[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 81 (Wednesday, May 10, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2851-S2853]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
LEGISLATIVE SESSION
______
PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF A RULE OF THE BUREAU OF LAND
MANAGEMENT--MOTION TO PROCEED
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to proceed to H.J. Res. 36.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell] moves to proceed
to H.J. Res. 36, a joint resolution providing for
congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United
States Code, of the final rule of the Bureau of Land
Management relating to ``Waste Prevention, Production Subject
to Royalties, and Resource Conservation.''
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Democratic
leader and I be allowed to give our leader remarks at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Welcoming Kentucky Veterans to Our Nation's Capital
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, today it is my privilege to welcome a
distinguished group of Kentuckians to our Nation's Capital. Because of
the incredible work of the Honor Flight Program, over 80 World War II,
Korea, and Vietnam veterans from across my home State will travel to
Washington. Here they will see the memorials built to honor their
service.
The Bluegrass Chapter Honor Flight has brought hundreds of veterans,
most of them Kentuckians, to Washington for this purpose. Despite the
significant logistical and financial planning that goes into these
trips, Honor Flight works to make sure veterans have the opportunity to
travel at no cost to themselves.
The program organizes travel and food for these veterans, many of
whom would never be able to visit our Nation's Capital or see the
memorials at all without Honor Flight.
The national monuments built on the Mall pay tribute to those who
sacrificed for the cause of freedom. I wish to add my voice to those
who welcome these veterans and thank them for their service to our
country.
Healthcare Legislation
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, on another matter, I am glad to see
many of our Democratic friends here with us today. Yesterday they sent
me a letter indicating they want to participate as we work on
legislation that can bring relief from ObamaCare. In that letter, they
acknowledged the need to ``improve and reform the health care system.''
After 8 years of defending this failing law and its higher costs,
reduced choices, and dropped coverage, I am glad to hear that Senate
Democrats are finally willing to concede that the status quo is simply
unsustainable. I appreciate their willingness to acknowledge that
ObamaCare hasn't lived up to its promises.
[[Page S2852]]
That is certainly a reality that Senate Republicans entirely agree
with. It is why we are working to keep our commitment to the American
people to move beyond the failures of ObamaCare.
If our friends on the other side of the aisle want to join us in
replacing ObamaCare with commonsense reforms, I welcome their input. It
is disappointing that it has taken our Democratic colleagues this long
to come around, but I look forward to hearing their ideas now, and I
look forward to joining in a robust debate on the Senate floor as we
pursue smarter healthcare solutions.
As we continue working to address this critical issue, it is
important to remember why we need to act in the first place. Across the
country, more and more Americans are feeling the pain of ObamaCare.
Listen to these recent headlines.
Thousands of Obamacare Customers Left Without Options As
Insurers Bolt.
More Insurers Abandon Obamacare: Who Might Be Next?
Obamacare Choices Could Go From One to Zero in Some Areas.
ObamaCare is failing the American people, and it keeps getting worse.
Families face skyrocketing premiums, fewer choices, and the risk of
losing the doctors or plans they like. Just this week, we saw even more
troubling news out of States like Maryland, where one major insurer
proposed a premium increase of more than 50 percent, warning that the
ObamaCare market is ``in the early stages of a death spiral.''
We saw similar stories out of Connecticut too. There, insurers have
also requested double-digit increases, which could top out at 52
percent amid worries that the last two insurers on the exchanges ``may
leave.''
These States aren't alone. I continue to hear from Kentuckians who
are desperate for relief from ObamaCare. Take this Campbellsville woman
who purchased insurance on the ObamaCare exchanges after researching
the best policy to fit her needs. Only then did she find out how hard
it would be for her to actually get care. Here is what she had to say.
Today I am making payments for a health care plan that does
not cover my doctors, [and] does not cover all my
prescriptions. It is almost totally useless.
I am only one person but I'm sure I speak for many people
who are finding themselves in this difficult situation.
ObamaCare is a failed law that continues to hurt Americans every
single day. It is taking a bigger bite out of their budgets while, as
too many have discovered, covering fewer services they actually need.
We have all received letters from our constituents like the one I
just shared. These families are the ones shouldering the burdens of
ObamaCare. They are the ones counting on us to act and move past the
failures of ObamaCare. If we don't, this situation will only get worse.
That is why we continue to engage in productive conversations with
each Member of our caucus on the way forward on providing relief from
ObamaCare. I look forward to continuing these talks and welcoming our
Democratic colleagues to the conversation if they are ready to join us.
It certainly is an important step for the entire Democratic caucus to
acknowledge that the status quo is failing the American people and that
Congress cannot sit by while Americans suffer the consequences of this
failed law.
Removal of James Comey
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, one final matter, whatever one thinks
of the manner in which Director James Comey handled the investigation
into Secretary Clinton's unauthorized use of a private server and her
mishandling of classified information, it is clear what our Democratic
colleagues thought of it--both at that time and consistently
thereafter.
Last year, the current Democratic leader said it appeared to be an
``appalling act,'' one that he said ``goes against the tradition of
prosecutors at every level of government,'' and the prior Democratic
leader, when asked if James Comey should resign given his conduct of
the investigation, replied ``[o]f course, yes.''
It is also clear what our Democratic colleagues think of the man who
evaluated Mr. Comey's professional conduct and concluded that the
Bureau needed a change in leadership. The Democratic leader just a few
weeks ago praised Mr. Rosenstein for his independence and said he had
developed a reputation for integrity.
What we have now is our Democratic colleagues complaining about the
removal of an FBI Director whom they themselves repeatedly and sharply
criticized; that removal being done by a man, Rod Rosenstein, whom they
repeatedly and effusively praised--when Mr. Rosenstein recommended Mr.
Comey's removal for many of the very reasons they consistently
complained about.
Two investigations are currently ongoing: The Senate Intelligence
Committee's review of Russian active measures and intelligence
activities and the FBI investigation disclosed by Director Comey.
Today we will no doubt hear calls for a new investigation, which
could only serve to impede the current work being done to not only
discover what the Russians may have done but also to let this body and
the national security community develop the countermeasures and
warfighting doctrine to see that it doesn't occur again. Partisan calls
should not delay the considerable work of Chairman Burr and Vice
Chairman Warner. Too much is at stake.
Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein was just confirmed on a bipartisan
vote, 94 to 6--94 to 6--and that sort of fair consideration should
continue when the Senate receives an FBI Director nominee. As I said
yesterday, once the Senate receives a nomination to fill this position,
we will look forward to a full, fair, and timely confirmation process.
This is a critical role that is particularly important as our country
continues to face serious threats at home and abroad.
Recognition of the Minority Leader
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.
Firing of James Comey
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, yesterday the President fired the
Director of the FBI, Jim Comey, who was leading an active investigation
into the Trump campaign's possible collusion with Russia.
The President provided no reasoning for the firing other than he had
the recommendation of his Attorney General--who has already had to
recuse himself from the Russia investigation for being too close to the
President--and his Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein.
There is little reason to think Mr. Rosenstein's letter is the true
reason President Trump fired Director Comey. Why? Because if the
administration truly had objections to the way Director Comey handled
the Clinton investigation, they would have had them the minute the
President got into office, but he didn't fire Director Comey then.
The question is, Why did it happen last night? We know Director Comey
was leading an investigation into whether the Trump campaign colluded
with the Russians, a serious offense. Were those investigations getting
too close to home for the President?
The dismissal of Director Comey establishes a very troubling pattern.
This administration has now removed several law enforcement officials
in a position to conduct independent investigations of the President
and his administration--from Acting Attorney General Sally Yates to
Preet Bharara and now Jim Comey.
What should happen now, what must happen now is that Mr. Rosenstein
appoints a special prosecutor to oversee this investigation. Deputy
Attorney General Rosenstein sat in the Judiciary Committee and promised
to appoint a special prosecutor at the appropriate time. He said: ``I'm
willing to appoint a special counsel whenever I determine that it's
appropriate.''
My colleague Senator Coons asked him: ``Would you agree that it's
vital to the assurance of confidence in our democracy and law
enforcement system that any investigation into these matters be fair,
free, thorough and politically independent?''
Mr. Rosenstein answered: ``Yes, I do.''
If there was ever a time when circumstances warranted a special
prosecutor, it is right now.
Mr. Rosenstein already expressed concern that Director Comey damaged
the integrity of the FBI. The Attorney General has already had to
recuse himself from the investigation for being too close to the
President.
[[Page S2853]]
If Mr. Rosenstein is true to his word, that he believes this
investigation must be ``fair, free, thorough and politically
independent,'' if he believes, as I do, that the American people must
be able to have faith in the impartiality of this investigation, he
must appoint a special prosecutor and get his investigation out of the
hands of the FBI and far away from the heavy hand of this
administration.
Mr. Rosenstein has the authority to appoint a special prosecutor
right now. He needs no congressional authorization. This would simply
be a step that he could take, as outlined in the Department of Justice
guidelines and in a law passed after Watergate, to get an independently
minded prosecutor who would be insulated from various pressures.
A special prosecutor is not subject to day-to-day supervision by the
Attorney General or anyone else at the Justice Department. That means
the special prosecutor would have much greater latitude in whom he can
subpoena, which questions they can ask, and how to conduct an
investigation. The special prosecutor can only be removed for good
cause, such as misconduct, not to quash the investigation.
Third, there is built-in congressional oversight. Congress is
notified whenever a special counsel is appointed, removed, or has
finished with the investigation. The appointment of a special
prosecutor would be a welcome step in the right direction, but it is
not the only action that should be taken.
There are a great many outstanding questions about the circumstances
of Director Comey's dismissal, the status of the executive branch
investigation into the Trump campaign ties to Russia, and what the
future holds for these investigations.
So I will be requesting that the majority leader call a closed, and
if necessary, classified, all-Senators briefing, with the Attorney
General separately at which, and the Deputy Attorney General
separately, at which they can be asked questions.
Some of the questions: Why was Attorney General Sessions, who had
recused himself from the Russia investigations, able to influence the
firing of the man conducting the Russia investigation? Did Deputy
Attorney General Rosenstein act on his own or at the direction of his
superiors or the White House? Are reports that the President has been
searching for a rationale to fire the FBI Director for weeks true? Was
Director Comey's investigation making significant progress in a
direction that would cause political damage for the White House? Why
didn't the President wait for the Inspector General's investigation
into Director Comey's handling of the Clinton email investigation to
conclude before making his decision to fire him? Was this really about
something else?
No doubt, we will have an opportunity to question Mr. Comey, now a
private citizen, about what happened, but we need to hear from this
administration about what happened and why, and what is going to happen
next. That is why, again, I am requesting that the majority leader call
a closed, and if necessary, classified, all-Senators briefing with the
Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General separately, at which
they can be asked these questions.
I hope the majority leader agrees with me that we need to get to the
bottom of this and get a handle on all the facts so that we can grapple
with them. I remind him and my Republican friends that nothing less is
at stake than the American people's faith in our criminal justice
system and the integrity of the executive branch of our government.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
proceed.
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 legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 51, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 125 Leg.]
YEAS--49
Alexander
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Cochran
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Flake
Gardner
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Perdue
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott
Shelby
Strange
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Wicker
Young
NAYS--51
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Collins
Coons
Cortez Masto
Donnelly
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Graham
Harris
Hassan
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Manchin
Markey
McCain
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Peters
Reed
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall
Van Hollen
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
The motion was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cotton). The majority leader.
____________________