able to pass in the next few weeks is being hashed out right now and talks are expected to continue over the weekend between a four corners and that be the top spinning leaders and the two women who run the house spending panel and the two who run the senate spending panel and their staffs will be getting into the details over the weekend. if they do not come to some agreement on final text and that doesn't look like the white house will sign off on it and things don't seem like the ink is dry the house will continue -- >> five to the u.s. senate. the chaplain: let us pray. ruler and redeemer, creator and sustainer, we pause to acknowledge your majesty and might. because of you,

we live and move and breathe and prosper. lord, you continue to shower us with undeserved blessings. great is your faithfulness. as our senators and staffs do liberty's work, sustain them with your might. provide them with prudence and discretion for each task. remind them that if you are for them, neither demons nor deviants can prevail. help us all to focus on today's challenges and trust you to take care of our past and future. transform discord into harmony

as you hasten the day when peace will reign. we pray in your great name. amen. the president pro tempore: please join me in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved.

morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the following nomination which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, joseph f. bianco of new york to be united states circuit judge for the second circuit. mr. grassley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i ask to speak in morning business for one minute. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: may has been recognized as national foster care month for over 20 years to bring awareness to the challenge that foster youth face. through my work on the senate caucus on foster youth, i've had the opportunity to hear firsthand what children in foster care need. they need love, support, safety, and permanency. they need a family.

i salute all those who dedicate their time and resources to help these kids. moving forward, i will continue to work to find a better solution and secure better outcomes for youth in foster care. mr. president, i ask for one more minute. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: last week the department of labor released its monthly scorecard for the u.s. workforce. the unemployment rate fell to 3.6 which is the lowest rate since december 1969. a new 50-year low. moreover, an additional 263,000 jobs were created. job gains had averaged a robust 218,000 over the past 12 months. additionally, for the ninth

straight month, year over year nominal wage gains have equaled or exceeded 3%. it's good to see tax reform and the pro-growth policies of this administration continuing to improve the daily lives of americans. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: over the weekend -- the presiding officer: we are in a quorum call. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: over the weekend, we were given yet another tragic reminder of the threats that face our friends and allies in israel. those who make their or their home in the border regions of the jewish state were subjected to a barrage of hundreds of rockets and other projectiles launched from within gaza. the attacks were carried out by had a mass -- by hamas and the palestinian islamic jihad. they targeted civilian populations. they killed a worker at a cement factory, a truck driver sonja border village, a man in the yard of his own home, and a rabbi as he left his car to run for cover. they caused countless israeli

citizens to scurry to bunkers for safety, unsure whether rockets would rain upon their farms, apartment buildings, schools, or hospitals. these attacks, we should remember, are targeted at israel's innocent civilians. they are intended to kill, to maim, to terrorize. in the face of such brazen acts of terror, it is, of course, israel's right to take swift and decisive action to defend its people. frankly, it's an existential necessity, and it's the responsibility of every peaceful nation to condemn the terrorist organizations behind them and to continue to expose those governments and private entities that provide illicit support for their actions. foremost among them is iran, which has become a critical lifeline to terrorist activities of hamas and palestinian islamic jihad. i know my colleagues will join me in expressing sympathy for the families of the victims and

the communities left to rebuild the wreckage of these latest attacks. furthermore, i hope this weekend's attacks could at least spur some action here in congress. when senate passed legislation to renew and strengthen our partnership with israel, it's still sitting over in the house where it's not been permitted a vote. that thoroughly bipartisan legislation contains several provisions to strengthen our security ties to israel and also to combat the scourge of anti-semitism. behind these attacks lurks the same hatred that motivated the violence of shabad apoe last month and the tree of life synagogue last year. the same ugly bigotry that takes refuge within the b.d.s. movement while masquerading a legitimate political stance. it's the same tide of discrimination that an overwhelming majority of europeans use. report is on the rise in their

own communities, even as the holocaust remains a vivid living memory. so, mr. president, this disturbing trend has already taken its toll on communities of faith and on peaceful jews in israel and around the world, but when america does any less than our level best to confront it, we further undermine the cause of our friends and allies in the free jewish state. so i hope this terrible violence can again spur my colleagues in the house to act on the bipartisan legislation that's been languishing over there for weeks. the first item we took up this year. clearly, the need to reaffirm our commitment to the safety, security, and sovereignty of israel is just as important as it ever was. now, on an entirely different matter, i was saddened to hear over the weekend that our friend and colleague, senator mike enzi, will not run for reelection. at the end of next year, he will retire with 24 years of service to the people of wyoming, and

the rest of us will have to step up to make for the loss of expertise and principled leadership which his departure will create. when mike first arrived in the senate, he brought with him experience in business and government that made him an immediate asset on a host of different issues. with an m.b.a. under his belt, he had returned home to lead his family shoe sales business through a successful expansion. as the two-term mayor of gillette, wyoming, he had presided over an economic and population boom. and over the course of ten years in the state legislature, he had lent his accountant's eye to helping other small businesses succeed through better policy. so it's no surprise that mike got to work as the leading voice on the federal budget, tax policy, and health care. over four terms, he's taken every opportunity to make an outsized impact on policy for the people of wyoming and for

our entire country. in 2006, as chairman of the help committee, mike provided the guiding hand that delivered the first major pension perform legislation in a generation and provided more security to the retirement income of millions of americans through bipartisan policy. in 2017, as chairman of the budget committee, he helped lay the mowngs for the generational reform of our nation's tax code and championed important elements of small business and retirees. in these cases and in many more, getting mike involved in an issue meant deploying a powerful force for fiscal responsibility, restraint, and policy practicality. you always felt more sure something would turn out well when mike was on the case or part of the team, but seeing as our friend has built nearly a quarter-century legacy in the senate, none of us can blame mike for choosing to spend more time with his even greater legacy, the wonderful family he

and his lovely wife diana have built together. mike and diana are now the proud grandparents of four, and among everything their bright future holds, i know mike will be excited for more chances to pass along his fly fishing wisdom and his love of good books. but before he hangs up a gone fishing sign for good, i know my colleagues share my relief that we still have a year and a half to continue drawing on senator enzi's leadership and focused expertise. so today i'll offer just the first of many sincere thanks for his years of distinguished service. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. cornyn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i'd ask unanimous consent that the quorum call bees dispensed with.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: mr. president, it is no secret that our economy is broken -- has broken some pretty amazing records lately. last week's job report surpassed all estimates and expectations with a whopping it -- 263,000 jobs created in april alone. i still recall back during the previous administration we were told that 2% growth was the new normal, that we could never grow our economy the way that we've seen in recent months. but obviously 2% growth is not the new normal for the american economy. we all ought to be relieved and comforted by that fact. the unemployment rate has dropped to 3.6%, the lowest level in nearly half a century. everybody who's able-bodied and

willing to work and willing to be trained for jobs that pay well, i believe, has an opportunity to do so these days. there's no doubt that this is an incredible time for our economy and i'm confident that the pro-growth policies that we have brought to the table during this administration and during the republican majority in the house and the the senate, that they will continue to bring real benefits to families across the country. but we've also broken another record, one that has a much more negative impact, and that's especially in my state, the state of texas. in march, customs and border protection encountered more than 103,000 migrants along the southwestern border, the highest number since 2007. and unlike previous times when we saw numbers on that scale, these are people who simply show up at the border and who turn themselves in to the border patrol and claim asylum; mainly

families and unaccompanied children, if you can believe that. but to put this figure in perspective, it's more than double that of the same period last year and more than six times that in 2017. so something is clearly afoot. our country is simply not equipped to manage this sort of massive influx, and folks in my state are bearing the brunt of the growing humanitarian crisis. and, again, i would remind those listening that the first person to call this a humanitarian crisis in 2014 was president barack obama. he called it a humanitarian and security crisis. and it's gotten worse since then, not better. many of our cities along the border and nongovernmental organizations, faith-based organization whose take it as part of their mission to deal with the needs of migrants along the border, they're struggling to manage the growing need for humanitarian relief as well as

businesses and manufacturers feeling the tight squeeze of backed up border crossings. in laredo, texas, alone -- most folks here inside the beltway probably couldn't the cross-border traffic. 16,000 truck trips a day across the u.s.-mexico border at laredo. as the already understaffed border and customs has tried to manage the family units and unaccompanied children entering our country, customs agents have been pulled off of that duty, their ordinary duties, causing lanes to be closed and wait times to skyrocket. i was told by some car -- american-based car manufacturers that they simply have had to hire charter aircraft to fly from the mexican side of the border to the u.s. side of the border in order to meet their just-in-time inventory needs,

because otherwise trucks bringing those same parts across the border, that would otherwise take an hour to get across, it has taken them 14 hours or more, threatening to put people in the interior of the united states out of work if the situation gets worse. aerial footage of the border looks more like a parking lot than a port of entry. cargo trucks sit at a complete standstill backed up for miles. supplying people with water, because can you imagine being stuck in your car for hours on end with no preparation for food or water or fuel for that matter. to refuel from based -- based on the amount of time spent sitting idly in line. with nearly $1.7 billion in products crossing our border every day, these delays have had

a serious impact on manufacturers and retailers in industries ranging from automobiles to medical devices to just simply the produce that we take for granted in our grocery stores. a report released last week by the texas-based perryman group estimate that it could cost the economy $69 billion over a three-month period. nearly half of that an estimated $32 billion would be a direct hit on the texas economy. last week i heard from the chamber in san antone yes, the chamber of commerce, and the hispanic chamber of commerce, about these wait times. their members are facing delayed orders and increased shipping costs because of these wait times and they want us to do something about it, not an unreasonable desire or request. unlike a lot of folks inside the beltway here in washington, they have to manage this crisis.

they have to deal with it. they can't ignore it or turn their eyes in another direction. they don't care about talking points or winning a messaging war. they want a solution to the problem, so now, in addition to humanitarian and security crisis that president obama talked about in 2014, we have the beginnings of a full-blown economic crisis as well. it's an understatement to say that there's a lot of disagreement on what the solution might look like. but anyone who has tan an elementary -- who has taken an elementary school class can can tell you for it to pass a republican-lead senate and a democrat-controlled house, that this must be bipartisan. i should say anybody who's happened to see "schoolhouse rock" should know. to get the president to sign it in order for it to pass. over the years i've worked

closely with my friend and fellow texan henry cuellar on legislation to strengthen both border security and customs operations along our state's border with mexico. henry is a democrat from laredo, texas. i, obviously, am not. that doesn't mean we can't find common ground. that actually is what i believe hour constituents sent us here to do, not to sacrifice principles but when there is a problem to be solved, to work together in a bipartisan way to try to solve it. so last week we introduced a bill that could bring those record-i can bring border numbers back down and finally provide some relief for law enforcement, for our stirks fora n.g.o.'s and businesses struggling to manage. i've spent a lot of time with the officers and anticipatings who defend our borders every -- and agents who defend our borders every day. i always ask them, what can i do to help you? what do you need from congress in order to succeed?

there are two common answers i hear. one is close the loopholes that serve as a magnet or a pull factor on this massive wave of human think from places like central america, claiming asylum because they know they can exploit the loopholes that exist if the law and be successfully placed in the united states, never to be heard from again as they blend into this great american landscape. in other words, they know they can successfully make it from here into the united states unless these loopholes are filled. and that's what the border patrol and customs and border protection have implored us to do along with the department of homeland security, is to close these loopholes because the main people benefiting from these loopholes in our asylum laws are the human traffickers, the drug traffickers and the people who get rich moving this massive humanity from central america into the united states. they charge $5,000, $6,000,

$7,000, 8,000 a person. these are also the same criminal organizations that move drugs into the united states, trafficking women and children for sex. we know last year alone 70,000-plus americans died of drug overdoses in america. about half of that was from opioids, including heroin, 90% of which comes from mexico. along with the sympathetic opioid -- along with the synthetic opioid known as fentanyl, which those of us working here know is much more powerful and dangerous than heroin, which is dangerous in and of itself. the same people that are trafficking in these migrants are trafficking in the drugs that are killing americans on a daily basis and taking advantage of the desire of women and children to make their way here to the united states and turn them into virtual sex slaves. the people who have patiently

and properly tried to enter our country legally are frustrated by illegal border crossers who try to game the system and use well-intentioned laws as a literally get-out of-of jail-free card. one of most frequently exploited loopholes is known as the flores agreement to make sure children aren't spending a long period of time in border patrol. it ensures that these unaccompanied children may be processed and released either to relatives or to the department of health and human services. but a later misguided ruling by the ninth circuit court of appeals in 2016 effectively expanded the time cap for unaccompanied children to families. that is adults bringing wung -- one or more children across the border with them.

these smugglers and human traffickers aren't fools. they see this as an opportunity to be exploited and they know that by posing as a family that these individuals will be released after 20 days and can virtually disappear into the interior of the country. the child traveling with them could have been kidnapped, smuggled, or trafficked, all of which has happened before. sadly, this is a common occurrence. the department of human resources announced last week they've identified more than 1,000 cases of fraudulent families trying to cross the border since october of last year. so clearly the criminal element is exploiting our laws and hurting innocent children, and by doing nothing we ourselves are complicit in their bad behavior. that's why we need to act. that's the one thing we can do. we need to clarify that flores only applies to unaccompanied

children, not to these family units that are gaming the system. first and foremost, this would protect children from being used as an entry ticket by criminals and smugglers. but it would also eliminate a pull factor for those tempted to try to use this method to gain entry. of course we know there are legitimate families who cross our border, and we must take additional steps to confirm these biological relationships and enable them to remain together in custody. no one is advocating for separating these families from their children. the humane act that congress cuellar and i have introduced would require all children to undergo biometric and d.n.a. screening, something that the department of homeland security has recently been testing. this is in order to defeat the fraudulent claim of biological or familial relationship with a minor child in order to gain entry into the united states. we have a responsibility, i believe, to ensure that

children are actual family members, not being used as a pawn by the smugglers. our legislation also provides safeguards to prevent children from being placed in custody of dangerous individuals like sex offenders or human traffickers. the last thing we should want to do is welcome these unaccompanied children here to america only to place them by action of the federal government in the hands of sex offenders or human traffickers because of our failure to take all necessary caution to prevent it. consistent with the recommendations from the bipartisan department of homeland security, homeland security advisory council, the humane act would require d.h.s. to establish at least four regional processing centers along the southern border to house and process these families. it's important that we provide them humane and compassionate housing while they await their

asylum hearing in front of an immigration judge, because by not doing so, by engaging in what has come to be known as catch and release, we essentially help facilitate the entry of these individuals into the united states and encourage this pull factor that will only courage not l 76,000 migrants like we saw come across the border in february, not 103,000 like we saw come across the border in march, but we're going to see those numbers continue to go up and up and up. because if you think about it, there is simply no reason for them not to come. the smugglers are getting rich, and the people who want to come into the united states by falsely claiming grounds for asylum have found a way to exploit our system. and the only ones we can blame when we look in the mirror is ourselves for failing to act. we know these regional processing centers could serve

as a one-stop shop with d.h.s. personnel, including asylum officers, on site to adjudicate claims and expedite the entire process. we want to make sure that if somebody does have a bona fide claim for asylum that they get to be heard by an immigration judge and they get that immigration benefit to which the law entitles them. but if you're not entitled to asylum, if you can't make your case to an immigration judge, you should not be able to do an end run around the system and enter the country under false pretenses. these central processing centers would also provide families with better living conditions that can be provided in a v.v.p. -- c.v.p. detention facility meant to hold adults and to prevent it from having a deeper impact, this bill mandates the hiring of additional homeland security

personnel and upgrades our ports of entry to expedite the legal movement of people and goods. just the buy national trade with mexico supports about five million jobs in america, with canada another eight million. that's why the north american free trade agreement, or nafta, was so important. and now that it's been supplanted by the u.s.-mexico-canada agreement that we'll be taking up soon, why it's so important for us to keep legitimate commerce and trade flowing between mexico, canada, and the united states because 13 million jobs or more in america depend on that buy national trade. that's another collateral piece of damage as a result of this humanitarian crisis as well. this is an opportunity for us to consider a bipartisan, bicameral piece of legislation to solve a real and growing problem. and i hope both of our chambers

will take seriously our responsibility to act and to act soon. mr. president, i yield the floor. i'd note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. schumer: madam president? the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: madam president, over the weekend our friend, distinguished senator from wyoming, senator enzi announced he wouldn't seek reelection. it's no secret that senator enzi and i approach legislation from two very different standpoints

but i've always found him to be thoughtful and decent, qualities that have made him a good senator and respected voice for the people of wyoming. when senator enzi was elected, he was this chamber's only accountant by trade. perhaps it was destiny, then, that he will end his tenure at the top of the budget committee. despite his prominent perch and decades in washington's corridors of power, senator enzi still retains the accountant's did distaste for the flashy. he he is chewed the -- he eschewed the lime lighter and the television crawps, something both of us have in common. if senator enzi will forgive me that joke, i'd like to wish him and his family the best in all his future endeavors. that is, of course, after he concludes his final year and a half in washington as one of wyoming's longest serving senators.

now, on another matter, in the aftermath of attorney general barr's testimony before the judiciary committee, it's now clearer than ever that the senate must hear from special counsel mueller. we need special counsel mueller to testify because as we have seen the attorney general has shown us he cannot be trusted on the matter of the russia investigation. after the special counsel delivered his findings, the attorney general took a 480-page document, turned it into four pages, producing a document so inadequate that it even prompted the special counsel to raise concerns in writing, a normally very reticent special counsel, i might add. the attorney general, meanwhile, has speculated without evidence about special counsel's reasoning, and he's done so, we have now learned, without having reviewed any of the underlying evidence. to make matters worse, mr. barr also refused to appear before the house judiciary committee, demonstrating his contempt for

the oversight responsibilities of congress. the bottom line is this -- the attorney general's word cannot be the end of the matter. special counsel mueller must testify. unfortunately, however, the chairman of the senate judiciary committee has thus far been far less than welcoming, and now the president has made it clear that he believes mueller should not testify. i want to remind this chamber president trump repeatedly tried to fire the special counsel. then he called the special counsel conflicted and corrupted and refused to be interviewed by him. now he is trying to silence the special counsel completely. for a man who constantly proclaims his innocence and, quote, the exoneration of the mueller report, president trump's suspiciously objected to

special counsel mueller's public testimony. thankfully, congress isn't subject to the will of the president. my friend, senator graham, has an obligation, an obligation to ask the special counsel to testify without constraints. i will continue to press him to call for a hearing. finally, mr. president, we have been trying for weeks now to come up with a beaj of disaster assistance for americans impacted by fires and floods, typhoons and hurricanes that would be acceptable to my friends on the other side of the aisle. meanwhile, the president continues to wage a bizarre and fact-impaired campaign against millions of american citizens living in puerto rico. this morning, the president claimed incredibly that puerto rico has received $91 billion in recovery funds while other states have been left behind. that defies the facts. he also suggested that puerto rico should be thankful for the

funding they have already received and accused democrats of selling out other parts of the country. there is a lot to unpack there, so here goes. for one, puerto rico has not received $91 billion, not even close. at most, puerto rico has received $11 billion while billions more, already allocated by the congress, democrats and republicans, are being withheld by the trump administration itself. just last week, the administration missed a self-imposed deadline to advance the release of $8 billion in funding to help the island rebuild and prepare for future disasters. second, it's galling, even by the president's standards, to say that puerto rico should be thankful for disaster aid. the president hasn't said that alabama should be thankful for disaster aid. he hasn't said that texas should be thankful or florida or the carolinas, but for some reason, the president implies that aid to puerto rico is some kind of

favor he's doing. i would remind the president helping parts of our country recover from natural disasters is not a favor. it's what we do as americans, what we have always done until the president's heavy hand disrupted the legislation that democrats and republicans have crafted and are prepared to pass. when a natural disaster strikes one corner of the country, americans put politics aside and come together to help each other out. the president, however, is failing our fellow citizens in puerto rico and all those rebuilding their lives and communities after disaster, and for those here who say well, let's just pass this bill now, the house won't pass this bill. the house will not pass a bill without full aid to puerto rico. neither will this chamber. and so what are we talking about here? we're talking about a president who came in, for some reason didn't want to give aid to puerto rico while giving it to everywhere else, even though

puerto rico's disaster probably per capita affected them worse than any other state, and they are american citizens, i would remind the president, and now he is boll u.s.c.king -- bolluxing the whole thing up. both sides, democrats and republicans, who believe in aid, would disavow the president's position and pass relief for all americans affected by natural disasters, all americans. democrats are ready to support disaster relief for every -- every corner in this country, the west coast, the midwest, the south and puerto rico. as our negotiators continue to make progress on a disaster package, i fervently hope we come to a resolution very soon. i yield the floor.

a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: taxpayers spent $30 million on the special counsel's investigation. now we know without a single doubt that there was no collusion by the trump campaign with russia. for more than two years, the democrats screamed collusion and did so not based on fact but based on rumor, hearsay, and probably wishful thinking. we've done a huge disservice to the american people by taking

that approach. as i said before, the real collusion was actually with the democrats. hear how it has evolved. it was the clinton campaign and democratic national committee that hired fusion g.p.s. to do opposition research against candidate trump. then fusion g.p.s. hired christopher steele, a former british intelligence officer, to compile what we now hear always referred to as the steele dossier. that document was very central to the fake collusion narrative, and it reportedly used russian government sources for information. so the democrats paid for a

document created by a foreign national that relied on russian government sources. not trump. the democrats. that's the definition of collusion. but democrat collusion didn't stop there. last week, "the hill" newspaper reported that a democrat national committee contractor contacted the ukrainian government to get dirt on the trump and manafort during the presidential election. specifically, the democrat national committee contractor reportedly, quote, wanted to collect evidence that trump, his organization, and manafort were russian assets working to hurt the u.s. and working with putin

against u.s. interests, end of quote. the democrats were up in arms about the trump tower meeting when the trump campaign was approached about dirt on hillary clinton. here the d.n.c. proactively pounded the door of a foreign government for dirt. where's the outrage at that? the special counsel ignored all of that in these reports, and thus he didn't fulfill all of his responsibilities. the deputy attorney general appointed mueller in pay of 2017 to invest -- investigate alleged collusion between the trump campaign and russia during the 2016 election. the deputy attorney general further ordered that if the special counsel believed it was necessary and appropriate, he

was authorized to, quote, prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters, end of quote. but that's not what the special counsel did on the obstruction question. instead, the special counsel declined to make a traditional prosecutorial decision. the report said that, quote, the evidence that we obtained about the president's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusive ly determining that no criminal conduct occurs. as the attorney general said when he released the report and then again in his testimony before the senate judiciary committee last week, the role of a prosecutor is to make a

charging decision. it isn't a prosecutor's job to exonerate a subject. it's to charge a crime, or the alternative, not to charge a crime. but in his report, the special counsel explains his decision not to even make a decision. he says, among other things, that stating the president had committed a chargeable offense without actually charging him under the justice department guidance would be unfair to the president, because, according to the special counsel, then the president couldn't defend himself properly before a neutral fact finder. instead, the special counsel laid out 200 or so pages of

facts and hand wringing relating to the obstruction and then dumped all of this material on the attorney general's desk. it reminds me of a former f.b.i. director comey's declaration in the summer of 2016 that secretary clinton was extremely careless in handling classified information but that no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case against secretary clinton. f.b.i. director comey made a prosecutorial decision that wasn't his to make. it was up to the attorney general then to make. that was attorney general lynch. comey also released derogatory information about secretary clinton and then refused to show all of his work. the special counsel's report is at least equally problematic.

the report lays out 200 pages of investigative product that leaves the charging decision hanging, hanging in never-neverland. nevertheless, the report asserts if the special counsel team could have found the president did not commit obstruction, they would have said so. but again, that's not what prosecutors do. that's a reversal of the innocence until proven guilty standard that's basic to american justice. and if it really was a thorough investigation, it seems the inverse is true as well. that inverse is that after a thorough investigation, the special counsel did not have enough evidence to conclusively

state obstruction actually occurred. during the attorney general's may 1 testimony before the senate judiciary committee, he noted that if the special counsel found facts sufficient to constitute obstruction, he would have stated that finding. curiously, the special counsel spilled a lot of ink in his report explaining why he believed the president should be charge as a matter of legal theory. so why didn't he just make that decision? or at least make a very clear recommendation to the attorney general and stand behind his own theories? the attorney general and deputy attorney general asked mueller whether he would have charged obstruction but for the department's guidance on charging sitting presidents, and

the special counsel said, no, which means that there was no barrier for him to make that charge, if warranted. in the absence of a decision from the special counsel, it was then up to the attorney general and the deputy attorney general who appointed mueller and supervised his work. the attorney general and the deputy attorney general reviewed all the facts and evidence that the special counsel collected. the attorney general and deputy attorney general evaluated it under mueller's own legal theories, even though they disagreed with some of those theories. and after all that, the attorney general and deputy attorney general determined the evidence was not sufficient to charge.

oddly, the special counsel's report is probably most notable for what it doesn't address at all -- the special counsel's report does not address the genesis of the russian investigation. it doesn't address whether the f.b.i. used improper surveillance techniques on the trump campaign or individuals associated with the trump campaign. it doesn't address the credibility of the f.b.i.'s sources. it doesn't address whether the steele dossier was a russian disinformation campaign. even one of the reporters at the publication that initially dumped the dossier into the public domain wants to know where it came from and what it

means. the special counsel's report also doesn't address whether the department of justice officials turned a blind eye to potential misconduct. and it doesn't address whether the department of justice misled the foreign intelligence surveillance court when applying for that court's decision against the trump campaign. so now we know what reasonable people have long suspected. there was no collusion and no obstruction of the collusion investigation. we still don't know how this so-called collusion investigation got started in the first place. in march of 2017, then-f.b.i.

director james comey testified that he briefed president-elect trump about these allegations in january of 2017 even though according to the public testimony director comey considered them, in his words, salacious and unverified. if in fact they were salacious and unverified in early 2017, then what were they months before that even -- months before that when comey started the investigation? we know the allegations against page were unverified when they were used by the f.b.i. and the justice department to support a fisa application to spy. and let me emphasize, yes, spy

on an american citizen, an american citizen, who, by the way, has never been charged with anything. in january 2018, senator lindsey graham and this senator wrote to deputy attorney general and f.b.i. director christopher wray about the allegations in the steele dossier and about its author, and more importantly about its bankrollers. in that memo, we described inconsistencies between what steele swore to a british court about his contacts with the media and what the page fisa application represented to the fisa court about those same contacts. the fisa application represented

that steele did not communicate with the media about his intelligence report, but he told the british court that he did. we noted in our memo that if mr. steele had lied to the f.b.i. about his media contacts, that would bear on his credibility. and that would be a huge problem because the fisa application and its renewals depended on taking steele at his word. now, remember ... at that time, the steele dossier was still salacious and unverified, and those are comey's words. so it mattered a real whole lot where the f.b.i. and the department of justice could trust steele and his dossier. in our referral, senator graham and i also noted that

mr. steele's contact with the media likely affected, in our words, the reliability of his information-gathering efforts in compiling the dossier. by the time the department of justice and the f.b.i. filed the fisa application, and even before the f.b.i. officially opened the investigation, the steele dossier was probably the worst-kept secret in washington, d.c. the same can be said for the government's efforts to look for ties between the trump campaign and russia. the media, lawyers, lobbyists, campaign organizations, private research firms, f.b.i. officials, department of justice, and department of state officials, and even foreign intelligence agencies -- all these folks reportedly had access to the dossier

information or the dossier itself. an attorney for clinton on the democratic national committee even passed on some aspects of this information directly to the f.b.i. general counsel before the fisa was issued. basically, this piece of paper was in some form or another all over this town. and the more the dossier was shopped around, the more vulnerable it became to its manipulation. we also know that at least as early as summer 2016, foreign intelligence agencies were reportedly feeding information to the c.i.a. about trump campaign associates, and the f.b.i. was using a source to

seek information from individuals associated with the trump campaign. about that time, fusion g.p.s. hired steele on behalf of the clinton campaign and the democratic national committee. so we need to know if leadership in the intelligence community and the f.b.i. were already gathering investigation on trump associates when fusion hired steele. so we need to know whether the obama administration was looking so hard for connections that they figured the steele dossier would justify efforts to continue their surveillance activities. further, we need to know if the russians knew our government was that hungry for information to the point that they packed the dossier with disinformation,

just to sow chaos. and, if so, it looks like the obama administration fell for it hook, line, and sinker. it certainly seems like some in leadership may have ignored clear warning signs. department of justice official bruce orr spoke with top f.b.i. leadership about steele's work the day the investigation opened and after the f.b.i. terminated steele as a source, orr continued to feed steele's work to the bureau. at various times, mr. orr made clear to the f.b.i. that the information from steele could not be taken at face value because it was based on hearsay. or noted that steele had an

anti-trump agenda and the whole operation was bankrolled by clinton and the democratic national committee. of course, the clinton campaign wasn't keen on the world knowing that it was footing the bill for the dossier. its lawyers even lied to the media about this fact for more than a year, and that's not me saying it; "the new york times" reporter said that. so by the time the fisa application was filed and every time it was renewed, f.b.i. and department of justice leaders were very much aware of the political bias and the purpose of the unverified information that supposedly supported it. so much so that according to reported text messages between former f.b.i. deputy director

andrew mccabe and his staff, the f.b.i. worked to create a -- these are their words -- robust explanation for any possible bias of the source in the package supporting the fisa application. and it also seems from these text messages that the f.b.i. was getting pushback from at least one individual at the justice department about seeking the fisa. in the end, the fisa application was presented to the courts with no mention whatsoever of clinton or the department -- or the democratic national committee, nor any mention of the source's political bias and mere speculation by the f.b.i. that its primary source was not

peddling his information far and wide. then the court -- the application was granted by the court and renewed three times. let me say that again. the fisa was granted and renewed three times. the f.b.i. surveiled an american citizen for many months, based on salacious and unverified information gathered by a former foreign intelligence officer desperate to keep the president out of office. and that was that british agent, steele. that former intelligence officer used russian sources, including russian government sources, at the behest and with the funding of a rival political party and campaign.

democrats and the mainstream media have been screaming at the top of their lungs about salacious, unverified allegations that this president stole an election by working with the russians, but it is a sobering and verified fact that democrats actually paid for dirt from russians to damage their political opponents. so after -- now after the taxpayers spent $30 million working through this swirling cesspool of allegations, when the attorney general says he has concerns -- the attorney general says he has concerns about certain aspects of this investigation, i agree with him. i don't know whether laws were broken or protocols were breached or rules were violated,

but i've been doing oversight of the federal government, including the department of justice and the f.b.i., now for decades. and i think there's certainly enough there to be asking questions. for example, did the obama administration improperly use the u.s. intelligence community to attempt to neutralize and denigrate a political opponent? did the obama administration fail to properly assert oversight of the department of justice and the f.b.i. fisa process? these questions must be answered it's fundamentally american to care not just about what laws the government enforces, but also how the government enforces those laws. if the greatest enemy we see is a person on the other side of the political spectrum, then

the foreign powers that seek to divide and weaken our republic are going to succeed. i've been trying to get to the bottom of all sides of this issue for years. i've urged -- and i've urged my democratic colleagues to join me. i'm encouraged that the attorney general is taking a look, and i'm encouraged that the independent department of justice inspector general has been looking at these issues as well. i have no idea what they're going to find. i know that mueller turned a blind eye to what they are investigating, however. the american people need answers, all the answers. it's not just this administration that has been dragged through the mud with wild collusions and obstruction theories. the american people have had to listen to those falsehoods now

for years. many in the media have been breathlessly flooding the airwaves with speculation and what ifs about the bogus trump collusion narrative now that the report is out, some media figures are still struggling to come to terms with mueller's findings and decisions. it's as if they're unhappy with the results, or perhaps they're embarrassed that the world is learning that we've been sold a bunch of snake oil for the past two years. and now they're finding out that the jig is up. i hope the mainstream media will pursue the origins of the russian collusion investigation and do it with the same vigor as they have been pushing the

collusion narrative for the last two years. and there ought to be some apologies from some of them. this would all go a long ways of restoring their damaged credibility. so i'm going to do whatever i can to make sure the people get these answers. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. scott: i'm new at this. i ask consent to vitiate the quorum. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. scott: i ask unanimous consent that the cloture vote scheduled for 5:30 p.m. today complens. -- commence. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions

of rule 22, do hereby bring to a close debate on on the nomination of joseph f. bianco, of new york, to be the united states circuit judge for the second circuit. the presiding officer: i ask unanimous consent, the quorum call has been waived, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of joseph f. bianco, of new york, to be united states circuit judge for the second circuit shall be brought to a close? the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

vote: the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber who wish to change their vote? are there any senators that haven't voted? if not, on this vote the yeas are 51, the nays are 40. the motion is agreed to.

mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader is recognized. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate resume legislative session and be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the help committee be

discharged from further consideration of s. res. 162, and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 162, supporting the designation of april, 2019, as national donate life month. the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged. the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. mcconnell: i further ask the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of s. res. 190, submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 190, promoting minority health awareness, and so forth. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. mcconnell: i know of no further debate on the measure.

the presiding officer: if there is no further debate, the question is on adoption of the resolution. all in favor say aye. all opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the resolution is agreed to. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no attention attention. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of s. res. 191, submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 191, supporting the designation of the week of may 5 through may 11, 2019, as national small business week, and so forth. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i understand there are two bills at the desk i ask for their first reading en bloc. the presiding officer: the clerk will -- the clerk will read the bills for the first time. the clerk: s. 1332, a bill to set forth the congressional budget for the united states government, and so forth. h.r. 9, an act to direct the president to develop a plan for the united states to make its nationally determined contribution under the paris agreement, and for other purposes. mr. mcconnell: i now ask for a second reading, and i object to my own request all en bloc. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. the bills will receive their second reading on the next legislative day. mr. mcconnell: now, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10:00 a.m. tuesday, may 7. further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning business be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for

their use later in the day, morning business be closed, and the senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the bianco nomination. further, that the senate recess from 12:30 until 2:15 to allow for the weekly conference meetings. finally, that all time during recess, adjournment, morning business, and leader remarks count postcloture on the bianco nomination. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until senate stands adjourned until

>> my name is diana mueller i am actually a student with the environmental science policy program i also run my own nonprofit group something that is very fun with both keynote speakers several times doing a lot of science and policy so governor o'malley here in washington d.c. at the young age