[Pages S2625-S2631]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

                           EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the following 
nomination, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read the nomination of Joseph F. Bianco, of New 
York, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Second Circuit.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 
minute as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       National Foster Care Month

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, May has been recognized as National 
Foster Care Month for over 20 years to bring awareness to the 
challenges that foster youth face.
  Through my work on the Senate Caucus on Foster Youth, I have had the 
opportunity to hear firsthand what children in foster care need. They 
need love, support, safety, and permanency. They need a family. I 
salute all those who dedicate their time and resources to help these 
kids.
  In moving forward, I will continue to work to find better solutions 
and to secure better outcomes for youth in foster care.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for an additional 1 
minute as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            Economic Growth

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, last week, the Department of Labor 
released its monthly scorecard for the U.S. workforce.
  The unemployment rate fell to 3.6 percent, which is the lowest rate 
since December 1969--a new 50-year low. Moreover, an additional 263,000 
jobs were created. Job gains have averaged a robust 218,000 over the 
past 12 months. Additionally, for the ninth straight month, year-over-
year nominal wage gains have equaled or exceeded 3 percent.
  It is good to see this administration's tax reform and pro-growth 
policies continuing to improve the daily lives of all Americans.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Recognition of the Majority Leader

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, over the weekend we were given yet 
another tragic reminder of the daily

[[Page S2626]]

threats that face our friends and allies in Israel.
  While American families enjoyed a spring weekend, those who make 
their home in the border regions of the Jewish State were subjected to 
a barrage of hundreds of rockets and other projectiles launched from 
within Gaza.
  The attacks were carried out by Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic 
Jihad. They targeted civilian populations. They killed a worker at a 
cement factory, a truckdriver in a border village, a man in the yard of 
his own home, and a rabbi as he left his car to run for cover.
  They caused countless Israeli citizens to scurry to bunkers for 
safety, unsure whether rockets would rain upon their farms, apartment 
buildings, schools, or hospitals. These attacks, we should remember, 
are targeted at Israel's innocent civilians. They are intended to kill, 
to maim, and to terrorize.
  In the face of such brazen acts of terror, it is of course Israel's 
right to take swift and decisive action to defend its people. Frankly, 
it is an existential necessity.
  And it is the responsibility of every peaceful nation to condemn the 
terrorist organizations behind them and to continue to expose those 
governments and private entities that provide illicit support for their 
actions. Foremost among them is Iran, which has become a critical 
lifeline for the terrorist activities of Hamas and Palestinian Islamic 
Jihad.
  I know my colleagues will join me in expressing sympathy for the 
families of the victims and for the communities left to rebuild the 
wreckage of these latest attacks. Furthermore, I hope this weekend's 
attacks could at least spur some action here in Congress, where Senate-
passed legislation to renew and strengthen our partnership with Israel 
is still sitting over in the House, where it has not been permitted a 
vote. That thoroughly bipartisan legislation contains several 
provisions to strengthen our security ties to Israel and also to combat 
the scourge of anti-Semitism.
  Behind these attacks lurks the same hatred that motivated the 
violence at Chabad of Poway last month and the Tree of Life synagogue 
last year--the same ugly bigotry that takes refuge within the BDS 
movement while masquerading as a legitimate political stance. It is the 
same tide of discrimination that an overwhelming majority of European 
Jews report is on the rise in their own communities, even as the 
Holocaust remains a vivid living memory. This disturbing trend has 
already taken its toll on communities of faith and on peaceful Jews in 
Israel and around the world, but when America does any less than our 
level best to confront it, we further undermine the cause of our 
friends and allies in this free Jewish State.
  I hope this terrible violence can again spur my colleagues in the 
House to act on the bipartisan legislation that has been languishing 
over there for weeks. It was the first item we took up this year.
  Clearly, the need to reaffirm our commitment to the safety, security, 
and sovereignty of Israel is just as important as it ever was.


                          Tribute to Mike Enzi

  Mr. President, on an entirely different matter, I was saddened to 
hear over the weekend that our friend and colleague Senator Mike Enzi 
will not run for reelection. At the end of next year, he will retire 
with 24 years of service to the people of Wyoming, and the rest of us 
will have to step up to make up for the loss in expertise and in 
principled leadership his departure will create.
  When Mike first arrived in the Senate, he brought with him experience 
in business and government that made him an immediate asset on a host 
of different issues. With an MBA under his belt, he had returned home 
to lead his family shoe sales business through a successful expansion. 
As the two-term mayor of Gillette, WY, he had presided over an economic 
and population boom, and over the course of 10 years in the State 
legislature, he had lent his accountant's eye to help other small 
businesses succeed through better policy.
  So it is no surprise that Mike got right to work as a leading voice 
on the Federal budget, tax policy, and healthcare. Over four terms, he 
has taken every opportunity to make an outsized impact on policy for 
the people of Wyoming and for our entire country.
  In 2006, as chairman of the HELP Committee, Mike provided the guiding 
hand that delivered the first major pension reform legislation in a 
generation and provided more security to the retirement income of 
millions of Americans through bipartisan policy.
  In 2017, as chairman of the Budget Committee, he helped lay the 
foundation for the generational reform of our Nation's Tax Code and 
championed important elements for small businesses and retirees.
  In these cases and in many more, getting Mike involved in an issue 
meant deploying a powerful force for fiscal responsibility, restraint, 
and policy practicality. You always felt more sure something would turn 
out well when Mike was on the case or part of the team.
  But seeing as our friend has built nearly a quarter-century legacy in 
the Senate, none of us can blame Mike for choosing to spend more time 
with his even greater legacy: the wonderful family he and his lovely 
wife Diana have built together.
  Mike and Diana are now the proud grandparents of four, and among 
everything their bright future holds, I know Mike will be excited for 
more chances to pass along his fly fishing wisdom and his love of good 
books.
  Before he hangs up the ``gone fishing'' sign for good, I know my 
colleagues share my relief that we still have a year and a half to 
continue drawing on Senator Enzi's leadership and focused expertise. So 
today I will offer just the first of many sincere thanks for his years 
of distinguished service.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            Economic Growth

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, it is no secret that our economy has 
broken some pretty amazing records lately. Last week's job report 
surpassed all estimates and expectations, with a whopping 263,000 jobs 
created in April alone. The first quarter saw 3.2 percent growth, which 
is the best in 4 years.
  I still recall, back during the previous administration, when we were 
told that 2 percent growth was the new normal and that we could never 
grow our economy the way we have seen in recent months. Obviously, 2 
percent growth is not the new normal for the American economy. We all 
ought to be relieved and comforted by that fact.
  The unemployment rate has dropped to 3.6 percent--the lowest level in 
nearly half a century. Everybody who is able-bodied and willing to work 
and willing to be trained for jobs that pay well I believe has an 
opportunity to do so these days. There is no doubt that this is an 
incredible time for our economy, and I am confident that the pro-growth 
policies that we have brought to the table during this administration 
and during a Republican majority in the House and the Senate will 
continue to bring real benefits to families across the country. But we 
have also broken another record, one that has a much more negative 
impact, and that is especially in my State of Texas.


                                S. 1303

  In March, Customs and Border Protection encountered more than 103,000 
migrants along the southwestern border--the highest number since 2007. 
Unlike previous times when we saw numbers on that scale, these are 
people who simply show up at the border and turn themselves in to the 
Border Patrol and claim asylum--mainly families and unaccompanied 
children, if you could believe that. To put this figure into 
perspective, it is more than double that of the same period last year 
and more than six times that in 2017. So something is clearly afoot.
  Our country is simply not equipped to manage this sort of massive 
influx, and folks in my State are bearing the brunt of the humanitarian 
crisis.
  Again, I would remind those listening that the first person who 
called this a humanitarian crisis, in 2014, was President Barack Obama. 
He called it a humanitarian and security crisis. It has

[[Page S2627]]

gotten worse since then, not better. Many of our cities along the 
border and nongovernmental organizations--faith-based organizations 
that take it as part of their mission to deal with the needs of 
migrants along the border--are struggling to manage the growing need 
for humanitarian relief, as well as businesses and manufacturers that 
feel the tight squeeze of backed-up border crossings.
  Most folks here inside the beltway probably couldn't comprehend the 
cross-border traffic and how interdependent our economy really is. 
There are 14,000 to 16,000 truck trips a day across the U.S.-Mexico 
border at Laredo. As the already understaffed Customs and Border 
Protection has tried to manage the flow of family units and 
unaccompanied children entering our country, Customs agents had been 
pulled off of that duty--their ordinary duties--causing lanes to be 
closed and wait times to skyrocket. I was told by some American-based 
car manufacturers that they simply have had to hire charter aircraft to 
fly from the Mexican side of the border to the U.S. side of the border 
in order to meet their just-in-time inventory needs because, otherwise, 
trucks bringing those same parts across the border that ordinarily 
would have taken an hour to get across now are taking 14 hours or more, 
simply disrupting their supply chain and threatening to put many people 
in the interior of the United States out of work if this situation 
continues or gets worse.
  The aerial footage of the border looks more like a parking lot than a 
port of entry. Cargo trucks and personal vehicles sit at a complete 
standstill, backed up for miles. People are supplying drivers with 
water. Can you imagine being stuck in your car for hours on end with no 
preparation for food or water--or fuel, for that matter--based on the 
amount of time sitting idly in line?

  With nearly $1.7 billion in products crossing our border every day, 
as I have said, these delays have had a serious impact on manufacturers 
and retailers in industries ranging from automobiles to medical devices 
to just simply the produce that we take for granted in our grocery 
stores.
  A report released last week by the Texas-based Perryman Group 
estimated that these slowdowns could cost the U.S. economy $69 
billion--$69 billion--over a 3-month period. Nearly half of that--an 
estimated $32 billion--would be a direct hit on the Texas economy.
  Last week, I heard from the Chamber of Commerce in San Antonio and 
the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce about these wait times. Their members 
are facing delayed orders and increased shipping costs because of these 
wait times, and they want us to do something about it. That is not an 
unreasonable desire or request.
  Unlike a lot of folks inside the beltway here in Washington, they 
have to manage this crisis. They have to deal with it. They can't 
ignore it or turn their eyes in another direction. They don't care 
about talking points or winning a messaging war. They want a solution 
to their problem. So, now, in addition to the humanitarian and security 
crisis that President Obama talked about in 2014, we have the beginning 
of a full-blown economic crisis as well.
  It is an understatement to say that there is a lot of disagreement on 
what the solution might look like, but anyone who has taken an 
elementary school class can tell you that, for it to pass a Republican-
led Senate and a Democratic-controlled House, this must be bipartisan. 
I should say that anybody who has happened to see ``Schoolhouse Rock!'' 
should know that it is going to have to be bipartisan and bicameral and 
that the President has to sign it in order for it to pass.
  Over the years, I have worked closely with my friend and fellow Texan 
Henry Cuellar on legislation to strengthen both border security and 
customs operations along our State's border with Mexico. Henry is a 
Democrat from Laredo, TX. I, obviously, am not, but that doesn't mean 
we can't find common background. That is actually what I believe our 
constituents sent us here to do--not to sacrifice principles but, when 
there is a problem to be solved, to work together in a bipartisan way 
to try to solve it. So last week, we introduced a bill that could bring 
those recordbreaking border numbers back down and finally provide some 
relief for law enforcement, for our cities, for our NGOs, and for our 
businesses struggling to manage.
  I have spent a lot of time with the officers and agents who defend 
our borders every day, and I always ask them: What can I do to help 
you? What do you need from Congress in order to succeed at the job we 
have asked you to do?
  There are two common answers I hear. One is to close the loopholes 
that serve as a magnet or a pull factor on this massive wave of 
humanity from places like Central America into the United States, with 
people claiming asylum because they know they can exploit the loopholes 
that exist in the law and be successfully placed in the United States, 
never to be heard from again as they blend into this great American 
landscape. In other words, they know they can successfully make it from 
here into the United States unless these loopholes are filled. That is 
what the Border Patrol and Customs and Border Protection have implored 
us to do, along with the Department of Homeland Security--to close 
these loopholes.
  The main people benefiting from these loopholes in our asylum laws 
are the human traffickers, the drug traffickers, and the people who get 
rich moving this massive humanity from Central America into the United 
States. They charge, $5,000, $6,000, $7,000, or $8,000 a person. Of 
course, these are also the same criminal organizations that move drugs 
into the United States, trafficking women and children for sex.
  Last year alone, we know that 70,000-plus Americans died of drug 
overdoses in America. About half of them was from opioids, including 
heroin--90 percent of which comes from Mexico--along with the synthetic 
opioid known as fentanyl, which those of us working here know is much 
more powerful and much more dangerous than heroin, which is dangerous 
in and of itself. The same people who are trafficking in these migrants 
are trafficking in the drugs that are killing Americans on a daily 
basis and taking advantage of the desire of women and children to make 
their way here to the United States and turning them into virtual sex 
slaves.
  The people who have patiently and properly tried to enter our country 
legally are frustrated by illegal border crossers who try to game the 
system and use well-intentioned laws as a literal get-out-of-jail-free 
card.
  One of the most frequently exploited loopholes is known as the Flores 
Settlement Agreement, which was created to ensure that unaccompanied 
children aren't spending long periods of time in the custody of the 
Border Patrol. It was and remains an important protector for the most 
vulnerable individuals who come across our border and ensures that 
these unaccompanied children may be processed and released either to 
relatives or to the Department of Health and Human Services.
  A later, misguided ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in 
2016 effectively expanded the time cap for unaccompanied children to 
families--that is, adults bringing one or more children across the 
border with them. These smugglers and human traffickers aren't fools. 
They see this as an opportunity to be exploited, and they know that by 
posing as a family, these individuals will be released after 20 days 
and can virtually disappear into the interior of the country. The child 
traveling with them could have been kidnapped, smuggled, or 
trafficked--all of which has happened before.
  Sadly, this is a common occurrence. The Department of Human Resources 
announced last week that they have identified more than 1,000 cases of 
fraudulent families trying to cross the border since October of last 
year. Clearly, the criminal element is exploiting our laws and hurting 
innocent children, and by doing nothing, we ourselves are complicit in 
their bad behavior.
  That is why we need to act. That is the one thing we can do. We need 
to clarify that Flores only applies to unaccompanied children and not 
to these family units who are gaming the system. First and foremost, 
this would protect children from being used as an entry ticket by 
criminals and smugglers, and it would also eliminate a pull factor for 
those tempted to try to use this method to gain entry.

[[Page S2628]]

  Of course, we know there are legitimate families who cross our 
border, and we must take additional steps to confirm these biological 
relationships and enable them to remain together in custody. No one is 
advocating for separating these families from their children. The 
HUMANE Act that Congressman Cuellar and I have introduced requires all 
children to undergo biometric and DNA screening--something the 
Department of Homeland Security has recently been testing. This was in 
order to defeat the fraudulent claim of biological or familial 
relationship with a minor child in order to gain entry into the United 
States. I believe we have a responsibility to ensure that children are 
actual family members and not being used as a pawn by the smugglers.
  Our legislation also provides safeguards to prevent children from 
being placed in the custody of dangerous individuals, such as sex 
offenders or human traffickers. The last thing we should want to do is 
welcome these unaccompanied children here to America, only to place 
them, by action of the Federal Government, in the hands of sex 
offenders or human traffickers because of our failure to take all 
necessary caution to prevent it.
  Consistent with the recommendations from the bipartisan Department of 
Homeland Security Homeland Security Advisory Council, the HUMANE Act 
would require DHS to establish at least four regional processing 
centers along the southern border to house and process these families. 
It is important that we provide them humane and compassionate housing 
while they await their asylum hearing in front of an immigration judge.
  By not doing so, by engaging in what has come to be known as catch-
and-release, we essentially help facilitate the entry of these 
individuals into the United States and encourage this pull factor that 
would only encourage not only 76,000 migrants, like we saw come across 
the border in February, not 103,000, like we saw come across the border 
in March, but we are going to see those numbers continue to go up and 
up and up and up, because, if you think about it, there is simply no 
reason for them not to come. The smugglers are getting rich, and people 
who want to come into the United States by falsely claiming grounds for 
asylum have found a way to exploit our system. When we look in the 
mirror, the only ones we can blame are ourselves for failing to act.
  We know these regional processing centers could serve as a one-stop 
shop, with DHS personnel, including asylum officers, on site to 
adjudicate claims and expedite the entire process. We want to make sure 
that if somebody does have a bona fide claim for asylum, they get to be 
heard by an immigration judge and they get that immigration benefit to 
which the law entitles them. But if they are not entitled to asylum, if 
they can't make their case to an immigration judge, they should not be 
able to do an end run around the system and enter the country under 
false pretenses.
  These central processing centers would also provide families with 
better living conditions that can be provided at a CBP detention 
facility meant to hold strictly single adults.
  To prevent this humanitarian crisis from having a deeper impact on 
legitimate trade and travel, this bill mandates the hiring of 
additional Homeland Security personnel and upgrades our ports of entry 
to expedite the legal movement of people and goods.
  Just the binational trade with Mexico supports about 5 million jobs 
in America; with Canada, another 8 million. That is why the North 
American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, is so important, and now that 
it has been supplanted by the U.S.-Mexico-Canada agreement that we will 
be taking up soon, it is very important for us to keep legitimate 
commerce and trade flowing between Mexico, Canada, and the United 
States because 13 million jobs or more in America depend on that 
binational trade. That is another collateral piece of damage as a 
result of this humanitarian crisis as well.
  This is an opportunity for us to consider a bipartisan and bicameral 
piece of legislation to solve a real and growing problem, and I hope 
both of our Chambers will take seriously our responsibility to act and 
to act soon.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Ernst). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.


                          Tribute to Mike Enzi

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, over the weekend, our friend the 
distinguished Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Enzi, announced that he 
wouldn't seek reelection. It is no secret that Senator Enzi and I 
approach legislation from two very different standpoints, but I have 
always found him to be thoughtful and decent--qualities that have made 
him a good Senator and a respected voice for the people of Wyoming.
  When Senator Enzi was elected, he was this Chamber's only accountant 
by trade. Perhaps it is destiny, then, that he will end his tenure at 
the top of the Budget Committee. Despite his prominent perch and 
decades in Washington's corridors of power, Senator Enzi still retains 
the accountant's distaste for the flashy. He eschewed the limelight and 
the television cameras--something the two of us have in common. If 
Senator Enzi will forgive me that joke, I would like to wish him and 
his family the best in all his future endeavors--that is, of course, 
after he concludes his final year and a half in Washington as one of 
Wyoming's longest serving Senators.


                             Mueller Report

  Madam President, on another matter, in the aftermath of Attorney 
General Barr's testimony before the Judiciary Committee, it is now 
clearer than ever that the Senate must hear from Special Counsel 
Mueller. We need Special Counsel Mueller to testify because, as we have 
seen, the Attorney General has shown us he cannot be trusted on the 
matter of the Russia investigation.
  After the special counsel delivered his findings, the Attorney 
General took a 480-page document and turned it into 4 pages, producing 
a document so inadequate that it even prompted the special counsel to 
raise concerns in writing--the normally very reticent special counsel, 
I might add. Meanwhile, the Attorney General has speculated, without 
evidence, about the special counsel's reasonings, and he has done so, 
we have now learned, without having reviewed any of the underlying 
evidence. To make matters worse, Mr. Barr also refused to appear before 
the House Judiciary Committee, demonstrating his contempt for the 
oversight responsibilities of Congress.
  The bottom line is this: The Attorney General's word cannot be the 
end of the matter. Special Counsel Mueller must testify. Unfortunately, 
however, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee has thus far 
been far less than welcoming, and now the President has made it clear 
that he believes Mueller should not testify.
  I want to remind this Chamber that President Trump repeatedly tried 
to fire the special counsel, then he called the special counsel 
conflicted and corrupted and refused to be interviewed by him, and now 
he is trying to silence the special counsel completely. For a man who 
constantly proclaims his innocence and the ``exoneration'' of the 
Mueller report, President Trump suspiciously objects to Special Counsel 
Mueller's public testimony.
  Thankfully, Congress isn't subject to the will of the President. My 
friend Senator Graham has an obligation to ask the special counsel to 
testify without constraints. I will continue to press him to call for a 
hearing.


                              Puerto Rico

  Finally, Mr. President, we have been trying for weeks now to come up 
with a package of disaster assistance for Americans impacted by fires 
and floods and typhoons and hurricanes that would be acceptable to my 
friends on the other side of the aisle. Meanwhile, the President 
continues to wage a bizarre and fact-impaired campaign against millions 
of American citizens living in Puerto Rico.
  This morning, the President claimed incredibly that Puerto Rico has 
received $91 billion in recovery funds

[[Page S2629]]

while other States have been left behind. That defies the facts. He 
also suggested that Puerto Rico should be thankful for the funding they 
have already received and accused Democrats of selling out other parts 
of the country. There is a lot to unpack there, so here it goes.
  For one, Puerto Rico has not received $91 billion--not even close. At 
most, Puerto Rico has received $11 billion while billions more, already 
allocated by the Congress--Democrats and Republicans--are being 
withheld by the Trump administration itself. Just last week, the 
administration missed a self-imposed deadline to advance the release of 
$8 billion in funding to help the island rebuild and prepare for future 
disasters.
  Second, it is galling even by the President's standards to say that 
Puerto Rico should be thankful for disaster aid. The President hasn't 
said that Alabama should be thankful for disaster aid. He hasn't said 
that Texas should be thankful or Florida or the Carolinas. But for some 
reason, the President implies that aid to Puerto Rico is some kind of 
favor he is doing. I remind the President that helping parts of our 
country recover from natural disasters is not a favor; it is what we do 
as Americans and what we have always done until the President's heavy 
hand disrupted the legislation that Democrats and Republicans had 
crafted and were prepared to pass.
  When a natural disaster strikes one corner of the country, Americans 
put politics aside and come together to help each other out. The 
President, however, is failing our fellow citizens in Puerto Rico and 
all those rebuilding their lives and communities after disaster.
  For those here who say ``Well, let's just pass this bill now,'' the 
House won't pass this bill. The House will not pass a bill without full 
aid to Puerto Rico, and neither will this Chamber.
  So what are we talking about here? We are talking about a President 
who came in and for some reason didn't want to give aid to Puerto Rico 
while giving to everywhere else even though Puerto Rico's disaster 
probably, per capita, affected them worse than any other State. They 
are American citizens, I would remind the President. Now he is 
bolloxing the whole thing up.
  Both sides here in Congress--Democrats and Republicans who believe in 
aid--ought to disavow the President's decision and pass relief for all 
Americans affected by natural disasters--all Americans. Democrats are 
ready to support disaster relief for every corner in this country--the 
west coast, the Midwest, the South, and Puerto Rico. As our negotiators 
continue to make progress on a disaster package, I fervently hope we 
come to a resolution very soon.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.


                             Mueller Report

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, the taxpayers spent $30 million on the 
special counsel's investigation. Now we know without a single doubt 
that there was no collusion by the Trump campaign with Russia. For more 
than 2 years, the Democrats screamed collusion and did so not based on 
fact but based on rumor, hearsay, and probably wishful thinking. They 
have done a huge disservice to the American people by taking that 
approach.
  As I have said before, the real collusion was actually with the 
Democrats. Here is how it has evolved. It was the Clinton campaign and 
Democratic National Committee that hired Fusion GPS to do opposition 
research against Candidate Trump. Then Fusion GPS hired Christopher 
Steele, a former British intelligence officer, to compile what we now 
hear always referred to as the Steele dossier. That document was very 
central to the fake collusion narrative, and it reportedly used Russian 
Government sources for information. So the Democrats paid for a 
document created by a foreign national that relied on Russian 
Government sources--not Trump; the Democrats. That is the definition of 
collusion.
  But Democratic collusion didn't stop there. Last week, The Hill 
newspaper reported that a Democratic National Committee contractor 
contacted the Ukrainian Government to get dirt on the Trump and 
Manafort during the Presidential election. Specifically, the Democratic 
National Committee contractor reportedly ``wanted to collect evidence 
that Trump, his organization and Manafort were Russian assets working 
to hurt the U.S. and working with Putin against U.S. interests.''
  The Democrats were up in arms about the Trump Tower meeting when the 
Trump campaign was approached about dirt on Hillary Clinton. Here, the 
DNC proactively pounded the door of a foreign government for dirt. 
Where is the outrage at that? The special counsel ignored all of that 
in his report; thus, he didn't fulfill all of his responsibilities.
  The Deputy Attorney General appointed Mueller in May of 2017 to 
investigate alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia 
during the 2016 election. The Deputy Attorney General further ordered 
that if the special counsel believed it was necessary and appropriate, 
he was authorized to ``prosecute federal crimes arising from the 
investigation of these matters.'' But that is not what the special 
counsel did on the obstruction question. Instead, the special counsel 
declined to make a traditional prosecutorial decision. The report said 
that ``[t]he evidence that we obtained about the President's actions 
and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively 
determining that no criminal conduct occurred.''
  As the Attorney General said when he released the report and then 
again in his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week, 
the role of a prosecutor ``is to make a charging decision.'' It isn't a 
prosecutor's job to exonerate a subject; it is to charge a crime or, in 
the alternative, not to charge a crime. But in his report, the special 
counsel explains his decision not to even make a decision. He says, 
among other things, that stating the President had committed a 
chargeable offense without actually charging him, under the Justice 
Department's guidance, would be unfair to the President because, 
according to the special counsel, then the President couldn't defend 
himself properly before a neutral factfinder. Instead, the special 
counsel laid out 200 or so pages of facts and hand-wringing relating to 
the obstruction and then dumped all of this material on the Attorney 
General's desk.
  It reminds me of former FBI Director Comey's declaration in the 
summer of 2016 that Secretary Clinton was extremely careless in 
handling classified information but that no reasonable prosecutor would 
bring a case against Secretary Clinton. FBI Director Comey made a 
prosecutorial decision that wasn't his to make; it was up to the 
Attorney General to make. That was Attorney General Lynch. Comey also 
released derogatory information about Secretary Clinton and then 
refused to show all of his work.
  The special counsel's report is at least equally problematic. The 
report lays out 200 pages of investigative product but leaves the 
charging decision hanging in Never Never Land. Nevertheless, the report 
asserts that if the special counsel team could have found the President 
did not commit obstruction, they would have said so. But, again, that 
is not what prosecutors do. That is a reversal of the innocent until 
proven guilty standard that is basic to American justice. If it really 
were a thorough investigation, it seems the inverse would be true as 
well. The inverse is that, after a thorough investigation, the special 
counsel did not have enough evidence to conclusively state obstruction 
actually occurred.
  During the Attorney General's May 1 testimony before the Senate 
Judiciary Committee, he noted that if the special counsel found facts 
sufficient to constitute obstruction, he would have stated that 
finding.
  Curiously, the special counsel spilled a lot of ink in his report to 
explain why he believed the President could be charged as a matter of 
legal theory. So why didn't he just make that decision or at least make 
a very clear recommendation to the Attorney General and stand behind 
his own theories?
  The Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General asked Mueller 
whether he would have charged obstruction but for the Department's 
guidance on charging sitting Presidents. The special counsel said no, 
which means, if warranted, that there was no barrier for him to make 
that charge.
  In the absence of a decision from the special counsel, it was then up 
to the

[[Page S2630]]

Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General, who appointed Mueller 
and supervised his work. The Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney 
General reviewed all of the facts and evidence that the special counsel 
collected. The Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General 
evaluated it under Mueller's own legal theories, even though they 
disagreed with some of those theories. After all of that, the Attorney 
General and the Deputy Attorney General determined that the evidence 
was not sufficient to charge.
  Oddly, the special counsel's report is probably the most notable for 
what it doesn't address at all.
  The special counsel's report does not address the genesis of the 
Russia investigation. It doesn't address whether the FBI used improper 
surveillance techniques on the Trump campaign or individuals associated 
with the Trump campaign. It doesn't address the credibility of the 
FBI's sources.
  It doesn't address whether the Steele dossier was a Russian 
disinformation campaign. Even one of the reporters at the publication 
that initially dumped the dossier into the public domain wants to know 
where it came from and what it means. The special counsel's report 
doesn't address whether Department of Justice officials turned a blind 
eye to potential misconduct. It also doesn't address whether the 
Department of Justice misled the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance 
Court when it applied for that court's decision against the Trump 
campaign.
  So now we know what reasonable people have long suspected--there was 
no collusion and no obstruction of the collusion investigation. Yet we 
still don't know how this so-called collusion investigation got started 
in the first place.
  In March 2017, then-FBI Director James Comey testified that he 
briefed President-elect Trump about these allegations in January 2017 
even though, according to his public testimony, Director Comey 
considered them to be, in his words, ``salacious and unverified.'' If, 
in fact, they were salacious and unverified in early 2017, then what 
were they months before that when Comey started the investigation? We 
know the allegations against Page were unverified when they were used 
by the FBI and the Justice Department to support a FISA application to 
spy--yes, spy--on an American citizen, an American citizen who, by the 
way, has never been charged with anything.
  In January of 2018, Senator Lindsey Graham and this Senator wrote to 
the Deputy Attorney General and FBI Director Christopher Wray about the 
allegations in the Steele dossier, about its author, and, more 
importantly, about its bankrollers. In that memo, we described 
inconsistencies between what Steele swore to a British court about his 
contacts with the media and what the Page FISA application represented 
to the FISA Court about those same contacts. The FISA application 
represented that Steele did not communicate with the media about his 
intelligence reports but that he told the British court he did.
  We noted in our memo that if Mr. Steele had lied to the FBI about his 
media contacts, it would bear on his credibility. That would be a huge 
problem because the FISA application and its renewals depended on 
taking Steele at his word. Remember, at that time, the Steele dossier 
was still ``salacious and unverified,'' and those were Comey's words. 
So it mattered a whole lot whether the FBI and the Department of 
Justice could trust Steele and his dossier.
  In our referral, Senator Graham and I also noted that Mr. Steele's 
contacts with the media likely affected, in our words, the 
``reliability of his information-gathering efforts'' in compiling the 
dossier. By the time the Department of Justice and the FBI filed the 
FISA application and even before the FBI officially opened the 
investigation, the Steele dossier was probably the worst kept secret in 
Washington, DC.
  The same can be said for the government's efforts to look for ties 
between the Trump campaign and Russia. All of these folks--the media, 
lawyers, lobbyists, campaign organizations, private research firms, FBI 
officials, the Department of Justice and Department of State officials, 
and even foreign intelligence agencies--reportedly had access to the 
dossier information or the dossier itself. An attorney for Clinton and 
the Democratic National Committee even passed on some aspects of this 
information directly to the FBI's general counsel before the FISA was 
issued.

  Basically, this piece of paper was, in some form or another, all over 
this town, and the more the dossier was shopped around, the more 
vulnerable it became to its manipulation.
  We also know that at least as early as the summer of 2016, foreign 
intelligence agencies were reportedly feeding information to the CIA 
about Trump campaign associates and that the FBI was using a source to 
seek information from individuals who were associated with the Trump 
campaign. At about that time, Fusion GPS had hired Steele on behalf of 
the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee.
  We need to know if leadership in the intelligence community and the 
FBI were already gathering intelligence on Trump associates when Fusion 
hired Steele. We need to know whether the Obama administration was 
looking so hard for connections that it figured the Steele dossier 
would justify efforts to continue its surveillance activities. Further, 
we need to know if the Russians knew our government was that hungry for 
information to the point they packed the dossier with disinformation 
just to sow chaos. If so, it looks like the Obama administration fell 
for it hook, line, and sinker, and it certainly seems like some in 
leadership may have ignored clear warning signs.
  Department of Justice official Bruce Ohr spoke with top FBI 
leadership about Steele's work the day the investigation opened, and 
after the FBI terminated Steele as a source, Ohr continued to feed 
Steele's work to the Bureau. At various times, Mr. Ohr made it clear to 
the FBI that the information from Steele could not be taken at face 
value because it was based on hearsay. Ohr noted that Steele had an 
anti-Trump agenda and that the whole operation was bankrolled by 
Clinton and the Democratic National Committee. Of course, the Clinton 
campaign wasn't keen on the world's knowing it was footing the bill for 
the dossier. Its lawyers even lied to the media about this fact for 
more than a year. That is not my saying it. A New York Times reporter 
said that.
  So, by the time the FISA application was filed and every time it was 
renewed, FBI and Department of Justice leaders were very much aware of 
the political bias and the purpose of the unverified information that 
supposedly supported it, so much so that according to reported text 
messages between former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and his 
staff, the FBI worked to create--these are their words--a ``robust 
explanation'' for ``any possible bias'' of the source ``in the 
package'' supporting the FISA application. It also seems from these 
text messages that the FBI was getting pushback from at least one 
individual at the Justice Department about seeking the FISA.
  In the end, the FISA application was presented to the court with 
there being no mention whatsoever of Clinton, the Democratic National 
Committee, or any mention of the source's political bias and with only 
mere speculation by the FBI that its primary source was not peddling 
his information far and wide. The FISA application was then granted by 
the court and was renewed three times. Let me say that again. The FISA 
application was granted and renewed three times.
  The FBI surveilled an American citizen for many months based on 
salacious and unverified information that had been gathered by a former 
foreign intelligence officer who was desperate to keep the President 
out of office. He was British Agent Steele. That former intelligence 
officer used Russian sources, including Russian Government sources, at 
the behest and with the funding of a rival political party and 
campaign.
  The Democrats and the mainstream media have been screaming at the top 
of their lungs about salacious, unverified allegations that this 
President stole an election by working with the Russians, but it is a 
sobering and verified fact that the Democrats actually paid for dirt 
from the Russians to damage their political opponents.
  So now, after the taxpayers have spent $30 million to work through 
this swirling cesspool of allegations, when

[[Page S2631]]

the Attorney General says he has concerns about certain aspects of this 
investigation, I agree with him. I don't know whether laws were broken 
or protocols were breached or rules were violated, but for decades, I 
have been doing oversight of the Federal Government, including of the 
Department of Justice and the FBI, and I think there is certainly 
enough there to be asking questions.
  For example, did the Obama administration improperly use the U.S. 
intelligence community to attempt to neutralize and denigrate a 
political opponent? Did the Obama administration fail to properly 
assert oversight of the Department of Justice and the FBI FISA process?
  These questions must be answered.
  It is fundamentally American to care not just about what laws the 
government enforces but also how the government enforces those laws.
  If the greatest enemy we see is the person on the other side of the 
political spectrum, then the foreign powers who seek to divide and 
weaken our Republic are going to succeed.
  Now, I have been trying to get to the bottom of all sides of this 
issue for years, and I have urged my Democratic colleagues to join me.
  I am encouraged that the Attorney General is taking a look, and I am 
encouraged that the independent Department of Justice inspector general 
has been looking at these issues as well. I have no idea what they are 
going to find.
  I know Mueller turned a blind eye to what they are investigating, 
however. The American people need answers--all the answers.
  It is not just this administration that has been dragged through the 
mud with wild collusion and obstruction theories. The American people 
have had to listen to those falsehoods now for years. Many in the media 
have been breathlessly flooding the airwaves with speculation and what-
ifs about the bogus Trump collusion narrative.
  Now that the report is out, some media figures are still struggling 
to come to terms with Mueller's findings and decisions. It is as if 
they are unhappy with the results or perhaps they are embarrassed that 
the world is learning that we have been sold a bunch of snake oil for 
the past 2 years and now they are finding out that the jig is up.
  I hope the mainstream media will pursue the origins of the Russian 
collusion investigation and do it with the same vigor as they have been 
pushing the collusion narrative for the last 2 years, and there ought 
to be some apologies from some of them. This would all go a long way to 
restoring their damaged credibility.
  So I am going to do whatever I can to make sure the people get these 
answers.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sullivan). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
cloture vote scheduled for 5:30 p.m. today commence.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________