research and authored the letter, it fueled a belief that 
opiate-based prescription drugs were not addictive. It was a belief 
that began to permeate the medical community.
  But there was a problem with Porter and Jick's conclusions. They had 
only collected data on patients who were receiving inpatient care. As 
you can imagine, the percentage of patients who became addicted to 
opiates while in the hospital was only a tiny fraction of the patients 
who received opiate prescription drugs in an outpatient setting.
  But the medical community was not the only group espousing theories 
that opiates were not addictive. With the FDA's 1995 approval of the 
original OxyContin, the original sin of the opiate crisis, we can 
literally point to the starting point of this epidemic. The FDA 
approved the original version of OxyContin, an extended-release opioid, 
and believed that it ``would result in less abuse potential since the 
drug would be absorbed slowly and there would not be an immediate 
`rush' or high that would promote abuse.''
  In 1996, Purdue Pharma brought OxyContin to the market, earning the 
company $48 million in sales just that year alone. Purdue Pharma 
claimed OxyContin was nonaddictive and couldn't be abused, and the FDA 
agreed. Neither of those claims turned out to be true.
  Purdue Pharma built a massive marketing and sales program for 
OxyContin. From 1996 to 2000, Purdue Pharma's sales force more than 
doubled, from 318 to 671 sales representatives. In 2001 alone, Purdue 
gave out $40 million in sales bonuses to its burgeoning sales force. 
These sales representatives then targeted healthcare providers who were 
more willing to prescribe opioid painkillers.
  As a result of these sales and marketing efforts from 1997 to 2002, 
OxyContin prescriptions increased almost tenfold, from 670,000 in 1997 
to 6.2 million prescriptions in 2002.
  Then, in 2007, Purdue Pharma paid $600 million in fines and other 
payments after pleading guilty in Federal court to misleading 
regulators, doctors, and patients about the risks of addiction to 
OxyContin and its potential for abuse. The company's president, top 
lawyer, and former chief medical officer also pled guilty to criminal 
misdemeanor charges and paid $34 million in fines.
  In many cases, the FDA approved so-called ``abuse-deterrent'' 
opioids, despite warnings from the medical community about the 
potential for abuse. And when it wasn't turning a blind eye to the 
warnings of experts, the FDA simply didn't engage them at all in 
approval of opioids with abuse-deterrent properties. With numerous 
approvals of so-called abuse-deterrent opioids in 2010, the agency 
convened advisory committees of outside experts for less than half of 
them.
  Mr. President, I note the presence of the minority leader on the 
floor. At this time I ask unanimous consent to suspend this portion of 
my statement and to return to it when the minority leader has concluded 
speaking to the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.