[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 70 (Tuesday, April 25, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2516-S2518]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                     Congratulating Senator Kennedy

  Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I would like to acknowledge my 
experienced and talented friend from Louisiana in his maiden speech, 
speaking about something that reflects his experience. Briefly, his 
experience, aside from being an outstanding citizen, was as a secretary 
of revenue in Louisiana, a State treasurer in Louisiana, and an 
attorney and a law school professor.
  So now there are his committee appointments, which include the 
Banking, Appropriations, and Judiciary Committees, which are tailor-
made for what he does. As a product of a small town and as someone who 
as treasurer in our State has been so aware of the economic development 
issues, no one would know better than he what a critical role small 
banks play in generating the capital and delivering the capital to a 
small business that grows to be a bigger and a bigger and a big 
business, while along the way employing more folks.
  So, as we as a nation grapple with how to create better-paying jobs, 
it is fitting that Senator Kennedy would begin by speaking directly to 
how to create better-paying jobs. I welcome him as a colleague. I look 
forward to working with him for things that would benefit our State, 
our Nation, and the people who live here.
  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. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, in less than an hour, we will consider 
the nomination of Rod Rosenstein to be Deputy Attorney General of the 
United States.
  We consider his nomination under highly unusual, if not unique, 
circumstances. Only today, there were revelations from the House 
Oversight Committee at a bipartisan conference indicating that General 
Flynn, formerly the National Security Advisor, may have broken criminal 
laws by his concealing payments from Russia--specifically, from Russia 
Today--in connection with his speaking fees and travel expenses in 
2015. He concealed these payments in security clearance forms submitted 
in 2016, SF86 forms. False statements on such forms are a violation of 
our criminal laws. His potential criminal liability is a serious and 
important allegation that needs to be investigated further.
  What we know for sure is that the investigation of this allegation 
and others--this very colorful violation of Federal criminal law--can 
be done reliably, impartially, and credibly only by a special 
prosecutor. That is why I have asked Mr. Rosenstein to commit that he 
will appoint a special prosecutor to investigate this allegation as 
well as others involving the President's staff, campaign associates, 
and staff in connection with Russia's interference with our election.
  There is no question that the Russians sought to interfere and that 
they did so. That is the conclusion of the investigation that was 
already done by our intelligence community, and it is a conclusion that 
is virtually universally accepted. The only question now is this: What 
was the involvement and potential collusion and aiding and abetting of 
Americans in that Russian cyber attack on this country? In my view, it 
was an act of war. We can debate that question.
  What is undebatable is the need for a thorough, impartial, vigorous, 
and aggressive investigation that will give that information to the 
American people. It must be an investigation that can pursue criminal 
wrongdoing, if it is proved, and that can prosecute it and ultimately 
make that investigation transparent to the American people so they know 
what actually happened.
  I have asked Rod Rosenstein to follow the precedent that was 
established by Elliot Richardson under circumstances that were not 
unlike the ones we encountered here.
  The saying is that history almost never repeats, but it rhymes. What 
we have here is a situation that rhymes with the one that Elliot 
Richardson encountered when he was Attorney General-designee. He was 
requested to appoint a special prosecutor as a condition of his 
confirmation. He agreed to do so in 1973. He appointed Archibald Cox. 
That, in turn, led to the Watergate investigation and, ultimately, it 
vindicated the judgment on the part of our Senate Judiciary Committee 
that an independent special prosecutor was necessary under those 
circumstances.
  My colleague who is presiding, as a former State attorney general, 
knows well the importance of independence and credibility in any 
judicial role of this kind. This Nation now faces a looming 
constitutional crisis--again, not unlike Watergate, which ultimately 
resulted in United States v. Nixon before the U.S. Supreme Court, a 
subpoena that had to be enforced by that special prosecutor against the 
President of the United States.
  Only Rod Rosenstein can vindicate that important public interest. 
Only the Deputy Attorney General of the United States can appoint a 
special prosecutor because the Attorney General rightly has recused 
himself. Jeff Sessions has recused himself because of his own 
conversations with Russian officials, which he failed to disclose 
during testimony to the Judiciary Committee.
  Only the Deputy Attorney General can perform that vital function, and 
only a special prosecutor can do what is necessary to vindicate the 
public interest through a vigorous investigation into any criminal 
wrongdoing and to prosecute lawbreakers.
  I have confidence that our Intelligence Committee in the Senate will 
impartially and objectively do whatever it can to uncover the truth. 
But even if it succeeds--and there are obstacles and challenges to its 
success--it cannot pursue a criminal investigation,

[[Page S2517]]

and it cannot bring criminal charges and pursue a conviction. It 
probably cannot make fully transparent or disclose all of the facts 
that it uncovers. Its custom is to issue a report and, when it does so, 
redacting information that can be considered classified or sensitive. 
It may well lead, in an abundance of caution, toward redacting rather 
than disclosing.
  That is why I have asked Rod Rosenstein, as a condition of his 
becoming Deputy Attorney General, to commit that he will appoint a 
special independent prosecutor. Call that office whatever you wish--
special counsel, independent counsel, special prosecutor. The role is 
what is significant. It is someone who will uncover the wrongdoing and 
follow the evidence and the facts wherever they lead.
  Neither Mr. Rosenstein nor Mr. Sessions can do so. Neither Rosenstein 
nor Sessions will ever convince the public that they are really 
pursuing their boss, the President of the United States, if there is 
evidence that leads to his culpability. They report to him. Rod 
Rosenstein reports to Jeff Sessions, and he, in turn, reports to the 
President of the United States. That is why the appearance and the 
reality of independence is so critically important, and that is why 
only a special prosecutor can pursue that interest.
  If we were in normal times, Rod Rosenstein would be an eminently 
acceptable nominee, and I would welcome his nomination without 
attaching any kind of request or condition. He is certainly an 
honorable public servant. He is a career prosecutor. I admire his 
dedication and commitment to public service. As U.S. attorney for 
Maryland, he certainly has an admirable record. He is, in some senses, 
what we value in the Department of Justice--someone who is committed to 
the rule of law. That is why I have been surprised and disappointed 
that he has failed to heed my request.
  Whatever happens today, I want to ensure my colleagues and, most 
especially, him and the loyal and dedicated members of the Department 
of Justice that I will support his work in his capacity as Deputy 
Attorney General, if he is confirmed today, because the professionalism 
of the Department of Justice is of preeminent interest for me 
personally, having served as a U.S. attorney and also as attorney 
general of my State, but it is also vitally important to the American 
people.
  We must consider his nomination in the light of the looming 
constitutional crisis that our Nation confronts. It is a crisis partly 
of the administration's making by its attacks on the judiciary, calling 
a member of the bench a ``so-called judge,'' saying to the American 
people that a circuit court of appeals will be responsible for any 
violence that may occur as a result of its ruling on the 
constitutionality of Executive orders related to immigration, demeaning 
and disparaging a judge because of his ethnic heritage--a judge born, 
in fact, in Indiana.
  These kinds of attacks on the judiciary undermine respect and trust 
in a branch of government that is the bulwark of our democracy and 
that, in my view, when the history of this era is written, will be 
regarded as having been one of its finest hours. We will be relying on 
it to protect our Nation's fundamental rights and liberties. The 
independence of the judiciary is a sacred pillar of our democracy, and 
it must be free of political interference.
  The other hero of this era, in my view, will be the press, which has 
uncovered many of the facts leading to my conclusion, joined by so many 
of my colleagues, that there must be a special prosecutor. That 
conclusion is not mine alone. It has been joined by many of my 
colleagues, 10 of them having cosigned a letter I wrote in mid-February 
asking for a special prosecutor.
  The independence of our judiciary and of our prosecutors is so 
critically important for the trust and credibility of the American 
people that the rule of law will prevail and that no official will put 
himself above the rule of law. That is the threat and the 
constitutional crisis that we potentially face.
  Two high-ranking administration officials have been caught 
misrepresenting their ties with Russia. One of them is, in fact, the 
Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, who did so before the Judiciary 
Committee, under oath.
  Mr. Rosenstein has said that he wants to be approved by the Senate 
before he decides whether to appoint a special prosecutor, but that 
delay will mean that a man who was hired and can be fired by President 
Trump will decide whether the Trump administration will face a thorough 
and complete investigation. This body has a duty to insist on it before 
his confirmation. We must seize this opportunity to assure 
accountability to the American people and make sure also about their 
confidence in our electoral system. While Mr. Rosenstein has claimed he 
needs to be in office to familiarize himself with the facts of an 
investigation into the Trump administration before he can commit to 
appointing a special prosecutor, the row of facts are all a matter of 
public record now.

  We know Russia interfered in the 2016 election. We know the FBI is 
investigating Trump administration lawbreaking associated with that 
interference. That investigation has been confirmed by the Director of 
the FBI himself. We know Attorney General Jeff Sessions met with 
officials of Russia's Government, and yet he said under oath that he 
did not meet with those Russians. That is more than ample information 
to justify appointing a special prosecutor, but there is much more, 
including actions by Carter Page, Paul Manafort, Roger Stone. These 
kinds of abundant facts are known now and warrant this action and also 
more than justify this body insisting that he commit to appointing that 
special prosecutor.
  That public information concerning known associates of the President 
and their Russian contacts includes General Flynn's actions disclosed 
today. On December 10, 2015, General Flynn was paid to attend an event 
in Moscow celebrating the 10th anniversary of Russia Today, a 
propaganda arm of the Russian Government. He concealed the amount 
Russia Today paid him for speaking fees and travel expenses in those 
security clearance forms he submitted in 2016, the SF86. He dined with 
Vladimir Putin just 18 months after leaving his position leading the 
Defense Intelligence Agency. As a retired general, he is prohibited 
from receipt of consulting fees, gifts, travel expenses, honorary or 
any other kind of salary from a foreign government without 
congressional consent. That action also is a potentially prosecutable 
action.
  After the election, General Flynn spoke repeatedly to Russian 
Ambassador Kislyak regarding lifting sanctions on Putin, an amazing act 
of disloyalty. Misleading Vice President Pence and the American public 
on the nature of these secret discussions, he demonstrated a lack of 
candor and credibility inconsistent with the role of National Security 
Advisor, and therefore he was compelled to resign.
  The President also selected Carter Page to serve during the campaign 
on his foreign policy advisory committee. He is the same individual we 
have learned who was under investigation for his contacts with Russian 
agents.
  The President's campaign manager, Paul Manafort, worked for years on 
a disinformation campaign to benefit the Putin government and was paid 
millions of dollars to do so. The President's son-in-law Jared Kushner 
held an undisclosed meeting with both the Russian Ambassador and also 
executives from a Russian bank, EDB, a bank built by Putin's cronies. 
The President himself has sold real estate to Russian investors seeking 
to profit from their corrupt activities in Russia or, as his son, 
Donald Trump, put it, ``We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.''
  The administration's supposed attempts to investigate itself have 
produced mixed signals and clear conflicts of interest such as House 
Intelligence Chair Devin Nunes's ill-fated trip to the White House to 
discuss his committee findings.
  The robust congressional oversight hearings that we all hope will 
happen are certainly essential, but only the Department of Justice can 
analyze these facts and information which are only the tip of the 
iceberg--analyze it, digest it, determine its relevance to a criminal 
investigation and to a prosecution, pursuit of a violation of law and 
charges. The FBI can investigate, but it cannot bring charges. Only a 
lawyer from the Department of Justice can do so, and only a special 
prosecutor can make that judgment independently and impartially without 
having to

[[Page S2518]]

worry about what his boss thinks or what his boss's boss thinks.
  So I have reached the conclusion reluctantly--because Rod Rosenstein 
has a very admirable record of public service--that I must vote against 
his nomination in just a short time because of his failure to commit to 
a special prosecutor. I have no illusions about convincing my 
colleagues about joining me to vote on cloture with a degree of realism 
about the views of this body on his nomination, but I hope he will heed 
the example of Mr. Richardson in 1973 and also of Jim Comey, who at one 
point also resorted to a special prosecutor to investigate a 
controversial matter that arose during President George Bush's 
administration.
  There is clear, unmistakable, bipartisan precedent for a special 
prosecutor under these circumstances. There is not only precedent, 
there is historical imperative. At the root of this constitutional 
crisis is a concern for the rule of law, for preserving the public's 
faith and trust and respect for our justice system. It is at the 
foundation of what we do when we vote. When we make laws, we presume 
they will be rigorously and fairly enforced without fear or favor, and 
that no official, not even the President of the United States, will be 
placed above the law. That is the lesson of Watergate, but it is also 
the lesson established throughout our history, going back to the 
Founders and the preeminent role played by our U.S. Supreme Court.
  I will support Mr. Rosenstein in his efforts to pursue the truth and 
pursue justice, as I believe he must do, and I hope he will do because 
the credibility the of the Department of Justice and our justice system 
is so much at stake.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against his nomination, as I will do, 
but I also pledge my support for him and the loyal, dedicated, 
hardworking members of the Department of Justice if he is confirmed.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Johnson). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Under the previous order, all time is expired.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the Rosenstein 
nomination?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 94, nays 6, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 114 Ex.]

                                YEAS--94

     Alexander
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Flake
     Franken
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hassan
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kaine
     Kennedy
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Leahy
     Lee
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Paul
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Sasse
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Strange
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden
     Young

                                NAYS--6

     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Cortez Masto
     Gillibrand
     Harris
     Warren
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the President will 
be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

                          ____________________