[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 8024-8030]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                     EXECUTIVE CALENDAR--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  (The remarks of Ms. Collins pertaining to the introduction of S. 1185 
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sullivan). The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. HELLER. Thank you, Mr. President.


                             Yucca Mountain

  I rise today to once again speak out against the administration's 
proposal to revive Yucca Mountain. I know I have said it before, and I 
will say it again: Yucca Mountain is dead. Nevada will not be our 
Nation's nuclear waste dump.
  I conveyed that message in my meeting with Secretary Perry during his 
confirmation and reiterated it ahead of his visit to Yucca in March. My 
former colleague, Senator Harry Reid, was a powerful and outspoken 
opponent of Yucca and worked hard to make sure the project did not see 
the light of day. Now I am standing between this administration and 
Yucca. I say to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that I will be 
leading this fight.
  This is a reckless proposal. Over the last 30 years, the Federal 
Government wasted billions of taxpayer dollars to design and permit 
Yucca Mountain, all without any signal that Nevada would consent to it. 
A State without a single nuclear power plant should not have to 
shoulder the entire Nation's nuclear waste burden. We will not be run 
over by the desires of other States that want to move the nuclear waste 
that they produce, that they create out of their own backyards and then 
put it into ours.
  I will say it again: Nevada will not be our Nation's nuclear waste 
dump.
  Last week's accident at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Washington 
State serves as a chilling reminder of what Nevada could have to deal 
with at Yucca Mountain. I was relieved that no one was harmed after the 
tunnel collapsed but believe it serves as a wake-up call to my 
colleagues.
  We need to find a viable solution to our Nation's nuclear waste 
problem. In addition to the potential tragic loss of life, radiation 
exposure resulting from a similar event at Yucca Mountain could shatter 
Nevada's economy. This is not to mention the threat of transportation 
accidents along the proposed waste transportation routes.
  What this means is that under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, we are 
looking at shipping 9,495 rail casks in 2,800 trains, and 2,650 trucks 
hauling one case each to Yucca Mountain over the next 50 years. If the 
capacity limit at Yucca is more than doubled as has been discussed with 
the Department of Energy, we would shift 21,909 rail casks in about 
6,700 trains and 5,025 truck casks to Yucca Mountain.
  So I ask my colleagues: Do you really believe that over the span of 
the next 50 years there will not be a single transportation accident 
with an ensuing radiological release?
  Under the DOE's proposal, these shipments would use 22,000 miles of 
railways, 7,000 miles of highways crossing over 44 States and the 
Tribal lands of at least 30 Native American Tribes, the District of 
Columbia, and 960 counties with a population of about 175 million 
people.
  Between 10 and 12 million people live within the radiological region 
of influence for route shipments; that is, within one-half mile of 
these rail and highway routes. In effect, these rail and highway routes 
would impact most of the Nation's congressional districts, estimated at 
330 districts.
  For those who are not familiar with the West or Nevada, access to 
rail corridors or highways is often difficult because they are in such 
remote locations. If there were a spill or an accident, questions 
remain within the Department of Energy regarding their response time 
for emergency radiological exposure. This is not to mention the issue 
of private ownership of rail rights-of-way, making it uncertain who 
would even control accident sites.
  What we do know is that the local communities would be the ones 
forced to suffer any type of long-term effects of radiation exposure. 
This is in a State that was home to our Nation's nuclear test site and 
the surrounding communities, which have suffered for years from 
resulting exposure.
  I ask my colleagues: Should Nevada be forced to once more to shoulder 
this burden?
  Secretary Perry, in response to last week's accident, acknowledged 
our Nation's problem with nuclear waste, saying that the nation could 
no longer kick the can down the road.
  I do not believe that our Nation should continue to kick the can--or 
in this case the cask--down the road. We must find a long-term viable 
solution to our Nation's nuclear waste problem, one that is rooted in a 
consent-based siting.
  I stand ready to work with my colleagues to make sure States have a 
voice in this process. Failure to do so will serve only to make this 
problem worse, risking future accidents similar to what we saw last 
week.
  We can no longer afford to look backward at the failed proposals of 
the past and waste even more taxpayer dollars. Instead, we need to move 
forward on a real solution to a very real problem.
  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. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          Russia Investigation

  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, the most important words in our 
Constitution are the first three words ``We the People,'' written in 
beautiful script and written many times larger than the rest of the 
document so that even if you are across the room, you know what this 
Constitution stands for--not a government by and for the powerful, not 
a government by and for the privileged, but as President Lincoln so 
eloquently said in his Gettysburg Address, a ``government of the 
people, by the people, and for the people.''
  As a ``we the people'' nation, we adhere to a core set of principles 
that have guided us through good times as well as in dark moments. One 
of those key principles is the rule of law, that we are a nation in 
which not only is there the rule of law but in which no one is above 
the law.
  If we walked out of this Chamber right now, proceeded through the 
double doorways, and down the steps of the Capitol, we would be staring 
at the beautiful building of the Supreme Court. The entire building 
symbolizes the role of justice in our society. As you look at that 
magnificent Supreme Court--the broad, marble steps leading up to the 
door--you see these simple words inscribed above: ``Equal justice under 
the law.'' It is right there. You can almost see it from where I am 
standing now: ``Equal justice under the law.'' That is the principle 
that is part of the ethic of every courthouse in America--from the 
smallest, most rural courthouse to the big city courthouse square. We 
see those same principles personified as Lady Justice. There she is, 
holding the scales, blindfolded so as to make sure everyone is treated 
equally.
  Yet, over the past few months, we have been in a period in which we 
have been staring into the abyss of a constitutional crisis because 
this very core principle of ``no one is above the law'' and ``equal 
justice under the law'' has been under assault.

[[Page 8025]]

  We have a President whose campaign team is under investigation 
because of substantial information that suggests the possibility of 
coordination and collaboration with Russia to change the outcome of the 
Presidential election--an assault on one of the most fundamental 
premises of a free society; that of free and equal elections.
  We have a President who gave code-word classified information to an 
adversary--Russia--just a few days ago. We have confidential 
information, we have secret information, we have top secret 
information, and we have code-word information at the very top. These 
are the most sensitive secrets of the American Government, and our 
President gave that information to Russia. If anyone else did that, he 
would be facing criminal charges.
  We have a President who sought to shut down an investigation into one 
of his former team members--retired LTG Michael Flynn. We know 
Lieutenant General Flynn was in contact with Russian officials, and he 
was fired for lying about it. President Trump fired the head of the FBI 
because he would not drop the investigation into General Flynn's 
Russian connections and conduct.
  We have a President, President Trump, who asked his Attorney General 
and Deputy Attorney General to develop a cover story to tell the 
American people the reason he fired the Director of the FBI, which is 
that he was upset about the Director of the FBI's treatment of his 
former Presidential opponent, Hillary Clinton.
  If anyone believes the President woke up in the middle of the night 
and decided to fire the Director of the FBI because he was concerned 
about the way Hillary Clinton was treated, then you have not been 
paying attention this last year and a half.
  Now, if in the course of an investigation it is found that members of 
the Trump campaign coordinated or collaborated with the Russians to 
undermine the integrity of our elections, then that is treasonous 
conduct. If the President asked for, encouraged, or knew about such 
activity, then he would be party to such treasonous conduct. If the 
President used his office to attempt to shut down either the 
investigation of Michael Flynn or the investigation into the 
collaboration between the Trump campaign and the Russians, then that 
obstruction is potentially a serious crime of obstruction of justice, 
and it has to be fully pursued. If the President fired his former FBI 
Director in order to slow down or shut down these investigations, then 
that compiles the evidence of obstruction of justice.
  These sets of facts point to serious misconduct. We have to fully 
investigate whether there was, in fact, such misconduct. That is why, 
for more than 3 months--going back to February 15 and Michael Flynn's 
resignation--I have been calling for a special prosecutor to conduct a 
thorough, impartial investigation into these matters. Over these 3 
months, the case for why we need an independent special prosecutor has 
only grown stronger with each new event, each new story, each new piece 
of evidence.
  If there were any lingering doubt about the need for a special 
prosecutor, that doubt was washed away last week when President Trump 
fired Director Comey for pursuing the investigation into the ties 
between the Trump campaign and Russia. That is why many of my 
colleagues and countless Americans all across the country stood up and 
demanded that no nominee fill Director Comey's shoes unless a special 
prosecutor had been appointed. So I was very pleased when last night 
Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein appointed such a special prosecutor.
  Now, he will be coming to this Chamber to speak with us in a short 
period of time, later this afternoon. But whatever else transpired, 
stepping up and appointing that special prosecutor was the right thing 
to do. He announced the appointment of former FBI Director Robert 
Mueller as special counsel--the words ``special counsel'' and ``special 
prosecutor'' are largely interchangeable--with wide-ranging authority 
to conduct a thorough and independent investigation into ``any links 
and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals 
associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and, any 
matters that arose or may arise from the investigation; and, any other 
matters within the scope of the investigation.''
  Last night's announcement was a tremendous victory for justice--the 
principle of justice. It was a tremendous victory for a country with 
the rule of law. It was a tremendous victory for the principle that no 
individual is above the law in the United States of America.
  We need to have confidence that there will be a robust investigation 
to get to the truth, no matter where that leads us. Certainly, our 
confidence has been improved by the appointment of the special 
prosecutor last night--and not just any individual, but an individual 
qualified and respected to lead such an investigation.
  For 12 years, from just before the September 11, 2001, attacks and 
right through 2013, this man, Robert Mueller, led the FBI. He led it 
for the second longest period in U.S. history. He led it for 2 years 
more than the standard term for the head of the FBI. He is known as a 
thorough, by-the-book prosecutor who can't be influenced or 
intimidated, and I have every faith that he will conduct a 
professional, robust, and thorough investigation and give the American 
people the answers to all of these issues.
  But as we applaud this strong movement toward justice, to truth, and 
to accountability, this strong stride in support of our ``we the 
people'' democratic Republic, we cannot rest. We need to make sure that 
Mr. Mueller, as a special prosecutor, gets every resource he needs to 
aggressively pursue justice and the complete independence he needs to 
undertake this incredibly important task.
  At the same time, we have to keep pressing here in the Senate, 
encouraging our Intelligence Committee, as well as the House 
Intelligence Committee, to aggressively pursue information. We cannot 
cede our obligation to represent and fight for the best interests of 
the American people or for our ``we the people'' Nation, and that 
includes speaking truth to power and holding our leaders accountable 
for their actions.
  Mr. Mueller will have, as I noted, wide-ranging authority to conduct 
his investigation. His investigation and the investigation here in the 
Senate by the Senate Intelligence Committee will be looking at a number 
of connections that have occurred over the course of this last year and 
a half.
  Now, we know a lot about what the Russians did to hack the American 
Presidential election. The intelligence community told us in a report 
this past January that, with ``high confidence'' Russian President 
Vladimir Putin ``ordered and influenced the campaign in 2016 aimed at 
the U.S. presidential election'' and that he did so in order to 
``undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process, denigrate 
[Hillary] Clinton, and harm her electability and potential 
presidency.''
  The report goes on to say that the Russian Government ``aspired to 
help President-elect Trump's election chances when possible by 
discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably 
to him.''
  We know many of the elements of this aggressive Russian campaign. 
They used the resource ``Russia Today'' to spread fake news stories, to 
develop those stories, and to publicize those stories. They hired 
thousands of internet trolls to comment in social media on the affairs 
in America, as if they were Americans weighing in. They proceeded to 
hack the DNC, or the Democratic National Committee, files and the 
Clinton campaign files, and they released damaging documents from those 
hacks. They used bots; that is, remote computers instructed by code 
that was placed onto those computers to weigh in on social media as if 
they were people weighing in. So we had thousands of machines weighing 
in with comments as if they were individuals weighing in. Why did they 
do that? To take the fake news story and proceed to amplify it with 
comments from thousands of trolls and, probably, tens of thousands of 
bots, in order to

[[Page 8026]]

get those issues trending so they would appear in the everyday news 
that Americans see. We are talking about a massive campaign of 
interference in the Presidential election.
  What we need to know is whether anyone on the Trump campaign was 
connected, in any possible way, to these activities. To find that out, 
we have to investigate the growing web of connections between members 
of the Trump campaign and Russia.
  Just consider some of the connections that have been explored already 
in the press. One individual is Carter Page, who served as President 
Trump's foreign policy adviser on the campaign trail. Mr. Page lived in 
Russia for 3 years while working for Merrill Lynch. He participated in 
several deals during his time there with Gazprom, the Kremlin-owned 
energy giant whose chairman was Vladimir Putin's deputy while Prime 
Minister.
  He became friendly and emailed back and forth for months with Victor 
Podobnyy, a Russian spy who was recorded on tape saying he was trying 
to recruit Page.
  Last year, while employed as a member of the Trump campaign, Mr. Page 
traveled to Moscow to deliver a speech bashing U.S. policy toward 
Russia, saying: ``Washington and other Western powers have impeded 
potential progress through their often hypocritical focus on ideas such 
as democratization, inequality, corruption and regime change.''
  Then there is Paul Manafort, the former chairman of the President's 
campaign. He was hired to manage the Republican Convention and to 
wrangle delegates, but he was promoted to campaign chairman and chief 
strategist, until he resigned because of his questionable foreign 
dealings.
  From 2004 until 2014, Manafort worked as an adviser to the Ukrainian 
President, Viktor Yanukovych, a pro-Russian strongman who, over the 
years, adopted policies that moved his country away from the European 
Union and closer to Russia. Manafort is regularly credited with helping 
Yanukovych win the Presidency in 2010.
  In 2014, a revolution rose up against Yanukovych, and he was ousted 
from power. He now lives in exile in Russia. But Mr. Manafort continued 
working in Ukraine, helping rebrand the former President's Party of 
Regions as an opposition party, mostly from eastern Ukraine, which 
advocates for stronger relations with Russia.
  Then, we have Roger Stone, President Trump's longtime ally, friend, 
and adviser since they first met back in 1979. That is three-plus 
decades. Ironically, it was Mr. Stone who introduced Donald Trump to 
former President Richard Nixon back in the 1980s, and there are stories 
in the media that Mr. Stone pressured the President to fire Director 
Comey.
  Over the years, Mr. Stone has appeared many times in Russia Today, 
the Kremlin's English language news network that developed and 
publicized fake news stories during last year's Presidential election.
  In his appearances, Mr. Stone regularly criticized the U.S. 
intelligence community, he attacked our media, he attacked our free 
press, he praised Russia and its policies, and he even praised 
WikiLeaks--the organization responsible for releasing massive amounts 
of confidential and damaging documents about our Nation's intelligence 
services and capabilities.
  More than that, Mr. Stone has bragged about his communications with 
hackers--hackers like Guccifer 2.0. And who is Guccifer 2.0? The 
individual responsible for hacking the DNC and releasing emails during 
the campaign.
  Another person whose connections to both the Trump campaign and 
Russia will be looked at is our former colleague and now our Attorney 
General. During the course of his confirmation hearings, Mr. Sessions 
misled fellow Senators about his interactions with Russian officials. 
When asked what he would do as Attorney General if he learned that 
anyone connected with the Trump campaign had communicated with the 
Russian Government, he said:

       I'm not aware of any of those activities . . . I have been 
     called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I 
     did not have communications with the Russians.

  But he did have communications, meeting with Russian Ambassador 
Kislyak on two separate occasions last year.
  Then, we have Michael Flynn, a very major part of the connections 
between the Trump campaign and Russia--a retired lieutenant general and 
appointed to be National Security Advisor by President Trump. He was 
intimately involved in the series of events that led us to yesterday, 
with the appointment of a special prosecutor.
  Beginning in February 2016, General Flynn served as an adviser to the 
Trump campaign, and he was even considered as a potential running mate 
for President Trump. As we know, he followed President Trump into the 
White House as National Security Advisor. But as I noted before, that 
role was short-lived, as his Russian connections came to light.
  Back in 2015, he was paid to attend a 10th anniversary gala for 
Russian TV and sat at a table with Mr. Putin. He didn't disclose this 
on his security forms.
  During the Trump administration's transition, he talked with 
Ambassador Kislyak by phone, including one call on the very day that 
President Obama ordered sanctions against Russia as punishment. 
Punishment for what? Punishment for interfering with the American 
election.
  When that information was discovered, the White House contended that 
General Flynn's conversations with the Russian Ambassador were nothing 
more than ironing out logistics for an eventual call between the 
President and Vladimir Putin.
  Even Vice President Pence went on the record defending Flynn, telling 
CBS News that the two ``did not discuss anything having to do with the 
United States' decision to expel diplomats or impose censure against 
Russia.''
  But General Flynn's conversation with the Ambassador was picked up 
during routine surveillance of the Russian Ambassador. And what were 
they discussing? They were discussing the sanctions President Obama was 
placing on Russia. Why did he place those sanctions? Because of Russian 
interference in the election.
  Acting Attorney General Sally Yates made it known that she warned the 
White House that Flynn was lying to the Vice President and that he was 
compromised. She met twice with Dan McGahn, the White House Counsel, to 
warn him about Flynn. But in exchange for making sure the White House 
knew about the fact that the National Security Advisor was compromised 
and then lied to the Vice President, she was fired--fired by the 
President.
  Eighteen days after Sally Yates' warning, Michael Flynn resigned, 
after the Washington Post revealed that he had, in fact, discussed 
sanctions with Ambassador Kislyak.
  Now, according to his lawyer, ``General Flynn certainly has a story 
to tell, and he very much wants to tell it.''
  Well, I hope, as the Senate Intelligence Committee and as the special 
prosecutor pursue the investigations, that he will have every chance to 
tell it and will tell it with a fullness and an accuracy that will be 
complete.
  That is the web of visible connections we already know about, and 
they suggest the possibility of coordination, consultation, and 
collaboration with the Russians to influence the American elections. We 
have to get to the bottom of whether, in fact, that is the case. Did it 
go beyond a series of conversations to actual coordination, 
consultation, and collaboration? This is what we need to know.
  Now, the President says that there is no ``there,'' there. That is 
why we need an investigation, in order to find out. The President has 
called this a witch hunt. An investigation, I would convey to President 
Trump, is not a witch hunt. An investigation is pursuit of the truth. 
An investigation is in the highest tradition of equal justice for all.
  A very large development, as we all now know, occurred last week with 
the firing of FBI Director James Comey, who was leading the Bureau's 
investigation into these matters. Director

[[Page 8027]]

Comey confirmed while testifying in the House on March 20 that the FBI 
was, in fact, conducting an investigation into Trump's campaign--
something we now know really bothered the President. But at the outset, 
the President's White House claimed that Comey's firing was about the 
Director's handling of the Clinton email investigations, not because of 
the Russia investigation. That story on its face caused eyebrows to 
raise across the country. Did people really believe the President woke 
up and was determined to right a wrong because the FBI Director had 
unfairly treated Hillary Clinton? Yet he asked his team to develop this 
story to share it with the American people. He asked his team--his 
Attorney General and his Deputy Attorney General--to essentially put 
out a story to mislead the American people. That in itself deeply 
damages the integrity of the White House.
  This cover story also claimed that Comey was fired because he lost 
the trust of the rank-and-file FBI agents. Acting FBI Director Andrew 
McCabe came to the Hill to testify before the Intelligence Committee 
last week, and he conveyed that this is simply not true.
  The cover story also involved Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein 
being the instigator of the firing by preparing this memo on his own 
and recommending it to the President. That also turned out to be a part 
of the deception, and the President himself made that clear, taking 
responsibility that it was his decision to fire, not a decision based 
on a recommendation that came from Rosenstein.
  In an NBC News interview with Lester Holt, President Trump admitted 
that he ``was going to fire regardless of recommendation'' and that he 
was thinking of ``this Russia thing,'' as he called it--``this Russia 
thing''--when he finally decided to fire the Director. He also told 
Lester Holt that he had asked Director Comey three times whether he 
himself was under investigation. The President admitted on camera to 
the American people that he fired the man in charge of the 
investigation against his campaign because he was frustrated that the 
investigation was still going on.
  The American people received reports subsequently that the President 
had asked Director Comey to pledge his loyalty to the President. This 
is news report of the memo that Director Comey wrote after meeting with 
the President. We find that the FBI Director is not going to be loyal 
to anyone but Lady Justice.
  The President had the audacity to publicly threaten Director Comey 
after firing him. ``James Comey,'' said the President, ``better hope 
there are no `tapes' of our conversations before he starts leaking to 
the press!''
  Attempting to intimidate future statements and possible statements in 
an investigation after a person has been fired is another factor that 
is totally inappropriate. Everyone with any shred of common sense knows 
such intimidation is inappropriate, but in the context of a criminal 
investigation, it may be more than inappropriate.
  We don't know if there actually were tapes. Our Intelligence 
Committee has requested the memos Director Comey wrote on his various 
conversations with the President. Remember, this is an experienced, 
seasoned FBI agent-turned-Director who has spent his life documenting 
conversations. It is considered to be a high level of integrity when 
such information is recorded in this fashion. Those memos carry a lot 
of weight. Some are classified, some are unclassified. They need to be 
provided immediately to the Senate Intelligence Committee, and if they 
aren't provided, then the Intelligence Committee needs to subpoena them 
and needs to subpoena the tapes. If they exist, they need to be 
delivered. If they are not tapes but they are transcripts, they need to 
be delivered. If they are not tapes but a thumb drive or they exist on 
a piece of hardware, they need to be delivered, and our special 
prosecutor, Mr. Mueller, needs to have them as well.
  I think that as one steps back from this incredible amount of 
information--the information about how Russia hacked the campaign, not 
just hacking into the DNC and Hillary Clinton's campaign but then 
releasing that information in strategic moments; hiring a thousand 
individuals to comment in social media as if they were American 
citizens; establishing a botnet of computers to weigh in as if they 
were people to amplify this false social media, to get it trending and 
to get it into the mainstream news--when we consider all of this, we 
know how terribly wrong it was, and we have to learn every piece about 
what went on in order to make sure we are in the best prepared way to 
stop it from ever happening again.
  We need to make sure we are in the best possible place to ensure that 
we can assist other democratic republics in making sure they are not 
victims of the Russians. We need to make sure that if any American, no 
matter who he or she is, collaborated or coordinated with the Russians 
in this effort to hack our campaigns, that they are prosecuted to the 
full extent of the law.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.


                          National Police Week

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, our law enforcement officers and the 
families who support them give so much in service to our communities. 
As we were tragically reminded again last week--and this happens in far 
too many places, in far too many States--some make the ultimate 
sacrifice to keep us safe.
  Last Friday in Kirkersville, OH, Police Chief Steve DiSario responded 
to a report of a man with a gun at a nursing home. Chief DiSario did 
what so many first responders do when most of us in the public run away 
from danger: He ran toward it. He arrived at the Pine Kirk Care Center 
to protect his community and was killed in the line of duty by a gunman 
who also took the lives of two nursing home employees. Chief DiSario 
was 36. He had six children and a seventh on the way.
  Our thoughts and our prayers are with Chief DiSario's family and the 
families of all of our first responders, who worry each day that their 
loved ones may not return home. Think about that. For soldiers, 
marines, sailors, police officers, and firefighters, so often when they 
kiss their spouse goodbye and go to work, there is always the anxiety 
at home. It is not just the sacrifice that our soldiers and our 
military personnel and our police officers make; it is the sacrifice 
their families make too.
  Sadly, Police Chief DiSario wasn't the only Ohio officer to lay down 
his life this year. In January, Officer David J. Fahey of the Cleveland 
Police Department was working the scene of an accident on I-90 and was 
struck and killed in a despicable act of hit-and-run.
  This week in Washington, we honor the five Ohio officers killed in 
the line of duty last year. Aaron Christian of the Chesapeake Police 
Department was killed in a car accident while on patrol. While 
conducting traffic, Trooper Kenneth Velez of Elyria was killed by a 
driver under the influence of drugs. Officer Sean Johnson was the first 
officer to be killed in the line of duty in the town of Hilliard when 
he succumbed to injuries from a motorcycle accident during a training 
exercise. Officer Steven Smith was shot and killed during a SWAT 
standoff in Columbus. Officer Thomas Cottrell, Jr., of Danville was 
killed in a heinous and cowardly ambush. Each of these losses is a 
tragedy for a family, for a community, and for fellow police officers.
  As we honor the work and sacrifices made by law enforcement 
throughout Police Week, we need to offer more than kind words; we need 
action to support law enforcement as they work to keep our communities 
safe.
  Yesterday, I was talking to Police Chief Richard Biehl of Dayton and 
Youngstown Police Chief Robert Lees about what more we should do to 
support officers and their families. This week, we have unanimously 
passed several pieces of bipartisan legislation that will provide new 
support to the officers who protect us and the families who sacrifice 
alongside them.
  The Public Safety Officers' Benefits Improvement Act, which Senator 
Grassley introduced, will put pressure on the Bureau of Justice 
Assistance at

[[Page 8028]]

the DOJ to speed up claims processing so families of disabled officers 
or fallen officers get their benefits more quickly.
  We passed the Law Enforcement Mental Health and Wellness Act, 
introduced by Indiana Senators Donnelly and Young, to help law 
enforcement agencies establish or enhance mental health services, like 
peer monitoring pilot programs and crisis hotlines, for their officers. 
I learned about this bill from my friend Jay McDonald from Marion, OH, 
whose advocacy for police officers and their families makes a huge 
difference for Ohio's law enforcement communities. He has been the 
president of the Ohio Fraternal Order of Police for some time.
  We approved Senator Cornyn's American Law Enforcement Heroes Act of 
2017, which would allow local police departments to use Federal grant 
money to hire veterans as law enforcement officers. It is a bipartisan, 
commonsense idea that would open new doors for those who served our 
communities and our Nation in the military and who have accrued and 
developed skills that will serve well their communities in police work.
  We have a solemn obligation to the children of fallen officers whose 
lives are forever changed because of the heroism of their mother or 
father. The bipartisan Children of Fallen Heroes Scholarship Act--which 
I have introduced with Senators Casey and Donnelly, two Democrats, as 
well as two Republican Senators, Toomey and Collins--would increase 
access to Pell grants for the surviving children of law enforcement who 
lay down their lives for their communities. It would ensure that all 
children of fallen officers are eligible for the maximum Federal Pell 
grant. Of course, we can't repay the debt we owe these families, but we 
can ease the burden on their children as they prepare for their future.
  We need to do everything we can to ensure that officers and family 
members get the benefits and help they deserve. We also need to do more 
to give officers the tools they need to protect themselves. This week, 
I joined a group of Senators calling for full funding of the 
Bulletproof Vest Partnership.
  I have written to the Department of Justice thanking them for their 
work so far and urging them to speed up distributing funding we passed 
as part of the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act. The bipartisan 
bill created the Comprehensive Opioid Abuse Grant Program to provide 
funding to police departments to train first responders as they deal 
with opioid-related incidents.
  More and more officers are being exposed to fentanyl out in the 
field. Just this week in Eastern Ohio, an officer in East Liverpool was 
the victim of an accidental fentanyl overdose. He survived, but the 
situation was perilous. We need to make sure officers have the 
equipment they need to handle this deadly opioid look-alike--only more 
toxic--safely.
  Our law enforcement officers put their lives on the line each day to 
protect us. This Police Week, we owe them more than gratitude; we must 
show support to the selfless men and women who serve our communities 
and country every single day, and we must support their actions, their 
lives, and their families.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Perdue). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          Russia Investigation

  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to talk about the 
Russia questions that are on the minds of so many Americans. We had--I 
think, in the midst of all of the debate and controversy and genuine 
concern across the country--some good news yesterday when it was 
announced that Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein had made the decision 
to appoint a special counsel and, in this case, former FBI Director 
Mueller. That was good news because, No. 1, there was a special counsel 
who would undertake a review of these questions and in an independent 
fashion. I think people across not just Washington but even across the 
country were heartened by the fact that it was someone of the caliber, 
the experience, and the dedicated law enforcement commitment that 
Director Mueller demonstrated in his years with the FBI as Director, as 
a prosecutor. That was good news.
  We are grateful for that. I know we will have a chance in a little 
while to talk to the Deputy Attorney General about these issues. I 
think we have to examine a couple more questions that arise.
  So to review, on January 26, Acting Attorney General Sally Yates 
informed the Trump administration that General Flynn had apparently 
lied about having conversations with the Russian Ambassador, warning 
that it could open him up to blackmail. On May 8, Yates testified 
before the Senate Judiciary Committee and stated, contrary to claims by 
White House officials, that Flynn had discussed Russian sanctions in 
his those conversations with the Russian Ambassador.
  On January 27, President Trump hosted Director Comey at the White 
House, where the New York Times reported he asked Director Comey to 
pledge his loyalty. Director Comey reportedly promised only honesty.
  On January 30, President Trump fired Acting Attorney General Yates, 
claiming her dismissal was over a matter unrelated to Russia.
  On February 13, fully 18 days after the White House was originally 
informed by Yates of General Flynn's misconduct, General Flynn was 
relieved of his job after it became public that he lied about his 
conversations with the Russian Ambassador.
  The day after General Flynn was pushed out, the President reportedly 
summoned Director Comey to a private meeting in which he took the 
extraordinary step of asking him to drop the FBI investigation into 
Flynn.
  In March and again in May, Director Comey publicly confirmed that 
Trump associates were under investigation for possible coordination 
with Russia to interfere in the election. On May 9, President Trump 
fired Director Comey. His administration initially said it was based on 
a recommendation from Attorney General Sessions, who was supposed to be 
recused from anything to do with the Russia investigation, and Deputy 
Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who reportedly had been asked by 
Director Comey just days earlier for additional funding for the Russia 
investigation. But then the President himself revealed he fired 
Director Comey explicitly because of the Russia investigation.
  The day after, the President tweeted a veiled threat that Director 
Comey ``better hope that there are no `tapes''' of their conversation, 
raising the question of whether the President was surreptitiously 
recording his Oval Office meetings and whether tapes exist.
  While it may be unrelated, it also bears mentioning that, this week, 
it was also reported that President Trump revealed highly classified 
information to Russian officials in a private Oval Office meeting--
information that could jeopardize critical intelligence assets and risk 
undermining relationships with allies.
  I think there are some serious questions, even with the special 
counsel who has been named, even with two Intelligence Committees 
reviewing these matters. I would hope that, in addition to those 
reviews that are being undertaken--those investigations--that we also 
have an independent commission to get all of the answers we need so 
that we can ensure the American people that this will never happen 
again--that no foreign government, in this case, a foreign adversary, 
can interfere in an election at any time in our future.
  That guarantee will not be ironclad unless we know exactly what 
happened and why it happened, and then we take a series of steps to 
prevent it from happening. We should be very clear with

[[Page 8029]]

the Russian Federation that if they do this again, they will be 
sanctioned, and there will be a consequence in response to their 
actions. We won't be able to do any of that unless we find the answers.
  Here are a couple of basic questions I hope would be a part of the 
deliberations, not just of the two committees or other committees that 
might review this but also the deliberations and work of the special 
counsel and his team.
  The first question is, Why does the President believe that the 
Russian election interference investigation is baseless, which is 
contrary to the unanimous finding of 17 U.S. intelligence agencies? 
These agencies issued a ``high confidence'' assessment of the 
determination they made. That is a technical term in the intelligence 
circles that they don't use lightly.
  Based upon the findings of those intelligence agencies and that 
finding being of high confidence, why does the President continue to 
question or even undermine that determination?
  Question No. 2 is, Why did Attorney General Sessions, who had to 
recuse himself from the Russian investigation, weigh in on the firing 
of the FBI Director responsible for that very investigation? That is a 
question, I think, a number of people are asking.
  Question No. 3 is, Can the Justice Department's political leaders--
individuals who have just come in with this administration and 
officials in the Justice Department--be trusted not to interfere in the 
ongoing FBI investigation? That is a question.
  Question No. 4 is, Why, immediately after firing Director Comey and 
amid the uproar about interference in the Russian investigation that it 
created, did the President convene a private meeting with the Russian 
Foreign Minister and the Russian Ambassador in the Oval Office and 
allow the Russian state media--the Soviet-era state media entity--to 
cover that meeting while keeping out the U.S. media? I think that is a 
question that a lot of people have.
  Question No. 5 is, Why did the President reveal highly classified 
information to the Russian Federation, according to the reporting by 
the Washington Post and others, during this meeting with the Russian 
Foreign Minister and the Russian Ambassador, and what are the 
implications of that disclosure? That is something that we need to have 
answers to.
  At least these five questions--you could add many more--are 
critically important questions. In some respects, there are even more 
urgent questions in front of us, and I will focus a little bit on those 
today--basically, three, I guess.
  No. 1, did the President intentionally interfere with the ongoing FBI 
investigation into his associates, people that were on his campaign or 
on the campaign or working in the government now? The interference 
question seems more likely than not based upon the reporting, but we 
have to know for sure, one way or the other: Did the President 
intentionally interfere with an ongoing FBI investigation?
  No. 2, are any such efforts to interfere ongoing?
  If the answer to the first question is yes--and we don't know for 
certain if it is question yes, but if it is yes--if there was 
intentional interference with the investigation by the President, the 
second question would be, Are there any such efforts to interfere that 
are ongoing?
  No. 3, do they extend--meaning this potential alleged interference--
past the FBI inquiry, to the investigations in the Senate and the House 
of Representatives? I think that is a question that is rather urgent as 
well.
  Will this attempt to interfere, or alleged attempt to interfere, 
carry over into other investigations?
  In essence now, we have three inquiries. One is the House 
Intelligence Committee, the other is the Senate Intelligence Committee, 
and the third would be Special Counsel Mueller's investigation. They 
are all critically important.
  I would hope that we could add a fourth to that, which would be an 
independent commission, like the 9/11 Commission, where we came to 
definitive conclusions with regard to what happened on 9/11. Then, 
added to those conclusions, there were a series of recommendations so 
that we could prevent another 9/11. The same could be said here--that 
we want to make sure we get answers to these questions, have 
conclusions made, have accountability with regard to those conclusions, 
but then have a series of recommendations about how to prevent Russian 
interference or the interference of any foreign adversary in our 
election ever again.
  Director Comey himself warned about the danger of undue influence on 
FBI investigations in an exchange during a May 3 Senate Judiciary 
Committee hearing. In this case, it was Senator Hirono, a Democratic 
Senator from Hawaii, who asked if the Attorney General or senior 
Justice Department officials had ever ordered the FBI to halt an 
investigation.
  Interestingly, here is what Director Comey replied to that question: 
``Not in my experience,'' meaning not in his experience does he know of 
an instance where the Justice Department officials interfered with an 
FBI investigation.
  I will read it again.

       Not in my experience. Because it would be a big deal to 
     tell the FBI to stop doing something.

  Then, he continues on, and it picks up with this:

       [W]ithout an appropriate purpose. . . . a situation where 
     we were told to stop something for a political reason, that 
     would be a very big deal. It's not happened in my experience.

  That is the now former FBI Director saying that there is no 
precedence for the idea that the Justice Department would ask the FBI 
to take an action, which would be interference.
  Director Comey was talking about the Department of Justice in this 
case--actions by the Department of Justice to interfere with an FBI 
investigation. In retrospect, perhaps a better question would have been 
whether the political interference he thought would be a ``very big 
deal'' might have been coming directly from the Oval Office. It is 
essential that we get to the bottom of this--a number of these 
questions.
  An issue of this importance requires that the full investigative 
power of the Federal Government be brought to bear. The House and 
Senate Intel Committees are doing their investigation, as I said. The 
FBI investigation continues as well, despite concerns about 
independence in the wake of Director Comey's firing.
  I hope, and I expect, that the next FBI Director will be someone who 
will be as independent, as capable, and as committed as Director 
Mueller is as the new special counsel.
  We know there are dedicated professionals running these 
investigations. It has long been my belief that these extraordinary 
circumstances demand even more. I have been repeating for some time 
that we need a greater level of independence to insulate this 
critically important investigation from any suspicion of partisan 
interference. That is why I have been calling--for many weeks now, 
since early March--for a special counsel. I am glad the Justice 
Department now agrees with me.
  Suffice it to say that we have a lot more work to do. Ultimately, 
this will be the work of everyone here, even if you are not a member of 
the Intel Committee or any other committee that is doing work that is 
directly relevant to this because, ultimately, the Congress has to take 
actions to get to the bottom of these questions but also be part of the 
process, at least, of imposing accountability and, also, especially the 
Congress is going to have to play a major role--the leading role--in 
making sure we put in place policies and procedures and laws that 
prevent this from ever happening again.
  I hope the administration will join us in taking every step necessary 
to get to the bottom of these questions and to insist and to ensure 
that this never happens again to any American election. That is not 
just a goal, that has to be a guarantee as a result of this process. If 
the administration is not committed to that, I am not sure what they 
are committed to.
  To take lightly or to ignore a problem that is this great and this 
serious,

[[Page 8030]]

to undermine our democracy is, I think, to put at risk the very 
foundation of our Nation as a nation of laws and not of men, a nation 
that is committed to the rule of law.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________