Floor Statements

Now, Mr. President, on the issues of yesterday and last

night, for months, I have heard my Republican colleagues argue that there is no need to pass legislation to protect Special Counsel Mueller and the Russian probe from President Trump because they have been assured by anonymous White House officials that it will not happen.

President Trump, in his own words on Monday night, made it plain as day that he may be considering firing the special counsel and/or the Deputy Attorney General, which would be equally egregious. The White House spokeswoman, from the podium, said President Trump believes he has the authority to fire the special counsel all by himself, and a report in the New York Times said President Trump considered firing Mueller as recently as December, in addition to a year ago in June.

Only an hour ago, the President tweeted that the ``Fake & Corrupt Russia Investigation''--his words--was ``headed up by all the Democrat loyalists, or people that worked for Obama.''

Mr. President, will you start telling the truth? Robert Mueller is a Republican. Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein is a Republican whom you appointed. Christopher Wray, the head of the FBI, is a Republican whom you appointed.

I don't know how long the President can believe people will swallow the bold mistruths he spews out day after day after day, but what he said--that the people the investigation was being headed up by are all Democratic loyalists or people who work for Obama--is patently false, and the President should retract it.

These kinds of remarks make it all too obvious that the President, who cares so little for truth, may be considering the firing of the special counsel or the Deputy Attorney General. So I would like to direct my remarks to my Republican colleagues. I say to my Republican colleagues, you can no longer rely on anonymous sources as a reason for delay or inaction on legislation to protect Mr. Mueller and avoid a constitutional crisis. The evidence is staring us all in the face. We cannot ignore the elephant in the room any longer because the consequences of the President taking action against Mueller or Rosenstein or issuing political pardons is just too dire. As Democrats have said, and as many Republicans have said, such action would precipitate a constitutional crisis in this country. The President doesn't seem to realize it, but I know my Republican colleagues do.

No person is above the law in this country--not even the President. He is not a King. He is the President. If the President were to interfere in any way with the chain of command in the Russia investigation or clean house at the Justice Department in order to install lackeys who will carry out his orders, we would be no better than a banana republic. The kinds of things we see happening in other parts of the globe would be happening here. In those places, leaders use the levers of power to subvert or avoid accountability in all ways. President Trump seems to wish he could do just that.

I want to be crystal clear on this point. If the President were to take action against Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein, it would be every bit as grave of a mistake as removing Special Counsel Mueller. America, as we know it--as we love it--would diminish. I know Republicans and Democrats agree on that.

So why not take the bull by the horns? Why wouldn't we take immediate action to potentially prevent a constitutional crisis from coming to pass? Why don't we head it off at the pass and move bipartisan legislation that has been introduced this morning, through the Judiciary Committee--which I am told Senator Grassley is seriously considering--on to the floor of the Senate, where I hope Leader McConnell will place it. A bipartisan group this morning--Senators Graham and Tillis, Booker and Coons--have introduced legislation that would help protect the special counsel. Why not pass this legislation now and avoid a constitutional crisis? Why not avoid an injury to the body of this great country and then try to stitch it up? Why not avoid an injury instead of sustaining it and trying to stitch it up? That is what we should be doing.

Let's not wait until it is too late. Let's head the constitutional crisis off at the pass by passing the bipartisan legislation introduced by Senators Graham, Tillis, Booker, and Coons and take the threat of a crisis off the table right now.

So I urge Senator Grassley to schedule a hearing and markup on this bill and to report it out of his committee. He must be sure not to water it down with amendments or accept changes that would render it useless. I urge Leader McConnell to then take that bill and put it on the floor where we can debate and pass it. Surely, something this serious deserves the time and attention of U.S. Senators. I dare say, if bipartisan legislation like this came to the floor, it would pass by a large majority--Members of both parties--and the pressure on the House to do the same would be large.

The rule of law cannot be a partisan issue and should not be a partisan issue. We cannot let it become a partisan issue. The Congress must clearly, loudly, and with one voice pass legislation to ensure that any effort by the President to remove Special Counsel Mueller or Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein would be rendered unsuccessful.

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, yesterday FBI agents, at the direction of the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, seized information from President Trump's personal attorney, Michael Cohen. It was reported that the referral to the U.S. attorney's office originated with Special Counsel Mueller, but the raid itself was under the direction of the U.S. attorney's office and New York FBI agents.

We don't know the reason for Special Counsel Mueller's referral. We do know that any referral must have been signed off by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. Furthermore, the U.S. attorney's office in New York would have to be convinced that whatever information Mr. Mueller passed along was worth pursuing, and the U.S. attorney would have to convince an independent magistrate or judge--nonpartisan--that there was probable cause to believe that seizing information from Mr. Cohen would yield evidence of a crime. That is a serious and high standard that had to be met.

I go through these details because it is important to understand that yesterday's events could only have been the result of a rigorous legal process, with checks every step of the way and with a very high burden of proof. Yet, last night, President Trump said the FBI raid was a ``disgrace,'' part of a ``witch hunt,'' an ``attack on our country,'' and mentioned that many people have encouraged him to fire Mr. Mueller. ``We'll see what happens,'' he concluded.

Let's break this down. The President suggests that the latest events are part of the partisan conspiracy against him. I remind the President that the source of the referral, Special Counsel Mueller, is a lifelong Republican. The Deputy Attorney General who signed off on the referral, Rod Rosenstein, is a Republican, appointed by President Trump. The Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, is a Republican, appointed by President Trump. The U.S. attorney for the Southern District in New York, who sought a search warrant based on that information, is a Republican, appointed by President Trump. The agents in New York who carried out the seizure are under the direction of Christopher Wray, a Republican, appointed by President Trump.

If President Trump believes this to be a partisan conspiracy, he once again ignores the fact that every major player is a Republican, and all but the judges are appointed by President Trump himself. The partisan affiliation of those involved really doesn't matter. These are all law enforcement officers simply doing their job--a job enshrined by the Constitution of the United States.

The President also tweeted this morning that ``attorney-client privilege is dead.''

Mr. President, attorney-client privilege is alive and well, but there is an exception when the attorney might be involved in a crime or fraud. It is well known as the crime-fraud exception. That exception is obviously in play today. Law enforcement officers believe there is a good chance that the attorney for the President committed a crime or was involved in fraud or they couldn't have gotten the OK from the magistrate to make these seizures.

President Trump also said, the implication of his personal attorney for potentially serious Federal crimes constitutes an ``attack on our country.'' That is what he said, an ``attack on our country.''

With due respect, President Trump, America has been around for over two and a half centuries. An investigation of your personal attorney is not an attack on our country. The Japanese bombing Pearl Harbor was an attack on our country; 9/11 was an attack on our country. When Russia interfered with our elections, that was an attack on our country. Investigating your personal lawyer, with a high standard to be met, is certainly not an attack on our country. It is what America has always been about and still is--the rule of law.

President Trump said the raid was a ``disgrace.'' I say to the President: Mr. President, you have it wrong. Interfering with the investigation would be a disgrace. Calling it an attack on our

country is a disgrace. What matters is the rule of law. In this country, no man is above the law, not even the President. Mr. President, your comments were the disgrace.

If the President is thinking of using this raid to fire Special Counsel Mueller or otherwise interfere with the chain of command in the Russia probe, we have one simple message for him: Don't even think about it.

Special Counsel Mueller has uncovered a deep and detailed pattern of Russian interference in our elections. It has led to several indictments and guilty pleas. It has also led the Trump administration itself to level sanctions against Russian individuals for meddling in our elections. That is proof positive that Mueller's investigation is not a so-called witch hunt.

If the President's own administration has leveled sanctions against Russian individuals for meddling in our elections, how can the President say it is a witch hunt? It is being pursued by his own administration, independent of the Mueller investigation. The investigation by Special Counsel Mueller is critical to the health of our democracy and the security of future elections. It must--it must-- be allowed to continue.

The President seems to have a view that the Department of Justice's sole purpose is to protect the President and go after his enemies. I emphatically state to the President, that is not the role of the Department of Justice. Their role is to enforce the law and go after anyone who breaks it. That is their role, and it is not subject to the President's political interests in any way.

President Trump should not have any contact--any contact--with the new U.S. attorney in the Southern District, with his office, or the Department of Justice officials overseeing an investigation of Mr. Cohen. Any attempted contact by the President or the White House should be reported to the Department of Justice immediately.

One final point. When President Trump implies that the Mueller investigation is an assault on our country and our values, he is not only dead wrong, he is wrong in a very dangerous way. Special Counsel Mueller, the FBI, Federal prosecutors, and U.S. attorneys are following the due process of our legal system. Calling that an attack on our country undermines the rule of law--a bedrock principle of this great Nation for centuries, the reason, above all, the rest of the world looks up to these great United States of America.

The only person engaging in an attack on American values, what we all stand for--the rule of law--is, unfortunately, President Trump. It needs to stop. It is gnawing at the core of America.

It is difficult to know when you are living through a historic time in this country. Our Nation has prevailed through many dark times. We all hope that, in the sweep of history, our current moment is not one of peril, but we have witnessed a sustained attack by the President of the United States on the rule of law in this country, and we may be getting to that point.

We have seen that any institution with the power to check the President's power--the Federal Judiciary, the Department of Justice, the FBI, the Congress, the press--suffers his disdain and derision. If we fail to defend these institutions, which represent the rule of law, the Constitution, and the balance of power in our country the Founding Fathers so brilliantly enshrined, then we are letting our grand democracy diminish.

I beseech my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stand up and say what the President is doing is wrong. Make it clear that firing Mueller or interfering in his investigation crosses a redline and is a threat to our constitutional order. Let us also be clear that the President does not have the authority to order the special counsel's firing without cause.

Finally, let us take steps to protect the special counsel from political interference. We have several bipartisan bills designed to do just that. Majority Leader McConnell should bring them to the floor and let us debate them very soon.

For months, Republicans have said that legislation to protect the special counsel is not needed because they have been assured by nameless people that the President will not fire the special counsel. That assurance has been shaken by the President's comments last night. By his own words, it is clear the President may--may--be considering firing the special counsel. This Congress must respond forcefully, and on a bipartisan basis, by reaffirming our belief that the President cannot fire the special counsel without cause and by passing legislation to ensure that any attempts to remove Robert Mueller will be unsuccessful.

We should not abide the President's attempted assault on the rule of law in America. The eyes of history are upon us.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, first, let me welcome back my fellow Senators after a productive State work period. Let me welcome our newest Senator, Cindy Hyde-Smith, the junior Senator from Mississippi. She is the first woman to represent the State of Mississippi, and I welcome her warmly to this Chamber.

Mr. President, over the past weeks, as we have been away, we have heard of the passing of two of our Senators: Zell Miller and Danny Akaka.

I would like to say a few words about Danny Akaka, who was a good friend of mine. In everything he did, he was a soldier, a teacher, and a statesman. He embodied the spirit of Hawaii. He was so sincere in his beliefs and such a kind and gentle man that Senators went out of their way to help him and, of course, he fought so hard for his State. He taught us so much in his modesty, in his persistence, and in his love of his constituents.

So for all he taught us, for his service and for his friendship, we say ``mahalo'' one final time.

Mr. President, it was Tammy Duckworth who first informed me of Senator Akaka's passing, and it shows God's rhythms of life, the passing of Danny Akaka, after a long service and wonderful life, and now we have

just learned of the birth of Tammy Duckworth's child. It is a milestone. Tammy Duckworth, a few hours ago, became the first Senator to give birth while in office. We are very glad to hear that she and her newborn daughter are happy and healthy.

Mr. President, like all of my colleagues, I spent the past few weeks crisscrossing my State meeting with constituents. I am always struck by their commonsense values. Folks want to be able to afford quality healthcare. That is probably their greatest worry. They know healthcare is so vital to them and for families. They know costs keep going up. They are worried about premiums, especially after the Republican Congress has done so much to sabotage our healthcare system; talking about tearing down the healthcare system but never building it up in any way.

Folks also want a good job with decent benefits and higher wages, but they are not seeing much of that in the wake of the Republican tax bill. In fact, many of them are disappointed that they are not receiving more. They are seeing corporations buy back a lot of their stock, which boosts compensation for executives and shareholders, but they don't see that much of a bump in their paychecks. The bottom line is, they are asking: Why are the wealthy getting so much more money in the tax break than we are? I have heard that from one end of my State to the other.

Another problem: folks want to be able to send their kids to school and know they will be safe. I talked to one mom whose daughter just doesn't want to go to school after what happened in Parkland. She is afraid. She is 7 years old.

A few weeks ago, I marched with hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers in the March For Our Lives. Their energy and optimism and dedication give me hope that finally the time has come for Congress to take meaningful action on gun safety.

Another example where our Republican colleagues who run this Senate haven't done enough--not close to enough--is on the issue of gun safety. On these issues and more, the Republican majority has done very little. What they have done has been on behalf of entrenched special interests: tax cuts for corporations and the superwealthy, gutting healthcare to pay for more tax cuts, and holding back on commonsense gun safety laws like universal gun safety checks because the NRA opposes it.

The American people are fed up with large, special, and powerful interests getting their way, while average folks get left behind. That is what I heard while traveling my State.

In November, the American people will have a chance to move this country in a dramatically different direction, away from the corporate special interest-driven politics, away from the swamp--I will talk more about that later, but President Trump has made it worse, despite claims that he is making it better--and toward politics that work for the middle class and those struggling to get there. The enthusiasm among so many Americans--not just core Democrats but others--of going to the polls and making their voices heard because they want a change in direction in this country was heartening and strengthening to me. The Democratic Senate minority is working to get away from those special interest politics. That is what a Democratic majority will deliver if elected in November.

Mr. President, this week the Senate will consider several nominations, including the nomination of Andrew Wheeler to be Deputy Administrator at the Environmental Protection Agency. Mr. Wheeler--not atypical of this administration, not atypical of the dense swamp that they have made a whole lot worse--is, what else, an industry lobbyist who has worked on behalf of big polluters and climate change deniers. He spent years working to undermine or lobby against environmental protections he may soon oversee. As a lobbyist, he helped raise money for a few Republican Senators who sit on the committee that recently approved his nomination. Swamp, President Trump? You are creating it; you are making it a lot worse.

Wheeler's nomination fits the pattern in the Trump administration of nominating industry lobbyists to lead agencies that are supposed to be a watchdog over those very industries. The nerve it takes for President Trump and his allies to preach ``drain the swamp'' after all the President has done to fill the swamp since coming to Washington. His Cabinet is filled with multimillionaires, hedge fund managers, corporate executives, and former lobbyists with sprawling conflicts of interest. Mr. Wheeler is only the latest in a long line of swamp nominees. I will be opposing his nomination.

Mr. President, the Wheeler nomination sheds even more light on the current storm surrounding EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt. If there was ever somebody who characterizes the swamp, it is Scott Pruitt, and all Americans should believe that, regardless of your views on the environment or whether wind or solar or natural gas or oil or coal is the right form of energy.

What Pruitt is doing is just incredible. In a relatively brief tenure at EPA, he has amassed an embarrassing list of scandals. He has ordered the construction of an expensive soundproof office at the EPA for reasons unknown, when none of his predecessors, Democratic or Republican, saw any need for such a facility. He has typically flown coach when paying for travel out of his own pocket but elected to fly first class when the taxpayers foot the bill. After moving to Washington, Administrator Pruitt rented an apartment for a cutrate price from--guess who--an energy lobbyist and former campaign donor who represents multiple clients with businesses before the EPA during Pruitt's tenure.

The level of hypocrisy in this administration is staggering. President Trump says he is going to drain the swamp. Pruitt characterizes the swamp in just about all of his actions, and Trump sticks by him. If you want to drain the swamp, Mr. President, get rid of Mr. Pruitt.

Unfortunately, President Trump has stood by Pruitt, despite obvious abuses of the taxpayers' money and trust. Why? Well, he likes what he is doing to unwind critical environmental protections on behalf of powerful industries.

The bottom line is simple. President Trump is so beholden to the special interests that supported Administrator Pruitt and his extreme, anti-green, industry-driven agenda that he is willing to turn a blind eye to serious ethical problems. If Big Oil and Big Gas are happy with EPA Administrator Pruitt, so, it seems, is President Trump.

In supporting Administrator Pruitt, President Trump is lowering the bar of government ethics and accountability to the floor. What abuse of the American people's trust will President Trump not tolerate if Administrator Pruitt is allowed to continue in his position despite flagrant graft? How can the President, with a straight face, say he aims to drain the swamp when he allows a man like Pruitt to stay? How much will President Trump let the standards for ethical conduct in his administration deteriorate?

I say to President Trump: The corruption and incompetence of this administration has reached a fever pitch.

President Trump, if you truly mean to drain the swamp--and it doesn't seem that you do--you ought to fire Administrator Pruitt immediately. Accept his resignation. Let him leave, which alone will clean up Washington in a way that Pruitt has not cleaned up our environment.

Mr. President, now, on the CBO report.

Today CBO came out with a report that revised its projections of the deficit, saying they have ``increased markedly'' since the Republican tax bill added about $1.9 trillion to the deficit. By 2020, the annual deficit will surpass $1 trillion.

It is a reminder of just how wrong the predictions were that the Republican tax bill would somehow pay for itself. It is also a reminder of how unconcerned the current Republican Party is about deficits.

When it comes to tax cuts for big corporations and the rich, deficits are no impediment, but now that these tax cuts are in place, I predict that deficits will once again morph into a dire problem, a scourge on the Nation, an excuse for Republicans to target Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.

That has been the playbook since the Bush era: explode the deficit with tax cuts for the rich and powerful, then use the deficit they created as a reason to cut Social Security and Medicare.

Lo and behold, this week the majority in the House will vote on a balanced budget amendment--a way for Republicans to force cuts to Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security. It is hard to believe they can say it with a straight face, but we will hear Republican Members say this week that Washington needs to get its fiscal House in order, only a few months after they added $1.5 trillion to the deficit by tax cuts that mainly benefited the wealthy and the powerful. It is the height of hypocrisy.

The American people deserve better than this patronizing Kabuki theater. They deserve a Congress squarely focused on helping the middle class, not the powerful, not the special interests, not those at the very top of the economic ladder. So far, this Republican Congress has shown it is not up to the job, and every day more and more Americans realize that.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I have a few items I would like to address this morning, but first I would like to recognize our dear friend from Mississippi, the senior Senator, who will be delivering his farewell speech today.

Senator Thad Cochran has served in this body for decades with a sense of dignity, decorum, and respect for his colleagues. That was always appreciated but never confused for lack of fierceness or conviction. When his issues were on the line, Senator Cochran fought for Mississippi as hard as any Senator. After all, he was first bitten by the political bug in his run for head cheerleader at Ole Miss, and he shares that distinction with Trent Lott. So if you want to be a Senator for Mississippi, join the cheerleading squad for Ole Miss. Of course, for New Yorkers, we like Eli Manning too. Senator Cochran never stopped being a cheerleader for Mississippi.

Chairman Cochran and I certainly had our differences. The chairman once said:

I don't call a lot of news conferences. I just don't see

that as a necessary part of my responsibilities.

Well, we will agree to disagree on that one, but there are many things we have in common, and there is a particular part of his legacy I admire.

After Hurricane Katrina buffeted his State, he convinced the recalcitrant lawmakers to deliver aid to the gulf coast--far exceeding the administration's request--and he did it by working Members on his side of the aisle and across the aisle behind the scenes. That is how he earned the nickname the ``quiet persuader.'' It is a skill I greatly respect after going through something similar when Hurricane Sandy hit my home State of New York.

At the time, Chairman Cochran was the ranking member on the Appropriations Committee. He and his staff were extraordinarily helpful throughout the process. Ultimately, Senator Cochran voted for the Sandy relief bill when many of his colleagues opposed it. I will never forget that.

Under his stewardship of the Appropriations Committee, we have just completed the text of an omnibus spending bill, which I will address in a moment. Once the bill passes, it will be a fitting legacy that Senator Cochran will retire with another bipartisan accomplishment under his belt.

I wish him and his family the best, and I thank him for his distinguished service to the State of Mississippi, to his beloved country, and to the U.S. Senate. He will be missed in the Senate.

Omnibus Appropriations Bill

Mr. President, I am pleased to say the four congressional leaders have reached an agreement on the omnibus spending bill that is now public. It didn't happen until last night. It took a long time. There were painstaking weeks of negotiations, more than a few of which we went past the midnight hour. Before I go further, I want to thank Leader McConnell, Speaker Ryan, and their staffs, Leader Pelosi and her team, Chairman Cochran, Vice Chairman Leahy, the Appropriations Committee staff, and many others for all the hard work that went into this bill.

It certainly doesn't have everything Democrats want, and it contains a few

things Democrats aren't thrilled about. The same is true of our Republican friends. That is true of all compromises. If each of us stood on our hind legs and said ``If I don't get everything I want, I am voting no,'' we would be totally paralyzed, and that happens far too often in this body, but on this appropriations bill, this omnibus, somehow that didn't happen. There was a remarkable spirit of give-and- take in the room.

Overall, we Democrats are very happy with what we have been able to accomplish on a number of very important priorities to the middle class in America: infrastructure, education, opioid treatment, mental health, childcare. For nearly a decade, the middle class in this country has suffered from a needless and self-imposed austerity, limiting investment of all of the things that create good-paying jobs and improve the working conditions of Americans, improve the lives of Americans. This spending bill, this spending agreement, brings that era of austerity to an unceremonious end and represents one of the most significant investments in the middle class in decades.

So many of the middle class are frustrated, and they don't know why. Well, one of the reasons is quietly, but unfortunately and quite decisively, this Congress cut back on the very ladder that helps the middle class climb in education, in infrastructure, in healthcare. It was cut and cut and cut. The help that the Federal Government has given to the middle class since the progressive era of the early 1900s was taken away quietly but decisively. It is back. It is going to help middle-class people stay in the middle class. It is going to help those aspiring to the middle class climb that ladder and get there. It is really a good thing, and I am excited about it.

As the Republican leader mentioned, it robustly funds our military, giving our men and women in uniform the resources they need; it also improves our ability to respond to wildfires; it makes a critical downpayment on election security; it provides a reliable pathway for the essential infrastructure projects in our country; and it makes an incremental but important progress on the issue of gun violence--a debate this Congress must resume soon.

Again, that era of austerity, which so hurt middle-class Americans, is coming to an unceremonious end because this bill respects one of the most significant investments in the middle class in decades. For these reasons, I am confident this agreement will pass both Houses of Congress; hopefully, with comfortable margins; hopefully, in a bipartisan way.

Again, I thank the Republican leader for his part in reaching this agreement, and I look forward to passing this legislation as soon as possible.

China and Protecting American Intellectual Property

Mr. President, now on a final issue, while we are talking about agreement and bipartisanship, I don't agree with President Trump on a whole lot, but today I want to give him a big pat on the back. He is doing the right thing when it comes to China.

For many of us, since Senator Graham and I went and visited China over a decade ago, we have watched China rapaciously take advantage of America, American jobs, American workers, and America's intellectual property. China is ruthless in how they go after us. They do it quietly. They do it with a smile. Unfortunately, previous Presidents-- Democratic and Republican--just stood by as China did what it did to us.

President Trump is exactly right when, this afternoon, he will propose a plan designed to punish China for its most flagrant trade abuses.

I have called for such action for years and have been disappointed by the inactions by both President Bush and President Obama. I am very pleased this administration is taking strong action to get a better deal on China because China has stolen and extorted the intellectual property of American companies for years without repercussion.

Our intellectual property is our family jewel. The American way of openness, of thinking, of debate has created the kind of place where great thinkers come, think of great ideas, and those ideas are often translated into millions of middle-class, good-paying jobs. China knows this, but China is not a free and open society. To achieve the kind of gains and advancements in technology, in biomedical science, and so many other things, they have to steal what we do sometimes by buying our companies, sometimes by cyber theft, sometimes by just these joint ventures, and they tell American firms: You can only come to China if you give away your intellectual property. China is taking huge advantage of us.

Intellectual property is the lifeblood of emerging industries and the good-paying jobs they provide. The American advantage of intellectual property is one of the main things that will keep us No. 1 economically in this century but not if we allow it to be stolen and taken advantage of, and the country that does that more than any other is China.

As I said, intellectual property is the lifeblood of emerging industries and the good-paying jobs they provide, so it is impossible to overstate the cost of IP theft to our economy and our workers. This sentence pains me, and I think about it often: GEN Keith Alexander, a four-star general, nonpolitical, was in charge of cyber security in America, and here is what he said: China's theft of our intellectual property is ``the greatest transfer of wealth in history.'' We are letting them do it. The crown jewel of America, our free and open society that allows great thinkers to create great ideas and products, they steal it, and we do nothing. It is one of the things that aggravates me more than most others. Finally, President Trump is doing something, unlike his predecessors, so I commend him.

The WTO--they have been grossly inadequate for this problem. We cannot continue to ignore flagrant cheating by China, whether WTO likes it or not. So the administration's announcement today is a leap forward. If this new push is going to be successful, we need our allies to work with us--Germany, Italy, France, Britain, open and free societies, unlike China. They know their stuff is being stolen too. Join with us. If we are a united, strong front against Chinese activities on intellectual property, we can force them to change their ways, but they will not do it by persuasion; they will not do it by smiling; and, frankly, they will not do it by diplomacy when some of our diplomats come in and say: We need China for this thing; ignore the economic theft; ignore the economic disadvantage. So I support what the President is doing.

When it came to the tariffs on steel and aluminum, I supported the thrust, I supported the President's instinct, but it wasn't focused enough on China and hurt too many of our other allies, like Canada, where we have a trade surplus. I hope the President corrects his thinking on that, but, here, this is aimed at China and one of the ways China hurts us the very most. It is smart. It is good. I salute our Trade Rep Lighthizer for pushing this issue; I salute our Commerce Secretary Ross for pushing this issue.

By the way, to help support the administration's efforts to crack down on China, we will fully fund the USTR's trade enforcement fund at $15 million in the omnibus. So let's make sure China starts playing by the rules, and intellectual property is certainly at the top of the list. Today's announcement by the President will be a great start in that direction. Democrats, Republicans, Americans of every ideology and every region of the country should support these actions.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I had the privilege to speak at some length about Thad in leader remarks, but I wanted to add one point. I know my colleagues are waiting.

Another trait of Thad's, which has made him so successful, is that he has a long memory and knows how to work the legislative process. I remember, after the devastation of Katrina, Thad came over to me and talked to me about the need for so much, including a rail line that was somewhat controversial in the southern part of the State. He convinced me that it was desperately needed, and I voted for it.

Well, the wheel always turns, and 6 years later, we were devastated by Sandy. We needed all the help we could get, and I went to Thad. I didn't have to say a thing. He said: I remember what you did for me. I am going to help you all the way with Sandy, and he did.

This is just one of many great traits about this man and why he was so amazingly successful for the country and, most of all, for his beloved State of Mississippi. He made people want to help him and help his State, even though we don't have--as the Senator from Maine has said, our States are so different. We wanted to help each other, and we are bound by it.

Thad, you are a great man and a great example to all of us on how to conduct ourselves. We will miss you here in the Senate but wish you God's speed in whatever else you do.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will object.

I just want to make clear that I am sympathetic to the goals my friends from Wisconsin and Indiana are trying to accomplish. In fact, the Senate has already passed a version of this bill once and dedicated time to work on the outstanding issues to get a good compromise and pass it into law and pass it into law quickly.

I believe we all support the goals of safety and increasing access of investigational drugs for terminally ill people, but the key is we need to ensure there are safety mechanisms in place when we do this. A significant part of that is making sure the FDA is part of the process. They already have an expanded access program. We need to ensure that we are not increasing the risk of patient harm or endangering clinical trials so lifesaving drugs can continue to be developed and people have access to them.

So I assure my colleagues that we will work together to get something done, and done quickly, because this is an important issue. People who have terminal illnesses deserve every opportunity and chance at survival, and I look forward to working with my colleagues and moving forward on the Senate bill.

With that, Mr. President, I object.

Mr. President, today the Senate is voting to pass legislation to crack down on bad actors who abuse the power and potential of the internet to prey upon the most vulnerable among us in human trafficking rings. Websites like Backpage are repugnant, and I applaud my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their work in holding these bad actors accountable. I also applaud them for working to address the legitimate concerns of good-faith

technology platforms that want to be able to engage in responsible content moderation and take steps to affirmatively stop abuses of their sites.

I am pleased to support this legislation because I believe it achieves the important balance between providing a mechanism to hold accountable sex traffickers while allowing free speech and innovation to continue to thrive. Key to my support is my understanding that this legislation would not allow nuisance lawsuits against technology companies--especially startups--based on bogus claims that they ``facilitate'' sex trafficking. It is also important to me that I believe the legislation as written does preserve Good Samaritan protections for platforms and website operators who engage in good- faith content moderation. Legitimate efforts to monitor for illegal content, shut down trafficking, or report suspected trafficking to law enforcement should not and cannot be the basis for liability under this legislation.

Finally, I want to note that I have heard concerns that this legislation could be misused or abused to penalize websites that promote important health and safety information to survivors of sex trafficking, including about HIV prevention and treatment, and provide access to community and peer support services. This information is particularly critical to the victims of sex trafficking and others who face high rates of violence and exploitation, like people who use drugs, people of color, and LGBTQ people. I believe the use of this legislation to create any liability for this important work would be an impermissible misreading of the statutory language and legislative intent.

Mr. President, while the Senate conducts an important debate today on Yemen, we continue to negotiate an omnibus spending bill. It will follow through on the bipartisan budget deal we struck in February that, for the first time in a long time, will robustly fund our military and provide substantial investment in our middle class.

For too long, the arbitrary and pointless sequester caps held back Federal investment in jobs, scientific research, healthcare, and education. They also handicapped our military and prevented long-term planning at the Pentagon. The budget deal paved the way to do away with the harmful sequester caps, and now the omnibus will put the nail in the coffin.

Negotiations continue between the four leaders. A few sticking points remain but we are very close to signing off on legislation that both Houses will be able to take up and pass by the end of the week.

Mr. President, on the omni, I agree with the leader. Hopefully, we can come to an agreement and pass it this week. It has some things no one likes, and it has a lot of things not everybody likes but most people like. The basic structure of it was a fair compromise, and, hopefully, we can come to an agreement. Our staffs are working really hard.