February 13, 2019 - Issue: Vol. 165, No. 28 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 1st Session

[Pages S1298-S1300]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                       Nomination of William Barr

  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I want to join my colleagues today in 
making some brief remarks on William Barr's nomination to serve as 
Attorney General of the United States.
  I had the opportunity to meet with Mr. Barr one-on-one in my office. 
We had a very good meeting, and we talked in some detail about securing 
our elections from foreign interference, something that is a major 
priority of mine, and we really are close in passing a bipartisan bill, 
which Senator Lankford and I have, called the Secure Elections Act. We 
just need a little help and support from the administration.
  We also talked about modernizing our antitrust enforcement to fit the 
challenges that we have today and to make our laws as sophisticated as 
the trillion-dollar companies we are now seeing and the mergers we are 
seeing all across the United States. So we had a good discussion about 
that.
  We also talked about his family and working in the Justice 
Department. During the hearing, I gave an opportunity for him to talk 
to those workers who were, through no fault of their own, furloughed or 
not getting paid, and he clearly showed respect for the people in the 
Justice Department. I appreciate all of that. I think that is important 
to have in an Attorney General.
  But I have some serious concerns about this nominee. I had already 
announced I was opposing him during our Judiciary Committee vote, but I 
have some serious concerns when you look at the context in which he has 
come before us.
  His nomination comes at a time when there are investigations by a 
special counsel and multiple U.S. attorney's offices in New York into 
campaign finance violations and an attempt, as we know, by a foreign 
adversary to interfere in our elections. This special counsel's 
investigation has led to indictments or guilty pleas from over 30 
people and three companies, including seven former advisers to the 
President.
  These investigations, as we know, go to the heart of the integrity of 
our elections, our government, and our institutions, and it is why it 
is essential, first of all, that Special Counsel Mueller and the U.S. 
attorney's offices be allowed to finish their work free of political 
interference.
  The President, as we know, has made past statements and sent out 
tweets about Attorney General Sessions: I am critical of him for 
allowing these investigations to go forward. This is the context we are 
in. He has made it very clear as to what he is looking for in an 
Attorney General. He wants someone who will be his lawyer. He wants 
someone to use the Justice Department, in a way, to protect him.
  I think this should worry us because, yes, the Attorney General works 
for the President, but, more importantly, who the Attorney General 
really works for are the people, the people of the United States.
  The Attorney General of the United States is the people's lawyer and 
pledges to uphold the rule of law and apply the law equally no matter 
who you are.
  Mr. Barr has made clear, one, that he respects Mr. Mueller, which I 
truly appreciate. He said that both in my private meeting and on the 
record at the hearing. But he has also said that he intends to take 
over supervision of the special counsel's investigation.
  He wouldn't commit, at his nomination hearing--despite having written 
that 19-page memo, he wouldn't commit to following the advice of career 
ethics lawyers at the Department about whether he should be recused.
  Why did that concern me? Well, because he had actually commended the 
Deputy Attorney General for following those rules, and he had commended 
Senator and then-Attorney General Sessions for following these rules. 
So that concerns me.
  We know that if he is confirmed, he will be in a position to oversee 
the special counsel's budget, the scope of the investigation, and he 
will, ultimately--and this is key--receive the results of investigation 
under law.

  He will get to decide whether the results are released to the public 
or, perhaps, as he suggested during the hearing, are not released at 
all, and that is in addition to those related investigations he will 
oversee. These U.S. Attorney's investigations don't have the special 
counsel regulations to protect them, so he is in direct line to oversee 
those.
  Even though many of my colleagues asked him to pledge to make Special 
Counsel Mueller's report public, he wouldn't commit to do so. He always 
had a way to kind of dodge a commitment to do so, instead of, in my 
mind, making a full-throated endorsement of releasing that report.
  If he is confirmed, he will also have room to make his own 
interpretation of what the law allows. In fact, as Attorney General, he 
can make the Department's rules and regulations and issue guidance that 
would make the difference between transparency and obscurity. That is 
why we have to look at his judgment on this particular issue.
  Maybe if we were in a different time, in a different moment, we would 
be talking about things like the opioid epidemic and what the Attorney 
General is doing, which is very important, and I know he does care 
about that; or we would be devoting our moment, which I wish we could 
be doing, to antitrust and upgrading the way those laws are enforced 
and what we should do; or we would be talking, which we should be 
doing, about the SECOND STEP Act and not just the FIRST STEP Act.
  All of those questions were asked in the hearing--immigration reform, 
very important issues--but we are where we are. We are where we are, 
and we have to look at his judgment to see what kind of Attorney 
General he would be at this time with respect to law and order, which, 
to me, right now, is not just about law and order in our communities--
very important--but it is also about law and order when it comes to our 
entire justice system.
  Like many of the nominees from the President, Mr. Barr has 
demonstrated, just as Justice Kavanaugh did, just as Justice Gorsuch 
did, an expansive view--an unprecedentedly expansive view of 
Presidential power. We don't have to look far to see how those views 
would impact the special counsel's investigation.
  Just a few months before he was nominated as a private citizen--I 
don't have many constituents who would do this, but, for some reason, 
Mr. Barr decided to send in this 19-page memo as a private citizen. It 
was no ordinary memo. This memo was 19 pages, single-spaced, and 
addressed to the leadership of the Justice Department, but it was sent 
to all of these people--conservative activists and all kinds of people 
all over the place, the lawyers at the White House Counsel's office, 
and the President's personal lawyers. I don't think my constituents 
would really have their addresses or emails, but it was sent to all of 
these people.
  It argued that a portion of the special counsel's obstruction of 
justice inquiry was ``fatally misconceived.'' He

[[Page S1299]]

said that it was based on a legally insupportable reading of the law.
  Now, that makes you pause. How can we be sure, how can we think he 
can impartially evaluate the special counsel's investigation if, before 
he has even seen its result, he writes extensively that part of it, not 
all of it, was legally insupportable and fatally misconceived?
  It is not just those statements that are troubling. He goes on to 
state, not for the first time, his alarming views about the President's 
powers. Here is one of them: ``[T]he President's law enforcement powers 
extend to all matters, including those in which he had a personal 
stake.''
  Mr. Barr doesn't cite laws or cases from the Supreme Court or the 
history of our Nation's founding or even the Federalist Papers when 
making his claims. He just says it as if it is obvious.
  Let me be clear about what he means by this. Mr. Barr believes that a 
President gets to supervise an investigation into his or her own 
conduct. As a former prosecutor, I know that it is a fundamental value 
in our country that no one--no one--is above the law, and it is a 
fundamental principle in our legal system that no one should be a judge 
in their own case, not even the President of the United States.
  I also have grave doubts about Mr. Barr's respect for Congress, a 
coequal branch of government, and our duty to provide oversight of the 
executive branch.
  Mr. Barr is a proponent of the unitary executive theory, which is the 
idea that the President has expansive powers, even in the face of 
Congress's constitutional duties. His writings on the topic raise 
serious questions about how Mr. Barr will approach congressional 
oversight of the administration.
  I am concerned that Mr. Barr will rely on the broad interpretation of 
Executive power to support the White House's reported efforts to exert 
Executive privilege to prevent the release of the special counsel 
report, its findings, or its conclusions.
  If that happens, Congress must be ready to assert our responsibility 
to make sure the public and, especially, State election officials who 
are working to secure our elections have the facts about what happened.
  How are we going to fix this in the next election if we don't know 
what happened? How are we going to have accountability for our 
government if the public is shut out in viewing what happened?
  This is not the time to install an Attorney General who has 
repeatedly espoused a view of unfettered Executive power. Congress 
cannot abdicate its responsibilities or shirk its duties--not when it 
comes to national security, foreign relations, the budget, or, as is 
key today, oversight into law and order.
  A few years ago, I went to Atlanta to make a speech, and, of course, 
I took a little trip over to the Carter Presidential Library. Of 
course, I wanted to see this library--I had never seen it--to learn 
more about President Carter, but as a Minnesotan, I really wanted to 
look for all the Mondale memorabilia. I may have been the only one 
there looking for Joan's dress and other things related to the Mondale 
half of the Carter-Mondale team.
  One of the things I noticed that to me was most prominent was a quote 
of Walter Mondale's etched on the wall. At the time, I liked it. I 
thought it was simple. I wrote it down, and I put it in my purse. But I 
never knew how relevant it would be today. The quote came from 
Mondale's reflections on his service with President Carter after they 
had lost their reelection but had served their country for 4 years. He 
said:

       We told the truth. We obeyed the law. We kept the peace.

  I believe that is the minimum standard we should expect of any 
administration. We told the truth. We obeyed the law. We kept the 
peace. Every President faces great challenges, many of which are 
unforeseen and require difficult decisions, but at the minimum, an 
administration should tell the truth, obey the law, and do all they can 
to keep the peace.
  That is where I will end. What concerns me about this nominee is not 
the vast experience he has or the work he would do on a few of the 
things that I mentioned; it is his views on Executive power, his views 
on Congress's power to be a check and balance to the Executive, his 
views on what the Executive can do right as we face this crucial time 
in history, when coming right at us is this major report from the 
special counsel. I want someone who will make sure that whoever is in 
the White House obeys the law and tells the truth.
  Sadly, I cannot support this nominee. I do hope that I am wrong in 
some of my conclusions based on what I have read and heard. I would 
like nothing more.
  I appreciate so much the work of Rod Rosenstein as Deputy Attorney 
General and many of the other people in the Justice Department who have 
worked with him to allow this investigation to continue. I hope that 
will be the case if this nominee does go through this Chamber, that he 
will do the same.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.


                                 S. 429

  Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, cyber attacks are one of the greatest 
threats to our national security today. As our world becomes 
increasingly connected, bad actors are trying to infiltrate our most 
critical networks, from our military systems and our electrical grid to 
our financial institutions and our small businesses.
  We face a rising number of cyber attacks that have the potential to 
expose our sensitive, personal information or disrupt nearly every 
aspect of our lives. These cyber security vulnerabilities cut across 
every industry. Whether you are a small business trying to protect your 
customers' credit card details, a doctor's office with private medical 
insurance information, or even a sophisticated tech startup that needs 
to safeguard your customers' passwords, cyber security protections are 
absolutely vital to your success.
  We have seen the dangerous consequences of attacks that exposed the 
private data of millions of Americans--from companies like Equifax and 
Target to Federal Agencies like the Office of Personnel Management and 
the IRS. Government Agencies of all sizes are at risk of a breach that 
could jeopardize the sensitive information they are trusted with, and 
these threats will only continue to grow.
  We need a skilled cyber workforce of professionals to shore up our 
cyber protections, fortify our legacy systems, and build new and 
innovative infrastructure with safety and security in mind. Despite the 
glaring need for more cyber security professionals, we face a serious 
shortage of highly trained cyber experts to fill these positions. 
Estimates indicate there is a global shortage of approximately 3 
million desperately needed cyber security professionals, including 
nearly half a million in North America, where government and the 
private sector are competing to hire the best talent.
  The Federal Government faces serious challenges in this competition. 
Agencies often cannot offer the same top salaries and benefits that 
Silicon Valley uses to entice and to retain employees. Our cyber 
workforce is on the frontlines of every aspect of our digital security, 
and we need policies that address that reality and sustain and grow our 
ranks.
  While thousands of dedicated public servants choose to work in 
government because they are motivated by the mission of serving our 
country, there is more we can do to grow the pool of cyber workers and 
recruit them to government service. Congress has made strides in recent 
years to improve incentives and attract skilled cyber professionals to 
join the ranks.
  Moving forward, we can make cyber positions in government more 
attractive by providing cyber professionals with unique opportunities 
to enhance their careers while they help protect our country's 
security. That is why I introduced the Federal Rotational Cyber 
Workforce Program Act with Senator Hoeven. Our bipartisan legislation 
helps the Federal Government develop an integrated cyber security 
workforce that retains high-skilled employees by establishing a 
civilian personnel rotation program specifically for cyber 
professionals. It is based on similar joint duty programs for the 
military services and the intelligence community.
  The Rotational Cyber Workforce Program will provide civilian 
employees in

[[Page S1300]]

cyber roles opportunities to enhance their careers, broaden their 
professional experience, and foster collaborative networks by 
experiencing and contributing to the cyber mission beyond their home 
Agencies. By offering these kinds of dynamic and rewarding 
opportunities, this legislation will help retain highly talented cyber 
professionals and strengthen our government's security by developing 
greater interagency awareness and collaboration.
  I am pleased that this morning the Homeland Security and Government 
Affairs Committee unanimously approved this legislation. It moves us 
closer to closing the cyber security workforce gap.
  In addition to taking commonsense steps like we did today in 
committee, Congress needs to look ahead and plan for long-term 
solutions to ensure that we always have a strong, competitive pool of 
cyber security talent to draw on. We need policies that encourage 
students of all ages and educational levels to seek out STEM fields, 
such as computer science, so they are prepared to fill these in-demand 
jobs and be our first line of defense against these emerging and 
rapidly evolving threats.
  I look forward to continuing to work with my Republican and 
Democratic colleagues to get this bill signed into law and to advance 
other commonsense legislation that strengthens our Nation's cyber 
capabilities and safeguards the weakest links in the cyber security 
chain from harm.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.