[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 7781-7793]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

                           EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the 
Rosen nomination, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant bill clerk read the nomination of Jeffrey A. Rosen, of 
Virginia, to be Deputy Secretary of Transportation.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time 
until 12:30 p.m. will be equally divided in the usual form.
  The assistant Democratic leader.


                         Healthcare Legislation

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I had a meeting last week in Illinois, and 
I asked hospital administrators, doctors, nurses, pediatricians, those 
who are in the substance abuse treatment area, what they thought of the 
Republican bill. It was all Republicans who passed the healthcare 
finance act, whatever the name of it is--their version of the 
healthcare system that they are calling for reform in the House of 
Representatives. It was interesting. They were unanimously opposed to 
it, all of them--hospital administrators, doctors, nurses, 
pediatricians, across the board.
  Why would all the medical providers in my State be opposed to the 
Republican plan that just passed the House of Representatives? Well, 
because they have read it. Here is what they found. It threatens the 
survival of downstate and inner city hospitals. The Illinois Hospital 
Association came out against the Republican plan and said we could lose 
60,000 jobs in Illinois, and we could see cutbacks in services in our 
hospitals.
  I know the Acting President pro tempore from the State of Oklahoma 
knows what rural hospitals mean to these small towns. It is not only 
life and death to have access to quality healthcare, they are some of 
the best paying jobs in town. The thought that those hospitals are 
going to see services cut back, people laid off is worth sitting up and 
taking notice.
  They also are worried because the Congressional Budget Office never 
gave an analysis of the Republican plan that passed the House of 
Representatives. That is unheard of. When we passed the Affordable Care 
Act in the U.S. Senate, we waited week after weary week for the 
Congressional Budget Office to analyze each of the major changes. We 
didn't want to make a mistake, and we felt obligated to tell the 
American people what we were doing to the healthcare system, which is 
one-sixth of the national economy.
  Somehow the Republican leaders in the House of Representatives paid 
no attention to that and passed a bill without a Congressional Budget 
Office analysis. Possibly it is because the first version of that bill, 
which was analyzed by the CBO, found that it was devastating. Twenty-
four million Americans would lose their health insurance under the 
Republican plan in its first phase. Twenty-four million Americans lose 
their health insurance.
  In Illinois, 1 million people--in a State of 12\1/2\ million people, 
1 million people living in my State would have lost their health 
insurance coverage by the plan proposed initially by the Republicans in 
the House, and we also know it would shorten the lifespan of Medicare, 
for one thing. We know it allowed for waivers by Governors to eliminate 
what they call nonessential services in health insurance.
  One of them hits close to home. I can remember as a new Senator 
coming to the floor and watching Paul Wellstone, who used to be at that 
desk, and Pete Domenici, who used to be at that desk, get up on a 
bipartisan basis and argue again and again that every health insurance 
plan in America should cover mental illness and substance abuse 
treatment. It seems so obvious, and yet they had to fight the insurance 
industry for years before we finally achieved it. Now when you buy 
health insurance in America, it covers mental illness and substance 
abuse treatment. Thank goodness. We need it. We desperately need it. 
Yet that becomes one of the nonessential elements in the Republican 
analysis of health insurance.
  What are they thinking? Have they listened or read recently about the 
opioid and heroin crisis in America? I have sat at tables with victims, 
addicts who, thank goodness, had an intervention, had an opportunity, 
and now can speak of their addiction in the past tense.
  These are amazing young people whose lives were compromised and 
threatened because of addiction. How did they turn the corner? They 
turned the corner because of loving families, their personal 
determination, and the availability of medical treatment under their 
health insurance plans.
  Now the Republicans are arguing in the House of Representatives that 
we don't need that coverage, we don't need that protection. We do now 
more than ever.
  When I hear the Republican leader come to the floor and criticize the 
Affordable Care Act, I basically have to ask him, Is this a problem 
that is of your own creation?
  The Republicans, including the leader, have refused to sit down with 
Democrats and work on a bipartisan solution. In fact, when the 
Republican leader sat down to determine how the Senate would respond to 
the House action, he put together a group of, I believe, 12 Republican 
Senators--no Democrats allowed--to sit down and write the alternative. 
That is not a good way to start this.
  What we ought to do is to say, first, we are not going to repeal the 
Affordable Care Act; we are going to improve it, and we will do it on a 
bipartisan basis. If the majority leader wants to suggest that, I would 
like to be part of it. Many Democrats would like to be part of it. Take 
repeal off the table before the conversation on repair begins. I think 
that is essential. Let's make sure that within health insurance in 
America we have some basics.
  First, if you have a preexisting condition, you shouldn't be 
disqualified from health insurance or you shouldn't have to pay twice 
the premiums. That is something that is now built into the law that the 
Republicans want to repeal. Well, I want to make sure that preexisting 
conditions are protected.
  As I have said on the floor before, a couple of weeks ago I had a 
heart procedure, a catheter procedure, an outpatient procedure. 
Apparently it worked pretty well. I am standing here talking to you 
today. I feel good. But a lot of people go through this, and I became a 
statistic the day that happened. I guess I now have a preexisting 
condition; so be it. One out of three Americans fit that category. Why 
would we not protect them in any health insurance reform bill? That 
seems like the starting point in our conversation. Yet the bill that 
passed the House, the Republican bill that passed the House allows 
Governors to basically ask for waivers so that health insurance plans 
in their States will not cover people with preexisting conditions or 
allow people with those conditions to have the same premiums. That is 
not a good starting place. It is a terrible starting place.
  Let's try to make sure that if we are going to move forward on real 
healthcare reform, we do it in a sensible fashion. Let's put forward a 
bill not like the one that passed the House, but let's put together a 
bill that has the support of hospital administrators across the Nation. 
Let's put together a bill that protects the Medicaid expansion that is 
part of the Affordable Care Act.

[[Page 7782]]

  Medicaid is an essential part of healthcare in America for tens of 
millions of people. Medicaid--most people think, oh, that is health 
insurance for poor people. Really? That is not an accurate description. 
For example, in the State of Illinois, Medicaid provides health 
coverage for half of the children who are born in my State--prenatal 
care, postnatal care, and the actual delivery of half of the children 
in my State, under Medicaid.
  That is not the most expensive part of Medicaid. The most expensive 
part in my State and across the Nation is the fact that Medicaid is 
there to help your mother or grandmother or your dad or your 
grandfather when they are in a situation in life where they need a 
helping hand. They may be in an assisted care facility, and the Social 
Security check is not enough; Medicare is not enough. Medicaid steps in 
to make sure they have the quality of care they need. Are we going to 
eliminate that kind of protection?
  Ask disabled people and ask the organizations that represent them 
what it means to have a good strong Medicaid system. These people rely 
on Medicaid for maintaining their health through disability, day in and 
day out.
  So when the Republicans propose an $840 billion cut in Medicaid 
protection across America over 10 years, sadly, they are setting out on 
a path that could compromise the basic care we need for babies and new 
moms, for the elderly in assisted care facilities and nursing 
facilities, and for the disabled who live in our States. We don't want 
to see that happen.
  It is interesting that my Republican Governor in the State of 
Illinois seldom comments on Federal legislation. He came out in 
opposition to the bill that passed the House of Representatives. He 
said that this is a significantly bad bill for the State of Illinois, 
and I agree with him. I am glad he spoke up. I don't know how the seven 
Republican Congressmen who voted for it in my State can ignore that 
reality. Our Governor--our Republican Governor--believes it is bad for 
our State in cutting back Medicaid. The hospitals believe it is bad for 
our State in the impact that it will have on down-State hospitals. 
Doctors, nurses, and pediatricians also oppose it.
  What can we do? What should we do? First, we ought to try to see what 
we can do to make the Affordable Care Act work better. We can do that 
on a bipartisan basis. We want to make sure, as the Senator from 
Kentucky said earlier, that there are available health insurance 
programs in every county of every State. Certainly, one thing we can do 
is make sure that a public option is there for everyone if they choose 
it--something that looks like Medicare.
  People respect Medicare. Medicare is a great program for millions of 
Americans who are seniors and disabled. Why wouldn't we create a 
program like Medicare--a not-for-profit, government-operated program 
like Medicare for people who wish to have it? Those who don't can stick 
with private insurance if that is their choice, but I believe more and 
more people will move toward the Medicare option. That is something I 
would like to put on the table in reforming the Affordable Care Act.
  Secondly, we need to address the cost of pharmaceutical drugs in 
America. The costs are out of control.
  This week I received a publication from the AARP, the American 
Association of Retired Persons, and they are talking about what is 
happening to pharmaceutical prices across America. You don't have to 
tell seniors or those who buy prescription drugs what the reality 
happens to be.
  Let me give you a few numbers to demonstrate why we need to have a 
new program to make sure drug prices don't go out of control. According 
to AARP, Americans spent $457 billion on prescription drugs in 2015, up 
about 8 percent over the previous year--$457 billion. The rise in 
prices for the most popular brand name drugs from 2008 to 2016 is over 
200 percent. They have more than doubled in that 8-year period of time 
for the most popular drugs.
  The median salary of a pharmaceutical firm's CEO in 2015 was $14.5 
million, more than any other industry; $6.4 billion is the amount drug 
companies spend advertising directly to consumers in the U.S. annually; 
$24 billion is the amount drug companies spend per year marketing to 
doctors. We are one of only two nations in the world that allows direct 
consumer advertising. Think about what that means.
  When you see all these ads on television for drugs with names you 
can't pronounce, why are they doing it? It is because the drug 
companies know that consumers across America will write down the name 
of the drug and go ask the doctor to prescribe it. Many times, the 
doctor, rather than debate the issue with the patient or suggest they 
don't need it or should use a generic, will just write out the 
prescription. What happens? More expensive drugs get into the system, 
raising the cost of healthcare, raising the cost of premiums for health 
insurance. It doesn't make us healthier; it just means healthcare is 
more expensive.
  I love to listen to the warnings on these drugs that go on and on and 
on. One of my favorites was this: Be sure and tell your doctor if you 
have had a liver transplant. I am thinking to myself, yeah, I think I 
would probably mention that somewhere along the way to a doctor.
  These warnings should give us fair warning that this is inflating the 
cost of healthcare across America. It is not making us healthier, and 
it is running up profits dramatically for pharmaceutical companies. Why 
is it that exactly the same drugs made in the United States sell for a 
fraction of their cost in America in places like Canada and Europe? It 
is a legitimate question. We ought to address it. Do we have the 
political nerve to do it? I hope so, as part of the Affordable Care Act 
reform. I hope we sit down and do something on a bipartisan basis to 
deal with the challenges we face, but first, take repeal off the table.
  Let's make the Affordable Care Act stronger. Let's do it on a 
bipartisan basis. Let's set out to come up with a solution that doesn't 
do what the House version did, which could eliminate health insurance 
for millions of people across America and a million people in my State 
of Illinois.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Democratic leader is 
recognized.


               President's Meeting With Russian Officials

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, by now we have all had the chance to read 
the report in the Washington Post that alleges stunning behavior on the 
part of the President in a meeting with the Russian Ambassador and 
Russian Foreign Minister.
  According to the report, the President revealed classified 
information about a terrorist threat to officials of a foreign 
government. The President didn't share it with just any government; the 
report states he shared it with the Russian Government, a global 
adversary that has violated the sovereignty of peaceful nations, 
propped up dictators and human rights abusers, including Iran and 
Syria, and has been widely proven to have interfered in our elections 
and the elections of our allies in Europe.
  If this report is indeed true, it would mean that the President may 
have badly damaged our national security, nothing less, and in several 
ways. First, the act of a disclosure of this type could threaten the 
United States' relationships with allies that provide us with vital 
intelligence and could result in the loss of this specific intelligence 
source.
  We rely on intelligence from our allies to keep America safe. America 
can't have eyes and ears everywhere. If our allies abroad can't trust 
us to keep sensitive information close to the vest, they may no longer 
share it with us. That undermines key relationships and, even more 
importantly, makes us less safe.
  Second, if accurate, such a disclosure could damage our interests in 
the Middle East. We do not collaborate with Russia in Syria or 
elsewhere in the Middle East for the simple fact that we have diverging 
interests. Russia, for example, has worked with Iran to prop

[[Page 7783]]

up the brutal Assad regime. Sharing vital intelligence with Russian 
officials could allow the Russians to pursue or even possibly eliminate 
the source or figure out how the ally conducts operations, including 
any against Russia or Russia's allies in the region.
  Third, if the report is true, the President's alleged carelessness 
with classified information will further damage the relationship 
between the White House and the intelligence community--an essential 
relationship for the security of America. The intelligence community 
needs to be able to trust the President and trust that he will treat 
classified information with caution and with care. Our intelligence 
professionals put their lives on the line every day to acquire 
information that is critical to our national security and critical to 
keeping Americans safe. They have done a very good job.
  If the reporting is accurate, in one fell swoop, the President could 
have unsettled our allies, emboldened our adversaries, endangered our 
military and intelligence officers the world over, and exposed our 
Nation to greater risk.
  Given the gravity of the matter, we need to be able to quickly assess 
whether this report is true and what exactly was said. So I am calling 
on the White House to make the transcript of the meeting with the 
Russian Foreign Minister and Ambassador available to the congressional 
Intelligence Committees as soon as possible. The White House should 
make the transcript of the meeting available immediately to the 
congressional Intelligence Committees. If the President has nothing to 
hide, he should direct that the transcript of the meeting be made 
available.
  The Members who sit on those committees have the necessary clearances 
to review the transcript and any related summary of the President's 
meeting with the Russians. I agree with the senior Senator from Maine 
that this briefing should happen immediately. Those committees would be 
able to help establish the facts before we grapple with the potential 
consequences.
  Last night, the administration issued several overlapping denials. 
Some questioned the overall veracity of the account. Some took pains to 
specifically deny certain accusations but not others. This morning, the 
President tweeted a version of events that undercut his advisers' 
carefully worded denials and seems to confirm the reports that he had 
shared the information in question.
  Following so closely after Mr. Comey's firing, which was rationalized 
to the press and the American public in several different ways over the 
course of a week, this administration now faces a crisis of 
credibility. The President has told us that we cannot take at face 
value the explanations of some of his key advisers, but the events of 
the past week have taken this to an untenable extreme. The timelines 
and rationales in the administration contradict one another. The truth, 
as it were, sits atop shifting sands in this administration.
  We need the transcripts to see exactly what the President said, given 
the conflicting reports from the people in the room. Producing the 
transcripts is the only way for this administration to categorically 
prove the reports untrue.
  Mr. President, there is a crisis of credibility in this 
administration which will hurt us in ways almost too numerous to 
elaborate. At the top of the list is an erosion of trust in the 
Presidency and trust in America by our friends and allies. The 
President owes the intelligence community, the American people, and the 
Congress a full explanation. The transcripts, in my view, are a 
necessary first step. Until the administration provides the unedited 
transcript, until the administration fully explains the facts of this 
case, the American people will rightly doubt if their President can 
handle our Nation's most closely kept secrets.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority whip.


                          National Police Week

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I noted yesterday that this week we 
celebrate National Police Week. In particular, we recognize and 
remember those law enforcement officers who have paid the ultimate 
price and sacrificed their lives to protect the communities in which 
they serve. Yesterday, I had the chance to speak about Javier Vega, 
Jr., a Border Patrol agent who served in South Texas and was tragically 
killed by two illegal immigrant criminals.
  Today, I want to talk about the attack on law enforcement officers in 
Dallas almost a year ago. Last July, about 800 people gathered in 
downtown Dallas for a peaceful march. Given the size of the event, 
dozens of law enforcement officers were on hand to protect the 
protesters so they could exercise their fundamental constitutional 
right. Before 9 p.m., the event had been going very well, by any 
standard. There wasn't any violence reported in the crowd, even though 
some similar events across the country hadn't been as calm. But in 
Dallas, it was clear that there existed a mutual respect between the 
citizens protesting and law enforcement. There were even social media 
posts of protesters embracing police officers in a show of solidarity 
and friendship.
  Unfortunately, the night would soon be robbed of any enduring image 
of that sort of positive scene. A man--someone who came that night 
explicitly to target law enforcement officers--opened fire, killing 
five officers and wounding seven more--the deadliest day for American 
law enforcement since 9/11. The officers who lost their lives that 
day--Brent Thompson, Patrick Zamarippa, Lorne Aherns, Michael Krol, and 
Michael Smith--will not be forgotten. They, like the other officers on 
duty that night--many of whom were injured by the gunmen--didn't look 
the other way or run the other way when the violence erupted. Like the 
heroes they are, they ran to the danger, not away from the gunshots and 
the uproar. They, like law enforcement officers across the country, 
weren't about to shy away from doing their job, even if that meant 
putting their own lives on the line.
  So today, I want to commend the men and women of the Dallas police 
force, a group of men and women with incredible courage and unflinching 
valor in the face of danger. This Police Week I am particularly 
grateful to them and to the officers and first responders all over the 
State of Texas and all around our Nation who count the costs and choose 
to serve their communities day after day, often with little thanks or 
recognition.
  As I said last summer, it shouldn't take an event of this scale to 
jolt our consciences into action. As legislators, we have tremendous 
opportunities to better support our men and women in blue who risk 
their lives to protect ours. We have a duty to do all we can to keep 
them safe and to keep our society safe and peaceful. So as we celebrate 
Police Week, I hope we can each do our part to better support the men 
and women serving in law enforcement.
  Later today, Mr. President, I plan to introduce a piece of 
legislation called the Back the Blue Act, along with Senator Cruz and 
Senator Tillis. This is legislation that makes clear our support for 
these public servants who spend their lives protecting us and serving 
us. The Back the Blue Act would create a new Federal crime for killing 
or attempting to kill a Federal judge, a law enforcement officer, or a 
federally funded public safety officer. It would create a new crime for 
assaulting a law enforcement officer, as well.
  There is no justification--none at all--for attacking a police 
officer. It is an act of anarchy to attack the very people who help 
keep our society safe and protected.
  We need to know and need to show that we value their lives, and we 
need to make it absolutely clear that we will hold those who carry out 
crimes against our police officers accountable. The Back the Blue Act 
sends that message loud and clear.
  I think it is important to point out that this legislation would also 
help make our communities stronger by allowing grant funds to be used 
for efforts to help foster more trust between police and the 
communities they protect. This bill would better serve the

[[Page 7784]]

men and women who work tirelessly in our communities every day. So I 
would hope our colleagues would join me in supporting it.
  We can do more to protect and support our law enforcement officers, 
and we can start with the Back the Blue Act to do just exactly that.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Perdue). The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I would like to commemorate National 
Police Week and the lives and sacrifices of two extraordinary 
Massachusetts law enforcement officers who fell in 2016: Thomas Clardy, 
a trooper with the Massachusetts State Police, and Ronald Tarantino, a 
police officer with the Auburn Police Department. Their names will be 
inscribed on the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial here in 
Washington, DC, in honor of their service.
  By the end of this year, more than 21,000 names will be on that wall. 
We will never forget their service and sacrifice to our communities and 
to our country. With the help of the National Law Enforcement Officers 
Memorial Fund, we pledge to their families and loved ones that they 
will have the support and resources they need.


                         Firing of James Comey

  Mr. President, I rise to speak about President Trump's firing of FBI 
Director James Comey. In and of itself, this action by President Trump 
is seismic and has shaken the very foundation of our government and, I 
dare say, of our democracy. But just yesterday, the American people 
were also once again confronted by Presidential actions that raised 
both alarm and the need for investigation. In a new story, the 
Washington Post reported that President Trump revealed highly sensitive 
classified material to senior Russian officials during a meeting last 
week. According to the Post story, President Trump reportedly revealed 
information about ISIS that could compromise a partner country's key 
intelligence sources and enable Russia to, according to the story, 
``identify our sources and techniques'' for gathering intelligence.
  There could be no greater compromise of American security. The 
information that President Trump revealed was so sensitive that the 
United States had previously refrained from sharing it even with our 
allies.
  President Trump's decision to relay some of our most sensitive 
intelligence with representatives of the Russian Government betrays an 
astounding lack of judgment. By revealing what is called ``code-word'' 
information to Russia, President Trump may have compromised key 
intelligence sources, endangered the fight against ISIS, and undermined 
the trust of our international partners.
  While the President may have the authority to declassify U.S. 
intelligence, it is imperative to the safety of our military and 
intelligence personnel and those of our partners that he do so through 
a careful and deliberative process. There is no evidence that Donald 
Trump did that.
  Congress must immediately investigate this irresponsible action and 
take steps to ensure that President Trump does no additional damage to 
national security in his dealings with Russia. This dangerous behavior 
comes on the heels of the President's reckless decision to fire former 
FBI Director James Comey, pushing our country ever closer to a 
constitutional crisis. President Trump's firing of Mr. Comey is 
disturbingly reminiscent of Watergate's Saturday Night Massacre, when 
our Constitution was last subject to an executive-branch-induced stress 
test.
  Then, President Nixon fired the independent prosecutor, Archibald 
Cox, who was leading the investigation into the Watergate scandal and 
the Nixon campaign's involvement in it. Now President Trump has fired 
his FBI Director, who was leading the investigation into the Russian 
interference scandal and the Trump campaign's involvement in it. Mark 
Twain is purported to have said that history doesn't repeat itself, but 
it does tend to rhyme. Unfortunately, there is no humor in President 
Trump's actions.
  At first, we were supposed to believe that the President fired 
Director Comey because of the way he handled the investigation of 
Hillary Clinton's email server, which was unfair to her. That was what 
President Trump sent his staff out to tell the press and the American 
people. The official White House statement from Press Secretary Sean 
Spicer on May 9 said that President Trump acted based on the clear 
recommendation of both Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and 
Attorney General Jeff Sessions. That was a reference to the now-
infamous memorandum by Attorney General Sessions, prepared by Deputy 
Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, which cited Comey's ``handling of the 
conclusion of the investigation of Secretary Clinton's emails'' as the 
reason why the public purportedly had lost confidence in the FBI and on 
which Attorney General Sessions based his recommendation to the 
President that he fire Mr. Comey.
  On May 9, Counselor to the President Kellyanne Conway said that 
President Trump ``took the recommendation of his Deputy Attorney 
General, who oversees the FBI Director.'' Then on May 10, Deputy White 
House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said that the President 
``took the recommendation seriously. And he made a decision based on 
that.'' Even Vice President Pence said that President Trump's decision 
to fire Comey was based on the Rosenstein memo.
  So the American people were being told to believe that President 
Trump took the unprecedented step of firing the FBI Director in the 
midst of an investigation of the Trump campaign because James Comey was 
too hard on Hillary Clinton. That simply didn't pass the laugh test. 
Who can forget that Candidate Trump repeatedly called her ``crooked 
Hillary Clinton'' throughout the campaign? Who can forget that 
Candidate Trump applauded Director Comey for the way he handled the 
Clinton investigation? At the end of October 2016, just days before the 
election and after Comey had reopened the Clinton email investigation, 
Trump said that Comey had ``guts'' and had ``brought back his 
reputation.''
  But it took only 1 day after Mr. Comey's firing for President Trump 
himself to admit that reason was utterly false. In an interview 
President Trump said that Rosenstein ``made a recommendation, but 
regardless of recommendation I was going to fire Comey, knowing there 
was no good time to do it.''
  So much for the Rosenstein memo. So much for the White House press 
statement. So much for what Kellyanne Conway said. So much for the 
words of the Vice President of the United States. If that admission 
wasn't enough, President Trump went on to tell everyone what was on his 
mind when he made that decision. Here is his quote:

       And, in fact, when I decided to just do it, I said to 
     myself, I said, ``You know, this Russia thing with Trump and 
     Russia is a made-up story. It's an excuse by the Democrats 
     for having lost an election that they should have won.''

  President Trump's statements about the Russia investigation are, of 
course, untrue. There is nothing made up about the conclusion of the 
intelligence community that Russia interfered with our election. The 
allegations of the Trump campaign's collusion with the Russians are 
serious. That is why the FBI and the House and Senate Intelligence 
Committees have been investigating them.
  So contrary to what White House senior administration officials and--
the President, in fact, admitted that he fired the Director of the FBI 
precisely because he was overseeing an investigation of the Trump 
campaign and its ties to Russia. According to all of these various 
reports, the President did so just after Director Comey had gone to 
Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein and asked for more resources for the 
Russia investigation.
  The firing of James Comey now brings the number of law enforcement 
officials who were investigating the Trump campaign or his 
administration when they themselves were fired to three--first, 
Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara, then Deputy Attorney General 
Sally Yates, and now Director Comey.
  President Trump himself, in his termination letter to Comey, made no

[[Page 7785]]

mention of the Clinton email investigation but instead expressly linked 
the firing to the Russia investigation. Trump claimed that he fired 
Comey despite Comey having informed the President on three separate 
occasions that he was not under investigation--a claim that has not 
been substantiated.
  Here is the plain and simple truth: President Trump feared that the 
FBI investigation into his campaign's possible collusion with Russia 
was getting too close for comfort, so he fired Director Comey. Comey's 
firing could be nothing less than obstruction of justice masquerading 
as a personnel action. It is what impeding a Federal investigation 
looks like. It is what an assault on the rule of law looks like.
  If there is one lesson President Trump should have learned from 
Watergate, it is this: If you are under investigation, don't fire the 
investigator.
  But as disturbing as Mr. Comey's firing is, it gets worse. Days 
after, President Trump tweeted a veiled threat--one that smacked of 
witness intimidation. Here is the quote: ``James Comey better hope that 
there are no tapes of our conversation before he starts leaking to the 
press.'' Are there recordings? We don't know yet. But if there are, the 
White House and Justice Department must ensure that they are preserved.
  It is clear that President Trump did not learn any of the lessons of 
Watergate, which only underscores the need for a special prosecutor 
independent of the White House and Justice Department to get to the 
bottom of this. The role of a special independent prosecutor is to 
follow all of the facts wherever they lead. That individual needs to be 
as far away from the White House as possible.
  Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein should not be the one to appoint a 
special prosecutor. Just 3 weeks on the job, Mr. Rosenstein is now 
compromised by the questions swirling around his role in the Comey 
firing: Did Comey meet with Rosenstein and ask for more resources for 
the Russia investigation? Why did Rosenstein discuss the removal of 
Director Comey with Attorney General Sessions after Sessions had 
recused himself from the Russia investigation? Why didn't Rosenstein 
question Sessions's involvement?
  The magnitude of--the decision to appoint a special counsel in these 
circumstances cannot be made by a political appointee. Instead, I join 
Minority Leader Schumer's call that the appointment must be made by the 
highest ranking career civil servant in the Justice Department, someone 
insulated from politics and the White House. Until we have an 
independent special prosecutor appointed, we should not move forward 
with the confirmation of any replacement for James Comey as Director of 
the FBI.
  Additionally, Director Comey should come and testify before Congress, 
which both Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Burr and Vice 
Chairman Warner have already requested, clearly showing the bipartisan 
support for this. There are too many unanswered questions that only 
Director Comey can answer.
  Finally, while it has been announced that Deputy Attorney General 
Rosenstein will brief all Senators and answer their questions, we must 
still hear from Attorney General Sessions.
  We must not lose sight of the fact that a foreign power interfered in 
our last Presidential election and that the Trump campaign may have 
colluded with it to win the White House. This strikes at the heart of 
our government and our very democracy. Our elections must be fair and 
free of foreign interference. It is time for both Democrats and 
Republicans to put love of country ahead of party and to come together 
and demand the appointment of a special prosecutor who will investigate 
and follow the facts no matter where they lead.
  Mr. President, I would like to conclude my remarks today by 
expressing my opposition to the nomination of Jeffrey Rosen to be 
Deputy Secretary of Transportation. Mr. Rosen has a long history, both 
in government and in the private sector, of defending private industry 
against regulations designed to protect the American public. When he 
first worked for the Department of Transportation, he touted the fact 
that he was involved in ending or withdrawing 180 potential 
Transportation Department rulemakings.
  He has also been hostile to environmental regulations designed to 
protect our air and water. He opposed greenhouse gas emissions 
regulations in his role at the Office of Management and Budget and 
personally represented the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in attempting to 
undermine climate change science in order to fend off potential 
regulations. Mr. Rosen's firm represented the Alliance of Automobile 
Manufacturers and other auto groups against California over rules meant 
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase nonpolluting vehicles.
  I will vote no on Mr. Rosen's nomination because our automobile 
safety, environment, and clean energy future are just too important. I 
urge my colleagues to join me.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          Russia Investigation

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, last week, the American people were 
stunned by what we learned happened in the White House. We saw an 
alarming set of developments about how this President is handling the 
investigation into Russia's interference with our democracy.
  Last Monday, the Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony from 
Sally Yates, whom President Trump had asked to serve as Acting Attorney 
General when he was first sworn into office. Ms. Yates testified that 
soon after the inauguration, she twice visited White House Counsel Don 
McGahn to warn him about National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. She 
warned that General Flynn had been compromised by his secret 
communications with Russian Ambassador Kislyak and that General Flynn 
could be blackmailed.
  Ms. Yates first visited White House Counsel McGahn on January 26. 
McGahn invited her back to ask followup questions the following day, on 
January 27. Those followups included questions about General Flynn's 
potential criminal exposure.
  What else happened on January 27? The President of the United States 
brought in FBI Director James Comey for a one-on-one dinner, where he 
reportedly asked Director Comey for a pledge of loyalty. Is the timing 
of this Comey dinner curious? You bet it is. According to Press 
Secretary Sean Spicer, President Trump was briefed immediately by White 
House Counsel McGahn after Ms. Yates' warning. That means the President 
knew about the Justice Department's concerns with Flynn when he met 
Director Comey for dinner.
  Was the President's request for loyalty from Director Comey an 
attempt to impede the Justice Department's investigation into General 
Flynn? Was it an effort by the President to inoculate himself from 
Russia-related investigations? These are unanswered questions. But when 
Director Comey reportedly refused to swear his loyalty to President 
Trump, he apparently sealed his fate as Director of the FBI.
  Last Tuesday evening, President Trump fired Director Comey while 
Comey was giving a speech to FBI agents in Los Angeles. The reason? 
Well, on Thursday, the President made clear that the Russia 
investigation was on his mind when he fired Director Comey. He said to 
Lester Holt of NBC: ``When I decided to do it, I said to myself, you 
know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made up story.'' 
President Trump later said that the Russia investigation ``should be 
over with, in my opinion, should have been over a long time ago.'' 
Then, on Friday, the President found time to threaten Mr. Comey on 
Twitter, implying that he had taped their conversations and that he 
would release the tapes if Comey disclosed what he knew.
  Let's be clear. The President is in dangerous territory here. What 
the President is doing when it comes to potential obstruction of 
justice is similar

[[Page 7786]]

to a chapter in history many of us remember. On October 20, 1973, 
President Nixon fired special prosecutor Archibald Cox when his 
Watergate investigation got too close to the White House. That sparked 
a constitutional crisis in America.
  Now we have learned that President Trump has disclosed highly 
classified information to the Russian Foreign Minister and that same 
Ambassador, Kislyak. The Washington Post reported that the President 
specifically revealed extremely sensitive intelligence considered so 
sensitive that details were being withheld from America's allies and 
tightly restricted even within our own government. Last night, the 
White House denied this happened. This morning, however, President 
Trump confirmed in two separate tweets that the story was true.
  This kind of disclosure is what former Director Comey and just about 
every other congressional Republican described last year as ``extremely 
reckless'' in the handling of classified information. It jeopardizes 
critical intelligence sources in the fight against ISIL and the broader 
fight by America against terrorism.
  This morning, European officials reacted, told the Associated Press 
that at least one European country might stop sharing intelligence with 
the United States if this is how it is going to be treated. That is 
not, as the majority leader described it this morning, ``drama.'' This 
is a real consequence of a dangerous President putting American lives 
at risk. This is truly incredible and historic. It is a national 
security breach by the President of incredible proportions. How in the 
world can we trust the President to put the national security needs of 
the American people ahead of his own?
  There are a lot of parallels between the Watergate era and what we 
see today, but one major difference from the Nixon era to the Trump era 
is the willingness of Republicans in Congress to speak out against the 
abuse of power and to actually serve as a check on the Presidency. Back 
in Nixon's day, there were Republicans in Congress who were willing to 
speak truth to power, to say: Enough of the lies and damage to our 
democratic institutions, and to put the country ahead of party.
  Listen, in November of 1973, just a few weeks after the Saturday 
Night Massacre, Senator Edward Brooke of Massachusetts was one of the 
first Republicans to stand up and say he did not feel the country could 
``stand the trauma that it has been through for the past few months.''
  In July of 1974, Republican Congressman Lawrence Hogan of Maryland 
said:

       The evidence convinces me that my President has lied 
     repeatedly, deceiving public officials and the American 
     people. . . . Do we want to be the party loyalists who in 
     ringing rhetoric condemn the wrongdoings and scandals of the 
     Democratic Party and excuse them when they are done by 
     Republicans?

  On the same day, Republican Congressman William Cohen of Maine said:

       I have been faced with the terrible responsibility of 
     assessing the conduct of a President that I voted for, 
     believed to be the best man to lead this country, who has 
     made significant lasting contributions toward securing peace 
     in this country and throughout the world, but a President who 
     in the process, by act or acquiescence, allowed the rule of 
     law and the Constitution to slip under the boots of 
     indifference and arrogance and abuse.

  Republican Congressman from Virginia M. Caldwell Butler said:

       For years we Republicans have campaigned against corruption 
     and misconduct. . . . But Watergate is our shame.

  Republican Congressman Paul Findley of Illinois, whom I ran against 
when I first had the privilege to serve in the House and whom today I 
call a friend, said a month later:

       Hearings of the Judiciary Committee and developments in the 
     courts have, I believe, clearly established gross negligence, 
     maladministration and moral insensitivity on the part of the 
     President.

  That same month, Republican Senator Barry Goldwater from Arizona 
said:

       There are only so many lies you can take, and now there has 
     been one too many.

  In fact, at the same time, Senate Republicans nominated Goldwater to 
deliver a direct message to President Nixon. Goldwater, along with the 
House Republican leader, John Jacob Rhodes, and the Senate Republican 
leader, Hugh Scott, went to the White House, sat directly in front of 
President Nixon's desk, and explained that enough was enough.
  These courageous Republicans were, of course, talking about lies, 
corruption, the obstruction of justice, and a danger to our democratic 
system of government emanating from the Nixon White House. They took 
our oath of office to protect the Constitution against all enemies, 
foreign and domestic, and certainly above a party or short-term policy 
gain--they took it seriously, and to their courage, we and history owe 
them a debt of gratitude.
  So I ask today, amid a swirling and deeply troubling mix of lies--
nearly 500 in just the first 100 days of this new Presidency--
obfuscation, the withholding of information, attempts to interfere with 
Federal investigations regarding possible collusion with a foreign 
adversary, and thinly veiled threats against those involved in such 
investigations by our current President, where are the many Republican 
patriots who are ready to stand up against these troubling abuses and 
threats?
  It has now been more than 7 months since 17 of our intelligence 
agencies provided overwhelming evidence of a Russian attack on our 
democracy and an attempt to help elect someone seen as more favorable 
to their interests, not our interests. The evidence was damning and 
continues to emerge. Yet what has this Congress done during this same 
7-month period to uphold our oath to ``support and defend the 
Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and 
domestic''?
  Have congressional Republicans launched an independent investigation 
into this historic cyber act of war as we did after 9/11? 
Unfortunately, no.
  Have congressional Republicans retaliated against Russia for its 
actions by imposing sanctions or taking other actions, making sure its 
leadership knows it will pay a price for such attacks and think twice 
before doing so against the United States or at the expense of our 
allies? No.
  Have Republicans in Congress passed meaningful cybersecurity 
legislation to help protect America against future attacks and help any 
States that request help? No.
  Have Republicans demanded the appointment of a special prosecutor and 
insisted that the White House turn over all documents regarding the 
Trump campaign and ties with Russia, including potentially Russian 
intelligence? No.
  Have Republicans demanded that the President explain why he keeps 
denying Russia's attack on our election in the face of overwhelming 
evidence? No.
  In fact, has the majority party done anything to respond to, protect 
against, or even address these troubling attacks and refusals to 
cooperate from the White House? Sadly, no.
  Let me tell you what the majority party has found time to pursue 
during the 7 months after an attack on our Nation--a cyber act of war 
that will live in cyber infamy. Some of this you simply cannot make up.
  The Republican majorities in the House and in the Senate passed 
legislation making it easier to kill baby bear cubs and their mothers 
in their dens, making it easier to work with corrupt regimes overseas, 
making it harder for Americans to save for retirement, and they are 
trying to strip healthcare away from millions of Americans in order to 
pay for tax cuts for the wealthiest people in America.
  This is, quite simply, an abdication of the majority party's 
responsibility in Congress to address an attack by a foreign power on 
our Nation and investigate possible collusion by an erratic and 
sometimes deceptive White House.
  Let me close by asking my Republican colleagues, whom I know care 
very deeply about the Senate and our Nation, When will you speak up 
about the travesty unfolding? When will you take even a fraction of the 
action that would have most certainly occurred if these outrages had 
occurred under a Democratic President?
  We need Republicans in Congress to stand up and protect our 
democratic institutions and to support a special

[[Page 7787]]

prosecutor and an independent investigation into the Russian election 
interference now.
  I am hopeful some Republican Senators will have the courage to join 
us in calling for a special prosecutor. We need someone above politics 
and above the controversy whom we can trust to really pursue the facts 
and the evidence, wherever it may lead, to determine what we can do to 
protect America from another Russian attack in our next election and to 
hold Russia accountable for what we have been through. It is time to do 
this on a bipartisan basis. America is waiting.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Flake). If no one seeks recognition, time 
will be charged equally to both sides.
  The Senator from Louisiana.


                         Healthcare Legislation

  Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, it is fair to say that Americans are sick 
of partisanship when it comes to issues of greatest concern. They are 
asking, if you will, that we in the Senate put party behind us--behind 
the needs of the people. This is especially true when we are speaking 
of those issues of greatest importance, and I would argue that the 
replacement of the Affordable Care Act is one of those issues of 
greatest importance.
  Whatever the excuse, no Senator of either party should sit on the 
sidelines. This is such an important issue that every Senator, whatever 
her or his personal views, should be engaged.
  We know President Trump's principles, if you will. He laid them out 
time and again on the campaign trail. He wants to maintain coverage, 
lower premiums, care for those with preexisting conditions, and 
eliminate the ObamaCare mandates upon individuals and businesses.
  At his inauguration speech, he spoke of the forgotten man and of the 
forgotten woman. In fact, we can see that just before his inauguration, 
he emphasized that with what he said during the campaign:

       We're going to have insurance for everyone. There's a 
     philosophy in some circles that if you can't pay for it, you 
     don't get it. That is not going to happen to us.

  He also emphasized the quality of the care, saying that people 
covered under the law that he would propose to replace can expect to 
have great healthcare. ``It will be in a much simplified form. Much 
less expensive, much better,'' he said to the Washington Post just 
before he was sworn in. These are his principles.
  When he was sworn in and gave his inaugural address, speaking of the 
forgotten man and the forgotten woman, I cannot help but think that he 
was influenced as he went through counties seeing folks with terrible 
tales of their child dying from opioid addiction or their spouse unable 
to afford insurance under ObamaCare.
  I will point out that there is a huge dimension to this that we 
sometimes forget, but we should not. Senator Jerry Moran from Kansas 
made the point that healthcare is like no other issue. It is an issue 
which touches us most personally. I think President Trump saw that on 
the campaign trail. He saw the parent of an adult child with mental 
illness, and she could not get a psychiatric bed for her child. We know 
the fate of that child if he does not have the care he needs. He will 
end up either in a homeless shelter, a jail cell, or the morgue. That 
is the human dimension to this, and that is why we need to help 
President Trump fulfill his pledge.
  Voters understand what we are speaking of; they understand the 
importance of it. But let me speak just a little bit more to the 
politics of this because we cannot separate what we do here in 
Washington, DC, from politics.
  There are researchers from Princeton who recently published a report. 
If you look at White males and females between 18 and 54 who lack a 
college education, their life span is decreasing. Now, for Hispanics, 
African Americans, and other minorities, it is improving, but for this 
group, it is decreasing.
  I have seen data which shows that in the population centers of the 
United States in which this phenomenon is being most seen--these Whites 
from age 18 to 54, noncollege educated, their life span is decreasing--
the counties in which this effect is most seen were most likely to vote 
for Donald Trump. Think about the politics of this. The politics are 
that a group of folks who understand that their life is materially and 
physically declining, with higher rates of suicide, addiction, liver 
disease, and other chronic illness, ending in premature death, voted 
significantly more for the President who swore that he would remember 
them, who spoke of the forgotten man and the forgotten woman. His 
pledge to them was a lifeline. Their vote for him was a cry for help.
  This is not just a human dimension; there is a political dimension 
leading to a policy necessity.
  Let's stop for a second. There is a key issue of cost. We understand 
that the Affordable Care Act was too expensive. We can save money. But 
let's not fool ourselves; it is still going to cost. We can save the 
$150 billion or so that the House suggested we have to save. We know 
the rules the Senate has to address to save at least that much money. 
On the other hand, we know that Congress has mandated people can get 
care; therefore, if Congress mandates that folks get care, then 
Congress should help provide the means by which to pay for it.
  There are some who think, oh, my gosh, Congress does not need to 
provide for the money for care, and everything will be good. I am a 
physician. I have been in the emergency room at 2 in the morning, and 
at 2 in the morning, when those emergency room doors are open, whoever 
comes in is treated. She may have heart failure, he may have a drug 
overdose, they might be a schizophrenic, or they might be somebody 
vomiting blood. Each one of them receives all the care that he or she 
needs to stabilize their emergency condition. And if they have to be 
hospitalized--think of a car wreck with multiple traumas--and they are 
in the hospital for 4 months, they still get that care because Congress 
mandates that. But, if Congress does not provide the means to pay for 
it, the cost of that care is shifted not to government; the cost of 
that care is shifted to the privately insured. All of those getting 
their insurance through their employer begin to pay higher premiums--
much higher premiums. Somebody pays. And if we do not fulfill our 
obligation, after mandating that those patients get cared for--we, 
being Congress--then society pays, and society is the person struggling 
to make ends meet and now finds out from her employer that her premium 
has increased 20, 30, sometimes 50 percent--all because of the cost-
shifting that occurs.
  It is not just the group market. Under ObamaCare, we can see that in 
the individual market, premiums have skyrocketed. It is not that the 
Affordable Care Act is working so well. Last week I communicated with 
someone who lives in San Francisco, and she and her young family are 
paying $20,000 a year for a premium, $6,000 deductibles; none of them 
is sick, none of them will meet their deductibles, but living in a very 
expensive city, having to struggle to pay their mortgage, groceries, 
and transportation, now they have to come up with $20,000 to pay for 
their healthcare. That is all because of the Affordable Care Act.
  Then I spoke with a person in Washington, DC, and someone in 
Washington, DC--that person who is a consultant on insurance issues, 
knows insurance backward and forward, says that for his family, the 
premium is $24,000 a year, with a $13,000 family deductible. The 
insurance expert says: I will be out $37,000 in a single year before my 
insurance kicks in. Families cannot afford that.
  I will finish up lastly with a story from Louisiana. Folks never 
believe this because it seems too crazy, but I put it on my Facebook 
page. There is a couple back home, 60 and 61. They were quoted a 
premium of $39,000 for a premium of one year, with a deductible on top 
of that--$39,000. We can see that in the individual market, the 
Affordable Care Act is not working, it is becoming the un-Affordable 
Care Act. We have to address this.
  But let me say, we have to address it whether we are a Democrat or a 
Republican. We must respond to the cries for

[[Page 7788]]

help coming from those folks suffering from addiction, mental illness, 
heart failure, or any other chronic disease for which they do not have 
coverage, but also to the cries for help from middle-class families who 
cannot afford these premiums, and if they don't sacrifice something in 
the budget to pay for it, under the Affordable Care Act, they will be 
fined.
  Let's return to the political side. The political side is that I have 
voters back home asking why Republican Senators are not helping a 
Republican President fulfill his pledge--a pledge to all voters--but 
one that certain Republican voters specifically took to heart; that is, 
to fulfill his pledge of caring for those with preexisting conditions, 
continuing coverage, lowering premiums, and eliminating mandates.
  If you are a Democratic Senator, the forgotten woman and the 
forgotten man is in your State too. I can promise you, even if you are 
not a Republican but you are a Democrat, you have an opioid crisis in 
your State. So if we are now looking at addressing Medicaid expansion 
or the affordability of the individual market, and you are a Democratic 
Senator and you decide to sit on the sideline--if you are a voter in 
that State, you should be asking why.
  Let's face it. Speaking of my Democratic colleagues, many of you do 
not like President Trump. Some of you hate President Trump. Some of you 
like him, but you have to pretend that you hate him. Even though this 
is President Trump's pledge, this is not about President Trump. This 
about the voters--the patients, the people in our States who either 
cannot afford their insurance or who have an addiction or some mental 
illness or some other critical mental healthcare need that, if this 
ObamaCare replacement is not done well, will leave them far worse off.
  I have heard some of the excuses from my Democratic colleagues as to 
why they cannot participate. They say: Oh, we are using the word 
``repeal'' or, oh, we are not going through a normal committee 
process--oh, this, or oh, that. I concede it all. Who cares? If you are 
a voter right now, and your child is addicted to opioids, do you really 
care that there is a semantic issue regarding whether or not we are 
saying ``repeal'' or ``repair''? Do you really care that after 8 years 
of hearings, we don't have a few more hearings? Do you even understand 
the difference between reconciliation versus normal process? I would 
say no, because the principal thing that concerns you is that your 
child is desperate for help and you are not sure that the help will 
continue.
  So I say to my Democratic colleagues: Whatever the excuse, ignore the 
excuse, and please engage.
  Let me finish where I started. I think the average American right now 
wants every Senator, whether Republican or Democrat, to help President 
Trump fulfill his pledge to maintain coverage, lower premiums, and care 
for those with preexisting conditions, without mandates. Every Senator 
should listen to the American people as they ask us to put patients 
over party, to put the American people over partisanship.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time during quorum 
calls until 12:30 p.m. today be equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, 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. BLUNT. 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. BLUNT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a 
colloquy with my colleagues on the floor to talk about Police Week.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          National Police Week

  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, during this week, all across the country, 
people are honoring the men and women who serve as law enforcement 
officials. Clearly, they deserve and receive recognition every day for 
what they do, but this is an incredibly difficult job.
  Last night, I was with some of our officers from Missouri and with 
family members, and I said: A lot of times, it is easier for you to 
walk out the door than it is for your family to see you walk out the 
door, not knowing what you are going to face every day.
  When Senator Coons and I came to the Senate 7 years ago, we created 
and cochaired the Senate Law Enforcement Caucus. It is a privilege to 
be part of that and also to speak today on behalf of those who serve 
us.
  This is a week in which we take a moment to recognize the law 
enforcement officers who have lost their lives in the line of duty. 
Today, I want to pay tribute to three Missouri law enforcement officers 
who were killed in the line of duty this past year. Master Sergeant 
Carl T. Cosper of the Barry County Sheriff's Office was one of those, 
as were Officer Blake Curtis Snyder of the St. Louis County Police 
Department and Deputy Sheriff Paul Allen Clark of the St. Francois 
County Sheriff's Office.
  Just last month, Master Sergeant Cosper was killed in a vehicle 
collision while responding to a domestic disturbance call. He had 
served the Barry County Sheriff's Office for 10 years before that fatal 
accident.
  In October of 2016, Officer Blake Snyder was shot and killed while 
responding to a disturbance. He had served the St. Louis County Police 
Department for 4 years. He is survived by his wife and their 2-year-old 
son. I had a chance last night to visit with his wife again. Elizabeth 
and her brother Justin, also a police officer in St. Louis County, were 
here earlier this year to talk about police and families and what we 
need to do to really express our understanding of what those families 
go through, their strength and their reliance, both humbling and 
inspiring, and I am sure they are passing along those very values to 
Blake's 2-year-old son.
  In July of 2016, Deputy Sheriff Paul Clark died from complications 
related to injuries he sustained in October of 2015 when he was 
intentionally struck by a stolen vehicle near Desloge, MO. Deputy Clark 
had served the St. Francois County Sheriff's Department for 13 years 
and had previously served with the Park Hills Police Department for 5 
years. He is survived by his wife, two children, and by their 
grandchildren.
  All of these individuals are heroes, and our prayers remain with 
their families.
  Let me now turn to Senator Coons. As I said earlier, he and I founded 
the Law Enforcement Caucus when we came to the Senate. We try on a 
regular basis to have opportunities to talk about policing practices, 
family challenges, and mental health issues that police deal with every 
day. I turn to Senator Coons for some comments.
  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from the State of 
Missouri. Working with Senator Blunt, my cochair of the Law Enforcement 
Caucus, has been a terrific experience. We have had the opportunity 
over several years and several Congresses now for more than a dozen 
conversations, where we invite law enforcement leaders from around the 
country to talk about partnership between Federal, State, and local law 
enforcement, intelligence sharing, equipment issues, policy and 
operational issues to allow us to provide needed support for the men 
and women of law enforcement.
  It is my honor to join with several of my colleagues today to 
recognize the men and women of law enforcement as part of National 
Police Week. Together, we offer our gratitude and our support to the 
men and women of law enforcement and their families, who together 
support our communities.
  It is only May, and yet my home State of Delaware has already been 
reminded of the tremendous risks and great sacrifices made by law 
enforcement officers and their families.
  In February of this year, Lieutenant Steven Floyd of the Delaware 
Department of Correction was killed on the job in a prison riot in 
Smyrna, the Delaware correctional center. He was a 16-year veteran of 
the department and left behind his wife of 28 years, Saundra; his 
children, Candyss, Steven, Jr., and Chyvante; and two grandsons.

[[Page 7789]]

  Just last month, Corporal Stephen Ballard of the Delaware State 
Police was senselessly gunned down while investigating a suspicious 
vehicle. Corporal Ballard had served with the Delaware State Police for 
8\1/2\ years and left behind his wife Louise and his daughter Abigail.
  Delawareans are still grieving for the loss of both of these brave 
men in the line of duty.
  As we recognize the entire law enforcement community from across our 
country during National Police Week, we should honor their sacrifice by 
serving them as well as they serve us. This week and every week, we 
must do everything we can to honor our obligations to fallen heroes and 
their families.
  In the wake of these losses in Delaware, I am committed to continuing 
to work with my colleagues across the aisle and across the country, 
like Senators Klobuchar, Cornyn, and Senator Blunt, to make sure our 
officers have the resources they deserve to do their jobs and to come 
home safely at the end of every shift. That means continuing to 
champion programs like the Bulletproof Vest Partnership, which 
literally saves officers' lives. Delaware knows the importance of this 
long-running program all too well. Two of our Delaware Capitol Police 
officers who were shot in the line of duty survived due to bulletproof 
vests provided through this vital and ongoing Federal-State 
partnership.
  I will also continue to work here in the Senate with colleagues to 
reform the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Program to make sure the 
families of officers who lose their lives or are permanently disabled 
in the line of duty receive the benefits they deserve.
  Chairman Grassley, who has joined us here on the floor, is one of the 
lead cosponsors of this bill, along with Senators Hatch, Gillibrand, 
and Klobuchar--is one of many cosponsors. This is a bill that will take 
important steps in these reforms, and it is just one step away from 
passing the Senate, and my understanding is it could head to the House 
of Representatives as early as later today.
  Of course, our commitment to serving the men and women of law 
enforcement has to extend beyond the patrol car and the police station. 
Building and maintaining trust between law enforcement and the 
communities they serve is essential to preventing and reducing crime 
and keeping officers safe. That is why Senator Blunt and I have both 
taken steps to encourage the strategy of community policing, which 
helps officers do their job more effectively in partnership with local 
communities. We have also continued to support local officials who are 
working to bring Federal resources, expertise, and convening power to 
help strengthen the bonds between the police and the communities they 
serve.
  In light of all these important efforts, we can't let ideology or 
partisan politics in this Chamber prevent us from doing our job in 
support of law enforcement. We will fail those who serve us if we do 
so. We have to move forward in a bipartisan way to improve and invest 
in officer safety. That is why I am proud to stand with my colleague 
and partner from Missouri as cochairs of the Law Enforcement Caucus. 
The mission of this bipartisan group of Senators is simple: to bring 
law enforcement, community leaders, issue experts, and Republicans and 
Democrats together to share ideas and generate solutions to challenges 
facing State and local law enforcement. We have hosted more than a 
dozen briefings and events.
  Now more than ever, Senator Blunt and I are committed to this 
mission. We are on the floor today to honor women and men, like 
Corporal Ballard and Lieutenant Floyd from Delaware, who put on the 
uniform and the badge every day, not knowing whether they will come 
home at the end of their shift. We are here today for their families, 
whose sacrifice and burden are heavy.
  When I attended Corporal Ballard's moving memorial service earlier 
this month, the most powerful speaker among many was his widow, Louise. 
She stood up, stood tall, and with a smile on her face thanked the 
3,000 officers from 36 States across the country who had come to stand 
in solemn procession and honor Corporal Ballard's sacrifice and pay 
their respects.
  Louise Ballard said:

       This is my Stephen's victory, when I get to see men and 
     women from all over the country who every single day get up 
     and do a job. A job that's hard, a job that requires heart.

  Few jobs are as hard or require as much heart as patrolling the 
streets and protecting our communities.
  This week, together we honor the service and sacrifice of those law 
enforcement officers whose names have been added to the National Law 
Enforcement Officers Memorial this year and the hundreds of thousands, 
even millions, who even today, even tonight, will be on patrol keeping 
our communities and our families safe.
  Mr. President, I yield to the chairman of the Senate Judiciary 
Committee, my colleague from Iowa and partner in legislating in the 
interest of law enforcement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues from Missouri and 
Delaware for leading this effort to honor our law enforcement officers 
and particularly those who have been killed in the line of duty.
  In 1962, Congress passed a joint resolution proclaiming the week of 
May 15 as ``National Police Week.''
  The National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial, located here in 
Washington, DC, is our country's monument to these fallen officers. 
Carved into the marble walls of the memorial are the names of the more 
than 20,000 officers killed in the line of duty throughout our Nation's 
history. Every year, tens of thousands of fellow officers from around 
the world come to Washington, DC, as part of Police Week to pay tribute 
to the men and women whose names are inscribed on this wall.
  The planned events surrounding Police Week began with the 36th Annual 
National Peace Officers' Memorial Service, held on the west front of 
the U.S. Capitol. The President of the United States was the keynote 
speaker, and his presence was a testament to the fraternity of this 
noble profession. Immediately following the service, there was a 
wreath-laying at the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial. The 
annual memorial service is an opportunity for all Americans to reflect 
on the dedication of these public servants and the ultimate sacrifice 
they have paid for this great Nation.
  We should also acknowledge the families of the fallen, whose lives 
have been forever changed by the loss of their loved ones.
  During the memorial service, there was a Roll Call of Heroes for the 
143 law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty last year. 
Their names will adorn the memorial walls in perpetuity. The list of 
the fallen include five of my fellow Iowans: Sergeant Anthony Davis 
Beminio of the Des Moines Police Department; Officer Susan Louise 
Farrell of the Des Moines Police Department; Patrolman Justin Scott 
Martin of the Urbandale Police Department; Sergeant Shawn Glenn Miller 
of the West Des Moines Police Department; and Officer Carlos Bernabe 
Puente-Morales of the Des Moines Police Department.
  We honor these great heroes for laying down their lives to protect 
their communities in Iowa. There is no year in recent memory in which 
so many Iowans have lost their lives in the line of duty.
  I would like to specifically address the ambush-style killing of 
Sergeant Beminio and Officer Martin. These officers were heinously 
murdered by the same perpetrator on the same night while they sat in 
their patrol cars. While the exact motive of the killer is unknown, he 
nevertheless sought out these brave men and gunned them down in cold 
blood.
  These ambush-style attacks have become more prevalent since the 
incidents in Dallas, TX, and Baton Rouge, LA, spanning 10 days last 
July. According to a report by the National Law Enforcement Officers 
Memorial Fund, there were a total of 21 officers killed in ambush-style 
attacks just last year--the highest total in two decades.
  There has been much vitriol written and directed toward law 
enforcement

[[Page 7790]]

over the last few years. The notion that the actions of a few bad 
individuals implicate the entire profession may still, unfortunately, 
endanger public servants in the area of law enforcement.
  This sort of rush to judgment against all law enforcement officers 
ought to end and end right now. The men and women of law enforcement 
make great sacrifices every day to protect our families and, of course, 
all of our fellow citizens. They do so freely, not out of a sense of 
obligation but because they are dedicated to the cause of justice.
  Their devotion merits our attention, admiration, and we are deeply 
indebted to them. This is why today I am submitting a bipartisan 
resolution to commemorate Police Week and honor those who have given 
their lives in this pursuit. I thank my colleagues in the Senate who 
have cosponsored this resolution with me.
  I call on all Americans to remember the fallen and pay tribute to the 
sacrifices they have made. To quote the motto of the Fraternal Order of 
Police Auxiliary: ``Never Let Them Walk Alone.''
  I hope that during Police Week, the Senate will pass my legislation 
to reform the operations of the Public Safety Officers' Benefit 
Program. Delays in the award of benefits to the families of fallen 
officers have become intolerable, and those families deserve to know 
the status of their applications during the process.
  In addition, the Judiciary Committee has reported two other bills 
that I hope the Senate will take up during Police Week. One bill sets 
standards for the use of a new form of DNA evidence. The second makes 
an allowable use of COPS grants for recruiting and promoting of 
military veterans as police officers.
  Finally, during Police Week, my Judiciary Committee will report a 
bill that is designed to provide mental health services to police 
officers who live through and with enormous stress as they work to 
protect us.
  I am pleased to join with my colleagues in saluting the service of 
our law enforcement officers during Police Week.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, before we turn to Senator Cornyn, I want to 
mention his leadership in the National Criminal Justice Commission Act 
and also thank Senator Grassley for moving the Law Enforcement Mental 
Health and Wellness Act out of his committee this week. Those are two 
of the things we clearly can do that will make a difference to people 
in law enforcement and their families, and there has been no more 
strident advocate of families or those who serve in law enforcement 
than the Senator from Texas, Mr. Cornyn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I am delighted to be here during Police 
Week, along with our colleagues from Missouri, Delaware, Minnesota, and 
Iowa to celebrate the men and women in blue who put their lives at risk 
so that our communities can be safer, more stable, more prosperous 
places.
  I am reflecting this week on the terrible experience in Dallas, TX, 
about a year ago when Chief David Brown inspired the Nation with his 
response to the terrible tragedy there that took the lives of five 
Dallas police officers and injured seven more.
  Following the attack, Chief Brown made clear that if you want to see 
change or if you want to protest law enforcement, why not instead join 
their ranks and be a part of the solution. I am grateful to him for his 
encouragement of the young men and women who have many opportunities to 
serve their communities--many in uniform.
  The truth is, we can do a lot of good by inspiring confidence in law 
enforcement and showing our support for them. We saw what was referred 
to by the former Director of the FBI as the ``Ferguson effect,'' where, 
in fact, he said it was his view that many police officers were afraid 
of being criticized unjustly, so they withheld or were reticent in 
acting in the face of a criminal activity.
  We need to make sure that our law enforcement personnel know we are 
firmly behind them and we will always support them. As Chief Brown 
liked to point out, if somebody has crossed a line they should not 
cross, that is an appropriate subject for disciplinary action on a 
police force.
  There is never any excuse for assaulting a police officer. That is 
the thin blue line between us and anarchy in our society.
  I thank the Senator from Minnesota for working with me on the 
American Law Enforcement Heroes Act that the chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee just mentioned. This bill will help State and local law 
enforcement hire more veterans into their ranks. Obviously, that is 
relevant experience and training that can help our law enforcement 
departments across the country be better and take advantage of these 
great patriots who have now taken off one uniform to put on another.
  We know there are places in the country where, despite the best 
efforts of law enforcement, danger is spiking violent crime rates in 
some parts of the country due to dangerous criminals like the MS-13 
gang, a vicious gang from Central America that is wreaking havoc in 
parts of the country. We can't let our officers face these dangers 
without knowing we have their backs.
  I am delighted to be here with our colleagues celebrating National 
Police Week and making it clear to the men and women in blue that we 
unequivocally support them and stand by them and need to let all of our 
country men and women know that these are true American heroes who 
deserve our respect and support every day, not just during Police Week.
  I yield to our friend and our colleague from Minnesota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise with my colleagues today in 
recognition of Police Week. I thank Senator Blunt and Senator Coons for 
bringing us together, as well as Senator Grassley and Senator Cornyn.
  Law enforcement officers play a critical role in keeping our 
communities safe, and Police Week is all about honoring their 
dedication and sacrifice and, sadly for so many families, those 
officers who made the ultimate sacrifice. Our officers are on the 
frontlines of public safety, and while most people run away from crime 
scenes or run away from disaster, they run bravely toward it.
  In my State, we were reminded all too well of the courageous 
dedication of law enforcement just this last year when Jason Falconer, 
an off-duty police officer at a shopping mall spending his free time on 
his own, encountered a horrific scene of a man unhinged who was 
stabbing people in the St. Cloud shopping mall. Falconer didn't even 
pause. He made sure that he saved the people who were wounded; 10 were 
wounded that day. So many would have been killed if he had not 
intervened--an off-duty officer.
  I think about Officer Shawn Schneider, who is no longer with us, in 
Lake City, MN. I met with his family several times. This was a brave 
officer, a popular officer in a small community. One night he was 
called to the scene of a domestic abuse case. A young woman, scared, 
had called. He showed up at the door, and a man unhinged opened the 
door and shot and killed that officer.
  The story behind that officer and the people behind that officer are 
the ones who carry on his memory--his fellow officers, as we see this 
week during Police Week, his family, his widow, and their three 
children. I will never forget sitting in the pews of that church and 
hearing the story as those three little kids walked down the aisle. 
There were two young boys and a girl in a blue dress covered in stars. 
The story was that the last time the family had been in that church and 
the last time those children had been in that church was for the church 
nativity play, and their dad, Officer Schneider, was sitting there 
watching them with such pride. A few weeks later, there they were at 
his funeral.
  Those are the people we remember during this important week. Our job 
as U.S. Senators is to treat them in the way that they treat their 
jobs. They go to work every day without fear or

[[Page 7791]]

favor. That is what we have to do when we think about police officers.
  There are issues, as Senator Coons mentioned, we need to work on--
policies and the relationship between officers and our communities. We 
have to promote more community policing, more training, more 
recruiting. That is why I am very positive about these bills--the COPS 
bill I have with Senator Murkowski, where we finally have bipartisan 
sponsorship for grants that have now helped to place approximately 
129,000 police officers on the beat in more than 13,000 State, local, 
and Tribal law enforcement agencies.
  In that community I mentioned, St. Cloud, are the recipients of some 
of the grants we are talking about. That is why Senator Murkowski and I 
are taking on this issue, to make sure that this program continues to 
be funded and that, in fact, we reinforce the program.
  The bill Senator Cornyn just mentioned that we are leading together 
to promote the hiring of veterans as law enforcement officers would 
encourage local police departments to hire and train veterans as cops 
while providing our veterans with the opportunity to continue to serve 
their communities.
  Yes, we can do all we can to have the backs of our officers and to 
work with them and our communities, but what we are doing this week is 
something a little different. We honor them. We recognize their 
sacrifices, whether it is taking dangerous criminals off the street, 
whether it is preventing extremist groups from recruiting people in our 
neighborhoods, whether it is fighting the opioid abuse epidemic, 
whether it is simply giving a kid a second chance--and they do those 
kinds of things all the time.
  Law enforcement officers are doing some of the hardest and most 
important work out there. We owe our safety to them, and we thank them 
for their remarkable service.
  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, in conclusion, I thank my colleagues, 
Senators Klobuchar, Grassley, Cornyn, and Blunt, for joining us today 
in a colloquy on the floor. It is a small but important gesture of 
bipartisan support, sustained and long-lasting bipartisan support for 
the community of law enforcement that serves each of us and our 
communities every day.
  I wish to yield to my friend Senator Blunt for his closing remarks.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I thank Senator Coons.
  The pieces of legislation to support officers and their families are 
wide ranging, even legislation to be voted out of the Judiciary 
Committee today. It was exactly 1 year ago today that President Obama 
signed the Fallen Heroes Flag Act into law. This is a bill that I 
introduced along with my colleague that provides that American flags be 
flown over the U.S. Capitol and given to the families of firefighters, 
law enforcement officers, and other first responders who lose their 
lives in the line of duty.
  As Senator Klobuchar so well pointed out, these are the people who 
run to danger when the rest of us are able to head the other way. We 
are grateful to them and grateful for them.
  Mr. President, I think we will yield the floor with great 
appreciation for the law enforcement officers who are being recognized 
this week. There are still too many names that Senator Grassley 
mentioned who will be added to the over 20,000 officers who have lost 
their lives in the line of duty since the country was founded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.


                           Order of Procedure

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time 
from 2:15 p.m. until 5:15 p.m. today be equally divided in the usual 
form; and that at 5:15 p.m., all postcloture time be expired and the 
Senate vote on the Rosen nomination; that if the nomination is 
confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon 
the table, and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's 
action, and the Senate resume consideration of the Brand nomination; 
further, that notwithstanding rule XXII, the cloture vote on the Brand 
nomination occur at 12 noon on Wednesday, May 17; and that if cloture 
is invoked, the time count as if it were invoked at 1 a.m. on 
Wednesday; finally, that if cloture is invoked on the Brand nomination, 
the cloture vote on the Branstad nomination occur following disposition 
of the Brand nomination; and that if cloture is not invoked on the 
Brand nomination, the cloture vote on the Branstad nomination occur 
immediately following the failed cloture vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Young). The Senator from New Mexico.


                          National Police Week

  Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, it is an honor to join my colleagues. I 
know Senator Coons and others have come together as a bipartisan group 
to talk about fallen police officers.
  It is with my greatest respect and deepest sympathy that today I 
honor five fallen New Mexico heroes on the floor of the Senate. These 
five brave men were police officers who died in the line of duty. 
Police officers who sacrificed their lives in service to the people of 
their communities and our State.
  Police Officer Jose Ismael Chavez was a member of the Hatch Police 
Department. While conducting a traffic stop in Hatch on August 12, 
2016, one passenger exited and opened fire on Officer Chavez. Officer 
Chavez is survived by his wife and two children.
  Secondly, Police Officer Clint E. Corvinus of Alamogordo was part of 
the Alamogordo Police Department and was shot while pursuing a 
suspected felon on foot in Alamogordo on September 2, 2016. Officer 
Corvinus is survived by his daughter.
  Deputy Sheriff Ryan Sean Thomas of the Valencia County Sheriff's 
Department was responding to a call for service on December 6, 2016, 
when his patrol car left the roadway between Los Lunas and Belen, and 
overturned. He was ejected from his car. He is survived by his wife, 
daughter, and a baby boy after he died.
  Sheriff Steven Lawrence Ackerman, of the Lea County Sheriff's 
Department, was killed in a single vehicle crash near Encino on January 
17, 2017. Sheriff Ackerman had served with the Lea County Sheriff's 
Department for 14 years and previously with the Lea County Detention 
Center for 12 years. He is survived by his wife, daughter, son, and 
grandson.
  Police Officer Houston James Largo, of the Navajo Tribal Police, was 
shot while responding to a domestic violence call near Prewitt, NM. He 
passed away the next day on March 12, 2017. He was only 27 years old.
  There are no words to express the sadness or the gratitude we all 
feel toward these New Mexico officers and their families and toward all 
police officers who are killed in the line of duty. We honor them all 
this Police Week and by legislation we introduced last week in the 
Senate to extend flying the flag half-staff for the first responders. 
We will push to give first responders the respect they are owed by 
passing the Honoring Hometown Heroes Act.
  Every day, tens of thousands of policemen and policewomen serve our 
communities in myriad ways, from tracking down violent criminals to 
finding shelter for homeless persons. The police and their families 
deserve our respect, gratitude, and support every day.
  I thank you, Officer Chavez, Officer Corvinus, Deputy Sheriff Thomas, 
Sheriff Ackerman, and Officer Largo, from the bottom of my heart and 
with sincere appreciation.


                          Russia Investigation

  Mr. President, the White House and President Trump face yet another 
crisis--perhaps the biggest in his chaotic term so far. According to 
the Washington Post and other outlets, President Trump disclosed highly 
classified information to the Russian Foreign Minister and Russian 
Ambassador to the United States in the Oval Office last week. This is 
utterly stunning.
  Congress needs to find out exactly what happened, on a bipartisan 
basis, but we can tell already that President Trump's behavior in this 
incident is very dangerous. It is dangerous to our national security 
institutions, dangerous to the men and women overseas who are serving 
their country and risking their lives. Many other outlets

[[Page 7792]]

have confirmed the Washington Post article, and they have cited several 
sources.
  Assuming it is true, the President has endangered our relationship 
with a partner who gave our security agencies this information. That 
has ripple effects that will risk similar relationships with other 
countries. It also could put our sources at risk.
  While his national security team denied the news reports this 
morning, the President was on Twitter contradicting them. He claims he 
has the right to tell the Russian Foreign Minister anything he wants. I 
can't think of any parallel in history for the President's dangerous 
lack of discretion or his dangerous misunderstanding of how to handle 
classified national security information.
  As the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator 
Corker put it this way: The White House is in a ``downward spiral,'' 
and he said it needs to get it ``under control.'' Senator Corker is a 
senior Republican. I know the Presiding Officer and I serve with him on 
the Foreign Relations Committee. He is a man I respect very much, and I 
hope the White House will listen to Chairman Corker.
  It is very strange that the President chose to meet with the Russian 
Ambassador at the center of the Trump campaign's contacts to Russia or 
to allow the Russian press with their electronic equipment into the 
meeting at the Oval Office, but let's put these strange and dangerous 
events in the context of the last several weeks and months.
  America's intelligence agencies have concluded that Russia interfered 
in the U.S. election and that they favored the Trump campaign. Now the 
President is hosting senior Russian officials in the Oval Office and 
disclosing highly classified information--information that puts future 
intelligence and maybe lives at risk.
  The day after he fired the FBI Director, President Trump admitted on 
camera to NBC News that he did so in part because he is frustrated at 
the FBI's investigation into Russian interference and potential Trump 
campaign contacts. Congress must get to the bottom of this. Republicans 
and Democrats must come together for real oversight. Based on what I 
see now, President Trump's actions call into question his fitness for 
office and further underscore the imperative for independent 
investigations.
  It is not an exaggeration to say our Nation faces a constitutional 
crisis. Our Constitution is based on rule of law. In the United States, 
no man or woman is above the law, not even the President of the United 
States. Our constitutional democracy is remarkable for many reasons. 
One is that Presidential action has threatened the fabric of our 
democracy only a few times in our history. President Nixon's Watergate 
scandal was one of them, and I believe we face another one today.
  President Trump's firing of the FBI Director in the middle of an 
investigation into the campaign that put him in office and the 
President's bizarre behavior since should concern all Americans 
regardless of party. The only rational explanation is that he has 
something to hide, that he wants to disrupt the investigation into 
Russia's interference in our election. What possible reason could the 
President have for wanting to hinder this investigation? It should be 
his highest priority to ensure it never happens again. Instead he calls 
it ``fake news.''
  Now, here is what we know. Early in the new administration, the White 
House Chief of Staff asked the FBI to publicly disavow reports that the 
FBI was investigating Trump campaign ties to Russia. This attempted 
political interference was wrong.
  The White House next set its sight on House Intelligence Committee 
chair Devin Nunes, who was investigating Russian interference in the 
election. Representative Nunes made midnight runs to the White House to 
view documents that he said validated the President's claims that he 
was wiretapped.
  While the information did not ultimately prove that, Representative 
Nunes still chose to go public with classified information before 
discussing it with his committee. This was circus-like behavior, which 
ultimately forced Representative Nunes to recuse himself from the 
committee's investigation. But it was also serious. It showed that the 
White House was willing to go to great lengths to interfere with the 
House investigation into the President.
  Next, the President fired Acting Attorney General Sally Yates. At the 
time, he claimed it was for refusing to defend his Executive order 
barring Muslims from the country. In the end, her analysis was correct. 
The Federal courts found the order to be unconstitutional. We now know 
that Ms. Yates was fired just days after notifying the White House that 
then-National Security Advisor Flynn had lied about his conversations 
with the Russian Ambassador.
  She had told the White House that Flynn's own conduct ``in and of 
itself was concerning.'' She warned that the President's chief advisor 
on matters of national security was susceptible to blackmail by Russia. 
It still took the President 18 days to fire Flynn. As Ms. Yates put it, 
``to state the obvious, you don't want your national security advisor 
compromised with the Russians.''
  Now, the President has fired FBI Director James Comey. It defies 
reason to believe that President Trump fired Mr. Comey because he was 
too hard on Secretary Clinton. We give the FBI Director a 10-year term 
so that he or she can do the job free from political interference and 
follow any investigation wherever it may lead, even into the Oval 
Office. A deluge of evidence has pointed to the conclusion that the 
President fired Director Comey for similar reasons as Sally Yates--
because he was unhappy with the FBI probe of Russian election 
interference and possible ties to the Trump campaign.
  It has been reported that Director Comey had sought additional 
resources for the investigation and was receiving daily briefings on 
the investigation days before he was fired. The U.S. attorney's office 
in Virginia had also issued grand jury subpoenas to persons with 
knowledge of Flynn's ties with Russia and Turkey. Well-sourced media 
reports say the President had become increasingly angry with Director 
Comey's public statements about the FBI's investigation of him and 
because Mr. Comey would not confirm the President's baseless claims 
that the President Obama administration wiretapped Trump Tower.
  The President understood that Director Comey would not do his bidding 
and so he fired him. Still, the White House has flatly lied about the 
circumstances of Mr. Comey's dismissal. Numerous White House officials, 
including the Vice President himself, said the decision was at the 
recommendation of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. They have 
said this publicly on the record and on camera.
  But President Trump himself contradicted them. He said again on 
camera that he had already decided to fire Director Comey before 
receiving the Deputy Attorney General's recommendation. He made clear 
that he was frustrated with the continuing counterintelligence probe 
into Russia's election influence. He was upset with Mr. Comey's 
testimony before Congress.
  The White House also claimed that Director Comey had lost confidence 
at the FBI. But in a public hearing last week, my colleague and Senator 
from New Mexico, Mr. Heinrich, asked the FBI's Acting Director if that 
was true, and the Acting Director strongly denied it. It has been well 
reported that the Deputy Attorney General threatened to resign based on 
the White House claims that Mr. Rosenstein advocated for firing 
Director Comey.
  It seems clear that he was told to draft the cover story for the real 
reason. His memo was short and is dated the same day as the firing.
  Now, on what may be the worst development so far, the President of 
the United States is threatening on Twitter to release ``tapes'' of Mr. 
Comey. He is implying, not confirming, that he has tapes of their 
conversations and that he will release them if Mr. Comey talks to the 
press and the public.
  Mr. Comey knows he is well within his rights to speak publicly as 
long as

[[Page 7793]]

he does not reveal classified information. The President's comment is 
another example of interference. A sitting President is seeking to 
pressure a fired FBI Director against speaking out publicly, a man who 
is likely to be a witness before Congress.
  Mr. Comey reportedly would like to testify in an open hearing. 
Apparently, he doesn't have anything to hide. We need to hear his 
testimony as soon as possible. Let's find out if President Trump 
demanded the FBI Director's loyalty. If the President does have tapes 
of their conversations, he should release them, or we need to subpoena 
them. But let's get to the bottom of this.
  At this point, there is more than probable cause to believe that the 
President is attempting to obstruct the FBI and congressional 
investigations. President Trump seems to put himself above the law. 
Firing the FBI Director and the Acting Attorney General and interfering 
with a congressional investigation are actions of an autocrat. As a 
former assistant U.S. attorney and attorney general for New Mexico, I 
have some experience with investigations. When someone interferes with 
ongoing investigations, it seems clear that they have something to 
hide. That is not the behavior of an innocent person.
  Make no mistake, Russia's interference in our democratic process is 
an attack upon our Nation. If the President or his associates colluded 
in any way with Russia in this attack, it would represent the most 
serious betrayal of our Nation by a President. While there are rarely 
exact parallels in history, the parallel between Nixon's Saturday Night 
Massacre and President Trump's Tuesday Night Massacre is hard to 
ignore.
  Nixon's firing of the man heading the investigation into his actions 
led to his impeachment and resignation. Recall that the first article 
of impeachment was obstruction of justice. At that point in our 
history, both Congress and the Supreme Court stood resolute that the 
President was not above the law. Congress must again stand resolute 
that the President is not above the law. It is well past time for 
Congress to appoint an independent commission like the 9/11 commission.
  It must investigate every aspect of Russia's interference with our 
election and recommend steps to ensure it never happens again. It must 
investigate whether Candidate Trump or his associates colluded with 
Russia to interfere with our Presidential election. Congress must do so 
swiftly and must give the commission sufficient resources to do the 
job.
  The Attorney General is compromised. He has recused himself from any 
investigation into the Trump campaign. But I believe he violated the 
terms of his recusal when he weighed in on Director Comey's 
termination. Several of us will be sending a letter this week to the 
Justice Department inspector general asking him to investigate this 
specific issue.
  Now the President is about to nominate a new FBI Director, presumably 
one he believes will be less independent than Director Comey, one who 
will not pursue the Russia investigation if it points to his campaign.
  Given these circumstances, Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein must 
appoint a special counsel to conduct a counterintelligence 
investigation into Russia's role in our election and, if necessary, a 
criminal investigation into the conduct of the Trump campaign and the 
administration. A special counsel must be appointed before we consider 
a new nominee for FBI Director.
  That nominee needs to be closely scrutinized by the Senate. We need a 
Director who is nonpartisan and has a law enforcement background. This 
person will be responsible for restoring Americans' confidence in the 
FBI and ensuring that he or she does not pledge loyalty to the 
President but pledges loyalty to the Constitution.
  The majority in Congress must listen to the American public, must 
follow the lessons of history, and must protect the rule of law and our 
Constitution.
  In the United States, no person is above the law, not even--and 
especially--the President of the United States. In my career in 
Congress, I have always believed you put the country first. Party comes 
last. In their hearts, I know my Republican friends and colleagues feel 
the same. Congress and the Senate need to fulfill the roles the 
Founding Fathers envisioned: When the executive branch is moving 
outside the bounds of the rule of law, we must rein it in.
  It is well past time for action.

                          ____________________