[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for the quorum call be rescinded.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.
____________________