Veterans' Second Amendment Rights Restoration Act of 2018

Mr. President, I am honored to follow my colleagues here today and to be followed by my great friend and colleague, Senator Whitehouse, who has been a wonderful partner in this effort and has helped organize today's colloquy. I will yield to him shortly.

I think the American people are asking a commonsense question: What is the President trying to hide? What do the Russians have on Donald Trump?

The intelligence community unanimously says that the Russians attacked our democracy by interfering in the 2016 election. The only one who has any doubt about it--in fact, the only public official who has the temerity to deny it--is the President of the United States. So the question is, Why?

That is the elephant in this Chamber. That is the question that the American people demand that we answer in our investigation into obstruction of justice through the Judiciary Committee and that the special counsel will be answering in his investigation into collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign, as well as subsequent obstruction of justice.

Some of this investigation involves past events and actions by the President and others. But, in fact, what is happening daily in real time is evidence of obstruction of justice. It is as though we were watching a case in court unfolding before our eyes. All we lack is the marshalling of the evidence and the closing argument. In a subsequent speech, I intend to go into great detail on that obstruction case.

From what we know now through the public record, there is a lot more that the special counsel knows from his investigation, and he will be making use of it from classified and unclassified sources.

We now know, irrefutably and undeniably, that there is a credible case of obstruction of justice against the President of the United States. It is credible and, in many ways, powerful and compelling.

In fact, President Trump has endeavored mightily to stop all of these investigations into the Russian meddling in the 2016 election and his connections to it.

Obstruction of justice is a serious crime, essentially consisting of two elements: No. 1, to interfere with a lawful investigation and, No. 2, that interference has to be done with corrupt intent. Corrupt intent means any improper purpose.

It doesn't matter that the President, for example, had the right to fire Jim Comey or to say one thing or another. The question is why he did it. There can be circumstantial evidence of that corrupt intent in what he says and does, as well as direct quotations.

If it was to stop or influence an investigation, that is corrupt intent, and that is enough for obstruction of justice.

My colleagues and I are here today to raise the alarm because where we are now is that part of the President's corrupt intent, as well as his interference with the investigation, consists of an all-out assault on law enforcement and the intelligence community.

In some ways, it is a standard means of defense at trial: When all else fails, attack the prosecution. I have seen it and experienced it as a U.S. attorney myself in court. So I know it is a last resort, but it has lasting implications for the defendant, or whoever is raising this defense--in this case, the President of the United States. It has huge, sweeping, enduring, horrific, and reprehensible ramifications. It is irresponsible in a profound constitutional sense for the Commander in Chief to be undermining our national security by attacking the FBI and our intelligence community as institutions.

I wish to remind my colleagues of what our colleague John McCain said.

My colleague Senator Whitehouse prepared this poster board and will be using it shortly. He said: ``The latest attacks against the FBI and Department of Justice serve no American interests--no party's, no President's, only Putin's.'' These attacks serve the Russians. They do not serve America's national security because they are done with the purpose to obstruct justice.

They are the latest in a series of irresponsible and reprehensible actions that began in the first days of this administration. In January 2017, Acting Attorney General Sally Yates went to the White House to inform White House Counsel Don McGahn that Michael Flynn had lied to the Vice President about his relationship with the Russians and he could, therefore, be subject to blackmail. Don McGahn immediately briefed President Trump, but the White House failed to react in the way that a responsible President would. Soon after it was revealed that the FBI was doing an investigation into Russian meddling, Trump asked FBI Director James Comey for his loyalty. In effect, he asked for a loyalty pledge from the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigations. He cornered Comey privately and said that he hoped Comey would let Flynn go, referring to the FBI's investigation into Michael Flynn.

Trump called Comey and told him he wanted him to lift the cloud of the Russian investigation over his Presidency. He then called for the firing of Andrew McCabe, a potential corroborating witness for Comey's conversations with Trump.

He asked Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and CIA Director Mike Pompeo and Mike Rogers to publicly state that he was not under investigation. When Comey refused to bend to this pressure, he fired Comey and misstated the reason for that firing. He lied about it, claiming it was because of Comey's supposed handling of the Clinton email investigation, although he later admitted in an interview with NBC News anchor Lester Holt that the firing was ``because of this Russia thing,'' and he bragged to Russian officials at the White House that Comey's firing had ``taken off'' the ``great pressure'' of the Russia investigation.

But that did not make the Russia investigation go away, because of the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller. He berated his Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, for recusing himself from the special counsel's investigation because he knew Sessions could have stopped it. He berated Jeff Sessions and privately ranted about it.

Those private rants, along with other private conversations--many of them now known to the special counsel, no doubt--are evidence that will be produced by the special counsel.

We know that President Trump wrote a deliberately deceptive statement for his son Donald Trump, Jr., to cover up the Trump Tower meeting and to misstate what the purpose of that meeting was--supposedly Russian adoptions, when, in fact, it was to obtain dirt on Hillary Clinton. He did it when he knew he was under investigation. That is the key point.

He ordered the firing of Robert Mueller and backed down only when his White House Counsel said he would resign. Again, the reasons that he provided, much like the Comey letter that was a lie, the reasons for his firing the FBI Director were pretextual. He lied about why he wanted Mueller gone, just as he had lied about why he fired Jim Comey.

In some ways, others are tasked now, in a switch of tactics. He has no longer threatened to fire the special counsel--at least publicly-- but he has tasked his surrogates and sycophants in Congress to attack institutions like the FBI, the Department of Justice, and the intelligence community, along with him. That was the purpose of the Nunes memo--to discredit the FBI and distract from the investigation.

But if he orchestrated the writing of that memo, if he participated in drafting it, if anyone in the White House, with his imprimatur or direction, was involved in crafting that memo, that is evidence also of obstruction of justice, and it will come home to haunt Devin Nunes and the White House staff who participated and others in the Congress who may have been involved, including the staff--all of it because he wants to stop the investigation, all of it because he is afraid of something that the special counsel has and that the Russians may have on him.

The fact of the matter is that no one is above the law. If the President refuses to talk to the special counsel, he should be subpoenaed to appear before the grand jury. If he fails to voluntarily appear for that interview with Robert Mueller or his staff, he should be subpoenaed before the grand jury, and he should be forced to testify under threat of contempt. And if he invokes Executive privilege, the outcome will be the same when it is tested in court, as it was in United States v. Nixon.

We have seen this movie before. We know how it ends because a broad claim of Executive privilege fails in the face of a lawful need for evidence in an ongoing criminal investigation.

If he claims a Fifth Amendment privilege--the right against self- incrimination--it will be a powerful testimony to what he fears the special counsel and the Russians have on him.

We are careening toward a constitutional crisis, and that is why my colleagues in this Chamber can no longer remain silent. It is why Paul Ryan can no longer tolerate Devin Nunes to continue with these frantic antics to protect the President and his ongoing acts of obstruction. It is why I hope we will adopt legislation to protect the special counsel, sending a message to the President of the United States that he cannot obstruct justice by firing the special counsel and precipitate a confrontation that would match the Saturday Night Massacre during the era of Watergate. That would throw this country into another constitutional conflagration that would be profoundly damaging and enduringly harmful.

This investigation is no hoax or witch hunt. It is real. It is not about any of us or any of the President's tweets. It is about evidence and law. It is about facts and statutes. It is about the elements of a crime that is under investigation. The American people deserve to know the truth, which is why we must have public hearings in the Judiciary Committee, and we must have subpoenas for documents and witnesses. It is why we need to move in the Judiciary Committee with special counsel legislation that will offer protections that guarantee the American people that they will know the truth and that the rule of law will be protected. No one is above the rule of law.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I thank my friend and colleague Senator Whitehouse.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak against the Trump administration's egregious attack on our pristine coastlines in the Pacific, the Atlantic, Alaska, and the eastern Gulf of Mexico.

Dramatic increases in oil and gas development offshore pose a direct threat to our coastal economies in the United States, particularly in the Pacific Northwest. I know many of my colleagues are going to join me on the floor this afternoon to talk about this and about the specific impacts in their areas.

The draft leasing plan, which is what has been put forth by the Secretary of the Interior, is an unprecedented attempt to allow offshore oil and gas drilling in over 90 percent of the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf, including in Washington and Oregon.

The truth is that instead of creating new jobs in the oil and gas sector, the administration is poised to choose big oil jobs over the ocean-dependent industries like fishing, shipbuilding, and tourism on our coasts. I know this because I just traveled to many of our coastal communities in the State of Washington, which make their livelihoods off of fishing or tourism, that are very concerned by this proposal. And just yesterday, a public hearing was supposed to take place in Tacoma, WA, which was canceled. The Trump administration failed to account for the value of the existing robust coastal and ocean economies that could be jeopardized by expanding offshore drilling in those areas.

Our ocean-related economy is so important to our State that expanding drilling directly threatens the ocean environment and marine resources that support millions of jobs in construction, fishing, shipbuilding, tourism, recreation, and maritime transport. The ocean-related industries in the areas targeted by the administration's plan contribute over 2.2 million direct jobs, nearly $75 billion in wages, and over $150 billion in GDP. The reason I bring this up is that the economic benefits of these industries cannot be overstated: nearly $8 billion from fishing and seafood, nearly $70 billion from marine transport, and over $125 billion from tourism and recreation.

We know that oilspills or other natural disasters related to oil and gas activities, such as the Exxon Valdez or the Deepwater Horizon disaster, can disrupt entire coastal economies. For example, if you took just the Deepwater Horizon spill in size and compared it to the coastal areas of Washington and Oregon, the impacted area would cover all of Washington and a big chunk of Oregon. We know that these can be devastating.

The shore-adjacent counties in the targeted areas host over 39 million jobs and contribute over $2 trillion in wages. The economies of the shore-adjacent counties represent 65 percent of the affected coastal States' GDPs. That is just one way of saying that coastal States and their economies are big drivers in our U.S. economy and that they are extremely dependent on clean water, coasts, our oceans, and our fisheries.

The Washington coast economy relies on healthy, sustainable oceans, which support our fisheries in places such as Grays Harbor and Pacific County and in many other parts of our State, to make sure they have seafood processing, recreation, and tourism. Our Washington maritime economy is worth $50 billion in economic activity and 191,000 jobs, and tourism on the coast adds jobs for anglers, charter boats, cruise guides, restaurants, hotels, and more, which are so iconic in the Pacific Northwest. They are the culture and heritage of our coastal communities.

The fact that so many recreational fishermen can be out on our healthy oceans and attracting more people to come and explore is so much a part of the Northwest that putting it at risk to oilspill activities or activities related to exploration is just not something these communities want to do. Just this past week, I received resolutions from various communities on our Pacific coast that urged that this idea be turned down.

The Washington and Oregon coasts are not really suited for oil and gas development. First of all, there are extreme sea states, treacherous storms, and the remote nature of our coastlines. As one of our maritime communities told me, it doesn't really have the resources for cleanup in the area. If a spill happened, who would be there to clean it up? In the meantime, our fishermen, if they have oil sheens behind their fishing boats, can be fined. If we are ready to fine fishermen for oil sheens behind their boats, why are we proposing a plan in the treacherous waters of the Pacific Northwest without having any idea who is going to clean up the mess?

Adding to the risk in the Pacific Northwest is the Cascadia Subduction Zone--one of the most dangerous faults in the United States. The Cascadia Subduction Zone is long overdue to create a significant earthquake. You hear from lots of people about this. In fact, after The New Yorker wrote a big story called ``The Really Big One,'' many people from across the country emailed me to ask: Are we ready for this to happen? I can tell you, with what happened in Japan, people are very concerned about how we prepare for that in the Pacific Northwest. So it makes no sense to put an oil rig on one of the most high-risk, earthquake-prone zones in the United States.

In a 1991 spill, the dangerous and choppy seas prevented first responders from being able to contain more of the spill. That is why I have fought to improve oilspill prevention and response in the State of Washington by deploying our Neah Bay tug, which is a full-time tug, to make sure we get boats safely through our waters; by increasing oilspill response equipment throughout the Strait of Juan de Fuca; and by pushing for the Coast Guard to invest in research on tar sands oil.

Those are some of the things we can do to protect ourselves, but we need to do much more.

We must weigh future decisions about where we should allow oil and gas exploration with the costs to our coastal economies.

We must incorporate the lessons we have learned from disasters such as Deepwater Horizon, which is part of this picture, or the Exxon Valdez in order to improve oilspill prevention, response, and safety. Herring fish from Prince William Sound are still very much impacted and have not fully recovered after the Exxon Valdez. So telling our fishermen that this is a great idea, that Washington fisheries, whether they be crab or other fisheries, should be susceptible to these kinds of spills--that is just not something our fishermen want to hear.

In addition to these efforts to drill off of our coasts--efforts that have been repeatedly blocked in the past--President Trump wants to roll back important safety regulations that were put in place after Deepwater Horizon, such as blowout preventer systems, well control, and production safety systems.

Now Secretary Zinke wants to open these coastal areas. Our State has been responding to his proposal for months and months. We gave very important data to say that this was not a good idea off the coast of Washington. It is interesting because Secretary Zinke made a last- minute decision with regard to Florida, which didn't turn in its information about its State on this issue. Then later, after a visit with the Governor, Secretary Zinke said that this was something he didn't want to see happen. The people of Washington don't want political games played. They want to have their say on this issue, and they want to make sure their voices are heard loud and clear. Our coastal economies are too important to us, from a jobs and cultural perspective, to go about even proposing the research on drilling in our coastal areas.

I am disappointed that yesterday there was a last-minute postponement of a public meeting that was supposed to take place in Tacoma, WA, to hear from our citizens about their opposition to expanding oil drilling off our coasts. I am not sure whether there will be a hearing rescheduled or exactly what was behind the cancelation, but it was one of the first opportunities Washingtonians could have had to express their views on this issue.

Based on the vocal opposition of our communities, I sent a letter to Secretary Zinke, with 15 of my House and Senate colleagues from the Pacific Northwest, calling on Washington and Oregon to not be part of a future lease program. I know that many people, including our Governor, have done the same. Members from the Pacific, Atlantic, gulf coast, and even Alaska are writing to Secretary Zinke, asking him to exclude their areas from future drilling activities.

I am very concerned that we are wasting taxpayer money in reanalyzing what we have analyzed before--that oil and gas development in the Pacific Northwest does not make sense for our coastal communities. We will fight to protect our fishing jobs, our tourism, our recreation, and all of the things that are part of the center of our culture on our coasts. We hope Secretary Zinke will follow science, protect our coastal economy, stop this foolish idea that drilling off of our coast is either necessary or prudent, and move about to protect our Federal lands.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, the good news for American workers continues to roll in. Just take a look at the headlines from the last week: ``Pfizer Plans $5 Billion Boost in U.S. Manufacturing From Tax Law Changes''; ``Cigna raises wages, benefits following tax law''; ``CEO: Lehigh Valley small businesses to benefit from federal tax overhaul''; ``Altria Group will pay $3,000 bonus to all non-executive employees''; ``Ozarks workers to receive bonuses, benefits thanks to tax changes''; ``Charter Sets $15 Minimum Wage''; ``Lowe's to pay U.S. staff $1,000 bonus following tax reform.''

The number of companies increasing wages, boosting retirement contributions, or handing out bonuses thanks to tax reform continues to soar. Last week at this time, the number was over 250; now it is up over 300, and it keeps growing. Businesses are making plans to invest in their workers, raise wages, create new jobs, and invest in the U.S. economy. Fiat Chrysler, AT&T, Boeing, Home Depot, Great Western Bank in my home State of South Dakota, AaLadin Industries, Southwest, Best Buy, AccuWeather, Visa, Nationwide Insurance, Jet Blue--the list of companies announcing good news for American workers thanks to tax reform goes on and on.

The Nation's largest private employer, Walmart, announced an increase in its starting wage for hourly employees and bonuses for eligible employees. It also announced expanded maternity and parental leave benefits and the creation of a new adoption benefit for employees. More than 1 million Walmart employees will benefit from these changes.

JPMorgan Chase announced that it will raise wages for 22,000 workers, add thousands of jobs, and open 400 new branches in the United States. It also plans to increase its lending to small businesses.

Tech giant Apple announced that thanks to tax reform, it will bring home to the United States almost $250 billion in cash it has been keeping overseas and finally now invest it here in the United States. It also announced that it will create 20,000 new jobs and provide $2,500 stock bonuses to its employees.

FedEx announced plans to expedite raises and invest $1.5 billion to expand its FedEx Express hub in Indianapolis. It is also making a $1.5 billion contribution to its pension plan.

Last week, ExxonMobil announced that thanks in part to tax reform, it will invest an additional $35 billion in the U.S. economy over the next 5 years. That means a lot of new jobs and opportunities for American workers.

As I said before, I could go on and on. It is important to remember that this is just the beginning. To date, companies have barely experienced the benefits of tax reform, and already they are moving to invest in their workers and in the economy. As the benefits of tax reform continue to sink in and accrue, we can expect to see more growth, more jobs, and more opportunities for American workers.

The past month of good news is the reason we made business tax reform a key part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. We are deeply committed to immediate relief for the American people, which is why we cut tax rates, doubled the standard deduction, and doubled the child tax credit, delivering immediate, meaningful tax relief to middle-class families in this country. But we want more for American workers than just a tax cut, as valuable as those are; we also want American workers to have access to the kinds of jobs and opportunities that will set them up for security and prosperity for the long term. Good jobs, good wages, and good opportunities were in short supply during the last Presidency, and we are determined to improve things for American workers. So we took action to improve the situation for American businesses since the only way individual Americans thrive is if American businesses and the American economy thrive.

Prior to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, American businesses large and small were weighed down by high tax rates and growth-killing tax provisions. Plus, our outdated international tax rules left America's global businesses at a competitive disadvantage in the global economy.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act changed all that. We lowered tax rates across the board for owners with small- and medium-sized businesses, farms, and ranches. We expanded business owners' ability to recover investments they make in their businesses, which will free up cash that they can invest in their operations and their workers. We lowered our Nation's massive corporate tax rate, which, up until January 1 of this year, was the highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world. We brought the U.S. international tax system into the 21st century by replacing our outdated worldwide system with a modernized territorial tax system so that American businesses are not operating at a disadvantage next to their foreign competitors.

Now, just a month and a half into the new tax law, we are already seeing the results: increased investment in the American economy, job creation, higher wages, and benefit increases. As the tax law helps U.S. businesses large and small grow and thrive, we can expect to see a lot more benefits and opportunities for American workers in the future.

Before I close, Mr. President, I would like to say a couple words about the Defense appropriations bill we are taking up this week.

By the end of the Obama administration, our military was facing a serious readiness shortfall. The Obama administration's failure to prioritize defense left our Armed Forces with manpower deficits and delayed the acquisition of 21st-century weapons and equipment.

The Defense appropriations bill we will vote on this week provides critical funding for restoring military readiness and would be a downpayment on equipping our troops with the resources they need to meet the threats of the 21st century. Unfortunately, passage of this bill is in jeopardy here in the Senate, thanks to Senate Democrats. Democrats have blocked a Defense appropriations bill six times over the past almost 3 years now, and they look set to block that bill once again. That is not acceptable.

Funding the government by continuing resolution rather than by appropriations bills is never ideal, but it is particularly problematic for the military. Under a continuing resolution, new programs are delayed, and the military's ability to transfer money between accounts--for acquisition purposes, for example--is restricted. That is a big problem when the security of our Nation depends on the very programs and purchases the military makes.

Defense Secretary James Mattis has warned that ``long-term CRs impact the readiness of our forces and their equipment at a time when security threats are extraordinarily high''--not to mention at a time when our military is already under extra pressure as it works to repair the deficits of the Obama years.

Passing a defense appropriations bill, instead of subjecting the military to a constant procession of continuing resolutions, would go a long way toward ensuring our military men and women are prepared to confront the threats that are facing our Nation. It is too bad that Democrats seem to be unable to look beyond politics to the needs of our military. Democrats may not pay a price for opposing this bill this week, but our military will.

It is high time that we pass the Defense appropriations bill. We need to stop this obstruction, stop this blocking. Six times in the last 3 years already they have blocked passage of Defense appropriations, and here we are again faced this week with yet another opportunity to provide the critical and necessary funding for the American military-- our men and women in uniform who every single day are out there defending our freedoms--and it looks as though yet again the Democrats intend to block that critical, important funding. This needs to come to an end. This isn't about politics; this is about America's national security interests. I hope we can come together and recognize that and put the best interests of America's national security and our men and women in uniform ahead of politics.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I thank both of my colleagues, and I thank my colleague from Florida for his courtesy. I am going to be brief.

My views on this issue can be summed up in a tweet that I sent on Saturday. I was home having town meetings. I go to every county every year, and I had just wrapped up in Astoria, and I was on my way to Tillamook.

We stopped at Rockaway Beach, on the spectacular Oregon coast, and I decided that I would send a tweet and start it off with a question: Drilling on the Oregon coast? The answer was this: You have got to be kidding me. On my watch, that is going to be the policy we

are going to have for protecting the Oregon coast. That is what Oregonians are saying today, specifically. In fact, Oregonians are lining up to make their opposition known by protesting this proposal outside a meeting today, hosted by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management in Salem.

We have a picturesque coastline that looks as if it is right out of a storybook. It is 362 miles that supports 22,000 jobs and a $2 billion economy. Tourism, fishing, and recreation are all dependent on a healthy Pacific Ocean.

Our coast is entirely publicly owned, and it has been protected from oil and gas drilling for decades. That is, in large part, because we have learned harsh lessons from the past. In 1999, the freighter New Carissa ran aground off the coast of Coos Bay. The ship split apart, spilling tens of thousands of gallons of oil and diesel that covered our beaches in oil and tar balls. Some of that toxic mess remained on our beaches for almost a decade, costing tens of millions of dollars to clean up.

The thousands of fishermen, recreation business owners, and guides shouldn't have to go to bed at night hoping there is not a spill or an explosion--or risk their livelihoods on the good will of oil and gas executives. To make matters even more ominous, just days before announcing his intention to open up our entire coastline to oil and gas drilling, Secretary Zinke reversed basic safety standards for workers that were adopted after the Deepwater Horizon disaster. So what you have here is a double whammy. First, gut safety standards for oil and gas workers on offshore rigs. That is right; gut the safety standards for oil and gas workers. Second, increase the probability that these workers are going to be put in danger in the first place.

As I said on Saturday on my way to those town meetings, the people of my State, Oregonians, overwhelmingly do not want to be a part of any of this. Secretary Zinke went ahead and made a wrong decision with respect to coastal drilling without any input from Oregon. Our commercial and recreational fisheries industry--hard-working families who depend on healthy fishing stocks--had no seat at the table. In fact, an entire west coast industry was left out of whatever discussions happened between the oil executives and the Trump officials in the back room of the Department of the Interior.

One day after his decision, Mr. Zinke met with the Republican Governor of Florida, and my colleague who will speak next has been eloquent on that point, describing the plan as a threat to the environment and economy of his home State. That was enough for Secretary Zinke to let Florida off the hook, but there has been an outcry of opposition from the Governors of 15 coastal States, including mine. We have raised the very same environmental and economic concerns, yet Secretary Zinke seems deaf to our voices. I guess the only voice that is really relevant is that of a Republican Governor, and that is about as nakedly political as it gets around Washington--a big gift for the oil and gas companies but one that poses an enormous danger to the economies and environment of local communities along our coast.

Finally, the decision doesn't make sense in terms of energy policy. Our country is more energy-secure now than ever. The International Energy Agency reports that within 10 years the United States will move from being a net importer of oil to a net exporter. So Secretary Zinke's scheme to expand offshore drilling is going to benefit--let's acknowledge that--a handful of Big Oil interests and then leave hard- working fishing families and coastal business owners to pick up the bill. That is not how we do things on our west coast.

The lasting economic uncertainty and ultimate environmental degradation are not worth it, and today, on behalf of the people of Oregon, I urge Secretary Zinke to rescind his proposal.

I yield the floor and thank my colleague from Florida for his courtesy.

Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague from Hawaii for a very eloquent statement. I so appreciate her leadership and miss her on the Intelligence Committee. I also want to express my appreciation to the organizers of this effort--Senator Whitehouse and Senator Blumenthal--who have been tenacious in pursuing these issues. Both of them serve on the Judiciary Committee, and I serve on the Intelligence Committee.

It is quite obvious what has been going on in the last few weeks. The President, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, and others are working hard to get the American people just to forget that our country is in the middle of an ongoing national security crisis. Russia has attacked our democracy; Russia has intervened in our election; and there is every reason to believe that they are just going to keep doing it.

In the year since the assessment I mentioned was conducted by the intelligence community, virtually everyone has come to see it this way. Donald Trump obviously disagrees. The only change has been the extent to which Donald Trump's protectors are willing to go out and throw dust in the air to prevent America from focusing on this direct threat to the people of this country and our very system of government.

Congress has to get to the bottom of what has been done to our democracy, but the fact is, the Senate has been stonewalled, particularly when it comes to the crucial issues of following the money. It began when Donald Trump refused to do what every other Presidential candidate has done now for four decades; that is, release his tax returns. It continues on other fronts. I have repeatedly asked the Secretary of the Treasury to provide the Senate Finance Committee with Treasury Department documents that would allow investigators to follow the money between Russia, Donald Trump, and his associates. The committee has been given nothing. Secretary Mnuchin has simply refused to cooperate with congressional oversight conducted by members of the committee that has direct jurisdiction over his agency.

So the question is, Mr. President, what are you hiding? What is in those tax returns and those financial documents that you don't want revealed? What would be so damaging?

It seems to me that if you are to understand Russia's ability to undermine our democracy, it is essential to follow the money. Donald Trump's family has acknowledged its financial ties to Russia. In fact, in 2008 and 2009, when it was pretty hard to get money for investment, the Trump family said--their words, not mine: Much of our portfolio comes from the Russians.

The special counsel included extensive information on money laundering and tax evasion in his recent indictment of Paul Manafort. There have been dozens and dozens of press stories--it seems there are several every week--about the finances of the President and his associates that warrant real congressional oversight.

Americans are alarmed by the administration's stonewalling, and millions have been appalled by the idea that this would somehow be treated like just another political game. Those who abuse the classification system to put out a laughable partisan memo that doesn't stand up to scrutiny apparently are willing to do it just to protect the President at any cost.

The cost is our national security. The cost is our democracy. No matter how much the President and his protectors in Congress try to change the subject, we are not, on the floor of this Senate, going to lose sight of what is really at stake.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, on January 6, 2017, the U.S. intelligence community released a shocking report.

It stated: ``We assess with high confidence that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016, aimed at the U.S. presidential election, the consistent goals of which were to undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency.''

This wasn't just one intelligence agency, it was a unanimous conclusion of the entire intelligence community.

It sent shockwaves throughout our entire government. This isn't about Republicans versus Democrats, it is about a foreign President ordering an attack on our democracy.

President Putin's goal was clear: to sow division and discord and to undermine public faith in our democratic processes and the rule of law.

Almost immediately we saw concerns and calls for action from both sides of the aisle.

Bipartisan congressional investigations were initiated to figure out exactly what happened and how to prevent it from happening again.

However, despite this promising beginning, the commitment to uncover the facts and protect our country from outside attacks has devolved into an inside attack on our own democratic institutions.

Sadly, rather than serving as a unifying force, President Trump has done all he can to undermine the intelligence community's assessment.

What is worse, he has utterly failed to take strong actions against Russia--and in some cases has rewarded Russia by changing U.S. policy.

Instead of supporting a robust and independent investigation into what Russia did and who was involved, the President instead is working to halt the investigations altogether.

Unfortunately, the President hasn't been alone in these efforts.

Last week, Congressman Devin Nunes, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, pushed for the declassification of a transparently political memo written by his staff.

Here are some things we know about the memo and the process to release it: We know that the memo confirms the FBI's Russia investigation was not triggered by the dossier or by Carter Page.

In fact, the investigation started because another Trump campaign foreign policy adviser, George Papadapolous, was told in April that Russia had ``dirt'' on Clinton in the form of thousands of emails.

We also know that, while Carter Page was not the reason the Russia investigation started, the government had a reasonable belief that Page was acting as an agent of a foreign power.

We know that Congressman Nunes did not review the underlying classified documents himself.

These documents include the FISA warrant renewal applications, which must show what the government was learning about Carter Page.

Instead of reviewing these documents himself, the chairman relied solely on his staff, who may or may not have been coordinating this campaign with the White House. We don't know because Congressman Nunes refuses to answer that question.

We know that Chairman Nunes refused to allow the Department of Justice and FBI to brief all Members on the underlying documents before and after the memo's release.

We know that Congressman Nunes refused to allow Democrats to issue their own analysis of the classified documents along with his memo.

And we know that Russian social media bots assisted in the efforts to influence American public opinion concerning the memo.

The drafting and release of this partisan, misleading memo was particularly disturbing to me.

As Senator McCain stated last week, ``If we continue to undermine our own rule of law, we are doing Putin's job for him.''

Intelligence and law enforcement oversight should never be used as a political weapon.

I have served on the Senate Intelligence Committee for 17 years, and I can't recall a single instance when an intelligence report was handled in this manner or a situation where additional views were actively blocked from being released.

This has been true even with the most controversial issues like the Intelligence Committee's investigation of the Benghazi attacks or the report on the CIA's use of torture.

In both of these instances, the committee held bipartisan meetings and shared drafts of report language between the majority and minority.

For the torture report, the CIA was offered and accepted opportunities to respond and request changes. The committee revised its report where appropriate and even cited disagreements in footnotes.

Once public, the committee included additional views from Republicans on the committee. The CIA's response was made public. There was a very thorough declassification process to ensure the summary was safe to release.

In fact, even though the final report was completed in 2012, the executive summary wasn't made public until December 2014 in order to ensure the process was properly followed.

There were disagreements, but the minority party was not cut out of the process.

That is not how the Senate works, that is not how democracy works, and it is not how any congressional committee or investigation should operate.

What I have described so far was the process and political implications of the Nunes memo, but it is just one part of an extensive pattern of abuse of power.

What we are seeing is a sustained, coordinated effort to diminish, weaken, and destabilize our top law enforcement officials, and we all should take exception to that.

Both the rushed manner and the disputed contents of the Nunes memo are a case in point.

After the memo was released on Friday, House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Adam Schiff hit the nail on the head.

He called the public release of misleading allegations against the FBI and the Justice Department ``a shameful effort to discredit these institutions, undermine the Special Counsel's ongoing investigation, and undercut congressional probes.''

He is absolutely right.

And this is just the latest in a long pattern of attempts to undercut the FBI and Justice Department.

Some of the efforts were blatant.

After FBI Director Comey refused to pledge his loyalty to the President, the President fired him, an action the President himself admitted was tied to the Russia investigation.

The President has engaged in a series of tweets attacking the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General and Deputy Director of the FBI, among others.

There have also been media reports that the President has considered firing both Robert Mueller and Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein, but many of the efforts by the President and his team weren't quite as obvious.

We have seen multiple reports that the President demanded personal loyalty from top law enforcement officials including Comey and Rosenstein.

In fact, President Trump frequently calls the Attorney General ``his'' Attorney General and refers to ``my FBI'' and ``my Department of Justice.'' In fact, they aren't his, they are American people's.

Media reports also say that President instructed White House Counsel Don McGahn to keep the Attorney General from recusing himself from the Russia investigation.

Two heads of intelligence agencies, DNI Director Dan Coats and NSC Director Michael Rogers, said they felt pressure from the President to say there was no collusion with Russia.

And it has become apparent that many of the actions taken by the White House, Congressman Nunes, and others have been coordinated with conservative media like FOX News.

Objectivity and nonpartisanship are core components of the FBI and the Justice Department. To either attempt to co-opt them or punish them for not kowtowing to the President's political whims is egregious.

Our Founding Fathers placed enormous trust in the legislative branch to serve as an effective check on the President, and it is time to do our job.

Congress needs to work alongside Special Counsel Mueller to get answers for the American people.

The Nation deserves to understand exactly what happened and who was involved, and all of us need to believe the President isn't above the law and will not be allowed to abuse his position for personal gain.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, it is no secret that our country faces a major healthcare crisis and, in fact, a dysfunctional healthcare system.

We have some 30 million people who have no health insurance, and that number is going to go up in the coming year. We have even more people who are underinsured, with high deductibles and copayments. Our people pay the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs, which means that millions of people who go to the doctor to get a prescription are simply unable to afford the bill. In fact, the description of that is the definition of a dysfunctional, failing healthcare system.

In the midst of all of that, there is another particular crisis dealing with primary healthcare, and that is that even when people do have health insurance in many parts of our country, they are finding it very hard to go to a doctor and to get in to a doctor to treat the ailments that they have. We fall behind many other countries in terms of our lack of emphasis on primary healthcare, which should be the heart and soul of any strong healthcare system. The bottom line is that when you get sick, you should be able to get to the doctor when you need to and not have to wait weeks and months in order to do so.

In the midst of a failing primary healthcare system, there is one very strong bright spot, and that is that for many decades now, in every State in this country, we have had community health centers run by the people themselves--democratically run--addressing the healthcare needs of those given communities. Today, in America, we have about 27 million people--27 million men, women, and children--who are accessing community health centers. In my own State of Vermont, one out of four Vermonters gets their primary healthcare through a community health center.

These centers do more than provide primary healthcare. They also provide dental care, an issue that is too often ignored when we talk about the healthcare crisis. They provide mental health counseling, which is more important now than perhaps it has ever been because of the opioid and heroin epidemic our country is experiencing. Equally important, they provide low-cost prescription drugs at a time when so many Americans cannot afford the medicines they need. That is what community health centers do, and they

do it well, and they do it cost effectively.

To my mind, there is no question but that there is strong bipartisan support here in the Senate and in the House for community health centers. Yet now we have gone over 4 months into the 2018 fiscal year, and we still have not reauthorized funding for community health centers. Frankly, I do not understand how it happens that when we have strong bipartisan support in the House and the Senate for programs that are working extremely well in every State in this country, the Republican leadership still has not reauthorized the community health center program. There is good bipartisan legislation right here in the Senate that has, I think, the support of virtually everybody in the Democratic caucus. Seven or eight Republicans are supporting it. It is the Blunt-Stabenow bill. It is a 5-year extension of community health centers reauthorization with a modest increase in the budget. If that bill came to the floor today, my guess is that it would get 70, 80 votes--maybe even more. We have gone 4 months into the fiscal year, and we still have not seen that bill reauthorized.

What is happening all over this country is that community health centers, which often struggle with recruitment and retention, are finding it harder than ever to retain the doctors, nurses, and other medical staff they need because applicants are looking around and saying: Why should I work at a community health center if I don't even know if it is going to be there next year? Why should I stay at a community health center if I can get a better job offer and I don't know if this community health center will be funded?

As a result of 4 months of inaction, community health centers all over this country are hurting. I say enough is enough. Right now, as soon as possible, we need to reauthorize the community health center program for at least 5 years, and we need to make sure there is adequate funding so that they can continue to do the excellent work they are doing all over this country.

Opioid Epidemic

Mr. President, there is another issue that I would like to briefly touch upon. There has been a lot of discussion--appropriately so--about the opioid epidemic that is sweeping the United States. We have lost some 63,000 Americans as a result of opioid overdoses in 2016 alone. Families by the millions are being impacted.

I was in Brattleboro, VT, a few weeks ago, and they talked to me about what is happening to the children whose parents are addicted to opioids. They need to find foster homes for those children.

This is clearly an epidemic that has to be dealt with. We have to increase funding for prevention to make sure young people don't get swept up into the epidemic and also for treatment for those people who are addicted.

There is an issue that we have not touched upon enough, and that is holding the drug companies responsible and accountable for the products they brought into the market. As some people may recall, in April of 1994, the CEOs of the seven largest tobacco companies testified before the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health and the Environment in a historic hearing. What that hearing was about was, under oath, demanding to know what the executives from the tobacco industry knew and when they knew it. Did they know that their product was addictive? Did they know that tobacco caused cancer, heart disease, and other medical problems? They were asked to hold their hands up and under oath tell the committee what they knew.

I think it is now appropriate for the Senate to do the same with those drug companies that are producing opioids. I think we need to know what the drug companies knew in terms of the addictive qualities of those drugs. There is some evidence out there that suggests that drug companies, in fact, did know that the product they were selling was in fact addictive, but they forgot to tell the doctors--and certainly not the patients.

It is one thing for somebody to do something in ignorance, not knowing the impact of what you produce. That happens all the time. It is something very different if, in fact, the manufacturer of a product understands that the product causes addiction, that the product causes death. We need to get to the root of that issue. We need to know what the drug companies knew and when they knew that.

I would hope very much that in the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, which has jurisdiction over this issue, we could bring the executives of those drug companies that produce these opioids before us, because not only are we talking about 60,000 people a year dying as a result of overdoses, but what we are talking about also is the expenditure of tens of billions of dollars in healthcare and law enforcement associated with opioid addiction.

I hope that we can move forward and have those executives come before us and tell us under oath what they knew and when they knew it, because I think the time is long overdue for us to hold them accountable.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, first of all, let me congratulate my colleague from Florida on the most recent historic launch. There is no one who has been a greater advocate for America's space program than Senator Nelson. I appreciate his leadership as well on this issue, which goes all the way from Florida, across the entire Atlantic and, of course, the Pacific as well.

I rise in strong opposition to the Trump administration's offshore drilling plan. I am here to speak on behalf of New Jersey's shore businesses--the restaurants, the bait-and-tackle shops, and the bed- and-breakfasts that depend on clean beaches to succeed. Their businesses are the lifeblood of the Jersey Shore. Their voices deserve to be heard. Their livelihoods are on the line. Yet this administration remains solely focused on what is good for Big Oil's bottom line, never mind the consequences for our economy, the health of the planet, or our vibrant coastal communities.

The Interior Department's offshore drilling plan reads like a wish list for oil industry executives. Clearly, the Trump administration didn't consult my constituents when drafting this plan. By the way, we had already gone through a 5-year plan, so there were supposed to be 5 years before we revisited this, and now we are back at it again. They didn't consult the shop owners in Asbury Park or the fishermen in Belford or the innkeepers in Cape May, because if they had, they would have learned that our shoreline is an economic powerhouse for our State.

Each year, New Jersey's tourism industry generates $44 billion in economic activity, directly and indirectly supporting nearly 10 percent of the State's workforce. Likewise, our seafood industry supports over 31,000 jobs, and we are home to one of America's largest saltwater recreational fisheries, supporting over 16,000 jobs. Together, the homes and businesses along the Jersey Shore encompass almost $800 billion in property values.

All of this adds up to a simple reality: Clean coasts are vital to the economic security of millions of New Jerseyans. The same holds true for towns up and down the Atlantic shoreline. Yet the Trump administration plans to ignore the concern of the communities that have the most to lose. They ignore the more than 120 municipalities, the 1,200 elected officials, the 41,000 businesses, and the 500,000 fishing families from up and down the east

coast who voiced their opposition the last time oil and gas drilling was being considered. They ignore concerns from the Pentagon and NASA about disruptions to their operations from drilling in the Atlantic. They ignore the opposition of my west coast colleagues to drilling in the Pacific. They ignore the Department of the Interior's own finding that the Arctic drilling comes with a 75-percent chance of an oilspill in a treacherous and challenging environment. Simply put, the Trump drilling plan ignores everyone except Big Oil.

What is happening here is a dream scenario for the oil industry, but it is a nightmare for our shore communities. It is a gift to corporate polluters at the expense of our coastal economies.

By the way, I love these commercials that I see that talk about American energy independence. As you have heard my colleague Senator Wyden say before, we are now an exporter of oil. Well, how is it that you are exporting oil? You are drilling it here in the continental waters of the United States, but you are exporting it abroad for others to use. It seems to me that if you are drilling on Federal lands and waters, you should keep it here for domestic energy consumption to keep the price down and to keep energy security. That is real energy security, not having Big Oil drill here and then export it all over the world so that they can make a profit. I don't know how that makes us more energy secure here at home.

Make no mistake--this administration's massive expansion of offshore drilling is just the beginning. They are also working to dismantle minimal safety standards for offshore drilling. That is right. The Trump administration not only wants more offshore drilling, it also wants to permit more dangerous offshore drilling.

The Interior Department reportedly seeks to weaken the well control rule--the critical safety standards put in place after the Deepwater Horizon tragedy, which taught us something: If you drill, you will spill. If you drill, you will spill. At some point, that will happen. During Superstorm Sandy, which took place along the east coast of the Atlantic, imagine if we had oil rigs off the shore of New Jersey. We would have had spills. We would have had spills. So instead of saving lives and saving our environment and the economic consequences that flow from that, the Trump administration's actions aim to save the industry $90 million.

During his Senate confirmation, Secretary Zinke promised to ``work with rather than against local communities in the states.'' Well, it sure feels as though he is working against New Jersey. The Secretary has shown no concern for the Jersey Shore communities that would be devastated by an oilspill--the shuttered businesses, the destroyed industries, the massive job losses, and the birthright of every New Jerseyan to go to the Jersey Shore and enjoy its pristine beaches. That is why it is all the more baffling that Secretary Zinke recently said that after hearing from concerned Florida businesses and public officials, he would consider exempting the State from the disastrous Trump drilling plan. When asked about the decision, the Secretary said that ``local voices count.''

Well, I am happy if that is what is going to happen for Florida, but guess what--if it is good enough for Mar-a-Lago, it certainly should be good enough for the Jersey Shore. That is why every Member of the New Jersey congressional delegation, Republicans and Democrats alike, recently joined me on a letter inviting Secretary Zinke to visit the Jersey Shore. We would be happy to have him meet with community leaders, business owners, and families who depend on clean coasts. If he wants to focus on the economics of oil drilling, I suggest he start with the thousands of people who would be out of a job if oil starts washing up on our beaches.

The Secretary needs to hear from constituents of mine like Charles from Tom's River, who recently wrote to say:

We already have some shoreline concerns, thanks to Super

Storm Sandy. We definitely don't need another threat to our

economy.

Jeanne from New Brunswick wrote:

Tourism is a major New Jersey business. Our beaches are

pristine and must be protected.

He needs to hear from any of the thousands of New Jerseyans who have signed my COAST Anti-Drilling Act citizen petition to permanently ban drilling in the whole Atlantic Ocean.

The Jersey Shore is a national treasure, home to generations of family vacations, successful small businesses, and vibrant coastal communities that are visited by people from across the Atlantic coast, Canadians who come down and spend their money at our shore, and so many others. That may not mean anything to ExxonMobil or BP. It may not mean anything to President Trump or Secretary Zinke. But it means something to me. That is why we are here today to give voice to New Jerseyans who have gone unheard. We will not stand silent while this administration tries to auction the Jersey Shore off to the highest bidder--not without a fight.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, first, I thank Senator Whitehouse for bringing this issue to the attention of our colleagues and the American people. As Senator Whitehouse points out, we have seen from the White House, from the President, an effort to try to undermine the credibility of the independent investigation being done by the Department of Justice under Mr. Mueller. These are very serious issues, and I hope every Member of this Chamber will support the independence of that investigation and speak loudly against any interference, wherever it may come from.

Then, Senator Whitehouse has brought up the second issue; that is, Mr. Putin has been extremely active in regard to activities against U.S. interests. I appreciate Senator Whitehouse referencing a report that was released on January 10 of this year. It was as a result of a full year's operation by the staff of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to document Mr. Putin's reckless assault against democratic institutions, universal values, and the rule of law--the asymmetric arsenal he uses to accomplish that attack against democratic institutions, which includes cyber attacks, disinformation, support for fringe political groups, weaponization of energy resources, organized crime, corruption, and, yes, military aggression. He has used every one of those tools to compromise democratic institutions in Europe and, yes, in the United States.

Mr. Putin was extremely active in the 2016 election. That has now been verified without any question. A report I authored goes through 19 European countries in which Mr. Putin has been active against democratic institutions.

I share with my colleagues that the President of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly was in town today. He is meeting with government officials. He knows firsthand Mr. Putin's aggression because there are Russian troops in Georgia today affecting its sovereignty, as there are Russian troops in Moldova, as there are Russian troops in Ukraine. The people of Montenegro saw the hand of Mr. Putin when he held a coup against their authority. The people of the United Kingdom saw Mr. Putin's efforts as he got involved in the Brexit referendum. The people of France and Germany saw Mr. Putin's aggression as he tried to interfere with their free elections.

Countries have stepped up. They said: Enough is enough. We have seen, with strong leadership, that you can counter the activities successfully of what Russia is trying to do. The right mixture of political will, of defense and deterrence can work, and, yes, as Senator Whitehouse pointed out, we in Congress acted. We recognized the threat of Russia. We passed the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, the CAATS Act. It was a bipartisan effort that tightened some of the sanctions under the Obama-era Executive order on Ukraine and passed new mandatory sanctions against Russia because of its activities.

There were sanctions imposed in regard to the Russian Federation's undermining cybersecurity. There were sanctions related to Russia's crude oil products. There were sanctions authorized with respect to Russian and other foreign financial institutions. There were sanctions imposed against Russia for significant corruption in the Russian Federation. There were sanctions with respect to certain transactions with foreign sanctions evaders and serious human rights abusers in the Russian Federation. There were mandatory sanctions with respect to persons who engaged in transactions with the intelligence and defense sectors of the Government of the Russian Federation.

Why? Because they were interfering in our elections.

There were sanctions with respect to investment in or in the facilitation of the privatization of state-owned assets by the Russian Federation.

Why? Because that helped finance Mr. Putin's activities.

There were sanctions with respect to the transfer of arms and related materiel to Syria.

Each one of those sanctions gave new authority to the President of the United States to impose sanctions against Russia for its activities.

I said earlier that, where countries have shown leadership, it has been effective in countering Mr. Putin's activities. With President Trump, there have been no sanctions. Not one has been brought forward under the law passed by the Congress of the United States. By 98, 99 percent, the House and Senate approved the sanctions. The Trump administration has imposed zero.

Mr. Trump has failed to acknowledge that Mr. Putin has even been engaged in our 2016 elections. He said: I talked to Mr. Putin. He seemed like he was telling me the truth when he said he wasn't involved--even though it was the unanimous view of our intelligence community and the facts had very clearly been laid out to the American people that Mr. Putin had been actively engaged in the 2016 elections.

Yes, we have seen, very recently, Russia's engagement in the Czech election. We have seen this movie before where the candidate, in his advocating for stronger ties to European institutions, is targeted by a barrage of fake news stories that spreads across online platforms, which he alleges have been directed by Russian security services

and entities tied to them--a direct assault against the Czech Republic's democratic institutions.

As Senator Whitehouse pointed out, when asked in an interview if Russia would try to influence the midterm elections of the United States, our CIA Director, Michael Pompeo, replied: ``Of course. I have every expectation that they will continue to try and do that.''

So where is the Trump administration in its taking action to protect our democratic institutions?

This is not a partisan issue. There is a long tradition of Republicans and Democrats working together in Congress to counter Russian Government aggression abroad and abuse against its own citizens, our allies, and democratic institutions. The sanctions bill that passed in 2017 had near-unanimous support. It was crafted and developed by Democrats and Republicans who worked together.

The strength and durability of our political system relies on such bipartisan solutions to our national security challenges. There is a series of recommendations that were in the report I referred to earlier, those of working with our allies to develop cybersecurity issues, to working with NATO to understand what the article V response should be to cyber attacks, to finding alternative ways to stop Russia from using energy as a weapon. It starts with Presidential leadership.

We must take care to point out that there is a distinction between Mr. Putin's corrupt regime and the people of Russia, who have been some of his most frequent and long-suffering victims. Many Russian citizens, like Sergei Magnitsky, strive for a transparent, accountable government that operates under the democratic rule of law, and we hope for better relations in the future with a Russian Government that reflects these imperatives.

In the meantime, the United States must work with our allies to build defenses against Mr. Putin's asymmetric arsenal and strengthen our international norms and values to deter such behavior by Russia or any other country. It starts with leadership from the White House, and it starts with imposing the sanctions that were approved by Congress.