[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 7860-7890]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

                           EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the Brand 
nomination, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant bill clerk read the nomination of Rachel L. Brand, of 
Iowa, to be Associate Attorney General.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 12 
noon will be equally divided in the usual form.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The Democratic leader is recognized.


                Thoughts and Prayers for Senator Tillis

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I just heard that our friend and 
colleague from North Carolina has collapsed during a race in DC and is 
receiving medical attention. Until we hear further news, our hearts 
will be in our mouths, hoping for the best. Our thoughts and prayers, 
as a Senate family, are with the junior Senator from North Carolina and 
his family.


                          Russia Investigation

  Mr. President, on a different subject, the events of the last 2 weeks 
have shaken my confidence in this administration's competence and 
credibility. There has been revelation after revelation, allegation 
after allegation of misconduct on the part of the President and his 
team. In the past 2 days, it has reached new heights.
  The President, according to reports in the Washington Post and the 
New York Times, may have divulged classified information to a known 
adversary and actively tried to quash an investigation of a close 
political ally.
  From the President's own words, we already know that the Russia 
investigation was on his mind when he fired Mr. Comey. We now know it 
may not have been the first time the President has taken an action to 
impede an active investigation of his campaign or associates, if the 
reports in the New York Times are true.
  Concerns about our national security, the rule of law, the 
independence of our Nation's highest law enforcement agencies are 
mounting in this land. The stated explanations for these events from 
the White House have been porous, shifting, and all too often 
contradictory.
  The country is being tested in unprecedented ways. What is now 
required are the facts and impartial investigations into these very 
serious matters. The White House should make available to the 
Intelligence Committees the transcripts and any related summaries of 
the Oval Office meeting between President Trump and the Russian Foreign 
Minister and Ambassador. We can then assess exactly what was said and 
understand the consequences of any intelligence that was shared with 
the Russians.
  On the topic of Mr. Comey, if the President has tapes of his 
conversation with Mr. Comey, we ought to be able to review those tapes 
as well to see if the President pressured the FBI Director to shut down 
an active investigation. The Times reported that Mr. Comey kept 
contemporaneous memos of his conversation with the President, and Mr. 
Comey has a reputation for accuracy in those memos. Those memos should 
also be provided to the congressional Intelligence and Judiciary 
Committees, and Mr. Comey should testify before those committees in 
public. Indeed, providing the Congress the tapes and memos may be the 
only way for this administration to credibly make a case to a 
justifiably skeptical American public about its version of the story 
reported by the New York Times. The President says what Comey said was 
wrong. Prove it. It is easy to prove it, as long as there are tapes or 
transcripts of what happened. If the President is right, he will have 
no problem releasing memos, tapes, or transcripts that corroborate his 
story. But if he fails to release them, the American public will 
justifiably tend to side with Mr. Comey, not what the President had to 
say, particularly in light of so much backtracking, backsliding, and 
factual fabrication in this White House.
  Finally, the events of this past week only heighten the need for a 
special prosecutor who is truly independent to run the Department of 
Justice's investigation into potential collusion between the Trump 
campaign and Russia. The American people must have faith in the 
integrity and impartiality of this investigation. We have learned, if 
the reporting is accurate, that the President is willing to directly 
interfere with an active investigation. Whether or not it breaks the 
law is not the point here. The point is, he was trying to interfere 
with an investigation. How can anyone trust someone in the President's 
chain of command, someone who the President has appointed, after those 
actions? The only way out is a special prosecutor. It is the right 
thing to do.
  We know the President is willing to fire an FBI Director because of 
this investigation, in his own words. It makes all the sense in the 
world to have a special prosecutor who can be fired only for cause to 
lead the Russia investigation. That would help protect the integrity of 
the investigation by insulating it from a White House, which at the 
very minimum, is overreaching.
  Given the circumstances, these requests are reasonable. They are 
modest. I hope--I really pray--that my friends on the other side of the 
aisle will see that now is the time to put party considerations aside 
and do what is right for our country. I know that several of my 
colleagues--Senators from Maine, Tennessee, Arizona--have expressed 
concerns. A few have gone further and endorsed some of the actions I 
have mentioned. It is a good first step, but it is not enough. In the 
past 24 hours, there has been more movement among Republicans in the 
House than here in the Senate. The Senate, by its traditions, should be 
leading this effort, not following. More of my Republican friends 
should join the Senators from Maine, Tennessee, and Arizona in speaking 
out about these events first but, far more importantly, helping us get 
to the bottom of them in an impartial, trusted, and respected way.
  To my friends on the other side of the aisle: America needs you; 
America needs you now. America needs you to help pressure the Deputy 
Attorney General to name a special prosecutor to compel this White 
House to turn over the transcripts and tapes to Congress, to 
demonstrate that the Congress the American people elected, Democrats 
and Republicans, can come together to do the right thing when it 
matters most. I repeat to all of my colleagues: History is watching.
  This is not a casual or usual time. As great as the desire would be 
to repeal ObamaCare or do tax reform, the very faith in the 
institutions of government now are being tested. They have been tested 
in the past. This is not the first time in American history they have 
been tested, but in the past, there have been people who rose above 
party, rose above an immediate interest to defend the needs of the 
Republic. Is it going to happen now?
  History will judge on whether this Congress and these Senators have 
been able to do what so many Senators before us, Democrats and 
Republicans, have done in the past: Put country above party. Whether we 
have decided to act as an appropriate check and balance as the Founders 
intended or whether we will let this continue, history will judge us 
all. Whether we decide to act in the way that is appropriate, history 
will judge us. Whether, in this moment of trial, the Senate is able to 
rise above partisanship and achieve statesmanship, again, history will 
judge us.

[[Page 7861]]

  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cotton). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time 
during the quorum call be charged equally to both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. 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. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Healthcare Legislation

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, more than 3 million Illinoisans--about 20 
percent of the people in my State--currently depend on Medicaid and the 
Children's Health Insurance Program for healthcare. That is one out of 
five people in my State who need these programs to have basic health 
insurance for themselves and their children.
  This includes 300,000 Illinois seniors and people with disabilities, 
650,000 who were recently added as part of the Affordable Care Act. It 
also includes 1.5 million children. Half of all the kids in Illinois 
are enrolled in Medicaid and the CHIP program, which in Illinois is 
called ALL Kids.
  Nationwide, the Medicaid Program helps pay for two out of three 
seniors in their nursing homes. It pays for about half of all children 
born in this country. It is the primary payer of all mental health and 
opioid addiction treatment. It provides healthcare to 25 percent of 
people in rural communities. It pays for special education in nearly 
half of all school districts and provides critical support for veterans 
with chronic conditions.
  What does the House of Representatives Affordable Care Act repeal do 
to the programs I have just described? It ends the expansion of 
Medicaid. It would eliminate coverage for 650,000 people in the State 
of Illinois. Think about that. We had seven of our Republican 
Congressmen vote for a program that will eliminate health insurance 
under Medicaid for 650,000 people in my State and cut $840 billion in 
Federal Medicaid funding. Well, if they are going to cut this money for 
Medicaid funding, what are they going to do with it? The House knew 
exactly what to do with it: They give it back in tax breaks to the 
wealthiest people in America. Is there justice in that decision? Is it 
too much to ask that those of us who are better off in life pay a 
little more in taxes so that those who are struggling have basic 
healthcare? I don't think so, but those who voted for the Republican 
House plan do. The bill cuts healthcare for struggling families, women, 
seniors, and children in order to give a tax break to the wealthiest 
people in America.
  Illinois would lose $40 billion over the next decade, and 3 million 
people would be at risk of losing their care. Absolutely no one 
believes Illinois is going to magically come up with $40 billion to 
fill this Medicaid shortfall. I doubt many other States will be able to 
either. With funding cuts this dramatic, even Illinois's Republican 
Governor spoke out against the House action repealing the Affordable 
Care Act. He said it is going to force us to make significant changes 
in healthcare in Illinois. He would have to decide who gets healthcare 
and who doesn't. He would have to decide whether healthcare services 
are just too expensive to cover.
  Hospitals, too, would be devastated by the proposed Medicaid cuts. I 
was born and raised in downstate Illinois. It doesn't look at all like 
the city of Chicago. I am proud to represent that city. I enjoyed being 
there and being a part of it. I grew up in smalltown America, and the 
congressional district I represented basically was smaller cities--no 
more than 100,000 population at the time--with a lot of smaller towns. 
I can't tell you the pride those communities take in downstate Illinois 
in their hospitals. Some of those hospitals are a lifeline--the only 
source of healthcare for miles around. They are great employers. They 
bring in medical specialists who are paid good salaries by local 
standards.
  The Illinois Hospital Association is dead-set against what the House 
Republicans did in passing their repeal of the Affordable Care Act. 
They have told us that Illinois stands to lose up to 60,000 healthcare 
jobs because of that vote in the U.S. House of Representatives. Of 
course, that means that for many of the people who count on these rural 
hospitals, even inner city hospitals in Chicago, those services are 
going to be curtailed and denied.
  When I sit down with people like Ed Curtis, who is the president of 
Memorial Medical Center in Springfield and speaks for Illinois hospital 
administrators across the State--he tells me the devastating impact it 
will have when Medicaid coverage is eliminated and sick people still 
show up for care. They will be taken care of; their expenses will be 
shifted to other people. That is the way it used to be before the 
Affordable Care Act, before Medicaid expanded and gave these 
individuals in low-income situations basic health insurance.
  Why would Republicans in the House of Representatives want to have 
such a devastating negative impact on Medicaid? So they can give tax 
cuts to wealthy people? That, to me, is inexplicable.
  The Illinois Hospital Association speaks across our State for those 
who really care about those great institutions, but they are not alone 
in opposing this bill. The Illinois Nurses Association opposes it, as 
do the Illinois pediatricians and the Illinois Medical Society. Why 
does every medical advocacy group in Illinois oppose this bill, this 
so-called Republican reform of our healthcare system? Because they know 
it moves in the wrong direction. It eliminates healthcare coverage 
instead of expanding it. It makes healthcare too expensive and out of 
reach for people who are not lucky enough to have it at work and not 
wealthy enough to buy it on their own. It moves in the wrong direction. 
It is not a solution to any problem; it is a new and even worse problem 
than the ones we faced in the past.
  Remember when Candidate Donald Trump tweeted in May of 2015: ``I was 
the first and only potential GOP candidate to state there would be no 
cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid''? Then he tweeted in 
July of 2015--``The Republicans who want to cut Social Security and 
Medicaid are wrong,'' said Candidate Trump. He was right, but now he 
supports this bill which dramatically cuts Medicaid coverage across 
America.
  What is going to happen to the elderly in nursing homes who, despite 
all their Social Security payments and despite all of their Medicaid 
reimbursement, still don't have enough resources for the basic care 
they need to stay alive? When they cut back on that Medicaid coverage, 
what happens to them? What do their families do to make up the 
difference? Reach into their savings? Bring mom home from the nursing 
home in the hopes that they can take care of her in their own home? 
Those are choices no family should face and no family need face.
  I hope the Senate will show the courage and leadership on a 
bipartisan basis to say no to this terrible bill that passed the U.S. 
House of Representatives just 2 weeks ago. We need to put together a 
bill that expands the coverage of health insurance, gives people more 
peace of mind; a bill that addresses some of the built-in challenges we 
had with the Affordable Care Act, which is far from perfect. There are 
things we can do to improve it.

[[Page 7862]]

  We need to do something about the cost of pharmaceutical drugs. The 
current law doesn't really affect that. They are out of control at this 
point.
  Secondly, I think we ought to offer a public option. There ought to 
be a Medicare-type program available across the United States for those 
who wish it. Medicare enjoys a very positive reputation in America for 
good reason. Most Americans would feel honored and happy to be 
protected by a Medicare-type program.
  We also need to go to those premiums that are too high and ask why. 
In many cases, there are individuals who are buying health insurance 
from very narrow pools of people who are older and sicker. We need to 
expand that pool so it is real insurance, and we can bring those 
premiums down. There are ways to do that.
  There are many things we can do with reforming the Affordable Care 
Act, but what the House of Representatives did, what some want to do, 
is just repeal it and walk away. It would be devastating to the women 
in America who rely on Medicaid to pay for their delivery expenses, as 
well as prenatal and postnatal care. It would be devastating to seniors 
who are in nursing homes and are dependent on Medicaid supplements and 
for those who are disabled with chronic conditions and have to turn to 
Medicaid just to make sure they can maintain their lifestyle and still 
be productive, happy, and safe. These are the elements and these are 
the costs we would have to charge if we are not careful.
  Wouldn't it be great, wouldn't it be terrific, wouldn't it be a 
headliner to say that Democrats and Republicans came together in the 
U.S. Senate to make the Affordable Care Act better, to make sure there 
was more accessible, affordable, quality coverage for more Americans? I 
think that is why we were elected, and I hope we can achieve that goal.
  Mr. President, before I yield, I ask unanimous consent that the time 
during quorum calls until 12 noon today be charged equally to both 
sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sullivan). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                                 Yemen

  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, colleagues, I am very pleased to be joined 
on the floor today by Senator Young. We are both members of the Foreign 
Relations Committee, and both have an interest in Middle East security. 
We have joined together on the floor today to give remarks and perhaps 
have a short colloquy about a humanitarian crisis that is unfolding 
before our eyes in the Middle East.
  Today, inside the country of Yemen--a country that, frankly, not a 
lot of our constituents give much thought to--every 10 minutes a child 
under the age of 5 is dying due to preventable causes. Today, 18 
million Yemeni civilians--two thirds of the entire population of this 
country--cannot survive without humanitarian or protection support, and 
7 million of those are on what we would call a starvation diet, which 
means that on a daily basis they don't know where their next meal is 
coming from. They don't have enough food to eat in order to remain 
healthy. Three million have already fled their homes because of the 
violence that has been caused by a civil war--that both Senator Young 
and I will talk about--inside their country and the humanitarian 
catastrophe that has resulted from that civil war.
  This is one of four current famines that exists in the world today. 
But I would argue that this particular humanitarian crisis is in some 
ways the most relevant to the discussions we will have here in the 
Senate because the United States is participating in the military 
campaign that is, in fact, causing in part this humanitarian crisis.
  The United States is an active participant with a Saudi-led military 
campaign seeking to regain control of Yemen from a group called the 
Houthis, who overran the capital and now control large portions of the 
country.
  We, of course, are allies of Saudi Arabia. The President will be 
visiting Saudi Arabia very soon to solidify that alliance. But it is 
time we started asking some really hard questions about the conduct of 
the Saudi campaign inside Yemen and whether we are, in fact, helping to 
create a humanitarian catastrophe on the grounds that is impossible to 
defend on moral grounds but also is hard to defend based on national 
security grounds as well.
  Let's be honest about what is happening here. The Saudis are 
deliberately trying to create a famine inside Yemen in order to 
essentially starve the Yemenis to the negotiating table. Saudi Deputy 
Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman said:

       Time is on our side. Being patient is in our interest. We 
     have the supplies and we have the logistics and high morale. 
     The enemy does not have supplies and funds and is impatient. 
     Time is on our side and we will exploit the time to serve our 
     interests.

  What are the Saudis doing to try to exploit this question of time and 
supplies? First, they are coming directly after the main port city, 
which brings 70 percent of food into Yemen and about 80 percent of all 
of the oil. That port city is called Hodeidah.
  Senator Young has been very good in meetings to draw issue with what 
is believed to be deliberate targeting by the Saudis of the cranes and 
infrastructure in this port which allow for the supplies to come off of 
boats and move into these desperately, desperately needy areas of the 
country.
  Second, they are requiring an additional screening process for this 
humanitarian aid above and beyond the one the United Nations has put 
into place. The United Nations is vetting supply ships coming in to 
Hodeidah to make sure there is really food and aid on these ships, not 
weapons, and it is working. But the Saudis are putting an additional 
process on top that is adding up to a month from the time the aid gets 
off the ship and into the country. Between that and the military 
campaign targeting the port and its infrastructure, this has 
essentially resulted in an effective blockade being put in and around 
Hodeidah, such that humanitarian support cannot effectively get into 
the country. But that is just the beginning.
  The Saudi bombing campaign has deliberately targeted roads and 
bridges throughout the country, many of them in and around north Yemen. 
There are reports that the bombers have engaged in something called 
double tapping, which is where you hit a humanitarian--a civilian--
asset. You wait until the workers come to try to address that first 
strike, and then you hit it a second time to take out the civilians who 
have responded to the emergency. This isn't just my opinion of the 
situation. Representations have been made by multiple aid organizations 
on the ground, and, more importantly, by U.S. officials who have been 
embedded with the coalition.
  This is a quote from Dafna Rand, the former Deputy Assistant 
Secretary of State who was in charge of the Saudi coalition portfolio 
at State:

       In 2015, the U.S. Government offered technical training on 
     cyber, ballistic missiles, border security, counterterrorism, 
     and maritime security, [and] the precision guided munitions 
     were transferred in 2015 on the hopes that they would enable 
     better and more precise targeting by the coalition of the 
     targets itself. [But instead,] what we have seen since is not 
     an improvement in the targeting, and the issue itself is the 
     target selection. It is not the precision of the target 
     itself, but it is the choice of targets and adherence to the 
     no-strike list.

  That is a really important statement, a really important sentence, 
because what is happening is that the United States is telling the 
coalition: What are the civilian targets you should stay away from, so 
the humanitarian aid can move into the country? The coalition is 
deliberately ignoring that advice. It is not a matter of mistakes being 
made on the ground, though there have been mistakes. It is

[[Page 7863]]

also a matter of a no-strike list being ignored.
  I mention that this is not just about the millions and millions of 
Yemenis who are starving today because of this civil war. It is also a 
question of whether this is accruing to the U.S. national security 
interests. Again, I am speaking just for myself on this matter.
  We are allies of the Saudis, and there is no doubt that an Iranian 
proxy state inside Yemen presents a threat to the Saudi State. There is 
no doubt that Houthis have been launching attacks into Saudi Arabia. 
This is a real security threat for our allies. But we do have to 
acknowledge that there are other players that exist inside Yemen today. 
It is not just the Houthis and those Yemeni forces supported by the 
Saudis. There is also al-Qaida--a branch of al-Qaida we know well 
because it has traditionally been the piece of al-Qaida that has the 
most advanced threats to the U.S. homeland--and ISIS, which is growing 
inside Yemen. They have taken advantage of this civil war to fill in 
the ungovernable spaces.
  Recently, with the help of the UAE, we have begun to hit back against 
al-Qaida and ISIS inside Yemen. But for a portion of time, they 
controlled a sizeable amount of territory and revenue inside that 
country. ISIS is growing as well.
  As a group of Yemeni Americans told me in my office about a year ago, 
to Yemenis the bombing campaign is not perceived as a Saudi bombing 
campaign; it is seen as a U.S. bombing campaign or, at the very least, 
a U.S.-Saudi bombing campaign.
  So when responsibility inside Yemen is allotted and attributed for 
this starvation campaign, it is placed upon the United States, as well 
as on Saudi Arabia. We have to think about what that means, given the 
fact that there is the potential for millions of Yemenis to be 
radicalized in a place with very sophisticated radical infrastructure. 
This is a real national security concern for the United States.
  I think it is time for us to draw a hard line with this coalition and 
say that we will not continue to support it if there is not a real 
commitment made to change the way the targeting happens and to make 
sure that relief supplies can flow into that country to try to address 
this unfolding famine and humanitarian catastrophe. We can be allies 
with the Saudis. We can be military allies with the Saudis. But they 
have to understand and their partners need to understand that this 
humanitarian nightmare inside Yemen is both immoral--to participate in 
a campaign that perpetuates that kind of humanitarian crisis--but it 
also, in the end, doesn't benefit the long-term security of the United 
States or our partners in the coalition.
  So we come down to the floor today to try to explain to our 
colleagues what is happening on the ground and to see if there is a 
bipartisan way for us to have a policy that brings significant relief 
to the suffering of the Yemeni people and strengthens our national 
security in the region.
  With that, I notice Senator Young is going to say a few words, and 
then I think we will engage in a colloquy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Murphy to 
discuss the importance of this humanitarian crisis in Yemen. As he so 
cogently emphasized, this is, at once, a humanitarian crisis and also a 
security crisis in the region and beyond.
  I am a new member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and I 
have to say that I have quickly come to admire Senator Murphy for his 
forceful advocacy of our values of universal human rights and of 
American international leadership. So I commend him for his leadership 
on this issue in particular.
  I share many of the concerns articulated by Senator Murphy with 
regard to the situation in Yemen and the Saudi-led coalition there in 
that country. Before getting into the specific situation in Yemen, 
however, I think it is important to step back and look at the big 
picture.
  The world currently confronts humanitarian crises of a magnitude we 
haven't seen in many, many years. Parts of Nigeria, Somalia, South 
Sudan, and Yemen are all in famine or prefamine stages. According to 
the United Nations, 20 million people are at risk of starvation within 
the next few months in these four countries.
  The Director-General of the International Committee of the Red Cross 
appeared before our Senate Foreign Relations Committee just weeks ago, 
and he called the crises ``one of the most critical humanitarian issues 
to face mankind since the end of the Second World War.'' He warned that 
``we are at the brink of a humanitarian mega-crisis unprecedented in 
recent history.''
  Each of these crises are unique. They have their unique man-made 
causes. But in each case, the crises are preventable. They have been 
exacerbated by war and restrictions on humanitarian access. Now, they 
are complicated. The situation in Yemen is certainly a complicated one. 
But the United Nations calls the situation in Yemen the largest 
humanitarian crisis in the world. According to their Office for the 
Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, Yemen has almost 19 million 
people in need of humanitarian or protection assistance, including 
approximately 10 million who require immediate assistance to save their 
lives or to sustain their lives.
  This is an urgent matter, which is why I am so glad we have the 
leadership of Senator Murphy on this matter and some of my other 
colleagues on various fronts. This is why I led a 10-Member letter to 
Secretary Tillerson on March 23 calling for a diplomatic surge to 
address the political obstacles preventing the delivery of humanitarian 
aid. I note that Senator Murphy joined me on that letter, which I 
personally hand-delivered to Secretary Tillerson. It is also why I 
raised the issue with Ambassador Haley in New York City. It is why I 
introduced a resolution on April 5 calling for the very same thing. 
Senators Cardin, Boozman, Coons, Gardner, and Rubio joined that 
resolution.
  Throughout this process, rather than just studying the problem, I--
working with my colleagues--have tried to focus on tangible steps we 
can take to save lives and address this very troubling national 
security situation. For that reason, on April 27, joined by Senator 
Murphy and several other colleagues, I sent a letter to the incoming 
Saudi Ambassador. Noting the important security partnership between the 
United States and Saudi Arabia and Saudi Arabia's essential role as a 
regional leader and an ally and a partner, I asked Riyadh to consider 
five specific steps related to Yemen that would prevent thousands or 
even millions of additional people from starving there.
  There is no doubt that the Houthis and the Iranians bear a very large 
portion of the blame for this whole situation. I asked our ally Saudi 
Arabia to take these steps because the United States has a valuable 
security relationship with Saudi Arabia and because we can oppose 
Iran's activities in Yemen while ending unnecessary delays in the 
delivery of desperately needed humanitarian assistance. These two goals 
are not mutually exclusive.
  I didn't receive a satisfactory response, so I subsequently raised 
these issues with the Saudi Foreign Minister in a meeting on Capitol 
Hill. In that meeting, I cited the fact--confirmed again by the 
administration within the last week--that the Saudi-led coalition 
continues to impose significant delays on the delivery of humanitarian 
aid to the port of Hodeidah on the Red Sea. Again, this is important 
because the port of Hodeidah processes roughly 70 to 80 percent of 
Yemen's food and other critical imports. I mentioned to the Foreign 
Minister the U.S.-funded cranes for the port of Hodeidah that would 
dramatically improve the ability to offload humanitarian supplies at 
that port. I expressed concerns to the Foreign Minister about the 
humanitarian impact of an attack on the port of Hodeidah. Yet, as the 
suffering of the Yemeni people continues and even worsens, these issues 
regretfully remain unresolved.
  According to the administration--confirmed again this morning--the 
Saudi-led coalition continues to be responsible for an average of 16 
days of

[[Page 7864]]

additional delays to humanitarian shipments into the port of Hodeidah 
after vessels are cleared by the United Nations Verification and 
Inspection Mechanism for Yemen. Think about it. Your children are 
starving to death. Perhaps your entire village is starving to death. 
And you have a delay of an additional 16 days in humanitarian 
shipments. Think of the impact that has on security in the region as 
desperate people are forced to take desperate measures to associate 
themselves with bad actors in the area. It is certainly troubling to 
me.
  For that reason, I have decided to cosponsor Senator Murphy's 
legislation, S.J. Res. 40. Before the United States can transfer air-
to-ground munitions to Saudi Arabia, the legislation requires the 
President of the United States to make a number of certifications. One 
of those includes a certification that Saudi Arabia and its coalition 
partners are making demonstrable efforts to facilitate the flow of 
critical humanitarian aid and commercial goods. I don't believe the 
President could credibly make that assertion until the Saudis take some 
of the steps I have called for.
  As President Trump prepares his visit to Saudi Arabia, I urge him to 
raise these critical issues with the Saudi Government. I urge our 
President to emphasize that these are humanitarian and national 
security issues that are priorities of the American people. I urge the 
administration to ask the Saudi Government to take the following 
concrete actions: First, renounce any intention to conduct a military 
operation against the port of Hodeidah; second, redouble efforts to 
achieve a diplomatic solution; third, end any delays to the delivery of 
humanitarian aid caused by the Saudi-led coalition; and fourth, permit 
the delivery of much needed U.S. funded cranes to the port of Hodeidah 
that would permit the quicker delivery of food and medicine.
  I have said it before: With more than 10 million Yemenis requiring 
immediate humanitarian assistance, there is no time to waste. I stand 
ready to work with our Saudi partners to fight Iran's malign influence 
and to take these specific steps to begin to address the catastrophic 
humanitarian situation in Yemen.
  I again thank Senator Murphy for his leadership and for the 
opportunity to join him on the floor today. I look forward to working 
together again in the future.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Indiana. I think he 
walked through his thoughtful approach to this issue, which has led him 
to cosponsor this resolution placing these very commonsense conditions 
upon the transfer of further munitions.
  I might ask him a question. In his list of steps he has asked the 
Saudis to take--I have joined him in that letter, as have many of our 
colleagues--amongst them is a commitment to not take military action 
against the port of Hodeidah.
  We both met with the Foreign Minister, who talked about the need to 
use increased military pressure inside Yemen backed by U.S. 
participation in the coalition to try to draw the Houthis to the table. 
We have both expressed reservations about the effectiveness of that 
tactic, and we have something to say about it because none of this can 
occur without U.S. military support.
  Can the Senator talk a little bit about our joint fears or his 
personal fears about a major new campaign on this port that brings in 
so much of this aid and how, in the end, that really doesn't further 
the goals of the coalition, the United States being amongst the 
partners?
  Mr. YOUNG. It is a critical question, and it is one I have been 
asking so many stakeholders involved in this issue. No one has 
presented to me persuasive evidence indicating that a Saudi-led attack 
on the port would result in defeat of the Houthis-Saleh bloc. No one 
has presented to me evidence that I find compelling that that action 
would even force the Houthis bloc to the negotiating table.
  The onus ought to be on those who might take a military action--which 
would exacerbate the worst humanitarian crisis in the world--to present 
that evidence. I have asked for it. I haven't received it.
  I think it is just as likely that an attack would push the Houthis, 
as I alluded to earlier, into further alignment with and dependence on 
the Iranians, with whom they are allied. That is the exact opposite of 
what we are trying to accomplish in the region, as the Iranians 
continue to spread their influence and their terroristic activities 
across the Middle East. So this is not in the interests, as I see it, 
based on all the evidence available, of the United States, UAE, or 
Saudi Arabia, and it would result in both a humanitarian catastrophe 
and exacerbate the national security situation.
  Mr. MURPHY. I thank Senator Young for making it clear in his prepared 
remarks that while we are focusing on the Saudis because we are part of 
this coalition, the Houthis do not have clean hands here either. Part 
of the reason humanitarian supplies have a hard time getting to places 
that need them is because there are roadblocks put up by the Houthis as 
well. And there is this known connection between the Houthis and the 
Iranians--sometimes, in my opinion, a bit overplayed by some foreign 
policy thinkers, but it is real.
  To your second point in answer to my question, Senator Young, that 
is, to my mind, also a likely result of a deepening of the military 
conflict. If the Houthis had nowhere to turn, then the calculation 
might be different, but because the Iranians are there as a support 
system to lean on, a continued military campaign against Hodeidah would 
push them deeper into a corner and just broaden the scope of the 
military conflict.
  There ultimately has to be a political resolution here, and by simply 
upping the military ante and continuing the humanitarian crisis, you 
get further away from that political negotiating table rather than 
closer to it.
  Mr. YOUNG. Indeed. The last thing we want to do is to exacerbate a 
situation where we already have 10 million desperate people on the cusp 
of starvation or passing away on account of a lack of medical supplies.
  We need assistance here, which is why it is important for the 
President to elevate the importance of this issue in his conversation 
with the Saudis during his coming visit, and I believe he will do so. I 
believe he will do so because the international community, NGOs, 
understand the importance of this. Many at the State Department and the 
U.S. Agency for International Development have spoken about what a 
serious crisis this is. And we don't want to be shortsighted with 
respect to what a bombing of the port could catalyze.
  We also need to recognize that there are other players in the Saudi 
coalition that can be constructive as well. The Emirates, I would note, 
have shown a willingness to be helpful on a couple of different fronts.
  I had the opportunity to visit with the Crown Prince yesterday and 
received his assurance that he would seek to resolve without delay a 
situation related to the forward stationing of inspectors in his 
country so that they can pre-inspect cargo before it goes into the port 
of Hodeidah, and that would expedite the process and help mitigate a 
lot of the suffering that is occurring. Also, I had an opportunity to 
discuss with the Crown Prince this issue of four cranes. U.S. taxpayers 
paid for these cranes. I mentioned them in my prepared remarks earlier. 
And I have heard from the Crown Prince; he made a commitment there as 
well. So I am grateful for his commitment, and I look forwarding to 
following up with the UAE Government on this front. They are good 
allies to the United States.
  Mr. MURPHY. It goes without saying that it is in no one's interests 
in the region for this civil war to continue at its current pace. So 
this is an important moment at the beginning of a new administration, 
with a pending arms sale on the table with the Saudis, to use that 
transition moment and the leverage that exists with this new proposal 
for major arms sales to the Saudis to make sure we get this right.

[[Page 7865]]

  I think there is nothing political about this. We all join together 
in trying to abate humanitarian crises and famines around the world, 
and we all want a policy that is going to bring an end to this civil 
war because, as I said, it is just as important to remember that the 
most immediate enemies of the United States--those terrorist groups who 
want to do harm to us--find their most fertile ground today inside 
Yemen. The sooner we can put an end to this civil war and be able to 
have a central government structure that spreads across the scope of 
the country, the quicker we can all be focused on trying to eliminate 
the ISIS and al-Qaida presence--AQAP, as we refer to them--in Yemen 
from that battlespace.
  I say to Senator Young, I don't know if you have closing remarks, but 
I appreciate your willingness to speak up and your leadership here, and 
I hope we can get others on both sides of the aisle to propose and 
support these commonsense conditions upon this new military transfer so 
that we can get the situation right inside Yemen.
  Mr. YOUNG. I say to the Senator, let me end by reiterating my 
gratitude to you, of course, for your exceptional leadership, for 
walking points on this issue, and I look forward to our continued work 
together.
  I thank all our colleagues who have engaged on this matter. And I, of 
course, before the U.S. Senate here, want to invite others to engage in 
this. If they have questions with respect to this matter, which is 
critical for our national security, I know they can reach out to the 
Senator or me, and it is imperative that we send a respectful message 
to the administration that we think this is something that needs to be 
addressed in the near term.
  I have nothing else to say.
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Kennedy pertaining to the introduction of S. 1150 
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, if I came to you today and told you we 
had received a job application from somebody to work for the 
government, and you and I looked at her job application and we saw she 
had graduated from Harvard Law School, if we looked at her job 
application and we saw she had worked for a Presidential campaign, if 
we saw she had practiced law in the private sector, if we noticed from 
her resume that she had actually worked as a counsel, as a lawyer, in 
the White House, if we saw she had clerked for a Supreme Court Justice, 
Justice Anthony Kennedy--each Justice of the United States, I think, 
has four law clerks every year. I don't know how many tens of thousands 
of lawyers and law students apply, but to be chosen is one of the 
highest honors you can receive as a young lawyer. If I told you this 
person who applied for a job in government used to work at the 
Department of Justice as Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General in 
the Office of Legal Policy, if I told you she had also worked for one 
of the most prestigious law firms in the country, Wilmer, Cutler, 
Pickering, Hale & Dorr--I remember them as Wilmer, Cutler, but they 
have changed their name since then. They have been around forever. If I 
told you all of those things, I think any reasonable person would say: 
Wow, let's hire her here immediately. Let's do it before she finds 
another position. Well, that person has applied for a job in 
government. Her name is Rachel Brand. She has been nominated by 
President Trump to be Associate Attorney General.
  That is a position that is vitally important within the Department of 
Justice. It is responsible for the oversight of the Civil Division, the 
Civil Rights Division, the Office on Violence Against Women, and many 
other important components of the Department of Justice. I think no 
matter what political party you happen to be in or whatever your 
political persuasion, we can all agree that right now it is 
particularly important not only to have a Department of Justice that is 
fully staffed but to have it fully staffed with extraordinarily 
qualified people whom every American can look at and go: Wow, is she 
qualified. I am so pleased she is working for the Federal Government 
and my tax dollars are being well spent.
  Ms. Brand has broad experience, as I indicated, both within the 
Department of Justice and in the private sector. As I indicated--I am 
going to say it again--she worked for Justice Anthony Kennedy of the 
U.S. Supreme Court. Wow, what an honor. She has served as Assistant 
Attorney General under President George Bush. She has been in private 
practice, as I indicated. She has been chief counsel for Regulatory 
Litigation in the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and I could go on and on 
and on.
  I fully support Ms. Brand's nomination. I sit on the Judiciary 
Committee, the committee of the Senate that vetted her. She is highly 
respected, she is whip smart, she is well qualified, and she is fully 
prepared to hit the ground running. That is exactly what we need.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Ernst). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before 
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination 
     of Rachel L. Brand, of Iowa, to be Associate Attorney 
     General.
         Mitch McConnell, John Boozman, Jeff Flake, Thom Tillis, 
           Richard Burr, Mike Crapo, John Barrasso, Chuck 
           Grassley, Mike Rounds, John Kennedy, John Thune, Pat 
           Roberts, James E. Risch, Orrin G. Hatch, Shelley Moore 
           Capito, Lindsey Graham, John Cornyn.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
nomination of Rachel L. Brand, of Iowa, to be Associate Attorney 
General, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Tillis) would have voted ``yea''.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Ms. Hirono) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 51, nays 47, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 130 Ex.]

                                YEAS--51

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott
     Shelby
     Strange
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Toomey
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--47

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Donnelly
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein

[[Page 7866]]


     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Harris
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Peters
     Reed
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Hirono
     Tillis
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 51, the nays are 
47.
  The motion is agreed to.
  The majority whip is recognized.


                  American Law Enforcement Heroes Act

  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I know people outside the beltway think 
nothing ever happens here--and certainly that nothing ever happens on a 
bipartisan basis--but they would be wrong on both counts.
  Last night, the Senate passed a piece of bipartisan legislation 
called the American Law Enforcement Heroes Act. It is a great example 
of legislation everyone can agree on and get behind.
  The main goal is to connect veterans--those who have served in our 
military and have a passion for public service--to opportunities in 
State and local law enforcement. When we think about it, who better 
than our retiring military personnel who are accustomed to wearing one 
uniform, moving then into the civilian law enforcement world wearing 
another uniform but continuing their legacy of public service. That 
way, those who have voluntarily put themselves in harm's way to keep 
the peace and promote American interests abroad and defend our homeland 
can continue the record of public service at home.
  For veterans, that can mean a rewarding job in law enforcement. 
Through their training, experience, and sacrifice, there is no doubt 
that our veterans are equipped with valuable skills to keep our 
communities safe. By prioritizing existing Federal funds for State and 
local law enforcement agencies to hire veterans, we can better serve 
them as they transition into civilian life. We know that can be a 
challenging transition, but that is exactly what the American Law 
Enforcement Heroes Act that we passed yesterday does.
  For State and local law enforcement groups, that means they can 
attract the best qualified men and women who are eager to serve their 
country in a new way. So this is really a win-win.
  Fortunately, this legislation builds on the good work already 
underway in places like my home State of Texas. Over the last several 
months, I have had a chance to visit cities and counties all over the 
State that are actively recruiting veterans to serve as police officers 
or sheriffs. That includes law enforcement leaders from San Antonio to 
Houston, to Fort Worth. As my colleagues may recall, following the 
terrible killing of five police officers and shooting of seven more in 
Dallas, Police Chief David Brown made an appeal for people who were 
protesting or otherwise concerned about the law enforcement agencies 
involved to sign up and join them--to be a part of the solution and not 
just protesting the problem.
  Thankfully, we have set a tremendous example in Texas of how hiring 
veterans to serve as law enforcement officers benefits all of our 
communities. I am glad this bill will follow their inspiration and help 
communities across the country hire more veterans.
  I said before that this legislation is something everyone can agree 
on, in a polarized political environment, and that is of course evident 
by the broad bipartisan support it has received.
  Let me express my gratitude to the senior Senator from Minnesota, Ms. 
Klobuchar, as well as the senior Senators from Connecticut and 
California--all Democratic colleagues--for being my original cosponsors 
on the bill. I am also grateful to my Republican colleagues, including 
Senator Cruz, as well as the junior Senator from North Carolina and the 
senior Senators from Iowa, Utah, and Nevada, for working with us on 
this legislation.
  My friend Congressman Will Hurd on the House side introduced the same 
bill there, and I am hopeful it will pass sometime today so we can get 
this to the President's desk for his signature without delay.
  I would also note that the American Law Enforcement Heroes Act is 
backed by major law enforcement groups across the country, including 
the Fraternal Order of Police, the Major County Sheriffs of America, 
the Major City Chiefs Association, and the Veterans of Foreign Wars. I 
have been grateful for their help along the way toward passage of this 
bill.
  I look forward to this bill becoming a law--hopefully, this week, as 
we continue to celebrate Police Week honoring the service of the men 
and women in blue who keep our communities safe--and making it clear 
that this Congress cares not only about our veterans but also our law 
enforcement officials as well.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.


                          Russia Investigation

  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, just last Wednesday, I spoke on the 
Senate floor about the extremely suspicious timing of the firing of FBI 
Director James Comey by President Trump.
  In the past few days, President Trump's actions, statements, and 
changing of his story on the Comey firing has only strengthened the 
case for the appointment of a special counsel to investigate ties and 
collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian Government in the 
2016 Presidential election. Congress should also establish an 
independent commission to get to the bottom of the Russian interference 
in our election. In addition, there needs to be an independent 
investigation into whether Mr. Trump abused power and played a role in 
obstruction of justice in terms of the ongoing criminal investigation 
at the Department of Justice.
  Let me start by going back to the beginning of the Trump 
administration. According to news reports, on January 27, Mr. Trump 
invited Mr. Comey to a private dinner with him at the White House. Mr. 
Trump then asked Mr. Comey for his ``loyalty,'' but Mr. Comey only 
promised to provide his ``honesty'' or his ``honest loyalty.'' Why did 
the President allegedly ask Director Comey for his loyalty?
  On March 4, President Trump tweeted without evidence that ``how low 
has President Obama gone to tap my phones during the very sacred 
election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!'' On 
March 20, Mr. Comey testified he has ``no information'' to support Mr. 
Trump's claim. Why did the President try to distract the public's 
attention by blaming President Obama for the Russia investigation?
  On April 12, in an interview, Mr. Trump said Mr. Comey ``saved 
Hillary Clinton'' during the campaign and said that ``it's not too 
late'' to remove Mr. Comey. Mr. Trump continued: ``But, you know, I 
have confidence in him. We'll see what happens, you know, it's going to 
be interesting.''
  What changed between Mr. Trump having confidence in Mr. Comey in 
April and firing him in May?
  On May 3, Mr. Comey testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee 
and said ``it makes me mildly nauseous to think that we might have had 
some impact on the election.''
  On May 8, former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates and former 
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper both testified before 
the Judiciary Committee.
  Ms. Yates testified about the warnings she gave to White House 
Counsel Don McGahn about how National Security Adviser Michael Flynn 
was compromised by the Russians and was lying to White House staff and 
the Vice President about his conversations and interactions with the 
Russians.
  On May 9, we witnessed a series of three letters, all dated that day. 
The first letter was from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to 
Attorney General Jeff Sessions. The Rosenstein letter concludes that 
the FBI's reputation and credibility had suffered ``substantial 
damage'' due to Mr. Comey's actions during the Clinton email 
investigation. Notably, Rosenstein's memo does not explicitly recommend 
Mr. Comey's removal. That same day, Attorney General Sessions, who has 
recused himself from the Russia-Trump

[[Page 7867]]

campaign investigation, sent the Rosenstein letter to the White House, 
along with his own letter, concluding that ``a fresh start is needed at 
the leadership of the FBI.'' Again, on the same day that Mr. Trump 
fired Director Comey, the Trump letter includes a curious aside: ``I 
greatly appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that 
I am not under investigation.'' Did Director Comey really give those 
assurances to President Trump when the criminal and counterintelligence 
investigations into the Trump campaign and Russia connections are still 
active and ongoing?
  At the same time, we heard from White House Press Secretary Sean 
Spicer and we heard from the Vice President of the United States that 
the reason for the firing of Mr. Comey was the recommendation of the 
Department of Justice. That is what they said it was, only to find the 
next day President Trump saying:

       In fact, when I decided to just do it, I said to myself, I 
     said ``You know, this Russian 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.''

  Then he talked about Mr. Comey and said he had decided to fire him. 
So it was not the memos; it was what Mr. Trump had decided. So there is 
a lot of misinformation being sent out, which raises a lot of 
questions.
  Over the weekend, former Director of National Intelligence James 
Clapper stated:

       I think in many ways our institutions are under assault 
     both externally--and that's the big news here is the Russian 
     interference in our election system--and I think as well our 
     institutions are under assault internally.

  So we have the former Director of National Intelligence, Mr. Clapper, 
saying we have some problems internally.
  The only way we are going to get to the bottom of this, the only way 
we are going to find out what this loyalty oath is all about or how Mr. 
Trump came to the conclusion to fire Mr. Comey or, more recently, where 
we hear Mr. Comey has memos of a meeting in which the President asked 
him to go easy on an investigation, which could rise to obstruction of 
justice--the only way we are going to get to the bottom of all this is 
by having an independent special counsel prosecutor appointed by the 
Department of Justice. That is what needs to be done. The facts need to 
go where they take us, but we also have to have an investigation that 
has the credibility that it will not be interfered with by the 
President of the United States. The only way to do that is by having 
special counsel appointed by the Department of Justice. It is the only 
way to restore the reputation of the Department of Justice.
  I might say that we also need to understand exactly what Russia was 
doing here in the United States. There are so many examples of Russia 
being aggressive in our campaign. We know they wanted to discredit the 
American campaign. We know they took sides in favor of Mr. Trump over 
Mrs. Clinton. We know they hacked information. We know they used 
misinformation. We know they used cyber and social media in order to 
further their advancements. We also know they met with representatives 
of the Trump campaign. The American people have a right to understand 
exactly what those contacts were all about. That is why I filed the 
resolution, which is supported by many of my colleagues, to set up a 9/
11 independent commission in order to get to the bottom of what is 
happening. That can be done simultaneously with the work being done by 
the Senate Intelligence Committee, which is important work for us to 
do, but we also need to have an independent commission in order to 
determine exactly what Russia was doing so we can take the necessary 
steps to prevent this from occurring in the future.
  There are a lot of unanswered questions. People say: Well, how can 
you call for action if you don't know all the facts? I am calling for 
us to know all the facts. I am calling for us to understand exactly why 
on one day the White House sends out one story that the Department of 
Justice recommended the firing of Mr. Comey, and then on the next day 
the President said: No, I decided that before I met with the Attorney 
General and the Deputy Attorney General.
  We need to understand why there was a conversation in which Mr. Comey 
has notes that indicate Mr. Trump wanted him to go easy in an 
investigation. That is a pretty serious charge. We need to understand 
this information. That is why it is impossible for the Department of 
Justice to do an independent investigation. It will always be suspect 
as to whether that investigation of the President of the United States 
or the White House will have impact as to how that investigation is 
being done because there is already evidence that they tried to do that 
previously in this investigation.
  The law is clear; the law is clear as to how special prosecutors and 
counsel are appointed where conflicts exist. The Department of Justice 
has this authority. We know that Attorney General Sessions has recused 
himself from the Russia investigation. Deputy Attorney General 
Rosenstein now has the authority to make that decision. He should 
clearly make that decision, not because it is the right thing to do--
which it is, which it is--and we have the obligation to make sure the 
American people get all the facts as to what happened here, but it is 
also the reputation of the Department of Justice that is at stake.
  I urge my colleagues to continue. I know we will have a chance 
tomorrow in our meeting with Mr. Rosenstein, but I would urge us to 
listen to what the American people are saying and recognize that we are 
an independent branch of government, and one of our principal 
responsibilities is oversight--and oversight of the executive branch of 
government. I urge us to carry out that responsibility by 
collectively--it shouldn't be partisan--collectively telling the 
Department of Justice: Get all the facts, do it in an independent way, 
appoint an independent prosecutor, let the facts lead us where they are 
going to lead us, and let's not prejudge. But this is a serious, 
serious matter.
  In order to protect ourselves from an aggressive enemy--and that is 
Russia, which is trying to bring down our democratic government, which 
has now been acknowledged not just by the intelligence community over 
and over again, but their ability to try to compromise our system is 
now much better understood--we need to have that independent commission 
devoted to giving us the recommendations to keep America safe.
  I urge my colleagues to exercise that independent function and to set 
up an independent commission.
  Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DONNELLY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cruz). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                          National Police Week

  Mr. DONNELLY. Mr. President, I rise today to honor our law 
enforcement officers during National Police Week and to talk about the 
importance of supporting law enforcement, including their mental 
health.
  During National Police Week, we recognize and remember the sacrifices 
of the law enforcement officers we lost in the line of duty in 2016. 
Every day and through every night in communities across Indiana and our 
country, law enforcement officers are patrolling our streets, arriving 
at the scenes of challenging and often traumatic incidents, and even 
putting themselves in harm's way as they do their best to keep our 
families safe. They help ensure that our children can be safe at the 
neighborhood playground and our seniors can sit peacefully on their 
front porch. They help keep drugs off our streets, they are called to 
the scenes of opioid and heroin overdoses, and they help stem the 
violence and crime that has plagued many of our communities for far too 
long.
  Our law enforcement officers put on the uniform every day. They head 
out the door to serve us, while their family

[[Page 7868]]

members say a prayer hoping they come back safely into their family's 
loving arms at the end of their shift. Sadly, sometimes they do not.
  In my home State of Indiana, our law enforcement lost one of their 
own last year when the Howard County sheriff's deputy, Carl Koontz, was 
shot and killed during a raid in Russiaville, IN, last March.
  Deputy Koontz was only 27 years old, in the prime of his life, and 
had dedicated himself to serving and protecting the communities he 
loved. He left behind his wife Kassie and their young son Noah.
  Deputy Koontz's loss was felt not just in Kokomo, not just in Howard 
County, but in cities and towns across our State. He represented the 
very best our State has to offer. He was smart, talented, and service 
driven, working to make his community a better place to live.
  Mr. President, I know your State was stricken this past year, as 
well, with the loss of the same kind of extraordinary individuals who 
went and served every day. That is at the core of what law enforcement 
officers strive for and why it is so devastating when they are lost in 
the line of duty.
  While we pay our respects to those we lost, it is our solemn duty to 
support those who serve our communities today. As law enforcement 
officers go through their work, they are sometimes confronted with 
challenging or even horrific situations.
  Recently, I joined with my friend and colleague from Indiana, Senator 
Todd Young, to introduce the bipartisan Law Enforcement Mental Health 
and Wellness Act. It provides tools for law enforcement agencies to 
help support the mental health and wellness of our brave men and women.
  We were thankful to have the support from Senators Blunt, Coons, 
Cornyn, and Feinstein when we introduced the legislation. I am honored 
that Senators Blumenthal, Booker, Brown, Cruz, Hatch, Klobuchar, Cortez 
Masto, Durbin, and Tester have added their support in the days since.
  I say to the Presiding Officer, thank you for your support of our 
legislation.
  I am very pleased to say that our bill passed the Senate unanimously 
late yesterday, and it is a major step forward. I am hopeful that our 
friends in the House of Representatives, where a companion piece was 
introduced by Congresswoman Susan Brooks and Congresswoman Val Demings 
of Florida, who served as the first female chief of police in Orlando 
before coming to Congress--I am hopeful Congresswoman Brooks and 
Congresswoman Demings can shepherd this bill through that Chamber.
  This legislation is also supported by a number of law enforcement 
organizations, including the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police 
Department, the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Association of 
Police Organizations, the Major County Sheriffs of America, and more.
  I am proud that this is a bipartisan effort, as evidenced by the 
Members supporting this legislation. It is time to get this to the 
President's desk to be signed into law as soon as possible.
  The Law Enforcement Mental Health and Wellness Act is about providing 
resources to law enforcement agencies that want to better protect their 
officers' mental health, as well as the providers who strive to serve 
that unique population. It would direct the Departments of Justice and 
Health and Human Services to develop resources for mental health 
providers to educate them about law enforcement culture and evidenced-
based therapies for mental health issues common to law enforcement. It 
would require the Department of Justice to study the effectiveness of 
crisis hotlines for law enforcement. It authorizes grants to initiate 
peer mentoring programs in law enforcement agencies. We are already 
seeing the success of these programs where the IMPD, the Indianapolis 
Metropolitan Police Department, is utilizing peer mentoring for officer 
mental health.
  During my time in the Senate, our main legislative focus has been to 
improve the availability of mental healthcare services for 
servicemembers and their families. We have made great progress in 
recent years. I am proud that my bipartisan Jacob Sexton Military 
Suicide Prevention Act is now law.
  As of this September, every servicemember--Active, Reserve, or 
Guard--is required to have an annual mental health assessment. The Law 
Enforcement Mental Health and Wellness Act builds upon the work our 
military has been doing to combat suicide and mental health challenges.
  It requires the Department of Defense, the VA, and the Department of 
Justice to consult on military mental health practices that can be 
adopted by law enforcement agencies. Building on the Sexton Act that 
requires annual mental health assessments for servicemembers, the Law 
Enforcement Mental Health and Wellness Act examines if having annual 
mental health checks for law enforcement officers would help save 
lives.
  When Senator Young and I announced this legislation last month, we 
had the honor of being joined by a number of law enforcement 
professionals, including the Indianapolis chief of police, Bryan Roach. 
Chief Roach shared some of his experiences. He said:

       When I am came on, officers were taught to be in control of 
     their emotions.
       We still teach the IMPD to be in control of their emotions. 
     But if you think about the day in, day out routine of the 
     things they participate in, and the things that they see, and 
     they are confronted with on a day to day basis, it is 
     difficult sometimes to control those emotions, but they do a 
     very good job of it.
       The problem is they take those things home. The things 
     we're talking about are not just PTSD, but depression and 
     anxiety.

  As the chief stated, law enforcement officers--like the rest of us--
don't just turn themselves off when they go home. The experiences they 
have every day impact them and their family and their friends.
  Sheriff Mike Nielsen of Boone County--located in Central Indiana, 
right near Indianapolis--was also on hand that day with us to share his 
perspective. He said: In 2015, Captain Nanavaty and the office received 
national recognition, being awarded the National Law Enforcement 
Officers Memorial Fund's Annual Officer Wellness Award. IMPD's 
innovation and forward thinking have inspired police departments across 
the United States to follow their footsteps and undertake similar 
efforts to address law enforcement mental health and wellness. But this 
is just the beginning of these efforts.

       I have seen things that cannot be unseen. The brave men and 
     women of police, fire, EMS, are all public safety officers 
     who put their lives on the line each and every day.
       They endure more than anybody can imagine, and they must 
     deal with the stresses of life both on the job and at home.

  Sometimes it is really, really tough. Sheriff Nielsen continued:

       We must all work hard to stop the stigma with mental health 
     issues.
       As administrators, we have to train our supervisors how to 
     recognize signs of PTSD in our staff. We must administer 
     standard officer wellness programs.
       As administrators and public safety, we must lead from the 
     front, and let our staff know that it is okay to struggle 
     with issues. That we are only human.
       Our emotional mental health heals just like a physical 
     injury. With the proper treatment, and with time.
       We must provide the funding and resources to go beyond the 
     critical stress debriefing. We must do this for our officers.

  Both Chief Roach's and Sheriff Nielsen's comments show us the 
importance of ending the stigma attached to mental health issues. We 
can't be afraid of talking about mental health and the ways we support 
our law enforcement officers as they work through these challenges.
  Lebanon police officer Taylor Nielsen, who followed in the tradition 
of her dad, Sheriff Mike Nielsen--an extraordinary family, serving our 
State with their lives every day--was courageous enough to share her 
mental health struggles following a particularly tough assignment.
  She recounted the questions that she was dealing with:

       Why am I alone? Why isn't anybody else having these issues? 
     Why can't I get this out of my head? What is wrong with me? 
     These were the questions that repeatedly ran through my head 
     on a daily basis last year.

[[Page 7869]]

       Questions that made me believe that there was something 
     fundamentally wrong with me.

  She continued:

       For those of you who feel you are fighting alone, know that 
     there is relief out there. Please don't be afraid to seek out 
     those resources. The battle will be hard, but it can be won.

  Thanks to her strong will and the help of a trained therapist, Taylor 
was able to handle her mental health challenges. As she said, though, 
we have to work together as a team to beat these issues.
  We will take time over Police Week to reflect on the law enforcement 
professionals we lost last year. As we do that, it is important that we 
take commonsense steps to support our law enforcement officers.
  We took a major step forward with yesterday's passage of the Law 
Enforcement Mental Health and Wellness Act in the Senate. I see my 
colleague Todd Young, who was my teammate on that, in the Chamber as 
well. I am hopeful it will be enacted soon so we can bring more tools 
to law enforcement agencies across Indiana and our country. 
Congresswoman Brooks and Congresswoman Demings are working on it right 
now.
  After the service and sacrifices law enforcement officers make every 
day, they have earned the resources we have, so that we can provide the 
very best to the very best.
  Thanks again to Senator Young for working with me on this effort, to 
the police and sheriffs in Indiana who have lent their support, to law 
enforcement officers protecting Hoosiers as we stand here at this 
moment.
  May God bless all of these officers, and may God bless the family of 
Deputy Carl Koontz. May God bless Indiana, and may God bless America.
  Mr. President, I yield back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, I rise to join the senior Senator from 
Indiana in voicing my strong support for the Law Enforcement Mental 
Health and Wellness Act of 2017. During Police Week, I wish to take a 
minute to thank all of our men and women in blue who stand on the 
frontlines to protect our communities.
  I have four young children. Since they could barely talk, my wife and 
I taught them that if they need help, they should dial 911, and the 
police would respond.
  Every day our law enforcement communities around the country live 
their lives to answer these calls and to help our fellow citizens. 
Sometimes the job is as simple as reuniting a child with their parent 
at the park or at a store, but other times they see horrific scenes 
that no one should have to experience in their lifetimes or they 
experience traumatic stress in the performance of their jobs.
  Ultimately, police officers see the best and the worst of humanity, 
which can take a heavy emotional toll, but who is there to answer the 
call for help when they need it after experiencing such trauma on a 
regular basis?
  A couple of weeks ago, Senator Donnelly and I introduced the Law 
Enforcement Mental Health and Wellness Act. This legislation is for 
those who answer that call. This bill works with the relevant Federal 
agencies, mental health providers, and broader law enforcement 
communities to offer opportunities for care.
  When our police force is healthy, when it is strong, our communities 
are healthy and strong as well. That is why it is vital that we provide 
our Nation's law enforcement with the resources they need as they put 
their health and their lives on the line in order to protect our 
communities day in and day out.
  This includes supporting law enforcement agencies' efforts to protect 
and strengthen the mental health and wellness of their respective law 
enforcement officers. I am confident that this bill will have a 
positive impact on the mental health and wellness of law enforcement 
officers across the country.
  I look forward to the findings of DOJ's collaborative reports, the 
efficacy of the peer mentoring pilot programs, and the results of the 
Department's study into the creation of a crisis hotline for law 
enforcement officers.
  With that said, I thank Indiana's senior Senator for his hard work in 
drafting this legislation and allowing for my input and those of my 
colleagues. It has been my pleasure to work with Senator Donnelly on 
this, and I look forward to continuing our work together on behalf of 
all Hoosiers in the future.
  In fact, this legislation drew upon efforts undertaken by Hoosiers at 
the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department. In 2010, Indiana's 
IMPD recognized the need to address law enforcement mental health and 
wellness by creating the Office of Professional Development and Police 
Wellness. The IMPD captain, Brian Nanavaty, led the effort to establish 
the office and has recently promoted its motto: ``Healthy Hire--Healthy 
Retire: Wellness is more than just an annual physical.''
  Senator Donnelly and I are proud that the Law Enforcement Mental 
Health and Wellness Act has passed the Senate and is one step closer to 
being signed into law, contributing to the efforts of the IMPD.
  As I close, I want to recognize the leadership of a fellow Hoosier, 
U.S. Representative Susan Brooks, and her colleagues in the U.S. House 
who introduced this legislation. This bill has received bipartisan, 
bicameral support in Congress, widespread support from several law 
enforcement organizations, and, frankly, support across the country 
from rank-and-file Americans who understand that this is a problem we 
have an obligation to address. We are all with you. Now we call upon 
all of our colleagues in the House to act on this important legislation 
and send it to the President's desk for his signature.
  Let me finish with these words of heartfelt gratitude: Thank you to 
our law enforcement community for always answering the call.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. 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. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is 
considering Rachel Brand to be Associate Attorney General. Ms. Brand is 
a native Iowan, and I am proud to be supporting her nomination here 
today. She has had a distinguished legal career. In fact, she was 
appointed to Senate-confirmed positions by both President Bush and 
President Obama, and both times, she was confirmed by a voice vote in 
the Senate.
  But it looks like this nomination somehow has become controversial. I 
don't understand. Ms. Brand has a broad range of legal experience that 
happens to be a broad range in both the government and the private 
sector.
  With her previous positions in the White House, the Office of Legal 
Counsel, and the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, she has 
experience that touches almost every part of the Federal Government. As 
the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Policy, she was 
a member of the senior management team of the Department of Justice, 
working with components and law enforcement agencies throughout the 
entire Justice Department. Similarly, at the Privacy and Civil 
Liberties Oversight Board, Ms. Brand worked with diverse agencies to 
ensure that privacy and civil liberties are taken into account while 
carrying out the important mission of protecting the Nation from 
terrorism.
  During Ms. Brand's tenure in the private sector, she gained extensive 
litigation management experience that will serve her very well as she 
oversees the Department's civil litigation components.
  She has seemingly become a little more controversial. Many of my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle have said they aren't 
supporting her nomination because of the work she did with the U.S. 
Chamber of Commerce. Those views are utterly ridiculous. So I

[[Page 7870]]

will take a minute to address these concerns.
  First, when she worked at the Chamber, all of her advocacy was done 
to represent the views of her client, the U.S. Chamber. Everybody 
expects that if you hire a lawyer, they are going to represent your 
views. We all know that we can't assume an attorney personally believes 
in what they are advocating for on behalf of their client, just ask 
criminal defense attorneys.
  Furthermore, she was not involved in any policy or lobbying apparatus 
of the Chamber. Her role there was to bring lawsuits challenging rules 
that the U.S. Chamber believed were unlawful. At the same time, besides 
just arguing those lawsuits, she had to file a lot of amicus briefs 
providing the courts with the views of the business community.
  During her time at the Chamber, she challenged a handful of the 
thousands of regulations promulgated by Federal agencies. The arguments 
Ms. Brand made in those lawsuits or amicus briefs were generally that 
the agency had acted beyond the scope of the authority Congress had 
granted that particular agency or had failed to follow the reasoned 
decisionmaking processes required by the Administrative Procedure Act 
of 1946. In many of those cases, the courts agreed with the Chamber 
that the government had acted unlawfully.
  To summarize her work during that time at the Chamber, Ms. Brand 
argued that government agencies went beyond the authority Congress had 
given them. She also argued that these agencies weren't acting under 
the scope of the congressional authority granted to the agency, and she 
argued that congressional authority had to be respected. It seems to me 
that it is up to Congress to give these agencies more authority if we 
think they need it. But it is not a good reason to vote against Ms. 
Brand's nomination because she argued a very commonsense and 
constitutional position that Federal agencies need to follow the laws 
of Congress.
  Finally, some Senators have maintained that they are concerned about 
her views on the Voting Rights Act. She responded very well to that. 
During her hearing, Ms. Brand told the committee that she shares 
concerns for anyone who would violate the Voting Rights Act and would 
suppress votes in the process of violating that act, and she believes 
``enforcement of that statute to be a core enforcement function of the 
civil rights division.'' I don't know about my fellow colleagues, but I 
take her at her word that she strongly believes in voting rights.
  It is more than a little puzzling, then, that when Republicans 
opposed a woman for a government position, we heard from the other 
side. The Democrats would always bring up gender politics. But when 
they oppose a woman for a position, that is somehow OK. I don't see how 
they can expect to have it both ways.
  I believe Ms. Brand will be a superb Associate Attorney General--the 
first female in this role, I might add--and that she will serve the 
office with very great distinction. I urge my colleagues to join me in 
supporting her nomination.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 5 or 6 minutes to speak on 
another subject as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Healthcare Legislation

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I come to the floor to share real 
stories of real hardships from hard-working families in my home State 
of Iowa. Seven years ago, Americans were promised that the Affordable 
Care Act would make health insurance cheaper and healthcare more 
accessible. Well, I won't pretend to break any news here; the facts 
speak very much for themselves. ObamaCare is not living up to its 
promises. When passing the law, the other side made promises that they 
knew wouldn't be kept.
  The irony here is that, at the end of the day, the so-called 
Affordable Care Act is anything but affordable. Let's look at the word 
``affordable'' in the Webster dictionary. It says ``having a cost that 
is not too high.'' I have heard from many Iowans who tell me in no 
uncertain terms that they cannot afford to buy health insurance because 
ObamaCare is unaffordable. Ever since ObamaCare was enacted, I have 
received letters and calls and emails from Iowans who are frustrated 
about the soaring costs of their health plans.
  Here is a prime example. One farmer's insurance premium went through 
the roof. It jumped 43 percent in 2017 from 2016. If somebody can 
explain how that is more affordable, I have an oceanfront property in 
my home county of Butler County, IA, to sell you.
  Now, we have a chart here about another Iowan. This constituent from 
Garner, IA, wrote about her financial hardships. She said:

       We are going to be paying over $1,300 a month on premiums, 
     plus a $6,000 deductible. We don't have that much longer 
     before we qualify for Medicare, but my concern is that until 
     then, we will have to use so much of our hard-earned savings 
     just to pay for healthcare. My fear is that those of us in 
     the middle class will struggle with paying so much that it 
     will wipe out our retirement savings accounts.

  Another constituent nearby Garner, in Buffalo, IA, wrote to me 
saying:

       I am forced to pay $230 a month for a healthcare plan that 
     covers nothing until I reach $11,000 in deductible. So on top 
     of paying 100 percent of my medical bills anyway, now I have 
     to pay for insurance I can't use.

  So the question is, How did we get to this point? Seven years ago, I 
stood right here on the Senate floor and predicted what would happen to 
the cost of insurance if ObamaCare passed. Let's take a walk down 
memory lane for a moment. Here is what I said October 2009:

       And while some of the supporters of these partisan bills 
     may not want to tell their constituents, we all know that as 
     national spending on healthcare increases, American families 
     will bear the burden in the form of higher premiums. So, let 
     me be very clear. As a result of the current pending 
     healthcare proposals, most Americans will pay higher premiums 
     for health insurance.

  Now, I am not Nostradamus. I don't have a magic crystal ball, but it 
was easy to read the writing on the wall. I knew that layers of new 
taxes and, more importantly, burdensome new mandates in ObamaCare would 
lead us to where we find ourselves today: a broken healthcare system 
that is not better off than it was 7 years ago. For millions of 
Americans, it is much worse.
  So where do we go from here? After 7 years of rapidly rising 
premiums, soaring deductibles, and climbing copays, Republicans are 
committed to fixing the damage caused by the Affordable Care Act. 
Instead of joining us in an effort to fix what is broken, the other 
side is doing their best to scare the living daylights out of 
Americans.
  From the way they tell it, the House bill is ``deadly.'' What is 
truly fatal is the death spiral the ObamaCare marketplace is in. Not 
only is it unaffordable for too many people, it is simply 
unsustainable. ObamaCare is unable to fulfill its promises to the 
American people. Here is what every lawmaker in Congress ought to agree 
on: Insurance is not worth having if patients cannot afford to use it.
  The facts are very clear. A one-size-fits-all, government-run plan is 
driving insurers out of the exchanges, driving up premiums, driving 
away customers, and driving up the tab to the tax-paying public. I 
spoke 2 days ago about the impact of Obamacare in Iowa. Next year it is 
possible that 94 of our 99 counties will not have insurance plans on 
the Obamacare exchange.
  So even if you benefit from the subsidy of ObamaCare, you are not 
going to have an insurance company to go to. All of this because 
ObamaCare has overregulated, overtaxed, and oversold its promises to 
the American people. ObamaCare has not healed what ails the U.S. 
healthcare system. It is time to move forward.
  I urge my colleagues to drop the partisan charade and join us for the 
good of the American people. I will continue coming to the floor to 
share how ObamaCare is not working for Iowans, but in the meantime, the 
Senate will continue working to rescue our healthcare system that is 
sinking under this broken law.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

[[Page 7871]]

  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Thune pertaining to the introduction of S. 1144 
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. THUNE. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, the Senate has under consideration the 
nomination of Rachel Brand to be Associate Attorney General of the 
United States, one of the very top positions in the Department of 
Justice and in law enforcement. It is a position of consummate trust 
and responsibility, requiring full public confidence. I will oppose 
this nomination, and I will oppose all nominations for the Department 
of Justice until public trust and confidence in the rule of law is 
restored and sustained by appointment of an independent special 
prosecutor to investigate Russian interference in our last election and 
potential links to the Trump campaign and Trump associates.
  I opposed Rod Rosenstein's nomination. In fact, I was the only member 
of the Judiciary Committee to vote against it and one of six on the 
floor to oppose it for exactly the same reason. I stated to him 
publicly and privately that the only way to preserve his own 
reputation--well established over many years--and the trust and 
confidence in the Department of Justice was to appoint an independent 
prosecutor. So far, regrettably, he has failed to do so.
  That question will be the first of my priorities when the full Senate 
meets with him tomorrow. We will demand to know from him what the 
timeline was for the firing of Director Comey, who said what to whom, 
why his memorandum was written, and whether he will now commit, after 
these most recent startling revelations just yesterday that the 
President of the United States suggested--indeed, explicitly demanded--
that Director Comey stop his investigation involving potential ties of 
Michael Flynn to Russian interference in our election.
  Chilling facts raised in the last several days now raise serious 
questions about obstruction of justice by the President of the United 
States. So we consider this nomination at a truly unusual, very likely 
unique and unprecedented time in our country.
  The revelation last evening that President Trump asked the FBI 
Director to shut down the Federal investigation into his then-National 
Security Advisor, Michael Flynn, is evidence of severe political 
interference and possibly criminal wrongdoing in an ongoing criminal 
investigation. The evidence of obstruction continues to mount. We are 
witnessing an obstruction of justice case unfolding before our eyes in 
real time. Revelation after revelation continues to shake this 
country's confidence in our government and in this administration's 
competence. The need for an independent special prosecutor has never 
been so clear and convincing and so unquestionably necessary.
  I call on my Republican colleagues now to rise to this challenge, to 
shine in the light of history, and to commit that an independent 
special prosecutor will be appointed to uncover the truth and hold 
accountable anyone who has committed wrongdoing.
  Because so far we have no such special prosecutor, I will oppose this 
nomination. But I also have disagreements with Rachel Brand. I respect 
her record of public service. I believe she is simply not the right 
person to serve as Associate Attorney General because of her 
longstanding, apparently deeply held philosophy on the use and proper 
application of government power. When the Federal Government engaged in 
actions that threaten the privacy rights of innocent Americans, Ms. 
Brand has advocated nonaction. I believe the United States must protect 
the privacy of her citizens, and that fact is only one among many that 
cause me to disagree with her.
  The failure to nominate and appoint an independent special prosecutor 
will lead me to oppose all of the nominations that are set forth by 
this administration, including anyone nominated for the FBI. I think it 
should now be clear, if it was not before, that such an independent 
prosecutor is necessary.
  Parallels have been drawn by Members on both sides of the aisle to 
the Watergate scandal. To this day, we don't know whether President 
Nixon ordered the Watergate break-ins or simply was a beneficiary of 
the crime, just as we don't know now whether Donald Trump colluded with 
Russian interference in the 2016 election or simply benefitted from 
Russia's criminal aggression. The Watergate scandal gave rise to the 
saying that ``the cover-up is worse than the crime.'' In this instance, 
what we know is that the Russian interference was aimed at a wholesale 
theft of our democracy, far more serious than the Watergate break-in. 
What we do know about Nixon--and these facts became the basis for the 
first article of impeachment--is that he attempted to indirectly 
interfere with an FBI investigation into that break-in. Put very 
simply, while Nixon may not have directly threatened to fire the FBI 
Director if that Director continued to investigate Nixon associates, he 
made clear that his preference as head of the executive branch was that 
any such investigation should cease.
  ``History doesn't repeat, but it rhymes.'' That is a saying that has 
profound truth here. We now have credible reports that President Trump 
attempted to do directly what President Nixon sought to do indirectly. 
He stopped a lawful, ongoing criminal investigation. Nixon ordered his 
staff to work through the CIA to pressure the FBI to drop the Watergate 
investigation. President Trump simply summoned Director Comey into the 
Oval Office, according to reports that certainly need to be verified, 
and ordered everyone else to leave the room, suggesting then that the 
Director drop his investigation. He did so just 2 weeks after having 
told Director Comey that he might not have a place in the Trump 
administration and making clear that Director Comey's loyalty to him 
might well determine whether Comey would keep his job. When Director 
Comey rejected Trump's suggestion, in effect, he was fired. That is the 
line of facts established by this mounting evidence. It is a serious 
charge.
  We should be cautious. If Director Comey did not write that memo or 
if, for some reason, there is a question about the truth, perhaps the 
suspicions are unfounded, but there is credible and significant 
evidence. Director Comey has established--to both his critics and his 
friends--that he is a man of probity and dedication to public service 
and to this Nation.
  We cannot feel confident about nominations for any of these 
positions--whether it be Director of the FBI or Associate Attorney 
General--from a President who has demonstrated such contempt for the 
rule of law and for law enforcement, which is the job of the Department 
of Justice. The White House's timeline and justifications for the 
decision to fire Director Comey certainly now, at this moment, fail to 
meet the test of credibility.
  We know from the President's own words in interviews he conducted 
late last week that the FBI investigation into possible collusion 
between individuals in the Trump campaign and the Russian Government 
was on the President's mind when he decided to fire the FBI Director. 
In at least two conversations, the President asked the FBI Director 
about this investigation and the related investigation into former 
National Security Advisor Michael Flynn.
  Late last night the Times revealed the details of one such 
conversation. It occurred in the Oval Office the day after Flynn 
resigned. The account written by Director Comey, which seems to meet 
fully the test of credibility, is absolutely chilling. ``I hope you can 
see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go,'' Mr. Trump 
told Mr. Comey, according to the memo reported in The New York Times. 
``He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.'' When the FBI Director 
continued to pursue the investigation, President Trump fired him.

[[Page 7872]]

  We are witnessing this obstruction of justice in realtime, and these 
revelations are shaking our country's faith in the independence of our 
Nation's highest ranking law enforcement agency, our rule of law, and 
our national security. It is a theft of our democracy--literally, a 
threat to our national security--from Russian meddling in the election, 
potential Trump ties, and links to that interference in our democracy--
the core, foundational exercise of our democracy being voting--and then 
waiting for 2\1/2\ weeks when then-Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates 
warned that Michael Flynn was vulnerable to blackmail as National 
Security Adviser--blackmail from the Russians. She was fired only days 
later.
  When the investigation into that Russian meddling and Trump's ties to 
it continued, Director Comey was summoned to be told that the 
investigation should be shut down, and he was fired when he refused to 
do so. Very likely, part of that decision related to the request for 
additional resources that Director Comey made to Rosenstein shortly 
before he was fired and his refusal to rule out the President as a 
target of that investigation when he came before the Judiciary 
Committee.
  The facts will eventually form a mosaic, and that mosaic may 
dramatically show a picture of criminal conduct. That is the process of 
investigating and prosecuting criminal wrongdoing. Right now, that 
activity requires a fidelity to the rule of law in one's getting all of 
the evidence, including transcripts, tapes, memos, and other documents. 
They must be subpoenaed immediately so that they are not destroyed or 
concealed, so that they are preserved and produced. That must be done 
without delay, including there being testimony under oath, in public, 
from Comey, Attorney General Sessions, Deputy Attorney General Rod 
Rosenstein, and Don McGahn, White House Counsel. They should be called 
to testify by the Judiciary Committee, under oath, and in public.
  I hope that my colleagues will, indeed, rise to this challenge and 
shine in the light of history and commit now to an independent special 
prosecutor who can ensure that the truth is uncovered and that 
accountability is imposed for any criminal wrongdoing so that we will 
prevent any obstruction of justice because the American people deserve 
it, they need it, and they demand it.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cotton). The Senator from Maine.


                         Healthcare Legislation

  Mr. KING. Mr. President, I rise to speak for a few minutes on the 
AHCA, which is the healthcare bill that was recently passed in the 
House.
  I believe the letters stand for ``anti-healthcare bill'' as there are 
many troublesome aspects of this bill--kicking something like 20 
million people off of health insurance and compromising essential 
benefits. It is what I call a ``fig leaf'' preexisting condition 
provision, which does not provide adequate funding in order to actually 
protect people with preexisting conditions.
  Yet what I really want to focus on today are two interrelated 
provisions--a massive cut to Medicaid and a massive tax cut for the 
wealthiest Americans. By the way, that tax cut gives a zero tax cut to 
anyone making less than $200,000 a year. I will talk about that in a 
moment.
  Let's talk about the Medicaid cuts, however. This is a part of the 
bill that has not gotten much attention. It is $840 billion over 10 
years. It will be about a 10-percent cut of Medicaid funds in Maine. It 
is hard to get an actual analysis of that, however, because the House 
bill was passed without any Congressional Budget Office analysis--none, 
zero. Unbelievably, the Members of the House voted for a bill that 
they, literally, did not know the financial effects of--how it would 
affect the States, how it would affect the people in their States. 
Maybe, next week, we will get that analysis. Certainly, this body will 
not act in that way with no Congressional Budget Office analysis.
  Let's talk for a minute about who is on Medicaid, as 34 percent of 
the people on Medicaid are children, 20 percent are disabled people, 
and 18 percent are elderly. In other words, almost three-quarters--75 
percent--are children, disabled, and elderly people. Many people talk 
about and think about Medicaid as some kind of welfare program. This is 
an essential lifeline for some of the most vulnerable people in our 
society--children, the disabled, and the elderly--75 percent--and 75 
percent of the funding goes to disabled and elderly people.
  The people who sponsored this bill and who are talking about it 
across the country talk about flexibility. Yes, there are some cuts, 
but we are giving the States flexibility. That is nonsense. They are 
giving the States flexibility to make decisions between funding 
programs for the elderly and programs for children, between cutting off 
programs for opioids and providing support for people who are disabled. 
That is not flexibility. That is just passing agonizing choices off to 
the States. I was a Governor, and I know about having to make these 
kinds of decisions. To cut this money by this huge amount--almost $1 
trillion over 10 years--and act as though it can all be made up through 
some kind of fake flexibility is just an unspeakably cruel way to shift 
this burden to the States.
  The bill talks about saving on the deficit. It saves on the deficit 
because $840 billion is shifted to the States. Let them pay it--shift 
and shaft. That is what it is--shift and shaft. Shift the cost and 
shaft the States, particularly the people in those States who depend 
upon these programs--those people being the disabled, the elderly, 
children, people with disabilities, and those who are struggling to 
defeat the scourge of opioids and opioid addiction.
  I want to talk about some people today. I want to talk about this 
guy, Dan Humphrey. He is 28 years old and lives in a group home in 
Lewiston, ME. He has autism and is nonverbal. He has some bipolar 
characteristics and a seizure disorder but is gentle and charming, and 
you can see his smile. He has very basic functional communication 
skills. He enjoys jumping on a trampoline and drumming. He performs all 
of his chores to care for himself, with prompting and guidance, such as 
laundry and grocery shopping. He is proud of his volunteer jobs. He 
serves Meals on Wheels to clients through the week, and he takes excess 
food from a nearby college to a local soup kitchen every Saturday.
  Daniel needs around-the-clock support in order to maintain this 
quality of life. When this level of programming was unavailable or is 
unavailable, he regresses and becomes aggressive. Even at current 
funding, Daniel is one of the lucky ones, as he is not on a waiting 
list. Although he qualified for services, it took him 8 years to get a 
home and a community-based service waiver for him to be able to live 
the life he does. He is in a group home in the wonderful city of 
Lewiston, ME, where he lives today. He is contributing. He has a decent 
life.
  By the way, this is all about people. It really bothers me that we 
talk about policy and ideology and free markets and flexibility. We are 
talking about people. We are talking about real people whose lives are 
on the line--people who are struggling with opioid addiction, elderly 
people who have no place to go, and disabled people like Dan and like 
Lidia Woofenden.
  Here is Lidia. She graduated from Mt. Ararat High School in June. She 
turns 21 in August. That is the high school my kids went to. I had two 
boys graduate from that high school. When she was 4 years old, she was 
diagnosed with a delayed growth of myelin on her brain, and, at 15, she 
began having seizures and was diagnosed with a rare genetic disorder. 
She lives with intellectual disabilities, seizures, and their side 
effects, as well as with a general lack of physical coordination. Yet, 
as her mom says, that is not who she is. She is charming and funny. Her 
mom calls her friendly and goofy and the stubbornest cuss.
  She was never expected to read but is now on her fourth Harry Potter 
book. She was never expected to ride a bike, but now she does. She even 
has a job. After years of volunteering at a local nursing home, she was 
offered a part-time job and is doing well. She is doing

[[Page 7873]]

this because she had support from Medicaid. She cannot cross a street 
by herself, and she needs to be reminded to brush her teeth. She has no 
sense of money or danger. On the one hand, she is 20 years old; on the 
other hand, she is 6 years old. In other words, like most young people, 
she is complicated. Everything she has achieved has been accomplished 
with the help of dedicated teachers and therapists and has been almost 
exclusively funded through special education in the public schools and 
by Medicaid.
  By the way, Medicaid provides help to the tune of $26 million a year 
to children in Maine schools who need it. One of the amendments passed 
at the last minute in the House puts that funding through the schools 
in jeopardy. She has made monumental gains, but she will never be able 
to live alone.
  What happens when we make these cuts? What happens to Lidia? What 
happens to Dan?
  In the old days, they were warehoused. They were in facilities that 
were far away--out of sight, out of mind--or with their parents, who 
had to bear the burden, who themselves could not work because they had 
to take care of the children. These are just two people--two examples--
of what we are talking about here.
  Who will speak for them? Who will stand up for them?
  I will, and I hope this body will. We are the last bulwark between 
this terrible piece of legislation that was passed in the House and 
these people and millions like them across the country. Who will stand 
up for them?
  Why are we doing this? Why are we putting States through the ringer 
of having to make decisions to choose between Lidia and an elderly 
person in a nursing home and between a child and a young man who is 
trying to beat opioids? Why are we forcing them to make those choices?
  It is because we want to give a huge tax cut to the wealthiest 
Americans, and I am talking about a huge tax cut. It is the most skewed 
tax cut in history because it only goes to a few people. Seventy-nine 
percent of the benefit of this tax cut goes to millionaires, which is 
an average tax cut of $54,000 a year. Now, $54,000 a year to 
multimillionaires--the top one-tenth of 1 percent, those with incomes 
above $6 million--would receive tax cuts of more than $250,000 a piece 
in 2025 under this legislation.
  We are putting people like this at risk in order to have somebody buy 
another Maserati. It is unbelievable that this body would even consider 
making that tradeoff. That is what we are talking about here. Let's be 
very clear. It is an equation of lost Medicaid benefits, a gigantic tax 
cut. That is what this bill is all about. If you make between $500,000 
and $1 million, you will see a $4,000 tax cut, which is not so 
egregious as higher up, and if you are under $200,000 a year, you get 
zero.
  This doesn't even masquerade as a middle-class tax cut. This is one 
of the most inequitable, cruel, and unconscionable pieces of 
policymaking I have ever seen. I think we need to be clear about that. 
If we don't stand up for Dan, Lidia, and millions like them--old and 
young, living in the shadows of our society, asking for nothing more 
than the ability to do the slightest things we take for granted, like 
crossing the street, having a job, dressing, feeling they are 
contributing--to take that away, to force States to make those 
decisions--and make no mistake, they are going to have to make those 
decisions. You simply can't cut the amount of money that is proposed in 
this bill--which will expand over time, by the way--and still expect 
the services to be the same or better through some kind of flexibility. 
That is nonsense. It would be bad enough, except to do it because of a 
massive tax cut to the people who least need it--that is what really 
makes this unacceptable.
  I know that people in this body are working on an alternative to the 
bill in the House, and I hope this can be an open process where all of 
us participate, where we are able to contribute ideas and amendments 
and thoughts. Particularly, I want us to think about the fact that we 
are the last line of defense. We are the last line of defense for 
people who can't speak up. In the case of my friend Dan, he literally 
can't speak up. We are who they are counting on, between us, and if it 
weren't for us, they would have no one to think about and demand that 
they be treated fairly and respectfully in the richest society on 
Earth. I hope we can do better. I know we can.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, there is a reason we are talking about 
healthcare, and we should be talking about healthcare. We should be 
looking for the gaps and trying to find those gaps. I had a long 
conversation this morning about people who have disabilities, adults 
who have disabilities, and the challenges they have always faced in the 
insurance marketplace. They are people like Dan and Lidia who have a 
hard time working or are unable to have a full-time job, who may be 
covered by insurance through their parents until they are too old, or 
they may not be covered because their parents aren't covered. But 
normally, if that has been the case, where you were able to share 
whatever coverage your parents had--and certainly this is an area we 
should work on, how we deal with those who are disadvantaged. On the 
Medicaid front, our goal should be to look at the House bill and make 
it better.
  The people who were added to Medicaid under President Obama's 
healthcare plan, decided by the States--the very group who my friend 
from Maine said shouldn't be making these kinds of decisions--the 
States made these decisions because it was left to them to make them. 
And they weren't children and they weren't old people; they were single 
adults who traditionally had not been covered by Medicaid. We can talk 
all we want to about how these cuts are going to affect children and 
old people, but that is not who would be affected.
  There is a debate the States have already had. Some States added 
single adults for the first time, and others didn't. Many States 
believe they can make those decisions better in their own States, to 
have a healthcare home where somebody has a doctor they could go to. 
Having coverage doesn't matter if you can't get access to healthcare. 
Our debate here should be about access to healthcare, and it should be 
about people who, because of ObamaCare, are having problems with access 
to healthcare.
  President Obama promised that the new plan would bend the cost curve. 
He said it would bend the cost curve and bring healthcare costs down. I 
think the topic he was discussing was healthcare coverage costs coming 
down by $2,500 for the typical family. The cost curve got bent all 
right, but it didn't get bent down, it got bent up. In our State, just 
last year in Missouri, 25 percent was the average increase from one 
year to the next. The individual policies in many of our counties--84 
percent have only one insurance company that is willing to offer a 
plan. That should tell us something right there about whether the 
exchange idea worked, the way it was put together. It is clearly not 
working.
  We can continue to move forward and act as though that doesn't 
matter, but it matters a lot. We have 114 counties and the city of St. 
Louis, and our constitution functions as if it were a county. One-
hundred and fifteen of those entities, the county-like entities--97 of 
them have only 1 company willing to offer insurance. In all of them, 
the average increase statewide was 25 percent 1 year over the next, and 
that is just 1 year, and it is not even next year. Every estimate says 
that those individual policies will go up even more next year than they 
did last year.
  We can continue to act as though this system is working and not do 
anything about it, or we can do something about it.
  When ObamaCare was implemented, I came to the floor almost every week 
for the first year to share story after story of people and families 
who were affected, who couldn't have the kind of healthcare or the kind 
of coverage--either one--they had before, and I could share those same 
stories now. I will share a couple of them today. They haven't stopped 
coming in. Many people have just decided: We are never

[[Page 7874]]

going to have the doctors we used to have. We are never going to have 
the insurance policy we used to have. The government has failed us.
  They had a policy on which they were paying maybe a third of what 
they are paying now and which had higher coverage. But after a while, 
you quit complaining and understand that your government has actually 
come up with a system that--for your family, at least--was worse than 
the system they had.
  We talk about cancellation notices being sent out by the thousands. 
Thousands of families and thousands of individuals got cancellation 
notices. Last year President Clinton, while campaigning for his wife 
for President, said: What a crazy system. The costs keep going up, and 
the coverage keeps going down.
  There is clearly something wrong here. We need to do something about 
it. We should be working together to do something about it.
  When I am home and talking to people about this or when people 
contact our office about this, they just continue to say over and over 
again that this has gotten worse. Now, we get some calls--and I am glad 
to get them--where people say: We want to be sure that you understand 
what happens to individuals like the two people my friend from Maine 
mentioned. And we are looking for ways to be sure they don't get left 
out. But let me tell you some of the people who have been left out.
  Thomas and Kathy, a married couple from Kansas City, told me that 
their out-of-pocket costs have jumped from $2,700 in 2014--that was the 
first year of this healthcare plan--to $5,000 in 2017. In addition, 
their copays have increased--in their case, they appear to be lucky--by 
only 20 or 30 percent.
  They are not by themselves. Tony, an insurance broker in Northwest 
Missouri, recently told me about a client who was shopping for 
coverage. The client realized that the only plan she could afford would 
force her to spend, for herself, almost $5,000 a year in insurance 
premiums on top of having another $5,000 deductible before that 
insurance she would be paying for every month would do any good. She 
said she would be spending almost $10,000 without receiving anything, 
and it made absolutely no sense. Well, her insurance broker couldn't 
help but agreed with her that in her case it didn't make much sense, 
and I think all of us can see why it might not.
  Yesterday at a press event here in the Capitol, I mentioned a farmer 
who called and said she had a $12,000 deductible for her family and she 
was paying $16,000 in annual premiums. So in her case, she could pay 
$28,000 before she had any coverage at all, and that $28,000 was 
money--she could be paying $12,000 of it just for access to see a 
doctor because her insurance company didn't help with that.
  One final story I would like to share is from Rob, a small business 
owner in St. Joseph who pays half of his employees' medical, and his 
costs keep going up. His agent walks in every year, he told me, and 
says: Well, this year it went up 9 percent.
  He said: That might have been acceptable, except it also went up 9 
percent last year and 11 percent the year before that, and it was 9 
percent the year before that.
  Many of the losses in the individual market are being shifted to try 
to make the insurance market make up for what is happening on the 
individual side.
  Year over year, we see premium increases, skyrocketing deductibles, 
and higher out-of-pocket costs. That is the status quo under what we 
have now, and it is unacceptable. That is why Republicans have made 
clear that we are going to move forward to solutions that will address 
some of the major issues in our healthcare system and look for ways to 
bring down costs and expand access to quality, affordable coverage, but 
more importantly, quality, affordable care.
  I urge my colleagues to work with us and join in this effort to help 
us find solutions to be sure we don't leave people out who shouldn't be 
left out but that we also make access to healthcare more possible for 
more families and more individuals than it is today.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BARRASSO. 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. BARRASSO. Mr. President, Republicans have been warning for years 
now about the grave damage ObamaCare has done to the American 
healthcare system. We have pointed out how the healthcare law's 
regulations are destabilizing the health insurance industry. We have 
warned that the ObamaCare markets are unstable. We have talked about 
the death spiral which has already doomed ObamaCare.
  It seems like every day we get more proof that the collapse is well 
underway. Last week, the insurance company Aetna announced it was 
exiting the individual ObamaCare markets entirely. CNN did a story 
about this last Wednesday. The headlines said: ``Aetna to ObamaCare: 
We're Outta Here.'' It is interesting because Aetna as a company was 
one of the cheerleaders for ObamaCare early on; they jumped in and 
said: We are very involved. We want to make this work. Here they are 
pulling out, saying it has failed.
  Humana had already said it was quitting the exchanges, not just one 
place but everywhere.
  In the past month or so, we have seen big companies drop out of the 
markets in Virginia and in Iowa. There is now just one company left 
selling in the exchanges for Nebraska and for Delaware. There is just 
one company selling in Alaska, in Missouri, in Alabama, in Oklahoma, in 
South Carolina, and in my home State of Wyoming.
  For people living in all of these States, there is a monopoly for 
whom they get to buy their insurance from under the ObamaCare markets. 
That is not a marketplace, it is a monopoly.
  The Associated Press looked at all of these companies dropping out. 
It now found that 40 percent of America--4 out of 10 counties in 
America--will have just 1 company selling insurance in the ObamaCare 
exchanges for next year; 4 out of every 10 counties in America. That is 
what you get with an ObamaCare exchange.
  How is that supposed to bring down prices? Other companies have been 
saying how much they will need to charge if they are going to stick 
around for 1 more year under ObamaCare. It looks like we will have 
another year of incredible price increases. In Maryland, insurance 
companies are demanding average premium increases of anywhere between 
18 and 59 percent. In Connecticut, they are asking for 15 to 33 percent 
more next year.
  Democrats are desperate to blame the collapse of ObamaCare on 
President Trump. My question to the Democrats is this, What about all 
of the companies that dropped out of the marketplaces last year? What 
about the double-digit price increases Americans were paying year after 
year under ObamaCare?
  The premium for the average benchmark plan in the exchanges went up 
25 percent at the start of this year. Are Democrats going to try to 
blame that on someone else?
  In March, the Kaiser Family Foundation reported the results of a poll 
on healthcare in America. In this poll, 4 out of 10 American adults 
with insurance under ObamaCare said they have trouble affording their 
deductible. They have ObamaCare insurance, but 4 out of 10 adults in 
America with ObamaCare insurance are having trouble affording their 
deductibles. Three out of every ten with insurance under ObamaCare said 
they have problems paying their medical bills. One in four Americans 
with insurance under ObamaCare said the costs have forced them to put 
off healthcare they needed or skip it entirely.
  These people are suffering because of President Obama and the 
Democrats and what they passed. These Americans are struggling because 
of the flawed policies and regulations of the ObamaCare law that 
Democrats in Washington wrote.

[[Page 7875]]

  Republicans are saying what we have said all along: Healthcare reform 
should be about helping people get the care they need, from a doctor 
they choose, at a lower cost. We need to do something to rescue the 
people who are being crushed under this collapsing ObamaCare system. 
That is why Republicans are the ones talking about solving the problems 
that have been caused by ObamaCare. The House of Representatives passed 
a bill that includes some important things that could help stabilize 
the markets. It includes things to stop these double-digit premium 
hikes that have been occurring every year.
  In the Senate, we have already started mapping out the ideas. We are 
going to continue offering our ideas. We are going to continue debating 
them. I want to invite Democrats in the Senate to come to the floor and 
offer their ideas as well. It doesn't have to be a partisan fight. It 
shouldn't be a partisan fight that drags on for months and months. We 
need to find solutions for the American people who are suffering under 
President Obama's healthcare law.
  For all the Democrats who are now trying to redirect the blame away 
from themselves, the problems they caused, trying to pass the buck, we 
are trying to pass a bill. I can tell from listening at home in 
Wyoming, where I will be again this weekend and was last weekend, 
people know who caused the problems of ObamaCare. The American people 
are looking for solutions. They don't care who offers it. They want 
solutions. I think if we can get a bipartisan solution, all the better. 
I invite the Democrats to come to the floor to give us their best 
ideas.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Toomey). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


             Welcoming Back the Senator from North Carolina

  Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, before I move into my remarks, I would 
like to say welcome back to the Senator from North Carolina. We are 
happy to see him hale and hardy.
  I was worried until I saw your little internet video and you looked 
fine. It is nice to see you. We welcome you back to the Senate floor--
and looking more energetic than the rest of us, in any case. So happy 
to have you back, Senator Tillis.


                             Net Neutrality

  Mr. President, in the rubble of this week, the Federal Communications 
Commission is going to formally start the process of destroying net 
neutrality. A free and open internet is without question important to 
democracy and American innovation.
  Apparently this FCC believes we no longer need the protections that 
keep internet service providers from discriminating against websites 
and online content, but these protections are what make the internet 
what it is today. They mandate, very simply, that ISPs have to treat 
websites the same, whether they are Twitter or Facebook, Breitbart or 
the New York Times. The FCC is supposed to be there to make sure ISPs 
follow this basic principle: Treat all content the same. But under this 
administration, these protections are being undermined.
  It starts tomorrow when they will vote to begin the process to repeal 
net neutrality. I really don't know why the FCC thinks this is a good 
idea, because the internet is not broken. What problem were you trying 
to solve by getting rid of these protections, and on whose behalf are 
you working? There is not a single constituent in my State with whom I 
ever interacted--and I bet this is true for many other Members of the 
Senate and House--who says: You know those net neutrality protections? 
I hate them. You have to get rid of that net neutrality thing. It is 
bugging me and harming my access to the internet. I would like fast 
lanes and slow lanes. I would like my ISP to determine what I get to 
see and how quickly I get to see it.
  There is literally no constituency for what is happening tomorrow, 
but there is one group that stands to gain here, and that is the ISPs, 
the companies that control your access to the internet. It is true that 
they are promising to keep the internet open and free. In fact, they 
did it just this week. A group of ISPs published a full page ad in the 
print version of the Washington Post reaffirming their commitment to 
voluntary net neutrality. In other words, they promised to be good to 
all of us as consumers. They are basically saying: You don't need the 
Federal Communications Commission to enforce any rule or law related to 
a free and open internet. We will do it voluntarily.
  But here is the thing: Without net neutrality as a matter of rule and 
law, there is nothing that prevents them from treating content or 
websites differently. In fact, they will have financial incentives to 
do just that because making profits is their obligation. They have to 
maximize their profits. They have a fiduciary obligation to maximize 
profits. If there is an opportunity now or in the future to change the 
business model for internet service, changing the internet as we know 
it along the way, they are duty bound to pursue it. They do not have an 
obligation--a moral one or a statutory one or a legal one--to a free 
and open internet; they have an obligation to their shareholders and 
profits.
  Here is what is going to happen if the FCC succeeds ending net 
neutrality once and for all: ISPs would be allowed to split content 
into two lanes--favorite content would be in the fast lane and 
everything else in the slow lane. Companies that need their content to 
be fast for video streaming or cloud services would have to pay to be 
in the fast lane. At the end of the day, the cost is going to be 
transferred to you, the consumer.
  We would pay more for the same internet, but the issue here is bigger 
than a company that streams video asking an ISP to stream their content 
faster in exchange for more money. It is not just that. This is an era, 
as we all know, of corporate consolidation. The content companies and 
the ISPs are often one and the same. So it is not just that you would 
get Netflix negotiating with Comcast and maybe paying extra so they can 
stream their content so you can view it; it is also what happens when 
Comcast or some other company is also the content company.
  I want everybody to think this through. If you were running a company 
that provided access to the internet and also owned content, wouldn't 
you be at least a little bit tempted--wouldn't your board of directors 
at least make you look at the possibility that if you have television 
shows and if you have websites and you depend on traffic, why in the 
world wouldn't you prioritize your own stuff? It is not apocryphal. It 
is not apocalyptic to imagine that a company would say: We are a 
vertical now, and we own content. Why are we going to put up our 
competitor's stuff at the same rates? The law doesn't provide for that 
anymore. Net neutrality is a thing of the past.
  You don't have to imagine that these are bad people who are running 
these companies; you just have to imagine that they are businesspeople 
and that they run publicly traded companies that have to give quarterly 
earnings reports and have to show profit every single quarter. What 
better way to make profit than to create what they call on the internet 
a walled garden?
  Everything seems like the internet you used to have, except it is all 
within one family of companies, and that is what net neutrality is 
designed to prevent. When you get on the internet, your ISPs can't tell 
you whether to go to Google or Bing or Yahoo or Facebook or Breitbart 
or the New York Times or the Honolulu Star-Advertiser or wherever it 
wants; you get it all at the same speed. That is what net neutrality is 
all about. But to the degree and extent that net neutrality protections 
are repealed as a matter of law, these companies can suddenly provide 
you with opportunities to see all their stuff and only their stuff. You 
will still have access to the other stuff. It might not stream very 
well or load very fast.

[[Page 7876]]

That is what net neutrality is all about.
  Entrepreneurs and small business owners will also be hurt. Think 
about what it takes to start and grow a business. You don't have extra 
cash to hand over to your ISPs to make sure people can access your 
content. Without net neutrality, new services, new websites, new big 
ideas will have a harder time competing with established businesses. 
That is why more than 1,000 entrepreneurs, investors, and startups from 
every single State have signed a letter asking that the FCC protect net 
neutrality--because it is critical for innovation.
  When you think about how quickly the internet of things is gaining 
steam, it is also a big deal for what they call IoT. We are at a 
historic moment in innovation in the digital space.
  Kevin Kelly, internet pioneer, recently did an interview with Stephen 
Dubner of Freakonomics Radio. They talked about the fact that in 2015 
alone, 5 quintillion transistors were added to devices that were not 
computers. A quintillion is a billion billion. That is such an enormous 
number, it is hard to fathom. That is how fast the internet of things 
is growing. That is the level of innovation that is taking place, but 
this innovation depends on a free and open internet.
  So the degree and extent that individual ISPs are able to control who 
gets what and at what speed, all of that innovation at the app level, 
the IoT level, all the cool stuff you are looking forward to from 
Silicon Valley or wherever it may be, is in danger because then it 
becomes about paying tolls. Then it becomes about a commercial 
negotiation. Then it becomes about lawyering up. You have a really good 
idea? Lawyer up. You have a really good idea? Get people who have a 
master's in business administration. Forget the engineers. Forget the 
content developers. Forget the creative class. What you have to do is 
figure out how to get in on what will essentially be what they call a 
closed shop. And that is what net neutrality is all about.
  What if your internet service provider has a relationship with one of 
these websites? What if an auto sales website is purchased by a media 
company or vice versa? If you try to purchase a car online, you may end 
up in an internet funhouse if the FCC takes away net neutrality. It 
will look like the internet, but you may not have complete access to 
all the options. The same idea applies to the internet of things. If 
every car connects to the internet, broadband providers could decide 
that it takes too much bandwidth and pick and choose which brands are 
allowed to connect to the internet. That is what can happen without net 
neutrality.
  They could offer a basic internet package that limits customers to 
certain websites or content, sort of how you buy basic cable and then 
decide whether you want ESPN or HBO or whatever additional channels. It 
is not totally out of the question that that could be the way you 
access the internet in the future.
  The thing is, it sounds so scary, it sounds so crazy that you can't 
imagine it would happen. And it is true that it didn't happen in the 
past, but that is because it wasn't in their commercial interest to do 
it. Think about towns where there are one or two ISPs. Think about a 
future 5 or 10 years from now when net neutrality is repealed. The 
moment it is in their commercial interest to do something to change the 
very nature of the internet is the moment they will be duty bound to 
consider going forward.
  When net neutrality was adopted under the previous FCC, there were 
3.8 million people who provided comment. This is a very unique process. 
When the law passed that allowed ISPs to sell your commercial data, to 
sell your browsing data to third parties--that happened in a 30-hour 
period--basically, nobody noticed. We tried to mobilize. We got the 
word out. They had the votes, and it happened very quickly. This is 
different. Under the law, there is a public comment period. There were 
3.8 million people who commented on the last net neutrality debate. 
There are already 1 million people who have commented through the FCC's 
website.
  Tomorrow, the FCC will take an action that will open up the comment 
period and provide people an opportunity to weigh in on this. I would 
just offer that I do not believe there is any real constituency for 
what the FCC is doing. I think people across the country--young and 
old; left, right, and center; Democratic and Republican; urban and 
rural--everybody who cares about a free and open internet ought to care 
about what is happening tomorrow.
  With that, I would like to yield to a Member of the Senate who has 
many years of leadership in this space, someone who has authored some 
of the statutory architecture that has allowed this innovation on the 
internet to occur, someone who fights for consumers, the Senator from 
Massachusetts, Mr. Markey.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I say to Senator Schatz, thank you for 
organizing our Senate net neutrality champions out here on the floor 
today so that we can all stand up and add our voices to your voice in 
speaking on this critical issue. Now, there are people watching the 
Senate floor right now by watching the live stream on c-span.org or on 
Facebook Live.
  They might be engaged citizens, they might be political junkies, or 
maybe they need something to help them to ensure that their newborn is 
going to go to sleep this afternoon. That is watching C-SPAN. That 
helps the family. Let's face it. The action in this most deliberative 
body can sometimes feel a little slow.
  Now, imagine just a few companies deciding that c-span.org will be 
put in a slow lane, that the public interest content streamed out to 
the world from this Chamber will be sent out at an even more 
deliberative pace, all while kitten videos get priority in an internet 
fast lane.
  When people talk about net neutrality, that is what we are talking 
about. Instead of an open and free internet where the billions of 
clicks, likes, and links made by customer and entrepreneurs in their 
living rooms and offices determines who wins and loses, it will be just 
a few companies in a few corporate boardrooms deciding who gets into 
the express lane and who falls behind in an internet traffic jam.
  That is why we need a true open internet. That is exactly what I 
heard last month when I hosted a roundtable in Boston with a number of 
our tech firms--Carbonite, TripAdvisor, Wayfair, iRobot, and others. 
Their message was clear: Net neutrality impacts businesses across the 
entire internet ecosystem, and the ever-changing environment of 
entrepreneurship can be easily disrupted without this ingredient--net 
neutrality.
  Today, essentially every company is an internet company. Consider 
these statistics. In 2016, almost one-half of the venture capital funds 
invested in this country went toward internet-specific and software 
companies. That is $25 billion worth of investment.
  At the same time, to meet America's insatiable demand for broadband 
internet, U.S. broadband and telecommunications industry giants 
invested more than $87 billion in capital expenditures in 2015. That is 
the highest rate of annual investment in the last 10 years. So we have 
hit a sweet spot. Investment in broadband and wireless technology is 
high, job creation is high, and venture capital investment in online 
startups is high. Disrupting that formula now would only create chaos 
and uncertainty.
  With strong net neutrality protections in place, there is no problem 
that needs to be fixed. But the Trump administration wants to upend 
this hallmark of American innovation and democratization by gutting net 
neutrality rules. Tomorrow, Chairman Ajit Pai and the Republican-
controlled Federal Communications Commission will vote to begin a 
proceeding that will allow a few powerful broadband providers to 
control the internet.
  Now, the big broadband barons and their Republican allies say: We 
don't need net neutrality. They say: What we really need is a ``light 
touch'' regulatory framework for broadband.

[[Page 7877]]

  But let's be clear here. When the broadband behemoths say ``light 
touch'' what they really mean is ``hands off''. They really want hands 
off of their ability to choose online winners and losers.
  That is what they really want, to allow AT&T, Verizon, Charter, 
Comcast, and all of the other internet service providers to set up 
internet fast lanes for those with the deepest pockets, pushing those 
who can't onto a slow gravel path. Then, they will just pass any extra 
costs onto the consumer. What they really want is to sideline the FCC, 
our telecommunications cop on the beat, and to create an unregulated 
online ecosystem where broadband providers can stifle the development 
of competing services that cannot afford an internet E-ZPass.
  No one should have to ask permission to innovate. But with fast and 
slow lanes, that is precisely what an entrepreneur will need to do. 
Right now, the essence of the internet is to innovate and test new 
ideas first, and if an idea then takes off, the creator can attract 
capital and expand.
  Creating internet fast and slow lanes would flip this process on its 
head. Instead, an entrepreneur would first need to raise capital in 
order to start innovating, because she would need to pay for fast lane 
access to have a chance for her product to be seen and to succeed. Only 
those with access to deep pockets would develop anything new. Imagine 
the stifling of creativity if startups need massive amounts of money 
even to innovate.
  Now, Chairman Pai says he likes net neutrality. But in reality, his 
proposal would eliminate the very order that established today's 
network neutrality rules. That is like saying you value democracy but 
you don't see a need for a constitution. It makes no sense.
  For Chairman Pai and the ISPs, title II is a bad word. It is some 
terrible thing. But for everyone else--consumers, activists, and 
entrepreneurs--title II is a reason to celebrate. Back in 2010, the FCC 
attempted to put net neutrality rules in place without reclassifying 
under title II of the Communications Act. The D.C. Circuit Court 
invalidated those rules. Then, in 2015, the Federal Communications 
Commission rightfully adopted the open internet order, which 
reclassified broadband under title II, and the D.C. Circuit upheld the 
rule in 2016.
  The issue is settled. The FCC should not repeat past mistakes and 
instead should maintain the successful current regime. Why is title II 
appropriate? It was Congress's intent to preserve the FCC's authority 
to forestall threats to competition and innovation in 
telecommunications services, even as the technologies used to offer 
those services evolved over time.
  Now, classifying broadband under title II is just a very fancy way of 
saying broadband is like telephone service. It is a basic utility that 
Americans rely on every day to work, to communicate, and to connect. 
Broadband has become the single most important telecommunications 
service Americans use to transmit information from one to another. This 
is common sense to Americans around the country, with the only 
exception being high-powered telecommunications lobbyists inside the 
beltway here in Washington.
  Chairman Pai also claims that he wants internet service providers to 
voluntarily decide to follow net neutrality principles. That is like 
asking a kid to voluntarily swear not to stick his hand in the cookie 
jar. It just won't happen. We know the broadband industry--your cable, 
wireless or telecommunications provider--can't self-regulate 
themselves. They struggle to even show up on time to install or fix 
your service. Do we really trust them to resist using their internet 
gatekeeper role and putting their online competitors at an unfair 
disadvantage?
  This effort on net neutrality is just one piece of the Republicans' 
effort to dismantle the basic protections safeguarding American 
families. Instead of protecting our privacy, our healthcare, our 
environment, or our net neutrality, the Republicans want to give it all 
away to their friends and allies and big corporations.
  The FCC has received more than 1 million comments already, and I am 
sure millions more will flow in the weeks and months to come, as the 
FCC comment period will stretch until at least August. Those are 
comments from every corner of the country and from every walk of life. 
They are standing up to say we need a truly open and free Internet.
  Openness is the internet's heart. Nondiscrimination is its soul. Any 
infringement on either of those features undermines the spirit and 
intent of net neutrality.
  So I proudly stand with my fellow netizens out on the Senate floor 
and all across America who oppose any efforts to undermine net 
neutrality. We are on the right side of history. I am ready for the 
historic fight to come.
  Twelve years ago, I introduced the first net neutrality bill in the 
House of Representatives. In the Senate, the first net neutrality bill 
was introduced by the Senator from Oregon, Ron Wyden. This has been a 
long battle, a long struggle coming. We now have America in its sweep 
spot, with net neutrality on the books for software and broadband 
companies, which allows for a fair balance in terms of the competition 
in the marketplace.
  So I now turn and yield for the Senator from Oregon, Ron Wyden.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Massachusetts for 
not just today but all of the years in which he has led this battle. He 
is right. We have served together now in both Chambers and, in fact, 
when I was here and he was in the other body, we talked often about why 
this was such a bedrock principle.
  You know, sometimes you listen to the head of the FCC and you get the 
sense that somehow he is saying that the internet either is broken or 
is about to break--that some horrendous set of problems are going to 
ensue without his ill-advised ideas. The fact is that the internet is 
not broken. The Federal Communications Commission is not trying to help 
consumers by rolling back net neutrality protections. They are doing it 
to make it easier for the big cable companies to be in a position to 
shove out true and real competition. That, I would say to my friend 
Senator Markey and my friend from Hawaii, Senator Schatz, who has been 
championing these efforts in the Commerce Committee, is what this is 
really all about.
  You know, the reality is that the internet is now the shipping lane 
for the 21st century. It is that place--a global marketplace--where you 
have the free exchange of ideas, and today's rules protect that 
shipping lane of the 21st century--the freedom for Americans and people 
worldwide to compete online. It exists so that the powerful interests, 
those who have the deepest pockets, do not go out and swallow the 
little guys up every single time.
  Now, as we talk about net neutrality and why it is so essential for 
jobs, free speech, political engagement, education, economic 
opportunity, and better competition, there are really just three 
points. First, protecting the free and open internet under Title II of 
the Telecommunications Act, in my view, is the best way to proceed at 
this point. It is the only way, at present, to ensure a free and open 
internet, and that is, by rejecting this idea that somehow the internet 
is broken and we should upend the current rules. The Federal 
Communications Commission should not only leave the current net 
neutrality rules in place, they ought to aggressively move against 
companies that violate those rules. As my friends from Massachusetts 
and Hawaii know, there is not exactly a lot of evidence that the 
Federal Communications Commission is doing that either.
  Net neutrality, in short, protects the internet's ability to give a 
fair shake to every single person in America and literally in the world 
with a good idea--they don't have to have money. They don't have to 
have lobbyists. They don't have to have PACs. All they have to have 
with net neutrality and the internet is an idea to compete with the 
establishment. This level playing field is a prerequisite for 
protecting free speech.
  A level regulatory playing field means that these powerful 
interests--

[[Page 7878]]

the cable companies, specifically--can't pick winners and losers 
because of their political or personal views. Our colleague, Senator 
Franken of Minnesota, has correctly said that net neutrality is the 
First Amendment issue of our time, and I think he is spot-on on that 
matter.
  Finally, because there really hasn't been the competition in the 
broadband marketplace that would best serve the consumer and the 
public, what you should definitely do is operate under the theory that 
you need strong rules. We all know that too many people don't have a 
choice when it comes to a broadband provider; often it comes down to 
Comcast or nothing. Without real competition, America needs strong net 
neutrality rules to prevent Comcast or AT&T from basically tossing 
consumer choice and free speech in the trash can to rake in even more 
profits.
  A lack of broadband competition and consumer choice is clearly a 
problem you cannot solve by giving the big cable companies more 
freedom--freedom to run at will through the marketplace.
  So the question now is--and I think my friend from Massachusetts just 
touched on it--what happens now? What happens now is making the 
American people aware that this is the time for their voices to be 
heard.
  The fact is, there are two notions of political change in America. 
Some people think it starts in Washington, DC, and in government 
buildings in various capitals and then trickles down to the grassroots.
  Senator Schatz, Senator Markey, and I take a different view with 
respect to how you bring about political change in America. It is not 
top-down; it is bottom-up. It is bottom-up as Americans from all walks 
of life weigh in with their legislators, weigh in with the Federal 
Communications Commission. My guess is that pretty soon--probably 
tomorrow--the future of the internet is going to be in the hands of the 
Federal Communications Commission.
  I just want to wrap up my remarks by talking about how important it 
is for the American people to go online to the Federal Communications 
Commission website and file a comment, and visit my website--
wyden.senate.gov--where you can get more information.
  I will close with this: I think my friends--certainly Senator Markey 
and Senator Schatz--may have heard this. I want to talk about the fight 
against internet piracy because we are all against internet piracy. No 
one is in favor of that kind of thievery, but we didn't think it made 
sense to damage the architecture of the internet--the domain name 
systems and the fundamental principles by which the internet operates--
in the name of fighting piracy.
  When there was a bill with a shortsighted view--it was called SOPA 
and PIPA--and it was introduced, scores and scores of Senators 
supported it immediately. I put a hold on this bill. I put a public 
hold on the bill. I chaired a little subcommittee of the Senate Finance 
Committee. There were close to a majority of Senators already in 
support of this flawed bill. We began to talk to those around the 
country who understand what it really means if you damage the internet 
and its architecture for a shortsighted and, in this case, unworkable 
approach.
  Everybody thought we didn't have a chance of winning. There was very 
close to a majority in the Senate actually cosponsoring it. So a vote 
was scheduled on whether to lift my hold on this bill, the flawed PIPA 
and SOPA bill.
  Four days before the vote was to take place on whether to lift my 
hold, 15 million Americans emailed, texted, called, went to community 
meetings. They went out all across the country. Mind you, these 15 
million Americans were focused and spent more time online in a week 
than they did thinking about their U.S. Senator in a couple of years.
  They said this defies common sense. We are not for internet piracy, 
but don't destroy the internet.
  My hope is, once again, with the odds stacked against our side--the 
odds stacked against Senator Schatz, Senator Markey, and all the 
Senators who have been willing, on our side, to speak up against these 
powerful interests that really would like to gut net neutrality--that 
those who understand what the freedom of the net is all about, what it 
means to have this ability to communicate that is so vital to people 
without clout and power, will take the fight for the consumer, for the 
man and woman who just want a fair shake when they get an idea. My hope 
is, just as they did a few years ago in blocking this ill-advised SOPA 
and PIPA bill, that those who care so much about freedom and a fair 
shot for everybody will, once again, take the fight to the Federal 
Communications Commission, knowing that their voices can make a 
difference. They have made a difference in the past.
  It is a real pleasure to be with Senator Markey and Senator Schatz.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, will the Senator from Oregon yield?
  Mr. WYDEN. I yield.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, as the Senator from Oregon remembers so 
well, when he and I started in Congress, there was one telephone 
company.
  Did we have innovation? Well, we had a company winning Nobel Prizes 
in basic research. Did we see applied research out there, new 
technologies? No. We saw a black rotary dial phone. So AT&T had to get 
broken up so there would be new companies, new competition, new 
technologies.
  Ultimately, because of all of that effort toward deregulation to let 
more companies in, more innovations, we now have devices that we walk 
around with, which are just minicomputers in our pocket. We have 
millions of apps that people sitting in any city and town all across 
our country can develop and get online to try to make a few bucks.
  Ultimately, it is still that old AT&T mentality: How do we shut it 
down? How do we close it down? How do we make it hard for the 
entrepreneur, hard for the innovator, hard for that new idea to get out 
there that makes it more productive, easier for the American people to 
be able to have access to these new programs?
  I agree with the Senator from Oregon that this is a pivotal time in 
our country's entrepreneurial history. We have learned this lesson over 
and over again. The Senator has been a great leader on these issues, 
and I just want to compliment him on that. I compliment the Senator 
from Hawaii for his leadership on the issue.
  I yield back the remainder of my time to the Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Massachusetts. In 
fact, I have to leave the floor right now to wrap up business for a 
very important Finance Committee meeting tomorrow. It is a markup where 
we are going to be looking at ways as part of the transformation of 
Medicare--what I call updating the Medicare guarantee--that some of the 
technologies my friend from Massachusetts talked about are going to be 
available to seniors.
  I know our friend from New Hampshire has arrived, and she has been a 
very strong advocate of principles of net neutrality.
  I yield the remainder of my time to her.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Ms. HASSAN. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
  I thank my friends from Oregon, Massachusetts, and Hawaii for their 
leadership on this very important issue concerning net neutrality.
  Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the Federal 
Communications Commission's proposal to undermine critical net 
neutrality rules, which would change the internet as we know it today.
  Tomorrow the FCC will vote on a notice of proposed rulemaking, which 
begins the unraveling of commonsense consumer protections that enhance 
our online experience. Net neutrality is a concept that requires 
internet service providers to provide equal access to online 
applications and content. It prevents internet service providers from 
discriminating against content and content providers, discrimination 
that

[[Page 7879]]

can take the form of making certain web pages, certain applications, or 
videos load faster or load slower than others.
  Net neutrality is integral to promoting innovation, supporting 
entrepreneurs and small businesses, and encouraging economic growth in 
my home State of New Hampshire and across the entire Nation.
  In March, Washington Republicans, with the support of the Trump 
administration, voted to take away critical online privacy protections 
giving ISPs the green light to collect and use a consumer's online data 
without the consumer's consent. So it is no surprise that what 
corporate ISPs want next is to remove baseline protections that allow 
even the softest voice to be heard or the smallest of businesses to 
thrive against larger competitors.
  I have heard time and again from Granite Staters who call and write 
to my office that we must fight to protect the net neutrality rules, 
rules that create an even playing field and protect consumers from 
unfair practices.
  What we are seeing here in Washington is different. At the request of 
big cable companies and internet service providers, the Republican-
controlled FCC, led by Chairman Ajit Pai, is taking aim at commonsense 
consumer protections that could change the free and open internet as we 
know it. As rationale, Chairman Pai has claimed that since net 
neutrality rules went into effect 2 years ago, investments in U.S. 
broadband companies have dropped to historically low levels.
  Quite the opposite has occurred. Since the rules went into effect, 
AT&T's share price has gone up more than 20 percent, Comcast has 
increased 26 percent, and several ISPs have reassured investors that 
net neutrality would have no impact on their broadband investments. So 
this is just another ``gimme'' to big cable and industry stakeholders 
who want to put profits ahead of customer service and consumer 
protections.
  In New Hampshire, innovative, small businesses are the backbone of 
our economy, creating good jobs, stimulating economic growth, and net 
neutrality has been integral to their success. More than 1,000 
startups, innovators, investors, and entrepreneurial support 
organizations from across the country, including the company Digital 
Muse, in New Hampshire, sent a letter to Chairman Pai urging him to 
protect net neutrality rules. I plan to fight to do just that.
  In giving entrepreneurs a level playing field to turn an idea into a 
thriving business that reaches a global audience, net neutrality helps 
promote innovation and boost economic growth. By dismantling net 
neutrality rules, internet service providers will be allowed to force 
small service providers to pay to play online, causing instability to 
startups and entrepreneurs across the Nation who might not be able to 
afford such fees. Companies like Digital Muse should be able to compete 
based on the quality of their goods and services, not on their ability 
to pay tolls to internet service providers.
  Net neutrality isn't just good for startups and entrepreneurs, it has 
also created a platform for traditionally underrepresented voices, 
including women and minorities, to be heard and, as important, to add 
to our economic strength. Last week, my friend Senator Cantwell and I 
sent a letter with several of our colleagues to Chairman Pai 
highlighting the importance of net neutrality to women and girls across 
the country. An open internet serves as a platform to elevate voices 
that are underrepresented or marginalized in traditional media, an 
experience many women in the field know all too well.
  When turned away from traditional media outlets, women can turn to 
the internet as an autonomous platform to tell their stories in their 
own voices thanks to the vast array of media platforms enabled by net 
neutrality. Between 2007 and 2016, while the total number of business 
firms in America increased by 9 percent, the total number of women-
owned firms increased by 45 percent, a rate five times the national 
average. This growth in women-owned business mirrors the emergence of 
the free and open internet as a platform for economic growth. Net 
neutrality has been essential to the growth of women-owned, innovative 
businesses, ensuring them the opportunity to compete with more 
established brands and content.
  In addition to empowering women economically, an open internet has 
the ability to empower all citizens civically. The National Women's 
March in January brought together hundreds of thousands of people to 
raise their voices and organize in marches across the country and 
around the world, largely through online activism. The Women's March 
and the many other marches that have followed since January demonstrate 
how an open internet can serve as a powerful mechanism for civic 
engagement and strengthening communities. The open and free internet is 
too powerful of a tool for civic engagement and social and economic 
mobility--especially for our underrepresented populations--to take 
away. Strong net neutrality rules are absolutely essential. They 
protect against content discrimination, they prevent internet toll 
lanes, they allow the FCC adequate room for oversight, and they require 
reasonable transparency from internet service providers. The rules also 
provide stability to our economy, to our entrepreneurs, and our 
innovative small businesses--enterprises that are integral to New 
Hampshire's and America's economic success.
  I will continue fighting to ensure that our regulatory environment is 
one that spurs innovation, fosters economic growth, supports our small 
businesses, and allows the next young person with a big idea to 
prosper. I strongly oppose rules that would undermine net neutrality, 
and I hope the FCC listens throughout the comment period to concerns 
from Granite Staters and Americans who feel the same way.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I see that my friend from Minnesota is here and wonder if he would 
like to speak to this issue as well.
  Mr. FRANKEN. I would.
  Ms. HASSAN. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. FRANKEN. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I rise to discuss the Trump administration's effort to undo the open 
internet order. Together we must protect net neutrality and ensure that 
all content on the internet receives equal treatment from broadband 
providers regardless of who owns the content or how deep their pockets 
are.
  Two years ago, American consumers and businesses celebrated the FCC's 
landmark vote to preserve the free and open internet by reclassifying 
broadband providers as common carriers under title II of the 
Communications Act. The vote came after the SEC received nearly 4 
million public comments, the vast majority of which urged the agency to 
enact strong rules protecting net neutrality.
  Consumers urged the Commission to protect their unfettered and 
affordable access to content. A wide range of advocacy organizations 
pressed the Commission to ensure that broadband providers couldn't pick 
and choose which voices and ideas would actually reach consumers. Small 
and large businesses alike asked that the internet remain an open 
marketplace where everyone can participate on equal footing, free from 
discrimination by companies like Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T.
  The FCC responded by establishing rules that are strong, clear, and 
enforceable; rules that prevent broadband providers from blocking or 
throttling lawful online content, and rules that stop providers from 
charging websites for access to fast lanes.
  Perhaps, most importantly, the FCC implemented these rules within the 
time-tested legal framework that allows the agency to respond to 
challenges to net neutrality that arise in the future. Following the 
commonsense path I have long urged, the FCC recognized that broadband 
access is a title II service--a classification that the D.C. Circuit 
has upheld and had previously signaled was necessary in order to 
establish strong rules.
  The FCC's vote to implement strong net neutrality rules was an 
important victory for American consumers and for American business, and 
that victory demonstrated the overwhelming

[[Page 7880]]

power of grassroots activism and civic participation. In 2014, millions 
of Americans from across the political spectrum organized to ensure 
that their voices were heard, and in the process, they redefined civic 
engagement in our country, but in the 21st century, that kind of 
participation requires an open internet, a place where people can 
freely share information and engage in meaningful public discourse.
  Because of net neutrality, a handful of multibillion-dollar companies 
cannot bury sites offering alternative viewpoints or attempt to control 
how users get their information. Because of net neutrality, people from 
across the Nation can connect with each other, share their ideas on the 
internet, and organize a community effort.
  I have always called net neutrality the free speech issue of our time 
because it embraces our most basic constitutional freedoms. 
Unrestricted public debate is vital to the functioning of our 
democracy. Now, perhaps more than ever, the need to preserve a free and 
open internet is abundantly clear. That is why I am so concerned about 
Chairman Pai's proposal to gut the strong net neutrality rules we 
fought so hard for.
  Tomorrow, the FCC will vote officially to initiate a proceeding to 
undo the open internet order, but, importantly, American consumers and 
businesses will once again have an opportunity to make their voices 
heard. I hope the American people will contact the FCC, that they will 
remain engaged and willing to speak up, and that they will continue to 
use the internet to spread ideas, organize support, and ultimately 
counter the deep-pocketed ISPs and the politicians who seek to 
undermine net neutrality.
  Two years ago, the best principles of our democracy won out. I do 
believe that with the same energy and determination that has gotten us 
this far, net neutrality supporters can garner another win for the 
American people.
  I thank the Presiding Officer for this opportunity to speak.
  I yield to my good friend from the State of Hawaii.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I thank Mr. Franken for his leadership on 
this issue. He is a person who understands the content industry and has 
been a fierce defender of people's ability to view content online, 
people's ability to express themselves online, and understands that a 
fair and open media marketplace is central to our democracy.
  I want to address one assertion that was made by the proponents of 
repealing net neutrality; that is, that somehow the investment climate 
under net neutrality was harmed. They say there is some reason to 
believe that under net neutrality, the investment climate was 
diminished, but the Internet Association published research today that 
addressed this very issue, and their findings show that since 2015, 
when the rules went into place, telecommunications investment has 
actually increased. ISPs and their consumers are enjoying historically 
low production costs and innovation has increased. Free Press also 
published a report on this question earlier this week, and they found 
that investment in broadband by publicly traded companies actually went 
up after net neutrality went into place. Here is what the research 
director at the Free Press had to say: ``If investment is the FCC's 
preferred metric, then there is only one possible conclusion--net 
neutrality and Title II are a smashing success.''
  Here is the point. The internet is not broken. There are parts of the 
economy that are not working well. We struggle with manufacturing. We 
need to invest in infrastructure. We have a trade imbalance. We have a 
higher education system that is not working for everybody. We need to 
do more work in these areas, but the part of our economy that is 
working great for consumers, for entrepreneurs, for the private sector, 
for engaged citizens is the internet itself. Tomorrow, the FCC is going 
to endeavor to break it.
  Before I hand it over to someone who has been working on these issues 
for many years, I want to point out that nobody would have anticipated 
that the Affordable Care Act would still be on the books because of 
unprecedented online and inperson organizing.
  The FCC has a very unique process where there is going to be a 3-
month public comment period. The statute actually allows the public to 
go and weigh in on what they think. The last time this happened when 
net neutrality principles were being established, 3.8 million people 
commented. So far, before they even take their first formal action, 
there are 1.6 million people who have already commented. My guess is, 
by the time tomorrow is done--maybe the next day--we will be well into 
the 2 to 3 million comment range, and they still have 3 months to go. 
Understand the power in our democracy still resides with the people. 
Somebody who has been working in the trenches on this issue and many 
consumer issues for a very long time is my great colleague, the senior 
Senator from Connecticut, and I will yield to him as I realize I think 
I am standing at his dais.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I begin by thanking my colleague and 
friend Senator Schatz for his extraordinary leadership in this area 
that has brought us to the floor. I am proud to speak against the 
Federal Communications Commission Chairman's proposed order that is in 
fact slated for a vote at the open commission meeting tomorrow morning. 
That vote would undo the open internet order.
  What is at stake here is, really, First Amendment rights to free 
speech. Those rights are threatened. Net neutrality has never been more 
important. Allowing broadband providers to block or discriminate 
against certain content providers is a danger to free speech and the 
freedom of our press. These principles are fundamental to our 
democracy. We should safeguard them by stopping this proposed repeal of 
the open internet order.
  The internet's astonishing economic success is due to its being open 
and the access that it provides as an open platform. Anyone with a good 
idea can connect with consumers. Anyone who wants to reach across the 
globe to talk to others or to pitch and promote ideas and products 
encounters a level playing field, and that ought to be the reality.
  On February 25, 2015, the FCC adopted the open internet order to 
preserve that open nature of the internet. The order, essentially, 
embodies three rules--no blocking, no throttling, no paid 
prioritization. Those principles are now at risk. In fact, they are in 
grave jeopardy. Those principles guarantee people, within the bounds of 
the law, access to different web content regardless of the political 
views expressed and regardless of the wealth of a site. They assure 
that the internet is open--that it is not a walled garden for wealthy 
companies. A lot is at stake here, and consumers and others should 
prevail because their interests are, ultimately, what is involved.
  Ultimately, the Administrative Procedure Act requires, in my view, 
that Chairman Pai prove, through a fact-based docket, that something 
has significantly changed in the market since the open internet rule 
was established in February of 2015. Without that change in facts, the 
decimation of this rule cannot be justified. We cannot allow Chairman 
Pai to succeed in this plan to gut neutrality at the behest of moneyed 
internet service providers. Chairman Pai's proposal, if it succeeds 
tomorrow, will deprive the American people, startups, and businesses of 
important bright-line net neutrality rules. For that reason, I will 
fight it, and I hope my colleagues will join me in this effort.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gardner). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          National Police Week

  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I rise during Police Week to pay tribute 
to

[[Page 7881]]

our police officers around the country--the men and women in blue who 
serve us every day in Ohio and in every State represented in this 
Chamber.
  In Ohio, this is a particularly difficult week. Here we are during 
Police Week, and we are, once again, mourning the loss of a police 
officer. This happened just last Friday. Last Friday, a gunman took two 
people hostage in the woods behind a nursing home in Kirkersville, OH, 
which is a small town about 25 miles east of Columbus.
  The first one to arrive on the scene was the police chief of this 
small town. His name was Steven DiSario. Chief Steven DiSario 
confronted the assailant, and he was ambushed by this assailant. He was 
shot. He was killed. This gunman then went inside the nursing facility, 
and he murdered two staff members--a registered nurse, Marlina Medrano, 
and a nurse's aide named Cindy Krantz. Then he took his own life.
  By the way, Police Chief Steven DiSario was 36 years old and had just 
become the police chief in Kirkersville a month ago. The women who were 
slain were Marlina Medrano, who had a son, and Cindy Krantz, who had 
five kids, including a 10-year-old son. Those kids had to spend 
Mother's Day preparing for their moms' burials.
  On Monday, I went to Kirkersville and saw the memorial there for the 
officer. I also had an opportunity to meet with some of the officers 
who were from neighboring communities. There was just one police 
officer in Kirkersville--just the chief. I was able to express to them 
the sympathy and the gratitude of the people throughout Ohio. I had 
brought a flag that had been flown over the U.S. Capitol in honor of 
Chief DiSario, and that flag will go to his family as a very small 
token of the appreciation and gratitude of all of us for their father's 
and husband's service.
  Chief DiSario had six kids, and his widow, Aryn, is currently 
pregnant with their seventh child--a child who is never going to know 
his or her dad. What he or she will know is that he died a hero, that 
he died a hero in risking his life to protect innocent people.
  That is what police officers do every single day. They keep us safe. 
They take dangerous criminals and weapons and drugs off our streets. 
They enforce the law. Even their very presence helps to deter crime and 
keep our communities safer, but they do it all at great risk--at great 
risk to themselves and at great sacrifice to their families.
  A little more than a year ago, I did a ride-along in Columbus with 
Officer Greg Meyer. He is one of those brave Columbus police officers 
who goes out every day to help keep our communities safe, and we were 
focused on a couple of issues that night in Columbus.
  One was the drug trade, particularly the opioid crisis we face in 
Ohio. He was able to show me where much of this activity occurs, and we 
were able to see with our eyes some of the people who were trafficking 
drugs, dispersing, and what goes on in our communities.
  We were also talking about human trafficking and his work in that 
area. We were able to go to some particular places at which there had 
been trafficking in the past and where the police had broken up 
trafficking rings in which girls and women had been made to become 
dependent on heroin. Then the traffickers had them, often in a hotel 
for a week until they had moved on to another one and trafficked--
sold--human beings, usually online, usually through the iPhone. Again, 
this police officer was able to tell me about what he has done and what 
his force has done to help protect these girls and women and to help 
get them out of that situation.
  This was just a few hours for me, and I always enjoy doing these 
ride-alongs, but this is his life and their lives every day. They are 
out there doing their best to try to protect us and to make our 
communities safer.
  The day before this tragedy occurred in Kirkersville, we had had a 
lot of police officers here in town because, on Thursday and Friday and 
over the weekend, police officers had been coming in for Police Week 
and Police Memorial Day, which was on Monday, so I had a chance to meet 
with a bunch of these officers and thank them for their service.
  We talked about the fact that the job is dangerous and increasingly 
dangerous. Unfortunately, the numbers show that. Little did we know 
that, the day after we had been talking, there would have again been 
this tragedy in Ohio. We talked about the fact that some of their 
families have had sleepless nights because they do not know whether 
their husbands or their wives or their sons or daughters are going to 
be coming home.
  In our Nation's history, more than 21,000 police officers have died 
in the line of duty. Think about that--21,000. We have already had 42 
this year, 2017. In 2016, we lost 143, which is about one officer every 
3 days. Again, last year, five of those fallen officers were from Ohio: 
Aaron Christian, a patrolman with the Chesapeake Police Department; 
Thomas Cottrell, a patrolman with the Danville Police Department; Sean 
Johnson, of the Hilliard, OH, Division of Police; Steven Smith, of the 
Columbus Division of Police; and Kenneth Velez, an Ohio State trooper.
  I had the opportunity to meet with some of the families of these 
fallen officers to express our appreciation, to express our respect for 
them and the sacrifices that they bear. It takes courage to wear the 
badge, and those officers wear the badge day in and day out. They knew 
what they were getting into. Yet they wore that badge; they died 
wearing that badge.
  Although these heroic men were taken from us, their examples can 
never be taken away and will not be. Ohioans are going to remember them 
as models of bravery and service, as examples of fellow citizens who, 
on behalf of all of us, were in the habit of walking into danger rather 
than running away from it.
  We have an opportunity to do something that will make a difference 
for our police officers by supporting the Police Week resolution that 
the House and the Senate are working on. I urge all of my colleagues to 
support it, and I am sure they will. I think we need to show our men 
and women in blue, who are on the frontlines, that we do appreciate 
them.
  There is also legislation that can be supported. Most recently, with 
the majority whip, I introduced legislation that is called the Back the 
Blue Act. It is very simple. It says, if you target law enforcement 
officers, you are going to have to pay a very high price. That is 
appropriate. We think the Back the Blue Act, which would increase 
penalties on those who would attempt to harm or kill a police officer, 
is going to make a difference because it will send a strong message and 
help deter some of these crimes. Ultimately, I think that it will make 
our heroes in blue safer and help save lives.
  Again, I urge my colleagues to join me in the wake of this terrible 
tragedy we had in central Ohio. I know the people of Ohio are looking 
for Congress to stand tall and to stand with our police officers and to 
thank them for what they do to protect us every day.
  Let's support this Police Week resolution. Let's support the Back the 
Blue Act. Let's do everything we can to ensure that our police officers 
know that we are with them--that we are at their side--as they do their 
job every day to protect us.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, pending before the Senate is the nomination 
of Rachel Brand to be the Associate Attorney General of the United 
States--the United States, not of the President.
  We once had an Attorney General who told us on the Judiciary 
Committee that as a member of the President's staff, it is not the 
Secretary of Justice; it is the Attorney General of the United States.
  I say this because her nomination to the third most senior position 
at the Department of Justice comes at an unprecedented time of chaos 
and upheaval--not only at the Justice Department, but also at the White 
House, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and across much of this 
administration.
  We should all agree that it is more important than ever that the 
Justice Department be led by public servants

[[Page 7882]]

with independence and integrity. Unfortunately, President Trump's 
Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General have failed this test. I 
did not expect Attorney General Sessions to show independence from the 
President, which is why I voted against his nomination.
  But I had higher hopes for Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. 
Mr. Rosenstein's role in the dismissal of FBI Director Comey and his 
willingness to provide pretext for President Trump's interference in 
the Bureau's ongoing Russia investigation has precipitated a crisis of 
confidence in the Department.
  The Senate must take steps to restore the independence of the 
Department of Justice. After reviewing her record and hearing her 
testimony at her confirmation hearing, I am not confident that Rachel 
Brand is up to that task. Like so many of the President's nominees, she 
carries a heavily skewed, pro-corporate agenda that would do further 
harm to the Justice Department and its independence.
  Ms. Brand has long championed deregulation and the rolling back of 
vital environmental, consumer, and labor regulations protecting the 
American people. Ms. Brand has justified indiscriminate surveillance of 
Americans and defended broad assertions of Executive power. She even 
refused to say whether she would recuse herself from matters involving 
the Chamber of Commerce and the Chamber Litigation Center, her current 
employer. I cannot support a nominee who lacks an independent voice. I 
will therefore vote against her nomination.


                          Russia Investigation

  Mr. President, every day seems to bring new, disturbing revelations 
involving this President and his administration. I almost hesitate to 
say ``every day'' because sometimes it is every hour.
  Yesterday's report that the President pressured former FBI Director 
Comey to terminate the ongoing investigation into Michael Flynn is 
extraordinary. If true, the President's conduct could warrant charges 
for obstruction of justice.
  Now, the notion that the Russia investigation could be led by a 
political appointee of this President, who serves at the pleasure of 
this President, is preposterous; yet Senate Republicans have attempted 
to justify Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein's failure to appoint a 
special counsel. Their arguments are wrong. I want to take a few 
minutes to explain why.
  The President says he fired James Comey because James Comey wouldn't 
pledge loyalty to him. Apparently, pledging loyalty to the rule of law 
was not as important. Most Americans don't care whether the Director of 
the FBI is a Republican or Democrat; they just want him or her to be 
committed to upholding the law, not a political position.
  Every lawyer knows that, when you are considering a legal question, 
you begin with a statute or regulation at issue. The relevant 
regulation, found in the Code of Federal Regulations, is worth reading 
in full.
  I ask unanimous consent that the regulation be printed in the Record 
at the conclusion of my statement.
  The rule requires that an independent special counsel be appointed if 
three conditions are met.
  The first condition is that a ``criminal investigation of a person or 
matter is warranted.'' This is not an open question in this instance--
there is already an active investigation.
  The second condition is met when an investigation by the Justice 
Department ``would present a conflict of interest for the Department or 
other extraordinary circumstances.'' If Mr. Rosenstein, a political 
appointee, were to lead this investigation, he may be forced to 
investigate both his immediate supervisor, the Attorney General, and 
the President. That is the definition of a conflict of interest. That 
alone is enough.
  But in this investigation, extraordinary circumstances abound. Last 
week, the President admitted that he fired the official leading this 
investigation because of ``this Russia thing.'' His Deputy Press 
Secretary then said, ``We want this to come to its conclusion. . . . 
And we think that we've actually, by removing Director Comey, taken 
steps to make that happen.'' Yesterday, we learned that President Trump 
may have also pressured the FBI Director to close the investigation 
into Michael Flynn's contacts with Russian officials. If these are not 
``extraordinary circumstances,'' then those words have no meaning at 
all.
  The third condition is met when ``it would be in the public interest 
to appoint an outside Special Counsel.'' I cannot recall a more serious 
national security investigation. Russian interference in our election, 
possible collusion with the Trump campaign and administration, and the 
President's repeated assaults on the rule of law have eroded trust in 
our democratic institutions like nothing I have seen. According to the 
President's own statements, this investigation has been repeatedly 
compromised by political interference.
  Because all three conditions are met, the Deputy Attorney General 
does not have a choice in this matter. It is not discretionary. The 
regulation requires that Mr. Rosenstein appoint a special counsel. Each 
minute that he refuses to follow this rule, he further diminishes the 
integrity of this investigation, as well as the integrity of the 
Justice Department itself.
  I would ask anyone who still claims that a special counsel is not 
required to reconcile their opinion with the Justice Department rules. 
We may disagree on policy matters, but I hope we all agree on the 
supremacy of the rule of law and that no person and no President should 
be above it.
  I know some Republicans have expressed concerns about the integrity 
of this investigation in public, and many others have expressed it to 
me privately. At this critical time, we cannot stand on the sidelines. 
We have a constitutional requirement to act as a check and balance on 
the conduct of the President. That starts with joining the call for a 
special counsel.
  Mr. President, I love the Senate. I think of the Senate as a place 
that can be the conscience of our Nation. But more than that, I love 
the system of government where we have real checks and balances. I 
respect the executive branch, the legislative branch, and the judicial 
branch, but in my decades here, I have never seen such an assault by 
the President of the United States on the integrity and the 
independence of our Federal court system; the assault on our free 
press, including the suggestion that we should pass new libel laws to 
go after members of the press who might dare criticize this 
administration; or the assault, of course, on the Congress; or the 
pitting of one religion against another--this undermines everything 
that has kept this nation strong. It is not just our weapons and our 
military. As General Clapper indicated the other day, if we break down 
our institutions of government, if we let them attack each other and 
break each other down, then they lose credibility, and we as a country 
suffer.
  Our Nation is too great for this, and we Senators in both parties 
have to stand up and help bring the country back together.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


     28 C.F.R. Sec. 600.1 Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel.

       The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney 
     General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint 
     a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal 
     investigation of a person or matter is warranted and--
       (a) That investigation or prosecution of that person or 
     matter by a United States Attorney's Office or litigating 
     Division of the Department of Justice would present a 
     conflict of interest for the Department or other 
     extraordinary circumstances; and
       (b) That under the circumstances, it would be in the public 
     interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume 
     responsibility for the matter.

  Mr. LEAHY. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.


                          National Police Week

  Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, over the weekend I heard a story I wanted 
to share with everyone here today. The story goes that there were three 
candles burning on a porch right across

[[Page 7883]]

the street from the Cornwell Funeral Home in Dardanelle, AR--my 
hometown, just a couple blocks away from my home. A family had lit them 
in the memory of the three people who were brutally murdered last week 
in Chickalah, just a few miles outside of Dardanelle.
  One of those slain was Lieutenant Kevin Mainhart of the Yell County 
Sheriff's Department, who was killed after he stopped a man wanted in a 
domestic disturbance. In honor of his 5 years of service to Yell 
County--on top of the 20 years of service he rendered to the West 
Memphis Police Department--his fellow officers escorted in their 
cruisers the white hearse carrying his body from the State crime 
laboratory in Little Rock back to Dardanelle.
  The family across the street had lit a green candle, specifically for 
Lieutenant Mainhart, and the three candles burned all the night. But as 
the hearse pulled into the funeral home, the green candle suddenly went 
out.
  You could say that it was nothing more than a strange coincidence, 
but I think there is something especially poignant about the sudden, 
tragic loss of Lieutenant Mainhart's life so close to National Police 
Week, which began on Sunday. Like that green candle, Lieutenant 
Mainhart lit up his community, and, like that flickering flame, his 
life was too brief.
  Like every American this week, I wish to pay my respects to 
Lieutenant Mainhart and the noble profession he chose. One of the 
things which struck me about Lieutenant Mainhart's death was that it 
came so early in the morning. The stop occurred at 7:18 a.m. He had the 
whole day and his whole life in front of him.
  He was only 46 years old, but he had made the most of his time on 
this Earth. He was a husband, a father, an Air Force vet, a beloved 
member of our community. Hundreds of people don't line the streets for 
just anybody. Yet, in a moment, he was gone--his family bereft, our 
community in mourning. It is a reminder of how precious and fragile 
every life really is.
  It also goes to show just how brave every police officer really is, 
because this is the risk they take every morning. They put on the 
uniform, they kiss their families good-bye, and they go to work, never 
fully certain they will get home that night. Yet the ever-present 
threat of death doesn't hold them down. It doesn't hold them back. It 
doesn't dim the brilliance of their service. They give it their all, 
day after day, without giving it a moment's thought. That, to me, is 
the ultimate sign of character--when you do the right thing without 
even thinking about it.
  People like this are hard to come by. The sad truth is, we need a lot 
of them. A free country always does, because there is no freedom 
without security. We are so used to this basic fact--that for most of 
us, most of the time we are safe--that we forget how remarkable it is. 
Not so many people on God's green Earth can take that safety for 
granted. We often forget what it takes to secure it. We forget how 
easily we can lose it--and lose men and women like Lieutenant 
Mainhart--in an instant.
  It is with this in mind--this grave understanding of what our safety 
requires--that I once again speak against continued efforts to water 
down Federal sentencing laws. I thought this ill-advised idea had 
expired last year, especially after Donald Trump's election. But 
advocates for criminal leniency are at it again, even though violent 
crime continued to rise in our cities for 2 years straight, and law 
enforcement officers are being killed in the line of duty.
  I have already made my position clear. If we want to take a second 
look at punishments for first-time drug possession, let's do that. But 
we should know that fewer than 500 people are in Federal prison for 
such offenses. If we want to clean up our prisons, rehabilitate felons, 
and help them achieve redemption, by all means, let's do that, too. I 
would even consider a bill to speed up review of inmates' applications 
for pardons and commutations, to help the President exercise this 
constitutional authority. But we should not--we should not--lower 
mandatory minimums for violent crimes, repeat offenders, and drug 
trafficking. There is nothing compassionate about putting the lives of 
innocent people--and our law enforcement officers--at risk.
  Lieutenant Mainhart isn't the only one. There were three police 
officers killed in the line of duty last year in Arkansas: Robert 
Barker in the McCrory Police Department, William Cooper in the 
Sebastian County Sheriff's Office, and Lisa Mauldin in the Miller 
County Sheriff's Office. Every one of these losses was too steep a 
price to pay, and unwise criminal leniency policies put at risk their 
fellow officers and our communities.
  I know it is considered old-fashioned to be tough on crime--or, even 
worse, cold-hearted and mean. But a man doesn't put a lock on his door 
because he hates those on the outside. He does it because he loves 
those on the inside--his wife, his kids, all his family--because they 
are the joy of his life. The men and women of law enforcement don't 
just protect their own families--they protect all of our families. 
Every day those men and women put their lives on the line for their 
fellow citizens. The least we can do is to stand behind them and 
support them, both for the work they do and for the lives they lead.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          Russia Investigation

  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the recent 
firing of FBI Director Jim Comey and Russian interference in our 
democracy. Jim Comey was my law school classmate, and I know that in my 
State he has a lot of respect from our agents and also from law 
enforcement in general in our State.
  When we had the stabbing in the mall in St. Cloud, MN--it was just 
with our police chief from St. Cloud--it was the FBI that came in and 
helped at the crime scene and with other things, because for a smaller 
police department it is difficult to deal with something like that and 
because they also had work to do working with the community to calm 
people.
  The result was a good one because of the courageous work of an off-
duty police officer. While people were injured, no one was killed, and 
the investigation was completed.
  This is just one example of the work the FBI has done when Director 
Comey was in charge. I think we focus very much on what goes on in this 
town, but there are a lot of agents and law enforcement out there who 
have deep respect for him.
  Last week, when Director Comey was fired, I came to the floor and 
said that in the recent months foundational elements of our democracy--
including the rule of law--have been questioned, challenged, and even 
undermined. Today I return to the floor with the same concern.
  In the last 48 hours alone, we have learned that, in addition to 
sharing top secret intelligence information with Russia without 
checking about it ahead of time--and we know Presidents have the right 
to share information and declassify it, but in instances of which we 
are aware, the President checks with intelligence agencies ahead of 
time. Was this shared with an ally? No. This was shared with Russia, a 
country that 17 intelligence agencies in the United States of America 
established was trying to undermine our election; Russia, which was 
found responsible for trying to shoot down and successfully brought 
down a plane, killing innocent people in Ukraine; the same regime that 
has poisoned dissidents; the same regime that has put people to death 
for simply expressing an opinion that is different from Vladimir 
Putin's. That is the country with which the President chose to share 
this information.
  What else happened in the last 48 hours? Well, President Trump 
allegedly urged Director Comey--this news

[[Page 7884]]

dropped in the last 48 hours--to end the investigation into ties 
between Russia and General Flynn and to put reporters who publish 
classified leaks in prison. This was information I didn't know before. 
It happened in the last few months, of course, but it all came out in 
the last 48 hours.
  The American people are looking to Congress for answers in the face 
of this assault on our democracy. It is our job to give them the 
answers they deserve and to right this ship. That is why I continue to 
call for a special prosecutor. Ever since the Attorney General had to 
recuse himself because of his own meetings and ties with Russia and 
ever since this mess kept getting messier, I have been calling for a 
special prosecutor. I believe that is the way to go.
  Also, I have long called for an independent commission, and this is 
for a different purpose. As the Senate Intelligence Committee continues 
its bipartisan work, a special prosecutor and the FBI would get to the 
bottom of any criminal investigation. To me, the purpose of an 
independent commission would be to set the rules of the road so that 
this doesn't happen again and so our country can protect itself. This 
would be a panel of experts appointed by both sides. Their focus could 
well be to take these facts but to put them into a future election, as 
in, what do we do when campaigns get information that clearly is from a 
cyber attack from a foreign power?
  Our Founding Fathers have said that our elections are precious and 
that they should be protected from foreign powers. Way back then, they 
were thinking of Great Britain. Now we are thinking of Russia. Next 
time, it could be another country. We should have some rules of the 
road.
  It is not that long ago that--I remember when Presidential campaigns 
would be given some information that they weren't supposed to get from 
the opposing side, and they would actually return it to the opposing 
side. We could go back to that kind of day.
  We could also have the media have some rules of the road. Look at 
what happened with the recent French election when there was a cyber 
attack there. The media didn't put out every rumor and everything they 
got out of that cyber attack; they showed some discretion.
  Those are the kinds of things we could do with an independent 
commission in addition to factfinding.
  I will start with this special prosecutor. The stack of reasons why 
we need a special prosecutor is getting higher and higher every day. 
Aides and surrogates of the Trump administration during both the 
campaign and in the transition were in contact with officials from a 
foreign government that was actively working to tear our democracy 
apart. That is pretty much established.
  We know that the campaign chair for the Trump campaign had to step 
down because of his ties to Russia. We know that General Flynn was on 
the phone with the Russian Ambassador on the very day President Obama 
declared he wanted to expand sanctions against Russia. We also know he 
then lied to the Vice President of the United States about it. Those 
things happened during the campaign and during the transition.
  Last week, former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates and former 
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper reminded us--I was 
there in the Judiciary Committee--they reminded us that on the very day 
that President Obama imposed those sanctions, that was when General 
Flynn--the former National Security Advisor; the person charged with 
the most sensitive matters of U.S. national security--was contacted--
the Ambassador--and then he later lied to the Vice President about that 
contact.
  I actually asked them specifically that after the fact that Flynn 
knew he was on tape, that they knew that, that there was a tape of him 
saying one thing to the Russians and then another to a high-ranking 
official in America--that would be the Vice President--I asked them if 
that was material for blackmail. They both said definitively that it 
was.
  Yet, when Sally Yates went to the administration twice for two formal 
meetings with other people--this wasn't just a little heads-up at a 
cocktail party; she actually went to the White House to inform them 
that she believed the National Security Advisor had been compromised. 
What happened? They let him stay on for 18 days. And 2 days in, he was 
on an hourlong call between Vladimir Putin and the President of the 
United States of America.
  Then, of course, we have the fact that the Attorney General was 
forced to recuse himself from any involvement with the Russia 
investigation because he met with the Russian Ambassador.
  I will note that he met with the Russian Ambassador just a few days 
after President Obama and President Putin had met at an international 
meeting. At that meeting and then publicly President Obama had said: 
No, I am not pulling back these sanctions. Then what happens? Jeff 
Sessions, who was closely affiliated with the Trump campaign, a 
surrogate for the campaign, goes and meets with the Russian Ambassador.
  Because of that and some things that happened in his confirmation 
hearing, he has now recused himself from any matters regarding the 
investigation between Russia and this administration and the campaign.
  In addition to the recusal, we have seen two people resign, as I 
noted: the campaign manager, the campaign chair, and the National 
Security Advisor. The one thing they have in common is Russia and 
President Trump.
  We have seen three people fired. One is Sally Yates, who was the 
Acting Attorney General of the United States. While the reasons given 
for her firing were, of course, related to the refugee order, in fact, 
she was fired on the very same day she had gone to the White House to 
talk to them about General Flynn. We have Preet Bharara, who was fired 
after saying he could stay on. He was the U.S. attorney in Manhattan, 
in a very major position to investigate these kinds of issues and 
crimes. And then, of course, we have Jim Comey. The one thing they all 
have in common is that they were all investigating various facets of 
this.
  In fact, Director Comey, as I noted--who had gotten support and 
respect from law enforcement--was fired the same day Federal 
prosecutors issued grand jury subpoenas to Michael Flynn's associates, 
just days after Comey requested more resources, according to news 
reports, to carry out the Russia investigation, and 2 days before he 
was scheduled to testify publicly before the Senate Intelligence 
Committee, where Members of that committee were going to ask him about 
Russia.
  Think about it. The independent government officials who are charged 
with getting to the truth, no matter where it leads, were fired. And 
the President of the United States reportedly now--and this is what we 
have learned in the last 48 hours, and of course we want to get to the 
bottom of the evidence, but according to news reports, he urged the FBI 
Director to end the investigation into the ties between Russia and Mike 
Flynn.
  We owe it to the American people to get to the bottom of what is 
going on here. It is our job to get to the bottom of this. The 
President can't fire Congress. He can fire the Acting Attorney General. 
He can fire the FBI Director, although I think it is very important 
that we get to the bottom of why the FBI Director was fired and whether 
it was for the reasons that were given in the memo that was prepared by 
the Justice Department or whether it was because of what President 
Trump has said--that it was related to Russia--or whether was because 
at one point he said he wasn't doing his job, which is not what I have 
heard from agents on the street. The one group the President cannot 
fire is right here in this room. The President cannot fire the U.S. 
Senate. The President can't fire the House of Representatives. He is 
not above the law.
  This administration cannot investigate itself. We have the ongoing 
and important investigation led by bipartisan leaders, Senator Burr and 
Senator Warner. That is important and

[[Page 7885]]

must continue. We also need a special prosecutor to look into the 
President's most recent conduct and all contacts between Trump campaign 
aides and surrogates and Russian officials during the campaign, the 
transition, and the administration. This prosecutor must be fair and 
impartial and completely unattached to either political party. Above 
all, this prosecutor must be comfortable speaking truth to power.
  In addition to a special prosecutor, we need an independent 
commission. When I came back from my trip with Senator McCain and 
Senator Graham to Ukraine, the Baltics, and Georgia, I made it very 
clear--I remember speaking to my colleagues about this--that what we 
saw there made me even more concerned about the finding of our 
intelligence agencies because those countries have seen this movie over 
and over again where Russia has cyber attacked them. It happened in 
Lithuania just because they had the audacity to invite members of the 
Ukrainian Parliament from Crimea, who were in exile in Kiev, for their 
25th anniversary, and they got hacked into. It happened in Estonia, 
where they moved a bronze statue out of a public square and into the 
cemetery with other statues of soldiers. But this was a Russian 
soldier. The Russians didn't like it. This was in 2007. What did they 
do? They shut down the internet for the entire country. This is not 
just a single incident involving one candidate or one political party 
or one election or even one country; this is something widespread. It 
is an attack on democracy.
  That is why, when I came back from that trip, I stood with Senator 
Cardin and House Members Adam Schiff and Elijah Cummings to stand up 
for a bill, which has a number of other sponsors, to create an 
independent, nonpartisan commission to uncover all the facts and make 
sure future elections and political campaigns are safeguarded from 
foreign interference.
  For months, U.S. intelligence agencies--17 of them--have said that 
Russia used covert cyber attacks, espionage, and harmful propaganda to 
try to undermine our democracy. Reports show it. The facts prove it. 
Some $200 million dollars was spent alone on Russian TV on our own 
election. Much of it was passed out on the internet.
  Last week, the former Director of National Intelligence, James 
Clapper, testified that Russia will continue to interfere in our 
election system. This is what he said:

       I believe [Russia is] now emboldened to continue such 
     activities in the future both here and around the world, and 
     to do so even more intensely. If there has ever been a 
     clarion call for vigilance and action against a threat to the 
     very foundation of our democratic political system, this 
     episode is it.

  Vigilance. He said that Russia felt emboldened by what happened. What 
happened in the last 48 hours? We find out that he had given high-level 
intelligence to the Russians before we gave it to any of our allies, 
before we checked it out with intelligence agencies. That actually 
emboldens them. We find out that, in fact--because Director Comey kept 
such meticulous notes, we find out that allegedly the President asked 
him to discontinue the investigation into General Flynn. What does that 
do? That emboldens Russia even more.
  What former Director Clapper was telling us was that we need 
vigilance. We need oversight. We need to send a clear message that they 
cannot continue doing this. We do not need to embolden them.
  What message does it send when the President urges the person in 
charge of the investigation into Russia's election interference to let 
it go? It is not one of vigilance in seeking the truth and fighting 
against a foreign adversary.
  An independent commission of nonpartisan experts can get to the 
bottom of this and tell us how we can prevent this from happening 
again. They can provide recommendations to help prevent future attacks 
on our democracy from being successful.
  In addition to a special prosecutor and independent commission, we 
also need our congressional committees to continue to exercise their 
oversight authority. Since the election, we have heard a lot about the 
three branches of government and our system of checks and balances. One 
of the fundamental jobs of Congress is to closely oversee the executive 
branch to ensure that the law is being properly followed and enforced. 
That means we need congressional committees to continue their 
investigation into Russian inference in our political system. We have 
subpoena power for that reason, and we need to use it. There are tapes. 
The President says there may be tapes. Of course, redact the classified 
information. We don't want to hurt anyone any further from what has 
been happening in the last few weeks. But we should see the 
transcripts. We should have the tapes. There is bipartisan support for 
turning over this material, including the memos prepared by Director 
Comey.
  (Mr. LEE assumed the Chair.)
  Today Senators Grassley, Feinstein, Graham, and Whitehouse sent a 
letter to the FBI and White House Counsel requesting these documents. 
Many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle understand the 
importance of doing our jobs to get to the bottom of this. The ongoing 
bipartisan Intelligence Committee investigation is vital to addressing 
the covert and classified aspects of Russian interference, but we also 
need transparency because the American people deserve to know as much 
as possible about what happened and how we are going to prevent it in 
the future.
  That is why I fully support the Judiciary Committee hearings that 
Senators Graham and Whitehouse have held in the Subcommittee on Crime 
and Terrorism. I also believe, as a member of the Judiciary Committee, 
that if the Director is to testify--former Director Comey--he should 
come before the Judiciary Committee because these are matters related 
to his service as an FBI Director. They are related to the justice 
system, to the criminal justice system, and we should hear from him.
  I hope Senator Grassley has requested that he come before our 
committee. I am aware that the Intelligence Committee also would like 
him to come, but I think it is important, given the substance of what 
is at issue here. Yes, he should appear before Intelligence about 
ongoing matters related to the Russian investigation, but there is also 
the issue of the fact that he was fired. We heard one thing in a memo 
from the Justice Department, we heard one thing from the White House, 
we heard another thing from the White House, and then we heard another 
thing from the President. That is all true. We need to get to the 
bottom of this.
  On Monday, Republican Senator Bob Corker said that the administration 
was in a ``downward spiral.'' He used the word ``chaos.'' That was 
before we even knew that the President may have urged the FBI Director 
to end the Russia investigation and put reporters in prison. This is an 
unprecedented time in our country's history.
  The Presiding Officer, having written a book on the Constitution, 
knows that one of our jobs is to stand by that Constitution. Yet we are 
witnessing a singular moment of constitutional and democratic unease.
  On this day in 1973, the Senate Select Committee on Presidential 
Campaign Activities began televised hearings on Watergate. One week 
later, Professor Archibald Cox was sworn in as special Watergate 
prosecutor. Like Director Comey, who was leading the investigation into 
Russian interference in our election, Archibald Cox was eventually 
fired by the President for doing his job. The night that Archibald Cox 
was fired by President Nixon for investigating Watergate, he said: 
``Whether ours shall continue to be a government of laws and not of men 
is now for Congress and ultimately the American people.'' He was right.
  The American people deserve a thorough, independent investigation 
into whether this administration obstructed justice and the extent of 
Russia's interference in the 2016 Presidential election. They need to 
know it because we are a democracy. We don't hide things like this. We 
get the facts. We get the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 
truth. That is what our democracy is about, and that is what our 
justice system is about. But they also need to know it because our 
democracy is the

[[Page 7886]]

basis of our freedoms. If we don't protect our democracy in the coming 
elections, then we hurt those freedoms. The only way we figure out how 
we are going to protect that democracy is getting to the bottom of the 
truth, so we can figure out how to prevent it from happening in the 
future. This is not a partisan issue; this is an American issue, and 
Americans deserve answers.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.


              Tribute to David Hankerson and David Connell

  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, we debate a lot of heavy things in the 
United States Senate. We make tough decisions. Decisions of the fate of 
our country lie in the balance. But day in and day out, sometimes we go 
an entire day or week without talking about the people who make America 
work: the entrepreneurs, the employees, the employers, the people who 
run the businesses, pay the taxes, and employ the citizens who make 
this country go.
  Today, I rise to talk about two citizens from my home county, Cobb 
County. First is David Hankerson. David announced this week his 
retirement after being employed by our county for 33 years. He came to 
the community development department of the county 33 years ago, and 11 
years later, he became the first county manager of the county and 
served in that position for a record 24 years. During that time, the 
county doubled, not just in its population, but tripled and quadrupled 
in its revenue. It did new and different and innovative things. As tax 
rates went down, productivity went up. Its popularity as a place to 
locate became preeminent. He is one of the shining stars in the State 
of Georgia today, in Cobb County.
  I rise for a special reason to pay tribute to David Hankerson, 
however, because he represents something I was a part of in 1984. At 
the time he was being hired, I did not know him as an employee for the 
county; I was in the State legislature, trying to change the government 
for our county from an elected CEO to an appointed county manager, a 
professional operator of the county. That had not been done in Georgia. 
In other parts of the country, it had been done successfully. You had 
continuity of leadership--someone whose job was to be a good leader, 
who wasn't an elected politician, someone who could do the job.
  David Hankerson was hired to do that job in Cobb County, GA. He did 
one of the most remarkable jobs anyone has ever done. In fact, the 
great testimony is that every year since he was there--24 years ago as 
county manager--someone has tried to hire him away from Cobb County. 
Every year he decided to stay because he once had said: I have made a 
commitment. As long as the commitment is returned by the community to 
me, I am going to stay and see it through.
  On this day, as I rise on the floor of the U.S. Senate to pay tribute 
to David Hankerson, I pay tribute equally to all those who make our 
government work, our businesses work, our communities work, and our 
country work, to the men and women laboring in the fields and toiling 
in the vineyards, working in the shops, working in the offices who make 
America the great country it is today, and to the great chambers of 
commerce that make it happen as well.
  I pay great tribute to David Hankerson and thank him for the 
contribution and sacrifice he made to the people of Cobb County, GA, 
and the State of Georgia.
  Mr. President, I would like to pay tribute to one other Georgian, the 
retiring chairman and CEO of the Cobb County Chamber of Commerce, David 
Connell. This is the kind of guy you really appreciate. He worked for 
40 years at the Georgia Power Company. He had 12 different titles in 40 
years. He was a great employee of that company, a great member of the 
community of Cobb County, a great private citizen, and great personal 
friend of mine.
  After 40 years of working there and retiring, the county had a big 
problem. The chamber of commerce had a scandal. It couldn't find a 
leader and was losing its effectiveness. David volunteered to go in as 
a chamber board member and spent 1 year as chamber leader. He stayed 
there 15 years and led the chamber to new heights unprecedented in our 
State and in our county: an AAA bond rating in our county, new 
businesses coming and relocating, and even the now-famous relocation of 
the Atlanta Braves from downtown Atlanta to suburban Cobb County--one 
of the rare moves a professional team has ever made smoothly and 
easily. They made it because of David Connell.
  David will tell you that when the chamber board found out the Braves 
were interested in maybe talking about building a $750 million facility 
in the county, they asked David if he would stay until that was 
accomplished. He made the commitment to do so, and it took 3\1/2\ 
years--3\1/2\ long years. It was a lot of effort, all in a circuitous 
nature because of the popularity of the Braves and what would have 
happened had it gotten out as a rumor that they were coming.
  David closed that deal this year. The Braves opened this season in a 
new stadium. With three-quarters of a billion dollar investment having 
been made, the county is more prosperous. David Connell made it happen.
  He announced this week that he is retiring after 40 years at the 
power company and 15 years at the Cobb County Chamber of Commerce.
  I want to take a moment on the floor of the Senate to say thank you 
to David Connell for what he has done for our county and our community, 
for our citizens and our families, and how proud I am as one of his 
friends. I thank him for a job well done.
  David, thank you. We are proud of you. God bless you, and God bless 
the United States of America.
  I yield back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.


                     Welcoming Back Senator Isakson

  Mr. GARDNER. Thank you, Mr. President.
  It is great to have our colleague from Georgia on the floor of the 
Senate once again, doing the outstanding job that he has always done 
for the people of Georgia, recognizing the great individuals back home 
who make Georgia such a great State, and we are just blessed to have 
him here. I thank him for his continued service for the people of 
Georgia and the people of this country.


                     Well Wishes to Senator Tillis

  I am also grateful to be standing at a desk that is next to the desk 
of our colleague Thom Tillis, the Senator from North Carolina. I am 
glad he is ``up and at `em'' today after a little bit of a startle this 
morning.


                          National Police Week

  Mr. President, I rise to talk about the sea of blue that is in 
Washington, DC, this week. Monday was National Police Day. This week, 
we celebrate National Police Week. Law enforcement personnel--men and 
women from around the country--are in Washington to share their 
incredible commitment, their stories of sacrifice, courage, and the 
work they have done to protect our communities. Indeed, they are the 
frontlines of protection for our communities.
  These incredible men and women in Colorado and across the country put 
their lives on the line each and every day to keep us safe.
  They put their lives on the line each and every day to keep us safe. 
While they don't do this work--this sacrifice, this commitment--
selfishly or for credit or recognition, I think all of us in the Senate 
this week join together when we say that we are happy to see so many of 
them in the Nation's Capital for this National Police Week.
  I will never forget one time when we were out in Colorado and we were 
at a September 11 commemoration service. Our son Thatcher--he is 5 
years old now; at the time, he was probably about 4 years old. It was 
just last year that we walked by a group of police officers who were 
there working that day. We were talking about the loss of so many first 
responders and law enforcement personnel and that September 11 day in 
2001, so many years ago now, it seems. But I remember telling our son 
Thatcher--I said: Thatcher,

[[Page 7887]]

what do we say to police officers? I was thinking his response would 
be, thank you. I said: You should go tell them that. You should go tell 
that to the police officer.
  He walked up to the police officer and he got a little nervous--4 
years old. I said: What do you say, Thatcher? Again, I was thinking he 
would say: Thank you. Instead, he looked up at the police officer and 
he said: You are a hero.
  It kind of choked me up a little bit. I didn't say that to him; that 
was something that this 4 year old knew instinctively--knew from the 
work they had done around communities, the conversations he has been a 
part of. At 4 years old, he knew the work they do to protect us.
  They are heroes. They show the highest amount of courage one can 
imagine. They run toward danger without hesitation to keep us safe and 
to protect our communities.
  We ask an incredible amount of our law enforcement time and again. 
They are answering the call, whether that is a call wondering why 
someone hasn't moved a car for several days, a call to do a wellness 
check or maybe to ask why they haven't heard from an elderly relative 
or maybe a call because they saw a broken window and they are concerned 
about what is happening inside.
  We call on them each and every day to protect our communities. While 
we honor and celebrate the men and women protecting us this week, we 
must also remember our fallen heroes. Their courage is unparalleled. 
They went to work each and every day facing risks that most of us find 
unimaginable, never expecting their end of watch to occur on that day.
  In Colorado and across the country last year, tragedy struck far too 
many times. Last year, Colorado lost three men in the line of duty, 
three men who will never be forgotten by the people of Colorado or 
their families, their communities.
  Earlier this week, I met with the family of one of these fallen 
heroes, Corporal Nate Carrigan. Nate Carrigan, a sheriff's deputy for 
Park County, was a role model in the community and someone who took 
great pride in protecting the people and the area he loved. The pride 
and love Nate's family have for the work their son did to keep his 
community safe is unexplainable.
  We also lost a sheriff's deputy, Derek Geer, this past year in 
Colorado, and we lost Cody Donahue in Colorado in 2016. All of them 
were memorialized this week. We celebrated their lives this week, and I 
hope their families know and recognize that we will always hold them 
and their loved ones in our prayers. They will always be a part of our 
community's fabric, knowing each and every day we rely on them to 
provide our own families with protection.
  Mr. President, thank you.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to Rachel Brand's 
nomination to the No. 3 spot in the Justice Department. Now, there are 
many reasons I am opposed to this nomination, but those reasons are all 
grounded in a central question facing America today: Whom does this 
government work for? Does it work just for the rich and powerful? Does 
it work just for the well connected? Does it work just for the 
billionaire in the White House or does it work for everyone?
  One of the worst kept secrets in America is that there are two 
justice systems; one for the rich and powerful and one for everyone 
else. The first justice system is an exclusive club for giant 
corporations and wealthy individuals. In that justice system, serious 
crimes are punished with a slap on the wrist and a small fine. 
Taxpayers bail out corporations that stole the life savings, and 
wealthy criminals go back to their lives without missing a beat.
  The second justice system is for those who can't buy their way out of 
prison time. In that system, minor, nonviolent offenses are punished 
with harsh prison sentences. When those individuals are eventually 
released, they are branded with the scarlet letter that closes doors to 
employment and opportunity. It is a system that swallows up people 
whole and spits them out with nothing.
  Americans are very familiar with the difference between those two 
justice systems. We saw the difference after the worst financial crisis 
in a generation, when Wall Street tycoons who gambled away the life 
savings of working Americans walked away free as a bird. We saw it in 
the War on Drugs when countless Black and Brown people were shoveled 
into prisons, where they wasted their lives away.
  We need to fix this problem. We should be devoting every resource we 
have to fixing this problem. That starts with the Justice Department, 
the agency responsible for ensuring that nobody is above the law, and 
everyone--everyone is held accountable.
  Unfortunately, it has been pretty clear to me for some time now that 
President Trump's Justice Department is pushing as hard as possible in 
the opposite direction. For much of President Obama's second term, 
prosecutors were allowed some discretion to consider the unique 
circumstances of each case and make a measured decision about when to 
ask for the most serious charge with the maximum penalty or when to ask 
for less.
  It worked. Jail time for low-level drug offenses went down. States 
saved money, and lives were not irretrievably broken. Last week, that 
modest advance came to an end. Attorney General Sessions directed 
prosecutors to charge individuals with the harshest sentences possible. 
``Lock them up'' seems to be his approach--but not in all cases. Jeff 
Sessions sings a very different tune when it comes to white-collar 
crime. He believes corporations should not be punished for the actions 
of their executives. Don't punish the companies for a few bad CEO 
apples.
  In Jeff Session's world, we should throw the book at criminals, 
unless they are rich and powerful. Now, President Trump has chosen to 
somewhat help Jeff Sessions carry out his vision. His choice to be the 
third highest ranking official at the Justice Department is Rachel 
Brand, the nominee for Associate Attorney General.
  She is well equipped to carry out that soft-on-white-collar-crime 
approach. She has extensive experience--years of experience--fighting 
on behalf of the biggest and richest companies in the world. She spent 
years leading the Chamber of Commerce's assault on the rules that 
protect working families, evidently deciding time after time that it is 
corporations that should get every break.
  As the head of regulatory litigation of the chamber of commerce, Ms. 
Brand worked to dismantle environmental rules that prevent companies 
from poisoning our air and water. She worked to shield financial 
companies from accountability when they broke the law or did not play 
by the rules. She worked to end the employment rules that prevent 
companies from abusing their workers.
  If she is confirmed to the No. 3 spot at the Justice Department, she 
can watch out for giant corporations from her perch right inside the 
government. The Brand nomination is just another predictable move from 
a President who clearly believes that one set of rules should apply to 
the rich and powerful, and another set of rules should apply to 
everyone else.
  We all remember Donald Trump's promise during the campaign that he 
was going to drain the swamp. Well, it is 118 days in, and the swamp is 
bigger, deeper, uglier, and filled with more corrupt creatures than 
ever. Over the last several days, President Trump has made it perfectly 
clear that he believes he should be above the law.
  After he fired FBI Director James Comey, Trump went on national 
television and told the world that he fired Comey, in part, because 
Comey was leading an investigation into ties between the Trump 
campaign, the Trump administration, and Russia. Trump said top of mind 
when he fired Comey was ``this Russia thing with Trump.''
  Now we have learned that he apparently pressured Comey in private 
meetings to drop aspects of the Russia investigation before he fired 
him. It is a basic presumption of our democracy that politicians cannot 
interfere with

[[Page 7888]]

the law enforcement investigations into their own potential wrongdoing, 
but President Trump openly admitted trying to interfere with an ongoing 
investigation, and he clearly believes there should be no consequences 
for himself.
  I understand that President Trump thinks he should be able to decide 
what investigations into his dealings go forward and what 
investigations get stopped on the spot. I understand that President 
Trump thinks he should be able to pack his Justice Department full of 
people who will watch out for billionaire CEOs and giant corporations. 
After all, he has packed other agencies with similar people.
  I understand that is what President Trump thinks, but he is wrong. 
One of the things that makes our democracy strong is that we believe no 
one is above the law, not CEOs, not giant corporations, and not the 
President of the United States. It is up to the Senate to remind the 
President of that fact. We can start by rejecting the nomination of 
Rachel Brand to serve as Associate Attorney General. I ask everyone who 
believes in the promise of equal justice under the law to do the same.
  (The remarks of Ms. Warren pertaining to the introduction of S. 1162 
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Ms. WARREN. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.


                               Venezuela

  Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak about an 
emerging crisis in our hemisphere in the nation of Venezuela. It has 
been covered extensively in the press. I wanted to come today with an 
update and a suggestion, a request of the administration about a step 
we can take.
  First of all, I am very pleased that today our Ambassador to the 
United Nations, Nikki Haley, scheduled a discussion at the U.N. 
Security Council with regard to Venezuela. It was not an open press 
discussion. Again, it showed extraordinary leadership, and I thank her 
for her work and for doing so. This deserves attention.
  By the way, Venezuela is a country that is blessed with natural 
resources. It was once Latin America's richest country, but today the 
people of Venezuela are literally starving, its financial system has 
collapsed, and there are, as you have seen from the press reports, 
massive protests in the streets. Its once proud democracy is now in the 
hands of a dictator, Nicolas Maduro, and his cronies and thugs, who 
have plunged that nation into a constitutional crisis. They are using 
violence and bloodshed to suppress and silence citizens speaking out 
against the regime's corruption and its abuse of political prisoners.
  What the people of Venezuela are calling for is pretty 
straightforward: free and fair elections as called for under the 
Constitution of that country, a return to representative democracy--the 
democracy they once had. They are paying for these requests with their 
blood and even their lives. According to the most recent reports, 
dozens of people have been killed, including teenagers. The Washington 
Post reported yesterday the recent deaths of 18-year-old Luis Alviarez, 
who was killed by a bullet to the chest, and 17-year-old Yeison Mora 
Cordero, who died from a bullet to the head.
  There were two reports today in the press of great interest, one from 
the New York Times and one from the Washington Post. Both documented 
the plight of members of the national guard who have been tasked with 
the job of suppressing the protests in the street. The gist of the 
articles was this: These people who are putting on these uniforms--they 
didn't sign up for this. They signed up for security. They signed up to 
protect the people of Venezuela, not to oppress them.
  They, too, are suffering from poor food. There was one article that 
said that basically breakfast in the morning for the national guard in 
Venezuela consists of a boiled carrot or a potato, and then they are 
sent to the streets for hours. Then they come back and maybe have an 
arepa, which is a corn cake, and, if they are lucky, some butter. They, 
too, are suffering from this.
  Here is the most enlightening part of this: A lot of their family 
members--their mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, loved ones, 
husbands, wives, girlfriends, and boyfriends--are on the other side of 
the protest lines. Their fellow Venezuelans are on the other side, and 
they are being tasked to do this.
  I just say to them: Remember what your oath was. To the members of 
the national guard in Venezuela, remember that your job is to protect 
the people of Venezuela, not to oppress them.
  Beyond what we see there--the innocent people dying because of the 
dictatorship trampling the will of the people and destroying their 
democratic institutions--one of the specific things that Maduro has 
done to become a dictator is he has undercut and frankly tried to wipe 
out the authority of their National Assembly, which is their unicameral 
legislative body. The way he has done that is by highjacking the 
supreme court of the country, and they call it the Supreme Tribunal of 
Justice. It is packed with puppets who do his bidding. As an example, 
these puppets recently ruled that they would rescind the democratic 
powers vested to the elected members of the National Assembly by the 
constitution of that country. In essence, they ruled that the National 
Assembly no longer had legislative authority. The protests were so 
massive, even within the government, that they had to backtrack from 
that ruling.
  Here is what is interesting. This is a recent opinion piece written 
by Francis Toro and Pedro Rosas in the Washington Post which said it 
best: ``Beware Maikel Moreno, the hatchet man who runs Venezuela's 
supreme court.''
  Here is what they wrote:

       Moreno, a former intelligence agent, was tried and 
     convicted of murder in 1987, though the corroborating 
     documents from the court system are no longer available. . . 
     . He spent just two years in jail before being released. He 
     was then immediately implicated in a second killing, in 1989, 
     for which he was charged but never tried.

  He was a loyalist of Hugo Chavez, and he became a judge in the early 
2000s. His ``career as a judge hit a snag in 2007,'' Toro and Rosas 
note, ``when he was removed from the bench for `grave and inexcusable' 
errors after releasing two murder suspects against orders from the 
Supreme Tribunal. The government handed him a new job as a diplomat 
abroad. After a few years out of sight, he was appointed a supreme 
court justice in 2014.''
  Then in 2017, Moreno--not once but twice a killer--was appointed the 
chief justice of Venezuela's supreme court. The Venezuelan supreme 
court is run by a murderer. Think about that. A convicted criminal is 
presiding over Venezuela's supreme court. So it is no wonder that the 
court's members have acted as a rubberstamp for Maduro's illegitimate 
power grab, and they have created a political and a humanitarian 
crisis.
  Venezuelans, as I said, are struggling to get basic goods, like food 
and medicine, and access to basic services. The Wall Street Journal 
reported that Venezuelans have lost, on average, 19 pounds in the last 
year--not due to some incredible new diet, but due to the country's 
food crisis. This is staggering. It is appalling. It is unconscionable. 
It cannot be tolerated.
  The Venezuelan people deserve a return to democracy. They deserve a 
government that respects the rule of law and the constitution.
  I believe it is the responsibility and the duty of the nations of the 
Western Hemisphere, including our Nation, to help the Venezuelan 
people. Article 20 of the Inter-American Democratic Charter states:

       In the event of an unconstitutional alteration of the 
     constitutional regime that seriously impairs the democratic 
     order in a member state, any member state or the Secretary 
     General may request the immediate convocation of the 
     Permanent Council to undertake a collective assessment of the 
     situation and to take such decisions as it deems appropriate.

  This is what must be done because if we fail to help the Venezuelan 
people in their time of need and if the worst comes to pass, what will 
follow will not be confined to the Venezuelan borders.
  The United States as a result, I hope, should impose sanctions 
against corrupt individuals--not the government,

[[Page 7889]]

not the people; individuals--responsible for human rights violations, 
narcotics trafficking, money laundering, undermining the country's 
democratic process. President Obama began that process. President Trump 
actually sanctioned some additional people earlier this year, including 
the kingpin drug dealer who is now the Vice President of Venezuela, 
Tareck El Aissami.
  Here are some people who should be sanctioned by the current 
President. He should target for sanctions Chavista officials within the 
judiciary--all of these magistrates who have enabled Maduro's takeover. 
That includes the murderer who is the chief justice of their supreme 
court, Maikel Jose Moreno Perez, and others like him who are part of 
that so-called constitutional group within the supreme court of 
Venezuela, many of whom have access to money and use visas to travel 
freely within the United States. Among these names are Calixto Ortega, 
Arcadio Delgado, Federico Fuenmayor, Carmen Zuleta, Lourdes Suarez 
Anderson, and Juan Jose Mendoza. These are the people who have helped 
in this coup d'etat that has canceled the democratic order in 
Venezuela, and they should be punished for what they have done.
  I will close by pointing to two things that are of deep concern. The 
first is this report today in El Nuevo Herald in Miami, which basically 
cites that Maduro has now ordered the militarization of a border region 
with Colombia. We are concerned about that because we have always 
feared he would create some sort of a military pretext to distract 
people from the crisis within the country.
  Then there is this unusual behavior on the part of Maduro. For 
example, yesterday he said that the Chavistas--the followers of Hugo 
Chavez--are the new Jews of the 21st century. Basically he is comparing 
the Chavistas with the Jews who were exterminated during the Holocaust 
in World War II. These comments were broadcast on state television last 
night. It is incredible.
  By the way, this is the same man who about a week ago was caught on 
camera, with a straight face, asking a cow to vote for a constitutional 
referendum he is seeking to pass. I don't even think the cow would 
support him at this point in Venezuela.
  Mr. President, I hope President Trump in the next few days or weeks 
will act against these individuals who have carried out this coup 
d'etat against democracy in Venezuela and have plunged this proud 
nation and proud people into a constitutional, humanitarian, and 
economic crisis.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. PETERS. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to the nomination of 
Rachel Brand to be the Associate Attorney General.
  The Associate Attorney General is the third-most senior position at 
the Department of Justice. During these troubling times, I cannot in 
good conscience support Ms. Brand's nomination.
  The American public must have faith in its institutions, and 
unfortunately that trust is eroding more and more each and every day. 
For the first time in recent history, we are facing questions about a 
significant interference from a foreign government in an American 
Presidential election. Even more troubling, there have been serious 
questions about a Presidential campaign's potential collusion with 
Russia, a foreign adversary.
  We have an idea of the potential problem here, and the Justice 
Department is supposed to be a part of the solution. Unfortunately, the 
recent conduct of the President's appointees to the Department of 
Justice have only added fuel to the fire.
  First, Attorney General Jeff Sessions failed to reveal his 
communication with the Russians during his confirmation hearings. This 
omission led him to publicly pledge to recuse himself from Russia-
related investigations.
  Then, in an inexplicable turn of events, the Deputy Attorney General 
and the Attorney General advised the President to fire former FBI 
Director Jim Comey, who we know was in the midst of investigating the 
Trump campaign's relationship with Russia. Let me be clear: That was a 
firing that the President himself admitted was related to ``the Russia 
thing.''
  Then the day after firing Director Comey, the President revealed 
highly classified information to Russian officials during a meeting in 
the Oval Office--a meeting that, I may add, was closed to the American 
press but oddly included only the Russian press.
  You simply can't make this stuff up. The level of turmoil and the 
questionable behavior on the part of this administration are deeply 
disturbing, not just for Americans but for our allies all across the 
globe.
  We are currently lurching from crisis to crisis, and we must pause 
for a moment and consider what is at stake; namely, the security and 
the future of our democracy.
  My Democratic colleagues and I have repeatedly called for a special 
prosecutor to take over all of the Russia-related investigations, and 
recent events show that the need for a special prosecutor is greater 
now more than ever. It is time to put country over politics, and it is 
time for a transparent and thorough investigation into these concerns. 
If there is no wrongdoing, then the President should not be concerned 
about getting the American people the truth they deserve. Our 
constituents need to have their faith restored in our institutions and 
that will require transparency, integrity, and professionalism from 
officials at the Department of Justice.
  I joined the vast majority of my colleagues in supporting the 
confirmation of Rod Rosenstein to serve as Deputy Attorney General with 
the belief that he would bring a voice of reason to the Department of 
Justice. The results have been, needless to say, disappointing. With 
the current state of this Justice Department, I have no reason to 
believe Ms. Brand will fare much better.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to consider the very 
real challenges we face. This is not an issue of partisan politics or 
the outcome of a past election; this is about protecting the sanctity 
of our democracy from outside threats.
  I believe we absolutely must work together to restore the credibility 
and the independence of the Justice Department. Until we have an 
independent special prosecutor and until we are confident that the 
Attorney General is truly honoring his recusal on the Russia 
investigation, I cannot support another senior political nomination to 
this Justice Department.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.


                          National Police Week

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, in light of National Police Week, I rise 
today in support of our men and women serving in law enforcement.
  Police week is a good time for reflection and remembrance. It is a 
time to honor those who serve and protect us. While we honor our 
dedicated law enforcement officers this week, I want, specifically, to 
recognize those fallen officers who have given the ultimate sacrifice--
their lives--for our safety.
  In Arizona we lost three officers this year: Officer Leander Frank of 
the Navajo Nation Police Department, Officer David Van Glasser of the 
Phoenix Police Department, and Officer Darrin Reed of the Show Low 
Police Department. Today we honor the memory of these fallen heroes and 
pledge to never forget their sacrifice.
  While the work we do in Congress pales in comparison to the service 
of these brave men and women, it is my privilege to sponsor several 
pieces of legislation to support our law enforcement officers. I have 
joined with Senator Hatch to introduce the Rapid DNA Act, a bill that 
gives State and local law enforcement agencies a way to upload a 
suspect's DNA analysis to a Federal offender database for immediate 
identification. This immediate cross-hit within the Federal system will 
help officers at the local level to process criminals faster and more 
accurately.
  I have also teamed up with Senator Feinstein to introduce the 
bipartisan

[[Page 7890]]

Protecting Young Victims from Sexual Abuse Act. That legislation 
criminalizes the failure to report to law enforcement incidents of 
suspected child abuse in amateur athletics. In addition to helping 
prevent sexual abuse crimes, this bill will aid State and local law 
enforcement investigating allegations of child sexual abuse by 
providing them with more information faster.
  I have also supported Senator Cornyn's American Law Enforcement 
Heroes Act. That bill affirms a well-established practice of hiring 
veterans at the local level to serve as new law enforcement officers. 
Together, these bills will enhance law enforcement investigations and 
encourage better hiring practices for new law enforcement jobs.
  I also want to recognize the local police officers and sheriffs in 
Arizona, along with those on the border who are serving on the 
frontlines of immigration enforcement. These men and women put their 
lives on the line every time they go out on patrol. For them, 
immigration policy is not a hypothetical exercise.
  Despite the critical role these entities play in assisting their 
Federal partners with immigration enforcement, current Federal policy 
leaves them exposed to the threat of costly litigation. That is because 
third-party groups that oppose detention have threatened local agencies 
that choose to comply with valid detainer requests with lawsuits. Using 
punitive legal action to punish law enforcement for good-faith efforts 
to keep people safe is wrong. That is why a group of Arizona sheriffs 
came to me for help, and with their guidance, we drafted a bill 
requiring the Department of Homeland Security to protect State and 
local law enforcement entities from lawsuits that uphold valid detainer 
requests from ICE. This solution will enable officers to fulfill their 
law enforcement responsibilities without second-guessing whether or not 
to keep potentially dangerous criminal aliens in custody. It is a 
recognition that local law enforcement shouldn't be left to shoulder 
the burden of Washington's failure to secure our borders and to 
implement a workable enforcement policy.
  It has been my privilege to work on this effort with the Arizona 
Sheriffs Association, the Western States Sheriffs' Association, the 
Southwest Border Sheriff's Coalition, and the Texas Border Sheriff's 
Coalition. I want especially to thank Sheriff Mascher of Yavapai 
County, Sheriff Daniels of Cochise County, Sheriff Wilmot of Yuma 
County, and Sheriff Clark of Navajo County for their work on this bill.
  To many, Police Week is an annual opportunity to recognize the 
service of the many selfless men and women in law enforcement, but it 
should also serve as a solemn reminder of the risks they take and the 
sacrifices they make day in and day out. It is for this that they have 
my support, my respect, and my thanks, and they have it year-round.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, thank you for the opportunity to visit this 
evening with my Senate colleagues.
  This is a special week in Washington, DC, and a number of my 
colleagues have paid tribute by attending the memorial or speaking of 
those who died in service as fallen police officers. This is our fallen 
officers' National Police Week.
  In 1962, Congress and the then-President John F. Kennedy designated 
May 15 of each year to be Peace Officers Memorial Day, and the week of 
May 15 to be National Police Week. Each spring, we take time to recall 
the men and women of law enforcement who were lost in the previous 
year. Unfortunately, this list has become far, far too long.
  Since our Nation's founding, more than 20,000 American law 
enforcement officers have sacrificed their lives in service to others. 
While I have paid many solemn visits to the National Law Enforcement 
Officers Memorial in Washington, DC, to honor, respect, and remember 
fallen officers, my visit this year was especially somber. In 2016, 
Kansas suffered the loss of three law enforcement officials.
  On the Senate floor today, I wish to recognize and to honor these 
fallen heroes: Detective Brad Lancaster of the Kansas City Police 
Department, Captain Robert ``Dave'' Melton of the Kansas City Police 
Department, and Master Deputy Sheriff Brandon Collins of the Johnson 
County Sheriff's Office. Their untimely deaths shook their families, 
the agencies where these men served, the neighborhoods they protected, 
and the communities they lived in. Brandon, Robert, and Brad were not 
only law enforcement officers, they were also sons and brothers, 
fathers, neighbors, mentors, and friends.
  Robert Melton, Brad Lancaster, and Brandon Collins and the 140 other 
officers killed in the line of duty in 2016 are being honored this week 
in our Nation's Capital. The names of these fallen heroes will be 
physically inscribed into the National Law Enforcement Officers 
Memorial, set in stone as an eternal reminder to the Nation of the 
service of these men and the debt we owe for their sacrifice on our 
behalf. That debt, of course, can never be repaid, but it is certainly 
our duty to try.
  As Americans honor these men during National Police Week, we must 
also remember their families, friends, and fellow officers and the 
loved ones they left behind. May God comfort them in their time of 
grief and be a source of strength for them. May He also protect all 
those who continue to serve and to stand today in harm's way to protect 
our communities.
  An inscription at the memorial reads: ``In valor there is hope.'' The 
losses of Brad Lancaster, Robert Melton, and Brandon Collins have 
imposed tremendous sorrow, but our memory of their service to others 
and their acts of valor offer Americans hope and inspiration to carry 
on their missions, to better our communities, to protect the 
vulnerable, and to stand for what is right. As we remember, let us 
tirelessly pursue those ends and do all we can to honor the fallen.

                          ____________________