[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 7690-7695]
[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. 35, Rachel L. Brand to be Associate Attorney 
General.
  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 legislative clerk read the nomination of Rachel L. Brand, of 
Iowa, to be Associate Attorney General.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination 
     of Rachel L. Brand, of Iowa, to be Associate Attorney 
     General.
         Mitch McConnell, John Boozman, Jeff Flake, Thom Tillis, 
           Richard Burr, Mike Crapo, John Barrasso, Chuck 
           Grassley, Mike Rounds, John Kennedy, John Thune, Pat 
           Roberts, James E. Risch, Orrin G. Hatch, Shelley Moore 
           Capito, Lindsey Graham, John Cornyn.

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
mandatory quorum call with respect to the cloture motion be waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, 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. HEINRICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                  Congressional Review Act Resolution

  Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, I am proud that the Senate voted to 
reject an effort to overturn commonsense protections to reduce methane 
waste. It was 3 years ago that satellite images from NASA revealed that 
there is a giant cloud of methane--about the size of the State of 
Delaware--sitting over the Four Corners region in Northwestern New 
Mexico and Southwestern Colorado.
  Although evidence had shown that there was methane air pollution in 
the Four Corners as early as 2003, the image of NASA data is truly 
striking. This is a warning of a potentially major threat to public 
health for communities in the region.
  The San Juan Basin in the Four Corners region has long been a leading 
producer of oil and natural gas. With the natural gas boom of the mid-
2000s, production in the basin grew by leaps and bounds, and that 
created hundreds of new high-paying jobs and a major new domestic 
source of an important energy resource.
  Unfortunately, amid all this growth, some producers developing 
natural gas on our public lands and on Tribal lands released harmful 
air pollution and wasted these publicly owned resources by allowing 
methane to leak into the air from faulty equipment and pipes, and even 
by burning off valuable natural gas in the process called flaring.
  Following the discovery of the methane hotspot, researchers at NASA's 
Jet Propulsion Laboratory joined Caltech and University of Michigan 
scientists to conduct a detailed study into the cause of the methane 
cloud. Some producers claimed that the hotspot was caused primarily by 
natural seeps of gas from underground geologic formations and by gas 
venting out from an old coal mine in the region.
  The NASA researchers, using instrumentation mounted on aircraft that 
flew close to the ground and throughout 1,200 square miles of airspace 
in the Four Corners region, identified leaks from natural gas wells as 
the major methane emitters contributing to the methane air pollution.
  As greenhouse gas, methane has over 80 times the global warming 
potential as carbon dioxide over the short term. We have a moral 
obligation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to mitigate our 
contributions to climate change.
  Even absent its consequences for climate change, methane leaks waste 
valuable energy resources, and they harm public health. When methane 
leaks from oil and gas wells, harmful carcinogens such as benzene leak 
into the air alongside it.
  Because of the air pollution over the Four Corners region, the 
American Lung Association gave San Juan County in New Mexico an F 
rating for ozone pollution in 2016. That means children suffer more 
asthma attacks and seniors have more difficulty breathing.
  I want it to be clear that this is not a case of pitting development 
of our energy resources against human health. We have a golden 
opportunity to apply innovative, existing technologies to this problem, 
grow our economy, and improve air quality for the people of the Four 
Corners region. That is because minimizing the amount of methane that 
leaks, vents, or flares out of the oil and gas wells isn't just good 
for air quality, it is good for business and the bottom line.
  When oil and gas companies modernize their equipment to reduce leaks, 
they are able to capture more gas that they can sell, as well as 
increase worker safety at their wells. When we capture more gas, that 
also means we see more royalties and revenues for States, Tribes, and 
local communities. By updating oil and natural gas production equipment 
and infrastructure to reduce wasted natural gas, we create new jobs for 
energy workers and manufacturers.
  When we reduce wasteful leaks, it means that instead of having a 
giant methane cloud over the northwest corner of New Mexico and over 
the Navajo Nation--a major public health hazard--we put our publicly 
owned natural gas resources to beneficial use. That is the definition 
of a win-win situation.
  I say all this because that is exactly what the Bureau of Land 
Management's methane waste prevention rule is designed to do. These 
commonsense and cost-effective protections in the rule were put in 
place to reduce harmful methane and benzene pollution and to ensure 
that oil and gas operations are using technological advances that 
minimize emissions and maximize the amount of natural gas we produce.
  Between 2009 and 2015, the BLM estimates that oil and gas producers 
on

[[Page 7691]]

our public and Tribal lands vented, flared, and leaked 462 billion 
cubic feet of methane. They wasted enough natural gas to supply over 6 
million American households for a year. Instead of heating our homes or 
fueling powerplants, powering buses, that gas was leaked into the 
atmosphere, wasting millions of dollars of this limited resource.
  It is estimated that the oil and gas industry wastes about $100 
million worth of natural gas every year. That also means $6 million 
each year of lost State revenue, revenue that pays for schools, roads, 
and emergency services in New Mexico. That is quite a figure.
  A recent report found that New Mexico taxpayers have lost out on over 
$42 million of royalty revenues since the year 2009--$42,728,949 to be 
exact. The BLM's methane waste prevention rule will help put a stop to 
this wasted resource.
  While developing the rule, the BLM held public meetings, it held 
Tribal consultations, and it factored in feedback from over 300,000 
comments submitted during the public comment period. The agency also 
coordinated with States like Colorado, Wyoming, and North Dakota that 
have already created similar protections to reduce methane leaking and 
flaring at the State level.
  The BLM rule will have minimal costs for oil and gas producers, and, 
in fact, leak detections and repairs required by the rule will help 
companies make more money selling the gas that they save. Meanwhile, 
this rule will grow our economy by investing in innovative companies 
that have developed the technologies to minimize leaks and protect our 
public health. This rule should not have been controversial.
  The overwhelming majority of my constituents in New Mexico support 
reducing wasted natural gas. A recent poll by Colorado College 
conducted after the election found that 74 percent of New Mexicans 
support the BLM's methane waste reduction rule.
  I am proud that enough Senators shared that view and voted to reject 
an attempt to repeal this commonsense protection of public health, air 
quality, and responsible development of our natural resources. There is 
nothing conservative about making it easier to waste a precious public 
energy source.
  We should be focused on reducing waste, capturing critical royalties 
for New Mexico communities, and putting our natural gas resources to 
beneficial use. This repeal effort of the methane rule would have 
represented a major step backward.
  Today's vote was a major victory for responsible development of our 
natural gas resources and our Nation's decades-long commitment to 
protect the air we breathe. On behalf of my constituents and theirs, I 
want to say a special thank-you to all 51 Senators who supported our 
efforts today. Thank you very much.
  Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  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. PETERS. 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. PETERS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss President Trump's 
decision to fire FBI Director James Comey. During his campaign, then-
Candidate Trump regularly talked about how he would be the law and 
order President. ``Law and order'' means different things to different 
people, but all of us should be able to agree that we cannot have law 
and order without the rule of law.
  The rule of law is not a new or even uniquely American idea. It dates 
back to the Magna Carta of 1215. This document--a pact between King 
John of England and his barons--established that the Nation's people 
have certain rights and that even the monarch is subject to the laws of 
the land. Centuries later, as we cast off the British monarchy, 
declared our independence, and established our own form of government, 
our Nation's founders enshrined the rule of law in our Constitution.
  Our system of checks and balances was designed to hold all levels of 
the Federal Government accountable but especially the President. 
Without the rule of law, law and order becomes merely order imposed by 
an unaccountable government. We know what order without the rule of law 
looks like. Last century it looked like the regimes of the Axis Powers. 
Now it looks like North Korea, Egypt, the Philippines, and, yes, 
Russia. These are all nations led by strongmen whom our President has 
praised in some manner, strongmen who hold democratic institutions in 
contempt and exercise disproportionate control over their nations' 
military, government institutions, and the media.
  While the press here in the United States remains independent, we 
have a President who has chosen to regularly do battle with what he 
derides as the ``fake news media.'' He has even called our cherished, 
constitutionally protected free press ``the enemy of the American 
people.''
  It is often said that the news is the ``first rough draft of 
history.'' While the President can attempt to wage war with the news 
media, none of us can truly fight history. But here in the Senate, we 
can help shape it. History has its eyes on our Chamber now.
  Some of my colleagues across the aisle have said they are 
``troubled'' or ``disappointed'' by the President's decision to fire 
Director Comey, but it appears that many are taking a wait-and-see 
approach. They are taking a wait-and-see approach to Director Comey's 
firing. They are taking a wait-and-see approach to how the 
administration replaces him. They are taking a wait-and-see approach to 
the ongoing investigation into the Trump campaign's potential collusion 
with Russia. The problem here is that this administration won't let us 
see anything. The Trump administration is actively working to cover up 
everything that we, as the independent legislative branch, need to see 
to get to the bottom of the Trump campaign's potential collusion with 
Russia.
  Director Comey was investigating this potential collusion at the time 
that he was fired, and it has been reported that Director Comey 
recently asked Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein for an increase 
in money and personnel for this very investigation. Within a matter of 
days, the Deputy Attorney General wrote a memo recommending that 
President Trump fire Director Comey for actions he took last year. So 
was Director Comey fired on May 9, 2017, for his actions back in 2016? 
Are we to believe the President and the Attorney General were carefully 
weighing the merits of Director Comey's service since the inauguration, 
or was he fired because he was ramping up his investigation into 
Russian collusion? Let's not forget that this is the same collusion 
investigation from which Attorney General Sessions recused himself 
before recommending to the President that he fire Director Comey.
  This is clearly a President who is more than happy to fire people, 
and he does so in a hasty fashion. Director Comey is not the first 
public servant to be fired while investigating this administration. In 
fact, he is in pretty good company. Acting Attorney General Sally Yates 
was fired while overseeing the collection of intelligence related to 
meetings between the Russian Ambassador and members of the Trump team. 
The U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York was fired while 
investigating HHS Secretary Price's financial investments, in addition 
to leading a separate investigation into corrupt Russian businessmen 
and officials. One firing is an incident, two is a coincidence, but 
three is a pattern.
  The past 4 months suggests that our President thinks he can simply 
tweet and fire his way out of this problem, while continuing to cozy up 
to the Russians. Earlier today, less than 24 hours after firing 
Director Comey, President Trump hosted the Russian Ambassador and the 
Foreign Minister in the Oval Office.
  I am deeply concerned that the President is unable or unwilling to 
grasp

[[Page 7692]]

what the underlying problem here actually is. When the President hears 
Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle discuss the Russian 
attack on our election and the very foundations of our democracy, he 
hears sour grapes stemming from people who would have liked the 
Republican primary or the general election to have ended differently. 
But let me be very clear: This is not about scoring political points. 
This is not about winning the news cycle or the back-and-forth on 
Twitter. This is not the newest iteration of partisan politics.
  Now is the time for all of us to put country above party. Throughout 
our Nation's history, Senators have come together to tackle some of the 
Nation's most difficult problems. Our Union has survived other 
challenges, and I am confident we can navigate this together, but we 
need to know exactly what we are up against. This is about properly 
diagnosing and curing a possible Russian infection in the White House 
and inoculating our government and elections for the future. Firing 
your doctor won't take your illness away, and taking a wait-and-see 
approach won't do that either.
  We need an independent special prosecutor to diagnose potential 
collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. We cannot wait for the 
President to handpick a new FBI Director who will owe his or her 
nomination for this unexpected job opening to the very people he or she 
will be charged with investigating.
  Our democracy is resilient and our democracy is strong, but if we 
have a festering foreign infection that is left untreated, our 
democratic system will certainly weaken. We need a special prosecutor 
to either identify and address any malfeasance or issue this White 
House a clean bill of health.
  Democracies are built on trust in civic institutions--a trust that 
has eroded in recent years, and I am deeply concerned that this erosion 
is accelerating. As Americans and as elected officials, we must come 
together and restore our constituents' trust in the Federal Government. 
We cannot just wait and see any longer. Now is the time for an 
independent special prosecutor.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gardner). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kennedy). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          Russia Investigation

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, this is a critical moment in our Nation's 
history--a moment when partisanship should be set to the side, politics 
should be put on hold, and every Member of this Chamber should focus on 
what they can do to ensure the integrity of our justice system and the 
integrity of our executive branch. Nothing less is at stake, and none 
of us here should forget that.
  For months, the questions surrounding President Trump's campaign's 
ties to Russia--what happened, who was involved, and why--have gone 
unanswered. The more information that comes out, the more suspicious it 
all looks. And the more that President Trump tries to douse the flame 
by firing the people looking at where the smoke is coming from, the 
more we are going to keep paying attention, because the bottom line is 
that there are so many questions--real questions, legitimate 
questions--that absolutely need to be answered.
  Many of us have pushed for these answers. We have called for an 
independent investigation. We had hoped that President Trump would 
resist the urge to slow them down or stop them or cover anything up. 
But the time for the back-and-forth is over. The time for hoping is 
behind us, and the time for all of us to come together and speak with 
one voice for truth and against any kind of coverup is now.
  What happened yesterday was truly shocking, and this is coming from 
someone who didn't think that was possible anymore with this President.
  But if anyone was wavering before, if anyone wanted to give this 
administration just a bit more time, I am hoping they have been paying 
attention to the events of the past 24 hours because it is hard to stay 
on the fence now.
  President Trump's firing the head of the FBI like that--in such a 
haphazard way--in the middle of an investigation into his own 
campaigning activities should be the last straw for anyone. So right 
now it could not be more clear.
  It is time for a special prosecutor who can run an independent 
investigation, far from the reach of President Trump and his 
administration, to take the case and finally get the answers the 
American public deserves.
  At the same time, our efforts here in Congress--especially the 
investigation in the Intelligence Committee--have to continue, and they 
need to continue in an independent and bipartisan way.
  As I mentioned before, this isn't about politics. It shouldn't be, 
anyway. This is about the integrity of our election, of our national 
security, of our justice system, of our Presidency, of America's 
standing in the world.
  No Member of Congress, no matter what their political affiliation, 
should stand in the way of a thorough investigation, and neither should 
the President of the United States.
  Mr. Trump may think he can bully his way to a lucrative real estate 
deal or bully the press or bully his way into the White House; that he 
can fire anyone, including the Deputy Attorney General, a U.S. 
attorney, or the FBI Director, if they dare to get in his way or 
investigate his wrongdoing, but President Trump should not--he cannot--
bully his way out of an investigation, especially not when so much is 
at stake.
  More than 100 days into his term, President Trump may have forgotten 
that he promised to be a voice for millions of people across our 
country. But I haven't forgotten whom I represent, and I stand here 
today to lift up the voices of so many people in my home State of 
Washington who are calling on us to get the answers--people who care 
about our country, who know we can do better, who hate to see us 
spiraling toward situations we have not seen since President Nixon.
  As of noon today, my office had been flooded with hundreds of calls. 
The phones are ringing off the hook. On the other end of the line are 
the people we represent. They are picking up the phone and trying to 
get through to every one of us in the Senate. They want answers, and 
they deserve them.
  So let's get to the bottom of this, once and for all, for the people 
we represent and for the integrity of our elections and our very 
democracy.
  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. DURBIN. 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. DURBIN. Mr. President, this is a photograph taken today of our 
President Donald Trump and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. This 
photograph was taken in the Oval Office today, where President Trump 
met with Mr. Lavrov. The meeting was closed to the American press. The 
photo was released by the Kremlin in Moscow.
  The second photo is of Mr. Trump and the Russian Ambassador to the 
United States. His name is Sergey Kislyak. He was also in the Oval 
Office today to meet with President Trump, and this picture was also 
released by Moscow and the Kremlin.
  Ambassador Kislyak's name is familiar to many Americans now--it is 
familiar to me--because President Trump's National Security Advisor, 
Michael Flynn, resigned because of communications he had with 
Ambassador Kislyak which he tried to keep secret and misrepresented not 
only to the American people but to the Vice President of the United 
States.

[[Page 7693]]

  The warm smiles and hearty handshakes President Trump gave to these 
Russian officials stand in stark contrast to the way the White House 
has treated three American Department of Justice officials: Sally 
Yates, Preet Bharara, and James Comey.
  After President Trump was elected President, he asked Ms. Yates to 
serve as Acting Attorney General, and he asked Mr. Bharara to stay on 
as U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York and indicated 
that Mr. Comey could stay on as Director of the FBI. But then it 
appears that each of these three Justice Department officials were in 
charge of investigations that started to become a concern in President 
Trump's White House.
  We heard on Monday from Sally Yates how she had informed the White 
House Counsel's office on January 26 this year that Michael Flynn, the 
National Security Advisor to the President of the United States, had 
been compromised and could be blackmailed by the Russians for lies he 
had told publicly. President Trump kept Michael Flynn on for 18 days 
after that express warning by the Acting Attorney General to the White 
House Counsel. He only asked for his resignation hours after the 
Washington Post reported on General Flynn's false statements about his 
Russian communications.
  The President fired Sally Yates, the Acting Attorney General, on 
January 30--4 days after she warned the White House about this 
connection between General Flynn and this Ambassador.
  Then there was Preet Bharara, whom the President invited to Trump 
Tower to tell him he wanted him to stay on as U.S. attorney for the 
Southern District of New York. Mr. Bharara's jurisdiction, of course, 
included Trump Tower. The President then, in a sudden Friday evening 
announcement on March 10, fired all the U.S. attorneys, including Mr. 
Bharara. Mr. Bharara said he was blindsided. Why was he fired? We don't 
know. But we do know that Mr. Bharara was well known as a dogged and 
independent prosecutor. News reports indicate that Mr. Bharara was 
investigating one of President Trump's Cabinet members, HHS Secretary 
Tom Price, for insider trading.
  Yesterday, President Trump fired FBI Director Comey while the 
Director was in Los Angeles giving a speech to FBI agents. The Director 
was not told directly of his firing. He thought initially it was a 
joke.
  At the time he was fired, Director Comey had confirmed that the FBI 
was conducting an investigation into Russia's interference in the 2016 
election and possible connections between the Russians and individuals 
in the Trump campaign and administration. Last night, CNN reported that 
Federal prosecutors have begun a new phase of this Russian 
investigation, issuing grand jury subpoenas to associates of Michael 
Flynn's, seeking business records.
  Director Comey was supposed to testify before the Senate Intelligence 
Committee later this week.
  According to news reports, last week Director Comey went to the 
Justice Department and requested more money and resources to devote to 
the Russian investigation.
  Sally Yates, Preet Bharara, James Comey--three Justice Department 
officials who led investigations that appeared to be getting close to 
the President and his inner circle. All three were then fired by 
President Trump.
  President Trump's firing of Director Comey made history. Not since 
Watergate, on the evening of October 20, 1973--a Saturday, known 
affectionately as the Saturday Night Massacre--has a President 
dismissed the head of an investigation into his own administration. In 
its 190-year history, only one FBI Director had been fired. FBI 
Director William Sessions was dismissed for serious ethical violations, 
and the FBI at that time was not investigating the Clinton 
administration.
  I have had my disagreements with Director Comey, judgments he has 
made, statements he has made. I am not exactly his greatest fan. But I 
didn't question his competence when it came to investigating. I never 
called on him to be fired.
  There are so many questions that need to be answered: Why was 
Director Comey fired now, just as the FBI investigation of the Russian 
interference of the Presidential campaign seemed to be reaching a 
critical point?
  Today, the White House spokesperson said that the President has been 
considering firing Director Comey since the day he took office. Did the 
President or anyone else in the White House ask or direct the Justice 
Department to recommend the firing of Director Comey? Press reports 
quote Trump administration aides saying Attorney General Jeff Sessions 
was charged with coming up with the reasons why the President should 
fire Comey. President Trump told my colleague Senator Feinstein he had 
asked the Justice Department to review Comey's performance. And Sarah 
Huckabee Sanders, Deputy Press Secretary to the President, acknowledged 
today that the President asked the Justice Department to put the 
recommendation in writing.
  Why was Attorney General Sessions involved in this decision at all? 
Remember, Attorney General Sessions was forced to recuse himself from 
the investigation of Russian collusion with the Trump administration 
because of his close connections with the Trump campaign and 
communications he himself had with Mr. Kislyak and other Russian 
officials.
  When they made the decision to fire Director Comey, was the White 
House aware that Director Comey had reportedly just asked the Justice 
Department for more resources for an adequate investigation?
  Perhaps the most important question of all: When will Republicans in 
Congress agree to support a special prosecutor and an independent 
commission to get to the bottom of this Russian collusion in our last 
Presidential election?
  November 8, 2016, is a day that will live in cyber infamy. It was 
that election in which the Russians set out to change the results. It 
is the first time we have seen an overt effort by a foreign power to do 
this, and many on the other side of the aisle have taken a ho-hum 
attitude--it is just another example of kids being kids. I don't think 
so. When one of our major adversaries in the world decides to try to 
impact the choice of the leader of the free world, the United States 
should stand up take notice, and fight back. Let's not forget that a 
week ago there was a hacking attack on another democratic election in 
France and that all signs point again to Russia as perpetrator.
  Russia has acted with impunity since its attack on our election, in 
part due to the administration's refusal to acknowledge Russia's 
responsibility for an act of cyber war on America and to respond 
accordingly and the majority party's refusal to take serious actions 
here in Congress.
  In these pictures, President Trump is shaking hands with Russians, 
and the Kremlin is gleefully tweeting these pictures around the world. 
The President kept out the American press, but it turns out the 
Russians got the photos they needed to send around the world.
  The American people need some answers about what is going on here. 
When will the Republicans join us in a bipartisan effort to have an 
honest investigation, to follow the facts and follow the evidence 
wherever it may lead, and to hold those accountable who may have been 
guilty of collusion with a foreign government trying to impact the 
outcome of an election?
  If we read the memo that has been prepared by Deputy Attorney General 
Rosenstein giving the reasons for the dismissal of James Comey, it 
focuses almost exclusively on Comey's treatment of Hillary Clinton in 
the last Presidential campaign. I am incredulous to think that some 10 
months after the fact, the Trump administration took such pity on the 
treatment of Hillary Clinton, they couldn't wait to fire the Director 
of the FBI. That is the so-called good reason they are giving us, but 
there is a real reason. The real reason is that it seems that James 
Comey was engaged in an investigation into the Russian collusion in the 
last election; that he was looking at members of the Trump 
administration--specifically, General Flynn in this circumstance--and 
he was also looking at

[[Page 7694]]

whether any other individuals, involved with the Trump campaign or not, 
were engaged in this activity. He clearly needs more resources, and he 
wants to get to the bottom of it, and for that, he was fired last 
night.
  The question obviously is, What happens next? Will the American 
people sit still for this? Will they accept this kind of effort to 
close down an investigation that might reach into the President's own 
White House? If they are willing to step back and let that happen, then 
we have surrendered an important principle.
  In 1973, President Nixon tried to make it clear that he could not be 
held accountable to the rule of law when it came to the Watergate 
break-in and coverup. He fired Archibald Cox. Others resigned because 
of that firing, and the public sentiment across America was so strong 
against President Nixon for trying to intervene in this legal process 
that ultimately he paid a heavy price for his conduct.
  I don't know whether there is any involvement by President Trump in 
this collusion. I am not going to assume that. I shouldn't. In 
fairness, there should be an investigation--a credible investigation--
by professionals. But shutting down the investigation by the FBI at 
this point closes the door to gaining valuable information so that we 
understand who was involved in this effort to undermine the American 
Presidential election.
  I am not standing here in defense of James Comey as a person. I do 
stand here in defense of this Director of the FBI who believed, as our 
intelligence agencies believed, that this was a credible threat to the 
democracy of the United States and deserves a professional prosecutor's 
investigation. For that reason, Comey's efforts should continue. But, 
having dismissed him, let's at least hope that Mr. Rosenstein will 
stand up for the integrity of the Department of Justice and do two 
things:
  First, give a public assurance that the investigation of Russian 
collusion in our last Presidential election will continue, and at the 
time, name a Department of Justice career official who will be in 
charge of it until a new Director of the FBI is found.
  Second, Mr. Rosenstein, as well as Senator Sessions--now Attorney 
General Sessions--should not be party to choosing a special prosecutor. 
Let's have career Department professionals choose someone from outside 
government, without a party label, who has demonstrated the expertise 
necessary to prosecute such challenging situations as this. Put them in 
charge, let them investigate, and let the facts lead us to a 
conclusion.
  To try to stop this or short-circuit it by dismissing Mr. Comey is 
ineffective in terms of serving justice and, sadly, is a sad reflection 
on American ideals and values.
  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. BENNET. 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. BENNET. Mr. President, as you know, last night President Trump 
fired FBI Director James Comey. He did this in the middle of an active 
FBI investigation into possible links between the Trump campaign, Trump 
associates, and the Russian Government. This action should worry every 
Member of the Senate. I know it worries the people we represent. My 
office has been flooded with calls since this decision became public. 
Americans are asking why this firing happened now, why the firing 
happened at all--and they are right to ask.
  Officially, President Trump said the FBI Director's dismissal was 
necessary to restore the ``public trust and confidence'' in the FBI. 
That is laughable. Anybody who knows Director Comey or knows the FBI 
knows that statement is completely false. I had my issues with the 
decisions that Director Comey had made over the past months. I never 
called for his removal, but I know that he did not have a negative 
effect on morale at the Justice Department or in the FBI.
  I worked for a Deputy Attorney General of the United States. I am so 
disappointed in the tone of the letter written by this Deputy Attorney 
General--we learned this afternoon--at the request of the President of 
the United States. This is not a letter that came up through the chain 
at DOJ, but a conversation--as the public reports are tonight--that 
happened at the White House, where the Deputy Attorney General and the 
President agreed mutually that it was time for Director Comey to go.
  The President, apparently, asked the Deputy Attorney General to put 
it in writing. Then he wrote a letter, the type of which I have never 
seen come from the Deputy Attorney General's office. I worked on 
reports that we made with the Office of Professional Responsibility at 
the Department of Justice. I never saw a report like this before. But 
what I really find amazing about this decision--and I don't know why 
the decision was made; I am the first to say that I don't know--is 
that, having been in the Senate, having worked in the Deputy Attorney 
General's office at the Department of Justice, that nobody at the White 
House said to the President: Maybe the best thing to do is not to fire 
the FBI Director when he is in the middle of an investigation about 
ties of your campaign to Russia, because maybe that will undermine 
Americans' confidence in the rule of law, and maybe that will undermine 
Americans' confidence in this administration and worry people that the 
FBI isn't treating this fairly. The idea that not a single member of 
the administration was successful in making that case to the President 
is really worrisome to me tonight, and it is one of the reasons why 
people think the answer to why this firing occurred is simply not 
credible.
  President Trump, unlike some, has repeatedly praised Director Comey 
over the past months. He said he had guts. He said: ``I respect him a 
lot.'' Now, overnight, based on a completely nonroutine letter written 
at the request of the President, he has turned 180 degrees.
  The American people deserve an explanation for this unprecedented 
action. They deserve an explanation tonight. They deserved one this 
afternoon. They know this isn't how our government is supposed to work. 
I think the reason why people in Colorado and in other parts of the 
country, I am sure, are concerned is that this dismissal is not the 
first action the President has taken that raised concerns about his 
commitment to the rule of law or his commitment to the independent 
judiciary or to the freedom of the press under the First Amendment when 
he doesn't like the scrutiny he or his administration are getting from 
a free press. He does not have a fundamental appreciation for the basic 
institutions and traditions of this country.
  It is a great irony, I think, at this moment in our politics, that 
the President represents a radical view of American history and 
American traditions. It is my hope that this Senate--Republicans and 
Democrats working together--can express together a conservative view of 
those traditions, a view that says: We need to preserve the sanctity of 
the rule of law. We need to preserve and elevate the idea that the 
judicial branch is an independent judiciary, separate from the 
legislative branch, separate from the executive branch.
  The Founders knew that when they wrote the Constitution. One of their 
biggest concerns was that somehow the judiciary and the executive 
branch might reach some sort of unholy alliance that would all of a 
sudden call the rule of law into question.
  I think that is why people are worried. They are worried because they 
remember this President slandered a judge because of his ethnicity and 
said that he wouldn't be able to decide a case fairly because of where 
his parents came from. They remember his attacks on the free press, as 
well, when he doesn't like their reporting, and his resorting to 
talking about fake news when he doesn't like the reporting.

[[Page 7695]]

  I have had to talk with so many high school students and middle 
school students in Colorado over the last 4 or 5 months about this 
whole question of fake news and what the importance of edited content 
is to our society and, again, to our commitment to the rule of law--the 
importance that middle school students and high school students place 
on edited content and on curated content; their ability to distinguish 
between something that is science or something that is real, something 
that is edited versus somebody shooting their mouth off on the 
internet.
  The President has a hard time making that distinction, as well. He 
has shown little regard for the traditions and norms that our Founders 
established when they created this separation of powers.
  So I say to my colleagues tonight, the Senate must stand firm and 
speak with one voice--Democrats and Republicans. We now have a vacancy 
in the FBI Director, and we need to make sure that whoever that is, 
whoever replaces James Comey, pledges to continue the ongoing 
investigation and reinforce the FBI's independence from undue influence 
from the White House. That needs to be nonnegotiable. In my view, that 
is the least that must happen.
  In order for the American people to learn the full truth, the Deputy 
Attorney General must immediately appoint an independent special 
prosecutor to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 election, 
which, by the way, everybody I know up here believes happened. But the 
President continues to say: Maybe it was the Chinese; maybe it wasn't 
the Russians. No intelligence agency in America believes that. No 
Senator believes that.
  The President, who has access to all of that intelligence, is saying: 
It might not have been the Russians; it might be the Chinese.
  We need to know. I am not prejudging the result, but we need to know 
what these links were, if there were links, between the Trump campaign 
and the Russian Government. These are serious questions that need 
answers. I worry a lot about what the President has said about our 
allies in Europe, what the President has said about NATO, what the 
President has said about the European Union--none of which serves the 
national security interests of the United States but is an invitation 
to the Russians to continue to meddle in elections, not just here but 
in Western Europe and in Eastern Europe as well. It is hard for me to 
see how that is in anybody's national security interest, except for the 
Russians or President Putin.
  Our intelligence agencies have been crystal clear to the Members of 
Congress that the Russian Government tried to influence the 2016 
election in President Trump's favor. The American people deserve to 
know what the truth is. What is the extent of these relationships? It 
goes to the core of our security. It goes to the heart of our 
democracy. That is why preserving this investigation's integrity is so 
vital.
  I can tell you that the American people are not going to relent. I 
understand there will be some time here when people want to collect 
their thoughts and gather their thoughts. The American people are not 
going to relent. They are going to want an independent investigation 
here. For all Americans and, I would say, most of the time, but 
certainly at moments like this--this is a moment in the course of our 
politics when they say to us: Partisanship needs to give way to 
patriotism. This is one of those moments.
  I urge every Member of this body, every Member of Congress, to rise 
above the pressure of the moment and see this not as just another 
skirmish in our endless and often pathetic feuding but as a test of the 
resilience of these institutions and of our Republic, a test of whether 
we as Congress stand for something more than winning praise from our 
base in a cable news cycle or in the next election or whether we take 
seriously our oaths to put our institutions, our security, and our 
country first.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

                          ____________________