[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 110 (Monday, July 29, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5999-S6004]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
The Budget
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I see my friend from Iowa on the floor,
but I want to express for the record my concern about this kind of
unprecedented obstruction. And it is unprecedented. I have been here 38
years, and this has never happened before, this unprecedented
obstruction of the FBI nominee.
In addition to the unprecedented obstruction on the FBI nominee, I
want to mention another topic that my friends on the other side of the
aisle are blocking. A small minority of Senators are objecting to
moving forward with a budget conference. We have all heard a lot of
talk in the last few years about getting our fiscal house in order--it
makes for a great campaign slogan. But I am afraid that too many in
this body are not following through on their responsibility to govern.
It has been over four months since the Senate passed its version of a
budget resolution. We all remember being here overnight voting on
amendment after amendment. In the intervening months Senate Democrats
have tried 17 times to move to a bipartisan budget conference with the
House to work out
[[Page S6000]]
a final budget agreement. Yet each time the perfunctory request is
made--a request that normally is agreed to shortly after we finish our
version of the budget--someone from the other side of the aisle, with
the full support of their leadership, objects.
After years of crocodile tears from the other side of aisle about the
lack of a budget from the Senate, we finally pass one and they object
to moving forward.
After years of hearing how we need to get our fiscal house in order
because the national debt is the single most pressing issue facing the
country, we pass a responsible budget plan to pay down the debt and
they object to moving forward.
When it comes time to turn all the politicking into governing, they
get cold feet and object.
As the distinguished chairwoman of the Budget Committee has lamented
over and over again, I am sorry to say that for some factions in the
Republican Party today ``compromise'' is a dirty word and ``distrust''
is a political tactic. That may explain why Senate Republicans have
offered up excuse after excuse for blocking the regular budget order
they so desperately pled for just a short time ago. Republicans are
denying the opportunity for members of this body to work with members
of the other body on hammering out a final budget agreement.
I have been fortunate to serve in this chamber for 38 years. I was
elected to the Senate in 1974, the same year the Congressional Budget
Act passed into law. And I served here with Senator Edmund Muskie of
Maine, the first chairman of the Budget Committee. In all those years--
with all those budgets--I cannot recall one, single instance where
political obstruction like this blocked the Senate from going to
conference on a budget resolution. And just to be sure, I checked with
the Congressional Research Service and they could not find another
instance of obstruction like this on a budget conference either. Not
from Democrats; not from the old GOP; not from anyone until now.
Some in this body have objected to the Senate considering any
appropriations bills until a final budget agreement is reached. Let me
see if I get this straight. The very same people who have been begging
for a new budget plan are blocking the Senate from going to conference
on the budget resolution and then saying we cannot possibly deal with
any bills to fund the government next year until we have a final budget
agreement, inching us even closer to a government shutdown or a
government default that would devastate our economy and ruin the very
fiscal house they claim they are trying to get in order. Oh, the sweet
irony here.
It is time for reason and sanity to return to the Senate--on this
budget resolution, on nominations, and on a whole host of other issues.
I think returning to regular order on the budget conference--and
letting conference members from the House and the Senate work out a
final agreement--would be a good first step to bringing some comity and
order back to this body so we can serve the American people.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I rise today to speak regarding the
nomination of James B. Comey, Jr., to serve as Director of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation.
Mr. Comey has a long record of service to the Department of Justice.
Colleagues doubtless are familiar with Mr. Comey's role in the infamous
scene at the side of Attorney General Ashcroft's hospital bed over the
reauthorization of part of President Bush's warrantless wiretapping
program. Mr. Comey, to his great credit, stood firm for the rule of law
and for the Department he served.
Nonetheless, I believe Mr. Comey's role in the issuance of Justice
Department legal opinions on torture deserves close examination by this
body.
In August 2002, Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee and John Yoo of
the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel used what are now
acknowledged to be radical--some would say outlandish--legal arguments
to authorize the use of torture. Jack Goldsmith, the subsequent head of
the office, withdrew those opinions. His successor, Daniel Levin,
issued a new opinion, dated December 30, 2004, that provided a new
analysis of the Federal statute outlawing torture. The Office of Legal
Counsel, under the leadership of Steven Bradbury, applied that analysis
to a series of abusive interrogation techniques, as used individually
and in combination. The resulting two opinions--the Individual
Techniques Opinion and the Combined Techniques Opinion--were issued on
May 10, 2005. Then-Deputy Attorney General Comey concurred in the
former and vigorously objected to the latter on both legal and policy
grounds.
I strongly disagree with Mr. Comey's conclusion that the Individual
Techniques Opinion was, as he put it at his confirmation hearing before
the Judiciary Committee, a ``serious and responsible interpretation''
of the torture statute. Its legal analysis is inadequate in numerous
ways, but for today I will focus on one of the most significant
shortcomings.
As I have observed on other occasions, this opinion omits the 1984
Fifth Circuit case of United States v. Lee, which involved the
prosecution by the Reagan Justice Department of a local sheriff and
deputies who had engaged in waterboarding. The Justice Department's
brief on appeal described the technique in detail and described it as
``water torture.'' The opinion by the Fifth Circuit likewise repeatedly
referred to ``water torture'' and ``torture.'' As Professor David Luban
of Georgetown Law School explained at a hearing I chaired in May 2009,
Lee is ``perhaps the single most relevant case in American law on the
legality of waterboarding.''
To give you an idea of how widely the Individual Techniques Opinion
ranged, it evaluated the meaning of the terms ``severe physical or
mental pain or suffering;'' it evaluated ``[t]he common understanding
of the term `torture' and the context in which the statute was
enacted'' and it discussed ``the historical understanding of torture.''
Yet nowhere in this discussion of the ``historical understanding of
torture'' and the ``common understanding of the term `torture''' does
this opinion mention that it was the view of the Department of Justice
itself, confirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in
1984, that waterboarding is torture. The opinion likewise fails to
consider the American prosecutions of Japanese soldiers for
waterboarding our troops during the Second World War or the court-
martials of American soldiers for using the technique in the
Philippines after the Spanish-American war.
The shortcomings of the Individual Techniques Opinion go beyond the
failings of its legal analysis. Lawyers cannot analyze the law without
knowing the facts, and the record demonstrates that the CIA repeatedly
gave the Office of Legal Counsel bad information about the use and
effectiveness of the techniques. How willingly Yoo and Bybee accepted
false representations by the CIA about their use of the techniques is a
question for another day--and their consciences.
In 2004, however, the CIA's Inspector General explained that the CIA
had used the techniques differently than they were described in the Yoo
and Bybee opinions. Significant misrepresentations also made their way
into Office of Legal Counsel opinions in 2005. As former FBI
interrogator Ali Soufan testified at a hearing I held in 2009, a May
30, 2005, opinion claim about the effectiveness of waterboarding
against Khalid Sheik Muhammad and the so-called Dirty Bomber, Jose
Padilla, was demonstrably false. And although I cannot discuss the
report of the Senate Intelligence Committee, which remains classified,
it is my firm belief that when all the facts are finally made public,
the judgment about the candor of the CIA will be harsh and the
Individual Techniques Opinion will be further discredited.
As I pointed out at Mr. Comey's confirmation hearing, it is not
enough to say that letting the Individual Techniques Opinion go was ok
because the techniques would likely only be used in combination. If Mr.
Comey's view had prevailed and the Combined Techniques Opinion had not
been issued, an interrogator could have waterboarded a detainee as long
as that technique was used in isolation.
It also concerns me that Mr. Comey did not press for an analysis of
legal prohibitions other than the torture statute. The Individual
Techniques Opinion and the Combined Techniques Opinion did not
consider, for example,
[[Page S6001]]
the legality of abusive techniques under American treaty obligations,
such as those imposed by the Convention Against Torture or even under
the Constitution. It may be the practice of the Office of Legal Counsel
to divide relevant legal questions among multiple opinions, but that
does not justify failing to address all obvious and relevant legal
questions. As a result, I believe that concurrence in the Individual
Techniques Opinion should have been withheld until it was clear that
the Office was evaluating all relevant treaty and constitutional
questions.
Because I do not believe the Individual Techniques Opinion is
reasonable or responsible, and because I believe the process for
reviewing that opinion was flawed, I cannot hold Mr. Comey blameless
for concurring it. He should have done better.
This evaluation has the benefit of hindsight and is free from the
pressurized atmosphere of early 2005, when Mr. Comey was forced to
contend with a White House pulling the Justice Department in the wrong
direction on a number of fronts.
I accept that it was not Mr. Comey's responsibility as the Deputy
Attorney General to do his own research on the questions addressed by
the Individual Techniques Opinion. I do think that the opinion had a
bad enough odor to put a responsible, well-trained lawyer on alert.
Mr. Comey did take significant, affirmative steps to satisfy himself
that the Individual Techniques Opinion was issued in good faith, seeing
to it that the opinion was pressure-tested by exposing it to broad
review within the Department of Justice and the executive branch. This
fact distinguishes the Individual Techniques Opinion from the earlier
opinions that had been crafted without adequate scrutiny within the
executive branch--scrutiny they likely could not have survived:
remember the use of the Medicare standard for a torture opinion.
In sum, while I believe that the Individual Techniques Opinion does
not meet the standards expected of Justice Department attorneys, I
ultimately have concluded that Mr. Comey performed his role reasonably.
One key fact corroborates this conclusion. As discussed above, the
legality of waterboarding under American treaty obligations and the
Constitution was the obvious followup question. In fact, the Office of
Legal Counsel was working on a separate opinion on those very questions
and would publish it on May 30, 2005. Mr. Comey, however, was
deliberately cut out. Though he already had submitted his resignation,
Mr. Comey apparently was enough of a thorn in the side of the enablers
of torture that they wanted to get around him.
It is my judgment, overall, that Mr. Comey was an opponent of torture
and a defender of the best traditions of the Justice Department and our
Nation. I think he could have done better, but Mr. Comey was on the
right side. Add to this his clear statements to the committee, his long
track record of public service, and his principled stands on other
matters of national importance, and I conclude that Mr. Comey has the
integrity, the capability, and the commitment to lead the Federal
Bureau of Investigation. I will work to see his nomination confirmed
and work with him as he undertakes this new chapter in his public
service.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, Shortly the Senate will be voting to
invoke cloture on the nomination of James B. Comey to become the next
Director of the FBI. I will vote to invoke cloture and expect many of
my colleagues will do the same.
The confirmation of a new FBI Director is a serious decision for this
Chamber to consider. As a large Federal law enforcement agency, the FBI
has numerous responsibilities and tremendous power. Only with quality
leadership and proper Congressional oversight will the FBI be best
equipped to fight crime, terrorism, and espionage.
I think the President has made a fine choice in selecting Mr. Comey
as the next leader of the FBI, and I plan to explain my support for him
as we approach Mr. Comey's confirmation vote.
I recognize there is a level of concern associated with this
nomination regarding the use of drones by the FBI. I have been at the
forefront of this issue, raising it last year with the Attorney
General. The Attorney General gave me an incomplete answer as to the
FBI's use of drones.
Accordingly, after there was disclosure that the FBI was using drones
on U.S. soil for surveillance, I questioned Mr. Comey about the extent
of that policy. This needs to be addressed by the new director, and I
have Mr. Comey's assurance he will review the policy. I will be
monitoring this closely, but we need a director in place, and we need
to confirm this nomination this week.
Excellent leadership is only one ingredient in the recipe for success
at any Federal agency. Another critical element is proper congressional
oversight. And it is this component I fear too many of my colleagues
have forgotten. Today, too many seem to believe that advice and consent
really means rubberstamp and turn a blind eye. The American people
deserve better than this approach to confirmations.
Over the last few months, I have observed an alarming pattern. Too
often, this administration submits subpar nominees while simultaneously
obstructing any legitimate oversight by this Congress. Sadly, many of
my colleagues appear to be choosing to ignore any effort to correct it.
Let me cite just a few examples.
We saw how Mr. Perez, an assistant attorney general, brokered an
unwritten deal that cost the taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.
My colleagues on the other side largely ignored the shady deal. Mr.
Perez tried to cover his tracks, but got caught leaving a voicemail
that was recorded. Even then, my colleagues dismissed it. And when he
was caught concealing evidence of the deal on his personal email
accounts, he defied a lawfully issued congressional subpoena and
refused to turn over the documentation. Incredibly, his defiance was
ignored. Worse yet, for all this rotten behavior, the Senate rewarded
him with a promotion by confirming him as Secretary of Labor.
We see the same thing occurring with the nomination of Mr. Mayorkas.
The nominee for the No. 2 position at the Department of Homeland
Security is the target of an open investigation by the Inspector
General of the Department of Homeland Security. The IG is investigating
allegations that the nominee procured a visa as a political favor, even
though the visa was properly rejected.
Incredibly, the Senate Committee pressed on with the hearing despite
unanimous objection from the minority for moving forward in the midst
of an open investigation.
That is incredible to me--a Senate Committee would move forward with
a nominee who has an open investigation into the nominee's conduct. I
wish this were a unique occurrence, but based on recent experience in
the Judiciary Committee, it is not an isolated event. This is exactly
what happened recently in the Senate Judiciary Committee with respect
to Mr. B. Todd Jones, the nominee to be Director of the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.
Earlier this year, I learned the Office of Special Counsel was
investigating Mr. Jones in a complaint that he retaliated against a
whistleblower in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of
Minnesota.
In the Judiciary Committee, it has been the Committee's practice when
a nominee is the subject of an open investigation, the Committee
generally does not move forward until the issues are resolved. Because
of this practice, I objected to holding his hearing last month and
requested the hearing be postponed to allow the investigation to
finish.
My request was denied. I then objected to putting him on the
committee agenda until the non-partisan investigation was complete.
Again, my request was rejected. And now, despite the fact there remains
an open complaint of whistleblower retaliation against Mr. Jones before
the Office of Special Counsel, his nomination will soon be considered
by the full Senate.
I want all my colleagues to know what happened because I am quite
concerned by the direction it has taken, especially in light of the
fact this practice seems to be spreading into other Senate committees
as well.
Over the past few months, there has been correspondence between my
office and the Office of Special Counsel regarding the status of their
proceedings.
[[Page S6002]]
I had previously received a copy of an anonymous letter to the Office
of Special Counsel making various allegations against Mr. Jones. I sent
a letter to OSC on April 8, asking for an update on those allegations.
On April 12, the Office of Special Counsel responded that there were
two pending matters involving the U.S. Attorney's Office, District of
Minnesota, where Mr. Jones is the United States Attorney. The first
matter was a prohibited personnel practice complaint alleging reprisal
for whistleblowing and other protected activity. The second matter was
a whistleblower disclosure, alleging gross mismanagement and abuses of
authority.
The complaint, filed by an Assistant United States Attorney in the
office, alleged that personnel actions, including a suspension and a
lowered performance appraisal, were taken in retaliation for protected
whistleblowing or other protected activity.
On June 5, OSC provided the committee with an update to the two
pending cases. It reported the whistleblower disclosure case had been
closed based on its determination that the information provided was
insufficient to determine with a substantial likelihood that gross
mismanagement, an abuse of authority, or a violation of a law, rule, or
regulation had occurred. Accordingly, OSC closed that case file.
OSC's action to close the whistleblower disclosure case was not based
on any investigation by that office. That action was merely a
determination based on a technical review of the complaint document
itself. It was not a finding on the merits of the complaint.
With regard to the other issue, the prohibited personnel practice, I
was informed the complaint was referred for investigation. Subsequently
the complainant and Justice Department agreed to mediation. I was told
that if mediation was unsuccessful, the case would return to OSC's
Investigation and Prosecution Division for further investigation.
My colleagues should understand that, of all the complaints received
by OSC, only about 10 percent of them merit an investigation. This case
was one of them. Why did the career, nonpartisan staff at OSC forward
the case for investigation? Presumably because they thought it needed
to be investigated. That says something about the likely merits of the
case.
Before the hearing, there was disagreement regarding the status of
the Special Counsel's investigation. Accordingly, I contacted the
Special Counsel, inquiring as to the status of the complaints. The
Special Counsel confirmed for the second time that the investigation
remains open. She stated, ``The reassignment of the case for mediation
did not result in the matter being closed.''
Despite this, and over my objection, on June 11, the committee went
forward with a hearing on the Jones nomination. We were told Mr. Jones'
hearing needed to be held in order for him to have an opportunity to
respond to the Office of Special Counsel complaints. I would note that
a similar rationale was used to justify the Mayorkas hearing--to
publicly address the allegations against the nominee. In Mr. Jones'
case, in advance of the hearing, the Department of Justice sent a
letter to me stating: ``Mr. Jones looks forward to answering your
questions about these matters during his nominations hearing. . . .''
Additionally, Mr. Jones was quoted in the Star Tribune as saying, ``I
am looking forward to meeting with the Committee and answering all
their questions.''
However, as I expected, the hearing provided no information to the
committee with regard to the open Special Counsel investigation. At the
hearing, Mr. Jones said he could not talk about the complaint. Of
course, this negated the whole reason why the hearing had even been
scheduled.
At his hearing, my first question to Mr. Jones was about the
investigation. This is his reply:
Because those complaints are confidential as a matter of
law, I have not seen the substance of the complaints, nor can
I comment on them. I have learned more from your statement
today than I knew before I came here this morning about the
nature and substance of the complaint.
A few questions later, I inquired of Mr. Jones, ``Will you answer the
complaints about the Assistant U.S. Attorney--because that is why you
are here today?''
He replied:
Well, quite frankly, Senator, I am at a disadvantage with
the facts. There is a process in place. I have not seen the
OSC complaint. I do know that our office, working with the
Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys, is in the process of
responding to the issues that you have talked about this
morning, but I have not had the opportunity to either be
interviewed or have any greater knowledge about what the OSC
complaint is.''
So there we were, left with an open investigation of serious
allegations of whistleblower retaliation. We were told the hearing was
the opportunity for us to question the nominee and get these questions
answered, but the nominee couldn't even talk about them at all.
This put the Committee in the position of either allowing time for
the Office of Special Counsel to do its job or looking into the matter
for ourselves before proceeding.
Strangely, late in the day before the hearing, the Majority offered
to conduct some interviews the Friday following the hearing. That was
quite perplexing to me. We were going to begin the investigation after
the hearing had concluded. I could not remember when the committee had
ever conducted an investigation after a nominee's hearing.
The day after the hearing, the chairman's staff indicated to the
media we were conducting a bipartisan probe. The media reported the
majority staff had offered to conduct a bipartisan inquiry into the
matters before the Office of Special Counsel.
However, I am disappointed to report there was no genuine effort to
gather all the facts. The majority only agreed to jointly interview one
witness, the whistleblower himself. However, the majority refused to
look into the substance of the whistleblower's claims. Even more
troubling, it quickly turned into an inquiry of the whistleblower
rather than into the alleged retaliatory action done by the nominee.
The majority reached its own conclusion that it was not a
whistleblower matter at all, but a personnel matter wherein management
simply imposed discipline on a disruptive or insubordinate employee.
However, there was never a factual record before the committee to
support this conclusion.
The majority determined the whistleblower is an uncooperative witness
for being ``unwilling to provide documents''--meaning his personnel
file.
The whistleblower in this instance is an Assistant U.S. Attorney with
30 years of Federal service, 24 years of which he has served in the
U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Minnesota. He has extensive
leadership experience and in 2012 received the Assistant Attorney
General's Distinguished Achievement Award.
It should be quite alarming to us all that a staff investigation of a
whistleblower's complaint would be twisted around into an apparent
attempt to investigate the whistleblower.
I have worked with many Federal Government whistleblowers over the
years and this is exactly the type of treatment that whistleblowers
fear. It is one of the main reasons they are afraid to come forward.
This type of treatment raises serious concerns.
Unfortunately, I have come to expect this out of the Federal
Government agencies--attacking the whistleblower rather than
investigate the underlying problem. I have seen it over and over again.
But this sort of inquiry shouldn't be the way the Senate deals with
whistleblowers or others who come forward to testify.
The Senate cannot conduct itself this way. We cannot ignore ongoing
investigations. In my opinion, we are neglecting our constitutional
obligations. Eventually, one of these situations will embarrass the
Senate, damage the reputation of the Federal Government, and,
ultimately, probably cost the taxpayers, our constituents.
So I urge all of my colleagues to oppose taking further action at
this time on the nomination of B. Todd Jones for Director of ATF,
another nominee with an open investigation. I will vote no on cloture
and encourage my colleagues to do likewise. This is about protecting
the advice and consent function of the Senate.
The Senate should wait until the Office of Special Counsel has
concluded its investigation and we know the truth about his retaliatory
conduct against a protected whistleblower.
[[Page S6003]]
There will be time to debate the other substantive concerns regarding
this nomination. There may be additional reasons why my colleagues
should oppose Mr. Jones's nomination. Other Senators may vote to
confirm the nominee.
But as a starting point, we should all be in agreement that it is
imprudent and unwise for the Senate to give final consideration to any
nominee where there is an open investigation into that nominee's
conduct. The Senate cannot abdicate its duty to advise and consent on
these nominees and simply rubberstamp them.
As we consider this nomination, as well as a number of other
nominations this week, I would urge my colleagues to ponder what a
Federal agency needs in order to be best positioned to succeed. In my
opinion, a Federal agency needs at least two things: a quality leader
and proper congressional oversight. I think this is especially relevant
as we consider the next Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation is a powerful law enforcement
agency facing numerous challenges today.
First and foremost, the FBI is still undergoing a transformation from
a Federal law enforcement agency to a national security agency.
Following 9/11, the FBI's mission changed. Director Mueller was
immediately thrust into the role of reinventing a storied law
enforcement agency into a national security agency.
While Director Mueller rose to the challenge and made tremendous
strides in accomplishing this transformation, that job is not yet
complete. It is still adjusting to prevent domestic terrorism. It must
grow to combat the growing threat of cybercrimes that threaten our
national security, our economy, and our infrastructure. The FBI needs a
Director to continue to guide it as it rises to counter these serious
threats.
Second, the FBI must confront the growing concerns over the use of
invasive methods of gathering information on American citizens. One
example would be the proper use of drones by domestic law enforcement
agencies. Last year I raised this issue with the Attorney General. It
now appears his response was less than forthright. This year, I raised
the issue with Director Mueller and again with Mr. Comey, today's
nominee.
Frankly, it is going to require a Director who is knowledgeable on
the subject, the law, and who is willing to work with Congress in order
craft the best policy with regard to this technology's potential use in
domestic law enforcement.
Third, a host of legacy problems at the FBI remain unsolved. The FBI
has struggled to develop a working case management computer system.
Management concerns remain about the proper personnel balance between
special agents and analysts. It has yet to effectively manage agent
rotations to the Washington, DC headquarters. A real or perceived
double standard of discipline between line agents and management must
be repaired. Significant concerns about internal FBI policies dealing
with whistleblower retaliation exist. Each of these matters must be
addressed as they threaten to undermine the hard work of the employees
at the FBI.
The position of FBI Director is unique in that it is a 10-year
appointment subject to the advice and consent of the Senate. This 10-
year term was extended 2 years ago on a one-time only basis. The
extension allowed Director Mueller to serve an additional time period
as the President failed to nominate a replacement. At the time, we held
a special hearing to discuss the importance of a term limit for the FBI
Director. One of the reasons Congress created a 10-year term was to
ensure accountability of the FBI.
Today, we vote on the nomination of James B. Comey for Director. Mr.
Comey has a distinguished legal career. After graduating from the
University of Chicago Law School in 1985, Mr. Comey clerked for Hon.
John M. Walker, Jr., U.S. district judge for the Southern District of
New York.
In 1986, he began his legal career with Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP,
where he focused on civil litigation. In 1987, Mr. Comey became an
assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York,
eventually serving as deputy chief of the Criminal Division.
He left the Department of Justice to return to private practice in
1993, joining McGuireWoods, LLP. While at McGuireWoods, he served as a
deputy special counsel on the U.S. Senate Special Committee to
Investigate Whitewater and Related Matters. During this time, he also
served as an adjunct professor at the University of Richmond Law
School.
In 1996, Mr. Comey returned to government service as Managing
Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Office of the U.S. attorney for the
Eastern District of Virginia. By 2002, Mr. Comey was appointed U.S.
attorney for the Southern District of New York. And in December 2003,
he was appointed Deputy Attorney General, a position he served with
honor and distinction until 2005, when he left government service.
However, I would like to point out, and I think Mr. Comey would
agree, that perhaps one of the best indicators about his judgment is
that he had the smarts to marry an Iowan.
At his confirmation hearing, Mr. Comey addressed many concerns raised
by Senators from both sides of the aisle. His answers were direct and
thoughtful. On subjects with which he was familiar, he spoke
intelligently and straightforward. If he didn't know enough, he said
so. There was no trying to hide the ball or cover for his lack of
expertise in a particular area. In short, it was a refreshing change
from the many nominees who come up here and try to parrot to Senators
what nominees think we want to hear.
Not so with Mr. Comey. In fact, several times when pressed on his
views on a specific FBI policy, such as FBI whistleblower policies or
domestic drone use, he confessed he had little or no knowledge of the
current FBI policy but promised to thoroughly review the existing
policies in place and the legal and moral issues surrounding the
controversies. Furthermore, he pledged to work with Congress by being
responsive to our inquiries for information.
Now, these promises are not unique to Mr. Comey. Almost every nominee
promises the Senate that he or she will be responsive to our concerns
and requests for information. Sadly, especially under this
administration, once confirmed, we rarely get an adequate response
until right before that individual has an oversight hearing before a
Senate or House Committee. I can only hope that Mr. Comey's efforts to
be more transparent will not be stymied by the Department of Justice.
As I said, I think that if any Federal agency, but especially the
FBI, is to succeed, it needs quality leadership and proper
congressional oversight. After examining his record, I think that Mr.
Comey will prove to be that leader. Only time will tell, however, if
this administration will allow Mr. Comey to engage the Congress and
allow us to perform our constitutional duty of oversight to ensure that
existing legislation and policies best serve this nation.
I thank Mr. Comey for his willingness to return to public service.
And I urge my colleagues to support his nomination.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. With my friend's permission, I suggest the absence of a
quorum. I need to talk to him about something that deals with the
consent agreement I have here.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call
be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that cloture on
Calendar No. 208 be withdrawn and that the Senate proceed to vote on
confirmation of the nomination at 5:35 p.m.; the motion to reconsider
be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action
or debate; that no further motions be in order; that the President be
immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then resume
legislative session and proceed to a period of morning business, with
Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each; further, that
the vote on cloture on Calendar No. 223 occur on Tuesday, July 30,
2013, following leader remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
[[Page S6004]]
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I yield the floor and I suggest the
absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the quorum call
be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. I yield back all remaining time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Under the previous order, the question is, Will the Senate advise and
consent to the nomination of James. B. Comey, Jr., of Connecticut, to
be Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation?
Mr. LEAHY. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to
be a sufficient.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. MERKLEY (When his name was called). Present.
Mr. WYDEN (When his name was called). Present.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from North Dakota (Ms.
Heitkamp) is necessarily absent.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Chiesa), the Senator from Florida (Mr.
Rubio), and the Senator from Alaska (Mrs. Murkowski).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from New Jersey (Mr.
Chiesa) would have voted ``yea.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Donnelly). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 93, nays 1, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 188 Ex.]
YEAS--93
Alexander
Ayotte
Baldwin
Barrasso
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt
Boozman
Boxer
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
Cruz
Donnelly
Durbin
Enzi
Feinstein
Fischer
Flake
Franken
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hagan
Harkin
Hatch
Heinrich
Heller
Hirono
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (SD)
Johnson (WI)
Kaine
King
Kirk
Klobuchar
Landrieu
Leahy
Lee
Levin
Manchin
Markey
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Mikulski
Moran
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Portman
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Risch
Roberts
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Scott
Sessions
Shaheen
Shelby
Stabenow
Tester
Thune
Toomey
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Vitter
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wicker
NAYS--1
Paul
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--2
Merkley
Wyden
NOT VOTING--4
Chiesa
Heitkamp
Murkowski
Rubio
The nomination was confirmed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to
reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table and the President
will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.
____________________