[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 180 (Wednesday, November 14, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6944-S6947]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



             Special Counsel Independence and Integrity Act

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I rise to speak in defense of Special 
Counsel Robert Mueller and to defend the vital role he has played since 
May of last year in yet another act of service to his country in what 
has been a lifetime of distinguished service.
  For his trouble, Mr. Mueller has been accused repeatedly and without 
basis in fact of conducting a ``witch hunt'' in the course of his 
current investigation by none other than the President of the United 
States. So I would like to take this opportunity to say a few words 
about what Special Counsel Mueller and his team have been investigating 
and why, as the point of this vital investigation seems to have been 
purposely confused and maligned by the White House in a rather alarming 
way.
  My colleague from Delaware, Senator Coons, and I have made the 
unanimous consent request to bring this to the floor, but it has been 
objected to already.
  This bill is designed to do one thing: protect the integrity of the 
special counsel's investigation and spare it of any influence or 
interference from the executive branch, including from those who may 
themselves be subjects of the investigation.
  The findings of Mr. Mueller's investigation are of utmost importance 
to the security of this country and to the well-being of our democratic 
institutions as well. In America, as we all know, no one is above the 
law. Our doctrine of separation of powers and the independence of the 
judicial system is what sets us apart from lawless countries, and 
Presidents do not get to determine who gets investigated and who and 
what does not.
  For the record and for history, this special counsel was appointed to 
thoroughly investigate the attacks on our electoral system by elements 
of the Russian Government during the lead up to our 2016 general 
election. How such an investigation can be a cause of controversy is 
beyond me. Surely, we all recognize it is essential to understand this 
new form of foreign aggression so that we might better defend America 
against such attacks in the future; right?
  One would think there would be unanimous national resolve to get to 
the bottom of such aggression from an enemy or foreign power, 
especially a foreign power with whom we spent much of the second half 
of the 20th century locked in a global ideological struggle, especially 
when in their renewed aggression toward us, they have targeted the 
institution we have and they don't--free and fair elections.
  Vladimir Putin knows he could not defeat us on the battlefield, and 
he knows the ideas at the center of his former empire were soulless and 
bankrupt. He wants to rob us of what makes the United States superior 
to his autocracy. His goal is to turn us against ourselves and, in 
doing so, to try to destroy our democracy.
  This is a matter of grave national importance. This is not a moment 
for our national leadership to be weak or

[[Page S6945]]

irresolute or compromised in any way. Some of us in Washington have 
seemed strangely incurious about just what the Russian malefactors did 
to America in 2016 at the direction of Vladimir Putin.
  Our President has been so incurious that at times over the past 2 
years he has been eager to accept Putin's denials at face value. In 
fact, our executive branch has generally been in such a state of denial 
about the attacks on our democracy that the White House has not been 
aggressive at all in defending against future attacks.
  I defy any of us to name a threat so grave to which the government of 
the United States--that we, all of us, including this Senate--has 
responded so lackadaisically. Why is that? With the firing of the 
Attorney General and, in my view, the improper installation of an 
Acting Attorney General who has not been subject to confirmation by 
this body, the President now has this investigation in his sights, and 
we all know it.
  My purpose here is not to divine the President's motives in his 
seeming determination to sow doubt about and curtail Mr. Mueller's 
investigation. If, as the President says, there was no involvement by 
anyone in his campaign with the Russian malefactors, then this 
investigation--properly conducted--will discover and document that.
  Mr. Mueller has already brought dozens of indictments against Russian 
nationalists. It is in the national security interest of the United 
States to fully understand what they did to us in 2016. If the 
President doesn't understand this, we must. If he doesn't prioritize 
that, we will.
  We--all of us--talk much in this place about the defense of ``all 
that we hold dear.'' Those are the words we speak--``all that we hold 
dear.'' What do we actually mean when we say those words? Speaking 
personally, I can't think of values held more dear than the 
independence of our judicial system and an electoral system free of 
malign influence, either foreign or domestic. When I think of the 
things we must hold dear, those things are right at the top of the 
list. It is our sworn oath to keep it that way.
  On one further note on this unanimous consent request that has just 
failed today, Senator Coons and I are prepared to make it again and 
again until there is a vote on this vital bipartisan legislation on the 
Senate floor. I have informed the majority leader that I will not vote 
to advance any of the 21 judicial nominees pending in the Judiciary 
Committee or vote to confirm the 32 judges awaiting confirmation on the 
Senate floor until S. 2644 is brought to the full Senate for a vote.
  Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Delaware.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, first, I want to thank my colleague and my 
friend, Mr. Flake, the Senator from Arizona, for joining me today in 
calling for action on a balanced bipartisan bill to uphold the rule of 
law, to avoid a constitutional crisis, and to secure the ongoing 
position of Special Counsel Robert Mueller, as he moves to complete his 
investigation.
  This is a critical moment. Just a week ago today, President Trump 
forced the resignation of his Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, and 
effectively stripped Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein of his 
authority to supervise the ongoing investigation by Robert Mueller--an 
investigation which, I will remind you, just the same day he forced 
Attorney General Sessions' resignation, the President attacked publicly 
as a hoax and a witch hunt.
  Let's take a step back to remember the bigger picture here. Robert 
Mueller--a career Federal law enforcement leader, a decorated combat 
veteran, a lifelong Republican--is leading an investigation into a 
foreign adversary's attack on our last election.
  This isn't about relitigating that election. It isn't about partisan 
politics. It is about protecting our democracy. As my colleague Senator 
Flake said, it is about protecting what defines us as a democracy. Yet 
our President is now in a position easily to interfere with or even end 
the Mueller investigation. Compounding that threat is the person who 
has been appointed as the Acting Attorney General, Matthew Whitaker.
  I have separate concerns about Mr. Whitaker's novel legal theories 
well outside the mainstream, about whether his experience makes him an 
appropriate person to be Acting Attorney General, whether his 
appointment is consistent with the Constitution and Federal law, but I 
will leave those concerns for another day. At the moment, I think Mr. 
Whitaker's comments about the Mueller investigation made a year ago 
make him a clear and present danger to the independence of the special 
counsel.
  In an editorial last year, Mr. Whitaker argued that Mueller is 
``dangerously close to crossing'' a redline, following reports saying 
he was looking into the President's finances. He said that without any 
examination of the facts or evidence. He said that if the investigation 
goes too far, then--and he openly pondered ways--an Attorney General 
could reduce special counsel Mueller's budget ``so low that his 
investigation grinds almost to a halt.''
  For these reasons and others, I think Mr. Whitaker should recuse 
himself from overseeing the Mueller investigation, and we cannot wait 
for that action. We have asked our colleagues today to take a simple 
yet critical step to protect the special counsel and future special 
counsels in future administrations by supporting the bipartisan Special 
Counsel Independence and Integrity Act. This is a bill crafted by 
Senator Graham, Senator Booker, myself, Senator Tillis--a bipartisan 
bill that, with the support of Senator Flake and the Chairman, Senator 
Grassley, passed the Judiciary Committee in April by a strong 
bipartisan margin of 14 to 7. We had a hearing. We had a markup. We had 
a vote. It is ready for committee action.
  While I appreciate repeated assurances by the majority leader and 
many other Senators of the other party that it is not needed because 
they are confident the President will take no inappropriate action to 
interfere with the ongoing investigation, why would we not take this 
simple preventive measure? Given the President's repeated actions, 
given his repeated statements about the Mueller investigation, why pose 
this risk when a simple vote on the floor of the Senate could move this 
toward enactment?
  Let me be clear about what the bill does. It says that if the special 
counsel is removed, counsel has the opportunity to challenge the 
removal in court. A panel of three Federal judges would have 2 weeks to 
hear and determine whether the removal was based on good cause. If the 
panel doesn't find good cause, the counsel would be reinstated. It 
preserves staffing, documents, and materials of the investigation while 
that matter is pending for that brief period.
  The bottom line is this. The special counsel legislation we are 
urging today protects the integrity of this special counsel and future 
special counsels, something that Members of this body of both parties 
have repeatedly and publicly said we value. It strengthens the rule of 
law. It strengthens the principle that no one is above the law, and it 
ensures that we are not back on this floor trying to unravel an 
emerging constitutional crisis should the President precipitously act 
or should Matthew Whitaker precipitously act to impede Special Counsel 
Mueller's ongoing investigation.
  Let me close today by asking my colleagues who are listening to 
consider the fundamental principles that form the basis of our 
democracy--free and fair elections, respect for the rule of law, strong 
independent institutions that deliver justice impartially and 
transparently.
  It is because of these principles, enshrined in our founding 
documents, that the United States has grown from a fledgling 
experiment--at that time on the very fringes of world civilization--to 
a strong, vibrant, and inclusive nation that is a beacon for the world 
and the most sustained and greatest democracy in the history of the 
world.
  We cannot take these principles and we cannot take the institutions 
of our democracy for granted. They don't protect themselves. Every now 
and then, when founding principles are threatened, we have to demand 
elected officials put aside disagreements and come together to defend 
them. This is one such moment.

[[Page S6946]]

  I am grateful to my colleague from Arizona for his statement and his 
leadership today. I am confident that if given the opportunity to come 
for a vote, this bill would get at least 60 votes, having spoken to 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle yesterday and today. I am puzzled 
as to why there are leaders in this body who continue to have great 
confidence given the President's statements and actions.
  I think the time for action has long since passed. We should have 
taken that action today. I will continue to work tirelessly with my 
colleague from Arizona until we secure passage of this bill.
  With that, I yield the floor to my colleague and cosponsor, the 
Senator from New Jersey.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, first of all, I want to give gratitude to 
both of the Senators who spoke before me, my friend Senator Coons and 
my friend Senator Jeff Flake. I want to especially thank Jeff Flake for 
his willingness not just to lead with words but to make a commitment on 
the Senate floor that he will not be voting on judicial appointments 
until this is brought to a vote.
  Senator Flake and Senator Coons have said pretty much all of what I 
was going to say. Perhaps just very succinctly and very candidly, I 
want to reiterate this moment we are in and the gravity of the moment 
we are in. This bill is not a partisan piece of legislation. It comes 
from a bipartisan effort. It started many months ago, when Senator 
Graham and I started talking and Senator Tillis and Senator Coons 
started talking many months ago, not just for this moment in history 
but also understanding that we have a flaw in our system that does not 
have an appropriate check and balance on a Presidential power that can 
put them in a position where they are not subject to the laws of our 
land.
  This Special Counsel and Independence Integrity Act came from a 
bipartisan effort to try to make sure that we have appropriate checks 
and balances to prevent a constitutional crisis. It is actually a 
forward-thinking bill, understanding that we should not be reactive in 
the cause of our democracy but proactive in preventing and securing the 
great Nation and our laws and our rules that we all cherish.
  We see a bipartisan bill worked on, crafted, compromised, brought to 
committee, be voted out of committee, and languish now without a vote, 
and I agree with Senator Coons that it would get more than 60 votes and 
would provide a reasonable check and balance. This is a bill that is 
important for history, but the urgency of this moment Senator Coons has 
already gone over.
  We now have the firing of Jeff Sessions, and Jeff Sessions was said 
to be fired by a President who literally said: ``I would not have hired 
you if I thought you were going to recuse yourself.'' He was replaced 
with a person--and Senator Coons has read the quotes--who talked about 
this investigation and what he would like to do. He called it a witch 
hunt, and he compromised himself now in the position he is in. The idea 
that the integrity of this investigation and the idea that the urgency 
of this investigation will continue under his leadership are in 
question. That is why this bill is necessary.
  More than that, we are a nation that has been, is, and will be under 
attack. All of our intelligence agencies have a consensus on the 
conclusion that our democracy is under attack.
  We need to understand what happened, what is happening, how to 
prevent it from happening again, and hold those people accountable.
  This investigation has led to numerous guilty pleas. This 
investigation has led to numerous indictments, and it should be able to 
run its course without interference.
  So I will conclude by saying that there is urgency in our country to 
uphold an ideal and a principle that no one, not a Congress person, not 
a Senator, not a mayor, not a Governor, not the President of the United 
States--no one in this country is above the law.
  There is ample evidence of this body taking reasonable, measured, 
bipartisan actions to make sure we have the balanced government that 
was designed and intended by our Founders. This is a reasonable, modest 
check and balance on Presidential power to ensure that no one, 
including the President of the United States, is above the law.
  I am deeply grateful for Senator Coons, Senator Tillis, Senator 
Graham, and especially for the leadership shown right now by Senator 
Flake in this important moment to avoid a constitutional crisis.
  Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from Delaware, 
Mr. Coons, and the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Booker, for doing this 
together with us to make sure that we have this bipartisan piece of 
legislation here on the Senate floor.
  It is not unremarkable to have such a bipartisan piece of legislation 
pass out of the Judiciary Committee. We don't have very many bipartisan 
pieces of legislation coming out of the Senate Judiciary Committee, but 
this one was--by a vote of 14 to 7, including the chairman of the 
committee.
  There is no reason it shouldn't be brought to the floor. It was 
passed out of the Judiciary Committee on April 26.
  I should note that the Judiciary Committee has been busy sending 
things to the floor during the intervening time. In fact, since April 
26, when this bill passed the Judiciary Committee, we have sent 49 
nominations through to the floor that we have voted on and confirmed 
here on the floor. Since that time, the floor actually has voted on 50. 
There was one that was already in the queue.
  So on the floor, since this bill passed the Judiciary Committee, we 
have voted on 50 confirmations of the President's nominees. Many of 
these nominees were blue-slipped in Democratic States; some, in 
Republican. We have been able to move on all of them. There is no 
reason we shouldn't move on this vital piece of legislation to protect 
the special counsel.
  When the leader said in April that there was no move on the special 
counsel, nobody was being fired, nothing to worry about here--if that 
was the case then, that certainly is not the case now. Since then, the 
Attorney General has been fired, and the oversight for this 
investigation, which sat with the Deputy Attorney General, has been 
wrested from him and turned over to someone who has not received Senate 
confirmation, someone who has expressed open hostility to the Mueller 
investigation. Does that not ring alarm bells around here? If that 
doesn't, what will? Why are we so sanguine about this? This would 
provoke a constitutional crisis. Yet, when we have the opportunity to 
pass legislation to protect the special counsel, which received a 
bipartisan vote in the Judiciary Committee, we fail to bring it up on 
the Senate floor. Why?
  Why do we do this to protect a man, seemingly, who is so incurious 
about what Russia did during the 2016 elections? Why do we do that?
  Do we have no more institutional pride here? Don't we more jealously 
guard our prerogative as Senators than to simply let this go? What will 
it take?
  I am prepared--and I know that the Senator from Delaware is, as 
well--to bring this up again. We will bring it up again until we can 
get a vote on the Senate floor.
  I hope in the next few days and in the coming weeks that the public 
will rise up and say that this needs to be done. A bipartisan piece of 
legislation that has passed the Judiciary Committee ought to be brought 
to the Senate floor for a vote. We are not saying that it has to pass, 
although we think it will; for sure it will. It has overwhelming 
support. We are just saying: Bring it to a vote; bring it to a vote. 
Until we do, the 21 nominations that are in the Judiciary Committee 
waiting for a vote there will not receive a vote, nor will I give my 
vote to the 32 nominations that are sitting here on the Senate floor.
  This is important. This should be a priority. I thank the Presiding 
Officer, and I thank the Senator from Delaware, and I will yield to 
him.
  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I will just conclude by saying that I could 
not agree more with the comments of the Senator from Arizona, my friend 
and colleague.
  There come moments when we should step up and defend the prerogatives 
and

[[Page S6947]]

the role of this body. This is one of them. I understand it may annoy, 
it may displease the President for there to be a speed bump put in the 
way of interference with the special counsel. But this isn't just about 
the current special counsel; this is about taking Department of Justice 
regulations and making them statute. This is about providing a small 
modicum of protection for the groundless removal of a special counsel.
  This is something that, as my colleague has said, deserves prompt 
attention on the floor. We have a few weeks between now and the end of 
this Congress, time when we could be taking up and confirming nominees, 
time when we could be taking up and moving other pieces of legislation, 
but you have heard a very clear position by my colleague that we won't 
be moving forward nominees in the Judiciary Committee, and if just one 
more colleague joins him, we might well begin to prevent nominations 
from moving on the floor as well. To what end? Simply to get a vote on 
the floor. Simply to get an opportunity to be heard and for there to be 
a vote taken on this important piece of bipartisan legislation.
  I am grateful to my colleague for his work on this and for his stand 
today, and I look forward to continuing to work tirelessly with him on 
it.
  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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.