Floor Statements

Mr. President, first, the Senate's thoughts and prayers go out to everyone in Manchester, England. Such violence is particularly heartbreaking when it happens, as it did in Manchester, at a concert with so many young people there to enjoy.

We mourn the families of the victims of last night's terrorist attack. We hope the perpetrators are quickly found and brought to justice. I saw on TV a mother waiting, trying to email and text her daughter. She got no answer. She was wondering where her daughter was. It brought back the horrible memories for me after 9/11, the day after, when I went up there and saw hundreds of people holding up signs: ``Have you seen my wife Evelyn?'' ``Have you seen my son John,'' not knowing if they were alive or dead. Most of them ended up being dead.

We hope and pray that mother, and all the other mothers, fathers, brothers, and sisters who are waiting for news that maybe their child, their relative, is alive, will find them alive. Our prayers go out to them.

Mr. President, since last week's all-Senators briefing with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, some of my friends on the other side of the aisle have alleged that his appointment of a special counsel impedes the congressional investigation into Russian interference in our elections and whether the Trump campaign was involved. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The executive branch investigation under the special counsel looks at criminal wrongdoing. The congressional investigation takes a broader approach. The two can proceed on parallel tracks, as has happened many times in the past. If anything the congressional investigation is doing potentially interferes with the special counsel's activities, the two parties will discuss it. It is a process called deconfliction. They know how to do it. They have done it before. There is no reason whatsoever for the congressional investigation to slow down or stop.

Mr. Mueller's appointment as special counsel in no way diminishes the need for Congress to play an active role in helping to get to the bottom of all the recent events. Let me repeat. This is our solemn constitutional duty, the very bedrock of the separation of powers and coequal branches of government designed by our Founding Fathers to preserve something we all cherish: American liberty and American democracy. Let me outline three things that should happen.

First, Intelligence Committee Chair Burr and Ranking Member Warner should continue to pursue their committee's investigation into these matters with just as much vigor. That investigation has been proceeding in a bipartisan way, and it absolutely should continue as such. For example, my friends Senators Burr and Warner have recently requested financial records of key Trump campaign officials from the Treasury Department. They should be given that information and continue to pursue whatever other avenues they view as helpful to the committee's investigation.

Second, Mr. Comey should testify in both the Judiciary and the Intelligence Committees to discuss the events surrounding his dismissal. The committees should be given access to memos he reportedly drafted following interactions with President Trump, and Congress should also be provided any transcripts or tapes the White House might have of Mr. Comey's conversations with President Trump.

Third, the Intelligence Committee must be provided the details of transcripts relating to President Trump's reported disclosure of information to the Russian Foreign Minister and Ambassador. There is a great deal of dispute about what was said at that meeting. The committee should have access to both Mr. Comey's notes and the White House's notes.

Finally, the Senate must demand the next FBI Director be nonpartisan, independent, fearless, and of unimpeachable integrity, just as Mr. Mueller is. A career politician of either party or anyone who suggests a lack of impartiality should not be considered a fit choice for that office. Every one of these, by the way, deals with congressional oversight--some directly, like the appointment of an FBI Director; some a little

more indirectly, such as figuring out what exactly was said in the room with the Russian Foreign Minister and Ambassador, but all of it is clearly within what the Constitution requires and the Founding Fathers wanted Congress to be. So the congressional committees have really an obligation to our democracy to continue their role.

Mr. President, on another matter--healthcare. Today, the Trump administration delayed for another 90 days their decision on whether to defend the administration's position in a lawsuit filed by the House Republicans about the cost-sharing payments in the Affordable Care Act. It is a decision that greatly increases the uncertainty in our healthcare system.

The cost-sharing program keeps healthcare costs low for working Americans and helps insurers stay in the marketplace, giving Americans more choices. It keeps the average person's premiums down, keeps their deductibles low. It makes it a lot easier for many working Americans to afford healthcare. That was its purpose, and it is succeeding in its purpose, but by continuing to sow uncertainty about this program, both by refusing to defend the lawsuit and by making outright threats to end it, the Trump administration has already caused insurers to flee the marketplace or propose rate increases for the next year. Let me repeat. Right now, the Trump administration's actions are sowing great uncertainty that causes insurers to pull out of States and increase their costs, making it more likely that working Americans won't be able to afford coverage next year.

A spokesperson for America's Health Insurance Plans, AHIP, the industry's main trade group, said the following, and this is their quote, not mine:

We need swift action and long-term certainty on [the cost-

sharing program]. It is the single most destabilizing factor

in the individual market, and millions of Americans could

soon feel the impact of fewer choices, higher costs and

reduced access to care.

The insurance industry itself is saying that the No. 1 thing that could be done to keep costs down, to keep other insurers in the marketplace, is to make permanent cost sharing.

President Trump's attempt to blame what is happening on ObamaCare is totally contradicted by what the health insurance plans say when it comes to cost sharing. So refusing to guarantee the cost-sharing payments is sabotage, plain and simple, and the Trump administration knows it.

The administration made the last cost-sharing payment but refuses to say they will continue to make them permanently. They know they will get blamed for the chaos that would ensue should they end these payments. They are afraid to do that. But they also want to threaten the stability of the healthcare system in order to get Democrats to work with them on their healthcare bill. So what they tried to do is have their cake and eat it too. They said: We are going to delay the lawsuit, but we are still going to have that uncertainty that hurts Americans out there. That is profoundly irresponsible.

Threatening to defund healthcare in order to win political leverage is hostage-taking at its very worst because it holds hostage millions of innocent Americans who very much need healthcare costs to be lower and affordable. It is already causing massive uncertainty. It will only get worse if the administration continues to kick the can down the road 3 months at a time.

There is one very simple solution: Instead of delaying the decision every 3 months, the White House ought to step up to the plate and say once and for all that they will make those payments permanently-- payments which help millions of Americans pay less for their healthcare, payments which the insurance industry itself says would help stabilize markets and help people gain healthcare.

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

Mr. President, last night, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed former FBI Director Robert Mueller as a special counsel to oversee the investigation into Russia's interference in the 2016 elections.

This was a very good first step. Mr. Rosenstein has done the right thing. I applaud his decision for both its correctness and its courage. A special counsel was much called for in this situation. Former Director Mueller is the right kind of individual for the job. I now have significantly greater confidence that the investigation will follow the facts wherever they lead. Additionally, as special counsel, Mr. Mueller must have broad latitude to pursue the Russia investigation. In the appointment order, it stipulates that the special counsel is authorized to investigate ``any matters that arose or may arise directly from this investigation.'' That is a really important power, given recent reports about an active FBI investigation into General Flynn.

I am heartened by the news of Mr. Mueller's appointment, but it in no way diminishes the need for Congress to play an active role in helping to get to the bottom of recent events. Intelligence Committee Chairman Burr and Ranking Member Warner should still pursue the congressional investigation into these matters with just as much vigor. That investigation has been proceeding in a bipartisan way, and it absolutely should continue as such.

We should still seek testimony from Mr. Comey in both the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees to discuss the events surrounding his dismissal and be given access to memos and transcripts or tapes of his conversations with President Trump. Mr. Comey was central to the events of the past few weeks. We still need to hear from him. I thank the bipartisan leadership of both the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees for requesting both the records and public testimony of Director Comey.

Congress, specifically the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees, should still be given access to any transcripts or related summaries of the President's meeting with the Russian Foreign Minister and Ambassador, during which reports have alleged he may have divulged highly sensitive intelligence.

Finally, there is still a great need as before for the next FBI Director to be someone who is nonpartisan, independent, fearless, and of unimpeachable integrity. A career politician of either party or anyone who suggests a lack of impartiality, should not be considered. The appointment of Mr. Mueller is a great first step toward getting the Russia investigation back on solid ground, but these other things also need to happen: Mr. Comey testifying; the White House turning over to Congress the relevant tapes and transcripts, if they exist; and the selection of an independent, impartial FBI Director.

Later this afternoon, the Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein, will brief all 100 Senators at the request of the two leaders, the majority leader and myself. He can brief us on a great many things, including the events of Mr. Comey's dismissal and the status of the Russia investigation.

While the briefing itself will not take place in a public setting, I hope that much of what we learn today can be shared with the American public.

So in the interest of getting all the facts, we in Congress look forward to hearing from Mr. Rosenstein this afternoon. It is a sign that while we wholeheartedly applaud the appointment of a special counsel, we in Congress must continue to do our jobs as well.

Now, on another matter, Mr. President, criminal justice reform. Last week, Attorney General Jeff Sessions ordered Federal prosecutors to ``charge and pursue the most serious readily provable offense,'' even for low-level drug crimes. Functionally, this means Federal prosecutors

will seek the harshest possible penalty even for nonviolent, low-level drug crimes.

This is a significant reversal from the Obama-era Smart on Crime Initiative, in which Federal prosecutors were instructed to focus on more dangerous drug traffickers and avoid charging less-serious offenders with crimes that required long, mandatory minimum sentences. As a result of the Obama policies, Federal drug cases dropped by more than 19 percent between 2012 and 2016, according to the U.S. Sentencing Commission. Cases with charges carrying longer, mandatory minimum sentences fell precipitously, from nearly 60 percent in 2012 to 45 percent last year. Thanks in part to this initiative, President Obama became the first President since Carter to leave the White House with a smaller Federal prison population than when he took office.

Meanwhile, prosecutions of the more serious crimes--the evil drug dealers, those who run the drugs, often from out of this country to here, they are the ones we can really go after and need to go after-- increased by 17 percent and 14 percent, which makes it the way we can stop these evil drugs from coming into this country.

So that policy was tough on crime and smart on crime. Our law enforcement agencies have finite resources. They should be focused on combating violent crimes. When a prosecutor is spending hours in court, days, for a low-level possession charge and not having the resources to go after the drug runners, the drug dealers who poison our kids, that is misplaced priorities.

What Attorney General Sessions has just ordered is the exact opposite approach of what we need. Instead of giving judges and juries the discretion to use their judgment in sentencing, it compels prosecutors to seek as much jail time as they can get for every single offense, treating low level and high level the same. It is a blunt instrument that will result in more unnecessary, punitive sentences, overcrowding of our prisons, and will be less effective in our fight on crime. It runs completely counter to a bipartisan consensus here in Congress.

Many Members of this body, Democrats and Republicans, agree that mandatory minimum sentences have led to bloated, costly prisons, and disproportionately ravaged minority communities.

In the last Congress, a bipartisan group of Senators sought to make meaningful progress with a sentencing reform proposal that had, among its cosponsors, a diverse group of Senators, ranging from Senators Durbin and Booker on the Democratic side to Senators Lee and Paul on the conservative side. Unfortunately, those efforts to strike a compromise to bring much needed reform to our Nation's criminal justice system were derailed by the obstruction of, guess who--then-Senator Sessions, with the cooperation of the Republican leadership. Now, after making progress under President Obama and Attorney General Holder, Attorney General Sessions has chosen to simply revert back to the one- size-fits-all approach that criminologists, police leaders, and bipartisan lawmakers have determined is not the right answer.

In order to truly be tough on crime, we must be smart on crime. This approach is dumb on crime. Congress, of course, still has the power to legislate this issue. We have the power to override the Attorney General's decision. So I hope this misguided change in the Department of Justice's policy revives a bipartisan desire to pursue sentencing reform. When we look for areas where there can be significant bipartisan cooperation, this is one of them. I hope Leader McConnell will choose to pursue it.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I yield the floor.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time during the quorum call be charged equally to both sides.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, by now we have all had the chance to read the report in the Washington Post that alleges stunning behavior on the part of the President in a meeting with the Russian Ambassador and Russian Foreign Minister.

According to the report, the President revealed classified information about a terrorist threat to officials of a foreign government. The President didn't share it with just any government; the report states he shared it with the Russian Government, a global adversary that has violated the sovereignty of peaceful nations, propped

up dictators and human rights abusers, including Iran and Syria, and has been widely proven to have interfered in our elections and the elections of our allies in Europe.

If this report is indeed true, it would mean that the President may have badly damaged our national security, nothing less, and in several ways. First, the act of a disclosure of this type could threaten the United States' relationships with allies that provide us with vital intelligence and could result in the loss of this specific intelligence source.

We rely on intelligence from our allies to keep America safe. America can't have eyes and ears everywhere. If our allies abroad can't trust us to keep sensitive information close to the vest, they may no longer share it with us. That undermines key relationships and, even more importantly, makes us less safe.

Second, if accurate, such a disclosure could damage our interests in the Middle East. We do not collaborate with Russia in Syria or elsewhere in the Middle East for the simple fact that we have diverging interests. Russia, for example, has worked with Iran to prop up the brutal Assad regime. Sharing vital intelligence with Russian officials could allow the Russians to pursue or even possibly eliminate the source or figure out how the ally conducts operations, including any against Russia or Russia's allies in the region.

Third, if the report is true, the President's alleged carelessness with classified information will further damage the relationship between the White House and the intelligence community--an essential relationship for the security of America. The intelligence community needs to be able to trust the President and trust that he will treat classified information with caution and with care. Our intelligence professionals put their lives on the line every day to acquire information that is critical to our national security and critical to keeping Americans safe. They have done a very good job.

If the reporting is accurate, in one fell swoop, the President could have unsettled our allies, emboldened our adversaries, endangered our military and intelligence officers the world over, and exposed our Nation to greater risk.

Given the gravity of the matter, we need to be able to quickly assess whether this report is true and what exactly was said. So I am calling on the White House to make the transcript of the meeting with the Russian Foreign Minister and Ambassador available to the congressional Intelligence Committees as soon as possible. The White House should make the transcript of the meeting available immediately to the congressional Intelligence Committees. If the President has nothing to hide, he should direct that the transcript of the meeting be made available.

The Members who sit on those committees have the necessary clearances to review the transcript and any related summary of the President's meeting with the Russians. I agree with the senior Senator from Maine that this briefing should happen immediately. Those committees would be able to help establish the facts before we grapple with the potential consequences.

Last night, the administration issued several overlapping denials. Some questioned the overall veracity of the account. Some took pains to specifically deny certain accusations but not others. This morning, the President tweeted a version of events that undercut his advisers' carefully worded denials and seems to confirm the reports that he had shared the information in question.

Following so closely after Mr. Comey's firing, which was rationalized to the press and the American public in several different ways over the course of a week, this administration now faces a crisis of credibility. The President has told us that we cannot take at face value the explanations of some of his key advisers, but the events of the past week have taken this to an untenable extreme. The timelines and rationales in the administration contradict one another. The truth, as it were, sits atop shifting sands in this administration.

We need the transcripts to see exactly what the President said, given the conflicting reports from the people in the room. Producing the transcripts is the only way for this administration to categorically prove the reports untrue.

Mr. President, there is a crisis of credibility in this administration which will hurt us in ways almost too numerous to elaborate. At the top of the list is an erosion of trust in the Presidency and trust in America by our friends and allies. The President owes the intelligence community, the American people, and the Congress a full explanation. The transcripts, in my view, are a necessary first step. Until the administration provides the unedited transcript, until the administration fully explains the facts of this case, the American people will rightly doubt if their President can handle our Nation's most closely kept secrets.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, in a week full of revelation after revelation, on a day when we thought things couldn't get any worse, they have. I was shaken by the report in the New York Times that alleged that the President tried to shut down an active FBI investigation into a close political associate, and we are only 1 day removed from stunning allegations that the President may have divulged classified information to a known adversary.

Concerns about our national security, the rule of law, the independence of our Nation's highest law enforcement agencies are mounting. The country is being tested in unprecedented ways.

I say to all of my colleagues in the Senate: History is watching.

I yield the floor.

Getting back to a less happy subject, Mr. President, the events of last week tested some of the fundamental precepts of our democratic system, including the rule of law and the independence of our law enforcement agencies that were designed to be a check on any abuse of power.

The President of the United States fired the FBI Director, who was conducting an active investigation of the President's campaign and its ties to Russia. The Attorney General, who had recused himself from that investigation, played a role in that dismissal and continues to be involved in the selection of the new FBI Director. The White House gave pretextual reasons for the firing, which were contradicted by the President himself a few days later when he admitted that he had planned to fire Director Comey for weeks and that he was thinking about Russia when he did it. The President then suggested there were tapes of conversations between himself and Director Comey, threatening to release them if Mr. Comey spoke to the press.

These are not the actions of an administration that respects the rule of law or treasures fidelity to the truth. These are not the actions of an administration that is eager for and even open to an independent investigation into a very serious matter--the interference of our elections by a foreign adversary.

The Founding Fathers, in their infinite wisdom--the more I am around, the more I am impressed with them, and I was impressed to begin with-- designed three coequal branches of government with appropriate powers to check and balance the others. The Founding Fathers explicitly worried about foreign powers trying to influence our elections and government. They actually wrote into the Constitution protections against that very threat. Their concerns, expressed over 240 years ago, gain new prominence and meaning today, perhaps more than at any time in the past.

We in Congress--both parties--need to exercise the powers afforded to us by the Constitution to check and balance. We need to see that we get all the facts. We need to see that the Russia investigation is allowed to proceed as independently and as impartially as possible. We need to hold this administration accountable for any abuse of their powers.

So first of all, if there are ``tapes'' as the President has suggested, he should turn them over immediately to Congress and the investigators. To destroy them would be a violation of law. If there are no tapes, he should apologize to James Comey and to the American people for misleading them.

Second, the fact that the President has said that he may have taped Mr. Comey makes the need for a special prosecutor all the more important. If it is true, if there are tapes, a special prosecutor would have the ability to

obtain these tapes undeterred, and then he would examine them to see what wrongdoing, if any, has occurred.

The reasons for a special prosecutor are compelling. A special prosecutor is not subject to day-to-day supervision by the Attorney General or anyone else at the Justice Department. He or she would have greater latitude in whom they can subpoena, which questions to ask, and how to conduct the investigation. He or she would have purview to investigate, not only the subject but also anyone who attempts to interfere with the investigation. There is built-in congressional oversight, and Congress is notified whenever a special prosecutor is appointed, removed, or finished with the investigation. He or she can only be removed for cause, not to quash an investigation.

With the events of the past week--and given that we have different stories coming out of this administration from different people--the need to have someone who is independent and far away from any of the actors, to get to the bottom of this, is so important. Firing the FBI Director is extremely rare and deeply troubling. We need the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Third, we in the Congress need to hear testimony from Director Comey, as well as be briefed by Attorney General Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein. I understand that Director Comey declined an invitation to testify tomorrow, but I have no reason to believe he won't be willing to come before the Senate in the future. I hope that he will sooner rather than later and that those appearances are in a public setting. This week, on Thursday, Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein will brief the full Senate on the events of the last week. Again, I thank the majority leader for joining me in that request. Again, I hope we can make as much of that information public as possible. The American people deserve to know the truth just as much, if not more, than the Senate does.

My caucus still believes that Attorney General Sessions must be made available to the Senate in a similar capacity, given his reported role in firing Director Comey and in helping select his replacement. Considering his recusal from the Russia investigation, his close involvement in these events warrants the Senate's questioning as well. To repeat, we need the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. The Russian meddling is so serious, and it is no place for partisan fighting.

Frankly, we need our Republican colleagues to help to get to the bottom of what happened in the 2016 elections and to hold this or any administration accountable when they don't tell the truth. If only one party is doing the talking, the issue will seem too partisan to the American people. A subject as important as this one--the tampering of our elections by a foreign power, a matter the Founders fretted about at the dawning of the Republic--shouldn't be colored by partisan politics.

It is time to put country before party. We need our Republican friends to help us call upon the White House to get an independent investigation on Russia. We need them to speak out when the White House misleads the public. No less than the integrity of our system of government and the rule of law is at stake.

Mr. President, first let me thank my friend and colleague from Iowa for letting me go forward. The two Charles in the Senate work together whenever we can.

First, Mr. President, I want to thank our Capitol Police, the New York police, and police around the country for the outstanding work they do. Much like our troops overseas, our law enforcement officers risk their lives for our safety.

As we welcome many police officers to the Capitol this week, I would like to express, on behalf of the Senate, our gratitude for their service, their sacrifice, and their countless daily acts of courage. Particularly, I want to say that in New York City, where we are so proud that crime is the lowest of the 25 largest cities in the country, we thank our New York City Police Department for a job well done. I would also like to thank the many police departments, sheriffs' offices, and so many others of our law enforcement in the State of New York. I have gotten to know them, respect them, and admire them as human beings and for the job they do.

Mr. President, a word on healthcare. As the Senate Republican caucus debates what to do on healthcare, they should take a hard look at the consequences of the House Republican bill on individual Americans. Last week, Senate Democrats met with four Americans who shared their stories and explained how they would be hurt by TrumpCare. Because of the furor over Director Comey's firing, their voices may have been drowned out. So I wanted to repeat a few of their stories.

We heard from Cindi Johnson from Bloomington, IN, whose daughter was born with Down syndrome, a preexisting condition. Ms. Johnson was approaching the lifetime coverage limit on her plan when healthcare reform was passed, which eliminated the limit. That policy change, as well as Medicaid, helped Ms. Johnson and her family climb out from under a mountain of medical debt and get the care they needed for their daughter. Every parent so much wants to help a child who is sick. That might be taken away from the Cindi Johnsons of the world if the House bill is passed. Under TrumpCare, States are no longer required to prohibit lifetime limits, and Medicaid is cut by $880 billion. Let's think of the Ms. Johnsons and their daughters and sons.

We also heard from Michael Dunkley from Alexandria, VA. Mr. Dunkley is a 64-year-old fulltime caregiver for his wife, who has advanced MS. In 2013, shortly after being laid off, Mr. Dunkley was diagnosed with an aggressive stage IV non-Hodgkin lymphoma, but his insurance coverage through COBRA was set to expire at the end of the year. Mr. Dunkley was able to sign up for insurance on Virginia's marketplace that provided coverage despite his preexisting condition. Under TrumpCare, Mr. Dunkley could be charged five times or more by the insurance companies because he is older. He could also be priced out of insurance because of his preexisting condition.

President Trump and the Republicans promised better and cheaper healthcare for everyone, but these Americans and many more like them-- perhaps millions, pretty certainly millions--would be devastated by TrumpCare. It is another colossal promise to folks like Mr. Dunkley, Ms. Johnson, and her daughter.

So my Republican friends in the Senate, I hope you will listen to these stories and the stories of your constituents saying so many of the same things. To take away healthcare from the Johnsons and the Dunkleys to give a tax break to the very wealthiest of Americans-- hundreds of thousands of dollars for people who make tens of millions of dollars--no American would be for that, but that is what is in the bill in the House, and that is where the Republican Senate bill, despite all the talk back and forth, is aiming to go.

My Republican friends here in the Senate, please, listen to these stories. Drop repeal. Drop TrumpCare. Work with Democrats on ways to improve our healthcare system and bring costs down. We can move forward together, or Republicans can move backward on their own.