Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today I come to the floor in opposition to the resolution to repeal regulations that help States and districts implement important provisions of the Every Student Succeeds Act. In the last Congress, Members of Congress did what seems nearly unimaginable today. We passed a bipartisan bill, the Every Student Succeeds Act, or ESSA, to fix No Child Left Behind. After 14 years, Democrats and Republicans in both Chambers came together on compromise legislation to reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). It gave States and districts flexibility to develop their own plans for holding schools accountable and encouraging improvements. At the same time, it included important Federal guardrails--including through regulatory authority--to fulfill the civil rights legacy of the original ESEA, ensuring that all students have equal access to high-quality public education. Today, we should be focusing on the implementation of ESSA and providing critical resources to students, teachers, and schools. But, instead, we are on the Senate floor debating a Congressional Review Act resolution of disapproval that would gut the regulations that help maintain the important balance that ESSA strikes between local control and making sure that States are held accountable for educating our students. After listening to teachers, parents, principals, and superintendents, the Obama Administration issued the final accountability regulation last November. Among other things, this regulation provides important information to help States draft their State plans and develop accountability systems to determine whether children are actually learning. It gives more flexibility to States to develop academic standards, to measure student achievement, and to determine intervention strategies when subgroups of students are consistently underperforming. It also lays out how States should comply with important provisions of the law, including identifying low- performing schools for improvement. Eliminating this regulation would roll back the Federal role in education that has been in place for more than 50 years. In 1965, when President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, it created an extraordinary opportunity for our Nation to make an even deeper commitment to civil rights. It ensured that all children, regardless of their ZIP Code, background, disability, or family wealth, would have a right to a quality education. Repealing this regulation would overturn 52 years of progress. We should be committing ourselves to advancing equity in education, but instead Republicans are using a political tool--the Congressional Review Act-- to remove important Federal protections for students. I believe it is a betrayal of the bipartisan framework that underpins ESSA. Striking this rule could also send States into chaos. Many States, including my home State of Illinois, have prepared their State plans to align with this regulation. Without the guidance and clarity that this regulation provides, states will not have the support they need to successfully implement ESSA. It could ultimately lead to greater liability for States and districts that are responsible for complying with the law but are left to interpret how to implement the law for themselves. If this partisan CRA effort is successful, the Education Department will not be able to promulgate new rules related to these issues. Instead of policy that is subject to the public scrutiny and review of the formal Federal rulemaking process, repealing this rule gives incredible latitude to an administration that wants to dismantle public education. When I voted for ESSA, it was with the understanding that the law allowed the Secretary of Education to promulgate rules to implement the bill's accountability provisions. Gutting these regulations swings the pendulum way too far in the direction of local control. Giving States more control with a blank check from the Federal Government is not responsible Federal policy. We should maintain critical Federal guardrails to hold States accountable for educating our children. We should uphold our vital role in protecting the civil rights of all children. Anything less says to our children that they don't matter. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against this resolution.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr President, I am proud to introduce the Fairness in Federal Disaster Declarations Act today, together with my colleague Senator Duckworth, to try to bring some transparency and fairness into FEMA's disaster declaration process. The inspiration for this bill was a tragic one. On February 29, 2012, a category F-4 tornado tore through southeastern Illinois, causing major damage in the towns of Harrisburg and Ridgway. Eight people in Harrisburg died in that event and 15 people were killed in total. Winds reached 175 miles per hour. It is not too much of a stretch to say these two small towns were almost wiped off the map. And just last week, on February 28, 2017, another tragedy struck the small towns of Ottawa and Naplate after a category F-3 tornado tore through North Central Illinois. Two people in Ottawa died in last week's storm and at least 50 homes were damaged or destroyed. Requests for Federal assistance after a disaster are made by the Governor of each State based on State emergency management damage assessments. In the case of the Harrisburg and Ridgway tornado, the Governor's request for a Federal emergency declaration for individual assistance was denied, as was the State's appeal of that decision. With that denial, individuals whose homes or properties were damaged were precluded from direct Federal help. When I asked FEMA why it denied the Governor's request, I was told that the disaster did not meet or exceed the State's per capita figure. Currently, FEMA multiplies the number of people in a State by $1.43 to determine a threshold of the amount of damage a State would incur to be considered for Federal assistance. In Illinois, that figure is more than $18 million. In other words, because Illinois is a highly populous State, it is presumed it can absorb the costs of cleanup and recovery from disasters up to more than $18 million. From 2002 to 2012, Illinois was denied Federal disaster assistance seven times. Texas was denied 13 times. Florida was denied Federal disaster assistance eight times during that period, and California, New Jersey, and New York were each denied four times. FEMA's formula does not work for large, populous States, particularly those with a concentrated urban area, like Illinois. Illinois ran into this issue again in November 2013 when tornadoes swept through the State. That time, six people were killed and whole neighborhoods were nearly destroyed. The cities of Washington, Gifford, and New Minden, Illinois, experienced some of the worst tornado damage I have ever seen. Their infrastructure was decimated, but because Illinois did not meet one of FEMA's criteria, we were denied Federal public assistance. In the case of last week's tornado in Ottawa and Naplate, Illinois, may not even be able to request federal help because damage assessments are too low to reach anything close to FEMA's per capita requirement. But for these small towns, covering losses and cleaning up damage of this magnitude can put a real strain on the community. The Fairness in Federal Disaster Declaration seeks to improve the disaster analysis by assigning a value to each of the factors FEMA must consider when determining whether Federal disaster assistance will be made available. When it comes to individual assistance--funding to help people repair and rebuild their homes--the breakdown would be as follows: Concentration of damages--the density of damage in an individual community--would be considered 20 percent of the analysis. Trauma--the loss of life and injuries and the disruption of normal community functions--would be 20 percent. Special Populations--including the age and income of the residents, the amount of home ownership, etc.--would comprise 20 percent. Voluntary agency assistance--a consideration of what the volunteer and charitable groups are providing--would make up 5 percent. The amount of Insurance coverage--20 percent. And average amount of individual assistance by State, which includes the per capita analysis, would make up 5 percent of the analysis. The bill also would add a seventh consideration to FEMA's metrics-- the economics of the area, which will receive 10 percent consideration. This includes factors such as the local assessable tax base, the median income as it compares to that of the State, and the poverty rate as it compares to that of the State. For Federal public assistance, the breakdown would be similar, with a greater emphasis placed on the localized impacts of the disaster, which would warrant 40 percent of the analysis. It is reasonable that FEMA should take into consideration the size of the State requesting assistance, but current regulations penalize large States. Assigning values to the factors will help ensure that the damage to a specific community weighs more than a State's population. Illinois is a geographically large State with a concentrated urban area. And downstate communities are being punished for it. If the cities of Ottawa and Naplate, Washington and Gifford, and Harrisburg and Ridgway cannot qualify under FEMA's current criteria for Federal assistance, something is wrong. The way FEMA evaluates whether to declare an area Federal disaster is not effective. It is working against small communities in States with large populations. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today, Senator Wicker of Mississippi and I are reintroducing the Senator Paul Simon Study Abroad Program Act. This bill, named for a mentor of mine--the late Senator from Illinois, embodies a vision Paul Simon believed in throughout his life: a vision centered on our country's need for a culturally aware, and globally knowledgeable population and workforce. Senator Simon saw these characteristics as essential to our country's economy, society, and national security. He believed that by building meaningful relationships with people around the world, America would grow even stronger as a nation. In his words, ``America's incompetence in foreign languages and cultural awareness jeopardizes our Nation's future in global affairs. This lack of global perspective damages America's ability to compete in world markets. The more our country becomes competent in foreign languages and cultures, the more enhanced our foreign policy decisions will become.'' He also believed that to truly be educated, our students needed more than a minimal understanding of the world around them. To be truly educated, they need to immerse themselves in the beliefs, customs, language, and environment of a culture other than their own. I share these beliefs with Senator Simon and many Republicans in this Chamber share them as well. At a time when there are calls from some to shut out immigrants and refugees and pull away from other parts of the world, these beliefs are more important than ever. We need to continue to give our young people the opportunity to interact with people from all over the world, so they can develop their own informed opinions and beliefs. Undergraduate study abroad programs are a popular source for this type of engagement. Unfortunately, far too few students take advantage or have the means to take advantage of this opportunity. Annually, less than 2 percent of undergraduate students participate in study abroad. Those who do study abroad don't reflect the incredible diversity of our postsecondary institutions. Minority students, first-generation college students, community college students, and students with disabilities are significantly underrepresented in the study abroad population. These students miss out on the valuable personal and educational growth that comes from a study abroad experience, including interacting with other cultures, developing foreign language skills, and expanding international knowledge through firsthand experience. We also know that those who currently study abroad do so mostly in highly developed countries. In fact, over 50 percent of students who study abroad each year do so in Europe. Increasing the diversity of study abroad destinations to include countries in Asia, the Middle East, Africa, South America, and Latin America will help American students develop a global perspective and build the insight and skills needed to better understand the global challenges of the 21st century. In 2004, Congress took the first step towards expanding study abroad when it authorized the Commission on Abraham Lincoln Study Abroad Fellowship Program to provide recommendations to Congress and the President on expanding study abroad programs. The Senator Paul Simon Study Abroad Program Act combines the vision of Senator Simon with the recommendations of the Abraham Lincoln Study Abroad Commission. It establishes a competitive grant program for institutions of higher education to encourage the sustainable expansion of study abroad opportunities for students in the United States. Over the next 10 years, this grant program aims to increase the number of undergraduate students stud g abroad each year to one million students. It also emphasizes increasing opportunities for nontraditional students, minority students, and students with disabilities so that the demographics of students who study abroad more closely reflect the population of current undergraduate students. This bill also focuses on getting students to study abroad in nontraditional destinations particularly in developing countries. We need to send more students to developing nations because these are the places that America needs to better understand. This legislation takes important steps toward expanding and diversifying participation in study abroad. Senator Wicker and I are pleased to be joined today in introducing this bill by Senators Reed, Cochran, Merkley, and Brown. I am also pleased that several organizations have endorsed this bill including the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities, the Association of International Educators, the American Council on Education, the Association of American Universities, and the Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities. In today's increasingly interconnected world, study abroad participation is an important element of a meaningful undergraduate education. Expanded access to study abroad opportunities is necessary to prepare the next generation of Americans with the global knowledge and skills needed to succeed. I hope other colleagues will join us in that effort. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr President, I am proud to introduce the Fairness in Federal Disaster Declarations Act today, together with my colleague Senator Duckworth, to try to bring some transparency and fairness into FEMA's disaster declaration process. The inspiration for this bill was a tragic one. On February 29, 2012, a category F-4 tornado tore through southeastern Illinois, causing major damage in the towns of Harrisburg and Ridgway. Eight people in Harrisburg died in that event and 15 people were killed in total. Winds reached 175 miles per hour. It is not too much of a stretch to say these two small towns were almost wiped off the map. And just last week, on February 28, 2017, another tragedy struck the small towns of Ottawa and Naplate after a category F-3 tornado tore through North Central Illinois. Two people in Ottawa died in last week's storm and at least 50 homes were damaged or destroyed. Requests for Federal assistance after a disaster are made by the Governor of each State based on State emergency management damage assessments. In the case of the Harrisburg and Ridgway tornado, the Governor's request for a Federal emergency declaration for individual assistance was denied, as was the State's appeal of that decision. With that denial, individuals whose homes or properties were damaged were precluded from direct Federal help. When I asked FEMA why it denied the Governor's request, I was told that the disaster did not meet or exceed the State's per capita figure. Currently, FEMA multiplies the number of people in a State by $1.43 to determine a threshold of the amount of damage a State would incur to be considered for Federal assistance. In Illinois, that figure is more than $18 million. In other words, because Illinois is a highly populous State, it is presumed it can absorb the costs of cleanup and recovery from disasters up to more than $18 million. From 2002 to 2012, Illinois was denied Federal disaster assistance seven times. Texas was denied 13 times. Florida was denied Federal disaster assistance eight times during that period, and California, New Jersey, and New York were each denied four times. FEMA's formula does not work for large, populous States, particularly those with a concentrated urban area, like Illinois. Illinois ran into this issue again in November 2013 when tornadoes swept through the State. That time, six people were killed and whole neighborhoods were nearly destroyed. The cities of Washington, Gifford, and New Minden, Illinois, experienced some of the worst tornado damage I have ever seen. Their infrastructure was decimated, but because Illinois did not meet one of FEMA's criteria, we were denied Federal public assistance. In the case of last week's tornado in Ottawa and Naplate, Illinois, may not even be able to request federal help because damage assessments are too low to reach anything close to FEMA's per capita requirement. But for these small towns, covering losses and cleaning up damage of this magnitude can put a real strain on the community. The Fairness in Federal Disaster Declaration seeks to improve the disaster analysis by assigning a value to each of the factors FEMA must consider when determining whether Federal disaster assistance will be made available. When it comes to individual assistance--funding to help people repair and rebuild their homes--the breakdown would be as follows: Concentration of damages--the density of damage in an individual community--would be considered 20 percent of the analysis. Trauma--the loss of life and injuries and the disruption of normal community functions--would be 20 percent. Special Populations--including the age and income of the residents, the amount of home ownership, etc.--would comprise 20 percent. Voluntary agency assistance--a consideration of what the volunteer and charitable groups are providing--would make up 5 percent. The amount of Insurance coverage--20 percent. And average amount of individual assistance by State, which includes the per capita analysis, would make up 5 percent of the analysis. The bill also would add a seventh consideration to FEMA's metrics-- the economics of the area, which will receive 10 percent consideration. This includes factors such as the local assessable tax base, the median income as it compares to that of the State, and the poverty rate as it compares to that of the State. For Federal public assistance, the breakdown would be similar, with a greater emphasis placed on the localized impacts of the disaster, which would warrant 40 percent of the analysis. It is reasonable that FEMA should take into consideration the size of the State requesting assistance, but current regulations penalize large States. Assigning values to the factors will help ensure that the damage to a specific community weighs more than a State's population. Illinois is a geographically large State with a concentrated urban area. And downstate communities are being punished for it. If the cities of Ottawa and Naplate, Washington and Gifford, and Harrisburg and Ridgway cannot qualify under FEMA's current criteria for Federal assistance, something is wrong. The way FEMA evaluates whether to declare an area Federal disaster is not effective. It is working against small communities in States with large populations. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today, Senator Wicker of Mississippi and I are reintroducing the Senator Paul Simon Study Abroad Program Act. This bill, named for a mentor of mine--the late Senator from Illinois, embodies a vision Paul Simon believed in throughout his life: a vision centered on our country's need for a culturally aware, and globally knowledgeable population and workforce. Senator Simon saw these characteristics as essential to our country's economy, society, and national security. He believed that by building meaningful relationships with people around the world, America would grow even stronger as a nation. In his words, ``America's incompetence in foreign languages and cultural awareness jeopardizes our Nation's future in global affairs. This lack of global perspective damages America's ability to compete in world markets. The more our country becomes competent in foreign languages and cultures, the more enhanced our foreign policy decisions will become.'' He also believed that to truly be educated, our students needed more than a minimal understanding of the world around them. To be truly educated, they need to immerse themselves in the beliefs, customs, language, and environment of a culture other than their own. I share these beliefs with Senator Simon and many Republicans in this Chamber share them as well. At a time when there are calls from some to shut out immigrants and refugees and pull away from other parts of the world, these beliefs are more important than ever. We need to continue to give our young people the opportunity to interact with people from all over the world, so they can develop their own informed opinions and beliefs. Undergraduate study abroad programs are a popular source for this type of engagement. Unfortunately, far too few students take advantage or have the means to take advantage of this opportunity. Annually, less than 2 percent of undergraduate students participate in study abroad. Those who do study abroad don't reflect the incredible diversity of our postsecondary institutions. Minority students, first-generation college students, community college students, and students with disabilities are significantly underrepresented in the study abroad population. These students miss out on the valuable personal and educational growth that comes from a study abroad experience, including interacting with other cultures, developing foreign language skills, and expanding international knowledge through firsthand experience. We also know that those who currently study abroad do so mostly in highly developed countries. In fact, over 50 percent of students who study abroad each year do so in Europe. Increasing the diversity of study abroad destinations to include countries in Asia, the Middle East, Africa, South America, and Latin America will help American students develop a global perspective and build the insight and skills needed to better understand the global challenges of the 21st century. In 2004, Congress took the first step towards expanding study abroad when it authorized the Commission on Abraham Lincoln Study Abroad Fellowship Program to provide recommendations to Congress and the President on expanding study abroad programs. The Senator Paul Simon Study Abroad Program Act combines the vision of Senator Simon with the recommendations of the Abraham Lincoln Study Abroad Commission. It establishes a competitive grant program for institutions of higher education to encourage the sustainable expansion of study abroad opportunities for students in the United States. Over the next 10 years, this grant program aims to increase the number of undergraduate students stud g abroad each year to one million students. It also emphasizes increasing opportunities for nontraditional students, minority students, and students with disabilities so that the demographics of students who study abroad more closely reflect the population of current undergraduate students. This bill also focuses on getting students to study abroad in nontraditional destinations particularly in developing countries. We need to send more students to developing nations because these are the places that America needs to better understand. This legislation takes important steps toward expanding and diversifying participation in study abroad. Senator Wicker and I are pleased to be joined today in introducing this bill by Senators Reed, Cochran, Merkley, and Brown. I am also pleased that several organizations have endorsed this bill including the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities, the Association of International Educators, the American Council on Education, the Association of American Universities, and the Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities. In today's increasingly interconnected world, study abroad participation is an important element of a meaningful undergraduate education. Expanded access to study abroad opportunities is necessary to prepare the next generation of Americans with the global knowledge and skills needed to succeed. I hope other colleagues will join us in that effort. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from New Jersey for his excellent statement summarizing the challenge we face. I thank my colleagues from Maryland and from Delaware as well. Yesterday, we had a hearing in the Judiciary Committee. There is an individual seeking the Deputy Attorney General spot. Of course, he is seeking this position--a key position--at a critical moment in American history. The Attorney General of the United States of America, Jeff Sessions of Alabama, announced publicly last week, on Thursday, that he was going to recuse himself from any prosecution involving the Russians and the last Presidential campaign. That is historic, and it was the right thing to do. Many of us on the Democratic side have called on him for weeks to do just that. Senator Sessions had been an active participant in the Trump campaign, and when he became Attorney General, we felt that, in the best interests of preserving the integrity of the Department of Justice, he had to step aside when it came to the investigation of Russian involvement in that campaign. Of course, in the meantime, during the course of this national debate, the National Security Advisor to the President of the United States, General Flynn, resigned after he misrepresented to the American people and to the Vice President of the United States conversations he had with the Russian Ambassador. It came to light last week that then- Senator Sessions, during the course of his confirmation hearing, gave misleading comments and answers to a question by Senator Franken, saying that he had had no contact with the Russians, either. In fact, he had. He sent a clarification letter, but yesterday's hearing was about his successor, the Deputy Attorney General, who would have the power to oversee this investigation. The gentleman who was nominated is well known to the Senator from Maryland because he served as U.S. Attorney there for a number of years--since 2005. He served under President Obama. He was initially appointed under President Bush, a rare bipartisan selection, who, by every indication, is a professional prosecutor. The disappointing moment at the hearing is when we asked Mr. Rosenstein if he had read the intelligence report that was publicly announced in January about the Russian involvement in our election campaign. It is an unclassified report. It is on the internet. It is about 15 pages long. It is as precise and conclusive as you can expect. It said quite clearly that the Russians did attempt to change the outcome of the election, that they were, in fact, working to benefit Donald Trump and against Hillary Clinton. I quickly added that this was not published by the Democratic National Committee. This was by the intelligence agencies of the U.S. Government. I was disappointed when Mr. Rosenstein said no, he had not read it. He was asked over and over again why he would not read a piece of information, a document so critical to his service as Deputy Attorney General. I will set that aside for a moment and just observe the obvious. If you believe our intelligence agencies, there is no question that Russia was trying to change the outcome of the Presidential election. They were engaged, we believe, with up to a thousand trolls in some office buildings in Moscow, invading the internet, invading emails in the United States in an attempt to glean information that they could feed back to the public through Wikileaks and other sources. Although there is no evidence to date that they had any impact on the actual casting or counting of ballots, their intent is clear. They wanted to pick Donald Trump as President. They believed he was a better choice for Russian interests than Hillary Clinton. Is that worthy of an investigation? I certainly hope so. To our knowledge, it is the first time in the history of the United States that a foreign power--and one that has been an adversary time and again to our interests around the world--tried to invade our election. It was, in fact, a day that will live in cyber infamy in terms of this Russian effort. If we ignore it, we can expect several things. Get ready for the next election. Do you think they learned anything during the course of the last one? Do you think the Russians will be involved again? It would be naive to believe otherwise. Secondly, there is a critical element here that we cannot ignore. Three weeks ago I visited Warsaw, Poland; Vilnius, Lithuania; and Kiev, Ukraine. I talked to those leaders--in a couple of instances, the Presidents of those countries, as well as opinion leaders, parliamentarians--and they continued to raise the same question to me. It came down to this: If the United States does not take seriously the invasion of Russia in your own Presidential campaign, will you take it seriously when Putin invades our country? You have told us under the NATO alliance, article 5, that you will stand by our side and protect us. If you don't take Putin seriously when he invades your own Presidential election, there is a lot of doubt. Questions are being asked. Several Republican Senators have stepped up. I want to salute them. I will start with Lindsey Graham, who yesterday, again before the Senate Foreign Operations Subcommittee on Appropriations, made it clear that he believes we have to thoroughly investigate this Russian involvement in our Presidential election. A few others have said the same. Unfortunately, the reaction by many Republican Senators has been lukewarm to cold. They don't want to spend the time to look into this. They would rather start talking about investigating leaks in the Trump administration or even the President's far-fetched tweets suggesting that somehow President Obama was engaged in a wiretap. It is something that has been denied not only by the former President but also by the former Director of National Intelligence and the head of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. To date, there is not one shred of evidence for the claim made by President Trump in his tweets in the early morning hours of Saturday. At the same time, the need for this investigation continues. You have heard cataloged in detail--and I will not repeat it--Russian aggression over the last several years. I have seen it. I have seen it throughout history, at least during my lifetime, and I have seen it more recently in Ukraine, in Georgia, and threats that go on every single day in countries in the Baltics and Poland. It is clear to them that they are fighting a hybrid war, not just the military threat, which is very real, but also cyber threats that at one point closed down the Estonian economy--a Russian cyber invasion closed it down--and propaganda threats, which are nonstop through cable television known as RT, Russia Today. They continue to broadcast false information into countries like the Baltics and try to do it with impunity. That is the reality of what we are facing. The question we face, though, as the U.S. Senate sworn to uphold this Constitution, is whether we are prepared to defend it against foreign powers that will undermine it, in this case the Russian Federation. There has been a suggestion that the intelligence committees can have an investigation of this matter. I would say that in and of itself is not objectionable, but it is certainly not complete and satisfactory. The Intelligence Committee is going meet behind closed doors. We will not see the witnesses. We will not hear their testimony. The American people may not ever hear who testified and what they had to say. Some parts of this must continue to be classified, and I understand that. But by and large, the American people have a right to know what the Russians did and how they did it so that we can make sure we defend ourselves against this in the future. The Intelligence Committees have a role, but not in its entirety. I think there should be a special prosecutor from the Department of Justice to see if any crimes have been committed. I don't know where the evidence will lead, but we should have someone we trust, a person of integrity, who will step up and assume that role and make that investigation for the Department of Justice. One other thing: I think this is of sufficient gravity that we should have an independent, transparent, bipartisan commission. My colleague, Senator Cardin of Maryland, is the sponsor of that legislation, which I am happy to cosponsor. That is the ultimate answer. Let's get to the bottom of this once and for all to make certain we know what the Russians tried to do to us and to make doubly certain that it never happens again. That is the reality of this challenge. I hope we can get bipartisan support for it. When it comes to sanctions against Russia, we have had good bipartisan support, and that is encouraging--equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans saying they should pay a price for what they did. Let's get the investigation to its conclusion. Leon Panetta is a friend of mine and served in our government at many different levels. In the Sunday talk shows, he talked about what he would recommend to the Trump administration. He said to them very simply: Get in front of this. Don't keep reacting to this. Say that if you have done nothing wrong you are going to cooperate fully with any investigation to get to the bottom of it. That is the way to deal with it. I hope we will have an end to the tweets and a beginning of the cooperation that is necessary so that we can get to the bottom of this situation and know the facts, wherever they may lead us. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, in recent weeks, we have seen an astonishing series of revelations about Russia's efforts to influence the 2016 election in support of the Donald Trump campaign. Last week, the Washington Post reported that Attorney General Jeff Sessions met with the Russian Ambassador in July and September during the campaign. Yet, during his confirmation hearing, the Attorney General said under oath: ``I did not have communications with the Russians.'' Last Thursday, the Attorney General announced he would partially recuse himself from any investigation into the Presidential campaign. I note that this was a partial recusal when it comes to investigations into Russia's influence on President Trump and his circle of advisers and associates. The scope of the recusal is still unclear. For example, Attorney General Sessions does not even appear to believe that his own meeting with the Russian Ambassador on September 8, 2016, was related to the campaign. The scope of his recusal will need to be clarified. We also continue to learn of previously undisclosed communications between the Russians and President Trump's inner circle. For example, we learned last week that Jared Kushner, President Trump's son-in-law and senior adviser, had met in December with the Russian Ambassador in Trump Tower, along with the President's National Security Advisor, Michael Flynn, who resigned on February 13. People across America are wondering when the next shoe will drop. It is becoming clear that the President is desperate to change the headlines from these Russian revelations--so desperate, in fact, that in a series of tweets on Saturday morning, President Trump claimed that President Obama had wiretapped Trump Tower in an act President Trump described as ``McCarthyism'' and ``Nixon/Watergate.'' Well, President Trump's tweets again made news but not in the way he had hoped. It quickly became clear that President Trump has no evidence to back up his claims. In fact, it appeared he got his information not from America's law enforcement or intelligence agencies but from rightwing talk radio. On Sunday, the former Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, denied the President's claims, and the Director of the FBI, James Comey, took an extraordinary step of calling on the Justice Department to publicly deny the President's claims. Even Republicans like House Oversight Committee chairman Jason Chaffetz and Trey Gowdy, chairman of the Select Committee on Benghazi, said they had not seen any evidence that would support what President Trump tweeted. Nonetheless, the President's spokespeople doubled down, saying that the President does not accept the contention of the FBI Director and he stands by his tweets. Let's be clear. President Trump is playing games with the credibility of his Presidency. Donald Trump is destroying the credibility of the Office of the President 140 characters at a time. If President Trump had consulted with his adviser--any credible adviser--prior to his tweets, he would have learned something that is crucial, and it is as follows: The President of the United States does not have the authority to order a wiretap. Instead, such a wiretap can be granted upon a finding by a court that there is probable cause to believe the target has committed a crime or is an agent of a foreign power. Clearly, there are more revelations to come. The only question: How long is it going to take? How much damage will be done to the credibility of the Office of the President and America in the process? These recent events confirm yet again the need for an independent, transparent, bipartisan commission led by Americans of unimpeachable integrity to get to the bottom of this Russian attack on the United States. Russia attacked our democracy. We need to fully understand what happened. We certainly need to prevent it from happening in the next election or ever again. This week, a USA TODAY/Suffolk University poll found that Americans, by a margin of 58 percent to 35 percent, believe an outside independent investigation is needed into Russian involvement in our election. It is worthy of note that just a few weeks ago, only 30-something percent of the American people were aware of this controversy with Russia. Now over 55 percent of people want an independent investigation. America is listening. We also need the Justice Department and the FBI to proceed with a credible, impartial investigation to determine if there may have been any criminal conduct involved. Yesterday, the President's nominee for Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein, appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee. If confirmed, Mr. Rosenstein would oversee any Justice Department investigation into the Trump administration's Russian connections after Attorney General Sessions has partially recused himself. So I pressed Mr. Rosenstein to clarify the scope of Attorney General Sessions' recusal commitment. I also asked, as did Senator Feinstein, whether Mr. Rosenstein had read the January 6 Intelligence Community assessment into Russian election interference. I cannot explain it, but in 2 months Mr. Rosenstein had not read this 15-page, unclassified report that is available on the internet. It focuses on the major issue he will face initially as Deputy Attorney General, and he told us he had not read it. Let me add that I respect Rod Rosenstein. He served as U.S. attorney in Maryland, appointed first under a Republican President and held over under a Democratic President, and that says a lot about his professionalism as a prosecutor, his reputation, and his integrity. It is hard for me to believe that he could come before a hearing, which he knew would focus on the need for a special prosecutor to look into this Russian interference, and not have been briefed to read the 15-page public report that summarizes the conclusions of all of America's intelligence agencies when it comes to this Russian interference. I am sure he is an excellent lawyer who wouldn't enter a courtroom or stand before a judge or jury without complete preparation to the best of his ability, but yesterday, time and again, he told us he didn't take the time to read this report. I urge him to do so as quickly as possible, and when he reads it, he will see that our intelligence agencies are unequivocal in their statement that Vladimir Putin was setting out to elect Donald Trump and to defeat Hillary Clinton. This is not a report from the Democratic National Committee; it is a report from our intelligence agencies. And whomever Putin was trying to help, that is secondary to the fact that he was hacking into the internet, disclosing materials, and trying to become a material player in our Presidential election. Mr. President, 3 weeks ago, I went to visit Poland, Lithuania, and Ukraine. They are watching this carefully because they have been the victims of Vladimir Putin and Russia's attempts to interfere in their elections, and now they hear the United States has been victimized by Putin, as well. One of the scholars in Poland asked me what I thought was a very clear question, and I can't answer. He said: If the United States will not take the interference of Putin in your election seriously, how can the people of Poland believe you will take your NATO commitment to protect us from Putin seriously? Important question. Valid question. There are exceptions on the Republican side of the aisle, and I would like to point out one of them. My friend, my colleague, and the chairman of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee of Appropriations, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, made an extraordinarily forthright statement yesterday about the need for an investigation into this Russian interference. Thank goodness he is stepping away from party loyalty and stepping up when it comes to defending this Nation. I salute my Republican colleague for his leadership on this issue. It is important to step back from the daily dysfunction we have when it comes to the Russian investigation and the White House and lack of governing and remember what is really at stake. Five months ago, our intelligence services disclosed evidence that a foreign adversary--one ruled by a dictatorial former Communist KGB agent--was trying to help its preferred candidate in the U.S. Presidential election. Think about that for a moment. An adversary of the United States--a country which has imprisoned millions of Europeans in the Communist system for almost half a century and which today rigs elections and silences or murders members of the media and opposition-- committed what I believe is akin to a cyber act of war against America in trying to elect someone they saw as more sympathetic to their interests. Since those early reports, we have been provided with damning evidence by our intelligence agencies on the depth and sophistication of this operation--so favorable to its nefarious goal that it had Russian intelligence operatives boastfully celebrating after the outcome of the election. We also know that members of President Trump's campaign met with those thought to be Russian intelligence; had suspiciously timed communications with the Russian Government just after the Obama administration placed sanctions on Russia; and in the case of top Trump advisers Michael Flynn and Jeff Sessions, refused to disclose those meetings, both in public and in one case to the Vice President and in another case to the Senate Judiciary Committee. No candidate would or at least should want help from a foreign dictator to help win political office in the United States. So in a situation like this, the response is obvious: Help in any way possible to clear suspicions and concerns. Go forward and serve the American people with an investigation. It seems so obvious. Leon Panetta was on one of the Sunday morning talk shows. Leon Panetta is a friend. I served with him in the House of Representatives. He was the Chief of Staff to the President of the United States, President Clinton. He served as Secretary of Defense. He headed up the Central Intelligence Agency. He is an extraordinarily gifted and well- thought-of person who has a record of public service that is enviable. He was asked about what the Trump White House should do about this allegation of Russian interference in the election and the suggestion that they might have been complicit. He said: Get out in front. The President of the United States should say: I have nothing to hide, and we will fully cooperate with an independent commission to get to the bottom of what happened in that election. But instead, what do we have? Fanciful--in fact, patently false--tweets by the President, alleging a wiretap by the former President. President Trump, if he has nothing to hide, should help us clear this up once and for all. To my Republican colleagues, so many patriots and champions of American national security, it is time for more to join Senator Graham and others to step up and speak out even on the floor of the Senate about this situation. Each one of us in the Senate swore to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against enemies foreign and domestic. Clearly, the Russian attack is a call for all of us--of both political parties--to step up. This issue is not going to go away. We are going to continue to pursue the truth. Nomination of Seema Verma and the Republican Healthcare Bill Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak about the recently released Republican healthcare repeal bill and to speak on the nomination of Seema Verma to serve as Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. CMS is an agency touching the lives of 125 million people, and 34 percent of Americans receive their health insurance under one of the three Federal programs run by that agency--Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children's Health Insurance Program. These programs are vital to the health and well-being of seniors, children, persons with disabilities, and low-income families. Yet, with those vows to repeal the Affordable Care Act, President Trump, Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price, and congressional Republicans are sadly attempting to gut the Medicaid program and to jeopardize the future of Medicare. The head of CMS should be someone who believes in these core programs and is willing to fight to preserve them. Instead, Ms. Seema Verma's record--as well as comments she made during her confirmation hearing-- indicates she is more than willing to take dramatic steps to force people to lose their health insurance or dramatically increase out-of- pocket costs. From her refusal to disavow efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act to her willingness to cut the Medicaid Program, I do not believe Ms. Verma is the right person for this job. When it comes to the Affordable Care Act, our constituents-- Republicans, Democrats, Independents--are angry and frightened about what the Trump administration and congressional Republicans might do to healthcare. Based on what has finally been released, they have good reason. In over 2 months, Republican leaders in Washington have taken numerous steps to change and even sabotage our healthcare system, jeopardizing patient access to care and throwing the system into chaos. Before President Trump took office, congressional Republicans rammed through a budget bill, laying the groundwork for a quick, silent repeal of the Affordable Care Act, despite the fact that they had no replacement. Then, on his first day in office, the President signed an Executive order to weaken the Affordable Care Act, instructing Federal agencies to stop doing their job under the law. The President then acted hastily to stop Federal outreach efforts--TV ads, radio spots, and emails intended to encourage more Americans to sign up for health insurance. I watched yesterday as the Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, said that the Affordable Care Act is collapsing. Well, I can tell you, it needs help and it should be bipartisan. Instead, the Republicans are doing everything they can to jeopardize it. Last week, the President met with big insurance companies to discuss what they want for healthcare. But where were the patients, the hospitals, the doctors, the nurses, the community health centers in these conversations? It is clear that congressional Republicans want to move full steam ahead on repealing our healthcare law. The problem has always been and still is that they can't agree on how to move forward. They don't have a plan to protect people. Some Republicans just want to repeal. Others want to repair. Others want to rebuild. They can throw out all the ``R'' words they can find in the dictionary, but at the end of the day, they don't know what they want to do. These disagreements are becoming even more obvious in the last week. For the past few months, House Republican leaders have been meeting secretly to craft a repeal bill. Well, they finally unveiled it. No wonder they wanted to keep it secret. Incidentally, this bill, which has been authored by the Republicans-- a party that claims a commitment to fiscal soundness--has not been scored by the Congressional Budget Office. We don't know, even as it is being considered by committees in the House of Representatives, whether it is going to add to the deficit or not. You would think that the party of fiscal integrity--the Republican Party--would ask that question early on. As yet, they have no answer, and they are proceeding full steam ahead. The bill, first, would end Medicaid as we know it, cutting $370 billion from the program and limiting care. Who are the beneficiaries of Medicaid? The largest group of beneficiaries are kids and mothers. The second most expensive group are seniors, many of them in nursing homes who, without Medicaid and Medicare, could not even continue in a good nursing home environment. Keep in mind that one in five Americans currently depend on Medicaid for their health insurance--65 million people nationwide. That includes 35 million children, 7 million seniors, 11 million people with disabilities. We used to say: Well, Medicaid is for poor people. Well, it certainly is for lower income Americans, but many of them are working low-income Americans who still qualify for Medicaid. My friend, who has worked in the motel-hospitality industry all of her life, in her sixties, sadly, is a part-time employee, despite her hard work. She can't afford health insurance, but she qualifies for Medicaid. She is part of the working poor, and she is one who needs this benefit. If the Republicans have their way and reduce Medicaid coverage, she could certainly lose it. In my home State of Illinois, 650,000 people have gained healthcare coverage under Medicaid, thanks to the Affordable Care Act. For her and others I have met, it is the first time in their life that these men and women--often in their sixties--for the first time in their life have health insurance. Of Illinois' 18 congressional districts, not a single one has less than 71,000 Medicaid enrollees. Nearly half of all the kids in Illinois, 1.5 million children, get their healthcare through Medicaid, and the Republican repeal bill is going to endanger that. That is so obvious that yesterday the Republican Governor of Illinois, who was careful in his words and seldom reacts, came out publicly and said that the Republican repeal bill would significantly hurt our State of Illinois. That is from a Republican Governor. Medicaid is the largest payer of long-term care for seniors in the Nation and in Illinois. It is one of our best tools, incidentally, for addressing the opioid epidemic, ensuring that those facing addiction have access to treatment. And the Republicans want to cut that. Medicaid has been a lifesaver to Illinois hospitals, especially in my part of the State, downstate Illinois. Repeal of the Medicaid expansion, as the House bill proposes, could result in the loss of up to 90,000 jobs in Illinois. The Republican repeal bill on healthcare is a jobs killer in Illinois and across this Nation. We will see hospitals cutting back on personnel in an attempt to adjust to the cutbacks in coverage and the increases in cost brought on by the Republican repeal bill. But the bill goes even further. It dramatically restructures the entire Medicaid Program. When talking about the plan for Medicaid, congressional Republicans throw around innocuous terms: per capita caps, block grants, more flexibility, modernizing. Don't be lulled in a false sense of security by these words. This Republican healthcare repeal bill would significantly cut back on Federal spending on Medicaid, shifting the cost to States, families, and individuals who are currently struggling to get by today. With less funding, States would be forced to throw people off of Medicaid, limit the types of healthcare services offered, create waiting lists, and much more. In the name of State flexibility and modernizing, it would mean that more and more people would be showing up in emergency rooms in Illinois and across the Nation with no health insurance coverage under the Republican approach. Oh, they will get care, and it will cost. They can't pay for it, and that cost will be shifted to others with health insurance. Unfortunately, Ms. Verma has significant experience in this exact type of healthcare rationing. In her role as a private healthcare consultant, she championed radical Medicaid overhauls. She supports making low-income Medicaid beneficiaries pay more money. She believes that Medicaid beneficiaries need ``more skin in the game.'' I wonder how many Medicaid recipients Ms. Verma has actually sat down and met with. The Illinois folks whom I know are the mom working two jobs, struggling to take time off from work to take her kid to the doctor, or the senior who has literally spent down all of her life savings on nursing home care and has no place else to turn. Devising plans that restrict access to care for the most vulnerable among us are not the qualifications I am looking for in the person who wants to run the agency responsible for Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP. Finally, on the House Republican repeal bill, in addition to gutting Medicaid, the bill eliminates the Prevention and Public Health Fund, which currently provides the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention $900 million, or 12 percent of their annual budget. The bill defunds Planned Parenthood. The bill allows insurers to charge older people significantly more in premiums than allowed under current law. The bill, incidentally, dramatically cuts taxes for the wealthiest people in America and increases costs for middle-income families. What is most telling, as I mentioned earlier, is that the House Republicans won't even send this bill or wait for a report from the Congressional Budget Office before proceeding. How many people will lose their health insurance under the Republican repeal plan? How will out-of-pocket expenses go up for families under the Republican repeal plan? How much responsibility and burden will be shifted to the States under the Republican repeal plan? For now, Republicans can claim ignorance because they have decided to move forward before there was a report from the Congressional Budget Office. Thank goodness some Republicans are speaking out against this terrible plan--maybe not for the same reasons I oppose it. But conservatives say it doesn't rip health insurance away from more people more quickly, and moderates worry about Medicaid--demonstrating, again, the lack of a consensus on the Republican side when it comes to the future of healthcare. We have big challenges ahead--challenges that will determine whether we have as many people in America with health insurance tomorrow as we have today and how much it will cost. I don't believe the Republican repeal bill is the right path forward, and I don't believe Seema Verma is the right person to stand up and fight for our Nation's seniors, children, and low-income families. For that reason, I will be voting against her nomination to serve as Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Shaheen of New Hampshire, I ask unanimous consent that Sonia Tarantolo, a foreign policy fellow in her office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the 115th Congress.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I want to take a few moments to acknowledge Charles Thomas, a veteran broadcast journalist and political reporter. Last week, after a career spanning four decades, Charles Thomas appeared in his final newscast at ABC 7 Chicago. Born in Webster Groves, MO, Charles grew up in the St. Louis area and graduated from the University of Missouri-Columbia School of Journalism. Shortly after graduation, Charles began his career as a radio reporter at KCMO in Kansas City. He has also worked in news stations in San Francisco and Philadelphia before becoming the ABC News bureau Midwest correspondent in St. Louis. In 1991, Charles was hired as a general assignment reporter at ABC 7 Chicago and later named to the coveted position of political reporter in 2009. Since joining ABC 7's ``Eyewitness News'' in 1991, its newscast was and remains the most watched TV news in Chicago. On Charles's 25th anniversary at the station, he said: ``I am very blessed to have worked here and like to think that my efforts have had something to do with that success.'' As an avid viewer, I am here to say it has. His unique perspective and keen ability to tell stories make him invaluable to any newsroom. Let me tell you, Charles asks the tough questions and holds us all accountable. As the politician often in the crosshairs, I can tell you I knew Charles was always prepared and ready to challenge any weak response. I speak for all of Chicago when I say Charles Thomas will be missed. For more than a quarter century, Charles has covered the biggest stories in the country--the OJ Simpson Trial, Oklahoma City bombing, Rodney King trials, Great Chicago Flood, and the election of the first African-American President, to name just a few. He truly had a front row seat to history. He even joined then-Senator Barack Obama on a trip to Africa in 2006. His remarkable career has taken him to every State in America and five continents, and he leaves with no regrets. Reflecting on his years covering national, State, and local politics, he said: ``Without a moment's hesitation, I can look back and say I had the best TV reporting job in America.'' Charles Thomas has had an amazing career. His work earned him two Emmy awards for reporting in 1983 and 1992. Although he is retiring, Charles is not done telling stories. He plans to explore digital storytelling focusing on the African-American community, celebrating positive stories often missing in local and national broadcasts--what a noble and necessary endeavor. I am heartened that Charles will remain an inspirational voice in the community. I want to congratulate Charles Thomas on his distinguished career and thank him for his outstanding service to the people of Chicago. I especially want to thank Charles's wife, Maria, and their three children for sharing so much of their husband and father with our community. I wish him and his family all the best in their next chapter.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, earlier today, President Trump signed a new Executive order that bans travel to the United States from a new list of Muslim-majority countries and bans all refugees. This new Executive order includes some cosmetic changes, but these changes do not alter the fact that President Trump's travel ban is still unconstitutional and still inconsistent with the values of this Nation. This Executive order plays directly into ISIS's argument that the United States is waging a war against a religion. The President's first travel ban was blocked by multiple Federal courts, and his latest, I hope, will face the same fate. Let's consider how we have arrived at this point. During his first full week in office, President Trump signed his first Executive order that banned Muslims and refugees. This order resulted in chaos in airports across the country. Dozens of legal immigrants were detained, not because they did anything wrong or because they were any danger to our Nation. It was solely because of where they came from. There was an Iraqi immigrant who put himself and his family in harm's way by working with American troops as an interpreter, two disabled seniors--a husband and wife--and a 5-year-old child. These were people who were the victims of President Trump's first Executive order. The order faced widespread resistance from the American people, the courts, and even from the administration itself. Acting Attorney General Sally Yates said the Justice Department could not in good conscience defend the President's Executive order. So the President fired her. Now comes this new Executive order. We know that, over time, Ms. Yates was right. She stood for principle, and when multiple Federal courts blocked that Executive order, we understood that she appreciated the law, unlike those who crafted this terrible order. Rather than repeal the Executive order or defend it in court, the Trump administration is trying to evade these legal challenges by issuing a new version but with some tweaks. The original Executive order banned travelers to the United States from seven Muslim-majority countries. The President heard the plea about this ban on Muslim travelers. He issued a new order today which does not ban travelers from seven Muslim-majority countries but from only six. This is still, nevertheless, an attack on religious freedom that risks alienating hundreds of millions of Muslims across the world. Our focus should be on people with suspected links to terrorism. The President will have no resistance from this Congress--from either side of the aisle--if he goes after actual suspects of terrorism, but this should be done regardless of the suspect's religion. This order--the new one--still blocks refugees from coming to the United States for at least 120 days, and it cuts by more than 50 percent the number of refugees who will be settled in the United States this year. Turning away innocent people who are fleeing persecution, genocide, and terror is not the American way. It will not keep us safer. Sadly, it projects an image of America to the world that is totally inconsistent with where we have been as a Nation. No matter what spin the White House puts on it, the President's new Executive order is still fatally flawed. Multiple statements from the President himself and from several of his advisers have made clear that his intention is to bar Muslims from entering the United States and to give priority to Christian refugees. This violates the Constitution's establishment clause and the equal protection clause. Tweaking the language of the ban cannot remedy the President's original unlawful intent. During the Presidential campaign, the President issued the following statement: Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on. When the President signed his original Executive order, his advisers made clear that it was intending to carry out this campaign promise. Listen to what former mayor of New York City--and one of the closest advisers to Donald Trump--Rudy Giuliani said: I'll tell you the whole history of it: When President Trump first announced it, he said ``Muslim ban.'' He called me up. He said, ``Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.'' Rudy Giuliani. Now White House Adviser Stephen Miller has made it clear that his intention is to ban Muslims, and he says: These are mostly minor, technical differences. Fundamentally, you are still going to have the same, basic policy outcome for the country. Stephen Miller. We are in the midst of the largest refugee crisis in the history of the world. More than 65 million people have been forcibly displaced from their homes. The brutal Syrian conflict--the epicenter of this crisis--has killed hundreds of thousands, injured more than a million, and displaced more than half of Syria's population. In some areas, children in this country--in the 21st century--are starving to death. The conflict has forced more than 4.7 million refugees to flee Syria. Around 70 percent of all Syrian refugees are women and children. Half of the Syrian refugee children are not in school. Millions in and outside of Syria are in urgent need of humanitarian assistance. We cannot forget the lessons of history. In 1939, the United States refused to let the SS St. Louis dock in our country, sending over 900 Jewish refugees back to Europe, where many died in concentration camps. After that tragic moral failure in the United States--after we turned our back on Jewish refugees who were fleeing Hitler--the United States examined its conscience and came up with a new program. It came up with a new approach, and it was bipartisan. Since World War II, the American people have worked to set an example for the world by accepting refugees. Listen to those who have been accepted and made a part of America-- almost 400,000 Eastern Europeans after World War II, close to 400,000 Vietnamese refugees fleeing the Vietnam war, approximately 650,000 Cuban refugees after Castro came to power. Let me note, parenthetically, that, of the four Hispanic U.S. Senators today, three can trace their roots to this Cuban migration to the United States, and their families were refugees. They sit on the floor of the Senate and represent some of our great States. Yet, with this President, he is asking them and all of us to ignore this history. We have accepted more than 150,000 refugees from the former Yugoslavia. Over 100,000 Soviet Jews, who were escaping the persecution of their religion and looking for freedom, came to the United States. Many of these refugees were fleeing regimes that were hostile to our country. Some argued that spies and other hostile elements could be hidden among them. Think about the hundreds of thousands who came from Communist- controlled Cuba into the United States. Were they subjected to extreme vetting? No. They were people who said: We have come here and are looking for freedom. We opened our doors, and they have made us a better country because of it. The United States was not frightened by the fearmongers when it came to these refugees joining us in the United States, and we shouldn't be today. Let's be clear. Refugees who come into our country this day are the most carefully vetted and investigated of all of the travelers to the United States. Before refugees are admitted to the United States, they have to pass careful, rigorous security screenings. All of that screening takes place before they even set foot in America, and Syrian refugees undergo a new layer of enhanced review before they are allowed to come to America. President Trump's own Department of Homeland Security has determined that his travel ban will not make us safer. Listen to this memo from the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Intelligence and Analysis in President Trump's administration: Country of citizenship is unlikely to be a reliable indicator of potential terrorist activity. Since the beginning of the Syrian conflict in March 2011, the foreign- born, primarily U.S.-based individuals who were inspired by a foreign terrorist organization to participate in terrorism- related activity were citizens of 26 different countries. The Trump administration believes they have found--first seven--now six countries from where they will deny terrorists access to the United States, even those who have gone through the vetting to be considered refugees. Listen to this. It is another memo from the same Department--the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Intelligence and Analysis-- under President Trump: Most foreign-born, U.S.-based violent extremists likely radicalized several years after their entry to the United States, limiting the ability of screening and vetting officials to prevent their entry because of national security concerns. The point is that it is not likely a terrorist is going to stand in line for 2 years to become a refugee to the United States and go through all of the background checks and live in a refugee camp for that purpose. Those who ended up being involved in terrorist activities were converted after their having arrived in the United States, and they included in their ranks many who were born in the United States. If we are serious--really serious--about protecting America, we should close the loopholes that make it too easy for foreign visitors and suspected terrorists to buy deadly weapons. Most people do not know, but we have not precluded--or stopped--those who are visiting the United States from buying weapons. Even if we have not checked them, there are no background checks when it comes to terrorism. We should focus on individuals who are engaged in suspicious behavior, not target entire Muslim countries or the entire refugee population. It makes no sense. Even President Trump's Department of Homeland Security says as much, but this President is determined to go forward with his Muslim ban. He is determined to build walls at our borders. He is determined to instill fear in our hearts. That is not how America works, and it is not how we will move forward. Let's not continue the cruelty and deception of blaming immigrants and refugees for our security and economic challenges. We should work together, in the spirit of post-World War II America, and set an example for the world in order to build a better America for all Americans, including new Americans--no matter the color of their skin, where their parents were born, or how they pray. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy) and the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Schatz) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the highlight of the week, of course, is President Trump's speech to the joint session of Congress, the first major public speech he has given since his inauguration. The Chamber of the House of Representatives was filled with Members of both the House and Senate, the Supreme Court Justices, the Cabinet, and many other dignitaries for the speech. It went for about 60 minutes, which is reasonable under Presidential standards. Many have gone much longer, and I listened carefully to the statement by the new President to really glean his priorities, in terms of his administration and what he hopes to see happen in this country. There were many issues that he touched on, but there was one he didn't. He didn't say a word--not one word--about the Russian intervention in our last Presidential campaign. This is not speculation. It is a reality that 17 different U.S. intelligence agencies have told us that Vladimir Putin and the Russian Government were attempting to subvert and undermine our Presidential election. To our knowledge, that has never happened at any time in the history of the United States. It is the first time a sovereign nation has tried to literally launch a cyber invasion of the United States of America to try to change the outcome of the most important electoral choice under the Constitution--the choice of President of the United States. It is a major issue. It is one President Trump cannot ignore. During the course of that speech, he never once mentioned the word ``Russia.'' He never raised this issue as to whether it was worthy of investigation. He described it as a ruse. He has dismissed it and basically has paid no attention to it whatsoever and wants the rest of America to forget it as well. That is not going to happen because the investigation about this Russian cyber invasion continues. We know the Federal Bureau of Investigation is deep into an investigation. I don't know what it will find. I don't know if they will find any complicity with anyone in the United States, anyone in the Trump campaign. It is only after we have an independent, complete, and credible investigation that we may know the facts. We also have an investigation underway by many of our intelligence agencies, which are looking at the involvement of the Russians trying to change the outcome of our election. Those investigations are underway. One element came up last night that has changed the conversation in Washington about this whole issue. Even before last night's news, we knew Attorney General Jeff Sessions needed to recuse himself from any Justice Department investigation into Russia's efforts to influence the 2016 election in support of the Trump campaign. The Department of Justice standard for recusal--that is, the removal of the Attorney General from an investigation--is pretty clear. It requires recusal by someone who has ``a personal or political relationship with any person or organization substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation.'' The Department of Justice regulations define ``political relationship'' to include service as a principal adviser to a candidate or campaign organization. Well, that certainly covers Attorney General Jeff Sessions and the Trump campaign. Attorney General Sessions was named in March 2016 as chairman of then-Candidate Trump's National Security Advisory Committee. Steve Bannon, formerly of Breitbart News and now a close adviser to the President, described Jeff Sessions to the Washington Post as follows: ``Throughout the campaign, Sessions has been the fiercest, most dedicated, and most loyal promoter in Congress of Trump's agenda, and has played a critical role as the clearinghouse for policy and philosophy to undergird the implementation of that agenda.'' Attorney General Sessions close relationship with the Trump campaign creates a compelling basis for his recusal from any investigation of Russian involvement in that campaign. So far, to this day, to this moment, Jeff Sessions has refused to recuse himself from this investigation. He refused when I asked him about it during the course of the hearing, and he has refused since he was named Attorney General. Now it is clear that his unwillingness to recuse himself is no longer tenable or acceptable or even explainable. Last night, the Washington Post reported that then-Senator Jeff Sessions spoke with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak twice during the Presidential campaign--in July at a Heritage Foundation event near the Republican National Convention and in September in a private conversation in the Senator's office. These communications came as a great surprise because until last night, Attorney General Sessions did not disclose them. During his hearing in January, in preparation to become Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, then Senator, was asked by Senator Al Franken of Minnesota: ``If there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign, what would you do?'' Jeff Sessions' answer under oath included this statement: ``I did not have communications with the Russians.'' Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont also asked Attorney General Sessions in writing: ``Have you been in contact with anyone connected to any part of the Russian government about the 2016 election, either before or after election day?'' Attorney General Sessions' response was ``No.'' It is hard to understand why Attorney General Sessions has not been more forthcoming and upfront with Congress and the American people about communications which we now know in fact did take place. If he thinks there was nothing wrong with these communications, why would he conceal them? It is deeply troubling. The reality is, the Attorney General has compromised his credibility when it comes to investigating Russia's cyber invasion of America's election. His recusal is no longer an option, it is a necessity. People say: Oh, of course, a Democratic Senator is saying that the Republican Attorney General should recuse himself. This morning, it has been reported that a number of top Republicans in Congress have called for the Attorney General's recusal, including House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy and House Oversight Chairman Jason Chaffetz. It is imperative that career Justice Department professionals be allowed to follow the facts in this investigation to discover the truth. We may need a special counsel, but these steps alone are not sufficient. I believe we need an independent, bipartisan commission, led by Americans of unimpeachable integrity, to get to the bottom and get to the facts on this attack on our democracy. I know the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is also conducting an investigation. The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, which, incidentally, is chaired by Representative Devin Nunes, who served on the executive committee of President Trump's transition team, agreed to the parameters of an investigation yesterday. The Intelligence Committees cannot, by their very nature, provide the transparency and accountability that an independent commission would bring to this issue, and the chairmen of those two committees--House and Senate--have already raised serious questions about their own impartiality by calling on the media organizations at the behest of the White House to challenge news stories on this issue. How could you possibly maintain objectivity if the elements of an investigation are compromised before the investigation even starts? I am particularly concerned that Chairman Nunes has already publicly expressed views of the outcome of his committee's investigation before it has even started. That is not a professional, honest, or credible way to approach this. We need an independent, bipartisan commission to get to the truth, and that may include taking a hard look at the Attorney General's communications with the Russians and at his refusal to disclose those communications. We also need to point out the obvious, which is that when it comes to investigating Russia's involvement in helping the Trump campaign, we have to follow the money, and that includes reviewing President Trump's tax returns, which, unlike any other Presidential candidate in modern times, he has refused to share with the American people. Yesterday, Senators Stabenow, Wyden, and a number of my colleagues sent a letter to the chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Orrin Hatch, of Utah, urging him to allow committee members to review the President's tax returns in a closed executive session. That is something the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee has the authority to do. The letter pointed out that this oversight is essential given the media reports about Russia as well as the possible unconstitutional emoluments being accepted by President Trump's vast business empire. I support this request from my colleagues. It is imperative that President Trump level with the American people about his business's foreign entanglements, especially those involving Russia. This issue is not going away. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in pursuing all of the facts about last year's Russian attack on our democracy. It was just a few weeks ago that the President's National Security Advisor, General Flynn, resigned. Do you remember why? He misrepresented to the Vice President and the American people conversations which he had had with the Russians. He ended up giving up his position as the No. 1 person in national security in the White House. Now questions have been raised about the credibility of the Attorney General--the No. 1 person in the Trump administration when it comes to the administration of justice. What is the issue? It is the same issue as with General Flynn--conversations with the Russians which were not disclosed to the American public. This is an issue that is going to continue to be in the forefront, as it should be, until we can bring the facts to the American people. The only way to reach that point is by having the Attorney General recuse himself from any investigation, appointing as a special prosecutor--or someone in that capacity--someone who is credible who can pursue this matter and then initiating an independent, bipartisan investigation by a national commission with credible chairs who have no political agenda and care enough for the United States to view this invasion by Russia as absolutely unacceptable. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, last night, I joined most of the Members of Congress to hear President Trump give his first address to a joint session. His speech lasted about 60 minutes, and I listened carefully, as did everyone in the Chamber, to the President's first remarks from that historic setting as he addressed a joint session of Congress. There were some omissions, which I found very interesting. Not once-- not one time--in the course of an hour did President Trump ever say the word ``Russia''--not one time--even though we have been told by 17 of our intelligence agencies that Russia made an overt effort to influence the outcome of the last Presidential campaign. That has never happened before in American history. A foreign country attacked the sovereignty of the United States in the election process for the highest office in the land. I think that is noteworthy. It is certainly historic. It would certainly be worth at least a mention when a President speaks to a joint session of Congress just a few months after that election. Instead, there was radio silence, mute button, crickets--nothing about Russia. What do we have in terms of congressional response to the possibility that Vladimir Putin was trying to pick our next President? We have the suggestion by the Republican leaders in the Senate and the House that this matter should be taken up by the Intelligence Committees. It sounds reasonable on its face. Having served on Intelligence Committees, I can tell you it is an awesome responsibility and assignment. I can also tell you we have some extraordinarily gifted, talented, patriotic members of those committees from both political parties in the Senate and in the House, but there is a fundamental flaw to this approach. If you went searching on Capitol Hill to find the room in which the Senate Intelligence Committee meets, you would come up empty. There is no sign on the door. It is basically kept clandestine, confidential, and secret. For 4 years, I entered that door, sat down in closed hearings, with no one from the public able to hear or even appreciate what we were doing. It is a lonely assignment-- unlike any other committee on Capitol Hill. I wonder: Is that what we want to do to explore the involvement of Vladimir Putin in our Presidential campaign--to go behind closed doors in secret and meet clandestinely? I think not. There is an aspect of this that will require some intelligence gathering, some discussion of intelligence--and certainly that would be secret--but there is much more of it that is public in nature that will never be disclosed if we rely on the Senate Intelligence Committee. It is an invisible process, and that invisible process does not serve the needs of a democracy that wants the truth--the straight talk, the answers. Secondly, the work of an Intelligence Committee ends up in a report that is classified, which means the public doesn't get to see it. We have seen some renditions of it--heavily redacted pages, where one or two words might escape being crossed out. How do you move from a classified document on Putin's involvement in our Presidential campaign to a public document the people can understand? It takes declassification. Who makes the decision on whether we declassify the information from the Intelligence Committee investigation? The White House. So, with the possibility--and I underline that word--with the possibility that some people in the President's campaign may or may not have been involved in this, the President has the last word as to the American people ever hearing the results of an Intelligence Committee report. Many of us believe this is serious, and many of us believe there should be an independent, transparent commission, just like the 9/11 Commission. Let's call on people we respect, such as GEN Colin L. Powell, Sandra Day O'Connor, a former Supreme Court Justice, and many others just like them, who could get to the bottom of this and answer the basic questions: What were the Russians up to? We hear they had 1,000 trolls sitting in offices in Moscow dreaming up ways to hack into the computers and Internet of the United States and to disclose information to try to influence the outcome of the election. It is not a new tactic from Russia. They have done it over and over again. The last couple of weeks I visited Poland, Lithuania, Ukraine. They know these tactics oh so well. Under Soviet times and since, Russia has tried to invade their space when it comes to election decisions-- overtly, covertly, through propaganda, through cyber attacks. They have done it in many countries around the world. Sadly, they are good at it. Now they have decided they can do it in the United States. They can decide who our President will be or at least try to. Are we going to take this sitting down? November 8, 2016, election day, was a day that will live in cyber infamy in the United States. The Russians invaded the U.S. election process. The President of the United States spoke to the American people last night and never mentioned one word--not a single word-- about this. How many Republican Senators and Congressmen have come to the floor? I don't know about in the House, but I can tell my colleagues I know about the Senate. None. Not one has come to the floor to even address this issue. So when President Trump ignored it last night, refused to even mention it, I wasn't surprised, but it is not going away. It is a fact. We currently have an investigation underway in our intelligence agencies. I just met with former Senator Dan Coats of Indiana. He has been designated by the President to be the DNI--the Director of National Intelligence. He made a statement publicly yesterday before a hearing in Congress that he is going to cooperate with the committees and with Congress in disclosing information they have accumulated in our intelligence agencies as to this Russian involvement in our election. We also know the Federal Bureau of Investigation is involved in this same exercise to find out exactly what happened and to disclose as much as possible and take action--prosecutorial action--if necessary. There is a problem, though. The Federal Bureau of Investigation works for the Attorney General. The Department of Justice has the power to impede or stop any FBI investigation. Our former colleague Jeff Sessions was deeply and personally involved in the Trump Presidential campaign. He should recuse himself. He has an obvious conflict of interest on this issue. For the integrity of the office and for his own personal integrity, he should step aside and appoint a special prosecutor who can follow up, if necessary, with this FBI investigation. This is a serious matter that was not addressed at all last night by the President of the United States speaking to a joint session of Congress. The Associated Press went through some of the claims that were made by the President last night, and I want to give them credit for their homework on this. It is important for the Record that some of the things the President said be explained. The President said: According to the National Academy of Sciences, our current immigration system costs American taxpayers many billions of dollars a year. The Associated Press writes: That's not exactly what the report says. It says immigrants ``contribute to government finances by paying taxes and add expenditures by consuming public service.'' The report found that while first-generation immigrants are more expensive to governments than their native-born counterparts, primarily at the state and local level, immigrants' children ``are among the strongest economic and fiscal contributors in the population.'' This second generation contributed more in taxes on a per capita basis, for example, than non-immigrants in the period, 1994-2013. The report [that the President unfortunately mischaracterized] found that the ``long-run fiscal impact'' of immigrants and their children would probably be seen as more positive ``if their role in sustaining labor force growth and contributing to innovation and entrepreneurial activity were taken into account.'' So to argue, as the President did yesterday, that the National Academy of Sciences, as he said, stated that our current immigration system costs American taxpayers many billions of dollars is, at best, incomplete and misleading. The President then went on to say during the course of his speech last night: We've saved taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars by bringing down the price of the F-35 jet fighter. I remember when he said that. The Associated Press says as follows: The cost savings he persists in bragging about were secured in full or large part before he became President. He has taken credit for something he didn't do. According to the AP: The head of the Air Force program announced significant price reductions in the contract for the Lockheed F-35 fighter on December 19--after [candidate] Trump, [President- Elect Trump] had tweeted about the cost but weeks before he met with the company's CEO. The AP goes on: Pentagon managers took action even before the election to save [this] money. . . . Richard Aboulafia, an analyst with the aerospace consulting firm Teal Group, said there is no evidence of any additional cost savings as a result of President Trump's actions. Here is another statement made by the President last night: We will provide massive tax relief for the middle class. I remember that one. That is something I hope we all can aspire to, but let me tell my colleagues what the Associated Press says about that claim. Trump has provided little detail on how this would happen. Independent analyses of his campaign tax proposals found that most of the benefits would flow to the wealthiest families. The richest 1 percent would see an average tax cut of nearly $215,000 a year, while the middle one-fifth of the population would get a tax cut of just $1,010, according to the Tax Policy Center, a joint project with the Brookings Institution and Urban Institute. Here is another statement the President made last night: Ninety-four million Americans are out of the labor force. The Associated Press says: That's true, but for the vast majority of them, it's because they choose to be. That 94 million figure includes everyone aged 16 and older who doesn't have a job and isn't looking for one. So it includes retirees, parents who are staying home to raise children, high school and college students who are studying rather than working. They are unlikely to work regardless of the state of the economy. With the huge baby boomer generation reaching retirement age many of them retiring, the population of those out of the labor force is increasing and will continue to do so, most economists forecast. It's true that some of those out of the workforce are of working age and have given up looking for work. But that number is probably a small fraction of the 94 million President Trump cited. Another statement the President made: He said his budget plan will offer ``one of the largest increases in national defense spending in American history.'' I will not dwell on this other than to say that the absolute number-- a $54 billion increase, or about 10 percent, is the largest single number. On a percentage basis, there have been larger increases in previous years, like 2002, 2003, and 2008. Here is another claim made by the President last night: Since my election, Ford, Fiat-Chrysler, General Motors, Sprint, Softbank, Lockheed, Intel, Walmart, and many others have announced they will invest billions of dollars in the United States and will create tens of thousands of new American jobs. The Associated Press reports that ``many of the announcements reflect corporate decisions that predate [Trump's Presidential] election,'' making it unlikely his administration ``is the sole or even primary reason for the expected hiring. . . . In the case of Intel, construction of the Chandler, Arizona, factory referred to by Trump actually began during Barack Obama's presidency. The project was delayed by insufficient demand for Intel's high-powered computer chips, but the company now expects to finish the factory within four years because it anticipates business growth. Another statement made by President Trump last night in his speech: We will stop the drugs from pouring into our country and poisoning our youth, and we will expand treatment for those who have become so badly addicted. The facts: Addicts and mentally ill people who gain access to treatment programs for the first time as a result of ObamaCare--the Affordable Care Act--are worried about repeal that President Trump has called for. Repeal could end coverage for 1.8 million people who have undergone addiction or mental health treatment, cut $5.5 billion on spending on such services according to estimates by economist Richard Frank, a former administration official under Barack Obama, now with the Harvard Medical School. The AP goes on to say: The key question is what will happen to Medicaid as a result of changes Republicans are pursuing? Broadly speaking, Republicans want to transform the health insurance program for low-income people from an open-ended Federal entitlement to a system that provides States with a limited amount of financing and gives them latitude on how to spend it. The AP goes on to say: If Congress is too stingy with State allotments, States would be hampered dealing with the emergencies like the opioid epidemic. The next statement by President Trump last night: According to data provided by the Department of Justice, the vast majority of individuals convicted for terrorism- related offenses since 9/11 came here from outside of our country. We have seen the attacks at home, from Boston to San Bernardino to the Pentagon, and yes, even the World Trade Center. The Associated Press responds: It's unclear what Justice Department data the President is citing. The most recent government information that has come out doesn't back up his claim. Just over half the people President Trump talks about were actually born in the United States, according to Homeland Security Department research. That report said of 82 people the government determined were inspired by foreign terrorist groups to attempt to carry out an attack on the U.S., just over half [of them] were [born in the United States] native-born citizens. The AP goes on to say: Even the attacks Trump singled out weren't entirely the work of foreigners. Syed Rizwan Farook, who along with his Pakistani wife killed 14 people in the deadly 2015 attack in San Bernardino, California, was born in Chicago. It's true that in the immediate aftermath of September 11, the FBI's primary concern was with terrorists from overseas feared to be plotting attacks in the United States. But that's no longer the case. The FBI and Justice Department have been preoccupied with violent extremists from inside the U.S. who are inspired by the calls to violence and mayhem of the Islamic State group. The Justice Department has prosecuted scores of Islamic State-related cases since 2014, and many of the defendants are U.S. citizens. Another statement by President Trump last night: ObamaCare is collapsing . . . imploding Obamacare disaster. The AP writes: There are problems with the 2010 health care law, but whether it's collapsing is hotly disputed. One of the two major components of the Affordable Care Act has been a spike in premiums and a drop in participation from insurers. But the other component, equally important, seems to be working fairly well, even if its costs are a concern. Trump and congressional Republicans want to repeal the whole thing, which risks leaving millions of people uninsured if the replacement plan has shortcomings. Some critics say GOP rhetoric itself is making things worse by creating uncertainty about the future. The health law offers subsidized private health insurance along with a state option to expand Medicaid for low-income people. Together, the two arms of the program reach more than 20 million people. Republican governors whose states have expanded Medicaid are trying to find a way to persuade Congress and the administration to keep this expansion, and maybe even build on it, while imposing limits on the long-term costs of Medicaid. While the Medicaid expansion seems to be working, the markets for subsidized health insurance are stressed in many states. Also affected are millions of people who buy individual policies outside the government markets, and face the same high premiums with no financial help from the health law. Larry Levitt of the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation says ``implosion'' is too strong a term. An AP count found that 12.2 million people signed up for this year, despite the Trump administration's threats to repeal the law. I might add, that it is despite all of the speeches made on the floor of the Senate and the House, promising that it would be repealed as well. The last point I want to make is this. I was troubled last night by a recurring theme in the President's speech. It was a theme about immigration in the United States. We are a nation of immigrants. My mother was an immigrant to this country. I am proud to serve as a Senator from the State where she and her family settled. I am proud of the struggle they went through--coming to this country, not knowing the language, going through some pretty rough times, facing poverty, taking the dirtiest and toughest jobs. Because of that, the second generation of my family--the one I represent--has brought some great people to this world in our own families and perhaps even added to the benefits of the United States for others. Last night, if you listened to the characterization of immigrants, it was negative, virtually from start to finish. In the audience last night, I had a young lady as my guest. She is an extraordinary lady. Her name is Aaima Sayed. She is Pakistani, and she was brought to the United States at the age of 3 by her parents from Pakistan. They settled in Chicago and eventually moved to New Jersey. It turns out the family had its difficulties and the mother and father split and separated. When the father left, he left behind his paperwork--which was in place or at least in the process--of trying to legalize the presence of his family, and nothing was done. It wasn't until she was in high school that this young lady realized that she was undocumented. That creates obstacles for any young person. In her case, a special obstacle was the cost of higher education. As an undocumented child in America, she didn't qualify for government assistance--Federal Government assistance--and limited State assistance. Yet she aspired to go on to school and to borrow the money, if necessary, at high interest rates from private sources in order to finish her education. She graduated from Rutgers University magna cum laude and then wanted to go to medical school. There weren't many medical schools accepting undocumented students, but there was one. I am proud to tell you that it was Loyola University of Chicago, the Stritch School of Medicine. There were about 65 undocumented young people in medical school in the United States, and 30 of them were at Loyola in Chicago. I have met most of them. Each and every one of them is more inspiring than the next. They opened up the competition. They didn't give them slots to fill. They said: Compete with everyone. These students were so outstanding from across the United States that they made it to Loyola. This young lady, in her third year, faces another 6 years of education before she completes her medical degree. When she is finished with those 6 years, it isn't over. In Illinois, we told her she could go to school, but it was part of a contract. She could attend school, and we would reduce the interest payments at a later part in her life if she gave us 1 year of service in an underserved community in Illinois for each year of medical school. She has 6 years of school left and 4 years of serving in a rural community or an underserved neighborhood clinic in the city of Chicago or nearby. She signed up for it. She is an amazing young person. She is determined to get this medical degree--despite the debt, despite the obstacles. The only reason she can do this is because she is protected by something called DACA. Let me explain. Some 16 years ago, I introduced a bill called the DREAM Act. It said that if you were brought to the United States, like she was, under the age of 16, you had a good life, no criminal record or history of a problematic nature, and completed your education, you can stay in the United States and eventually work your way toward legalization. President Obama took it up and created an Executive order called DACA and said to the young people in that situation: Come and apply, pay a $600 filing fee, then go through a criminal background check, and if you make it, we will give you 2 years to live in the United States without fear of deportation, with a work permit. She signed up. That is how she can go to medical school. You need to work to go to medical school. She is going through a clinical experience where she is actually working in these hospitals. Without a work permit, she wouldn't be able to complete medical school. The obvious question is this: What is going to happen to this program under President Trump? In fairness, the President has said positive things about DACA and DREAMers. I thanked him personally. I have only met him three times, but I thanked him personally twice for doing that. I hope that it means that ultimately there will be some path for the 750,000 young people, just like her, who are simply asking for a chance to be educated and be part of America's future. I hope that, as people who listened to the speech last night think about immigrants to the United States, they will think about this young woman, as well, who has worked so hard her entire life to better herself and to be able to help others at a later point in life. She is an extraordinary person, and there are so many more just like her. They are immigrants to this country. In this case it is Muslim immigrant to this country who someday will be an exceptional doctor, who is going to give 4 years of her life back to my home State and then is going to help others all across the United States. That, to me, is an image of immigrants that shouldn't be lost with the negative connotations that were raised last night. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the sesquicentennial anniversary of the founding of the University of Illinois, a nationally recognized institution of higher education with a long record of innovation and discovery and the home of the Fighting Illini. In 1867, 150 years ago, my home State of Illinois established the University of Illinois with the purpose of fostering access to higher education for the working people. It would become one of 37 public, land-grant institutions established as a result of the Morrill Land- Grant Colleges Act signed into law by President Abraham Lincoln. Over the past 150 years, the University of Illinois and those associated with it have been responsible for pushing the boundaries of human knowledge, scientific discovery, social justice, and equality. In 1941, David Blackwell, the son of a railroad worker from southern Illinois, received his Ph.D. in mathematics from the University of Illinois. In 1965, Dr. Blackwell became the first African American elected to the National Academy of Sciences, whose members advise the President and Congress on matters related to science and technology. Dr. Blackwell is regarded as the most famous African-American mathematician in history. In 1948, the University of Illinois became, and remains to this day, the most accessible campus in the world for individuals with disabilities. Timothy Nugent founded the first comprehensive program of higher education for individuals with disabilities at the University and helped create a campus that allowed individuals with disabilities to move about freely and independently. While the availability of buses with wheelchair lifts, accessible street curbs, and comprehensive collegiate programs for those with disabilities all have become the national standard, they started at the University of Illinois. The University of Illinois has long been a leader in groundbreaking research and innovation in science. In the early 1970s, Paul Lauterbur discovered magnetic resonance imaging--better known by its initials: MRI. For his pioneering work, he was awarded a Nobel Prize in 2003. Today the university is one of the premier public research universities in the world. It ranks in the top 50 universities in America for research and development dollars spent in science and engineering. It is also home to one of the world's most powerful supercomputers, known as Blue Waters. Blue Waters is the fastest supercomputer located on a college campus in the world. What began 150 years ago as a small building on the Illinois prairie between the Illinois Central train station in Champaign and the courthouse in Urbana is today a 785-acre campus with a reputation admired around the world. It is home to more than 44,000 students from all 50 States and more than 100 different countries each year. The University of Illinois has enhanced the lives of over 450,000 living alumni and produced 23 Nobel Laureates and 22 Pulitzer Prize winners in the process. In addition, the university has grown to include campuses in Chicago and Springfield and regional campuses in Rockford, Peoria, and the Quad Cities. It is with great pride that I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the sesquicentennial anniversary of the founding of the University of Illinois. I offer my best wishes and congratulations to President Timothy Killeen and all the University faculty, staff, students, and alumni on this important milestone.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to address the nomination of Congressman Ryan Zinke to lead the Department of Interior. As Secretary of Interior, Representative Zinke will be the steward of our Nation's precious public lands, national parks, tribal lands, and historical and cultural resources. These lands not only play an important role in preserving habitat, landscapes, and history, they also create jobs and invigorate nearby communities. During his confirmation hearing, I was excited to hear Congressman Zinke refer to himself as a Teddy Roosevelt conservationist. We all know the important role Teddy Roosevelt played in protecting our natural resources. During his Presidency, Roosevelt established 230 million acres of public lands. In 1901, he created the U.S. Forest Service and established 150 national forests. In 1906, he signed into law the Antiquities Act, legislation that allowed either the President or Congress to set aside ``historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest'' in order to stop their destruction. With this act, he designated 18 national monuments, including several iconic areas. A modern version of Teddy Roosevelt would be a wonderful selection to head the Department of Interior. But, after closely examining Representative Zinke's record, he doesn't appear to be a Teddy Roosevelt conservationist. Last Congress, Representative Zinke voted in favor of an amendment to the House Interior appropriations bill that would have rolled back the authority of the President to use the Antiquities Act in seven Western States. He also supported a bill that would have effectively eliminated public review of hardrock mining activities on Federal lands. And he supported the Keystone XL pipeline. Conservationist groups seem to have similar concerns about Congressman Zinke's record. The League of Conservation Voters gave him a 3 percent rating for 2015 and a 5 percent rating for 2016--hardly what you would expect from a Teddy Roosevelt conservationist. This troubles me, as Representative Zinke, if confirmed, would be responsible for managing new monuments of great importance--namely, the Pullman National Monument and the Bears Ears National Monument. The Pullman National Monument was designated by President Obama in 2015 in a Chicago neighborhood that has played a significant role in our country's African-American and labor history. It represents the culmination of a collaborative effort by businesses, residents, and other organizations seeking to restore and preserve this unique community. The Pullman neighborhood was originally developed a century ago by rail car magnate George Pullman as a factory town that would help shape our country as we know it today. It was the birthplace of the Nation's first Black labor union, the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters, which is credited with helping to create the African-American middle class and making crucial civil rights advancements in this county. Pullman workers also fought for fair labor conditions in the late 19th century. During the economic depression of the 1890s, the Pullman community was the catalyst for the first industry-wide strike in the United States, which eventually led to the creation of Labor Day as a national holiday. The Pullman National Monument not only highlights stories from communities that are rarely represented in other national parks, but its location on Chicago's South Side--easily accessible to millions of people by public transportation--also makes it particularly unique. Following its designation, the Pullman neighborhood joined the National Mall and the Statue of Liberty as one of the few DOI-managed lands in an urban area. But Pullman now needs an Interior Secretary who is committed to dedicating resources that will ensure the monument is a driver of tourism and job creation in the community. Public lands have certainly been a great economic driver in Utah, and the Bear Ears National Monument will no doubt build on this success. The 1.35 million acre swath of land, declared a national monument by President Obama, covers forested mesas to redrock canyons and will protect the region's abundant cultural resources, which include well- preserved cliff dwellings, rock and art panels, artifacts, and Native American burials. Bears Ears is special, as it is the first monument of its kind to be proposed and advocated for by a united coalition of five tribes, who sought its protection because of its important place in all of their respective cultures. Congressman Zinke is well aware of the monument and has said his first priority as Secretary would be to go to Utah and make a recommendation regarding the status of the Bears Ears National Monument. While this monument designation has been met with opposition from Utah politicians, the attacks on the Bears Ears Monument do not reflect the views of all Utahans. Recently, Utah's paper of record, the Salt Lake Tribune, called the political fervor a ``blindness.'' ``That blindness can be sourced to Utah's one-party political system that has given us leaders who are out of touch with their constituents.'' It continues, ``The Bears Ears monument may be with us forever, and there is no bucket of gold waiting if it does go away. The presidential proclamation bent far toward the same boundaries and shared management [Utah Rep. Rob] Bishop pursued with his Public Lands Initiative.'' Sadly, attacks on monument designations are nothing new. One of our greatest conservation Presidents, Teddy Roosevelt, faced a great deal of opposition to his designation of a national monument you may be familiar with, the Grand Canyon. Most Americans can't imagine an America without the iconic Grand Canyon, a true national treasure. But, at the time of its 1908 designation, groups were opposed to protecting this area. For years after its designation, oil and gas miners fought against additional protections for the Grand Canyon. In the end, conservationists won out, and by 1919, the Grand Canyon was made into a national park to be protected for future generations. Roosevelt said, ``It is also vandalism wantonly to destroy or to permit the destruction of what is beautiful in nature, whether it be a cliff, a forest, or a species of mammal or bird. Here in the United States we turn our rivers and streams into sewers and dumping-grounds, we pollute the air, we destroy forests, and exterminate fishes, birds and mammals--not to speak of vulgarizing charming landscapes with hideous advertisements. But at last it looks as if our people were awakening'' Since Roosevelt's time, we have made a lot of progress in protecting our lands and waters, but still have a long way to go. That is why the next Interior Secretary needs to take a step forward in protecting more of our public lands, not backwards. Therefore, I have no choice but to oppose Congressman Zinke.

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

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it has now been almost 5 months since our intelligence community first detailed how Russia launched a cyber act of war on America and our last Presidential election--5 months. In those 5 months, how many times have my Republican colleagues come to the floor of the Senate to discuss this national security threat, this cyber attack by Russia? How many times has the party of Ronald Reagan-- who so clearly understood the threat of the Soviet Union--spoken on the Senate floor about this Russian cyber attack on America? Zero. That is right--zero. They have found more than 35 occasions to talk about stripping health care from millions of Americans, and they made time to urgently rush votes dismantling environmental and anticorruption regulation, but to talk about how a former KGB official launched a cyber act of war against America aimed at eroding trust in our historic democracy and electing the candidate seen as more sympathetic to Russia--zero. Not once. Why would Russian dictator Vladimir Putin favor President Trump in the last election? Well, I just returned from a week visiting our allies in Eastern Europe. I can tell you, they are puzzled by this, too, and they are worried. They are worried that Donald Trump, the new President, is already advancing and will further advance policies sympathetic to Vladimir Putin's dangerous agenda, specifically weakening the Western transatlantic democratic alliance. Regardless of the partisan leanings of who was in government in the nations I just visited--populist, social democrat, conservative, liberal--the concerns in each of these nations of Poland, Lithuania, and Ukraine were the same. Is the United States' history of championing democracy and collective security in Europe ending? Are we backing away from those values and commitments just as Russia is more aggressively challenging them? Is the American President really using phrases like ``enemy of the people'' to describe the free press in America? You see, the countries that I visited were once in the Eastern bloc, Warsaw Pact, or Soviet Union. They are familiar with that term, ``enemy of the people.'' That was a term used by Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin that was so ominous that the Soviet Premier, Nikita Khrushchev, later demanded that the Communist Party stop using it because it eliminated the possibility of any kind of ideological fight. Think of that. Here was Khrushchev saying: Stop using the Stalin term ``enemy of the people''; it is too divisive. Now it is being used to describe the media, a description that has been offered by the new President of the United States. Are the Trump administration's bizarre blinders to Vladimir Putin's aggression and true nature--and the silence of too many of his colleagues on this danger--a harbinger of some kind of Western retreat when it comes to Russian aggression? It is hard to believe this is happening in 2017. President Trump has called NATO obsolete. That is a stark and completely wrong statement, so bad that it required the Vice President of the United States to travel to Munich, Germany, last week and reassure our allies who have been part of our alliance since World War II that NATO was not obsolete. When has it happened in history that the President of the United States would make such a sweeping, erroneous, dangerous statement about the most important alliance in the world and then send his Vice President out on a repair job? The President has surrounded himself with people like Steve Bannon, who reportedly once called himself a Leninist and seems bizarrely sympathetic to Putin's dictatorial model and weakening the European alliance. It turns out that the just-resigned National Security Advisor, LTG Michael Flynn, the one who was fired by the previous administration, the one who led chants unworthy of a great democracy about locking up Hillary Clinton, was, in fact, speaking to Russian officials before he or Donald Trump had taken office and, suspiciously, just after President Obama imposed sanctions on Russia for its attack on our election. President Trump still refuses to release his tax returns to clarify what his son said in 2008 regarding Trump's businesses seeing ``a lot of money pouring in from Russia.'' President Trump even said yesterday: ``I haven't called Russia in 10 years.'' That is hard to verify. He spoke to Vladimir Putin on the telephone just a month ago, which was followed, incidentally, a day later by renewed fighting by the Russian- backed separatists in Ukraine. President Trump visited Russia in 2013. He tweeted at the time: ``I just got back from Russia--learned lots & lots.'' Clearly, he did not learn enough about Vladimir Putin. As if that were not enough, this President still refuses to acknowledge Russia's attack or to criticize Vladimir Putin. You see, the President of the United States has trouble, a real habit of lashing out at everyone and anyone involved in a perceived slight, a dangerous and unbecoming behavior when granted the privilege to be President of this great Nation. In fact, the vast number and range of those attacked or insulted via Twitter is so significant that I need considerably more time here on the floor of the Senate to list all of the targets of President Trump's attacks on Twitter. So if you make any criticism or joke about President Trump, make any perceived slight, run a department store, lead a labor union, do just about anything, you may be a victim of one of his Twitter attacks, except, of course, if you happen to be a former Communist KGB official who now leads Russia, a nation that recently attacked our election. How is it possible? How is it sensible? How is this not an abdication of the President's responsibilities? Russian President Putin launched a cyber attack and war on the United States and its democracy. November 8, 2016, is a day that will live in cyber infamy because of this Russian attack on the United States of America. President Putin interfered in our election and tried to influence the selection of the American people in choosing their leader. The evidence is overwhelming. It has been available in increasing amounts for almost 5 months. The White House is silent, in denial. Republican Senators are largely silent, and not one of them has come to the Senate floor to even address this issue. Meanwhile, Vladimir Putin continues his aggressive military cyber disinformation campaign throughout Europe. Just last week, the Washington Post reported that the White House led an effort to discredit news stories that described contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian Government officials. The House Intelligence Committee chairman, Congressman Nunes of California, a Republican, went so far as to dismiss these claims of Russian interference in the campaign for the President of the United States and to condemn the leaks that have brought this information to the attention of the American people. Rather than doing their part to ensure an impartial, independent investigation of these chilling facts, the White House has tried to spin it out of existence. In fact, yesterday, it was reported that the White House Press Secretary asked CIA Director Michael Pompeo and the chairmen of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees to help discredit news articles about the Trump campaign aides' contacts with Russian officials. John Brennan, who was head of the Central Intelligence Agency under President Obama, was asked in an interview last night if he could imagine being contacted by the White House and asked to spin a story one way or the other. He said it was unthinkable. It just wasn't done under previous administrations. Here we are, not even 6 weeks into this Presidency, and it is already happening. Can anyone here--anyone--imagine what would happen if the situation had been reversed? I can just imagine the howls of ``treason'' and ``impeachment.'' Not a single nominee would be confirmed until there were answers and accountability if this had happened and there was an effort by the Russians to influence an election in favor of the Democrats. What has happened to my friends on the other side of the aisle? When will they put the country that they are sworn to represent and to uphold above any partisan consideration? A Polish expert who I ran into during my journey summed all this up wisely when he said: If the United States does not respond to the Russian attack on its own election, Putin will feel he has a free hand to keep taking destabilizing actions in the West. There was a time in Washington when national security issues were bipartisan. Politics used to stop at the water's edge. The security of the Nation meant putting aside partisan agendas to face a common threat. It is time to return to that tradition. We need an independent, transparent investigation of this Russian involvement in our Presidential election. We know the voters list in my home State of Illinois was hacked. We know that some 17 different intelligence agencies have told us unequivocally that Russia did everything in its power to try to change the outcome of this last election. We are told that there could have been up to 1,000 Russian trolls sitting in headquarters in Moscow, trying to hack into the computers of people in the United States to influence the outcome of this election. We know that, coincidentally, some 2 hours after a very controversial, negative story came out against Donald Trump, the Russians released information that they had hacked from the campaign of Hillary Clinton. Two hours. A coincidence? Not likely. There is a lot of information that needs to be followed up on. No conclusions can be reached until there is a thorough, independent, credible investigation. I worry about using the Intelligence Committees for this purpose. These committees and their activities are important, critical, but they are largely invisible and their deliberations are interminable. We are waiting, hoping that they will come up with information to help us spare the United States from a future attack by Russia or any other country on the sovereignty of our Nation. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to recognize my constituents, Brian and Joanne Leber, of Leber Jeweler Inc. in Chicago, IL. A third-generation, family-owned business first established in 1921, Brian and his wife, Joanne, are dedicated to socially conscious and eco-friendly fine jewelry. Leber Jeweler Inc. has been instrumental in not only serving as a model for responsible and ethical sourcing in the jewelry industry, but Brian and Joanne also have a deep history of activism and philanthropy, advocating for important policies that support human rights. In 1999, Brian and Joanne developed and launched Earthwise Jewelry. Leber Jeweler Inc. was the first company in the United States to use conflict-free Canadian diamonds, and the landmark collection also utilizes fairly traded gemstones and recycled precious metals, all sourced, mined, designed, and produced with concerns for both the environment and fair-labor standards. Brian and Joanne also have been notable advocates for laws related to the responsible sourcing of precious stones and metals, including of rubies and jadeite from Burma and gold and tungsten from the Democratic Republic of Congo. In 2007, Brian testified before Congress in support of the Tom Lantos Block Burmese JADE Act, and in 2009, he advocated for the suspension of Zimbabwe from the Kimberley Process for its human rights abuses in the Marange diamond fields. Then, in 2010, Brian supported efforts to pass bipartisan legislation that would create a mechanism to enhance transparency in the sourcing of conflict minerals and help American consumers and investors make informed decisions. I have had the privilege of traveling to the Democratic Republic of Congo twice, in 2005 and 2010. It is a nation of breathtaking natural beauty, but like too many others, it has suffered from the paradox of the resource curse. Despite being rich in natural resources that should seemingly promote growth and development, the Democratic Republic of Congo has faced decades of weak governance, poverty, and incomprehensible violence. And fueling much of the violence, at least in part, has been the contest for control of these resources and their trading routes. Sadly, this violence had coined a dubious distinction for eastern Congo, known as the Rape Capital of the World. I have seen firsthand the efforts of people like Dr. Jo Lusi and Dr. Denis Mukwege, who founded the HEAL Africa Hospital and the Panzi Hospital, respectively, restoring health and dignity to the survivors of sexual violence. When I chaired the first-ever hearing in the U.S. Senate about the uses of rape as a weapon of war in 2008, Dr. Mukwege stressed the importance of not just treating the consequences of sexual violence in the Congo, but addressing the root causes. Most people probably don't realize that the products we use and wear every day, from automobiles to our cell phones and even our wedding rings, may use one of these minerals and that there is a very real possibility it was mined using forced labor from an area of great violence. In 2009, I joined with then-Senators Brownback and Feingold-- a Republican and a Democrat--along with then-Congressman Jim McDermott, to pass bipartisan legislation that would help stem the flow of proceeds from illegally mined minerals to those perpetuating such violence. For the first time, companies registered in the United States were required to report in U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, disclosures any usage in their products of a small list of key minerals from the Congo or neighboring countries. Companies also had to include information showing steps taken, if any, to ensure the minerals are legitimately mined and sourced and that, by responsibly sourcing these minerals, they are not contributing to the region's violence. It wasn't a ban, but a transparency measure aimed at giving consumers choice and fostering a cleaner supply chain. It took time for the SEC to thoughtfully craft the rule for this simple and reasonable law, and disappointingly, as is increasingly too often the case with the rulemaking process, some tried to gut the law in court, but its core provisions have been repeatedly upheld. A look since then at the filings submitted to the SEC indicates that some companies had already been leaders on this for years--Apple Inc., Intel Corporation, Motorola, Inc., KEMET Corporation, just to name a few. Leber Jeweler Inc. has been a trailblazer in its own right from the start as well. It has been 7 years since passage, and we are seeing this law make a difference. According to the nongovernmental organization the Enough Project, an expert on the issue, more than 70 percent of the world's smelters and refiners for tin, tungsten, tantalum, or gold have now passed third-party conflict-free audits. In addition, the International Peace Information Service found that, as of 2016, more than three- quarters of tin, tantalum, and tungsten miners in eastern Congo are working in mines where no armed group involvement has been reported. There is new concern today that the President may sign an Executive order suspending this simple reporting requirement; and yet many companies have come out in support of its continuation, including Brain and Joanne of Leber Jeweler Inc. I am grateful to Brian and Joanne, for their support and advocacy on this important cause. They and others like them in the industry have been stalwart advocates for the responsible sourcing of minerals, and I look forward to continuing to work with them on ways to stem the horrific violence in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. DURBIN. I thank my colleague from the State of Vermont and, for many years, my fellow colleague on the Senate Judiciary Committee for his statement. I couldn't agree with him more that we need an independent, transparent investigation of this Russian invasion into the body politic of America in an effort to subvert our sovereignty. It was made by a country that is not our friend and was made at a time when they were trying to influence the outcome of an election. I just want to note to my colleague and friend from Vermont that during the break I visited Poland, Lithuania, and Ukraine. It was interesting. In Poland, they put up with the notion of Putin's interference on a daily basis. The most frightening prospect, of course, is the movement of military forces, which we hope never occurs, but they look at it as a very real threat. They have what they call the hybrid war. They said it isn't just the military; it is also his cyber attacks on our country, and it is also his propaganda on our country. One of the Polish leaders asked me a question: We have been wondering, Senator, if the United States is not willing to confront Russia with its invasion of your sovereignty in your Presidential election, would you be willing to stand up for your NATO allies if there is an effort of aggression by Putin? Would you be willing to stand up against Russia in those times? I think that is a legitimate issue. If we don't take what the Senator has raised very seriously about putting independence in the investigation of this matter, and we don't do it with dispatch, shame on us. But it is also going to say to the world that we did not respond in a positive and forceful way when it came to this aggression against the United States.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, let me start by commending my colleague from Kansas. It is an honor to join him in this Senate Hunger Caucus effort. He does it in the tradition of Senator Bob Dole of Kansas. Along with George McGovern, they were two of the most unlikely political allies. They really dedicated a large part of their public lives to fighting hunger. I am happy to join him in the memory of Paul Simon, who did the same for the State of Illinois. So I am looking forward to joining the Senator in this effort. I hope the Senator doesn't have to suffer another midlife crisis in the future. Let's continue this in a good bipartisan spirit. I thank the Senator from Kansas. Mr. President, I have come to the floor repeatedly in recent months to raise concerns about the Russian cyber act of war against our Nation, about Russia's aggression elsewhere against the West, this President's disturbing alliance with Russia, and the majority party's incredible silence on the Senate floor on these matters. Well, I just spent several days visiting our allies in Eastern Europe--notably Poland, Lithuania, and Ukraine--and return even more concerned. You see, regardless of the partisan leanings of who is in government in these nations, the concern is the same. Is the United States, history's champion of democracy and collective security in Europe, backing away from these values and commitments just as Russia is more aggressively challenging them? Is the American President really using phrases like ``enemy of the people'' to describe a free press--a term used by Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin, that was so ominous that Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev later demanded the Communist Party halt its use because it ``eliminated the possibility of any kind of ideological fight''? Are the Trump administration's bizarre blinders to Vladimir Putin's aggression and true nature--and the silence of too many of my Republican colleagues on this danger--a harbinger of some kind of Western retreat to the Russians? Well, I met with many of our dedicated diplomatic and military personnel in the region who, as part of ramped up reassurance efforts by the previous administration, are working to keep Putin in check. These included more than 100 U.S. military personnel working with their Lithuanian counterparts about an hour outside of the capital in Rukla. These U.S. troops and their colleagues rotate out of Poland and throughout the Baltics to augment their NATO partners in deterring a Russian attack. Mr. President, the concerns about Russian aggression are legitimate and warrant serious attention. Let's take a look at just recent Russian actions in Europe. One day after President Trump spoke to Putin on the phone in late January, Russian-backed separatists increased their fighting in Ukraine--1eading to the highest death toll in months. After Vice President Pence tried to reassure allies at the Munich Security Conference the other week, Russia agreed to start accepting identification documents issued by the separatists in eastern Ukraine-- one step closer to annexing the illegally seized territory. Putin is strong-arming Belarussian President Lukashenko to allow Russian troops to remain based in Belarus following an upcoming significant military exercise. Russia is putting more and more sophisticated weapons into Kaliningrad, which when combined with permanent troops in Belarus, will significantly increase security threats to the region. Russia just announced a referendum to rename land it illegally seized by force in Georgia. Putin is trying to stir unrest in Kosovo where NATO is trying to maintain stability after the horrific violence of the Balkan war. He attempted a coup in Montenegro. And Russia continues its aggressive disinformation campaign and cyber attacks throughout Europe, trying to manipulate elections and sow instability and lack of trust in democratic institutions. One Polish expert summed all this up wisely, saying ``if the United States does not respond to the Russian attack on its election, Putin will feel he has a free hand to keep taking such destabilizing actions in the West.'' I worry that is what is already happening. So, what is the response to these actions by this White House and the majority party--the party of Ronald Reagan who understood the Russians so well? So far, with the exception of a few important voices, largely silence. In fact, as I have mentioned here before, since October when the first intelligence reports came out about the Russian attack on our election, not a single Republican has come to the floor to discuss this act of cyber war by a former KGB official on our country. And our President, who has attacked hundreds by Twitter for even the most benign perceived slight, has refused to say anything negative about Putin. Obviously, we need to get to the bottom of the Russia attacks on our election and if anyone in the Trump campaign had inappropriate contact with the Russians. An independent commission led by respected individuals such as Sandra Day O'Connor or Colin Powell could lead such an effort. And we need to see the President's tax returns to clarify what his son said in 2008 regarding Trump's businesses seeing ``a lot of money pouring in from Russia.'' We need to pass the bipartisan Russian sanctions bills pending in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee--one that tightens sanctions on Russia for its actions here and abroad and one that requires congressional approval before any sanctions on Russia are lifted. And we need to make sure we include continued support to Ukraine and for the European Reassurance Initiative in our next appropriations bills. Mr. President, I remember as a young Congressman trying to get into Lithuania more than 25 years ago when it courageously tried to hold an election breaking free from the Soviet Union. Those brave Lithuanians had little but their idealism and a few rifles to protect themselves from the Soviet tanks. But in the end they prevailed, and one by one, Eastern European nations freed themselves from Communist tyranny, a struggle Ukraine is still fighting against Russia. Today one can still visit the KGB museum in the capital of Lithuania--a hall of horrors that nobody should ever forget. One Lithuanian member of parliament I met, who remembers life not only under the Soviets but also under the Nazis, recalled how his mother had survived 4 years in a Nazi concentration camp. He emotionally said that he had always seen the United States as the champion of freedom, democracy, and a Western global order. I could tell he was deeply worried about any backsliding on that important role and any possibility of returning to the darker days in Europe. I don't know exactly what Steve Bannon is whispering in Trump's ear regarding his dark world view and indifference to the transatlantic Western alliance, but this post World War II partnership has served American and global interests. The relationship has brought stability to Europe after decades of horrific war. It has brought democracy and common markets and served as a check against the Soviet Union and now Russia. I am glad Vice President Pence made some references to this at the Munich Security Conference, but those words will not be enough on their own. Quite simply, any sympathies in the White House with Russian efforts to undermine the transatlantic relationship are outrageous and dangerous, and I will oppose them here in the Senate. To reiterate, Mr. President, during the Presidents Day break, I took a trip to three capitals, which I consider to be timely and important visits: Warsaw, Poland; Vilnius, Lithuania, and Kiev, Ukraine. I have been to these cities many times, and I have a particular attachment to them. My mother was born in Lithuania, and so returning there, as I have for over 35 years, I have seen a sweep of history as that small Baltic State has moved from a republic of the Soviet Union to a free and independent nation today. I am so proud of the courage of Lithuanians that had brought them to this moment. Going to Warsaw, Poland, is natural for a Senator from Chicago. We have more Polish Americans in that city and in our State than anyplace outside of Poland. We are very proud of our Polish heritage. They are wonderful people. They are not only hard-working, good Polish Americans, but they are also always thinking about their own homeland, which was under the control of the Warsaw Pact, a Soviet-inspired alliance, for decades, at the expense of their freedom. I also visited Kiev, Ukraine. That capital has become well known to many of us since the invasion by Vladimir Putin, which is the point I would like to make. The thing that ties these three countries together, despite their differences in history, is the fact that if you ask each of these countries today to identify the major external threat to their existence and to their freedom, they would identify Vladimir Putin of Russia. I found that in Warsaw, again in Vilnius, the capital of Lithuania, as well as in Ukraine. It was interesting--and Senator Jeanne Shaheen joined me on my trip to visit Poland--that as we met with the leaders of that nation, we heard repeatedly their concerns about Russian aggression. It was something that was critically important to them. They were heartened by statements made by Vice President Pence at the Munich conference about the future of the NATO alliance, but let's put it in context. The reason the Vice President had to travel from Washington to Munich, Germany, to say to the Western world that was gathered there that the NATO alliance was still strong was because the current President of the United States, Donald Trump, had tweeted that NATO was obsolete, and one of his followers, Steve Bannon of Breitbart fame, had questioned whether we should be engaging in these kinds of alliances. Well, I think those alliances are critical. The NATO alliance has been one of the most successful in history. So when Vice President Pence went to Munich to assure our NATO allies that we were still on their side, it was an important message. I did find one other thing telling and memorable about that trip to Warsaw. One of the Polish leaders said to me: We have read that the Russians invaded your election. We are used to this. He called it the hybrid war. He said: It isn't just aggression by Russians with military aggression, which is scary enough, but it is a war of cyber aggression and a war of propaganda, and clearly Vladimir Putin believed in your last Presidential election that he could use some of those same tactics that he uses against Poland and the Baltics in the United States. This leader in Poland then challenged me: What are you going to do about that? Now that you know that Vladimir Putin has invaded your election, now that your intelligence agencies tell you that, will you do something? Will you take this seriously? Will you investigate it? He said: Our worry in Poland is, if you will not respond to Vladimir Putin's invasion into your cyber space, what will you do if he invades Poland? Will you stand by us as you promised in article 5? If you don't take him seriously when he invades your sovereignty, will you take it seriously when he invades ours? It is an important question and a right question. I hope we take a lesson from it--not to take Vladimir Putin for granted, not to view him as a superhero or great leader but to understand that people around the world are watching to see how we react to this Russian invasion of our election. In Lithuania, they face propaganda on a daily basis. German troops under the flag of NATO are now in Lithuania making it clear that we are committed to the future and security of that nation. What did Vladimir Putin and the Russian propagandists do as soon as these German troops moved into Lithuania? They created an absolutely false rumor that a German soldier had raped a Lithuanian woman. It wasn't true, but it was the kind of false information that they have spread in the hopes of undermining the confidence of Lithuania and the NATO alliance. I met with the President of Lithuania, Dalia Grybauskaite, and she is a very decisive leader. I thought of Margaret Thatcher's style when I met with President Grybauskaite. She is an ``Iron Lady'' in her own right to protect Lithuania and other Baltic States from Russian aggression. The last trip we made was to Ukraine, and Congressman Mike Quigley of Chicago joined me in that visit. In that visit, we had a chance to meet late at night, 9 o'clock at night with the President of Ukraine, Petro Poroshenko, who was kindly waiting for us to get off the plane and come join him at his Presidential offices. They are struggling even to this day. As President Trump is in conversation with President Putin about future relationships, sadly, at that very same moment, aggression by the Russians in Ukraine was growing. Over 10,000 people have been injured or died now because of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. There is speculation, and I hope it is just that, that some backroom negotiations are underway to recognize this Russian aggression in Ukraine. I sincerely hope that never happens. We should never condone what Vladimir Putin has done to that country of Ukraine. They are struggling now to get back on their feet. They are making reforms that are unpopular but necessary. They are strengthening their economy and at the same time they are fighting a war. I left there with two resolves. One was to make sure we provide military equipment necessary for Ukraine to be successful to ward off this Russian aggression; No. 2, to continue to work with them in terms of building their economy and reform; and, No. 3, that we have a visible physical presence with those NATO forces in the Baltic States and in Poland. We have a great alliance in these countries. In Poland the Illinois National Guard has been a longtime ally of the Polish forces, and we are very proud of that relationship. When it came to Lithuania, we were able to see a group from Fort Carson in Colorado. It was a tank command. I never saw prouder soldiers in my life--American soldiers anxious to show this Senator the Abrams M1 and the fighting vehicles they were using preparing for the possibility of defending Lithuania and the Baltics. It was an inspiring moment. I made my statement part of the record, and I know the Senator from South Dakota is seeking the floor, but I left there committed to the NATO alliance and committed to the effort to stop the aggression of Vladimir Putin, committed as well to come home to the United States and say to my colleagues in the Senate and House that we have to take it seriously when Vladimir Putin tries to change the outcome of an American election. It is a sad day in American history. I believe November 8, 2016, is a day that will live in cyber infamy for what Vladimir Putin tried to do in the United States. For us to ignore it, to sweep it under the table, to hide it behind some committee door, when no one knows what is going on inside, is not the appropriate answer. We need an independent, transparent investigation of what the Russians did, a special prosecutor at the executive level, and an independent commission like the 9/11 Commission, headed by notable Americans like GEN Colin Powell or Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who will bring all the facts to light so we know once and for all the truth of what happened and make certain it never happens again. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, every politician alive should aspire for that moment, like Bob Michel, when the last words of tribute to his public service are: ``He was the face of decency in public service.'' This morning, Bob Michel, who served as the leader of the U.S. House of Representatives for the Republican Party, passed away at age 93. His replacement as Republican leader in the House marked the end of an era of civility--Congress has never been the same--but his life as the son of an immigrant, as a decorated veteran of World War II, and as a person who was first a staffer, then elected to Congress, and rose to leadership is a testament to his talent and his commitment to America. I had known Bob Michel for 35 years. We had adjoining congressional districts downstate. When he was elected in 1982, in the Reagan off- year election, it was a tough year for Republicans. Bob Michel barely survived. Attorney Doug Stevens, of Peoria, had about 48 percent, and Bob had 52 percent. Lane Evans, of the Quad Cities, was elected to Congress, and I was as well. For 14 years, we were neighboring Congressmen. Bob Michel came in and campaigned for my opponents. I went into his district to campaign for his opponents. You would think that would have created a negative relationship, but it didn't. Despite that--despite our differences on political issues--we were always friends, and we were always respectful. You could not help but be a friend of Bob Michel's. What an amazing personality--a smile that would light up a room and a man who was determined to fight like crazy, day in and day out, for the things he believed in on the floor of the U.S. House and then, after adjournment, joined with Tip O'Neill for dinner--a dinner that usually ended up with a lot of people singing songs over a few drinks and great memories. The codels in those days--the congressional delegation trips--were often bipartisan and had both Speaker O'Neill and the Republican leader, Bob Michel, hosting them as they went to important places in the world. There was a time when Bob Michel was a Congressman and wanted to get home to Peoria every weekend but couldn't afford the airfare. Do you know what he did? He shared a station wagon with Congressman Dan Rostenkowski of Chicago. They would take off and drive back to Chicago and Peoria and then back to Washington on a regular basis. They were buddies and didn't think twice about the fact that they were of different political parties and had different political philosophies. That was Bob Michel. His passing really does mark the end of an era, but every one of us currently in public service should remember the quality he brought to his career and the quality he brought to Congress. He left a great legacy--many important issues, many great things for Peoria and Central Illinois. Possibly, his greatest legacy was his chief of staff--his protege--Ray LaHood, who, to this day, embodies the great values that Bob Michel brought to public service. I stand in tribute to my friend and my Republican neighboring Congressman who served this Nation so well for so many years. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Donnelly) is necessarily absent.