[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 28 (Wednesday, February 13, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1304-S1311]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                       Nomination of William Barr

  Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to address the nomination of Mr. 
William Barr to be the next Attorney General of the United States.
  We take all these nominations very seriously. Each member of the 
President's Cabinet holds immense influence within our government, with 
the power to affect the lives of millions. At this moment in time, the 
Attorney General might be the very most critical of all of the Cabinet 
officials in our government.
  Not only will the Attorney General assume the traditional 
responsibilities of the office, but the next Attorney General would 
also oversee one of the most sensitive investigations in our Nation's 
history--the special counsel's investigation into Russian influence in 
the 2016 elections. Just to say those words, ``Russian influence in the 
2016 elections,'' makes your hair stand on end a little bit.
  Under normal circumstances, the position of Attorney General demands 
an individual of unimpeachable integrity, impartiality, and 
independence. Under these circumstances, that bar is more important and 
probably higher than ever. Why? Because as we have all seen, President 
Trump has demonstrated utter contempt for the rule of law. He has 
expressed a view of the Department of Justice that is completely 
counter to the history of this grand Department as an independent 
Agency of the law. Rather, he views the Justice Department as an Agency 
that should protect him personally and one he can compel to protect his 
friends and prosecute his enemies. That sounds like a third-world 
country, not the United States of America.
  In the process of attempting to discredit the special counsel's 
investigation, the President has run roughshod over the norms of the 
executive branch's relationship with the Justice Department. President 
Trump has demeaned the public servants of the Justice Department. He 
has questioned its

[[Page S1305]]

motives, up to and including the upgrading and belittling of the former 
Attorney General on Twitter--an Attorney General that he himself 
appointed.
  As the special counsel continues to investigate the connections 
between the most senior members of the Trump administration and the 
Kremlin, it is an extraordinarily important and extraordinarily 
dangerous moment for the Justice Department. That is the maelstrom into 
which the next Attorney General will step.
  Certainly, Mr. Barr is intelligent. Certainly, Mr. Barr has 
experience. In fact, he already did the job. Let me say that I have 
always respected his public service and believed him to be a good man, 
but what so many of us find lacking in Mr. Barr's nomination this time 
around is his fundamental lack of awareness about the moment we are in.
  Only a few months ago, it was uncovered that he authored an 
unsolicited memo to the Justice Department criticizing--criticizing--
the special counsel's investigation. He wasn't involved with the 
Justice Department in any capacity at the time. He was a private 
attorney. He could not have had access to any of the facts in the case. 
Yet he decided to write this memo, which, in addition to making 
unevidenced claims about the investigation, outlined an extremely 
broad--in my judgment--overreaching vision of Executive power. Writing 
that memo showed poor judgment and, worse, it showed bias at a time 
when the country could not afford either in its Attorney General.
  I felt the memo alone was disqualifying at a time when we have a 
President who scorns the rule of law, but I believed Mr. Barr deserved 
the chance to change my mind so I met with him privately a few weeks 
ago. Our conversation focused on three questions.
  First, I asked him very directly if he would recuse himself if the 
ethics officials at the Justice Department said he should. He would not 
commit to doing this. Instead, he said he would make his own decision.
  Second, I asked him if he would release the special counsel's full 
report on Russian influence in the 2016 election, with, of course, 
appropriate redactions that the intelligence services would require. 
His response was to say: ``I'm for transparency.'' That is not good 
enough.
  He is a good lawyer. Everyone knows when you can make an ironclad 
commitment or when you have words that seem good but don't make such a 
commitment. To say you are for transparency doesn't say very much. I 
asked for an unequivocal and public commitment to release the report. 
He would not give that assurance.
  Finally, I asked Mr. Barr to commit that he would not interfere in 
any way with the special counsel's investigation, whether by denying 
subpoenas, limiting the scope of the investigation, or restricting 
funding. He referred to the special counsel regulations and said he 
wanted to see Mueller finish his investigation. Again, that is not good 
enough--not with any President and certainly not with this one.
  With this President, we need an Attorney General who can assure the 
Senate and the American public that he will stand up to a President who 
is dead set on protecting his political interests above all norms and 
rules of conduct. The President wants a Roy Cohn to be his Attorney 
General, but this moment calls for another Elliot Richardson.
  The next Attorney General must be a public servant in the truest 
sense, with the integrity, the force of will, and the independence to 
navigate the Justice Department--and maybe our democracy--through 
treacherous waters.
  Mr. Barr's attitude of ``leave it to me'' is not good enough--not for 
any nominee and certainly not for a nominee President Trump has chosen.
  The authorship of the memo, followed by the inability to commit to 
release the report or let the investigation continue unimpeded--those 
are three strikes. Mr. Barr should be out. He does not recognize or 
appreciate the moment we are in. Again, his ``leave it to me'' attitude 
does not measure where we are with a President like this.
  Now, I hope I am wrong. I hope Mr. Barr, who we know is likely to be 
confirmed--our Republican colleagues show none of the independence that 
is required--will rise to the occasion, but I remain unconvinced that 
Barr is prepared to meet this moment. So I will be voting, with strong 
conviction, no on this amendment. I hope Mr. Barr disproves my view, 
but his words make me very much worried that this will not happen.
  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. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cotton). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the nomination of 
William Barr to be the next Attorney General of the United States of 
America.
  Last Thursday, I voted against his nomination in the Senate Judiciary 
Committee, as did nine of my fellow Committee Members. I voted against 
his nomination because of some very serious concerns I have with his 
record on everything from criminal justice to environmental justice, to 
defending the economic rights of Americans, the rights of immigrants, 
LGBTQ rights, and women's rights.
  I want to go through those concerns here on the floor today, but I 
also want to be clear that Mr. Barr has been nominated at a time of 
extraordinary challenge when it comes to defending rights in this 
country. This is a crisis.
  We are in a moment in history when, after years of attacks on civil 
rights by this President and Attorney General Jeff Sessions, some of 
our most fundamental democratic principles--the rule of law, separation 
of powers, equal protection under the law--are hanging in the balance. 
We now face a full-blown crisis when it comes to rolling back the 
rights of Americans.
  From community to community across the country, we see what it looks 
like when the Department of Justice fails to pursue justice for all 
Americans.
  It looks like hate crimes in this country are on the rise for the 
third year in a row but a Department of Justice that rolls back 
protections for LGBTQ Americans instead of strengthening them.
  It looks like more than one-third of all the LGBTQ youth in the 
country missing school because they feel unsafe but a DOJ that refuses 
to fight for them and protect them against State laws that target 
transgender students.
  It looks like unchecked voter suppression of Black Americans in 
Georgia, Native Americans in North Dakota, and the voter ID and voter 
purge laws across the country that tried to target and suppress 
minority voters but a Justice Department that has stood by and failed 
to take on one single voting rights case during the last 2 years.
  It looks like communities that are being poisoned by corporate 
polluters pushing their costs of doing business onto neighborhoods 
least able to defend themselves, making their land and air and water 
toxic but a DOJ that has made it easier for polluters to get settlement 
agreements while cutting its own enforcement capacity to hold those 
corporate polluters accountable.
  It looks like corporate malfeasance continuing to target the most 
vulnerable while DOJ enforcement of corporate penalties drops by 90 
percent during the first 2 years of the Trump administration.
  It looks like doubling down on the failed war on drugs, which is 
known to be not a war on drugs but a war on the American people--
disproportionately low-income Americans, disproportionately mentally 
ill Americans, disproportionately addicted Americans, and 
disproportionately Black and Brown people--which is exactly what Jeff 
Sessions did when he directed all Federal prosecutors to ``charge and 
pursue the most serious, readily provable offense'' and seek the 
highest penalties in nonviolent drug crimes.
  It looks like unarmed Black men being killed by officers in their own 
homes and backyards, Americans of color being disproportionately 
stopped and arrested without adequate systems of accountability, but 
having a DOJ that limits the use of consent decrees that can prevent 
systemic abuses of power by law enforcement and can actually help to 
make law enforcement better, more accountable, more effective, 
rebuilding and repairing the trust

[[Page S1306]]

between law enforcement and communities necessary to create safe and 
strong communities.
  Of course, it looks like children fleeing violence, being ripped from 
the arms of their parents, of their mothers at the southern border, 6-
year-olds being thrown into cages, and an untold number of children who 
still have not been reunited with their families because of the DOJ's 
so-called zero-tolerance policy.
  Right now we see a Justice Department whose leadership over the past 
2 years has failed countless communities, from low-income Americans who 
are being victimized by large corporations with bad actors to 
individual Americans who are trying to have their basic, fundamental 
rights protected.
  The Justice Department has failed the American people, and, most of 
all, it has failed to seek that ideal we all hold dear, which is equal 
justice under the law. That is why, at this moment in history, during 
this crisis of conscience, during this crisis of moral leadership, we 
need an Attorney General who grasps the urgency of the moment, who is 
aware of the impact of the Department of Justice on communities across 
this country, and who is willing and prepared to protect our most 
fundamental rights in every community for every American. That is the 
ideal of justice; that is the ideal of patriotism.
  What is patriotism but love of country? You cannot love your country 
unless you love your fellow country men and women. What does love look 
like in public? Justice, justice, justice.
  I appreciate that Mr. Barr took the time to sit down and meet with 
me. It was after the hearings; yet at my request, he finally agreed to 
come and meet with me. There was no staff in the room. It was an 
honorable gesture--a gesture of courtesy. We had a chance to have 
dialogue about his record, his experiences, his perspectives as well as 
mine. I appreciate that. It is a constructive first step.
  I appreciate his willingness to listen to me and talk about his 
record of mass incarceration. I even appreciate his willingness to 
accept the book I gave him--I hope he reads it--titled ``The New Jim 
Crow'' by Michelle Alexander.
  I continue to have concerns about Mr. Barr's ability and willingness 
to be the kind of Attorney General this country needs at this pivotal 
moment in American history. I am concerned because throughout his 
career, time and again, and during his confirmation process, Mr. Barr 
has demonstrated not only that he holds troubling views but also that 
he has an alarming lack of knowledge about the crises that make our 
justice system so broken right now, at a time when the United States 
continues to lead the globe, to lead the planet Earth and all of 
humanity in the sheer number of people we incarcerate.
  One out of every four people incarcerated on the planet Earth is 
right here in the United States, the land of the free. One out of every 
three incarcerated women on the planet Earth is right here in America, 
the land of the free. I say, again, that they are not the wealthy; they 
are not the privileged. As my friend Bryan Stevenson says: We have a 
nation that treats you better if you're rich and guilty than if you're 
poor and innocent.
  Since 1980, our prison population in this country alone has grown on 
the Federal level by 800 percent. You can tell a lot about a nation by 
whom they incarcerate. In Russia they incarcerate political prisoners. 
In Turkey they incarcerate members of the media. In this country we 
incarcerate the poor. We incarcerate Americans with mental illnesses, 
Americans with disabilities, Americans who are survivors of sexual 
assault, Americans who are struggling with addiction, people who have 
faced harm and need help, who often in the system get hurt and 
experience retribution and not restorative justice. We have a nation 
where we are locking people up for doing things that two of the last 
three Presidents admitted to doing.
  Mr. Barr has a record of actively pushing the policies that have led 
to mass incarceration, that have driven up our Nation's prison 
populations at a time when we need an Attorney General who is willing 
to follow the lead of this body, which passed criminal justice reform.
  When Mr. Barr served as Attorney General during the first Bush 
administration, he literally wrote the book on mass incarceration. He 
commissioned a report titled ``The Case for More Incarceration'' and 
wrote the forward endorsing it. He is an architect of the criminal 
justice system that is so disproportionate--out of proportionality--
that is ruthless, doing things that other countries, until this body 
acted, called torture, like juvenile solitary confinement.
  At his hearing, Mr. Barr said he recognized that some things have 
changed over the last quarter century, but he failed to explain how his 
views on criminal justice have actually evolved. He was describing more 
of what he was seeing this body and others do, but he didn't talk about 
his own evolution. He didn't say: Hey, that was my perspective then, 
and it has changed now.
  On the issue of implicit racial bias, I asked him if he acknowledged 
its well-documented existence in our criminal justice system. Implicit 
racial bias has been pointed out by both sides of the aisle in this 
body, by big city police chiefs and a former FBI Director. Time and 
again, it has been documented by university studies. It is actually in 
our Justice Department's policies to train people in implicit racial 
bias. This isn't something that is new. This is something we 
understand.
  When asked about it, Mr. Barr said:

       I have not studied the issue of implicit racial bias in our 
     criminal justice system. . . . Therefore, I have not become 
     sufficiently familiar with the issue to say whether such bias 
     exists.

  I find this incredibly alarming. There are widely documented 
instances of racial disparities throughout our criminal justice system 
from police stops to sentencing, to charges. Racial bias exists even in 
our school pipeline; with Black kids and White kids having committed 
the same infractions in school, African-American kids are more likely 
to be suspended for them.
  There is no difference, for example, between Blacks and Whites in the 
United States of America for using drugs--no differences for Blacks, 
Whites, Latinos. We have a drug problem in America, and it is equally 
seen, regardless of race. Whites are more likely than Blacks, in many 
studies, to deal drugs. Yet, despite this, we live in a country where 
Blacks are about three times more likely to be arrested for using drugs 
and almost four times more likely to be arrested for selling drugs.
  What does it do when you apply a justice system to certain 
communities and not to others? It has a multiplier effect of impact. It 
affects voting rights because States still eliminate the right to vote 
for nonviolent drug charges. It is called felony disenfranchisement. It 
affects economic opportunity because if you have one criminal 
conviction for doing the same things that past Presidents have admitted 
to doing and Members of this body have admitted to doing, then you 
can't get a job, you can't get business licenses. Doors are shut to 
you; opportunity is closed. When you have a justice system that 
disproportionately impacts certain Americans, those communities then 
face serious, serious consequences.
  As a Villanova study shows, overall, we would have about 20 percent 
less poverty in America if our incarceration rates were the same as 
those of our industrial peers. Poverty is more inflicted on those 
communities of color when they are more likely to be arrested, charged, 
and convicted because of the existence of implicit racial bias.
  But the nominee for the top law enforcement position in our country 
says he is not sure ``whether such bias exists.''
  This should be deeply troubling to all Americans because we believe 
in an ideal of equal justice under the law. This should be troubling to 
all Americans because we believe, as King said, ``Injustice anywhere is 
a threat to justice everywhere.''
  This should be deeply troubling to all Americans because there is a 
deep lack of faith that people have in our criminal justice system. 
They are losing faith that they will receive equal treatment.
  When the justice system does not operate in good faith, it is 
hampered in doing its most sacred duty.
  Right now there is a lack of belief that people will be treated 
fairly, a lack of belief that the system works

[[Page S1307]]

the way it is supposed to. Mr. Barr's response and his record show me 
that he will do nothing to address these legitimate concerns in 
communities all across this country. At a time when he could be a 
leader, a champion, a light of justice and hope for those who have lost 
hope, for those who have lost faith, for those who feel left out and 
left behind, he almost doubles down with a dangerous lack of knowledge 
about what we all know exists.
  If confirmed, Mr. Barr would also be charged with implementing what 
this body collectively has done to start to reform, for the first time 
in American history, mass incarceration and increased sentencing.
  For the first time since 1994's crime bill, we in this body, with 
wisdom and in a bipartisan way, have started to go back to more 
proportionate sentencing. Through the FIRST STEP Act, this body put 
more justice back into our justice system. It is the first step, but it 
is the first step in the right direction in decades in our country's 
history.
  I am proud of what we did together. The bipartisan criminal justice 
reform that this body just passed into law, by an overwhelming vote, is 
incredible, but it is critical that the FIRST STEP Act be fully and 
fairly implemented by the Justice Department. Mr. Barr has not 
demonstrated his commitment to the law or to fixing any part of the 
broken criminal justice system I have outlined.
  Then, of course, we have industries, from the private prison industry 
to phone companies charging exorbitant fees in prisons and jails, 
making a profit off of these injustices, making a profit off policies 
that penalize and criminalize low-income communities and communities of 
color and that target refugees of color.
  What is happening in our country's criminal justice system today is a 
human rights crisis. Think about a justice system right now that has 
people sitting in prison for months before they even get a trial 
because they can't afford bail or a lawyer. We have a human rights 
crisis in this country.
  We need an Attorney General who recognizes the problem and has a 
willingness to do something about it, not one who says they are not 
sure we even have a crisis. This is an extraordinarily challenging time 
in our history. This Nation was formed under ideals of justice and 
fairness and equality. It was formed at a time when we mutually pledged 
to each other--as it says in our Declaration of Independence--``our 
lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.'' This is a country where we 
are all in this together. This is a country where our values and ideals 
have to be real for all and not just a select few.
  After 2 years, we have seen the Justice Department's relentless 
attacks on basic fundamental rights by our President and Attorney 
General. We now need an Attorney General who will work to uphold the 
values that are most in danger. We need an Attorney General who will 
fight for equal justice for all, not just the privileged few. We need 
an Attorney General who knows the difference between ensuring justice 
is done and does not automatically seek the harshest penalty in every 
case, with a blind eye to circumstances, or facts, or extenuating 
circumstances.
  We need an Attorney General who will stand up for all of our 
children, LGBTQ rights, for voting rights, environmental justice, and a 
fairer justice system. We need an Attorney General who will refocus on 
the mission of the Department of Justice in seeking justice for every 
young person who is afraid to go to school because of prejudice and 
policies that discriminate. We need one who is seeking justice for 
every elderly man who lived through Jim Crow only to be blocked from 
exercising his voting rights because of racially targeted voter ID 
laws.
  We need an Attorney General who is seeking justice for Americans who 
have become entrapped in our broken criminal justice system, whether it 
is a kid from a community like the one I live in who is being targeted 
by our ineffective drug laws or kids who have been picked up on the 
southern border and thrown into a privately run detention center.
  We need an Attorney General who is seeking justice for communities 
whose soil, air, and water are being polluted by massive corporations 
and that feel no one will fight for them. We need an Attorney General 
who will live up to the purpose of the Justice Department. This is the 
call of our country. This is the leadership we need. This is the 
Attorney General we must insist on, one who will seek justice for 
everyone in every community from the gulf coast to the Great Lakes, 
from sea to shining sea.
  Mr. Barr has not demonstrated that he understands the fierce urgency 
of this moment in our history and the imperative for the Attorney 
General to be deeply disturbed by injustice and to urgently seek 
justice. For this main reason, I will be voting against his nomination, 
but if confirmed, I will perform my constitutional duty and provide 
oversight and accountability. I will continue to work to ensure that 
our Justice Department lives up to its demands.
  I hope this Attorney General, should he be confirmed, learns, sees 
the vulnerable, understands the challenges of the meek, and understands 
communities in crisis; that he gets to know people; that he reaches out 
and sits down with folks to learn and to develop a more courageous 
empathy, but I will not wait on that.
  I will fight every day to make sure our Justice Department seeks 
justice. If Mr. Barr tries to double down on the failures of a broken 
criminal justice system, tries to roll back basic rights, or fails to 
protect voting rights and civil rights, I will fight against his 
efforts at every step. I will fight for justice that doesn't just take 
the side of the powerful few but seeks justice for all Americans. That 
is our obligation--all of us. Whether you sit in this body or you sit 
in communities across this country, we have gotten to where we are 
because we all sought justice. Even if it didn't affect our families 
directly, we knew the call of our country must be about all of us 
understanding that injustice for one is an injustice for all.
  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. BLUMENTHAL. 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. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, in just a matter of hours, we are 
expected to vote on the nomination of William Barr to be Attorney 
General of the United States. This office is one of paramount 
importance to the people of this country, and as a former U.S. 
attorney, the chief Federal prosecutor in Connecticut, I have deep 
respect--indeed, reverence--for this office and the legal authority it 
commands and the moral powers it embodies.
  So the stakes of this nomination, especially at this point in our 
history, could not be higher.
  I believe William Barr should not be confirmed, and it has more to do 
with the role of the Attorney General of the United States than with 
his specific positions or policies on issues where we may disagree.
  I do disagree with William Barr on positions he has taken on civil 
rights, women's healthcare, reproductive rights, and the powers of the 
Presidency.
  At this moment in time, at this hour of our history, an imperial 
Presidency, such as envisioned by many of the doctrines that William 
Barr has espoused, in my view, would be an absolute catastrophe. Giving 
the President the power, in effect, to override statutes or refuse to 
enforce them or disregard Supreme Court precedent, especially with this 
President, would be a recipe for disaster.
  An imperial Presidency at any point in our history is unwise. At this 
moment in our history, it would be catastrophic. That view of a unitary 
Executive and all that comes with it is one of the reasons I would have 
reservations about this nominee, but for me, the transcendent issue--as 
it was with Jeff Sessions, our former colleague--is whether this 
nominee will be the people's lawyer or the President's lawyer. Will he 
put first the interests of the American people or of President Donald 
Trump? Will he have foremost in mind the public interests or the 
personal interests of the President who appointed him?
  Unfortunately, I am left with deep concerns, doubts, and questions 
that

[[Page S1308]]

are disqualifying. The best example is his position on the release and 
disclosure of the special counsel's report. There were doubts--and 
there continue to be--among some of my colleagues about whether he 
will, in fact, allow the special counsel to do his job. He said that he 
would resist firing the special counsel and that he would allow Robert 
Mueller to finish his investigation, but he was pretty careful to avoid 
specifically committing that he would permit subpoenas to be issued, 
indictments to be brought, resources to be provided, and other 
essential factors that go into the effectiveness of the special 
counsel.
  Even giving him the benefit of the doubt on those issues, there 
remains his refusal to commit that he will provide the evidence and 
findings of the special counsel directly to Congress and directly to 
the American people. For me, that refusal to commit is one of the 
factors that are disqualifying.
  The American people want transparency for the special counsel, as 
they do in their government generally. Just yesterday, the Washington 
Post released a poll indicating that 81 percent of Americans believe 
the Mueller report should be released. That number includes 79 percent 
of Republicans. The simple, stark fact is, the public has a right to 
know. The American people paid for the special counsel's report. They 
deserve to know everything that is in it, and they deserve not only the 
conclusion but also the findings of fact and his prosecutorial 
decisions and the underlying evidence that he considered in making 
those decisions. The clear specter arises that he will choose to bring 
no indictment against the President or other officials and that there 
will be no disclosure of the report, which would be tantamount to a 
coverup. What we may be watching is the Saturday Night Massacre in slow 
motion.
  The reason this issue is of such paramount importance to this 
nomination relates to the obligation that the Attorney General has to 
promote transparency. In his responses to me, he said he would follow 
all the rules and regulations without delving into all the words and 
technical issues relating to those rules and regulations. The simple 
fact is, they provide near complete discretion to the Attorney General.
  The American public has a right to see the Mueller report, not the 
Barr report. We have a right to see not what William Barr in his 
discretion permits us to know but, in fact, what the findings and 
evidence are--the Mueller report, not the Barr report. My fear is that 
despite his very vague references to wanting transparency, his refusal 
to commit to making that report public reveals his state of mind: that 
he will abridge, edit, conceal, redact parts of the report that may be 
embarrassing to the President. In effect, he will act as the 
President's lawyer, not as the people's lawyer.
  During a hearing, I asked William Barr point blank, if he were 
presented with evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the President 
committed a crime, would he approve an indictment. He declined to 
answer the question directly or clearly. He pointed to two Office of 
Legal Counsel opinions saying that a sitting President cannot be 
indicted. I asked what he thought, not what the OLC thought. Would he 
permit an indictment against a President if presented with 
incontrovertible evidence of criminal wrongdoing? And he said he saw no 
reason to change the policy embodied in those OLC memos. The assumption 
is wildly held that Robert Mueller will follow those OLC memos, and 
William Barr confirmed those assumptions.
  There is also Department of Justice policy that prosecutors do not 
speak publicly about people they are investigating but are not prepared 
to indict. I followed those policies as U.S. attorney. I know them 
well. In the normal case, they are fully applicable, but these two 
policies taken in combination lead to a truly frightening outcome: If 
the President cannot be indicted but has committed crimes, the American 
people may never know. That is, in effect, tantamount to a coverup. The 
American people may never know about that proof beyond a reasonable 
doubt. They may never see those findings in evidence. They may never 
have the benefit of the full report. Even though it may leak in dribs 
and drabs, in parts, they will never have the full and complete 
picture.
  That is why I believe so strongly in the legislation that Senator 
Grassley and I have offered to require transparency. It is called the 
Special Counsel Transparency Act. It would require that there be a 
report. If the special counsel is transferred or fired or if he resigns 
or at any point completes his investigation, there would be a report, 
and it would be required that that report be provided to the American 
people. It would be mandatory, not discretionary.

  I believe this issue is a transcendent one in this era--the public's 
right to know the truth about the 2016 election and the President's 
responsibility for any obstruction of justice or any collusion with the 
Russians. Again, it is about the public's right to know and about the 
Attorney General's responsibility for enabling the public's right to 
know. His answers were evasive and deeply troubling, and instead of 
providing straightforward and forthcoming answers, he was, in effect, 
evading and avoiding the question.
  In addition to the special counsel's investigation, there are at 
least two U.S. Attorney's Offices--the Southern District of New York 
and the Eastern District of Virginia--that have concurrent 
investigations into Trump campaign activities during this same period 
of time and beyond. In the Southern District of New York, the President 
has been essentially named as an unindicted coconspirator. He is 
individual No. 1, an unindicted coconspirator. That is a distinction he 
shares with only one other President--Richard Nixon.
  The unencumbered continuation of these investigations is of vital 
public interest. That is why I asked Mr. Barr whether he would impose 
any restrictions on these prosecutors. Again his answer was evasive and 
deeply troubling. Instead of issuing a simple no, he stated that the 
Attorney General has the responsibility and discretion to supervise 
U.S. attorneys, and he declined to say that he would defer to them. He 
declined in the hearing, and he did again in our private meeting. That 
answer gives me no confidence that, if confirmed, William Barr will 
avoid interfering in the investigations now underway in those two 
additional jurisdictions, where, in fact, they may pose an even more 
dire danger that his culpability will be revealed and perhaps 
prosecuted. It should not give the public any greater degree of 
confidence either.
  On other issues--the emoluments clause, for example. When I asked 
him, he said: I haven't even looked up the word ``emolument.'' That is 
a direct quote. There are a number of very high-profile cases against 
the President involving the emoluments clause of the U.S. Constitution 
because the President has been violating it. The chief anti-corruption 
provision in Federal law is the emoluments clause. Litigation is 
underway. Decisions have been rendered in the district courts in favor 
of the standing of 200 of us Members of Congress who have challenged 
the President's lawbreaking. I am proud that that case--Blumenthal v. 
Trump; Blumenthal and Nadler v. Trump--is proceeding. William Barr has 
a responsibility to know about that case and to say whether he would 
recuse himself from it since he was appointed by the defendant in that 
case, and if not, what justification there can be for continuing to 
make decisions about it.
  Again, William Barr is a distinguished attorney. He has a strong 
background and qualifications. He served in this position before. He 
has very impressive credentials. He and I differ on issues of policy, 
but the main question relates to disclosure and transparency, to 
fidelity and priority, to the American people's interests--putting them 
unquestionably above the President's. Because I have such deep 
reservations and concerns about his determination to do so, I will 
oppose him as Attorney General, and I urge my colleagues to do the 
same.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Blackburn). The Senator from West 
Virginia.
  Mr. MANCHIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to enter into a 
colloquy with the Senators from Ohio, West Virginia, Virginia, and 
Pennsylvania.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S1309]]

  



                                 S. 27

  Mr. MANCHIN. Madam President, once again, I stand here on behalf of 
our hard-working and patriotic coal miners. We have been here before, 
and we are going to stay here until we get the job done.
  Right now, retired coal miners' healthcare, pensions, and black lung 
benefits are on the chopping block again, and, once again, there are 
1,200 new coal miners and dependents who will lose their healthcare 
coverage due to coal company bankruptcies. This could happen later this 
month if the court, as expected, allows Westmoreland to shed their Coal 
Act liabilities.
  This has happened time after time because of the bankruptcy laws--the 
inadequate bankruptcy laws--to protect the hard-working men and women 
who do all the work.
  At the end of last year, Westmoreland indicated they would provide 8 
months of healthcare funding to the UMWA, but there was a condition. It 
was dependent upon the sale of certain mines for which they have 
received no qualified bids, according to documents filed in court.
  Our broken bankruptcy laws are about to let another coal company 
shirk their responsibilities and get out of paying for healthcare and 
pensions the coal miners have earned and deserved. They have worked for 
this. They have negotiated. They are not asking for a handout. They are 
asking to get what they paid for, what they negotiated for, and what 
they didn't take home to their families.
  We have to keep our promise that was signed into law in the Krug-
Lewis agreement. This goes back to 1946--1946. It is the only one of 
its kind. The agreement makes sure we protect our patriotic coal 
miners' healthcare and pensions.
  We have the chance today to pass my bill that was cosponsored with my 
colleagues, the American Miners Act, that will ensure that none of 
these coal miners or their beneficiaries would lose their healthcare, 
pensions, or black lung benefits.
  The American Miners Act uses the same funding mechanism that the 
Miners Protection Act did to protect retired miners' healthcare. It is 
the same funding mechanism Congress has used time and again to protect 
our miners' hard-earned healthcare after our bankruptcy courts have 
ripped them away. This is not going to be a drain on the Treasury. It 
does not cost the taxpayers money. We have pay-fors, and this will be 
taken care of, as we have taken care of our healthcare benefits.
  I am asking you to keep the promise just the way we did when we 
passed the Miners Protection Act and saved the healthcare for 22,600 
miners. We need to finish this job. Save the healthcare of these miners 
suffering from new bankruptcies, protect the pensions of 87,000 miners 
nationwide, and do it by passing the American Miners Act, which would 
also ensure the future of the Black Lung Trust Fund, a lifeline for the 
growing number of miners with black lung.
  I don't know if you all understand the background or if you have 
heard about what happened, but with the passage of the bills we are 
working on, it cuts the black lung fund from $1.10 down to 50 cents. 
You would think that if you were reducing it, we had found a cure, and 
there is less need for the money to save our coal miners and to heal 
them. That is contrary to what is happening. If anything, it is 
exacerbating, and it is growing quicker, faster, and younger people are 
getting this horrible disease more than ever before.
  What we are asking for--my colleagues on both sides of the aisle--is 
to join us here today to demonstrate our commitment to our promise. 
That is all it is.
  I am asking the President of the United States, President Trump, 
please join in, Mr. President. I know you know the miners. I know you 
have spoken eloquently about the miners and your support for the 
miners. This is one way to truly support the miners, to make sure they 
get what they worked for and what they have earned--what they worked 
for and what they have earned. We have it paid for. It does not add one 
penny to the Nation's debt. Everything is ready to go. Please call 
Senator McConnell and tell him to put this on the agenda. You put it on 
the agenda, Mr. President, and you have Senator McConnell put in the 
amendment--a Senator from Kentucky who has an awful lot of coal miners 
in his State also. I will assure you we will get it passed, and we will 
do the job we should have done a long time ago for the people and 
families who have given everything they have, who have patriotically 
committed themselves to the energy this country has needed, and who 
have defended this country every step of the way.
  With that, I yield to my friend from Ohio, Senator Brown.
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I say thank you to Senator Manchin. We 
are joined by Senator Capito, Senator Warren, and I know, in spirit, a 
number of others. I think Senator Casey will be here in a few minutes. 
I join them to remind this body--it is a constant reminder--that more 
than 86,000 miners--86,000 miners--are on the verge of facing massive 
cuts to the pensions and healthcare they earned.
  This body doesn't always remember what collective bargaining is all 
about. Collective bargaining is when union members sit down and give up 
wages today to have something for the future, to have healthcare and to 
have retirement in the future.
  Of those 86,000 miners, 1,200 miners and their families could lose 
their healthcare this month because of the Westmoreland and Mission 
Coal bankruptcies. The bankruptcy courts could allow these corporations 
to ``shed their liabilities,'' which is a fancy way of saying walk away 
from paying miners the pensions and the healthcare benefits they 
absolutely earned.
  Senator Manchin is working to fix this. I thank him for his efforts, 
and I thank others in this body. We know the mine workers aren't alone. 
The retirement security of hundreds of thousands of teamsters, 
ironworkers, carpenters, bakery workers, and so many other retirees is 
at risk.
  We know this affects, in my State alone, 250 businesses, mostly small 
construction and transportation companies, 60,000 workers in my State 
alone, and the health of communities. Mine worker communities are 
especially hurt by this because so many of them live in the same 
community--local stores and local businesses.
  As we know, Congress pretty much tried to ignore these workers and 
these retirees. Senator Manchin and I saw that day after day and week 
after week, but they fought back. We saw workers rally. They rallied in 
very hot weather on the Capitol lawn, and they rallied in very cold 
weather on the Capitol lawn. They rallied. They called. They wrote 
letters. We have seen those camo UMWA T-shirts around the Capitol. Many 
of them are veterans. They fought for their country. We owe it to them 
to fight for them.
  We made progress on the bipartisan Pensions Committee that Senator 
Manchin and I sat on. Thanks to Senator Portman, also from my State, 
and members of both parties who put in months of good work in good 
faith on this.
  I am committed to these miners and workers. We will not give up. That 
is why I brought Rita Lewis as my guest to the State of the Union 
Address down the hall last week. Rita Lewis is the widow of Butch 
Lewis, the teamster who died from a heart attack a couple of years ago, 
in large part, we think--she thinks, his family thinks brought on by 
the pressure of fighting for his union, his Teamsters 100--1 million 
members around the country.
  It is about the dignity of work. When work has dignity, we honor the 
retirement security people have earned.
  As I said, people in this town don't always understand the collective 
bargaining process. People give up money today to earn those pensions. 
If you love your country, you fight for people who make it work, people 
like these mineworkers.
  Mr. MANCHIN. Madam President, I want to mention one more thing and 
then I will turn it over to my colleague, my friend from West Virginia, 
Senator Capito.
  The reason this is so urgent, our miners' pensions are in dire need. 
It goes first. They come to insolvency by 2022. What happens is we are 
one bankruptcy away--one bankruptcy from one coal company--of this 
thing tumbling down in 2019. When it starts tumbling, then you have the 
Central States that will come right behind it, the PBGC becomes 
insolvent, and then we have serious problems. That is why we are

[[Page S1310]]

working with urgency for this to be adopted and fixed now.
  With that, I want to go ahead and turn it over to my friend and 
colleague, the Senator from West Virginia, Mrs. Capito.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Madam President, I am really pleased to be here to join 
in the colloquy with my fellow Senators, Mr. Manchin, Senator Brown 
from Ohio, and Senator Warner from Virginia.
  This is important. This is really important. I could say I look 
around the room, and it is important to us, but it is important even 
more granularly to some other folks who are right here watching what we 
are doing.
  Many of us have worked together previously in order to save retiree 
health benefits for 22,000 retired miners in 2017, following the 
bankruptcies of Patriot, Alpha, and Walter Resources. Today we are back 
together to advocate for another over 1,000 retirees and beneficiaries 
whose healthcare is impacted by the Westmoreland Coal bankruptcy, as 
Senator Manchin described.
  It is also critical that we redouble our efforts to find a solution 
to the 1974 UMWA Pension Fund. If we do nothing--if we do nothing, 
which I don't believe is an option--this pension fund, which provides 
83,000 current beneficiaries with their pensions, will be insolvent by 
2022. That is getting close, and insolvency can come even sooner, 
depending on market conditions.
  So combined with the 20,000 people who have a vested right to future 
benefits, more than 100,000 people are covered by this pension plan. As 
Senator Manchin said, these are hard-working people who were promised 
and who, in the course of their working lives, gave up something so 
they could have a better peace of mind later on. They worked hard day 
in and day out. They powered our communities and industries and helped 
our country achieve greatness, even in the toughest times, and they did 
that with the promise of healthcare and a pension that would allow them 
to live with dignity in retirement.
  We are not talking about lavish pensions. I think this is an 
important point. The average benefit paid by this fund is $560 per 
month. These retirees are not getting rich on their pension plans, and 
they are not taking lavish expenditures, but without this monthly 
benefit, many of them would be living on the edge of poverty, if they 
are not already.
  One miner from Logan, WV, who worked in the mines for 36 years wrote:

       Please keep fighting for our pension. I receive $303.34 
     monthly. We need this badly to help pay for food, medicine, 
     and other bills.

  Another retired miner from Richwood, WV, who worked in the mines for 
17 years, wrote that his monthly check of $192 ``is not a lot of money, 
but it means a lot,'' and on top of that, he earned it. It helps him 
make his ends meet.
  Another miner from Kistler, WV, who mined for over 35 years, 
expressed concern that he might not be able to pay his expenses or help 
his daughter in college without that monthly pension check.
  Failing to fix the pension fund would have a terrible impact on 
communities where many of these miners live. More than 25,000 pension 
fund beneficiaries live in the State of West Virginia, and they 
received $200 million in benefits last year. If they didn't spend that 
money in their community supporting businesses and other jobs in our 
coalfield communities--if you subtract those funds out of the 
community, you would have a significant economic blow.
  We have a solution that will prevent the insolvency of the pension 
fund and protect our retired miners, their families, and their 
communities. We should pass legislation that expands the use of the 
same transfer of payments used to support retiree healthcare to make 
the pension fund solvent. I have supported various forms of that kind 
of legislation over the years, but as we come closer to the time--
2022--when the pension fund will become insolvent, we must redouble our 
efforts. That is why I appreciate Senator Manchin's advocacy. I 
appreciate his sense of urgency, and I share that.
  At the same time, our West Virginia representatives, along with 
representatives from the States--David McKinley, Alex Mooney, and Carol 
Miller--are leading a bipartisan effort in the House to fix this 
problem as well.
  I will keep fighting alongside all of you and all of them and others 
I see until we enact a solution that keeps the promise of our hard-
working coal miners.
  Thank you.
  I yield back.
  Mr. MANCHIN. Madam President, at this time, I would like for the 
former Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia and the senior Senator 
from Virginia to please have the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. First of all, Madam President, I want to thank my 
colleague from West Virginia, Senator Capito, for her comments. I know 
shortly we are going to hear from the Senator from Pennsylvania. We 
heard from the Senator from Ohio.
  This is sometimes hard for me to say as a former Governor of Virginia 
to a former Governor of West Virginia, but I want particularly those 
who are following this issue to know that no one in this body has 
fought for miners harder, longer, more passionately, more consistently 
than Joe Manchin.
  It was only through his repeated efforts--and this man is like a dog 
with a bone in his mouth who will not let it go. At times he is stiff 
in the spine with folks on this side of the aisle when they wanted to 
say: Well, maybe no. We ought to move to something else. He has come 
back and back and back again.
  So I am honored to stand with him one more time. Let me again say 
that it is with some challenge that someone from the Commonwealth of 
Virginia has to say these many nice things about somebody from West 
Virginia, but the folks in the Gallery ought to know there has been no 
one who has been a better advocate for miners than the Senator from 
West Virginia.
  I don't think there is a Member of the Senate--I know at least on 
this side of the aisle--who has not heard at least a half dozen times 
about the promises Harry Truman made to the miners in 1946 and how it 
is our obligation to keep that word and to keep that promise.
  The Senator from West Virginia has indicated why this is timely. 
Again, it is because we have the challenges around the pension fund. We 
have other challenges, but we have a crisis right now.
  We talked about Westmoreland--the Westmoreland bankruptcy, 1,200 
miners, 500 of those live in Virginia. If we can't get a solution on 
this deal right now on the American Miners Act, then a lot of those 
miners and their families are going to go bankrupt because their day of 
reckoning is already upon us.
  I want to echo what the Senator from West Virginia said to urge the 
majority leader and, for that matter, the minority leader that there is 
a way--if we do the rational, sensible thing and not shut down the 
government on Friday, we ought to take advantage of making sure the 
American Miners Act is part of that provision. I can think of nothing 
better, as we go into the work period, than to try to give miners some 
certainty.
  Let me just mention one other item that the American Miners Act had, 
and that is the strengthening of the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund. 
This is also an issue that, if we don't get it resolved, the amount of 
contributions that go into that trust fund will drop in half.
  I don't think many folks realize--and I think this is particularly 
the case in West Virginia and Southwest Virginia--black lung is still a 
real, enormous medical challenge. As a matter of fact, we have now seen 
growth in large populations in my State, and I know in West Virginia, 
as well, of advanced black lung cases called complicated black lung, 
which has an even more devastating effect.
  If this trust fund is cut in half, based upon legislation that took 
place at the end of calendar year 2018, the ability of the trust fund 
to meet the needs of these miners and their families, who are still 
hard hit by a debilitating disease--we are not going to be able to give 
them, again, the high-quality care they deserve. It is way past time to 
fix this problem. Let's take that step.
  We have one of these large pieces of legislation, hopefully, that the 
President will not decide to veto, that we will get through. Wouldn't 
it be--I ask the Senator from West Virginia this

[[Page S1311]]

before I cede to the Senator from Pennsylvania, but sometimes, with 
these giant bills, strange things pop out at the end of the day, and 
you kind of wonder how they got in. Wouldn't it be great if, on this 
mini giant bill, one of the things that popped out might be the 
promised relief for our miners in terms of healthcare and their 
pensions? This is something I believe, we, as a country, owe to the 
miners--back, yes, to President Truman's promise in 1946.
  I stand with all of my colleagues on this issue. I particularly 
thank, again, my friend the Senator from West Virginia for his great 
leadership and his willingness to stand tall time and again. Let's see 
if we can get it done this time.
  With that, Madam President, I yield to the Senator from West 
Virginia.
  Mr. MANCHIN. Madam President, I thank, first of all, the Senator from 
Virginia for fighting for his coal miners in Southwest Virginia.
  They have been out there fighting in Westmoreland, and we have 1,200 
miners about ready to lose everything that we had to fight for to gain. 
They are going to lose their pensions. They are going to lose, also, 
the healthcare. We have to get them in the bill. We have to get our 
trust fund on the black lung restored.
  Mr. WARNER. Right, all we have to try to do with the trust fund is to 
get it back to the status quo.
  Mr. MANCHIN. I am going to make one more plea to the President. I 
will do that after my good friend and senior Senator from Pennsylvania 
speaks about his miners, whom he supports.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I thank the senior Senator from West 
Virginia for his time today, but, more importantly, as the Senator from 
Virginia, Mr. Warner, said, Senator Manchin has fought harder than 
anyone in this Chamber on behalf of men and women, whether they are 
coal miners or their families or their spouses.
  This is a very simple debate. It is not a debate about some far-off, 
complex issue. This is about a promise--a promise that was made to coal 
miners and their families in the 1940s.
  The only question--a real simple question--is that we are either 
going to keep the promise or not. It is as simple as that. Both 
parties, both Houses, and the administration--this is not complicated. 
We made substantial progress, but it took far too long, and there are 
some people in this Chamber who have been blocking it for far too long 
on healthcare. We got that done. That is the good news.
  The bad news is, the pension issue is still unresolved. There is 
still a lot of suffering, a lot of uncertainty, a lot of trauma because 
two branches of government haven't done enough for these families.
  I come from a State where large portions of our State were dependent 
upon the sweat and the blood of working men and women, especially coal 
miners. Stephen Crane, the great novelist, wrote an essay in the early 
1900s--actually late 1800s--about all of the dangers in a coal mine and 
all of the ways a miner could die. He described the mine as a place of 
``inscrutable darkness'' and ``a soundless place of tangible 
loneliness.'' That is how he described the work of the coal miner.
  I know we made progress in the intervening generation since then, but 
that work has always been difficult. It has always been dark and 
dangerous, but the people who did it kept their promise. They kept 
their promise to their employer to work every day and kept their 
promise to their family. Many of them kept their promise to their 
country when they served in World War II or Korea or Vietnam or any 
conflict after that, even up to the present day--but especially those 
who were serving in those years.
  The only question is whether this government and all of us here--and 
both parties are on the hook here--whether we are going to keep our 
promise along with this administration and any future administration. 
It is as simple as that.
  We have some work to do here to make sure that promise is fulfilled. 
These families, these miners have already kept their promise. They are 
done. This isn't something extra we are giving them.
  All we are doing is our part. We are obligated here, and I am 
grateful that the senior Senator from West Virginia and others have 
worked together to make sure that this issue is front and center, even 
as we are dealing with a range of other issues.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. MANCHIN. Madam President, I will wrap up now, and I want to, 
first of all, thank the Senator from Pennsylvania and the Senators from 
West Virginia and Ohio for speaking so eloquently for the people who 
have worked so hard for our country.
  This has been a bipartisan movement. This has been bipartisan. I 
thank all of my Republican colleagues for supporting the hard-working 
people they all had in their States. We all benefited from the energy 
they produced for our great country, to defend ourselves in two wars. 
We had the greatest economy--the only superpower in the world--because 
of what they have done every day and the sacrifices they have made for 
us.
  Mr. President, if you are watching, if you get a copy of this tape, I 
am pleading with you. I am pleading with you, Mr. President, on behalf 
of 87,000 retirees: Please help us. One phone call from you to Majority 
Leader McConnell to support and adopt the American Miners Act of 2019, 
which is S. 27--ask him to take this up immediately. We can put it on 
the bill that we are about ready to open to keep the government open or 
he can take immediate action. But, Mr. President, you can make a 
difference. These are people who supported you, and I know you support 
them, and this is the way you can show it.
  They are only asking for what they worked for. It does not cost the 
government one penny of debt--not one penny of debt for the taxpayers. 
We have pay-fors. It has been bipartisan. It came out of the Finance 
Committee in a bipartisan movement under the leadership of Senator 
Hatch. I am very grateful for that.
  You will see the miners going around; they make an effort every week, 
faithfully, to come here. There are real faces, real people, real 
families who are involved and affected by our inaction. We are asking 
for your help, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor, respectfully.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.