[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 124 (Tuesday, July 23, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5000-S5009]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  HONORING FORMER ASSOCIATE JUSTICE JOHN PAUL STEVENS OF THE SUPREME 
                       COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, today America lays to rest the great 
Justice John Paul Stevens. On behalf of the U.S. Senate, it is my 
privilege, along with my Illinois colleague Senator Duckworth, to 
introduce and have adopted a bipartisan resolution honoring this 
remarkable and noble man, a native of the city of Chicago.
  During his Supreme Court confirmation hearings in 1975, then-Judge 
John Paul Stevens faced a line of questioning about his health, which, 
in retrospect, is amusing. They were asking questions about his health 
44 years ago. Justice Stevens had undergone a single bypass heart 
surgery 2 years earlier, and the members of the Judiciary Committee 
just wanted to make sure he could handle the rigors of serving on the 
U.S. Supreme Court. History has shown us that Justice John Paul Stevens 
had not only a strong heart but a good heart when it came to serving on 
the U.S. Supreme Court.
  Sadly, that mighty heart finally did stop beating last week. Justice 
Stevens was 99 years old. He died peacefully with his daughters 
Elizabeth and Susan by his side.
  My State of Illinois is proud to claim John Paul Stevens as a native 
son. He was a member of a prominent Chicago family, and he grew up in 
the luxury of his family's hotel, then known as the Stevens Hotel and 
now known as the Hilton Hotel on Michigan Avenue. He never used the 
privilege of his family's wealth to shirk his responsibilities as a 
citizen of America.
  In World War II he was a lieutenant commander in the Navy. He was 
awarded the Bronze Star for his service on the code-breaking team, 
whose work led to the downing of the plane of the man who had planned 
the attack on Pearl Harbor. After the war, he became an accomplished 
attorney and a champion of good, ethical government.
  It was John Paul Stevens' integrity, as much as his brilliant legal 
mind, that convinced President Gerald Ford to nominate him, then a 
Federal judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, to serve on the 
U.S. Supreme Court in 1975. President Ford called then-Judge Stevens 
``the finest legal mind I could find.'' The Senate obviously agreed. 
The vote on the Senate floor for John Paul Stevens' confirmation was 98 
to 0.
  He was the second oldest and third longest serving Justice in the 
history of our Nation, but it is the quality of his service, and not 
its length, that most distinguishes John Paul Stevens' career on the 
U.S. Supreme Court. Justice Stevens approached disputes fairly, 
squarely, and succinctly. He took great pains to understand all sides 
of a case and give all sides a fair hearing. He rejected the easy path 
of ideology, and he was willing to change his position when the facts 
warranted it.
  He authored the majority opinions in some of the most famous and 
important Supreme Court decisions in his time. One example was in 2004. 
Justice Stevens wrote the majority opinion in which the Court, by a 
vote of 6 to 3, rejected the Bush administration's view that prisoners 
at Guantanamo Bay could be held beyond the reach of the law with no 
access to the Federal courts. The case was Rasul v. Bush.
  In 1984, in the landmark Chevron case, Justice Stevens wrote an 
opinion for a unanimous Supreme Court about the deference owed to 
Agency interpretations of Federal statutes, crafting a legal framework 
that has been cited in more than 11,000 subsequent judicial opinions.
  He was also often brilliant in dissent. In his lengthy dissent in 
Citizens United v. FEC in 2010, Justice Stevens rejected the radical 
and, I personally believe, dangerous notion that corporations have 
essentially the same First Amendment rights as individuals and should 
be allowed to spend, potentially, unlimited amounts of money on 
campaigns.
  President Eisenhower famously said that he made only two mistakes as 
President, ``and they're both sitting on the Supreme Court.''
  President Ford felt just the opposite about his choice in Justice 
Stevens. In 2005, the year before his death, President Ford wrote of 
Justice Stevens: ``I am prepared to allow history's judgment of my term 
in office to rest (if necessary, exclusively) on my nomination 30 years 
ago of John Paul Stevens to the U.S. Supreme Court.'' I can think of no 
higher praise.
  Justice Stevens stepped down from the Supreme Court 9 years ago. 
Anyone who had hoped that he might slip quietly into retirement was 
certainly disappointed. He continued in his retirement to speak and 
write forcefully and eloquently on major issues facing America.
  In 2014, he testified before the Senate Rules Committee on the 
dangers that dark money in politics posed to American democracy.
  He wrote three books. Justice Stevens once told an interviewer that 
the person who most motivated him to write was a professor from whom he 
took a poetry class at the University of Chicago. The professor's name 
was Norman Maclean. In his own retirement, Norman Maclean wrote a semi-
autobiographical novel entitled, ``A River Runs Through It and Other 
Stories.'' It was later made into a movie starring Robert Redford.
  Looking at the life's work of John Paul Stevens, it is clear that a 
river ran through his life too. The currents in that river included a 
reverence for American democracy and the Constitution, compassion and 
respect for individuals, and a painstaking commitment to decide each 
case on its merits rather than relying on easy answers suggested by 
political ideology.
  Justice John Paul Stevens was a good man and a courageous man, whose 
strong heart was matched by a brilliant mind, ceaseless curiosity, and 
a fierce commitment to justice. He fought the good fight. He served our 
Nation with honor, and he safeguarded and enriched our democracy. May 
he rest in peace and honor.
  Madam President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent 
that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 282, 
submitted earlier today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.

[[Page S5001]]

  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A resolution (S. Res. 282) honoring former Associate 
     Justice John Paul Stevens of the Supreme Court of the United 
     States.

  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the 
resolution.
  Mr. DURBIN. I further ask unanimous consent that the resolution be 
agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to consider be 
considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or 
debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The resolution (S. Res. 282) was agreed to.
  The preamble was agreed to.
  (The resolution, with its preamble, is printed in today's Record 
under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')


                            Border Security

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I made my second trip to the southern 
border just this last Friday with, I believe, 14 of my Senate 
Democratic colleagues. It is the largest congressional delegation I 
have ever been a part of for this type of assignment. We went to 
McAllen, TX.
  Approximately 40 percent of those who present themselves at our 
border come through this McAllen, TX, post. There is a port of entry 
there where many people, of course, are detained when they present 
themselves at nearby border positions.

  Just a few months before, I had been to El Paso, TX, and, in El Paso, 
about 20 percent of those who come to our southern border present 
themselves as well. It was an eye opener and an emotional experience to 
see the hundreds of people who are being held in detention at our 
border in McAllen.
  There were two contrasting images. One of them was the image of a 
Catholic nun, Sister Norma Pimentel, who has, for most of her adult 
life, dedicated herself to those who come to our border seeking rescue 
and security. Catholic Charities in McAllen, TX, has an extraordinary 
center filled with volunteers from all over the United States. I met 
some people from the city of Chicago and the State of Illinois and from 
all across the Nation who had given up their daily lives to come down 
and volunteer and do the basics--cook food, clean up, pass out 
toiletries, and offer a helping hand to many people who have just gone 
through the worst struggle in their lives.
  Sister Norma is an extraordinary person, and she has really touched 
the hearts of so many people in her caring and loving way. It is a 
reminder time and again of the goodness of so many Americans who want 
to tell the world that we are in fact a nation driven by values of 
importance.
  It was my good fortune to have breakfast with her and then spend 
another part of my day with her and my Senate colleagues. That hour--
that hour I will never forget--is when I saw these people, many of whom 
had struggled for weeks, a month, days and days to get to the border of 
the United States. They had gone through life experiences that we 
wouldn't wish on anyone. They were victims of assault, rape, and crimes 
that were committed against them, but they were leaving determined to 
come to the U.S. border.
  Many of them told stories, particularly from the countries of 
Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras, about what they had been through 
and the threats to their families in these countries, which are largely 
lawless now, as these drug gangs and others threaten their children and 
them. It was in desperation that many of them made this journey, 
cashing in everything they owned on Earth to try to make it to the 
border of the United States.
  Theirs is today's story, but it really is the story of this country 
that goes back for many years. It was 108 years ago that my grandmother 
decided to make her journey to the United States with three small 
children. She brought her two daughters and her son from the country of 
Lithuania to become immigrants to the United States. Her 2-year-old 
daughter, which she carried in her arms, was my mother, and I am a 
proud son of that Lithuanian immigrant.
  Why did they come to the United States? Simply because they heard 
there was a better chance for a better future if they made it here.
  That is the story of this country. We are being tested now at this 
time in this generation as to whether that story is still alive. Now, 
we understand there are some basics here. I hope we can all agree on 
them. Perhaps some will not, but I believe they are important.
  The first is that we need border security. In an age of terrorism 
with the worst drug epidemic in the history of our Nation, it is right 
for us to know who is coming into this country and what they are 
bringing into our country.
  Secondly, we want to make certain that anyone who is known to be a 
danger in this country is never allowed admittance, and those who are 
here undocumented and who commit a serious crime have forfeited their 
right to stay, as far as I am concerned--no questions asked beyond 
that.
  The third thing is that we have to have an orderly immigration 
system. We cannot absorb every person in the world who wants to come to 
the United States at this moment. It just is not in our best interest. 
It really isn't in theirs either. We need an orderly immigration 
process. The question we have to ask ourselves is this: If we agree on 
those three things, can we then agree that we have a broken immigration 
system that needs to be repaired? Can we agree that people who do 
present themselves at the border will be treated in a humane fashion?
  I told the story of Sister Norma, but if you look at the immigration 
policy of the Trump administration, you find a much different message 
to the world. We remember when this President initiated his Presidency 
by establishing a Muslim travel ban, creating chaos at airports across 
the country, and continued to separate thousands of American families. 
We remember the policy of this administration when the President 
announced the repeal of DACA. DACA, the Deferred Action for Childhood 
Arrivals, is a program that grew out of the DREAM Act, a bill that I 
introduced about 18 years ago. It was a bill that said--or an Executive 
decision, actually, under President Obama: If you were brought to this 
country as a child, and your parents made the decision to come, and you 
were just along for the ride, but you lived in this country, got an 
education in this country, and didn't create serious crimes in this 
country, you deserve a chance.
  You got up every morning and went to school and pledged allegiance to 
that flag and believed it was your own, and, then, probably when you 
were about 10 or 12, someone in the family told you something that you 
never heard before: You were not legally in America.
  What should we do with these young people? Well, when I introduced 
this bill 18 years ago, my plan was to give them a chance to earn their 
way to legal status, finish their education, make certain that they 
have no serious criminal record, be willing to serve this country in 
the Armed Forces--and so many of them are--be willing to go on to 
school and develop a degree in teaching, engineering, nursing, or 
medicine, and then we gave you a chance for a green card and a path to 
legalization and citizenship in America.

  In 18 years, I have never been able to make this the law of the land, 
but I prevailed on President Obama to create a program based on this 
premise, and he created the DACA Program. Now, over 800,000 young 
people in America stepped up, paid a $600 filing fee, went through a 
criminal background check, and they were given permission to stay in 
this country without fear of deportation and with permission to work in 
this country as well.
  Who are they? There are so many different people. I have introduced 
them on the floor today--I mean other days, I should say--with color 
photographs and telling their stories. The ones I think of immediately, 
the stars of the class, as far as I am concerned, are the more than 30 
of these DACA students who are currently enrolled in the Loyola 
University Stritch School of Medicine in Chicago, which made the 
competition for the school of medicine open to DACA recipients, and 
they competed openly and won 32 slots.
  In order to pay for their education, because they don't qualify for 
Federal assistance to go to school, my State of Illinois loans them 
money, and for each year that they are loaned money, they promise to 
serve a year, once they are licensed physicians, in an area of medical 
need in my State. What a wonderful program that takes into account 
their skills and talent and our need in

[[Page S5002]]

the State for medical care in rural communities in Smalltown, America, 
and in the inner city of Chicago and other big cities in my State.
  Well, the President of the United States decided to end the program 
that made them eligible to apply for medical school, and in making that 
decision, the President jeopardized the completion of their medical 
degrees because, you see, no matter how hard they worked, that medical 
degree leads to a residency where they learn how to practice medicine 
hands on, and a residency is a job, and to be legally entitled to work 
in this country, you need to have DACA protection, which President 
Trump took away.
  So many of them faced the prospect that their medical education would 
end because of the President's decision. Fortunately for them, the case 
was brought to Federal court to try to stop President Trump from 
eliminating DACA, and it provided us with a program that will continue 
with its protections until the court case is resolved. That could 
happen, and it could happen soon.
  It tells you what happens when a President makes a decision that 
affects so many lives and the damage that it can do, not just to them 
and their families but to our Nation.
  The President also terminated the Temporary Protected Status Program 
for multiple countries that protected some 300,000 people who have come 
to the United States over the years because of adverse natural 
disasters or political conditions in their country.
  Then the President, last year, initiated a program called ``Zero 
Tolerance'' that resulted in the disastrous separation of thousands of 
families at the border. Because a Federal court mandated it, the 
administration had to account for the children who were separated. 
There were some 2,880 infants, toddlers, and children taken away from 
their parents, some with lies about where these children were going and 
how soon they would be returned.
  This is what the court said in Southern California to the Trump 
administration: Account for these children. Tell us where they are 
today. Tell us where their parents are.
  They couldn't even match up all the children with the parents because 
many of the parents had been sent back to their countries with the 
promise that the children would return, and there was no recordkeeping 
so that could be done.
  This President also was engaged, through his Department of Homeland 
Security, in migrant detention facilities, where the inspector general 
with the Department of Homeland Security found ``an immediate risk to 
the health and safety of detainees and DHS employees.''
  I saw them in April of this year in El Paso. We had a detention 
facility there where they were holding those who were presented at the 
border. The sign over the door of that detention center said: Capacity 
35. I looked through the plate glass window. There were 150 men 
standing shoulder to shoulder. They ate standing up. There was no room 
for all of them to lie down and sleep. I was told a couple of weeks 
later that the population census had grown to 200 in that cell that was 
designed for 35, with 1 toilet.
  Next to it was a detention cell with another plate glass window. Over 
the door, it said: Capacity 18. I counted 75 women, some with nursing 
children, in that room designed for 18 people, with 1 toilet.
  That situation is unacceptable and inhumane. Regardless of the legal 
outcome of those who present themselves, we can and must do better as a 
nation. The inspector general is right. That condition that I saw was a 
risk to health and safety.
  Then, the President, through a series of his infamous tweets, 
threatened mass arrests and deportations of millions of immigrants who 
have committed no crime and posed no threat to the safety and security 
of their communities. What the President has done is created rampant 
fear in the immigrant communities around Illinois and around this 
Nation.
  Then, the President put in place a new rule that blocks asylum claims 
at our border for nationals of any country except Mexico, including 
families and children fleeing persecution. The UNHCR, the United 
Nations refugee agency, said that the rule that the President 
promulgated will endanger vulnerable people in need of international 
protection from violence or persecution.
  Now the President is continuing on his path of destruction. He is 
considering reducing the number of refugees that the United States will 
admit in the year 2020 to zero.
  You have to go back in history to World War II, when the President of 
the United States, a member of my own political party, made a conscious 
decision to tell those Jewish people coming from Europe that they would 
not be allowed admittance into the United States to escape the Nazi 
Holocaust. The story of the SS St. Louis is one that people should read 
and consider the 800 passengers on that ship who were rejected by the 
administration as refugees and sent back to Europe. A fourth of them 
died in the Holocaust.
  Because of our feeling of shame after World War II, the United 
States, under Presidents of both political parties, said that we would 
try to set a standard for the world when it came to accepting refugees, 
and we did. An average of almost 80,000 per year were admitted into the 
United States. Think back to the Cubans who came to this country to 
escape communism under Castro. They have become such a vibrant part of 
America today, and in fact, three of the Senators today are of Cuban 
decent. They were part of that refugee movement--maybe not their 
generation but in their family.
  Then, of course, we accepted Jewish people from the Soviet Union, who 
were being persecuted. Soviet Jews found a welcoming America. The 
Vietnamese who risked their lives to fight on our side in that horrible 
war were welcomed into the United States rather than see them face 
persecution in their own countries.
  The story goes on and on and for years and years. For decades the 
United States established a standard of caring when it came to 
refugees. Now this President has announced that despite all of the 
turmoil in the world, we cannot accept a single refugee in the year 
2020. What a departure from the high-minded and high-valued conduct of 
previous Presidents.
  Since the enactment of the Refugee Act of 1980, the United States has 
resettled over 80,000 refugees per year under the administrations of 
both political parties. President Trump has said he will end it.
  For the last 2 years, the Trump administration has set the lowest 
refugee ceilings in history in the midst of the worst refugee crisis in 
history. Now the administration may slam the door at least for a year 
or until someone prevails on the President.
  Today, as almost every day, the administration has announced a new 
rule that allows immigration officers to arrest and deport undocumented 
immigrants anywhere in the United States unless that person can prove 
they have been in the United States for at least 2 years. I ask, if 
someone stopped you on the street and said ``Prove you have been here 
for 2 years,'' how long would it take you to gather that documentation 
to make that proof, if you can? To do this to people and threaten to 
deport them on the spot immediately if they don't produce the 
documentation is totally unfair. This procedure, known as expedited 
removal, allows an immigrant to be deported without consulting with an 
attorney or counselor or defending themselves in a hearing before an 
immigration judge. It is summary judgment on the street to deport 
people and tear families apart.
  America is better than this. We can certainly keep America safe and 
respect our heritage as a nation of immigrants. We can have a secure 
border and abide by our international obligations to protect refugees 
fleeing persecution as we have done on a bipartisan basis for decades.
  When I went and toured the McAllen Border Patrol station, Donna, and 
Ursula, we met with many of the leaders there and saw firsthand what is 
happening. We are starting to build facilities that will be more 
humane, at least by design, and hope that is exactly what happens.
  I would like to say a word about the men and women who work for 
Customs and Border Protection. I am not going to make any excuses for 
those who have abused people in the past or those who have said 
horrible things online about them--no excuses at all. But the

[[Page S5003]]

people I met as part of our government service at the border were 
overwhelmingly good and caring people who are confronted with a 
situation at the border that they never envisioned with circumstances 
beyond their control. So I want to say a word for those who are doing 
the best they can under these extraordinary circumstances and thank 
them for their service.
  The reality is that President Trump's policies, as harsh and cruel as 
they have been, have been ineffective at our southern border. The 
situation is much less secure than when he took office. The President's 
obsession with the border wall led to the longest government shutdown 
in history, even paralyzing our immigration courts for that 35-day 
period.
  More refugees have been driven to the border because the President 
has shut down the legal avenues for migration and blocked all 
assistance to stabilize the Northern Triangle countries.
  Under President Obama we set up in-country in Guatemala, El Salvador, 
and Honduras an opportunity for those who wished to come forward and 
apply for asylum status in the United States without leaving their own 
country if they chose to do it. It was one alternative to an expensive, 
dangerous trek to the southern border. The Trump administration closed 
down that program, giving the people in those countries no other 
alternative but to try to make that trip to the border. That made no 
sense at all.
  There is also a gaping leadership vacuum at the Department of 
Homeland Security. In the 2\1/2\ years the President has been in 
office, there have been four different leaders in the Office of the 
Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, and in every major 
subcategory position, whether it is interior enforcement or border 
enforcement, there have been at least as many people in an acting 
capacity and not in a permanent capacity.
  I will say that we have tried our best to work with this 
administration when they have asked for help and volunteered it when 
they didn't. Last February, when we passed the omnibus bill, we 
included over $400 million for humanitarian assistance at the border, 
and when the President came back and asked for an emergency 
supplemental of $4.6 billion for additional funding, Democrats joined 
Republicans to pass that legislation.
  Last year, before the border crisis began, Senate Democrats supported 
a bipartisan agreement, including robust border security funding and 
dozens of provisions to strengthen border security. But the President 
threatened to veto it, and instead pushed for a hard-line approach, 
which, when it was called for a vote in the U.S. Senate, received fewer 
than 40 votes.
  Six years ago, in 2013, there was a problem on the Senate floor, and 
there aren't many to recall as we stand here today, but this was one of 
them. I was part of the Gang of 8, four Democrat and four Republican 
Senators who worked for months--Senator John McCain, Chuck Schumer, and 
many others--to put together a comprehensive immigration reform bill. 
We brought it to the floor of the Senate, and it passed 68 to 32. It 
was a step and a move in the right direction to deal with our broken 
immigration system. Unfortunately, the Republican House leadership 
refused to even consider that bill or call for a hearing. The Acting 
Secretary of Department of Homeland Security, Kevin McAleenan, said 
that if our bill in 2013 had been enacted into law, ``we would have a 
very different situation. . . . we would be a lot more secure on our 
border.''
  Republican Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, who supported that 
bill, said ``If that bill became law, most of the problems we're having 
today we'd not be having.''
  We had a path, a bipartisan path, a good path that we should return 
to. It is time for us to find a way to work together for a secure 
border, for a secure nation, to reduce the massive amounts of money 
that are being spent now because of this migration, and to do it in a 
humane fashion consistent with the values of the United States.
  We are ready to work with Republicans. Democrats on this side of the 
aisle are ready to work to achieve goals I think we all share. We need 
to address the root causes in the Northern Triangle countries that 
drive migrants to flee to the United States. We need to crack down on 
the traffickers and transporters who are exploiting these migrants. We 
need to expand third-country resettlement so that immigrants can find 
their way safely without making that dangerous trek. We need to 
eliminate immigration court backlogs so that asylum claims can be 
processed more quickly. We need to expand the use of proven 
alternatives to detention, like family case management, so immigrants 
know their rights and show up for court.
  It was hard to believe, when we went to Sister Norma's cafeteria 
centered in McAllen--some of the migrants who had gone through the 
system and were now heading to join family members in the United States 
showed us the packets they were given with legal documents. Understand, 
these people were fresh off the border, out of detention. As we looked 
inside the packets, we found in many cases that the instructions were 
printed in English, not Spanish, and they did not include any specific 
time or place for the person to report. They had simply typed in ``to 
be determined.'' Is it any wonder that people struggle to come to a 
court hearing as required by law?
  We can do better. We need to get them the information they need if 
they are going to be a part of our legal system and tell them the time 
and place they need to report.
  We stand ready to work on this side of the aisle for smart, 
effective, humane border security policy. We need to have a bipartisan 
approach. Republican colleagues need to step up and find a constructive 
way to deal with the challenges we face on the border today. We can 
keep America safe. We can continue to probably call ourselves a nation 
of immigrants. What we are seeing now is a situation which begs for a 
bipartisan, compromise solution.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cassidy). The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Mueller Report

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I come to the floor just the day before 
Robert Mueller is set to come before the House Intelligence and 
Judiciary Committees to focus attention on some of the key findings of 
the special counsel's report on Russia's interference in our 2016 
elections.
  I have spoken on the floor many times about the depth and breadth of 
the Russian interference in the 2016 election. The special counsel's 
report goes to great lengths to detail this, in his terms, ``sweeping 
and systemic interference.'' What continues to be worrisome is that 
these information warfare attacks and other malign influence operations 
are ongoing with more plans for our elections next year.
  This threat to our national security and the integrity of our 
democracy has yet to be sufficiently recognized or counted by this 
administration. Indeed, in the months since the report was released, 
the Trump administration and congressional Republicans have repeatedly 
claimed that the report vindicates the President on all charges of 
collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia and on obstruction of 
justice rather than taking steps to ensure that we will never be 
targeted in this way again.
  The special counsel's testimony is vital so he can detail what he 
uncovered and shed additional light on the events of the investigation. 
In particular, what Congress and the American people need to hear from 
Director Mueller relates to three broad categories of questions. For 
instance, what was the full scope of Russian interference in the 2016 
election?
  Second, what evidence did the special counsel find of coordination 
between Trump campaign associates or the President and the Russian 
Government, and why did he decide the available evidence was not 
sufficient to prove a criminal conspiracy with Russia?
  Third, what evidence did the special counsel find that the President 
obstructed justice?
  Tomorrow's testimony will help the public understand the gravity of 
the President's conduct in the White House

[[Page S5004]]

and the extent to which Russia influenced the 2016 election. These 
hearings are not the end. This is not case closed. The intelligence 
community has assessed that the threat from Russia will continue to 
evolve and grow even more sophisticated. For our elections to remain 
free, open, and transparent, we must take seriously the threat posed by 
Russia and other potential foreign adversaries. We must hold hearings 
in the Senate with testimony from the special counsel's office and key 
witnesses from the report. We must consider legislation on election 
security, foreign influence operations, disinformation, Federal 
election laws, money laundering, and many other issues.
  When it comes to protecting our democracy, we cannot be complacent. 
Now is the time for action to make sure we are ready ahead of the 
elections in 2020 and beyond. Each and every one of us in this Chamber 
swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United 
States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. In order to do that, 
we can't just take tweets about no collusion and no obstruction at face 
value. This isn't a witch hunt, nor should it be an effort to circle 
the partisan wagons around the President and absolve him of any 
wrongdoing. It has to be a serious examination of what happened and how 
to defend our Nation against future attacks.
  Mr. President, in anticipation of the upcoming testimony of the 
special counsel before the House Intelligence and Judiciary Committees, 
I want to highlight key findings in his report that go to the heart of 
Russian interference into our elections in 2016 and the ongoing threat 
still facing our national security and the integrity of our democracy.
  Indeed many of the President's own national security officials have 
warned of heightened Russian information warfare attacks and other 
foreign influence operations in next year's election--which could make 
its 2016 interference in our elections, catalogued in the Mueller 
report, look like child's play. Federal Bureau of Investigation 
Director Wray recently stated that the 2018 midterm elections were seen 
by Russia as ``a dress rehearsal for the big show in 2020.'' Wray added 
that the FBI anticipates the 2020 ``threat being even more 
challenging.'' Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats warned 
the Senate Intelligence Committee in January 2019 that, in the 2020 
election cycle, ``Moscow may employ additional influence toolkits--such 
as spreading disinformation, conducting hack-and-leak operations, or 
manipulating data--in a more targeted fashion to influence U.S. policy, 
actions, and elections.''
  Despite this ongoing and increasingly sophisticated threat, we are 
still not fully prepared to defend against the inevitable Russian 
attacks on our democracy. The Russian interference in the 2016 election 
was akin to a military operation against our nation. To date, we do not 
have a complete understanding of what happened in 2016. More 
importantly, we do not have a comprehensive strategy, nor have we 
reorganized our government or prepared the American people, so that 
such foreign interference will not happen again. The release of the 
Mueller report cannot mark the end of the strategy to investigate and 
prevent Russian interference. The special counsel's testimony will add 
to the urgency for this administration and Congress to change course 
and act immediately to protect our democracy and strengthen public 
faith in the American election process.
  Since the release of the special counsel's report, the President, the 
Attorney General, and some Republican congressional leaders have said 
that the case of Russian interference in the 2016 election is closed, 
that our work is done, and that we can move on. The President has 
repeatedly claimed that the special counsel's report cleared him of any 
connections to Russia and any wrongdoing in contradiction of the 
voluminous evidence laid out in the report. But those declarations of 
innocence just don't square with the facts. Congress has a 
constitutional duty to review the findings of the special counsel on 
behalf of the American people and not simply accept the 
administration's spin and mischaracterizations of Robert Mueller's 
findings.
  Despite the President's declarations of ``hoax'' and ``witch hunt,'' 
the special counsel's office did bring indictments for ``conspiracy to 
commit offense or to defraud the United States'' under 18 U.S. Code 
Sec. 371, against Putin crony Yevgeny Prigozhin, who was in charge of 
the Kremlin-linked troll operation known as the Internet Research 
Agency, and against his related holdings and multiple employees. The 
investigation also resulted in conspiracy indictments of 12 officers 
from Russian Military Intelligence, also known as the GRU.
  While the available evidence did not meet the legal standard to 
charge the President or his associates with a crime for a coordinating 
role in that conspiracy, the special counsel takes care to note that 
does not mean that evidence of coordination does not exist. This is 
not, as the President has attested, ``a complete and total 
exoneration.'' As the special counsel plainly points out, in regards to 
coordination with Russia, while ``this report embodies factual and 
legal determinations that the office believes to be accurate and 
complete to the greatest extent possible, given these identified gaps, 
the office cannot rule out the possibility that the unavailable 
information would shed additional light on (or cast in a new light) the 
events described in this report.''

  What is more, President Trump and his supporters purposefully leave 
out important context from the report where the special counsel 
explains that he lacked the authority to indict a sitting President 
because of an Office of Legal Counsel, OLC, opinion finding that ``the 
indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would 
impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform 
its constitutionally assigned functions'' in violation of ``the 
constitutional separation of powers.''
  Another critical consideration for the special counsel was that a 
Federal criminal investigation of a sitting President could preempt the 
authority vested in Congress by the Constitution to address 
Presidential misconduct. In addition, Mueller notes that ``a President 
does not have immunity after he leaves office'' and that ``we conducted 
a thorough factual investigation in order to preserve the evidence when 
memories were fresh and documentary materials were available.'' Put 
together, while the special counsel concluded that he could not 
prosecute the President, he makes it clear that he is creating a record 
of evidence and deferring to Congress and future prosecutors should 
they pursue an obstruction case.
  Which is all the more reason why we must hear from the special 
counsel on his findings and his decision-making process. In particular, 
what Congress and the American people need to hear from Special Counsel 
Mueller relates to three broad categories of questions.
  First, what was the nature and extent of the Russian interference 
campaign launched against the United States in the 2016 election? 
Second, what evidence did the investigation find of Trump campaign 
associates or the President coordinating with the Russian campaign, and 
why did Mueller decide the available evidence was not sufficient to 
prove ``beyond a reasonable doubt'' that they had criminally conspired 
with the Russian efforts? And the third set of issues relate to acts of 
obstruction by Trump campaign associates and the President himself.
  On the first set of issues, one of the main responsibilities charged 
to the special counsel by the Department of Justice was to conduct a 
``full and thorough investigation of the Russian government's efforts 
to interfere in the 2016 presidential election.'' As the report 
concludes, ``the Special Counsel's investigation established that 
Russia interfered in the 2016 election principally through two 
operations.''
  First, Mueller provides detailed evidence that Kremlin-linked 
operators sought to help the Kremlin's preferred candidate, whose 
election would serve Russia's interests. The report describes how a 
Kremlin-linked troll operation, called the Internet Research Agency, 
``carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential 
candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary 
Clinton.'' It also found that ``[a]s early as 2014, the [Kremlin-linked 
Internet Research Agency] instructed its employees to

[[Page S5005]]

target U.S. persons who could be used to advance its operational 
goals.''
  Second, Mueller describes in detail the Russian spying operation to 
steal ``dirt'' on the opposition candidate and then use that stolen 
information against her. The report states unequivocally, ``[a] Russian 
military intelligence's spying operation conducted computer intrusion 
operations against entities, employees and volunteers working on the 
Clinton Campaign and then released stolen documents.''
  The Mueller report makes clear that the Russian election interference 
was a coordinated campaign targeting our democracy along multiple lines 
of effort. While these conclusions affirm the assessments of our 
intelligence community, the President appears unwilling or unable to 
take them seriously.
  At the G20 Summit in Osaka in June 2019, President Trump treated 
Russian election interference as a joke, signaling to Putin that he 
would not hold Russia accountable. And in a recent interview, the 
President failed to grasp what was wrong with taking ``dirt'' on his 
political opponent from a foreign source and indicated that, if it 
happened again in the 2020 campaign, he would listen to what they had 
to say and then decide whether or not to report it to the FBI.
  Now let me turn to the second set of issues Special Counsel Mueller 
needs to address, relating to his task by the Department of Justice to 
investigate ``any links and/or coordination between the Russian 
government and individuals associated with the campaign of President 
Donald Trump.''
  The special counsel's report presents significant evidence that 
President Trump and his associates embraced, encouraged, and applauded 
Russian help. The report definitively concludes that Russia saw its 
interests as aligned with, and served by, a Trump Presidency; that a 
central purpose of the Russian interference operations was helping the 
Trump campaign; and that the Trump campaign anticipated benefiting from 
the fruits of that foreign election interference. Mueller provides 
detailed evidence of multiple contacts by Russian government officials 
or their proxies with the Trump campaign to facilitate relationships. 
The report states: ``[t]he investigation . . . established numerous 
links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign.''
  Ultimately, however, the special counsel's investigation lacked 
sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Trump 
campaign or its associates conspired with the Russian Government in its 
election interference. As the report states: ``[a]lthough the 
investigation established that the Russian government perceived it 
would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that 
outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally 
from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the 
investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign 
conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election 
interference activities.''
  As referenced earlier, a key question that Special Counsel Mueller 
needs to address during his testimony is why was the investigative team 
unable to establish to a criminal standard of proof that is ``beyond a 
reasonable doubt'' coordination between people associated with the 
Trump campaign, and Russian actors conspiring to undermine the U.S. 
elections.
  This raises questions related to the third set of issues for Special 
Counsel Mueller, namely whether the President obstructed justice in 
connection with the Russia-related investigation and hindered the 
ability of the special counsel's office to gather relevant evidence. 
And if so, did that obstruction materially impede Mueller's ability to 
conclude ``beyond a reasonable doubt'' that the Trump campaign or the 
President himself conspired with Russian interference? These questions 
raise profound issues for our national security and the integrity of 
our democracy, and the special counsel's answers will determine what 
Congress's next steps should be in meeting its constitutional 
responsibilities.
  Indeed, the Mueller report establishes multiple incidents in which 
the President committed acts that were capable of impeding the Trump-
Russia investigation. For example, President Trump asked then-FBI 
Director James Comey to stop looking into his former National Security 
Advisor General Michael Flynn, after finding out that Flynn was 
questioned about his contacts with the Russian Ambassador. President 
Trump also repeatedly asked Comey to publicly say that Trump himself 
was not under investigation and then fired Comey when it became clear 
he was unwilling to do so.

  In addition, the President tried several different tactics to have 
the special counsel's investigation curtailed. President Trump 
initially put forward claims that the special counsel had conflicts of 
interest, which his advisers informed him were meritless. When that did 
not work, the President gave his subordinates--including White House 
Counsel Don McGahn, White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus and 
former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski--direct orders to either have 
the special counsel removed or to pressure then-Attorney General 
Sessions into limiting the scope of the special counsel's investigation 
to future election interference, instead of scrutinizing the President 
and his campaign's conduct. McGahn, Lewandowski, and Priebus all failed 
to follow the President's orders. The special counsel importantly notes 
that attempts ``to influence the investigation were mostly 
unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded 
the president declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests.''
  Furthermore, the special counsel's report found that the President 
and his aides materially impaired the investigation. For instance, the 
President did not give an in-person interview to the special counsel 
and would only answer written questions that did not address issues 
relating to Presidential obstruction. In his written responses, the 
President replied that he could not recall or did not remember more 
than 30 times, covering the vast majority of the questions. In 
addition, numerous Trump campaign associates and others from his inner 
circle, including General Michael Flynn, George Papadopoulos, and Roger 
Stone, and his attorney Michael Cohen, lied about their dealings with 
Kremlin or Kremlin-linked actors. Michael Cohen, for example, admitted 
to the special counsel that among the reasons he lied to Congress about 
the Trump Tower Moscow project was to try and limit the ongoing Russia 
investigation. In each of these cases, the Mueller report found ``those 
lies materially impaired the investigation of Russian election 
interference.''
  Similarly, the special counsel found that Trump campaign associates 
frustrated the investigation by deleting information or otherwise 
impeding the ability of the special counsel to obtain relevant 
communications pertinent to the investigation. One example was Trump 
campaign associates' communications with Konstantin Kilimnik, a 
Ukrainian national whom the FBI assesses as having ties to Russian 
intelligence and who worked for Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort's 
political consulting business for many years. During 2016, Manafort 
directed his campaign deputy Rick Gates to provide internal polling 
data to Kilimnik. Manafort expected Kilimnik to share that information 
with others in Ukraine and Putin crony Oleg Deripaska, who had funded 
pro-Kremlin political influence operations in the past. The Mueller 
report details that Gates used an encrypted app to send the polling 
data and then deleted it daily. As a result of deleted and encrypted 
communications and because of Manafort's false statements, the special 
counsel was not able to determine what happened with this data and 
whether it was part of a coordinated effort between Russia and the 
Trump campaign to interfere in our election. The report makes clear 
that the lying, obfuscations, and denial of access to key information 
had a direct effect on the investigation's ability to determine the 
nature and extent of any coordination by President Trump and his 
associates with Russian conspirators.
  What makes the Mueller's testimony even more urgent are the Trump 
administration's efforts to attack the credibility of the report and to 
prevent Congress from further investigating Mueller's findings. The 
White House has adopted a strategy of trying to block key witnesses 
named in the Mueller report from testifying before

[[Page S5006]]

Congress, including Don McGahn, Annie Donaldson who served as chief of 
staff to White Counsel McGahn, and White House and Trump campaign 
communications director Hope Hicks, by invoking legally dubious or 
overly broad claims of privilege. The White House has also stymied 
Congress by asserting Executive privilege over the full, unredacted 
version of the report and the underlying documents and only providing 
access to a few select Members.
  It is not only the White House that has been trying to muddy the 
waters around the Mueller report. Attorney General William Barr has 
deliberately mischaracterized and increased partisan skepticism of the 
report. Before releasing the report to the public, Barr published a 
misleading summary of its findings, which the special counsel disputed. 
Barr also held a press conference where he claimed that the White House 
fully cooperated with the special counsel's investigation, that the 
special counsel found ``no collusion,'' and that there was not 
sufficient evidence to establish obstruction of justice. These 
statements are favorable to the President, but none of them are 
consistent with the special counsel's findings.
  As I have laid out, despite the ongoing and increasingly 
sophisticated threat we face and despite the 2020 election being less 
than a year and a half away, we are still not prepared to defend 
against the inevitable Russian attack on our democracy. As Mueller said 
during his press conference on May 29, 2019, ``I will close by 
reiterating the central allegation of our indictments--that there were 
multiple, systematic efforts to interference in our election. That 
allegation deserves the attention of every American.''
  I could not agree more. We cannot forget that Russia interfered in 
our election in 2016 with hybrid warfare tactics and tried to do it 
again in 2018. And our intelligence community assessed that it is 
poised to conduct additional operations against our elections in 2020 
with increasing sophistication. We cannot ignore these attacks or wish 
them away.
  The impediments erected by the President and the people around him 
meant that despite the best efforts of the Mueller team, there remains 
unfinished business in getting to the bottom of what happened in 2016 
and afterward, which is why it is critically important we hear from the 
special counsel.
  While it is an important step that the special counsel is testifying 
to the House in front of two committees, I am making this statement 
about the questions that should be asked of Mueller because, as of this 
moment, there are no scheduled hearings or plan for him to appear in 
the Senate. We should be holding hearings in the Senate with testimony 
from the special counsel and others on many issues, including the ones 
I have raised. We should be passing legislation, including on election 
security, to ensure that we are appropriately reorganized across 
government and society ahead of the elections in 2020 and beyond. 
Indeed, the administration needs to take election security seriously. 
That means being proactive. It also means finding ways to reassure the 
American people about the legitimacy and validity of our elections. For 
example, we could require the Secretary of Homeland Security, with the 
concurrence of the Director of National Intelligence and the FBI 
Director, to rapidly assess and inform the public about whether any 
foreign interference or influence is detected against our election 
process, procedures, and infrastructure.
  As Former Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul wrote in the Washington 
Post after the special counsel's report was released: ``the Mueller 
report is a good start, but it is only a start.'' There is too much at 
stake for our national security and the integrity of democracy to stop 
now.


                      Nomination of Mark T. Esper

  Mr. President, I had the opportunity and the privilege, as we all did 
earlier today, to vote for Secretary Mark Esper as the next Secretary 
of Defense.
  I have known Dr. Esper for more than a decade. He is a public servant 
and a patriot of the first order. I think the overwhelming vote today 
indicates the confidence we have in him, and it indicates the 
importance we understand that job holds for all of us. We have 
entrusted it to someone who began his dedicated service to the country 
as an 18-year-old at West Point, served in the Army, then went on to 
serve in administrations and as a public-spirited citizen through his 
entire life.
  Mr. President, I rise to state my support for the nomination of Dr. 
Mark Esper, who was confirmed earlier today to be the 27th Secretary of 
Defense.
  Dr. Esper has served this Nation in a variety of roles most of his 
life. He is a 1986 graduate of the U.S. Military Academy. He served in 
the 101st Airborne Division and participated in the 1990-91 Gulf War 
with the ``Screaming Eagles.'' He retired from the U.S. Army in 2007, 
after spending 10 years on Active Duty and 11 years in the National 
Guard and Army Reserve.
  After the Army, Dr. Esper worked in the private sector, but he also 
worked in several offices on Capitol Hill, including the offices of 
Senator and Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and Senate Majority Leader 
Bill Frist. He also was a professional staff member on the Senate 
Foreign Relations and Senate Government Affairs committees and the 
House Armed Services Committee. Until his nomination to be Secretary of 
Defense, Dr. Esper was serving as the 23rd Secretary of the Army. His 
wealth of experience in defense policy and in senior leadership 
positions in both the public and private sector should serve him well 
as Secretary of Defense.
  It has been nearly 7 months since the Department has had a Senate-
confirmed Secretary of Defense. At no other time in history has the 
office of the Secretary remained vacant for so long. In addition, we 
must bear in mind the national security challenges facing our country. 
Currently, the Department is focused on competition with near-peer 
adversaries like China and Russia. As the Department pursues the new 
strategic direction established by the National Defense Strategy, Iran 
and North Korea remain dangerous, and the threat posed by violent 
extremist organizations is not diminishing. Furthermore, the Department 
must continue to recruit and retain high-caliber individuals, while 
restoring readiness, and pursuing new high-end capabilities for the 
force.
  Despite these daunting challenges, the number of senior-level 
civilian vacancies throughout the Department is staggering. The 
constant turnover of senior civilian leadership, coupled with the 
duration of these vacancies, has been troubling. I believe it has had a 
significant impact on the Defense Department, which is adrift in a way 
I have not seen in my time on Capitol Hill. It is my hope that Dr. 
Esper will work to fill these civilian leadership positions because it 
is necessary to manage the difficult challenges facing the Department, 
as well as the extensive Pentagon bureaucracy.
  In addition, Dr. Esper will help oversee national security policy for 
a President whose temperament and management skills are challenging. It 
is extremely important for our Nation that he be surrounded by leaders 
who can provide thoughtful advice and counsel. Diversity of opinion is 
important when crafting policy and making decisions that impact the 
well-being of our men and women in uniform. It is my fervent hope that 
Dr. Esper will be willing and able to provide the President with his 
best policy advice even if the President disagrees with the counsel or 
it runs contrary to his policy goals.
  But most importantly, while the Secretary of Defense serves at the 
pleasure of the President, we should never forget that they also 
oversee the finest fighting force in the world, men and women who have 
volunteered to serve a cause greater than themselves. Our 
servicemembers and their families should always be at the forefront 
when considering defense policy or military action.
  On a final note, I would also like to thank Dr. Esper's family, his 
wife Leah and their children, Luke, John, and Kate. They, too, will be 
serving our country, and we appreciate their support.
  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. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S5007]]

  



                    Nomination of Stephen M. Dickson

  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, when it comes to air safety, the 
United States of America should be the gold standard for the world. In 
fact, better than the gold standard, it ought to be the Sullenberger 
standard.
  We remember Sully Sullenberger, who was the pilot at the controls 
when the ``Miracle on the Hudson'' flight in 2009 landed safely. He 
prescribed the qualities that we should regard most highly as we choose 
a new Administrator of the FAA. He also gave us the leadership we need 
and should respect when considering the nomination of Stephen Dickson. 
We should reject it, and he articulated exactly why.

  Chesley ``Sully'' Sullenberger said about Stephen Dickson that ``his 
actions and words raise grave concerns about his ability to act with 
the integrity and the independence the next FAA Administrator must have 
to navigate the challenges of the ungrounding of the 737 MAX and to 
rebuild the global trust in the FAA's confidence and ability to 
appropriately certify new aircraft design.'' That is what he said in an 
interview with POLITICO, but he said it publicly on a number of other 
occasions. Those two qualities that he mandated in the next FAA 
Administrator as more important than any other--independence and 
integrity--are precisely the qualities that Stephen Dickson lacks. It 
is that failing which brings me to the floor now to oppose his 
nomination.
  Sully Sullenberger highlighted the particular experience that 
exemplified that failing, which is Stephen Dickson's involvement in a 
whistleblower case.
  As I know from my experience as the U.S. attorney and attorney 
general, whistleblowers are the ones who bring information to light 
that can help save lives. Whether it is in the criminal area or air 
safety or drug effectiveness or many other areas, including other areas 
of transportation safety, whistleblowers play a vital role, so they 
need protection. They should never be retaliated against. They should 
never be objects of retribution. They should be protected and 
encouraged. That is what an air safety expert who really cares about 
safety--someone who respects independence and integrity--would do. That 
is exactly the opposite of what Stephen Dickson is alleged to have done 
in the case of Karlene Petitt.
  Ms. Petitt's case was brought to our attention after Stephen 
Dickson's testimony to the Commerce Committee, so we had no real 
opportunity to ask him about it in his confirmation hearing. In fact, 
we never learned about Ms. Petitt's case or a deposition that Dickson 
gave for it until after that hearing. He didn't disclose it because he 
purportedly interpreted a Senate Commerce Committee questionnaire as 
asking about ``my personal conduct and my behavior both in general and 
as an officer of a large public company or any instance in which I was 
named as a party to a proceeding.'' He didn't think that a court case 
or a deposition fit that definition.
  The simple fact is that Ms. Petitt alleged she was subject to 
retaliation after presenting Mr. Dickson and other Delta executives, 
including the current CEO, Ed Bastian, with a written report regarding 
Delta's ``Flight Operations' Safety Culture'' in January 2016. That 
report alleged significant facts that should have been investigated.
  Following its submission and a meeting with a member of Delta's human 
resources staff, Ms. Petitt was removed from duty. In fact, in March 
2016, she was referred for a psychiatric examination. That is the way 
Delta reacted to her whistleblower complaint. The doctor chosen by 
Delta diagnosed her with bipolar disorder and found that she was unfit 
for duty. When she was evaluated by a panel of eight doctors at the 
Mayo Clinic and an independent third-party doctor, these psychiatrists 
concluded that Ms. Petitt did not, in fact, suffer from a mental 
illness and was entirely fit for duty.
  The appearance and seemingly the reality is that her safety concerns 
were meant to be buried rather than taken seriously and addressed. Mr. 
Dickson played a part in that reaction to her whistleblower concerns. 
In fact, the psychiatrist who first evaluated her concluded that she 
must have this disorder because, as a woman, how can she be raising 
three young children and be studying for another possible degree and at 
the same time working as she was. That kind of evaluation was certainly 
entitled to very little respect.
  Again, Mr. Dickson never disclosed it to us, so we could never ask 
him about it at the nomination hearing. He never disclosed it before 
that hearing. When he was called upon to explain this lapse, instead of 
taking ownership of his failing, he sought to minimize his involvement 
inconsistently with the facts of the case. His failure to disclose it 
and his reaction to it would itself be disqualifying, but there are 
other grounds as well.
  He is simply not the right person for this agency at this time. 
Integrity and independence are now more important than ever because the 
airline industry and particularly Boeing need new leadership in 
oversight and accountability. New leadership from the FAA is critically 
important in light of its failure to ground those 737 MAX airplanes 
ahead of the rest of the world--in fact, the FAA follows the rest the 
world--and because of their delegation of authority for certification 
to Boeing and manufacturers generally. That delegation of authority 
essentially puts the fox in charge of the henhouse. It may have been 
for cost savings to the FAA because they could allow Boeing to hire, 
pay, and fire the certifiers, but at some level, it meant that Boeing 
then in effect controls the safety and scrutiny supposedly exercised by 
an independent FAA. That independence is critically important.
  Mr. Dickson comes from a long career at Delta Airlines--in fact, a 
record at Delta that raises questions about his independence from the 
industry and at a time when that agency must guarantee its independence 
from that industry.
  Our next FAA Administrator will, in fact, have enormous challenges in 
restoring public trust. This agency has been undermined by its failure 
to ground airplanes, to exercise independent judgment, and to do the 
kind of scrutiny necessary and what is needed, in fact, in new 
leadership. The FAA's broken system--at least in public perception--
requires a new voice, untainted by connections to the industry. We have 
an opportunity to find someone who will restore that confidence in 
America and worldwide.
  He is very simply not the right person for this job, and I urge my 
colleagues to oppose him and to respect the advice given to us by Sully 
Sullenberger, who has highlighted those two qualities: independence and 
integrity--integrity not only in past careers but in dealings with the 
U.S. Senate, in full disclosure with respect to whistleblowers, in 
highlighting public safety above profits or interests of the industry. 
That is the kind of independence and integrity we need. I still have 
hope that we can find it if my colleagues join me in opposing this 
nomination.
  Thank you.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Mueller Report

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, on April 8, this year I came to the 
Senate to speak about the end of the special counsel's investigation. 
Now that Special Counsel Mueller is set to testify tomorrow in the 
House of Representatives, I would like to reiterate several points I 
made in that speech that I believe are still very relevant today.
  I noted that the facts show the real collusion was actually brought 
about by the Democrats. It is pretty well documented that the Clinton 
campaign and the Democratic National Committee hired Fusion GPS to do 
opposition research against Candidate Trump.
  Fusion GPS then hired Christopher Steele, a former British 
intelligence officer, to compile the famous Steele dossier. That 
document was central to the fake collusion narrative, and it reportedly 
used Russian Government sources for information.
  So the Democrats paid for a document created by a foreign national 
that relied on Russian Government

[[Page S5008]]

sources. Let's also not forget about news reports that the Democratic 
National Committee interfaced with the Government of Ukraine to try and 
get dirt on Candidate Trump--not Trump but the Democrats. Now that is 
the definition of collusion. Maybe that is why the Democrats seem 
totally uninterested in figuring out the origins of the Russian 
investigation because they were a prime mover in making it all happen.
  Now they have asked the Justice Department to produce the Mueller 
report's underlying evidence, including all intelligence-related 
information. I agree with the need to see as much information as 
possible. In fact, I have cosponsored a bill that would do just that, 
but the Democrats' fury over Mueller's findings and their inconsistent 
positions makes me think all of this is more about politics than 
principle.
  As I have said repeatedly, to guard against political gamesmanship, 
there is only one legitimate way to do this. Let's see all the 
documents, every one of the documents; meaning, that if Congress is 
going to review the Mueller report's underlying information, it should 
be able to review information relating to how--absolutely how the 
Russia investigation started. Anything less will fail to provide the 
full picture.
  Furthermore, to be very consistent, we shouldn't stop at the Russia 
investigation. The Democrats want all of the Mueller information but 
seem to be turning a very blind eye to other investigations where 
Congress, as well as the public, have yet to see it all. Again, that 
leads me to believe that their request for Mueller-related documents is 
a political ploy.
  Take, for example, the Clinton investigation. As I have written about 
publicly before, the Justice Department inspector general produced to 
Congress a highly classified document relating to this Clinton 
investigation. That document raises additional questions for the FBI 
and the Justice Department. These agencies ought to produce additional 
information to Congress and answer these questions to provide full 
accounting of what transpired.
  Here is an excerpt, then, from the inspector general's unclassified 
report on the Clinton investigation:
  ``Although the Midyear team [that happens to be the code word for the 
Clinton investigation] drafted a memorandum to the Deputy Attorney 
General late May 2016 stating that review of the highly classified 
material was necessary to complete the investigation and requesting 
permission to access them, the FBI never sent this request to the 
Department.''
  So this tells us four things. One, the FBI apparently was aware of 
highly classified information potentially relevant to the Clinton 
investigation in its possession; secondly, that the FBI drafted a memo 
in May of 2016 to get access to the information; three, that memo said 
review of the information was necessary to complete the investigation; 
and fourth, the fact that the memo was never sent.
  So, with great emphasis, how could the Obama administration's FBI 
finish the investigation if they never got access to all potentially 
relevant information?
  Now, there ought to be great Democratic outrage at that apparent 
failure, and there doesn't seem to be. Will Democrats ask the Justice 
Department for all underlying information relating to Hillary Clinton's 
investigation?
  Then there is another example. What about the case called Uranium 
One? I have been pushing for years for more answers about this 
transaction that allowed the Russian Government to acquire U.S. uranium 
assets. I have received classified as well as unclassified briefings 
about this matter.
  My staff recently went to FBI headquarters to review additional 
classified material, and I have identified some FBI intelligence 
reports that may shed more light on the Uranium One transaction. 
However, the Attorney General has refused to provide access to those 
other documents.
  Well, if the Democrats demand intelligence-related information from 
the Justice Department regarding the Mueller report, there should be no 
reason whatsoever why they shouldn't do the same for Uranium One.
  The American people rightly ought to expect something as simple as 
consistency. If you aren't consistent with what you ask for, then you 
will not have any credibility.
  My attitude and approach is straightforward and nonpartisan. Let's 
see it all--Russia, Clinton, Uranium One, all of it. As I said on April 
8, sunlight is the best disinfectant.
  As we listen to and watch tomorrow's testimony going on in the House 
of Representatives, with Mueller coming back to tell us probably 
nothing new because he said he isn't going to say anything that isn't 
already in the 448-page report, let's keep that in mind. Let's see all 
of it--Russia, Clinton, Uranium One, as well as anything the Democrats 
are asking for in regard to the Mueller report.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                     9/11 Victim Compensation Fund

  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, for every American who is old enough to 
remember, the attacks of September 11, 2001, can be recalled as if they 
happened yesterday. It is one of those rare, almost generational 
moments that stand in the forefront of our Nation's collective memory. 
I am confident that if we lined up all 100 Members of the Senate and 
asked them where they were that morning, they could tell you.
  I was in Austin, at home, on the telephone talking to then-Governor 
Perry, now the Secretary of Energy. My wife got my attention and said: 
Hold on. You are going to want to see this.
  I turned to look at the television just as the second airplane hit 
the World Trade Center. I don't have to tell you; we all remember the 
heartbreak, confusion, and anger that welled up in all of us as we saw 
those images.
  In the days and months and years since the attack, we vowed as a 
nation to ``never forget'' the events of September 11. I think that is 
one of the pivotal moments in our Nation's history. We will never 
forget the 3,000 lives that were lost that day, the loved ones they 
left behind, or the courage demonstrated by the brave first responders 
who came from across the country to help in the aftermath of those 
horrific attacks.
  Today, Members of the Senate had an opportunity to vote on 
legislation to turn that promise to ``never forget'' into something 
tangible. I am proud that we have now permanently authorized the 9/11 
Victim Compensation Fund. This fund was created to support those who 
answered the Nation's call to help on 9/11 and in the months that 
followed that attack.
  Now, nearly 18 years later, first responders from across the country 
are being diagnosed with cancers, respiratory diseases, and other 
illnesses because of their dangerous work on that day. For them, each 
day serves as a tragic reminder of the heartbreaking images most of us 
just witnessed on a television screen.
  The legislation we passed today is the Never Forget the Heroes: 
Permanent Authorization of the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund Act. As 
the name suggests, it permanently authorizes funding to support those 
American heroes who led lifesaving recovery operations following the 
attacks on 9/11. As I suggested, many of the diseases that affect these 
men and women, such as cancers and respiratory diseases, may not have 
become apparent for years after 9/11. It is the nature of these 
diseases.
  Ensuring the longevity of this fund is critical to providing these 
heroes with the resources they need, whether that life-changing 
diagnosis comes today or 50 years from now. It is part of our 
commitment as Americans to support our first responders and the heroes 
who ran not away from but toward the danger on that fateful day.
  Throughout my time in the Senate, I have worked to support our first 
responders who were there for our communities during the most difficult 
times. The 9/11 first responders represent the very best of America, 
and they deserve every ounce of assistance we are able to provide.
  This legislation received 402 votes in the House of Representatives 
and 97 votes here in the Senate, something nearly unheard of these 
days. I appreciate our colleagues who have been

[[Page S5009]]

working to get this legislation passed to provide these men and women 
with some peace of mind. I am proud to be one of the cosponsors, and I 
am now glad it is headed to the President's desk for his signature.


                        Prescription Drug Costs

  Madam President, a survey last summer found that many Texans are 
struggling to afford the rising cost of their healthcare. Three out of 
five surveyed reported forgoing or postponing care because of the cost 
barrier. That includes cutting their pills in half, skipping doses, or 
not filling a prescription because they simply couldn't afford to do 
so. With healthcare costs on the rise, things aren't expected to get 
any easier unless we do something about it.
  The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services estimated that between 
2018 and 2027, customers can expect to see prescription drug spending 
increase by an average of 6.1 percent a year. That is a faster increase 
than hospital stays, doctors' visits, or any other healthcare 
expenditure. There seems to be bipartisan agreement that something must 
be done. But the real question is what that something is: What are your 
ideas about how to make that something a reality?
  Many of our progressive Democratic friends have embraced Medicare for 
All as the solution to the problems that exist in our healthcare 
delivery system. Their proposal, though, would kick about 180 million 
Americans off of their private insurance and force them into one big 
government-run plan. It would drain the vital program that seniors have 
relied upon for more than a century and replace it with a watered-down 
version that would result in long waiting lines for inferior care. The 
government would tell you what clinic you had to go to, what doctor you 
could see, and what prescriptions you could actually take. You would 
lose your freedom and power to decide what is best for you and your 
family when it comes to your healthcare. You would have to simply take 
what you could get on somebody else's schedule.
  Last but not least, Medicare for All would completely bankrupt our 
country. I think this approach is akin to having a pipe burst in your 
house, but instead of repairing it, tearing the whole thing down and 
rebuilding it from scratch. It is unaffordable. It is unpopular. It is 
unnecessary and goes against all logic.
  Don't get me wrong. Our healthcare system is not perfect, but 
Medicare for All is actually worse, and it would create more problems 
than it would solve.
  Instead, I support targeted reforms that have been offered by a 
number of our colleagues here--most on a bipartisan basis--to lower 
healthcare costs and to give people more choices in terms of what fits 
their needs the best. On Thursday, the Senate Finance Committee will be 
marking up a package of bills that will aim to reduce prescription drug 
costs for seniors and families. Last month, the Senate HELP Committee 
overwhelmingly passed a bipartisan bill to reduce out-of-pocket 
healthcare costs and increase transparency and eliminate surprise 
medical bills. A few weeks ago, the Senate Judiciary Committee, on 
which I serve, unanimously reported out legislation that would keep 
pharmaceutical companies from gaming the patent system.
  All of these reforms are intended to repair the problems that exist 
without completely leveling the existing healthcare system. For 
example, the package that passed the Judiciary Committee included a 
proposal I introduced with our colleague from Connecticut, Senator 
Blumenthal, called the Affordable Prescriptions for Patients Act. This 
bill takes aim at two practices often deployed by pharmaceutical 
companies to stomp out competition and protect their bottom line.
  First, this bill targets a practice called product hopping. When a 
company is about to lose exclusivity of a product--that is, when their 
patent is about ready to run out--they often develop some sort of minor 
reformulation and then yank the original patented drug off the market. 
That prevents generic competition. There is no doubt that legitimate 
changes have warranted a new patent, but, too frequently, we are seeing 
this deployed as a strategy to box out generic competition.
  About 90 percent of the drugs we all take are generic and not branded 
drugs under a patent. That means we get less expensive drugs that are 
just as effective as the original branded product. That is the way our 
system is supposed to work, by making generic drugs more readily 
available and affordable. By defining product hopping as anti-
competitive behavior, the Federal Trade Commission would be able to 
take action against those who engage in this practice.
  Our bill would also target something known as patent thicketing by 
limiting the patents companies can use to keep competitors away. Some 
drug companies like to layer on patent after patent in an attempt to 
make it virtually impossible for biosimilar manufacturers to bring a 
competing product to market. While the patent on the actual drug 
formula may have expired, there are still, in some cases, hundreds of 
other patents to sort through that discourage competition.
  This bill would limit the number of patents these companies can use 
and streamline the litigation process so that companies are spending 
less time in the courtroom and, hopefully, more time in the laboratory 
developing lifesaving innovative drugs. Competitors would be able to 
resolve patent disputes faster and bring their drugs to market sooner. 
Of course, better competition means better prices for patients.
  It is also good news for taxpayers. Just last week, we received the 
cost estimate of this bill from the Congressional Budget Office, and 
they found it would lower Federal spending by more than one-half 
billion dollars over 10 years. This is just the savings to the Federal 
Government under Medicare and Medicaid. There would undoubtedly be 
additional significant savings for consumers with private health 
insurance.
  The Affordable Prescriptions for Patients Act does not prevent 
manufacturers from making improvements to their products, and it 
doesn't limit patent rights. It also doesn't hamper innovation, and it 
doesn't spend money we don't have on a system we don't really want. It 
simply stops those who knowingly game and abuse our patent system.
  Our country is proudly a leader in pharmaceutical innovation, partly 
because we offer robust protection for intellectual property. When you 
create a new drug, you are granted a patent, an exclusive right to sell 
that drug for a period of years. But this legislation ensures that 
those who game the system--the bad actors--are no longer able to take 
advantage of these innovation protections in order to maintain their 
monopolies at the expense of the American people after their patent 
should have expired.
  I believe there is more we can do to improve our healthcare system 
and bring down out-of-pocket costs for the American people, but instead 
of tearing down the whole house, let's make the repairs we actually 
need.


                           Order of Procedure

  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that 
notwithstanding rule XXII, the postcloture time on the Dickson 
nomination expire at 11 a.m. on Wednesday, July 24; further, that 
following the disposition of the Dickson nomination, the Senate vote on 
the cloture motions for the Berger and Buescher nominations; finally, 
that if cloture is invoked, the Senate vote on the confirmations of 
those nominations in the order listed at 3 p.m. and, if any of the 
nominations are confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made 
and laid on the table and the President be immediately notified of the 
Senate's action.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________