[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 37 (Thursday, March 2, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1564-S1571]
[...]
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
Russia and the President's Address to Congress
Mr. President, on Tuesday night, along with my colleagues, I listened
to the President of the United States address the joint session of
Congress. As the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, I was particularly interested to hear what the President
would be saying about American foreign policy.
I heard him say during the speech that American foreign policy would
be based on the respect of the sovereign rights of nations, which is
something that I strongly believe in. I then thought I would hear the
President talk about one of our greatest challenges from a country that
is not respecting the sovereign rights of the United States of America,
that country being Russia. But the President didn't mention Russia at
all in his State of the Union address, which really surprised me.
When we look at Russia's most recent conduct and know what they did
in regard to their attack on the U.S. democratic election system, it is
beyond dispute that they wanted to interfere with our free elections,
they wanted to affect the credibility of our democratic election
system, and they wanted to influence the outcome of the election. That
is pretty clear from the evidence that we have seen to date. Yet
[[Page S1565]]
the President did not mention that at all--a country that had attacked
us as recently as just a few months ago. There was no mention in the
President's State of the Union address.
It wasn't an isolated attack by Russia on the United States. We knew
that before that, when we saw Russia's influence in regard to
Montenegro's elections and how they tried to impact their parliamentary
elections to influence Montenegro's decision to join NATO. We know that
Russia is attempting to influence the elections in Western Europe.
So we have a country that is trying to bring down our democratic
system of government by using our democratic system of government, and
the way that we conduct open elections, to compromise our system.
But that is not the only thing Russia has done that is contrary to
the U.S. national security and our foreign policy objectives. We know
that they have physically incurred into other countries. They have
physically incurred into Ukraine. Today, Russia has annexed Crimea--
something we will never recognize. Crimea is part of Ukraine. Russia is
continuing to support the separatists in the eastern part of Ukraine,
compromising Ukraine's sovereignty.
The President did not mention that in his State of the Union address.
We know that Russia is in Georgia, in Moldova, and other sovereign
countries; once again, no mention of that.
And then Russia is very much engaged in the Middle East. We know that
Russia's footprint in the Middle East is growing. They have their
military presence in Syria, backing the Assad regime, facilitating
Iran's participation in Syria.
We also know that the type of conduct that has been conducted under
Russian support, where civilians have been targeted, humanitarian
convoys have been attacked, amounts to war crimes--a situation where
Russia has culpability; yet, we don't hear anything about that.
So we have a role. Congress has a role to play in making sure that we
protect our national security interests.
First and foremost, we have to know what is going on. We have to know
what Russia was doing. We have to know what Russia's intentions were
when they compromised our cyber security and used that information to
try to influence our elections. We have to know what Russia's
intentions are all about regarding the contacts they have made with
Americans in their effort to influence this campaign. We have to
understand what Russia's intentions are as they relate to democratic
countries.
We saw in General Flynn's case that a contact was made, and as a
result of not coming forward with that, General Flynn has left the
Trump administration. And then we find out yesterday that the Attorney
General, as a U.S. Senator, had contact with the Russian Ambassador,
and that information was not made available during the confirmation
process.
The timing of that meeting in Senator Sessions' office is concerning.
It is concerning because it was right at the time that Russia was the
most active in trying to get information that they could use to
influence our elections. So this is an important aspect for us to
understand.
We need to understand why that meeting took place and what was
involved in that meeting. There have been calls by Members on both
sides of the aisle that we get that type of information.
But I will add one more dimension to this: Why was the Russian
Ambassador interested in meeting with Senator Sessions during the
campaign period? Was this part of an overall strategy by Russia to try
to influence the election? We need to get the answers to that.
The only way we are going to be able to get a complete account of
what has happened by Russia's attack on the United States is by setting
up an independent commission. Russia may not have used MiGs to attack
America. They may have used a mouse. But it was an attack. And when we
were attacked on 9/11, Congress did right thing--they set up an
independent special commission to understand what happened, how we were
so vulnerable to an attack, so that we could take steps to protect
ourselves from future attacks and hold those responsible accountable.
That was a bipartisan effort by the Congress of the United States,
setting up an independent commission, a commission where the members
could devote their entire full time to the assignment, because that is
how serious being attacked is. There was no limit on their
jurisdiction. They could go where the facts led. They could give a
report to the American people so there would be credibility that we,
the policymakers, are going to have independent information in order to
act to protect the national security of the people of this country.
That is what that independent commission meant. That independent
commission met. They made many recommendations on eliminating a lot of
the stovepiping of intelligence information and combining agencies
together. Congress acted on those recommendations. As a result, we are
safer today than we were prior to 9/11.
We need to be safer tomorrow than we are today from the attacks of
Russia. The only way we are going to be able to get that objective
information with the credibility so that we can act in the best
interests for the people of this Nation is to have a nonpartisan,
independent commission take a look at what Russia was doing, get all
the facts, find ways and recommendations to make us safer, give the
credibility to the American people, and then Congress needs to act in
order to protect our national security. I know we have some committees
looking at this. I know the Senate Intelligence Committee is doing some
very important work. I support that.
We have our responsibilities in Congress to take steps within the
jurisdictions of our committees. I am for the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee looking into what Russia was doing in order that we can
protect the jurisdiction of our committee to do a better job in our
bilateral relationship with Russia, or what Russia is doing in Europe
or in other parts of the world that affects our national security under
the jurisdiction of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. We need to
do that work. The Intelligence Committee needs to do their work. Armed
Services needs to do their work. Judiciary needs do their work.
But we need one central investigation that includes the broad
jurisdiction that can get to answer why the Russian Ambassador may have
wanted to see a U.S. Senator who was active in one of the campaigns
that close to the elections, that has an opportunity to understand why
Russia was so active in their cyber attacks in America, getting so much
information, so much political information, why Russia was trying to
understand our election system. There is no evidence that they tried to
manipulate individual votes. That didn't happen--at least we don't
believe that happened--but we know they were looking into how we do
that. Was that for some future use? We need to understand that to
protect our democratic system of government. That is what an
independent commission will allow us to be able to receive.
I urge my colleagues to respond to the national security challenge of
Russia, and let's establish an independent commission.
There are other things we need to do. There are two bills I filed
with my Republican colleagues to make it clear that it is not going to
be business as usual with Russia. There are going to be consequences to
what they have done to the United States and our national security
interests.
One bill that I filed, of which Senator Graham is the principal
sponsor, is to make sure that Congress carries out its responsibility
of oversight in regard to our bilateral relationship with Russia. It is
the Russia Review Act, which would require the President of the United
States to submit to Congress for review any attempt to eliminate or
modify the current sanctions against Russia. He would be required to
submit that to the Congress of the United States, hopefully working
with us and consulting with us before he makes decisions but giving us
an opportunity to weigh in before that decision could take effect.
For my colleagues who remember the Iran nuclear agreement, it sounds
very familiar. Senator Corker and I, Senator Menendez, Senator Kaine,
and others worked on the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act. It passed
nearly unanimously in the Congress. It required a President to submit
that
[[Page S1566]]
agreement to us before it could take effect. It made the negotiations
much more transparent. As a result, I believe we had a stronger
agreement, but we also had a more open process, and Congress had a
chance to carry out its responsibility. In a similar vein, it is
important that we pass the Russia Review Act so that we can carry out
our responsibilities, preventing the President from taking unilateral
action without consulting with us. This is bipartisan; we have
Democrats and Republicans working on this. I hope we will be able to
pass this bill in a timely way.
The third bill I want to bring to my colleagues' attention as it
relates to Russia's activities in the United States is legislation that
I have filed with Senator McCain and many others. We have a large
number of Democrats and Republicans who have cosponsored this bill that
would increase the sanctions against Russia because of their attack
against us. It would expand the options for imposing sanctions to
different sectors that could affect Russia's energy, that could affect
the ability of Russia to finance their sovereign debt, that could
affect Russia's ability to privatize their industries by making it
clear that we are not going to allow Americans or companies to help
finance these activities because in reality they are financing
activities against our interests, such as the cyber attacks, as we saw
last fall.
This legislation is comprehensive. It deals more than just with
sanctions; it deals with another major problem that we have found.
Through NATO and U.S. leadership, we have made it clear that we will
defend the countries of NATO, and we have deployed troops to make it
clear to Russia that they better not try to compromise the territorial
integrity of the member states.
This initiative has been well received by Europe and has countered
Russia's attempts to cause a fracture within the European community. We
need a similar initiative on democracy, a democracy initiative, because
not only is there a threat against Europe from their geographical
boundaries, there is a threat against Europe in regard to their
democratic institutions. We know that. We saw that here in America. It
is being challenged in Europe. So this democratic initiative would
allow us to participate in strengthening the democratic institutions in
Europe so that we don't allow Russia to use the democratic institutions
to try to bring down the democratic institutions.
There is another part of this legislation which I think is extremely
important. We are all getting to better understand the tactics being
used by Russia, this fake news--inventing news and then using the
social media to make it look like it is the hottest news in town. We
know they are good at that. We also know they are very good at
propaganda, and they go in directions that we, prior to this election,
thought we would never see in our own country. We are now seeing it
more frequently. Part of this legislation is for us to develop a
capacity to be able to counter this propaganda and fake news so that
Russia's deployment of it will not compromise our national security.
I think all three bills will be considered shortly and favorably by
this body--setting up an independent review commission; requiring the
President to submit any changes in the Russian sanctions to the
Congress for review before they could take effect; and strengthening
our sanctions regime against Russia for its conduct, including
strengthening our commitment to democratic institutions and fighting
this new cycle of fake news.
I also listened to the President during the State of the Union
Address when he said that our foreign policy calls for a direct,
robust, and meaningful engagement with the world. That is another
statement I happen to agree with. And then I thought about what I had
heard a little earlier that day: that the President's budget was going
to have about a 30- to 35-percent cut--it wasn't exactly clear, but it
was a large number--to the State Department.
I said: How are you going to have a robust and meaningful engagement
in the world if you cut our diplomacy budget, you cut our development
assistance budget? This is how we keep the world safe. This is how we
get our goals accomplished globally.
We have had so many hearings in our committee where there is a much
greater need. We need to do more in Africa in promoting democracy. We
need to do more in the Middle East in promoting good governance and
inclusive governance so we don't have to have as many wars. We need to
do things in our own hemisphere. We heard today in a hearing what is
happening in Venezuela. There is a lot of work for America to do. A 30-
percent cut? Is that a more direct, robust, and meaningful engagement
within the world? It didn't sound that way to me. I was concerned about
that and how we are going to be able to gauge.
It was Secretary Mattis who said: If you don't give the Secretary of
State the resources, you better give me more soldiers.
And they are more expensive. We have the best fighting force in the
world, and we are going to support our fighting force. The way we show
respect for our soldiers is to use them only as a matter of last
resort. Diplomacy is critically important for America's national
security.
A strong, credible Office of the President is equally important if we
are going to be able to be the type of country that influences our
values globally, and the President of the United States has put that at
risk. That is why I am reintroducing my resolution to try to avoid a
constitutional crisis. I introduced it before President Trump took the
oath of office, and I am introducing it again to avoid a constitutional
crisis. It deals with the emoluments clause of the Constitution of the
United States.
Every modern President of the United States prior to President Trump,
in order to avoid conflict, in order to do what is ethically right and
to comply with the Constitution of the United States--the emoluments
clause--has either divested their financial holdings or has set up a
blind trust. Some have done both. That is the way that the ethics
officers tell us you can comply with not just the Constitution but with
the highest ethical standards so that there are no real conflicts and
you don't have any perceived conflicts, which can be just as damaging
to the credibility of a public office holder.
President Trump, by not divesting, by not setting up a blind trust,
has put the Office of the Presidency, our country, in a compromising
position.
Let me give some specific examples, if I might. I will mention three
countries. I could mention more.
Saudi Arabia. Very interesting country, Saudi Arabia. In August 2015,
the Trump organization filed eight separate business companies to do
business in Saudi Arabia. As we all know, the President's Executive
order that was originally issued that excluded immigrants from seven
Muslim countries from visas did not include the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
even though, as we all know, many of the participants in the 9/11
attack against the United States originated from the country of Saudi
Arabia. President Trump has vast business interests in Saudi Arabia.
Let me quote President Trump:
Saudi Arabia, I get along with all of them. They buy
apartments from me. They spend $40 million, $50 million. Am I
supposed to dislike them? I like them very much.
It is not a question, Mr. President, of whether they like you or they
don't like you; under our Constitution, they cannot give you any favor.
If they give you a business favor, that is an emolument and violates
the Constitution of the United States and violates your oath of office.
In regard to Turkey, Turkey has two large-scale developments in the
country that are under the Trump organization. The Trump organization
has a partnership with a luxury furniture company, Dorya International,
to build pieces to be sold under the Trump Home Collection brand and a
multimillion-dollar branding deal with the Dogan Group-- the Dogan
Group is run by one of the most politically influential families in
Turkey--for a two-tower complex in Istanbul. According to President
Trump's May 2016 financial disclosure, he received as much as $1
million in royalties from the first venture and as much as $5 million
from the second venture.
Because President Trump has not properly divested himself from his
business, he will presumably continue to receive royalties from both
ventures, and these business arrangements are not unknown to Turkey's
leadership. President Erdogan presided over the opening ceremonies of
Trump Towers, Istanbul.
[[Page S1567]]
Shortly after the election, President Trump held a phone call with
President Erdogan in which he praised his business partners. There are
substantial business interests known by the Turkish Government that Mr.
Trump has in their country. Mr. Erdogan is not shy about talking about
and using the Trump Towers. He has bragged about it. We have a lot of
foreign policy decisionmaking that affects Turkey. We need to know that
when the President is making those decision, it is America's interest
which is at the front and center, not the Trump Organization's
interests that are affecting those decisions. That is why we have the
emoluments clause, that is why we believe in avoiding conflicts, and
that is why President Trump needs to divest of his interest or set up a
blind trust.
I will mention one other country, if I might. That country is China.
For a decade, the Trump organization has been trying to get a trademark
of its brand in China. I am going to quote from Mr. Trump on February
7, 2011, when he wrote to the American Ambassador in China. This is
what Mr. Trump said: ``I spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in
legal fees to secure my own name and globally recognized brand for
Chinese individuals who seek to trade off my reputation.''
For 10 years he was fighting to get that trademark protection. It was
granted on February 14, 2017, a few weeks after President Trump took
the oath of office, shortly after President Trump stated that he would
support the One China policy, something the Government of China
strongly wanted him to say.
We don't know connections. We can't draw connections. We don't know
that. That is why the emoluments clause is in the Constitution, so you
cannot accept any favors from another country. It is against our
Constitution. Yet we have concerns as to whether the President is
acting under that interest. That is just wrong and it needs to stop.
What the President has done is established a circumstance where there
is an appearance of conflict, where it looks like foreign governments
are trying to influence his decisions.
He has affected America's standing to advance good governance and
corruption. I want to underscore that point. He is compromising
America's moral authority on the values we hold so dear. Our Western
democratic values are being compromised because leaders of autocratic
countries, corrupt leaders, can say: If it is all right for the
President of the United States to keep his business holdings while he
is President, what is wrong with me having an interest in some of our
entities here? It takes away our effective ability to use diplomacy to
solve problems or advance our goals. We are being compromised. The
current arrangement is simply inadequate.
President Trump announced he is going to let his two adult sons
handle his businesses, but he still maintains his financial interests.
He gives a couple of different other things he is going to do. I will
just go over one or two of them.
He says he is going to donate the profits from his foreign hotels to
charities. That sounds good.
Let me just quote from Steve Carvell, a professor at the Cornell
University School of Hotel Administration, who said:
It's a monumental task to constantly run this down. Even if
the company is trying its hardest and making its very best
effort, it will be difficult to fulfill that goal.
Let's get serious about this. The arrangements he set out will not
solve the conflict. It will not comply with the Constitution of the
United States. The Office of Government Ethics said on the President's
proposal it is ``wholly inadequate.'' That is the Office of Government
Ethics. They go on to say: ``The plan the [President] has announced
doesn't meet the standards that the best of his nominees are meeting
and that every President in the last four decades has met.''
I am a lawyer but would not claim to be a constitutional expert. Let
me quote, if I might, from constitutional experts. Richard Painter,
Norm Eisen and Laurence Tribe have written a comprehensive study of the
constitutional provisions, concluding that ``since emoluments are
properly defined as including `profit' from any employment, as well as
`salary,' it is clear that even remuneration fairly earned in commerce
can qualify.''
Richard Painter, the chief ethics officer for President George W.
Bush, stated it in a blunter fashion. He said:
This is a for-profit hotel. [Trump] is making profits over
dealing with foreign governments. Same with the loans from
foreign government-owned banks. Those are for a for-profit
business. That is prohibited under the Emoluments Clause of
the Constitution.
Let me just conclude with this. This is not about any one person.
This is about the Office of the President. This is about our
constitutional form of government that depends upon the Office of the
President being respected. It is bigger than any one person. The
Framers of our Constitution went on to say: We recognize it. We know
the faults of men. That is why we set up the Constitution, to protect
against the frailties of individuals.
This is about the Office of the President of the United States, not
about any one person who may occupy it 4 to 8 years. We need to protect
the Office of the President, and that is why we need to act now to
avoid this constitutional crisis of the President of the United States,
who has put our Nation at risk because of his personal conflicts and
because of his violation of the Constitution of the United States.
I call upon President Trump to live up to the values of the
Constitution. Give the American people the transparency they deserve
and completely sever his relationship with the Trump Organization
before we are embroiled in an ethical and constitutional crisis that
will not serve the best interests of the President, Congress or the
American people.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cassidy). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
[...]
Calling for an Independent, Bipartisan Commission
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.
[[Page S1570]]
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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WICKER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Capito). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
[...]
