[inaudible conversations] >> and we will leave this here as this and as gaveled back in for debate and vote on executive nominations.

a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. a senator: i ask unanimous consent that marcus the wright of my staff be given floor privileges for the remainder of this congress. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. coons: thank you, madam president.

mr. coons: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. coons: madam president, i am proud to join the senator from new jersey and delaware in calling for a bill crafted to protect our institutions and the rule of law in our country and not just right now but for future congresses and dpims as well. -- administrations as well. today we will be asking our colleagues to give the special counsel independence and integrity act the consideration on the floor it deserves. this bill will do something

powerful. it would codify department of justice regulations that prevent the removal of a special counsel without good cause. independence is required to ensure a special counsel can do his or her job and find the facts. our bipartisan bill would put this restriction in statute and give the special counsel a clear legal remedy. if removed without cause, the special counsel would have a ten-day period to take the case to a three-judge panel for expedited consideration. if the special counsel doesn't wish to contest his removal, it would proceed without interference. both republicans and democrats recognize removal of the current special counsel without a valid basis would be a significant, even catastrophic event. it would be a constitutional crisis that would threaten the presidency and the rule of law. we can work together to prevent a crisis. president trump should be the first person to support this bill. he has raised concerns about oversight of the special counsel. he has accused the prosecutors of making partisan politically

motivated decisions. but this act would ensure that regulations providing for supervision and oversight of the investigation are not just codified but strengthened. it would ensure congress gets a complete picture at the end of the investigation. my colleagues, senators graham and tillis, booker, grassley and feinstein were instrumental in balancing this legislation and it passed the judiciary committee by a strong bipartisan margin of 14-7 seven months ago. the time, the day to take up and pass this bill in the senate is now. some questioned the need for this legislation. they said the president would never fire special counsel mueller and i hope and pray they are right. but i don't think -- i don't think it would be in president trump's interest to remove the special counsel and certainly not be in the interest of our country. but our president has repeatedly publicly and directly attacked the special counsel and his investigation. just yesterday calling his investigation a phony witch hunt that is doing, and i'm quoting, tremendous harm to our criminal justice system. the president has already fired

the f.b.i. director, forced the revving nation of the attorney general, cited grievances related to this investigation in both cases. we have an acting attorney general not confirmed by the senate with no nominee in sight, which is unprecedented and unacceptable. this bill addresses threats not just to this special counsel but future special counsels and i would ask my colleagues who are holding back this bill to consider whether they would wish it were the law in a democratic administration as well. we should appreciate the way in which this protects the rule of law. let me close by quoting chairman grassley who said during the committee markup on the bill when he expressed his view this should be considered by the full senate. this was back in april. in some ways today's vote will say a lot of about how we view our responsibility as a senator. we took an oath to protect and defend the constitution. we are not judges, we are not presidents. we are stewards of the legislative branch. the founders anticipated we would wield the powers that the

constitution affords us with great ambition so that we could effectively check the powers of other branches. this bill certainly does that. i'm confident if allowed a vote, this bill would pass with more than 60 votes. history will judge us for how we work together to confront the challenges that face our nation. the rest of the world is watching. it is important to take up and pass this bill. and i recognize my colleague, a cosponsor of this legislation, the senator from new jersey. mr. booker: madam president, thank you very much. i want to thank my colleagues for being here today and their leadership and i join them in asking the senate to pass the special counsel independence and integrity act by unanimous consent. the special counsel independence integrity act is a bipartisan bill. i again repeat, this is about the legislative branch asserting a commonsense check and balance on presidential overreach.

it's not divided along party lines. it is a bipartisan bill. and this bill, again, is about ideals we all are aligned with: independence, integrity, and the ability of a special counsel and future special counsels to do their job effectively, without interference from a president. this is a proactive bill aimed at ensuring that now and in the future we have appropriate checks and balances in place to prevent a constitutional crisis. the bill is becoming more urgent. we know that there was an attack on our democracy. we know that there were and are foreign agents attempting, who attempted and are attempting to manipulate and undermine our democratic institutions. and we need to understand what happened and how to prevent it from happening again and to hold those people accountable for their actions. the preservation of the special counsel investigation is indeed a matter of national security. but we know that the special

counsel is in danger. we know it's in danger even just yesterday with the president, who is again maligning and mischaracterring the special -- mischaracterizing the special counsel investigation. just a few weeks ago the president fired attorney general sessions and named matthew whitaker as the acting attorney general to oversee the mueller investigation. we know whitaker has a habit of debasing the very investigation he is responsible for overseeing. again, in 2017 he wrote in an op-ed calling this investigation into our national security, calling it a, quote, witch hunt. this investigation must be allowed to continue without interference. this investigation must continue for our national security, our democracy. we are all stewards of it. it has sustained by this ideal that no one, not even the president of the united states, is above the law. we must act quickly to protect

and secure this fundamental democratic ideal. this is a sobered, measured, bipartisan bill that will achieve those ends. i'd like to now yield to my colleague from arizona. mr. flake: i thank my colleague from new jersey and my colleague from delaware for working together on this issue. i rise today, madam president, once again to speak in defense of special counsel robert mueller and to speak of the importance of the investigation he is leading into the attacks on our electoral system during the lead up to the 2016 election. one wouldn't expect that such an investigation would be controversial, but somehow it warranted a tweet from the president earlier this week, one of several tweets, calling special counsel mueller a, quote, conflicted prosecutor gone rogue. and claiming that the, quote, $30 million witch hunt is doing

nothing but ruin lives. to be clear, this is the same investigation that brought indictments for more than a dozen russian nationalists for attempting to influence the 2016 election. why shouldn't we be up in arms about that? why does that warrant a tweet from the president, many tweets, trying to go after special counsel? the findings of the investigation are too important for our national security and well-being for democratic institutions to be halted or watered down. mr. mueller must be able to preserve the work he has done, and about completing this very thorough investigation and for his findings to be made public. this legislation has been proposed to ensure this outcome, s. 2644, the special counsel independence and integrity act serves one purpose. that is to protect the integrity of the special counsel's investigation and to prevent the executive branch from

inappropriately interfering in an independent investigation in the future. this legislation passed out of the judiciary committee in a bipartisan manner nearly eight months ago. it's been awaiting action on the senate floor ever since. it passed on may 26. since that time the judiciary committee has been busy, and we've been busy here on the senate floor. we've processed more than 50 judges and passed them here on the senate floor. that's a good thing, but the priority needs to be now to protect the special counsel. my colleagues have said that this legislation is not necessary. some of my colleagues. , said there hasn't been any indication that mr. mueller will be removed from office. but with the president tweeting on a regular basis, a daily basis that the special counsel is conflicted, that he is leading so-called 12 angry democrats and demeaning and ridiculing him in every way, to be so sanguine about the chances

of him being fired is folly for us, i believe. we have already seen the forced resignation of the attorney general the day after the election. it's clear, therefore, that something has to be done to protect mr. mueller's investigation. let me just say it wasn't just that the attorney general was fired. it's that the investigation or an oversight for the investigation was taken from the deputy attorney general, where it probably belonged and where it sat before. it was taken from him and given to somebody in an acting capacity, someone who has not been confirmed by the senate. should we here in the senate be okay with that? i would argue no, we can't be. that's why a few weeks ago my colleague from new jersey and my colleague from delaware came to the senate flar to ask -- floor to ask unanimous consent to bring this bill to the floor. after our efforts were blocked

by an objection, we offered to come to the floor again and again. that's why we're here today. we'll continue to do so until this vital investigation is completed. and so, madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 393, s. 2644. i further ask that the committee-reported substitute be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be considered, read a third time and passed, that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: reserving the right to object. i ask unanimous consent for two minutes to articulate the basis of my concern. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. lee: madam president, for reasons articulated by justice scalia in his classic opinion in

morrison v. olson, this departments in the -- belongs in the department of justice. its principal officers consist of people serving at the pleasure of the president after being confirmed by the united states senate. this is a fundamental component of our liberty. the separation of powers protect us. that doesn't mean we're going to agree with what every president in every administration does. as justice scalia explains, we cannot convert an office like this one, an office like the previously existing office of independent counsel without creating a de facto fourth branch of government fundamentally undermining the principles of the separation of powers that is so core to our liberty. on that basis, madam president, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the senator from delaware. mr. coons: will my colleague

from utah consider a question? mr. lee: very late for another meeting, but, yes, i will because i like my friend in delaware. the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. coons: was it the majority opinion? mr. lee: no. at the time it was written it was somewhat new. since then, it has become a widely adopted view. a view adopted by people across the political spectrum regardless of their political ideology. mr. coons: will the senator yield for another question? mr. lee: i'm very late. mr. coons: the d.c. circuit reconsidered this issue this year and said that morrison remains valid and binding precedent. i know we have other urgent business to move to. but i will say i'm grateful for

the work of my colleague from arizona and despite the objection by my colleague from utah, this is an important bill that we should continue to bring forward on the floor of the senate. thank you, madam president. the presiding officer: the question is on the kelly nomination. -- kelley nomination. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: is there any senator in the chamber wishing to vote or wishing to change their vote? if not, the yeas are 62, the nays are 38. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table and the president will be immediately notified of the

senate's action. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22, do hereby bring to a close debate on the nomination of thomas alvin farr, of north carolina, to be united states district judge for the eastern district of north carolina, signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of thomas alvin farr, of north carolina, to be united states eastern judge for the eastern district of north carolina to be judge. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the vice president: on this vote, the yeas are 50, the nays are 50. the senate being equally divided, the vice president votes in the affirmative, and the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, thomas alvin farr of north carolina to be united states district judge for the eastern district of north carolina. mr. portman: mr. president. provided the senator from ohio. mr. portman: mr. president, as if in legislative session, i ask that notwithstanding rule 22, the senate proceed to legislative session and senator sanders or his designee be recognized to make a motion to discharge s.j. res. 54. further, that there be time of debate on the motion until 4:00 p.m., and of that time, ten minutes be under control of the

chairman and ten minutes for the ranking member, and the remaining time be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees, and at 4:00 p.m., the senate vote in relation to the motion to discharge, and following disposition of the motion, the senate resume executive session and the time spent in legislative session count postcloture on the farr nomination. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. sanders: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: pursuant to section 1013 of the department of state authorization act, fiscal years 1984 and 1985, and in accordance with the provisions of section 601-b of the international security assistance and arms export control act of 1976, i move to discharge s.j. res. 54 from the committee on foreign relations. the presiding officer: the motion is pending.

mr. murphy: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. murphy: thank you, mr. president. i want to speak very briefly on behalf of the resolution being offered today by senator sanders, senator lee, myself,

and several others. i want to encourage my colleagues to support it. and i want to use my brief time to respond to some of the arguments of the administration -- the administration has made over the course of the last few days as to why we should not stand together as a body and say that without a congressional declaration of war, the united states cannot and should not be involved in a disastrous civil war in yemen. this is as important a vote as we will take here in the senate. lives are at stake. lives are in the balance. i don't need to repeat everything that senator sanders and others have said about the humanitarian catastrophe that existed inside that country, but this is different than other famines. this is other than different cholera outbreaks. this is different than other humanitarian nightmares in which tens of thousands of children are losing their lives, because

we are not just a spectator in yemen. we are a participant. the bombing campaign that is causing the worst humanitarian nightmare in the world today is caused by a military campaign of which the united states is a major player and participant. and so we have something to say here today about whether or not this civil war ends. we have something to say here about whether this congress is going to allow the administration to continue to perpetuate a war that has had no debate here in the united states congress. so let me take the four arguments that the administration uses to try to argue against our resolution and talk to you a little bit about them. the first argument that was made probably most clearly in secretary pompeo's op-ed in "the wall street journal" this morning is that the real issue here is into the saudi arabia, it's iran and that if we do not

continue to support the saudi bombing campaign inside yemen that the result will be that iran wins in the region. well, first, that exhibits a third-grade understanding of the middle east. the middle east is not a zero-sum game between the saudis and the iranians. every time you do something that is potentially disadvantageous to the saudis, it doesn't result in an equal-size benefit for the iranians. in fact, it may be that both countries are doing things that are deleterious to american national security. it may be that we want to pick and choose when we engage with the saudis and when we don't engage with the saudis. just because we choose not to engage in one particular aspect of saudi foreign policy does not mean that that equals a gift to

the iranians. and yet that's what secretary pompeo would have you believe; that if we don't blindly support the saudi civil war inside yemen, that that is -- then that is a win for the iranians. well, the reality is while this civil war has been occurring, al qaeda and isis has gotten stronger -- stronger, more numerous. in fact, the greatest threat to the american homeland today comes from the wing of al qaeda that is inside yemen. so this civil war that we have been helping to per wet wait is making our most -- perpetuate is making our enmi f the line that that we're not willing to follow. clearly that has happened inside saudi arabia. as they intentionally bomb schools and hospitals and school buses. just because we stand up and say, we are not willing to support you, saudi arabia, in your targeted bombing of

civilians, that does not equally gift to iran. we are still able to decide when we engage and when we don't engage, even with our allies. second, a lot of folks seem to believe that there is some command-and-control relationship between the iranians and houthis. they are certainly tied together. there are certainly weapons capabilities that have been gifted, granted to the houthis by the iranians. but they are not hezbollah. this is not a group of fighters that iran controls. as the civil war goes on and on, gets deeper and deeper, the houthis and iranians get closer and closer together. so as we continue to just feed enough support to the saudis to keep the civil war going, we are actually -- we are actually perpetuating the very end that seek to avoid, which is the merger of the iranian regime and the houthi rebels.

they are becoming closered and closer the longer and longer the united states becomes engaged in this conflict. the middle east is not a zero-sum game. you do not have to unconditionally back the saudis in everything they ask of us simply because you don't like the iranians. that's not how the middle east works. you can pick and choose the places in which you back up your ally. at no cost to your campaign to try to delegitimize and reduce the influence of iran. second, the claim is that this resolution, if it were to pass, would hurt negotiations that are scheduled for next mons. false. exactly the opposite, for two reasons. one, the saudis need to understand that our support is not unconditional. that they actually have to bend at the negotiating table. right now they don't believe they have to do that. in fact, they have been more often than not over the course of this civil war the reluctant

party in these negotiations because they believe that if negotiations fall apart and they return to a state of military hostilities, the united states will give them whatever they need. it's really important right now for the saudis, as they head into that negotiation, to understand that if these negotiations don't succeed, there are consequences. second, the idea that the houthis are ready to give up the fight is also false. there is no evidence of that. the houthis don't believe that the negotiation is real and so they are prepared to just fight it out. if the houthis believe that the united states is an honest broker here, that there is some point at wit we are unwilling to -- that there is some point at which we are unwilling to follow them into battle as they attack civilians inside yemen, then the houthis are more willing to sit and talk at the negotiating table. showing that there is some

conditionality to our support for the saudis, that there is some line on war crimes that they cross that is too far, actually is helpful in getting both of these parties closer together at the negotiating table. third, the claim is made that if this resolution were to pass, it would hurt our work at the al qaeda and isis. absolutely false. inside this resolution is an exclusion. what we say is if there is an existing authorization for war inside yemen, that this resolution does not erase it. there is an existing authorization for any campaign, anywhere in the world, that the united states launches against al qaeda. the administration and the prior administration, the obama administration, have expanded the 9/11 aumf to cover isis as well. so nothing in this resolution hurts our ability to go after al qaeda and isis inside yemen. all of those operations can continue even if this were to pass and become law. but, second, al qaeda has been

growing in strength. isis had a no foot hold in yemen before this civil war. they are stronger today than they were three years ago, because once again, like we did in iraq for ten years, like we're doing in syria, we are giving just enough help without actually ever being willing to give enough force so as to be dispositive on the ground. all we are doing is lengthening the civil war, right. nature abhors a vacuum. in the vacuum that is created by that civil war, especially in the vast, ungovernable portions of yemen, al qaeda takes advantage. isis continues to grow. every day that we continue to just keep this thing going, our sworn sunni extremist enemies are getting stronger. lastly, the argument is made that if the united states is not involved with the saudis, the humanitarian nightmare would be worse. how could it be worse?

how is that a justification? 85,000 children under the age of five have died of starvation and disease. 22 million people in the country, three-quarters of the population, cannot live without humanitarian assistance. the world's worst cholera epidemic in the history of the world is happening right now inside that country. why? because the saudis have been deliberately hitting the water treatment facilities. i'm not making this up. i'm not making this up. they've been targeting the water treatment facilities, so you can't get clean water, so people get cholera. today humanitarian supplies are -- have been reduced by 50% into the port of hudaydah because as we speak the saudis, with u.s. support, are bombing all around hudaydah and humanitarian agencies have cut off many of the supplies that they would traditionally send into that

capital. the humanitarian nightmare is getting worse right now as we speak today because this civil war continues to go on and on. it can't get much worse than it is today, and there's no evidence that the u.s. participation in this campaign has made it better. in fact, since we have been sitting inside these targeting centers with u.s. personnel helping the saudis pick targets, more civilians have been killed, more civilians have been killed, not less. we actually pulled out of the targeting centers at the end of the obama administration. the obama administration made a determination in 2016 that we were potentially committing war crimes by being with the saudis as they were choosing to hit the water treatment facilitiesment and so they pulled our people out. there's no evidence that during the time that we were not in the targeting centers, the saudis were hitting more civilian targets. the evidence tells us that the deeper we get involved in the targeting decisions, the more

they hit civilian targets. there's a perfectly reasonable explanation for that. so long as they have the united states inside the tent, they have moral cover for hitting civilian targets. they can use us -- they can use us to say, well, the united states were there, right? they were inside the room when these decisions were made. so it can't be that we're doing the kind of damage that you say we are. the evidence suggests the contrary. the evidence doesn't suggest the contrary. the evidence says that the contrary is true. 160% increase in civilians being killed just this year versus last year. so the middle east isn't a zero-sum game. the passage of this resolution does not empower iran. we are not obligated to follow the saudis into every mistake they make. this resolution will not hurt negotiations. it will help negotiations by showing that the united states

is going to be an honest broker here. the houthis are bad, bad players. they've killed a lot of people. they've done a lot of damage inside that country. this is not just a question of what the saudis have done. 70% of the civilians have been killed by saudi bombs. but the houthis need to be held to account for what they've done as well. we need to be a broker of peace. this resolution will help us be a broker of peace. third, al qaeda and isis can still be confronted, even if this resolution passes, and the quicker this civil war ends, the less power they have. and, fourth, maybe theoretically things could be worse. maybe we could have 185,000 children under five die from stashvation and -- from starvation and disease, but that is not a justification to stay the cows. we need to shake up -- to shea the course. we need to shake up the stalemate that exists today. we need to send a signal that the united states is not okay

with the way that the saudis have perpetuated this war. frankly, the way they have lied to us over the course of the last several months about other things that they are doing to quell dissent in and around the kingdom. we need to send a message, but we also need to get the united states out of a conflict right now that is doing no benefit to american national security and has become a nightmare for people who are stuck in yemen today. i'd urge passage of the resolution and yield the floor. mr. leahy: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, we have a -- excuse me, mr. president. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the call of the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: mr. president, i ask consent that my remarks begin at this moment and not at minute or so ago. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: mr. president, we have -- we all know we have a constitutional obligation as u.s. senators