[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 7671-7689]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

                           EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to proceed to executive session 
to consider Calendar No. 52, Robert Lighthizer to be United States 
Trade Representative.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The motion was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the nomination.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Robert 
Lighthizer, of Florida, to be United States Trade Representative, with 
the rank of Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.


      Unanimous Consent Request--Authority for Committees to Meet

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I have 13 requests for committees to 
meet during today's session of the Senate. They include the Armed 
Services Committee briefing on capabilities to counter Russian 
influence in cyberspace, a Banking Committee hearing on North Korea, 
and a Homeland Security Committee hearing on cyber threats facing 
America. These committees and all the other committees are doing 
important work; therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the 13 
committees be allowed to meet.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DURBIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant Democratic leader.
  Mr. DURBIN. Reserving the right to object, because of the decision 
last night of the President of the United States to terminate the 
Director of the FBI and the questions that has raised, we gathered 
together--the Democratic Senators--on the floor and listened as our 
leader at least suggested a path for us to follow as an institution 
facing this constitutional question. We believe it is timely, and as a 
result of that, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Washington.


                  Congressional Review Act Resolution

  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I come to speak against the 
Congressional Review Act resolution to overrun an important rule that 
has been put in place to protect the American taxpayer and to protect 
the health of American citizens.
  For almost 100 years, the Federal Government has regulated undue 
waste in oil and gas fields. The story of oil and gas waste is as old 
as the story of oil and gas.
  Early oil gushers, like Spindletop in Texas, revealed two things 
about oil as an emerging source of energy: First, there was a huge 
amount of it. Second, without rules in place, it could be easily 
wasted. That is why, way back in 1915, Attorney General Thomas Gregory 
issued a report to the public about this issue. Gregory wrote that the 
law at the time allowed oil companies to ``occupy and operate any 
number of tracts of public oil land without restraint upon the 
quantities of oil produced or the methods of production and without 
rendering to the . . . government anything in return.'' One can imagine 
that concern. Gregory went on to point out that ``the incentives to 
speculative occupation, negligent and wasteful operation, and excess 
production become obvious.''
  Some of my colleagues who are not on the Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee may not be familiar with the law Congress passed after 
Attorney General Gregory put his finger on the waste problem. The 
Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 established our modern leasing program for 
oil and natural gas. More than anything else, the leasing act enshrined 
the principle that the public should benefit from mineral production on 
public lands. This seems like a no-brainer today, but it took over a 
decade of debate to pass the leasing act.
  One of the main parts of the leasing act was a requirement to avoid 
wasting oil and gas. There are many environmental reasons to avoid 
wasting this resource, but let's be clear: It was dollar signs that led 
to the waste provision. Overproduction would glut the market and damage 
the oil reserves, and wasted oil provided no return to the owners--the 
taxpayers.
  The leasing act is still the law, and the law says that oil and gas 
operators must ``use all reasonable precautions to prevent waste of oil 
or gas developed in the land.'' The law says that Federal leases must 
include ``a provision that such rules . . . for the prevention of undue 
waste as may be prescribed by [the] Secretary shall be observed.'' The 
BLM's methane rule is entirely in keeping with that history. The rule 
says that the outdated 1979 version of this rule needed to be updated.
  The rule was put in place before the fracking took place that 
revolutionized the industry, before the shale plays opened, and before 
infrared imaging became commonplace. What has not changed since 1920 is 
that oil and gas companies cannot waste public resources on public 
lands.
  When equipment is leaky or old, oil and gas producers vent natural 
gas directly to the sky. If they do capture the gas but have nowhere to 
send it, the gas just gets burned on site. This venting and flaring 
causes a big problem. This photograph shows that actual problem 
happening.
  I am sure there are many citizens across the United States who have 
witnessed this and have been concerned about what pollutants might be 
entering the atmosphere. The hazardous

[[Page 7672]]

health impacts of this are tremendous--benzene, which causes cancer--
and I will talk more about that in a minute.
  The amount of venting that is happening is enough gas to supply 6.2 
million American households for a year. According to more recent 
research, even higher estimates are coming in. That is enough gas to 
supply every home in the interior West--Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, 
Colorado, Utah, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico--with gas left over for the 
Dakotas. Every home. The amount of gas we waste every single year on 
Federal lands would be enough to supply Tennessee forever, and there 
could be some left over for West Virginia.
  On Federal lands, operators have more than doubled how much gas they 
have flared and wasted between 2009 and today, and that is the practice 
we are trying to stop. Under the old 1979 rule, operators had to apply 
to BLM every time they wanted to vent or flare. In practice, BLM, 
because they did not have a new rule in place, basically just had a 
``yes'' or ``no'' answer. In 2014, the Bureau of Land Management 
received 25 times more applications to vent or flare than in 2005.
  What was happening was that we as a Federal Government were failing 
in our responding and updating the act to make sure producers were 
living up to the intent of that earlier law, so government watchdogs 
got on the issue and started calling for a solution.
  The Government Accountability Office and the Interior Department's 
inspector general concluded that the Bureau of Land Management needed 
to change these rules. The Government Accountability Office concluded 
in 2010 that about 40 percent of wasted natural gas on Federal leases 
could be economically captured with existing technology.
  Some States had already taken action into their own hands. In 
Colorado, the State passed a strong venting and leak detection 
regulation, which really became the model for the national Bureau of 
Land Management, and oil and gas production has since increased.
  There was a notion that in making sure that waste was not 
promulgated--that it somehow was going to slow down the industry, but 
it has been just the opposite. In fact, some of my colleagues and some 
ranchers and others in these areas have talked about how the United 
States should lead the way on new technology to stop the leakage and to 
prevent these flarings as a way for the industry to show technology 
leadership.
  Also, in North Dakota, a Republican administration passed flaring 
restrictions after years of there being uncontrolled flaring in the 
Bakken. States took action, and various watchdog groups and 
investigators here in Washington said the Bureau of Land Management 
needed to act. The BLM finally acted, and its final rule is similar to 
the North Dakota approach. So States have already been leaders on this 
methane issue. But this patchwork of State rules is not what we need; 
we need a Federal baseline.
  It is bad enough that wasted natural gas will never have an economic 
use. Making the issue worse is that every cubic foot that is vented or 
flared is another cubic foot we have to produce somewhere else. What 
does that mean for our wallets? Research by ICF International shows 
that $330 million of natural gas is wasted intentionally on Federal 
lands every year. Over time, the public is losing billions of dollars. 
Over a decade, the lost royalties that have been calculated by the 
Government Accountability Office on wasted gas will add up to $230 
million. While the final amount, of course, depends on the price of 
natural gas, we cannot afford to give up this revenue.
  A vote for disapproving the resolution will let the oil and gas 
industry roll back the clock to 1979. This resolution lets people 
continue avoiding giving the taxpayers their fair share. It is another 
example of special interests trumping the public interest.
  Even worse than the taxpayer issue, though, is that wasted natural 
gas harms public health. That is why those States took action. One of 
the most prevailing problems on this issue is in the Four Corners 
States, and my colleague from New Mexico will be talking about this 
shortly.
  When one looks at the entire United States on a map that shows the 
amount of waste of flaring, one can see all of this yellow coloring in 
the Midwest--in Ohio--and in other States, but one can see the hotspot 
in the Four Corners area. The Four Corners States have tried to take 
action--places like Colorado and New Mexico, with, obviously, Arizona 
and Utah being affected--because wasted natural gas basically releases 
a volatile organic compound. It creates ozone and smog. It also can 
make people sick. This pollution worsens asthma, emphysema, and 
increases the risk of premature death. It releases toxins, like 
benzene, that cause cancer. And the methane, the main constituent of 
the natural gas, is 25 times more powerful at trapping heat than carbon 
dioxide.
  That is why a recent analysis by the Clean Air Task Force found that 
over 9 million people are exposed to these dangerous levels of air 
pollution from oil and gas production. That is why my colleague Senator 
Bennet of Colorado has been such an outspoken advocate of keeping this 
rule in place. It is because that corner of Colorado has faced so many 
impacts that they want to make sure their citizens are protected.
  With the rolling back of this Federal rule, basically what one would 
be saying is that it is OK to continue this level of pollution--an 
anathema to what the people of Colorado have been asking for.
  Oil and gas pollution can make rural areas seem like the middle of a 
city. A few years ago, NASA scientists discovered a massive cloud of 
methane over the Four Corners region. This is the highest concentration 
of methane in the Nation. After aerial surveys, NASA found that over 
half of the methane is from natural gas equipment, including tanks, 
wells, pipelines, and processing plants. The ozone pollution in the 
Four Corners is almost as bad on some days as in the city of Los 
Angeles--a city with 300 times as many people.
  As bad as methane waste is on Federal land, this rule only targets 10 
percent of that wasted by the oil and gas industry because we are 
targeting Federal land. It only affects a small minority of the oil and 
gas production. Ninety-five percent of that production is in other 
areas. But this rule is important to put in place because we cannot 
ignore the impacts on pollution, and we cannot ignore the costs to our 
Federal lands.
  The Bureau of Land Management compared the costs and benefits of this 
rule without factoring in the reductions in ozone, particulate matter, 
or smog, and the BLM ignored the value of reducing carcinogens. We know 
that this particular conservative analysis shows a net benefit of 
between $46 million and $204 million each year. This makes economic 
sense to implement.
  Under the very obsolete 1979 regulation that the methane rule 
replaces, oil and gas operators had to apply to the BLM whenever they 
wanted to vent or flare natural gas. The old rules also had no specific 
equipment requirements in place.
  As I said earlier, the world has changed dramatically since 1979 when 
it comes to oil and gas production. The new rule takes commonsense 
approaches to stepping up our attempts to reduce this waste and 
prohibit the venting, except in emergencies and in some circumstances. 
They estimate that it will cut the venting by 35 percent. It also sets 
capture targets for flaring, allowing operators flexibility on how to 
meet those targets. The BLM estimates they will reduce flaring by 49 
percent.
  The rule requires operators to inspect their wells and their 
equipment. People may have heard unbelievable stories from California 
about a huge methane leakage that caused unbelievable amounts of 
damage. We know that we want the best equipment, that we want the best 
detection, and that we want a strong rule in place to stop wasting this 
natural gas, give the taxpayers a fair deal, and protect the American 
people from harmful levels of pollution. That is why we want this rule 
to stay in place.
  With America's increased natural gas production, now is not the time 
to take

[[Page 7673]]

a very solid rule off the books--a rule that protects the American 
people. The technology to conduct these inspections already exists. 
Infrared imaging and other technology has been sold commercially for 
decades. What we are really saying is that people just do not want to 
spend the money to implement them.
  Fourth, the rule requires operators to replace leaky equipment, like 
the pneumatic controllers and pumps, and it is trying to make sure that 
we eliminate the methane waste.
  So the final rule is in step with what the Government Accountability 
Office told us 7 years ago--that about 40 percent of the waste can be 
captured economically. BLM took those best practices and State 
examples, as I mentioned, including North Dakota and Colorado, and 
implemented a new rule.
  It includes Colorado's venting and inspection and retrofitting 
requirements, and regulation 7. It includes North Dakota's capture 
targets for flared gas in it, and it includes Wyoming's venting and 
inspection requirements in the Upper Green River Basin.
  Not only did the Bureau of Land Management adopt the best practices 
of States, but it also included a variance provision in the final rule. 
Any State or Tribe with equally effective regulation in place can 
minimize their methane waste and can apply for a variance from the 
Department of the Interior. There is a lot of flexibility there, I 
would say, for States that are trying to lead the way. But based on 
this careful approach, the final rule and its benefits are estimated, 
as I said earlier, to be $204 million a year.
  So the public in these States that are most affected certainly want 
this rule. As more Americans understand the level of natural gas 
production and the wasteful venting that continues to take place, they 
want this rule in place as well.
  Passing the resolution just after a few hours of debate and trying to 
undermine this rule would go against the 330,000 public comments that 
were collected during the process of establishing this rule. So we 
certainly don't want to overturn what was a very long and elaborate 
process to put this very important rule in place.
  Proposing more waste is not going to solve our economic challenges. 
Proposing more pollution is not a solution. We know that in the most 
recent annual poll by Colorado College, western voters said that 81 
percent of them supported making sure that the Bureau of Land 
Management had strong methane rules. My colleagues appear not to 
understand how much the public wants to get this implemented. I hope my 
colleagues will continue to support the effort to turn down the 
Congressional Review Act resolution and instead keep this very, very 
important public health and economic taxpayer solution on the books.
  As Mark Boling, an executive with Southwestern Energy, a major 
natural gas producer, said, this resolution and trying to turn back the 
rule is ``a huge mistake.'' He pointed out that it could have 
``unintended consequences for oil and gas technology.''
  So I want to make sure this rule stays in place. Let's keep a strong 
rule on the books, as I said, for the health of the American people and 
to make sure that taxpayers get a fair deal with these companies that 
are producing on Federal lands.
  I thank the Chair.
  I yield to my colleague from New Mexico, who has been outspoken on 
this issue in making sure that Congress addresses the flaring and 
leakage of natural gas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Young). The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, if I sound a little hoarse, it is because 
my allergies are acting up, but I feel just fine.
  Let me start out by thanking Senator Cantwell. Her leadership on the 
Energy and Natural Resources Committee is pretty incredible.
  For this Congress, I think this is the very first CRA that has been 
turned down. We have been voting on many of them since the Congress 
came back in session in January. This is the very first victory we have 
had on denying the CRA.
  When we talk about what a CRA does, it is a very blunt instrument 
that has only been used once until this Congress, and what it does is 
just blow out an entire area of the law. So if you talk about this BLM 
methane rule and you have a part of the law that says the government 
shall try to prevent waste, well, if you blow that provision of the law 
out, the agency can do nothing until we get to the point that the 
Congress acts again, and sometimes we move very slowly.
  So I really appreciate the leadership of Senator Cantwell, and I want 
to thank her so much and all of the members of her committee, in 
particular, Senator Heinrich. Senator Heinrich serves on that committee 
and has been very outspoken on this rule, and I believe his leadership 
has always been acknowledged by Senator Cantwell as well.
  This issue that we are debating and that we had this good vote on is 
about three things. First of all, it is about the waste of a natural 
resource that the public and the Tribes own. Let's talk about the 
resource here for a second. We are talking about, to start with, 
natural gas. So when we think of natural gas, as many people know, what 
we are talking about is when you turn on your stove, and it is a 
natural gas stove, that is how we cook our food. Many houses run and 
heat on natural gas, and we know now that many of our powerplants are 
converting over to natural gas because it is a very good fuel in terms 
of lowering carbon emissions. So natural gas is a big part of our 
energy economy. It is actually going up as coal is going down.
  Look at this photograph which shows more than $330 million of natural 
gas wasted. This just shows us the huge power of natural gas. What was 
happening is that natural gas was being flared. This depicts the top at 
one of these oil and gas operations. They are just burning that up. So 
rather than that energy being used at home or used in industry, it is 
just being wasted. On top of that, we know it has a massive climate 
impact.
  This was a very commonsense rule. I think the thing people should 
understand is that several Western States, including Colorado and 
Wyoming, passed an almost identical rule to deal with this issue. All 
BLM tried to do was to use that common sense from the West, where it 
had already happened in several States, and put it in place for the 
Nation. So this is a good, solid rule, and it is a commonsense rule, 
and I think it prevents waste, just like it was laid out to do.
  The second point is that when we talk about this issue, it is about 
job creation. What we are talking about here is, when you have this 
kind of waste, how do you prevent the waste? Well, the thing we have 
seen in New Mexico that occurs is that many of these oil and gas 
industries reach out to people who maybe haven't been in business, and 
they say: How do we prevent this waste? Well, actually, we use infrared 
to focus on the oil and gas operations and all of their pipes, and we 
can detect the natural gas waste, and then we can go about actually 
fixing it at all the various fittings and places where that happens. 
Guess what. A lot of jobs are created in that process. This is growing 
in New Mexico, growing in Colorado, and with this rule in place, over 
time, it is going to continue to grow. So this is going to create some 
small businesses. It has already created small businesses, and it is 
going to be pretty dramatic on that front.
  The third thing that we are here about has to do with public health. 
Obviously, if you are venting all of this--and as Senator Cantwell 
showed, you have a methane cloud the size of Delaware over the Four 
Corners area; so it is really impacting New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, and 
Arizona--what is the impact in terms of methane? Well, we know there 
are serious public health impacts. We know that asthma is impacted by 
this, as well as other respiratory diseases--the kinds of things that 
occur on a regular basis as we have that kind of methane pollution that 
goes into the air. As I mentioned just a little bit earlier, methane is 
a very, very powerful and potent greenhouse gas. So we know that by 
releasing it--the flaring that we talked about--we are wasting it and 
we are

[[Page 7674]]

putting that methane into the atmosphere. We are also adding to the 
greenhouse gases, which are warming the planet and creating, in the 
Southwest, as we know, catastrophic forest fires, extreme weather 
events, impacts on water, and impacts on agriculture. So we know that 
it is here now and that the Western States are in the bull's-eye.
  So let me just say that these are three commonsense things that we 
have done today by asserting this rule. We are preventing waste, we are 
moving job creation, and we are acting on the part of public health.
  When we have a victory like this, there are just so many people that 
should be congratulated--people that pulled together. First of all, 
just to start, Senator Cantwell just finished, and she is our ranking 
member on the committee. Senator Bennet, I think, was actually the 
51st, and I hope he tweeted that out. When he came over, we were at 50, 
and it went to 51. So he and all of the Democrats hung together on 
this--every single one of the Democrats. It just shows that when we get 
Democratic unity--and with our Independents--we come right up on about 
48 votes. If we get a couple of Republicans--if we work in a bipartisan 
way--to come with us, we can have a big impact. Who are the Republicans 
who voted with us? They should be called out and congratulated for 
having courage, for having common sense, and for stepping forward. I 
would just like to say about my three friends on the Republican side--
Senator McCain, Senator Collins, and Senator Graham--thank you so much 
for stepping forward and seeing the commonsense nature of this issue 
and standing to make sure that we didn't head in the wrong direction on 
this.
  Thinking a little bit about some of the groups that voted with us and 
worked with us and helped us and advised us out in the field, the 
groups that stood with us shoulder to shoulder include the 
Environmental Defense Fund, the Wilderness Society, and the Ceres 
business group. We had a lot of businesses--understanding that this is 
a business issue and a job creator--like Taxpayers for Common Sense. We 
don't always see them weigh in on regulations like this. The Center for 
Methane Emissions Solutions, and so many environmental and public 
health groups, including Earth Justice, the National Parks Association, 
the League of Conservation Voters, the Sierra Club, and many, many 
others, including the Western Environmental Law Center, are also a part 
of that.
  I thought we should talk for a second about--in addition to all of 
those groups--some other groups that joined us, and they are these 
medical and public health groups that abhor natural gas waste. Look at 
all of these groups in addition to the ones I mentioned. These are 
people who have real expertise in public health: Allergy & Asthma 
Network, American Lung Association, American Public Health Association, 
Center for Climate Change and Health, and Physicians for Social 
Responsibility. I have always been impressed by that group. Here you 
have docs who are stepping up, wanting to be socially responsible on 
things. There are many wonderful physicians like that in New Mexico and 
across the Nation, and they have organized themselves as PSR. We also 
have the Public Health Institute and the National Medical Association.
  So we have a lot of these medical and public health groups that have 
stepped forward and said: We are not going to waste natural gas. Let me 
thank them.
  Also, the Western Environmental Law Center, which is in New Mexico 
and works on this issue, has been a pretty incredible group, hard-
working, headed up by a gentleman by the name of Doug Meiklejohn, and 
Doug really makes a difference on all of these issues in New Mexico 
and, in particular, really helped us out here.
  I would be remiss if I didn't mention some of the groups that have 
pulled together--groups of ranchers, Tribes, and public health groups. 
We just talked about the public health groups. But there is one rancher 
in New Mexico whose sole focus has been this issue. His name is Don 
Schreiber. He appeared at a press conference yesterday here in 
Washington with Senator Bennet and Senator Cantwell. I was at my own 
press conference, and more or less as a Senator there, speaking out on 
methane. I know if Don is ever at a press conference, he is going to 
say what I would have said on this methane issue, which is that we have 
to prevent waste. Don Schreiber is his name. He is a rancher from 
Northwestern New Mexico. He is actually up under that methane cloud, 
and he talks about his family and his ranching operation and what the 
impact is.
  We also have Tribes in that area. I want to congratulate and thank 
President Begaye of the Navajo Nation. He sent in a very persuasive 
statement and made a very strong statement against wasting natural gas.
  We also had the Western Organization of Resource Councils. This is 
another group that has been very active in the West. They stepped 
forward on this natural gas waste issue, and we are incredibly thankful 
to them.
  Also, we never get anything done around here on the Senate floor 
without our wonderful staff. I want to thank Jonathan Black, who has 
worked on this issue for many years. Jonathan actually worked for 
Senator Bingaman on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, so he 
brought a lot of that expertise. We have a young man from the office 
sitting here with me on the floor, Sean MacDougall, helping me with 
these charts. Sean is a congressional fellow in our office on loan from 
the Bureau of Land Management, and he has brought a lot of knowledge to 
the table.
  Mr. President, to reiterate, I oppose H.J. Res. 36--the Congressional 
Review Act resolution to disapprove the Bureau of Land Management's 
methane and waste prevention rule. BLM's rule prevents the unnecessary 
waste of a public resource and makes sure New Mexicans--and all 
American taxpayers--get fair value in return for commercial use of that 
public resource.
  The rule requires oil and gas facilities operating on public and 
Indian lands to prevent unnecessary flaring, venting, and leaking of 
methane. Rigorous analysis shows that the overall benefits to the 
American public far outweigh the costs, and technology to implement the 
rule is readily available and cost-effective to industry.
  The current BLM rules on natural gas waste are over 35 years old, 
issued in 1979. Federal watchdog agencies have been issuing reports for 
almost a decade--recommending that the BLM update its rules and prevent 
waste wherever possible.
  With new technologies like horizontal drilling, the amount of gas 
wasted in recent years has increased significantly. From 2009 to 2013, 
the total amount of natural gas flared on BLM land doubled.
  We throw the phrase ``common sense'' around a lot these days when we 
talk about laws or regulations we like, but the BLM's waste prevention 
rule really is a commonsense rule.
  Over the past 4 months, Congress has repealed 13 Federal rules using 
CRA authority. These regulations involved years of work by the agencies 
and were developed transparently through the public notice and comment 
process. Congress overturned these rules without public input, 
hearings, or debate.
  I understand repeal of ``burdensome'' Federal regulations is a strong 
rallying cry, and I wholeheartedly agree that Federal regulations 
should not be overly burdensome.
  The BLM's waste prevention rule is good for the American public, and 
the cost to industry is de minimus. In fact, there is benefit to 
industry from increased production and the resulting increase in 
revenues. The BLM's rule is one rule that should not get swept up in 
the political tide of CRA repeal.
  Congress has spoken loud and clear that the BLM has an obligation to 
prevent waste of oil and gas on public and tribal lands starting with 
the 1920 Mineral Leasing Act.
  That act--governing leases on BLM lands--requires every lease to 
contain provisions for ``the prevention of undue waste. . . .''
  Federal law obligates the BLM to make sure the public gets a fair 
return from profits generated by oil and gas leases on public lands. 
The 1976 Federal

[[Page 7675]]

Lands Policy and Management Act requires that ``the United States 
receive fair market value of the use of the public lands and their 
resources. . . .''
  The 1982 Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act obligates these 
same oil and gas companies to pay the Federal Government ``royalty 
payments on oil or gas lost or wasted.''
  Congress has determined that oil and gas companies extracting 
resources on public lands can't waste the resource, and, if they do, 
they must pay fair market value to the American public.
  Despite Congress's prohibition against waste, tremendous volumes of 
oil and gas under BLM lease are wasted each year through flaring, 
venting, and leaks.
  Operators do not always use best practices when they flare and vent. 
Some even abuse the practice. As a result, operators vent and flare 
significant amounts of oil and gas that are economically recoverable.
  Natural gas is colorless and odorless, so you can't see leaks with 
the naked eye. Operators do not always use best practices to detect and 
prevent leaks either, but we now have readily available technology, 
like infrared cameras, that quickly and easily identify leaks. We don't 
let leaky pipes in our homes go unattended. For-profit companies 
shouldn't be given a free pass to let gas leak on public lands.
  Oil and gas operators under BLM leases reported flaring and venting 
462 billion cubic feet of natural gas from 2009 through 2015. That is 
enough gas to supply over 6.2 million households for one year. That is 
every household in the States of New Mexico, Colorado, Montana, North 
Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming.
  An independent study by ICF International estimates that, in 2013 
alone, 65 billion cubic feet of gas was wasted. That includes over 18 
billion cubic feet from tribal lands, with an estimated loss to the 
American public of $27 million in royalties.
  The amount of oil and gas waste is rising dramatically. Oil and gas 
operators report flaring has increased over 1,000 percent between 2009 
and 2015. The number of applications to vent or flare royalty free has 
gone from 50 in 2005 to 622 in 2011 to 1,246 in 2014.
  The BLM's outdated rules and the loss of royalties caught the 
attention of the Government Accountability Office years ago.
  A 2010 GAO report estimated that approximately 128 billion cubic feet 
of natural gas was vented or flared from Federal leases in 2008 and 
that approximately 50 billion cubic feet was economically recoverable. 
That recoverable gas represented $23 million in lost royalties in 1 
year.
  The 2010 GAO report highlighted real world experiences, where 
operators made money by putting in technologies to recover gas instead 
of venting or flaring. One large producer in the San Juan Basin 
installed equipment that reduced venting by 99 percent. That same 
company reported increased revenues of $5.8 million, from a $1.2 
million investment in technology to reduce emissions during well 
completion. That is money well spent.
  The San Juan Basin is one of the oldest and most productive gas-
producing areas in the United States. It lies in the Four Corners area, 
where my home State of New Mexico touches Arizona, Colorado, and Utah.
  That area is home to a methane ``hot spot,'' with the highest 
concentration of methane in the Nation.
  In 2010, the GAO pointed out what was obvious, that the BLM's 
decades-old guidance did not take account of current technology to 
reduce venting and flaring. The GAO recommended that the BLM update its 
regulations to address the avoidable loss of gas on public lands.
  There are other GAO reports, but I will talk about one more.
  In 2016, the GAO issued a report entitled, ``Interior Could Do More 
to Account for and Manage Natural Gas Emissions.'' It detailed the 
BLM's highly inconsistent practices approving royalty-free venting and 
flaring incidents.
  Looking at a random sample of operator requests to vent or flare from 
fiscal year 2014, the GAO found that fully 90 percent had inadequate 
documentation, but, despite the bad documentation, the BLM approved 70 
percent of the requests, almost half of which were for royalty-free 
venting or flaring. That is a lot of Federal, State, and tribal 
royalties lost based on incomplete records.
  The GAO is charged with helping Congress make sure Federal agencies 
are doing the best job they can for the American public. We should not 
disregard repeated GAO recommendations--spanning almost a decade--for 
the BLM to modernize its oil and gas royalty program.
  If we pass this disapproval, the BLM is foreclosed from updating 
these rules. In the face of the GAO report after another telling us 
that the BLM must do better, that would be just irresponsible to 
taxpayers.
  Secretary Zinke has been charged to review the BLM rule as part of 
the President's ``Energy Independence'' Executive order. If, after 
review, the Secretary concludes that the BLM rule should be modified, 
the Department of the Interior can proceed to amend the rule through 
the public rulemaking process, but, when we have been told time and 
time again that there is unnecessary waste and the BLM rules need 
updating, Congress should allow the DOI review to go forward and not 
permanently prevent DOI from considering how to prevent unnecessary 
waste by oil and gas facilities.
  Let's not forget that half the royalties from Federal leases go to 
State treasuries. States use these royalties for schools, roads, and 
infrastructure projects.
  My home State of New Mexico has the second highest number of acres 
under BLM lease in the country, after Wyoming--over 4.6 million acres--
and the second highest number of BLM oil and gas leases--over 8,000.
  New Mexico has a lot at stake in the BLM's waste prevention rule.
  ICF International estimates that the natural gas in New Mexico that 
could have been captured and marketed under the BLM's rule between 2009 
and 2013 would have been worth more than $100 million a year and would 
have produced $43 million in royalty payments for our State.
  In New Mexico, those royalty payments are used in part for 
educational materials in the public schools. That is textbooks, digital 
materials, science supplies, art supplies, and accessible materials for 
students with disabilities. That $43 million would have gone a long way 
for New Mexico schoolkids.
  Many of you may be aware of the methane ``hot spot'' over the Four 
Corners area that I talked about earlier. The hot spot covers about 
2,500 square miles--the size of the State of Delaware.
  This single cloud comprises nearly 10 percent of all methane 
emissions from natural gas in the United States. The San Juan Basin is 
ranked No. 1 in per capita methane pollution in the U.S.
  Scientists have been researching the sources of this methane plume. 
When the hot spot was discovered, oil and gas companies claimed the 
high concentrations were caused by ``natural'' sources, but researchers 
have found out this is wrong. They have identified 250 sources--the 
majority of which are oil and gas operations and include gas wells, 
storage tanks, pipelines, and processing plants.
  Of the four States, only Colorado has robust rules to prevent methane 
emissions. Colorado's rules are proving successful, and the BLM 
incorporated provisions from those rules.
  It is important for my State that the BLM's waste prevention rule 
stay on the books. We don't need that methane hot spot in our backyard 
and New Mexico sorely needs the royalty payments owed.
  The BLM's rule is also important for tribes. As vice-chair of the 
Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, I work to make sure the Federal 
Government upholds all its trust responsibilities. One of those 
responsibilities is making sure tribes get the royalties they are 
entitled to from private oil and gas companies operating on Indian 
lands.
  Tribes receive 100 percent of the royalties from the oil and gas 
leases on their lands. The BLM estimates tribes will get up to $12 
million more in royalties over 10 years under the rule.

[[Page 7676]]

That is money we have a trust responsibility to make sure tribes get.
  The BLM estimates the rule would reduce emissions of volatile organic 
compounds, or VOCs, by 310,000 tons over 10 years on tribal lands. 
Reducing VOC emissions means cleaner air for tribes.
  The Federal Government will not be upholding its trust responsibility 
if the BLM rule is repealed.
  I have a statement from the Navajo Nation president, Russell Begaye, 
detailing the reasons the tribe supports the BLM's rule. President 
Begaye states, ``It would be contrary to BLM's trust responsibility to 
allow Navajo Nation resources to be unreasonably wasted, particularly 
when best practices can be cost-effectively employed and are not overly 
burdensome to industry.''
  A really important cobenefit of the rule is protection of public 
health. Toxic chemicals like benzene--harmful to the public, 
carcinogenic--are emitted with methane. Reducing methane emissions will 
reduce these toxic emissions.
  Similarly, other VOCs--that contribute to ozone or smog--are emitted 
with methane. Reducing methane emissions will reduce smog formation. 
Smog irritates the respiratory system, reduces lung function, and 
aggravates asthma--among other public health problems.
  Without the Rule, not only do we lose royalties for hospitals, 
schools, and roads, but citizens pay more for their hospital visits and 
healthcare.
  Industry arguments against the rule do not hold up.
  Industry argues the rule costs too much and will kill jobs.
  That is not true. Here are the facts.
  First, the rule will result in increased production and increased 
revenues, and the technologies and practices to prevent waste are 
economically feasible.
  In fact, many oil and gas operations will see a net benefit. Like the 
company in the San Juan Basin that got almost a fivefold return on its 
investment.
  The BLM conducted an exhaustive cost-benefit analysis of the rule.
  Looking at the average cost to a company to implement the rule, the 
BLM found that profits would be reduced by only 0.15 percent, a bit 
over one-tenth of 1 percent. That is minimal.
  That cost does not even count the savings to industry from increased 
production and increased revenues.
  In fact, the BLM found that net economic benefits to industry could 
be as much as $47 million per year--taking into account the savings 
from increased revenues.
  If the benefits of reducing methane are included, the overall net 
benefit is huge--up to $204 million annually.
  That number does not even count the public health benefits from 
reduced ozone and hazardous pollutants.
  Opponents have exaggerated the costs to industry, and they have not 
taken into account the benefits to States, tribes, and the public.
  Finally, there is no evidence anywhere that the rule will cost even 
one job.
  In fact, the Bureau of Labor Statistics has recorded 2,700 new jobs 
since November 2016, while the price of oil has stayed flat. This 
month, the Baker Hughes rig count showed 300 more rigs drilling for oil 
and gas since the BLM rule came into effect. This is an increase in 
production of over 50 percent.
  Colorado issued the most comprehensive rules to date to decrease 
methane emissions, and not only have no jobs been lost, but jobs have 
been gained as new companies and technologies focused on inspection, 
monitoring, and compliance have opened. These are good American jobs.
  In New Mexico, we have at least 11 new companies in the methane 
mitigation business, and I want to see that number grow.
  Even if the rule were to force an operator to shut down, that company 
would be eligible for exemption from the requirements.
  So job loss is not an issue.
  Second, we hear that the BLM's rule is duplicative and unnecessary, 
that the EPA's methane rule is adequate, and that States are already 
regulating methane.
  Here are the facts.
  The EPA's rule only applies to new and modified oil and gas 
operations. The BLM's rule applies also to existing facilities. This is 
a big difference between the rules. Making sure all current operations 
prevent waste is critical to making sure taxpayers get the benefit 
owed.
  The BLM's rule covers areas not covered by other Federal or State 
rules, like wasteful routine flaring.
  Not all States have passed methane waste prevention rules. My home 
State of New Mexico has not. New Mexico needs to reduce methane 
emissions.
  Also, States and tribes may get a variance if they have similar rules 
that achieve the same results.
  The BLM worked with the EPA and States to ensure the rule works for 
them and does not impose conflicting or redundant requirements.
  Just last week, the EPA announced a 90-day delay on its own methane 
control rule based on industry's objections to regulation. More 
concerning, the EPA withdrew its information request from industry that 
was intended to help EPA determine how to address methane emissions 
from existing oil and gas sources. These EPA actions mean the BLM rule 
is needed more than ever to reduce natural gas waste and the proper 
collection of royalties.
  Third, we hear that the BLM lacks the authority to regulate methane 
waste.
  In January of this year, the U.S. District Court of Wyoming denied a 
preliminary injunction to block the rule. The court found that the rule 
``unambiguously'' was within the BLM's authority.
  The Congressional Review Act is a blunt tool, and it is the wrong 
tool for Congress to use to change provisions in BLM's methane waste 
prevention rule. Disapproval under the CRA would permanently block the 
BLM's authority to reform outdated rules, reforms that the GAO began 
recommending almost a decade ago.
  The BLM should not be prevented from making sure the Federal 
Government meets its obligations to States, tribes, and taxpayers--the 
obligation not to waste public resources and to make sure the public 
gets a fair return on the for-profit use of public resources.
  For these reasons, I oppose the CRA to disapprove the BLM's waste 
prevention rule.
  Just as a final word to summarize why we are here and why this 
victory was so important and why we need to hang tough on this: This 
could be changed if they decide to do another vote or if they try to do 
another piece of legislation or something. The core of this needs to be 
protected. We are here because we don't want to waste our natural 
resources, which belong to the people of America and belong to the 
Tribes. We want to create jobs, which is what this BLM methane waste 
prevention rule does. It creates jobs, and it protects the public 
health.
  I believe we are going to have a couple other speakers. I know 
Senator Heinrich is going to be here.
  Mr. President, 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. MORAN. 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. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Authority for Committees to Meet Request

  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, all of us, every Member of the U.S. Senate, 
all 100 of us, whether we are Republicans or Democrats, want the U.S. 
Senate to function. We ought to want the Senate to be able to 
accomplish its work. It is a challenge all the time but learning what 
transpired this morning on the Senate floor, in my view, reaches 
another low for the Senate.
  It is hard to explain, but it takes unanimous consent for committees 
to

[[Page 7677]]

meet while the Senate is in session, and that is a request that is made 
on an ongoing basis when the Senate convenes, and it happened again 
this morning. Almost without exception, it is routine. The rules 
require that 2 hours after the Senate convenes, no committee can then 
meet unless there is agreement. So the majority leader today requested 
that the unanimous consent be granted, just like in almost every other 
day in the Senate, but what was different today was an objection was 
raised by the minority whip, and apparently the explanation is it is 
because of the firing of the Director of the FBI last night.
  Now, how the Senate is functioning or not functioning seems to me to 
be unrelated to what transpired last night relating to the Director of 
the FBI. So in this place, where we are trying to do the people's work 
and make decisions and do good for America, the spillover over partisan 
politics, the spillover about playing a political game, highlighting a 
point has now caused the Senate to not be able to conduct hearings 
today. In fact, the minority Members of the Senate were instructed, 
requested, on their own volition--all left the hearings that were 
already being conducted this morning in protest over what transpired 
last night.
  I am of a view that this is a diverse country. I am of a view that 
people of the U.S. Senate represent folks from across the country with 
different philosophies, different political parties, different people, 
different backgrounds. We all bring to the Senate a set of 
characteristics that are different, one from another, but I have great 
regard and respect for every Senator's point of view, and I would say 
that every Senator ought to have the ability to express their views on 
behalf of their constituents, but we can only do that if we allow the 
Senate to function.
  I was on the Senate floor not long ago praising the fact that we 
finally were successful in the appropriations process; that we passed 
the fiscal year 2017 appropriations bill. For too long, the 
appropriations process has been broken down, and we have conducted 
business in the United States by continuing resolution. I thought we 
were back on a path in which there was enough agreement, respect among 
Members, enough setting aside of partisan differences to actually 
accomplish legislation. I was pleased that we did that, but today we 
fall back into the pattern of when something happens we want to make a 
political point. We then obstruct the ability of others in the Senate 
to conduct their work, to express their opinion, to gather the 
information they need.
  This came to my attention--what transpired today--because this 
afternoon at 2:30 was scheduled a hearing by the Senate Veterans' 
Affairs Committee. That hearing has absolutely nothing to do with the 
FBI. We have the new Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs 
scheduled to testify about the Department's plan for modifications to a 
program called Choice that is important to me, my constituents, and to 
the veterans of Kansas. I was so pleased the hearing had been 
scheduled, and I was looking forward to the questioning and having a 
conversation with the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs 
about how to make this system of Choice work for veterans who live in 
Kansas, from the rural side of our State to the suburban and urban side 
of our State, but because of a pique of anger, political posturing, and 
partisanship, the hearing is apparently no longer able to take place. 
The hearing this morning, which could only last for an hour and a half 
and which I guess the minority members walked out--seemed to me, at 
least sounded like, to be things that would be very important for us to 
pursue.
  The Armed Services Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities 
was to have a closed briefing this morning. The Homeland Security 
Committee was to examine cyber threats facing America, focusing on an 
overview of the cyber threat landscape. The list is significant in the 
things that we ought to be paying attention to, and yet, because of an 
objection, those hearings will not take place or were shortened or 
disrupted by only one party's participation.
  I am not here trying to create further partisanship between 
Republicans and Democrats. I am here trying to remind ourselves that 
there is value in allowing cooperation between the minority and 
majority, not for our own benefits but for the benefit of the country 
and the citizens we represent. Everything does not have to be partisan. 
Everything does not have to be political.
  Today we see the Senate sliding back into the habit of making things 
that we have really nothing to do with and weren't the cause of taking 
place--apparently to make a political point and perhaps to score votes 
for support in a political way. We ought to all, as U.S. Senators, 
respect the opinions, values, and the positions of others, but we do 
that in a setting in which we all come together, not in which we cancel 
meetings as a result of a political statement.
  I appreciate the opportunity to express my concerns about what has 
transpired and to ask for us to go back to the time in which we worked 
together on a daily basis and we don't use an excuse to shut down the 
committee hearing process.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KING. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                        American Health Care Act

  Mr. KING. Mr. President, I rise to speak briefly about the American 
Health Care Act that was passed last week in the House of 
Representatives. I thought a lot about this bill over the past few days 
and over the weekend. I talked to friends, I read about it, and I did 
as much analysis as I possibly could, given the fact that we don't have 
a Congressional Budget Office analysis of this complicated and 
important piece of legislation. I have concluded that it is the most 
ill-conceived, damaging, and downright cruel piece of legislation that 
I have ever seen a legislative body pass in my adult life.
  It drastically cuts support for Americans' ability to obtain health 
insurance. In Maine--again, as near as we can tell, because we don't 
have the final analysis--the preliminary numbers are this. Maine, under 
the Affordable Care Act, through the payments to individuals and other 
support, is receiving about $354 million a year coming via the 
Affordable Care Act. After this bill, it appears that the number is $80 
million a year--$364 million to $80 million. That is almost an 80-
percent cut. No one can tell me the people of Maine are going to have 
better healthcare with an 80-percent cut in the funds going to support 
their ability to do so. It just doesn't make sense.
  The way this bill works is, it is a tax on the elderly. Under the 
Affordable Care Act, there is a rule that policies for older people, 
50, 55, 60, cannot exceed three times the rate of policies for younger 
people. We all know that younger people's policies do in fact cost 
somewhat less because they tend to be healthier, but the rule was no 
more than 3 to 1. Under the bill that was passed by the House last 
week, it is now 5 to 1. That is an elder tax, and Maine happens to be 
the most elder State in the United States. If they had taken a blank 
sheet of paper and said: We want to write a bill to harm the people of 
Maine, it would have been this bill.
  There also is a massive cut to Medicaid--$880 billion--and the 
sponsors to this bill claim that they are helping the deficit. How are 
they doing it? By shifting the cost to the States--shift and shaft. 
Balancing the Federal budget by simply taking costs that are now borne 
by the Federal Government and passing them off to the States is not 
responsible fiscal policy.
  Why don't we just have the States fund the U.S. Air Force? That would 
save us billions of dollars a year--probably $100 billion a year. Shift 
that to the States--and $880 billion shifted to the States.

[[Page 7678]]

  Then there is what I call the figleaf--the preexisting condition 
provision which talks about the Maine plan, which was a plan that 
preceded the Affordable Care Act, which did give protection for 
preexisting conditions, but it was adequately funded. It cost about $64 
million a year to fund our preexisting plan. Again, because we don't 
have the precise figures--but it looks like under this new bill, that 
$64 million would be $20 million, one-third as much, a two-thirds 
reduction. It is not a real preexisting condition plan; it is a 
figleaf. It is to say to people: We are covering preexisting 
conditions--nonsense, not true.
  Of course, the final piece of this bill is a massive tax cut for the 
top one-tenth of 1 percent of people in this country. They will not 
even notice it, but the people who lose their healthcare will notice.
  Now, under the Affordable Care Act, there is a list of essential 
benefits which includes mental health and substance abuse. That is a 
big deal. That allows and assures people to have coverage for these 
very damaging and dangerous, in the case of substance abuse, 
conditions. Under this bill that passed in the House, States can waive 
those provisions and the waiver is very easy. The standards for the 
waiver are very easy, and if the Federal department doesn't respond in 
60 days, the waiver is automatically provided. In those States when 
they have a waiver, mental health and substance abuse services could be 
covered under a specialized plan which would be very expensive. By the 
way, this waiver covers both the individual market and employer-based 
coverage. How many people will be impacted? We do not know because we 
do not have an analysis from the Congressional Budget Office.
  I want to talk for the remainder of my time about opioids and what 
this bill would do on that.
  We are in the midst of a crisis in Maine and across the country. It 
is the most serious public health crisis in my adult life. In Maine, 
with regard to substance abuse and overdose deaths, you can see what 
has happened in the last 5 years. More than one person a day is dying 
of an overdose. Across the country, it is four an hour. We have turned 
ourselves inside out in this country in order to deal with the threat 
of terrorism, for example, which was entirely appropriate. Yet what if 
we had a terrorist attack that was killing 37,000 people a year across 
our country, and we were just sort of going along, business as usual?
  I have been working on this issue since I got to the Senate. I have 
been meeting with people throughout Maine--in hospitals and in 
recovery--and meeting with families and parents and law enforcement. 
The one thing that comes through loud and clear is that treatment works 
and that we need it and that we do not have enough available beds in 
Maine and across the country.
  This is a terrible disease, but the most tragic thing of all is when 
someone finally reaches the point at which he is ready to ask for help 
and he is told ``Sorry, there is a 3-week wait'' or ``There is a 3-
month wait.'' That is when lives are lost and families are destroyed.
  Treatment does work. I have met with people for whom it has worked 
and changed their lives. I have a friend in Portland named Andrew 
Kiezulas, who I believe is graduating this weekend from the University 
of Southern Maine. He has been through this. He has been to the bottom, 
and he is now on the mountaintop. He knows treatment works, and it has 
made a difference in his life. Without it, he would not be where he is 
today. Justin Reid, another young man from Southern Maine, was in the 
throes of addiction and escaped. He now runs a sober house and 
volunteers for a program with his local police department.
  Access to treatment is much easier with health insurance and with 
sufficient Medicaid support. The House bill simply makes it more 
difficult to access treatment. It penalizes the very people who have 
taken the hard step to say that this is what they need.
  Let me tell you a story. Matt Braun is from Cape Elizabeth, ME, right 
outside of Portland. In 2009 Matt entered treatment for opioid 
addiction. His parents, who were strong, middle-class, professional 
people, purchased what they thought was good health insurance for their 
family. After 5 days of treatment, they received a call that the 
insurer was not going to pay for any more. We have decided your son 
only needs 5 days. His parents argued, and the medical staff argued. 
They finally won. They got 7 days of treatment. Those extra 2 days made 
a difference.
  The insurance company said that it was not going to help, that he was 
going to be a chronically relapsing, drug-addicted person, so they were 
going to stop at 7 days. They said he would not make it. His parents 
did not give up.
  Matt stayed in treatment and has been sober ever since 2009. He is 
successful. He is getting ready to take the MCAT. He wants to go to 
medical school. His goal is to approach addiction from the perspective 
of a health professional and offer care and support to people who are 
struggling in the way he did.
  ``It is frustrating how insurance companies dictate what treatment 
looks like and what a life is worth,'' said Matt.
  Getting treatment for substance abuse disorder is not easy, but this 
bill, the American Health Care Act, which is a misnamed bill--it should 
be the American Take Away Health Care Act--only makes it worse.
  On top of all of this, the administration has recently indicated that 
it is talking about essentially dismantling the Office of National Drug 
Control Policy--the highest level to be working on this problem in a 
coordinated way in the Federal Government. Here we are, in the midst of 
the most serious drug crisis in the history of this country, and the 
administration is talking about gutting the very office that is 
supposed to lead the fight. It would have been as if, in the middle of 
World War II, we had abolished the Department of Defense. It makes no 
sense. It is moving in absolutely the wrong direction.
  By supporting this healthcare bill--or non-healthcare bill--in the 
House of Representatives, which will drastically cut Medicaid, 
drastically cut reimbursements for health insurance, drastically limit 
the availability of coverage for preexisting conditions--by the way, 
drug addiction could be one--and drastically eliminate the essential 
benefits provisions of the Affordable Care Act, we are just making it 
worse.
  The Office of National Drug Control Policy has things like the Drug-
Free Community Support Program, which administers small grants to small 
towns. That can make a real difference. Last fall, 18 Maine programs 
each received $125,000, and the DFC's 2014 national evaluation report 
said that there was a significant decrease in the 30-day use of 
prescription drugs for youth in communities with one of these programs.
  Prevention is one of the things we need to work on, and it is one of 
the things we need to understand. Yet talking about this problem is not 
going to solve it. Treatment is going to solve it. Money for treatment 
is going to solve it. Beds for treatment are going to solve it. Detox 
centers are going to solve it. More resources to law enforcement are 
going to solve it. More resources to the Coast Guard, in order to 
interdict drug shipments coming into this country, are going to solve 
it.
  There is no single answer, but at the core is commitment. Passing 
this bill from the House, which drastically undermines all of those 
elements of treatment and prevention, and then talking about 
dismantling the office that has led this fight in the entire Federal 
Government, is beyond comprehension in the midst of where we are.
  If this graph were doing this, if it were going down, I would be OK 
with it. But it is not going down; it is going up. It is getting worse, 
and we have to deal with it.
  As we work through this issue of healthcare--hopefully we are going 
to start with a blank sheet of paper over here--I hope we will bear in 
mind that one of the most serious health problems in the country today 
is opioid

[[Page 7679]]

abuse. This is not all about ideology, and it is not about policy. It 
is about people. It is about Matt, and it is about Andrew. It is about 
the thousands and millions of people across this country who are 
struggling, who want to lead productive lives, and who want to 
contribute to their communities. All they need is to have that moment 
when treatment is available, when a helping hand is available, when 
caring is available to help them escape the throes of this terrible 
disease and rejoin their communities and their families. That is what 
we have to keep in front of us as we work here in this body. We can 
make a difference in people's lives, but in leaving them behind, we 
will certainly not do so.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Ernst). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, what is the parliamentary situation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is considering the Lighthizer 
nomination.
  Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Chair.


                         Firing of James Comey

  Madam President, I couldn't help but think, with the discussions 
earlier today, that the President's dismissal of FBI Director James 
Comey is so inappropriate that it is hard to know where to begin.
  In less than 4 months, this President has pushed our country to the 
edge of a constitutional crisis--a crisis that in many ways seems more 
complex, and potentially more threatening, than the one instigated by 
President Nixon's order to fire the special prosecutor who was 
investigating Watergate.
  First, I think we can easily dismiss President Trump's transparent 
pretext for dismissing FBI Director Comey.
  President Trump claims to have removed the FBI Director because of 
his unfair treatment of Secretary Clinton. This does not pass the laugh 
test, and we know it is not true. President Trump celebrated Director 
Comey's mistakes in handling the Clinton email investigation. He 
encouraged leaks from the FBI. He pressed Director Comey to release 
more embarrassing evidence. He even praised Director Comey after the 
Director's misguided letter to Congress last October. Yet, now, the 
President would have us believe that these same events compelled him to 
fire the FBI Director more than 6 months after it occurred. This 
unbelievable claim, if it was not so sad, would be laughable.
  The truth is that the President removed the sitting FBI Director in 
the midst of one of the most critical national security investigations 
in the history of our country and, certainly, one of the most critical 
in my 42 years in the Senate--a sprawling inquiry that implicates 
senior officials in the Trump campaign and administration.
  The press is now reporting that President Trump weighed firing the 
FBI Director for more than a week, after he became enraged at Director 
Comey's statements and actions in the Russia investigation. There are 
even reports that his firing may have been precipitated by grand jury 
subpoenas issued to associates of President Trump's former National 
Security Advisor. I have no doubt that we are going to learn more 
disturbing details as to the President's true motivations. I am willing 
to bet anything that none of them will be because of the feeling that 
the FBI was too tough on Secretary Clinton.
  I am also troubled that Attorney General Sessions played a role in 
Director Comey's firing. The Attorney General had supposedly recused 
himself from the Russia investigation--and for good reason: He was a 
central figure in the Trump campaign that is now under investigation. 
And he provided false testimony to the Judiciary Committee to hide his 
own contacts with Russian officials. Having done that, it is beyond 
inappropriate for him to then recommend the firing of the official 
overseeing the Russia investigation.
  I ask: Does anyone really believe that President Trump is interested 
in getting to the bottom of Russia's interference with our elections? 
Based on his past performance, does anyone believe the Attorney General 
is interested in getting to the bottom of Russia's interference with 
our elections? Does anyone believe that the White House will allow 
investigators to follow the facts without interference or obstruction 
at every turn?
  In fact, a quick review of President Trump's Twitter account, where 
he does most of his deep thinking, would dispel any such illusions.
  This is the same White House that interfered with the House 
Intelligence Committee's investigation--interference so strong that the 
Republican chairman in the House investigation had to recuse himself.
  This is the same White House that reportedly sought access to the 
highly classified FISA Court surveillance order that purportedly 
authorized surveillance of Trump associates.
  This is the same White House that demanded the FBI Director and the 
Department of Justice issue perfunctory statements to clear President 
Trump's name.
  Even the President's letter informing FBI Director Comey of his 
dismissal indicated the President had directly asked the FBI Director 
whether he was under investigation--three times. That should never 
happen. No President should be asking such a question. It is stunning, 
but it should also be informative. It is clear that any credible 
investigation must take place outside the political chain of command.
  That is why I and others have said for months that a special counsel 
must be appointed to lead the Russia investigation. A special counsel, 
unlike an FBI Director or a Deputy Attorney General, cannot be fired by 
the President. The American people must have confidence that ours is a 
government of laws, not of the whim of a President--any President.
  Frankly, our Nation is at a precipice. There is a counterintelligence 
investigation into the campaign and administration of a sitting 
President. There is evidence that that campaign colluded with a foreign 
government that is an adversary of ours to sway our Presidential 
election. Now the President has fired the lead investigator, FBI 
Director Comey, under what any fairminded person would say is absurd 
and false pretenses.
  There are several inquiries underway into Russian interference and 
collusion with Russia in the elections, but the President has fired the 
head of the only investigation that could bring criminal charges. In 
fact, it has just been reported that this came just days after Director 
Comey asked for additional funding for the investigation. None of this 
is normal--it is something I have never seen in Republican or 
Democratic administrations--and we cannot treat it as such.
  President Putin's goal, as we now know, last year was to undermine 
our democratic institutions, to corrode Americans' trust and faith in 
government, and to sway the outcome of the election in favor of Donald 
Trump. If we do not get to the bottom of Russia's interference in our 
democracy, Putin will be successful. The President appears to be 
content with that result. But I know, in talking with many Republican 
Senators as well as Democratic Senators, that they are not content with 
it.
  We have to understand, in our great democracy, in the greatest Nation 
on Earth, that we cannot allow any country to try to interfere in our 
elections. We know the Russians wanted to do that. We know President 
Putin wanted to do that. We know he wants to do it in many other 
countries. I think we owe it, not only to ourselves but all these other 
countries, to stand up and say: We know what you are trying to do; here 
is how you tried to do it. America won't stand for it, and we hope none 
of our democratic allies will.
  We 100 Senators may disagree on policy matters and we may have 
supported different candidates last November, but I respect all 
Senators, and I believe we all agree on the supremacy of the rule of 
law. No person, no President should be above the supremacy of

[[Page 7680]]

the rule of law. I believe we fulfill our duty to the country if we 
stand united in calling for a truly independent investigation. There 
simply is no avoiding the fact that this cascading situation demands 
the prompt appointment of an independent special counsel to pick up the 
pieces of these investigations. How we respond at this moment is a test 
of our commitment to the separation of powers. It is a test of whether 
the Senate can truly be the conscience of the Nation, as it should. 
This is not just a scandal. The President's actions are neither 
Republican nor Democratic. They are authoritarian. This is an effort to 
undo the ties that bind our democratic form of government. All of us--
both sides of the aisle--must now put country over party.
  In my years here, I have worked with both Republican and Democratic 
Presidents. I have worked with them and supported them, notwithstanding 
their parties, in what I felt was in the best interest of this country. 
I feel privileged that Vermont has allowed me to serve long enough to 
become, as my predecessor was, dean of the Senate. But I have also, in 
deciding to stay here as a Senator, always had the abiding faith that 
you can and should be the conscience of the Nation. This great Nation 
deserves no less. That means we set aside party labels and adopt just 
one label--United States Senator.
  With that, let us make sure there is a clear, full, credible, honest 
investigation of how Russia tried to influence our elections; a full, 
clear, thorough, honest investigation into if Russia has ties to 
anybody in our government; and, a full, clear, honest understanding of 
how we make sure that never happens again, to either Republicans or 
Democrats.
  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.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Perdue). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


       Unanimous Consent Request--Authority for Committee to Meet

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, this afternoon, the Senate Special 
Committee on Aging is scheduled to hold the second part of a two-part 
series of hearings that we are holding to explore the impact of 
isolation and loneliness on the health and well-being of our seniors. 
The name of our hearing for this afternoon is Aging With Community: 
Building Connections that Last a Lifetime.
  In other words, under the first hearing that we had 2 weeks ago, we 
learned that isolation of our seniors is associated with a greater 
incidence of depression, diabetes, and heart disease. We also learned 
that the health risks of prolonged isolation are comparable to smoking 
15 cigarettes today.
  Well, this afternoon is the second part of our investigation of this 
issue, and we had planned to hear from four experts who were going to 
tell us how you can build a better sense of community for our seniors, 
how you can make sure that our seniors are connected to community. I 
want to indicate that we have four witnesses who, at their own expense, 
have flown in to participate in this hearing this afternoon. One of 
them, Lindsay Goldman, is the director of healthy aging from the Center 
for Health Policy and Programs from Rye Brook, NY. Another is from 
Dover-Foxcroft, ME. A third is from Spring Grove, PA. The fourth is 
from Miami, FL.
  Each of these witnesses was chosen in connection with my staff's 
consultation with the Democratic staff of the committee. As you can 
see, they represent the States of New York, Maine, Pennsylvania, and 
Florida, and they incurred great expense in order to come here.
  I am very disappointed to learn that, due to issues that are totally 
outside the purview of the Aging Committee--completely disconnected 
with this nonpartisan, bipartisan look at an issue that ought to 
concern all of us--we are going to be prohibited from holding this 
official hearing this afternoon. I am baffled by this. This has nothing 
to do with the firing of Jim Comey. It has nothing to do with the 
Intelligence Committee's ongoing and successful investigation of 
Russian influence on our investigations. It has nothing to do with the 
healthcare debate that is roiling this Congress.
  This is a hearing that has to do with the health and well-being of 
America's seniors. It is not political in any way, and to ask these 
four witnesses, who have come from four different States, including the 
State of the Democratic leader, to go back home and waste all this 
travel money and not help us better understand how we can deal with an 
issue that affects the health and well-being of our seniors is just 
plain wrong.
  Therefore, Mr. President, I make a request that the Aging Committee 
be permitted to meet at 2:30 p.m. today for its hearing, Aging With 
Community: Building Connections that Last a Lifetime. I ask unanimous 
consent that the committee be allowed to meet.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Democratic leader.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Given that we have no path forward on the horrible and 
momentous events of last night from the majority, I am constrained to 
object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I see the Democratic leader is rapidly 
leaving the floor, so he obviously does not want to hear anything more 
about our hearing, but this makes no sense whatsoever.
  This is an example of the dysfunction of the Senate. How does it make 
sense that the Aging Committee, which operates in a completely 
bipartisan manner, is being prohibited from holding a hearing that is 
important to our seniors and that has nothing to do with the issues 
that are in the news today?
  I just don't understand why we are being prohibited from proceeding 
to do our work, to do our important jobs on an issue where we have four 
experts from four different States, including the State of the 
Democratic leader, including a witness chosen by the ranking member of 
the committee, and none of that matters. We are being prohibited from 
holding this hearing.
  Mr. President, it is a great disappointment to me--and I am sure it 
is going to be a great disappointment to our witnesses and our 
committee members--that we are going to have to cancel this hearing for 
reasons that are totally unrelated to the subject of this hearing.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Seeing no one seeking recognition, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Firing of James Comey

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I was, to say the least, shocked last 
night when I heard that President Trump had dismissed FBI Director 
Comey from his position as the Director of the FBI. To me, this 
decision by President Trump crossed the line. I have tried to 
understand what was going through the President's mind at the time he 
dismissed Mr. Comey. It is clear that he had memorandums written by the 
Department of Justice that were released at the time, but there is also 
a clear indication that President Trump had been considering this 
decision for over a week and that after he had reached the decision to 
fire Mr. Comey, he needed grounds from the Department of Justice and 
that that information was supplied to Mr. Trump for his decisionmaking. 
This was Mr. Trump's decision.
  At the time he dismissed Mr. Comey, President Trump's associates had 
been involved in the investigation being done by the Department of 
Justice. This is a criminal investigation that is being done by the 
Department of Justice because of Russia's interference

[[Page 7681]]

that involved Mr. Trump's associates in the U.S. election system. We do 
not know where that investigation is going--we do not--but we do know 
now that the President of the United States has compromised the ability 
of that investigation by firing Mr. Comey. That should not happen in 
American politics. No one is above the law.
  The timing of Mr. Comey's firing is extremely suspicious. If the 
President were really concerned about the FBI Director's conduct in the 
Hillary Clinton email investigation, why didn't the President fire 
Director Comey when he took the oath of office in January? It just does 
not add up. No one is above the law.
  According to news reports, President Trump was also upset over the 
amount of media coverage that the FBI Director and the investigations 
were attracting, and the White House asked DOJ officials to come up 
with reasons.
  It is clear to me that the decision to fire Mr. Comey was a personal 
decision that was reached by President Trump and that it was known by 
him at the time that it would compromise the investigation that is 
being done by the Department of Justice.
  I have been approached by others in their saying that Mr. Comey was 
not popular with Democrats or Republicans and that he had done things 
during his term as Director that had upset a lot of us, which is true, 
but the Director of the FBI has a 10-year term for a reason--a term 
that is longer than the two terms of the President of the United 
States. This is not a partisan position. The FBI is not required to be 
popular with either Democrats or Republicans. What he is required to do 
is to uphold the law of the land for all Americans, and no one is above 
the law. That is what we expect from the Director of the FBI.
  President Trump has compromised the integrity and independence of the 
FBI. At this point, what can we do? I would suggest, with regard to the 
criminal investigation that is being done by the Department of Justice, 
that there is only one course of action that will maintain the 
credibility of that investigation, which is that it is incumbent upon 
the Department of Justice to name, as soon as possible, a special 
prosecutor to take over that role.
  If that is not done, in my view, it will be difficult to have the 
confidence of the American people that that investigation is not being 
directed by those who were supposed to be the subject of that 
investigation.
  I think it would also compromise the nomination process of the next 
Director of the FBI. If we do not have a special counsel named, then 
there will be so much focus on how that next Director will handle this 
investigation that we really will not have attention paid to the other 
responsibilities and talents of that individual to be able to handle 
the FBI's broad jurisdiction.
  If that is not resolved--the investigation and the appointment of a 
special prosecutor--it is difficult to see how we are going to have a 
truly bipartisan process for maintaining support for the FBI.
  I urge the Deputy Attorney General to name, as soon as possible, a 
respected person as an independent prosecutor to take over this 
investigation.
  There are deeper concerns than just the President of the United 
States' hampering a criminal investigation in which associates of his 
are involved because it also involves a country that is not a friend to 
the United States. All of this was triggered by Russia's involvement in 
our democratic election system. We know that Russia was directly 
engaged in trying to compromise our election system by calling into 
question the confidence of our system and trying to tilt the scales in 
favor of one of our candidates. Russia made contact with Americans in 
order to further its game at bringing down our democratic system of 
government.
  This is not unique to the United States. Russia has used similar 
tactics in other elections of democratic countries. In the Montenegro 
election, we saw that Montenegrins were voting on their government's 
accession into NATO and that Russia exported individuals into that 
country to try to disrupt that election. They were not successful, but 
they tried. Just recently, in the French election, we saw how Russia 
got directly involved in trying to help one of the candidates who it 
believed would help pull France away from the EU and create a vacuum 
for Russia's influence, but the French voters turned that down. It was 
not successful, but that does not mean Russia will not continue to try 
to bring down democratic systems of government.
  Mr. Trump's casual and consistent dismissal of the facts, as laid out 
by the entire Intelligence Committee, about Russia's engagement in the 
United States should set off alarm bells. It cannot be business as 
usual. Yet, today, President Trump and Secretary Tillerson met with 
Foreign Minister Lavrov. Today of all days, they decided to meet like 
nothing has happened, but a lot has happened. Did we see any indication 
that the purpose of that meeting was to raise our strong objections to 
Russia's interference in our election system or Russia's compromising 
Americans to try to help in regard to its campaign against our free 
election system or Russia's engagement and encroachment into other 
countries? Did we really hear a commitment by the President of the 
United States that we would not tolerate that type of behavior by 
Russia? No. Business as usual. The President wants to establish a 
friendlier relationship with Russia.
  Russia has not just tried to bring down free elections systems; they 
have invaded other countries. We know about the active campaign in 
Ukraine, the annexation of Crimea, the Russian presence in Moldova and 
Georgia. I met with the Prime Minister of Georgia with Senator Wicker 
earlier today, and he can tell you firsthand about how their country is 
trying to deal with the Russian presence in their sovereign country.
  We all know about Russia's engagement in other parts of the world. 
Their engagement in Syria is bringing about serious challenges to 
trying to resolve the crisis in that country. The Russian Government 
supporting the Assad regime, war crime activities targeting 
humanitarian convoys, targeting hospitals, the use of chemical 
weapons--all of that is facilitated by Russia. That is well known, but 
it might be not as well known that Russia is ambitious in going into 
many more parts of the world. Russia is now engaged in Afghanistan. We 
have had one of our longest wars ever in Afghanistan and our commitment 
to the people of Afghanistan to have a democratic government. So Russia 
is now engaged with the Taliban, trying to upset our ability to bring 
all of the parties together in unity in the government.
  That, to me, is totally counter to history. We know about Russia's 
presence in Afghanistan. Does anyone believe Russia is really sincere 
in maintaining peace in that country?
  Then we see Russia's fingerprints in Yemen, trying to get a naval 
base on the Yemeni coast, showing no concern for the humanitarian 
crisis that has been created in that country. We see Russia's presence 
in Libya, supporting General Haftar, who has committed his own human 
rights violations and war crimes and has disrupted the Government of 
National Accord, which is our best chance for peace in Libya.
  We see Russia's presence in Nicaragua, sending troops and equipment 
to that country and now building a major compound that many believe is 
being built to spy on the U.S. compound. That is Russia.
  So to President Trump: It is not business as usual with Russia. There 
is a reason we need an independent commission to investigate what 
Russia was doing in the United States because Russia is trying to 
create space where they can expand their influence, and expanding their 
influence is for values that are just the opposite of ours--a corrupt 
government, no respect for human rights, no respect for democratic 
institutions, and opposition to a free press. That is what Russia is 
trying to expand. We know that in their involvement in the United 
States, they are trying to find a way to expand that opportunity.
  So it is for all of those reasons it cannot be business as usual, and 
when the

[[Page 7682]]

President of the United States interferes with a criminal investigation 
that was precipitated by Russia's engagement in the United States, 
every American should be alarmed. Every American should be asking what 
we can do to make sure we have an independent review so we can take 
steps to protect our national security.
  It is not acceptable for the Senate to say business as usual. We need 
to come together and facilitate the independent review of potential 
criminal involvement of Americans in facilitating the Russians and what 
they were doing, and we need to have an independent review of all of 
what Russia was doing in this country so we can take the necessary 
steps to protect our national security.
  Mr. President, 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. DAINES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cotton). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to display water 
samples from the State of Montana on the Senate floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


       Unanimous Consent Request--Authority for Committee to Meet

  Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, today our friends across the aisle have 
decided to hold up Senate committee meetings. Because the Democrats 
object to the dismissal of James Comey from the FBI, they have chosen 
to play politics and prevent scheduled hearings from occurring. That 
means everyone who has taken time to fly to Washington, DC, to testify 
before Congress--per our request--and update us on important issues 
that face the Nation will not be heard.
  One of those scheduled hearings is in the Energy and Natural 
Resources Subcommittee on Water and Power, of which I am a member. This 
hearing was going to investigate the Dry-Redwater and the Musselshell-
Judith Rural Water Systems. This is a critically important issue to 
Montana.
  This hearing was going to focus on water from Circle, MT. These are 
water samples from different families in the Circle, MT, area. This is 
from the Arensons' tap. This yellow-tinted water here is from the 
Goods' tap. This cloudy sample here is from the Hances' tap.
  These are all from Circle, MT. This is from the Carlsons' tap. You 
probably can't see it--perhaps on camera and on the floor--but there is 
particulate in here, floating, something you wouldn't want to drink. 
This is water from the Rosaaens' tap. These samples all came from a 
small town in Eastern Montana, Circle, MT, and the image here to my 
left is from Roundup, MT. This unacceptable, unclean tap water is in 
the homes of Montanans and North Dakotans right now as we speak.
  The mayor of Harlowton, MT, a town of about 1,000 in rural central 
Montana, is here today to testify. I met with him just yesterday. He 
came to our Montana coffee this morning. He spent over $1,000 on a 
flight. He spent almost $600 on hotel accommodations, not to mention 
the cost of other incidentals. Now the Democrats will not let him 
speak.
  Why? As the chairman of the Senate Western Caucus, it is shameful--as 
other witnesses have flown and spent thousands of dollars--to prevent 
improving water quality in our States. The Arizona witness, for 
example, spent $2,400 and 3 days out of the office to come back and 
testify today. The North Dakota witness spent $1,300.
  Yes, the FBI needs to regain the trust of the American people. In 
fact, Senator Schumer on November 2 said: ``I do not have confidence in 
[Comey] any longer,'' and on that very same day, House Minority Leader 
Nancy Pelosi said: ``Maybe he's not in the right job.''
  But this water, as we can see these samples in front of me, has 
nothing to do with the FBI. There are over 36,000 Americans spread 
across Montana and North Dakota without access to clean water. If the 
mayor of Flint, MI, flew here to testify about the quality and 
challenges facing their water system, no one would have blocked that 
hearing. Frankly, this is just another sign of the marginalization of 
rural Montana and rural America. I was sent here to fight for rural 
Montana, to stand for rural America, and that is what I will continue 
to do. This hearing needs to happen today.
  Mr. President, I have a request for the Energy Committee to meet at 
2:30 p.m. today. I ask unanimous consent that the committee be allowed 
to meet.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Hawaii.
  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, these are 
not usual times. Representing the State of Hawaii, of course, we care 
about clean water. So with all due respect to my colleague from 
Montana, we understand the importance of this issue to the people of 
his State. However, as I said, these are very unusual times, and, on 
the President's decision to fire Director James Comey in this manner, 
under this pretext, and at this time, it is also a total disservice to 
the American people.
  This attempt, intended to derail and disrupt the FBI's ongoing 
investigation into Russia's attempt to disrupt or interfere with our 
democracy and the Trump team's ties to those attempts, should be a 
matter of national concern, not a Republican or Democratic concern. We 
need a bipartisan call for a special prosecutor who will conduct an 
impartial, thorough investigation, untainted by political 
consideration.
  Therefore, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, if I could respond to my colleague from 
Hawaii.
  The folks who have been derailed today are the men and women who have 
traveled thousands of miles to be here from very small communities 
across our country. They have taken time away from work and their 
families to be here to show our committees what is going on in rural 
America and the unacceptable quality of water.
  Water is a basic need. We have water samples here that I think would 
be shocking to most Members in this body. I am just saddened to see 
that Democrats are going to derail these hearings this afternoon. Yes, 
let's have a fight about the FBI and the firing of Comey. We can have a 
good-spirited debate about that. But why are we preventing these folks 
from rural America, who have traveled thousands of miles, to testify 
today at our request.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.


       Unanimous Consent Request--Authority for Committee to Meet

  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I have a request for the Indians Affairs 
Committee to meet today at 2:30 p.m.
  First, we have a markup in the Indian Affairs Committee. The two 
bills we are marking up are Democrat-sponsored bills. The first one is 
Senator Tester's bill, from the State of Montana, which would provide 
support for Native languages. I guess the summary is that it would 
support the education of Indian children. I believe it relates to 
Native languages in that educational capacity. So that is one of the 
bills, Senator Tester's bill.
  The other bill we are marking up is Senator Tim Kaine's bill, also a 
Democrat-sponsored bill. The short narrative I have is this: To extend 
Federal recognition to the Chickahominy Indian Tribe, the Chicahominy 
Indian Tribe-Eastern Division, the Upper Mattaponi Tribe, the 
Rappahonnock Tribe, the Monacan Indian Nation, and the Nansemond Indian 
Tribe.
  The reason that is significant, that is something that both Senator 
Kaine and Senator Warner--both Senators from Virginia--have been 
working on for some time. The reason it is timely is that they have 
Pocahontas's birthday celebration coming up, which I think is going to 
be a large celebration in the Commonwealth of Virginia. They were 
hoping to have these Tribes recognized before this birthday celebration 
for Pocahontas. It is a timely issue.

[[Page 7683]]

  Obviously, we can't advance the bill to the Senate floor unless we 
mark it up. At the request of those two Democratic Senators from the 
Commonwealth of Virginia, we are scheduled to mark up those bills and 
get them to the floor and try to do it in a timely way because of the 
celebration they are trying to get prepared for. Everybody knows the 
story of Pocahontas and why that would be a big celebration and 
certainly a big deal in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
  Again, as we debate this on the Senate floor, I think Senator Daines 
made some strong points, and I would certainly appeal to our colleagues 
across the aisle to consider what I just described as far as those 
markups.
  In addition to those markups, we also have a hearing on several 
bills. The first one is a McCain bill, and it is to amend the PROTECT 
Act to make Indian Tribes eligible for AMBER Alert grants.
  Everybody knows what the AMBER Alert Program is and how important 
that program is to protect our young people when they get abducted. The 
reason Senator McCain, from Arizona, is bringing this bill forward is 
because there was an abduction in Arizona, and the AMBER Alert went out 
late. I think the AMBER Alert went out a day late.
  Senator McCain has this PROTECT Act so we can make sure the AMBER 
Alert is working in Indian Country, and you certainly can understand 
how important it is that we do that. We have to have a hearing on the 
bill again so we can advance the bill to the Senate floor for 
consideration.
  The final bill that we would have a hearing on in committee, if we 
are allowed to meet, is a Murkowski bill, Senator Murkowski from 
Alaska. It would provide the conveyance of certain property in this 
State.
  You have to realize that the witnesses--and I think certainly the 
good Senator from Hawaii will appreciate this--had to come here from 
Alaska, which is quite a lengthy trip. When the Senator travels back 
home to Hawaii, that is a long trip. It is certainly a beautiful place 
but a long trip to get there. Of course, it is not inexpensive to 
travel from Alaska to Washington, DC.
  Those witnesses will be out their costs to come here if we are not 
able to have the hearing, and we would have to reschedule it. That 
certainly creates a cost burden for them, which is certainly unfair and 
not what they would want to have had happen on the part of their 
government.
  I am putting that in human terms. Again, we are talking about two 
Democratic bills, and we are talking about two Republican bills. We are 
talking about constituents who have traveled a long way to come here to 
have the hearing and the markup.
  Again, these are issues we should be able to work on in a bipartisan 
way. I would certainly ask for that consideration. At this point, I ask 
for unanimous consent that our committee be allowed to meet.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Hawaii.
  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, of course 
we acknowledge the importance of the matters raised by my colleague 
from North Dakota and, representing my State, the State of Hawaii, yes, 
there is support for education of Native people, of Native children, 
which I hope will include Native Hawaiian children. That is important 
as well as recognizing various Indian Tribes and the other matters that 
were raised by my friend from North Dakota.
  However, as I mentioned, these are not business-as-usual times. The 
untoward firing of the FBI Director, who was conducting an ongoing 
investigation into Russian attempts to interfere with our Democracy and 
the Trump team's ties to those attempts, should be a matter of national 
concern, should be a matter of concern to every single Member of the 
Senate.
  This is not a Republican or a Democratic concern. This is a threat to 
our democracy. We know Russia did this. We know we need to get to the 
bottom of this. We need to get to the bottom of the Trump team's ties 
to these efforts, and this thinly veiled attempt by President Trump to 
derail or disrupt these investigations cannot be sustained or 
supported.
  We continue to ask for a bipartisan call for a special prosecutor who 
will conduct an impartial, thorough investigation, untainted by 
political considerations into the Russia-Trump matter. Therefore, Mr. 
President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Minnesota.


                         Firing of James Comey

  Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I rise to address President Trump's 
stunning dismissal of FBI Director Comey yesterday evening. We know the 
Russians interfered in the 2016 election. We know the Russians did so 
in order to undermine confidence in our democracy. We know the Russians 
carried out this attack with the goal of benefiting the campaign of 
Donald Trump, whom the Kremlin preferred to see win the election. These 
facts have been confirmed by our intelligence agencies.
  What we don't fully yet understand is all of the reasons why, all the 
reasons why the Russians favored Donald Trump and whether associates of 
the President or members of his campaign assisted in the Russian 
operations to sway the election in his favor.
  These questions are the subject of an ongoing counterintelligence 
investigation, an investigation conducted by the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation and, until last night, an investigation led by James 
Comey.
  As former Director Comey recently testified to the House Intelligence 
Committee, ``[T]he FBI, as part of [its] counterintelligence mission, 
is investigating the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 
2016 presidential election--and that includes investigating the nature 
of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and 
the Russian government and whether there was any coordination between 
the campaign and Russia.''
  The timing of Director Comey's dismissal raises serious questions, 
and President Trump's decision to abruptly fire the man leading an 
investigation that could implicate the Trump administration should 
shock the conscience of every American who believes that no man or 
woman is above the law and who has faith in the fair and impartial 
pursuit of justice.
  The White House attempted to preemptively dispel any suspicion by 
announcing that President Trump fired the Director ``based on the clear 
recommendations'' of Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney 
General Rod Rosenstein. The White House released several documents to 
back up that claim: a letter from President Trump to Director Comey, 
firing him; a letter from Attorney General Sessions to President Trump, 
recommending that Comey be fired; and a memo written by Deputy Attorney 
General Rosenstein, which cited the Director's handling of the Hillary 
Clinton email investigation as damaging the FBI's reputation and 
credibility. These documents create more questions than they answer.
  First, the letter from President Trump to Director Comey firing him. 
President Trump, ever eager to put distance between the Russian inquiry 
and himself, wrote: ``While I greatly appreciate you informing me, on 
three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation, I 
nevertheless concur with the judgment of the Department of Justice that 
you are not able to effectively lead the Bureau.''
  Again, we know the FBI is conducting a criminal investigation into 
whether members of the Trump campaign coordinated with the Russians in 
their efforts to influence the election. Director Comey confirmed that 
before he was fired. Whether President Trump is personally under 
investigation by the Bureau or whether investigators are merely 
scrutinizing his advisers and associates, the President's clumsy 
attempt at misdirection does little more than remind us of the many 
unanswered questions about his and his people's connections to Russia.
  Second, Attorney General Sessions' letter to President Trump. The 
Attorney General writes that based on his

[[Page 7684]]

review of Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein's memo, which cites the 
Director's handling of the Clinton email investigation, that Attorney 
General Sessions has concluded that the FBI requires new leadership and 
a fresh start. Attorney General Sessions recommended that Director 
Comey be fired.
  Attorney General Sessions should not have had any involvement in this 
decision at all. On March 2, the Attorney General called a press 
conference to announce: ``I have now decided to recuse myself from any 
existing or future investigations of any matter relating in any way to 
the campaigns for president of the United States.''
  The reason Attorney General Sessions made that announcement was 
because news reports revealed he had provided misleading testimony in 
response to a question that I asked during his confirmation hearing; 
that Attorney General Sessions had falsely stated: ``I did not have 
communications with the Russians.'' In fact, he did meet with the 
Russian Ambassador during the campaign twice.
  Having provided misleading testimony under oath about a matter that 
could potentially be the subject of a criminal investigation by the 
FBI, Attorney General Sessions was forced to recuse himself.
  I find it deeply troubling that Attorney General Jeff Sessions--who 
misled the Judiciary Committee about his own communications with the 
Russian Ambassador and who pledged to recuse himself from this 
investigation as a result--betrayed that pledge by involving himself in 
the decision to fire the Director of the FBI, who was leading the 
investigation into Russia's interference in our elections, including 
whether members of President Trump's campaign were involved in that 
interference. Attorney General Sessions was a member of that campaign, 
and he misled the committee on whether he had met with the Russians, 
and he did that under oath. That is why he recused himself, and yet he 
inserted himself in this firing.
  Finally, there is Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein's memo, which 
asserts that Director Comey's handling of the Clinton email 
investigation caused the public to lose confidence in the Bureau. 
Director Comey spoke publicly about the Clinton email investigation 
twice, in July and October of last year.
  Setting aside whether Director Comey's decision to discuss the 
investigation was unorthodox or broke with Justice Department and FBI 
protocols, his actions were well known to both President Trump and 
Attorney General Sessions, and both of them celebrated his actions at 
the time. After Director Comey wrote to Congress on October 28, 
informing us that the FBI had discovered additional emails and would 
therefore reopen its investigation into Secretary Clinton, then-
Candidate Trump praised his decision. He said: ``What [Comey] did was 
the right thing,'' and ``It took guts for Director Comey to make the 
move that he made in light of the kind of opposition he had.''
  Appearing on FOX Business Network, then-Senator Sessions said that 
Director Comey ``had an absolute duty, in my opinion, 11 days [before 
an election] or not, to come forward with the new information that he 
has and let the American people know that, too.''
  If President Trump or Attorney General Sessions truly objected to the 
way that Director Comey conducted the investigation into Secretary 
Clinton's emails, I suspect they would have said so at the time rather 
than heap praise upon him. But their previous statements lauding 
Director Comey's handling of the Clinton email probe cast suspicion on 
the extent to which they relied on the Deputy Attorney General's 
purported rationale.
  Further, and this is important, if Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein 
were truly concerned that Director Comey's handling of the Clinton 
email investigation had damaged the reputation of the Bureau, then why 
not wait for the conclusion of an investigation by the very respected 
DOJ inspector general into Comey's decision during the election--his 
decisions--an investigation that had been underway since January?
  The shifting positions of President Trump and Attorney General 
Sessions lead me to believe something else is going on here, that this 
is not about Hillary Clinton's emails but about turning the page on 
Russia. In fact, last night, a White House spokesman said so. Appearing 
on FOX News, White House Deputy Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders 
was asked how Director Comey's firing would affect the Russia 
investigation. She replied:

       When are they going to let that go? It's been going on for 
     nearly a year. Frankly, it's getting kind of absurd. There's 
     nothing there. It's time to move on. Frankly, it's time to 
     focus on the things the American people care about.

  The American people care about whether a hostile foreign government 
influenced our election. They care about whether advisers and 
associates of the President helped that foreign government do that.
  The events that have occurred over the past 24 hours are deeply, 
deeply unsettling. As my Republican colleague Senator Flake said last 
night:

       I've spent the last several hours trying to find an 
     acceptable rationale for the timing of Comey's firing. I just 
     can't do it.

  And I can't either. In my view, the timing and the circumstances 
surrounding Director Comey's dismissal are very suspicious. For 
example, just this morning, it was reported that Director Comey 
recently asked the Justice Department to provide additional resources 
for the Russian investigation--a request that purportedly he made 
personally to Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein. This raises grave 
concerns about the Trump Justice Department's ability to conduct a 
full, fair, and impartial investigation. In order to address these 
concerns, Attorney General Sessions and Deputy Attorney General 
Rosenstein should come to the Senate and explain their involvement to 
all of the Senators in this body.
  In the wake of what I believe was a politically motivated decision to 
remove Director Comey, I no longer have confidence that the Department 
of Justice can fulfill its obligation to resolve this matter 
impartially. The situation now calls very clearly for the appointment 
of a special prosecutor to oversee the investigation into whether 
associates of the Trump organization or former members of the Trump 
campaign had knowledge of or participated in the Russian attack on our 
democracy.
  I join my colleagues' calls for an independent inquiry so the 
American people can have confidence that the individuals who conduct 
this investigation will follow the facts no matter where they lead.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I am here today to speak on a different 
topic, but before the Senator from Minnesota leaves, I want to thank 
him for his statement and for his observations, which are dead-on about 
the need now more than ever to have an independent special counsel take 
a look at what has happened here. I am very grateful for that, and I 
believe that is the conclusion others in this Chamber, Republicans and 
Democrats working together, will reach as well, as they let sink in 
what has actually transpired over the last 24 hours.


                  Congressional Review Act Resolution

  Mr. President, earlier today, in a piece of good news around here, a 
bipartisan majority voted to block an effort that would have wasted 
taxpayer resources, polluted our air, and accelerated climate change. I 
thank my colleagues who voted that way, in particular the Republican 
Senators who crossed the aisle to join us in this vote. Today, we 
showed that Washington can still come together to put the public above 
the powerful. Today we showed that, in the Senate at least, a majority 
still exists for common sense, for public health, and for good 
stewardship of public resources.
  Before this morning, the Trump administration and some Members of 
Congress sought to undo a rule from the Bureau of Land Management that 
had been a win for taxpayers, for businesses, and the environment. 
Across

[[Page 7685]]

the country, oil and gas companies pay royalties to extract from 
Federal and Tribal lands. Each year, these companies waste around $330 
million worth of gas because of inefficient operations, from leaky 
pipes to excess burning, to faulty vents.
  By preserving this rule, we will give taxpayers roughly $800 million 
in new royalties over the next decade--resources our communities could 
use to invest in schools or to build roads, bridges, and tunnels. 
Actually, the idea that we are giving the money is not right. The 
taxpayers will earn the royalties to which they are entitled as a 
result of these public lands.
  This is a win all the way around. For public health, it reduces toxic 
pollutants in the air we breathe. For businesses, it cuts waste and 
expands their bottom lines. For the planet, it curbs leaking methane, 
which is up to 80 times more potent than a greenhouse gas and 
accelerates climate change. In fact, without the proper protections, 
natural gas can burn as dirty as coal, and the benefits that we have 
gotten from natural gas would be dramatically reduced.
  Thanks to bipartisan cooperation, this rule will remain in place. I 
want to recognize Colorado's leadership in bringing us to this moment. 
In Colorado, we led the Nation to adopt the country's first-ever rule 
to reduce methane waste and pollution. The rule enjoys support from 
environmental groups, the oil and gas industry, and 83 percent of 
Coloradans.
  Our approach was so successful that the Bureau of Land Management 
drew on it as a model for all Federal and Tribal lands. In my State, 
when we were thinking about passing this rule, critics said that it 
would stifle energy production, but the opposite has happened. 
Colorado's natural gas production has continued to rise, while oil 
production has nearly doubled.
  Critics also argued that Colorado's rule would kill jobs. Once again, 
the facts tell a very different story. In Colorado alone, 41 different 
companies put people to work to repair pipes, monitor pollution, and 
develop technologies to reduce emissions. Our experience showed that 
the rule spurred new jobs and technologies, reduced pollution, and 
protected the planet, all while failing to reduce energy production as 
critics alleged. Those facts were critical in preserving the rule this 
morning.
  Because of what we did this morning, the national standard we 
preserved, our State will not suffer from higher methane pollution 
coming across the border from other States. That would have hurt 
Colorado's economy. That would have hurt tourism in one of the most 
visited States in the country, and it would have been deeply unfair to 
the people of Colorado, to kids with asthma and seniors who need clean 
air to breathe, to the next generation of Americans, of Coloradans who 
deserve a healthy planet.
  Now that Congress has spoken, the administration should listen. My 
colleagues and I will vigorously oppose any attempts by the Department 
of the Interior to bypass, somehow administratively, the decision that 
has been made today. All of us need to remain vigilant to ensure that 
this commonsense protection remains in place, protecting Americans, 
protecting our environment, and I am grateful that today, at least, we 
can come together and put fact over ideology and put the public good 
over narrow interests.
  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. SCHUMER. 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. SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. President.
  First, I want to thank my colleague from Colorado for his outstanding 
remarks and, even much more important, the work on the methane CRA. 
Much is happening today, and not many people paid much attention, I 
guess, because they were so busy, but this is the first CRA to go down, 
and it is probably the most important one that came before us. So the 
fact that it wasn't voted on means the people of America and the people 
of the world can breathe a sigh of relief because methane--one of the 
great causes of global warming--will not be released into the 
atmosphere as easily.


                          Russia Investigation

  Mr. President, now on the topic of the day, this morning the 
Democratic caucus met to discuss the circumstances of Mr. Comey's 
dismissal by the White House. There are many questions to be answered 
and many actions to be taken. We will be pursuing several things in the 
coming days and weeks that we decided in our caucus, and we will have 
more to say about those next steps in the days ahead, but there are 
three things our caucus agreed must happen right away.
  First, Mr. Rosenstein should not be the one to appoint the special 
prosecutor. That responsibility should go to the highest serving career 
civil servant at the Department of Justice.
  Second, Mr. Comey is needed more than ever to testify before the 
Senate.
  Third, Attorney General Sessions and Deputy Attorney General 
Rosenstein should brief all Senators on these events separately and in 
a classified setting, if necessary, and they should do it soon because 
the questions are just swirling about, and there are more every day, 
almost every hour.
  Let me go over each.
  First, it is the overwhelming view of my caucus that a special 
prosecutor should now be appointed to conduct the investigation into 
the Trump campaign's ties to Russia. Mr. Rosenstein cannot be the 
person to appoint him.
  Serious doubts have been cast on Mr. Rosenstein's impartiality for 
two reasons: First, there are many reports that Director Comey met with 
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein last week to make a request for 
more resources or help with the investigation into the Trump campaign's 
ties to Russia. That would make the timing of this firing even more 
suspect. Second, Mr. Rosenstein signed his name to a highly political 
memo arguing for Director Comey's dismissal and made no complaint about 
the involvement of the Attorney General, who had recused himself from 
all matters relating to the Russia investigation, in recommending the 
firing of the man who was leading it.
  It is hard to believe that a seasoned prosecutor without bias would 
have allowed Sessions to be a part of this. It is also hard to believe 
that a seasoned prosecutor would write such a memo, which seems highly 
political--not in the kind of language and not with the kind of 
annotation that prosecutors normally write.
  These facts make it clear that the decision to appoint a special 
prosecutor should go to the highest ranking civil servant at the 
Department of Justice. Mr. Rosenstein and other political appointees 
appointed by the President, whom they are supposed to investigate, 
should not be the ones making a special call on a prosecutor, lest that 
decision be seen as influenced or, worse, made at the direction of the 
administration.
  We need to assure the American people that they can have confidence 
in our criminal justice system to conduct the Russia investigation 
impartially. The best and only way to do that now would be for a career 
civil servant at the Department of Justice to be the person who decides 
on a special prosecutor. It should not be a political appointee who 
makes such a decision.
  My friend, our great senior Senator from the State of California, 
brought this up in our meeting. Senator Feinstein's call that the 
appointment be made by someone who is a career civil servant, not a 
political appointee, has the widespread support of our caucus and is 
the only fair thing to do.
  Second, we have also learned that Mr. Comey will no longer be 
appearing before the Intelligence Committee tomorrow. In his stead will 
be the Acting FBI Director, Andrew McCabe. There are so many unanswered 
questions that only Mr. Comey can answer. We Democrats hope and expect 
that he will still come before the Senate in some capacity.

[[Page 7686]]

  I for one salute Senator Burr and Senator Warner for inviting him to 
testify next week before the Intelligence Committee. It is the right 
thing to do. We ought to hear from Mr. Comey. At this moment of 
profound doubt about the reasons and timing of FBI Director Comey's 
firing by the President and about the status and progress of a very 
serious investigation into the Trump campaign and Russia by his agency, 
we require answers.
  Third, the recent revelations about the Rosenstein and Comey meeting 
demand that the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General--
Attorney General Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein--brief 
the Senate and answer questions because of so many things swirling 
about from last night's firing. That briefing could be classified if 
necessary--it may be part classified, part not--and each briefing 
should be done separately.
  Let me speak plainly. The prospect that a campaign for the Presidency 
of the United States colluded with a foreign power in order to win our 
Nation's highest office is as grave a topic for an investigation as 
there could be. It gets right to the heart of the pillar of our 
democracy: the fair and free elections of our representatives. And the 
fact that Mr. Rosenstein and Attorney General Sessions were involved in 
this firing when there are so many questions swirling about means they 
must come before us to answer questions. I hope Leader McConnell will 
understand the need for that and answer the plea I made this morning 
about this.
  Furthermore, the fact that Mr. Rosenstein--which came out after I 
made my request--the fact that Mr. Rosenstein, by all reports, had a 
meeting with Director Comey where Comey asked for more resources makes 
it all the more important for Rosenstein to come because that might be 
the reason Comey was fired--because he was pursuing the investigation 
in an accelerated way that was very much needed.
  So what we are seeking--the only thing we are seeking--are assurances 
that this investigation will be carried out in an impartial, 
independent way; that we get all the facts; that we get to the very 
bottom of this. All we are seeking is some assurance that the subject 
of this investigation is not able to influence it or, God forbid, quash 
it. The topic of this investigation itself is very serious. The 
possibility that the investigation is being impeded or tampered with is 
even worse. That threatens the integrity of our criminal justice system 
and the hallowed American belief in rule of law. I believe this rises 
far above party labels. I believe it rises far above partisan politics.
  I have been heartened that several Republicans have expressed 
concerns. I hope and expect our Republican friends will join us in 
these efforts to make sure this investigation is conducted in the 
manner it deserves. We want Congress's role to be nonpartisan, looking 
at the good of neither political party but, rather, the good of our 
dear country.
  These are tough and serious times. We cannot shirk from our 
responsibilities, neither Democrats nor Republicans. I hope everyone in 
this Chamber will rise to the occasion.
  I thank my good friend from Minnesota for allowing me to speak.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.


                         Firing of James Comey

  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I join in the minority leader's remarks 
and his plan for moving forward, which is a bipartisan plan and a plea 
for our colleagues to work together.
  America is not like some countries where people are all of the same 
ethnic background or practice the same religion. America is an idea. 
America is an ideal. America is something that is grounded in our 
democracy.
  Way back centuries ago, our Founding Fathers were concerned about 
foreign influence on our democracy. They were concerned at the time 
about Great Britain. Well, now we have another concern, and that 
concern is Russia. It is not just the Democrats' concern. As one of our 
colleagues, Senator Rubio, has noted in the past, maybe this election 
was an attack on one political candidate in one party, but next time it 
will be the other party. That is why we must join together and handle 
this correctly and in the spirit of our democracy and our Constitution.
  I have known Director Comey for a long time. We were classmates at 
the University of Chicago Law School. He was well liked in our class, 
and he earned the respect of the agents he supervised and the law 
enforcement he worked with. I made it clear to him that I didn't agree 
with how he handled the email investigation regarding Secretary 
Clinton, but nevertheless this man is a hard worker and someone of 
integrity. Just because someone doesn't agree with how an investigation 
is handled, even if it is in a big way, doesn't mean this person should 
be fired.
  FBI Directors have 10-year terms for a reason; that is because we 
want them to be independent from political influence.
  All Americans, including those who have criticized Director Comey for 
whatever reason in the past, should be very troubled by the timing of 
this firing.
  Let's look at the past week. We started the week on Monday, when 
Former Director Clapper testified in great detail about the Russian 
threat to our democracy and the fact that the Russians feel empowered 
and that he believes they will do it again and again. We also were on 
the heels of the French cyber attack, where their elections were 
attacked and where Russia was trying to get involved in their 
elections.
  Former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates testified, and she made 
very clear that she had not just given a heads-up to the administration 
that their National Security Advisor was compromised by the Russians--
no. She had two formal meetings over at the White House. She outlined 
in detail how she had gone over to the White House and voiced her 
concerns.
  When I asked both Former Director Clapper and former Acting Attorney 
General Yates whether this was material for blackmail--when you have a 
high-ranking official saying one thing on a tape recording that the 
Russians knew he had said and then another to the Vice President of the 
United States--if that was material for blackmail, they said yes, 
definitively yes, that he had been compromised.
  Yet, as it became clear, the White House then allowed the National 
Security Advisor, General Flynn, to stay on for 18 days, including 
being part of an hour-long conversation between the President of the 
United States and Vladimir Putin. So that is what happened on Monday.
  We know what was going to happen tomorrow, Thursday, which is that 
Director Comey was going to testify in his capacity as the FBI Director 
in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee. We know questions were 
going to be asked about Russia. Of course, I commend Senators Burr and 
Warner for inviting him again next week in his capacity now as a 
private citizen.
  Yet, when you look at what has happened here--the Yates and Clapper 
testimony on Monday, the Comey testimony expected on Thursday--what is 
sandwiched in between? It is the firing of the FBI Director. By the 
way, this is the same FBI Director who had the audacity to tell the 
truth before Congress when he was asked whether President Obama had 
wiretapped the Trump Tower, as alleged by President Trump in a tweet at 
6 in the morning. The FBI Director truthfully answered, no, that it did 
not happen. That is also something that has happened in the past month.
  Today we learned that just days before he was fired, Mr. Comey asked 
senior officials at the Justice Department for more resources in order 
to carry out the Russia investigation.
  Now, what are my colleagues saying about this? I think it is very 
important to note that the two Senators who are privy to the most 
classified information--Senator McCain, as chair of the Armed Services 
Committee, and Senator Burr, as chair of the Intelligence Committee--
have both expressed serious concerns about what has happened.

[[Page 7687]]

  Senator McCain said he was disappointed, and Senator Burr, the 
Republican chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said:

       I am troubled by the timing and reasoning of Director 
     Comey's termination. I have found Director Comey to be a 
     public servant of the highest order, and his dismissal 
     further confuses an already difficult investigation by the 
     Committee.

  Senator Flake said:

       I have spent the last several hours trying to find an 
     acceptable rationale for the timing of Comey's firing. I just 
     can't do it.

  The reasoning the White House is using for Director Comey's firing is 
bizarre, and that is why I believe Senator Burr said that his dismissal 
further confuses an already difficult investigation.
  The memo provided by Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein cites old 
justifications. These are quotes from letters that I remember from the 
Presidential campaign, and they are used in the letter as a 
justification.
  If the administration found Director Comey's conduct during the 
election to be so problematic, why now--right, smack in the middle of 
the advancements of this Russia investigation?
  The answer, I believe, is that the justification that is provided in 
the memo is a pretext. The fact that President Trump's termination 
letter to Director Comey strangely discusses the fact that Director 
Comey informed the President that he was not under investigation in the 
context of the Russia investigation sheds light on what this is really 
about; that Director Comey was seeking the truth.
  Senator Burr said that Director Comey has been more forthcoming with 
information than any FBI Director he can recall in his tenure on the 
congressional intelligence committees. In firing Comey, President Trump 
has cast doubt about the independence and viability of any further 
investigation into the foreign interference of our democracy.
  Why was Attorney General Sessions, who had recused himself from the 
investigation on Russian interference, able to influence the firing of 
the man at the helm of the Russia investigation?
  That is one of the questions we want answered and why, by the way, we 
believe it is important to have a closed-door briefing with the Deputy 
Attorney General and his predecessor.
  Did Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein act on his own or at the 
direction of Attorney General Sessions or the White House?
  Are reports that the President had been searching for a rationale to 
fire the FBI Director for more than a week true?
  Was his firing influenced by any recent developments in the 
investigation, like the issuance of grand jury subpoenas or Director 
Comey's recent request for more resources for the Russia investigation?
  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?
  I am a former prosecutor. I believe in facts, and I believe in 
evidence. These decisions should not have been made without these facts 
and without this evidence and while in the middle of a major 
investigation of Russian influence in our election. Answers to these 
questions are essential in getting to the truth and in ensuring that an 
independent investigation at the FBI can continue.
  For months, U.S. intelligence agencies--17 of them--have said that 
Russia used covert cyber attacks, espionage, and harmful propaganda to 
try and undermine our democracy. Reports show it. The facts prove it. 
When former Director of National Intelligence Clapper testified, he 
said Russia will continue to interfere in our election system.
  This is what he said exactly:

       I believe [Russia is] now emboldened to continue such 
     activities in the future, both here and around the world, and 
     to do so even more intensely. If there has ever been a 
     clarion call for vigilance and action against a threat to the 
     very foundation of our democratic political system, this 
     episode is it.

  I was in that hearing and asked questions of Clapper when he said 
this: ``Vigilance.'' That is what he said--vigilance.
  How can we call it vigilance, when the FBI Director, who is 
conducting the investigation, has been fired? What message does that 
send to Russia? Does that make them think we are serious about this 
investigation; that we want to get to the bottom of it and that we do 
not want it to happen again? No. It sends the opposite message.
  Aides and surrogates of the Trump administration, during the campaign 
and the transition, were in contact with officials from a foreign 
government that was actively working to tear our democracy apart. We 
need to know why and when and how. In the first question, that is what 
I really want to know--the ``why.''
  This week, former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, as I 
mentioned, and Director Clapper reminded us that on the very day 
President Obama imposed sanctions on Russia for its unprecedented 
attacks on our democracy, a member of the Trump transition team spoke 
to a senior Russian official regarding those sanctions. Michael Flynn, 
the National Security Advisor--the person charged with the most 
sensitive matters of U.S. national security--was not truthful with the 
Vice President. He lied to the Vice President about contact with 
Russian officials. In turn, the American people were misled.
  After the Department of Justice warned the administration that the 
National Security Advisor had lied and may be vulnerable to blackmail 
by the Russian Government, what did the administration do? It continued 
to allow General Flynn to handle top secret information for 18 more 
days. They let him participate in an hour-long phone call between 
President Trump and Vladimir Putin. In fact, decisive action was not 
taken until the Washington Post revealed what was happening.
  We have now seen two people resign--Trump's campaign manager and his 
National Security Advisor. The one thing they have in common is Russia 
and the President. We have also seen three people fired--Sally Yates, 
the Acting Attorney General of the United States, who was simply doing 
her job; Preet Bharara, the U.S. attorney in New York City; and Jim 
Comey, the FBI Director. The one thing they have in common is that they 
were all investigating links, and they were doing their jobs.
  Think about that. Let that sink in. The independent government 
officials who were or could have been charged with getting to the 
truth, no matter where it led, were fired.
  We owe it to the American people to get to the bottom of what is 
going on here. It is our job to get to the bottom of this because the 
President of the United States--President Trump--cannot fire Congress. 
We need to know the full extent of the Trump campaign's contact with 
the Russian Government during the campaign and transition, including 
what was said and what was done and who knew about it.
  That is why, on January 4, I stood with Senator Cardin and with Adam 
Schiff and Elijah Cummings, of the House of Representatives, and called 
for an independent commission. Now, this is different than the special 
prosecutor whom we need to handle the criminal investigation. This is 
also different than the good work that is being done by the Senate 
Intelligence Committee under the leadership of Senators Burr and 
Warner.
  To me, an independent commission would help us because it could get 
to the bottom of what has happened, with the intent of making sure it 
does not happen again, in order to protect our democracy. It could have 
recommendations, just like the 9/11 Commission had, on how we could 
improve our laws. It could have recommendations on what we could do if 
the media gets hold of information that is the result of a cyber attack 
from a foreign government. It could have recommendations of what 
political parties and campaigns could do--perhaps even in agreement--
when they get access to information that is a result of a cyber attack 
against the opposite party.
  It was not that long ago when campaigns would come upon debate 
information and other things and would simply put it in an envelope and 
send it

[[Page 7688]]

back to the other side. We can do this, but that is not going to come 
out of some simple piece of legislation or from the work that the 
Intelligence Committee is doing.
  That is why I believe we need this independent commission as well as 
a special prosecutor to look into all contacts between Trump aides and 
surrogates and Russian officials during the campaign, transition, and 
administration. This prosecutor must be fair and impartial and 
completely unattached to either political party.
  In addition to the independent commission, we also need our 
congressional committees, as I mentioned, to continue to exercise their 
oversight authority.
  Since the election, we have heard a lot about the three branches of 
government and our system of checks and balances. One of Congress's 
fundamental jobs, as I told a group of students in my office today, is 
to closely oversee the executive branch in order to ensure that the law 
is being properly followed and enforced. This shouldn't just be things 
that students learn from their Senators when they come in during school 
trips or be what they learn from a textbook. This is actually our job.
  This means that in addition to this independent, 9/11-style 
Commission, we must make sure our congressional committees continue to 
investigate Russian interference in our political system. We have 
subpoena power. We need to use it.
  Some of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle understand the 
importance of doing our jobs in order to get to the bottom of this. As 
I mentioned, we have the Intelligence Committee investigation, but we 
also have the Judiciary subcommittee, on which I serve, led by Senators 
Graham and Whitehouse. They are the ones who held the hearing with 
Sally Yates and Director Clapper this week.
  This is an unprecedented time in our country's history. We are 
witnessing a singular moment of constitutional and democratic unease. 
In recent months, foundational elements of our democracy, including the 
rule of law, have been questioned, challenged, and even undermined.
  Several of my colleagues have compared the President's action to 
President Richard Nixon's firing of special prosecutor Archibald Cox, 
who was investigating Watergate. Even then, Mr. Cox was replaced by a 
new special prosecutor. Today, we have no special prosecutor to 
determine whether the President's campaign colluded with a hostile 
foreign power. Some in Congress are continuing to resist any serious 
investigation. For that reason, our democracy may be in even greater 
peril. The night he was fired, Mr. Cox defended his decision to conduct 
the Watergate investigation as he saw fit rather than to yield to the 
President's order that he limit his request for tape recordings.
  Cox said: ``Whether ours shall continue to be a government of laws 
and not of men is now for Congress and, ultimately, the American 
people.''
  He is right. The American people deserve a thorough, independent 
investigation into the extent of Russia's interference in the 2016 
Presidential election.
  This is not a partisan issue. Americans deserve answers now. And 
where should they get those answers? They should get those answers from 
this Chamber, because we, as Members of the Senate, cannot be fired.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Toomey). The Senator from Texas.


                          Russia Investigation

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I was listening with interest to our 
friend and colleague from Minnesota talk about the Russia 
investigation. I agree with her 100 percent that it is our 
responsibility to get to the bottom of what exactly happened with 
respect to Russian involvement in our elections, much as they got 
involved in the elections in France, using the combined process 
commonly known as active measures. Active measures are a combination of 
cyber espionage, propaganda, and a use of social media through paid 
trolls who can then actually try to raise the visibility of some of 
this propaganda such that it then becomes part of the mainstream media 
and becomes accepted as part of the debate in democratic societies.
  I believe we share a bipartisan and universal commitment to get to 
the bottom of what happened in our last election.
  I would note that there are two members of the Senate Judiciary 
Committee who actually serve as members of the Senate Intelligence 
Committee, which is actively involved in a rigorous bipartisan 
investigation. That would be myself and Senator Feinstein, the ranking 
member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who is also the former chair 
of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
  Senator Feinstein has said recently that there is no evidence of 
collusion between the administration and Russia. I think she would 
share with me a commitment not to stop there but to find out where the 
facts take us. Indeed, thanks to Chairman Burr and thanks to Vice 
Chairman Warner, our bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee has 
unprecedented access to raw intelligence, from the National Security 
Agency, the CIA, and from all sources of the intelligence community. We 
have access to some of the most sensitive intelligence gathered by the 
U.S. Government. I think that is due to the credit and leadership of 
Chairman Burr and Vice Chairman Warner that our committee has remained 
bipartisan and we are leaving no stone unturned to get to the bottom of 
what exactly happened.
  So I know people are concerned, and I share that concern. We need to 
come up with a program of countermeasures to deal with this because the 
Russian Government has been amping up their game for some time now, and 
now they are operating at certainly dangerous levels when it comes to 
trying to interfere in our most basic democratic institutions, like our 
elections.
  I would say, as far as the Department of Justice is concerned, that 
Rod Rosenstein was confirmed by this body by a vote of 94 to 6. That is 
probably the only Trump nomination so far since he has been President 
that has enjoyed such broad bipartisan support. It is because of his 
distinguished record, most recently as the U.S. attorney in Baltimore.
  I remember hearing from our Senators from Maryland, for example, 
Democrats who were praising Rod Rosenstein and saying he was exactly 
the kind of person we needed in this sensitive job as Deputy Attorney 
General.
  But now our colleagues seem to forget their very own conviction and 
vote on Rod Rosenstein, and now they say that he can't be fair, that he 
has somehow an appearance of a conflict of interest, making it 
necessary to appoint a special counsel, which, by the way, also then 
reports to the leadership at the Department of Justice.
  I think we ought to give Mr. Rosenstein a chance to demonstrate that 
he is capable of leading that investigation at the Department of 
Justice, understanding that our role here in the Congress is not to 
pursue a criminal investigation and case. That is the job of the 
Department of Justice. Our job, in parallel fashion, is for oversight 
reasons and to let the American people and ourselves know exactly what 
happened. That is why the investigation of the bipartisan Senate Select 
Committee on Intelligence is so important, in addition to the hearings 
we are having in the Judiciary Committee, on which the Senator from 
Minnesota and I happen to serve as well.
  So we do need to get to the bottom of what happened, and I am 
confident we will. It is our duty, and we will get the job done.


                         Healthcare Legislation

  On another topic, Mr. President, last week our colleagues in the 
House took the first necessary step to deliver on our campaign promises 
for the last three elections to repeal and replace ObamaCare. Why is 
that important? Well, because of the impact of ObamaCare on premiums 
and deductibles for many people, millions of people, literally, are now 
being priced out of the insurance market, and their insurance, even 
though they have the policy, is really unavailable

[[Page 7689]]

to them because they have, for example, such high deductibles. We know 
insurance companies continue to pull out of the marketplace, and people 
are reduced to little or no choices when it comes to where to buy their 
insurance, because, frankly, ObamaCare was oversold and underdelivered.
  The President said: If you like your policy, you can keep it. Well, 
that proved to be false. He said: If you like your doctor, you can keep 
your doctor. Well, that didn't turn out to be true, either. He said 
that a family of four would save an average of $2,500 on their 
premiums, and that didn't prove to be true, either.
  So like most command and control from Washington, DC--
notwithstanding, perhaps, the aspirations of our colleagues across the 
aisle to deliver affordable healthcare to the American people--it 
simply failed to do so, and it is in serious distress--even a meltdown.
  So we would invite our colleagues across the aisle--our Democrat 
friends--to join with us to help rescue the American people from this 
failure of the Affordable Care Act.
  The House passed a bill last week--the American Health Care Act. It 
is not a perfect bill. I dare say the Senate is going to take up a bill 
of its own, and we will try to work with our House colleagues to try to 
get legislation to the President and signed into law that will rescue 
the American people and will finally deliver on our promise of more 
affordable premiums, better access, and real choice.
  But it is really not enough to just stand back and criticize those 
who are actually trying to rescue those who are in harm's way as a 
result of the failures of ObamaCare. That, so far, is what our friends 
across the aisle are doing. They are not lifting a finger to help the 
people hurt today by ObamaCare. We would challenge them to get involved 
and to work with us.
  Many of our colleagues have come to the floor and talked about 
stories they have heard from their constituents back in their States 
and the harm that the Affordable Care Act has caused. Premiums have 
skyrocketed. Millions have been kicked off their healthcare plans. The 
economy is saddled with billions of dollars in new regulations. 
Employers are laying people off or not hiring new people because, 
frankly, they don't want to suffer the additional financial burdens of 
ObamaCare.
  Instead of having more access to more health insurance options, 
Texans--the people I represent--have less of both.
  The bottom line is ObamaCare has failed, and it is up to us to 
provide some relief to the people who are being hurt by the failure of 
ObamaCare. We invite our colleagues to work with us to do that.
  Since the creation of ObamaCare, I have been hearing regularly from 
my constituents back home in Texas how they need relief from the 
healthcare law and they need it now. Every letter, phone call, or 
conversation produces similar themes. One of my constituents, for 
example, is a woman who was paying about $300 a month for her health 
insurance, but under a span of just a few months, that premium 
skyrocketed to $800--$300 to $800. I don't know many people who can 
withstand that kind of increase in their expenses for healthcare.
  She wrote to me and said: ``This has to stop--and quality, flexible 
plans need to return for individuals.''
  I agree with her.
  Another wrote in to say that before ObamaCare her daughter was 
getting what she considered to be adequate healthcare insurance for 
about $190 a month with just a $500 deductible. Now that has gone up to 
a payment of almost $400 a month--roughly, doubled--with a deductible 
of more than $6,000. What are people supposed to do with a deductible 
of $6,000 which says you have to pay $6,000 before your insurance pays 
a penny? It is essentially no good to most hard-working, middle class 
families.
  So ObamaCare does not equal healthcare that is affordable or better 
for Americans. It is simply not working.
  In fact, in Texas, if you have a gross income of about $24,000 a 
year, under ObamaCare, you could end up spending about 30 percent of 
your total income on healthcare costs alone--30 percent of your gross 
income on healthcare and related costs.
  Fortunately, thanks to the passage of the American Healthcare Act, or 
the AHCA, which passed the House last week, we have the beginning of a 
path forward to provide a lifeline to those people who are simply 
priced out of the market today--the 30 million people who don't have 
insurance--and those who simply can't use the health coverage they have 
under ObamaCare.
  So I look forward to working with our Senate colleagues--hopefully, 
all of our Senate colleagues, if they are willing--to help improve the 
House bill and to get it passed in this Chamber and signed by the 
President.
  This is not something we can do without the support of every 
Republican Senator, but my hope is that we would do this with the help 
of more than just Republicans.
  Our goal to repeal and replace this bill has been, of course, no 
secret.
  We need legislation that will reform Medicaid. With the American 
Healthcare Act, we have the first major healthcare entitlement reform 
in a generation, without eliminating anybody who is currently covered 
by Medicaid today.
  We also need to do away with ObamaCare's job-killing taxes, like the 
individual and the employer mandate. I remember, in Tyler, TX, a few 
years ago, meeting with a single mom who worked in a restaurant who 
told me that her hours had been cut from 40 hours a week to less than 
30 hours a week because her employer didn't want to pay the employer 
mandate and so basically had to cut people from full-time work back to 
part-time work. So what did she do? She had to get another job as a 
single mom, working in a restaurant in Tyler, TX. That is the sort of 
unintended consequence of ObamaCare.
  Then there is the medical device tax--something the Presiding Officer 
has led on--which is a tax on innovation. This isn't even a tax on 
income. It is a tax on gross receipts. I have had some medical device 
companies from my State tell me they have had to move their operations 
to Costa Rica in order to avoid the medical device tax, which has 
crippled their ability to innovate and invest in their business. Then 
there is the tax on investments and the tax on prescription drugs. 
Middle-income Americans and our job creators need and will get massive 
tax relief when we repeal and replace ObamaCare.
  So that is what 52 Members of the Republican conference are working 
on and what we would like to work on with our colleagues across the 
aisle, if they are willing to help. We welcome their ideas. Actually, a 
bipartisan solution would be preferable to one done strictly along 
party lines. But all Members of the Republican conference are at the 
table working on that today. There is no denying that our country can't 
afford another one-size-fits-all approach to healthcare. The American 
people need relief from the unworkable, unsustainable system that 
President Obama promised--or delivered, which is very different from 
what he promised. I am confident that we can get there by working 
together to responsibly provide relief and, in doing so, empower 
individuals to deliver more options and competition and responsibly 
help those who need care to have more access to it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

                          ____________________