[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 75 (Wednesday, May 9, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2565-S2568]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                Anniversary of the Firing of James Comey

  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, 1 year ago today, the President of 
the United States did the unthinkable. He did at least what many people 
thought was unthinkable. He fired the Director of the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation, James Comey. Shortly thereafter, he acknowledged the 
reason. He told NBC's Lester Holt that he fired James Comey because he 
was thinking about ``this Russia thing'' and how unjustified he thought 
the investigation was. He later told officials of Vladimir Putin's 
government in a private meeting in the Oval Office that this firing 
relieved him of the pressure that he was feeling as a result of the 
Russia investigation.
  The 1-year anniversary of Jim Comey's firing might well be permitted 
to pass without notice, but little did we know at the time that it 
would be part of a relentless and repeated denunciation of professional 
law enforcement at the Federal Bureau of Investigation, at the 
Department of Justice, even at the CIA, and law enforcement agencies 
all around the country. This concerted and coordinated attack on the 
FBI and Department of Justice is no accident. It is part of a strategy 
to undermine the credibility not only of the special counsel's 
investigation of collusion by the Trump campaign with Russia in its 
meddling in the 2016 election and the potential of obstruction of 
justice and coverup by the President and his administration, but it is 
also deeply alarming as an attack on professional law enforcement.
  The President's attacks have become so numerous and so brazen that 
they have almost become the new normal. Likewise, the attacks by his 
sycophants and surrogates in Congress undermine the credibility and 
trust of the FBI and the Department of Justice. That is why I am here 
today--because words have consequences.
  These attacks have ramifications for the FBI when it investigates a 
crime. The willingness of potential witnesses to talk to them may be 
undermined. Their ability to prevent crime may be undercut because of 
informants' lack of trust in them. And the credibility of FBI agents at 
a trial in a conflict of credibility with a defendant who is lying can 
be sabotaged by the President through these denunciations--far beyond 
the special prosecutor's investigation.
  This attack on law enforcement has consequences for the safety and 
security of our Nation, indeed, our national security, because the FBI 
needs those informants, needs credibility as witnesses, needs the trust 
of the American people to do its job in keeping America safe from 
sabotage or subterfuge internally, as well as organized crime, drug 
dealing--the panoply of threats that exist to our safety.
  It is no accident that terrorist attacks have reduced in severity 
since 9/11. It is no accident that crime is at lower levels than in 
recent years. It is no accident that Americans feel safer as they walk 
the streets and communities of America, rural and urban. It is because 
we have devoted resources to local law enforcement, as well as the 
Federal agencies that are vital to support local law enforcement with 
the information and data they need to do their job and with the 
enforcement they provide in solving crimes and making sure the bad guys 
are convicted and go away.
  The best laws in the world are dead letter if they are unenforced. 
The new laws that we pass here will mean nothing without strong and 
effective law enforcement.
  We should all be deeply alarmed and concerned about this new normal 
of a President of the United States--who is responsible for making sure 
the laws

[[Page S2566]]

are faithfully executed--actually attacking the agency that is 
responsible for the enforcement necessary for execution of those laws.
  Here are a few examples. On April 6, 2018, a notice appeared on the 
front page of backpage.com confirming that the Department of Justice 
seized the website and took it offline--a crucial and important step in 
the fight against sex trafficking. On that same day, the FBI raided the 
Sedona home of Michael Lacey, a founder of backpage.com and one of the 
7 individuals charged in a 93-count indictment for Federal crimes 
relating to facilitating prostitution and laundering money.
  For years, backpage.com and its owners have knowingly concealed 
evidence of criminality by systematically editing its adult ads to 
facilitate prostitution and sex trafficking, including modern-day 
slavery of children. Backpage's misconduct led to the prostitution of a 
14-year-old Connecticut girl, who was advertised on the website for 
clients in Connecticut, New York, and Atlantic City. Without the 
intervention of the Department of Justice and the FBI, many more 
children could have been exploited and victimized by backpage.
  We know about the extraordinary magnitude of backpage's activities 
and about the deep harm it causes as a result of an investigation 
performed by Senate committees. The Senate has taken steps to stop that 
kind of promotion on the internet as a result of legislation that 
Senator Rob Portman of Ohio and I led here, legislation called SESTA. 
It was bipartisan legislation that passed overwhelmingly. The 
legislation will assist victims and survivors in having their day in 
court and allow law enforcement to do even better in the fight against 
sex trafficking.
  That story is just one example of the laudable work that the 
Department of Justice and the FBI do every day to keep America safe. 
The attack against them has extraordinary irony and harm because it 
seeks to sow doubt about democratic institutions that are vital to our 
way of life.
  President Trump has literally taken a page from his authoritarian 
heroes who systematically seek to say that the law is not what our 
enforcement agencies say, not what our democratic institutions say, but 
what they say. He has persistently and purposefully attempted to 
undermine all of the Department of Justice.
  The fact is, these attacks have effect. When they come from the 
President's mouth, they have consequences. Not surprisingly, these 
repeated caustic and careless attacks have diminished public confidence 
in these institutions. Since Donald Trump entered office, reports 
suggest that a number of Americans who view the FBI capably has 
diminished by 28 percent. Just 38 percent of Americans have confidence 
in the FBI. That is distressing for a party that once espoused and 
supported law enforcement. The long-term negative collateral 
consequences of these assaults on our top law enforcement agencies are 
likely to be extensive.
  Consider the dedication, the courage, the tenacity, and the strength 
that is required of those at the FBI to do their job day in and day 
out, putting their lives on the line, literally risking their well-
being not over a year or a couple of years but, many of them, for 
careers, a lifetime. They are among the finest men and women in public 
service.
  The FBI is one of our premier law enforcement institutions. The 
Department of Justice is and should be the marvel of the world for its 
fairness and its unrelenting dedication to do justice. As one Attorney 
General--Justice Jackson--said, its goal is not to seek convictions but 
to do justice, and that is the mission that it performs.
  A recent case by the Department of Justice's National Security and 
Civil Rights Division shows how Donald Trump's attacks are weakening 
support for the FBI's important work.
  In March of this year, three anti-Muslim militia members who were on 
trial for plotting to slaughter Somali refugees in Southwest Kansas 
adopted a defense strategy that could have been taken directly from the 
Trump playbook or from his Twitter feed. Defense attorneys in that case 
argued that a biased FBI conspired against their clients because of 
their political beliefs. The defendants said that their political 
beliefs were responsible for their prosecutions, not their own actions. 
In a turn of phrase that is very suggestive of the President's Twitter 
feed, the defense attorney argued that the defendants' discussion of 
killing Muslim ``cockroaches'' amounted to ``locker room talk,'' which 
was inspired, no doubt, partly by the 2016 election.
  Meanwhile, the government had to deal with jurors who expressed a 
number of concerns about the honesty and corruption at the top levels 
of the FBI, questioning the ability and integrity of the organization.
  Ms. Ifrah Ahmed, a Somali resident of the apartment complex the 
defendants were plotting to blow up, felt differently about the FBI 
investigation. She and other residents said that the verdict allayed 
their fears and affirmed their faith in the justice system.

  It was because of the work of dedicated law enforcement professionals 
that the defendants' plan to bomb innocent and peaceful Muslim 
immigrants was thwarted in a victory for the rule of law and a victory 
for civil rights and our national security. But instead of applauding 
or lauding victories like this one, the President of the United States 
continues to spread a false narrative. His sole purpose is advancing 
his political agenda, protecting himself, and shielding himself from 
accountability. His attacks are designed to undermine the credibility 
of the FBI and designed to shield him from responsibility and apparent 
culpability for possible criminal wrongdoing.
  In reality, the FBI and the DOJ work every day to protect Americans 
against threats, both foreign and domestic, while upholding the 
Constitution.
  The Department of Justice includes more than 40 separate 
organizations, including the FBI, and more than 110,000 employees. I 
know about the ones in Connecticut. As a former U.S. attorney, the 
ethic and tradition of the U.S. attorney's office is about upholding 
the rule of law and the dedication to doing justice.
  The FBI has more than 30,000 employees spread over 56 field offices 
around the United States. They are dedicated to protecting the United 
States from terrorism, cyber attacks, public corruption, violent crime, 
and abridgement of civil rights. According to its most recent annual 
report, the FBI disrupted more than 700 terrorist incidents and over 
170 violent criminal organizations in 2017 alone. The FBI targets 
crimes not only in the streets but in boardrooms. In the same time 
period, it disrupted more than 430 criminal enterprises engaged in 
white-collar crimes.
  Let's make no mistake--wrongdoing affects real people in their real 
lives. There are very few victimless crimes, if any. Every crime has 
some victim and some survivor. That is the reason they are prosecuted, 
and that is why we hire those prosecutors and FBI agents to go after 
lawbreakers. We should reward them for disrupting and deterring the 
lawbreakers, not denounce them, as the President has done.
  The FBI's hard work in building cases the right way leads to 
victories in the courtroom. I have seen them and have prosecuted them 
myself. The prosecutor, whether it is an assistant U.S. attorney or a 
U.S. attorney, contributes mightily to those victories, but they would 
be impossible without the nuts and bolts--the investigative work, the 
shoe leather, and sometimes the very significant risks involved in 
uncovering the truth and bringing it to court. Sometimes FBI agents 
work for months undercover on a single case at grave jeopardy to 
themselves. More than 90 percent of terrorism- and gang-related cases 
result in a conviction--a judgment favorable to the United States.
  These statistics that I have cited here represent only a fraction of 
the work these agencies do to protect America every day, in real life, 
for real people. Despite President Trump's efforts to water down 
environmental protections, the FBI continues to pursue cases where 
corporations violate clean water and clean air standards and threaten 
public health.
  At the end of April, the Department of Justice charged the ex-CEO of 
Volkswagen with conspiracy in the company's rigging of diesel vehicles 
to feign compliance and falsely portray compliance with the company's 
and Federal standards.
  Volkswagen deceived American regulators. Why should that matter to 
ordinary Americans? Well, it is an unlevel

[[Page S2567]]

playing field with its competitors if it cuts corners. So it impacts 
fair competition, but it also impacts our clean air and the safety and 
health of Americans who breathe that air. Essentially, they not only 
deceived regulators, but they defrauded American consumers for years, 
promising them those standards, which they knew they were failing to 
meet. Only because of the tireless efforts of Federal investigators and 
prosecutors has the company's chief executive now been brought to 
justice to face these charges. The Department of Justice's actions send 
a message to businesses both here and abroad that efforts to cheat 
American consumers or harm the environment will have consequences. They 
ought to pay attention. They ought to be deterred.

  The Department of Justice also develops key initiatives to respond to 
urgent threats, particularly in the frontline against terrorism. The 
FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Forces are comprised of small cells of 
highly trained, locally based, passionately committed investigators, 
analysts, linguists, SWAT experts, and other specialists from dozens of 
U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies. They operate as part of 
the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force, because the FBI has that 
responsibility for our national security, along with them as a team. 
When it comes to investigating terrorism, they do it all. They chase 
down leads, gather evidence, make arrests, provide security for special 
events, conduct training, collect and share intelligence, and respond 
to threats and incidents at a moment's notice. These task forces are 
based in 104 cities nationwide, including at least one in each of the 
FBI's field offices.
  Without any exaggeration, these investigators and prosecutors protect 
us. They protect American lives from terrorist threats, both at home 
and abroad. Just last month FBI agents, working with the Newark Joint 
Terrorism Task Force, thwarted a plot of five men to join ISIS and 
carry out an attack in ISIS's name on U.S. soil using homemade bombs. 
Because of their brave and tenacious efforts and their countless hours 
of hard work--hour after hour, day after day--this plot, and many 
others like it, were disrupted and American lives were saved.
  America has always faced threats to our national security and public 
safety, even as they are more complex today than ever before. We need 
the kind of professionalism that the FBI and the Department of Justice 
and other agencies bring to law enforcement every day. For all of us 
who have been Federal prosecutors--whether a U.S. attorney, as I was, 
or in another capacity--these attacks are repugnant. They belie a 
fundamental misunderstanding of the ethos and tradition of justice and 
the rule of law in our democracy.
  Unfortunately, President Trump has failed not only to stand up for 
those law enforcement agencies, but he has actually hindered, actively 
and consistently, their vital work in protecting our Nation. He has 
undermined their stature and credibility. He has attacked their 
integrity, all without any basis in fact.
  President Reagan once said that facts are stubborn things. The 
American people should know the facts. If they do, they will appreciate 
that the facts show that the Department of Justice and the FBI, even 
with their faults, are a paragon of law enforcement. Their faults 
should not be minimized or dismissed. They ought to be addressed, but 
not by denouncing or demeaning their hard work.
  The numbers and statistics I have given and the examples I have cited 
are not meant defensively for them. They don't need my defense. Their 
actions and their work speak louder than anyone's words. I hope they 
will continue that service and sacrifice, undiscouraged and undeterred 
by these rash and reckless attacks from the President and surrogates 
who support him.
  I personally thank them for their service and sacrifice, as all 
Americans should, and I thank many of them for their friendship.
  Thank you, Madam President.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, this week the Senate will vote on the 
nomination of Michael Brennan to serve on the Seventh Circuit Court of 
Appeals in Milwaukee.
  Judge Brennan is a highly qualified nominee with broad, bipartisan 
support in his own State of Wisconsin. The Senate Judiciary Committee 
received numerous letters in support of Judge Brennan's nomination, 
including from the longtime Democratic Milwaukee district attorney. I 
fully support this nomination.
  I have heard from some of my colleagues--and especially from those on 
the other side of the aisle--that they believe Judge Brennan shouldn't 
have received a hearing before the Judiciary Committee. They say this 
because one Senator from Wisconsin didn't return the blue slip. But 
their opinions are based on an incorrect understanding of the blue 
slip's history.
  As I explained last year several times on the Senate floor and 
several times in committee, the blue slip courtesy is just that--a 
courtesy. It has a history going back to 1917. Since then, chairmen of 
the Judiciary Committee have distributed blue slips to home State 
Senators to get feedback on the nominees to the Federal bench in their 
respective States.
  Chairmen have applied the blue slip courtesy differently in its 100-
year history. For the first 39 years of its existence, the blue slip 
had no bearing on whether a nominee went through the committee process. 
Then, in 1956, Senator James Eastland of Mississippi became chairman. 
He started requiring both home State Senators to return positive blue 
slips before the committee would ever proceed on a judicial nomination. 
Scholars maintain that Chairman Eastland adopted this policy to allow 
southern Senators to veto nominees sympathetic to the Supreme Court 
decision in Brown v. Board of Education.
  Then, when Senator Ted Kennedy took over the chairmanship from 
Senator Eastland in 1979, he went back to the original blue slip 
policy.
  Then comes along Chairman Strom Thurmond continuing that policy. Then 
comes along Chairman Joe Biden continuing that policy, and Chairman 
Orrin Hatch followed that policy. Under the policies of those chairmen 
just mentioned, negative or unreturned blue slips did not necessarily 
preclude a hearing for a nominee.
  When Senator Leahy became chairman during the Bush administration, he 
did away with this policy and resurrected Chairman Eastland's strict 
blue slip policy. The reason for this strict blue slip policy was 
obvious to everyone at that time--at least obvious to everybody on our 
side of the aisle--to block President George W. Bush's judicial 
nominees based on politics and ideology, something that never played 
much of a role in a lot of these nominations prior to 2002. In sum, 
only 2 of my 18 predecessors who extended the blue slip courtesy 
required signoff from both home State Senators.
  When Senator Leahy adopted an historical blue slip policy, that was 
his prerogative as chairman, and nobody argues with that. But it is my 
prerogative to have the same blue slip policy as Chairman Biden and 
Chairman Kennedy and the vast majority of predecessors. Accordingly, I 
have said this: Negative or unreturned blue slips will not necessarily 
preclude the hearing for circuit court nominees unless the White House 
failed to consult with home State Senators. I get all sorts of 
information--and I demand all sorts of information--from the White 
House on this sort of consultation that is going on. That is why I held 
hearings for David Stras, Kyle Duncan, Michael Brennan, and Ryan 
Bounds, despite the lack of two positive blue slips from home State 
Senators. This policy is completely bipartisan. I have applied it to 
blue slips of Democratic and Republican Senators.
  Some people have suggested that I had a different blue slip policy 
during the final 2 years of President Obama's administration. They 
pointed to nine judicial nominees with blue slip problems who didn't 
receive hearings. But five of these nominees were to district courts, 
and I have said repeatedly that I am less likely to proceed to district 
court nominees without two positive blue slips.
  With respect to the four circuit court nominees who didn't receive 
hearings during the last Congress, their nominations simply came too 
late in the Congress to process. They were nominated during the 
Presidential election year of

[[Page S2568]]

2016, and in Presidential election years, we have the Leahy-Thurmond 
rule that applies. Under the Leahy-Thurmond rule, the Senate typically 
stops confirming judges by midsummer. I am assuming that I gave 
Senators in 2016 the same timeline that I gave to former Senator 
Franken to return his blue slip for Justice Stras. We wouldn't have 
started holding hearings then until 2016, and by delaying until that 
period of time, we would have not had the record number of circuit 
court judges that we have had during this Presidency, because, then, 
the Leahy-Thurmond rule would have barred their confirmations. These 
four nominees also lacked floor support, and it would have been a waste 
of time and resources if we had proceeded. That was my judgment as 
chairman.
  Chairman Leahy similarly refused to hold hearings for at least six 
circuit court nominees for reasons besides the blue slips. He denied 
hearings for three nominees in the Fourth Circuit: Steve Matthews, 
Robert Conrad, and Glen Conrad. These nominees had two positive blue 
slips from their home State Senators, and two were nominated more than 
a year before the 2008 Presidential election, but even then, Chairman 
Leahy refused to process them.

  Chairman Leahy also refused to act on the nomination of Peter 
Keisler, President Bush's nominee to the DC Circuit, who was nominated 
in 2006. Obviously, blue slips were not the reason for my predecessor's 
decision to stall Mr. Keisler's nomination for more than 2 years since 
the District of Columbia has no Senators. These decisions allowed 
President Obama then to stack the DC Circuit and also the Fourth 
Circuit with liberal judges.
  Chairman Leahy also declined to hold hearings for two Sixth Circuit 
Court nominees to Ohio seats, even though both Ohio Senators had 
returned positive blue slips. The Democratic Senators from Michigan 
asked Chairman Leahy to halt proceedings on all Sixth Circuit nominees, 
not just those from Michigan. So Chairman Leahy honored this request 
and denied a hearing to the Ohio nominees, even though the blue slips 
had been returned. This was the first time ever a chairman allowed 
Senators to halt committee proceedings on nominees for seats in other 
States.
  As Chairman Leahy's example shows, there isn't just one reason. There 
are multiple reasons for any chairman of the Judiciary Committee to 
deny a hearing to a nominee. Likewise, my decision not to hold hearings 
for the four nominees in 2016 wasn't based solely on the lack of blue 
slips. It is simply false, then, for my colleagues to say I changed my 
blue-slip policy since that particular time.
  As to my decision then to hold a hearing on the nominee now before 
the Senate, Judge Brennan, I was satisfied that the White House 
adequately consulted with both Wisconsin Senators. The White House 
sought input from the Wisconsin Senators and considered all the 
candidates recommended by each Senator. I understand the frustration 
that Wisconsin's judicial nominating commission hasn't worked out as 
had been planned by the two Senators, but Judge Brennan was the only 
candidate to receive bipartisan support from the commission process 
that is used in Wisconsin. Moreover, the commission's dysfunction can't 
be used as an excuse to deny the President his constitutional authority 
to make judicial nominations.
  I would also like to point out that each Senator who has withheld a 
blue slip this Congress also voted to abolish the filibuster for 
judicial nominations back in 2013. The argument then was that 41 
Senators shouldn't be allowed to block the will of a majority of this 
Senate, but now these same Senators have reversed themselves, saying 
any one Senator should have that right, through holding a blue slip, to 
denying the Senate an opportunity to vote.
  Understand, just a few years ago, they wanted to abolish 41 Senators 
holding up a nomination, but today they stand before us and say one 
Senator ought to be able to do what they said 41 Senators shouldn't be 
able to do. I will not allow the blue slip to be abused in this way. 
The blue slip is meant to encourage consultation between the White 
House and home State Senators. It is not a way for Senators to have 
veto power over nominees for political or ideological reasons.
  Finally, I hear a lot these days about the President stacking the 
courts or the Senate rubberstamping nominees. Well, I stand by our 
process. It gives Senators every opportunity to probe deeply into 
nominees' backgrounds. As five nominees from last year will attest, not 
everyone makes it through this rigorous scrutiny. I would like to bring 
attention to two recent Supreme Court decisions that the Trump 
administration lost.
  In Sessions v. Dimaya, the Supreme Court held that the government 
could not deport an immigrant under a vague statutory provision. The 
pivotal vote was cast by President Trump's own Supreme Court nominee, 
Justice Neil Gorsuch.
  In another case, Chicago v. Sessions, the Seventh Circuit held that 
the government could not deny funding to so-called sanctuary cities. It 
happens the three judges who carried that case were all appointed by 
Republican Presidents.
  I bring up these cases not because I agree or disagree with their 
outcomes but simply to point out that the fears of the President 
stacking the judiciary are overblown. Conservative judges apply the law 
as written, regardless of the results, but I suppose liberals expect 
their judges to be results-oriented. That is why we can always 
confidently predict how a liberal judge might rule on a case. Liberal 
outside groups' real fear, then, is that newly confirmed judges 
recognize that their role is to neutrally apply the law, not to 
legislate from the bench.
  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. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.