Executive Session
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, we have a clear and obvious way to avoid another government shutdown in 48 hours. The conference committee has done its job. It has forged a bipartisan agreement that would keep the government open through September as well as provide additional border security.
As with all bipartisan agreements, it is the product of compromise. Each side gave a little; each side got a little. The conferees deserve our praise for their hard work, their commitment, and their success.
This agreement is the last train leaving the station away from another dreaded government shutdown. The last time we were all in this situation, the President signaled his support for a government funding bill, only for him to retreat at the last possible moment-- precipitating the longest shutdown in our history. It was the Trump shutdown, and he now seems to admit that again.
No one wants to see a rerun of that movie. The President must not repeat his mistakes of the recent past.
President Trump, sign this bill.
Neither side got everything it wanted in this bill, but both sides wanted to avoid another shutdown--Democrats and Republicans, House and Senate.
President Trump, sign this bill.
The parameters of the deal are good. It provides additional funding for smart, effective border security. Let me repeat that. It does not fund the President's wall, but it does fund smart border security that both parties support. It also provides humanitarian assistance and beefs up security at our ports of entry. Though it hasn't been discussed much during the negotiations, the passage of this agreement clears the way for the six bipartisan appropriations bills that have languished. These bills contain important priorities, including more support for infrastructure, housing, Tribal healthcare, the census, and money to combat the opioid crisis. I look forward to passing all of these appropriations bills, alongside the DHS agreement, this week.
One of the last things that has to be dealt with is the negotiating of a good compromise to fix some of the problems that have been created by the Trump shutdown. We are trying to get the conferees to approve a proposal to deal with Federal contractors. Thousands of Federal contractors have not been reimbursed from the 35-day shutdown. This issue is still hanging in the balance. The Republicans should join the junior Senator from Minnesota and the Democrats in approving this legislation as soon as possible.
The contractors, many of them just working people, are in the same boat as government employees, except they haven't gotten their backpay. They should. No one should stand in the way of that. It is just not fair to them. They were hostages, just like the government workers were hostages. So I hope we can include that in these final hours of negotiations. It is very important.
Now, the only remaining obstacle to avoiding a government shutdown is the uncertainty of the President's signature. So I repeat my request: President Trump, say you will sign this bill. Remove the ax hanging over everyone's head. To make progress in our democracy, you have to accept the give-and-take. You have to accept some concessions. You have to be willing to compromise.
Any American President who says my way or no way does a real disservice to the American people. President Trump, in politics, to quote the Rolling Stones, ``You can't always get what you want.'' It is time to put the months of shutdown politics behind us. Nomination of Michael Park
Mr. President, on another matter, today the Judiciary Committee is holding a confirmation hearing on the nomination of Mr. Michael Park for the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers my home State of New York.
I have always assessed judges on three criteria: excellence, moderation, diversity. While Michael Park satisfies the first and third prongs of my test, he fails miserably on the second--modification.
Mr. Park has spent much of his career working in opposition to civil rights and seeking to advance the rightwing agenda that lies at the very core of the Federalist Society's mission. Mr. Park is currently working to defend the Trump administration's effort to insert a citizenship question into the 2020 census--a cynical effort to discourage people from responding to the census.
He has been on the frontlines of the effort to dismantle affirmative action policies in education. In 2012, he submitted an amicus brief to the Supreme Court, writing on behalf of the petitioner who sought to have the university's use of race, as one consideration among many, in the admissions process struck down as unconstitutional.
He is currently representing the plaintiffs in a suit challenging Harvard's affirmative action policy. He has worked to deny women's reproductive freedoms when he represented the State of Kansas against a challenge to its attempt to defund Planned Parenthood and ban it from participating in the State Medicaid Program.
In 2012, he submitted a brief to the Supreme Court in NFIB v. Sebelius urging the Court to strike down the entire Affordable Care Act. This nominee rather wants to get rid of the whole ACA.
If the American people knew the kind of nominees President Trump is nominating and the kind of nominees the Republican majority is supporting, so against everything they believe in--America believes in Roe v. Wade, America believes in keeping the ACA, America believes in voting rights--if they knew all these details, they would be appalled, and our Republican colleagues rarely bring these things to the floor legislatively. They know they would be roundly defeated, but it is sort of an end run--pick judges who in the courts will uphold these unpopular positions.
Mr. Park has a long and detailed record of support for the most conservative legal causes. A judge is asked to interpret the law rather than make the law, to apply fairly the legal principles set forth by precedent, not reread the Constitution to fit the political cause of the moment.
Mr. Park's career does not give me the confidence that he can be an impartial arbiter on the Second Circuit. I will oppose his nomination, and I will urge my colleagues to do the same.
Now, in the not-so-distant past, my objection to this nomination would mean that the chairman of the Judiciary Committee would not move forward with the nomination out of respect for home State Senators in the blue-slip tradition--but not in this Congress, not with this Republican majority.
Since the election of President Trump, Senate Republicans, led by Leader McConnell, Chairman Grassley, and now Chairman Graham, have unceremoniously discarded the blue-slip tradition. My colleagues on the other side will say it is because we haven't worked with them in a timely manner to fill these vacancies, but let's not kid ourselves. This is about one thing and one thing alone--the desire of the Republican majority to ram through more of the Federalist Society's handpicked, hard-right judges.
Last Congress, the majority confirmed two judges over the blue-slip objections of Democratic Senators Baldwin and Casey. A third, Ryan Bounds, would have been confirmed over the objections of Senators Wyden and Merkley if not for Senator Scott's principled objection to Bounds' past racist writings.
The practice continues, unfortunately, in this Congress. Last week, the Judiciary Committee voted along party lines to advance an additional four circuit court nominees over the blue-slip objections of five Democratic Senators--Brown, Murray, Cantwell, Booker, Menendez-- and in the coming weeks, the committee will move forward with two additional court nominees over the objections of Ranking Member Feinstein and Senator Hatch.
Last Congress, we worked with the White House to move eight New York judges--one circuit, seven district--through the Judiciary Committee in a bipartisan way. That is how it should work. I would like to cooperate on New York judges this Congress, but the continued consideration of Michael Park, combined with the majority's clear intentions to ignore the blue-slip tradition, makes this very difficult, if not impossible. I know the leader is proud of what he is doing on judges. I don't think history will look very kindly on it; A, putting such hard-right judges, so against what the American people believe, in office. History will not look kindly on that as their decisions come down; but second, eliminating the last vestiges of bipartisanship as we select judges. Nomination of William Barr
Mr. President, finally, the Senate will soon resume debate on the nomination of William Barr to be the Attorney General. I oppose this for many reasons, and later today I will join my Democratic colleagues during debate time to lay out my opposition to this nominee.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, let me thank the chair of the Energy Committee, the senior Senator from Alaska, for the wonderful work she always does around here. She has the respect of Members on both sides of the aisle. She tries to do the right thing and ends up there so often. This lands bill wouldn't have happened without a lot of the people she mentioned, but at the top of the list would certainly, certainly, be the senior Senator from Alaska.
Once again, I tip my hat to the junior Senator from Washington State, who worked so long and hard on this. The two of them were a great team, and Joe Manchin filled in when he became ranking member. We are all very glad that this wonderful lands bill, with so many good things in it, will, barring any unforeseen mishap, become law very soon. 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 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source