[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 72 (Thursday, May 2, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2594-S2595]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                              Barr Hearing

  Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, yesterday, we had what I believe will be 
viewed as a historic hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee. It is a 
committee I have been on for now about 4\1/2\ years.
  The Attorney General, Mr. Barr, came before the committee to answer 
questions about the special counsel investigation--an investigation 
that took 675 days, cost more than $25 million, had 34 people indicted, 
including Russian nationals, more than 2,800 subpoenas, 500 witnesses, 
500 search warrants, more than 230 orders for communication records, 
and 13 evidence requests to foreign countries. I think by those 
measures, that is considered a pretty extensive investigation.
  Back about 2 years ago, in August of 2017, Senator Graham and I and a 
couple of other Members actually filed a bill to make it difficult to 
have a special counsel removed before an investigation had been 
completed. I actually took a fair amount of heat from people on my side 
of the aisle for doing that, but I believed we needed to have this 
investigation run its course, and it did. It culminated in a more than 
400-page report that now is largely available to the public. In fact, 
of the 400--I think it is almost 440 pages--90 percent of volume I, 
which is the volume that talks about Russia tampering with U.S. 
elections, 90 percent of that is available to the American public. 
Volume II--the volume focused on whether there was obstruction of 
justice--98 percent of that was made available to the American people 3 
weeks after the Department of Justice received the unredacted report.
  Now, for the leaders of the Senate, 99.9 percent of the special 
counsel's report is available. You could say: Why not 100 percent? 
Because we have rules here--and I think it is also important to point 
out that the Attorney General

[[Page S2595]]

had no legal obligation to release any of this. This could have been 
deemed a confidential matter, and it could never have been available to 
the general public. The Attorney General took the extraordinary step of 
making sure that as much as possible could be made available, and he 
did a great job.
  I might add that throughout the entire process, the White House had 
the opportunity to assert Executive privilege. They could actually have 
portions of the report blocked out or have it redacted, which falls 
short of that. The White House never reached out and requested any 
omissions or, actually, redactions of the report, which means you can't 
read it publicly--not one in the nearly 3\1/2\ weeks it took for the 
Attorney General to get the report ready for public consumption.
  Some people are wondering, why did it take so long? Because the 
process of redaction has to take into account basically three different 
considerations. You have to determine whether there is a matter there 
that could be embarrassing to a party who had no involvement; they were 
just a witness in the investigation. It could be because there are 
ongoing investigations, or it could be because it is a threat to 
homeland security. But even with that, 90 percent of it is available to 
the general public, on Russian tampering--98 percent.
  The reason I tell you that is at the hearing yesterday, if you sit on 
the Judiciary Committee--I am not a lawyer. I am a businessperson who 
has been on the Judiciary Committee for 4\1/2\ years. So I don't 
necessarily go at this debate the same way that maybe an attorney 
would. We had a lot of the people in the committee really trying to 
mislead the American people. They were saying that there was wrongdoing 
because the Department of Justice had to take about 3\1/2\ weeks to get 
the report ready for prime time. We are saying that the report is 
available. It took about 3 or 4 weeks to actually make it available. 
But they are almost suggesting that was a criminal or obstructionist 
act.
  Some, instead of going down that tack, said that a letter--I have to 
explain the timeline.
  On March 24, the Attorney General issued a letter saying that the 
bottom line of the report they were reviewing was that there was no 
crime committed by the President and that there was insufficient 
evidence to even suggest there was obstruction.
  Now, you have to understand these two working in play. The crime that 
many of my colleagues and friends on the other side of the aisle said 
the President committed never happened. After 675 days and all the 
interviews and all the warrants and everything that I have said, there 
was no underlying crime.
  The second half of the report is about obstruction. This would be 
obstruction in an investigation that concluded there was no underlying 
crime. The President was deemed not to have committed a crime. The 
President was deemed not to have committed obstruction of justice.
  So now we turn to a request to have Robert Mueller come before the 
Judiciary Committee so they can ask him questions. What questions could 
he possibly answer that are not embodied in a report that took 675 
days, $25 million, hundreds of witnesses, and dozens of full-time 
professionals? What more could Robert Mueller possibly say in a 3- or 
4-hour hearing that is not embodied in this report and within the full 
view of the American public? I don't think it is about that.
  Actually, one of the arguments that were used in the committee was, 
we need his advice on how to prevent Russia from tampering in our 
elections. Really? I don't need an attorney's advice on how to prevent 
Russia from tampering in our elections. Prosecutors determine whether 
laws are broken. Robert Mueller is not a professional in cyber security 
and elections safety; he is actually a prosecutor who finished his job.
  Some of the other ones said: Well, the reason we want to get his 
input is because the President is not interested in securing elections. 
Well, I would ask them to go back to the classified briefings that I 
have sat in and they have sat in where the administration is clearly 
taking aggressive actions to make sure that Russia can't penetrate our 
State election systems and that they can't meddle in the way they 
attempted to in 2016.
  So what this really boils down to is theater--some of it almost to 
the level of comedy. Let me give an example.
  There was a House hearing today, and I am about to put up a picture 
that actually was on C-SPAN that actually occurred in a House hearing. 
You tell me whether the chair of that committee is actually serious 
about this subject when you have a guy eating fried chicken in place of 
where they wanted Attorney General Barr to be. This guy didn't even 
have good enough sense to have Bojangles' chicken. And they have the 
chair and others letting him have that kind of theater in a House 
committee room.
  Really? I mean, can you honestly say you are serious about this, or 
is this like a circus and a political tool because you lost? You wanted 
the President to be guilty. You wanted to prove he obstructed. I get 
that. A lot of it was a political exercise. But the bottom line is, 
after 675 days, almost $30 million when it is all totaled up, 34 people 
indicted, including Russians, 2,800 subpoenas, 500 witnesses 
interviewed, 500 search warrants executed, 230 orders for communication 
records, and 13 requests to foreign countries to provide information--
really? These folks--some of them are prosecutors--know better.
  I will tell you that I think the American people want my colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle to focus on what Americans are really 
worried about. They are worried about their economic security. They are 
worried about their healthcare security. They are worried about keeping 
a job. They are worried about sending their kids to college and putting 
them through school. If you want to win an election next year, stop 
playing games and stop the theater.
  The President is not guilty of a crime. The President is not guilty 
of obstruction of justice. It went through one of the most rigorous 
investigations in modern history.
  To my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, prove what policies 
and priorities you have for the American people, and win on the basis 
of your ideas on your commitments. Stop the theater, and get back to 
work.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.