[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 23 (Tuesday, February 6, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S628-S646]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          CHILD PROTECTION IMPROVEMENTS ACT OF 2017--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  (The remarks of Mr. GRASSLEY pertaining to the introduction of S. 
2386 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced 
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                        Community Health Centers

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, it is no secret that our country faces a 
major healthcare crisis and, in fact, a dysfunctional healthcare 
system.
  We have some 30 million people who have no health insurance, and that 
number is going to go up in the coming year. We have even more people 
who are underinsured, with high deductibles and copayments. Our people 
pay the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs, which means 
that millions of people who go to the doctor to get a prescription are 
simply unable to afford the bill. In fact, the description of that is 
the definition of a dysfunctional, failing healthcare system.
  In the midst of all of that, there is another particular crisis 
dealing with primary healthcare, and that is that even when people do 
have health insurance in many parts of our country, they are finding it 
very hard to go to a doctor and to get in to a doctor to treat the 
ailments that they have. We fall behind many other countries in terms 
of our lack of emphasis on primary healthcare, which should be the 
heart and soul of any strong healthcare system. The bottom line is that 
when you get sick, you should be able to get to the doctor when you 
need to and not have to wait weeks and months in order to do so.
  In the midst of a failing primary healthcare system, there is one 
very strong bright spot, and that is that for many decades now, in 
every State in this country, we have had community health centers run 
by the people themselves--democratically run--addressing the healthcare 
needs of those given communities. Today, in America, we have about 27 
million people--27 million men, women, and children--who are accessing 
community health centers. In my own State of Vermont, one out of four 
Vermonters gets their primary healthcare through a community health 
center.
  These centers do more than provide primary healthcare. They also 
provide dental care, an issue that is too often ignored when we talk 
about the healthcare crisis. They provide mental health counseling, 
which is more important now than perhaps it has ever been because of 
the opioid and heroin epidemic our country is experiencing. Equally 
important, they provide low-cost prescription drugs at a time when so 
many Americans cannot afford the medicines they need. That is what 
community health centers do, and they

[[Page S629]]

do it well, and they do it cost effectively.
  To my mind, there is no question but that there is strong bipartisan 
support here in the Senate and in the House for community health 
centers. Yet now we have gone over 4 months into the 2018 fiscal year, 
and we still have not reauthorized funding for community health 
centers. Frankly, I do not understand how it happens that when we have 
strong bipartisan support in the House and the Senate for programs that 
are working extremely well in every State in this country, the 
Republican leadership still has not reauthorized the community health 
center program. There is good bipartisan legislation right here in the 
Senate that has, I think, the support of virtually everybody in the 
Democratic caucus. Seven or eight Republicans are supporting it. It is 
the Blunt-Stabenow bill. It is a 5-year extension of community health 
centers reauthorization with a modest increase in the budget. If that 
bill came to the floor today, my guess is that it would get 70, 80 
votes--maybe even more. We have gone 4 months into the fiscal year, and 
we still have not seen that bill reauthorized.
  What is happening all over this country is that community health 
centers, which often struggle with recruitment and retention, are 
finding it harder than ever to retain the doctors, nurses, and other 
medical staff they need because applicants are looking around and 
saying: Why should I work at a community health center if I don't even 
know if it is going to be there next year? Why should I stay at a 
community health center if I can get a better job offer and I don't 
know if this community health center will be funded?
  As a result of 4 months of inaction, community health centers all 
over this country are hurting. I say enough is enough. Right now, as 
soon as possible, we need to reauthorize the community health center 
program for at least 5 years, and we need to make sure there is 
adequate funding so that they can continue to do the excellent work 
they are doing all over this country.


                            Opioid Epidemic

  Mr. President, there is another issue that I would like to briefly 
touch upon. There has been a lot of discussion--appropriately so--about 
the opioid epidemic that is sweeping the United States. We have lost 
some 63,000 Americans as a result of opioid overdoses in 2016 alone. 
Families by the millions are being impacted.
  I was in Brattleboro, VT, a few weeks ago, and they talked to me 
about what is happening to the children whose parents are addicted to 
opioids. They need to find foster homes for those children.
  This is clearly an epidemic that has to be dealt with. We have to 
increase funding for prevention to make sure young people don't get 
swept up into the epidemic and also for treatment for those people who 
are addicted.
  There is an issue that we have not touched upon enough, and that is 
holding the drug companies responsible and accountable for the products 
they brought into the market. As some people may recall, in April of 
1994, the CEOs of the seven largest tobacco companies testified before 
the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health and the 
Environment in a historic hearing. What that hearing was about was, 
under oath, demanding to know what the executives from the tobacco 
industry knew and when they knew it. Did they know that their product 
was addictive? Did they know that tobacco caused cancer, heart disease, 
and other medical problems? They were asked to hold their hands up and 
under oath tell the committee what they knew.
  I think it is now appropriate for the Senate to do the same with 
those drug companies that are producing opioids. I think we need to 
know what the drug companies knew in terms of the addictive qualities 
of those drugs. There is some evidence out there that suggests that 
drug companies, in fact, did know that the product they were selling 
was in fact addictive, but they forgot to tell the doctors--and 
certainly not the patients.
  It is one thing for somebody to do something in ignorance, not 
knowing the impact of what you produce. That happens all the time. It 
is something very different if, in fact, the manufacturer of a product 
understands that the product causes addiction, that the product causes 
death. We need to get to the root of that issue. We need to know what 
the drug companies knew and when they knew that.
  I would hope very much that in the Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions Committee, which has jurisdiction over this issue, we could 
bring the executives of those drug companies that produce these opioids 
before us, because not only are we talking about 60,000 people a year 
dying as a result of overdoses, but what we are talking about also is 
the expenditure of tens of billions of dollars in healthcare and law 
enforcement associated with opioid addiction.
  I hope that we can move forward and have those executives come before 
us and tell us under oath what they knew and when they knew it, because 
I think the time is long overdue for us to hold them accountable.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.


                     Stewardship for Our Democracy

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, last fall I had the honor to stand in this 
Chamber and deliver remarks on the subject of a great and growing 
concern to me--the stewardship of our democracy at the hands of the 
most powerful figure in our government. I stand again today to sound 
the same alarm.
  Words matter. Have we arrived at such a place of numb acceptance that 
we have nothing to say when the President of the United States casually 
suggests that those who choose not to stand or applaud his speech are 
guilty of treason? I certainly hope not.
  The one who levels such a charge knows neither the meaning of 
``treason'' nor the power that the words of a President carry. If we 
are numb to such words, then we will surely regret that we failed to 
defend our colleagues in Congress against such a vile remark, but our 
silence will also mark the day we failed to recognize that this conduct 
in an American President simply is not normal.
  I wish I could stand here today and say my words of last October have 
been proven wrong; that I had been unfair to inveigh against the daily 
sundering of our country; that I had been mistaken about the personal 
attacks; that I had exaggerated the threats against principles, 
freedoms, and institutions, the flagrant disregard for truth and 
decency, and the reckless provocations, most often for the pettiest and 
most personal reasons, reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with 
the fortunes of the people we have all been elected to serve--I wish I 
could say I had been wrong, but I cannot.
  I have seen the President's most ardent defenders use the now-weary 
argument that the President's comments were meant as a joke, just 
sarcasm, only tongue in cheek, but treason is not a punch line.
  The President said the State of the Union Address was meant to 
promote and encourage unity in government. Then why, less than a week 
later, follow up with this divisive and harmful rhetoric? Unity is not 
secured in a speech. It must be pursued constantly through appropriate 
behavior, mutual respect, and gained by effective leadership. Respect 
is earned, not commanded. Applause signals approval of an idea, not 
loyalty to one's country.
  Our Democratic colleagues love this country as much as we do. To 
suggest otherwise is simply unconscionable. None of us in Congress 
pledge loyalty or service to the President. This is not a royal court. 
Our oath is to the Constitution and to the people. As Members of 
Congress, we must never accept undignified discourse as normal because 
of the requirements of tribal party politics.
  None of this behavior should ever be regarded as normal. We must 
never allow ourselves to lapse into thinking this is just the way 
things are now.
  We will get through this period, and when we do, we will look back at 
the destruction of our discourse and the attacks on our democratic 
values as nothing but a tragedy. May we also be able to say they were 
an aberration. That, my colleagues, is up to us. We must recognize this 
is aberrant, destructive behavior, whatever rationale its defenders may 
offer, and we must never shrink from opposing it, for it is in opposing 
this behavior that we defend our norms, our ideals, and our values. It 
is in opposing this behavior that we stand for decency.
  Thank you.

[[Page S630]]

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hoeven). The Senator from South Dakota is 
recognized.


                               Tax Reform

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, the good news for American workers 
continues to roll in. Just take a look at the headlines from the last 
week: ``Pfizer Plans $5 Billion Boost in U.S. Manufacturing From Tax 
Law Changes''; ``Cigna raises wages, benefits following tax law''; 
``CEO: Lehigh Valley small businesses to benefit from federal tax 
overhaul''; ``Altria Group will pay $3,000 bonus to all non-executive 
employees''; ``Ozarks workers to receive bonuses, benefits thanks to 
tax changes''; ``Charter Sets $15 Minimum Wage''; ``Lowe's to pay U.S. 
staff $1,000 bonus following tax reform.''
  The number of companies increasing wages, boosting retirement 
contributions, or handing out bonuses thanks to tax reform continues to 
soar. Last week at this time, the number was over 250; now it is up 
over 300, and it keeps growing. Businesses are making plans to invest 
in their workers, raise wages, create new jobs, and invest in the U.S. 
economy. Fiat Chrysler, AT&T, Boeing, Home Depot, Great Western Bank in 
my home State of South Dakota, AaLadin Industries, Southwest, Best Buy, 
AccuWeather, Visa, Nationwide Insurance, Jet Blue--the list of 
companies announcing good news for American workers thanks to tax 
reform goes on and on.
  The Nation's largest private employer, Walmart, announced an increase 
in its starting wage for hourly employees and bonuses for eligible 
employees. It also announced expanded maternity and parental leave 
benefits and the creation of a new adoption benefit for employees. More 
than 1 million Walmart employees will benefit from these changes.
  JPMorgan Chase announced that it will raise wages for 22,000 workers, 
add thousands of jobs, and open 400 new branches in the United States. 
It also plans to increase its lending to small businesses.
  Tech giant Apple announced that thanks to tax reform, it will bring 
home to the United States almost $250 billion in cash it has been 
keeping overseas and finally now invest it here in the United States. 
It also announced that it will create 20,000 new jobs and provide 
$2,500 stock bonuses to its employees.
  FedEx announced plans to expedite raises and invest $1.5 billion to 
expand its FedEx Express hub in Indianapolis. It is also making a $1.5 
billion contribution to its pension plan.
  Last week, ExxonMobil announced that thanks in part to tax reform, it 
will invest an additional $35 billion in the U.S. economy over the next 
5 years. That means a lot of new jobs and opportunities for American 
workers.
  As I said before, I could go on and on. It is important to remember 
that this is just the beginning. To date, companies have barely 
experienced the benefits of tax reform, and already they are moving to 
invest in their workers and in the economy. As the benefits of tax 
reform continue to sink in and accrue, we can expect to see more 
growth, more jobs, and more opportunities for American workers.
  The past month of good news is the reason we made business tax reform 
a key part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. We are deeply committed to 
immediate relief for the American people, which is why we cut tax 
rates, doubled the standard deduction, and doubled the child tax 
credit, delivering immediate, meaningful tax relief to middle-class 
families in this country. But we want more for American workers than 
just a tax cut, as valuable as those are; we also want American workers 
to have access to the kinds of jobs and opportunities that will set 
them up for security and prosperity for the long term. Good jobs, good 
wages, and good opportunities were in short supply during the last 
Presidency, and we are determined to improve things for American 
workers. So we took action to improve the situation for American 
businesses since the only way individual Americans thrive is if 
American businesses and the American economy thrive.
  Prior to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, American businesses large and 
small were weighed down by high tax rates and growth-killing tax 
provisions. Plus, our outdated international tax rules left America's 
global businesses at a competitive disadvantage in the global economy.
  The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act changed all that. We lowered tax rates 
across the board for owners with small- and medium-sized businesses, 
farms, and ranches. We expanded business owners' ability to recover 
investments they make in their businesses, which will free up cash that 
they can invest in their operations and their workers. We lowered our 
Nation's massive corporate tax rate, which, up until January 1 of this 
year, was the highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world. 
We brought the U.S. international tax system into the 21st century by 
replacing our outdated worldwide system with a modernized territorial 
tax system so that American businesses are not operating at a 
disadvantage next to their foreign competitors.
  Now, just a month and a half into the new tax law, we are already 
seeing the results: increased investment in the American economy, job 
creation, higher wages, and benefit increases. As the tax law helps 
U.S. businesses large and small grow and thrive, we can expect to see a 
lot more benefits and opportunities for American workers in the future.
  Before I close, Mr. President, I would like to say a couple words 
about the Defense appropriations bill we are taking up this week.
  By the end of the Obama administration, our military was facing a 
serious readiness shortfall. The Obama administration's failure to 
prioritize defense left our Armed Forces with manpower deficits and 
delayed the acquisition of 21st-century weapons and equipment.
  The Defense appropriations bill we will vote on this week provides 
critical funding for restoring military readiness and would be a 
downpayment on equipping our troops with the resources they need to 
meet the threats of the 21st century. Unfortunately, passage of this 
bill is in jeopardy here in the Senate, thanks to Senate Democrats. 
Democrats have blocked a Defense appropriations bill six times over the 
past almost 3 years now, and they look set to block that bill once 
again. That is not acceptable.
  Funding the government by continuing resolution rather than by 
appropriations bills is never ideal, but it is particularly problematic 
for the military. Under a continuing resolution, new programs are 
delayed, and the military's ability to transfer money between 
accounts--for acquisition purposes, for example--is restricted. That is 
a big problem when the security of our Nation depends on the very 
programs and purchases the military makes.
  Defense Secretary James Mattis has warned that ``long-term CRs impact 
the readiness of our forces and their equipment at a time when security 
threats are extraordinarily high''--not to mention at a time when our 
military is already under extra pressure as it works to repair the 
deficits of the Obama years.
  Passing a defense appropriations bill, instead of subjecting the 
military to a constant procession of continuing resolutions, would go a 
long way toward ensuring our military men and women are prepared to 
confront the threats that are facing our Nation. It is too bad that 
Democrats seem to be unable to look beyond politics to the needs of our 
military. Democrats may not pay a price for opposing this bill this 
week, but our military will.
  It is high time that we pass the Defense appropriations bill. We need 
to stop this obstruction, stop this blocking. Six times in the last 3 
years already they have blocked passage of Defense appropriations, and 
here we are again faced this week with yet another opportunity to 
provide the critical and necessary funding for the American military--
our men and women in uniform who every single day are out there 
defending our freedoms--and it looks as though yet again the Democrats 
intend to block that critical, important funding. This needs to come to 
an end. This isn't about politics; this is about America's national 
security interests. I hope we can come together and recognize that and 
put the best interests of America's national security and our men and 
women in uniform ahead of politics.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

[[Page S631]]

  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                     Offshore Oil and Gas Drilling

  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak against the 
Trump administration's egregious attack on our pristine coastlines in 
the Pacific, the Atlantic, Alaska, and the eastern Gulf of Mexico.
  Dramatic increases in oil and gas development offshore pose a direct 
threat to our coastal economies in the United States, particularly in 
the Pacific Northwest. I know many of my colleagues are going to join 
me on the floor this afternoon to talk about this and about the 
specific impacts in their areas.
  The draft leasing plan, which is what has been put forth by the 
Secretary of the Interior, is an unprecedented attempt to allow 
offshore oil and gas drilling in over 90 percent of the U.S. Outer 
Continental Shelf, including in Washington and Oregon.
  The truth is that instead of creating new jobs in the oil and gas 
sector, the administration is poised to choose big oil jobs over the 
ocean-dependent industries like fishing, shipbuilding, and tourism on 
our coasts. I know this because I just traveled to many of our coastal 
communities in the State of Washington, which make their livelihoods 
off of fishing or tourism, that are very concerned by this proposal. 
And just yesterday, a public hearing was supposed to take place in 
Tacoma, WA, which was canceled. The Trump administration failed to 
account for the value of the existing robust coastal and ocean 
economies that could be jeopardized by expanding offshore drilling in 
those areas.
  Our ocean-related economy is so important to our State that expanding 
drilling directly threatens the ocean environment and marine resources 
that support millions of jobs in construction, fishing, shipbuilding, 
tourism, recreation, and maritime transport. The ocean-related 
industries in the areas targeted by the administration's plan 
contribute over 2.2 million direct jobs, nearly $75 billion in wages, 
and over $150 billion in GDP. The reason I bring this up is that the 
economic benefits of these industries cannot be overstated: nearly $8 
billion from fishing and seafood, nearly $70 billion from marine 
transport, and over $125 billion from tourism and recreation.
  We know that oilspills or other natural disasters related to oil and 
gas activities, such as the Exxon Valdez or the Deepwater Horizon 
disaster, can disrupt entire coastal economies. For example, if you 
took just the Deepwater Horizon spill in size and compared it to the 
coastal areas of Washington and Oregon, the impacted area would cover 
all of Washington and a big chunk of Oregon. We know that these can be 
devastating.
  The shore-adjacent counties in the targeted areas host over 39 
million jobs and contribute over $2 trillion in wages. The economies of 
the shore-adjacent counties represent 65 percent of the affected 
coastal States' GDPs. That is just one way of saying that coastal 
States and their economies are big drivers in our U.S. economy and that 
they are extremely dependent on clean water, coasts, our oceans, and 
our fisheries.
  The Washington coast economy relies on healthy, sustainable oceans, 
which support our fisheries in places such as Grays Harbor and Pacific 
County and in many other parts of our State, to make sure they have 
seafood processing, recreation, and tourism. Our Washington maritime 
economy is worth $50 billion in economic activity and 191,000 jobs, and 
tourism on the coast adds jobs for anglers, charter boats, cruise 
guides, restaurants, hotels, and more, which are so iconic in the 
Pacific Northwest. They are the culture and heritage of our coastal 
communities.
  The fact that so many recreational fishermen can be out on our 
healthy oceans and attracting more people to come and explore is so 
much a part of the Northwest that putting it at risk to oilspill 
activities or activities related to exploration is just not something 
these communities want to do. Just this past week, I received 
resolutions from various communities on our Pacific coast that urged 
that this idea be turned down.
  The Washington and Oregon coasts are not really suited for oil and 
gas development. First of all, there are extreme sea states, 
treacherous storms, and the remote nature of our coastlines. As one of 
our maritime communities told me, it doesn't really have the resources 
for cleanup in the area. If a spill happened, who would be there to 
clean it up? In the meantime, our fishermen, if they have oil sheens 
behind their fishing boats, can be fined. If we are ready to fine 
fishermen for oil sheens behind their boats, why are we proposing a 
plan in the treacherous waters of the Pacific Northwest without having 
any idea who is going to clean up the mess?
  Adding to the risk in the Pacific Northwest is the Cascadia 
Subduction Zone--one of the most dangerous faults in the United States. 
The Cascadia Subduction Zone is long overdue to create a significant 
earthquake. You hear from lots of people about this. In fact, after The 
New Yorker wrote a big story called ``The Really Big One,'' many people 
from across the country emailed me to ask: Are we ready for this to 
happen? I can tell you, with what happened in Japan, people are very 
concerned about how we prepare for that in the Pacific Northwest. So it 
makes no sense to put an oil rig on one of the most high-risk, 
earthquake-prone zones in the United States.
  In a 1991 spill, the dangerous and choppy seas prevented first 
responders from being able to contain more of the spill. That is why I 
have fought to improve oilspill prevention and response in the State of 
Washington by deploying our Neah Bay tug, which is a full-time tug, to 
make sure we get boats safely through our waters; by increasing 
oilspill response equipment throughout the Strait of Juan de Fuca; and 
by pushing for the Coast Guard to invest in research on tar sands oil.
  Those are some of the things we can do to protect ourselves, but we 
need to do much more.
  We must weigh future decisions about where we should allow oil and 
gas exploration with the costs to our coastal economies.
  We must incorporate the lessons we have learned from disasters such 
as Deepwater Horizon, which is part of this picture, or the Exxon 
Valdez in order to improve oilspill prevention, response, and safety. 
Herring fish from Prince William Sound are still very much impacted and 
have not fully recovered after the Exxon Valdez. So telling our 
fishermen that this is a great idea, that Washington fisheries, whether 
they be crab or other fisheries, should be susceptible to these kinds 
of spills--that is just not something our fishermen want to hear.
  In addition to these efforts to drill off of our coasts--efforts that 
have been repeatedly blocked in the past--President Trump wants to roll 
back important safety regulations that were put in place after 
Deepwater Horizon, such as blowout preventer systems, well control, and 
production safety systems.
  Now Secretary Zinke wants to open these coastal areas. Our State has 
been responding to his proposal for months and months. We gave very 
important data to say that this was not a good idea off the coast of 
Washington. It is interesting because Secretary Zinke made a last-
minute decision with regard to Florida, which didn't turn in its 
information about its State on this issue. Then later, after a visit 
with the Governor, Secretary Zinke said that this was something he 
didn't want to see happen. The people of Washington don't want 
political games played. They want to have their say on this issue, and 
they want to make sure their voices are heard loud and clear. Our 
coastal economies are too important to us, from a jobs and cultural 
perspective, to go about even proposing the research on drilling in our 
coastal areas.
  I am disappointed that yesterday there was a last-minute postponement 
of a public meeting that was supposed to take place in Tacoma, WA, to 
hear from our citizens about their opposition to expanding oil drilling 
off our coasts. I am not sure whether there will be a hearing 
rescheduled or exactly what was behind the cancelation, but it was one 
of the first opportunities Washingtonians could have had to express 
their views on this issue.

[[Page S632]]

  Based on the vocal opposition of our communities, I sent a letter to 
Secretary Zinke, with 15 of my House and Senate colleagues from the 
Pacific Northwest, calling on Washington and Oregon to not be part of a 
future lease program. I know that many people, including our Governor, 
have done the same. Members from the Pacific, Atlantic, gulf coast, and 
even Alaska are writing to Secretary Zinke, asking him to exclude their 
areas from future drilling activities.
  I am very concerned that we are wasting taxpayer money in reanalyzing 
what we have analyzed before--that oil and gas development in the 
Pacific Northwest does not make sense for our coastal communities. We 
will fight to protect our fishing jobs, our tourism, our recreation, 
and all of the things that are part of the center of our culture on our 
coasts. We hope Secretary Zinke will follow science, protect our 
coastal economy, stop this foolish idea that drilling off of our coast 
is either necessary or prudent, and move about to protect our Federal 
lands.
  I thank the Presiding Officer.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Flake). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, today I rise to address an issue that 
probably is not of great concern to the citizens of Arizona, but, 
certainly, it is of a lot of concern for people who happen to live on 
the east coast and the west coast of our Nation.
  I join my colleagues on both coasts in opposition to the Trump 
administration's recent proposal to open up parts of the Atlantic and 
Pacific Oceans and the Gulf of Mexico to more oil and gas drilling. For 
a long time, I have advocated for an ``all of the above'' strategy to 
meet our country's energy needs, as we move our country toward greater 
energy efficiency and the use of renewable energy and to energy 
independence. In my view, the administration's recent proposal to 
expand drilling off of our coasts into new areas is not necessary at 
this time. It is unnecessary at this time.
  Just 8 years ago, we saw very clearly with the Deepwater Horizon 
disaster that oilspills do not respect State boundaries and that severe 
environmental and financial costs of oilspills last, in some cases, not 
just for years or decades but for generations. A spill anywhere along 
the east coast could easily affect the pristine beaches of Delaware and 
the vibrant coastal communities that rely on fishing, tourism, and 
recreational activities to drive their local economy.
  Delaware's coast isn't all that long. It is about 25, 30 miles, from 
the Maryland line to just north of Lewes, DE. Each year, Delaware's 
coasts generate almost $7 billion. Our beach communities in places like 
Rehoboth Beach, Dewey Beach, and surrounding areas support nearly 
60,000 jobs in a little State with not quite 1 million people. It 
supports $711 million in tax revenues. Again, the State budget is right 
around $4 billion. Delaware may be a small State--I like to say we are 
the 49th largest State--but we have a lot of coast-related activities, 
and they are a big business for a little State, providing more than 10 
percent of the First State's total employment, taxes, and business 
production. Jeopardizing the environmental and economic health of the 
entire Atlantic coast is the wrong move, and we simply think it is not 
worth the risk.
  You don't just have to take my word for it. Experts, scientists, and 
residents living in communities along the coast that will be most 
impacted by this decision agree, especially since the threat of climate 
change continues to grow.
  Delawareans are similarly concerned about the dangers posed by oil 
and gas exploration activities, including the use of seismic-testing 
air guns to search for offshore oil and gas deposits. In August 2016, 
roughly 18 months ago, over 40 State and local elected officials in 
Delaware sent a letter to the Department of Interior--this was in the 
last administration--expressing their opposition to proposed seismic 
surveys.
  Their concerns, in my view, are well-founded. The negative impact of 
the oil and gas industry's seismic testing on ocean ecosystems and the 
life they support--from plankton at the base of the ocean food chain 
and all the way to whales at the top--is well documented. Despite the 
widespread opposition and proof of harmful consequences, proponents of 
increased drilling for oil would argue that oil and gas development 
could represent economic benefit in selected areas along our coast. But 
these areas are already the beneficiary of remarkable economic benefits 
derived from and contingent on a healthy, vital, and sustainable ocean 
environment off of our shores. As a result, these communities do not 
take the prospect of compromising these natural resources lightly, nor 
should we.
  Do you know who also recognizes that coastal communities could be 
negatively impacted if their natural resources were compromised? The 
answer is our Interior Secretary, Mr. Ryan Zinke. In fact, that was the 
exact justification that Secretary Zinke used to carve Florida's gulf 
coast out of the Trump administration's proposal. Secretary Zinke 
pointed out that other States--like Louisiana, for example--are 
``working coasts'' that are ``very much different than a recreation-
centric coast that's in Florida.''
  It seems to me that maybe, just maybe, the only real difference 
between Florida and every other coastal State--including Delaware and 
up on north to Maine--that was not lucky enough to get an exemption 
from Secretary Zinke is that President Trump happens to have beach-
front property in Florida. Believe me, I understand that a potential 
oilspill off of the Florida coast would be bad for business at Mar-a-
Lago and that the President's guests probably don't want the view from 
the resort obstructed by offshore oil rigs. I understand that because 
an overwhelming majority of Delawareans feel the same way, and their 
voices deserve to be heard too.
  It is not just the Delawareans or even Democrats who acknowledge that 
increased oil drilling off of our coasts is the wrong move. Republican 
Governors and lawmakers from States such as Georgia and South 
Carolina--and all the way up to Massachusetts and New Hampshire--have 
publicly stated their opposition to the Trump administration's plan 
because the risks are simply not worth the potential reward.
  If the administration insists on proceeding with this proposal, then, 
it should carve out the cherished Delaware coast and similar areas 
along the Atlantic from any efforts to increase drilling. As we have 
heard said many times, what is good for the goose is good for the 
gander. In Florida, Secretary Zinke has clearly established the 
standard that should apply to any coastal area that would be part of an 
offshore leasing plan. If it is an area in which coastal activities and 
industries yield greater economic value and where local communities are 
solidly opposed, then those areas should get the same exemption that 
has been awarded to the Sunshine State of Florida.
  This President is a businessman, and the numbers are clear. Increased 
drilling does not make economic sense. I urge President Trump to 
rethink this shortsighted proposal and to side with coastal residents 
from Maine to Miami.
  Mr. President, I yield back.
  We have been joined by my colleagues from Florida and Oregon, and I 
yield to one of them.
  To whom shall I yield?
  I am happy to yield to the ranking member of the Finance Committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I thank both of my colleagues, and I thank 
my colleague from Florida for his courtesy. I am going to be brief.
  My views on this issue can be summed up in a tweet that I sent on 
Saturday. I was home having town meetings. I go to every county every 
year, and I had just wrapped up in Astoria, and I was on my way to 
Tillamook.
  We stopped at Rockaway Beach, on the spectacular Oregon coast, and I 
decided that I would send a tweet and start it off with a question: 
Drilling on the Oregon coast? The answer was this: You have got to be 
kidding me. On my watch, that is going to be the policy we

[[Page S633]]

are going to have for protecting the Oregon coast. That is what 
Oregonians are saying today, specifically. In fact, Oregonians are 
lining up to make their opposition known by protesting this proposal 
outside a meeting today, hosted by the Bureau of Ocean Energy 
Management in Salem.

  We have a picturesque coastline that looks as if it is right out of a 
storybook. It is 362 miles that supports 22,000 jobs and a $2 billion 
economy. Tourism, fishing, and recreation are all dependent on a 
healthy Pacific Ocean.
  Our coast is entirely publicly owned, and it has been protected from 
oil and gas drilling for decades. That is, in large part, because we 
have learned harsh lessons from the past. In 1999, the freighter New 
Carissa ran aground off the coast of Coos Bay. The ship split apart, 
spilling tens of thousands of gallons of oil and diesel that covered 
our beaches in oil and tar balls. Some of that toxic mess remained on 
our beaches for almost a decade, costing tens of millions of dollars to 
clean up.
  The thousands of fishermen, recreation business owners, and guides 
shouldn't have to go to bed at night hoping there is not a spill or an 
explosion--or risk their livelihoods on the good will of oil and gas 
executives. To make matters even more ominous, just days before 
announcing his intention to open up our entire coastline to oil and gas 
drilling, Secretary Zinke reversed basic safety standards for workers 
that were adopted after the Deepwater Horizon disaster. So what you 
have here is a double whammy. First, gut safety standards for oil and 
gas workers on offshore rigs. That is right; gut the safety standards 
for oil and gas workers. Second, increase the probability that these 
workers are going to be put in danger in the first place.
  As I said on Saturday on my way to those town meetings, the people of 
my State, Oregonians, overwhelmingly do not want to be a part of any of 
this. Secretary Zinke went ahead and made a wrong decision with respect 
to coastal drilling without any input from Oregon. Our commercial and 
recreational fisheries industry--hard-working families who depend on 
healthy fishing stocks--had no seat at the table. In fact, an entire 
west coast industry was left out of whatever discussions happened 
between the oil executives and the Trump officials in the back room of 
the Department of the Interior.
  One day after his decision, Mr. Zinke met with the Republican 
Governor of Florida, and my colleague who will speak next has been 
eloquent on that point, describing the plan as a threat to the 
environment and economy of his home State. That was enough for 
Secretary Zinke to let Florida off the hook, but there has been an 
outcry of opposition from the Governors of 15 coastal States, including 
mine. We have raised the very same environmental and economic concerns, 
yet Secretary Zinke seems deaf to our voices. I guess the only voice 
that is really relevant is that of a Republican Governor, and that is 
about as nakedly political as it gets around Washington--a big gift for 
the oil and gas companies but one that poses an enormous danger to the 
economies and environment of local communities along our coast.
  Finally, the decision doesn't make sense in terms of energy policy. 
Our country is more energy-secure now than ever. The International 
Energy Agency reports that within 10 years the United States will move 
from being a net importer of oil to a net exporter. So Secretary 
Zinke's scheme to expand offshore drilling is going to benefit--let's 
acknowledge that--a handful of Big Oil interests and then leave hard-
working fishing families and coastal business owners to pick up the 
bill. That is not how we do things on our west coast.
  The lasting economic uncertainty and ultimate environmental 
degradation are not worth it, and today, on behalf of the people of 
Oregon, I urge Secretary Zinke to rescind his proposal.
  I yield the floor and thank my colleague from Florida for his 
courtesy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Daines). The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I make an 
announcement and then defer to Senator King and then that it come back 
to me for my statement about offshore drilling.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NELSON. Thank you, Mr. President.


                          Falcon Heavy Rocket

  Just a few minutes ago, the largest rocket since the Moon program, 
the Saturn V, launched from the Kennedy Space Center. People across the 
world saw it on TV, as well as over the internet. Thousands of people 
lined the beaches at the Kennedy Space Center.
  Perhaps even more impressive is that this rocket, with three Falcon 
9s strapped together--27 engines--took a payload for its first test 
flight. It was so successful that the two side Falcon 9s, with the 
center core of the Falcon 9--we watched in amazement as they returned 
to Earth, 100 yards apart on two landing zones at the Cape Canaveral 
Air Force Station.
  At liftoff, the Falcon Heavy generates 500 million pounds of thrust 
and is twice as powerful as any other rocket currently flying. 
Especially with the ability to land and reuse the boosters, it promises 
to be a very affordable way to get to space.
  The test launch of the Falcon Heavy is a spectacular demonstration of 
the comeback of Florida's Space Coast and of the U.S. commercial launch 
sector, which is succeeding in a big way. Last year, we tied the all-
time record for the number of U.S. commercial launches. That is good 
news for the civil space program; it is good news for national 
security; it is good news for employment in the United States; and it 
is great news for jobs and the economy.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Mr. KING. Mr. President, first, I thank the Senator from Florida for 
yielding and congratulate him on the success of this launch in Florida. 
As he said, it is a huge boost, if you will, for the space industry in 
his State and a huge advantage for our country. It is a really amazing 
technological feat that I think will be positive.


                     Offshore Oil and Gas Drilling

  Mr. President, I rise just for a few minutes to talk about the 
decision to allow drilling for oil and gas off of our coasts. This is a 
very consequential and serious decision involving important policy 
questions, and it has important implications for all of the coastal 
States and indeed for our country.
  My concern, to echo some of the comments that have already been made, 
is that there was very little, if any, consultation with the interested 
parties along our coastal States. In Maine--which, by the way, 
according to geographers I have talked to, has the longest coast of any 
State in the country; I am sure I will get some debate about that from 
some of my colleagues--we depend upon our coast. Tourism and visitation 
to our beaches and coastal communities are a billion-dollar industry--
the largest single employer in our State. So that is an enormous 
economic engine that is currently working and running and powering at 
least a portion of the economy of our State. Of course, on my tie, I 
have lobsters, which is a $1.7 billion-a-year industry in Maine, and it 
promises to be even stronger as processing is developed. We also have 
an offshore fishing industry--shrimp, shellfish. It is enormously 
important. It is a part of who we are in the State of Maine.
  In my view, this is a pretty straightforward decision. What are the 
benefits, and what are the costs? The benefits are speculative at best, 
limited at best, and the costs are immediate and an enormous challenge 
for us. The cost of a single incident along our coast, which would 
affect our lobster industry or our visitor industry in the summertime 
and in the spring and the fall, would be catastrophic for our State.
  I hope that the Department of the Interior will back off and enter 
into a process by which they make this decision by talking to the 
people who are most directly involved. I think this is a very important 
issue for all of the coastal States, and some may say that this could 
be advantageous to us. But let's get the facts, let's get the data, and 
let's understand the upside and the downside.
  The entire Maine congressional delegation, nonpartisan--that is, a 
Democrat, an Independent, and two Republicans--came out against this 
designation within hours of its having been made. This is one where I 
think the people of our State, through their

[[Page S634]]

elected representatives, need to be heard.
  I hope that the Department of the Interior will back away from this 
unilateral decision, make it in a much more considered way, listen to 
the residents, the industries, and the businesses that are affected by 
a decision like this, and let our States have the important role that 
they should play in a decision of this magnitude, affecting their 
citizens.
  As I said, I think this is an important decision. It deserves much 
deeper consideration, and I believe the people of Maine will very 
promptly say that this isn't something we are willing to support.
  Thank you.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I see my good friend the Senator from New 
Jersey here, and I just want to make a few comments, since I have been 
at the center of this firestorm.
  I am here again to talk about the mess that has been created by the 
5-year drilling plan. Some of the reasons I have talked about it so 
much go beyond the fact that it is disastrous and dangerous, not only 
for all the coastal States but for our State of Florida, which has more 
beaches than any other State and is surrounded by test range. Indeed, 
just today, the largest rocket since the Apollo program to the Moon has 
brought back two of its boosters that didn't have to fall into the 
ocean. But some may, and you simply cannot have oil rigs out there in 
the Atlantic where we are testing our military rockets, such as today--
a commercial rocket, the Falcon Heavy, has dropped its initial stages. 
The same is true with the military on the west coast.
  The largest testing and training area for the U.S. military in the 
world is the eastern Gulf of Mexico off of Florida. That is why it is 
off limits in law for another 5 years, until the year 2022, and we need 
to expand that.
  Well, my colleagues have endured me so many times as I have talked 
about how disastrous it would be, but now we have a different wrinkle 
with the Department of the Interior. They first published a proposal 
that would open up nearly every inch of coastline of the entire United 
States. You are hearing all of these coastal Senators speak against it.
  They pick up on the eastern gulf off of Florida; since it is off 
limits in law until year 2022, they pick up there and start wanting to 
drill out there. Can you imagine what that would do to the U.S. Air 
Force, which runs the eastern gulf test range?
  Well, look what happened. They published this, and then the very next 
day--24 hours later--the Secretary of the Interior jetted off to 
Tallahassee for a 20-minute press conference at the Tallahassee airport 
and announced that Florida was off the table. It was an obvious, 
transparent, political stunt, but it created enormous uncertainty about 
what was truly under consideration for drilling.
  What did ``off the table''--in order to try to satisfy Florida's 
incumbent Governor--mean? Does it apply to the Atlantic coast of 
Florida, as well, or just to the gulf coast? Is it the whole moratorium 
area of the eastern gulf? Does it include the Straits of Florida off 
the delicate Florida Keys, or will it be carved in half to appease the 
oil industry in the eastern Gulf of Mexico?

  The administration--specifically Secretary Zinke--is playing fast and 
loose with a process that affects millions of people in the State of 
Florida, and Floridians deserve to know what is going on. That is why I 
sounded the alarm immediately, within 10 minutes after Secretary 
Zinke's announcement.
  I have been through this process before--ever since I was a young 
Congressman representing the east coast of Florida--with a Secretary of 
the Interior, James Watt, who wanted to drill off the east coast of 
Florida. In fact, back then, in the mid-1980s, we were launching our 
military rockets, just as we do today, and the space shuttle was 
dropping its solid rocket boosters.
  These 5-year plans are supposed to be developed over the course of 1 
or 2 years with extensive input from the public, agency staff, the 
industries involved, and the environmental community. Five-year plans 
aren't supposed to be a goody bag of political favors, and they can't 
be undone by the Secretary's press conference or a tweet. That was 
confirmed by a career employee, Walter Cruickshank, the Acting Director 
of the Interior's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. He said that at a 
House committee hearing. It is no wonder the attorneys general from 12 
coastal States wrote to the Secretary to warn him that he should 
terminate the draft proposal--terminate it entirely--or else they were 
going to pursue their appropriate legal avenues.
  The whole process has been fraught with confusion because it was a 
political stunt, and as a result, we have a bunch of Senators out here 
fighting to make known what is happening. At the same time, the 
Interior Department is trying to open up America's entire coastline to 
drilling. They are also working to undo all the commonsense safety 
standards that were put in place after the Deepwater Horizon oilspill 
that spilled 5 million barrels of oil into the gulf and killed 11 
workers on the rig. Those safety standards include requirements like 
making sure an independent third party, such as a professional 
engineer, certifies the offshore drilling safety equipment, such as the 
blowout preventer. That malfunctioned 5 miles below the surface of the 
gulf when it did not cut off the oil at the wellhead on the floor of 
the ocean, and it allowed those 5 million barrels to be spilled. Now 
Secretary Zinke wants to go backward in time and reverse all of those 
safety standards. The American people deserve better than this. 
Floridians certainly deserve better than this.
  I want to thank my fellow Senators for getting out here and raising 
such a ruckus so that we can get the American people to focus on what 
is happening and the political stunts that are being done by the 
Secretary of the Interior.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, first of all, let me congratulate my 
colleague from Florida on the most recent historic launch. There is no 
one who has been a greater advocate for America's space program than 
Senator Nelson. I appreciate his leadership as well on this issue, 
which goes all the way from Florida, across the entire Atlantic and, of 
course, the Pacific as well.
  I rise in strong opposition to the Trump administration's offshore 
drilling plan. I am here to speak on behalf of New Jersey's shore 
businesses--the restaurants, the bait-and-tackle shops, and the bed-
and-breakfasts that depend on clean beaches to succeed. Their 
businesses are the lifeblood of the Jersey Shore. Their voices deserve 
to be heard. Their livelihoods are on the line. Yet this administration 
remains solely focused on what is good for Big Oil's bottom line, never 
mind the consequences for our economy, the health of the planet, or our 
vibrant coastal communities.
  The Interior Department's offshore drilling plan reads like a wish 
list for oil industry executives. Clearly, the Trump administration 
didn't consult my constituents when drafting this plan. By the way, we 
had already gone through a 5-year plan, so there were supposed to be 5 
years before we revisited this, and now we are back at it again. They 
didn't consult the shop owners in Asbury Park or the fishermen in 
Belford or the innkeepers in Cape May, because if they had, they would 
have learned that our shoreline is an economic powerhouse for our 
State.
  Each year, New Jersey's tourism industry generates $44 billion in 
economic activity, directly and indirectly supporting nearly 10 percent 
of the State's workforce. Likewise, our seafood industry supports over 
31,000 jobs, and we are home to one of America's largest saltwater 
recreational fisheries, supporting over 16,000 jobs. Together, the 
homes and businesses along the Jersey Shore encompass almost $800 
billion in property values.
  All of this adds up to a simple reality: Clean coasts are vital to 
the economic security of millions of New Jerseyans. The same holds true 
for towns up and down the Atlantic shoreline. Yet the Trump 
administration plans to ignore the concern of the communities that have 
the most to lose. They ignore the more than 120 municipalities, the 
1,200 elected officials, the 41,000 businesses, and the 500,000 fishing 
families from up and down the east

[[Page S635]]

coast who voiced their opposition the last time oil and gas drilling 
was being considered. They ignore concerns from the Pentagon and NASA 
about disruptions to their operations from drilling in the Atlantic. 
They ignore the opposition of my west coast colleagues to drilling in 
the Pacific. They ignore the Department of the Interior's own finding 
that the Arctic drilling comes with a 75-percent chance of an oilspill 
in a treacherous and challenging environment. Simply put, the Trump 
drilling plan ignores everyone except Big Oil.
  What is happening here is a dream scenario for the oil industry, but 
it is a nightmare for our shore communities. It is a gift to corporate 
polluters at the expense of our coastal economies.
  By the way, I love these commercials that I see that talk about 
American energy independence. As you have heard my colleague Senator 
Wyden say before, we are now an exporter of oil. Well, how is it that 
you are exporting oil? You are drilling it here in the continental 
waters of the United States, but you are exporting it abroad for others 
to use. It seems to me that if you are drilling on Federal lands and 
waters, you should keep it here for domestic energy consumption to keep 
the price down and to keep energy security. That is real energy 
security, not having Big Oil drill here and then export it all over the 
world so that they can make a profit. I don't know how that makes us 
more energy secure here at home.
  Make no mistake--this administration's massive expansion of offshore 
drilling is just the beginning. They are also working to dismantle 
minimal safety standards for offshore drilling. That is right. The 
Trump administration not only wants more offshore drilling, it also 
wants to permit more dangerous offshore drilling.
  The Interior Department reportedly seeks to weaken the well control 
rule--the critical safety standards put in place after the Deepwater 
Horizon tragedy, which taught us something: If you drill, you will 
spill. If you drill, you will spill. At some point, that will happen. 
During Superstorm Sandy, which took place along the east coast of the 
Atlantic, imagine if we had oil rigs off the shore of New Jersey. We 
would have had spills. We would have had spills. So instead of saving 
lives and saving our environment and the economic consequences that 
flow from that, the Trump administration's actions aim to save the 
industry $90 million.
  During his Senate confirmation, Secretary Zinke promised to ``work 
with rather than against local communities in the states.'' Well, it 
sure feels as though he is working against New Jersey. The Secretary 
has shown no concern for the Jersey Shore communities that would be 
devastated by an oilspill--the shuttered businesses, the destroyed 
industries, the massive job losses, and the birthright of every New 
Jerseyan to go to the Jersey Shore and enjoy its pristine beaches. That 
is why it is all the more baffling that Secretary Zinke recently said 
that after hearing from concerned Florida businesses and public 
officials, he would consider exempting the State from the disastrous 
Trump drilling plan. When asked about the decision, the Secretary said 
that ``local voices count.''
  Well, I am happy if that is what is going to happen for Florida, but 
guess what--if it is good enough for Mar-a-Lago, it certainly should be 
good enough for the Jersey Shore. That is why every Member of the New 
Jersey congressional delegation, Republicans and Democrats alike, 
recently joined me on a letter inviting Secretary Zinke to visit the 
Jersey Shore. We would be happy to have him meet with community 
leaders, business owners, and families who depend on clean coasts. If 
he wants to focus on the economics of oil drilling, I suggest he start 
with the thousands of people who would be out of a job if oil starts 
washing up on our beaches.
  The Secretary needs to hear from constituents of mine like Charles 
from Tom's River, who recently wrote to say:

       We already have some shoreline concerns, thanks to Super 
     Storm Sandy. We definitely don't need another threat to our 
     economy.

  Jeanne from New Brunswick wrote:

       Tourism is a major New Jersey business. Our beaches are 
     pristine and must be protected.

  He needs to hear from any of the thousands of New Jerseyans who have 
signed my COAST Anti-Drilling Act citizen petition to permanently ban 
drilling in the whole Atlantic Ocean.
  The Jersey Shore is a national treasure, home to generations of 
family vacations, successful small businesses, and vibrant coastal 
communities that are visited by people from across the Atlantic coast, 
Canadians who come down and spend their money at our shore, and so many 
others. That may not mean anything to ExxonMobil or BP. It may not mean 
anything to President Trump or Secretary Zinke. But it means something 
to me. That is why we are here today to give voice to New Jerseyans who 
have gone unheard. We will not stand silent while this administration 
tries to auction the Jersey Shore off to the highest bidder--not 
without a fight.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Johnson). The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, one of Rhode Island's contributions to 
the cultural life of our Nation came from two brothers who grew up in 
Cumberland, RI, Bobby and Peter Farrelly. The Farrelly brothers did a 
number of movies. One of them was famously called ``Dumb and Dumber.''
  This is a good example of dumb and dumber. It was dumb when President 
Obama opened the south Atlantic coast to the prospect of oil drilling. 
When he did, the reaction was immediate and profound. From Norfolk, VA, 
all the way down the red south Atlantic coast to St. Augustine, FL, 
city after city, county after county, coastal community after coastal 
community passed resolutions saying: Get that offshore drilling out of 
here. We don't want it. It was a sweep of that Republican shoreline. It 
was called the resolution revolution because so many resolutions were 
passed saying: Get your oil drilling the heck away from our coasts.
  Ultimately, the Obama administration got smart, and in the final 
approval, there was no drilling in the Atlantic and no drilling in the 
Pacific. They gave some reasons for their choice: strong local 
opposition was one, conflicts with other ocean uses was another, market 
dynamics was a third, and comments received from Governors was a 
fourth.

  So, in the wake of that, here comes the Trump administration, and 
they have seriously gone from dumb to dumber, to go right back into 
this fight, where it blew up in the Obama administration's face among 
the red State communities of the Atlantic coast. Good luck finding 
support for this up in New England.
  In New England, our ocean economy was valued just a few years ago at 
over $17 billion. It employs about a quarter of a million people. Who 
thinks we are going to walk away from that? Who thinks we are not going 
to defend that ocean economy against an idea as dumb as offshore 
drilling in the Atlantic? We are not going to permit it.
  I have authored, with my House colleague David Cicilline, legislation 
that the whole New England Senate representation supports, to ban this 
as a matter of Federal law; to stop this. The attorneys general of 
States from Maine down to North Carolina, including Massachusetts, 
Delaware, Rhode Island, of course, New Jersey, New York, Maryland, and 
Virginia, all have spoken out against this and I expect will litigate 
against it. Our Governor, Gina Raimondo, has come out strongly against 
this incredibly dumb idea, and she has been joined by Republican 
Governors in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Maryland, and South Carolina 
because this is such a dumb idea.
  Why would this administration pursue such a dumb idea, that 
Republican Governors oppose, that blew up in the face of the Obama 
administration along the south Atlantic coast when they tried it, that 
would infringe upon and damage critical coastal economies in States 
that are Republican and Democratic? Why would they do such a stupid 
thing?
  Well, Attorney General Kilmartin of Rhode Island has one suggestion: 
``This decision by the administration is clearly driven by the oil and 
gas industry.''
  Huh. No kidding. This administration is bought and paid for by the 
oil and gas industry. Throw in coal, and we have the complete lock, 
stock, and barrel sale. We have complete industry toadies in the 
responsible agencies of

[[Page S636]]

government and climate denial of the most flagrant and obtuse variety 
coming out of the White House. I mean, it is nonsense land, except for 
the fact that it keeps the oil and gas and coal money coming to prop up 
the Trump administration and the Republican Party. We are not going to 
stand for it. It is crooked. It will not go.
  Chris Brown is the head of the Commercial Fishermen's Association of 
Rhode Island. He is adamant that ``oil drilling is something that is 
incredibly threatening and directly adverse to our well-being.''
  We are going to stand and fight for our fishing communities.
  Our environmental community is wildly against this: ``The last thing 
our coast needs is oil drilling and all of the risks that go with it,'' 
says our lead environmental organization, Save the Bay.
  I will close with the Providence Business Journal, the voice of the 
Rhode Island business community, which just editorialized:

       Fossil fuels, no matter where they are harvested, are 
     putting coastal areas across the globe in danger as sea 
     levels rise. In the name of national energy independence, 
     public policy would hasten the devastating impacts of burning 
     fossil fuels and make much of Rhode Island and other low-
     lying areas uninhabitable.
       At a time when renewable energy in the United States and 
     across the world is becoming less expensive, and the effects 
     of climate change are becoming more pronounced, pulling more 
     fossil fuels out of the ground is not a wise decision, and 
     one that hopefully will be rescinded before any drilling rigs 
     park themselves off Block Island.

  That is the voice of Rhode Island's business community.
  If you want to take a look at why this bothers us, take a look at the 
footprint of the BP oilspill laid on the map of the New England coast. 
There is Boston, there is Long Island, there is Narragansett Bay, and 
that is Rhode Island. That is the footprint of the mess the oil 
industry left when it blew up its facility in the middle of the gulf. 
That is what they did, and we don't need that up in New England.
  We have offshore industries that are vibrant, that support our 
economy, that are welcome, that have long traditions and histories. We 
do not need oil industry invaders coming where they are not wanted 
because they have bought their way into the Trump administration with 
their political contributions and their dark money. That will not 
stand.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I appreciate that Senator Cantwell 
organized this time for a group of us to come to the floor to speak 
about this disastrous, insane plan to drill throughout 90 percent of 
our coastal shelf. This, the Interior Secretary tells us, is part of 
President Trump's directive to rebuild the offshore oil and gas 
program, but he also conveyed it was the President's directive to 
``take into consideration the local and State voices.''
  Well, certainly the draft plan--if you can call it a draft--didn't 
take into account local or State voices. Had the Interior Secretary 
bothered to actually consult, this is what he would have heard from 
people in Oregon. Our Governor, Kate Brown, denounced the plan, saying: 
``In what universe would this be okay?''
  Noah Oppenheim, the executive director of the Pacific Coast 
Federation of Fishermen's Associations, stated:

       The Trump administration wants to put fish and fisheries at 
     significant risk while lining the pockets of their oil 
     industry co-conspirators. Meanwhile, more frequent oil spills 
     and more intense ocean acidification and ocean warming are 
     guaranteed to ensue.

  Charlie Plybon, the Oregon policy manager at Surfrider Foundation, an 
organization made up of everyday people passionate about protecting our 
oceans and our beaches, shared this opinion:

       We are united in an understanding of the threats which 
     offshore oil drilling poses to our coastal economy, jobs and 
     culture we have today. We will not gamble our ocean resources 
     with dangerous oil exploration and polluting drilling 
     activities that put our future and that of generations to 
     come at risk.

  Charlie went on to convey the enormous disparity between the economy 
that is driven by fishing and ocean recreation and by tourism as 
compared to the economy driven by oil drilling and how the former 
completely outweighs the latter.
  The Association of Northwest Steelheaders is one of the oldest and 
most cherished conservation and sport fishing advocacy organizations in 
the Pacific Northwest. Their statement is the following:

       This proposal stands to go against everything we believe 
     in. Drilling for oil and gas off the coast of Oregon 
     compromises our fisheries, our coastal economies, and our 
     values.

  These folks know what they are talking about.
  The Tribes weighed in through the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish 
Commission. Their resolution conveys opposition to ``any proposal to 
open Pacific offshore waters from California to and including Alaska to 
offshore drilling.''
  Scott McMullen, the chairman of the Oregon Fishermen's Cable 
Committee--a group of troll fishermen who have been very involved in 
negotiations involving the fiber optic cable lines that are laid in the 
ocean--said:

       The Oregon fishing industry has had a long history of good 
     stewardship of the fishing grounds which are open for 
     multiple uses. Oil platforms in our fishing grounds would 
     deny access to the resources that fishermen, fish processors 
     and thriving coastal communities depend on. To take away the 
     right to use our historical shared fishing grounds by 
     awarding drilling rights for this single industrial use would 
     be wrong.

  Dale Beasley had this opinion:

       As president of the Columbia River Crab Fisherman's 
     Association and Coalition of Coastal Fisheries, our position 
     on any fixed structures in the ocean and particularly oil 
     platforms is simple--NO NO AND NO again.
       Our members rely 100% on clean sustainable marine waters 
     for 100% of our families income.

  Terry Thompson, Lincoln County commissioner, stated:

       The state of Oregon has been a leader in the nation in 
     terms of protecting our environment while responsibly 
     utilizing our natural resources.
       We banned oil and gas development years ago because of the 
     potential risk to our ocean, which is one of the most 
     productive places in the world.
       The President's proposal to allow oil and gas development 
     is an attempt to override the will of the people and shows a 
     complete disconnect between the Administration and the people 
     of the West.

  I think these voices--the voices of the crabbing industry and the 
salmon industry, the fishing industry and the tourism industry--these 
voices of the coastal economy, reverberate in absolute parallel and 
passionate opposition to drilling off our coast for oil.
  Before the drilling takes place, there are massive amounts of 
explosions that are conducted in order to create the maps of what is 
under the surface for potential drilling. That alone--just the 
preparation for drilling--is deeply disturbing, but imagine what an 
oilspill looks like.
  This is a map of the Washington and Oregon coast, with the outline 
overlaid with the gulf oilspill. It covers a section that is the entire 
length of the State of Oregon and the State of Washington. Imagine 
those hundreds of miles of soiled beaches, the oil's impact on the 
ecosystem of the fisheries. There is no way this risk is justified for 
pumping a few more barrels of oil--which, I might point out, should be 
left in the ground anyway because burning oil that we are extracting 
from the ground is steadily raising the temperature of the planet and 
the temperature of our oceans, which absorb the vast majority of the 
heat from burning fossil fuels, and that is creating changes, from 
ocean acidification to the bleaching of the coral reefs, and all kinds 
of impacts on the surface of the continents.
  So I say to the Interior Secretary, you have been given a mission by 
the President of the United States, which, as you have stated, is to 
take into consideration local and State voices, so simply hear those 
voices, and then take Oregon out of the equation, take Washington out 
of the equation, take California out of the equation, take every State 
that objects out of this equation, and, by the way, it would be wise to 
take the rest out as well.
  Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I wish to thank Senator Cantwell for 
organizing the opportunity this afternoon to speak about this egregious 
decision that was made by the Trump administration that will allow for 
drilling for

[[Page S637]]

oil off of the beaches of the United States of America. It is an 
absolute disgrace that this administration is doing something like 
this. What we have on our hands is a President who has a hard time 
listening to his own message.
  Last week, he was bragging about how much new oil we are discovering 
in America. He is so proud of this. In fact, we export a million and a 
half barrels of oil a day. Listen to that again: We export a million 
and a half barrels of oil a day. Where do we send this oil? We send it 
to China. We send it to other countries.
  Is the President happy with that? No, he says we need more oil; we 
need to drill off of our beaches--notwithstanding what that will do to 
our tourism industry, to our fishing industry, or to any industry that 
does business along the coastlines of our country. Ultimately, what 
would be the purpose to which this oil would be put? Export the oil.
  So how does that formula really work? The oil companies come to the 
beaches of Massachusetts or any other State. They set up rigs and start 
to drill for oil. They find the oil. Then, they sell that oil somewhere 
else around the world. Meanwhile, people who live off of those beaches 
in Massachusetts or any other State run all the risk if there is an 
accident, as there was in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010 in the BP 
oilspill.
  So the risks are run by the States that don't want the drilling, and 
the benefits all run to the oil companies that get to sell this oil 
around the world. It makes perfect sense because ``GOP'' really stands 
for ``gas and oil party.'' That is what they have turned themselves 
into. It is whatever Big Oil wants, even if State after State after 
State says it does not want this to happen.
  Every single State, from Maine down to Florida, was going to be 
giving permission to the oil companies to commence drilling, but the 
Governor of Florida--a Republican Governor--protested. He said he 
didn't want there to be drilling off the coast of Florida, after 
Florida had already been included in the plan.
  So what happens? All of a sudden, the Trump administration decides 
that they are going to have a gator giveaway. All of a sudden, Florida 
gets to be exempt. Why would Florida be exempt? Maybe because it has a 
Republican Governor. Maybe because that Republican Governor is thinking 
about running for the U.S. Senate. So maybe, just maybe, this Governor, 
who once supported drilling off of the coast of Florida, all of a 
sudden says: The people don't want it. They don't want the beaches of 
Florida to be endangered.
  So what happens? Governor Scott from Florida all of a sudden starts 
shedding crocodile tears about how much he cares about the beaches, 
even though he had always been supportive of offshore drilling. That 
leads to the gator giveaway where, all of a sudden, Florida is not in.
  I don't think it is incidental that Mar-a-Lago is actually in 
Florida, as well, and maybe Donald Trump hadn't been fully consulted by 
Secretary Zinke and the Department of the Interior on this inclusion of 
Florida. But before you knew it, all of a sudden, Florida was no longer 
on the map, but every other State that doesn't have a Republican 
Governor running for the Senate, that doesn't have a President of the 
United States with a summer resort, a winter resort, a spring and 
summer resort--Mar-a-Lago--is stuck with this decision.
  The problem with what they did is this: It is obviously arbitrary and 
capricious. It is obviously a violation of the Administrative 
Procedures Act. It is obviously something that will never stand up in 
court--that after a decision is made to include every State, all of a 
sudden Florida comes up. It will never hold up. That will be the basis 
of the case made by the attorneys general and all of the business and 
environmental interests that will be suing on this issue.
  So what part of this really works? It is oil that will be drilled for 
at the risk of despoiling the beaches and the fishing industry--the 
tens of billions of dollars in the fishing and tourism industry--with 
the benefits running to one single industry.
  The American Petroleum Institute is trying to have it both ways. On 
the one hand, they are saying: We are at the boom time of all times in 
oil drilling in the United States. We are energy independent. This is 
the boom time.
  Donald Trump is sounding the same exact way, boasting across the 
country about his energy policies, his fossil-fuel-first policies. He 
keeps saying that he has ended the war on energy. It is not true 
because just last week he imposed a 30-percent tariff on importation of 
solar panels. So he is talking about no war on his favorite energy 
technology. But if he doesn't like them, they get a 30-percent increase 
in tariffs on the very technologies that, in polling, 80 percent of all 
Americans want to see increased inside of our country.
  We are going to be fighting this every single step of the way. It is 
immoral, it is unnecessary, and it violates the goals that individual 
States have in order to advance their own economies. I, personally, am 
going to exhaust all available legislative tools to fight this attempt 
by President Trump to allow drilling off of the coast of Massachusetts, 
the east coast, and nearly every other single mile of coastline in the 
United States, with the exception of Florida.
  That includes using the Congressional Review Act, which allows for 
agency action to be undone by a simple majority in both Chambers. I 
plan to pursue such a Congressional Review Act resolution if the Trump 
administration moves forward with this reckless plan. We will not stop 
until this plan is blocked and dead and our coastlines are protected 
once and for all.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my strong 
opposition to the Trump administration's latest move to override the 
will of Washington State's citizens--our fishing families, our small 
business owners, our environmentalists, and our outdoor enthusiasts--by 
opening our coastal waters to harmful oil and gas drilling.
  The continental waters on the west coast are one of our State's 
richest and most cherished national resources, sustaining communities 
along the Pacific Northwest for centuries and helping to define our 
regional culture for generations. It would be hard to overstate just 
how important Washington's coastal waters are to our local way of life.
  Many of us count on our coasts for our food or work. Washington State 
coasts are home to numerous seafood- and tourism-dependent communities, 
and they support a $50 billion maritime economy and nearly 200,000 
maritime-related jobs--not to mention countless families and travelers 
who are seeking outdoor recreation and flock to our shores throughout 
the year to experience the natural beauty and sport of our iconic 
shorelines.
  To put it simply, Washingtonians don't take our healthy coasts for 
granted. We know that keeping our shores pristine isn't just about 
leisure and scenic views. Preserving our coastal waters is a critical 
factor in promoting a healthy regional ecosystem and an economy that 
support vital jobs and industries, fish and wildlife, and public health 
opportunities that many of us--our families, friends, and neighbors--
rely on.
  So I, too, was deeply disappointed but, ultimately, unsurprised when 
Interior Secretary Zinke announced the Department's plan to ignore the 
existing oil and gas leasing program that was just approved a few years 
ago and instead moved to draft and implement a new program that would 
allow offshore oil and gas drilling in nearly all of our Nation's 
continental waters, including our coastal waters off of Washington 
State.
  Despite decades of factfinding and public input that already 
established the need to protect ecologically sensitive areas like our 
coasts, it appears, once again, that President Trump and his Cabinet 
have decided to prioritize Big Oil and the relentless pursuit of profit 
over the interests of Washington State families and with virtually no 
regard to what their one-sided policy proposals may mean for our 
environment, for our public health, or for our economy.
  To add insult to injury, I was even more appalled when it was 
reported just a few days later that Secretary Zinke was planning to 
remove Florida's waters from consideration after

[[Page S638]]

meeting with their Governor and hearing their concerns. I will leave it 
to others to wonder what exactly persuaded Secretary Zinke to remove 
Florida from that list, but I can't say I was stunned when that 
courtesy was not extended to Washington State, even after our Governor 
made the exact same request.
  Later, while I was on my way back home from the other Washington and 
concerned about the potentially damaging impacts of Secretary Zinke's 
decision on our Washington State ecosystem, I decided to ask my 
followers on Twitter to join me in sending a message to the Interior 
Department and tweet photos of some of Washington State's many 
important and pristine coastal areas. I just have to say that the 
response was overwhelming.
  Within hours, my timeline was filled with photos of beaches and 
coasts all along Washington State's shoreline, from Ruby Beach to 
Bellingham Bay to Olympic National Park to Orcas Island--photos of 
painted sunsets on the Puget Sound, the majestic calm of Cape Flattery, 
and of rainbows arching across the Bell Island shore, photos of 
children running across the beaches of Kalaloch, and photos of 
fishermen unloading their haul in Salmon Bay. I even received photos 
from other coastal areas in the Pacific Northwest. They were all from 
residents who want their pristine shorelines preserved, and they were 
eager to raise their voices to safeguard our coasts.
  I was inspired as I scrolled through this growing and beautiful 
collection of photos that illustrated the significance of our coasts, 
not just to our State's economy and environment but to our shared 
culture and identity. Our shores are where we fish, swim, exercise, and 
work, but also where our wildlife roams, our children play, and where 
we make lasting memories with our loved ones.
  It is not too late for the Interior Department to reverse its 
misguided decision to expand offshore oil and gas drilling and instead 
focus on maintaining and strengthening existing regulations protecting 
this country's continental waters.
  I really hope Secretary Zinke and officials at the Interior 
Department finally hear loud and clear what Washingtonians have been 
saying for decades--that the extreme environmental and ecological 
dangers posed by offshore oil and gas drilling are too great a risk for 
Washington State families. I hope they move quickly to reschedule the 
public meeting they were supposed to hold yesterday in Tacoma, so 
people from Washington can share their concerns with the Department 
directly.
  I want to remind my colleagues and everyone in our country who cares 
about our environment that this fight is far from over. As we have 
learned over the last year, it is important that we continue to make 
our voices heard again and again to ensure that this administration 
backs down from this reckless proposal and puts the interest of 
Washington State families first.
  As a voice for Washington State here in the Senate, I am going to 
continue fighting against the Trump administration's efforts to 
leverage our environment to boost Big Oil's bottom line, and I know I 
will never stop standing with our families, workers, and small 
businesses to protect our coasts today and for future generations.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, we have an opportunity before us today 
to fund key priorities that we all agree are important. The American 
people elected all of us to do a job, and that job is to provide for 
the most important functions of our government.
  For far too long, politics has prevented us from committing the 
resources necessary to sustain the most critical part of our 
government--the military that keeps us safe. This is a chance to cast 
aside partisan differences and give the Department of Defense the 
stable and consistent funding it needs so it can rebuild readiness and 
execute its mission.
  Just this morning, Secretary Mattis testified before Congress, 
saying: ``I ask that you not let disagreements on domestic policy 
continue to hold our nation's defense hostage.'' He is right. We cannot 
let these basic issues distract us from the job that we have all, under 
the Constitution, taken to provide for the common defense.

  I just came from a classified briefing with the Secretary, and he 
outlined the most important needs we must fund for our country's 
security. So why not come together on issues we can agree on? Six 
months ago, this Chamber passed the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2018 with an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 89 to 9. 
In the time since, however, our military remains hamstrung under short-
term measures that are standing in the way of modernization and 
readiness.
  That is why I say to my Democratic colleagues, here is a chance for 
you to prove that you are serious about funding the military. Many of 
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have already spoken 
clearly about their desire to support the troops.
  Last month, the senior Senator from Vermont remarked:

       Our military leaders agree, we cannot govern by a 
     continuing resolution. The military cannot function under 
     sequestration.

  The senior Senator from West Virginia said:

       We want our military to be funded properly so they can 
     defend us.

  The senior Senator from Montana said:

       The uncertainty we have without a longer budget that goes 
     to the end of the fiscal year is unacceptable.

  The senior Senator from Connecticut said:

       I hope there is bipartisan consensus among us on the Armed 
     Services Committee and in the Chamber as a whole that we need 
     a strong national defense.

  Even today, the minority leader told this body that Democrats 
``support increasing funding for our military.''
  So why not act? There is a consensus that we desperately need to fix 
the readiness issues in our Armed Forces. Why not take that step today 
and vote to provide the stable, predictable funding the Department of 
Defense so seriously needs?
  When I swore an oath to defend the Constitution, I did it knowing 
that every day I hold this office, countless numbers of my constituents 
would be wearing the uniform and be in harm's way. Around the globe, 
you find Nebraskans, you find Americans protecting and defending the 
United States. Each of us here represents people who sacrifice and 
serve American heroes. Today is a chance to show them we have their 
backs because they have proven, time and time again, that they have 
ours.
  I urge my colleagues to put aside partisan differences and take the 
vote to support our military and the programs that are critical to the 
safety and the well-being of this Nation.


                        Community Health Centers

  Mr. President, we also have a unique opportunity today to address 
another program that has a deep, bipartisan well of support in the 
Senate. Today I visited with Nebraskans who made the trip to Washington 
to advocate for funding for community health centers. Across our 
Nation, community health centers are vital to keeping our children and 
our families healthy.
  Last year, nearly 85,000 Nebraskans received care at centers across 
our State during approximately 296,000 visits. These centers provide 
high-quality care, compassionate care, and patient-focused care. 
Community health centers in my State rank second in quality measures 
nationally and first in four other measures involving individual care. 
Their focus and their impact on the communities they serve is very 
impressive.
  We all recognize the importance of these health centers, and I was 
proud to recently join my colleagues in the Senate in urging that 
funding be reauthorized so these centers can continue to provide the 
quality care all Nebraskans and all Americans deserve.
  Our military and community health centers are too important to be 
caught up in politics. As we find ourselves once again facing the 
prospect of yet another impasse, I urge my colleagues to join me in 
showing your support for these critical areas. Article I, section 8 of 
the Constitution makes clear what our job is: provide for the common 
defense and the general welfare of the United States. Let's fulfill 
that duty today.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kennedy). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

[[Page S639]]

  

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          Russia Investigation

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, a number of my colleagues will be 
coming to the floor this afternoon to discuss the predicament we face 
as the Mueller investigation--the special counsel investigation, the 
Department of Justice--closes in on the Trump White House and the Trump 
campaign, creating two problems. One is an unprecedented attack on the 
law enforcement institutions that are involved in that investigation, 
an effort to discredit our Federal Bureau of Investigation and our 
Department of Justice, including the suggestion that this whole thing 
is a witch hunt, even though every single witness, including Trump 
appointees who have come before our committees, has been asked ``Hey, 
this investigation, is it a witch hunt?'' and, to a person, has said 
no.
  Russian interference was real, they are coming back in 2018, and it 
is no witch hunt to look into what took place.
  You have this whole smear effort going on of individuals and 
institutions involved in the institution. You could call that the crime 
of commission, if you would. The crime of omission that accompanies 
that is, while the majority in both Houses is busy trying to smear the 
FBI, the Department of Justice, and various individuals in this 
investigation, they are not taking the steps necessary to protect the 
2018 elections. We have done virtually nothing.
  The one thing we have done--led by Ranking Member Ben Cardin, the 
Senator from Maryland--was to get really strong sanctions put through. 
We all agreed on that. I think the vote was 98 to 2 in the Senate--98 
to 2, powerful sanctions.
  You messed in our elections. Pop. Here is one in the nose for you. 
Don't do it again.
  That was the lesson. We are going after you, Mr. Putin, where it 
hurts, which is with all your dirty, corrupt oligarchs who support you 
and whom you pay to stay in power. That is the shot we took back. You 
messed in our elections; we are going after your crooked oligarchs.
  Except guess where that effort stopped dead--in the Oval Office, at 
the President's desk, where President Trump will not let the Russia 
sanctions go forward. We have this whole smear campaign, discrediting 
honorable American institutions just to protect the President from the 
investigation. We have nothing being done legislatively to protect the 
2018 elections, and you have the one thing we did do to send the 
message to the Russians that we are tired of this nonsense and to give 
them a little bit of a pop in the nose to get them to knock it off, a 
little deterrent, and the President will not act on it.
  I am going to be here for the duration of this and have more to say, 
but I want to yield to the ranking member of the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee, who was so important in getting these sanctions 
through and understands very well, from his work on the Magnitsky 
issue, what these Russian oligarchs are up to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, first, I thank Senator Whitehouse for 
bringing this issue to the attention of our colleagues and the American 
people. As Senator Whitehouse points out, we have seen from the White 
House, from the President, an effort to try to undermine the 
credibility of the independent investigation being done by the 
Department of Justice under Mr. Mueller. These are very serious issues, 
and I hope every Member of this Chamber will support the independence 
of that investigation and speak loudly against any interference, 
wherever it may come from.
  Then, Senator Whitehouse has brought up the second issue; that is, 
Mr. Putin has been extremely active in regard to activities against 
U.S. interests. I appreciate Senator Whitehouse referencing a report 
that was released on January 10 of this year. It was as a result of a 
full year's operation by the staff of the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee to document Mr. Putin's reckless assault against democratic 
institutions, universal values, and the rule of law--the asymmetric 
arsenal he uses to accomplish that attack against democratic 
institutions, which includes cyber attacks, disinformation, support for 
fringe political groups, weaponization of energy resources, organized 
crime, corruption, and, yes, military aggression. He has used every one 
of those tools to compromise democratic institutions in Europe and, 
yes, in the United States.
  Mr. Putin was extremely active in the 2016 election. That has now 
been verified without any question. A report I authored goes through 19 
European countries in which Mr. Putin has been active against 
democratic institutions.
  I share with my colleagues that the President of the OSCE 
Parliamentary Assembly was in town today. He is meeting with government 
officials. He knows firsthand Mr. Putin's aggression because there are 
Russian troops in Georgia today affecting its sovereignty, as there are 
Russian troops in Moldova, as there are Russian troops in Ukraine. The 
people of Montenegro saw the hand of Mr. Putin when he held a coup 
against their authority. The people of the United Kingdom saw Mr. 
Putin's efforts as he got involved in the Brexit referendum. The people 
of France and Germany saw Mr. Putin's aggression as he tried to 
interfere with their free elections.
  Countries have stepped up. They said: Enough is enough. We have seen, 
with strong leadership, that you can counter the activities 
successfully of what Russia is trying to do. The right mixture of 
political will, of defense and deterrence can work, and, yes, as 
Senator Whitehouse pointed out, we in Congress acted. We recognized the 
threat of Russia. We passed the Countering America's Adversaries 
Through Sanctions Act, the CAATS Act. It was a bipartisan effort that 
tightened some of the sanctions under the Obama-era Executive order on 
Ukraine and passed new mandatory sanctions against Russia because of 
its activities.

  There were sanctions imposed in regard to the Russian Federation's 
undermining cybersecurity. There were sanctions related to Russia's 
crude oil products. There were sanctions authorized with respect to 
Russian and other foreign financial institutions. There were sanctions 
imposed against Russia for significant corruption in the Russian 
Federation. There were sanctions with respect to certain transactions 
with foreign sanctions evaders and serious human rights abusers in the 
Russian Federation. There were mandatory sanctions with respect to 
persons who engaged in transactions with the intelligence and defense 
sectors of the Government of the Russian Federation.
  Why? Because they were interfering in our elections.
  There were sanctions with respect to investment in or in the 
facilitation of the privatization of state-owned assets by the Russian 
Federation.
  Why? Because that helped finance Mr. Putin's activities.
  There were sanctions with respect to the transfer of arms and related 
materiel to Syria.
  Each one of those sanctions gave new authority to the President of 
the United States to impose sanctions against Russia for its 
activities.
  I said earlier that, where countries have shown leadership, it has 
been effective in countering Mr. Putin's activities. With President 
Trump, there have been no sanctions. Not one has been brought forward 
under the law passed by the Congress of the United States. By 98, 99 
percent, the House and Senate approved the sanctions. The Trump 
administration has imposed zero.
  Mr. Trump has failed to acknowledge that Mr. Putin has even been 
engaged in our 2016 elections. He said: I talked to Mr. Putin. He 
seemed like he was telling me the truth when he said he wasn't 
involved--even though it was the unanimous view of our intelligence 
community and the facts had very clearly been laid out to the American 
people that Mr. Putin had been actively engaged in the 2016 elections.
  Yes, we have seen, very recently, Russia's engagement in the Czech 
election. We have seen this movie before where the candidate, in his 
advocating for stronger ties to European institutions, is targeted by a 
barrage of fake news stories that spreads across online platforms, 
which he alleges have been directed by Russian security services

[[Page S640]]

and entities tied to them--a direct assault against the Czech 
Republic's democratic institutions.
  As Senator Whitehouse pointed out, when asked in an interview if 
Russia would try to influence the midterm elections of the United 
States, our CIA Director, Michael Pompeo, replied: ``Of course. I have 
every expectation that they will continue to try and do that.''
  So where is the Trump administration in its taking action to protect 
our democratic institutions?
  This is not a partisan issue. There is a long tradition of 
Republicans and Democrats working together in Congress to counter 
Russian Government aggression abroad and abuse against its own 
citizens, our allies, and democratic institutions. The sanctions bill 
that passed in 2017 had near-unanimous support. It was crafted and 
developed by Democrats and Republicans who worked together.
  The strength and durability of our political system relies on such 
bipartisan solutions to our national security challenges. There is a 
series of recommendations that were in the report I referred to 
earlier, those of working with our allies to develop cybersecurity 
issues, to working with NATO to understand what the article V response 
should be to cyber attacks, to finding alternative ways to stop Russia 
from using energy as a weapon. It starts with Presidential leadership.
  We must take care to point out that there is a distinction between 
Mr. Putin's corrupt regime and the people of Russia, who have been some 
of his most frequent and long-suffering victims. Many Russian citizens, 
like Sergei Magnitsky, strive for a transparent, accountable government 
that operates under the democratic rule of law, and we hope for better 
relations in the future with a Russian Government that reflects these 
imperatives.
  In the meantime, the United States must work with our allies to build 
defenses against Mr. Putin's asymmetric arsenal and strengthen our 
international norms and values to deter such behavior by Russia or any 
other country. It starts with leadership from the White House, and it 
starts with imposing the sanctions that were approved by Congress.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I have been involved in a number of 
elections over the years. I love campaigns, and I love campaigning. I 
have always campaigned in a situation in which you have your opponent, 
and the people have a chance to make a judgment between you and your 
opponent as to who can best serve the people. Little did I ever think 
that I was going to have to fight against the Russians in a campaign. 
Yet that is what I fully expect, and that is what I expect a number of 
us who are up in November of this year will be having to do because, in 
the midst of all of the disinformation that we have seen that the 
Russians are very good at--all of the fake accounts on Twitter and 
Facebook, the internet trolls, the botnets--it is critically important 
that the American people understand this is a fundamental attempt by 
Russia to influence our very democratic institutions and our critical 
infrastructure; and our elections, indeed, are a part of that critical 
infrastructure.
  Last year, the intelligence community assessed that when Putin sees 
his attempt to influence the last election as a success, he is going to 
do it again. That is what the intelligence community's conclusion was. 
Then, just last week, the Director of the CIA said that he had every 
expectation that Russia will meddle in the 2018 midterm elections.
  As the Senator from Maryland just said and as the Senator from Rhode 
Island has already said, this is not a partisan issue. It could happen 
to both sides. Attempts to influence our elections are attacks on the 
very foundation of the democracy that we so cherish. That is really 
what the Russians are trying to do. They are trying to divide us, and 
they are trying to undermine faith in our democratic institutions. 
Ultimately, they are trying to undermine American leadership in the 
world community of nations. The bottom line is we have to do more to 
protect ourselves, and we have to make Mr. Putin feel enough pain to 
deter future attacks or else he is going to keep doing it.
  Now, this Senator has the privilege of being the ranking member of 
the Cybersecurity Subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee. I must 
say that this Senator has sat through hearings with people who ought to 
know, and I have been appalled at how little we have or will have the 
capability of responding. It is going to take some resolve not only in 
this Senate, in this Congress, but in this administration, as well, to 
let Mr. Putin know that he is going to have pain if he continues the 
attacks that he has already made.
  Of course, there is another aspect to this threat, which is that 
Russia didn't just attack our democracy in America, as has been stated 
so effectively by previous speakers, but he is in Europe and in Latin 
America too. Look at what the Russians have done with the Spanish 
language propaganda television, RT. There is an RT en Espanol that has 
already targeted upcoming elections in Mexico and Colombia--two of our 
important partners in the hemisphere. The President's National Security 
Adviser, General McMaster, said recently that there was already 
evidence of Russian meddling in Mexico.
  Of course, this points to the Russian effort to destabilize the 
region. It has sought to gain influence through propaganda, arms sales, 
trade, and other means to challenge the United States in the Western 
Hemisphere and to undermine our partnerships, which are critical to our 
national security. Look at Russia's friends Cuba and Nicaragua.
  How about Venezuela?
  The reality is that Russia is propping up the Maduro dictatorship in 
Venezuela. For years, the Maduro crowd has stolen and used the state-
owned oil company Pe De Vesa to launder money, and Russia has bailed 
them out. Russian money has helped Maduro to avoid defaulting on debts 
and payments to bondholders. Meanwhile, look what is happening to the 
poor people of Venezuela. They are hungry, and they don't have basic 
supplies. Their children are malnourished, and inflation is rampant. 
Maduro has undermined any remnants of Venezuela's democracy. He jails 
opponents and has a corrupt Congress and cracks down on protesters. It 
is all part of the Russian influence campaign.
  As you can see, countering Russian influence is critical for the 
United States and for the world. It is also important to remember that 
Putin can't beat us on the ground, that he can't beat us on the sea, 
and that he can't beat us under the sea. He can't beat us in the air, 
and he can't beat us in space, but he can beat us in cyber in his 
propaganda campaign.
  Yet Putin--that Russian bear--is not 10-feet tall. As a former 
Secretary of State just testified last week to our Armed Services 
Committee, Putin is playing a weak hand, but he is playing it very 
aggressively. It is time for us, the USA, to push back.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I am here with Senator Nelson, Senator 
Whitehouse, and Senator Cardin because I share their concerns about the 
rising chorus of partisan attacks, not only on Special Counsel Robert 
Mueller but also on the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the 
Department of Justice.
  These attacks are part of a broader campaign that has been 
orchestrated by the White House to undermine the investigations into 
Russia's interference in the 2016 campaign, including possible 
collusion by the Trump campaign. Unfortunately, if continued, it will 
have a lasting impact on our security structures, on our democratic 
institutions, and on our people. Ultimately, it will help the Kremlin 
achieve its goal of breaking down our country and our democratic way of 
life.
  In a report issued in January 2017, the U.S. intelligence community 
found that Russia interfered in our elections. This was the unanimous 
conclusion of all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies. Indeed, that Russian 
interference continues to this day, not only in the domestic affairs of 
the United States but in the affairs of our Western allies. We have 
seen the Kremlin's hand in Great Britain, in Spain, in France, and in 
Mexico--all in an effort to determine the outcome and to disrupt 
elections in those countries.
  Just last week, in an interview with the BBC, CIA Director Mike 
Pompeo

[[Page S641]]

confirmed Russia's ongoing interference. As Senator Cardin said, when 
Director Pompeo was asked if Russia would try to influence our midterm 
elections this year, he replied: ``Of course. I have every expectation 
that they will continue to try and do that.''
  In fact, in recent weeks, Russian internet trolls and bots have used 
Facebook and Twitter to aggressively promote the release of the House 
Republicans' memo, by Devin Nunes, that attacks the integrity of the 
FBI. Let's think about that. Russia gave a powerful assist to the 
successful campaign to release a misleading document, undermining an 
ongoing FBI investigation.

  Despite these disturbing facts, President Trump continues to be 
dismissive of claims of any Russian interference. For 6 months, 
Congress has expected the administration to impose the penalties in the 
bipartisan Russia sanctions bill that passed 98 to 2, but the 
administration has not even issued one sanction through that law. 
Despite ongoing brazen Russian interference, the White House claims 
that sanctions are not needed because the threat of sanctions is 
already ``serving as a deterrent.'' The mere threat of sanctions 
clearly is not serving as a deterrent. Our national security agencies, 
NATO systems, and even the Senate have experienced countless cyber 
attacks since the 2016 elections. Yet Vladimir Putin continues to deny 
that Russia interferes in anything at all, and for support, Putin can 
point to President Trump's own denials of Russian interference.
  President Trump has a penchant for labeling factual reports as ``fake 
news.'' Again and again, he says things that are obviously false or 
misleading. He calls responsible mainstream journalists ``the enemy of 
the people.'' He attacks the rule of law, the judiciary, and our law 
enforcement agencies. These are all classic hallmarks of the slippery 
slope toward authoritarianism. Indeed, it is striking how attacks by 
some Republicans on law enforcement and democratic institutions echo 
similar attacks by the Kremlin and its mouthpieces.
  Consider these side-by-side comparisons of statements by Russian 
officials and statements by Republicans.
  As we see in this tweet, which is dated January 2, 2018, President 
Trump has described U.S. Government employees and the Justice 
Department as the ``Deep State.'' At the same time Russia's propaganda 
network, RT, has repeated this terminology. So we see this: ``Deep 
State takedown.'' Just yesterday, RT aired a discussion on how to root 
out the ``Deep State'' now that its biases supposedly have been exposed 
by the ``Nunes memo.''
  Again, we see these mirrored messages between Republicans, the White 
House, and Putin. As we see in this panel, allegations that Special 
Counsel Mueller and the FBI are conducting a ``witch hunt'' are coming 
from the highest levels of both the American and Russian Governments. 
We see that Reuters has repeated a line from RIA, which is Russia's 
state television, saying: ``U.S. scandal over Russian contacts is `a 
witch hunt.''' That sentiment was repeated by Andy Biggs, a Republican 
who is calling on Mr. Mueller to ``end the witch hunt,'' and, of 
course, it was tweeted by Donald Trump, who called all of the illegal 
leaks of classified and other information a ``total witch hunt.''
  In panel 3, we see that both Putin and President Trump claim that 
there is no way to know for sure who meddled in the U.S. election. You 
can see the two of them. They blame Democrats for allegations of 
Russian meddling. Putin said that ``maybe someone lying in bed'' was 
responsible. Looking at similar language, President Trump famously 
said: ``It could be someone sitting on their bed that weighs 400 
pounds.''
  It is unfortunate that some Republicans, as well as voices in the 
conservative media, appear to believe that, in order to support the 
President, they must attack and discredit not only Special Counsel 
Mueller but also the Department of Justice and the FBI. These partisan 
attacks are baseless and reckless.
  They will not succeed in deflecting law enforcement from its duties 
and mission. What they may do is that they may well succeed in 
undermining the American people's faith and confidence in these 
institutions so vital to a healthy democracy. That is not only 
unfortunate, but it is shameful.
  Last summer Members of Congress came together on an overwhelmingly 
bipartisan basis to impose sanctions on Russia because people here 
believed they were interfering in our elections. Republicans and 
Democrats spoke with one voice. We said: Our country has been attacked 
by a hostile power. We will not tolerate it, and we will stand together 
to stop it. Today, it is critical that we continue to speak with one 
voice in condemning Russia's interference.
  This is a really remarkable moment in our country's history. A 
hostile foreign power has interfered in our Presidential election, and 
it continues to interfere. CIA Director Pompeo said, in no uncertain 
terms, that Russia will interfere in this year's midterm elections. Our 
law enforcement agencies and a special counsel are working diligently 
to undercover the scope and methods of Russia's interference so we can 
put a stop to it. Supporting these efforts is not about party and not 
about partisanship. It is about patriotism. It is about defending 
America's democracy, which has been attacked and continues to be 
vulnerable to attack.
  Make no mistake. Our democracy is being tested, our law enforcement 
agencies are being tested, and we, as Senators, are being tested. We 
have a responsibility to come together--Senators of both parties--to 
defend the independence of the Justice Department and the FBI. We must 
insist that Special Counsel Mueller be allowed to conduct and complete 
his investigation without further political interference. We must stand 
together in opposing Russia's outrageous continuing interference in 
America's elections and domestic affairs.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I wish to commend my colleagues who are 
sounding the alarm about Russia's interference in U.S. elections and 
who have worked tirelessly for months on their respective committees to 
get the answers that Americans deserve and give the confidence 
Americans need to know that their government is committed to preventing 
such interference from ever happening again.
  This work is incredibly important to people around the country and in 
my home State of Washington. I have heard from countless people who 
deeply love this country but fear for its institutions, and they are 
concerned about the integrity of elections.

  Here are the facts. More than a year ago, U.S. intelligence agencies 
concluded that Russia interfered in the last Presidential election, 
calling Russia's meddling a ``significant escalation in directness, 
level of activity, and scope of effort'' compared to previous attempts.
  That is not my opinion. It is not a partisan statement. It is a fact. 
Even more troubling, they are already back at it. We know this because 
our President's own handpicked CIA Director said last week that, ``of 
course,'' Russia is trying to meddle in this year's midterm elections.
  That is exactly why this Congress approved sanctions months ago in 
order to punish Russia and show them the steep price of doing this 
again. If there is one issue that we should all be able to agree on, it 
is that no one should get away with such a devious attack on our 
democracy. But, somehow, while the public is demanding action, the 
White House has gone silent, refusing to implement sanctions for 
reasons President Trump can't or will not explain.
  This same President, who has no problems speaking or tweeting on any 
other topic under the sun, clams up when it comes to Russia or he tries 
to change the subject or he launches a political attack. This same 
President, who promised to put ``America first,'' has failed to live up 
to the most basic duty of defending our elections and enforcing 
congressional actions to punish Russian meddling.
  The same President who promised law and order has been lashing out 
against a special counsel investigation, with a campaign to discredit 
our agencies of law and order by criticizing the men and women of our 
Nation's top law enforcement agencies, firing or threatening to fire 
those who stand up to him, and sowing doubt about the media that dares 
to report the facts.

[[Page S642]]

  Let's remember that the Putin regime that President Trump is so fond 
of is one that has invaded and annexed part of Ukraine and continues to 
incite war in Ukraine, is propping up the murderous Assad regime and is 
every bit as responsible for those heinous acts as Assad himself, and 
constantly tries to instigate conflict by threatening our troops around 
the world.
  Perhaps the most disappointing piece of this is that President Trump 
is now not acting alone. He gets help from Members of Congress who join 
in partisan attacks on the FBI and Department of Justice. Just think 
about that. We have a President and Members of the Republican Party who 
are more interested in helping a foreign power get away with 
interfering in our elections than allowing an investigation to run its 
course.
  It is simply stunning how far some of my Republican colleagues would 
go to undermine the special counsel and congressional investigations in 
order to score political points. This doesn't just put them at odds 
with the public in the short term. This has long-term consequences for 
the men and women who protect our country from harm. A few days ago, a 
former supervisory special agent with the FBI who served as a 
counterterrorism investigator and special assistant to the Bureau's 
Director explained why he was now resigning from the FBI in order to 
speak publicly.
  He said his resignation was painful but ``the alternative of 
remaining quiet while the bureau is tarnished for political gain is 
impossible.'' He said he worries that the damage from attacks on the 
integrity of the FBI could last generations.
  There are a number of things this Congress must commit to. First of 
all, we must ensure that Special Counsel Robert Mueller stays on the 
job and continues to follow the facts wherever they may lead, without 
threat or intimidation and with the resources he needs. We already know 
the President talked about firing Mr. Mueller last year. Well, the 
President should be on notice: Firing Mueller is not an option, and the 
same goes for trying to fire Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.
  I also want to be clear. Doling out a Presidential pardon to try to 
cover up any collusion or obstruction of justice is unacceptable and 
will be met with furious resistance across the country.
  This is about our elections, our national security, and it is about 
our standing in the world. No one--no one--should stand in the way of a 
thorough investigation. In the coming days, weeks, and months, Congress 
must work to fulfill its duty to the American people by ensuring the 
integrity of our elections and safeguarding investigations by allowing 
them to run their course free from political pressure.
  The question is whether the Trump administration and all Members of 
Congress will choose to act in the best interests of our country and 
our democracy or whether they will continue to act out of self-
preservation and shortsighted political gain. The world is watching.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I rise today to denounce--this is a strong 
word but an appropriate word--the Republican effort to undermine 
America's faith in important institutions--all to protect Donald Trump 
from the Russia investigation.
  This effort is self-evident to any neutral observer watching ``Fox 
and Friends,'' reading the ``Drudge Report,'' or following the 
President on Twitter, and it has profound consequences for our country.
  Defending our critical institutions, such as the FBI and an 
independent Department of Justice, should not be a partisan issue, and 
those who care about these institutions have to speak up. This, of 
course, includes Members of Congress.
  Many congressional Republicans, however, appear determined to 
transform legitimate congressional oversight into an arm of the 
President's defense. For example, the Teapot Dome hearings uncovered 
government corruption for personal gain. The Kefauver committee 
uncovered organized crime and corruption nationwide. The Watergate 
committee uncovered Nixon's conspiracy. The Church committee led to 
landmark reforms of the intelligence community, some of the very 
reforms that are currently being warped for Trump's benefit. These were 
bipartisan, fact-based, public inquiries into issues of national 
consequence.
  The investigation into Russia's acknowledged interference in our 
election should be no different. Unfortunately, many of the Republicans 
in Congress investigating the Trump-Russia matter appear more concerned 
about protecting the President than getting at the truth. This is 
particularly so in the House of Representatives, where almost nothing 
happens on the Intelligence Committee without the assent of the White 
House. But it is also true in the Senate, where even the Judiciary 
Committee has been stymied in its efforts to get to the truth.
  Certainly, it is not from a lack of trying. Democrats serving on 
relevant committees have demonstrated determination in fulfilling our 
constitutional oversight obligations, but this is nearly impossible 
without cooperation from the Republican majority. Without cooperation 
from Republicans, letters requesting information are not bipartisan, 
and interviews of key witnesses are delayed or are canceled, just to 
give two examples.
  Conducting oversight behind closed doors and out of the public view 
lacks transparency, of course, and creates a situation ripe for 
exploitation. It allows Republicans to weaponize incomplete or 
inaccurate information for the President's benefit.
  We have seen the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Devin 
Nunes, use this tactic last week, in spite of concerns raised by the 
FBI and the Department of Justice. Congressman Nunes, determined to 
support the President's paranoid conclusion that the entire national 
security apparatus is out to get him, created a memo that misconstrued 
critical intelligence to engineer an outcome that pleased the White 
House. Armed with a misleading and inaccurate memo, Congressman Nunes 
and Republicans across the country, with the assistance of Russia bots 
on social media, launched a concerted attack on the FBI, the 
intelligence community, and the Justice Department. Why? To prove a 
conspiracy against the President that does not exist.
  Nunes and other Republicans knew the facts did not support their 
conspiracy theory, but the incitement continued anyway, even singling 
out for attack the President's own handpicked Director of the FBI after 
his agency opposed releasing the memo. By the time the committee 
released it and the public learned just how false and misleading it 
was, Congressman Nunes and his memo had already sowed the seeds of 
doubt about the FBI and its investigation.
  The President rewarded Congressman Nunes yesterday by tweeting:

       Devin Nunes, a man of tremendous courage and grit, may 
     someday be recognized as a Great American Hero for what he 
     has exposed and what he has had to endure!

  I think history will conclude otherwise.
  Just as the President has praised the Nunes attacks on the FBI and 
the Justice Department, he has certainly been doing his part to 
undermine these institutions. He has done his part by demeaning and 
humiliating the very people he appointed to run these institutions. We 
can all recall the very personal attacks on Attorney General Jeff 
Sessions in the Oval Office, demands for personal loyalty from Deputy 
Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, and assertions that the FBI was ``in 
tatters'' under the leadership of his handpicked Director, Christopher 
Wray. We can all appreciate the irony of Donald Trump's personal 
attacks against Special Counsel Robert Mueller, whom the President 
interviewed and seriously considered for a return to his old job as 
Director of the FBI.
  The self-serving and personal attacks against people who refuse to do 
his bidding reflect the narcissism of a man who has little regard for 
his responsibilities as President. Sadly, for President Trump, it is 
all about him every time, all the time.
  By attacking the Justice Department and the FBI, the President is 
attempting to discredit the Russia investigation and protect himself 
and his family. His words and actions are intended to undermine public 
confidence in the

[[Page S643]]

FBI and the Justice Department for his benefit in the here and now. He 
does not seem to care about the long-term consequences of eroding 
public confidence in two critical institutions charged with keeping us 
safe and protecting our rights.
  Through all the obfuscation and negative personal attacks, a clear 
pattern has emerged. The President and his Republican allies will do 
whatever they can to discredit the Mueller Russia investigation without 
regard or respect for the collateral damage caused. Then they will turn 
to FOX News and other outlets to get their message or propaganda out to 
their base and dismiss the mainstream media as fake news. Sadly, for 
our country, it is a strategy that can win and that can work.
  According to a new poll from Reuters, 73 percent of Republicans 
believe that the Justice Department and the FBI are trying to undermine 
the President. This state of affairs may serve the President's short-
term interests, but it will have real and lasting negative consequences 
for our country in the years and decades to come.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague from Hawaii 
for a very eloquent statement. I so appreciate her leadership and miss 
her on the Intelligence Committee. I also want to express my 
appreciation to the organizers of this effort--Senator Whitehouse and 
Senator Blumenthal--who have been tenacious in pursuing these issues. 
Both of them serve on the Judiciary Committee, and I serve on the 
Intelligence Committee.
  It is quite obvious what has been going on in the last few weeks. The 
President, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, and others 
are working hard to get the American people just to forget that our 
country is in the middle of an ongoing national security crisis. Russia 
has attacked our democracy; Russia has intervened in our election; and 
there is every reason to believe that they are just going to keep doing 
it.
  In the year since the assessment I mentioned was conducted by the 
intelligence community, virtually everyone has come to see it this way. 
Donald Trump obviously disagrees. The only change has been the extent 
to which Donald Trump's protectors are willing to go out and throw dust 
in the air to prevent America from focusing on this direct threat to 
the people of this country and our very system of government.
  Congress has to get to the bottom of what has been done to our 
democracy, but the fact is, the Senate has been stonewalled, 
particularly when it comes to the crucial issues of following the 
money. It began when Donald Trump refused to do what every other 
Presidential candidate has done now for four decades; that is, release 
his tax returns. It continues on other fronts. I have repeatedly asked 
the Secretary of the Treasury to provide the Senate Finance Committee 
with Treasury Department documents that would allow investigators to 
follow the money between Russia, Donald Trump, and his associates. The 
committee has been given nothing. Secretary Mnuchin has simply refused 
to cooperate with congressional oversight conducted by members of the 
committee that has direct jurisdiction over his agency.
  So the question is, Mr. President, what are you hiding? What is in 
those tax returns and those financial documents that you don't want 
revealed? What would be so damaging?
  It seems to me that if you are to understand Russia's ability to 
undermine our democracy, it is essential to follow the money. Donald 
Trump's family has acknowledged its financial ties to Russia. In fact, 
in 2008 and 2009, when it was pretty hard to get money for investment, 
the Trump family said--their words, not mine: Much of our portfolio 
comes from the Russians.
  The special counsel included extensive information on money 
laundering and tax evasion in his recent indictment of Paul Manafort. 
There have been dozens and dozens of press stories--it seems there are 
several every week--about the finances of the President and his 
associates that warrant real congressional oversight.
  Americans are alarmed by the administration's stonewalling, and 
millions have been appalled by the idea that this would somehow be 
treated like just another political game. Those who abuse the 
classification system to put out a laughable partisan memo that doesn't 
stand up to scrutiny apparently are willing to do it just to protect 
the President at any cost.
  The cost is our national security. The cost is our democracy. No 
matter how much the President and his protectors in Congress try to 
change the subject, we are not, on the floor of this Senate, going to 
lose sight of what is really at stake.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am honored to follow my colleagues 
here today and to be followed by my great friend and colleague, Senator 
Whitehouse, who has been a wonderful partner in this effort and has 
helped organize today's colloquy. I will yield to him shortly.
  I think the American people are asking a commonsense question: What 
is the President trying to hide? What do the Russians have on Donald 
Trump?
  The intelligence community unanimously says that the Russians 
attacked our democracy by interfering in the 2016 election. The only 
one who has any doubt about it--in fact, the only public official who 
has the temerity to deny it--is the President of the United States. So 
the question is, Why?
  That is the elephant in this Chamber. That is the question that the 
American people demand that we answer in our investigation into 
obstruction of justice through the Judiciary Committee and that the 
special counsel will be answering in his investigation into collusion 
between the Russians and the Trump campaign, as well as subsequent 
obstruction of justice.
  Some of this investigation involves past events and actions by the 
President and others. But, in fact, what is happening daily in real 
time is evidence of obstruction of justice. It is as though we were 
watching a case in court unfolding before our eyes. All we lack is the 
marshalling of the evidence and the closing argument. In a subsequent 
speech, I intend to go into great detail on that obstruction case.
  From what we know now through the public record, there is a lot more 
that the special counsel knows from his investigation, and he will be 
making use of it from classified and unclassified sources.
  We now know, irrefutably and undeniably, that there is a credible 
case of obstruction of justice against the President of the United 
States. It is credible and, in many ways, powerful and compelling.
  In fact, President Trump has endeavored mightily to stop all of these 
investigations into the Russian meddling in the 2016 election and his 
connections to it.
  Obstruction of justice is a serious crime, essentially consisting of 
two elements: No. 1, to interfere with a lawful investigation and, No. 
2, that interference has to be done with corrupt intent. Corrupt intent 
means any improper purpose.
  It doesn't matter that the President, for example, had the right to 
fire Jim Comey or to say one thing or another. The question is why he 
did it. There can be circumstantial evidence of that corrupt intent in 
what he says and does, as well as direct quotations.
  If it was to stop or influence an investigation, that is corrupt 
intent, and that is enough for obstruction of justice.
  My colleagues and I are here today to raise the alarm because where 
we are now is that part of the President's corrupt intent, as well as 
his interference with the investigation, consists of an all-out assault 
on law enforcement and the intelligence community.
  In some ways, it is a standard means of defense at trial: When all 
else fails, attack the prosecution. I have seen it and experienced it 
as a U.S. attorney myself in court. So I know it is a last resort, but 
it has lasting implications for the defendant, or whoever is raising 
this defense--in this case, the President of the United States. It has 
huge, sweeping, enduring, horrific, and reprehensible ramifications. It 
is irresponsible in a profound constitutional sense for the Commander 
in Chief to be undermining our national security by attacking the FBI 
and our intelligence community as institutions.
  I wish to remind my colleagues of what our colleague John McCain 
said.

[[Page S644]]

My colleague Senator Whitehouse prepared this poster board and will be 
using it shortly. He said: ``The latest attacks against the FBI and 
Department of Justice serve no American interests--no party's, no 
President's, only Putin's.'' These attacks serve the Russians. They do 
not serve America's national security because they are done with the 
purpose to obstruct justice.
  They are the latest in a series of irresponsible and reprehensible 
actions that began in the first days of this administration. In January 
2017, Acting Attorney General Sally Yates went to the White House to 
inform White House Counsel Don McGahn that Michael Flynn had lied to 
the Vice President about his relationship with the Russians and he 
could, therefore, be subject to blackmail. Don McGahn immediately 
briefed President Trump, but the White House failed to react in the way 
that a responsible President would. Soon after it was revealed that the 
FBI was doing an investigation into Russian meddling, Trump asked FBI 
Director James Comey for his loyalty. In effect, he asked for a loyalty 
pledge from the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigations. He 
cornered Comey privately and said that he hoped Comey would let Flynn 
go, referring to the FBI's investigation into Michael Flynn.
  Trump called Comey and told him he wanted him to lift the cloud of 
the Russian investigation over his Presidency. He then called for the 
firing of Andrew McCabe, a potential corroborating witness for Comey's 
conversations with Trump.
  He asked Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and CIA Director 
Mike Pompeo and Mike Rogers to publicly state that he was not under 
investigation. When Comey refused to bend to this pressure, he fired 
Comey and misstated the reason for that firing. He lied about it, 
claiming it was because of Comey's supposed handling of the Clinton 
email investigation, although he later admitted in an interview with 
NBC News anchor Lester Holt that the firing was ``because of this 
Russia thing,'' and he bragged to Russian officials at the White House 
that Comey's firing had ``taken off'' the ``great pressure'' of the 
Russia investigation.

  But that did not make the Russia investigation go away, because of 
the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller. He berated his 
Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, for recusing himself from the special 
counsel's investigation because he knew Sessions could have stopped it. 
He berated Jeff Sessions and privately ranted about it.
  Those private rants, along with other private conversations--many of 
them now known to the special counsel, no doubt--are evidence that will 
be produced by the special counsel.
  We know that President Trump wrote a deliberately deceptive statement 
for his son Donald Trump, Jr., to cover up the Trump Tower meeting and 
to misstate what the purpose of that meeting was--supposedly Russian 
adoptions, when, in fact, it was to obtain dirt on Hillary Clinton. He 
did it when he knew he was under investigation. That is the key point.
  He ordered the firing of Robert Mueller and backed down only when his 
White House Counsel said he would resign. Again, the reasons that he 
provided, much like the Comey letter that was a lie, the reasons for 
his firing the FBI Director were pretextual. He lied about why he 
wanted Mueller gone, just as he had lied about why he fired Jim Comey.
  In some ways, others are tasked now, in a switch of tactics. He has 
no longer threatened to fire the special counsel--at least publicly--
but he has tasked his surrogates and sycophants in Congress to attack 
institutions like the FBI, the Department of Justice, and the 
intelligence community, along with him. That was the purpose of the 
Nunes memo--to discredit the FBI and distract from the investigation.
  But if he orchestrated the writing of that memo, if he participated 
in drafting it, if anyone in the White House, with his imprimatur or 
direction, was involved in crafting that memo, that is evidence also of 
obstruction of justice, and it will come home to haunt Devin Nunes and 
the White House staff who participated and others in the Congress who 
may have been involved, including the staff--all of it because he wants 
to stop the investigation, all of it because he is afraid of something 
that the special counsel has and that the Russians may have on him.
  The fact of the matter is that no one is above the law. If the 
President refuses to talk to the special counsel, he should be 
subpoenaed to appear before the grand jury. If he fails to voluntarily 
appear for that interview with Robert Mueller or his staff, he should 
be subpoenaed before the grand jury, and he should be forced to testify 
under threat of contempt. And if he invokes Executive privilege, the 
outcome will be the same when it is tested in court, as it was in 
United States v. Nixon.
  We have seen this movie before. We know how it ends because a broad 
claim of Executive privilege fails in the face of a lawful need for 
evidence in an ongoing criminal investigation.
  If he claims a Fifth Amendment privilege--the right against self-
incrimination--it will be a powerful testimony to what he fears the 
special counsel and the Russians have on him.
  We are careening toward a constitutional crisis, and that is why my 
colleagues in this Chamber can no longer remain silent. It is why Paul 
Ryan can no longer tolerate Devin Nunes to continue with these frantic 
antics to protect the President and his ongoing acts of obstruction. It 
is why I hope we will adopt legislation to protect the special counsel, 
sending a message to the President of the United States that he cannot 
obstruct justice by firing the special counsel and precipitate a 
confrontation that would match the Saturday Night Massacre during the 
era of Watergate. That would throw this country into another 
constitutional conflagration that would be profoundly damaging and 
enduringly harmful.
  This investigation is no hoax or witch hunt. It is real. It is not 
about any of us or any of the President's tweets. It is about evidence 
and law. It is about facts and statutes. It is about the elements of a 
crime that is under investigation. The American people deserve to know 
the truth, which is why we must have public hearings in the Judiciary 
Committee, and we must have subpoenas for documents and witnesses. It 
is why we need to move in the Judiciary Committee with special counsel 
legislation that will offer protections that guarantee the American 
people that they will know the truth and that the rule of law will be 
protected. No one is above the rule of law.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I thank my friend and colleague Senator Whitehouse.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, on January 6, 2017, the U.S. 
intelligence community released a shocking report.
  It stated: ``We assess with high confidence that Russian President 
Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016, aimed at the U.S. 
presidential election, the consistent goals of which were to undermine 
public faith in the U.S. democratic process, denigrate Secretary 
Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency.''
  This wasn't just one intelligence agency, it was a unanimous 
conclusion of the entire intelligence community.
  It sent shockwaves throughout our entire government. This isn't about 
Republicans versus Democrats, it is about a foreign President ordering 
an attack on our democracy.
  President Putin's goal was clear: to sow division and discord and to 
undermine public faith in our democratic processes and the rule of law.
  Almost immediately we saw concerns and calls for action from both 
sides of the aisle.
  Bipartisan congressional investigations were initiated to figure out 
exactly what happened and how to prevent it from happening again.
  However, despite this promising beginning, the commitment to uncover 
the facts and protect our country from outside attacks has devolved 
into an inside attack on our own democratic institutions.
  Sadly, rather than serving as a unifying force, President Trump has 
done all he can to undermine the intelligence community's assessment.
  What is worse, he has utterly failed to take strong actions against 
Russia--and in some cases has rewarded Russia by changing U.S. policy.
  Instead of supporting a robust and independent investigation into 
what Russia did and who was involved, the President instead is working 
to halt the investigations altogether.

[[Page S645]]

  Unfortunately, the President hasn't been alone in these efforts.
  Last week, Congressman Devin Nunes, chairman of the House 
Intelligence Committee, pushed for the declassification of a 
transparently political memo written by his staff.
  Here are some things we know about the memo and the process to 
release it: We know that the memo confirms the FBI's Russia 
investigation was not triggered by the dossier or by Carter Page.
  In fact, the investigation started because another Trump campaign 
foreign policy adviser, George Papadapolous, was told in April that 
Russia had ``dirt'' on Clinton in the form of thousands of emails.
  We also know that, while Carter Page was not the reason the Russia 
investigation started, the government had a reasonable belief that Page 
was acting as an agent of a foreign power.
  We know that Congressman Nunes did not review the underlying 
classified documents himself.
  These documents include the FISA warrant renewal applications, which 
must show what the government was learning about Carter Page.
  Instead of reviewing these documents himself, the chairman relied 
solely on his staff, who may or may not have been coordinating this 
campaign with the White House. We don't know because Congressman Nunes 
refuses to answer that question.
  We know that Chairman Nunes refused to allow the Department of 
Justice and FBI to brief all Members on the underlying documents before 
and after the memo's release.
  We know that Congressman Nunes refused to allow Democrats to issue 
their own analysis of the classified documents along with his memo.
  And we know that Russian social media bots assisted in the efforts to 
influence American public opinion concerning the memo.
  The drafting and release of this partisan, misleading memo was 
particularly disturbing to me.
  As Senator McCain stated last week, ``If we continue to undermine our 
own rule of law, we are doing Putin's job for him.''
  Intelligence and law enforcement oversight should never be used as a 
political weapon.
  I have served on the Senate Intelligence Committee for 17 years, and 
I can't recall a single instance when an intelligence report was 
handled in this manner or a situation where additional views were 
actively blocked from being released.
  This has been true even with the most controversial issues like the 
Intelligence Committee's investigation of the Benghazi attacks or the 
report on the CIA's use of torture.
  In both of these instances, the committee held bipartisan meetings 
and shared drafts of report language between the majority and minority.
  For the torture report, the CIA was offered and accepted 
opportunities to respond and request changes. The committee revised its 
report where appropriate and even cited disagreements in footnotes.
  Once public, the committee included additional views from Republicans 
on the committee. The CIA's response was made public. There was a very 
thorough declassification process to ensure the summary was safe to 
release.
  In fact, even though the final report was completed in 2012, the 
executive summary wasn't made public until December 2014 in order to 
ensure the process was properly followed.
  There were disagreements, but the minority party was not cut out of 
the process.
  That is not how the Senate works, that is not how democracy works, 
and it is not how any congressional committee or investigation should 
operate.
  What I have described so far was the process and political 
implications of the Nunes memo, but it is just one part of an extensive 
pattern of abuse of power.
  What we are seeing is a sustained, coordinated effort to diminish, 
weaken, and destabilize our top law enforcement officials, and we all 
should take exception to that.
  Both the rushed manner and the disputed contents of the Nunes memo 
are a case in point.
  After the memo was released on Friday, House Intelligence Committee 
Ranking Member Adam Schiff hit the nail on the head.
  He called the public release of misleading allegations against the 
FBI and the Justice Department ``a shameful effort to discredit these 
institutions, undermine the Special Counsel's ongoing investigation, 
and undercut congressional probes.''
  He is absolutely right.
  And this is just the latest in a long pattern of attempts to undercut 
the FBI and Justice Department.
  Some of the efforts were blatant.
  After FBI Director Comey refused to pledge his loyalty to the 
President, the President fired him, an action the President himself 
admitted was tied to the Russia investigation.
  The President has engaged in a series of tweets attacking the 
Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General and Deputy Director of the 
FBI, among others.
  There have also been media reports that the President has considered 
firing both Robert Mueller and Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein, but 
many of the efforts by the President and his team weren't quite as 
obvious.
  We have seen multiple reports that the President demanded personal 
loyalty from top law enforcement officials including Comey and 
Rosenstein.
  In fact, President Trump frequently calls the Attorney General 
``his'' Attorney General and refers to ``my FBI'' and ``my Department 
of Justice.'' In fact, they aren't his, they are American people's.
  Media reports also say that President instructed White House Counsel 
Don McGahn to keep the Attorney General from recusing himself from the 
Russia investigation.
  Two heads of intelligence agencies, DNI Director Dan Coats and NSC 
Director Michael Rogers, said they felt pressure from the President to 
say there was no collusion with Russia.
  And it has become apparent that many of the actions taken by the 
White House, Congressman Nunes, and others have been coordinated with 
conservative media like FOX News.
  Objectivity and nonpartisanship are core components of the FBI and 
the Justice Department. To either attempt to co-opt them or punish them 
for not kowtowing to the President's political whims is egregious.
  Our Founding Fathers placed enormous trust in the legislative branch 
to serve as an effective check on the President, and it is time to do 
our job.
  Congress needs to work alongside Special Counsel Mueller to get 
answers for the American people.
  The Nation deserves to understand exactly what happened and who was 
involved, and all of us need to believe the President isn't above the 
law and will not be allowed to abuse his position for personal gain.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, indisputably, Vladimir Putin conducted 
a broadly based attack on American democracy and its most important 
institutions. Tragically, Putin's broadly based attack on American 
democracy and our institutions is echoed by President Trump's attack on 
American democracy and our most important institutions. And tragically 
or pathetically--I don't know which to say--that attack is echoed by a 
broad Republican attack on American democracy and institutions.
  We can and should take steps to defend our American democracy. They 
are not terribly complicated.
  No. 1, stop attacking our own institutions. We can start there. We 
are doing Putin's work when we attack our own institutions.
  No. 2, step up to protect our own elections. All of our national 
security witnesses have warned that they are coming after us in 2018 
with more election interference. Yet what have we done?
  No. 3, stop sheltering Putin and his oligarchs from consequences. We 
passed sanctions against Russian oligarchs and Putin and Russia for 
this very thing--messing around in our elections--through the Senate 98 
to 2. The effective date of them has run. Yet the President won't 
enforce them. Stop sheltering Putin and his oligarchs.
  No. 4, clean up the dark channels of foreign influence and 
corruption. We know what they are because we have seen this play out in 
European countries and former Soviet Union countries. We know how it 
works. We have similar vulnerabilities. Fix them.
  Those are four things that are not hard to do.

[[Page S646]]

  A fifth would be serious investigations by Congress--not tiptoe 
investigations but ones where we take hard looks, ask hard questions, 
and demand hard evidence.
  No one in the Senate has tangled more with Vladimir Putin than our 
friend John McCain. Senator McCain has tangled with him so often that 
he has actually been blacklisted from travel to Russia. What Senator 
McCain said last week is something we should take to heart: ``The 
latest attacks against the FBI and Department of Justice serve no 
American interests--no party's, no President's, only Vladimir 
Putin's.''
  He also said this: ``Our Nation's elected officials, including the 
President, must stop looking at this investigation through the lens of 
politics and manufacturing political sideshows.'' Instead, we need to 
be looking at the situation through the lens of our national security.
  Here is what America's national security professionals tell us. 
First, they concluded: ``Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an 
influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S. presidential election.''
  I will continue. ``Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in 
the U.S. Democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her 
electability and potential presidency.''
  They concluded: ``We further assess Putin and the Russian government 
developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump.''
  We went on with this important conclusion in the January 2017 
intelligence community assessment: ``We assess Moscow will apply 
lessons learned from its Putin-ordered campaign aimed at the U.S. 
presidential election to future influence efforts worldwide, including 
against U.S. allies and their election processes.''
  We know they are coming. We have been warned by Trump's own 
appointees that they are coming. Yet we do nothing. Nada. As Putin 
would say, ``nichego.''
  Well, right now that leaves Congress complicit, but it doesn't have 
to be this way, and it ought not be this way. It is not too late to 
defend our democracy and to teach Russia and the world some different 
lessons about who we are. What are the things we could do? Well, we 
could defend our democracy from Russian political influence.
  Let's take legislative action to secure election infrastructure, 
improve our cyber security, counter and blunt Russian propaganda, and 
keep foreign money out of our politics. That ought not to be too hard 
to ask.
  Let's defend our democracy from future Russian and foreign meddling. 
Let's insist on the implementation and enforcement of the sanctions 
against Russia. We passed them 98 to 2 for a reason. Why is President 
Trump sheltering Putin and the oligarchs from that punch? Let's insist 
on the message being delivered that we don't tolerate this behavior and 
that we will deter it with serious sanctions.
  Let's insist on transparency. Let's insist on transparency about 
foreign financial interference in our country, through shell 
corporations in particular, and let's insist on transparency about the 
President's foreign financial dealings and conflicts of interest.
  Finally, let's pass legislation to protect the special counsel from 
interference and obstruction. I have been a U.S. attorney. I understand 
the role of an independent and honorable Department of Justice. I 
understand, as we all should, that no man--not even the President--is 
above the law. And like many colleagues who have served in the 
Department of Justice, I expect, as they all expect, that even under 
the pressure, the threats, and the intimidation brought by the 
President against this Department of Justice, it will do its job. As 
FBI Director Christopher Wray recently said, ``We expect them to keep 
calm and tackle hard.''
  I see the majority leader is on the floor.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Daines). The majority leader.

                          ____________________