Congressional Record, Volume 165 Issue 29 (Thursday, February 14, 2019)

[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 29 (Thursday, February 14, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1350-S1353]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

Government Funding

Ms. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the government
funding agreement announced last night. I greatly appreciate the work
of Senator Shelby, Senator Leahy, and the Appropriations Committee in
their efforts to reach a bipartisan agreement. I appreciate the efforts
of Senator McConnell, Senator Schumer, and our House counterparts, as
well, to reach an agreement.
I am glad we will avert another government shutdown and also make
critical investments in several areas that are important to my home
State of Minnesota; however, there is an important piece of unfinished
business that wasn't included in the agreement, and that is to provide
backpay for the employees of Federal contractors who were forced out of
work for more than a month during the shutdown.
During the longest Federal shutdown in history, thousands of
Americans who serve as contractors to the Federal Government lost over
a month's pay through no fault of their own, and these are people who
work as security guards and clean office buildings, and they work
shoulder to shoulder with Federal employees for all of us.
Unfortunately, and this is important, while Federal employees have
received backpay--a bill this Chamber passed unanimously--their
contractor counterparts have been left out in the cold with no backpay.
I have introduced legislation, which has bipartisan support, which
would right this wrong, and it should have been included in the final
budget deal, but it appears that the White House blocked it.
I have talked with many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle
here in the Senate Chamber, and I have not found a single person who
says contractors don't deserve backpay. We all agree on this, and that
is why every Democrat in this Chamber has cosponsored my bill, and that
is why several of my Republican colleagues and many others in this room
have not only cosponsored but have also expressed support for finding a
solution to this challenge.
So why not provide backpay to contractors in the funding bill before
us today? Because it appears the White House apparently has said not to
do it. But I have talked to the White House just in the last week. I
didn't hear any fundamental reasons why our plan couldn't go forward
and why challenges couldn't be resolved.
While I don't claim to know the White House's motivation in opposing
this bill, I do know there are several misconceptions about this
legislation that I would like to address today.
First, some have claimed that the problem is just too complicated to
solve or that it would involve an untested process, but that is not
right.
My bill would allow Agencies to make what is called equitable
adjustment to contract prices to compensate contractors who provide
backpay to their furloughed employees. This equitable adjustment
process is used regularly by contracting officers and contractors. It
has already been used to address other shutdown-related claims,
including hundreds of claims for shutdown-related compensation this
year alone. This process has already been used to pay contractors, just
not for backpay. So my bill would build on the existing processes
already in place. These processes are established, and it is just not
that complicated.
Second, some have claimed that the administrative costs of the bill
would just be too large, and that is simply false.
It is true that Agencies would need to take administrative steps to
implement the bill, just as they do with the passage of any
legislation. But, again, my bill builds on an existing administrative
process that is used regularly and efficiently without large
administrative costs.
Let me be clear. If the White House or anyone has suggestions on ways
to improve this legislation to make it easier to implement, we are all
ears. We would be happy to accommodate any reasonable suggestion; we
just haven't seen any. We haven't received any specific suggestions.
Too often, contractors are invisible to the public, but they suffered
greatly during this recent shutdown. Representative Ayanna Pressley and
I recently authored an op-ed about this, and it included a story about
a woman named Tamela, whom we both met. We wrote in our op-ed:

Tamela was worried that she would fall behind on her
mortgage and car payments, ruining the good credit she'd
worked so long and so hard to build. And as she spoke, beads
of sweat rolled down her face. Was she nervous about speaking
in front of a crowd? No. As Tamela explained, she's diabetic
and has high blood pressure. Without her regular paycheck,
she hadn't been able to afford the co-pay for a doctor's
appointment to have her blood pressure tested and her
prescription renewed. So she was going without her medicine.

I recently received a letter from Annie, a Federal contractor in
Duluth. Annie wrote to me:

I am losing wages that I count on each month to make
significant payments towards my student loans and
contributions to my savings, (including my retirement
savings). I can honestly say I never thought I'd be applying
for unemployment, especially as a 31-year-old, but today I
did just that.

These employees deserve backpay. They had nothing to do with creating
this crisis, and we should all be able to come together in a bipartisan
way to make sure these Federal contract employees receive backpay. So I
stand here today to say I am going to continue working to get this bill
passed, and I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues on
both sides of the aisle to find a path forward.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, today we hope to vote on a bipartisan,
bicameral agreement that will fully fund the government and provide
additional measures to strengthen our border security.
I want to applaud all of the members of the conference committee who
worked on this agreement. I particularly want to recognize those Senate
Members, led by Chairman Shelby and Vice Chairman Leahy, for
negotiating a bipartisan compromise that will keep the government's
doors open. Neither side got everything they wanted--that is why it is
called a compromise--but in the end, fully funding the government and
keeping it open is what is best for the American people.
What we saw during the 35-day government shutdown was that it took a
terrible toll on our Federal workers, and it cost the U.S. economy $11
billion--including $3 billion that is gone forever, according to the
Congressional Budget Office.
Across the country, Federal workers have been very anxiously waiting
to see if we were going to come to an agreement, if they were going to
be

[[Page S1351]]

able to pay their mortgages, afford groceries, and get their
prescriptions. Well, today, hopefully we can put their minds at ease.
We can pass this legislation, and hopefully the President will sign it,
because failure to do so would once again deprive Americans of
important government services and throw our economy into a tailspin.
I urge all of our colleagues in Congress to take up this funding
legislation, to pass it, and the President to sign it as soon as it
reaches his desk.
Protecting our borders should not be an exercise in partisanship, and
I am glad to see that this bill supports commonsense investments that
focus on the technology, infrastructure, and personnel that are needed
at the southern and northern borders to provide actual security that
works.
The bill provides $1.375 billion for targeted fencing in vulnerable
areas along the southern border and more than $800 million for Border
Patrol agents, better surveillance and screening technologies, and
increased security at our ports of entry. When resourced and deployed
appropriately, these types of smart investments are far more likely to
interrupt the flow of narcotics than a costly and ineffective border
wall.
Importantly, the legislation also includes $77 million for opioid
equipment and staffing to interdict fentanyl and other synthetic
opioids that are shipped through international mail and express
consignment facilities. This is particularly important to States like
mine, New Hampshire, where we have the second highest overdose death
rate from opioids in the country. So many of those deaths are caused by
the synthetic fentanyl. The opioid epidemic is a true national
emergency, and Federal investments like these are needed to stop the
illegal flow of these drugs into the country.
When Congress takes up and passes this deal, it will not only pass
the appropriations bill for the Department of Homeland Security but
also six other appropriations bills that have unfortunately been
waylaid by our shutdown. This appropriations package supports critical
Federal investments across all government Agencies, and I want to
highlight just a few of those, starting with the programs funded in the
bipartisan Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies
appropriations bill for fiscal year 2019.
As ranking member of the CJS Subcommittee, I worked closely with my
colleague Senator Moran from Kansas, who chairs the subcommittee, and
we crafted what I believe is a truly bipartisan bill that will promote
the economy, protect the American people, and secure our Nation's
leadership in science and innovation.
For example, the fiscal year 2019 CJS bill provides $468 million in
dedicated Justice Department grant programs to tackle the opioid
epidemic. The legislation will provide funding to State and local
governments and those organizations working on the frontlines--
providing a balanced approach of law enforcement, treatment, and
recovery resources to help our communities that are dealing with opioid
and fentanyl deaths. This amount is $21 million higher than the fiscal
year 2018 level and $336 million higher than the President's budget
request. For communities desperately fighting opioid addiction, any
further delay in funding is dangerous and could be deadly, so it is
critical that we pass this bill today.
Importantly, the legislation also contains the highest funding level
ever for the Office on Violence Against Women--$497.5 million for
critical programs that provide training for police officers and
prosecutors, rape prevention programs, and funding for women's
shelters.
While I am glad that the appropriations package provides funding for
these Violence Against Women Act programs, more work needs to be done
to better support survivors of domestic and sexual violence. I look
forward to continuing to work with my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle to address the complex issue of domestic violence.
The appropriations package also supports investments in our national
infrastructure and provides more than $49 billion to the Federal
Highway Administration to modernize our highways and repair our
bridges.
This legislation would also provide a $1.3 billion increase for
housing programs like rental assistance and homeless support services.
For us in New Hampshire, that means that 9,500 low-income households
will continue to have a place they can call home.
I am pleased that the appropriations package includes a 1.9-percent
pay increase for Federal civilian employees. This is a cost-of-living
increase that is long overdue.
During the shutdown, I had a chance to meet with a number of our
Federal workers, and one of the things that impressed me the most was
the dedication those workers had to their jobs and to serving the
people of this country. They were going to work without getting paid
and without knowing when they were going to get paid. Yet they showed
up every day because of their commitment to the people of this country.
In addition to passing this appropriations package, Congress should
take further action to provide financial security to Federal employees
and contractors. We just heard our colleague Tina Smith talking about
the importance of providing the pay to those people who so far are not
slated to get backpay. I have cosponsored legislation to secure backpay
for the Federal contractor employees, including janitorial, food, and
security service workers who were furloughed or forced to accept
reduced work hours as a result of the shutdown. I hope we in Congress
will take up and pass the bills Senator Smith outlined as soon as
possible.
I know you know this, Mr. President, because we have talked about it,
but Americans are tired of partisanship. They expect their elected
officials to work together to come to a bipartisan compromise and to do
what is good for the country, and I couldn't agree more.
The Senate will soon consider an appropriations package to supply
Federal investments for programs that support national defense, small
businesses, conservation of public lands, food assistance for low-
income families, and so much more. This package also includes
compromised proposals to improve our border security.
I hope that we will pass this package this afternoon and that the
President will sign this legislation into law as soon as it passes the
House.
Federal workers are dedicated to serving the American people, and
they have families to care for. They should never again be used as
pawns. We should never again use shutting down the Federal Government
as an excuse over disagreements over policy issues. It is time for our
elected leaders to move away from the partisan politics and to live up
to the expectations of our constituents. Let's fund the government, and
let's do it today.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, William Barr is unquestionably qualified
to serve as Attorney General, a position to which he was confirmed
unanimously in 1991, in President George H.W. Bush's administration.
Mr. Barr's record of public service and long career in the law are
exemplary. I have carefully reviewed his record, listened to his
testimony before the Judiciary Committee, and questioned him for an
hour in my office. Given the significant issues before the Department
of Justice and the fact that it is currently led by an unconfirmed,
Acting Attorney General, I will vote to confirm Mr. Barr.
It is imperative that the Senate confirm an Attorney General who is
committed to allowing the Special Counsel to complete his investigation
unimpeded. Mr. Barr gave this commitment under oath to the Judiciary
Committee and again to me in our private meeting. He testified clearly
that he will not permit any interference in Special Counsel Mueller's
investigation into Russian attempts to influence the 2016 election. In
fact, Mr. Barr told the committee that he believes ``the overarching
public interest is to allow [Special Counsel Mueller] to finish.'' He
also said he would resign if he were ordered by the President to fire
the Special Counsel without good cause. Mr. Barr testified, ``The
country needs a credible resolution to these issues, and if confirmed,
I will not permit partisan politics, personal interests, or any other
improper consideration to interfere with this or any other
investigation. I will follow the Special Counsel regulations
scrupulously and in good faith, and on my watch, Bob [Mueller] will be
allowed to finish his work.''
Not only must the Special Counsel be allowed to finish his work, but
also his conclusions must be as open and transparent to the public as
possible. The

[[Page S1352]]

Special Counsel regulations, put in place during the Clinton
administration, have guided administrations from both parties for two
decades. Those regulations instruct the Special Counsel to submit a
confidential report to the Attorney General, and Mr. Barr testified
that he will be as transparent as possible about the report, consistent
with the law. He told me he will always err on the side of disclosure
and believes transparency is critical to the public's confidence in the
investigation. When asked whether he would allow the President or his
attorneys to edit any report, Mr. Barr told the committee, ``That will
not happen.''
Mr. Barr and I also discussed the memo he wrote in 2018 about
obstruction of justice and his views on executive power. I asked him
whether suborning perjury would be obstruction. He said yes. I asked
him what he would do if the President asked him to stop an otherwise
lawful investigation. He said he would resign. We discussed the
political checks that exist to limit Executive power, and he described
the Special Counsel as a ``super charged political check.''
Some have suggested, however, that Mr. Barr's memo means he believes
the President cannot obstruct justice at all. In a letter to Chairman
Graham, Mr. Barr responded: ``Quite the contrary, [the memo] expressed
my belief that a President, just like anyone else, can obstruct justice
if he or she engages in wrongful actions that impair the availability
of evidence. Nor did the memorandum claim, as some have incorrectly
suggested, that a President can never obstruct justice whenever he or
she is exercising a constitutional function. If a President, acting
with the requisite intent, engages in the kind of evidence impairment
the statute prohibits--regardless whether it involves the exercise of
his or her constitutional powers or not--then a President commits
obstruction of justice under the statute. It is as simple as that.''
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein has said publicly that Mr.
Barr's memo had no impact on the investigation. Mr. Rosenstein also
noted, ``Lots of people offer opinions to the Department of Justice,
but they don't influence our own decision making.''
Mr. Barr's views on executive power, while legitimate, differ from my
own and do concern me as a member of the legislative branch. His
opinions highlight the tension that sometimes emerges among the
branches of government and which is rooted in the separation of powers.
On any given matter, I would likely argue for a more limited approach
to Executive power. Regardless of his philosophy, Mr. Barr has noted
correctly that the President is not above the law.
Mr. Barr brings considerable experience to bear on important legal
policy matters at the DOJ. He testified that he supports efforts to
protect the civil rights of LGBT individuals and that he is against
discrimination against anyone on account of their gender identity or
sexual orientation. He further stated that he is willing to support
``red flag laws'' as a step toward preventing gun violence.
Mr. Barr offered his commitment to implementing the newly enacted
FIRST STEP Act, a bill I supported and that he described as one that
``recognizes the progress we have made over the past three decades in
fighting violent crime.'' Mr. Barr is also committed to combating scams
and fraudulent schemes that target seniors, which, as chairman of the
Senate Aging Committee, I have investigated and urged the Department to
prioritize.
Finally, Mr. Barr has served our country previously with distinction.
One hundred and twenty former officials and employees from various
administrations have praised Mr. Barr's ``character of unwavering
commitment to the rule of law without regard to favor or politics.''
His nomination is supported by many leaders from the law enforcement
community, including the Fraternal Order of Police and the Federal Law
Enforcement Officers Association. In his testimony before the Judiciary
Committee, Mr. Barr pledged to run the Department of Justice with
professionalism and integrity. He noted that the President did not seek
any promises from him and that he made none to the President.
Mr. Barr has pledged his allegiance to the rule of law, the
Constitution, and the American people. He has served our country
honorably in the past, and I believe he will do so once again.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to support William Barr's nomination
to be Attorney General of the United States. After meeting with Mr.
Barr, I am convinced he is a qualified candidate and is committed to
upholding our constitutional liberties.
Mr. Barr's record of achievement and civil service to our country
stretches back over 30 years. Early in his career, he served as an
intelligence analyst at the CIA and an assistant attorney general in
the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel. He was later
appointed Deputy Attorney General in the George H.W. Bush
administration before becoming our 77th United States Attorney General.
Mr. Barr's suitability for the role of attorney general has been tested
before; in fact, he has excelled in that capacity.
Concerns have been raised regarding Mr. Barr's position with respect
to the Second Amendment. Wyoming is a State of gunowners, and I am a
strong defender of our Second Amendment rights, so naturally I probed
these concerns. I had the opportunity to personally meet with Mr. Barr
and directly ask him about his stance on the Second Amendment. He gave
me direct answers and made it clear that he does not support limiting
our Second Amendment rights.
Ultimately, the Constitution solely grants Congress power of law-
making. I am prepared to work with my Senate colleagues to protect
against any efforts that would undermine our constitutional rights, and
I will continue to conduct congressional oversight on the executive
branch, a duty I take very seriously.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I rise to vote against William Barr's
nomination to serve as Attorney General. Although Mr. Barr has served
as Attorney General in the past, I do not believe he is the right
candidate to lead the Department of Justice at this time.
Americans are facing unprecedented times. The President fired former
FBI Director James Comey to circumvent and frustrate a Federal
investigation. Former Deputy Director of the FBI Andrew McCabe
confirmed today that he opened an investigation into the President
himself regarding his potential ties to Russia after Comey's firing.
Special Counsel Robert Mueller is investigating President Trump and his
campaign for collusion and Russian interference in the 2016
Presidential elections. Some of the President's close confidants have
been indicted, pled guilty and are cooperating with the Special
Counsel. Yesterday, a judge ruled that President Trump's former
campaign manager, Paul Manafort, lied to Federal investigators about
his interactions with Russians during the campaign.
During this tumultuous time, Americans need an Attorney General who
values transparency, who is independent, and who can stand up to a
President who has shown repeatedly that he believes that the Attorney
General of the United States is his personal attorney and not the
attorney of the American people. After closely following Barr's
nomination hearing and analyzing his record, I do not believe he will
stand up to the President and effectively lead the Department.
Before Barr was formally nominated to be Attorney General, he wrote
and distributed a 19-page memo where he characterized the Mueller
investigation as ``fatally misconceived'' with ``potentially disastrous
implications not just for the Presidency, but for the Executive branch
as a whole and for the Department in particular.'' Barr wrote this memo
well aware that his knowledge of the facts surrounding the Mueller
probe is severely limited to public reporting.
Nevertheless, Barr concluded that Trump's publicly reported
interactions with former FBI Director James Comey could not constitute
obstruction of justice and sent the memo to Deputy Attorney General Rod
Rosenstein, Assistant Attorney General Steve Engel, the Solicitor
General, White House Special Counsel, Jared Kushner's attorney, and
Donald Trump's personal attorneys. He made certain that everyone in
Trump's orbit knew his name and knew about this memo.
This behavior should alarm not only Senators but every American.
Former

[[Page S1353]]

FBI Director Comey testified under oath that President Trump said to
him, ``I need loyalty, I expect loyalty.'' President Trump publicly
railed against former Attorney General Sessions for following the
guidance of Department of Justice ethics officials and recusing himself
from anything pertaining to the Russia investigation. During his
confirmation hearing, Barr would not commit to following the advice of
career ethics officials at DOJ if they recommend that he recuse himself
from the Russia investigation to avoid any appearance of conflicts of
interest. Instead, he said that he would rely on his own judgment. Mr.
Barr is essentially asking Senators to trust him and his judgment. Why
should Senators trust his judgment when there are systems and processes
in place that were created for this exact circumstance? Mr. Barr cannot
call himself an institutionalist concerned with maintaining the rule of
law while seemingly being unwilling to submit to the rule of law when
it applies to him.
It is not surprising that the President would select as his next
Attorney General someone who not only refuses to recuse himself from
the investigation but also believes that elements of Mueller's probe
are ``fatally misconceived.''
Finally, during his confirmation hearing, Barr was repeatedly pressed
by Republicans and Democrats on whether or not he would agree to
release the final Mueller report in its entirety. Barr would not commit
to do so. I believe that the report should be made available not only
to Members of Congress but to all Americans so that they can see the
evidence for themselves and reach their own conclusions. If we want
Americans to trust their judicial system, we must insist on
transparency and honesty.
Beyond those issues, I am concerned about Mr. Barr's commitment to
civil rights. During his confirmation hearing, he seemed ignorant about
the disparate treatment between Whites and Blacks in our criminal
justice system. When he served as Attorney General under President
George W. Bush, he advocated for policies that have in turn led to mass
incarceration of nonviolent offenders. In 2015, he publicly opposed the
Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act, bipartisan legislation that
would have reduced Federal mandatory minimums, and required the Bureau
of Prisons to provide more rehabilitative programming to prisoners.
Last year, Congress passed the First Step Act with broad bipartisan
support. The First Step Act included similar provisions to the
Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act. The First Step Act will not be
successful without direction from the Attorney General. I intend to use
my position on the Appropriations Committee to hold Barr accountable
and to make sure he is proactively implementing this law.
Americans deserve to have an Attorney General who is loyal to the
office and not to the President. I do not believe Mr. Barr is that
Attorney General.
Mrs. SHAHEEN. 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. YOUNG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.