[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5877-5890]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                     EXECUTIVE CALENDAR--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.


      Honoring Nebraska's Soldiers Who Lost their Lives in Combat

  Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I rise today to remember another of 
Nebraska's fallen heroes--those young men and women who have given 
their lives defending our freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan. They all 
have different stories. Their families all have the same request: 
Remember their sacrifice. By telling the stories of these heroes here 
on the Senate floor, we honor the request of these Gold Star families.


                   Specialist William ``Bill'' Bailey

  Today, Mr. President, I honor the life and service of William 
``Bill'' Bailey of Bellevue, NE. Now, the name ``William'' comes from 
old German. It means ``determined protector''. Bill Bailey lived up to 
his name. His mother Margaret says he was a born protector. When Bill 
was very young, he lost his father to a car accident. Margaret recalls 
how Bill embraced his younger sister Jessy just after her birth. The 
word came to her at once: protective.
  As he grew, Bill naturally looked to protect those outside his family 
too. Ron Budwig was matched with Bill through the Big Brothers Big 
Sisters program.
  Ron recalled a simple but profound example of Bill looking out for 
Ron's family. Ron's mother was running late to one of the program's 
activities, and, meanwhile, the parking lot was filling up. Bill went 
and stood in a parking space, keeping it open until Ron's mother could 
come. It was a simple act, but it said a lot.
  Bill attended Bellevue East, where the call to protect his country 
prompted him to enlist in the Nebraska Army National Guard in 1995. 
After graduating from high school in 1996, he served out his enlistment 
with distinction.
  A few years later, in December 2000, Bill met Deanna, whom everyone 
calls Dee. She was a bank teller at Wells Fargo. He drove an armored 
truck. They met through a service window. Now, Bill had left the 
service in 2001 when his enlistment ended. After 9/11, he felt the call 
to serve his country again--but first things first. Bill and Dee 
married in 2004. Dee's children, Cody and Maquala, took immediately to 
Bill and his children, Catlynn and Billy. Logan soon followed.
  As you can expect, Bill's protective nature made him a great father. 
It also made him a great firefighter. Extending his protection beyond 
his family once again, he joined the Bellevue Volunteer Fire 
Department. He was a natural fit. Whether there or working as a life 
flight dispatcher, Bill worked to keep Bellevue safe.
  That deep desire to serve his country continued to tug at him. In 
2005, Bill reenlisted in the Nebraska Army National Guard. Originally 
assigned to the 600th Transportation Company, he transferred to the 
755th Chemical Company. Why the transfer? Because he learned the 755th 
would soon deploy. In late 2006 it did. Bill Bailey went with it. The 
755th Chemical Company was assigned to provide security escorts for 
truck convoys operating out of the Balad Air Base in Iraq. Iraq at this 
time was increasingly unstable. It was dangerous, but Bill's good 
nature made it bearable.
  SGT Timothy Ossowski remembers SPC Bill Bailey fondly: ``When I 
became his team leader, I thought I had struck the jackpot.'' By 2007, 
the insurgency in Iraq had erupted to new levels of violence. Increased 
American forces sought to seek out and destroy the al-Qaida network. 
Casualties ran high.
  Despite the high operations tempo, Bill and Dee communicated almost 
every day through phone calls or texts. On May 24, they were able to 
talk by phone. In typical fashion, Bill mentioned he was excited to 
finish his dull watchtower duty and start a new security escort mission 
the next day. Bill was also excited for his upcoming leave in June, 
when the Bailey family planned to celebrate Bill's birthday.
  The next day, May 25, 2007, Bill took part in that security escort 
mission. During it, his vehicle struck an improvised explosive device. 
Three Nebraska Army National Guard soldiers were wounded, and Bill 
Bailey was killed.
  More than 1,000 people gathered in Bellevue to remember Bill. A 
Patriot Guard of more than 100 flag-flying motorcycles accompanied his 
funeral procession. Specialist Bailey earned several military awards, 
including the Purple Heart, the Bronze Star, the Iraqi Campaign Medal, 
and the Combat Action Badge. Bill's brother-in-law, Damian Kuzeppa, 
summarized Bill's life:

       Bill was a wonderful husband, brother, son, father. He 
     dedicated quite a bit of his life to helping other people. He 
     was definitely a go-doer. He will definitely be missed.

  William Bailey is survived by his mother Margaret, his wife Deanna, 
and their children, Cody, Maquala, Catlynn, Billy, and Logan. Bill 
Bailey is a true Nebraska hero. I am honored to tell his story.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.


                            Border Security

  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I am pleased to be able to serve with the 
Presiding Officer on the Committee on Homeland Security. Part of our 
responsibilities on homeland security is to make sure, to the extent 
that we can, that our borders are secure. We do that in a variety of 
ways. We do that, in some cases, with our Border Patrol officers. We 
have a lot of them. We appreciate the work they do.
  We also have, in many places, particularly along the border of 
Mexico--as the Presiding Officer knows--a lot of fencing that is there. 
We have a lot of roads that our vehicles can travel along to have 
mobility on the ground. Our President has proposed, at least earlier 
this year, that we spend about $25 billion to build a wall, maybe 10-, 
15-, 25-feet high along the 2,000 miles between the Pacific Ocean and 
the Gulf of Mexico.
  I have never been convinced that that is the best way--to put all of 
our money in the basket--that that is really the best way to better 
ensure the security of our border with Mexico. As it turns out, most of 
the folks who are coming into the United States from that part of the 
world are not Mexicans. Actually, more Mexicans are going back into 
Mexico than Mexicans coming across the border into the United States.
  Most of the illegal immigration--not all but most of it--is coming 
from three countries: Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador. The reason 
why they come here is because their lives are miserable. They are 
miserable because we buy drugs. We have this insatiable appetite for 
illegal drugs. So a lot of them are trafficked through Honduras, 
Guatemala, and El Salvador.
  We send money down to those three countries for the drugs, and we 
send guns down to that part of the world. When we catch bad guys in 
this country from Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador, we send them 
back to those three countries.
  So part of the security of our southern border involves actually 
trying to help those three countries figure out ways to keep their 
people home, rather than wanting to come to our country. Part of it is 
making sure that they have decent lives to live. Twenty years ago, as 
you all may remember, a bunch of gunmen rounded up the supreme court 
justices in Colombia, took them into a room, and shot and killed them--
shot them all to death.
  It was a time when the government was tottering and there was a 
question of whether they were going to survive in Colombia. Some very 
brave people stood up in Colombia and said: No, no, we want to survive, 
we want to fend off the drug cartels, and we want to fend off the 
leftist guerillas. Ultimately, they were successful. It has taken 20 
years.

[[Page 5878]]

  They worked on something called Plan Colombia to help turn around 
their country. We came in, and we helped them. They did the heavy 
lifting, and we helped out as well. I like to say that it is sort of 
like at Home Depot: ``You'' can do it--using, in that case, Colombia--
and ``we'' being the United States.
  A similar kind of thing is going on in Honduras, Guatemala, and El 
Salvador. They have come up with their own Plan Colombia. You might 
call it ``Plan Central America.'' The three countries have come up with 
things they are responsible for doing to improve the quality of life 
for their folks and the ability to have economic growth and opportunity 
and hope. We are helping out as well. We have done that in some 
appropriations bills for the last fiscal year. We are trying to spend a 
little bit more. Wisely invested, it will be a fraction of what they 
are actually spending on their own.
  To the extent that those three countries can be more attractive to 
people who live there, that actually helps a whole lot in terms of the 
pressure on our own borders. Plus, it is the right thing to do. The 
other thing I would mention, as to our energy policy in this country, 
is that sometimes we have had an ``all of the above'' energy approach. 
It is not just coal, it is not just wind, it is not just solar, it is 
not just geothermal, it is not just nuclear, and it is not just natural 
gas. It is all of the above. It is conservation as well.
  We need a similar approach to continuing to protect our borders, 
whether it is in the South or other places. But it should involve a 
variety of things. There are some places along the 2,000 miles where it 
will actually make some sense. There are a lot of places where a fence 
makes more sense. There are a lot of places where it makes more sense 
just to pave the roads alongside the border.
  The Presiding Officer actually spent, as he said, his ``misspent 
youth''--but I will say his youth--earlier in his life where he and 
other kayakers were in boats along the Rio Grande River. Part of border 
security is boats along that stretch of the river, that stretch of the 
border because it is literally hundreds of miles where the border is 
defined by a river. So in some places, boats make sense. In other 
places, boat ramps make sense.
  Sometimes it makes sense to have drones up in the air that can 
surveil up to 100 miles into Mexico for folks coming our way. Sometimes 
it makes sense to put helicopters, sometimes fixed-wing aircraft. But 
you can't just send them up with binoculars. You need to put the right 
kind of surveillance equipment on there. We have that equipment. The 
key is to put it on the aircraft.
  Sometimes stationary towers going up 200, 300 feet makes sense. 
Sometimes it makes sense to make those mobile. Sometimes we can put 
those surveillance systems 5,000 feet up in the air to look literally 
100 miles into Mexico to see what is coming our way. If we have the 
right surveillance system, they could see not just during daylight, 
sunny skies, but they could see at night. They can see in fog and dense 
fog. So the key is all of the above--it is not any one thing--and to 
find out what works. The other thing is, maybe to continue to support 
and ask our Border Patrol: What do you guys and gals think? What do you 
think makes sense? And listen to them.
  No, I am not smart enough to figure out how much money we put exactly 
in each one of those, but I think it makes sense, depending on what the 
needs are and on the advice of the folks who really are the experts on 
the ground, what they suggest, and we can do an ``all of the above'' 
approach. But we also have to consider that the reason most of the 
illegals are coming to our country is that they live their lives in 
misery. If we don't do something to help them help themselves, we are 
going to be falling short of where we want to be.
  I just wanted to share that before we recognize the next Senator.
  I am looking forward to the inaugural address of the new Senator from 
Illinois.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I am honored to be on the floor for the 
maiden speech of my colleague Senator Duckworth.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.


                           Our Shared Values

  Ms. DUCKWORTH. Mr. President, I thank my friend and mentor, a great 
Illinoisan, Senator Durbin for being here today. I wouldn't be here 
without his guidance and friendship over the years.
  It is truly an honor to stand at this desk, which was once held by 
another great Illinoisan by the name of Barack Obama, delivering my 
maiden speech from the floor of the U.S. Senate to the people of 
Illinois, the same State that has been represented in Washington by 
other impressive leaders like Paul Simon and Abraham Lincoln. And it is 
an honor to address the people of the United States of America, the 
greatest Nation in the world.
  Though we have occasionally made choices as a society that do not 
reflect our best selves, we are today the greatest Nation on Earth 
because of the founding ideals that have anchored our Nation and 
because of the shared values that have guided the development and 
strength of our economy and our people--values like treating each other 
equally, showing strength and resilience in the face of hardship, and 
embracing the diversity that makes us who we are. They are shared 
values that have helped us to strive toward that more perfect Union the 
Constitution's Framers envisioned, a more perfect Union that offers 
everyone a chance to reach his or her potential, a more perfect Union 
that will not give up on its people, and a more perfect Union whose 
people don't give up on themselves either.
  We face a great deal of challenges and threats, threats I know well, 
but we cannot allow today's hardships to change who we are as a people, 
to tear down the pillars that make this Nation great. Falling victim to 
fear and demagoguery will only ensure a weaker America for our 
children, and that is simply not the future I want for my Abigail.
  When we, as a society, think about the future we want for all of our 
children, I think it is important for us to remember how we got here. 
Our Nation wasn't founded as the dominant global economic and military 
force that it is today. We were not founded as the leader of the free 
world; our people built that. Americans understood that when we invest 
in ourselves, the fabric that holds our country together only grows 
stronger. A scrappy gang of patriots in the American Revolution--my own 
family included--won us our liberty, which we used to push for greater 
civil and human rights and to make investments in agricultural and 
educational systems that sparked our economy, allowing us to strengthen 
our military into the greatest fighting force the world has ever seen.
  Success, however, was never guaranteed. From our founding, the United 
States of America was forged through fierce debates and stark 
divisions. Slavery led to bloodshed across the country, including in 
the Senate Chamber, and culminated in brothers killing brothers during 
our Civil War. Yet our Union made it through our greatest challenges 
and emerged even stronger. We emerged a more perfect Union.
  Our strength has been on display outside of our military as well: 
When heroes like Frederick Douglass and Harriet Tubman risked 
everything to help bring an end to slavery; when Martin Luther King, 
Jr., had a dream; when the children of the Little Rock Nine braved 
harassment and abuse to bring an end to segregated schools and ensure 
educational opportunity for all; and when the backbreaking work of 
Asian and American laborers united our Nation from sea to shining sea 
with the completion of the transcontinental railroad.
  America catalyzed the industrial revolution for the globe. We helped 
rescue the global community from fascism during World War II. We 
promoted civil and human rights around the globe. We explored space, 
launched the internet revolution, helped feed the world, built a world-
class infrastructure network, developed a gold standard education

[[Page 5879]]

system, and grew the strongest economy ever seen.
  We were able to win World War II not because of the brave troops in 
our Armed Forces alone but also because our Nation's manufacturers and 
steel mills were able to produce the tanks and planes and firearms and 
other tools we needed to defeat the Nazis. We were able to build those 
weapons, launch the internet revolution, and send a man to the Moon 
only because we had a well-educated workforce made of people from all 
around the globe, all of whom had an opportunity to attend world-class 
colleges and universities right here in the United States, universities 
we spent generations strengthening.
  Our economy was able to grow to its current strength not only because 
of that well-educated workforce and those who came from distant lands 
but also all who came and stayed to contribute to our society. It was 
also able to grow because we had invested heavily in infrastructure and 
built an interstate system and air and rail networks that enabled our 
farmers, ranchers, and other producers to get their goods to market 
inside and outside our country's borders.
  We were able to feed the world not only because of our strong 
agricultural sector and infrastructure alone but also because of the 
scientific advances supported by those educational institutions that 
helped increase farm production and yields.
  Throughout our history, we pushed to expand human and civil rights 
from the abolitionists to the suffragettes, learning from people like 
the Tuskegee Airmen, the Selma marchers, and the LGBTQ leaders today 
that being inclusive and enabling people to reach their full potential 
only strengthens the American core. We did all of these things as a 
result of our shared values, and we have reaped their rewards for 
generations.
  We have seen our Nation's strength in our prouder moments, as when 
America chose to go to the Moon--not because it was easy but, in 
President Kennedy's words, because it was hard.
  We have seen our strength in tragedy, reuniting under a common cause 
in the rubble of the Pentagon and Ground Zero on 9/11.
  We might get knocked down, but the America that I know, the America 
that I fought for and love, does not give up. That is not a Democratic 
principle or a Republican principle; it is simply the American way.
  America's greatness has never depended on the strength of any 
individual person, but on all of us working together toward a common 
goal. When we have failed to stay true to our core values, when we deny 
another person our Nation's promise of opportunity, our Nation's 
strength suffers. When a child can't access the tools to succeed in 
school, when a woman can't afford basic healthcare, when refugees 
fleeing terror see the door slammed shut in their face, when we deny 
civil rights on the basis of skin color or sexual orientation or 
religion, and when a working family can't put food on the table, our 
whole Nation suffers. At the end of the day, America's greatness 
depends on each of us remaining true to the common values of our 
Nation.
  But we have lost sight of those values. The Nation that built an 
interstate highway system, that was a refuge for immigrants who became 
the foundation of our economy, this Nation that pushed humanity to new 
heights, first with planes and helicopters and then into space, that 
same Nation seems to have forgotten how to invest in itself.
  Our country that ushered in the era of aviation is now home to aging 
airports that struggle to compete with their global competitors. Our 
country that took on the Herculean task of reversing the flow of the 
Chicago River to protect the city's drinking water can no longer muster 
the resources to modernize public water systems to prevent our children 
from being poisoned by lead. Our country that built the greatest 
military the world has ever seen, sending a signal that we will not 
cower in front of anyone, now finds itself with leaders who believe in 
the misguided notion that it is simply better to hide behind walls than 
to help lead with strength.
  Make no mistake, America has not lost her greatness. Our Nation 
remains the dominant force on the global stage. But if we don't act, if 
we don't invest in ourselves, our adversaries are positioned to 
overtake us.
  Though some may try to convince us the path forward is less 
engagement with the world, less acceptance of others, and less 
investment in ourselves, I know the path forward for our country cannot 
include--does not include--turning our backs on the shared values that 
built this Nation.
  Perhaps more than any other State, Illinois knows this. We represent 
all the strengths of our Nation, from our dynamic cities to our strong 
rural and industrial communities and everything in between. We are the 
realization of the values that have created that robust American 
economy, bolstered by a strong agricultural community and manufacturing 
sector, both of which innovate and strengthen our Nation with the help 
of wise public policy and investments.
  Those investments enabled Illinois steelworkers to help us develop 
our farmland, build our cities, and secure our military strength. 
American manufacturing built this Nation, but too many of the steel 
mills we relied on to win World War II have been idled or shuttered 
completely.
  After years of illegal trade practices, like dumping of cheap foreign 
products and currency manipulation by our competitors, our 
manufacturing base has been weakened. That hurts not only American jobs 
but also our Nation's military strength as well as the resilience of 
our entire economy. We simply need to do a better job of keeping 
manufacturing jobs within our borders, and we need to make the 
investments necessary to ensure that we have a workforce trained for 
our 21st century jobs.
  We can do better by Illinois' tens of thousands of farmers as well. 
These farmers, ranchers, and agricultural workers form the basis of our 
Nation. They all wake up with a purpose, each farm feeding nearly 170 
people every year while supporting an industry that is developing 
cutting-edge biofuels and other technologies.
  I have seen firsthand the painful price our Nation pays because of 
our overreliance on oil imported from our competitors. The simple fact 
is that American farmers are helping us improve our national security. 
They are helping to strengthen our Armed Forces and our entire country 
every day. They are already helping produce billions of gallons of 
clean fuel for our cars, our factories, and our military, and every 
single one of those gallons brings us closer to energy independence.
  We cannot afford to leave our agricultural sector behind. We should 
be working to preserve policies like the Renewable Fuel Standard that 
support agricultural jobs and to open new markets, like Cuba, for their 
goods.
  For generations, our manufacturers and agricultural sectors have 
relied on a strong infrastructure network, including roads, bridges, 
waterways, railways, and air transportation, to get their goods to 
market, both domestically and internationally. Illinois has often led 
the way. We built the Nation's first elevated electric rail line in the 
1800s. But today, far too much of that infrastructure is crumbling. It 
is in dire need of the investments our society once understood the need 
for. The down payments previous generations made paid dividends to us 
all in the form of increased tourism, lower costs, more efficient 
shipments, easier travel, and so many other benefits.
  If we fail to continue the investments past generations have made, we 
risk falling behind our global competitors, hurting not only our 
tourism industry but also our manufacturers and our hard-working 
ranchers, farmers, and producers who will find it harder and more 
expensive to get their products to market.
  If we choose to disregard our infrastructure much longer, we simply 
will not be able to compete in the 21st century global economy. 
Improving our infrastructure isn't a partisan issue. It is common 
sense. It is an economic priority, a defense priority, and a national

[[Page 5880]]

security imperative. This is something we can all work on together.
  I am proud to say that the first bill I proposed after arriving here 
in the Senate passed unanimously with bipartisan support. It will cut 
redtape and help streamline efforts to modernize our infrastructure and 
allow our economy to continue growing for generations to come.
  That is also true of supporting our schools, colleges, and 
universities. We have developed global gold standards for education 
that enable our manufacturers, agricultural workers, engineers, and 
brilliant Americans all across every sector to push our economy 
further.
  There is a reason that wealthy elites across the globe--including 
world leaders from foreign lands--still send their children to be 
educated on our shores, in world class institutions like the University 
of Illinois and the University of Chicago. Our education system is 
widely recognized as the best in the world. Our teachers and 
institutions continue to produce some of the best trained and most 
skilled professionals in every field imaginable--both American and 
international students. That is a good thing.
  But more and more Americans are no longer able to access those same 
educational opportunities. We have priced too many of our own children 
out of the market for those colleges and universities that we have 
developed to ensure our Nation's workforce remains more skilled than 
our competitors, or we have saddled them with crippling debt. We are 
failing to make the necessary investments in K-12 public institutions 
that, regardless of ZIP Code, should be preparing every single one of 
our children to lead our country into the future.
  Quality primary education should not be a privilege only for the 
wealthy, and it should not depend on rolling the dice on receiving a 
voucher. In the greatest and wealthiest Nation in the world, a quality 
education should be a right for every single American child. Our 
Nation's promise of opportunity should be a reality for every child in 
America, not just for those whose parents can afford it. We already 
have some of the world's greatest teachers, the brightest students, and 
the best facilities within our own borders. All we have to do is ensure 
they have the resources they need to succeed. That means our kids 
should not have to worry about going to school hungry or getting the 
help they need after school or being able to pay for college when they 
graduate high school.
  That is why I focus on commonsense solutions to increase access to 
educational opportunity, whether by helping to lead the charge to make 
college more affordable or doing well to ensure the education we are 
providing people actually helps them find good-paying jobs when they 
graduate.
  In that vein, I am also disheartened by the recent erosion of civil 
rights protections in our Nation. The calls for bigger walls and closed 
doors are not only bad, costly policies, they run counter to our 
society's shared value for inclusion over exclusion. Too many of us 
seem to forget the immigrant roots within our own families. If we lose 
sight of our Nation's founding principles, as some in Washington would 
like us to do, we will lose out on the innovations we have seen from 
immigrants and immigrant families.
  If we had rejected immigrants years ago, Apple Computers might never 
have been founded by the son of a Syrian man. I worry that at a time 
when we still have so much work to do to make our Union more perfect 
and to provide truly equal rights for all, under the current 
administration we are at risk of backtracking on hard-fought progress 
made by civil rights leaders who bled and even died for the rights of 
all Americans, regardless of race, gender, religion, sexual 
orientation, income or ZIP Code to have the right to vote, to have 
equal protection under the law, to have basic worker protections, and 
for the everyday rights and privileges so many of us take for granted. 
We still have so much progress left to make if we want the American 
dream to be accessible to all Americans--equal pay for equal work, a 
criminal justice system that truly provides justice for all, nationwide 
leave policies that enable anyone to take time to care for a sick 
family member or to start a family, a society that is accessible for 
all disabled Americans and truly equal for all LGBTQ Americans.
  I worry that we are at risk of going backward instead of forward. 
Failing to continue our Nation's inclusive nature weakens our global 
standing as well as the rest of the world begins to look elsewhere for 
moral leadership. That would be a failure for us and a weakening of our 
Nation that I will fight to prevent.
  Of course, I also know how much our military has contributed to our 
Nation's greatness throughout our history. We must do a better job of 
recognizing these contributions, not just by purchasing equipment and 
technology, though what our skilled workforce has done is the envy of 
the world, but also by ensuring that we recognize and respect the 
sacrifices made by our troops, our military families, and our veterans. 
Servicemembers embody our values of shared sacrifice and perseverance, 
of loyalty and selfless service, and they each make great sacrifices to 
protect us.
  They deserve from their leaders in Washington a clear sense of 
mission and strategy, and they deserve to know we fully support them. 
So, yes, when the drums of war are beating in the White House or in 
Congress, you can bet I am going to be right here on the floor of the 
Senate, asking tough questions and making sure our leaders in 
Washington, especially those who have never worn the uniform, truly 
consider the true costs of war--not just in dollars and cents but in 
human lives--in the commitments we are making on behalf of the Nation. 
I will also be here to remind my colleagues that we are all dishonored 
when any veteran is forced to lay their head down to sleep on the same 
streets they defended. We must end veterans homelessness. When our 
troops come home, I will be working to see that the veterans receive 
the care and support they earned for the sacrifices they have made.
  Each of these components of our society contribute to what has made 
our country great--our military, our values, our infrastructure, our 
agriculture, our manufacturers, and our world-class educational system. 
If we fall prey to our fears, to our worst demons, and allow any of 
these pillars to fall, we will lose our opportunity to remain the 
leader of the world. We can rebuild the foundation of our Nation's 
strength and revamp it for the 21st century, but we can't simply rest 
on our past successes and act like our greatness is guaranteed forever. 
It isn't. It will take work.
  This is deeply personal for me. I wouldn't be here today without the 
public education that enabled me to serve in our military for more than 
two decades and allowed me to give back to my Nation, both in and out 
of uniform.
  Our Nation would not be as strong as it is today without the millions 
of individuals who sacrificed to build it. Our Nation's strength--what 
truly makes America great--is rooted firmly in our shared sense of 
sacrifice. It comes from our single parents working multiple jobs just 
to make sure our kids don't go to school hungry; it comes from the 
farmer in Illinois waking long before dawn and working long after dusk 
to help power and feed our Nation; it comes from an immigrant family 
willing to put everything on the line to give their kids a chance at a 
better life than their own; it comes from the hard work and compassion, 
the sacrifice that Americans serving in our country in and out of the 
military demonstrate every single day.
  We can all do a better job of remembering the shared values that have 
helped to build this Nation, but I want to make one thing clear: 
America is already great. We shouldn't let anyone tell us otherwise.
  We know we still have a lot of work to do as a country, but let us 
not lose sight of the core values that make our improbable Union 
possible. We are still the greatest Nation on the face of the Earth, 
and if anyone has the capacity to overcome the challenges of today, it 
is this Nation. It is the American people.

[[Page 5881]]

  I thank my colleagues for joining me today for my maiden speech.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.


                    Congratulating Senator Duckworth

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise to thank my colleague for her first 
speech. The first speech given on the floor of the Senate is a 
memorable occasion for not only my colleague but for the staff, 
friends, and family who have followed this amazing story of Tammy 
Duckworth, a U.S. Senator from Illinois. She didn't disappoint with 
this first speech.
  If there was ever an inspirational speech speaking to who we are as a 
nation and what we can be, she encapsulated it in her comments on the 
floor of the U.S. Senate. It was an aspirational speech, too--a 
challenge to all of us to do a better job for this Nation, to make it 
stronger and to represent more effectively the people who have sent us 
here to serve them.
  She brings a special quality to the service that very few have been 
able to bring to the U.S. Senate. I first met MAJ Tammy Duckworth 12 
years ago when she was my guest at the State of the Union Address just 
weeks after her helicopter had been shot down over Iraq. I was amazed 
by her tenacity, her courage, her good humor. I thought to myself, this 
woman has really made history. I think she can even make more history, 
and she has, being elected to the U.S. House of Representatives as well 
as the U.S. Senate, an opportunity that fewer than 2,000 Americans have 
had in our Nation's history.
  I think back on what she brings to the Senate, and it is something 
that is special and extraordinary. To come to this Senate after her 
service in the military is to follow in the path of Senator Bob Dole, a 
disabled veteran from World War II, who led the Republican side of the 
aisle; Senator Daniel Inouye, a personal friend to both Senator 
Duckworth and me, who served in World War II; Senator Paul Douglas of 
Illinois, who served as well; Strom Thurmond, from South Carolina, a 
Republican; and more recently, Max Cleland, a Vietnam veteran; Bob 
Kerrey, John Kerry--the list goes on and on, the great people who have 
served our Nation in the military and then came to serve in the Senate.
  One of the points she made in that speech was one of the reasons I 
supported her so wholeheartedly. When we face the most difficult, 
trying, and challenging votes in a Senate career, the vote to go to 
war, having the voice of Tammy Duckworth on the floor is a reminder of 
the real cost of war and how we should avoid it at any cost, if we can, 
and what we are asking our men and women in America to do if we send 
them off to war. She will have more credibility, will have more 
confidence in her judgment, than virtually any colleague on the floor 
of the U.S. Senate. So she is going to play a special role.
  Finally, let me say, in a short period of time serving as a U.S. 
Senator from the State of Illinois, she has shown that she is not going 
to be taking it easy. She has covered our State from one end to the 
other, most recently during the Easter recess, with town meetings and 
meetings with all sorts of people across our State, leaving a positive 
impression of her commitment to public service.
  When I saw her and her mom and her little daughter Abigail get on the 
plane just the other day, yesterday, to come out here, I realized it is 
a family commitment which includes all of her family and her husband 
Bryan. They are committed to this country, they are committed to our 
great State, and we are fortunate to have her service.
  Mr. President, I congratulate my colleague.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hoeven). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                              The Economy

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, it is no surprise that the economy 
continues to be one of the top issues on the minds of Americans. The 8 
years of the Obama administration were characterized by weak economic 
growth, a dearth of jobs and opportunities, and almost nonexistent wage 
growth. The Obama administration ushered in long-term economic 
stagnation.
  The Congressional Budget Office predicts that the economy will grow 
at a rate of just 1.9 percent over the next 30 years--a full percentage 
point lower than the average growth rate over the past 50 years. We 
cannot resign ourselves to that. Resigning ourselves to long-term 
growth of 1.9 percent would mean resigning ourselves to decades of 
fewer jobs and opportunities, low wage growth, and a reduced standard 
of living. Fortunately, there are a lot of things we can do to get our 
economy thriving again and to spur economic growth.
  A recent report from the Economic Innovation Group identified one 
important problem with our economy today, and that is a lack of what 
the EIG calls economic dynamism. Economic dynamism, as the Economic 
Innovation Group defines it, refers to the rate at which new businesses 
are born and die.
  In a dynamic economy, the rate of new business creation is high and 
significantly outstrips the rate of business death, but that has not 
been the case in the United States lately. New business creation has 
significantly dropped over the past several years. Between 2009 and 
2011, business death outstripped business birth, and while the numbers 
have since improved slightly, the recovery has been poor and far from 
historical norms.
  The Economic Innovation Group notes that in 2012--which, by the way, 
was the economy's best year for business creation since the recession--
it still ``fell far short of its worst year prior to 2008.'' This is 
deeply concerning because new businesses have historically been 
responsible for a substantial part of the job creation in this country, 
not to mention a key source of innovation. When new businesses are not 
being created at a strong rate, workers face a whole host of problems. 
``A less dynamic economy,'' the Economic Innovation Group notes, ``is 
one likely to feature fewer jobs, lower labor force participation, 
slack wage growth, and rising inequality--exactly what we see today.''
  Restoring economic dynamism would go a long way toward boosting 
economic growth and providing new jobs and opportunities for American 
workers. One big thing we can do to achieve this is to relieve the 
burden of excessive government regulations. Obviously, some government 
regulations are important and necessary, but too many others are 
unnecessary and do nothing but load businesses with compliance costs 
and paperwork hours. The more resources businesses spend on complying 
with regulations, the less they have available for growth and 
innovation. Excessive regulations also prevent many new businesses from 
ever getting off the ground. Small startups simply do not have the 
resources to hire individuals--let alone consultants and lawyers--to do 
the costly work of complying with scores of government regulations.
  Unfortunately, over the past 8 years, the Obama administration spent 
a lot of time on imposing burdensome and unnecessary regulations on 
American businesses. According to the American Action Forum, the Obama 
administration was responsible for implementing more than 675 major 
regulations that cost the economy more than $800 billion. Given those 
numbers, it is no surprise that the Obama economy left businesses with 
few resources to dedicate to growing and creating jobs or that new 
business creation seriously dropped off during the Obama 
administration.
  Since the new Congress began in January, Republicans in Congress and 
the President have been focused on repealing burdensome Obama-era 
regulations. So far, we have saved individuals and businesses 
approximately $67 billion and freed them from 56 million hours of 
paperwork. Eliminating burdensome regulations will continue to

[[Page 5882]]

be a priority for both Republicans in Congress and for the White House.
  In addition to removing burdensome regulations, we need to focus on 
reforming our Tax Code. Our current Tax Code is strangling businesses, 
both large and small. Some corporations escape with paying very little 
in taxes, but others end up paying the highest corporate tax rate in 
the developed world. Meanwhile, small businesses and family farms face 
high tax rates, at times exceeding those paid by large corporations.
  Tax reform needs to address these obstacles to growth. We need to 
trim our excessive corporate tax rate to make U.S. businesses 
competitive in the global economy, and we need to reduce taxes for 
small businesses so that we do not choke off these sources of growth 
and innovation. Measures like allowing new businesses to deduct their 
startup costs and expense more of their investments in machinery and 
equipment would spur new business creation and help small businesses 
thrive.
  Our goal is to take up tax reform this year, and I am looking forward 
to that debate. Reforming our Tax Code will go a long way toward 
restoring dynamism to our economy and encouraging growth, job creation, 
and better wages.
  There are other growth-boosting measures we can take as well, like 
removing unnecessary barriers that restrict access to capital. Both new 
and existing businesses rely on capital to help them innovate and 
expand.
  The last 8 years were discouraging years for American workers, but 
the stagnation of the Obama years does not have to be the new normal. 
American workers and job creators are as dynamic and creative as ever; 
we just need to clear the obstacles from their paths. I look forward to 
working with my colleagues this year as we make putting our economy on 
the path to long-term health and vitality a top priority for the U.S. 
Senate.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                        Tribute to Brian McGuire

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, this is one of those days I never look 
forward to. In my time in the Senate, I have had a lot of outstanding 
chiefs of staff. It is a pretty impressive group of men and women who 
have been in that position with me over the years--none more impressive 
than the person who, unfortunately, I have to say goodbye to today.
  I am here today to pay tribute to Brian McGuire, the chief of staff 
in my personal office, who is going to be leaving after well over 10 
years of service in several different capacities but over the last few 
years as my personal office chief of staff. He is really a uniquely 
gifted person. He is one of the most skilled writers I have ever 
encountered and, in fact, in my career, the most skilled writer I ever 
encountered. But in addition to that, he is good at a whole lot of 
other things, too, as I will subsequently describe in my remarks.
  As I think back about the chiefs of staff I have fortunately been 
lucky enough to have, none has been better at so many different things 
than Brian McGuire. I always hate to see these talented people go, but 
we know the best way for each of us to operate is to do what is in our 
own best interests. Of course, he has reached the point where he has a 
big family. There are more lucrative alternatives out there--maybe not 
as much fun and not as meaningful as daily life around here but 
important to making sure our families are taken care of.
  It is hard to know really where to begin with Brian. He came to my 
office in 2007. It was a critical time. I had just been elected Senate 
Republican leader. We were not in the majority, but I had just been 
elected to this position. There was a lot of pressure to get things 
right.
  Obviously, I was setting up a new staff in the leadership office. I 
wanted the best I could find. When we set out to hire a speechwriter, I 
certainly wasn't envisioning an upstate New Yorker with a master's in 
philosophy and a resume that included stints at HUD and the Schenectady 
Daily Gazette. From HUD to the Schenectady Daily Gazette and a guy from 
Albany, NY--not exactly what I had envisioned, but that was Brian 
McGuire, and he quickly proved himself in that role. That wouldn't 
surprise anyone who knows Brian. He is, as I said earlier, a skilled 
writer. He is bright. He is talented. He is guided by faith and his 
family. He is also the consummate professional, going above and beyond 
each and every time, no matter what the challenge, and we have plenty 
of them. As the years went by, there would be many different 
challenging situations--communications challenges, policy challenges, 
political challenges--but whatever the issue, Brian always rose to the 
moment.
  After the 2014 election, when I became majority leader, I asked Brian 
to leave speechwriting behind and become the chief of staff in my 
personal office. He agreed, fortunately. He took to his new opportunity 
to serve the people of Kentucky with similar skill and always good 
humor.
  These days, you would be forgiven for thinking Brian had spent his 
formative years in Albany, KY, rather than Albany, NY. He is an 
adaptable guy. He led my office in pressing the Commonwealth's 
priorities on issues as diverse as industrial hemp, clean coal 
technology, and the fight against heroin and opioid abuse. So we can 
see the versatility, from a skilled writer from New York, of all 
places, to an effective advocate for Kentucky and Kentucky's interests.
  Brian will be ably succeeded by another impressive individual, Phil 
Maxson, a Kentucky native who I know will continue Brian's legacy of 
service to Kentucky and who will serve with similar distinction.
  Brian McGuire probably never imagined he would find himself here. 
Like me, he grew up dreaming of a career in the Major Leagues. As he 
put it, though, you can either hit the fastball or you can't. And since 
neither of us could, we ended up here. But Brian is more than just 
another power hitter; he, like his idol growing up, the Mets' Keith 
Hernandez, is an all-star. Brian is an indispensable utility player who 
can play every position, and I am not sure what I would have done 
without him. He is also one of the most interesting guys you will meet. 
Brian has a great sense of humor and a rather infamous reputation for 
spot-on impressions. He is probably the only one around here who holds 
Keith Hernandez and Aristotle in similar reverence and can reference 
each with similar ease.
  At his core, though, Brian is incredibly grounded. He is all about 
the things that really matter--his Catholic faith, his two beautiful 
children, Stella and Max, and his wonderful wife Ashley. Ashley, I am 
happy to say, is due with their third child next month--just in time 
for Mother's Day. So Brian has a lot to look forward to as he climbs 
the next mountain. I hope he takes some time to look back and reflect 
on all he has accomplished here in his time with us.
  Let me say again that Brian McGuire, on so many different occasions, 
has made me look so much better than I am. I could never thank him 
enough for the enormous contribution he made not only to my career but 
to Kentucky and to the Nation. So it won't surprise my colleagues to 
know I am going to miss Brian McGuire a lot.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the nomination 
of Rod J. Rosenstein to be the Deputy Attorney General of the United 
States at the Justice Department. Rod has served the people of Maryland 
extraordinarily well since 2005 as the U.S. attorney for the District 
of Maryland. I am pleased to support his nomination, and I hope the 
Senate will confirm him in very short order.
  I might point out that he received a favorable recommendation from 
the Judiciary Committee by a lopsided vote of 19-to-1.

[[Page 5883]]

  Rod Rosenstein is the total package. He has committed his life to 
public service. Rod graduated from the Wharton School of the University 
of Pennsylvania with a B.S. in economics, summa cum laude, in 1986. He 
earned his J.D. degree from Harvard Law School in 1989, where he was 
the editor of the Harvard Law Review. He then served as a law clerk to 
Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District 
of Columbia Circuit. After finishing his clerkship in 1990, he became a 
trial attorney in the Public Integrity Section of the Criminal Division 
of the Department of Justice. He has remained at the Justice Department 
for his entire career.
  Mr. Rosenstein has devoted his life to public service. In Maryland, 
Rod was appointed in 2005 by President Bush and then held over by 
President Obama, with the strong support of his two home State 
Senators, which include myself and the senior Senator at that time, 
Senator Barbara Mikulski. Rod has now become the longest serving U.S. 
attorney in the country today.
  I really want to underscore that point. I know my colleagues know the 
prerogatives we have when we come into office and there is an opening 
at the U.S. attorney's office because of an election of a President 
from your own party where the previous U.S. attorney was appointed by 
the other party. In this case, it was a Republican who appointed Mr. 
Rosenstein. President Obama came into office, and the senior Senator 
and junior Senator had the opportunity to replace that U.S. attorney, 
which has been the tradition in the Senate. Senator Mikulski and I had 
no hesitation when asking Mr. Rosenstein to remain on as the U.S. 
attorney in Maryland. We did that because we knew how valuable he was 
for law enforcement in our State.
  As U.S. attorney for the District of Maryland, Rod has garnered broad 
bipartisan support from the State and local law enforcement officials 
across our great State as he has tackled problems of crime, terrorism, 
drug trafficking, gun and gang violence, civil rights enforcement, 
environmental crimes, intellectual property fraud, and corruption. I 
just mentioned a couple of those.
  I sat down with the U.S. attorney to talk about gang violence in our 
State because I had been to Central America and I saw the exporting of 
gang violence from Central America to Maryland. The U.S. attorney, Mr. 
Rosenstein, and I had a chance to talk about the strategies we would 
use in Maryland to combat that. But he didn't just work by himself at 
the U.S. attorney level; he worked with local law enforcement to make 
sure we had a team approach.
  In terms of his pro bono work, Rod wrote in his Judiciary Committee 
questionnaire:

       My entire legal career has been devoted to public service, 
     and much of my work directly benefits disadvantaged persons. 
     In addition to my official duties and public speaking, I have 
     taught without compensation at area law schools, served as a 
     judge at law school moot court and mock trial competitions, 
     and counseled other lawyers who have devoted some or all of 
     their career to public service.

  He has truly been a model for many others in public service, a real 
role model.
  Let me share a few examples with my colleagues of how State and local 
officials in Maryland have viewed Rod's work over the past decade. Let 
me begin with the city of Baltimore, which has just entered into a 
consent decree with the U.S. Department of Justice to reform its police 
practices after the death of Freddie Gray in custody 2 years ago.
  Baltimore police commissioner Kevin Davis wrote:

       Mr. Rosenstein and the Baltimore Police Department have 
     collaborated on numerous large-scale investigations and 
     resulting indictments of violent criminal organizations 
     operating in Baltimore City. Under Mr. Rosenstein's 
     leadership, the U.S. Attorney's Office and its prosecutors 
     operate with the highest sense of justice and integrity in 
     the course of these investigations and trials.

  Commissioner Davis continues:

       It is undeniable that Baltimore City is a safer place as a 
     result of Mr. Rosenstein's tenure as U.S. Attorney. Through 
     our professional collaborations, I have come to know Mr. 
     Rosenstein on a personal basis as well. Mr. Rosenstein is a 
     man of utmost character and intellect.

  Former State's attorney for Baltimore City, Gregg Bernstein, a 
Democrat, wrote:

       Simply stated, Rod was a terrific partner. Even a cursory 
     review of his body of work as the United States Attorney for 
     the District of Maryland makes readily apparent that Rod was 
     committed to reducing the level of violent crime in 
     Baltimore. His commitment and effort trickled down to other 
     law enforcement agencies as well, including the Baltimore 
     City State's Attorney's Office.
       In Rod, we saw a person who was not interested in personal 
     credit or accolade, but instead, one who created an 
     atmosphere of collaboration that had not been seen in 
     Baltimore for some time. It was much more important to him 
     that everyone was working as hard as they could to fight 
     crime in the City and the rest of Maryland.

  Mr. Bernstein continues:

       As a result of his tireless efforts, Rod helped to reduce 
     the homicide rate in Baltimore to historically low levels not 
     seen in decades. He also was responsible for supervising a 
     United States Attorney's Office that was able to dismantle 
     many of the gangs in Baltimore that were responsible for much 
     of the illegal drug trade and violence that have plagued the 
     City. He has earned the universal respect and admiration of 
     not only his colleagues in the United States Attorney's 
     Office, but other law enforcement agencies, and a debt of 
     gratitude from the public that has greatly appreciated his 
     work to make Baltimore a safer place to live and work.

  State and local elected prosecutors of both political parties in 
Maryland have also weighed in in support of Mr. Rosenstein's 
nomination. Scott Shellenberger, the Baltimore County State's attorney, 
wrote on behalf of the Maryland State's Attorneys' Association:

       Rod has been an outstanding partner with every local 
     prosecutor in the State of Maryland. Whether it is partnering 
     with prosecutors in the City of Baltimore to stem gun 
     violence, to the prosecution of prison gang corruption both 
     in the city and in rural counties . . . Rod has always been 
     there for law enforcement. When prosecutors in this State ask 
     Rod for assistance, he does not care if you are a ``D'' or an 
     ``R,'' he has only cared about making this State a safer 
     place. Rod makes his decisions based on the law, the 
     evidence, logic and reasons, never allowing emotion or 
     passion to move him from his core mission.

  I have full confidence that Rod will call it like he sees it without 
regard to partisan or political considerations and that he will 
continue to uphold his oath to support and defend the Constitution and 
laws of the United States.
  I must tell you that I have heard from State and local officials 
directly who have worked with Rod on political corruption cases and 
thanked Rod for the manner in which he collaboratively worked to root 
out corruption and misconduct by State and local officials in Maryland. 
As you can imagine, State and local officials do not always welcome 
Federal investigations or prosecutions into their domain, so this 
really speaks volumes about Rod as a prosecutor and a person and his 
ability to get along and accomplish results.
  Former Maryland attorney general Doug Gansler wrote:

       I have always found [Rod] to be totally by-the-book and 
     completely apolitical. Rod understands the importance of 
     staying out of the political limelight. The fact that I am a 
     Democrat who served in elected office for 16 years and that 
     Rod was appointed by a Republican President never was 
     mentioned. He makes decisions for the right reasons and 
     articulates those reasons with aplomb. . . . Rod is and 
     always has been extremely ethical and conscientious, 
     qualities which have earned him the respect of his peers and 
     colleagues.

  As Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein would basically serve as 
the chief operating officer at the Justice Department and manage the 
daily operations of the Nation's largest firm. The Department of 
Justice is a sprawling Cabinet Department with more than 100,000 
employees and a $28 billion budget. That is a pretty big undertaking. 
It is good to know that a person of his reputation has shown that he 
will not yield to partisan pressure but do what is right. It is good to 
know that we have that type of person whom we can confirm as the Deputy 
Attorney General. That is why it is so important that we have an 
effective manager and leader.
  Maryland attorney general Brian Frosh, a Democrat, wrote:


[[Page 5884]]

       I have found [Rod] to be intelligent, principled, and fair. 
     As U.S. Attorney, Mr. Rosenstein has been an exemplary 
     leader. He inherited an office that was in turmoil. With a 
     steady hand and superb management, he has built it into an 
     institution that is universally respected in our state. He 
     has been able to recruit and retain extremely talented 
     attorneys, investigators and staff, and the office has been 
     effective and successful in carrying out its mission.

  I expect Rod to exercise the same management style as the Deputy 
Attorney General overseeing the dozens of divisions, offices, and 
agencies at the Department of Justice. He will use that same commitment 
that he used as the U.S. attorney for the State of Maryland.
  Lastly, let me quote from former Deputy Attorney General James Cole, 
who served in President Obama's administration under Attorney General 
Holder. I know Mr. Cole well. He was the special counsel during the 
House ethics investigation of former Speaker Newt Gingrich, which 
committee I was on. Mr. Cole supports Mr. Rosenstein's nomination. Mr. 
Cole writes:

       Rod brings with him the knowledge, skill, experience, and 
     wisdom that is required for this job. He also brings an 
     understanding of, and respect for, the important role the 
     Department of Justice occupies in our government--the need 
     for it to not only enforce the laws, but to also maintain a 
     level of independence that enables it to have credibility in 
     the eyes of our citizens. Rod will make an excellent Deputy 
     Attorney General. . . . Even at an earlier age, he exhibited 
     the sound judgment and careful thought that was necessary to 
     handle the very sensitive public corruption cases that were 
     prosecuted by the [Public Integrity Section of the Criminal 
     Division].

  That is Mr. Cole. Mr. Cole was a former Deputy Attorney General, and 
he understands this role very well and understands Mr. Rosenstein is 
uniquely qualified to hold this position.
  I want to conclude by urging my colleagues to support Mr. 
Rosenstein's nomination.
  I especially thank Rod's family for their contribution to public 
service as well. As we know, we can't do this without a supportive 
family, and this service comes at a steep price in terms of time spent 
doing public service and sacrifices made by his family. I thank his 
wife Lisa and his daughters, Julie and Allison, for being willing to 
share their husband and father with our country.
  I urge the Senate to confirm Mr. Rosenstein's nomination to be the 
next Deputy Attorney General of the United States at the Justice 
Department.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Rod Rosenstein's nomination to be Deputy 
Attorney General comes at a unique moment in history and critical 
juncture for the Department of Justice, as well as for this country. It 
has been 44 years since the Senate considered a Justice Department 
nominee who will be in charge of an active criminal investigation into 
a sitting President's campaign and administration. Since the Judiciary 
Committee reported Mr. Rosenstein's nomination to the Senate earlier 
this month, further press reports underscore how important it is that 
we have an independent and impartial investigation into Russian 
interference in our elections and connections with the Trump campaign 
and administration.
  In just the past 3 weeks, we learned that a notable Trump campaign 
adviser was reportedly the subject of a FISA warrant. CNN reported that 
this adviser was among those who ``Russian operatives tried to use . . 
. to infiltrate the Trump campaign.'' The AP reported that Paul 
Manafort, who worked for free as the Trump campaign chairman, 
previously received at least $1.2 million for consulting work on behalf 
of a Ukrainian ally of Russian President Putin. That is in addition to 
reports that Mr. Manafort earned $10 million per year for secret work 
on behalf of Vladimir Putin. We learned that President Trump's first 
National Security Advisor ``failed to list payments from Russia-linked 
entities'' on his financial disclosure forms. We also learned that the 
President's son-in-law and top adviser failed to disclose meetings with 
the Russian Ambassador and other officials on his application to obtain 
top secret security clearance--just like when the Attorney General 
provided false testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 
response to questions from me and Senator Franken about his own Russian 
contacts.
  If confirmed, Mr. Rosenstein will assume leadership of the sprawling 
investigation into Russia's multifaceted attempts to interfere with our 
elections, an investigation that embroils not only individuals in the 
Trump campaign, but also those who are now in the President's Cabinet 
and senior officials in the White House. Attorney General Sessions was 
forced to recuse himself from this investigation after the press 
revealed that he had misled the Judiciary Committee and the American 
people about his connections to Russian officials and agents. There is 
no question that the Attorney General's recusal was required--and 
should have happened on day 1 after assuming office. Justice Department 
regulations required him to recuse himself because of the integral role 
that then-Senator Sessions played in the Trump campaign and his 
continuing contacts with those directly under investigation. These 
Department of Justice regulations protect the impartiality of all 
Justice Department investigations.
  The Justice Department's regulations regarding appointment of a 
special counsel are equally significant. These regulations direct 
appointment of a special counsel when there is ``a conflict of interest 
for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances'' and ``it 
would be in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel 
to assume responsibility for the matter.'' The current situation 
unquestionably meets that standard. Mr. Rosenstein acknowledged at his 
confirmation hearing that it would be an unusual challenge to lead an 
investigation that potentially includes the Attorney General, his 
direct supervisor. This investigation now not only includes Mr. 
Rosenstein's potential boss, but also several others inside the White 
House. Americans deserve an investigation that is independent and 
inspires public confidence, and that requires appointment of a special 
counsel who is free from political influence. This issue is too 
important for us to skew for partisan motivations. Country must come 
before party, and I hope and trust Mr. Rosenstein will understand that 
if he is confirmed.
  We know that this administration and this President have already 
interfered with the House Intelligence Committee's investigation into 
Russian activity and connections to the Trump campaign. Devin Nunes, 
the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, recused himself from 
his own committee's investigation after what Ryan Lizza of the New 
Yorker called a ``coordinated effort between the Trump Administration 
and [Chairman] Nunes . . . to manufacture a fake scandal'' in order to 
distract from, as well as obstruct, any real investigation. Earlier 
this month, President Trump even said that ``it's not too late'' to 
fire FBI Director Comey. This administration cannot be trusted to 
respect the independence of any investigation, which is why we need an 
outside special counsel. Whoever assumes the role of Deputy Attorney 
General in this administration will face extraordinary tests of 
integrity. Mr. Rosenstein has a reputation for integrity that is 
unusual for this administration's nominees, and I hope he is up to the 
challenge.
  We already know from the intelligence community's public report that 
Russian President Putin waged a multifaceted influence campaign to 
delegitimize Secretary Clinton and help Donald Trump win the 
Presidency. Worse, he intended to undermine public faith in our 
democratic process. This interference did not end on November 8th. It 
is ongoing and, according to the intelligence community, President 
Putin will continue using cyberattacks and propaganda campaigns to 
undermine our future elections--but there is still much we do not know.
  We need a thorough, independent investigation. President Putin's goal 
last year was to undermine our democratic institutions--to corrode 
Americans' trust and faith in our government. If we do not get to the 
bottom of Russian interference, he will have been successful, and he 
will no doubt do it again. I

[[Page 5885]]

hope that Mr. Rosenstein will do the right thing and appoint a special 
counsel to lead a truly independent investigation--one in which all 
Americans can have confidence.
  If confirmed, Mr. Rosenstein will face other critical tests as well, 
including whether he will continue to support the Justice Department's 
Smart on Crime initiative, focusing the most serious criminal penalties 
on the most serious offenders. With his 27 years of experience in the 
Justice Department, I hope that Mr. Rosenstein will be an independent 
check on the excesses of this administration, which has already sought 
to undermine the principle of judicial review. He has served as U.S. 
Attorney under both Democratic and Republican administrations, so I 
hope that, as Deputy Attorney General and as Acting Attorney General in 
matters relating to the Trump campaign, he will remember that he is not 
the President's attorney, but the people's attorney.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.


                         The President's Budget

  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I rise today to address President Trump's 
proposed budget for fiscal year 2018. My predecessor in this seat, my 
friend, former Vice President Joe Biden, once said to me years ago: 
Show me your budget and I will show you your values.
  One of my concerns about the proposal we have received--the initial 
slimmed-down overview proposal we have received--is that it suggests 
values that I think are quite out of line with what my home State of 
Delaware would look for me to be doing in this body, what I think 
addresses the real needs and priorities of the American people.
  Last month President Trump released an overview of his budget--what 
is called a skinny budget--and we haven't yet received a full and 
detailed budget proposal. Even though what we have received is just an 
overview, it indicates that the cuts President Trump is proposing will 
significantly weaken vital domestic programs, often with the goal of 
completely eliminating existing and valued initiatives.
  This chart gives a rough summary of all the different Federal 
agencies that would take double-digit hits in order to be able to pay 
for the significant $54 billion increase to defense spending. Targeting 
only nondefense programs that millions of Americans and Delawareans 
rely on ignores commitments made over the last couple of budget cycles 
and years, as Republicans and Democrats have worked together to ensure 
placing equal priority on defense and nondefense spending.
  Under sequestration, under the Budget Control Act, we have already 
made significant cuts to important domestic programs. After the 
difficult budgets of the last few years, in my view, we have already 
made too many cuts to some of the programs that helped build our 
Nation.
  To be clear, I am as passionate as anyone in this body about 
supporting our Armed Forces, particularly when they are in harm's way 
and particularly as we continue to conduct operations against ISIS in 
Iraq and Syria. But Democrats will not stand for cutting domestic 
programs simply to pay for a $54 billion military expansion that hasn't 
been explained or justified through a thorough review of what are the 
appropriate investments in defense that will respond to the challenges 
and threats we face in this world.
  To pay for that $54 billion increase in defense by cutting 
investments in education, housing, job training, and more here at home 
strikes me as the wrong set of priorities and the wrong direction. If 
anything like these proposed Trump budget cuts are enacted, I know my 
home State of Delaware would lose millions and millions of dollars for 
valuable and effective Federal programs that help my constituents each 
and every day. Trump's budget proposal would cut research and health 
programs. It would cut job-creating infrastructure programs. It would 
cut grants for higher education. It would cut housing and so much more.
  I wish to take a few minutes to focus on a few of many proposed 
budget cuts to give a sense of the impact it might have on our 
livelihood, our security, and our prosperity at home. Let me start with 
some cuts that would directly affect our national security, our safety.
  In my view, the deep cuts made in the proposed Trump budget would 
simply make us less safe. For example, the U.S. Coast Guard, which has 
a station in Delaware, would be cut by more than $1.3 billion. The 
Transportation Security Administration, or TSA, has just as high a cut. 
Ironically, even though these are the very agencies that protect our 
ports and other points of entry, Trump proposes cutting their funding 
so that a southern border wall can be built for an estimate well above 
$25 billion. This simply makes no sense. If you listen to the words of 
the Coast Guard Commandant, ADM Paul Zukunft, he warned that simply 
focusing all those resources on building a wall along the border with 
Mexico would make our ports and waterways even more appealing to 
smugglers and those who seek to bring illicit drugs or to bring people 
into the United States through unlawful entry.
  That is not all. The Trump budget would make us less safe by 
depleting Federal protection from natural disasters, starting with a 
proposed $600 million cut to FEMA State and local grants. The budget 
also proposes restructuring fees for the National Flood Insurance 
Program, which would lead to raising rates for homeowners who get flood 
insurance.
  My home State of Delaware is the lowest mean elevation State in 
America--literally the lowest lying State and ground zero for sea level 
rise. These cuts would have a significant impact on homeowners up and 
down my State, those at our seashore and those in my home community of 
Wilmington who face steadily rising flood insurance premiums.
  It is not just our safety, though, that would be impacted by the 
President's budget; it also threatens job growth and economic security. 
As a President who ran a campaign on a middle-class jobs agenda, I am 
struck that his proposed budget would endanger Americans across the 
country financially by also undermining support for development in both 
rural areas and urban areas. Take the Department of Agriculture, which 
provides critical support through the Rural Development Program. In 
Delaware, at least, Rural Development, or RDA, has played a critical 
role in supporting housing, businesses, and communities in the rural 
parts of Delmarva--Delaware and Maryland.
  The Trump budget would also eliminate the Rural Business-Cooperative 
Service, or RBS, which promotes economic development in distressed 
rural areas. That is a program which has supported things like Del Tech 
automotive technician training and architectural services for the 
Seaford Historical Society, among many other things.
  Something I am much more familiar with and more passionate about is 
the Manufacturing Extension Partnership. Across the State of Delaware, 
the MEP, as it is known, has helped small and medium manufacturing 
companies to be better at taking advantage of cutting-edge technology, 
understanding how to manage their inventory, how to invest more wisely 
in new capital equipment, and how to grow and compete around the world.
  Since 2000, Delaware's Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program 
has used Federal support to help Delaware manufacturers increase sales 
by more than $120 million, helping create more than 1,600 good-paying 
jobs and finding over $100 million in cost savings in Delaware's small 
and medium manufacturers. These are great impacts for a fairly small 
program. Why that program specifically targeted at helping small and 
medium manufacturing companies would be a priority for elimination is 
beyond me.
  Cuts to other areas that impact research and energy in our economy 
also strike me as unwise and ill-considered. It is not just our economy 
and national security; Trump's budget would also threaten our 
infrastructure, our transportation, and our housing.

[[Page 5886]]

  As a Delawarean and someone who rides Amtrak between Wilmington and 
Washington almost every day we are in session, I know how important our 
passenger rail system is for the Northeast, as well as for connecting 
the rest of our country. Amtrak's long-distance routes are critically 
important to the Nation's economy and to sustaining passenger rail as a 
nationwide Federal service. Yet, as our competitors around the world 
are investing billions of dollars in high-speed rail and in efficient 
rail networks that connect whole countries, President Trump's proposal 
would eliminate all Federal funding for Amtrak's long-distance routes.
  Another effective Federal program that has made a difference in my 
home State in infrastructure is the so-called TIGER Program, which 
invests in a whole range of infrastructure options--highway, transit, 
rail and port--by leveraging private capital and supporting 
competitive, innovative solutions to infrastructure challenges. The 
TIGER Program has supported projects like a new regional rail 
transportation center at the University of Delaware, taking advantage 
of the former Chrysler rail yard, and the significant new growth we are 
seeing at the University of Delaware's STAR campus. This is an 
investment that will have several multiples that will leverage private 
sector benefits by promoting economic development, accessible housing, 
and multimobile transportation choices in the area.
  Many of my colleagues have similar experiences in their States about 
the impact of the TIGER Grant Program. In the last year, it had a 
demand nearly 20 times the available funding. Yet the Trump budget 
would again eliminate all Federal funding to this vital transportation 
infrastructure program that creates jobs and helps to leverage private 
sector investment.
  There are so many other programs on the chopping block, it is hard to 
even begin to touch on them: Community Development Block Grants, which 
I relied on in my previous job as county executive to provide support 
for low-income and disabled individuals to have access to high quality 
housing; the funds that support things like Meals on Wheels, that allow 
our low-income seniors to age in place rather than having to be moved 
to institutions; and many other programs through the Federal Department 
of Housing that have a positive impact in communities up and down my 
State, from Newark and Wilmington to Dover and Seaford.
  If you take the U.S. Department of Agriculture's rural water and 
wastewater loan and grant programs, these would be eliminated entirely. 
These programs are critical to ensuring that rural communities can 
access funds to support safe drinking water and sewer systems. Many 
communities in Southern Delaware rely on rural water funds to ensure 
safe drinking water supplies for the families that live there. As I 
have suggested, the list of potential cuts to programs goes on and on.
  Let me move to some impacts on the environment, briefly. The 
Chesapeake Bay is one of the world's largest estuary systems, and 
Delaware is a State that borders on the Chesapeake Bay watershed. 
Economists insist that there is nearly $1 trillion worth of economic 
value to the Chesapeake Bay watershed, yet the Trump budget cuts nearly 
half of the funding for the EPA to allow States to get grants that will 
help improve air quality, clean up contaminated waste sites, and remove 
lead from drinking water. Delaware alone would lose $3 million in these 
vital initiatives.
  There are millions of Americans who rely on many more programs listed 
here--AmeriCorps, Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, 
Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the African Development 
Foundation, and many more--all eliminated in this budget in order to 
prioritize a focus on our military and defense.
  I don't think the President understands that we cannot maintain our 
status as a global leader with defense and military alone. We need to 
ensure that a complementary strength exists in our development and 
diplomacy programs, which are less than one-tenth of our spending on 
national defense.
  I recently had the opportunity to see the impact that USAID and our 
programs to assist the hungry and needy around the world can make in 
stabilizing fragile states and preventing them from becoming failed 
states. We spent less than one percent of the Federal budget on these 
sorts of programs. They provide a critical connection to parts of the 
world where a positive understanding of America and our values would be 
a good thing.
  The international affairs budget, which includes needed funding for 
USAID, the State Department, and other related programs, would be cut 
by one-third under the Trump budget--a 29 percent cut to the State 
Department alone.
  If history is any indicator, the last 70 years show these investments 
in diplomacy and development are critical. Foreign assistance is not 
charity. It serves a humanitarian purpose, but it also makes us 
stronger by promoting American values around the world, building 
coalitions that isolate our adversaries, and helping make tens of 
millions less susceptible to terrorism and to extremism around the 
world.
  This is a false choice between significantly increasing our defense 
spending and the need to sustain our investments in diplomacy and 
development. I hope my colleagues and constituents will take time to 
think about the many different Federal programs that I have briefly 
discussed in these remarks about the proposed budget and all the 
different ways that these Federal programs have invested in our quality 
of life, in our national security, and our economic prosperity. Many of 
them are scheduled for elimination under this budget.
  As I have heard both Republicans and Democrats say in press 
interviews and on this floor: No President's budget is adopted without 
change. It is my hope that this budget will be set aside and that the 
folks who represent our States here will begin anew the process of 
building an appropriations path forward that actually protects our 
country, protects our livelihood, and invests significantly in 
sustaining and saving the very best of these programs that have 
benefited my home State and my constituents for so very long.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.


               Reforming Finance for Local Economies Act

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss my bill, the 
Reforming Finance for Local Economies Act, which I introduced earlier 
this week. This bill is very simple and straightforward. It would 
exempt community banks and credit unions with assets of less than $10 
billion from complying with the loan-killing, anti-jobs disaster that 
we commonly refer to as Dodd-Frank. Every reasonable person with a 
passing knowledge of our banking system knows the destabilizing effect 
that Dodd-Frank has had on local economies, community banks, and the 
Nation's credit unions.
  Just last week, President Trump turned to the problems wrought by 
Dodd-Frank by signing two Presidential memorandums to take a look at 
the Orderly Liquidation Authority and the systemic risk designation 
process at the Financial Stability Oversight Council. I applaud the 
President's efforts in that regard. I believe they are desperately 
needed. Reforming this flawed law is crucial to the future success of 
the American economy.
  Some of my colleagues were here when Dodd-Frank was passed in 2010. 
As we all know, it was intended to prevent another 2008-like banking 
crisis by strengthening Federal Government regulation of financial 
services. But in the process, as so often happens, Congress actually 
crippled America's small community banks and credit unions that played 
absolutely no role--none, zero, nada--in instigating the 2008 meltdown. 
And that is not just my opinion. Our Federal Reserve Chair, Dr. Janet 
Yellen, appeared before the Senate Banking Committee earlier this 
year--actually, February 14. When it was my turn to ask her questions, 
I asked her the following simple question: ``What did community banks 
do wrong in 2008?''
  This was the Chairwoman's answer: ``Well, community banks were not 
the

[[Page 5887]]

reason for the financial crisis. It was larger institutions that took 
risks and risks that developed outside the banking system.''
  Let me read that first sentence again. Chair Yellen: ``Well, 
community banks were not the reason for the financial crisis.''
  I believe she is right. The fact is that our smaller banks and our 
credit unions are smothering under the weight of Dodd-Frank. I will 
give you an example of what I am talking about. The Truth in Lending 
Act passed by Congress is actually 22 pages long. The Federal Reserve 
Act, setting up our Federal Reserve System, is 32 pages long. Glass-
Steagall, about which we heard a great deal, was 37 pages long. Dodd-
Frank is a breathtaking 2,300 pages with 22,000 pages of regulations. 
You can stand on the thing and paint the ceiling.
  That is why so many community banks no longer exist. Those that have 
managed to survive have seen their costs go up, their profits go down, 
and their ability to make small business and consumer loans curtailed--
all as a result of the unnecessary, heavy hand of government. In fact, 
since Dodd-Frank was passed in 2010, this country has lost 1,700 small 
institutions. The reason is very simple. Dodd-Frank has forced 
community banks and credit unions to merge, consolidate, or to go out 
of business because of the heavy hand of regulation and because they 
can't make the loans that they normally would be able to make.
  Nationwide, we have been losing an average of one community bank or 
credit union a day--every single day--since Dodd-Frank was passed 
because of its costs, which have driven our banks to sell or merge with 
larger banks. It is so ironic that this forced consolidation--forcing 
our smaller banks and credit unions to either merge with or be bought 
out by larger institutions--has caused even greater concentration of 
assets on the books of even larger and, in some cases, too-big-to-fail 
banks that Dodd-Frank was supposed to do something about.
  My legislation will help 5,785 American credit unions. It will help 
5,461 community banks in our country survive. Specifically, financial 
institutions with assets of less than $10 billion--if you are a 
financial institution and you have less than $10 billion in assets, you 
will be exempt completely from Dodd-Frank, its 2,300 pages and its 
22,000 pages of regulations. We are talking about a lot of banks.
  Banks with less than $10 billion in assets make up 92 percent of our 
Nation's banks, according to the FDIC. Banks with less than $10 billion 
in assets provide 48 percent of all small business loans, 16 percent of 
residential mortgages, 44 percent of lending to purchase farmland, 43 
percent of lending for farm operations, and 35 percent of commercial 
real estate loans. If my bill passes, these institutions will no longer 
have to reduce their products and service offerings in order to divert 
resources to compliance, to interpretation, and to execution.
  The expertise of our smaller banks and credit unions in America in 
evaluating risk will no longer be reduced to some algorithm--some 
mathematical exercise. Instead, our institutions will be able to 
deliver the desperately needed capital to the customers they know so 
well because that is what community banks and credit unions do. They 
take in local deposits, and they make loans to local borrowers whom 
they know and whose creditworthiness they can closely monitor because 
community bankers, as we all know, are relationship bankers. They don't 
participate in widespread subprime lending. They don't use derivatives 
to speculate, and they never did. Most of them have fewer than 100 
employees.
  The type of regulation they need--and I am not suggesting they don't 
need regulation. What I am suggesting is the type of regulation they 
need--because of the risks our small institutions take--is much 
different than the regulation needed by a $700 billion or a trillion-
dollar bank.
  I am certain that the proponents of Dodd-Frank were well-intentioned 
when they wrote and passed it. But 150 years ago, doctors used to bleed 
their patients with the best of intentions. They stopped doing that 
because their patients died. That is why I suggest today that we 
eliminate Dodd-Frank for our smaller institutions. Making Dodd-Frank 
applicable to community banks and credit unions is a lot like using a 
sledgehammer to go after a gnat. It is way over the top.
  Now, certainly our smaller institutions need regulation. Certainly, 
they need regulation to ensure that they are stable and secure. Our 
small institutions know that. They know they need it. They want it. 
They welcome it. But even after my bill becomes law, community banks 
are still going to be subject to a strict regulatory scheme established 
by dozens of applicable Federal statutes. I am talking about the 
Banking Secrecy Act, the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, the Truth in 
Lending Act, and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and I could go on 
and on.
  All of these statutes will still apply to our smaller banks and 
credit unions. Our smaller banks and credit unions--now exempt, if my 
bill passes, from Dodd-Frank--will still be under the supervision of 
the Federal Reserve. They will still be under the supervision of the 
Comptroller of the Currency. They will still be regulated by the 
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the National Credit Union 
Administration, and even the Department of Justice.
  America's smaller lending institutions need some relief. What they 
need is relief from the destabilizing consequences of Dodd-Frank. The 
Reforming Finance for Local Economies Act, in my estimation, is a step 
in that direction. I would also like to say, in closing, that I am 
pleased that both President Trump and Senate Republicans are committed, 
as we are, to paving the way for new businesses and the jobs they 
create through regulatory reform as our actions have already proven 
this year.
  However, I would also like to stress that helping our community banks 
and credit unions is a bipartisan issue and one that I hope will garner 
support from many of my colleagues, not only just on the Republican 
side of my aisle but by friends on the Democratic side of the aisle.
  I welcome their support. I look forward to working with my fellow 
Senators on the Banking Committee to find some commonsense solutions 
that will help grow our local economies.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Strange). The Senator from Louisiana.


                     Congratulating Senator Kennedy

  Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I would like to acknowledge my 
experienced and talented friend from Louisiana in his maiden speech, 
speaking about something that reflects his experience. Briefly, his 
experience, aside from being an outstanding citizen, was as a secretary 
of revenue in Louisiana, a State treasurer in Louisiana, and an 
attorney and a law school professor.
  So now there are his committee appointments, which include the 
Banking, Appropriations, and Judiciary Committees, which are tailor-
made for what he does. As a product of a small town and as someone who 
as treasurer in our State has been so aware of the economic development 
issues, no one would know better than he what a critical role small 
banks play in generating the capital and delivering the capital to a 
small business that grows to be a bigger and a bigger and a big 
business, while along the way employing more folks.
  So, as we as a nation grapple with how to create better-paying jobs, 
it is fitting that Senator Kennedy would begin by speaking directly to 
how to create better-paying jobs. I welcome him as a colleague. I look 
forward to working with him for things that would benefit our State, 
our Nation, and the people who live here.
  I yield the floor.
  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. 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.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, in less than an hour, we will consider

[[Page 5888]]

the nomination of Rod Rosenstein to be Deputy Attorney General of the 
United States.
  We consider his nomination under highly unusual, if not unique, 
circumstances. Only today, there were revelations from the House 
Oversight Committee at a bipartisan conference indicating that General 
Flynn, formerly the National Security Advisor, may have broken criminal 
laws by his concealing payments from Russia--specifically, from Russia 
Today--in connection with his speaking fees and travel expenses in 
2015. He concealed these payments in security clearance forms submitted 
in 2016, SF86 forms. False statements on such forms are a violation of 
our criminal laws. His potential criminal liability is a serious and 
important allegation that needs to be investigated further.
  What we know for sure is that the investigation of this allegation 
and others--this very colorful violation of Federal criminal law--can 
be done reliably, impartially, and credibly only by a special 
prosecutor. That is why I have asked Mr. Rosenstein to commit that he 
will appoint a special prosecutor to investigate this allegation as 
well as others involving the President's staff, campaign associates, 
and staff in connection with Russia's interference with our election.
  There is no question that the Russians sought to interfere and that 
they did so. That is the conclusion of the investigation that was 
already done by our intelligence community, and it is a conclusion that 
is virtually universally accepted. The only question now is this: What 
was the involvement and potential collusion and aiding and abetting of 
Americans in that Russian cyber attack on this country? In my view, it 
was an act of war. We can debate that question.
  What is undebatable is the need for a thorough, impartial, vigorous, 
and aggressive investigation that will give that information to the 
American people. It must be an investigation that can pursue criminal 
wrongdoing, if it is proved, and that can prosecute it and ultimately 
make that investigation transparent to the American people so they know 
what actually happened.
  I have asked Rod Rosenstein to follow the precedent that was 
established by Elliot Richardson under circumstances that were not 
unlike the ones we encountered here.
  The saying is that history almost never repeats, but it rhymes. What 
we have here is a situation that rhymes with the one that Elliot 
Richardson encountered when he was Attorney General-designee. He was 
requested to appoint a special prosecutor as a condition of his 
confirmation. He agreed to do so in 1973. He appointed Archibald Cox. 
That, in turn, led to the Watergate investigation and, ultimately, it 
vindicated the judgment on the part of our Senate Judiciary Committee 
that an independent special prosecutor was necessary under those 
circumstances.
  My colleague who is presiding, as a former State attorney general, 
knows well the importance of independence and credibility in any 
judicial role of this kind. This Nation now faces a looming 
constitutional crisis--again, not unlike Watergate, which ultimately 
resulted in United States v. Nixon before the U.S. Supreme Court, a 
subpoena that had to be enforced by that special prosecutor against the 
President of the United States.
  Only Rod Rosenstein can vindicate that important public interest. 
Only the Deputy Attorney General of the United States can appoint a 
special prosecutor because the Attorney General rightly has recused 
himself. Jeff Sessions has recused himself because of his own 
conversations with Russian officials, which he failed to disclose 
during testimony to the Judiciary Committee.
  Only the Deputy Attorney General can perform that vital function, and 
only a special prosecutor can do what is necessary to vindicate the 
public interest through a vigorous investigation into any criminal 
wrongdoing and to prosecute lawbreakers.
  I have confidence that our Intelligence Committee in the Senate will 
impartially and objectively do whatever it can to uncover the truth. 
But even if it succeeds--and there are obstacles and challenges to its 
success--it cannot pursue a criminal investigation, and it cannot bring 
criminal charges and pursue a conviction. It probably cannot make fully 
transparent or disclose all of the facts that it uncovers. Its custom 
is to issue a report and, when it does so, redacting information that 
can be considered classified or sensitive. It may well lead, in an 
abundance of caution, toward redacting rather than disclosing.
  That is why I have asked Rod Rosenstein, as a condition of his 
becoming Deputy Attorney General, to commit that he will appoint a 
special independent prosecutor. Call that office whatever you wish--
special counsel, independent counsel, special prosecutor. The role is 
what is significant. It is someone who will uncover the wrongdoing and 
follow the evidence and the facts wherever they lead.
  Neither Mr. Rosenstein nor Mr. Sessions can do so. Neither Rosenstein 
nor Sessions will ever convince the public that they are really 
pursuing their boss, the President of the United States, if there is 
evidence that leads to his culpability. They report to him. Rod 
Rosenstein reports to Jeff Sessions, and he, in turn, reports to the 
President of the United States. That is why the appearance and the 
reality of independence is so critically important, and that is why 
only a special prosecutor can pursue that interest.
  If we were in normal times, Rod Rosenstein would be an eminently 
acceptable nominee, and I would welcome his nomination without 
attaching any kind of request or condition. He is certainly an 
honorable public servant. He is a career prosecutor. I admire his 
dedication and commitment to public service. As U.S. attorney for 
Maryland, he certainly has an admirable record. He is, in some senses, 
what we value in the Department of Justice--someone who is committed to 
the rule of law. That is why I have been surprised and disappointed 
that he has failed to heed my request.
  Whatever happens today, I want to ensure my colleagues and, most 
especially, him and the loyal and dedicated members of the Department 
of Justice that I will support his work in his capacity as Deputy 
Attorney General, if he is confirmed today, because the professionalism 
of the Department of Justice is of preeminent interest for me 
personally, having served as a U.S. attorney and also as attorney 
general of my State, but it is also vitally important to the American 
people.
  We must consider his nomination in the light of the looming 
constitutional crisis that our Nation confronts. It is a crisis partly 
of the administration's making by its attacks on the judiciary, calling 
a member of the bench a ``so-called judge,'' saying to the American 
people that a circuit court of appeals will be responsible for any 
violence that may occur as a result of its ruling on the 
constitutionality of Executive orders related to immigration, demeaning 
and disparaging a judge because of his ethnic heritage--a judge born, 
in fact, in Indiana.
  These kinds of attacks on the judiciary undermine respect and trust 
in a branch of government that is the bulwark of our democracy and 
that, in my view, when the history of this era is written, will be 
regarded as having been one of its finest hours. We will be relying on 
it to protect our Nation's fundamental rights and liberties. The 
independence of the judiciary is a sacred pillar of our democracy, and 
it must be free of political interference.
  The other hero of this era, in my view, will be the press, which has 
uncovered many of the facts leading to my conclusion, joined by so many 
of my colleagues, that there must be a special prosecutor. That 
conclusion is not mine alone. It has been joined by many of my 
colleagues, 10 of them having cosigned a letter I wrote in mid-February 
asking for a special prosecutor.
  The independence of our judiciary and of our prosecutors is so 
critically important for the trust and credibility of the American 
people that the rule of law will prevail and that no official will put 
himself above the rule of law. That is the threat and the 
constitutional crisis that we potentially face.

[[Page 5889]]

  Two high-ranking administration officials have been caught 
misrepresenting their ties with Russia. One of them is, in fact, the 
Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, who did so before the Judiciary 
Committee, under oath.
  Mr. Rosenstein has said that he wants to be approved by the Senate 
before he decides whether to appoint a special prosecutor, but that 
delay will mean that a man who was hired and can be fired by President 
Trump will decide whether the Trump administration will face a thorough 
and complete investigation. This body has a duty to insist on it before 
his confirmation. We must seize this opportunity to assure 
accountability to the American people and make sure also about their 
confidence in our electoral system. While Mr. Rosenstein has claimed he 
needs to be in office to familiarize himself with the facts of an 
investigation into the Trump administration before he can commit to 
appointing a special prosecutor, the row of facts are all a matter of 
public record now.
  We know Russia interfered in the 2016 election. We know the FBI is 
investigating Trump administration lawbreaking associated with that 
interference. That investigation has been confirmed by the Director of 
the FBI himself. We know Attorney General Jeff Sessions met with 
officials of Russia's Government, and yet he said under oath that he 
did not meet with those Russians. That is more than ample information 
to justify appointing a special prosecutor, but there is much more, 
including actions by Carter Page, Paul Manafort, Roger Stone. These 
kinds of abundant facts are known now and warrant this action and also 
more than justify this body insisting that he commit to appointing that 
special prosecutor.
  That public information concerning known associates of the President 
and their Russian contacts includes General Flynn's actions disclosed 
today. On December 10, 2015, General Flynn was paid to attend an event 
in Moscow celebrating the 10th anniversary of Russia Today, a 
propaganda arm of the Russian Government. He concealed the amount 
Russia Today paid him for speaking fees and travel expenses in those 
security clearance forms he submitted in 2016, the SF86. He dined with 
Vladimir Putin just 18 months after leaving his position leading the 
Defense Intelligence Agency. As a retired general, he is prohibited 
from receipt of consulting fees, gifts, travel expenses, honorary or 
any other kind of salary from a foreign government without 
congressional consent. That action also is a potentially prosecutable 
action.
  After the election, General Flynn spoke repeatedly to Russian 
Ambassador Kislyak regarding lifting sanctions on Putin, an amazing act 
of disloyalty. Misleading Vice President Pence and the American public 
on the nature of these secret discussions, he demonstrated a lack of 
candor and credibility inconsistent with the role of National Security 
Advisor, and therefore he was compelled to resign.
  The President also selected Carter Page to serve during the campaign 
on his foreign policy advisory committee. He is the same individual we 
have learned who was under investigation for his contacts with Russian 
agents.
  The President's campaign manager, Paul Manafort, worked for years on 
a disinformation campaign to benefit the Putin government and was paid 
millions of dollars to do so. The President's son-in-law Jared Kushner 
held an undisclosed meeting with both the Russian Ambassador and also 
executives from a Russian bank, EDB, a bank built by Putin's cronies. 
The President himself has sold real estate to Russian investors seeking 
to profit from their corrupt activities in Russia or, as his son, 
Donald Trump, put it, ``We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.''
  The administration's supposed attempts to investigate itself have 
produced mixed signals and clear conflicts of interest such as House 
Intelligence Chair Devin Nunes's ill-fated trip to the White House to 
discuss his committee findings.
  The robust congressional oversight hearings that we all hope will 
happen are certainly essential, but only the Department of Justice can 
analyze these facts and information which are only the tip of the 
iceberg--analyze it, digest it, determine its relevance to a criminal 
investigation and to a prosecution, pursuit of a violation of law and 
charges. The FBI can investigate, but it cannot bring charges. Only a 
lawyer from the Department of Justice can do so, and only a special 
prosecutor can make that judgment independently and impartially without 
having to worry about what his boss thinks or what his boss's boss 
thinks.
  So I have reached the conclusion reluctantly--because Rod Rosenstein 
has a very admirable record of public service--that I must vote against 
his nomination in just a short time because of his failure to commit to 
a special prosecutor. I have no illusions about convincing my 
colleagues about joining me to vote on cloture with a degree of realism 
about the views of this body on his nomination, but I hope he will heed 
the example of Mr. Richardson in 1973 and also of Jim Comey, who at one 
point also resorted to a special prosecutor to investigate a 
controversial matter that arose during President George Bush's 
administration.
  There is clear, unmistakable, bipartisan precedent for a special 
prosecutor under these circumstances. There is not only precedent, 
there is historical imperative. At the root of this constitutional 
crisis is a concern for the rule of law, for preserving the public's 
faith and trust and respect for our justice system. It is at the 
foundation of what we do when we vote. When we make laws, we presume 
they will be rigorously and fairly enforced without fear or favor, and 
that no official, not even the President of the United States, will be 
placed above the law. That is the lesson of Watergate, but it is also 
the lesson established throughout our history, going back to the 
Founders and the preeminent role played by our U.S. Supreme Court.
  I will support Mr. Rosenstein in his efforts to pursue the truth and 
pursue justice, as I believe he must do, and I hope he will do because 
the credibility the of the Department of Justice and our justice system 
is so much at stake.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against his nomination, as I will do, 
but I also pledge my support for him and the loyal, dedicated, 
hardworking members of the Department of Justice if he is confirmed.
  Thank you, Mr. President. 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. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Johnson). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Under the previous order, all time is expired.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the Rosenstein 
nomination?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 94, nays 6, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 114 Ex.]

                                YEAS--94

     Alexander
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Flake
     Franken
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hassan
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kaine
     Kennedy
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Leahy
     Lee
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Paul
     Perdue

[[Page 5890]]


     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Sasse
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Strange
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden
     Young

                                NAYS--6

     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Cortez Masto
     Gillibrand
     Harris
     Warren
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the President will 
be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

                          ____________________