Floor Statements

Madam President, it is good to see the Acting President pro tempore back in the Chair a second time.

Madam President, let me begin by addressing the administration's ongoing effort to secure a diplomatic deal with North Korea to achieve the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.

It is a worthy and ambitious goal. Indeed, we should all root for a diplomatic resolution to the decades-long conflict. It is undeniable, however, that

this meeting is fraught with peril. My primary concern is that the President, in his penchant for spur-of-the-moment decision making, could lead the United States into danger in one of two ways.

My first concern is that the President, without a clear or coherent strategy, will buy a pile of magic beans, accepting an agreement--any agreement--that allows him to declare victory. We know what he will say: the greatest compromise ever, greater than Versailles, greater than anything. Talking is good, but it is very far from an agreement to disarm.

President Trump should not accept a deal that doesn't include concrete steps to verifiably roll back North Korea's nuclear and missile programs, including those that threaten our allies and partners. So that is one concern: that the President accepts any agreement because he is just so eager to tout that he was a great deal maker and made an agreement, even if it is a rotten agreement for America.

My second concern is sort of the opposite. My second concern is that the President, without a disciplined or coherent strategy, will walk away from a bilateral meeting if he doesn't get everything he wants. There is also the possibility that the President will walk away from an agreement after the fact if he decides later he is unhappy with it. We have seen him do that on so many occasions. As someone who has negotiated deals with the President, I know it is a very real possibility.

Now, some may say that these are opposite possibilities. They are, in a certain sense. If he takes too little, he walks away because he didn't get everything. But they are all underlined by one coherent fact: There is no strategy--at least apparent to just about everyone.

The President seems to operate on a whim, saying one thing one day and another thing the next. When there is no coherent strategy, each of these dangers is too real. Either scenario could leave relations with a rogue state worse and more dangerous than before.

Now, the President said last night at Mar-a-Lago that he would leave a meeting with Kim Jong Un if it wasn't fruitful.

Mr. President, this is not like a business deal. There is a very real danger to walking away from a meeting with a nuclear-armed dictator. It could risk serious escalation. If the United States is seen as the one walking away from talks, we should be under no illusions that China, Russia, and others will not follow suit.

We all want to see negotiations with North Korea succeed. If it is true that North Korea will take its demand for U.S. troops to leave the Korean Peninsula off the table, that is a good step. Our commitment to the Korean people and our alliances with Korea and Japan are not subject to negotiation. But, I repeat, if these talks are going to truly succeed, the President and his team require a coordinated strategy, something this administration hasn't been able to show with respect to Russia, Syria, Yemen, the Middle East, and other hotspots around the world.

Madam President, on another topic, I have come to the floor several times over the past month to document the number of ways in which this administration has signaled a willingness--perhaps a desire--to interfere with Special Counsel Mueller's probe into Russian interference in the 2016 elections.

Beyond troubling statements from the White House Press Secretary and the President's allies in the media, President Trump himself has publicly mused about the firing of the special counsel. So while I appreciate that the majority leader believes the President would be wrong to fire the special counsel, I believe it is a real mistake not to pass legislation to protect the investigation. I sincerely hope Leader McConnell reconsiders his refusal to entertain bringing such a bill to the floor. It is a bipartisan bill.

I have talked to Members on both sides of the aisle who are worried about a constitutional crisis. We all know the consequence of Presidential interference in the Russian probe and how dire it would be for the rule of law, fundamental to our democracy, and the constitutional crisis that it would create should be avoided at all costs. Unfortunately, there is substantial evidence that the President has thought about firing the special counsel more than once in the past and may well do so in the future.

The bipartisan legislation introduced by Senators Graham, Coons, Tillis, and Booker has no real downsides to it. It would simply provide a legal avenue to restore the special counsel if existing DOJ regulations are breached and he is fired for political reasons.

So what is the reason not to do it? Why not head off a constitutional crisis at the pass rather than waiting until it is too late? The rule of law is fundamental to the functioning of our democracy. Why even flirt with the prospect of a President challenging the very nature of our system of government?

So I would urge my friend Leader McConnell to think twice about this--to think not simply about his responsibilities to his party and not simply about doing what the President might want, but to our country and our Constitution. If we think of it in those terms, I think it is inevitable that we would want to pass this legislation. That is because the rule of law is fundamental to the functioning of our democracy. Why even flirt with the prospect of a President challenging the very nature of our system of governance and rules?

So I hope the Judiciary Committee moves forward with the bipartisan bill. I hope there is no attempt to water it down or to create a back channel for political interference in ongoing investigations. It is clear that several Republicans, including Chairman Grassley, Senator Tillis, Senator Graham, and others, see a need to pass this legislation. Let them prevail upon the Republican leader to reconsider his position.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, first, I send my heartfelt condolences to the Bush family on the passing of former First Lady Barbara Bush. Simply put, Mrs. Bush was the personification of grace and class as First Lady and as a human being throughout her life. She will be missed by people on both sides of the aisle and by all Americans.

Foreign Policy

Mr. President, let me begin with the issue of our Nation's foreign policy.

Over the weekend, the Ambassador to the U.N., Nikki Haley, went on national television to announce a new round of sanctions against Russia for enabling the brutal Assad regime to commit chemical weapons attacks against its own people. Only 24 hours later, the White House reversed course, and senior administration officials blamed Nikki Haley for being ``confused.''

The word ``confused'' may, in fact, define this administration's foreign policy. Does anyone at the White House talk to each other? Is there a coordinated strategy or is our foreign policy completely subject to the President's fleeting whims, changing as they do, day-to- day and moment-to-moment, often being guided by what some commentator says on television? Unfortunately, that is what it looks like from the outside, and it is going to put America and our interests abroad in danger.

Predictability and consistency in foreign policy are not boring. They are fundamental assets. It lets our allies know that we will support them, and it lets our adversaries know that they cannot get away with violating national norms. The erratic nature of this administration's foreign policy, exemplified by the abrupt reversal of Nikki Haley's announcement, is something all Americans should be worried about.

All Americans should be concerned about President Trump's disturbing decision to pull back from sanctioning Russia for its support of Assad and for its enabling of his use of chemical weapons in the wanton murder of his own people. This extends a sad pattern of inconsistency toward Russia's malign activities, both here in America and across the globe, when what is required of this administration are more aggressive, comprehensive, and consistent policy actions that impose on Putin and his allies sufficient costs to change their behavior.

A second foreign policy issue is the administration's ongoing efforts to secure a diplomatic deal with North Korea. We all want diplomacy to succeed with North Korea. My primary concern with the President and his efforts with respect to North Korea relate to preparation and to discipline. We are all aware that the President makes decisions about sensitive issues without seeking--or in spite of--expert advice. Indeed, his decision to move forward with the North Korea summit was an example of this type of decision making. Yet, whether or not there is ever a time and place for this sort of

decision making, it is unquestionably the wrong way to approach a tense summit between two nuclear-armed adversaries.

We should all root for a diplomatic solution to the decades-long North Korean conflict because we know the costs of war on the Korean Peninsula would be catastrophic. That is why the United States should pursue a diplomatic opening, including through direct diplomacy with Pyongyang. Yet, thus far, we have not seen any indication that North Korea is willing to take concrete measures toward denuclearization.

We have read this book before, and I am concerned that the administration, without its having a clear or coherent strategy, is buying a pile of magic beans at the cost of our allies and partners and our own security. As Secretary Gates once said, ``I'm tired of buying the same horse twice.'' There is a diplomatic pathway forward with North Korea. It is just not clear that President Trump is on it or would even know how to find it or stay on it.

Trade

Mr. President, on another matter, trade, the President and I don't agree on a whole lot, but on the issue of China's rapacious trading policies, we see eye to eye. Presidents from both parties, in my estimation, have failed to act strongly enough against the threat posed by China. President Trump, unlike both Presidents Bush and Obama, is finally doing something about it. I remain disappointed, however, that the President passed up the opportunity, once again, to label China as a currency manipulator.

Nonetheless, yesterday, a really good thing happened. The FCC voted unanimously to advance a measure to limit the ability of Chinese telecom companies to sell in the United States--chiefly Huawei and ZTE, two major Chinese telecom companies. Huawei and ZTE are both state- backed companies. Their effort to enter the American market is a great example of how China attempts to steal our private data and intellectual property. The FCC has said that allowing these two companies into the United States would pose a national security threat because it would give state-backed Chinese companies ``hidden `back doors' to our networks'' that would allow them ``to inject viruses and other malware, steal Americans' private data, spy on U.S. businesses, and more.'' Those are the FCC's words.

The United States is a world leader in high-tech manufacturing and development, so, naturally, China's Government is going after that lucrative industry and continues to try to steal its way to a competitive advantage. Every one of our top industries that employs millions of Americans in good-paying jobs and makes our economy the envy of the world is targeted by the Chinese. This one is no different.

So I applaud the FCC's decision and President Trump for pursuing a tough course of action against China and its rapacious trading policies. The President is exactly right about China in that it seeks to take advantage of the United States in innumerable ways by undercutting our products, stealing our intellectual property, and denying American companies market access. I strongly encourage the FCC to finalize this measure, and I encourage President Trump to stick with his tougher posture toward China.

Legislation Before the Senate

Mr. President, finally, a note about floor action this week. The Republicans are pushing, in succession, legislation that hurts labor rights and working people, consumers, the environment, and communities of color. President Trump, during his campaign, would often wonder aloud about what these folks had to lose by voting for him. Now we know.

The Republican majority seems intent on putting forward heavily partisan bills that have no chance of passing or have little practical impact but are simply designed to be divisive. That is not going to get us anywhere, and it is turning the Senate, which all of us want to be a deliberative, bipartisan body, into a bit of a farce this week--no debate, no amendments.

So I suggest to my colleagues on the other side: Let's get back to pursuing bipartisan accomplishments that actually advance the interests of the American worker, the American consumer, and the middle class. After all, that is what we were elected to do.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, the Senate routinely reauthorizes the Coast Guard, much like the Defense act. It shouldn't be a terribly partisan issue. It never has been. We all deeply respect the work of the Coast Guard and recognize the heroism of the men and women who serve in that capacity.

But, unfortunately, the Republican majority slipped a poison pill rider into this otherwise noncontroversial bill that would repeal part of the Clean Water Act. That is why the Coast Guard reauthorization bill failed today.

The rider would prohibit the EPA and the States from regulating pollution and invasive species from the ballast water of large vessels. Instead, it would let the Coast Guard set regulations--an agency that doesn't have the environmental expertise of the EPA. This is a massive change to the Clean Water Act.

The Clean Water Act has worked well for decades because the States drive innovation and enforcement in partnership with the EPA. Under this law, States would no longer be able to do that. The idea of States' rights goes out the window.

I have visited many different parts of my State, in Upstate New York, where invasive species have long plagued communities, or parts of Long Island, where toxic chemicals and algae plague the bays and beaches. They hurt our clamming industry severely. They hurt businesses, they hurt tourism, and they hurt fishing as well--you name it.

We believe the rider will cost many States tens of billions of dollars in lost economic activity. Let me repeat that. Many States will lose tens of billions of dollars in economic activity because of this rider.

Let me also say this about small recreational fishermen--and New York State is third in the number of recreational pleasure boats. No one is proposing to hurt the little guy. That is why Democrats are ready to permanently exempt them from vessel discharge requirements.

Finally, let me make a point about progress and regular order. The vessel discharge provisions in this bill violate the regular order of the Senate. This is a matter under the jurisdiction of the Environment and Public Works Committee, not the Commerce Committee. There was no consultation with the EPW minority on this provision. There were no hearings. Instead, the Commerce Committee inserted these provisions into the Coast Guard reauthorization bill over the objection of many Democrats.

So I will be offering shortly to pass a clean Coast Guard reauthorization bill by unanimous consent. It includes a permanent exemption from discharge requirements for small recreational fishermen. Democrats are ready to pass this Coast Guard bill as is, without the poison pill environmental rider.

Mr. President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment at the desk to the McConnell motion to concur with amendment No. 2232 be called up and made in order; that the amendment be agreed to; that the motion to concur with amendment No. 2232, as amended, be agreed to; and that the motion to refer and all other amendments be withdrawn.

I will not.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to join my colleague the Republican leader in reestablishing the Senate NATO Observer Group. In the late 1940s, under the stewardship of President Harry Truman, the United States led our Western allies in the creation of an unprecedented arrangement to provide for our collective defense. Since then, NATO has guaranteed the security of our European allies and has come to our aid, protecting the United States in its darkest hours following the 9/11 attacks. Today, new threats are emerging from Russia and along NATO's southern border, making the alliance more necessary than ever. It is the responsibility of the Senate to be kept abreast of any and all factors affecting such a key component of our national defense.

The Senate NATO Observer group was first established in 1997 and oversaw the enlargement of our alliance to countries recently freed from Soviet domination in Eastern Europe. Following the reestablishment of the group in 2002 by Majority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota and Minority Leader Trent Lott of Mississippi, the Senate NATO Observer group had an oversight role during the NATO mission in Afghanistan-- again, the only time a NATO member has invoked the right to collective self-defense.

Unfortunately, since talks of further enlargement of the alliance expired 10 years ago, the Senate Observer Group lapsed. Since that time, Russia has reasserted itself in Eastern Europe through the aggressive use of hybrid warfare, including cyber infiltration of our allies' political infrastructure, as well as our own. While Georgia considered eventual NATO membership, Russia invaded and occupied South Ossetia and Abkhazia, regions which remain in Russian hands today. A similar fate befell Ukraine in 2014, when Russia's ``little green men'' were inserted into a civil conflict that spilled over into a civil war in which thousands of people died.

As we learned during the 2016 Presidential election, the Kremlin's aggressive posture extends far beyond Russia's borders. American intelligence agencies have shown conclusively that Russia has interfered in elections at

home and abroad using a sophisticated array of cyber attacks and disinformation to undermine confidence in the American political process and in Western democracy writ large. Neither the United States nor our NATO allies are immune from such attacks. That is why it is imperative that we continue to invest in and strengthen that alliance. Moreover, it is why the U.S. Senate must be actively involved in ensuring that our most important alliance remains alert to the serious issues before us.

There are several pressing issues on which the observer group will immediately begin work on. NATO recently established a naval command for the Atlantic, dedicated to ensuring the freedom of the seas, a policy the United States has steadfastly upheld since the early days of the republic. In addition to an increased focus on protecting the sea lanes between Europe and North America, a new NATO logistics command and a cyber operations center are being formed in response to the continued aggressive posture of Russian forces along NATO's eastern border. Cyber defense in particular should be of acute interest to Senators in this group. Russian cyber attacks have damaged countries around the world and continue to threaten critical infrastructure in the United States. I look forward to learning how NATO will integrate each nation's cyber defense knowledge into its own and how we might learn from our allies about how best to protect ourselves from cyber warfare.

This Congress began with a unanimous vote reaffirming the United States' commitment to article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty. There can be no doubt that the Senate remains firmly committed to transatlantic security and to countering the malign influence of a hostile Kremlin at home and abroad. The opportunity to learn from our allies and prepare for the future is too important. So I am glad that my colleagues Senators Shaheen and Tillis have spearheaded the reestablishment of the NATO Observer Group, on which they will serve as cochairs.

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

Madam President, congratulations. This is the first time, at least when I am speaking on the floor, that the Presiding Officer is in the Chair.

Is this the first time the Presiding Officer is in the Chair?

The Presiding Officer cannot answer. Let the record show that she nodded her head in an affirmative way.

Madam President, first, a brief comment on the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act, which failed to move forward in the Senate last night. Indian Affairs has very rarely found its way to the floor of the Senate, despite a number of very pressing issues in Indian Country, including homelessness, educational disparities, language loss, healthcare access, broadband access, and many more. For a number of years, Democrats and Republicans on the Indian Affairs Committee have pushed legislation that would alleviate these problems. On our side of the aisle, Senators Udall, Tester, Smith, Baldwin, Heinrich, Heitkamp, Cantwell, and Murray have worked very hard on bills that deal with these very, very significant issues in Indian Country, but none of these bills have reached the floor.

The leader has refused to put bills that would dramatically help Indian Country on the floor. When, finally, a Tribal bill was brought forward by the majority leader, it was closed to amendments and debate. Senator Udall, our ranking member, wished to have amendments. Senator Hoeven, the chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee, told me he wanted amendments. But the way Leader McConnell brought it to the floor was with no amendments, no debate, and no discussion. Even worse, it was a bill to scrap labor rights at a time when we should be doing everything we can to strengthen labor protections. The only bill the leader would bring to the floor is one that was divisive and destined to fail--a political act, not an act to help Indian Country.

The AFL-CIO said that passage of the measure ``would have amounted to the most aggressive erosion of labor protection since the 1940s.''

After many years of waiting for Tribal issues to reach the floor, I think many of us were sorely disappointed that the majority leader opted for this incredibly divisive bill, done in such an incredibly divisive way.

I hope, now that the measure has failed to advance, that the majority leader will consent to putting other Tribal bills on the floor, so many of which have broad bipartisan support and could pass at least the Senate.

Madam President, on another issue, Russia and Mueller, yesterday it was reported that President Trump overruled the decision of his administration to implement new sanctions against Russia for its support of the brutal Assad regime in Syria in the wake of a chemical weapons attack that was devastating. Our hearts go out when we see pictures like this.

It is only the latest action in a long pattern of behavior in which President Trump opts to treat Russia and President Putin with kid gloves. It took a very long time for President Trump to even utter a negative word about Mr. Putin, and his administration has time and again delayed the implementation of sanctions.

Reports in the press said that President Trump was unhappy with his administration's decision to expel 60 Russian diplomats after British citizens were victims of a Russian-linked attack. The decision to expel those diplomats was correct, in my view, but apparently the President wasn't happy with the decision by his own appointed national security team.

The White House shouldn't have to drag the President kicking and screaming to do the right thing when it comes to punishing Vladimir Putin and Russia. His refusal to stand up to the Kremlin is troubling, and it leaves many Americans wondering: Why and what does the President have to hide? That is what 90 percent of all Americans are asking themselves--Democrat, Republican, liberal, conservative. His actions with Putin have been so confounding and so contrary to American interests that there is virtually no rational explanation for them.

At the same time, the President's rhetoric about the Russia probe should concern all of us. Should he seek to shut down or impede the investigation by firing the Deputy Attorney General or Special Counsel Mueller, interfering with the chain of command, or issuing pardons, we would--make no mistake about it--be in a full-fledged constitutional crisis.

I urge my colleagues, all of my colleagues--Democrat, Republican, Independent--to support the bipartisan legislation in the Judiciary Committee that would protect the special counsel from a political firing. The rule of law is not a partisan issue. It is one of the most serious issues we face because that is what is at the core of being an American. That is why the whole world admires us. That is why so many families like mine have been able to climb the ladder, starting out in poverty as my grandparents did, to a decent life. We cannot let the rule of law become a partisan issue. Let us speak in one

loud, clear voice by passing this legislation through the Senate as soon as possible.

Finally, as well, the contradictions, I might add, in the administration are enormous. Nikki Haley must be so embarrassed today. She forthrightly said that we are going to be tough on Russia and do additional sanctions one day, and then the President contradicted her the next. Do they talk to each other? Do they have a set plan? Or is it just up to the President's whim, day by day, moment by moment? When it comes to Russia, it is far too serious to rely on whim, changing attitudes, and maybe an 800-pound gorilla in the room. There is something the President is worried about.

Mr. President, finally, today is tax day. That is probably America's least favorite holiday. It is appropriate today to look back at what has happened since the Republicans passed their tax bill last year. Since the beginning of the tax debate, Republicans have insisted their bill is about cutting taxes for working Americans. Even though the crux of their bill was a massive corporate tax cut, they said that workers would benefit the most. Even though it would direct 83 percent of the benefits to the top 1 percent, they said that the bill would be a ``middle-class miracle.''

How many middle-class people today think that tax bill is a miracle? Not many. The only way that could have been true was if corporations had decided to invest a substantial amount of their newfound profits in workers. That is what Republicans, after all, argued would happen.

We Democrats warned that if you gave the big corporations the lion's share of the tax cuts, corporations would do what they always do when they have higher profits and extra cash--distribute it amongst themselves, have a nice little party. Unfortunately, the evidence is mounting that our predictions, as much as we wish they hadn't come true, were prescient.

Since the passage of the tax bill--listen to this--corporations have spent over $250 billion on share buybacks. That is putting corporations on track to spend between $800 billion and $1 trillion on share buybacks this year alone, outstripping the previous pace.

People may ask: What is a share buyback? Here is what it is. A corporation has a lot of money. Some things they can do are pay workers more, give family leave, treat their employees better. Another thing they could do is invest in new plants and equipment, new training to make that corporation more efficient and to sell more of its goods. Those are good things.

What is a bad thing? Buying back the stock. What is buying back the stock? The corporation says: We have a million shares outstanding. If we buy back 100,000 of them, the price of the remaining ones will go up.

Who benefits? Above all, those who have a lot of the stock shares-- the CEOs of the corporations and the wealthiest heads of those companies. Who else benefits? Shareholders. Eighty percent of all shares in America, despite pensions and despite 401(k)s, are held by the 10 percent--the richest people in America. And one-third of all shares, totally, go to people overseas. That is who benefits from stock buybacks: corporate CEOs, wealthy shareholders, people overseas--more than the average American worker. That is what has happened.

Listen to this. According to a recent analysis by JUST Capital, only 6 percent of the capital allocated by companies from the tax bill's savings has gone to employees, while nearly 60 percent has gone to shareholders. That statistic gets to the very core of the debate. Who benefited from the tax bill? It was mainly wealthy CEOs, a lot of foreigners, and the wealthiest people in America--not the average working person.

As USA Today put it last week:

The number of companies letting workers know they are

getting a bonus, raise or other form of financial

compensation has slowed to a trickle. Most of the extra cash

from tax savings is going into the pockets of stock

shareholders through dividend increases and companies buying

back their own stock in hopes of boosting its price.

The whole theory of the Republican tax bill can be summed up in two words: ``trickle down.'' The whole theory was to lavish corporations and the already wealthy with tax cuts and maybe the benefits might trickle down to everyone else. We are already seeing the balloon burst on that idea as corporations dedicate an enormous percentage of the tax savings to stock buybacks and only a sliver to worker compensation. That is why the Republican bill is not popular. A poll out from NBC News/Wall Street Journal--Wall Street Journal, hardly a working man's newspaper--showed that only 27 percent of Americans think the tax cuts were a good idea. That is fitting news on tax day, one of the least popular days of the year.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, over the past 2 weeks, we have seen increasingly worrisome signs that President Trump is seriously considering firing the special counsel in charge of the investigation into Russia's meddling in the 2016 election. Equally troubling is the possibility of the President firing the Deputy Attorney General who oversees that investigation in order to install someone who would dismiss Mr. Mueller or otherwise impede or shut down the investigation.

Let me be clear. Firing Mr. Rosenstein would be as great an injury to our democracy as firing Mr. Mueller. Mr. Rosenstein, by all accounts, since being appointed by President Trump, has followed the letter of the law. There is no conduct the President or anyone else can point to that would suggest Mr. Rosenstein went beyond DOJ regulations or otherwise abused his position. He has dutifully done his job. When he approved Mr. Mueller's referral to the U.S. attorney in the Southern District, it was simply because he was provided sufficient evidence that Mr. Mueller had uncovered a potential crime. It doesn't matter if it upsets President Trump; Mr. Rosenstein was following the facts and the law. It is the obligation of a Justice Department official when he or she sees evidence of a crime to pursue it without fear, without favor. That is what Rosenstein was doing, and somehow President Trump doesn't grasp the rudiments of our democracy and our system of laws.

Instead, President Trump seems to have the view that the Justice Department exists to protect his interests and

prosecute his enemies. But in the long history of our grand, wonderful country--God's noble experiment, as the Founding Fathers called it, and it still is today--that has never been what the Justice Department has stood for. It is an independent Federal agency tasked with following the law wherever it leads, free of considerations of politics or power. Mr. Rosenstein is acting in line with that long and great tradition, and it is no reason--none at all--for the President to fire him.

My friends on the other side of the aisle know, just as well as we do, that firing Mr. Rosenstein or Mr. Mueller would precipitate a constitutional crisis. Our constitutional order is built upon a bedrock faith in the rule of law, of equality under the law. No person--not even the President--can subvert that principle for his or her political interests or needs.

Let me remind everyone that the investigation is not a witch hunt, as the President keeps tweeting it is. It has resulted in multiple indictments and guilty pleas. By definition, that is not a witch hunt. The Trump administration itself leveled sanctions against Russians based on information obtained as a result of the Russia probe. So if the President's own administration, separate from Mueller, leveled sanctions against the Russians using information that Mueller has gotten, how can he then proceed to call it a witch hunt? It just doesn't add up.

The investigation concerns the national security of the United States. If the President were to try to shut it down for personal, political reasons, there is no doubt we would face a constitutional crisis.

So let's make this simple. The consequences of firing Mr. Rosenstein, Mr. Mueller, or issuing pardons would be dire for our democracy. We have clear evidence from the President himself that each of those things is a possibility. President Trump basically mused about it on national television.

Every Democrat and every Republican, regardless of politics, party, or ideology, should stand up and say that what the President is considering is not only wrong but a real threat to the constitutional order of this government. Once they admit that, what rational person would not want to take steps to prevent a constitutional crisis from happening now, before the President acts precipitously and against the whole meaning of our democracy? We, in Congress, have the power to prevent that constitutional crisis and to do it right away. We have the power to protect the special counsel's investigation. Only the Deputy Attorney General can fire the special counsel and only for cause.

A bipartisan group of Senators, including Senators Graham and Tillis on the Republican side and Booker and Coons on the Democratic side, have come up with legislation that would allow the special counsel to appeal a firing to a panel of independent judges under an expedited procedure to determine if Mr. Mueller were fired for cause. If he weren't fired for cause, the special counsel would be reinstituted immediately. That makes eminent sense. The bipartisan legislation would simply provide a legal avenue to reinforce existing procedures and assure that the grand tradition of rule of law is maintained.

Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Feinstein have agreed to hold a hearing and mark up this legislation. I applaud them both for it and urge the members of the Judiciary Committee to approve this legislation without watering it down or weakening it with amendments. We should pass it out of committee. Leader McConnell should bring it to the floor of the Senate quickly, where I believe it would pass with a very large majority, and we should pressure our colleagues in the House to do the same. It is my view that if the bill came to the floor and passed the Senate by a significant majority, the House would follow because the pressure would be enormous.

The rule of law, quite simply, should not be a partisan issue. It must not be a partisan issue. We cannot ever let it become a partisan issue. The last time it was at risk under President Nixon's administration, Republicans stepped up to the plate, and they went down in history as very admirable. I hope they will do it again. The Congress should speak loudly and soon by passing this legislation in both Chambers.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask to continue my remarks for a few minutes on another subject.

Mr. President, I apologize to my colleague from Delaware.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Before I get to the substance of my remarks, I remind my dear friend the majority leader that the vast majority of the benefits of this tax break, this tax cut, went to the wealthiest of Americans and large corporations. What are they doing with the money? They are using most of it for buybacks. That was a buyback. They buy back their own stock. The CEO--already a rich guy--is making more money. The shareholders, one-third of whom are out of the country and most of whom are in the top 10 percent of America, make more money. The middle class and rural America particularly are left behind in this bill.

We could have done a tax bill where the benefits went to the middle class--not just some--10, 20 percent--but all. So this bill is a bit of a fake. There are small benefits for the middle class, along with harm to their healthcare. The things put in this bill are going to raise many people's premiums far more than their small tax break.

Let's be honest about this. This bill was done for the rich and the wealthy in power, and there were some benefits to the middle class, but it could have been so much better. Our Republican colleagues listened to the wealthy special interests, the large contributors, and that is how this bill came about.

By the way, because it creates a deficit of $1.5 trillion--and I remind our leader that rural America really cares about deficits--there are a lot of Republicans, particularly the more conservative ones, who say: Now let's cut Medicare and Social Security. How is an elderly person in rural America going to feel about that?

I would simply say that this bill was not the right remedy for America, which is owed a lot better.

Now, Speaker Ryan. I know Speaker Ryan quite well. He is a good man. He is always true to his word. Even though we disagree on most issues, in the areas where we can work together, I find him to be smart, thoughtful, and straightforward. I find him to have a great deal of integrity. We don't agree, but he has deep beliefs, and he is not like some on his side of the aisle who say: It is my way or no way. He is willing to meet you to try to get something done.

So I have thoroughly enjoyed working with Speaker Ryan. I admire him as a human being, as a religious man, and somebody who cares a lot about his family. I understand his frustrations; I do. When you have so many intransigent people in your caucus who say ``it is my way or no way,'' and your job, even though you have deep beliefs, is to want to get something done, it is hard. It is hard.

Now, with his newfound political freedom, I hope the Speaker uses his remaining time in Congress to break free from these hard-right factions that have plagued him so and that have kept Congress from getting real things done. If he is willing to reach across the aisle, he will find Democrats willing and eager to work with him.

I say to Speaker Ryan: Let's work together. You are more of a free man now. Follow your instincts. Your beliefs will not be the same as ours, but you will want to try to come to some kind of an agreement where we can meet somewhere in the middle.

The job may be made harder because Congressmen Scalise and McCarthy are now competing for Ryan's job and the hard right's favor--they are too vital in that caucus--but I believe Speaker Ryan is up to the job and can overcome that problem and work in his last few months here for the betterment of our country.