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

[Pages S1312-S1316]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                       Nomination of William Barr

  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to speak regarding 
the nomination of William Barr to serve as the next Attorney General of 
our country.
  First, I want to take a few minutes to reflect on the circumstances 
surrounding this vacancy. I believe that every Member of this Chamber 
should use this occasion to decide, ultimately, whether we believe Mr. 
Barr will be the Attorney General for all Americans or whether Mr. Barr 
will be the Attorney General, really, for one American.
  When President-elect Trump selected then-Senator Jeff Sessions, our 
colleague from Alabama, to serve as Attorney General for this country, 
it brought me no joy to vote against our long-time colleague and 
friend. The truth was, though, that our views too often diverged on too 
many important issues that included immigration, healthcare, civil 
rights, voting rights, LGBT rights, environmental protection, and more.
  After considerable prayer and reflection, I reached the conclusion 
that Senator Sessions would not be an Attorney General for all 
Americans.
  Unfortunately, during his tenure at the Department of Justice, he 
went on to preside over a number of divisive policies and decisions, 
including the Muslim ban, overturning protections for Dreamers and 
asylum seekers, enacting a cruel policy of family separation at our 
southern border, and failing to defend the constitutionality of the 
Affordable Care Act in court.
  I have not been shy about expressing my disagreement with these 
decisions, and others, made by the Department of Justice during the 
current administration. However, one area where I strongly agreed with 
Attorney General Sessions was his decision to recuse himself from the 
special counsel's investigation into Russian interference in our 2016 
elections.
  One of my core values is to figure out what is the right thing to do 
and to try to do it--not what is politically expedient, not what is 
easy but what is the right thing to do. After it became clear that 
then-Senator Sessions provided testimony to the Senate Judiciary 
Committee that called into question his impartiality on matters 
relating to Russia and the 2016 election, Attorney General Sessions 
recused himself from all matters related to the 2016 Presidential 
election. That was the right thing to do. It certainly wasn't what our 
President wanted him to do. The President has said as much repeatedly. 
I should say that, maybe, he has tweeted as much repeatedly.
  The President repeatedly admonished Attorney General Sessions for 
doing what I think many of us believe was the right thing to do. Here 
is what the President tweeted on June 5, 2018:

       The Russian Witch Hunt Hoax continues, all because Jeff 
     Sessions didn't tell me he was going to recuse himself . . . 
     I would have quickly picked someone else. So much time and 
     money wasted, so many lives ruined . . . and Sessions knew 
     better than most that there was No Collusion!

  Let me be clear, Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation is 
not a witch hunt. It is, in fact, the unanimous opinion of the U.S. 
intelligence Agencies and law enforcement community that Russia 
attacked our democracy and interfered in our 2016 elections.
  As a result of the special counsel's ongoing investigation, 34 
individuals and 3 companies have been indicted or pled guilty to a 
range of crimes. This includes the Trump campaign manager, the Trump 
deputy campaign manager, Mr. Trump's National Security Advisor, and, 
most recently, President Trump's longtime political advisor.
  Special Counsel Mueller is a lifelong Republican who served with 
distinction in the Vietnam war. I think I am the last Member of this 
body who served in the Vietnam war, but he served there with real 
distinction. He served with distinction as our FBI Director following 
the September 11 attacks. He is not conducting a partisan witch hunt. 
He and the team he leads are striving to find out the truth and, in 
doing so, help us prevent future attacks on our democracy.
  I believe we should be doing everything in our power to allow Special 
Counsel Mueller and his team to conduct and complete this investigation 
free from political interference and partisan games.
  During the years I was privileged to serve as chairman of the 
Homeland Security Committee, Bob Mueller was the head of the FBI. I had 
a chance to work

[[Page S1313]]

with him and to get to know him. My wife and I know his wife. He is 
among the finest people I have ever known in the military, outside of 
the military, in government service, and outside of government service.
  Unfortunately, President Trump does not view political independence 
as a prerequisite for the job of Attorney General. Instead, he tends to 
view political independence as a disloyal act, an offense for which one 
should be fired. Just ask former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates. 
Just ask former FBI Director Comey, whom I also came to know well 
during the time I served on the Homeland Security Committee, including 
as its chairman. Just ask former Attorney General Sessions.

  Recall with me, if you will, after the November election, President 
Trump fired Attorney General Sessions and named the Attorney General's 
Chief of Staff, Matt Whitaker, as Acting Attorney General. This was a 
curious decision, as well as a legally questionable decision. Why would 
the President go outside the line of succession at the Department of 
Justice? I fear it is because of Mr. Whitaker's public comments 
regarding the Mueller investigation.
  Mr. Whitaker previously likened the special counsel's investigation 
to a ``fishing expedition,'' and a ``witch hunt'' and implied that 
following the truth ``could be damaging to the President of the United 
States and his family--and by extension, to our country.''
  Really? Could he have been serious in saying that getting to the 
bottom of all this could be damaging to the President of the United 
States and his family and, by extension, to our country?
  Another President, a long time ago, Thomas Jefferson, used to say 
these words: If the people know the truth, they won't make a mistake.
  Those are hardly the views of our current President. It saddens me to 
say that.
  Despite publicly expressing these views that clearly call into 
question his impartiality, Mr. Whitaker did not recuse himself from the 
Mueller investigation when he assumed of the role of Acting Attorney 
General, even though he received a recommendation to recuse himself 
from ethics officials at the Department of Justice.
  Mr. Whitaker's staggering unfitness for the job is a big part of the 
reason why my initial reaction was positive when President Trump 
nominated William Barr to be our Attorney General. After all, Mr. Barr 
previously served as Deputy Attorney General and Attorney General 
during the administration of George Herbert Walker Bush, someone I 
revered. I think many of us revered him.
  By all accounts, Mr. Barr is a well-qualified nominee, someone who 
has been a fine public servant throughout many years of public service. 
I strongly believe that we need Senate-confirmed leadership at the 
Department of Justice. I want to make it clear that during normal 
times, I might be inclined to support Mr. Barr's nomination. In fact, I 
probably would.
  But these are not normal times. These are extraordinary times. In 
addition to firing the Attorney General and the FBI Director for their 
views on the Russia inquiry, President Trump has reportedly asked those 
around him why he didn't have an Attorney General who is looking out 
for his personal interests. According to reports, the President has 
said, ``Where's my Roy Cohn?'' during moments of crisis. For those who 
may not know Roy Cohn, he was President Trump's personal lawyer and 
fixer, who pushed legal tactics to the limits and also served with 
Senator Joe McCarthy during a very dark period in our Nation's history 
and a very dark period in this Senate's history.
  This is how President Trump views the role of Attorney General--not 
as a lawyer to defend the rights of all Americans but as a fixer who 
will look out for him. Moreover, in his State of the Union address last 
week, President Trump highlighted what he sees as ``ridiculous, 
partisan investigations.'' He went on to say: ``If there is going to be 
peace and legislation, there cannot be war and investigations.''
  It is against this extraordinary backdrop that we must ask ourselves: 
What are Mr. Barr's views on Presidential power, and what are his views 
on the investigation led by Robert Mueller?
  As it turns out, we don't have to guess what the answer is to that 
question. In an unsolicited 19-page memo that Mr. Barr sent to Deputy 
Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and President Trump's personal lawyers, 
Mr. Barr shares his views, and they are clearly hostile to the special 
counsel's investigation.
  In a memo entitled ``Mueller's Obstruction Theory,'' Mr. Barr raises 
doubt about the special counsel's ability to follow the truth while 
going on to defend President Trump's actions and even suggesting that 
the President has the power to limit the scope of this inquiry.
  In that same memo, Mr. Barr states that the special counsel's 
investigation into obstruction of justice may do ``lasting damage to 
the presidency.''
  I believe that reasonable people can disagree, as I frequently did 
with my friend, former Senator, and then-Attorney General, Jeff 
Sessions.
  It is clear to me, however, that despite whatever your views may be 
toward the special counsel's investigation, the views expressed in his 
memo not only warrant Mr. Barr's recusal from the special counsel's 
investigation, but they cry out for it.
  Attorney General Sessions did the right thing when confronted with a 
similar decision. However, despite expressing these biased views from 
President Trump's own personal lawyers, Mr. Barr says he will not 
recuse himself from the special counsel's investigation if he is 
confirmed. To make matters worse, Mr. Barr refuses to commit to making 
the special counsel's final report public.

  Earlier, I asked for us to consider whether Mr. Barr will be the 
Attorney General for all Americans or whether Mr. Barr will be the 
Attorney General for one American. That one American happens to go by 
another name, Individual 1, which is the legal moniker given to 
President Trump in the Southern District of New York for directing his 
personal attorney to violate Federal campaign finance law.
  Like Mr. Whitaker's public comments prior to his elevation to Acting 
Attorney General, I fear that Mr. Barr's memo may have been an audition 
for the job and that his selection may not have been a coincidence. 
During his Senate hearing in 1989, Mr. Barr plainly stated that the 
Attorney General ``is the President's lawyer.''
  Colleagues, these are extraordinary times for our Nation. We must 
make it clear to the American people that the Attorney General is not 
the President's lawyer. We need independence at the Department of 
Justice now more than ever. While I hope I am wrong--very wrong--it is 
my belief that Trump used this appointment as an opportunity to protect 
himself rather than to protect the constitutional rights of all 
Americans.
  Ultimately, for all of these reasons I have laid out, I have 
concluded that despite his earlier service to our Nation--distinguished 
service in many instances--Mr. Barr does not, in this instance, meet 
the standard that is necessary to be the Attorney General for our 
country now.
  Sadly, on that note, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, in the next 24 hours, the Senate will do 
what it should do, which is to actually go through the process of 
advice and consent with a nominee--this time, for an Attorney General--
William Barr.
  William Barr is eminently qualified. It has been interesting to hear 
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk all day long today 
about how qualified William Barr is but then always pause with a 
``but'' and take off on the Mueller investigation.
  Let me explain what this means by ``eminently qualified.'' He has had 
an exceptionally impressive legal career. He serves in one of the top 
U.S. firms. He began his legal career decades ago as, actually, an 
analyst and as legislative counsel for the CIA. He worked on domestic 
policy for Ronald Reagan. He served as the Deputy Attorney General from 
1990 to 1991, and then he served as the Attorney General of the United 
States for George Herbert Walker Bush from 1991 to 1993.
  When he was appointed as the Attorney General in 1991, his nomination 
passed out of the Judiciary Committee with a unanimous vote of 14 to 0. 
The Judiciary chairman at the time--a gentleman named Joe Biden--called 
him a fine Attorney General. He was overwhelmingly confirmed by the 
Senate in

[[Page S1314]]

1991--a less partisan time. It was when Democrats and Republicans both 
looked at his qualifications, not at a political agenda.
  We have a unique moment in which to look at someone who was a good 
Attorney General for the United States, one who served faithfully but 
then had a season away from that, only to turn around and do it again. 
How many of us wouldn't want to redo something we did years ago and 
say: I did it, and it went well, but if I were to have a little more 
time and could do it over again, I would do things better. We have that 
chance with William Barr. It is a unique moment for us as a nation to 
be able to bring somebody like that back again.
  What happened under his watch?
  During that time period, he believed and still believes that the 
personal security of the citizens of the United States is the primary, 
first duty of the government's and of the U.S. Attorney General's. 
Despite what is being smeared about him on this floor over and over 
again--with people saying he is being hired to be the President's 
personal attorney--for those who have actually met with him and talked 
with him, he speaks openly about law enforcement in the United States. 
He talks about working with local law enforcement and with U.S. 
attorneys to actually prosecute crime and go after the issues that 
distract from American values and that keep the American people from 
living the American dream.
  During his tenure as Attorney General, he spearheaded the initiative 
called the Weed and Seed Program, which removed violent drug offenders 
from the streets. Under Attorney General Barr, in the 1990s, violent 
crime in the United States went down because they were aggressively 
prosecuting for crime.
  He is also the Attorney General who supervised the enforcement and 
implementation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. It was an 
incredibly difficult legal process to have gone through and to have 
implemented nationwide in order to have protected the rights of 
individuals who had been overlooked in our country for two centuries--
those with disabilities. It was a major feature of what he did during 
that time period.
  He brings this unique, important perspective from his dealings with 
law enforcement, his background, his experience. All of those things 
look like they would make a slam dunk with which to come to this floor 
and have wide, bipartisan support except for this--that he is being 
used as a message in the Mueller investigation. It is not that he said: 
I am going to stop the Mueller investigation. It is not that he said 
anything else about that. He did write a 19-page letter as an attorney 
in the law practice that is helping President Trump get through this 
process.
  He wrote: Hey, as former Attorney General, here are all of the things 
of which you should be advised. When you are working with the 
President, here are the key features.
  It seems like a kind thing to do for any President. He wrote the 
letter with all of that information in it, and he gave those details. 
Fine.
  He has also said over and over again that he is not going to undercut 
the Mueller investigation. Yet some of my Democratic colleagues have 
said: No, it has to be more than that. He has to recuse himself like 
Jeff Sessions did. He has to recuse himself. If he doesn't recuse 
himself, he can't be there.
  May I remind you that the reason Jeff Sessions had to recuse himself 
was that he was on the campaign team for the President, and when he got 
into the position of Attorney General, the ethics team from the 
Department of Justice advised him: Hey, since you were on the campaign 
team, you can't be the investigator for the campaign team. At that 
time, Attorney General Jeff Sessions agreed and said that it would 
violate ethics for a person on the team to help investigate the team, 
so he recused himself. That was not William Barr. There is all of this 
talk that he has to recuse himself like Jeff Sessions did, but it is a 
completely different situation. Why should he recuse himself?
  Apparently, people don't want the Mueller investigation to have any 
supervision, which, again, I find fascinating politically because I 
distinctly remember, during the Clinton administration, that many of my 
Democratic colleagues who are still in this Chamber now were furious 
with Ken Starr. They can't believe Donald Trump would say he is 
frustrated with the Mueller team, but they had no problem with the 
Clinton White House's literally saying: We are going to go to war 
against Ken Starr. The term ``witch hunt'' is not new. The Clinton 
administration used that same term against Ken Starr. This is a 
fascinating side-by-side to me, to be able to look at this.
  Here is what I would advise: Let the Mueller investigation finish its 
job. It has a job. Let it do its job. Quite frankly, the Attorney 
General shouldn't be in the day-to-day operations of the Mueller 
investigation. That is why we have a special counsel. Yet, at some 
point, the special counsel has to turn information over to someone. 
William Barr is not going to be the one writing all of the information 
from the special counsel. He should neither have this incredibly high 
standard nor be held to some standard of doing something that he is not 
going to do--try to interfere in this process. He has made that very 
clear.
  He has also made it very clear verbally, in committee settings, and 
in written statements that he is going to release whatever comes out, 
as under the law, from the Mueller investigation. I think some people 
believe that the Mueller investigation is going to release a big, giant 
written report like the Senate Intel Committee will do. Yet the Mueller 
investigation's task is not to release some big, giant report; its task 
is for them, as prosecutors, to go through and recommend indictments. 
If they choose to write a report, that is up to them. Now, this 
Congress could try to mandate that, but that is not their requirement. 
They are a special counsel. This is a group of attorneys that is making 
recommendations. That is all it is.
  Don't judge an Attorney General nominee based on some accusation from 
some thought of what might happen and what he might do. Judge him on 
what he actually says and what he has done. Hold him to that standard.
  I have also had some folks back in my State say they have heard that 
William Barr supports the possibility of some States having red flag 
laws on the Second Amendment. Now, I spoke to William Barr. He came to 
my office. We spent about 45 minutes together. We went through a whole 
litany of questions and answers about his background and the issues he 
has dealt with, his passions, his dealings with local law enforcement, 
his cooperation with State prisons, consent decrees, religious liberty. 
We talked of drug trials and processing. We talked about the whole 
issue of gang violence--on and on and on--including the Second 
Amendment.
  He again reiterated he is supportive of the Second Amendment in every 
area. If someone loses his Second Amendment rights, it will only be 
based on due process, which is with a court's being involved. That has 
always been the standard for us as a country.
  I have seen some of the things that have been written about him, one 
being that he is not supportive of the Second Amendment. That is 
absolutely false, and I can say those things based on my personal 
conversation with him after having asked him those questions. See not 
the things that have been written about him but the things that he has 
actually written and said about the Second Amendment. He is a protector 
of our rights under the Constitution. It is one of the things to which 
he has sworn under oath to protect as the previous Attorney General and 
would have to swear to again under oath.
  This is a simple thing for us. We are looking at a qualified nominee 
who has an excellent background, the experience, and a passion to 
protect our country; who has shown a passion for law enforcement, 
protecting our Nation, and reducing violent crime in our country. I 
look forward to his stepping in and taking the lead in the Department 
of Justice.
  May I make a side note on this? Again, this nomination reminds me of 
why it is so important that this Senate fix its nomination process. We 
have a broken nomination process--period.
  If you take the last six Presidents combined, when they were putting 
their staffs together in their first 2 years of office, it was 25 times 
that someone in the Senate asked for additional time to debate that 
person. It

[[Page S1315]]

could be any one of 100. For the last six Presidents, it was a total of 
25 times that one person asked for additional time to debate. In this 
body, it was 25 times that somebody said for the last six Presidents 
combined that we need a little more time to debate this person. They 
asked for additional what is called postcloture debate time. That is a 
full intervening day--24 hours--plus an additional 30 hours after that 
just to debate. That is fine. For highly controversial nominees, it is 
entirely appropriate.
  Yet, in the first 2 years of President Trump's Presidency, that 
request has been made 128 times--25 times for the last 6 Presidents 
combined versus 128 times for this President. It is not because they 
have been all that controversial as nominees, although I am fully aware 
that President Trump has nominated some folks who have created heated 
debate on this floor, but it was certainly not 128 times. In fact, many 
of the times after we had had that postcloture intervening day, plus 
another 30 hours, those people passed either unanimously or with 90-
plus votes. They were not controversial. It was an attempt to shut down 
this Senate and shut down this President to keep him from hiring his 
staff. That has never happened before. There has never been a time that 
the Senate has tried to prevent an elected President from hiring his 
own team--until now.
  In May of 2017, I made a proposal to fix our postcloture vote debate 
time, seeing what would happen. I continued that conversation over and 
over again with many of my Democratic colleagues.
  The last session, we brought in front of the Rules Committee a 
proposal that was made by Harry Reid and then was passed under Harry 
Reid's time and his leadership in the Senate--that is, to limit 
postcloture debate time to streamline that process.
  I brought that exact same proposal back out and said: Republicans 
voted with Democrats to make sure this process would work in 2013 and 
2014. Now will Democrats vote with Republicans on the exact same 
language? And we will do this together to fix this process.
  The Democrats gave me the Heisman at that point and said: No. It was 
good of you to vote with us, but we are not going to vote with you.
  That was all last session.
  I brought up another proposal that went through the Rules Committee 
today. It is a simple proposal. Historically in this body, there hasn't 
been a lot of postcloture debate time on nominees, especially not on 
nominees like district court judges or Deputy Assistant Secretaries of 
some entity.
  I met today with the person who will be the IRS counsel, the counsel 
of the IRS, which I dare guess no one in this room could name right 
now, and certainly most people in America couldn't, but they have been 
blocked for a year, so the IRS does not have a Chief Counsel. Not a 
controversial nominee--will probably pass unanimously or near 
unanimously. Just to prevent the IRS from having a counsel, they have 
been slowed down.
  My proposal is simple. We can still have postcloture debate. If 
anyone in this body wanted to slow down any nominee, they could still 
do that. They could request a full additional day, 24 hours, and then 
in the next day, instead of adding an additional 30 hours, it would be 
just an additional 2 hours. So instead of getting a full day plus 30 
hours, they would get a full day plus 2 hours. That is still a lot of 
time.
  Quite frankly, only 25 times in the last six Presidents have there 
been any requests for any additional time. So that would still allow a 
long period of time, but it would expedite the process so at least we 
could go through this.
  If we don't fix this now, this will become the habit of the Senate 
from here on out. When the next Democratic President is elected, I can 
assure you that we will have the same issue with nominees that 
President Trump is having because it only takes one Senator to say: No. 
I want a whole intervening day plus 30 hours for every one of your 
nominees.
  By the way, the President puts 1,200 people through the process of 
nomination--1,200. So count the times that will happen in the days 
ahead.
  I know this is part of the ``resist Trump'' movement and to shut down 
the operation of his Presidency, but it actually is going to shut down 
the operation of every President from here on out if we don't fix this 
rule.
  I am asking my Democratic colleagues to look long, to not look right 
in front of us, to look at the future of where this is really headed 
and what is really happening to this Senate. The precedent that is 
being set right now on debate will be the standard in the days ahead. 
Let's fix it now so we can get this resolved long term for the sake of 
our country and do this right.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I come to the floor this afternoon to 
express my deep opposition to the nomination of Mr. William Barr to be 
our Nation's next Attorney General.
  His nomination comes at a very trying time for our country. As our 
own President frequently twists the truth and constantly pushes the 
limits of the law, the American people deserve to know that the 
Attorney General--the top law enforcement officer in the country--is 
committed, above all else, to seeking truth, defending their civil and 
constitutional rights, administering justice on their behalf, and 
safeguarding our country against threats to our democracy.
  I wish Mr. Barr were the person who could right the ship and stand up 
for the American people no matter what. I wish he were the person who 
could help guide our country through this critical juncture when 
questions about illegal payments involving both the Trump campaign and 
the Trump inaugural committee and Russia's interference in our 
elections and its attempts to influence millions of our friends and 
families must be fully explained to the public.
  We know this is an administration that finds it so difficult to 
follow the law that it is being investigated in multiple jurisdictions 
at the Federal level--all of which would be overseen by Mr. Barr.
  Sadly, it has become abundantly clear that Mr. Barr is incapable of 
being the impartial Attorney General people in communities across our 
country need and deserve and someone who stands up to the President 
when he is wrong.
  Based on what I have seen over the past 2 years and despite the 
critical time we are in, I don't expect many of my Republican 
colleagues to join me on the floor today in order to defeat this 
nomination. Although people across the country have been raising red 
flags on this nomination, my Republican colleagues have been busy 
building the glidepath for Mr. Barr's nomination. In fact, just last 
week, the majority leader, standing here on the Senate floor, left 
little doubt about whether the majority would try to get this 
nomination sewn up. The leader referred to Mr. Barr as a ``tried and 
true public servant'' and a ``proven professional'' who was applying 
for the same job he got in 1991 under President George H. W. Bush. The 
job description, the majority leader said, ``remains exactly the same 
as it was years ago.'' But that is the problem. Senate Republicans are 
still operating as though it is the early 1990s, as if the world around 
them has not changed, as if what we have experienced for the past 2 
years is normal.
  Well, on behalf of the American people, I urge us all to wake up. For 
the past 2 years, we have had a President whose only consistent agenda 
items are self-preservation and self-dealing, whether that means 
flouting the law or disregarding ethics, acting with impunity, 
violating norms and destroying relationships with our allies, firing 
those who challenge him and bullying those he can't, threatening jail 
time for political opponents, or changing Federal policy by tweet and 
based on his current mood.
  On top of all that, President Trump faces a number of investigations, 
including serious questions about whether he has obstructed justice in 
order to make the special counsel's investigation into Russia's 
meddling in our elections go away. That is the same special counsel 
investigation that has already resulted in 34 indictments or guilty 
pleas to date. Despite what the President would like us to believe, 
that is far from a witch hunt.
  When President Trump's first choice to be the next Attorney General 
is someone with highly questionable

[[Page S1316]]

views on Executive power, we have to be on alert.
  When that nominee, Mr. Barr, can't adequately explain why, out of the 
blue--out of the blue--he sent a memo to the White House in order to 
criticize the special counsel investigation, absolve the President of 
questions about obstruction of justice, and make a case for less 
accountability with this President, we ought to be on alert.
  When Mr. Barr writes that President Trump has ``complete authority to 
start or stop a law enforcement proceeding,'' we ought to be on alert.
  Mr. Barr's memo makes no sense unless it was an audition for this 
job, and that is absolutely not how any President should select an 
Attorney General.
  When we know that, if confirmed, Mr. Barr would be in charge of the 
special counsel investigation and would decide what, if anything, the 
public gets to know about the findings on Russia's 2016 election 
meddling, we ought to be on alert.
  Someone who has written such an obviously flawed analysis of the 
investigation should not be put in charge of overseeing the 
investigation. That is just common sense.
  People across this country sent us here to Congress not to shield the 
President from the law but to help restore integrity and independence 
to the Federal Government and to provide a check on the Executive 
branch, as outlined in the Constitution. And the idea that any Member 
of this Senate would support an Attorney General nominee who has openly 
and unequivocally advocated for less accountability when it comes to 
President Trump--that is just wrong, and the American people will not 
stand for it.
  So to any of my colleagues who plan to support this nomination, I 
have a message: Seize this opportunity while you can to make it very 
clear to Mr. Barr and the Trump administration that you believe the 
American people deserve to know for sure that the findings on Russia's 
2016 election meddling will be made public in order to get them the 
answers they deserve and that any attempt to cover up or hinder or 
otherwise muddy the waters around the Mueller investigation would be a 
serious disservice to the people we represent and will only lead to the 
further erosion of trust in our institution and our ability to work on 
their behalf.
  The President is not above the law--not in the White House, not in 
New York, not anywhere. So Mr. Barr may be the Attorney General this 
President wants--someone to shield him from serious questions about 
abuse of power, someone who believes the President should be able to do 
more or less whatever he or she wants--but Mr. Barr is certainly not, 
in my opinion, the Attorney General this country needs, which is 
someone who will stand up for the rights of everyone else.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.