[Pages S873-S963]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     EXECUTIVE CALENDAR--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I rise this evening to continue the 
dialogue of the conversation about the candidate, the nominee for 
Attorney General. I rise to join my colleagues in opposition to the 
nomination.
  I witnessed earlier tonight something that greatly disappointed me. 
One of my colleagues, as was mentioned earlier, stood up to read into 
the Record a letter, as we just saw, that has been a part of the record 
of this body for decades--to read that letter into the Record. That was 
then stopped through the Chair because it was said to impugn another 
sitting Senator.
  As Chuck Schumer said, that is selective enforcement, but to me there 
is that going on and a lot more.
  I used to preside in the first months I was in the U.S. Senate and 
sat and listened to the speeches of many of my colleagues. I have to 
say, I am proud to be a Member of the body, where folks on both sides 
comport themselves with a level of comity that is admirable.
  I heard some people tonight decry the descending of this body into 
unfortunate places, but the reality is, my experience has been, on the 
whole, very positive. The respect and the collegiality here is 
something that makes this place incredibly valuable to work. Though the 
public might not see it, there are a lot of bills that get worked on 
together and even get to the floor, many of them get votes, many of 
them get passed. I am proud to have passed many of those bills with my 
colleagues, colleagues whom I don't just consider colleagues; frankly, 
I consider them friends.
  But within that context, I have to say I have watched when I sat in 
the Chair and had to listen many times when people said things that 
made me feel they were unfortunate. I watched the President of the 
United States talk about his character and his motives in ways that I 
thought were disparaging, but amidst all of this, in my 3 years, I have 
never seen someone stopped from speaking on the Senate floor when, as 
the Democratic leader said so clearly, there could have been many other 
times where that rule was used, and that is a frustration.
  But what makes it more of a frustration is the context in which it 
happened tonight. You see, Senator Warren stood up and was speaking 
with a passion about this nomination. And in the midst of her speaking 
her truth, in the midst of her speaking her heart, she was stopped as 
she read something into the Record that had been there for decades. To 
me that is problematic not just because it was a regular speech but 
because this had to do with her constitutional duty of providing advice 
and consent. She wasn't just quoting someone, something that she heard 
on the street, some hearsay. She was actually quoting Coretta Scott 
King, a civil rights hero, the wife of the slain Martin Luther King, 
who we, as Americans in our Nation--we don't have many of them--
literally recognize with a national holiday. So that makes it all the 
more disturbing to me that Senator Warren would stand up, exercising 
what is one of her specifically constitutional, mandated duties and was 
stopped because of a rule being enforced that in my opinion, as well as 
Leader Schumer's, is selectively enforced. But let's go further into 
the fact that the contents of that letter, much of it shared, are 
actually substantive and have bearing on the thoughts and feelings of 
many people in the Senate.
  I was raised by a family who made very clear to me something that I 
think Elie Wiesel said: The opposite of love is not hate, it is 
silence. It is a profound sin to witness injustice, to see something 
wrong, and to simply be a bystander, to not speak up.
  What I respect about many of my colleagues, even those with whom I 
disagree--and what I respect about Senator Warren--is that they embody 
a tradition that I was taught by my parents: to speak truth to power, 
to speak truth even if your legs are shaking, even if your voice 
quivers. Speak truth. Do not be a bystander. Do not sit in 
indifference. Stand up and speak your truth. Do not let your soul be 
silenced.
  We are here as a country because at a time of rife moral injustice, 
people didn't remain silent. This idea of speech in this country is so 
important that it is enshrined in the Constitution that we should have 
freedom of speech, and, yes, it is not always comfortable to hear.
  I sat where the Presiding Officer, the Senator from Alaska, is 
sitting, and

[[Page S874]]

there were many times I heard things that were uncomfortable, that I 
disagreed with, that I thought were wrong, but this body should respect 
the idea of free speech.
  Tonight, I am proud of Senator Warren. She stood and told her truth. 
To see this body act as it did tonight is disappointing to me, and it 
is not a violation of the ideals of comity. It is not.
  I heard great conversations from people I revere. Senator Hatch spoke 
tonight. He is a great man. I don't agree with him all the time. I 
think some of his ideas--I actually think sometimes they are dangerous 
ideas, but I respect him. He and Teddy Kennedy--two men who argued with 
each other, sometimes with voices raised in a lack of comity--had a 
love for each other.
  I was told by other senior Senators when I first arrived: Yeah, give 
it all you have got in debates. Argue and fight, but understand that in 
the end we are all people who love our country.
  Nobody is questioning Jeff Sessions' love of country. Nobody here is 
questioning his kindness and collegiality. I experienced that. I have 
spent 3 years in the Senate. He is far senior to me, and there is no 
time that we connected on the floor or in the Senate gym in which he 
didn't show me kindness and respect. Let's put that aside.
  He and I even stood together and passed a resolution here in this 
body to give the Medal of Freedom to marchers across the Edmund Pettus 
Bridge. One of those marchers was John Lewis.
  Does that mean that if John Lewis believes strongly that to have Jeff 
Sessions ascend to the most powerful law enforcement office in the 
land, he should remain silent? Does that mean he should be quiet about 
that? No. In fact, John Lewis testified in the hearings in the 
Judiciary Committee against Jeff Sessions. Why? Because that is our 
tradition.
  So I start my remarks tonight, aggrieved by what I saw happen to 
Elizabeth Warren. In fact, it stunned me. I didn't even believe it when 
I heard that a U.S. Senator would be silenced by another U.S. Senator 
from reading something that had been in the record for 30 years, as if 
somehow we are afraid to hear that truth on that paper or in her heart. 
God bless her for standing up and speaking up and refusing to be 
silent, and then, in the tradition of the King family, taking the 
consequences.
  I want to state that what she did respects a difference that is worth 
analyzing for a moment. We have colleagues here with whom we disagree. 
We are part of the U.S. Senate. There is a lot of respect back and 
forth. Again, the senior Senator from Utah is a giant in my eyes. The 
eulogy he gave at Senator Teddy Kennedy's funeral was one of my 
favorite U.S. Senate moments, even though it didn't happen on this 
floor. But it did show that two men could fight and disagree and could 
still have respect for each other; two men could raise their voices at 
times and have passionate arguments about what they believed in. This 
body was designed to bring people of diverse geographies--thank God, 
eventually diverse racial backgrounds, diverse gender--all together to 
represent our States and to have it out.
  No one Senator has supreme power. This is not the Executive branch. 
Both sides have to want things. We have to meet a 60-vote threshold on 
some occasions. That is the type of power we have here.
  When someone from here leaves this position and moves to the 
executive branch and is heading an agency, they have tremendous power. 
In fact, the Attorney General is one of the most powerful positions in 
America and actually even in some sense is independent of the 
Presidency. The idea of the Attorney General is that when the President 
is wrong, the Attorney General has a role and lets the President know 
that, taking the appropriate action.
  So while Jeff Sessions is a valued colleague as a Senator, there is a 
moral obligation that all of us have enshrined in the Constitution of 
the advice and consent power to tell our truth because here our power 
as individuals is made manifest by our ability to develop coalitions. 
But in the executive branch, especially in the Attorney General's 
position, that power is residing in the individual, that power is real, 
that power has dramatic effects on the lives of everyday Americans. So 
when that is happening, we cannot remain silent.
  I am so proud that Senator Elizabeth Warren actually did not just 
read a letter of Coretta Scott King; she honored that Martin Luther 
King tradition. King said: ``Our lives begin to end the day we begin to 
be silent about things that matter.'' King also wrote: ``There comes a 
time when silence is betrayal.''
  I can't betray my values or my ideals. This body is in many ways a 
testimony to the ideals of freedom of speech in America, a body that is 
exhibiting in many ways to this country why fervent debate is so 
important in the marketplace of ideas.
  To silence a voice, to silence a Senator--that is unconscionable 
under the pretext that somehow she was impugning the character of 
another Senator. That is unacceptable, especially in light of so many 
things that have been said on the Senate floor that weren't checked, 
weren't called out. But at a time when a Senator is standing strong for 
what she believes and speaking her truth, there is what is tantamount 
to a censure.
  I came to this body on a very auspicious day. It was Halloween. I was 
sworn in on Halloween, 2013. It was October, and my election was just 
days earlier. Six days before I had been elected to the U.S. Senate, my 
father died.
  I confess, on that day I was feeling a sense of pride, standing right 
over there with the Vice President. I was feeling pride, but I was also 
hollow in my heart. I was hurting because I knew my dad would have 
wanted to see me become a Senator. This guy who was born poor in a 
segregated community in the South, in the mountains of North Carolina, 
could never have imagined that one day his son would be sworn in as a 
U.S. Senator.
  My dad taught me lessons, as so many of our fathers did. I learned 
about hard work. I learned about sacrifice. Jane Baldwin said it best: 
Children are never good at listening to their elders, but they never 
fail to imitate them. I thank God to this day that I had models to 
emulate.

  But if there is anything my father taught me, it is: Son, you didn't 
get where you are on your own. That is interesting for me to hear from 
a guy who, by every other measure, was a self-made man. To watch my dad 
go at his craft, to watch him work and sacrifice on snow days in New 
Jersey, when I was a grade school kid, the first sound I would hear 
would be him shoveling the driveway because he was going to be the 
first person at work, no matter what. Often I would come home from 
school or go to my games and my dad wouldn't be there because he was 
going to make sure to be the last one to leave the office, setting the 
bar as a manager.
  But here was a self-made man, looking at me every step of the way, 
and letting me know: Son--sometimes it would be boy--you didn't get 
here on your own. I would walk around my house, staring in the 
refrigerator, and he would say: Boy, don't you dare walk around this 
house like you hit a triple. You were born on third base.
  Well, yes, I got it after years because my father said: Son, you are 
where you are because of this Nation, not just the values and ideals. I 
mean, come on, I want to tell the truth. This is a country that was 
formed with a level of genius that I can't take away from, a level of 
ascendant thought in the span of human history that is remarkable, and 
my father respected that, but he knew that what makes this country real 
was not just what our Founders did, it is what average Americans did to 
make real the promise of this democracy. Even when challenges occurred 
in this country, they didn't think they befell themselves, they somehow 
fought to make this country more real.
  As great as our Founders are and as great as our Constitution is, 
let's look at those documents and be honest with each other. Native 
Americans are referred to as savages in our Declaration of 
Independence. Women aren't referred to at all. African Americans were 
fractions of human beings. What was the spirit that took an imperfect 
document and founding ideals and made them more perfect? What was that 
spirit?
  (Mr. SCOTT assumed the Chair.)
  I want to read the words of Thurgood Marshall. He delivered them in 
May of 1987. I was a high school student. It was

[[Page S875]]

on the vacation of the bicentennial of the Constitution itself. This is 
what he said:

       The year 1987 marks the 200th anniversary of the 
     Constitution. A commission has been established to coordinate 
     the celebration.

  He goes on:

       Like many anniversary celebrations, the plan for 1987 takes 
     particular events and holds them up as the source of all the 
     very best that followed.

  He writes:

       Patriotic feelings will swell, prompting proud 
     proclamations of the wisdom, foresight and sense of justice 
     shared by the Framers and reflected in a written document now 
     yellowed with age. This is unfortunate--not the patriotism 
     itself but the tendency for the celebration to oversimplify, 
     and overlook the many other events that have been 
     instrumental to our achievements as a nation. The focus of 
     this celebration invites a complacent belief that the vision 
     of those who debated and compromised in Philadelphia yielded 
     the ``more perfect Union'' that is said we now enjoy.

  This is Thurgood Marshall:

       I cannot accept this invitation, for I do not believe that 
     the meaning of the Constitution was forever fixed at the 
     Philadelphia Convention. Nor do I find the wisdom, foresight, 
     and sense of justice exhibited by the Framers particularly 
     profound. To the contrary, the government they devised was 
     defective from the start, requiring several amendments, a 
     civil war, and momentous social transformation to attain the 
     system of constitutional government, and its respect for the 
     individual freedoms and human rights, we hold as fundamental 
     today. When a contemporary American cites ``The 
     Constitution,'' they invoke a concept that is vastly 
     different from what the Framers barely began to construct two 
     centuries ago.
       For a sense of the evolving nature of the Constitution we 
     need look no further than the first three words of the 
     document's preamble: ``We the People.'' When the Founding 
     Fathers used this phrase in 1787, they did not have in mind 
     the majority of America's citizens. ``We the People'' 
     included, in the words of the Framers, ``the whole Number of 
     free Persons.''
       On a matter so basic as the right to vote, for example, 
     Negro slaves were excluded, although they were counted for 
     representational purposes as three-fifths each. Women did not 
     gain the right to vote for over 130 years.

  Thurgood Marshall writes:

       These omissions were intentional. The record of the 
     Framers' debates on the slave question is especially clear: 
     The Southern States acceded to the demands of the New England 
     States for giving Congress broad power to regulate commerce, 
     in exchange for the right to continue the slave trade.
       The economic interests of the regions coalesced; New 
     Englanders engaged in the ``carrying trade''--and it 
     continues.

  Thurgood Marshall goes on:

       Even these ringing main phrases from the Declaration of 
     Independence are filled with irony, for every draft of what 
     became the Declaration assailed the King of England for 
     suppressing legislative attempts to end the slave trade.
       The final draft adopted in 1776 did not contain this 
     criticism. And so again at the Constitutional Convention, 
     eloquent objections to the institution of slavery went 
     unheeded.

  Thurgood Marshall goes on to so eloquently discuss the evolutions it 
took to come to where we are today. He writes that the men who gathered 
in Philadelphia in 1787 could not have envisioned the changes that have 
taken place that resulted in the world in which he was living here in 
1987.
  He writes:

       I could not have imagined, nor would they have accepted, 
     that the document they were drafting would one day be 
     construed by the Supreme Court, to which had been appointed a 
     woman and the descendant of an African slave--

  Thurgood Marshall himself--

     that ``We the People'' no longer enslave, but the credit does 
     not belong to the Framers, it belongs to those who refused to 
     acquiesce an outdated notion of liberty, justice, and 
     equality, and who strived to make them better.

  So when I swore my oath, days after my father died--after the man who 
taught me that the liberties and the freedoms and the privileges and 
the abundance that I enjoyed when I had the fortune of calling myself 
an American--that those liberties, those freedoms, the justice, the 
opportunity that I enjoy--yes, I may be a hard worker; yes, I may 
sacrifice; yes, I may struggle; but all of this was made possible 
because of the fights and the struggles and the courage of others. It 
was made possible by people who did not sit on the sidelines of 
history, who understood that democracy is not a spectator sport; that 
even though it is not comfortable or convenient or easy, sometimes, in 
the course of human events, for the cause of your country, you have to 
stand up and fight.
  So before I swore that oath, my mom--before I hit the Senate floor 
and became a Member of this august body, she took me across the Capitol 
to meet with another man because she wanted the last thing that I did 
to be a humble recognition of upon whose shoulders I stood. The last 
thing I did before I became a U.S. Senator was to meet with John Lewis.
  Congressman Lewis, if you know him, you are shaken by his goodness 
and his decency. You are shaken by his kindness. I don't want to 
elevate him. He is not a perfect man, but this is a hero to me and to 
so many Americans. He is someone who lives his values, doesn't just 
preach them. And when I sat to have a meal with him--he had put a 
spread together--he told me that when I was sworn in as the fourth 
popularly elected African American in the history of this body, it was 
a triumph for him, that it made him proud. Here I am standing before my 
mom's classmate, my parents' generation, and he is elevating me and 
telling me how important this day is to him.
  What is fascinating to me was he didn't just speak those words. I 
looked around his office and it was like a civil rights museum--people 
who marched for me and you and others; people who went on freedom rides 
for me and you and others; people who fought for voting rights for me 
and you and others. All the while I am sitting there, and he will not 
even let me get up. He is serving me food. That is his spirit.
  What is incredible to me is it gives incredible testimony to this 
truth that this Nation is great not because it was easy to get here, 
not because it was destined to be so but because Americans all along in 
our history did the challenging thing to try to move this democracy 
forward.
  So does John Lewis love Senator Sessions? Yes. John Lewis is an 
embodiment of love. He is a man who has forgiven his attackers, who 
literally has had people who beat him years later become people he 
embraces. And even though we love each other and respect each other, 
love is difficult and hard. It is a hard thing to do. Sometimes love 
requires telling the truth. Love requires not being silent. Love isn't 
politic, and sometimes love breaks traditions.
  I chose to testify against a Senator, and I took criticism for it--
probably deservedly so--but I did so because when I testified, what 
made it more evidently clear or highlighted my decision is that I was 
sitting next to John Lewis. He never asked if it was convenient or 
politic for him to freedom ride. He didn't ask if it was safe to march 
across the Edmund Pettus Bridge. He didn't ask if it might make people 
feel uncomfortable or be the subject of scorn. He was telling people to 
go out and register to vote. He decided to do it because it was the 
right thing to do.
  I want to read from his testimony. On that day, I was privileged to 
sit next to my hero in a judiciary hearing. This is what he wrote. This 
is what he spoke:

       Millions of Americans are encouraged by our country's 
     effort to create a more inclusive democracy the last 50 
     years, but what some of us call a beloved community, a 
     community at peace with itself. We are not a minority. A 
     clear majority of Americans said they want this to be a fair, 
     just, and open Nation. They are afraid that this country is 
     headed in the wrong direction. They are concerned that some 
     leaders reject decades of progress and want to return to the 
     dark past when the power of the law was used to deny the 
     freedoms protected by the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, 
     and the amendments. These are the voices I represent today.
       We can pretend that the law is blind. We can pretend that 
     it is even handed. But if we are honest with ourselves, we 
     know that we are called upon daily by the people we represent 
     to help them deal with unfairness in how the law is written 
     and enforced.
       Those who are committed to equal justice in our society 
     wonder whether Senator Sessions' call for law and order will 
     mean today what it meant in Alabama when I was coming up back 
     then. The rule of law was used to violate the human and civil 
     rights of the poor, the dispossessed, people of color. I was 
     born in rural Alabama, not very far from where Senator 
     Sessions was raised. There was no way to escape or deny the 
     choke hold of discrimination and racial hatred that 
     surrounded us. I saw the signs that said ``White Waiting, 
     Colored Waiting.'' I saw the signs that said, ``White Men, 
     Colored Men;'' ``White Women, Colored Women.'' I tasted the 
     bitter fruits, the bitter fruits of segregation and racial 
     discrimination. Segregation was the law of the land to order 
     our society

[[Page S876]]

     in the Deep South. Any Black person who did not cross the 
     street when a White person was walking down the same 
     sidewalk, who did not move to the back of the bus, who drank 
     from a White water fountain, who looked at a White person 
     directly in their eyes, could be arrested and taken to jail.

  The forces of law and order in Alabama were so strong that to take a 
stand against its injustice we had to be willing to sacrifice our lives 
for our cause. Often, the only way we could demonstrate that a law on 
the books violated a higher law was by challenging that law, by putting 
our bodies on the line and showing the world the unholy price we had to 
pay for dignity and respect. It took massive, well-organized, 
nonviolent dissent for the Voting Rights Act to become the law. It 
required criticism of this great Nation and its great laws to move 
toward a greater sense of equality in America. We had to sit in, we had 
to stand in, we had to march. And that is why more than 50 years ago a 
group of unarmed citizens, Black and White, gathered on March 7, 1965, 
in an orderly, peaceful nonviolent fashion to walk from Selma to 
Montgomery, AL, to dramatize to the Nation and to the world that we 
wanted to register to vote, wanted to become participants in a 
democratic process. We were beaten, tear-gassed, left bloodied, some of 
us unconscious, some of us had concussions, some of us almost died on 
that bridge.

       But the Congress responded. President Lyndon Johnson 
     responded, and the Congress passed a Voting Rights Act, and 
     it was signed into law on August 6, 1965. We have come a 
     distance. We have made progress. But we are not there yet. 
     There are forces that want to take us back to another place. 
     We don't want to go back. We want to go forward. As the late 
     A. Philip Randolph, who was the dean of the March on 
     Washington of 1963, often said, ``maybe our forefathers and 
     our foremothers all came to this great land in different 
     ships, but we are all in the same boat now.''
       It doesn't matter how Senator Sessions may smile, how 
     friendly he may be, how he may speak to you. But we need 
     someone who is going to stand up, speak up, and speak out for 
     the people that need help, for people that have been 
     discriminated against. And it doesn't matter whether they are 
     Black or White, Latino, Asian, Native American, whether they 
     are gay or straight, Muslim, Christian, or Jews. We all live 
     in the same house--the American house. We need someone as 
     Attorney General who is going to look out for all of us and 
     not just for some of us.

  Now, he speaks:

       I ran out of time. Thank you for giving me a chance to 
     testify.

  John Lewis had 5 minutes before the Judiciary Committee--5 minutes to 
enter words into one of the greatest historical records of all time--
the record of this body, the record of the Judiciary Committee. He 
brushed on issues that aren't a passing fancy to him. He has lived for 
these issues. He has fought for these issues. He has dedicated his life 
to these issues. This man, this champion, chose not to be silent. He 
had a window of opportunity.
  That doesn't mean he doesn't love Jeff Sessions. I know he does. It 
doesn't mean that he doesn't think he is kind and collegial when the 
two meet. I have watched them. Senator Jeff Sessions and I were there 
to present him with the Congressional Medal. But what it means is that 
he has real concerns about the cause of our country, because this 
Nation has made such dramatic strides towards freedom and justice. It 
has made those strides because people like him, folks from all 
different backgrounds didn't just pledge allegiance to the flag. They 
didn't just say the words ``liberty and justice for all.'' They put 
their lives on the line to make it happen.
  I have seen this kind of patriotism made real in my lifetime by the 
men and women who put the uniform on to serve us overseas, all the way 
to men and women putting uniforms on to protect our neighborhoods, who 
make rational choices every day to fight for our safety, our security, 
for our liberty, and for our justice.
  I stand here now to speak out against Jeff Sessions becoming the 
highest law enforcement officer of the land, not because of any 
personal feelings I have about him--because I too, like I was called to 
do as a little boy in Sunday school, believe in the ideals of love thy 
neighbor. It doesn't detract from that love to speak up, to speak my 
heart, to speak my mind.
  Senator Elizabeth Warren stood up speaking the words of Coretta Scott 
King. It doesn't detract from the collegiality of this institution for 
her to speak her mind, especially when those are issues that are at the 
core of our Constitution.
  Take voting rights. I don't have the authenticity to speak on voting 
rights that someone like John Lewis has. But I have watched what is 
happening in my country--all this talk coming from the highest office 
in the land about voting fraud. The chances of encountering in-person 
voting fraud in this Nation is about the chances of getting struck by 
lightning. You might even have a better chance of going and playing the 
lottery tonight and winning than in encountering voter fraud. But the 
real issue is voter suppression.
  Now, I am not just saying that as a partisan spouting. I am actually 
referring to actual judicial inquiries of the Federal Government. In 
the State of North Carolina, as soon as the Shelby decision came and 
before the ink got dry, States like North Carolina, Texas, and others 
started to change their voting laws. It is hard to do things in the 
cover of night without the power to investigate what actually happened. 
A Federal judge saw in North Carolina, and said that they were 
discriminating against African Americans, that they had tailored this 
law--I think the quote exactly is--with surgical precision to 
discriminate against African-American voters. This is not fiction. This 
isn't made up. These are the facts.
  There are still people in this country in positions of power who are 
seeking to pervert the law to discriminate against certain populations 
and advantage themselves politically. It is not just cheaters. But it 
is clearly discriminatory in this case on race.
  Now, if we know that is going on, John Lewis, myself, millions of 
Americans, Republicans, Democrats, and Independents believe that we 
should investigate these things. But the problem is we now have someone 
that is nominated to the very office, the Justice Department, who has 
said that the activities around voting rights to investigate these 
issues are intrusive. This is at a time when we still have issues with 
voting where States are moving not to open up the access to voting, not 
to make it easier, not to make it more free and fair. There are folks 
who are trying to create laws that are choking it, and some of these 
laws factually have been designed to disadvantage certain populations.
  The highest law enforcement officer in the land has an obligation to 
aggressively investigate these potential violations of law. But we have 
listened to what the priorities are of Senator Sessions. It is not to 
investigate what is real, what is substantive, what has happened and 
likely will happen. It is to investigate the fiction created, 
documented, that somehow millions of Americans woke up in the morning 
and said: Do you know what I am going to try to do? I am going down to 
a polling place and fake my way into voting. It is hard to get millions 
of Americans to vote, period, sometimes, but somehow this fiction is 
the highest priority when it comes to voting of this Attorney General.
  I will not be silent on this issue. I am here and we are here because 
people fought to stop violations of voting. We as Americans should have 
confidence that the highest law enforcement officer in the land won't 
criticize any efforts on voter suppression but will actually work to do 
something about it.
  Something else that was spoken about in John Lewis's testimony that 
is a real issue in America and this has to do with the prevalence in 
this country of ongoing hate crimes. Senator Sessions, as a Senator, 
again in a body in which one Senator does not have the power to pass 
legislation, failed to stand with the majority of Senators when it came 
to issues of laws that were designed for dealing with bias-motivated 
crimes that target specifically people's sexual orientation and gender 
identity.
  There was a specific law, the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr., 
law. These are two Americans who were targeted because of their 
respective sexual orientation and race. Senator Sessions' comments at 
the time were that this law would ``cheapen the Civil Rights 
Movement.''
  You have in the testimony a civil rights hero talking about the 
challenges facing the LGBT community, a civil rights hero who is joined 
with me and others, decrying the fact that in this country right now 
you may have

[[Page S877]]

the right to marriage equality, but still in most States in America if 
you get married, you post it on your Facebook page, you go to work the 
next day, your boss says you are fired because you got married to 
someone of the same sex, and there is no legal recourse.
  Senator Sessions on same-sex marriage even went as far as to say it 
is not disputable that adopting a same-sex marriage culture undermines 
and weakens marriage. I don't even know what to say about a same-sex 
marriage culture. I would never question that love and that bond 
between two Americans that now is the law of the land.
  I don't know what it means to someone when they criticize a law that 
is going to work against violence. Please understand, this violence is 
not a rare thing like in-person voter fraud. We know that today still 
too many lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans feel unsafe 
in their communities. A significant percentage of gay and lesbian 
children report missing school because of fear.
  The data from the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs shows 
that 20 to 24 percent--about one in five--of lesbian and gay people 
experience hate crimes and that LGBT Americans of color are 
particularly at risk. Often those hate crimes are utterly tragic.
  In 1998, Matthew Shepard was a 21-year-old student at the University 
of Wyoming. He went to the bar that evening, like many 21-year-olds do. 
Two men offered him a ride home, and he accepted. Instead of bringing 
him home, they brought him out into a field. They taunted him with 
epithets, hatred directed at him because he was gay, and then they beat 
him savagely and left him for dead.
  This is what one of our Nation's magazines, Vanity Fair, wrote:

       A passing cyclist saw what he thought was a scarecrow 
     lashed to a wooden buck fence on a remote plot of land. The 
     scarecrow turned out to be Matthew, unconscious, a huge gash 
     in his head, his face drenched with blood except where his 
     tear trails had washed it clean. His shoes were missing.
       After police questioning, Aaron McKinney confessed that he 
     and his friend Russell Henderson had met Matthew at the 
     Fireside Bar & Lounge on Tuesday night and posed as gay to 
     lure him into their truck. Then they drove him to an out-of-
     the-way location, bound him to a fence, pistol-whipped him, 
     and taunted him while he begged for his life. Then they 
     banded the gentle five-foot-two, 105-pound freshman to hang 
     there for 18 hours, losing blood as the temperature dropped.

  That same year, James Byrd, Jr., a 49-year-old African-American man, 
was walking home from his parents' house in Texas when he was also 
offered a ride home. They didn't bring him home either. They brought 
him to the middle of the woods where he was beaten and then chained to 
a pickup truck and dragged along the road for 2 miles. He had been 
targeted by three White supremacists.
  The Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division 
at the Department of Justice Jocelyn Samuels wrote the following in 
2013: But while the men responsible for the Shepard and Byrd killings 
were later convicted of murder, none of them were prosecuted for 
committing a hate crime. At the time these murders were committed, 
neither Wyoming nor Texas had hate crime laws, and existing Federal 
hate crime protections did not include violent acts based on the 
victim's sexual orientation and only covered racial violence against 
those engaged in a federally protected activity, such as voting or 
attending school. Four years ago today, President Barack Obama signed 
the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crime Prevention Act. This 
landmark legislation, championed by the late Senator Ted Kennedy, 
greatly expanded the Federal Government's ability to prosecute hate 
crimes. The law enables the Justice Department to prosecute crimes 
motivated by race, color, religion, and national origin without having 
to show that the defendant was engaged in a federally protected 
activity. The Shepard-Byrd Act also empowers the department to 
prosecute crimes committed because of a person's sexual orientation, 
gender identity, gender or disability as hate crimes. The law also 
marked the first time that the words ``lesbian, gay, bisexual and 
transgender'' appeared in the U.S. Code. Under the leadership of 
Attorney General Holder, the Criminal Section of Civil Rights Division 
and U.S. attorney's offices around the country have used that law to 
address the most serious hate crimes. Over the last 4 years, 44 people 
in 16 States have been convicted under the Shepard-Byrd act for their 
discrimination in crimes against others on the basis of race, religion, 
national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability.
  This is what we expect from the Department of Justice. Hate crimes 
against gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgender are tragically 
common in this country. Discrimination, hate, and violence is not rare 
in this community. It is real. It is a scourge. It must be stopped, and 
the highest law enforcement officer in the land must follow the Federal 
law, must see it as a priority, must see it as an urgency, must use 
their prosecutorial discretion to put resources toward those 
prosecutions.
  So when Civil Rights leaders like John Lewis understand the truth 
that the Civil Rights Movement wasn't about Black people, it was about 
American people, it was about justice for all, it was about freedom 
from violence for all, it was about equal rights for all, that he 
cannot be silent when someone is discriminated against because of how 
they pray or how they love.
  None of us can be silent if we believe in those words: liberty and 
justice for all. At a time where this is a real problem, we should 
trust that the highest law enforcement officer would do something about 
it, would vigorously and seriously defend and fight against the kind of 
horrific crimes that are still being perpetrated in America. That is 
not all.
  We see that in his testimony. We see that Jeff Sessions spoke at 
length about this idea of law and order. I respect that idea of law and 
order, but the call of our country isn't law and order. We have seen 
totalitarian States. We have seen dictatorships. We have seen all kinds 
of countries that restrained freedoms and liberties, found the 
repression and oppression. We found that law and order can be 
established in many ways. This country was founded with a higher ideal 
to pursue. It is what has called so many Americans forth in pursuit of 
this high ideal.
  It is not just law and order. It is the pursuit of justice. It is an 
understanding that as King said, ``Injustice anywhere is a threat to 
justice everywhere.'' One of those fundamental principles of justice is 
this idea of equal protection under the law.
  The Attorney General has an obligation to pursue this idea of equal 
justice. I used to be a mayor. In the city in which I still live, in 
Newark, NJ, we were always looking to fight crime, and we knew lowering 
crime didn't just have to do with police. Sometimes police are busily 
working on the symptoms of the deeper problems, and we as a society 
have to address them. That is why drug treatment is such a critical way 
of delivering justice and fighting crime. That is why programs that 
help people coming home from prison help to lower crime. That is why 
mental health care is so important for fighting crime, but you cannot 
take it away from any American.
  The truth is there is so much of a need to celebrate our law 
enforcement in this country. I have watched law enforcement officers do 
acts of heroism and courage that shows they are worthy of the highest 
celebrations, and so many Americans don't know this. They don't 
understand that so many law enforcement officers every single day risk 
danger, and our law enforcement officers should be lauded for these 
great women and men who, every single day, are out in our communities 
entering into difficult circumstances.

  I still remember my police director--one time he was on the phone. 
There was an awful hostage situation, and we were discussing how to 
deal with it. Then over the phone I heard gun shots go off, and 
suddenly in the background I heard officers yelling, ``Go, go, go, 
go!'' These officers, hearing bullets firing, had no situational 
awareness whatsoever and stormed into that building. Most of us hearing 
gun fire would drop down; these men and women stood up. Most of us 
hearing gun fire might run in the other direction; these men ran toward 
that problem.
  As the mayor of a city working directly with police officers, I could 
give countless examples and great testimony as to the strength and 
courage of

[[Page S878]]

officers. I commend Jeff Sessions for talking about how important our 
police officers are, but understand that it does not diminish our 
respect and our love and our admiration and our gratitude toward police 
officers, toward law enforcement in this country to ask that we make 
sure, through systems of accountability, that we are holding law 
enforcement officers to the highest levels of professional conduct. 
There is not an officer I know that has any problem with that.
  This is what concerns me: We know in this country that we have 
challenges with an equal application of the law. One recent study from 
researchers at the University of Louisville and the University of South 
Carolina documented that unarmed Black men were shot and killed in 2015 
at disproportionately higher rates. We have seen other challenges with 
poor communities and African-American communities having unjust usage 
of the law directed toward them. We all know about Ferguson, MO, where 
the city's law enforcement practices disproportionately impacted 
African Americans. It was the Justice Department that investigated the 
Ferguson Police Department and found that from 2012 to 2014, Blacks 
accounted for 85 percent of vehicle stops, 90 percent of citations, and 
93 percent of arrests. This is in spite of the fact that Blacks made up 
only 67 percent of the total population. The information came to light 
because of the Justice Department's investigation.
  In Baltimore, the Department of Justice found that the Baltimore 
Police Department targeted policing of certain Baltimore neighborhoods 
with minimal oversight or accountability, disproportionately harming 
Black residents; the Baltimore Police Department stops African-American 
drivers at disproportionate rates. African Americans accounted for 82 
percent of all vehicle stops compared to 60 percent of the driving age 
population in the city and only 27 percent of the driving age 
population in the greater metropolitan area. Racial disparities in the 
Baltimore Police Department's arrests are more pronounced for highly 
discretionary offenses. Blacks accounted for 91 percent of the people 
charged solely with failure to obey or ``trustpass.'' Blacks were 89 
percent of the 1,353 people charged for making a false statement to an 
officer; 84 percent of the people were arrested for disorderly conduct.
  These challenges with policing are complex. Even communities very 
conscious of and sensitive to these issues struggle with the equal 
application of justice. I don't just say this; I experienced it.
  When I was mayor of Newark, we were making a very conscious effort to 
improve, yet we still found difficulties. When the Department of 
Justice came to our city, they were able to do data gathering that we 
did not do. Perhaps we didn't have the resources, didn't understand the 
urgency. But when the Department of Justice came in and pulled that 
data, put a lot of resources into analyzing it, they found about 80 
percent of the Newark Police Department stops and arrests involved 
Blacks, while the population is 53.9 percent Black. Black residents of 
Newark were at least 2.5 times more likely to be subjected to a 
pedestrian stop.
  The data that was pulled by the Department of Justice helped us to 
step up our work with the ACLU and others and begin to address these 
issues. The Department of Justice's investigations, accountability, 
working with local law enforcement departments have helped make changes 
in Newark and Ferguson and will help make change in Baltimore and all 
around our country.
  But Senator Sessions has aggressively criticized the use of these 
kinds of consent decrees, this kind of intervention. This is a critical 
tool that the Justice Department is now using to curtail patterns and 
practices of discrimination within police departments. But Senator 
Sessions calls them an end run around the democratic process.
  During his confirmation hearings, Senator Sessions said: ``I think 
there is a concern that good police officers and good departments can 
be sued by the Department of Justice when you just have some 
individuals within the department doing things wrong.'' That is 
problematic to me because it is a failure to understand the larger 
challenges we have with policing in America: This is not something; it 
is just a few bad officers. And even that construction of this idea 
that it is somehow bad officers versus good officers--when it comes to 
implicit racial bias, and how it is impacting law enforcement in 
America, sometimes people don't even feel comfortable with those terms, 
``implicit racial bias,'' as if it is somehow calling people racist, 
which it is not. It is actually this idea that we, at the Federal 
Government, the Justice Department, working with localities, can 
actually help departments begin to address the reality in this country 
that we have a justice system that does not have equal application of 
law enforcement. This is a real problem in this country. And when I say 
it is a real problem, again, this is not a partisan issue.
  FBI Director James Comey, one of our highest law enforcement 
officers, to my knowledge, is a Republican. This law enforcement 
officer speaks with clarity about the urgency and the need to address 
this issue within American policing. He says that, unfortunately, in 
places like Ferguson and New York City and in some communities around 
this Nation, there is a disconnect between police agencies and many 
citizens, predominantly in communities of color. Serious debates are 
taking place about how law enforcement personnel relate to the 
communities they serve. This is Director Comey in a speech he gave:

       Serious debates are taking place about how law enforcement 
     personnel relate to the communities they serve, about the 
     appropriate uses of force, and about real and perceived 
     biases, both within and outside of law enforcement. These are 
     important debates.
       Every American should feel free to express an informed 
     opinion--to protest peacefully, to convey frustration and 
     even anger in a constructive way. That is what makes our 
     democracy great. Those conversations--as bumpy and as 
     uncomfortable as they can be--help us understand different 
     perspectives, and better serve our communities. Of course, 
     these are only conversations in the true sense of that word 
     if we are willing not only talk, but to listen, too.

  Director Comey continues in his speech:

       I worry that this incredibly important and incredibly 
     difficult conversation about race and policing has become 
     focused entirely on the nature and character of law 
     enforcement officers, when it should also be about something 
     much harder to discuss. Debating the nature of policing is 
     very important, but I worry that it has become an excuse, at 
     times, to avoid doing something harder.
       Much research points to the widespread existence of 
     unconscious bias. Many people in our white-majority culture 
     have unconscious racial biases and react differently to a 
     white face than a black face.
       We simply must find ways to see each other more clearly. 
     And part of that has to involve collecting and sharing better 
     information about encounters between police and citizens, 
     especially violent encounters.
       The first step to understanding what is really going on in 
     our communities and in our country is to gather more data 
     related to those we arrest, those we confront for breaking 
     the law and jeopardizing public safety, and those who 
     confront us. ``Data'' seems a dry and boring word but, 
     without it, we cannot understand our world and make it 
     better.
       How can we address concerns about ``use of force,'' how can 
     we address concerns about officer-involved shootings if we do 
     not have a reliable grasp on the demographics and 
     circumstances of these incidents? We simply must improve the 
     way we collect and analyze data to see the true nature of 
     what's happening in the all of our communities.
       The FBI tracks and publishes the number of ``justifiable 
     homicides'' reported by police departments, but again, 
     reporting by police departments is voluntary and not all 
     departments participate. That means we cannot fully track the 
     number of incidents in which force is used by police, or 
     against police, including nonfatal encounters, which are not 
     reported at all.
       Without complete and accurate data, we are left with 
     ``ideological thunderbolts.'' And that helps to spark unrest 
     and distrust, and does not help us to get better.
       Because we must get better, I intend for the FBI to be a 
     leader in urging departments around this country to give us 
     the facts we need for an informed discussion, the facts all 
     of us need, to help us to make sound policy and sound 
     decisions with that information.

  This is the FBI Director talking about the urgency of collecting data 
and what the Justice Department has been doing for departments where 
people are making a case for bias in policing. I know this because it 
happened in Newark. The Justice Department comes in and collects data, 
analyzes the data, and comes to objective conclusions that are not, as 
Director Comey says, ``ideological thunderbolts.'' And what they seem 
to be finding where they do these investigations is: Do you know what? 
Yes, a lot of

[[Page S879]]

these communities have a right to be upset because the policing 
practices do reflect bias, and there is not an equal application of the 
law.
  If we are to breathe understanding and cooperation--trust me, I know 
this--to lead to even more effective policing, better police-community 
relations, we need to get the data out there. But we now have someone 
who is nominated to the highest law enforcement office in the land who 
has criticized this kind of work during a time over the last few years 
that we have seen cities erupting in protests. We have seen the call of 
hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people trying to talk about 
Black Lives Matter, at a time when people are questioning law 
enforcement. What Director Comey and others are saying is: Let's get to 
the bottom of this. Let's not talk from sentiments or feelings; let's 
talk from experience and data.
  So Senator Sessions' views on this are out of date. They run contrary 
to where criminal justice reform is moving. They are in direct conflict 
with the people whom his office obliges itself to serve.
  Given what he has said on the record, we can have no confidence that 
the issue of policing will be a priority if he is leading the Justice 
Department. In fact, we actually, with some certainty, can be confident 
that the Justice Department will not do this kind of aggressive data 
collection to understand the facts--the kind of work the FBI Director 
is calling for.
  But it is not just the FBI Director. Listen to a letter from a group 
of over 160 law enforcement officials that was sent to the Senate about 
the need for comprehensive criminal justice reform. They write:

       As current and former leaders of the law enforcement 
     community--police chiefs, U.S. Attorneys, federal law 
     enforcement, and heads of national law enforcement 
     organizations--we believe that protecting public safety is a 
     vital goal. Our experience has shown us that the country can 
     reduce crime while also reducing unnecessary arrests, 
     prosecutions, and incarceration. We believe the Sentencing 
     Reform and Corrections Act will accomplish this goal and 
     respectfully urge you to support it. We appreciate your 
     leadership on and concerns for the important criminal justice 
     issues facing the country today.
       Our group, Law Enforcement Leaders to Reduce Crime and 
     Incarceration, unites more than 160 current and former police 
     chiefs, district attorneys, U.S. Attorneys, and attorneys 
     general from all 50 states. Our mission is to replace 
     ineffective police policies with new solutions that both 
     reduce crime and incarceration. To achieve this goal, we 
     focus on four policy priorities--one of which is reforming 
     mandatory minimum sentences.

  Let me pause there for a second. The wisdom in law enforcement now 
understands that you have to build faith and legitimacy in a 
department, and you do that through police-community relations. Law 
enforcement officers know that data collection is important.
  When I was mayor of Newark, we made CompStat stronger and better--
analysis of crime patterns and data. We use it to more effectively 
fight crime. But at a time of heightened suspicion and concern, at a 
time when leaders are talking about the reality of implicit racial 
bias, the highest law enforcement officer in the land should respect 
the truth and direction of criminal justice reform. But it is not just 
in policing; it is also in how we are looking at overall criminal 
justice reform.
  In the United States of America, we have seen now that our criminal 
justice system since about 1980 on the Federal level has grown close to 
800 percent, costing us as taxpayers billions and billions of dollars 
to lock up nonviolent offenders. We are disproportionate with the rest 
of planet Earth. We only have 4 to 5 percent of planet Earth's 
population, but one out of every four imprisoned people on the planet 
Earth is right here in the United States of America.
  Do not tell me that when it comes to human beings on the planet 
Earth, Americans have a greater proclivity for criminality. That is 
just not true. Yet our so-called War on Drugs took us from being on par 
with the rest of planet Earth and suddenly shot us up with an 800-
percent increase on the Federal level--500 percent overall in our 
Nation in throwing people in jail. This is disproportionately 
overwhelmingly nonviolent people.
  This drug war, incontrovertibly, has been persecuted on the poor. 
Drug laws are not equally enforced in this country, leading one great 
legal mind in our country, Bryan Stevenson, to say: We have a nation 
that seems to sometimes treat you better if you are rich and guilty 
than poor and innocent.
  Well, let me tell you, in America, if you just use the lens of race, 
there is no difference between Blacks and Whites for using drugs or 
dealing drugs--none whatsoever. But if you are African American, you 
are about 3.7 times more likely to be arrested for those nonviolent 
drug crimes. But the truth is, if you use just race, socioeconomic 
status, you look at these issues, you see the poorest Americans 
disproportionately filling our jails and prisons. But what is worse 
than that, disproportionately you see addicted Americans not getting 
treatment, getting jail time; mentally ill people not getting health 
care, getting jail time.
  All of this is running up the bill to a point in American history--at 
around the time I went to law school to the time I became mayor of 
Newark, we were building a new prison--about one every 12 days. The 
rest of the world was building better bridges, faster trains, better 
infrastructure than us. Our infrastructure has been crumbling, but, 
hey, as we are battling it out for infrastructure bills in this body--
or hopefully will be--the reality is that we have been building out 
infrastructure like crazy, putting the rest of the Earth to shame when 
it comes to building one type of infrastructure: prisons--
overwhelmingly, disproportionately warehousing poor people, addicted 
people, mentally ill people, and people of color.
  What is beautiful about this issue amidst all of the negativity that 
I am expressing is that there is a bipartisan coalition of Americans 
that range from Grover Norquist, to Newt Gingrich, the Koch brothers, 
Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute--these are all 
folks on the right--who believe we need to reform our criminal justice 
laws, joining with people like me who are Democrats and Independents, 
Christian Evangelicals who know what the Bible says about people in 
prison. All of these coalitions, from libertarians, to Christian 
Evangelicals, even some vegetarians--we all are coming to a national 
consensus on criminal justice reform.
  In this body, you have Patrick Leahy and Dick Durbin partnering with 
the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Chuck Grassley; Mike Lee; the 
Senator from Texas, Senator Cornyn--all came together to put together a 
bill that was talked about by these law enforcement officers, a bill 
that would help us to bring justice to our criminal justice system, a 
bill that would help us reduce the level of incarceration but empower 
people to be more successful.

  What is astonishing about this is this was not a bill showing 
leadership; it was showing followership because similar bills are being 
passed in States all across our country, from Georgia to Texas. Guess 
what they are finding out. When they lower their prison populations, 
they lower crime as well.
  These mandatory minimums in our country have perverted our criminal 
justice system. In fact, most people still think that criminal justice 
is about courts and judges and juries, but that is not the case. Since 
we have seen this War on Drugs, this race to put more and more 
mandatory minimums, what has actually happened is, now most criminal 
convictions happen through plea bargain--about 98 percent are done 
through plea bargain--not trials any more.
  There was a great book about why innocent people plead guilty. That 
is because you suddenly have a nonviolent drug offense for doing things 
that past Presidents have admitted to doing, but you have a mandatory 
minimum charge thrown at you that you either plead guilty to or we are 
going to take you in for 5 years or more.
  Well, our law tried to do the obvious: Lower these mandator minimums. 
Stop wasting taxpayer money by putting nonviolent criminals in jail for 
extraordinarily long times.
  I was just at a Federal prison in New Jersey. I had the warden 
walking with me, telling me: There are people in here way too long. 
They are not a danger, but we are paying tens of thousands of dollars a 
year to lock them up. Meanwhile, our kids can't get money for public 
schools. We can't get money for fixing our roads.

[[Page S880]]

  So this bipartisan coalition came together and put together 
legislation that reflects what is happening in the States. That would 
have brought more justice to our criminal justice system, but it was 
fought against and criticized by Jeff Sessions.
  But even beyond that, the Justice Department, acting on its own, has 
been lowering mandatory minimums, has been giving instructions to 
prosecutors on nonviolent drug offenses not to use mandatory minimums.
  So with all of this, from policing, to sentencing, to rehabilitation, 
to access to drug treatment, all of this reform that is going on--not 
in a partisan way at all--one of the few people standing against this 
bipartisan work, not just criticizing the legislation but criticizing 
the Justice Department for their work, has been Jeff Sessions.
  Why is this an issue that, just like voting rights, LGBT, freedom 
from fear, freedom from violence, women's rights--why is this issue 
important? Why is it an issue that should be seen as so fundamental to 
our country? What we are seeing is the issue of mass incarceration 
affect our Nation in ways that most people don't fully understand.
  It affects voting rights. One in five Black folks in Florida has lost 
their right to vote because of felony disenfranchisement overwhelmingly 
involving drug crimes, often doing things that people in Washington, in 
elected offices, have admitted to doing. That affects voting rights.
  It affects poverty. One study came out that said we would have about 
20 percent less poverty in America if we had incarceration rates that 
were similar to other nations. Why would we have 20 percent less 
poverty if we didn't have one-fifth of the global prison population? 
Well, because when you make that mistake for doing something that 
George Bush or Barack Obama admitted to doing, when you create that 
felony crime, what happens is you come out of prison and you can't get 
a Pell grant. You come out of prison and you can't get a job. You come 
out of prison and you can't get food stamps. You have door after door 
closed to you.
  So these issues, taken together, are more than just about 
incarceration. It is about public safety. It is about empowering 
communities. It is about equal justice under the law.
  The most powerful law enforcement office in the land sets priorities 
and has to drive forward the ideals of our country.
  We are a nation that is great not just because, as I said earlier in 
my remarks, of our founding document, which, as Thurgood Marshall 
wrote, took a civil war and amendments, took an expansive vision of who 
is included in the ideal of ``we the people,'' but it is the spirit of 
America that has pushed forward, where people in positions of power as 
well as grassroots folks embody that great American spirit.
  I want to read from one of our great Americans, a man named Learned 
Hand. Judge Learned Hand wrote a speech called the ``Spirit of 
Liberty.'' He hand-delivered the speech during World War II to 1.5 
million people. It was a time when a whole bunch of naturalized 
citizens were there. He spoke to first-generation Americans and folks 
who could have traced their lineage far, far back.

  He writes:

       We have gathered here to affirm a faith, a faith in a 
     common purpose, a common conviction, a common devotion.
       Some of us have chosen America as the land of our adoption; 
     the rest have come from those who did the same. For this 
     reason, we have some right to consider ourselves a picked 
     group, a group of those who had the courage to break from the 
     past and brave the dangers and the loneliness of a strange 
     land. What was the object that nerved us, or those who went 
     before us, to this choice? We sought liberty--freedom from 
     oppression, freedom from want, freedom to be ourselves. This 
     then we sought; this we now believe that we are by way of 
     winning.
       What do we mean when we say that first of all we seek 
     liberty?
       I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much 
     upon constitutions, upon laws, upon the courts. These are 
     false hopes; believe me, these are false hopes.
       Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies 
     there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no 
     constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it.
       While it lies there, it needs no constitution, no law, no 
     court to save it.
       And what is this liberty which must lie in the hearts of 
     men and women? It is not the ruthless, the unbridled will; it 
     is not freedom to do as one likes. That is the denial of 
     liberty, and leads straight to its overthrow. A society in 
     which men recognize no check upon their freedom soon becomes 
     a society where freedom is the possession of only a savage 
     few, as we have learned to our sorrow.
       What then is the spirit of liberty?
       I cannot define it; I can only tell you my own faith. The 
     spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it 
     is right; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which seeks to 
     understand the minds of other men and women; the spirit of 
     liberty is the spirit which weighs their interest alongside 
     its own without bias; the spirit of liberty remembers that 
     not even a sparrow falls to Earth unheeded; the spirit of 
     liberty is the spirit of him who, near two thousand years 
     ago, taught mankind that lessons it has never learned, but 
     has never quite forgotten--that there may be a kingdom where 
     the least shall be heard and considered side-by-side with the 
     greatest.
       And now in that spirit, that spirit of an American which 
     has never been, and which may never be--nay, which never will 
     be except as the conscience and courage of Americans create 
     it--yet in the spirit of America which lies hidden in some 
     form in the aspirations of us all; in the spirit of that 
     America for which our young men are this moment fighting and 
     dying; in that spirit of liberty and of America so 
     prosperous, and safe, and contented, we shall have failed to 
     grasp its meaning, and shall have been truant to its promise, 
     except as we strive to make it a signal, a beacon, a standard 
     to which the best hopes of mankind will ever turn; in 
     confidence that you share that belief, I now ask you to raise 
     your hands and repeat with me this pledge:
       I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of 
     America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation 
     under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

  It is this spirit that, to me, must be emboldened in our country. We 
still have work to do. We still have challenges. We still have 
unfinished business. We have a position of Attorney General because 
there is still injustice. It is not just the fact that we still have 
crime in communities, still have people who live in fear of violence. 
That is a reality. But there are also people who live in fear of hatred 
and in fear of discrimination. There are people who often don't have 
people at the local level to go to, and only the Federal Government can 
play that role of strident actor for justice.
  There are still people who, for all these years, have their basic 
American freedoms--like their right to vote--being undermined, where 
people in power are trying to craft ways to discourage, to stop them 
from exercising that franchise. We still have a nation in which people 
are striving for justice.
  I am proud of the voices we have heard tonight. I am proud of my 
colleague Elizabeth Warren, who felt the need to stand up and speak her 
truth. I am proud of heroes like John Lewis who testified and told his 
truth.
  I realize that the hour is late, but the Senator from Hawaii is now 
here.
  I oppose the nomination of Jeff Sessions and will vote no on the 
floor, and I hope my colleagues will join me in doing so as well.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cotton). The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I am an institutionalist. I believe in 
this place. I love this place. People don't always like the rules or 
how they are interpreted, how they are administered, but the rules have 
historically differentiated the Senate from any other legislative body 
in the world, and I believe in that.
  But what Senator Warren did earlier tonight was not over the line. 
And here we are worrying about decorum and rule XIX, which says that 
``No Senator in debate shall . . . impute to another Senator . . . any 
conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a Senator.''
  And let's be really clear here. This would not be a problem if 
Senator Sessions were not a Senator.
  In other words, anytime a Senator is nominated for a Cabinet 
position, you can be as positive as you want, but if you want to be as 
tough on a Senator who has been nominated as we have been on Rex 
Tillerson or Betsy DeVos, you run the risk of breaking the rules.
  Now let's pause a moment to understand how divorced from reality this 
is. While debating Jeff Sessions as the next Attorney General, 
Elizabeth Warren crossed an invisible line, and a rule almost never 
used was invoked.
  The rule was not invoked when somebody called another Member a 
cancer. The rule was not invoked when somebody called another Member a 
liar.
  Now, this is ridiculous, but it is actually not the main point. Here 
is the

[[Page S881]]

point. Lots of people--almost everybody in the world--everybody in this 
country does not have the luxury of worrying about decorum. What a 
luxury we have to debate if a stray comment crossed some theoretical 
line.
  This place, this place of privilege, this place, the dome next door 
built by slaves, this place, where there were hardly any women or 
people of color or gay people out of the closet until very recently, 
yet we spent hours worrying about whether Elizabeth hurt Jeff's 
feelings or broke a sense of decorum. What a luxury it is to worry 
about that.
  In the meantime, Muslim families in America are terrified. In the 
meantime, DACA kids are worrying about whether they have to go into 
hiding. In the meantime, LGBT youth are bullied in school. In the 
meantime, anti-Semitic attacks are on the rise across the country.
  And we are here worrying about whether it is impolite to quote in 
full the statement of the widow of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
  Look, I am for this body. I am old-school. I like the rules. I spend 
a lot of time talking with the Parliamentarian at this desk so I can 
better understand it. But this body and its rules have to be in service 
to the country. The country is not in service to the rules and the body 
of the Senate.
  Before I go on, I just want to thank the stenographers who are such a 
critical aspect of the Senate and have been running marathon sessions--
literally marathon sessions. We rotate through. There are at least 30 
of us doing about 30 hours of debate, but there are only seven of you, 
and your wrists are sore, your legs are sore. This is incredibly 
challenging. Yet without you, we have no Senate Record.
  So thank you for your service and your contributions to the world's 
greatest deliberative body.
  In his final speech as Attorney General, Eric Holder gave us a 
warning and one that remains relevant in the Senate today. He said:

       Beware those who would take us back to a past that has 
     really never existed or that was imbued with a forgotten 
     inequity. Our destiny as Americans is always ahead of us.

  Today our country faces a stark choice. Do we want to pursue an 
imaginary past or do we want to continue to follow the path toward 
progress? Do we continue in our struggle to form a more perfect union, 
to secure the blessings of liberty? It is hard to believe, but these 
are the dramatic choices before us as we consider the Cabinet 
nominations of this administration. And that choice is perhaps most 
clear in the nomination of our colleague Senator Jeff Sessions for 
Attorney General.
  The Attorney General is the highest law enforcement official in the 
country. He or she is the defender of American values, of human rights, 
and of civil rights, and this person needs to have an unbreakable 
commitment to fight for what is right and to lead that pursuit in 
making America more free and more just. That is the kind of approach we 
need because that is what the job demands.
  The Attorney General leads the No. 1 watchdog for civil rights in our 
country. It is the Department charged with protecting voting rights and 
prosecuting human trafficking and hate crimes. They determine and 
defend the constitutionality of U.S. policies. Our next AG will face 
critical challenges that will test our justice system and our values. 
We need a leader committed to protecting the rights of every American 
regardless of race, religion, gender, national origin, or sexual 
orientation.

  While I do like him as a colleague, Senator Sessions is the wrong 
person to serve as our Nation's Attorney General. In my judgment, his 
policies, priorities, and overall philosophy fall short of the standard 
our country has for the leader of the Justice Department. Throughout 
Senator Sessions' career, he has been on the wrong side of history. If 
you look at the key issues that this Attorney General will work on, it 
is clear that Senator Sessions' views fall outside the mainstream of 
America.
  That is certainly true when it comes to criminal justice. Look at 
Senator Sessions' opposition to the Sentencing Reform and Corrections 
Act. This bill was a big deal. It would have reduced mandatory minimum 
sentencing for low-level, nonviolent crimes, while keeping tougher 
penalties for serious or violent crimes; it would strengthen drug 
addiction, rehabilitation and mental health treatments, and improve our 
efforts to help people who were leaving prison to settle into their 
communities and get back on track. Everybody liked it. Senator Grassley 
introduced it with cosponsors from both sides of the aisle. The bill 
had support from the House Speaker, the International Association of 
Chiefs of Police, the Major Counties Sheriffs' Association, the 
National District Attorneys Association, the Leadership Conference on 
Civil and Human Rights, among many others. Even the Koch brothers liked 
this piece of legislation. That is because it tackled problems we all 
agreed needed to be solved.
  No one wants to see excessively punitive sentences that expand the 
Federal prison population, which has grown by 734 percent between the 
year 1980 and 2015. No one wants to see unnecessary barriers that make 
it harder for formerly incarcerated people to stay out of jail. No one 
wants to see taxpayer money spent needlessly.
  So we had a thoughtful, bipartisan bill, but we were not able to 
enact it into law. Senator Sessions personally blocked the bill from 
being considered after it passed the Judiciary Committee last Congress. 
And he said: ``Federal drug and sentencing laws have already been 
considerably relaxed.''
  The failure of reform impacts the lives of people who are hurt by 
unfair and outdated sentencing rules. It especially affects the 
families and communities of color who have been ravaged by the 
overincarceration of minorities. The ACLU reports that sentences 
imposed on Black men in the Federal system are almost 20 percent longer 
than sentences imposed on White men with similar crimes. Think about 
that--the same crime, and you get 20 percent more time if you are 
African American. And while people of color are just as likely as White 
people to sell or use illegal drugs, they are more likely to be 
arrested. Think about how preposterous that is--equal for justice for 
all, equal application of the laws, right?
  People of color and Caucasians use drugs and distribute drugs in the 
same percentages, yet they are more likely to be arrested. African 
Americans make up 14 percent of regular drug users but 37 percent of 
people arrested for drug offenses. This raises the question of bias in 
law enforcement. Senator Sessions opposes holding State and local law 
enforcement accountable for racial bias and policing or the excessive 
use of force. He has called the approach the Justice Department took to 
this accountability an end run of the democratic process. He has 
attacked bipartisan efforts to reduce the sentences of nonviolent, low-
level drug offenders, and he opposed President Obama's initiative to 
address racial disparities in our criminal justice system and restore 
fairness by granting clemency. Senator Sessions was critical of a 
Justice Department initiative that reduced overcrowding in Federal 
prisons by 20 percent over just the last 3 years.
  Senator Sessions' views on drug policy are maybe even more out of the 
mainstream. He has been one of the most outspoken advocates against the 
legalization of marijuana, both recreational and medicinal. In an April 
2016 hearing, he suggested that the Federal Government must send the 
message that ``good people don't smoke marijuana.''
  This is 2016. This isn't 1975. This is 2016. Our Attorney General 
nominee says ``good people don't smoke marijuana.'' Tell that to the 
cancer victim. Tell that to my good friend John Radcliffe, who has 
stage 4 liver and colon cancer.
  But Senator Sessions supports aggressive Federal intervention in 
States that have legalized medical or recreational marijuana. He 
criticized the Federal Government's guidance on Federal marijuana 
regulation, which directed the Justice Department to respect the 
decisions of States to determine their own criminal laws. Because of 
this guidance, Federal prosecutors stopped targeting patients who rely 
on medical marijuana products for relief. They stopped targeting local 
dispensaries that are operating squarely within State law. Instead they 
went after criminal drug traffickers and violent drug crimes. That 
seems like a

[[Page S882]]

smart prioritization of resources within the Justice Department--not 
going after people who want to utilize marijuana to alleviate pain but 
rather going after violent drug crimes. That seems smart, but Senator 
Sessions opposed that.
  The respect for federalism reflected in the Justice Department's 
guidance should be right in line with conservative values. Under the 
guidance, as long as States are preventing the distribution of 
marijuana to minors, if they are preventing the growing of marijuana on 
Federal lands, and if they are stopping State-authorized marijuana 
activities being used as fronts for other illegal activities, then the 
Justice Department doesn't interfere.

  I would like to quote from Senator Sessions' argument against this 
policy. He said:

       I think one of Obama's great failures that is obvious to me 
     is his lax treatment and comments on marijuana. . . . It 
     reverses 20 years almost of hostilities in drugs that began 
     really when Nancy Reagan started ``Just Say No.''

  But here's the thing. There is a bipartisan consensus now that the 
drug war is a failure. The drug war did not work. The drug war did not 
decrease the percentage of people utilizing illegal drugs. Every time 
the government succeeded in shutting down a drug trafficking ring, 
another would pop up. And a harsh penalty didn't slow addiction rates, 
it just incarcerated mostly young men. They didn't slow the flow of 
drugs; instead, they crowded our prisons, hurt taxpayers, and increased 
drug-related violence in other countries.
  Now is the time to shift our strategy and focus on people who 
struggle with addiction. We also need to respect the decision in many 
cities and States to decriminalize drug possession. It is up to them as 
to how to ascribe relief to citizens who could benefit from using 
medical marijuana.
  There is another area where I believe Senator Sessions is out of the 
mainstream, and that is his views on LGBTQ equality. Senator Sessions 
opposed the Employment Nondiscrimination Act, a bill that I was proud 
to support that would have ended workplace discrimination for LGBTQ 
people. Right now there are no Federal laws that explicitly protect 
LGBTQ individuals from discrimination. That is not because we haven't 
tried. Last Congress, I cosponsored a bill to prohibit this kind of 
discrimination, but even without a law on the books, the Justice 
Department has interpreted the Civil Rights Act to include sexual 
orientation and gender identity. That could change, however, under the 
next Attorney General.
  As head of the Justice Department, Senator Sessions could choose to 
interpret the law differently, and his record gives us every reason to 
be concerned. Senator Sessions also voted against the reauthorization 
of the Violence Against Women Act. He voted against the reauthorization 
of the Violence Against Women Act because of a provision that ensures 
that victims of domestic violence are not turned away because of their 
sexual orientation or gender identity. That is why he voted against 
VAWA, because there is a provision that says you have to provide 
services to individuals regardless of their sexual identity. He 
advocated for stripping that provision and ultimately voted against the 
bill. As Attorney General, he could choose not to enforce this 
nondiscrimination clause.
  Think about this. If a gay person is a victim of sexual assault, are 
they not morally and legally entitled to the same humanity, the same 
protection under the law? Senator Sessions has repeatedly opposed hate 
crimes protections against LGBTQ Americans, even attempting to insert a 
poison pill amendment to stop the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr., 
Hate Crimes Prevention Act from moving forward. He has argued against 
Federal prosecution of hate crimes, saying on the Senate floor that 
there is no need for the Justice Department to get involved. As 
Attorney General, Mr. Sessions would be in charge of enforcing the Hate 
Crimes Prevention Act. It is not a stretch to ask whether or not his 
enforcement would be vigorous. In fact, Senator Sessions has repeatedly 
supported laws that criminalize the LGBTQ community. In the 1990s, he 
tried to block an LGBTQ student conference--a student conference for 
gay kids that ``promoted a lifestyle prohibited by sodomy and sexual 
misconduct laws.'' He argued against a conference for kids to give each 
other support and come up with strategies to survive bullying, to 
understand that what they are going through other kids are going 
through, arguing that it promoted a lifestyle prohibited by sodomy and 
sexual misconduct laws. And he sharply criticized the legal decision 
that put a rightful end to the criminalization of same-sex 
relationships.
  He supported don't ask, don't tell, saying that it was pretty 
effective. And he opposed the repeal of that law.
  On marriage equality, Senator Sessions has vowed to work again and 
again to amend the Constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage. We went 
through this in 1998 in the State of Hawaii. How unusual it is to 
enshrine in the Constitution the removal of a right.
  I want you to just think about that--that you want to amend the 
Constitution, not to provide additional rights, not to clarify 
something, but to explicitly prohibit Americans from having a certain 
right.
  I don't think there are many families who would agree on Senator 
Sessions' views here. People don't want their sons and daughters to 
have to hide their sexuality in order to serve their country. They 
don't want to go back to the days when our Nation failed to recognize 
the legitimacy of same-sex relationships. And they certainly don't want 
to see their friends and family lose a job or even go to jail because 
of whom they love, but that is the record that we are dealing with.
  To be clear, these aren't views from the 1970s. These are his views 
as of last year. These are his current views on these matters.
  The Senator has a similarly out-of-step approach on immigration. Mr. 
Sessions was instrumental in defeating the 2007 immigration reform 
bill, referring to it as ``terrorist assistance.'' He was a strong 
opponent of a 2013 bipartisan immigration bill, even though the bill 
had the strongest border security provision ever seen in an immigration 
bill. It was such a strong security border provision that I hated it. I 
had to think about whether I was going to vote for this thing because I 
felt it was too much of a militarization of our southern border. I 
thought it was a giveaway and a waste of money. But it had a strong 
border security provision, and it was voted out of the Senate by a wide 
margin.
  If it were up to him, we would also limit legal immigrants coming to 
our country. During the markup in the Judiciary Committee, Senator 
Sessions offered an amendment to limit legal immigration, which failed 
17 to 1. If you are wondering whether it is rhetorical to say his views 
on immigration are out of the mainstream, the record shows 17 to 1--17 
to 1.
  In addition, he promotes cutting Federal funding for sanctuary 
cities. Sanctuary cities is a brand. People aren't sure what that 
means. Let's be clear what we mean by that. Stripping funding from 
sanctuary cities is wrong because cities have decided that the strength 
of their relationship between their police and their citizens is more 
important for public safety than doing the Federal Government's job of 
enforcing immigration laws.
  Senator Sessions, of course, is against the right of children born in 
the United States to be American citizens. He is against helping the 
many DREAMers in this country.

  Let's have an honest discussion about immigration. We need to start 
talking about why people come to this country. Some of them come 
because they want to escape their own awful circumstances and live in 
freedom and opportunity. It is my grandparents escaping the Ukraine. It 
is my wife's grandparents leaving China. It is the Schatz; it is the 
Binders; it is the Kwoks. It is Albert Einstein; it is Madeleine 
Albright. This is who we are. We are people from all over the world who 
are united not by our ethnic extraction or our religious affiliation, 
but tied together by our love for America and our belief in this 
country as the beacon of hope, the shining city on the hill. The idea 
that we would shred that legacy in the face of some imaginary public 
desire for immigration reductions, frankly, is disturbing.
  Look at the protests happening every weekend at our country's 
international

[[Page S883]]

airports. Americans are not out in the streets demanding that we shut 
off the lamp outside the golden door. They are demanding that we stay 
true to our history and to our roots.
  That is why we saw close to 100 companies file a legal brief earlier 
this week against the Muslim ban put in place by the President and 
implemented by a man who has been mentored by Senator Sessions. The 
brief they filed notes an important statistic about our country. More 
than 200 companies currently listed on the Fortune 500 list are founded 
by immigrants or the children of immigrants, and this stands in direct 
contrast to the nominee's views. If immigrants are coming to the United 
States and starting businesses and hiring people, they aren't taking 
jobs from Americans. They are creating jobs for Americans, and that has 
been the story of our country since the very beginning.
  Immigration is one of the cornerstones of our country, and the 
nominee's policy proposals would chip away at that.
  The world is watching. History is watching. We have to ask ourselves: 
What do they see? Do they see Lady Liberty? Or do they see something 
else, something darker?
  Our country is asking similarly ominous questions about the basic, 
most fundamental right in our society, and that is the right to vote. 
Our country's history books are filled with stories of the struggle for 
voting rights, of African-American men risking it all to go to the 
polls and women in white marching through the streets of Washington, 
DC, demanding to vote. But that struggle and that progress is in danger 
with the kinds of policies that are being promoted. It is on all of us 
to honor that history and make sure that whoever is eligible to vote is 
able to vote. This is the bedrock of all other rights, because it is 
what gives us the voice when incumbent leaders and our representatives 
fail to protect the other rights.
  In his testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Mr. Sessions 
said:

       The Department of Justice must never falter in its 
     obligation to protect the civil rights of every American, 
     particularly those who are most vulnerable. A special 
     priority for me in this regard would be aggressive 
     enforcement of our laws to ensure access to the ballot for 
     every eligible American voter, without hindrance or 
     discrimination, and to ensure the integrity of the electoral 
     process.

  But his record does not support that view. Senator Sessions supports 
voter ID laws that will disenfranchise many, many voters. He has called 
the Voting Rights Act ``intrusive,'' and he has praised the Supreme 
Court ruling that dismantled a key part of the Voting Rights Act. He 
has already had his nomination rejected by the Senate because of his 
views on this issue.
  This should concern anyone and everyone who cares about our democracy 
because, at the most basic level, democracy is built on the ability of 
American citizens to go to the polls.
  Let's be honest. Our right to vote is being restricted. It is being 
restricted even though the United States has some of the lowest voter 
turnout of any developed democracy on the planet, and it is being 
restricted based on a lie. There is no voter fraud. Voter fraud is not 
the problem. Voter disenfranchisement is the problem.
  I talked with a buddy of mine back home who was watching FOX News and 
he was watching MSNBC, and he said: Democrats are saying there is voter 
disenfranchisement and Republicans are saying there is voter fraud, and 
I don't know what to believe. Well, here are the facts. There is a 
vanishingly small amount of voter fraud. You are more likely to be 
struck by lightning than to be convicted of voter fraud. This is a 
made-up problem. Why would you make up a problem such as this? Because 
it gives you a context and a pretext to do the systematic dismantling 
of voting rights. This is happening in North Carolina, this is 
happening in Wisconsin, and this is happening all over the country.
  The final policy area I would like to raise is women's rights. The 
nominee's record is very clear on these issues. He opposed the Lilly 
Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which lifts the legal restrictions for people 
who may have faced pay discrimination. That, in itself, is 
extraordinary, because Lilly Ledbetter is from Senator Sessions' home 
State. She worked in a factory in Alabama for years, and then one day 
someone slipped her an anonymous note--what a story. Someone slipped 
her an anonymous note that said: You are paid way less than everyone 
else in this same job.
  But when Ms. Ledbetter tried to address the pay disparities, she hit 
a brick wall and at every turn. When she turned to the justice system 
for help, she found that the laws had statutes of limitations that kept 
her from getting the pay she was denied for years and years and years, 
working side by side with men, doing the same job, and getting paid 
less in that factory.
  The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act changes that. It makes it so that if 
women find themselves in an ugly, unequal pay structure, just as Ms. 
Ledbetter did--and we all know people, such as sisters, wives, 
children, and mothers who have a suspicion they are pretty much doing 
the same thing to them, especially in a factory setting, a blue collar 
setting, or a clerical setting. This is not impossible to decipher when 
you have the same job description.

  Just as Ms. Ledbetter did, they can do something about it.
  Senator Sessions voted against that law. He also voted against 
another equal pay bill called the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would go 
even further and try to close the gender wage gap.
  On women's health, his record is similarly troubling. He has opposed 
funding for title X, which would ensure that low-income women have 
access to contraception, breast cancer screening, and other health 
services. He has voted time and again to defund Planned Parenthood, an 
organization that provides health care to some of the most underserved 
women across the country. Finally, Senator Sessions voted against the 
Violence Against Women Act, not once but three times.
  Senator Sessions' voting record should concern everyone who cares 
about fair pay, reproductive rights, access to health care, and access 
to services for survivors of domestic violence.
  The last policy area I want to highlight is our environment and 
climate change. Just 2 years ago, the nominee voted for a resolution 
that would kill the Clean Power Plan. He also voted for a bill that 
would deny protections for streams that are the water source for 
hundreds of millions of Americans.
  This is bad news for the world's race to address climate change, 
which is one of the biggest civil rights battles of our time. This 
isn't just a battle against fossil fuels. It is a battle to save the 
air we breathe and the water we drink. It is a battle to save the land 
we live on. It is a battle for things that we take for granted.
  I worry that under an Attorney General Sessions, we are going to have 
a hard time. That is because even if we really don't have great laws on 
climate--and we don't yet--they are being rolled back as we speak. Even 
if Senator Sessions does not push back on those laws, he still has the 
ability to prioritize certain things over others. So it is not just his 
policies that we need to consider. It is also his priorities.
  Every AG makes decisions about what problems the Justice Department 
should move to the front of the line. I have seen lots of reports that 
leave me wondering if Senator Sessions' priorities might be misguided.
  The Web site FiveThirtyEight wrote a piece about Senator Sessions' 
confirmation process, and I wish to read a section of it now. ``I care 
about civil rights,'' Sessions said. ``I care about voting rights.'' 
Sessions has cited his record as evidence.

       In 2009, he said he'd been involved in 20 or 30 
     desegregation cases as a prosecutor, and this year, he told 
     the Judiciary Committee that four civil rights cases were 
     among the 10 most important cases he'd worked on in his 
     career. Some committee members were skeptical.
       Democratic Sen. Al Franken of Minnesota said Tuesday that 
     Sessions had overstated his role in the anti-segregation 
     litigation. This is an area where the administration's 
     priorities are clearly going to matter.
       The number of anti-discrimination and voting-rights cases 
     brought by the Justice Department civil rights division 
     dropped sharply under President George W. Bush compared with 
     his predecessor, Bill Clinton. The Voting Rights Act recently 
     moved closer to Sessions' personal beliefs.
       When a 2013 Supreme Court ruling weakened the law, Sessions 
     said it was ``good news . . . for the South.'' On Tuesday, 
     Sessions called the act ``intrusive.''


[[Page S884]]


  So what does this write-up say about what priorities an Attorney 
General Sessions might choose? Well, to me, it says that voting rights 
are going to be dealt a bigger blow than we have seen in the past few 
years. Again, we come back to the sense of being extreme. Senator 
Sessions' priorities and his policy views are not in the mainstream for 
the Justice Department.
  I don't think the American people are comfortable with letting 
politics about policing trump data. I don't think they are comfortable 
with overlooking our history and our commitment to democracy. So why 
are we comfortable with this nomination?
  The final area I want to touch on is Senator Sessions' philosophy. 
The Washington Post published a news article about a week ago that 
looks at the Executive orders we have seen out of this White House. It 
is called ``Trump's hard-line actions have an intellectual godfather: 
Jeff Sessions.''
  I would like to read a few excerpts from the article.

       In jagged black strokes, President Trump's signature was 
     scribbled onto a catalogue of executive orders over the past 
     10 days that translated the hardline promises of his campaign 
     into the policies of his government. The directives bore 
     Trump's name, but another man's fingerprints were also on 
     nearly all of them: Jeff Sessions.
       The early days of the Trump presidency have rushed a 
     nationalist agenda long on the fringes of American life into 
     action--and Sessions, the quiet Alabamian who long cultivated 
     those ideas as a Senate backbencher, has become a singular 
     power in this new Washington. Sessions' ideology is driven by 
     a visceral aversion to what he calls ``soulless globalism,'' 
     a term used on the extreme right to convey a perceived threat 
     to the United States from free trade, international alliances 
     and the immigration of nonwhites.
       And despite many reservations among Republicans about that 
     world view, Sessions--whose 1986 nomination for a federal 
     judgeship was doomed by accusations of racism that he 
     denied--is finding little resistance in Congress to his 
     proposed role as Trump's attorney general.
       Sessions' nomination is scheduled to be voted on Tuesday by 
     the Senate Judiciary Committee, but his influence in the 
     administration stretches far beyond the Justice Department.
       From immigration and health care to national security and 
     trade, Sessions is the intellectual godfather of the 
     President's policies. His reach extends throughout the White 
     House with his aides and allies accelerating the president's 
     most dramatic moves, including the ban on refugees and 
     citizens from seven mostly Muslim nations that has triggered 
     fear around the globe.
       The tactician turning Trump's agenda into law is deputy 
     chief of staff Rick Dearborn, Sessions' long time chief of 
     staff in the Senate. The mastermind behind Trump's incendiary 
     brand of populism is chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon, who, 
     as chairman of the Breitbart website, promoted Sessions for 
     years.

  Here's a quote from Bannon:

       Throughout the campaign, Sessions has been the fiercest, 
     most dedicated, and most loyal promoter in Congress of 
     Trump's agenda, and has played a critical role as the 
     clearinghouse for policy and philosophy to undergird the 
     implementation of that agenda.
       Sessions helped devise the President's first-week strategy, 
     in which Trump signed a blizzard of Executive orders that 
     begin to fulfill his signature campaign promises--although 
     Sessions had advocated for going even faster. The senator 
     lobbied for a ``shock and awe'' period of executive action 
     that would rattle Congress--

  I think we got that--

     impress Trump's base--

  I assume we got that--

     and catch his critics unaware--

  I don't know about that--

     according to the two officials involved in the transition 
     plan.
       Trump opted for a slightly slower pace, these officials 
     said, because he wanted to maximize news coverage by 
     spreading out his directives over several weeks. Trump makes 
     his own decisions, but Sessions was one of the rare lawmakers 
     who shared his impulses.
       There are limits to Sessions's influence, however. He has 
     not persuaded Trump--so far, at least--to eliminate the 
     Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, under which 
     children brought to the United States illegally are allowed 
     to stay in the country.
       Sessions became a daily presence at Trump Tower in New 
     York, mapping out the policy agenda and making personnel 
     decisions. Once former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani was out 
     of consideration for secretary of state, Trump considered 
     nominating Sessions because he was so trusted by the inner 
     circle, including Kushner, although Sessions' preference was 
     to be attorney general, according to people familiar with the 
     talks.
       Since his nomination, Sessions has been careful to not be 
     formally involved even as his ideas animate the White House. 
     In a statement Sunday, he denied that he has had 
     ``communications'' with his former advisers or reviewed the 
     executive orders.

  I have no reason to doubt that he established a proper distance while 
he was the nominee.

       Sessions has installed close allies throughout the 
     administration. He persuaded Cliff Sims, a friend and 
     adviser, to sell his Alabama media outlet and take a job 
     directing message strategy at the White House.
       Sessions also influenced the selection of Peter Navarro, an 
     economist and friend with whom he coauthored an op-ed last 
     fall warning against the ``rabbit hole of globalism,'' as 
     director of the National Trade Council.
       John Weaver, a veteran GOP strategist who was a consultant 
     on Sessions' first Senate campaign and is now a Trump critic, 
     said that Sessions is at the pinnacle of power because he 
     shares Trump's ``1940s view of fortress America.''
       ``That's something you would find in an Allen Drury 
     novel,'' Weaver said. ``Unfortunately, there are real 
     consequences to this, which are draconian views on 
     immigration and a view of America that is insular and not an 
     active member of the global community.''
       Inside the White House and within Sessions's alumni 
     network, people have taken to calling the Senator ``Joseph,'' 
     referring to the Old Testament patriarch who was shunned by 
     his family and sold into slavery as a boy, only to rise 
     through unusual circumstances to become right hand to the 
     pharaoh and oversee the lands of Egypt.
       In a 20-year Senate career, Sessions has been isolated in 
     his own party, a dynamic crystallized a decade ago when he 
     split with President George W. Bush and the business 
     community over comprehensive immigration changes.
       In lonely speeches on the Senate floor, Sessions would 
     chastise ``the masters of the universe.'' He hung on his 
     office wall a picture of He-Man from the popular 1980s comic 
     book series.
       As he weighed a presidential run, Trump liked what he saw 
     in Sessions, who was tight with the constituencies Trump was 
     eager to rouse on the right.
       ``Sessions was always somebody that we had targeted,'' said 
     Sam Nunberg, Trump's political adviser at the time.
       In May 2015, Nunberg said, he reached out to Miller, then 
     an adviser to Sessions, to arrange a phone call between Trump 
     and the senator. The two hit it off, with Trump telling 
     Nunberg, ``That guy is tough.''
       The next month, Trump declared his candidacy. In August of 
     that year, Sessions joined Trump at a megarally in the 
     senator's home town of Mobile and donned a ``Make America 
     Great Again'' cap. By January 2016, Miller had formally 
     joined the campaign and was traveling daily with the 
     candidate, writing speeches and crafting policies.

  That Washington Post article offers a look into the nominee's 
philosophy. Out of the gate, the President has pushed for all 
punishment and no mercy. The administration has shown a willingness to 
trample on rights to satisfy political objectives. This should trouble 
everybody on both sides of the aisle who cares about Executive 
overreach.
  This week, John Yoo--the driving force of enhanced interrogation 
under the Bush administration, the torture man, the famous John Yoo 
from the Office of Legal Counsel, the John Yoo demonized by 
progressives for sort of being the key thinker behind understanding 
Executive power as more expansive than it had ever been understood 
before--this week, John Yoo came out saying that he thinks this 
President has taken Executive power too far. John Yoo is saying that--
not Sheldon Whitehouse, not the ACLU; John Yoo from George W. Bush's 
administration. If that is what John Yoo is saying, then we should all 
be worried.
  Think of what the President might do with an Attorney General in 
place who shares his philosophy on immigrants, minority communities, 
gay Americans, voting rights, and women's rights.
  The NAACP has pulled together a list of facts about the Senator that 
further flushes out this philosophy, and it is deeply concerning.

       In July 2015, during the confirmation hearing of a district 
     court nominee from Maryland, Sessions made the nominee answer 
     for her career as a public defender and civil rights lawyer, 
     and invoked Freddie Gray, the teenager unlawfully arrested 
     and killed by Baltimore police in 2015, as a client 
     inappropriate for a lawyer nominated to the bench:
       ``Can you assure the police officers in Baltimore and all 
     over Maryland that might be brought before your court, that 
     they'll get a fair day in court and that your history would 
     not impact your decisionmaking?'' he asked.
       ``And I raise that particularly because I see your firm is 
     representing Mr. Freddie Gray in that case that's gathered so 
     much attention in Maryland, and there's lots of law 
     enforcement officers throughout the state and they want to 
     know that they don't have someone who has an agenda to bring 
     to the bench--can you assure them that you won't bring that 
     to the bench?''

[[Page S885]]

       In December 2010, Sessions took to the Senate floor to rail 
     against judicial nominees who have what he calls ``ACLU DNA'' 
     or the ``ACLU chromosome.'' The ACLU ``seeks to deny the will 
     of the American people,'' he said, ``and has taken positions 
     far to the left of mainstream American and the ideals and 
     values the majority of Americans hold dear.''
       In October 2009, Sessions opposed a district court nominee 
     and former ACLU staff attorney by saying, ``I think we're 
     seeing a common DNA run through the Obama nominees, and 
     that's the ACLU chromosome.''

  I know people have mixed feelings about the ACLU. Sometimes I have 
mixed feelings about the ACLU. But remember what happened when this 
Executive order was issued: It was the ACLU that took them to court to 
protect every American's civil liberties, and they were the ones who 
won in court right away. So I say that we need to have special respect 
for the lawyers who protect our civil liberties.
  These events should give us all pause because our country has long 
associated groups like the NAACP and the ACLU with the mission of the 
Justice Department, and now we may have an Attorney General who has, at 
least in the past, relished opposition to these groups.
  Before concluding, I just want to say that I understand there may be 
a distinction between politician-elected official representing a 
certain State and a certain perspective Jeff Sessions, Senator 
Sessions, and Attorney General Sessions. This sometimes does happen as 
people move from legislative to executive or as they advance in their 
careers. It is entirely possible, and I sure hope that there will be an 
evolution, that he understands he may have his views or he may have 
been vigorously advocating for the views of his constituents, but now 
he has a different role as the chief law enforcement officer for the 
United States of America, somebody who is there to uphold equal justice 
for everyone.
  So as critical as I have been of his record, I hope to be proven 
wrong. There are people on the other side of the aisle and one Democrat 
on our side of the aisle whom I respect greatly who really love Jeff 
Sessions. I hope everything they believe about him and the way he will 
conduct himself as Attorney General ends up being true. I just don't 
see any evidence for that yet, other than the word of my colleagues. 
That means a lot, but the record is too decisively against all of the 
things I care for and all of the things I believe are important in an 
Attorney General.
  I know I am not alone in having these concerns. Millions of people 
have signed petitions, made calls, and posted online in opposition to 
this nominee.
  I have received very thoughtful messages from people in Hawaii about 
Senator Sessions. I wish to quote a few of them.

       I'm writing as a thoughtful voter and human being that Mr. 
     Sessions is not the right man for the job of Attorney 
     General. He may be a friend of the president and his inner 
     circle, but he does not represent the values of our 
     democracy.
       Given his approval of the ban on immigration, I believe he 
     will help the president radicalize and destabilize this 
     country.

  Another person mentioned the former Acting Attorney General, who was 
fired by the President because she was true to the word she gave 
Senator Sessions in her own confirmation hearing. Sally Yates said what 
so many people are thinking, which is that this Muslim ban cannot 
stand.
  Here is another letter from Hawaii:

       I'm writing to express my most heartfelt disappointment at 
     the direction our country is quickly taking with the Trump 
     administration.
       While I accept that those with more conservative views than 
     mine are now in power, I find the actions being taken a gross 
     and crass disregard of our diverse and tolerant national 
     identity.

  I want to end by making something very clear: We can respect Senator 
Sessions as a colleague while still believing that his policies, his 
priorities, and his philosophy are too extreme for the Justice 
Department. And there are too many issues that this country cares about 
to confirm him as Attorney General.
  If you care about criminal justice reform, if you care about seeing 
fewer people go to jail for petty crimes, if you care about directing 
fewer taxpayer dollars to the prison industry, then you have to be 
opposed to this nomination.
  If you care about the LGBT community; if you believe that people 
shouldn't be discriminated against or punished because of whom they 
love; if you believe that people, regardless of their identity, should 
be able to get married or wear our Nation's finest uniform, then you 
have to be opposed.
  If you care about immigration; if you believe in immigration; if you 
are a business owner who wants to hire the best and the brightest; if 
your family came to this country to pursue the American dream; if you 
are a person of faith who believes in caring for those who suffer, for 
the stranger in our midst, you have to be opposed to this nomination.
  If you care about women's rights; if you believe that women are not 
to be treated like second-class citizens, that our daughters are just 
as capable as our sons and that they have the right to make their own 
decisions about their own health care; if you believe they should be 
paid the same for doing the same job, then you have to be opposed.
  If you care about our democracy; if you want people to raise their 
voices and take part in shaping the future of our country; if you are 
dismayed to know that millions of people are being prevented from 
voting not because they aren't eligible but because of senseless laws 
that restrict their rights, then you have to oppose this nomination.
  The Senate must stand up for civil rights, for voting rights, for 
women's rights, for immigrants' rights, and that means we must vote no 
on Jeff Sessions for Attorney General.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this nomination.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tillis). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                              appointments

  The Chair announces, on behalf of the majority leader, pursuant to 
the provisions of Public Law 68-541, as amended by the appropriate 
provisions of Public Law 102-246, and in consultation with the 
Democratic leader, the reappointment of the following individuals to 
serve as members of the Library of Congress Trust Fund Board for a five 
year term: Chris Long of New York and Kathleen Casey of Virginia.
  Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I have to admit that this is a bittersweet 
moment for me. I come here tonight to express my support for Jeff 
Sessions' nomination to be the next Attorney General of the United 
States. It is a high honor, and the nominee is more than worthy. The 
truth is, I will be sad to see him go.
  In all the time I have known Senator Sessions, I have found him to be 
a consummate gentleman. We actually met before I entered the Senate. It 
was 2013. I was serving in the House of Representatives--a first-term 
Congressman. Senator Sessions, of course, was my elder in both age and 
rank. Yet he reached out to me humbly to discuss a hot topic--
immigration. Back then, there was an effort afoot to force through 
Congress a massive immigration bill the American people clearly did not 
want. So the two of us worked together to stop it, and I am glad to say 
we were successful.
  I took away more from that experience than an appreciation of the 
Senator's legislative skills. I got a sense of his character: how he 
saw the world, what he believed, and why. If I had to sum it up, I 
would say this is a man who loves the law--who has spent decades doing 
all he could.
  Senator Sessions knows the law shouldn't be the spider's web of old, 
which catches the weak but cannot constrain the mighty. It is supposed 
to uphold the entire community so all Americans can thrive. What we 
have is a legal system that at its best strives to be a justice system.
  I think if you look at Senator Sessions' career, you can see the same 
qualities represented by the balance, the blindfold, and the sword of 
Lady Justice. First, like the balance, he has a judicious mind--honed 
over his 12 years as a U.S. attorney and his 2 years as attorney 
general of the State of Alabama. He evaluates the evidence carefully 
and comes to a well-considered

[[Page S886]]

conclusion. I would argue it is this very approach that led him to 
advocate for an immigration system that works for working Americans. I 
have every confidence, as our top law enforcement officer, he will keep 
the interests of American citizens uppermost in his mind.
  Second, like the blindfold, he is impartial and fair-minded. I think 
of the fair sentencing law he passed, with bipartisan support, to bring 
harsh penalties that fell disproportionately on African Americans more 
in line with the kinds of penalties that fell on other criminals. I 
also think of his work on behalf of a more equitable distribution of 
funding for HIV-AIDS patients. Just as Senator Sessions strove to 
represent the interests of all Alabamians, I think Attorney General 
Sessions will strive to uphold the rights of all Americans.
  Third, like the sword, Senator Sessions believes in swift and strong 
enforcement. Perhaps the best argument for his candidacy is the 
extensive list of endorsements he has received: the Fraternal Order of 
Police, the National Sheriffs' Association, and the list goes on. I 
would think such widespread support among the people he would oversee 
would make a deep impression on any Senator's mind. If the people who 
actually enforce the law believe in his leadership, then so do I.
  So I am sorry to see him say goodbye to this august body, but I am 
confident he will serve the American people well. He is the right man 
for the job. I urge all Senators to vote for his confirmation.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Perdue). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I am rising to speak this morning about 
the nomination of our colleague, Senator Jeff Sessions from Alabama, to 
become the 84th Attorney General of the United States. As the highest 
law enforcement officer in the land, it is the responsibility of the 
Attorney General to ensure that all Americans receive the equal justice 
under the law they are entitled to as American citizens.
  A commitment to that equal justice has rarely been more necessary 
than it is today. We need an Attorney General wholly committed to 
serving the people of the Nation, and we need an Attorney General who 
fights to expand American's civil rights, not to restrict them, hobble 
them, or eliminate them, or to eliminate the Justice Department's 
Office of Civil Rights.
  We need an Attorney General who will stand up to the President when 
he tries to put an illegal and unconstitutional policy in place. So it 
has been part of our journey, the story of America, that we have 
strived to form a more perfect union. We have worked over time--like 
Martin Luther King said, the long arc of history bends toward justice.
  But we have worked to bend toward justice. Our vision of opportunity 
was incomplete at the founding of our Nation. It was not extended to 
all genders and all ethnicities and all races. We have worked hard to 
change that, but here we are at this point in time, still not at the 
end of that journey.
  Part of the question is, How does any given individual fit into the 
position of Attorney General in that fight for that more perfect vision 
of our Nation?
  So I thought I would share a little bit about that. Hillary Shelton, 
the Director of NAACP's Washington office, told the New Republic that 
Senator Sessions has ``consistently opposed the bread and butter civil 
rights agenda.'' When the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act of 
2013 with Shelby v. Holder, Senator Sessions celebrated the decision 
saying: If you go to Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, people are not 
denied a vote because of the color of their skin.
  Well, indeed, part of this--the point is, when the Voting Rights Act 
was in place, it prevented many activities that would have otherwise 
denied the vote. We have seen the resurgence of all kinds of measures 
since the Voting Rights Act was modified by the Supreme Court, which it 
eliminated key provisions.
  We have seen the ``almost surgical precision'' of North Carolina's 
voter ID law that the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down 
because they were created specifically to reduce the vote of African 
Americans. We are living in times that it just feels like our Nation is 
a bit under siege.
  During the campaign of last year, we had so many divisive attacks as 
part of the Presidential primaries. Even during the general election, 
very divisive rhetoric passed from the man who would then become our 
President, President Trump--attacks on women, attacks on minorities, 
attacks on African Americans, attacks on Hispanics, attacks on people 
with disabilities.
  Yet, against that, we have a vision of a system of law that treats 
everyone equally, impartially. We learned when we were children that 
Lady Liberty wears a blindfold with the scales of justice in her hand. 
We need an Attorney General who has at their core that vision of 
impartial justice, justice for every American, justice regardless of 
skin color, regardless of ethnicity, regardless of geography. That is 
essential, and we need it now particularly in a powerful way to help 
address the divisive rhetoric of the last year, which has left many 
people doubting that their government is willing to fight for them, 
that they will receive this form of impartial justice.
  We have seen what has happened with the strong work of the Justice 
Department's Civil Rights Division under President Obama. For more than 
half a century, the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division fought 
for and enforced laws that uphold the basic rights of all Americans, 
steadily expanding opportunities.
  The work of that division was stifled, restricted in many ways during 
George W. Bush's administration. But under President Obama, the Civil 
Rights Division has worked hard to apply, in a powerful way, civil 
rights for all Americans. In just the last few weeks of the Obama 
administration, they won the first hate crime case involving a 
transgender victim, they sued two cities that were blocking mosques 
from opening, they settled lending discrimination charges with two 
banks and sued a third, they filed legal briefs on behalf of New York 
teenagers held in solitary confinement, and they accused a business in 
Louisiana of moving mental patients into nursing homes. They were 
actively, aggressively fighting for the rights of all Americans.
  Many wonder now, under the new administration, whether we will have a 
powerful Civil Rights Division fighting for those whom others would 
choose to exploit. Senator Sessions has downplayed the need for the 
Justice Department to prosecute crimes against women and members of the 
LGBTQ community, saying: I am not sure women or people with different 
sexual orientations face discrimination. I just don't see it, he said.
  Well, if you talk to LGBTQ Americans, they will tell you their 
stories of harassment and discrimination. So it is very hard not to be 
aware of the extraordinary amount of discrimination they experience, 
unless you are determined not to see it. To those who say we don't see 
discrimination, if you ask, you will hear the stories of 
discrimination. You will hear the stories of profiling, individual 
young African-American men picked out time and time again to be stopped 
and questioned at a rate that someone of a different skin color would 
not experience, but you do not see it unless you open your eyes to see 
it. At his confirmation hearing, Senator Sessions said: These lawsuits 
undermine respect for police officers. He was referring to the 
investigation of two dozen police agencies, knowing that the Civil 
Rights Division reached consent decrees with 14 of them.
  He said: These lawsuits undermine the respect of police officers and 
create an impression that the entire department is not doing their work 
consistent with fidelity to law and fairness. Well, let me explain that 
the reason the departments were investigated is because there were a 
lot of reports that in fact they were not doing their work consistent 
with fidelity to the law. It was not an impression; it was a report 
about failure to do that.
  Don't we want an Attorney General who rather than relegating the 
complaint to, well, don't pursue them because it creates an impression 
they are

[[Page S887]]

not doing work, instead says: These are complaints we must investigate 
and remedy that situation. That is the responsibility of the Civil 
Rights Division, to investigate and to remedy, and that is what this 
division did under President Obama. They didn't turn a blind eye. They 
didn't say that would be embarrassing to the Department, but my 
colleague had a different take, saying: We need to be careful before we 
do that because it might create an impression that they are not doing 
their work well. Just think if we take that attitude.

  We anticipate to have hearings for a labor commissioner. The nominee 
for Labor runs a company that has a tremendous number of Hardee's and 
Carl's Jr. outlets, and those outlets have a horrendous record of labor 
rights abuses, but we wouldn't know about those abuses if the 
investigator said: We won't investigate because it might create an 
impression that they are doing something wrong.
  So I am very concerned about the attitude that you don't investigate 
because you might embarrass someone.
  When there are reports of injustice, that is the point, that it gets 
investigated. And it not only gets investigated in order that the 
problems will get remedied but also so it will send a message to others 
to operate within the bounds of the law.
  Our next Attorney General needs to make civil rights a priority, 
fighting for them, ensuring them, securing them as the North Star of 
the Justice Department--not something that can simply be left to the 
States, not something that can be ignored, not something that will be 
allowed to slip backward.
  Communities of color aren't the only ones watching Senator Sessions' 
confirmation process with some anxiety. Over the last 8 years, the 
rights of the LGBTQ community have leapt forward in incredible ways, 
from the greater acceptance of gay and lesbian Americans and 
transgender Americans. And certainly we cannot forget the historic 
milestone of the legalization of same-sex marriage a year and a half 
ago. But so many of these long-fought-for and hard-won rights are so 
new that the community is terrified that President Trump's 
administration will work to restrict those rights or roll those rights 
back. But it is the duty of the Attorney General to protect those 
rights, to fight for those rights.
  So it is of some concern--for me, it is a substantial concern--that 
the nominee voted against the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate 
Crimes Prevention Act. This act was passed on October 22, 2009, and 
signed by President Obama 6 days later. It was part of the National 
Defense Authorization Act of 2010, and it expands the 1969 U.S. Federal 
hate crime law to include crimes motivated by a victim's actual or 
perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.
  The bill removes the prerequisite that the victim be engaging in a 
federally protected activity, like voting or going to schools. It is 
much, much broader. It gives Federal authorities a greater ability to 
engage in hate crimes investigations that local authorities choose not 
to pursue.
  It provided funding for fiscal years 2010 to 2012 to help State and 
local agencies pay for investigations and prosecuting hate crimes.
  It requires the FBI--the Federal Bureau of Investigation--to track 
statistics of hate crimes based on gender and gender identity. Hate 
crimes for other groups were already being tracked.
  It was named after Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. In 1998, 
Matthew Shepard, a student, was tied to a fence, tortured, and left to 
die in Laramie, WY, because of his sexuality. In that same year, James 
Byrd, an African-American man, was tied to a truck by two White 
supremacists. He was dragged behind it and was decapitated in Jasper, 
TX. At the time, Wyoming hate crime laws did not recognize homosexuals 
as a subset class, and Texas had no hate crimes laws at all.
  Supporters of an expansion in hate crimes laws argue that hate crimes 
are worse than regular crimes without a prejudice motivation from a 
psychological perspective. The time it takes to mentally recover from a 
hate crime is almost twice as long as it is for a regular crime. And 
LGBTQ people feel as if they are being punished for their sexuality, 
which leads to a higher incidence of depression, anxiety, and post-
traumatic stress disorder.
  In short, in multiple ways, in ways I have enumerated, this law more 
aggressively pursued justice. I was pleased to be here as a first-year 
Senator to be able to support that law. Hate crimes tear at our 
collective spirit. They are based on divisions in our society, 
divisions that some choose to amplify and inflame, divisions that 
victimize people for being who they are as individuals.
  I was proud of this Chamber, of this Senate, that we passed a bill 
that would give State and local law enforcement the necessary tools to 
prevent and prosecute these types of crimes and move our Nation down a 
path toward equality--equality under the law and freedom from 
persecution. But my colleague, the nominee, voted against this pursuit 
of greater justice for a persecuted group within our society, and that 
certainly bothers me substantially. It is my understanding that he 
didn't feel that people actually faced discrimination, but the fact is, 
they do.
  LGBTQ individuals, especially transgender women of color, are more 
likely than any other group to be targets of discrimination and hate 
crimes. Across the category, and more so in some, look at the 49 people 
killed, the 53 more injured at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando last 
summer. The attacker purposely targeted a gay nightclub for his attack. 
LGBTQ people are twice as likely as African Americans to be targets of 
hate crimes. Nearly one-fifth of the 5,462 so-called single-bias hate 
crimes reported to the FBI in 2014 were because of the person's 
sexuality or perceived orientation.
  Another issue was raised in 2010 when the proposal was put forward to 
repeal a discriminatory law in the military, the don't ask, don't tell 
law, which barred openly gay and lesbian individuals from serving in 
our armed services. My colleague, our nominee, said that gay 
servicemembers would have a corrosive effect on morale, essentially 
saying discrimination is justified because of the prejudices of others 
who serve. But it is not justified, and the prejudices have taken a bit 
of movement along that journey toward justice.
  More than 14,500 people were discharged from the military during the 
18 years of don't ask, don't tell. An estimated 66,000 lesbian, gay, 
and bisexual servicemembers were in the military at the time the ban 
was lifted. But here is what happened after that 2010 change--a change 
that our nominee opposed. The military family embraced the LGBTQ 
community, and instead of having a corrosive effect, repealing don't 
ask, don't tell has strengthened the military family. In fact, in 2016, 
just last year, the first openly gay Army Secretary was confirmed, Eric 
Fanning. Last year, the Navy named a ship after Harvey Milk, the gay 
politician and former member of the Navy who was assassinated in 1978.
  So a robust pursuit of equality would have been to voice principled 
opposition to this discrimination in armed services that was actually 
robbing our armed services of a tremendous amount of talent and 
experience and was damaging the lives of those who were expelled from 
the military. That would have been a principled pursuit of justice, but 
that is not the path my colleague, our nominee, chose to travel. 
Instead, it was a path of justifying discrimination, justifying 
injustice.
  During the confirmation hearing, my colleague, our nominee, softened 
his stance on LGBTQ issues, and he said he would uphold the statute 
protecting LGBT people's safety and ensure that the community's civil 
rights are enforced. Well, I wish we had more statutes that protected 
LGBT people's safety. Promising to uphold them when they largely don't 
exist is somewhat of an empty promise. It sounds good, but it lacks 
punch.
  We had a debate in this Chamber about the Employment Non-
Discrimination Act. This act was specifically about anti-discrimination 
in the process of job hiring in America, and I was deeply involved in 
this effort.
  Back in Oregon, when I became speaker, I worked to end discrimination 
for our LGBT community--discrimination in hiring, discrimination in 
public accommodations, discrimination on a whole spectrum of aspects of 
our society. And we passed a very strong law in the State of Oregon to 
end that discrimination, and a piece of

[[Page S888]]

it--a big piece of it--was to end employment discrimination. How can we 
claim, as a nation, that we are the land of opportunity if we slam shut 
the door to opportunity on a large number of our fellow Americans by 
allowing discrimination in employment?
  Well, because of that work I did in Oregon--when I came here to the 
Senate, Senator Kennedy was ill. Senator Kennedy would champion this 
legislation. Senator Kennedy, who had been here--he had been on the 
floor, I believe it was 1998 or 1996. And that bill had only failed by 
one vote back before the turn of the century. It was a 50-to-49 vote. 
The individual who was not here probably have voted for it. The Vice 
President breaking a tie probably would have passed it. It would have 
been adopted. It would have been signed.
  Fast-forward to 2013, and here we were on the floor debating this 
issue, and I was very pleased to see it on the floor because Senator 
Kennedy and his team had asked me to carry the torch on the bill and 
work to see it passed. I had worked for us to hold hearings, and I had 
advocated with our leadership that it was time to put this issue on the 
floor, that we couldn't allow this discrimination to continue without 
at least working to address it. We might fail on the floor to pass this 
bill, but we should at least put it before the body, make the case, 
have the argument, fight to end this discrimination.
  Here on the floor, we no longer have to get 50 votes and the 
President because the habits of the Senate changed, and now it is 
almost always required to get a supermajority to close debate. So we 
had to get 60 votes, not 51, but we did get 60 votes. We did close 
debate and go to a final vote. But one of the individuals who placed 
himself directly in the path to obstruct success on the bill, to 
obstruct the end of discrimination--job discrimination for LGBTQ 
communities--was our colleague and our nominee for Attorney General. I 
would hope to have a voice in the office that was seasoned through 
tough battles and stood up in difficult times to fight any 
discrimination, not to perpetuate discrimination. So that concerns me--
substantially concerns me.

  In 2013, the Senate voted to reauthorize the Violence Against Women 
Act, often referred to as VAWA, after Congress passed it. That was an 
important effort because a woman should never be a victim of violence 
in her own home. Nobody should be a victim of violence, but 
particularly to address the challenges that we see. And the National 
Center for Injury Prevention and Control notes that women in the United 
States experience roughly 4.8 million assaults and rapes per year from 
their intimate partner, and they are afraid to seek medical treatment. 
Less than 20 percent of battered women sought medical treatment.
  The National Crime Victimization Survey--the statistics that I have 
here from 2006, so quite a while ago--says that over the course of the 
year, 33,000 women were sexually assaulted, more than 600 women every 
day. Women ages 20 to 24 are at greatest risk of nonfatal domestic 
violence, and women age 20 and higher suffer from the highest rates of 
rape.
  The Justice Department estimates that one in five women will 
experience rape or attempted rape during her college years--just during 
those college years--and that less than 5 percent of these rapes will 
be reported.
  Income is a factor. The poorer the household, the higher the rate of 
domestic violence. Women in the lowest income category experience more 
than six times the rate of intimate partner violence as compared to 
women in the highest income category. African-American women face the 
highest rates of violence. American-Indian women are victimized at a 
rate double that of women of other races.
  The impact of these kinds of violence is huge and long-lasting. 
According to the Family and Violence Prevention Fund, growing up in a 
violent home may be terrifying, a traumatic experience that can effect 
every aspect of a child's life, growth, and development. Children who 
have been exposed to family violence suffer symptoms of post-traumatic 
stress disorder, such as bed-wetting and nightmares, and were at 
greater risk than their peers of having allergies, asthma, 
gastrointestinal problems, headaches, and flu. In addition, women who 
experience physical abuse as children are at greater risk of 
victimization as adults.
  Well, I go through all these statistics to note what a substantial 
issue this is in terms of crime and violence and the impact both on the 
victims and on the children in homes--an impact that damages children's 
ability to pursue a full, healthy path toward thriving as an adult, an 
impact that creates a cycle of violence.
  In 2011, during one 24-hour period, 1,600 Oregon victims were served 
by domestic violence services. What are those services? Emergency 
shelter, children's support, transitional housing, support for teen 
victims of dating violence, therapy or counseling for children, 
advocacy related to cyber stalking. Additionally, during the same 24-
hour period, Oregon domestic violence programs answered more than 27 
hotline calls every hour.
  VAWA, the Violence Against Women Act, has been a powerful tool in 
fighting these kinds of abuse, these kinds of violence in our 
community, and it has proven to dramatically reduce domestic violence. 
Among other things, in 2013 the VAWA reauthorization included measures 
to ensure that LGBTQ men and women cannot be turned away from domestic 
violence shelters. It addressed threats of violence against women in 
transgender communities, who face rates of domestic violence and sexual 
assault at much higher rates, as I noted before, than those faced by 
the general population. It provides tools and encourages best 
practices, which have proven to be effective to prevent domestic 
violence homicides by training law enforcement, victims service 
providers, and court personnel to identify and connect high-risk 
victims with crisis intervention services--all of this in the interest 
of preventing violence against women, and when such violence occurs, to 
get the treatment to be as robust and available as possible to assist 
those women.
  I would hope to have the champion in this fight to decrease violence 
against women in the position of Attorney General of the United States 
of America, but my colleague, our nominee for Attorney General, voted 
against these practices for decreasing violence, voted against these 
efforts to provide greater support when the violence did occur, and 
that, for me, is a very substantial concern. This turned many women's 
advocacy groups into a position of opposing this confirmation.
  And another factor came into play. In October of this last year when 
our nominee for Attorney General was asked his opinion about a 2005 
audio recording which then-Candidate Trump was--well, he wasn't yet a 
candidate at the time of the audio recording--but he was heard bragging 
about inappropriately groping women. The nominee said he didn't think 
the behavior that was described was sexual assault. Senator Sessions 
said: ``I don't characterize that as sexual assault. I think that is a 
stretch,'' he said.
  I couldn't more profoundly disagree. When someone grabs the intimate 
parts of an individual, that is an assault. How can one reach any other 
conclusion? Envision that your loved one is the one who is groped--your 
wife, your sister, your mother, or your daughter. You don't believe 
that is a sexual assault? I would like to have as our Attorney General 
an individual who would understand in the core of his or her being that 
this is an assault and wrong. The law makes it an assault. Morality 
makes it an assault. So that bothers me a great deal.
  I do want to note that in a confirmation hearing, my colleague 
Senator Sessions changed his opinion on this and he noted what we would 
expect one to note. He said that yes, activity such as was noted on the 
recording of our now President, when asked whether it was an assault, 
he said clearly it would be. I appreciate that evolution, but the 
initial reaction before the confirmation hearing still disturbs me.
  Earlier this month, the National Task Force to End Sexual Violence 
issued an open letter opposing his confirmation based on the record. In 
the letter, they stated, when referring to the nominee, that ``his 
history leads us to question whether he will vigorously seek to ensure 
all victims and survivors of gender-based violence, particularly 
vulnerable populations and those at the margins of society, have access 
to vitally needed services and legal protections.''

[[Page S889]]

  This goal to champion justice for all--perhaps it is easy to champion 
justice for the groups one most closely identifies with, but the role 
is to fight for justice for everyone throughout our society, and that 
is why this is of substantial concern.
  The letter went on to say: ``Selective application of the law and 
outward hostility towards victims of sexual and domestic violence in 
historically marginalized populations has a chilling effect on their 
willingness and ability to seek services and protection. It then noted 
that the Attorney General of the United States must be an individual 
committed to protecting the inalienable rights of equal protection 
under the law to all--to all within the jurisdiction of the United 
States.
  Let me say it again. We need an Attorney General who fights for equal 
justice for all.
  Another issue we face--set of issues, really--is related to 
immigration. As we know, President Trump recently signed an Executive 
order barring travel by those from seven Muslim countries and also 
barring refugees into our country and having a longer ban on refugees 
specifically from Syria. And the first ban, the Muslim ban, came out as 
Rudy Giuliani told us of instructions to create a Muslim ban that would 
be changed enough to make it legal under the law.
  There are many reasons to be concerned about this ban based on 
religion. We have a tradition of freedom of religion in our country. It 
is a freedom enshrined in our Constitution. We have a tradition of 
religious tolerance. If we are a nation with religious freedom, 
religious tolerance goes hand in hand with that, but we have heard over 
the course of President Trump's campaign statement after statement that 
essentially presented a war on Islam, the Nation is at war with Islam--
the opposite of religious freedom, the opposite of religious tolerance.
  The worst aspect of this--and there are many bad aspects to it--is 
that it endangers our national security because of the recruiting 
strategy of ISIS. Our President says he wants to diminish and 
extinguish. Their recruiting strategy is to claim that the United 
States is conducting a war on Islam, so this ban and this campaign feed 
right into that recruiting strategy. It has been pointed out by 
security expert after security expert after security expert that this 
makes us less safe.
  Sally Yates, the Acting Attorney General, refused to defend this 
order in court because she believed it was illegal and 
unconstitutional. That is a principled stance, that despite that the 
head of the executive branch put something forward, the Attorney 
General said: No, that is wrong. That is not constitutional.

  Well, she was fired shortly thereafter, for taking that stand, by 
President Trump. But then, two attorneys general from Washington State 
and Minnesota took the case to court, pointing out that they had 
substantial harm in their States as a result of this, giving them 
standing to challenge it--harmed because of professors trapped 
overseas, harmed from students trapped overseas, harmed from citizens 
in the States of Washington and Minnesota whose family members were 
trapped overseas. They put it to a district court judge, James Robart, 
a judge who was appointed by George W. Bush. The judge put a 
restraining order on the Executive order. To do that, one has to reach 
the standard that the case has merit and is likely to prevail.
  So a judge, given this issue, the design of this issue, and the facts 
surrounding these orders, struck them down. And then it went to the 
Ninth Circuit Court, and the Ninth Circuit didn't find that there was 
enough information to change the decision of the district judge, but 
they asked for additional briefs, and they are expected to rule later 
this week. We will find out of course then how they weigh the issues.
  Part of what is being taken into account are the facts on the ground, 
including was this designed around national security, and part of that 
debate recognizes that individuals from those seven countries have not 
come to America and killed Americans.
  Now, individuals from other countries have come to America and killed 
Americans, but not from those seven countries. Then there is the 
question of whether it was based on religion, and they will be taking 
into account and looking at the fact that Rudy Giuliani said he was 
instructed to develop a Muslim ban but to make it look legal. So, 
clearly, there is evidence that the real intent of this wasn't national 
security but was religious discrimination.
  Then there is the fact that the Executive order itself has a clause 
that says we will discriminate based on religion, letting in Christians 
while closing out Muslims. They will consider all of that. We will see 
what they say.
  There is considerable power in the executive branch and the 
Presidency for making rules related to immigration. There is 
considerable power to take actions related to national security, but 
the design of this suggests serious constitutional problems, and two 
very capable lawyers--one, the acting AG for the United States of 
America and, second, a district court judge--have found it fails the 
test.
  I would like for us to have a nominee for Attorney General who would 
have the courage and convictions to stand up to a President when the 
President goes off track in violating the Constitution, and I am 
concerned that our nominee wouldn't reach the same courageous point of 
view that Sally Yates found or James Robart found. Even while noting 
that the courts are yet to ultimately decide, there are certainly heavy 
concerns that should be weighed intensely in this consideration, and I 
am not sure that would happen.
  In 2015, Senator Sessions, my colleague, our nominee, authored a bill 
that would automatically cut off Federal funding to sanctuary cities 
that refused to have their police officers act as agents of our 
immigration force, as ICE agents. Just today, I had the sheriff of 
Multnomah County in Oregon come and speak to me. He was formerly the 
police chief of our largest city--the city of Portland. What he 
conveyed was that if you have police officers pursue each person they 
interact with on the basis of immigration, pretty soon people in the 
community will not work with you to solve crimes, and you actually 
create enormous public safety risks for the citizens in Multnomah 
County. Numerous mayors have pointed this out; that if you see your 
police force as one that is continuously trying to be an immigration 
agent rather than a police officer and you are pursuing folks with 
profiling--stopping everyone in the Hispanic community--that pretty 
soon the Hispanic community folks don't want to talk to you. They will 
not help you solve the crimes that occur. The community becomes less 
safe.
  So this assault on public safety is a profound concern across this 
country.
  I am disturbed that our nominee authored a bill to penalize cities 
and States that are seeking to reduce public violence and enhance 
public safety. That seems the opposite of what an Attorney General 
should do.
  During his nomination hearing, Senator Sessions advocated for ending 
the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program, or DACA. This is a 
program on which one needs to understand it by meeting individuals who 
are childhood arrivals. There are folks who have crossed the border 
into our country who have brought with them a baby in their arms, or a 
toddler, or a 4-year-old. Those individuals--those children, those 
babies--grow up in America. They speak English. They only know America. 
Most of the time--I will not say most of the time, but in many cases 
they don't know they were even born outside the country.
  So these children were put into a position of saying: If you disclose 
your status and fill out all this paperwork, we will not send you back 
to a country you don't even know, that speaks a language you don't even 
know because you have grown up in America and you are going to 
contribute to America, if we embrace you. And you will just be a lost 
citizen--a citizen without a country--if you are sent out of the 
country to somewhere that would be totally unfamiliar to you.
  In this position that our nominee took, that he thinks we should end 
this program, it means that those children would now be eligible for 
deportation. There is a substantial concern here because they were 
promised that their information would not be used, would not be turned 
over for their deportation when they signed up. They trusted that when 
the United States of America

[[Page S890]]

made this promise to them, that promise would be kept, but it appears 
we have a nominee who wants to end that program and, therefore, place 
all of these children at risk of deportation.
  The nominee had no answer for what to do with the 800,000 children 
who have come out of the shadows because of that program.
  In December 2015, Senator Sessions voted against Senator Leahy's 
sense-of-the-Senate resolution that affirmed that the United States 
must not bar people from another country because of their religion. Our 
nominee spoke for 30 minutes against the resolution. This takes me back 
to the echoes of this issue of the Muslim ban and discrimination based 
on religion that is so alien to the United States of America.
  This resolution that affirmed that the United States would not bar 
people from our Nation because of their religion had the support of 96 
Senators. Four Senators voted against the resolution, essentially 
saying it is OK to discriminate based on religion. Our nominee was one 
of those four Senators who conveyed through their vote that it would be 
OK to use a religious test for those entering the United States.
  According to Bloomberg News, our nominee was one of the few lawmakers 
to defend President Trump's effort to propose a complete shutdown of 
Muslims entering the United States, in this report of November 18, 
2016. He told CNN's Dana Bash last June: Well, all I can tell you is, 
the public data we have had indicated that there are quite a number of 
countries that have sent a large number of people here who have become 
terrorists.
  During his nomination hearing, our nominee tried to walk back his 
support for the Muslim ban. He said he would not back a complete and 
total shutdown of all Muslims entering the United States. So he evolved 
from a position he took in December of 2015 and was more moderate 
during the nomination hearing. But still I am concerned about the 
position he put forward at that debate in December of 2015, when he 
spoke for 30 minutes and was one of four Senators to refuse to support 
a resolution saying that the United States should not discriminate 
based on religion.
  This Muslim ban and the vote on the December 2015 resolution leaves 
Muslim Americans wondering if our nominee would fully defend and 
advocate for them; whether our nominee, the President's nominee for 
Attorney General, would fight for equal justice for Muslims after 
supporting the position that it is OK to discriminate against Muslims 
entering our country. That concerns me because that is not the position 
I would like to see represented in the President's nominee for this 
office.
  My office has been receiving an enormous number of phone calls, 
emails, and letters about a whole host of nominees, and I think it is 
appropriate to share some of those as well as to note that a group of 
1,424 law school professors nationwide sent a letter to Congress urging 
us to vote no on this nomination, representing 180 law schools in 49 
States.
  I am not going to share all of the letter because I want to stay 
within the bounds of the debate. So I will just note this: They lay out 
a whole number of concerns about positions taken in the past.
  I will summarize it with a final paragraph: As law faculty who work 
every day to better the understanding of the law and to teach it to our 
students, we are convinced that the President's nominee will not fairly 
enforce our Nation's laws and promote justice and equality in the 
United States.
  That is 1,424 law school professors from 180 law schools looking at 
the record of the President's nominee.
  The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and Human Rights gives our 
nominee a zero-percent score. The Human Rights Campaign, which fights 
for justice for the LGBT community, gives the President's nominee a 
zero-percent score. The NAACP has repeatedly given grades of F to the 
nominee. The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and the ACLU have 
voiced vigorous opposition.
  I will share some of the letter from back home. Cobin from Portland, 
an assistant professor, writes: I am writing today to state my strong 
dissent for the nominee to be U.S. Attorney General. While this should 
be self-evident given his record, in light of this past week's events, 
it is all the more critical we have an Attorney General willing to 
fight for our Constitution. Protecting our fundamental values as 
Americans is priceless.
  From Southern Oregon, Karen of Jackson County writes: I am strongly 
opposed to the nomination of Jeff Sessions as Attorney General. His 
support of President Trump's views regarding immigration and voting 
rights are unacceptable and make him unacceptable to be the Nation's 
chief law enforcer.
  Letter after letter expresses concerns about the record.
  Earlier tonight, my colleague from Massachusetts was sharing 
testimony Coretta Scott King presented on March 13, 1986, to the Senate 
Judiciary Committee when my colleague was nominated to the U.S. 
District Court for the Southern District of Alabama. The Senate at that 
point in time rejected the nomination. They did so after examining a 
whole series of events which had transpired under his leadership. I 
can't read those events under the rules of the Senate because they 
would constitute a critique of a fellow Senator. So I am just 
summarizing that her letter laid them out, and the Senate Judiciary 
Committee fully explored the issues presented by Coretta Scott King, 
and by many others, and decided there wasn't the judicial vision 
appropriate for someone to serve as a judge in the United States of 
America.
  If that series of events led to the unusual outcome of the Senate 
deciding that an individual's background--a background related to 
efforts to prevent African Americans from voting, weighed it 
incorrectly, not right that an individual be serving as a judge, that 
same background should be weighed by all of us here this morning, in 
this debate, over whether a nominee has the judicial heart of Lady 
Liberty to judge everyone without discrimination, to fight equally for 
everyone without discrimination. The answer years ago by this Chamber 
was no.
  After I have weighed the many positions presented tonight which are 
deeply troubling, and the history that led this Chamber to make the 
decision it did back in 1986, I will have to join those who say and 
vote no on this nomination.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I come to the floor this morning to join 
my colleague from the Pacific Northwest speaking in opposition to the 
nomination of our colleague to the position of U.S. Attorney General.
  I thank the Senator from Oregon. I know he has been here for several 
hours. I listened to much of his remarks, and many of the issues he 
brought up in his statement reflect the issues that we in the Pacific 
Northwest are dealing with--the population of the Pacific Northwest 
concerns--and how many people in our part of the country have moved 
forward on so many important issues of equal protection for all 
Americans under the law. So I thank my colleague for being here. I 
thank him for the many things he had to say this evening on this 
subject.
  I hearken back in my own life, as I reflect on this decision, to the 
time I grew up. This is something that has been instilled in me as a 
young person growing up in the 1960s and 1970s.
  I saw the most incredible events happen in our Nation's government, 
and I saw a position--both the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney 
General, someone who is now a Pacific Northwest resident--use that 
office, the power of the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General, 
to say they disagreed with the President of the United States. Not only 
did they disagree with the President of the United States, they would 
rather resign from office than carry out the acts he was asking them to 
carry out.
  As a young person, that Saturday night massacre was an incredible 
indelible image of how people should act responsibly in carrying out 
their duties.
  So when I think about this position of Attorney General, I think of 
that very issue; that I want an Attorney General who will stand up for 
the citizens of the United States, no matter what, even if he has to go 
against the President of the United States. That, to me, is the 
ultimate in serving the people of this country.
  In many ways, in the last several weeks, I feel like we have been 
relitigating the 1960s and 1970s. When we

[[Page S891]]

talk about the civil liberties of American citizens, whether they are 
the LGBT community; or whether we are talking about government maybe 
using backdoor devices to spy on American citizens; or whether we are 
talking about immigrant rights, we are talking about the same things 
people fought for in the 1960s and 1970s. So it is no surprise that my 
colleague--also from Massachusetts--reflected on this in some of the 
comments she made last night that raised such a ruckus and concern on 
the floor. I certainly supported her and supported her in her rights to 
make those comments, but these larger issues about how one wields power 
at the enormous office of responsibility of Attorney General is what is 
at question in the Senate. I could go on this morning about many other 
issues I am concerned about in relation to the nexus of the Attorney 
General to the other positions that we are also considering, but this 
morning I am going to keep my remarks specifically to the Attorney 
General.
  In this new information era--and I have been out here on other 
nights, in fact with my colleague from Kentucky Mr. Paul, to discuss 
these very important issues of encryption and making sure the U.S. 
government does not unduly spy on U.S. citizens.
  I am concerned that the President's nominee has supported President 
Bush's warrantless wiretapping and domestic surveillance programs. He 
also has supported law enforcement's backdoor key to encryption.
  I will say, there are many things we need to do to fight this war on 
terrorism and to be strong in working together with law enforcement all 
across the United States and on an international basis. I will be the 
first to say there are great things we can do as it relates to 
biometrics and using biometrics effectively, but when it comes down to 
it, it is all about us working with the international community and 
getting cooperation from them to work that way, as opposed to running 
over the civil liberties of U.S. citizens. So I do have concerns that 
the President's nominee on this issue may not stand up to the President 
of the United States in making sure civil liberties of Americans are 
protected.
  I am also concerned this nominee will not fully protect the rights of 
lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans. The reason I say 
that is because of his record, and the doubts it raises because of his 
opposition to various pieces of legislation which have moved through 
these Halls--opposition to gay rights, same-sex marriage, hate crime 
laws, voting rights for historically disfranchised communities, and 
workplace protection for women, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender 
communities. All of these are things I wish we would have in an 
Attorney General who had been a greater advocate for the transition 
that America has made in protecting civil liberties in these issues.
  These are very big issues in my State. They are very big issues that 
have been long discussed--probably discussed before they reached this 
body--and decided decisively in favor of the civil liberties of these 
Americans. So I find it troubling that in his position, the nominee 
used his power to target the LGBT student housing and education 
conference at the University of Alabama, and that he consistently voted 
against LGBT Americans' right to live where they choose, and voted for 
the constitutional amendment my colleague mentioned, the Matthew 
Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crime Prevention Act--not being 
supportive on those issues.
  These are important issues that mark our country's ability to stand 
up for civil liberties. It is important in this era and time, because 
of the hate crimes and the horrific things that have happened to these 
individuals, that we have someone who not only recognizes those, but 
embodies the fact that these individuals are facing discrimination and 
must continually--continually--have someone to fight for their civil 
liberties.
  The nominee sponsored legislation to roll back, as I said, LGBT 
rights in housing, employment, and health care, and there are an 
estimated 10 million LGBT Americans who are protected by our Nation's 
hate crime and anti-discrimination laws. What we want is leadership. We 
want leadership to continue on these issues. We want leadership that 
when we see problems, they are going to be addressed, even if it means 
fighting what the President of the United States has to say.
  My colleague also had opposed the reinstatement of the Voting Rights 
Act and strongly supported voter ID laws that put barriers up for the 
elderly, indigent communities, and communities of color to get access 
to their ballots. I can tell you as a Washingtonian that nothing is 
more important to us than this issue of voting rights, and I would 
match our system with any other State in the Nation. We vote by mail. 
We have seen as high as 84-percent voter turnout in a Presidential 
year, and incredibly high turnout even in a midterm election.
  We know that giving our citizens the right to vote, and making 
progress on everyone having the right to vote, including the use of 
provisional ballots, making sure the law is clear in embracing and 
making sure people have the opportunity to vote, and have their votes 
counted, are going to continue to be issues in the United States of 
America. We want people to have total confidence in our voting system, 
and we want them to have confidence that every citizen has a right to 
cast a vote, and will not be turned away at the ballot box because of 
an artificial barrier.
  Believe me, there are lots of ways to catch fraud and corruption in 
the voting system in the State of Washington because it is based on 
your signature. Have we had people make mistakes in the system? Yes. 
They have been caught or corrected.
  The notion that our system needs all of these other artificial 
barriers is not true. It is a system that has worked well for us and, 
as I said, has empowered more people to participate in our electoral 
system.
  I want someone who is going to help us move forward in this country. 
The notion that we are putting up lines of obstacles for voting in this 
country should not be the way we are going. We need to go in the other 
direction.
  I am concerned that the next Attorney General will fail to protect 
the civil liberties of all Americans, irrespective of their race, and 
protect opportunities to participate in our democracy and to make sure 
we are continuing to move forward. He has called the work of the 
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the 
American Civil Liberties Union ``un-American.'' Let us remember that in 
our time, we need people who are going to recognize the rights of 
individuals and stand up for them. If in the past his judgment and 
temperament on these issues has expressed a lack of concern for these 
individuals, my question for all of us is, what kind of leadership will 
that drive for the next Attorney General?
  He has called the decision in Roe v. Wade ``a colossal mistake'' and 
has cast 86 anti-choice votes, including a vote against protecting 
abortion providers and their patients from anti-choice violence. 
Washington State has one of the strongest statutes in the country for 
protecting a woman's right to choose. It was something we did before 
the national law. It is something many people in my State feel strongly 
about, and, yes, in the past, we have experienced violence at clinics.
  In fact, in September 2015, there was a devastating bombing of a 
Planned Parenthood clinic in Pullman, WA--a tragedy that was 
unbelievable. The fact that those clinicians showed up in the parking 
lot the next day and continued to deliver services, and that law 
enforcement was there to help them and respect them is what I expect 
out of our system and the U.S. Attorney General--that someone will be 
there to help enforce the law and deter these kinds of crimes and make 
sure that we are moving forward as a country.
  I said earlier that I feel as though we are relitigating the sixties 
and seventies. I wish that those issues had all gone away, but I feel 
as if they are still with us. These examples of disrespect toward the 
civil liberties of individuals, and using violence as a way to 
demonstrate that disrespect, require a swift hand of justice to oppose 
them.
  My colleague voted against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which 
amended the Civil Rights Act of 1964 so that gender-based pay disparity 
claims could be heard in court. This is also something of great concern 
to many Americans, not just women. It is a concern to men as well, 
because men want

[[Page S892]]

their wives to make the salary they deserve, to make certain their 
family has the income it deserves.
  These are battles that we are going to continue to fight in the 
United States of America until we have fair pay. I do view it as a 
civil rights issue. As I said, Lilly Ledbetter amended the Civil Rights 
Act.
  He also voted against the 2013 reauthorization of the Violence 
Against Women Act, which ensures that law enforcement has the every 
resource necessary to investigate cases of rape, and provides colleges 
with the tools to educate students about dating violence, sexual 
assault, and to maintain the National Domestic Violence Hotline, which 
fields 22,000 calls a month from Americans facing threats of domestic 
violence.
  That issue in and of itself, along with the amount of domestic 
violence that women face in the United States of America, is something 
that needs constant vigilance and constant attendance in order to fight 
against. I don't know all the reasons he did not support that 
legislation, but I know one aspect. He opposed language in the Violence 
Against Women Act allowing tribes to prosecute nontribal members who 
commit domestic violence against tribal members on reservation land. 
That is right. People were coming onto Indian reservations across our 
country. In Washington State, we have 29 recognized tribes. On those 
sites, people were committing crimes of domestic violence but, because 
of a loophole, weren't being prosecuted. There were unbelievable 
amounts of violence.
  The last administration came up with a way to work together to make 
sure that those crimes were prosecuted. It is as if the Federal system 
couldn't affect all the activity that was happening, but it could work 
in concert with local law enforcement officials to come up with a way 
to make sure that women, who were being abused just because they were 
Native American on a tribal reservation, would get their fair justice.
  I do have concerns about these issues as they relate to tribal 
sovereignty, to the issues of domestic violence and, particularly, 
domestic violence that is happening in Indian Country.
  I also want to bring up an issue I think my colleague from Oregon 
brought up, which is something I don't know that all of our colleagues 
agree on, but I am here to advocate for my State; that is, the nominee 
in his testimony said that he would leave to the States the question of 
legalizing and regulating marijuana in this administration.
  In the past, he has refused to respect the rights of States that have 
democratically chosen to legalize marijuana for medical or recreational 
use. This is an important subject for us in the Pacific Northwest 
because we had a previous Attorney General who, after we had passed 
medical marijuana laws, tried to shut down our medical clinics. This 
was years before we passed legislation allowing for the legalization of 
marijuana by the broader public, not just medical marijuana.
  We have seen an Attorney General who has aggressively pursued this 
medical use, and now we have concerns, as our State and several other 
States have legalized marijuana, about how this Attorney General is 
going to treat those actions.
  We hope that this past record is not a reflection of the future and 
how he plans to treat individuals, but I know my colleague from Hawaii 
was here earlier and mentioned several cases of individuals in his 
State who needed that medical attention, who needed that product, who 
were given great comfort in their medical treatments by having access 
to that.
  Is that now all in question? Is that something that Americans who 
have resided in States that have taken this action now have something 
to fear from the next Attorney General?
  I know that there were many discussions in the confirmation hearing, 
and that there are concerns today relating to the issue of a ban on 
Muslims entering the United States. I will not go into great detail 
here, but will say that it is clear that the State of Washington has an 
opinion about this and that our State Attorney General and our Governor 
are trying to represent that viewpoint in the judicial process.
  It is important to me that we get these issues right because I want 
to protect the civil liberties of individuals, and I see a path forward 
for us to be tough on these cases; that is, the true cases of terrorist 
activity. I say that because Washington had a case in 1999 of an 
individual who entered the United States at Port Angeles, WA. He had 
come from Algiers, and then when he got to France, he cooked up a new 
identity. When he left France and went to Canada, he cooked up another 
identity, and then he arrived at the U.S. border from Canada on a boat 
with explosives and a plan to either blow up the Space Needle or travel 
to LAX and blow up the LAX Airport.
  There was very good work by customs and border agents who found 
something unusual about this individual. It didn't add up. His passport 
looked as though it was valid, but something that was said gave the 
border agent reason to conduct a more thorough check.
  In fact, they did. They opened the trunk of his car, and as they did, 
he ran, and with good reason because they saw a car full of explosive 
materials in the trunk. That so-called Millennial Bomber was caught. 
Since then, I have been an advocate for using biometrics as a standard 
for us pushing visa waiver countries for letting people into their 
country, as Mr. Ressam did travel, as I said, from Algiers to France, 
cooking up a new identity, and then France to Canada, and Canada to the 
United States, each time cooking up an identity.
  But if we had cooperation with these countries on biometric 
standards; if we had implemented those biometric standards, and pushed 
those countries that give access to our country through the Visa Waiver 
Program, we would be a lot further down the road in finding those 
individuals who mean to do us harm.
  We need cooperation by these other countries and the best techniques 
and standards to help us. That is far different than denying access to 
individuals, for example, from the Somali community that is a very big 
refugee community in our State. As I said, I will leave it to our 
Washington attorney general and our Governor to continue to pursue that 
effort.
  I have heard from many Washingtonians who are concerned about this 
nomination. I heard from a young woman from Yakima, WA, who said she 
was flabbergasted by this nomination, that ``if he was deemed 
inadequate during the days that Strom Thurmond was in office, why now 
is he adequate?''
  I heard from a constituent in central Washington who said: ``I am a 
transgender and gay, and much of the time I worry about my rights as a 
U.S. citizen, whether they'll be revoked despite the fact that my 
family has fought in every war in the U.S. since the Civil War. I am 
worried that legislation would be implemented that would dehumanize me 
and other LGBT community individuals, and that doesn't align with the 
nominee's religious beliefs.''
  So these are concerns my constituents have, and I have to agree with 
them, that our nominee's record leaves question about his ability to 
fervently advocate on behalf of these individuals, given his record and 
history in the past. And I know that my colleague, the ranking member 
from the Judiciary Committee, has been out here on the floor, going in 
detail about the questioning that happened during the committee process 
on all sorts of issues, as it relates to women's rights and 
reproductive choice, and how we are going to continue to move forward 
to make sure these individuals are protected.
  So, to me, my constituents are loud and clear. They want these civil 
liberties protected. They want an Attorney General who is going to make 
sure that those civil liberties are fought for and respected every day 
and are going to get equal protection under the law.
  Here are some additional excerpts from the letters of our concerned 
constituents.
  KS from Yakima, WA, a concerned constituent, writes: ``I am simply 
flabbergasted that Jeff Sessions was chosen to be our Attorney General. 
If he was deemed inadequate in the days when Strom Thurmond was in 
office, then he's certainly inadequate in 21st century America. As you 
are politicians, I shouldn't have to remind you of this, but I'm going 
to anyway. One, America was built by immigrants from

[[Page S893]]

all over the world, on top of an already diverse nation of the First 
Peoples. Two, there are over 300 languages spoken in the U.S., nearly 
half of which are indigenous. Three, people have had to fight tooth and 
nail against discrimination based on their race and ethnicity, and the 
fact that so many are still doing to that today is extremely worrisome. 
Four, it's been our legally protected right since 1967 to marry and 
have a family with someone of a different race. Five, it's only been 
our legally protected right to marry and have a family with someone of 
the same gender since 2015. Six, my generation, the Millennials, is the 
most diverse of any in American history. Since 2000, 40 percent of all 
children have been born to multiracial families. And those children 
will be eligible to vote before you know it. The ones born in 2000 will 
likely have a lot to say come the midterm election. This America 
cannot, should not, MUST NOT have an attorney general who thought the 
Klan was too liberal. He has no place at a school crosswalk, let alone 
leading the most powerful nation in the free world. PLEASE do not let 
this happen!''
  SL from Wenatchee, WA, writes: ``He has repeatedly shown within his 
career that he clearly sees the LGBTQ+ community as something that is 
acceptable to discriminate against. Most notably is his support of the 
Defense of Marriage Act. This worries me very deeply since I am 
Transgender and gay. Much of the time I worry that my rights as a US 
citizen will be revoked, despite the fact that my family has fought in 
every war in the US since the Civil War. I am worried that he would 
allow legislation to be law that would dehumanize me and other LGBTQ+ 
individuals because it doesn't align with his apparent religious 
beliefs. He also seems to not hold much issue with civil rights as long 
as they don't go `too far.' Additionally, his continual stance against 
immigrants could have a distinct impact on my city and community. We 
have a large Hispanic and Mexican population, many of them around the 
neighborhoods where I live. The many years I've lived here I've found 
our multicultural community to be hard working and not the `evil' that 
Trump is adamant to make them out to be. I do not feel reassured if he 
becomes the Attorney General that he would stand up to Trump and fairly 
support these marginalized individuals in the Department of Justice.''
  JH from Seattle, WA, writes: ``I trust that you will protect and 
stand for the ideals of our country and vote no to the appointment of 
Jeff Sessions as Attorney General. The job of the Justice Department is 
to protect all people, and to enforce the laws of the land to do so. 
Sessions has not in word or deed demonstrated he is capable of doing 
so. Even while awaiting confirmation, he is supporting discrimination 
against LGBTQ people by his support of the FADA. I expect any person 
confirmed in our government to clearly support all people--black, 
brown, white, male, female, transgender, gay, lesbian, bisexual, queer, 
Jew, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Native, atheists, and people of all 
ethnicity. The Attorney General is responsible for upholding The 
Constitution--including Congress shall make no law respecting an 
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or 
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the 
people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a 
redress of grievances. This means upholding the Constitution, including 
Press's right to cover Mr. Trump and report as they see fit--not 
censored news. This also means supporting The right of the people to be 
secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against 
unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no 
Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or 
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and 
the persons or things to be seized. This means insisting that the 
Justice Department hold themselves and local police forces accountable 
for detaining and searching people--and do promulgate brutality from 
behind the badge. Instead of Jeff Sessions, please garner support for 
and vote for a legal mind who has a demonstrated record of upholding 
all people's rights. There are many fine minds and hearts in our 
country who are up to the task. It is your responsibility as a Senator 
of our fine Democracy to vote only for one of them.''

  Gary from Spokane, WA: ``Jeff Sessions does not believe that our laws 
should protect everyone. He believes certain groups should have less 
rights and/or less protection under the law. He will allow 
discrimination, based on his record. There is enough volatility in this 
time of ours to understand the importance of a fair minded, tempered 
and balanced person to head the department of justice. There is no 
denying we are entering a tumultuous time. There is enough concern over 
Jeff Sessions to give pause, consider the times we are in, and come up 
with a better choice. Concerns over our country turning to 
totalitarianism are real. The president elect is extremely polarizing 
and may very well be breaking the US Constitution as soon as he's sworn 
in, due to conflicts of interest. The attorney general certainly needs 
to understand these concerns and be able to enforce the laws of the 
American people. There are many other talented legal professionals with 
a wide variety of skill sets related to law enforcement. This is the 
time to slow down a bit; delay . . . at least this appointment. There 
is an appointment process for a reason. Make Mr. Trump come up with a 
better choice. No matter your party, there is no win in becoming a 
rubber stamp for Mr. Trump. I vote nay for Jeff Session as Attorney 
General. Consider the importance of this time, consider the future of 
our country, consider the rights guaranteed in the bill of rights. The 
choice then is easy, nay for Sessions, yay for thoughtful, accountable 
and tempered governance.''
  Betsy from Waldron, WA, writes: ``Please oppose the appointment of 
Jeff Sessions as Attorney General. He is opposed to basic civil rights 
for all people and he cannot be put in charge of protecting those same 
rights. Please do not compromise with Trump or try to compromise as if 
he were a normal president. Please oppose, blockade, filibuster, and 
refuse to go along with Trump's plans to tear our country apart. I am 
relying on you to be our first wall of defense against this terrifying 
man.''
  RaGena from Spokane, WA, writes: ``As a constituent I urge you to 
oppose the confirmation of Senator Jeff Sessions as Attorney General of 
the United States His voting record as senator and the content of his 
speeches to the Senate do not inspire confidence in his ability to 
discharge the responsibilities of the Attorney General's office in 
keeping with role of the Department of Justice in contemporary American 
society. His responses to the Judiciary Committee raised further, 
serious concerns. All this, coupled with the reasons for his failure to 
be confirmed as a federal judge decades ago, suggest that he is not the 
person for this job.''
  DH from Tacoma, WA, writes: ``I am writing to express my strong 
opposition to the nomination of Jeff Sessions as Attorney General. 
Everything I know about this man makes him uniquely unqualified for the 
post. He has not supported equal rights of minorities and has supported 
vote suppression as a means to reduce the effect of minority votes. In 
the attorney general seat, Sessions will be able to make decisions that 
will negatively affect the daily lives of some of our most vulnerable 
citizens. Please reinforce my belief in you as a leader and vote no on 
Jeff Sessions for attorney general.''
  JG from Seattle, WA, writes: ``You must vote against confirming Jeff 
Sessions as Attorney General. His record makes clear that he will not 
support voting rights for all Americans and will not act to protect the 
rights of minorities or work to improve the criminal justice system. In 
fact, his record makes clear he will move to suppress voting rights and 
will promote DOJ actions that will hurt minorities in particular. He is 
not fit to serve as this country's Attorney General.''
  AM from Seattle, WA, writes: ``I am a criminal defense attorney in 
Seattle. I write to ask you to vote against confirming Jeff Sessions as 
United States Attorney General. Under the Obama administration, many 
inroads have been made into remedying the harms of mandatory minimum 
drug sentencing and other forms of drug sentencing reform. 
Additionally, states like Washington have been allowed to sell 
marijuana, legal under state law, without

[[Page S894]]

fear of federal prosecution. Finally, the Obama administration made 
good use of the civil rights division to assist in reforming police 
departments engaged in improper policing practices, such as Seattle. I 
have no confidence that Jeff Sessions will continue to support any of 
these policies. Please do not vote to confirm him.''
  LB from Seattle, WA, writes: ``Please block Jeff Sessions from 
becoming Attorney General. The idea of having a racist attorney general 
is appalling. We need to improve race relations in this country and in 
our law enforcement officers, especially. I am 41 and feel like the 
race relations in this country had been improving steadily throughout 
my life, at least on the west coast. It's very scary to me that this 
new administration has to brought to light all the issues that still 
remain but to be a great country we cannot be a divided one and with 
half our population being minorities this appointment seems like a huge 
huge step in the wrong direction.''
  LR from Seattle, WA, writes: ``I am writing to ask you to do 
everything you can to stop the nomination of Jeff Sessions as Attorney 
General. His record shows his hostility toward civil rights, the ACLU, 
the NAACP, the LGBT community and more. I am especially concerned about 
his ability to send us backwards on gay marriage and other civil rights 
laws. His appointment to head the Justice Department would be a 
disaster for civil rights law in this country. Please help stop this 
travesty.''
  MY from Edmonds, WA, writes: ``I am writing to urge you to continue 
due diligence on the appointment of Jeff Sessions as attorney general. 
I do not believe the political commercial I just saw trying to paint 
him in a wonderful light and asking people to contact senators to urge 
confirmation. I continue to have concerns about what he will do to 
lessen voter rights and other issues under his authority. The 
advertisement did not change my opinion and I feel it's just full of 
alternative facts. Please continue to ask tough questions on all of 
these appointments.''
  RR from Bellingham, WA, writes: ``Please do not consider Jeff 
Sessions for Attorney General. His views, clearly displayed over the 
course of his career, are the antithesis of what our country stands for 
around the world. The United States has been a bastion of freedom, 
truth and inclusiveness. Sadly, those qualities are rapidly 
disappearing, faster than o thought possible, under the Trump 
administration. ALL of our citizens are entitled to equality under the 
law. All of our citizens are entitled to live freely regardless of 
their race, religion, lack of religion, gender or sexuality. Jeff 
Sessions is dangerous. He will dismantle civil rights laws, allow 
racial profiling, support laws that prevent access to voting and 
encourage the abuse of the LGBT community. Please vote no.''
  I also know there are letters from many organizations that also have 
opposed this nomination, and my colleague has talked about many of 
those, but the NAACP, civil and human rights organizations, the HRC, 
and the American Federation of State and County Municipal Employees 
have said they question the objectivity and sense of justice needed on 
these important issues.
  I mentioned the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and other issues of the 
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, things that people are 
concerned that they get the fair attention and enforcement of law. I 
ask unanimous consent that these letters be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                      National Association for the


                                Advancement of Colored People,

                                 Washington, DC, February 7, 2017.
     Re The NAACP Strongly Urges the U.S. Senate To Vote No on 
         Sen. Jeff Sessions Nomination as Attorney General.

     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator: On behalf of the NAACP, our nation's oldest, 
     largest and most widely-recognized grassroots-based civil 
     rights organization, I strongly urge you to vote against 
     Jefferson ``Jeff'' Beauregard Sessions III for Attorney 
     General. Throughout this contentious debate, and through his 
     past actions, his recorded words, and his voting record as a 
     United States Senator, Sen. Sessions has demonstrated a clear 
     disregard, disrespect, and disdain for the rights and needs 
     of all American people. Senator Sessions possesses neither 
     the political nor the moral temperament to serve as Attorney 
     General.
       The NAACP staunchly opposes the confirmation of Senator 
     Jeff Sessions based on several factors, including the fact 
     that he does not agree with us on a majority of issues as is 
     reflected in our federal legislative report card. Since 1914, 
     our report card has been reflective of our bread-and-butter 
     civil rights issues, and the fact that Senator Sessions has 
     averaged, since coming into Congress, just over 10%, 
     demonstrates his clear disregard for issues that are 
     important to us and to those we represent and serve. It would 
     be a disservice to these people who support our priorities 
     for us to not speak out against this nomination. Supporters 
     of the NAACP would argue, in fact, that the Department of 
     Justice is a crucial enforcer of civil rights laws and 
     advisor to the President and Congress on what can and should 
     be done if those laws are threatened. Given his disregard for 
     issues which protect the rights, and in some cases the lives, 
     of our constituents, there is no way that the NAACP can or 
     should be expected to sit by and support Senator Sessions' 
     nomination to head the U.S. Department of Justice.
       The disdain Senator Sessions has shown for civil rights 
     organizations, including the NAACP, is as palatable as it is 
     disturbing. During his confirmation hearing in 1986 for a 
     federal judgeship in Alabama, Senator Sessions replied to one 
     question by saying, ``I'm often loose with my tongue. I may 
     have said something about the NAACP being un-American or 
     Communist, but I meant no harm by it.'' Yet he denied saying 
     anything disparaging about the NAACP in his recent hearing 
     before the Senate Judiciary Committee on January 9, 2017.
       Lastly, in a floor statement made earlier today, Senator 
     Lindsey Graham suggested that the opposition of the national 
     NAACP is out of step with the sentiments of Alabamians. 
     Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the 
     President of the Alabama State Conference of NAACP Branches 
     has been a leader in opposing this nomination. He was up here 
     on January 9, 2017, to hear Senator Sessions' testimony, a 
     trip he took with busloads of NAACP Members who also opposed 
     the confirmation. This was a day after he was arrested for 
     sitting in on Senator Sessions' office in Mobile as a means 
     of protest in which he urged Senator Sessions to withdraw his 
     nomination from consideration by the Senate.
       In summation, I would like to reiterate that it is the 
     experiences of the NAACP that lead us to oppose Senator 
     Sessions' nomination. We further call on President Trump to 
     nominate an individual who have a demonstrated commitment to 
     the constitutional promises of civil rights, voting rights 
     and civil liberties protection and enforcement for all, and 
     an articulated respect and promise to promote the civil and 
     human rights of all people, regardless of their race, 
     ethnicity, gender, age, religion, place of national origin, 
     sexual preference or station in life. Thank you in advance 
     for your attention to the position of the NAACP. Should you 
     have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to 
     contact me at my office.
           Sincerely,
     Hilary O. Shelton,
       Director, NAACP Washington Bureau & Senior Vice President 
     for Policy and Advocacy.
                                  ____

                                      The Leadership Conference on


                                       Civil and Human Rights,

                                 Washington, DC, December 1, 2016.

               An Open Letter to the United States Senate


   Civil and Human Rights Organizations Oppose Confirmation of Jeff 
                                Sessions

       Dear Majority Leader McConnell, Democratic Leader Reid, 
     Chairman Grassley, and Ranking Member Leahy: On behalf of The 
     Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, a coalition 
     of more than 200 national organizations committed to promote 
     and protect the civil and human rights of all persons in the 
     United States, and the 144 undersigned organizations, we are 
     writing to express our strong opposition to the confirmation 
     of Senator Jefferson B. Sessions (R-AL) to be the 84th 
     Attorney General of the United States.
       Senator Sessions has a 30-year record of racial 
     insensitivity, bias against immigrants, disregard for the 
     rule of law, and hostility to the protection of civil rights 
     that makes him unfit to serve as the Attorney General of the 
     United States. In our democracy, the Attorney General is 
     charged with enforcing our nation's laws without prejudice 
     and with an eye toward justice. And, just as important, the 
     Attorney General has to be seen by the public--every member 
     of the public, from every community--as a fair arbiter of 
     justice. Unfortunately, there is little in Senator Sessions' 
     record that demonstrates that he would meet such a standard.
       In 1986, when then-U.S. Attorney Sessions was nominated by 
     former President Ronald Reagan to serve as a judge on the 
     U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama, the 
     Republican-controlled Senate upheld its constitutional duty, 
     undertaking a careful and comprehensive review of his record 
     at that time. The Judiciary Committee was presented with 
     compelling evidence that then-U.S. Attorney Sessions had a 
     deeply troubling record as an opponent of civil rights 
     enforcement, a champion of voter suppression tactics 
     targeting African

[[Page S895]]

     Americans, and a history of making racially-insensitive 
     statements. This record included warning an African-American 
     colleague to be careful about what he said ``to white 
     folks,'' and speaking favorably about the Ku Klux Klan, as 
     well as his prosecution of three African-American voting 
     rights activists on dozens of charges that were promptly 
     rejected by a jury.
       As you know, the Attorney General is our nation's highest 
     law enforcement official, with a particular responsibility to 
     protect the civil and human rights of all Americans. The 
     Leadership Conference opposes Senator Sessions' nomination to 
     become Attorney General, in part, because of the previous 
     record we have cited. However, it would be a grave mistake to 
     assume that our opposition is based only on incidents prior 
     to his judicial nomination.
       Indeed, the following are examples of his actions as a 
     Senator over the past 20 years that raise very disturbing 
     questions about his fitness to serve as Attorney General:
       Voting Rights: In addition to his failed 1985 prosecution 
     of three voting rights activists who were working to increase 
     African-American registration and turnout, Senator Sessions 
     has voiced strong support for restrictive voter ID laws that 
     have had the effect of disenfranchising many otherwise 
     eligible voters, called the Voting Rights Act ``intrusive'' 
     as it seeks to protect eligible minority voters, and praised 
     the Supreme Court ruling in Shelby County v. Holder (2013) 
     that gutted a key part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. This 
     is hardly the record of someone to be entrusted with the 
     protection of voting rights for all Americans.
       Association with White Nationalist and Hate Groups 
     regarding Immigration Policy: Senator Sessions has been a 
     fierce opponent of comprehensive immigration reform, 
     referring to a bipartisan 2007 bill as ``terrorist 
     assistance.'' He has closely associated himself with 
     NumbersUSA, the Federation for American Immigration Reform, 
     and the Center for Immigration Studies, all three of which 
     were founded by John Tanton, who held white nationalist 
     beliefs and called for the preservation of a ``European-
     American majority.'' Senator Sessions has also received 
     awards from the David Horowitz Freedom Center and Frank 
     Gaffney's Center for Security Policy, two organizations 
     designated as anti-Muslim hate groups by the Southern Poverty 
     Law Center.
       Hate Crimes and LGBT Rights: Senator Sessions opposed the 
     Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention 
     Act, even though a unanimous Supreme Court had long ago 
     upheld a similar state law in Wisconsin v. Mitchell (1993). 
     This is particularly disturbing at a time when there have 
     reportedly been more than 700 hate incidents committed in the 
     weeks since the election. The next Attorney General must 
     recognize that hate crimes exist, and vigorously investigate 
     them.
       In addition, on LGBT rights, Senator Sessions supported a 
     constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. He also 
     opposed the repeal of ``Don't Ask Don't Tell.''
       Women's Rights: Senator Sessions has consistently opposed 
     legislation to advance women's rights, notably opposing 
     multiple efforts to address the pay gap, to protect women's 
     access to reproductive health services, which 
     disproportionately affect low-income women and women of 
     color, and to address the scourge of violence against all 
     women. Specifically, Senator Sessions opposed the Lilly 
     Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, enabling women to file 
     ongoing pay discrimination claims, and has voted multiple 
     times against consideration of the Paycheck Fairness Act. 
     Senator Sessions also opposed Title X funding legislation, 
     which supports contraception, breast cancer screening and 
     other health services for low-income women. In addition, 
     Senator Sessions repeatedly voted to defund Planned 
     Parenthood, and in 2014, he voted against S. 2578 to fix the 
     Hobby Lobby decision by prohibiting employers from denying 
     coverage of any health care service, such as contraception, 
     required under federal law. Senator Sessions also opposed the 
     reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act in 2013, 
     and when then-candidate Donald Trump was revealed in a 2005 
     video to have made comments bragging about physically forcing 
     himself on women, Senator Sessions declined to condemn the 
     remarks, even questioning whether the comments described 
     sexual assault.
       Criminal Justice Reform: Though Senator Sessions was a 
     longtime supporter of eliminating sentencing disparities 
     between crack and powder cocaine offenses, he has since been 
     an ardent supporter of maintaining draconian mandatory 
     minimum sentences. Recently, Senator Sessions helped to block 
     broad-based, bipartisan efforts to reduce sentences for 
     certain nonviolent drug offenses. He also opposed the 
     President's initiative to address disparities and restore 
     fairness to the justice system through the use of his 
     constitutionally granted executive clemency power. He 
     criticized the Department of Justice's Smart on Crime 
     Initiative, which has focused on prosecuting fewer but ``more 
     serious'' drug cases and over the last three years, has 
     contributed to a 20 percent reduction in overcrowding in the 
     federal Bureau of Prisons. Finally, Senator Sessions 
     condemned the Department of Justice's use of its powers to 
     investigate law enforcement agencies accused of misconduct 
     and a ``pattern or practice'' of violating civil rights, 
     calling consent decrees that mandate reform following these 
     investigations ``an end run around the democratic process.''
       Failing to Protect our Communities from Pollution and 
     Climate Change: Climate change and environmental degradation 
     disproportionately affect low-income families and communities 
     of color. Senator Sessions has a long record of voting 
     against protections for our clean air, water, and climate. 
     Among his many anti-environmental votes, in 2015 he voted for 
     the resolution to kill the clean power plan and for the 
     Barrasso bill to deny protections for streams that provide 
     drinking water for 113 million Americans. In 2012, he 
     supported a resolution that would roll back protections from 
     toxic mercury. America needs and deserves an Attorney General 
     who will take into account the health and safety of all 
     communities. Senator Sessions is not qualified in this regard 
     and cannot be counted on to protect our air, water, and 
     climate.
       Rights of People with Disabilities: Senator Sessions 
     opposed efforts to implement Alabama's obligation to provide 
     community-based services to individuals with disabilities who 
     were needlessly institutionalized. In addition, he called the 
     Individuals with Disabilities Education Act's requirements to 
     include children with disabilities in mainstream education 
     ``the single most irritating problem for teachers throughout 
     America today'' and ``a big factor in accelerating the 
     decline in civility and discipline in classrooms all over 
     America.'' This opposition to integration and inclusion is 
     extremely concerning given the active role that the Justice 
     Department plays in enforcing the Americans with Disabilities 
     Act to enable people with disabilities to live independent 
     lives, be full participants in their communities, and to be 
     educated in neighborhood schools and regular classrooms. 
     Senator Sessions also opposed ratification of the Convention 
     on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
       These aspects of Senator Sessions' record are among those 
     that led The Leadership Conference to believe that he should 
     not be confirmed as our next Attorney General. At the very 
     least, these issues must be fully aired and deliberated 
     before each Senator makes a final decision with respect to 
     his nomination--otherwise, the Senate's constitutional duty 
     to provide ``advice and consent'' would be reduced to a mere 
     farce.
       Given Senator Sessions' record and public statements, the 
     burden should be on him to prove to the Judiciary Committee, 
     the Senate, and the American people--especially to 
     communities of color and immigrant communities--that he can 
     be trusted with the tremendous power of the U.S. Justice 
     Department to enforce our nation's civil rights and 
     immigration laws with integrity, fairness, and a sense of 
     justice.
       The burden on Senator Sessions is not to prove that he is 
     not a ``racist.'' For the record, The Leadership Conference 
     has never made such an allegation, as we do not claim to know 
     what has been in his heart when he has taken the actions and 
     made the statements we have described above. Nevertheless, we 
     believe those actions and statements are themselves 
     disqualifying.
       This is notwithstanding our recognition that Senator 
     Sessions' record does include some positive actions. For 
     example, the Southern Poverty Law Center, while expressing 
     opposition to his confirmation, acknowledged that he was 
     helpful in the Center's successful effort to sue and bankrupt 
     the Ku Klux Klan following its role in the 1981 lynching 
     death of Michael Donald. The Leadership Conference also 
     worked with Senator Sessions in an effort that culminated in 
     the passage of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, which reduced 
     racial disparities in federal cocaine sentencing provisions. 
     While these actions are noteworthy, they do not change our 
     conclusion that Senator Sessions' overall record is too 
     troubling for him to be confirmed as Attorney General.
       The collegiality that ordinarily governs Senate decorum is 
     no substitute for, and must not supersede, the Senate's 
     profoundly important duty to vigorously and fairly review 
     each nominee who comes before it. We believe that based on 
     this review, there can be only one conclusion: Senator 
     Sessions is the wrong person to serve as the U.S. Attorney 
     General.
       Thank you for your consideration of our views. If you would 
     like to discuss this matter further, please contact Wade 
     Henderson, President and CEO, or Nancy Zirkin, Executive Vice 
     President.
                                  ____

         American Federation of State, County and Municipal 
           Employees,
                                 Washington, DC, February 7, 2017.
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator: On behalf of the 1.6 million members of the 
     American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees 
     (AFSCME), I am writing to express our strong opposition to 
     the confirmation of Sen. Jeff Sessions as Attorney General of 
     the United States. Sen. Sessions has a lengthy record of 
     public service, but his record does not demonstrate that he 
     possesses the objectivity and sense of justice needed to 
     serve as the nation's chief law enforcement officer.
       Sen. Sessions has a troubling pattern of antipathy toward 
     legal protections on which working families depend. He 
     opposed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act enabling women to 
     challenge pay discrimination. He denounced the Individuals 
     with Disabilities Education Act provisions that ensure that 
     children with disabilities are included in mainstream 
     education. He also opposed the

[[Page S896]]

     reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act and the 
     Shepard-Byrd Hate Crimes Act.
       Sen. Sessions has expressed strong support for voter ID 
     laws which restrict the rights of many, otherwise, eligible 
     voters. He has called the Voting Rights Act ``intrusive'' as 
     it seeks to protect minority voters and praised the U.S. 
     Supreme Court ruling in Shelby County v. Holder which gutted 
     a key part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
       Recently, Sen. Sessions helped to block bipartisan efforts 
     to reduce sentences for certain nonviolent drug offenses. He 
     has also criticized the Department of Justice's use of 
     consent decrees to address misconduct and violations of civil 
     rights by law enforcement agencies.
       Testimony provided by Sen. Sessions during his hearing has 
     not alleviated our grave concerns about his suitability to 
     lead the Department of Justice. We urge you to reject his 
     nomination.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Scott Frey,
     Director of Federal Government Affairs.
                                  ____



                                       National Nurses United,

                                 Washington, DC, February 7, 2017.
     Hon. Maria Cantwell,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Cantwell: We write on behalf of the more than 
     150,000 registered nurse members of National Nurses United to 
     urge you to vote against the confirmation of Senator Jeff 
     Sessions, President-elect Donald Trump's nominee for Attorney 
     General. Much has been said by many others against 
     confirmation of this nominee, so we will be brief
       Our members work as bedside healthcare professionals in 
     almost every state in the nation. We work in every hospital 
     setting, from small rural facilities to large urban public 
     health systems, in prominent research hospitals affiliated 
     with prestigious public and private universities, as well as 
     Veterans Affairs hospitals and clinics. We care for Americans 
     on every point of the demographic spectrum, at their most 
     vulnerable. We provide the best care we possibly can, without 
     regard to race, gender, national origin, religion, socio 
     economic circumstances, or other identifying characteristic. 
     That is what caring professionals do. Unfortunately, that is 
     not what Jeff Sessions has done in his role as a public 
     servant. And to vote in favor of confirming him as the chief 
     law enforcement officer of the United States would abdicate 
     your responsibility to provide the oversight necessary to 
     ensure that basic legal rights are enforced evenhandedly and 
     for the protection of all people.
       As Senate colleagues, you no doubt know Senator Sessions' 
     record as a lawmaker, as well as his record as the U.S. 
     Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama and as the 
     Alabama Attorney General. It was, of course, his record in 
     the U.S. Attorney's office and his many publically verified 
     racially insensitive comments that resulted in a majority of 
     the Senate Judiciary Committee voting against confirmation 
     for his nomination to be a U.S. District Court judge in 1986. 
     This `no' vote happened while the Judiciary Committee was 
     majority Republican. Even Senator Howell Heflin, a fellow 
     Alabamian, voted against him, citing ``reasonable doubts'' 
     over whether he could be ``fair and impartial.''
       Senator Sessions has oft asserted that his comments over 
     the years were taken out of context, or intended as humor. 
     But his record tells the truth. Early in his career he 
     charged civil right leaders (``the Marion Three'') with 
     voting fraud related to their efforts to assist African 
     American voters. The fact that the defendants in that case 
     were acquitted didn't deter Mr. Sessions. Later, as Attorney 
     General of Alabama, he initiated another voter fraud 
     investigation involving absentee ballots cast by black voters 
     that, again, resulted in findings of no wrong doing. During 
     that same timeframe, he was criticized for declining to 
     investigate church burnings, and he ``joked'' that he thought 
     Ku Klux Klan members were ``OK, until [he] learned that they 
     smoked marijuana.''
       Against that background, Senator Sessions aggressively 
     interrogated Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the Court's first 
     nominee of Latino heritage. Further betraying a deep belief 
     in natural division between racial groups, he grilled Justice 
     Sotomayor about whether she could be fair to white Americans, 
     despite her 17-year record as a jurist and having received 
     the American Bar Association's highest rating. And he 
     expressed grave concerns that she would engage in judicial 
     ``empathy'' on the high court, favoring persons of certain 
     races or ethnicities over others. He then voted against her 
     confirmation.
       Senator Sessions' prejudices are not only against people of 
     color. As an organization representing a predominately female 
     profession we are compelled to express our outrage that 
     Senator Sessions defended Donald Trump's statements about 
     grabbing women by the genitals, by saying that such conduct 
     would not constitute sexual assault. The fact that he took a 
     different position during his Committee hearing is of no 
     comfort. It only shows that he will say whatever he believes 
     will help land him in the seat of power to determine whether, 
     and against whom, to enforce our laws. His comments last fall 
     dismissing President-elect Trump's despicable treatment of 
     women is consistent with his vote in 2013 against the 
     Violence Against Women Act. As nurses, we see close up the 
     devastating effects of domestic violence against our 
     patients, and we are disturbed by Senator Sessions' alleged 
     concern that the protection of that statute should not extend 
     to victims of violence on tribal lands.
       Moreover, confirming Senator Sessions to the job of the top 
     prosecutor would exacerbate our national crisis over race 
     issues in policing and our criminal justice system. He 
     personally blocked the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act, 
     a bipartisan effort spearheaded by Sens. Charles Grassley (R-
     Iowa), Mike Lee (R-Utah), and John Cornyn (R-Texas), and 
     Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-Wis.). The fact that law 
     enforcement leadership throughout the nation supported the 
     reform effort made no difference to Senator Sessions. And 
     unfortunately, his actions as U.S. Attorney for the Southern 
     District of Alabama only further illustrate his indifference 
     to this crisis. For example, drug convictions made up 40 
     percent of his cases when he served in that position--twice 
     the rate of other federal prosecutors in Alabama.
       Despite the current trend of focusing resources on violent 
     crime, and away from out-dated drug war policies, Senator 
     Sessions continues to oppose any attempts to legalize 
     marijuana and any reduction in drug sentences. As Attorney 
     General, he could direct federal prosecutors throughout the 
     country to pursue the harshest penalties possible for even 
     low-level drug offenses, a step that would further exacerbate 
     our national record of incarcerating non-violent offenders--
     the vast majority of whom could be successfully treated, at 
     far lower cost to society, with appropriate healthcare 
     treatment.
       Nor should Senator Sessions be trusted to ensure equal 
     access to voting rights. He has publically called the Voting 
     Rights Act ``intrusive,'' and has insisted that its proactive 
     protections of racial minorities were no longer necessary. 
     This is especially disturbing as Senator Sessions voiced 
     public support for voter-ID laws, while his home state 
     recently tried to close over thirty DMV offices, many in 
     majority-black areas, shortly after instituting strict voter-
     ID requirements. We are reminded of the words of Coretta 
     Scott King in her letter opposing Jeff Sessions' nomination 
     to the federal district court in 1986: ``The irony of Mr. 
     Sessions' nomination is that, if confirmed, he will be given 
     a life tenure for doing with a federal prosecution what the 
     local sheriffs accomplished twenty years ago with clubs and 
     cattle prods.''
       We will not attempt to address all the positions Senator 
     Sessions has taken that are out of step with the reality of 
     the difficult times we are in, but as nurses we must include 
     our grave concern that as Attorney General he would not be 
     vigilant in enforcing environmental protections. In a July 
     2012 Senate hearing on climate science, Senator Sessions 
     dismissed the concerns about global warming expressed by 98% 
     of climate scientists, and asserted that this is ``[a] danger 
     that is not as great as it seems.'' These positions are 
     frightening. Climate change is a public health issue that 
     cannot be overstated. As nurses we have been seeing for some 
     time increases in the frequency and severity of respiratory 
     diseases such as asthma, bronchitis, and emphysema, as well 
     as an increase in cancers and aggravation of cardiovascular 
     illness. The effects of air pollution are particularly acute 
     in pediatric patients. They have higher respiratory rates 
     than adults, and consequently higher exposure. Our elderly 
     patients are also especially vulnerable. Respiratory symptoms 
     as common as coughing can cause arrhythmias, heart attacks, 
     and other serious health impacts in geriatric patients. As 
     global warming progresses, we are seeing sharp increases in 
     heat stroke and dehydration, both of which are sometimes 
     fatal.
       In our disaster relief work through our Registered Nurse 
     Response Network, we have been called upon to assist the 
     victims of Hurricane Katrina and Super Storm Sandy--events 
     that many scientists believe would not have been of the 
     magnitude they were if not for rising temperature.
       Current and future generations cannot afford to have a fox 
     minding the hen house on the important issues of civil and 
     criminal protections under the control of the Attorney 
     General. We urge you to set aside your personal loyalty to 
     Senator Sessions and evaluate honestly his record and fitness 
     for this critically important job. We urge you to vote 
     against his confirmation.
           Sincerely,
     Deborah Burger, RN,
       Co-President, National Nurses United.
     Jean Ross, RN,
       Co-President, National Nurses United.

  Ms. CANTWELL. I also note that the National Nurses United, on behalf 
of 150,000 registered nurses, also urge the opposition to this nominee. 
And the record of this individual has made these individuals concerned 
about the resources and focus on crimes and actions that they see in 
their day-to-day lives.
  They want to make sure they are going to work effectively in 
addressing these issues that they see through the health care system. 
All of these issues add up to a great deal of concern about this next 
vote that we are going to be taking.

[[Page S897]]

  We are not under the illusion that somehow, magically, the vote is 
going to turn out any differently than it did on the last nominee. Why 
are we here at 4:30 in the morning to talk about this? Why are we going 
to continue to pursue efforts, as the minority, to get time to discuss 
these nominees? We are going to do that because we have great concerns 
about their record. And, frankly, in the case of the next two nominees 
who are coming before us, we had specific questions asked about their 
actual actions and statements and the testaments before the Finance 
Committee. Instead of the majority answering those questions for us, 
they decided not to answer them and push the vote to the floor of the 
United States Senate.
  I am very concerned about the Price nomination, and the discussion 
that I hope we are going to have time to have here on that nomination 
and to bring light to the issues that we didn't get to bring to light 
in the Finance Committee.
  The Treasury nominee that we will give time to in the next several 
days, the discussion of that record, the things I am interested in, 
obviously, are the protection of Medicare and Medicaid, and making sure 
we expose what is the concept and idea to either cap or cut the 
benefits that Americans are getting under those programs today and to 
have a great discussion about a very important issue that was talked 
about during the campaign and was put into party platforms on both 
sides of the aisle, but now all of a sudden seem to be forgotten. That 
mysterious, but all-important issue, something called Glass-Steagall, 
the separation of commercial and investment banking. That is what the 
Trump campaign, now President Trump, working with Republicans, put into 
a platform. Let us have Glass-Steagall.
  Let us have separation of commercial and investment banking. Why? 
Because it is the disaster that brought us the implosion of our economy 
and cost our economy $14 trillion, according to the Dallas fed. Yet, 
many Americans have not fully recovered from that event. I get that a 
lot of banks have recovered because we gave them the keys to the 
Treasury, and they got bailed out, but a lot of everyday Americans have 
not recovered. And certainly there are pension issues in the 
questioning of nominee Mnuchin. There was some discussion, ``Well, that 
is not what we meant. That is in the party platform, but that is not 
what we meant, and that is not what we are going to pursue.'' And 
certainly the rollback of Dodd-Frank provisions, that were just done in 
a Congressional Review Act, without very much discussion or fanfare or 
understanding by the American public, these kinds of actions are the 
things we seek debate on.
  As these nominees come right after this, my constituents in the State 
of Washington are feeling as if these nominees need to be questioned on 
how they are going to uphold existing law and how they are going to 
implement and enforce existing law as it relates to these many issues. 
We are doing our best here. We would rather not do it at 4:30 in the 
morning. We would rather not do it at 4:30 in the morning, but we will 
do it at 4:30 in the morning if that is what it takes to get the airing 
on these issues and this amount of attention.
  So I do find that the other side of the aisle, trying to gavel down 
my colleague from Massachusetts, was an attempt to try to say that you 
can control this debate. You can control the questions we have or the 
discussions we want to have or the concerns that our constituents have, 
which are real. I don't think it takes a genius to see that many people 
marching in Seattle on women's issues or an attorney general or a 
Governor who files a case or all the discussion that is happening, as I 
said, in response to a bombing at a health clinic just within the last 
few years or a bombing that happened in Spokane, an attempt on a Martin 
Luther King Day parade just several years ago, where somebody left a 
backpack trying to do harm--these are issues today.
  They may be the same struggles that our Nation has had, but we have 
made it through, and we want a law enforcement officer in the land to 
uphold the law, enforce it, and to fight for the civil liberties of 
these individuals.
  So I go back to my opening comments about this. And that is that I 
truly believe that mark that was set in the Saturday night massacre is 
the mark we should always strive for. I happened to ask at the time, 
when I first got on the Senate, I sat on the Judiciary Commission for 2 
years, and I asked Attorney General Ashcroft about these issues. I 
asked him specifically, if you become the Attorney General for the 
Nation--at this time we had a law that had been implemented, the 
roadless area rule. Even though it had become the force of law, would 
he enforce that, even though the new President wanted to overturn it? 
Because I wanted to get across this very issue: Are you working for the 
American people? Will you uphold the law if, in fact, that is the law 
of the country? At this point in time, Mr. Ashcroft hesitated about 
whether it did have the force of law but said that if it did have the 
force of law, he would certainly uphold it. Obviously, we saw a lot of 
Executive orders in the early days of the Bush administration trying to 
overturn many of these things, and we saw an Attorney General's office 
that stood by. Instead of defending these laws in court, basically they 
were effective at not implementing fighting them because basically they 
did a very poor job in the court process--or decided not to argue or to 
file on behalf of the existing law, as opposed to answering to the 
Senate of the United States.
  So we have seen examples of this. We have seen examples of Attorneys 
General who are responding more to the President of the United States 
than upholding the laws of the land.
  I think Americans--at least the Washingtonians who are writing me in 
record numbers, who are speaking out in record numbers, who are 
concerned in record numbers--want the laws on the book to be enforced, 
and they want the steps they are taking and making progress on as a 
State to also work in coordination with the next Attorney General.
  I will be honest with people. I did not vote for the law to legalize 
marijuana in my State. I did not vote for it. I did not think that 
given some challenges and issues we had, it was the right thing to do. 
That is how I cast my vote. But more than 20 counties in our State, out 
of 39, voted for this law. It is not something that just Seattle did 
and it dominated the State, and there were just a bunch of people in 
Seattle who wanted to legalize marijuana; it was counties throughout 
our State. Some of our most rural counties voted for the legalization 
of that product.
  In the ensuing years, we have had a good relationship with the 
Attorney General and the Department of Justice on how that law was 
going to continue to play out. So, as you can imagine, it is a much 
more integrated system now several years later. Several questions still 
remain about how this country is going to address that issue as a 
nation as a whole.
  But right now, right now, we want to know we are going to have an 
Attorney General, and my obligation to a citizenry who has passed by 
initiative this decision is to make sure that I am looking for people 
here who are going to work with the State of Washington on that right 
that our State has to continue to move forward.
  So it is of concern. As I said, the notion that a previous Attorney 
General did not agree--not this past Obama administration, but the 
previous Bush administration literally came to our State when we had a 
medical marijuana law and forced the investigation and shutdown of some 
facilities, caused great concern to medical patients throughout our 
State. So this is raising a question for people here. It is my 
obligation to make sure these issues are raised and brought up as we 
seek this discussion on the Sessions nomination to be Attorney General 
for our country.
  I again thank my colleagues for being out here and for all of the 
discussions we have had on these issues. We should not be afraid to 
have these discussions. We should not be afraid to think about how we 
are going to work not only across the aisle, as I have done with my 
colleague Susan Collins on those homeland security Court issues--we 
worked successfully with Jeh Johnson, the last Homeland Security 
director, to make sure that we were moving some of our airport border 
control issues to overseas airports. We were able to get that done in 
December

[[Page S898]]

after the San Bernardino event and make sure that we are now working.
  Why do we want them over there? Why do we want the border control and 
efficiency over there? Because then you can work more in coordination 
with law enforcement about who bad actors are before they reach the 
shores of the United States. By working with local law enforcement in 
those countries, we have better ways to find information about 
individuals we have concerns about. That is the best nexus for us, and 
so she and I have worked on that issue.
  As I mentioned earlier, Senator Collins and I are big advocates for 
the use of biometrics because you can identify people. As I mentioned, 
in the Ressam case, if we had identified Ressam the first time he 
entered France, we would have known who he was when he got to Canada. 
It would not have taken him going to the U.S. border. We would have 
found out when he arrived in Canada. But this is the United States 
using our clout and using our efforts to say to our European 
counterparts: We have implemented these biometric standards, and we 
want you to implement them, and we want to work together to make sure 
people we have great suspicion and concern about are being addressed.
  So, yes, we can work across the aisle on these issues. We can find 
ways to make sure that we are protecting civil liberties and also 
addressing the most heinous of these crimes and working to find 
individuals in a cooperative fashion, knowing that we are going to have 
to do this on an international basis.
  So I urge our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to think 
about what America now needs in moving forward on the protection of 
civil liberties. I hope that--I am sure it is tempting to want to reach 
and to do some of these issues in Executive orders.
  I mentioned the other issues of government surveillance in the 
Pacific Northwest that the State of Washington for sure has concerns 
about. These are our issues.
  Infringing on the civil liberties of American citizens is not a 
pursuit we should be following. We should be working in coordination 
with law enforcement on verifying that people are who they say they are 
and pursuing an agenda, working with our international counterparts, to 
stop people in those countries before they even plot a case like the 
Ressam case in the State of Washington.
  I know my other colleagues will be showing up here shortly, but I 
just wanted to put an additional note in. If any of our colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle are up early and just happen to turn on the 
television, if that is one of the things they do in the morning--we 
asked our colleagues to give us ample time to debate on the Price and 
Mnuchin nominations. We can continue to do the all-night thing. We can. 
I feel for the floor staff and the people who are here all night and 
the extra strain that it puts on the stenographers who are here and 
have been working around the clock. But what we want is to have a 
hearing on the issues we are concerned about. We want to be able to 
have these issues discussed not necessarily in the middle of the night 
but during the broad daylight so that we can engage the American people 
on what these choices are so that our colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle will hear from their constituents and will hear why these issues 
are so important.
  In the two cases we are going to see following this nomination for 
Attorney General, we are going to individuals who did not fully respond 
and answer the questions we wanted answered as it related to 
information they supplied to the Finance Committee.
  So when you talk about--some people say: Why are you guys doing this? 
We say: Well, it is the Treasury nominee and the head of our health 
care system. So basically it represents all our revenue and a big chunk 
of our spending. That is what those two individuals represent. They 
represent the revenue that our country raises and a big chunk of the 
money. In fact, I think health care is 7 percent of our economy. It 
represents a big aspect of our economy--those two individuals. So we 
want to make sure we have ample time to discuss those nominees, to 
raise the questions we have about those nominees. Maybe in that 
discussion here on the Senate floor in the bright light of day, we will 
get some answers. We will get some answers about some of the things 
that were discussed in the hearing about opposition to certain issues 
or incorrect information. We will engage our colleagues in a debate, 
and maybe they can help us understand the support for ideas like 
basically, you know, changing Medicare into a program that caps the 
benefits on individuals or taking Medicaid and doing the same thing.
  I am a big proponent of changes in delivery system reform that have 
driven great efficiencies into the health care system. I think many of 
our colleagues don't know, for example, about a program that got people 
out of nursing homes and into community-based care; that a lot of 
States in the country that use this part of the Affordable Care Act now 
are driving more efficient health care services into those States--a 
lot of States that did not support President Obama, did not support the 
Affordable Care Act, but took the money from the Affordable Care Act 
and are now implementing a much better delivery system for those who 
are living longer and need assistance on health care.
  Why is that so important? Because back to my point about Glass-
Steagall and the implosion of our economy, what we are going to see is 
a very great tragedy on retirement issues. We are going to see a lot of 
people who don't have enough money to retire and certainly not enough 
to take care of their health care. So what happens then? Those 
individuals end up on Medicaid. If they end up on a Medicaid system 
that is based on nursing home care, the U.S. Government is going to be 
paying a lot more money for those services.
  Those are all issues that we want to discuss with our colleagues, and 
we want to have an opportunity to do so during the next several days. 
We hope you will give us the ability to do that instead of holding all-
night sessions--do that during the day--and give us ample time on those 
nominees and push those to next week so that we can have that 
discussion now.
  Again, I want to thank the floor staff and everybody who has been 
here these two nights. It is a long haul. It is a long haul to do 
there. But behind every Member who has spoken on my side of the aisle, 
I can tell you, there is a passion of our constituents. There are true 
concerns, both by individuals and I would say businesses, as you can 
probably see from those who joined the case Washington State brought. 
You can see that there are issues here of how our economy works and how 
businesses work as well.
  The passion and fervor that drive people to come here and speak on 
these issues is really one that represents the whole society we in the 
Northwest represent, the economic issues and the challenges that we 
face and how we have lived together in the diversity that has emerged 
and how much that diversity in the Pacific Northwest has grown our 
economy. That is what people are telling us. People want to know: What 
is the economic engine of the Pacific Northwest? And one of the things 
that scientists and researchers come up and say is that it is 
diversity.
  The diversity adds to the creativity, the creativity adds to the 
inventiveness and the ingenuity, and the ingenuity is what is 
propelling these various businesses all across the various sectors. I 
am not just talking about high-tech sectors; I am talking about in 
agriculture, in aerospace, certainly in tech, but in many other aspects 
of manufacturing as well. So we want a nominee for Attorney General who 
is going to recognize that diversity, fight for that diversity, who is 
going to stand up to the President of the United States when they need 
to stand up and continue to make the effort that previous Attorney 
Generals have made in doing the job that it takes to be the top law 
enforcement officer in the land of the United States.
  With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Young). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, as I began last night at 4 in the 
morning--

[[Page S899]]

now 5:30--I thank the staff, both the nonpartisan staff and those in 
the majority and minority for enduring another late night. These are 
exceptional times. Thus we are here again in the early, early morning 
to talk about a nomination to the President's Cabinet.
  This is my first time on the floor since Senator Warren was gaveled 
down last evening. Let me just speak for a moment about my deep, deep 
disappointment at the events of early last evening. I want to put this 
in the context of the political moment that we are living in.
  We have a President of the United States today who is a bully, who is 
using his office to try to stifle and quell debate. If you dare oppose 
him--frankly, whether you are a Republican or a Democrat--you are going 
to be called names, you are going to be mocked in an effort to try to 
silence you.
  In the last week, we have seen President Trump attempt this tactic on 
members of the judiciary. When he got a ruling he didn't like from a 
judge in Washington that temporarily halted his ban on Muslims entering 
the country, he started personally attacking this judge, sending a 
signal to those in the judicial branch that, if you dare oppose him, 
you are going to be singled out for ridicule.
  The President of the United States is going to try to destroy your 
reputation and your career as a judge, as a jurist, as an impartial 
arbiter of the law if you rule against his political interests. It is 
an exceptional moment. It is an exceptional moment in which the 
President of the United States is trying to bully judges into ruling in 
his favor. It is an exceptional moment, though we have been watching it 
for the last 2 years, in which the President is trying to bully Members 
of Congress to cow to his interests.
  I want to be very careful about how I talk about this because I have 
great respect for the parliamentary rulings of this body. But I don't 
understand why our majority leader chose to gavel down Senator Warren 
when she was simply reading a letter from Coretta Scott King.
  We celebrate the legacy of Martin Luther King with a holiday every 
year in this country. In the pantheon of individual greatness in the 
United States of America, it doesn't get any higher than Martin Luther 
King. His widow wrote us a letter expressing her objections to the 
nomination of Jeff Sessions based upon the belief that he would not 
live up to the legacy of her husband and his work in civil rights.
  Nothing could be more relevant to this discussion than the opinion of 
a member of Martin Luther King's family on whether or not this nominee 
was going to enforce appropriately, vigorously the civil rights laws of 
this Nation, and Senator Warren was silenced.
  Now, I don't know what the motive was, and it certainly would be 
inappropriate for me to guess at it. But the effect of the majority 
leader's action is to stifle debate, to make it less likely that 
Members of the Democratic minority will raise objections to Senator 
Sessions' nomination and record objections as to his conduct.
  I am not trying to equate what happened here last night with what our 
President has done, but there is a practice now. There is a pattern of 
behavior among Republicans, trying to stifle and quell opposition to 
this President. The President uses the bullying power of Twitter, and 
the majority leader now is twisting the rules of the Senate.
  I say that because, while it may be true that technically the rules 
of the Senate don't allow you to talk about the conduct of a fellow 
Senator, how on Earth can you debate a nominee from this body to the 
Cabinet without questioning their conduct?
  So technically, the rule may say that you cannot talk about the 
conduct of a fellow Senator, but how on Earth can this body operate 
when Members of it are nominated to important positions if we cannot 
talk about the conduct of fellow Members and we cannot criticize the 
conduct of fellow Members?
  Now, I appreciate the fact that Senator Merkley was able to come down 
to the floor and read the full letter into the Record overnight. I 
appreciate the fact that Senator Booker was able to read into the 
Record testimony from another civil rights hero, John Lewis, without 
being similarly gaveled down for his conduct.
  But this effort, this continued effort to try to stop people who 
oppose President Trump and his agenda from speaking truth to power is 
not right. It is not right. And it will, frankly, have the opposite 
effect.
  You have seen what happened overnight on our side. We are not going 
to stop talking about Senator Sessions' record and how we believe it is 
disqualifying for his nomination for Attorney General. The protests and 
the numbers of people gathering around the country to object to the 
policies of President Trump are getting bigger and bigger the more that 
he bullies and bullies. This isn't going to work.
  So I am going to speak to Senator Sessions' record. I am going to 
speak to how I believe it does not qualify him to be Attorney General, 
and that doesn't mean that I don't have great respect for him. I have 
worked with Senator Sessions on a number of issues. But if I can't talk 
about Senator Sessions' record, if I can't talk about his conduct as a 
Senator, as it relates to whether or not he can be the chief law 
enforcement official in this country, then there is no use in having 
this debate at all.
  Senator Sessions has publicly called the Voting Rights Act intrusive. 
In response to the Supreme Court's 2013 decision in Shelby County, AL, 
v. Holder, which gutted section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, Senator 
Sessions called it a good thing for the South.
  That decision made it vastly more difficult for the Federal 
Government to protect individuals from racial discrimination in voting. 
The Supreme Court effectively substituted their political judgment on 
the status of racism in America for the judgment of this Congress. 
Effectively, the Supreme Court was saying in that decision that in our 
belief, racism is no longer a problem in the way that it was when the 
Voting Rights Act was passed, and, thus, there is no longer an 
imperative for section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which allows for the 
Federal Government to oversee the voting laws of a select number of 
counties with patterns of racial discrimination.
  That was an absurd ruling.
  I have great respect for the members of the Supreme Court, but they 
live inside the ivory-ensconced marble of the Supreme Court chamber. 
They don't have experience on the ground, like the elected Members of 
this body do, to understand the reality of racism in America today. I 
wish it were gone, but it is not. Blacks and Hispanics are still 
discriminated against.
  You just have to look to see what happened in North Carolina to 
understand the truth of that. North Carolina passed a number of laws 
which, on their face, they argued were not discriminatory. They were 
just, in their words, voter protections, buffers against voter 
fraud. And then, when we read the correspondence of the members of the 
State legislature to pass that law, what we learned is that they were 
specifically intended to try to stop African Americans from voting. The 
people who were passing those laws were talking to each other trying to 
figure out how they could most effectively target laws to stop African 
Americans from voting. That was their clear intent, even though they 
argue that there was no racial bias implicit in the passage of that 
law.

  Racism is not dead in America. You don't wash away discrimination in 
just one generation--a generation and a half, maybe--after laws that 
separated the races with respect to public accommodations and 
restaurants and drinking fountains and bathrooms. That doesn't just 
vanish in one generation later. Everybody understands that.
  Poll after poll will show you that there are still people in this 
country who believe that African Americans and Hispanics are inferior. 
I wish it weren't the case, but it still is. So we still need the 
Voting Rights Act. We still need the Civil Rights Act. And we are about 
to vote on a nominee to be Attorney General who calls the Voting Rights 
Act intrusive, who says that a Supreme Court decision that guts the 
Voting Rights Act is ``a good thing for the South.'' It is not a good 
thing for African Americans in the South. It is not a good thing for 
Hispanics in the South. It may be a good thing for the people who wrote 
those discriminatory laws, but it is not a good thing for those who are 
trying to vote who have

[[Page S900]]

witnessed and lived through decades of discrimination.
  Let me talk about Senator Sessions' record on immigration. In 2007, 
Senator Sessions referred to a comprehensive immigration reform bill as 
``terrorist assistance.'' He has been a leading voice in Congress in 
arguing against immigration reform. In two decades in the Senate, 
Senator Sessions has opposed every single immigration bill that has 
included a pathway to citizenship. He has favored, similar to President 
Trump, an ideological test for admission to the United States. He said 
this:

       Immigration policy must be guided by our understanding that 
     western society is unique and special. Our values, our rules, 
     our traditions are what make our society succeed where others 
     fail. It is necessary and proper to choose who among the 
     world's 7 billion people will be granted the high honor of 
     immigration to the United States on the basis of confidence 
     that they share our values.

  That is a radical idea. Why don't we think about that for a second. 
The Attorney General of the United States will make important decisions 
about the enforcement of immigration law in this country. Much of what 
happens in immigration policy happens in the Department of Homeland 
Security, but the Attorney General makes important decisions about 
upholding the law on immigration policy, and we are about to vote to 
confirm a Member of this body who has said that there should be an 
ideological test for admission to the United States and that you have 
to share our values. I don't know what that means, but the greatness of 
the United States is based on the fact that we have been able to bring 
people from a variety of different backgrounds, a variety of different 
value sets, a variety of different religions--bring them into this 
country and allow them to keep part of their heritage, part of their 
belief system from the places they came from, whether they be Ireland 
or England or China or Mexico, and then also assimilate into the whole 
and adopt part of this country's short history of tradition over the 
last 240 years. What makes America great is that we allow people to 
bring values different from ours into this country, which in turn 
strengthens our collective set of values. We are constantly challenging 
ourselves with new ideas, with new perspectives.
  Senator Sessions has been an opponent of Delayed Action for Childhood 
Arrivals policy. This is commonly referred to as DACA--the idea that if 
you are a child who came to this country when you were very young, 
knowing nothing other than the United States, an American in name if 
not legal status, then you should be able to stay in this country. It 
is cruel and inhumane to take a young man or woman who came to this 
country when they were 3 or 4 years old and send them back to their 
country of birth, and I think Democrats and Republicans of goodwill 
generally agree, if not on the broad aspects of the pathway to 
citizenship, that for these kids, these DREAMers as they call them, 
they should be able to stay in the United States. Senator Sessions has 
vigorously opposed this policy and many DACA-protected immigrants now 
fear deportation under a Department of Justice that is led by Senator 
Sessions.
  His conduct tells us that he opposes protections for young men and 
women who know nothing other than the United States and want simply to 
have a shot with the American dream. That conduct is relevant to 
whether he is qualified to be Attorney General.
  On criminal justice reform, Senator Sessions has personally blocked 
the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act, which is a bipartisan effort 
spearheaded by Senators Grassley, Lee, Cornyn, and Speaker of the House 
Paul Ryan. As Attorney General, Senator Sessions will have the power to 
direct Federal prosecutors throughout the country to pursue the 
harshest penalties possible for even low-level drug offenses, a step 
that would further exacerbate our national record of incarcerating 
nonviolent offenders, the vast majority of whom can be successfully 
treated at far lower cost to society with appropriate health care 
treatment for their addiction or mental illness. Senator Sessions' 
conduct in this body has been to oppose efforts to try to treat with 
more compassion and commonsense offenders in this country who would be 
better served through treatment than through incarceration, so it is 
relevant to his nomination to be Attorney General where he will have 
broad discretion to lock up people for low-level offenses.
  In Connecticut, we made the decision to divert people who are 
convicted of crimes but have serious mental illness or addiction into 
treatment. We have made the decision to reserve our prison system for 
the worst of the worst, mainly for violent offenders, for those who are 
convicted of serious crimes.
  Connecticut has seen its prison population fall to a 20-year low. On 
September 3, 2016, the prison population in Connecticut dropped below 
15,000 for the first time since January of 1997. At the same time, 
rates of reported violent crimes have plummeted in Connecticut. So the 
proof is in the pudding in my State. My State has reduced its prison 
population and at the same time has reduced its level of violent crime 
and many States can tell the same story. Yet we can predict through his 
record on the floor of the U.S. Senate that Senator Sessions may use 
his power as Attorney General to reverse that trend line and lock up 
more of my constituents, which I would argue will have an upward effect 
on the rates of violent crime. Why? Because those individuals, having 
gone through the process of incarceration and coming out unreformed, 
untreated, will be no less of a danger to society.
  Finally, I want to talk about the issue of gun violence in this 
country. Obviously this is very personal to me, still watching the 
community of Newtown spiral through ripples of grief associated with 
the trauma of December of 2012. Senator Sessions and I clearly have 
differences about the way in which the Federal Government should 
restrict the flow of firearms in this country.
  You know, it has to be relevant to the decision that I make. This is 
the chief law enforcement official of this country, so the views on 
firearms are relevant. Whether or not the Attorney General has the 
discretion to make policy on the issue of what firearms are legal and 
what aren't or what sales are subject to background checks and what 
aren't, there is a bully pulpit associated with the chief law 
enforcement official that carries weight, so Senator Sessions' beliefs 
on firearms policy are relevant. His record and his conduct in the U.S. 
Senate on the question of gun violence is relevant as to whether he 
should be our next Attorney General. Senator Sessions has lined up with 
the gun lobby over and over again against commonsense reform of our gun 
laws that are supported by 90 percent of Americans.
  He has voted against expanding background checks to cover sales at 
gun shows or online. He has voted against a bipartisan effort in the 
Senate to make sure that if you are on the terrorist watch list that 
you cannot purchase a weapon. He has voted against efforts to try to 
restrict sales of high capacity magazines and assault weapons, the 
kinds of magazines and the kinds of weapons that were used in the 
horrific crime in Sandy Hook. What Senator Sessions has said is that, 
if he were confirmed, he would take on the rising homicide rates in 
some American cities by working against illegal firearms use. He has 
pledged that he will enforce the law. Yet, again, coming back to his 
conduct and his record in this body, he has been part of an effort to 
try to strip from the Department of Justice and its appendages the 
tools they need in order to enforce the law. Every year we have on our 
appropriations bills riders that specifically stop the ATF from 
enforcing existing law. We restrict their ability to do inventories of 
gun dealers. We prohibit them from keeping modern databases on gun 
sales across the country.
  The policy that Senator Sessions has backed and voted for in this 
body runs contrary to the statements that he has made. He has supported 
efforts to rob from the Department of Justice the ability to enforce 
the existing law on guns, yet he says when he gets there that he is 
going to use all efforts to enforce the law. Further, he has opposed 
efforts to give new tools to the Department of Justice to try to keep 
our streets safer. Shortly after Sandy Hook, he specifically debated on 
this floor legislation that would make it a Federal crime to traffic in 
illegal guns. I don't know how much less controversial you can get when 
it comes to gun policy. We all agree that you shouldn't

[[Page S901]]

be able to walk into a store, buy guns, say they are for you, and then 
go out on to the streets and sell them to criminals. It happens all the 
time in our cities.
  Somebody goes and buys a mess of guns at a gun store or gun show and 
then goes into a city and sells them out of a trunk of a car to 
criminals who couldn't otherwise go buy these guns because of their 
criminal background.
  So we proposed a simple Federal law that would make it a Federal 
crime to do that, and you need that, because States can't enforce that 
on a State by State basis because these guns are often trafficked 
across State lines. Senator Sessions voted against that. He is not 
going to be a champion for enforcing the gun laws of this Nation. His 
record is not going to magically transform when he becomes Attorney 
General. I have great respect for Senator Sessions, but he has been a 
chief opponent of making the gun laws of this country more amenable to 
proper and appropriate and efficient enforcement, and that is not going 
to change when he becomes Attorney General.
  So I am going to vote against his nomination later today, and I 
encourage my colleagues to do so as well. His record on civil rights, 
on criminal justice, on immigration, and on gun policy do not qualify 
him to be Attorney General.
  I am deeply sad about what happened here last night with respect to 
the letter read into the Record by Senator Warren. I understand that 
things seem to be breaking down a little bit in this Chamber, that 
nerves are frayed and people are acting in ways that maybe they 
wouldn't have acted a few years ago. These are exceptional times. I 
have never seen a President like this, trying to divide us from each 
other, using his position to bully and intimidate his political 
opponents. Raving about a brutal dictator in Moscow who murders people. 
We have never seen a moment like this. We should be really careful that 
we don't model that behavior here in the Senate.
  What makes me sad is that it looked to me like that is what 
happened--that in this body the majority party tried to use the rules 
of the Senate in order to bully Members of the minority into silence. 
It is not going to work. If we want to get back to being able to 
function as a body, then we better be OK with being able to have some 
open, honest conversations about the future of this country and the 
future of this body.
  I am going to vote against Senator Sessions today. That doesn't mean 
that I haven't enjoyed working with him on a number of subjects, but he 
is not the right person to be Attorney General--not close, frankly--and 
I hope that over the course of the day my colleagues continue to talk 
about his conduct, continue to talk about his record, and continue to 
explain why it does not qualify him in any way, shape, or form to be 
the chief law enforcement official in this country.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. HASSAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. HASSAN. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in 
opposing the nomination of Senator Jeff Sessions to be Attorney General 
of the United States.
  Now more than ever, it is critical to have an Attorney General who is 
an independent defender of our Constitution, who puts the rule of law 
before all else, and who is committed to ensuring that all Americans 
have equal access to justice. Unfortunately, I do not believe that 
Senator Sessions is fully committed to enacting those principles, and 
every American should be concerned that he will not independently stand 
up to President Trump.
  Senator Sessions was one of Trump's earliest supporters and has been 
a key source of influence for the President's actions. White House 
Strategist Stephen Bannon recently wrote to the Washington Post: 
``Throughout the campaign, Sessions has been the fiercest, most 
dedicated, and most loyal promoter in Congress of Trump's agenda, and 
has played a critical role as the clearinghouse for policy and 
philosophy to undergird the implementation of that agenda.''
  In the wake of President Trump's first few weeks in office, in which 
he signed dozens of Executive orders--including the un-American 
backdoor Muslim ban--it was reported that Senator Sessions played a 
role in influencing the President's policy and strategy.
  My office has heard from thousands in New Hampshire who have had 
serious legitimate concerns about the President's actions in his first 
few weeks. I am concerned by reports that Senator Sessions pushed for 
an even more aggressive approach.
  The Washington Post reported: ``The Senator lobbied for a `shock-and-
awe' period of executive action that would rattle Congress, impress 
Trump's base, and catch his critics unaware. . . . `'
  Senator Sessions' record in Congress and his history of standing 
against the constitutionally protected rights of millions of Americans 
is deeply troubling. These are issues that my office has heard from 
constituents across New Hampshire. As a resident from Merrimack wrote: 
``Pick a current civil rights issue and Sessions is on the wrong side 
of history.''
  I do not have confidence that Senator Sessions would be an 
independent Attorney General who would put the rights of all Americans 
before the whims of this President, and that is why I oppose this 
nomination.
  I am incredibly proud that my home State of New Hampshire understands 
that the values of inclusion and equality are at the very core of what 
makes us American and at the core of our constitutional system. We 
believe in freedom and the value of every person, and that is our duty 
and our destiny--to extend the same freedoms we enjoy to all of our 
people. We value human rights and we see inclusion and equality as core 
principles in our laws. These values have helped our State become a 
leader in advancing the rights of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, 
transgender, and queer community, recognizing that all people deserve 
the legal right to fully participate in the social, civic, and economic 
life of our communities.
  Years ago, New Hampshire led the way in becoming one of the first 
States in the Nation to pass marriage equality, and I took great pride 
in casting my vote for that legislation as a State senator. When we 
passed that legislation, we made clear once again that when we as a 
State or a country bring people in from the margins into the heart and 
soul of our democracy, we all get stronger.
  About a year after we took that step in New Hampshire to enact 
marriage equality, I was sitting on a plane in the window seat, and the 
man next to me noticed my name on the notebook I was reading and said: 
Aren't you elected in New Hampshire? What do you do there?
  I told him I had been a State senator.
  He looked at me and said: Did you have anything to do with marriage 
equality passing?
  Now, I wasn't sure what this man's point of view was as I sat next to 
him on this plane ride. I said: Well, yes, I was in the New Hampshire 
Senate, and I voted to pass marriage equality.
  He said: I want to thank you for it. I am a recruiter for one of our 
State's largest employers, and marriage equality is one of the best 
recruitment tools we have.
  I asked him to expand a little bit on that. He said: It isn't that we 
have any particular percentage of LGBTQ applicants or employees that is 
unusual, but the fact that New Hampshire passed marriage equality 
signals to people we are trying to recruit that we are an open and 
inclusive State, where everybody is welcome if they are willing to work 
hard and do their part to move us forward.
  During my time as Governor, we continued to fight for progress for 
the LGBTQ community, including issuing an executive order to prohibit 
discrimination in our State government on the basis of gender identity 
or gender expression.
  Unfortunately, Senator Sessions' record and previous comments call 
into question whether he will enforce the Federal laws designed to 
promote equality and protect the LGBTQ community. Senator Sessions has 
been a vocal opponent of marriage equality, going as far as to label 
same-sex marriages as dangerous.

[[Page S902]]

  In 2004, he stated: ``But I do believe that it is not disputable that 
adopting a same-sex marriage culture undermines and weakens marriage.''
  Following the Supreme Court's 2015 decision that guaranteed marriage 
equality in all 50 States, Senator Sessions said: ``The marriage case 
goes beyond what I consider to be the realm of reality.''
  As Attorney General, it would be Senator Sessions' job to implement 
and defend this ruling. I am extremely concerned that he would not 
follow through with that responsibility.
  Senator Sessions has also worked to undermine the Federal hate crimes 
law designed to protect LGBTQ Americans. In explaining his vote against 
the 2009 Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention 
Act, Sessions argued that Federal protections for LGBTQ Americans were 
not necessary. When debating the law, Sessions said: ``I am not sure 
women or people with different sexual orientations face that kind of 
discrimination.''
  Following Senator Sessions' nomination as Attorney General, Judy 
Shepard, the mother of Matthew Shepard, for whom that law was named, 
wrote a letter for the Human Rights Campaign opposing Sessions' 
nomination. Shepard wrote:

       In 1998 my son, Matthew, was murdered because he was gay, a 
     brutal hate crime that continues to resonate around the world 
     even now.
       Following Matt's death, my husband, Dennis, and I worked 
     for the next 11 years to garner support for the federal Hate 
     Crimes Prevention Act. We were fortunate to work alongside 
     members of Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, who 
     championed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate 
     Crimes Prevention Act with the determination, compassion, and 
     vision to match ours as the parents of a child targeted for 
     simply wanting to be himself. Senator Jeff Sessions was not 
     one of these members. In fact, Senator Sessions strongly 
     opposed the hate crimes bill--characterizing hate crimes as 
     mere ``thought crimes.''
       My son was not killed by ``thoughts'' or because his 
     murderers said hateful things. My son was brutally beaten 
     with the butt of a .357 magnum pistol. [They] tied him to a 
     fence, and left him to die in freezing temperatures because 
     he was gay. Senator Sessions' repeated efforts to diminish 
     the life-changing acts of violence covered by the Hate Crimes 
     Prevention Act horrified me then, as a parent who knows the 
     true cost of hate, and it terrifies me today to see that this 
     same person is now being nominated as the country's highest 
     authority to represent justice and equal protection under the 
     law for all Americans.
       As Attorney General, Senator Sessions would be responsible 
     for not only enforcing the Hate Crimes Prevention Act, but a 
     myriad of other Civil Rights laws including the Violence 
     Against Women Act, which includes explicit protections for 
     LGBTQ people. Senator Sessions' very public record of 
     hostility towards the LGBTQ community and federal legislation 
     designed to protect vulnerable Americans, including the 
     Voting Rights Act, makes it nearly impossible to believe that 
     he will vigorously enforce statutes and ideas that he worked 
     so hard to defeat.

  I agree with Judy Shepherd, and it is clear that Senator Sessions' 
record shows that he will not stand up for the rights of LGBTQ Granite 
Staters and Americans if he becomes Attorney General.
  There are other issues of concern as well. I have always fought to 
protect a woman's constitutionally protected right to make her own 
health care decisions and control her own destiny, and I always will. 
Roe v. Wade is a landmark decision that protects women and their access 
to abortion. It guarantees a fundamental right for women, and it 
affirms that a woman has the right to decide whether to continue or 
terminate a pregnancy without government interference.
  Sessions' record leaves questions on whether he will enforce the law 
in this area. During his time in the Senate, Sessions has been 
dedicated to opposing a woman's constitutional right to safe and legal 
abortion. He voted to grant legal status to an embryo. He has 
repeatedly voted to deny women in the military the right to use their 
own private funds for abortion care at military hospitals. He has said 
that he would like to see a woman's constitutional right to make her 
own health care decisions overturned.
  This is unacceptable for a nominee to lead the Department of Justice 
whose role would be to uphold the very law that he seeks to overturn. 
We also know that a woman's right to make her own health decisions 
isn't just a matter of freedom. It is a matter of health. It is also a 
matter of economics and finances.
  When women have to pay more for their health care, and it puts them 
in an economic disadvantage. As Governor, I restored family planning 
funds and pushed to restore State funding to Planned Parenthood because 
I know how critical access to these services are for the women and 
families of my State.
  Planned Parenthood provides critical primary and preventive health 
care services to thousands of New Hampshire women, including preventive 
care, birth control, and cancer screenings. There are countless stories 
of women whose lives have been changed as a result of access to Planned 
Parenthood in my State.
  A young woman named Alyssa in my State lost her health insurance. She 
was on her father's health insurance. She was younger than age 26. 
Suddenly her father passed away, and then she had a medical emergency. 
She didn't know where to go. Grieving for her father, she was also 
without health insurance. She turned to Planned Parenthood, and they 
were able to provide her the care that she needed.
  Alyssa's story and the stories of thousands of others across our 
State make it clear why it is essential that we have an Attorney 
General who will protect a woman's constitutionally protected right to 
make her own health care decisions.
  Senator Sessions has voted six times to block patients from accessing 
health care at Planned Parenthood health centers. Senator Sessions has 
stated that Planned Parenthood should not receive Federal funds for any 
services because, among the other health care services it provides, it 
provides the constitutionally protected care--abortion--that a woman 
needs when she decides she must terminate a pregnancy.
  Senator Sessions has opposed women's access to no-cost birth control 
that is now provided through the Affordable Care Act. Sessions even 
refused to condemn President Trump's remarks in the ``Access 
Hollywood'' tapes released last year, saying that he did not 
characterize the behavior President Trump described as sexual assault.
  He voted against the 2014 reauthorization of the Violence Against 
Women Act, which is critical for the investigation and prosecution of 
violent crimes against women. The Violence Against Women Act was signed 
into law by President Clinton in 1994 and has been reauthorized by 
bipartisan majorities in Congress in 2000 and 2005 and signed by 
President George W. Bush.
  The idea that the Attorney General of the United States would not 
support his commonsense legislation to protect women from violence is 
unacceptable. As Governor, I also fought to expand economic opportunity 
for women and families.
  We passed the New Hampshire Paycheck Fairness Act in New Hampshire, 
making sure that an equal day's work gets an equal day's pay.
  I also strongly support efforts to expand paid family leave to ensure 
that workers are able to support their families during times of need at 
home.
  I am troubled that Senator Sessions has worked to roll back the 
progress of equal pay. Senator Sessions voted against the Lilly 
Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and has consistently voted against the Paycheck 
Fairness Act.
  I am far from the only one in New Hampshire who opposes the idea of 
Senator Sessions as our Nation's top law enforcement officer. I have 
heard from many of my constituents regarding the impact of Senator 
Sessions' nomination on women's right.
  One constituent wrote:

       I truly fear for the future of women's rights and my 
     daughter's right to an autonomous life if Jeff Sessions is 
     confirmed. The bottom line, Senator Sessions has a record of 
     undermining the civil and constitutional rights of women in 
     this country.

  On another topic, in recent weeks there has been much discussion 
about the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, otherwise known 
as IDEA, and the fact that Education Secretary Betsy DeVos seemed 
confused about the fact that IDEA is Federal law and also declined to 
commit to enforcing it. This contributed to my vote against Mrs. 
DeVos's nomination yesterday.
  What is also appalling is Senator Sessions' previous comments on 
IDEA. In 2000, Senator Sessions gave a speech

[[Page S903]]

on the Senate floor suggesting that disciplinary problems in schools 
stemmed from IDEA. Sessions said:

       Teachers I have been talking to have shared stories with 
     me. I have been in 15 schools around Alabama this year. I 
     have talked to them about a lot of subjects. I ask them about 
     this subject in every school I go to, and I am told in every 
     school that this is a major problem for them. In fact, it may 
     be the single most irritating problem for teachers throughout 
     America today.

  He continued.

       There is no telling how many instructional hours are lost 
     by teachers in dealing with behavior problems. In times of an 
     increasingly competitive global society, it is no wonder 
     American students fall short. Certain children are allowed to 
     remain in the classroom robbing the other children of hours 
     that can never be replaced.
       There is no need to extend the school day. There is no need 
     to extend the school year. If politicians would just make it 
     possible for educators to take back the time that is lost on 
     a daily basis to certain individuals, there is no doubt we 
     would have better educated students.

  He added:

       It is clear that IDEA '97 not only undermines the 
     educational process, it also undermines the authority of 
     educators. In a time when our profession is being called upon 
     to protect our children from increasingly dangerous sources, 
     our credibility is being stripped from us.

  As I have discussed over the last couple of weeks, the passage of 
IDEA was a groundbreaking moment in American history for people who 
experience disabilities in their families. After IDEA was passed, all 
schools--all public schools in our country--were required to provide a 
free and appropriate education for children with disabilities.
  Children like my son, now 28 years old, and a graduate of Exeter High 
School, who used to be relegated to institutions, subjected to inhumane 
conditions and maltreatment, treated as truly less than human were 
included in our public schools. There is not a parent of a child like 
my son who does not acknowledge that including new people with 
different needs in any setting can be challenging, but we are 
Americans, and we are supposed to do challenging things, and that is 
what IDEA challenged us to do.
  I have seen the power of inclusion not only in my own home, but in my 
community and in our schools. I have seen it strengthen other students. 
Just last week, one of my son's classmates from fifth grade reached out 
because he had seen the coverage of the hearing concerning Mrs. DeVos's 
nomination. He said in an email to me: You know, I don't remember much 
about fifth grade, but I do remember having lunch with Ben. And I 
remember even now Ben's lighthearted disposition.
  What a lesson for our children to learn that even if you have severe 
and debilitating physical disabilities that prevent you from speaking 
or typing or walking or eating in a typical way, you could be 
lighthearted and love your life. There are always challenges connected 
to including new students with different learning styles, different 
behaviors. But because of IDEA, we have learned how to help those 
students cope and learn and adjust their behavior. And for anybody to 
suggest that it is the fault of people with disabilities, that it is 
their disability that is undermining our education, is appalling.

  Various groups who represent individuals with disabilities have, 
therefore, voiced their opposition to Senator Sessions' nomination. The 
Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates has written to the Judiciary 
Committee arguing that:

       [Sessions] has compiled a longstanding and consistent 
     record, including public statements, policy proposals, and 
     other various actions that serve to discriminate against the 
     rights and dignity of children and adults with disabilities.
       Sessions' disdain for special education and opposition to 
     community integration of individuals with disabilities is at 
     odds with the laws, inconsistent with our nation's commitment 
     to supporting individuals with disabilities, and will lead to 
     far higher societal costs in the future.

  And a constituent with Etna, NH, wrote to share her concerns on 
Senator Sessions' record on individuals with disabilities. She said:

       Senator Sessions has a long, well-documented history of 
     active opposition to respect for the human rights of the 
     American citizenry, particularly those of us who experience 
     multiple marginalizations in our society. And as such, he is 
     unfit for the office of Attorney General. It is abundantly 
     clear to me, as a disabled woman, that his Justice Department 
     would not support my equal protection under the law.

  Americans with disabilities and their families deserve better than an 
Attorney General who has consistently spoken out against their rights.
  I also have concerns about Senator Sessions' voting rights record. 
Voting is our most fundamental right, and ensuring that everyone can 
exercise that right is critical to making our democracy successful. 
Everyone deserves representation and the opportunity to vote on who 
represents them.
  Throughout his time in office, Senator Sessions has demonstrated an 
opposition to ensuring that all Americans have the right to vote. In 
1986, Senator Sessions called the Voting Rights Act ``an intrusive 
piece of legislation.'' In 2006, after the Senate passed the Voting 
Rights Act reauthorization, Senator Sessions joined other Republicans 
in issuing a highly unusual committee report that sought to undermine 
the same legislation that they had all just voted to support. Chief 
Justice Roberts cited the report in his Shelby County v. Holder 
opinion, which gutted a key provision of the Voting Rights Act. Senator 
Sessions celebrated the Shelby County decision and stated it was, 
``good news for the South.''
  Since that decision, and despite the passage of voting restrictions 
in several States by Republican legislatures, Sessions has said, ``I 
don't think the Supreme Court ruling has damaged voting rights in any 
real way.''
  It is clear that Senator Sessions is not committed to protecting 
voting rights. Many Granite Staters have written to my office, 
highlighting Senator Sessions' record on voting rights as a reason that 
the Senate should oppose his nomination.
  A constituent from Tilton, NH, said:

       Our country has battled long and hard to throw off the 
     errors of our past, but voting rights are under assault. Jeff 
     Sessions is not the right person to safeguard the integrity 
     of our voting process, nor can he be trusted to work on 
     behalf of all Americans in the cause of Justice.

  At a time when we are discussing ensuring equality, justice, and 
inclusion for all of our citizens, I am reminded of my father's story. 
My father was born and raised in the segregated South. His father was a 
traveling shoe salesman, and his mother was a school teacher who, 
during the Depression, got paid in food stamps. That is what kept the 
family going. Through hard work, a scholarship, taking on jobs like 
waiting tables and moving furniture, and a bit of good luck, my dad was 
able to attend Princeton University. It wasn't long before his studies 
were interrupted, however, when, following the bombing of Pearl Harbor, 
he left to volunteer to fight in World War II, eventually being thrown 
into the Battle of the Bulge.
  The Battle of the Bulge marked one of the first times in World War II 
that White and Black American soldiers fought alongside each other. 
Thousands of miles away from the school where he had been studying, 
this young man from the Deep South found himself learning more about 
the values of equality and inclusion than he ever could have learned 
back at home. And after my father's experience in that battle, where 
African-American soldiers fought and died alongside their White 
counterparts, Dad returned home to a life of working to make the notion 
that every single one of us counts a reality. Our Founders believed in 
that principle, that when you count everyone and bring more people in 
from the margins, we all grow stronger.
  We know that our Founders didn't count everyone at first, but they 
had faith that we would continue striving, as our Constitution commands 
us to, to build a more perfect union, that generation after generation, 
we would continue to deliver on our Nation's promise of equality. And 
while the road to greater inclusion is not without significant 
challenges, time and again, we have persevered to build a better 
future.
  We need leaders who are committed to those values and who are 
committed to enforcing the laws that have included more and more 
Americans. Senator Jeff Sessions' record shows that he is not committed 
to those values, and he has demonstrated that he lacks the independence 
needed to stand up to President Trump.
  For these reasons, I cannot support Senator Sessions to be the next 
Attorney General of the United States. I

[[Page S904]]

urge my colleagues to vote no on this nomination.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Barrasso). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose the nomination 
of Senator Sessions for Attorney General.
  I would like to preface my remarks with just a statement and 
recognition of the outpouring I have received from my State, from 
constituents. I have letters. I have postcards sent, some with the 
Statue of Liberty. I have letters from constituents from every corner 
of my State, passionately writing about their views on President 
Trump's nominations, particularly Senator Sessions.
  I would like to read one letter because I think it really summarizes 
the views of so many New Yorkers. This constituent writes:

       As your constituent and as a Reform Jew, I strongly urge 
     you to oppose the nomination of Jeff Sessions as Attorney 
     General.
       As the top law enforcement official in the country, the 
     Attorney General has substantial power over the 
     administration of key legislation that advances the 
     fundamental rights of all people, regardless of race, class, 
     sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or national origin. 
     Senator Sessions' firmly established record of opposition to 
     protection of and advancements in voting rights, LGBTQ 
     equality, women's rights, immigration reform and religious 
     freedom suggests that he would not fulfill the Department of 
     Justice's mandate to provide equal protection under the law 
     for all people.

  The letter goes on to talk about his votes particularly against the 
Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act when it 
was added as an amendment to the 2008 Defense Authorization Act. He 
also talks about voting against the Violence Against Women's Act.
  He continues:

       The words of Leviticus 19:18: ``Love your neighbor as 
     yourself, guide us to stand up against bias, prejudice and 
     discrimination.''
       We cannot place the responsibility of leading the 
     Department of Justice, the federal agency directly 
     responsible for ensuring equal protection, in the hands of 
     someone whose record demonstrates insufficient commitment to 
     key civil rights protections.
       I urge you to oppose Senator Sessions.

  Our country desperately needs an Attorney General who will reject 
discrimination in all forms. We need an Attorney General who will 
defend our civil rights and human rights--with no exceptions. We need 
an Attorney General who will not be afraid to challenge the President 
if an order is illegal or unconstitutional.
  Senator Sessions has not made it clear that he would use his power as 
Attorney General to stand up for the voiceless and the oppressed or to 
stand up to the President when he is wrong.
  Already, in just the first weeks of this new administration, 
President Trump has begun to test the strength and limits of our 
Constitution. He has challenged the separation of powers. He has lashed 
out against the free press. He has singled out individual religions--
and even individual judges.
  Now, more than ever, we need an Attorney General whose commitment to 
defending our Constitution goes far beyond the commitment to any one 
particular President or political party. Would Senator Sessions 
challenge the President when he needs to be challenged?
  During the Presidential campaign, when the tape was revealed of then-
Candidate Trump bragging about groping a woman against her will, 
Senator Sessions said he thought it was a ``stretch'' to call it sexual 
assault. He said: ``I don't characterize that as sexual assault.''
  We need an Attorney General who knows very clearly what sexual 
assault is, and who cares enough to prosecute it.
  Senator Sessions has voted to make our gun background check system 
even weaker. He voted against limits on high-capacity magazines, and he 
opposed legislation to make interstate gun trafficking a Federal crime.
  We need an Attorney General who will stand up for victims of gun 
violence and their families.
  Throughout his career in the Senate, Senator Sessions has voted 
against or spoken out against important legislation so important to my 
constituents, including the Violence Against Women's Act, the Lilly 
Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, and the Voting Rights Act. These are important 
pieces of legislation that protect individuals from discrimination.
  We need an Attorney General who will defend the rights of women, who 
will defend the rights of our communities of color, who will defend the 
rights of the LGBT community, and who will defend the rights of Muslim 
Americans, and all minorities.
  We need an Attorney General who will fight every day for equal 
justice and equal protection under the law.
  Senator Sessions has no record of doing that, and I have no reason to 
believe that he will do that as Attorney General. So I oppose Senator 
Sessions' nomination as Attorney General, and I urge my colleagues to 
do the same.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter I referred to 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       As your constituent and as a Reform Jew, I strongly urge 
     you to oppose the nomination of Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) 
     as U.S. Attorney General.
       As the top law enforcement official in the country, the 
     Attorney General has substantial power over the 
     administration of key legislation that advances the 
     fundamental rights of all people, regardless of race, class, 
     sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or national origin. 
     Senator Sessions' firmly-established record of opposition to 
     protection of and advancements in voting rights, LGBTQ 
     equality, women's rights, immigration reform and religious 
     freedom suggests that he would not fulfill the Department of 
     Justice's mandate to provide equal protection under the law 
     for all people.
       Senator Sessions has called the Voting Rights Act of 1965 
     `intrusive.' He vocally opposed the Matthew Shepard and James 
     Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act when it was added as an 
     amendment to the 2008 Defense Authorization Act because it 
     added sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of 
     classes protected under federal hate crimes law. In addition, 
     Senator Sessions joined 21 other senators to vote against the 
     2012 reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, which 
     included new protections for immigrants and LGBTQ people. 
     Finally, he staked out positions that put him far outside the 
     mainstream as the Senate considered and passed comprehensive 
     immigration reform legislation in 2013 and has expressed 
     support for a religious test for entry into the country.
       The words of Leviticus 19:18, `love your neighbor as 
     yourself,' guide us to stand up against bias, prejudice and 
     discrimination. We cannot place the responsibility of leading 
     the Department of Justice, the federal agency directly 
     responsible for ensuring equal protection, in the hands of 
     someone whose record demonstrates insufficient commitment to 
     key civil rights protections.
       I urge you to oppose Senator Sessions' nomination and to 
     vote against his confirmation on the Senate floor.
  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, 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. BROWN. 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. BROWN. Mr. President, the job of the Attorney General of the 
United States is to enforce laws that protect the rights of each and 
every American. More than ever--more than ever--we need leaders who can 
bring Americans together to improve police-community relations, to 
ensure that all Americans have access to the ballot, and to reform our 
criminal justice system.
  In the city in which I live, in Cleveland, we are under a consent 
decree today which already is improving relations between the police 
and the community. We saw it more than a decade ago in Cincinnati, 
where Mayor Cranley--then a member of the council and now the mayor--
has worked with the community, as have others. We see more people of 
color in the police department, and we see better training for police. 
We see improved relations in that community, in large part because the 
community came together--police, community leaders, citizens--to make

[[Page S905]]

for better relationships and better relations inside the community. The 
consent decree there made a huge difference in that city. The consent 
decree in Cleveland is making a difference there. That is partly the 
job of the Attorney General--to make sure the Department of Justice 
stays on course to do that.
  When we think of leaders whom we need to improve police-community 
relations, to ensure Americans have access to the ballot, and to reform 
our criminal justice system, Senator Sessions is simply not that 
leader. It is not personal. I have worked with Senator Sessions on 
issues like trade. I actually told him that, if he had been nominated 
as the Trade Representative, I would have happily voted for him. But we 
have strong policy differences on the issues that directly fall under 
the role of the Attorney General.
  I examined his nearly 40-year record as a U.S. attorney, the attorney 
general of Alabama, and as U.S. Senator. Based on that record, I was 
the first in the Senate to say I cannot support his nomination. I told 
Senator Sessions on the floor of the Senate after I made that decision, 
before I announced it.
  I have serious concerns that Senator Sessions' record on civil rights 
is at direct odds with the task of promoting justice and equality for 
all. What is more important in an Attorney General than that?
  Senator Sessions has a history of racial insensitivity, bias against 
immigrants, disregard for the rule of law, hostility to the protection 
of civil rights--exactly what we don't need in the Attorney General of 
the United States of America.
  He condemned the Department of Justice's investigation of law 
enforcement agencies accused of violating civil rights. He voted 
against the Violence Against Women Act. One issue after another after 
another disqualifies him from being the Attorney General of the United 
States.
  Senator Sessions is wrong on voting rights. I served as Secretary of 
State of Ohio in the 1980s. I take voting rights very seriously. I 
believe we should be doing everything we can to make it easier for 
Americans to vote. In those days, in the 1980s, during the Reagan years 
in Washington, in Ohio we had voter registration, voter outreach, 
aggressive enrollment of new people to vote, of young people, of people 
regardless of political affiliation, regardless of ideology, regardless 
of age and race and income. We encouraged people to vote. We had good 
cooperation from Republicans and Democrats alike in the legislature.
  I even approached the McDonald's corporation and asked them to print 
tray liners. They put tray liners on every tray. You go to McDonald's 
and order food. So I asked them to print the voter registration form on 
tray liners. They printed a million registration-form tray liners, 
resulting in thousands and thousands of voter registrations--some 
perhaps with ketchup stains or mustard stains on them, but nonetheless 
voter registration forms that were accepted by local boards of 
elections.
  Utility companies included voter registration forms in their bills. 
Newspapers printed them in their daily papers so people could tear them 
out, fill them out, and send them in.
  That was what we did for aggressive voter outreach, supported by 
people across the political spectrum.
  But Senator Sessions doesn't seem to agree with that kind of voter 
outreach. He has a history of supporting voter ID laws that make it 
harder to vote. He refused to disavow President Trump's false 
statement--provably false. Lots of people may believe it because 
President Trump said it, but it is a provably false statement that 
there were 3 to 5 million illegal votes in this past election--no 
evidence, just demagoguery, just lies. But Senator Sessions was 
unwilling to disavow his perhaps future boss's comments.
  Do we want an Attorney General, chief law enforcement official that 
is going to let the President go out and make statements like that that 
are provably false? Call them what they are--lies from the President of 
the United States. Do we want an Attorney General who is simply going 
to brush those away and pay no attention?
  Senator Sessions called Shelby County v. Holder, which gutted a key 
part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, good news for the South, even 
though, overwhelmingly, Senators in both parties had voted to renew and 
reauthorize the Voting Rights Act. He called it good news for the South 
to weaken protections for people of color and others in voting rights.
  Since that misguided decision, States across the country have passed 
new voting restrictions that would disenfranchise hundreds of thousands 
of Americans. As Senator Sessions apparently was celebrating by saying 
``good news for the South,'' Texas moved within 2 hours of the 
decision. Alabama, taking their cue from people like Senator Sessions, 
acted the next day to restrict voting rights. As soon as the Court 
moved in a way the Court hadn't moved in five decades, State after 
State began to restrict voting rights because they had license to, 
because they had a green light, because they now had legal authority--
something they had not had in 50 years.
  At least 17 States have passed new voting restrictions since the 
Shelby County decision, although my State wasn't covered by it. My 
State, shamefully, is one of those that has restricted voting rights, 
even though from the 1980s into the 1990s, people of both parties 
joined me in wanting to expand voting rights and make sure that 
everybody--regardless of disability, age, gender, race, nationality, or 
income--was able to vote.
  We know who is hurt most by these laws, and there is political reason 
for it. We know who is hurt most--it is African Americans, Latinos, 
young people, and seniors. It just happens to be the voters who 
potentially might vote against the far right, which has lobbied hard 
after the decision to scale back voting rights.
  Senator Sessions called the Voting Rights Act intrusive. Tell that to 
Congressman Lewis, who was beat up walking across the Edmund Pettus 
Bridge in Selma, in Senator Sessions' State, who risked his life 
numbers of times, who was injured more, probably, than anybody in the 
civil rights movement, including in his home State of Alabama--
Congressman Lewis' and Senator Sessions' home State of Alabama.
  Senator Sessions knows what happened to secure those voting rights 
for African Americans in his State. He was a young man at the time and 
saw what happened in the 1950s, and Rosa Parks and John Lewis in the 
1950s and 1960s, and still he calls the Voting Rights Act intrusive.
  I remember in my State, in 2004, people had to wait 6 hours in Greene 
County to vote, in Knox County people had to wait 9 hours to vote. The 
people who are penalized the most are not people of higher income, who 
tend to have a little more flexibility in their schedule and who can 
leave work during lunch, go vote, and go back to work. If they have to 
wait more than 30, 40, 50 minutes or an hour, they often can't do it. 
They have to pick up their kids where daycare is expensive, and we know 
that many of them give up and don't vote, which might just be the 
purpose of people behind the Shelby County vs. Holder decision.

  In 1981, when signing an extension to the Voting Rights Act, 
President Reagan called the right to vote the crown jewel of American 
liberties. President Reagan said it is the crown jewel of American 
liberties. Senator Sessions called the Voting Rights Act intrusive.
  A couple of extensions later, the Court pulled back with Shelby 
County vs. Holder. Keep this in mind. Sometimes these pass the Congress 
unanimously. President Reagan said it was the crown jewel of American 
liberties. The Attorney General-designee calls the Voting Rights Act 
intrusive.
  We need an Attorney General who will use the full extent of his 
powers to protect the right to vote, not stand by as State after State 
attempts to suppress it. The Attorney General as a Senator has stood by 
while the President of the United States has simply lied about 3 to 5 
million illegal voters.
  The Attorney General-designee stood by and said nothing and was 
unwilling to criticize the President of the United States. I am 
concerned that when State after State attempts to suppress the vote and 
roll back voting rights, he will stand by and do nothing because he 
called the Voting Rights Act intrusive.
  As to criminal justice reform, we need to reform our criminal justice

[[Page S906]]

system and stop ruining the lives of far too many young Black men over 
nonviolent offenses. Senator Sessions has opposed bipartisan efforts, 
and there have been a number of them and a number of courageous leaders 
in this body who have sometimes taken politically unpopular positions 
on criminal justice reform and done the right thing. Senator Sessions, 
however, has opposed bipartisan efforts in the criminal justice reform. 
At the outset of my speech, I mentioned Cleveland and Cincinnati, where 
it is a decade and a half later, and it has proven to be a success. In 
Cleveland, it is shaping up to be a success. He has called consent 
decrees that mandate reform of law enforcement agencies ``an end run 
around the democratic process.''
  Reform of law enforcement agencies in many ways means better police 
training, with real dollars and real effort put into that police 
training. Again, he calls all of this ``an end run around the 
democratic process.'' Senator Sessions blocked bipartisan efforts to 
reduce sentences for certain nonviolent drug offenses.
  There is surely a need for an independent Attorney General, and that 
is my third macro concern about my colleague Senator Sessions being 
elevated to be the Attorney General of the United States of America. In 
light of President Trump's cruel and foolish and badly executed 
Executive order on immigrants and refugees, we need an Attorney General 
who will be an independent voice beholden to the Constitution and the 
American people, not to the President. We have seen this order wreak 
havoc on Ohio students and families.
  A Cleveland father who had waited 4 years to reunite with his 14-
year-old son was forced to wait even longer when his refugee son was 
banned.
  We are a nation that embraces refugees. My son-in-law, at the age of 
10, was living in El Salvador with his family. His mother was a 
journalist. His mother was the target of threats to her life because of 
political violence in El Salvador. My son-in-law's family came to the 
United States and was welcomed in this country. We welcome refugees who 
were victims, potential victims, or about to be victims of political 
violence or violence of any kind. That is what we are as a nation.
  My son-in-law is married to our daughter. They now have a son who is 
not much more than 1 year old. He has been a terrific citizen of this 
country. He has contributed a lot. We know that when a great majority 
of refugees come here they build lives, they make a difference in the 
world, and they can live in a free, prosperous nation with opportunity.
  I mentioned the Cleveland father. I mentioned my son-in-law. A doctor 
on her way to the Cleveland Clinic to help treat Ohioans was sent back. 
She now has returned to the United States, finally, after expensive 
legal issues, trauma, and all the things that happen when somebody is 
pushed around by a system like that with an arrogant White House 
inflicting that kind of pain on her family.
  The Iraqis who risked their lives to help American troops have been 
told: There is no place for you here.
  Think about that. The first night after the Executive order, a 
translator from Iraq, an Iraqi, who had helped American troops and 
whose own life was threatened, knew he had to leave his country because 
a number of people targeted people who helped the Americans. He came 
here. He was handcuffed for hour after hour in a New York airport.
  What message does that send to people who help Americans, who help 
the American Armed Forces around the world?
  Students are prevented from coming to our State to learn and 
contribute in our great Ohio universities. We saw that in Ohio State. 
We are seeing that in other places. Judges across the country, 
appointed by Republican and Democratic Presidents, are striking down 
this order because it is not constitutional. It does not represent 
American values. It makes us less, not more, safe.
  In 2015, Senator Sessions questioned Sally Yates in her confirmation 
to be Deputy Attorney General, asking her this question: ``Do you think 
the Attorney General has the responsibility to say no to the President 
if he asks for something that is improper?''
  Senator Sessions is asking an Obama nominee: ``Do you think the 
Attorney General has the responsibility to say no to the President if 
he asks for something that is improper?''
  He went on to say: ``If the views the President wants to execute are 
unlawful, should the Attorney General or the Deputy Attorney General 
say no?''
  That was a Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing for Deputy 
Attorney Sally Yates in 2015.
  Ms. Yates responded: ``Senator, I believe the Attorney General or the 
Deputy Attorney General has an obligation to follow the law and the 
Constitution and to give their independent legal advice to the 
President.''
  Senator Sessions, to his credit, was right to ask that question. 
Sally Yates, to her credit, gave the right answer, and when she was 
tested just last week, she stood by her word.
  Senator Sessions has failed to assure the American people he will 
follow the law and uphold the Constitution--not simply follow the 
President of the United States, not blindly follow the President of the 
United States just because he is his boss. That is not the kind of 
Attorney General we want. That is not the kind of Attorney General we 
should vote to confirm today.
  There is one last point. I watched the confirmation yesterday of the 
Secretary of Education. It was so clear to me, so clear to so many of 
my colleagues, and so clear to the American public that confirming this 
Secretary of Education was an unprecedented historical move. The Vice 
President came in and broke the tie, 51 to 50. Two Republicans stood up 
and voted against the Secretary of Education-designee, showing great 
courage.
  What was so evident was the overwhelming opposition to her. Our mail, 
phone calls, and emails were 200 to 1 against her confirmation. It was 
that way everywhere in the country. In Senator's office after Senator's 
office, we were all hearing much, much more opposition to her than 
support.
  I sensed the fear among my Republican colleagues that voting against 
a Trump nominee put their political lives at risk; that they all knew 
that President Trump would tweet about their vote, would call them 
names, would attack them, would sic his political allies on them. A 
number of my colleagues were scared, and they knew that voting against 
her confirmation--even though I know a number of colleagues wanted to 
vote no on Betsy DeVos because she was singularly unqualified, one of 
the worst performances ever in a confirmation hearing. She knew so 
little about the issue of education and so little about the Department 
which she was charged to run. Nonetheless, they voted for her. Some 
voted for her for legitimate reasons in their mind: They like her 
ideology; they like her for-profit charter schools; they are anti-
public education--all those things.
  A number of colleagues, I am convinced, voted for her because they 
were afraid of what the President of the United States would do. You 
can't run a country by being fearful of the President of the United 
States. I am afraid that in this Attorney General vote we are seeing 
some of the same fear from some of my Republican colleagues--about 
standing up to this President, which they will eventually do but they 
are unwilling to do it now. That is why we only have seen two 
Republican Senators--Senator Murkowski and Senator Collins--vote no on 
any of these nominations.
  I voted for about half of them. I voted against about half of them. I 
plan to vote against Congressman Price because he wants to raise the 
eligibility age of Medicare.
  I think about the barber in Warren, the factory worker in Mansfield, 
the waitress in a diner in Findlay, and the manufacturing worker in 
Huber Heights. I know they shouldn't be expected to work until they are 
67 or even 70 to be eligible for Medicare. I will vote against him.
  I will vote against Mr. Mnuchin, who lied to the committee, first 
about a $100 million investment he had, which he forgot about. It is an 
understandable problem. Of course, people forget about $100 million 
investments they have. And he lied to the committee about some of the 
things he did at OneWest.
  A whole host of these nominees simply aren't qualified, and their 
ethics

[[Page S907]]

are questionable. Other than Senator Murkowski and Senator Collins, I 
have not seen any of my Republican colleagues--out of fear of this 
President, fear of this President personally attacking them, publicly 
and personally--I have seen them shrink back from doing their 
constitutional duty and voting their conscience.
  I hope maybe today, maybe in Senator Sessions' vote, which I believe 
will be tonight, some of my Republican colleagues will realize they 
need to do their jobs. They need to stand up for what they believe when 
they realize this Attorney General-designee, Senator Sessions--a 
colleague I like personally, but a colleague that simply is not 
prepared--is not independent. He has not had a record of support for 
voting rights, for criminal justice reform--all the things that we want 
in the Attorney General of the United States of America. I plan to vote 
no today. I ask my colleagues to join me.
  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. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Paul). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I want to outline a number of concerns that 
I have this morning about Senator Sessions' nomination to be the next 
Attorney General. I will try to keep it to a short list. I have limited 
time this morning. But I wanted to start with the voting rights issue.
  In our State of Pennsylvania, we have a long history of litigation 
and battles about the right to vote. And when the Supreme Court 
decision in Shelby v. Holder was issued a couple of years ago, folks in 
the Senate took one, two, or three different positions. The position 
that I took was one of disagreement with the basic holding of Shelby v. 
Holder, which in my judgment gutted the Voting Rights Act's 
requirements that certain States and certain jurisdictions with 
histories of discrimination seek what is called preclearance from the 
Federal government before changing voting rules. That was a substantial 
change from the policies that had been in place for years.
  Since the Shelby decision, more than half of the so-called 
preclearance States have implemented restrictive voting laws--some as 
soon as the very next day after the decision was handed down. And over 
800 polling places in preclearance States alone have been closed since 
the decision. So on this issue, it is a basic difference of opinion.
  I think Shelby was decided the wrong way, and Senator Sessions 
believes it was decided the right way. That is a fundamental 
disagreement. I have real concerns about an Attorney General who would 
have that position or that point of view on that case. I don't know for 
sure what he would do as Attorney General. I can't predict that, but I 
can certainly raise concerns about that decision.
  When you think about what led to decisions like that over time, it is 
hard to encapsulate when you are speaking on the Senate floor all of 
the misery, all of the suffering, all of the trauma to individuals, all 
of the trauma that our country endured first to get the right to vote 
for every American and then to enforce the law and to make it real. 
There is no way--if I had 9 hours on the floor, I probably couldn't 
encapsulate or do justice to all of that work. So it is a fundamental 
divide, a fundamental debate about voting rights.
  As someone who represents Pennsylvania, we have a particular interest 
in the issue of voter ID laws. They are the kinds of laws that follow 
the Shelby decision. Some of them predated Shelby. But we had a major 
debate in Pennsylvania back in 2012, where the Pennsylvania General 
Assembly passed--meaning the House and Senate passed--and the Governor 
signed into law a voter ID law. Then litigation commenced and went all 
the way through the court system in Pennsylvania. The final decision 
was that the law was struck down. The voter ID law was struck down, so 
it is a major point of contention in Pennsylvania.
  Over time, some have asserted that there is widespread voter fraud. 
We have heard that even more recently. I am still waiting for the 
evidence of that, but that is certainly an issue that we will continue 
to debate here in Washington.
  I think the last thing we need in the United States of America is 
more restrictive voter ID laws. We should be hoping we can expand the 
opportunity for people to vote. Where there are barriers erected, knock 
them down. Where there are impediments to the right to vote, push 
through them or put in place strategies to overcome them.
  Again, I think that is just the basic difference between Senator 
Sessions and me, in terms of our approach to voter ID laws. We had a 
searing experience in Pennsylvania, which left a lasting impression on 
the people of our State.
  Another issue, which I think is of critical importance in every 
administration at every time, but maybe ever more so today with regard 
to this new administration: The administration now is in a major 
litigation battle regarding what has been described as a travel ban. It 
is probably shorthand, but that is my best description of it. It has 
been a matter that has been litigated in several U.S. Federal district 
courts, and now it is in front of an appellate court. Who knows, the 
next step after this may be the U.S. Supreme Court. I raise that not to 
debate the substance of it; we can do that for a long while, I guess, 
but I raise it on the question of independence.
  There are certain jobs in government--I had one of them in State 
government. I was elected as a State auditor general in Pennsylvania. I 
served two terms. In that job, for example, at the State level, the 
most important quality or metric by which you are judged is your 
independence. You are either independent or not. And if you are 
independent, you can do auditing investigations that demonstrate that 
independence. Then you are doing what the people expect.
  At the Federal level, even though the Attorney General is appointed 
by a President, I also believe the Attorney General has to demonstrate 
independence every day, in every decision, in every interaction with 
our government or with citizens across the country. I hope that Jeff 
Sessions can do that, were he to be confirmed. I have some doubts, not 
only based upon the recent campaign statements made, but I also have 
some significant concerns in light of what has happened recently.
  I would hope, and I think every American has a reasonable 
expectation, that any Attorney General will be totally independent when 
it comes to basic questions of law and justice, even if they agree with 
the President on a number of issues. I have some doubts in the case of 
this nominee.
  So independence is a significant concern across the country. We have 
had a long debate in this country. Part of it, I think, came to closure 
a couple of years ago in the Supreme Court with regard to marriage 
equality. That worked its way through the courts, as well. I was in 
support of, and happy about, the decision the Supreme Court made on 
marriage equality.
  It is another basic difference that I have with the nominee for 
Attorney General. Once again, I think that is one of those basic issues 
that divides the parties. It doesn't mean you can't work together. It 
doesn't mean you can't have a good relationship. But I would hope that 
the Attorney General of the United States, of either party, would make 
sure that decision as it relates to marriage equality would be enforced 
and that it would be the subject of some praise or at least some 
rhetorical support for the outcome in that case.
  I think the country took a step in the right direction, where every 
American, whether they are gay or lesbian or bisexual or transgender, 
was finally accorded the full measure of respect, the full measure of 
inclusion, when it came to the issue of marriage. That is another basic 
disagreement that we have.
  We don't know what the outcome of this confirmation vote will be. I 
think we have some sense of it, but regardless of the final outcome, 
these differences will remain. We have to be honest about basic, 
fundamental differences, and that is one of the reasons we have a 
confirmation process. That is why we have advice and consent. That is 
why we have hearings and hundreds, if not thousands, of questions 
because each of these nominees is granted enormous power. In some 
instances--unlike Senator Sessions--but

[[Page S908]]

in some instances, they are appointed to positions where they will have 
substantial impact on people's lives for years. Tens of millions of 
Americans' lives will be impacted by their decisions, so they should 
have to go through a thorough vetting process and a very rigorous 
ultimate confirmation process because they are being accorded great 
power, and they are servants of the people. They have to remember that 
is what their job is: to be servants.
  I know some want to shorten or truncate or make easier this path to 
confirmation for all of these Cabinet nomination positions. I think the 
people expect a thorough vetting, and we are still in the midst of that 
with regard to several of these positions.
  So I just wanted to outline my objections--or I should say 
disagreements with--Senator Sessions. I will be voting no on his 
nomination.
  Mr. President, 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. UDALL. 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. UDALL. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the 
confirmation of Senator Jeff Sessions to be the Attorney General.
  It is never easy to oppose a President's cabinet nominees, especially 
when one is your Senate colleague. I generally think the President 
should be able to assemble his team.
  But with this President, we are in uncharted territory. President 
Trump doesn't want to hire a team that will represent the American 
people.
  Many of the nominees are billionaires who are out of touch with the 
struggles of average Americans, and many of them have shown great 
disdain for the very agencies they will lead.
  People like Betsy DeVos, who is a billionaire with zero experience in 
public schools, has been selected to run the Education Department.
  People like Scott Pruitt, who has been nominated to be head of the 
Environmental Protection Agency, which he is sued many times.
  When the people nominated to the President's cabinet are intent on 
dismantling the very agency they are nominated to run, our 
Constitutional role of advise and consent takes on new importance.
  But the position of Attorney General is unique. The nominee requires 
even more scrutiny. The Attorney General is our Nation's chief law 
enforcement officer with enormous power to either advance--or roll 
back--our constitutional protections.
  Perhaps Senator Sessions said it best during the confirmation hearing 
for Sally Yates to be Deputy Attorney General.
  In that hearing, Senator Sessions said, ``You have to watch out 
because people will be asking you to do things you just need to say 
`no' about.''
  He then asked Ms. Yates, ``Do you think the Attorney General has the 
responsibility to say no to the President if he asks for something that 
is improper?''
  I completely agree with Senator Sessions. The Attorney General has 
the responsibility--the duty--to tell the President no when he is 
wrong.
  And that is why I cannot vote to confirm Senator Sessions. I don't 
have the faith that he will tell President Trump no when the situation 
requires it.
  But I have even less faith that the President will listen. Sally 
Yates told him no--she refused to let the Justice Department defend the 
President's misguided travel ban. She was fired for doing exactly what 
the position of Attorney General requires.
  And when Acting AG Yates said his travel ban was wrong, the President 
didn't simply relieve her of her position. Instead, he put out a press 
release attacking her personally. Sally Yates had served the country 
for almost three decades as a career prosecutor and Justice Department 
attorney. She deserved the president's respect, regardless whether he 
agreed with her.
  Time and time again, President Trump has shown that he will not 
tolerate dissent. You are either with him or--in his mind--you are 
wrong. And you become the enemy. President Trump has put the ``bully'' 
back into the bully pulpit.
  He frequently--and publicly--lashes out against those who express 
different views. And more dangerously, he lashes out at the 
institutions that are the fabric of our democracy.
  This weekend he attacked a Federal judge who ruled against his travel 
ban. Rather than respecting the rule of law, and the coequal judicial 
branch, he once again took to Twitter personally denigrate the federal 
judge who dared rule against his policy--Federal judge who was 
appointed by George W. Bush.
  President Trump disparages the free press at every opportunity. Any 
article or story that is critical of his policies is now dubbed ``fake 
news.'' Members of the press are punished for coverage of the 
administration that he deems negative. He said he wants to weaken libel 
laws so it is easier for him to sue the press.
  President Trump will continue his assault on the first amendment, 
defining the press that holds him accountable as the enemy, deriding 
and belittling those who speak out against him and attacking the free 
expression of religion and targeting those who practice Islam.
  And when he takes these actions, it is up to the Attorney General to 
tell him that he is wrong. It is up to the Attorney General to speak 
truth to power, and to be ready to be fired for doing so.
  But it is far from clear that Senator Sessions will be that 
independent voice within the Department of Justice the American public 
needs.
  The Washington Post reports--that Senator Sessions not only agreed 
with the President's flurry of extreme executive orders, but that he 
wanted the president to go further and faster.
  In an email to the Post Senior Strategist Stephen Bannon said that 
throughout the campaign, Senator Sessions ``has been the fiercest, most 
dedicated, and most loyal promoter in Congress of Trump's agenda, and 
has played a critical role as the clearinghouse for policy and 
philosophy to undergird the implementation of that agenda. What we are 
witnessing now is the birth of a new political order. . . .''
  Loyalty is a valued characteristic in politics. But the Nation's 
chief law enforcement officer must be independent, first and foremost. 
He or she must defend the Constitution and all Americans, not be the 
President's personal architect of ``a new political order'' that 
excludes many people.
  Mr. President, for these reasons I must vote no on this nomination.
  We have had a very, very long night, and I want to say that I saw my 
good friend Senator Casey here. I want to thank all the Senators on the 
Democratic side who have spoken up over the course of these 30 hours. 
We are trying to address this issue--a very, very important issue--of 
whether Senator Jeff Sessions should be Attorney General of the United 
States.
  In the remarks I am going to give now, I may draw some of them from 
the formal remarks I have.
  I just want to say that my home State of New Mexico is a majority 
minority State. We have--and these are the rough numbers--about 46, 47 
percent Hispanic, 10 percent Native American. Those are our large 
minority populations. It is a majority minority State.
  I can tell you, since this administration has come in, people are 
very worried about their voting rights, and they are worried about 
their democracy. I have been home in New Mexico and heard the 
exchanges. I have read the various emails. People are concerned about 
the issue that goes to the heart of this nomination, which is how 
Senator Sessions would behave as Attorney General on the issue of 
voting rights.
  I fully understand the importance of rule XIX and civility. In my 
activity here on the Senate floor, I try to be as civil as possible, 
but I think there is a bigger issue here. So I fully understand the 
importance of rule XIX. God knows we need to maintain civility in this 
esteemed body. But when a Member of this body has chosen to be 
considered for an office outside this body--and in the case of Senator 
Sessions, for an office in a department in which he has previously 
served--then his record in that office, better or worse, is critical to 
our consideration.
  When Mr. Sessions exercised his duties as U.S. attorney in Alabama 
under

[[Page S909]]

the supervision of the U.S. Attorney General--the office he now seeks--
his record on voting rights, the backbone of our democracy, was subject 
to serious question. In the context of this confirmation, that record 
must be included in the context of this confirmation hearing. So here 
we are on the floor. We have debated. The record must be included in 
the debate on the floor.
  As Senator Warren has brought to our attention, it was the judgment 
of Coretta Scott King, widow of slain civil rights leader Martin Luther 
King, that he used the Office of the U.S. Attorney for Alabama to--
these are Coretta Scott King's words--``chill the free exercise of the 
vote by black citizens.'' That was her opinion at the time.
  Similarly, in the words of our former colleague Senator Ted Kennedy, 
he was ``a disgrace to the Justice Department,'' the Department which 
Mr. Sessions will lead if he is confirmed.
  I would like to read into the Record today the letter from Mrs. King, 
which supports her opinion of Mr. Sessions' lack of commitment to 
justice for all and leave this for my colleagues here today to assess 
in considering his nomination.
  To me, the letter she wrote back on March 19, 1986, goes right to the 
heart of what we are debating here on the Senate floor. What we are 
debating is our voting rights and whether we will have, for the next 4 
years or 8 years, an Attorney General who is going to enforce the laws, 
particularly with regard to voting rights.
  I first ask unanimous consent to have the letter printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         The Martin Luther King, Jr. Center for Nonviolent Social 
           Change, Inc.,
                                      Altanta, GA, March 19, 1986.
     Re Nomination of Jefferson B. Sessions, U.S. Judge, Southern 
         District of Alabama Hearing, March 13, 1986

     Hon. Strom Thurmond, 
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Thurmond: I write to express my sincere 
     opposition to the confirmation of Jefferson B. Sessions as a 
     federal district court judge for the Southern District of 
     Alabama. My professional and personal roots in Alabama are 
     deep and lasting. Anyone who has used the power of his office 
     as United States Attorney to intimidate and chill the free 
     exercise of the ballot by citizens should not be elevated to 
     our courts. Mr. Sessions has used the awesome powers of his 
     office in a shabby attempt to intimidate and frighten elderly 
     black voters. For this reprehensible conduct, he should not 
     be rewarded with a federal judgeship.
       I regret that a long-standing commitment prevents me from 
     appearing in person to testify against this nominee. However, 
     I have attached a copy of my statement opposing Mr. Sessions' 
     confirmation and I request that my statement as well as this 
     letter be made a part of the hearing record.
       I do sincerely urge you to oppose the confirmation of Mr. 
     Sessions.
           Sincerely,
                                               Coretta Scott King.

  Mr. UDALL. This letter is dated on March 19, 1986. It is a letter 
from Coretta Scott King, The Martin Luther King, Jr. Center for 
Nonviolent Social Change. This is at the top of the letterhead. She is 
writing a letter to Strom Thurmond, and she says:

       I write to express my sincere opposition to the 
     confirmation of Jefferson B. Sessions as a Federal district 
     court judge for the Southern District of Alabama. My 
     professional and personal roots in Alabama are deep and 
     lasting. Anyone who has used the power of his office as 
     United States Attorney to intimidate and chill the free 
     exercise of the ballot by citizens should not be elevated to 
     our courts. Mr. Sessions has used the awesome powers of his 
     office in a shabby attempt to intimidate and frighten elderly 
     black voters. For this reprehensible conduct, he should not 
     be rewarded with a federal judgeship.
       I regret that a longstanding commitment prevents me from 
     appearing in person to testify against this nominee. However, 
     I have attached a copy of my statement opposing Mr. Sessions' 
     confirmation, and I request that my statement as well as this 
     letter be made a part of the hearing record.
       I do sincerely urge you to oppose the confirmation of Mr. 
     Sessions.

  There is a carbon copy of this to Senator Joe Biden. This happened in 
March of 1986.
  Coretta Scott King is speaking out against Jeff Sessions, who was at 
the time a U.S. attorney, and he was going to be promoted as a Federal 
judge. We all know the history--he was not promoted as a Federal judge.
  Here is her statement, which she asked to have read at the Senate 
Judiciary Committee on Thursday, March 13, 1986.

       Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee:
       Thank you for allowing me this opportunity to express my 
     strong opposition to the nomination of Jefferson Sessions for 
     a federal district judgeship for the Southern District of 
     Alabama. My longstanding commitment, which I shared with my 
     husband, Martin, to protect and enhance the rights of Black 
     Americans, rights which include equal access to the 
     democratic process, compels me to testify today.
       Civil rights leaders, including my husband and Albert 
     Turner, have fought long and hard to achieve free and 
     unfettered access to the ballot box. Mr. Sessions has used 
     the awesome power of his office to chill the free exercise of 
     the vote by black citizens in the district he now seeks to 
     serve as a federal judge. This simply cannot be allowed to 
     happen. Mr. Sessions' conduct as U.S. Attorney, from his 
     politically motivated voting fraud prosecutions to his 
     indifference towards criminal violations of civil rights 
     laws, indicates that he lacks the temperament, fairness, and 
     judgment to be a federal judge.
       The Voting Rights Act was, and still is, vitally important 
     to the future of democracy in the United States. I was 
     privileged to join Martin and many others during the Selma to 
     Montgomery march for voting rights in 1965. Martin was 
     particularly impressed by the determination to get the 
     franchise of blacks in Selma and neighboring Perry County. As 
     he wrote, ``Certainly no community in the history of the 
     Negro struggle has responded with the enthusiasm of Selma and 
     her neighboring town of Marion. Where Birmingham depended 
     largely upon students and unemployed adults to participate in 
     nonviolent protest of the denial of the franchise, Selma has 
     involved fully 10 percent of the Negro population in active 
     demonstrations, and at least half the Negro population of 
     Marion was arrested on one day.'' Martin was referring, of 
     course, to a group that included the defendants recently 
     prosecuted for assisting elderly and illiterate blacks to 
     exercise that franchise. In fact, Martin anticipated from the 
     depth of their commitment 20 years ago, that a united 
     political organization would remain in Perry County long 
     after other marchers had left. This organization, the Perry 
     County Civil League, started by Mr. Turner, Mr. Hogue, and 
     others, as Martin predicted, continued ``to direct the drive 
     for votes and other rights.'' In the years since the Voting 
     Rights Act was passed, Black Americans in Marion, Selma, and 
     elsewhere have made important strides in their struggle to 
     participate actively in the electoral process. The number of 
     Blacks registered to vote in key Southern States has doubled 
     since 1965. This would not have been possible without the 
     Voting Rights Act.
       However, Blacks still fall far short of having equal 
     participation in the electoral process. Particularly in the 
     South, efforts continue to be made to deny Blacks access to 
     the polls, even where Blacks constitute the majority of the 
     voters. It has been a long up-hill struggle to keep alive the 
     vital legislation that protects the most fundamental right to 
     vote. A person who has exhibited so much hostility--

  Here she is talking about Jeff Sessions--

     to the enforcement of those laws, and thus, to the exercise 
     of those rights by Black people, should not be elevated to 
     the Federal bench.
       The irony of Mr. Sessions' nomination is that, if 
     confirmed, he will be given life tenure for doing with a 
     federal prosecution what the local sheriffs accomplished 20 
     years ago with clubs and cattle prods. Twenty years ago, when 
     we marched from Selma to Montgomery, the fear of voting was 
     real, as the broken bones and bloody heads in Selma and 
     Marion bore witness. As my husband wrote at the time, ``it 
     was not just a sick imagination that conjured up the vision 
     of a public official, sworn to uphold the law, who forced an 
     inhuman march upon hundreds of Negro children; who ordered 
     the Rev. James Bevel to be chained to his sickbed; who 
     clubbed a Negro woman registrant, and who callously inflicted 
     repeated brutalities and indignities upon nonviolent Negroes 
     peacefully petitioning for their constitutional right to 
     vote.''
       Free exercise of voting rights is so fundamental to 
     American democracy that we cannot tolerate any form of 
     infringement of those rights. Of all the groups who have been 
     disenfranchised in our Nation's history, none has struggled 
     longer or suffered more in the attempt to win the vote than 
     Black citizens. No group has had access to the ballot box 
     denied so persistently and intently. Over the past century, a 
     broad array of schemes have been used in attempts to block 
     the Black vote. The range of techniques developed with the 
     purpose of repressing black voting rights run the gamut from 
     the straightforward application of brutality against black 
     citizens who tried to vote to such legalized frauds as 
     ``grandfather clause'' exclusions and rigged literacy tests.
       The actions taken by Mr. Sessions in regard to the 1984 
     voting fraud prosecutions represent just one more technique 
     used to intimidate Black voters and thus deny them this most 
     precious franchise. The investigations into the absentee 
     voting process were conducted only in the Black Belt counties 
     where blacks had finally achieved political power in the 
     local government. Whites had

[[Page S910]]

     been using the absentee process to their advantage for years 
     without incident. Then, when Blacks, realizing its strength, 
     began to use it with success, criminal investigations were 
     begun.
       In these investigations, Mr. Sessions, as U.S. Attorney, 
     exhibited an eagerness to bring to trial and convict three 
     leaders of the Perry County Civil League, including Albert 
     Turner, despite evidence clearly demonstrating their 
     innocence of any wrongdoing. Furthermore, in initiating the 
     case, Mr. Sessions ignored allegations of similar behavior by 
     whites, choosing instead to chill the exercise of the 
     franchise by blacks by his misguided investigation. In fact, 
     Mr. Sessions sought to punish older black civil rights 
     activists, advisors, and colleagues of my husband, who had 
     been key figures in the civil rights movement in the 1960s. 
     These were persons who, realizing the potential of the 
     absentee vote among Blacks, had learned to use the process 
     within the bounds of legality and had taught others to do the 
     same. The only sin they committed was being too successful in 
     gaining votes.
       The scope and character of the investigations conducted by 
     Mr. Sessions also warrant grave concern. Witnesses were 
     selectively chosen in accordance with the favorability of 
     their testimony to the government's case. Also, the 
     prosecution illegally withheld from the defense critical 
     statements made by witnesses. Witnesses who did testify were 
     pressured and intimidated into submitting the ``correct'' 
     testimony. Many elderly blacks were visited multiple times by 
     the FBI who then hauled them over 180 miles by bus to a grand 
     jury in Mobile when they could more easily have testified at 
     a grand jury twenty miles away in Selma. These voters, and 
     others, have announced they are now never going to vote 
     again.
       I urge you to consider carefully Mr. Sessions' conduct in 
     these matters. Such a review, I believe, raises serious 
     questions about his commitment to the protection of the 
     voting rights of all American citizens and consequently his 
     fair and unbiased judgment regarding this fundamental right. 
     When the circumstances and facts surrounding the indictments 
     of Al Turner, his wife, Evelyn, and Spencer Hogue are 
     analyzed, it becomes clear that the motivation was political, 
     and the result frightening--the wide-scale chill of the 
     exercise of the ballot for blacks, who suffered so much to 
     receive that right in the first place. Therefore, it is my 
     strongly-held view that the appointment of Jefferson Sessions 
     to the federal bench would irreparably damage the work of my 
     husband, Al Turner, and countless others who risked their 
     lives and freedom over the past twenty years to ensure equal 
     participation in our democratic system.
       The exercise of the franchise is an essential means by 
     which our citizens ensure that those who are governing will 
     be responsible. My husband called it the number one civil 
     right. The denial of access to the ballot box ultimately 
     results in the denial of other fundamental rights. For, it is 
     only when the poor and disadvantaged are in power that they 
     are able to participate actively in the solutions to their 
     own problems.
       We still have a long way to go before we can say that 
     minorities no longer need to be concerned about 
     discrimination at the polls. Blacks, Hispanics, Native 
     Americans and Asian Americans are grossly underrepresented at 
     every level of government in America. If we are going to make 
     our timeless dream of justice through democracy a reality, we 
     must take every possible step to ensure that the spirit and 
     intent of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the Fifteenth 
     Amendment of the Constitution is honored.
       The federal courts hold a unique position in our 
     constitutional system, ensuring that minorities and other 
     citizens without political power have a forum in which to 
     vindicate their rights. Because of this unique role, it is 
     essential that the people selected to be federal judges 
     respect the basic tenets of our legal system: respect for 
     individual rights and a commitment to equal justice for all. 
     The integrity of the Courts, and thus the rights they 
     protect, can only be maintained if citizens feel competent 
     that those selected as federal judges will be able to judge 
     with fairness others holding differing views.
       I do not believe Jefferson Sessions possesses the requisite 
     judgment, competence, and sensitivity to the rights 
     guaranteed by the federal civil rights laws to qualify for 
     appointment to the federal district court. Based on his 
     record, I believe his confirmation would have a devastating 
     effect on not only the judicial system in Alabama, but also 
     on the progress we have made everywhere toward fulfilling my 
     husband's dream that he envisioned over twenty years ago. I 
     therefore urge the Senate Judiciary Committee to deny his 
     confirmation.
       I thank you for allowing me to share my views.

  Now this was a letter that Coretta Scott King wrote--I just finished 
reading it--in March 1986. We know the results of that. After the 
testimony was taken, Jeff Sessions, because of his record at the time, 
was not allowed to become a Federal judge. Today, the issue that we 
have before us, the issue we have before us is, is he fit to be our 
Attorney General of the United States, based on his overall record, and 
this is part of the record.
  When the majority leader comes to the floor and strikes the words of 
Elizabeth Warren for just reading parts of this letter, he is not 
allowing the full record to be before the American people, and he is 
not allowing a full debate to occur in this Chamber. That is really 
what this is about today. Are we going to, as a Senate, where we have 
debate, we have open debate, cut off that debate? Are we able to say 
things about one another--and especially in this case. This just isn't 
a debate from one Senator to another.
  As to Senator Warren, in which it was said she impugned the integrity 
of Senator Sessions. Senator Sessions is in a different category here 
today. Senator Sessions is seeking the office of U.S. Attorney General. 
This is the most important law office in the land--the most important 
law enforcement office. This is an office where you can be active and 
go out and file civil rights cases, you can protect voting rights, you 
can do numerous things. This is an awesome responsibility. So this 
should be part of the Record, and I believe it is very important that 
we put it in the Record, that we talk about it, and then we look at the 
whole picture.
  As I said earlier, I rise in opposition to the confirmation of 
Senator Sessions. It is not easy to oppose a nominee, especially when 
one is your Senate colleague. And I generally think the President 
should be able to assemble his team. But with this President we are in 
uncharted territory.
  President Trump doesn't want to hire a team who will represent the 
American people. Many of the nominees are billionaires who are out of 
touch with the struggles of average Americans, and many of them have 
shown great disdain for the very agencies they will lead. People such 
as Betsy DeVos, a billionaire with zero experience in public schools, 
selected to run the Education Department. As we all know, yesterday, we 
saw what happened; two courageous Republicans--Lisa Murkowski and Susan 
Collins--voted against Betsy DeVos. In an unprecedented move, the Vice 
President of the United States had to come and sit where the President 
of the Senate is and cast the tie-breaking vote in order to get her 
through. I think we are going to look back on that as a sad day for 
public education because she sure doesn't stand up for public 
education.
  People such as Scott Pruitt to be head of the Environmental 
Protection Agency, which he sued many times.
  When the people nominated to the President's Cabinet are intent on 
dismantling the very Agency they are nominated to run, our 
constitutional role of advise and consent takes on a new importance.
  The position of Attorney General is unique. The nominee requires even 
more scrutiny. The Attorney General, as our nation's chief law 
enforcement officer, has enormous power to either advance or roll back 
our constitutional protections, and that power resides in that one 
person.
  The other important role of the Attorney General is to make sure the 
President is obeying the law. In this case, we have a real problem 
here. Within the first couple of weeks, the courts are calling the 
President in and telling him he is issuing Muslim bans and other orders 
and that he is violating the law. So we need an Attorney General who is 
going to stand up for what the law is, not be political and not be 
ideological.
  Perhaps Senator Sessions said it best during the confirmation 
hearings for Sally Yates to be Deputy Attorney General. In that 
hearing, Senator Sessions said: ``You have to watch out, because people 
will be asking you to do things you just need to say `no' about.'' That 
is his full quote there.
  When he asked Ms. Yates, ``Do you think the Attorney General has the 
responsibility to say no to the President if he asks for something that 
is improper?'' That is the standard we are looking at--pretty tough 
standard--speaking truth to power, the Attorney General to the 
President of the United States.

  I completely agree with Senator Sessions that the Attorney General 
has the responsibility, the duty to tell the President no when he is 
wrong. That is why I cannot vote to confirm Senator Sessions. I don't 
have the faith that he will tell President Trump no when the situation 
requires it, but I have less faith that the President will listen.
  Sally Yates told the President no. She refused to let the Justice 
Department defend the President's misguided

[[Page S911]]

travel ban. She was fired for doing exactly what the position of 
Attorney General requires.
  When the Acting AG, Acting AG Yates, said his travel ban was wrong, 
the President didn't simply relieve her of her position, instead he put 
out a press release attacking her personally. Sally Yates, who served 
the government for three decades as a career prosecutor, Justice 
Department attorney, deserved the President's respect regardless of 
whether he agreed with her or not.
  Time and again, President Trump has shown that he will not tolerate 
dissent. You are either with him or in his mind you are wrong, and you 
become the enemy. President Trump has put the bully back into the bully 
pulpit. He frequently and publicly lashes out against those who express 
different views, and more dangerously, he lashes out at the 
institutions that are the fabric of this democracy. This weekend he 
attacked a Federal judge who ruled against his travel ban, rather than 
respecting the rule of law and the coequal judicial branch. He once 
again took to Twitter to personally denigrate the Federal judge who 
dared rule against this policy--a Federal judge who was appointed by 
George W. Bush.
  President Trump disparages the free press at every opportunity. Any 
article or story that is critical of his policies is now dubbed 
``fake'' news. Members of the press are punished for coverage of the 
administration that he deems negative. He says he wants to weaken libel 
laws so it is easier for him to sue the press.
  President Trump will continue his assault on the First Amendment, 
defining the press that holds him accountable as the enemy, deriding 
and belittling those who speak out against him, attacking the free 
expression of religion and those who practice Islam.
  When he takes these actions, it is up to the Attorney General of the 
United States to tell him he is wrong. That is where that awesome 
responsibility resides.
  It is up to the Attorney General to speak truth to power and to be 
ready to be fired for doing so, but it is far from clear that Senator 
Sessions will be that independent voice within the Department of 
Justice that the American public needs.
  The Washington Post reports that Senator Sessions not only agreed 
with the President's flurry of extreme Executive orders but that he 
wanted the President to go further and faster.
  In an email to the Post, senior strategist Stephen Bannon said that 
throughout the campaign, Senator Sessions ``has been the fiercest, most 
dedicated, most loyal promoter in Congress of Trump's agenda and has 
played a critical role as the clearinghouse for policy and philosophy 
to undergird the implementation of that agenda. What we were witnessing 
now is the birth of a new political order.''
  Stephen Bannon. This is an amazing quote, a contemporary quote from 
the President's top strategist. Everybody who is now talking in the 
press--and there are a lot of leaks out of this White House--say Steve 
Bannon is the puppeteer. He is the one telling Trump what to do. It is 
absolutely clear, of all the people in the White House, this is the guy 
who has the most clout, and it is a debate for all whether he is the 
puppeteer in telling the President what to do.
  But listen again to what he said about Senator Sessions, that he 
``has been the fiercest, most dedicated, and most loyal promoter in 
Congress of Trump's agenda, and has played a critical role as the 
clearinghouse for policy and philosophy to undergird the implementation 
of that agenda. What we are witnessing now is the birth of a new 
political order.''
  I don't know what this new political order is, where you don't 
respect the rule of law and don't respect democracy--headed in the 
wrong direction, in my opinion.
  Loyalty is a valued characteristic in politics, but the Nation's 
chief law enforcement officer must be independent, first and foremost.
  I hearken back to when Senator Sessions and I were both attorneys 
general back many years ago, and I remember assuming that role at the 
State level. It is an awesome role because early on in my 
administration they brought me cases where Democrats who were in the 
State legislature were violating the law, and they said: They are 
violating the law. They said they are violating the law. We have to 
enforce the law, and I did, and we prosecuted people in my own party.

  We had many rulings that came in as Attorney General where people 
would say: Interpret this law. And the law could be interpreted in a 
political way where you moved it toward your party, or the law could be 
interpreted the way it was written, with fairness. It ended up that we 
did everything we could to try to be fair to the law and fair as it was 
written.
  I don't think Senator Sessions is able to do that, not only based on 
his history in Alabama as U.S. attorney, but his entire career up to 
this date.
  We talk about loyalty being a valued characteristic in politics. The 
Nation's chief law enforcement officer must be independent, first and 
foremost. He or she must defend the Constitution and all Americans, not 
be the President's architect of a new political order that excludes 
many people.
  For these reasons, I must vote no on this nomination.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
the Washington Post article I referred to so that people can see that 
full article and be able to judge Steve Bannon's quote, who is the 
President's top strategist.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, Jan. 30, 2017]

Trump's Hard-Line Actions Have an Intellectual Godfather: Jeff Sessions

                  (By Philip Rucker and Robert Costa)

       In jagged black strokes, President Trump's signature was 
     scribbled onto a catalogue of executive orders over the past 
     10 days that translated the hard-line promises of his 
     campaign into the policies of his government.
       The directives bore Trump's name, but another man's 
     fingerprints were also on nearly all of them: Jeff Sessions.
       The early days of the Trump presidency have rushed a 
     nationalist agenda long on the fringes of American life into 
     action--and Sessions, the quiet Alabamian who long cultivated 
     those ideas as a Senate backbencher, has become a singular 
     power in this new Washington.
       Sessions's ideology is driven by a visceral aversion to 
     what he calls ``soulless globalism,'' a term used on the 
     extreme right to convey a perceived threat to the United 
     States from free trade, international alliances and the 
     immigration of nonwhites.
       And despite many reservations among Republicans about that 
     worldview, Sessions--whose 1986 nomination for a federal 
     judgeship was doomed by accusations of racism that he 
     denied--is finding little resistance in Congress to his 
     proposed role as Trump's attorney general.
       Sessions's nomination is scheduled to be voted on Tuesday 
     by the Senate Judiciary Committee, but his influence in the 
     administration stretches far beyond the Justice Department. 
     From immigration and health care to national security and 
     trade, Sessions is the intellectual godfather of the 
     president's policies. His reach extends throughout the White 
     House, with his aides and allies accelerating the president's 
     most dramatic moves, including the ban on refugees and 
     citizens from seven mostly Muslim nations that has triggered 
     fear around the globe.
       The author of many of Trump's executive orders is senior 
     policy adviser Stephen Miller, a Sessions confidant who was 
     mentored by him and who spent the weekend overseeing the 
     government's implementation of the refugee ban. The tactician 
     turning Trump's agenda into law is deputy chief of staff Rick 
     Dearborn, Sessions's longtime chief of staff in the Senate. 
     The mastermind behind Trump's incendiary brand of populism is 
     chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon, who, as chairman of the 
     Breitbart website, promoted Sessions for years.
       Then there is Jared Kushner, the president's son-in-law and 
     senior adviser, who considers Sessions a savant and forged a 
     bond with the senator while orchestrating Trump's trip last 
     summer to Mexico City and during the darkest days of the 
     campaign.
       In an email in response to a request from The Washington 
     Post, Bannon described Sessions as ``the clearinghouse for 
     policy and philosophy'' in Trump's administration, saying he 
     and the senator are at the center of Trump's ``pro-America 
     movement'' and the global nationalist phenomenon.
       ``In America and Europe, working people are reasserting 
     their right to control their own destinies,'' Bannon wrote. 
     ``Jeff Sessions has been at the forefront of this movement 
     for years, developing populist nation-state policies that are 
     supported by the vast and overwhelming majority of Americans, 
     but are poorly understood by cosmopolitan elites in the media 
     that live in a handful of our larger cities.''
       He continued: ``Throughout the campaign, Sessions has been 
     the fiercest, most dedicated, and most loyal promoter in 
     Congress of Trump's agenda, and has played a critical role as 
     the clearinghouse for policy and philosophy to undergird the 
     implementation of

[[Page S912]]

     that agenda. What we are witnessing now is the birth of a new 
     political order, and the more frantic a handful of media 
     elites become, the more powerful that new political order 
     becomes itself.''
       Trump, who is never shy about showering praise on his 
     loyalists, speaks of Sessions with reverence. At a luncheon 
     the day before his inauguration, Trump singled out someone in 
     the audience: ``the legendary Jeff Sessions.''
       Trump said in an email to The Post that Sessions is ``a 
     truly fine person.''
       ``Jeff was one of my earliest supporters and the fact that 
     he is so highly respected by everyone in both Washington, 
     D.C., and around the country was a tremendous asset to me 
     throughout the campaign,'' Trump wrote.
       Sessions helped devise the president's first-week strategy, 
     in which Trump signed a blizzard of executive orders that 
     begin to fulfill his signature campaign promises--although 
     Sessions had advocated going even faster.
       The senator lobbied for a ``shock-and-awe'' period of 
     executive action that would rattle Congress, impress Trump's 
     base and catch his critics unaware, according to two 
     officials involved in the transition planning. Trump opted 
     for a slightly slower pace, these officials said, because he 
     wanted to maximize news coverage by spreading out his 
     directives over several weeks.
       Trump makes his own decisions, but Sessions was one of the 
     rare lawmakers who shared his impulses.
       ``Sessions brings heft to the president's gut instincts,'' 
     said Roger Stone, a longtime Trump adviser. He compared 
     Sessions to John Mitchell, who was attorney general under 
     Richard M. Nixon but served a more intimate role as a 
     counselor to the president on just about everything. ``Nixon 
     is not a guy given to taking advice, but Mitchell was 
     probably Nixon's closest adviser,'' Stone said.
       There are limits to Sessions's influence, however. He has 
     not persuaded Trump--so far, at least--to eliminate the 
     Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, under which 
     children brought to the United States illegally are allowed 
     to stay in the country.
       Sessions has also been leading the internal push for Trump 
     to nominate William H. Pryor Jr., his deputy when Sessions 
     was Alabama's attorney general and now a federal appeals 
     court judge, for the Supreme Court. While Pryor is on Trump's 
     list of three finalists, it is unclear whether he will get 
     the nod.
       In his senior staff meetings, Trump talks about Sessions as 
     someone who ``gets things done,'' calmly and without fanfare, 
     said Kellyanne Conway, the White House counselor.
       ``He does it in a very courtly, deliberative manner,'' she 
     said. ``There's never a cloud of dust or dramatic flourish.''
       Newt Gingrich, a former speaker of the House and informal 
     Trump adviser, said, ``Sessions is the person who is 
     comfortable being an outsider to the establishment but able 
     to explain the establishment to Trump. There is this New 
     York-Los Angeles bias that if you sound like Alabama, you 
     can't be all that bright, but that's totally wrong, and Trump 
     recognized how genuinely smart Sessions is.''
       Sessions was especially instrumental in the early days of 
     the transition, which was taken over by Dearborn after a 
     purge of New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie's associates. 
     Sessions became a daily presence at Trump Tower in New York, 
     mapping out the policy agenda and making personnel decisions.
       Once former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani was out of 
     consideration for secretary of state, Trump considered 
     nominating Sessions because he was so trusted by the inner 
     circle, including Kushner, although Sessions's preference was 
     to be attorney general, according to people familiar with the 
     talks.
       Since his nomination, Sessions has been careful to not be 
     formally involved even as his ideas animate the White House. 
     In a statement Sunday, he denied that he has had 
     ``communications'' with his former advisers or reviewed the 
     executive orders.
       Sessions has installed close allies throughout the 
     administration. He persuaded Cliff Sims, a friend and 
     adviser, to sell his Alabama media outlet and take a job 
     directing message strategy at the White House. Sessions also 
     influenced the selection of Peter Navarro, an economist and 
     friend with whom he co-authored an op-ed last fall warning 
     against the ``rabbit hole of globalism,'' as director of the 
     National Trade Council.
       Sessions's connections extend into the White House media 
     briefing room, where press secretary Sean Spicer took the 
     first question at his Jan. 24 briefing from a journalist at 
     LifeZette, a conservative website run by Laura Ingraham, a 
     Trump supporter and populist in the Sessions mold. The 
     website's senior editor is Garrett Murch, a former 
     communications adviser to Sessions.
       Another link: Julia Hahn, a Breitbart writer who favorably 
     chronicled Sessions's immigration crusades over the past two 
     years, was hired by Bannon to be one of his White House 
     aides.
       More mainstream Republicans have been alarmed by Sessions's 
     ascent. John Weaver, a veteran GOP strategist who was a 
     consultant on Sessions's first Senate campaign and is now a 
     Trump critic, said Sessions is at the pinnacle of power 
     because he shares Trump's ``1940s view of fortress America.''
       ``That's something you would find in an Allen Drury 
     novel,'' Weaver said. ``Unfortunately, there are real 
     consequences to this, which are draconian views on 
     immigration and a view of America that is insular and not an 
     active member of the global community.''
       Inside the White House and within Sessions's alumni 
     network, people have taken to calling the senator ``Joseph,'' 
     referring to the Old Testament patriarch who was shunned by 
     his family and sold into slavery as a boy, only to rise 
     through unusual circumstances to become right hand to the 
     pharaoh and oversee the lands of Egypt.
       In a 20-year Senate career, Sessions has been isolated in 
     his own party, a dynamic crystallized a decade ago when he 
     split with President George W. Bush and the business 
     community over comprehensive immigration changes.
       In lonely and somewhat conspiratorial speeches on the 
     Senate floor, Sessions would chastise the ``masters of the 
     universe.'' He hung on his office wall a picture of He-Man 
     from the popular 1980s comic book series.
       As he weighed a presidential run, Trump liked what he saw 
     in Sessions, who was tight with the constituencies Trump was 
     eager to rouse on the right. So he cultivated a relationship, 
     giving Sessions $2,000 for his 2014 reelection even though 
     the senator had no Democratic opponent.
       ``Sessions was always somebody that we had targeted,'' said 
     Sam Nunberg, Trump's political adviser at the time.
       In May 2015, Nunberg said, he reached out to Miller, then 
     an adviser to Sessions, to arrange a phone call between Trump 
     and the senator. The two hit it off, with Trump telling 
     Nunberg, ``That guy is tough.''
       The next month, Trump declared his candidacy. In August of 
     that year, Sessions joined Trump at a mega-rally in the 
     senator's home town of Mobile and donned a ``Make America 
     Great Again'' cap. By January 2016, Miller had formally 
     joined the campaign and was traveling daily with the 
     candidate, writing speeches and crafting policies.
       ``Senator Sessions laid a bit of groundwork . . . on 
     matters like trade and illegal immigration,'' Conway said. 
     ``It was candidate Trump then who was able to elevate those 
     twin pillars in a way that cast it through the lens of what's 
     good for the American worker.''
       As Trump kept rising, so did Sessions.
       ``It's like being a guerrilla in the hinterlands preparing 
     for the next hopeless assault on the government,'' said Mark 
     Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration 
     Studies, a conservative research institute. ``Then you get a 
     message that the capital has fallen.''

  Mr. UDALL. Thank you.
  With that, I will yield the floor momentarily, and I may be back in a 
minute or two.
  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. UDALL. 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. UDALL. Mr. President, as I reflect on the nomination of Jeff 
Sessions to be Attorney General, one of the things that hits me is, 
when we look at the broad scope of how America has been moving forward 
in the last 100 years, the three big movements that have changed 
America have been the civil rights movement; the women's rights 
movement--women's suffrage, women's rights, women wanting freedom over 
their choices on reproductive rights; and then conservation and 
environmental rights, which have kind of changed everything since Teddy 
Roosevelt and Franklin Roosevelt and my father and Uncle Mo Udall, who 
served in the Congress.
  I grew up believing civil rights was something that was moving us 
forward, was inclusive, and was something where we really cared about 
every person.
  The job of the United States Senator is to represent your State. My 
State of New Mexico is majority-minority, very diverse, and I am very 
proud to speak out for the people of New Mexico and their civil rights. 
I have told many of them back home the story I learned through my 
father and through his public service, when he was a college student at 
the University of Arizona.
  Both he and my Uncle Morris Udall were at the University of Arizona 
in the lunchroom. Way back in the 1940s, the lunchroom was segregated 
so the Black students had to eat outside under the trees. They couldn't 
eat inside. My father and Mo had a friend, a young man by the name of 
Morgan Maxwell. Morgan still is a good friend of the family, and I am 
good friends with his son who lives in New Mexico.
  Morgan was sitting out under the tree, and Mo and my father went over 
and said: We want you to have lunch with us. They took him through the 
line at the University of Arizona. The

[[Page S913]]

people serving looked at him like they were a little shocked and 
surprised. They said: He is our friend. He is going to have lunch with 
us. They served him, and they sat down at the lunch table in the 
lunchroom. It ended up that they had a good lunch that day.
  But that push to bring Morgan Maxwell, a Black student, into a 
segregated lunchroom ended up with the president of the university 
facing a decision: Was he going to discipline the Udall brothers or was 
he going to change the rule and integrate the lunchroom? Thank God, he 
integrated the lunchroom, and the University of Arizona, at that time, 
moved forward with integration.
  I had always heard that story, and it resonated with me a lot. Then, 
later, as I was growing up here in Washington when my father was 
Secretary of the Interior, there was a great commotion around the fact 
that the Washington Redskins was the last team in the NFL to integrate 
their team. Here, we are talking in the 1960s. The owner of the 
Washington Redskins was named George Preston Marshall. Everyone knew he 
was a bigot and racist. He said: This is never going to happen. We are 
not going to integrate the Redskins. So there was a big movement in 
Washington to get my father to do something about it.
  He took this in a serious way and passed it on to the Solicitor. The 
Solicitor came back and said: Stewart, actually, you can do something 
about it. The stadium resides on Park Service property and you are the 
landlord. Tell him next year when he gets his lease, if his team isn't 
integrated, you can terminate the lease, or he can integrate. George 
Preston Marshall raised hell and went to Jack Kent and Bobby Kennedy at 
Justice and did everything they could to push it aside. The Kennedys 
backed my dad.

  I know my colleague Senator Hirono is here.
  The short story is that the Washington Redskins got Bobby Mitchell 
and had the first winning season the next year in a long, long time.
  Those civil rights are things you grow up with. They are things you 
want to move forward with. That is why I rise today to say I am deeply 
disturbed about what Coretta Scott King said about Jeff Sessions in 
1986 when he was going to be promoted. As U.S. attorney, he chilled the 
free exercise of vote by Black citizens. That is how he carried out his 
responsibilities.
  I think if you look at the whole history here, he is not fit to be 
Attorney General, and that is why I am going to vote no, and I urge 
everybody to vote no.
  I see my great colleague from Hawaii, Senator Hirono, here. She may 
want to speak. Others may come in.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cotton). The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWN. 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. BROWN. Mr. President, it is a sad day for our democracy when the 
words of Coretta Scott King are not allowed on the floor of the U.S. 
Senate. I wish to share those words with you today in their entirety.

       Dear Senator Thurmond:
       I write to express my sincere opposition to the 
     confirmation of Jefferson B. Sessions as a federal court 
     judge for the Southern District of Alabama. My professional 
     and personal roots in Alabama are deep and lasting. Anyone 
     who has used the power of his office as United States 
     Attorney to intimidate and chill the free exercise of the 
     ballot by citizens should not be elevated to our courts. Mr. 
     Sessions has used the awesome powers of his office in a 
     shabby attempt to intimidate and frighten elderly black 
     voters. For this reprehensible conduct, he should not be 
     rewarded with the federal judgeship.
       I regret that a long-standing commitment prevents me from 
     appearing in person to testify against this nominee. However, 
     I have attached a copy of my statement opposing Mr. Sessions' 
     confirmation and I request that my statement as well as this 
     be made a part of the hearing record.
       I do sincerely urge you to oppose the confirmation of Mr. 
     Sessions.
       Sincerely,
       Coretta Scott King.

  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.
  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I have served with Jeff Sessions 
throughout my time in the Senate and respect him very much as a 
colleague. I come to the floor of the Senate today not to decide 
whether Jeff Sessions is doing a good job as the Senator from Alabama, 
for, of course, that is for his constituents to decide; I come to the 
floor today to vote on whether to support Jeff Sessions for Attorney 
General of all the people of America, not just the people of Alabama. 
That is an awesomely different role and responsibility.
  I have deep concerns about Jeff Sessions' independence from the 
President and how he would use his prosecutorial discretion to address 
a number of critical issues confronting our country.
  The Attorney General is the American people's lawyer, not the 
President's, and the job requires the Attorney General to stand up to 
the President as the people's lawyer.
  In his first 2 weeks in office, President Trump has demonstrated his 
intolerance of dissent and independent thinking. He fired Acting 
Attorney General Sally Yates because she did what an Attorney General 
is supposed to do: She stood up and refused to defend President Trump's 
Executive order effectively restricting Muslims from coming to or 
returning to our country. Would Jeff Sessions have stood up to the 
President as Sally Yates did?
  During his confirmation hearing, I asked Senator Sessions if he would 
honor the historical role of the Attorney General and maintain strict 
independence from the White House. I did not receive a satisfactory 
answer. This is deeply troubling in light of the ongoing litigation in 
Federal court challenging the President's Muslim ban as overreaching 
and unconstitutional.
  Since the President announced the ban just over a week ago, hundreds 
of thousands of protesters have taken to the streets to oppose it. 
Lawyers have been camping out in arrivals terminals in airports across 
the country to help those who are trying to come back or come to our 
country with legal visas. State attorneys general have been speaking 
out and filing lawsuits to block this ban.
  Last week, Hawaii attorney general Doug Chin filed a lawsuit to block 
the Executive order. I wish to read a section from the State's brief 
outlining the State's case.

       Hawaii joins the many voices that have condemned the Order. 
     But this pleading is not about politics or rhetoric--it is 
     about the law. The simple fact is that the Order is unlawful. 
     By banning Muslims and creating a preference for Christian 
     refugees, the Order violates the Establishment Clause of the 
     United States Constitution. By those same acts, it violates 
     the equal protection guarantee of the fifth amendment. By 
     failing utterly to provide procedures or protections of any 
     kind for people detained or turned away at our airports, it 
     violates the Due Process Clause. And by enshrining rank 
     discrimination on the basis of nationality and religion, it 
     flies in the face of statutes enacted by Congress.

  Attorney General Chin is standing up for the people of Hawaii. The 
people of the United States deserve the same from our Attorney General.
  To understand how an Attorney General should discharge his or her 
responsibility, we need only turn to Senator Sessions' own words in an 
exchange between Sally Yates and Senator Sessions during her 
confirmation hearing in 2015.
  I wish to read the exchange. Senator Sessions said at her 
confirmation hearing:

       Do you understand that in this political world, there will 
     be people calling, demanding, pushing, insisting on things 
     that they do not know what they're asking for and could 
     indeed be corrosive of the rule of law, could diminish the 
     respect the Department of Justice has, could diminish the 
     rule of law in the United States? Are you aware of that? 
     You've already learned that the time you've been there.

  Nominee Yates said:

       Well, you're right, Senator, I'm not from here. I've only 
     been here for a couple of months, but I can tell you I'm 
     committed to the Department of Justice.
       I love our department. I care deeply about our mission, and 
     I would do everything in my power to protect the integrity 
     that is the Department of Justice.''

  Senator Sessions said:

       You have to watch out, because people will be asking you to 
     do things you just need to say no about. Do you think the 
     Attorney General has the responsibility to say ``no'' to

[[Page S914]]

     the President if he asks for something that is improper? If 
     the views of the President are unlawful, should the Attorney 
     General or the Deputy Attorney General say no?

  Yates' response:

       Senator, I believe the AG or deputy AG has an obligation to 
     follow the law and the Constitution and to give their 
     independent legal advice to the President.

  The people of the United States need an Attorney General who will 
stand up to the President to defend the Constitution--especially, as 
Senator Sessions pointed out in his questions of Nominee Yates, when 
the President is wrong.
  Based on Nominee Sessions' long-held restrictive views on 
immigration, I do not think he would stand up to the President as Sally 
Yates did. I am also deeply concerned about how Senator Sessions would 
use his prosecutorial discretion to address a number of critical 
issues.
  During his confirmation hearing, I pressed Senator Sessions for a 
commitment to vigorously protect every citizens' right to vote, 
particularly with regard to section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which 
safeguards Americans from discriminatory voting laws.
  At a time when our President is making unsubstantiated claims of 
massive voter fraud, we need an Attorney General who will vigorously 
protect the right to vote and not give in to these kinds of alternative 
facts to justify voter suppression laws.
  Senator Sessions did not provide me with a satisfactory answer that 
he would affirmatively scrutinize voting laws for impermissible 
discriminatory impact. If the Attorney General does not weigh in on 
these kinds of situations, this means that challenging these kinds of 
voting laws, these kinds of impermissible discriminatory voting laws, 
will be left to individuals and groups with limited resources, such as 
the NAACP.
  I also asked Senator Sessions whether he would honor the Department 
of Justice's consent decrees, some 20 of them, that address police 
misconduct and enhance accountability. Senator Sessions did not 
adequately assure me that as Attorney General, he would uphold these 
amendments. In fact, he left the door open for renegotiating these 
agreements. I pressed Senator Sessions for a commitment to defend Roe 
v. Wade in Federal court and to enforce laws that guarantee the 
constitutionally protected women's right to choose. Senator Sessions 
refused to disavow his past comments that Roe v. Wade was one of the 
worst Supreme Court cases ever decided and, in his view, not based on 
the Constitution, when, in fact, the majority decision had a 
constitutional basis.
  Should the Supreme Court be presented with a case that provides them 
the opportunity to overturn Roe v. Wade, I asked Senator Sessions, 
would he instruct the Solicitor General to argue for the overturning of 
Roe v. Wade? He said that was a hypothetical and did not respond. 
Senator Sessions' view on Roe v. Wade is clear. Would anyone be 
surprised if, as Attorney General, he would support overturning Roe v. 
Wade given that opportunity?
  In addition, in one of his first actions, the President reinstated a 
ban on foreign aid to health providers abroad who discussed abortion. 
This vow would compromise the health care of millions of women in 
places where the need is greatest. Taking the President's lead, I 
seriously question whether his Cabinet nominees, including the Attorney 
General nominee, will protect a woman's right to choose.
  I want to turn again to the topics of President Trump's Executive 
order, basically banning Muslim immigration, because our next Attorney 
General will likely weigh in on this, as well as other immigration 
cases. In fact, the Justice Department is already in Federal courts 
right now defending President Trump's Muslim ban. So while there is an 
argument being made that this really is not a Muslim ban, I say, you 
can call a duck a chicken, but if it looks like a duck, quacks like a 
duck, walks like a duck, it is a duck. That is what this Executive 
order is, a Muslim ban.
  Sadly, stoking fears in minorities and immigrants is a tragic but 
undeniable part of our Nation's history, and this fear has been used to 
justify the terrible treatment of minorities from Native peoples to 
slaves, to immigrants who helped build our country. In 1882, decades of 
incitement against Chinese immigrants resulted in the passage of the 
Chinese Exclusion Act, an immoral law that banned all Chinese 
immigration. This law, and others that followed, created a culture of 
fear that culminated in the mass internment of Japanese Americans 
during World War II.
  This was one of the darkest periods of American history, and it took 
decades for our country to acknowledge our error.
  Last week, we commemorated what would have been civil rights icon 
Fred Korematsu's 98th birthday. As Japanese Americans were rounded up 
for incarceration, Mr. Korematsu, who was only 23 at the time, bravely 
resisted internment all the way to the Supreme Court, which upheld Mr. 
Korematsu's conviction as being justified by the exigencies of war. 
Forty years later, documents kept from the Supreme Court showed that 
the Americans of Japanese ancestry were not involved in seditious 
actions justifying mass incarceration. Mr. Korematsu waited more than 
40 years for a court in California to overturn his conviction.
  During the Judiciary Committee's markup on this nomination, I read 
the full text of President Ronald Reagan's remarks in 1988, apologizing 
for the internment. I would like to read some of the excerpts.
  I do see the majority leader here. Would you like me to yield?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Hawaii, I 
have a very short statement, if I could do that.
  Ms. HIRONO. I assume I will be able to resume my comments after the 
majority leader's statement?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. HIRONO. Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, we came together yesterday to confirm 
Betsy DeVos as Secretary of Education so she could get to work 
improving our schools and putting students first.
  We will come together to confirm Tom Price as Secretary of Health and 
Human Services so he can get to work helping to provide relief from 
ObamaCare and stabilizing the health care markets.
  We will come together to confirm Steve Mnuchin as Secretary of the 
Treasury, too, so he can get to work continuing the President's efforts 
to relieve the regulatory pressure on America's economy and American 
job creation.
  We will also come together later today to confirm a new Attorney 
General. We all know our colleague from Alabama. He is honest. He is 
fair. He has been a friend to many of us on both sides of the aisle. It 
has been tough to watch all this good man has been put through in 
recent weeks. This is a well-qualified colleague, with a deep reverence 
for the law. He believes strongly in the equal application of it to 
everyone.
  In his home State, he has fought against the forces of hate. In the 
Senate, he developed a record of advocacy for crime victims but also 
for the fair and humane treatment of those who break our laws, both 
when they are sentenced and when they are incarcerated.
  Jeff Sessions has worked across the aisle on important initiatives. 
He is, in the words of former Democratic Vice-Presidential Candidate 
Joe Lieberman, ``an honorable and trustworthy person, a smart and good 
lawyer, and a thoughtful and open-minded listener,'' someone who ``will 
be a principled, fair and capable Attorney General.''
  Our colleague wants to be Attorney General for all Americans. Later 
today, we will vote to give him that chance, and I will have more to 
say about our friend and colleague at that time.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Ms. HIRONO. I would like to resume my remarks.
  Mr. President, I want to read some excerpts from President Ronald 
Reagan's remarks in 1988, apologizing for the internment of Japanese 
Americans.

       More than 40 years ago, shortly after the bombing of Pearl 
     Harbor, 120,000 persons of Japanese ancestry living in the 
     United States were forcibly removed from their homes and 
     placed in makeshift internment camps. This action was taken 
     without trial, without jury. It was based solely on race, for 
     these 120,000 were Americans of Japanese descent.

[[Page S915]]

       Yet we must recognize that the internment of Japanese 
     Americans was just that: a mistake. For throughout the war, 
     Japanese Americans in the tens of thousands remained utterly 
     loyal to the United States. Indeed, scores of Japanese 
     Americans volunteered for our Armed Forces, many stepping 
     forward in the internment camps themselves.
       The 442nd Regimental Combat Team, made up entirely of 
     Japanese Americans, served with immense distinction to defend 
     this Nation, their Nation. Yet back at home, the soldiers' 
     families were being denied the very freedom for which so many 
     of the soldiers themselves were laying down their lives.
       The legislation that I am about to sign provides for a 
     restitution payment to each of the 60,000 surviving Japanese 
     Americans of the 120,000 who were relocated or detained. Yet 
     no payment can make up for those lost years. So, what is most 
     important in this bill has less to do with property than with 
     honor. For here we admit a wrong; here, we reaffirm our 
     commitment as a nation to equal justice under the law.

  President Reagan's words powerfully demonstrated the wrongness of the 
internment, but just after this Presidential election, a top Trump 
surrogate said that the Japanese internment should be used as 
``precedent'' for a Muslim registry. And a Supreme Court Justice, 
Justice Scalia, in 2014, warned that a civil rights atrocity similar to 
the internment of Japanese Americans could happen again. Justice Scalia 
explained his thinking with the Latin phrase that means: ``In times of 
war, the laws fall silent.'' Justice Scalia in 2014, went on to say:

       That is what was going on--the panic about the war, and the 
     invasion of the Pacific and whatnot. That's what happens. It 
     was wrong, but I would not be surprised to see it happen 
     again--in times of war. It's no justification, but it is the 
     reality.

  The internment of Japanese Americans is yet another example of how, 
when we do not stand up against unconstitutional actions like President 
Trump's Muslim ban, we will be complicit in what follows. Time and 
again, when our country targets minorities for discriminatory 
treatment, history proves us to have been deeply wrong. I commend my 
Republican colleagues, Senators Graham, McCain, Hatch, Flake, Sasse, 
and others, for their statements questioning President Trump's 
immigration Executive order.
  Senators Lindsey Graham and John McCain issued a joint statement, 
which I would like to read in whole because I very much admire the 
position they took. In their joint statement they said:

       Our government has the responsibility to defend our 
     borders, but we must do so in a way that makes us safer and 
     upholds all that is decent and exceptional about our Nation.
       It is clear from the confusion at our airports across the 
     nation that President Trump's Executive order was not 
     properly vetted. We are particularly concerned by reports 
     that this order went into effect with little to no 
     consultation with the Departments of State, Defense, Justice, 
     and Homeland Security.
       We should not stop green-card holders from returning to the 
     country they call home. We should not stop those who have 
     served as interpreters for our military and diplomats from 
     seeking refuge in the country they risked their lives to 
     help.
       And we should not turn our backs on those refugees who have 
     been shown, through extensive vetting, to pose no 
     demonstrable threat to our Nation, and who have suffered 
     unspeakable horrors, most of them women and children.
       Ultimately, we fear this Executive order will become a 
     self-inflicted wound in the fight against terrorism. At this 
     very moment, American troops are fighting side-by-side with 
     our Iraqi partners to defeat ISIL.
       But this Executive order bans Iraqi pilots from coming to 
     military bases in Arizona to fight our common enemies.
       Our most important allies in the fight against ISIL are the 
     vast majority of Muslims who reject its apocalyptic ideology 
     of hatred.
       This Executive order sends a signal, intended or not, that 
     America does not want Muslims coming into our country.
       That is why we fear this Executive order may do more to 
     help terrorist recruitment than improve our security.

  That is the end of the joint statement by Senators McCain and Graham. 
I read the statement and I cannot but admire our two Senators for 
making the statements. I cannot overstate the fearful message that 
President Trump is sending by pursuing this ban on Muslims.
  Last night, our colleague, the senior Senator from Massachusetts, was 
silenced for sharing a letter from Coretta Scott King. If we cannot 
make a distinction between talking about a fellow Senator from a person 
who is a nominee that we must confirm, then the rule that shuts down 
debate should be called a gag rule.
  Over the last 2 months, I have heard from thousands of my 
constituents and a number of prominent civil rights organizations, 
including a number who testified at Jeff Sessions' hearing questioning 
his nomination. So I will vote against the nomination of Jeff Sessions 
to serve as Attorney General because I am deeply concerned about how he 
would use his prosecutorial discretion to uphold voting rights, protect 
civil rights, and safeguard a woman's right to choose. I am seriously 
concerned about Jeff Sessions' willingness to say no to the President 
when he needs to.
  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. SANDERS. 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. SANDERS. Mr. President, I want to say a few words about the 
Sessions nomination for Attorney General, but I also want to express my 
very strong opposition to Senator McConnell's effort to deny Senator 
Elizabeth Warren the opportunity to express her point of view.
  There are two separate issues. No. 1, this is the Senate. The 
American people expect from us a vigorous debate on the important 
issues facing this country. I think all of us are aware that issues of 
civil rights, issues of voter suppression, issues of criminal justice 
reform are enormous issues that people from one end of this country 
feel very strongly about. Those are issues that the next Attorney 
General of the United States will be dealing with.
  So clearly we need a vigorous discussion regarding the qualifications 
of President Trump's nominee, Jeff Sessions, to be Attorney General. We 
need to hear all points of view. The idea that a letter and a statement 
made by Coretta Scott King, the widow of Martin Luther King, Jr., a 
letter that she wrote, could not be presented and spoken about on the 
floor of the Senate is, to me, incomprehensible.
  It comes at a time when we have a President who has initiated, and I 
hope it will not stand, a ban on Muslims entering the United States of 
America. We have a President who refers to a judge who issues a ruling 
in opposition to the President as a so-called judge, which tells every 
judge in America that they will be insulted and marginalized by this 
President if they dare to disagree with him.
  I was under the impression we had three separate branches of 
government: Congress, the President, and the Judiciary, equal branches, 
not to be insulted because one branch disagrees with another branch.
  Here we are now on the floor of the Senate and one of our outstanding 
Senators, Ms. Warren of Massachusetts, brings forth a statement made by 
one of the heroines, one of the great leaders of the civil rights of 
the United States of America, a statement that she made before the 
Senate Judiciary Committee on March 13, 1986.
  Anyone who knows anything about Coretta Scott King understands, this 
is not a vicious woman; this is not a woman who is engaged in personal 
attacks. This is a woman who stood up and fought for civil rights, for 
dignity, for justice for her whole life. Yet when Senator Warren read 
her statement, she was told that she could no longer participate in 
this debate over Senator Sessions' nomination, which I regard as an 
outrage.
  I want the American people to make a decision on whether we should be 
able to look at Senator Sessions' record and hear from one of the 
heroines of the civil rights movement.
  This is the statement of Coretta Scott King on the nomination of 
Jefferson Beauregard Sessions for the U.S. District Court, Southern 
District of Alabama, made before the Senate Judiciary Committee on 
Thursday, March 13, 1986, and this is what the statement is about. Let 
the American people judge.
  This is from Coretta Scott King:

       Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
       Thank you for allowing me this opportunity to express my 
     strong opposition to the nomination of Jefferson Sessions for 
     a

[[Page S916]]

     federal district judgeship for the Southern District of 
     Alabama. My longstanding commitment which I shared with my 
     husband, Martin, to protect and enhance the rights of Black 
     Americans, rights which include equal access to the 
     democratic process, compels me to testify today.
       Civil rights leaders, including my husband and Albert 
     Turner, have fought long and hard to achieve free and 
     unfettered access to the ballot box. Mr. Sessions has used 
     the awesome power of his office to chill the free exercise of 
     the vote by black citizens in the district he now seeks to 
     serve as a federal judge. This simply cannot be allowed to 
     happen. Mr. Sessions' conduct as U.S. Attorney, from his 
     politically-motivated voting fraud prosecutions to his 
     indifference toward criminal violations of civil rights laws, 
     indicates that he lacks the temperament, fairness, and 
     judgment to be a federal judge.
       The Voting Rights Act was, and still is, vitally important 
     to the future of democracy in the United States. I was 
     privileged to join Martin and many others during the Selma to 
     Montgomery march for voting rights in 1965. Martin was 
     particularly impressed by the determination to get the 
     franchise of blacks in Selma and neighboring Perry County. As 
     he wrote, ``Certainly no community in the history of the 
     Negro struggle has responded with the enthusiasm of Selma and 
     her neighboring town of Marion. Where Birmingham depended 
     largely upon students and unemployed adults to participate in 
     nonviolent protest of the denial of the franchise, Selma has 
     involved fully 10 per cent of the Negro population in active 
     demonstrations, and at least half the Negro population of 
     Marion was arrested on one day.'' Martin was referring of 
     course to a group that included the defendants recently 
     prosecuted for assisting elderly and illiterate blacks to 
     exercise that franchise. In fact, Martin anticipated from the 
     depth of their commitment 20 years ago, that a united 
     political organization would remain in Perry County long 
     after other marchers had left. This organization, the Perry 
     County Civil League, started by Mr. Turner, Mr. Hogue, and 
     others, as Martin predicted, continued ``to direct the drive 
     for votes and other rights.'' In the years since the Voting 
     Rights Act was passed, Black Americans in Marion, Selma, and 
     elsewhere have made important strides in their struggle to 
     participate actively in the electoral process. The number of 
     Blacks registered to vote in key Southern states has doubled 
     since 1965. This would not have been possible without the 
     Voting Rights Act.
       However, Blacks still fall far short of having equal 
     participation in the electoral process. Particularly in the 
     South, efforts continue to be made to deny Blacks access to 
     the polls, even where Blacks constitute the majority of the 
     voters. It has been a long up-hill struggle to keep alive the 
     vital legislation that protects the most fundamental right to 
     vote. A person who has exhibited so much hostility to the 
     enforcement of those laws, and thus, to the exercise of those 
     rights by Black people should not be elevated to the federal 
     bench.
       The irony of Mr. Sessions' nomination is that, if 
     confirmed, he will be given life tenure for doing with a 
     federal prosecution what the local sheriffs accomplished 
     twenty years ago with clubs and cattle prods. Twenty years 
     ago, when we marched from Selma to Montgomery, the fear of 
     voting was real, as the broken bones and bloody heads in 
     Selma and Marion bore witness. As my husband wrote at the 
     time, ``it was not just a sick imagination that conjured up 
     the vision of a public official, sworn to uphold the law, who 
     forced an inhuman march upon hundreds of Negro children; who 
     ordered the Rev. James Bevel to be chained to his sickbed; 
     who clubbed a Negro woman registrant, and who callously 
     inflicted repeated brutalities and indignities upon 
     nonviolent Negroes, peacefully petitions for their 
     constitutional right to vote.''
       Free exercise of voting rights is so fundamental to 
     American democracy that we cannot tolerate any form of 
     infringement of those rights. Of all the groups who have been 
     disenfranchised in our nation's history, none has struggled 
     longer or suffered more in the attempt to win the vote than 
     Black citizens. No group has had access to the ballot box 
     denied so persistently and intently. Over the past century, a 
     broad array of schemes have been used in attempts to block 
     the Black vote. The range of techniques developed with the 
     purpose of repressing black voting rights run the gamut from 
     the straightforward application of brutality against black 
     citizens who tried to vote to such legalized frauds as 
     ``grandfather clause'' exclusions and rigged literacy tests.
       The actions taken by Mr. Sessions in regard to the 1984 
     voting fraud prosecutions represent just one more technique 
     used to intimidate Black voters and thus deny them this most 
     precious franchise. The investigations into the absentee 
     voting process were conducted only in the Black Belt 
     counties where blacks had finally achieved political power 
     in the local government. Whites had been using the 
     absentee process to their advantage for years without 
     incident. Then, when Blacks; realizing its strength, began 
     to use it with success, criminal investigations were 
     begun.
       In these investigations, Mr. Sessions, as U.S. Attorney, 
     exhibited an eagerness to bring to trial and convict three 
     leaders of the Perry County Civil League including Albert 
     Turner despite evidence clearly demonstrating their innocence 
     of any wrongdoing. Furthermore, in initiating the case, Mr. 
     Sessions ignored allegations of similar behavior by whites, 
     choosing instead to chill the exercise of the franchise by 
     blacks by his misguided investigation. In fact, Mr. Sessions 
     sought to punish older black civil rights activists, 
     advisors, and colleagues of my husband, who had been key 
     figures in the civil rights movement in the 1960's. These 
     were persons who, realizing the potential of the absentee 
     vote among Blacks, had learned to use the process within the 
     bounds of the legality and had taught others to do the same. 
     The only sin they committed was being too successful in 
     gaining votes.
       The scope and character of the investigations conducted by 
     Mr. Sessions also warrant grave concern. Witnesses were 
     selectively chosen in accordance with the favorability of 
     their testimony to the government's case. Also, the 
     prosecution illegally withheld from the defense critical 
     statements made by witnesses. Witnesses who did testify were 
     pressured and intimidated into submitting the ``correct'' 
     testimony. Many elderly blacks were visited multiple times by 
     the FBI who then hauled them over 180 miles by bus to a grand 
     jury in Mobile when they could more easily have testified at 
     a grand jury twenty miles away in Selma. These voters, and 
     others, have announced they are now never going to vote 
     again.
       I urge you to consider carefully Mr. Sessions' conduct in 
     these matters. Such a review, I believe, raises serious 
     questions about his commitment to the protection of the 
     voting rights of all American citizens and consequently his 
     fair and unbiased judgment regarding this fundamental right. 
     When the circumstances and facts surrounding the indictments 
     of Al Turner, his wife, Evelyn, and Spencer Hogue are 
     analyzed, it becomes clear that the motivation was political, 
     and the result frightening--the wide-scale chill of the 
     exercise of the ballot for blacks, who suffered so much to 
     receive that right in the first place. Therefore, it is my 
     strongly-held view that the appointment of Jefferson Sessions 
     to the Federal bench would irreparably damage the work of my 
     husband, Al Turner, and countless others who risked their 
     lives and freedom over the past twenty years to ensure equal 
     participation in our democratic system.
       The exercise of the franchise is an essential means by 
     which our citizens ensure that those who are governing will 
     be responsible. My husband called it the number one civil 
     right. The denial of access to the ballot box ultimately 
     results in the denial of other fundamental rights. For, it is 
     only when the poor and disadvantaged are empowered that they 
     are able to participate actively in the solutions to their 
     own problems.
       We still have a long way to go before we can say that 
     minorities no longer need to be concerned about 
     discrimination at the polls. Blacks, Hispanics, Native 
     Americans and Asian Americans are grossly underrepresented at 
     every level of government in America. If we are going to make 
     our timeless dream of justice through democracy a reality, we 
     must take every possible step to ensure that the spirit and 
     intent of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Fifteenth 
     Amendment of the Constitution is honored.
       The federal courts hold a unique position in our 
     constitutional system, ensuring that minorities and other 
     citizens without political power have a forum in which to 
     vindicate their rights. Because of this unique role, it is 
     essential that the people selected to be Federal judges 
     respect the basic tenets of our legal system: respect for 
     individual rights and a commitment to equal justice for all. 
     The integrity of the Courts, and thus the rights they 
     protect, can only be maintained if citizens feel confident 
     that those selected as federal judges will be able to judge 
     with fairness others holding differing views.
       I do not believe Jefferson Sessions possesses the requisite 
     judgment, competence, and sensitivity to the rights 
     guaranteed by the Federal civil rights laws to qualify for 
     appointment to the federal district court. Based on his 
     record, I believe his confirmation would have a devastating 
     effect on not only the judicial system in Alabama, but also 
     on the progress we have made everywhere toward fulfilling my 
     husband's dream that he envisioned over twenty years ago. I 
     therefore urge the Senate Judiciary Committee to deny his 
     confirmation.
       I thank you for allowing me to share my views.

  That is the letter of Coretta Scott King, one of the great leaders of 
our civil rights movement, who, along with her husband and many others, 
finally managed to get passed the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
  That is it. That is the letter Senator Elizabeth Warren wanted to 
communicate to other Members of the Senate as part of the discussion as 
to whether Jeff Sessions should become our next Attorney General.
  Let me say that I will vote against Jeff Sessions for a number of 
reasons, but the idea that in the United States Senate, the same exact 
letter that I just read and the American people have heard it--was 
there some kind of vicious personal attack?
  This is a letter written by one of the leaders of the civil rights 
movement, expressing strong concerns about Jeff Sessions before the 
Judiciary Committee in 1986, opposing his nomination

[[Page S917]]

to be a Federal judge. Yet Senator Elizabeth Warren, one of our leading 
Senators, was denied the right to read that letter to inform fellow 
Senators and the American people.
  I think Leader McConnell owes Senator Warren an apology, and I 
believe it is unconscionable and outrageous that Senator Warren not be 
allowed to participate in the discussion about whether Jeff Sessions 
becomes our next Attorney General.
  There is a great fear in this country right now, starting at the 
White House, where we have a President who has issued a ban on Muslim 
visitors coming into this country. There is a fear that we have a 
President who denigrates a judge as a ``so-called judge'' because this 
judge issued an opinion in disagreement with the President, that we are 
moving in a direction which is un-American, which is moving us toward 
an authoritarian society.

  We pride ourselves as a nation because when we have differences of 
opinion, we debate those differences and we tolerate differences of 
opinion. That is what democracy is about in our country, that is what 
freedom of speech is about, and that is what debate is about here in 
the U.S. Senate.
  So I am going to vote against Jeff Sessions to become our next 
Attorney General, but I am even more alarmed about the decision of the 
majority leader here in the Senate to deny one of our leading Senators 
the right to voice her opinion, the right to put into the Congressional 
Record what I have just said. And if Mr. McConnell or anybody else 
wants to deny me the right to debate Jeff Sessions' qualifications, go 
for it. But I am here. I will participate in the debate. I will oppose 
Jeff Sessions. And I think Senator Warren is owed an apology.
  With that, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in 
the Record the statement of Coretta Scott King.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. First of all, Mr. President, I thank my colleague, the 
Senator from Vermont, for his statement, and remarkably, the events of 
the last 24 hours, with Senator Warren's comments and now Senator 
Sanders' comments and others, and the fact that it is now out there--
using social media, this letter has now reached this morning more than 
5 million Americans. I know that Senator Sanders' comments this morning 
continue to expand, reaching Americans. And out of every challenge 
comes an opportunity--the opportunity to make sure more Americans hear 
the very powerful words and her rationale against Senator Sessions I 
think was very important, and so I thank him for his work.
  Mr. SANDERS. Thank you very much.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I also rise today to voice my concerns 
about Senator Jeff Sessions to serve as U.S. Attorney General. While I 
respect Senator Sessions' public service, I cannot and will not support 
his nomination.
  I also rise to raise the concerns of thousands of my constituents who 
have contacted me about Senator Sessions. These Virginians worry about 
what his confirmation would mean for the rights of all Virginians and 
all Americans.
  Senator Sessions' long record of opposing bipartisan, commonsense 
policies relating to voting rights, anti-discrimination, domestic 
violence, and criminal justice reform leads me to conclude that he is 
not the right person to serve as Attorney General.
  I would like to take a couple of minutes--and I know I have my friend 
the Senator from Minnesota coming after me--to talk about five areas of 
concern I have with his nomination.
  First, voting rights. In 2013, the Supreme Court ruled in Shelby 
County v. Holder to gut a key section of the Voting Rights Act. Senator 
Sessions applauded that decision which eroded voter access and 
protection in several States once covered by the preclearance 
provisions in the Voting Rights Act. Those States included the 
Commonwealth of Virginia. Moreover, he has failed to support important 
legislation that would restore those protections.
  The bipartisan legislation, the Voting Rights Advancement Act, was 
introduced last Congress and would serve to once again protect our 
Nation's hard-fought equal access to the ballot. I was proud to 
cosponsor this bill and remain committed to working with my colleagues 
to put a fair process in place that ensures our elections are open to 
all. Senator Sessions unfortunately opposed this legislation.
  The second area is nondiscrimination. I also have concerns about 
Senator Sessions' record on a broad range of anti-discrimination 
provisions. He was one of only four Senators to oppose an amendment in 
the Judiciary Committee that would have reaffirmed the principle that 
the United States does not discriminate against immigrants on the basis 
of religion--an issue that unfortunately has reared its head most 
recently by the President's action.
  He opposed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which codifies 
protection for LGBTQ Americans, and denies the reality that too many of 
our LGBTQ neighbors still face down discrimination and hatred every 
day.
  While nearly two-thirds of the Senate voted for the Matthew Shepard 
and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act in 2009, Senator 
Sessions stated this instead: ``I'm not sure that women or people with 
different sexual orientations face that kind of discrimination. I just 
don't see it.''
  From opposing the DREAM Act, to opposing the repeal of don't ask, 
don't tell, Senator Sessions' views are well outside of the mainstream.
  The third area is the Violence Against Women Act. In 2013, Senator 
Sessions voted against reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act. 
This landmark legislation, originally drafted in 1994, provides crucial 
protections and resources for the investigation and prosecution of 
violent crimes against women. The 2013 reauthorization bill updated 
those programs within the Department of Justice and extended resources 
and protections to additional populations, such as those in same-sex 
relationships. That bill passed with the support of a large bipartisan 
majority in the Senate, including a majority of the Republican caucus. 
However, Senator Sessions opposed the entire bill due to concerns about 
one provision in the legislation related to domestic violence against 
Indians on tribal lands.
  We in the Senate have all on occasion been faced with legislation 
that contains one or more provisions that we have concerns about or 
would not have included in the legislation. Yet my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle can attest that we very often strike compromises to 
get important legislation over the finish line. Oftentimes the sign of 
a good bill is when not one of us gets 100 percent of what we may have 
wanted. Opposing a much broader, commonsense bipartisan bill meant to 
reduce violence and protect domestic violence victims calls into 
question Senator Sessions' commitment to administering these important 
programs at the Department of Justice.
  Fourth, various sentencing reforms. There is broad, bipartisan 
recognition in the Senate that our broken criminal justice system is 
badly in need of reform. Likewise, there is bipartisan support for 
updating outdated statutes that tie judges' hands and often force them 
to hand down overly punitive mandatory minimum sentences. Yet last year 
Senator Sessions again was one of only five Republicans on the 
Judiciary Committee to vote against this bipartisan criminal justice 
reform legislation, of which I am a proud cosponsor, the Sentencing 
Reform and Corrections Act.
  There is overwhelming support both in this body and among the 
American public for reforming a broken justice system and giving 
thousands of Americans a second chance to be productive members of 
society. I believe that Senator Sessions' views on criminal justice are 
at odds with what the American people want and at odds with the basic 
principles of fairness and equality under law that are supposed to be 
the hallmark of our Nation's justice system.
  Finally, on the question of independence, I am concerned that Senator 
Sessions won't be sufficiently independent to execute the 
responsibilities of Attorney General effectively. Doing this job the 
way our Founding Fathers intended requires a certain level of 
impartiality to fully and independently enforce our laws and protect 
the rights of the disenfranchised. Senator Sessions has said achieving 
this level of neutrality means saying no to the President sometimes.
  This is one area in which I agree with my colleague and very much 
want to

[[Page S918]]

take him at his word; however, given his vocal, partisan support for 
President Donald Trump and his refusal to commit in his confirmation 
hearing to fully enforce certain laws, I am not convinced that Senator 
Sessions is fully prepared to faithfully execute this new set of 
responsibilities with the amount of independence that the job demands.
  Again, I stress that the main duties of serving as Attorney General 
include enforcing our Nation's laws and by doing so, protecting the 
civil rights of all Americans. That is the most basic tenet of being 
Attorney General. Given Senator Sessions' long record of opposing many 
of these fundamental laws that protect civil rights and equality for 
all, I have grave concerns about him fulfilling and taking this 
position.
  For these reasons, I am unable to support Senator Sessions' 
nomination to be Attorney General, and I encourage my colleagues to 
take these concerns under consideration as we move toward a final vote 
on this nomination.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sullivan). The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. FRANKEN. Thank you, Mr. President. I rise in opposition to the 
nomination of Senator Jeff Sessions to serve as our Nation's next 
Attorney General.
  The U.S. Attorney General has a job like none other. Our Nation's top 
law enforcement officer doesn't enforce just the laws designed to 
protect national security and keep the public safe but also the laws 
designed to protect Americans' civil rights and civil liberties, the 
laws that guarantee each and every American access to the same 
opportunities and to participate fully in our democracy.
  I know Senator Sessions. He and I have served on the Judiciary 
Committee together since I joined the Senate back in 2009, and I have a 
good relationship with Senator Sessions. I respect him as a colleague. 
But as anyone who has observed Senator Sessions or me in a Judiciary 
Committee hearing could probably tell you, he and I have very different 
views about many of the issues that he stands to influence as Attorney 
General, particularly matters of equal justice. So once the President 
announced his nomination and after Senator Sessions submitted his 
material to the committee, I reviewed his background carefully, and I 
paid special attention to how he described his work on civil rights. I 
noticed some discrepancies in the way he described his involvement in 
civil rights cases filed during his time as U.S. attorney. Those 
discrepancies stood out to me, and they didn't just stand out because 
civil rights is an issue I care about personally or because it is an 
issue I know Senator Sessions and I have disagreed about in the past; 
the discrepancies caught my attention because the information seemed to 
misrepresent the nominee's record, and that is something Senator 
Sessions himself promised not to do.
  You see, back in 2009 when Senator Sessions became the ranking member 
of the Judiciary Committee, he was interviewed about how he would 
approach the committee's work in general and nominations in specific. 
Senator Specter, who was serving as the ranking Republican at the time, 
had just changed his party affiliation to join the Democrats, and so 
the gavel passed to Senator Sessions. Some people, particularly on my 
side of the aisle, were anxious about how Senator Sessions would lead 
the committee's Republicans given his more conservative views, but 
during that interview with the National Review, Senator Sessions 
indicated that Democrats should expect him to be an honest broker, to 
be fair to the Democratic nominee.
  Senator Sessions cited his experience before the Judiciary Committee 
back in 1986 when President Reagan nominated him to serve on the 
Federal bench. The committee rejected his nomination then, and Senator 
Sessions felt that in doing so, the committee had distorted his record. 
He said: ``What I learned in that process is that we're not going to 
misrepresent any nominee's record, and we're not going to lie about 
it.''

  Senator Sessions said, as ranking member, that nominees before the 
committee would be ``entitled to explain the charges against them. That 
doesn't mean I'll accept their explanation or agree with it.''
  In my view, that seemed like a fair way to conduct the committee's 
business. When I set about the task of reviewing Senator Sessions' 
record and the materials that he provided to the committee, I expected 
that those materials would not misrepresent his record. I took him at 
his word.
  So when I noticed discrepancies regarding the nominee's record, I 
gave Senator Sessions an opportunity to explain them. I asked him about 
his claim to have filed 20 or 30 desegregation cases, a claim he made 
in that same 2009 National Review interview. In response, in the 
committee hearing Senator Sessions said: ``The records do not show that 
there were 20 or 30 actually filed cases.'' Of the claim, he said: 
``The record does not justify it.''
  I then moved on to question him about four cases he had listed on his 
committee questionnaire, which asked him to list the ``10 most 
significant litigated matters [he] personally handled.'' Among those 10 
cases were three voting rights cases and a desegregation case.
  I know Senator Sessions, and I know his record on voting rights. He 
is no champion of voting rights. He has called the Voting Rights Act 
``intrusive'' and complained about States with a history of 
discrimination being subject to preclearance. But here his 
questionnaire seemed to tout his personal involvement in three voting 
rights cases and one desegregation case. It seemed to me that, given 
his previous experience before this committee and given the concern the 
civil rights community had expressed about his nomination, perhaps the 
transition team or others managing Senator Sessions' nomination had 
attempted to revise some of his history and recast him as a civil 
rights champion.
  I questioned Senator Sessions about the questionnaire's claim of 
personally handling those four civil rights cases. I mentioned that the 
Department of Justice attorneys who had worked on three of those four 
cases wrote an op-ed stating that Senator Sessions had no substantive 
involvement in those cases. Two of those attorneys also submitted 
testimony to that effect, explaining that Senator Sessions had no 
personal involvement in some of the cases that he had listed among the 
top 10 matters that he had personally listed.
  I asked Senator Sessions about this. In my view, he deserved an 
opportunity to explain himself. I asked him whether these attorneys had 
distorted his record by stating that with regard to three of those four 
cases: ``We can state categorically that Sessions had no substantive 
involvement in any of them.''
  Senator Sessions said: Yes, he believed they were distorting his 
record. He said that he had supported the attorneys, and he had signed 
the complaints they had brought.
  Senator Sessions' reply mirrored answers he provided in a supplement 
to his initial questionnaire. In that supplement, which he filed 2 
weeks after his initial questionnaire, the nominee clarified that his 
role was to ``provide support for'' DOJ attorneys. He said he 
``provided assistance and guidance'' and ``cooperated'' with DOJ 
lawyers--not quite ``personally handled,'' if you ask me. I suspect 
that is why he felt the need to file the supplement.
  It is also worth noting that all four of the civil rights cases at 
issue--the ones at issue here--had either concluded or were still 
active back when Senator Sessions first appeared before the Judiciary 
Committee in 1986. But 30 years ago, when he submitted his 
questionnaire, which also asked him to list the ``ten most significant 
litigated matters which [he] personally handled,'' Senator Sessions did 
not list a single one of these four cases--not a single one. I wonder 
what changed between 1986 and now that caused these four civil rights 
cases to take on new significance for the nominee. Look, the fact of 
the matter is that Senator Sessions simply did not personally handle 
the civil rights cases that his questionnaire indicates he personally 
handled. His questionnaire overstates his involvement in these cases 
and the supplement he filed makes that perfectly clear. As I said, in 
the Judiciary Committee, Senator Sessions would not have tolerated that 
kind of misrepresentation, and no Member of this body should either. 
Senator Sessions said in 2009:

       We're are not going to misrepresent any nominee's record. . 
     . . They'll be entitled to

[[Page S919]]

     explain the charges against them. That doesn't mean I'll 
     accept their explanation or agree with it.

  And neither do I.
  The Senate has an important job to do. It requires that each and 
every one of us understand the nominee's record accurately. The duties 
and responsibilities of our Nation's top law enforcement officer demand 
that the President nominate an individual who puts country before party 
and who is willing to pursue justice for the most vulnerable among us. 
But I do not have confidence that a nominee whose submissions to the 
Judiciary Committee inflate and exaggerate his handling of the critical 
issues--issues such as protecting the right to vote--is, frankly, 
capable of pursuing equal justice under the law.
  I questioned Senator Sessions about voting rights during his hearing. 
I asked him about an extraordinary claim by the then President-elect. 
In late November, President-Elect Trump tweeted: ``In addition to 
winning the electoral college in a landslide, I won the popular vote if 
you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally.'' Let me repeat 
that: ``the millions of people who voted illegally.''
  Let's be clear. President Trump lost the popular vote by 2.86 million 
votes--the popular vote for the President. He is the President of the 
United States, but he lost the popular vote by 2.86 million votes. When 
he says, ``I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people 
who voted illegally,'' he is saying that at least 2.86 million people 
voted illegally.
  That is a pretty extraordinary charge. During Senator Sessions' 
hearing, I asked, do you agree with the President-elect that millions 
of fraudulent votes had been cast?
  He responded: ``I don't know what the President-elect meant or was 
thinking when he made that comment, or what facts he may have had to 
justify his statement.''
  Senator Sessions didn't say whether he agreed. I asked him whether he 
had talked to the President-elect about that issue. Senator Sessions 
said: ``I have not talked to him about that in any depth.''
  Under the Attorney General's leadership and direction, the Department 
of Justice is tasked with protecting the right to vote and with 
prosecuting fraud. It seems unusual to me that the President-elect 
would make such an outrageous claim, backed with no evidence, asserting 
that a fraud of truly epic proportion had occurred and that he wouldn't 
bother to discuss it with the man nominated to lead the Justice 
Department nor that the man tasked to head the Justice Department 
wouldn't ask him about it and ask what his evidence was so that when he 
became Attorney General, he could prosecute this voter fraud.
  But, in my questioning, none of this seemed to bother Senator 
Sessions. I suppose that shouldn't come as a surprise, because another 
thing that didn't seem to bother Senator Sessions was the speed with 
which States previously covered by the Voting Rights Act, covered by 
preclearance, moved to restrict voting rights after the Supreme Court's 
Shelby County decision. He and I discussed this at his hearing. I 
pointed out that after Shelby County, States moved quickly to enact new 
restrictions, but he didn't seem concerned.
  We discussed North Carolina, which enacted restrictions that the 
Fourth Circuit eventually described as targeting African Americans with 
``almost surgical precision''--targeting African Americans with almost 
surgical precision to make it harder for them to vote, to suppress 
their vote, which suppressed African-American votes in the 2014 
election. So this had happened.
  But it didn't seem to bother Senator Sessions. All he said was 
``every election needs to be managed closely and we need to ensure that 
there is integrity in it, and I do believe we regularly have fraudulent 
activities occur during election cycles.''
  Now, let's be clear. Claims of apocryphal voter fraud are used to 
justify voter suppression. Claims of bogus fraud are exactly what 
States cite when they enact laws designed to keep certain people from 
voting.
  So understanding Senator Sessions' views on voting rights and 
understanding how he responded to the President-elect's outrageous 
claims of fraud--and is there anyone here in this body who doesn't 
believe that the President's claims are outrageous and, indeed, 
pernicious? Keeping Senator Sessions' views on voting rights in mind 
and understanding how he responded to the President's claims is 
important to helping us assess whether he is capable of filling one of 
the Attorney General's most important duties, protecting the right to 
vote.
  That is how we all got here. We won elections. That is how the 
Presiding Officer won an election in Alaska, fair and square. This is 
so basic. The Fourth Circuit ruled that North Carolina had surgically 
targeted African Americans, and because of the Shelby decision, the 
Justice Department couldn't review that, couldn't do preclearance, 
couldn't prevent African Americans from having their votes suppressed. 
That should bother us.

  That should bother every one of us. It really should. We are here. We 
had some arguments over the last evening. The ones having the arguments 
were all elected. Protecting the franchise is the most basic duty in a 
democracy. And whose job is that? That is the job of the Attorney 
General.
  Think about how basic and fundamental this is. It is all the words 
that are said here on the floor, they are said by people who won 
elections. I won an election by 312 votes. Every vote is important. To 
suppress votes, to surgically target a race of people, how 
fundamentally wrong is that? It should make us shiver. It should, I 
would hope, clarify to my colleagues why there is so much fear in this 
country, when a man who is President of the United States says there 
are 3 million to 5 million votes fraudulently cast. I wonder how he got 
3 million. Could it possibly have anything to do with the fact that he 
lost the popular vote by 2.86 million? How did he bring that figure out 
of the air?
  What are the American people supposed to think when the President 
makes these laughable claims, faced with no facts whatsoever?
  He told the story about a German golfer in line in Florida. Do my 
colleagues remember this? He heard this story thirdhand. This is his 
proof to the congressional leadership. I believe Senator Cornyn was 
actually there. I think he was part of the group who went there as the 
leadership of the Senate. The President said that part of his evidence 
was this story that this German golfer in line had three Hispanic 
people in front of him and three in back. The President then went into 
conjecture about what Latin American countries they could be from. Then 
he said that none of them were pulled out of the line; only the German 
golfer, the famous German golfer. He has won some PGA tournaments. He 
is a great golfer. He is not registered to vote in the United States.
  The story was apocryphal. Doesn't this send a chill down the spine of 
every Member of this Senate who cares about the franchise?
  Think about it. This is the fundamental building block of our 
democracy--the franchise.
  Now, Senator Sessions said during his hearing that he believes we 
regularly have fraudulent activities during our election cycles. That 
might explain why he didn't talk with the President-elect in any depth 
about the now-President's claim that millions of fraudulent votes were 
cast. Perhaps Senator Sessions didn't find it alarming because he 
believes there is a kernel of truth in the claim. There is not. That 
claim has been fact-checked to death. Nearly 138 million votes were 
cast in the 2016 election. State officials found virtually no credible 
reports of fraud and no sign whatsoever of widespread fraud.
  In 2014, a comprehensive study examined elections over 14 years, 
during which more than 1 billion ballots were cast, and they found just 
31 incidents of in-person fraud, but that didn't stop President Trump. 
Never let the truth get in the way of a good story. He again claimed 
that he won the popular vote and continued to claim it and asked for an 
investigation.
  This is so profoundly disturbing. I ask my colleagues, doesn't it 
bother you?
  The President went on to tweet about this ``major investigation into 
VOTER FRAUD, including those registered to vote in two states, those 
who are illegal, and even, those registered to vote who are dead, and 
then (and many for a long time).''

[[Page S920]]

  I know on my deathbed, which I hope is many, many years from now, 
surrounded by my family, my grandchildren, and hopefully my great-
grandchildren, if they say: Grandpa, Great-grandpa, any last wishes, I 
would say: Yes, I want to, before I leave this world, ``slip my mortal 
coil,'' or whatever Shakespeare said; I want to make sure that I 
unregistered to vote because I was a U.S. Senator and I wouldn't want 
to commit voter fraud, so, please, somebody, call the county clerk. I 
am too weak to do that.
  But I want to unregister because clearly anyone who doesn't 
unregister to vote before they die is committing some kind of fraud, 
and clearly anyone who is registered to vote in two States is 
committing fraud--people like Steve Bannon, Sean Spicer, the Press 
Secretary, Steve Mnuchin, Treasury Secretary designee, the President's 
daughter Tiffany, and his son-in-law Jared Kushner. We really should 
investigate them.
  The President has said the administration would form a commission led 
by Vice President Pence to investigate this voter fraud.
  This raises serious concerns, not the least of which is whether such 
an order or commission would serve as a pretext for nationwide voter 
suppression. Before my colleagues vote on Senator Sessions' nomination, 
we deserve to know whether the President intends for the Attorney 
General or the Justice Department to lead or participate in these 
investigations.
  When the President of the United States lies about the existence of 
massive, widespread fraud, it is the job of the Attorney General to 
call him on it. It is the job of the Attorney General to call him on 
it. The Attorney General has an obligation to tell it like it is. 
Senator Sessions may have said it best himself. When Sally Yates was 
nominated to be the Deputy Attorney General, Senator Sessions 
questioned her during her confirmation hearing. He said: ``You have to 
watch out because people will be asking you to do things and you will 
need to say no.''
  Do you think the Attorney General has a responsibility to say no to 
the President if he asks for something that is improper? A lot of 
people have defended the Lynch nomination, for example, by saying: 
Well, he will appoint somebody who is going to execute his views. Well, 
what is wrong with that? But if the views the President wants to 
execute are unlawful, should the Attorney General or the Deputy 
Attorney General say no?
  Ms. Yates responded: Senator, I believe the Attorney General or the 
Deputy Attorney General has an obligation to follow the law and the 
Constitution, to give their independent legal advice to the President.
  As everyone here should agree, that is exactly what Ms. Yates did 
last week--I think it was last week. These weeks seem long. This Nation 
owes her a debt of gratitude. She did exactly what Senator Sessions 
asked if she would do, but I fear Senator Sessions has not demonstrated 
that he is capable of fulfilling that obligation, and his record, as 
demonstrated by the fact that he did not discuss these claims with the 
President, suggests that he is simply not willing to speak truth to 
power.
  Now, Senator Sessions has a long record, not just during his time as 
U.S. attorney and as Alabama's attorney general but here in the U.S. 
Senate. But regardless of the posts he held, Senator Sessions has not 
exhibited what I would characterize as a commitment to equal justice.
  In my view, it is the obligation of elected officials, law 
enforcement officers to recognize injustice when they see it and stand 
in opposition to it, but on far too many occasions, it seems that 
Senator Sessions has not followed that obligation.
  In 2009, the Senate debated the Matthew Shepard and James Senator 
Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, the bill that extended Federal 
hate crimes protections to people targeted on the basis of their sexual 
orientation or gender identity. In the hearing on that bill, Senator 
Sessions said, ``I am not sure women or people with different sexual 
orientations face that kind of discrimination. I just don't see it.''
  Senator Sessions repeatedly opposed a bill to reauthorize the 
Violence Against Women Act, or VAWA, the landmark law combating 
domestic sexual violence. The bill would have expanded the law to 
protect LGBT people, Native American women, and immigrant women, but he 
voted against it three times. He said that ``there are matters put on 
the bill that almost seem to invite opposition.'' I raised this with 
Senator Sessions prior to his hearing, and I pointed out that Native 
women experience an epidemic of sexual and domestic violence, much of 
it at the hands of non-Indians--most of it--a large majority of it. 
That is not a new development. But Senator Sessions said to me that at 
the time he voted on the issue, he didn't understand the gravity of the 
problem. He must not have seen it.

  In 2006, when the Judiciary Committee held a hearing on reauthorizing 
the Voting Rights Act, Senator Sessions said there is ``little present 
day evidence'' of State and local officials restricting access to the 
ballot box. He complained that the Voting Rights Act's preclearance 
requirement unfairly targeted certain States. He said, ``Alabama is 
proud of its accomplishments, but we have the right to ask why other 
areas of the country are not covered by it.'' Now, the Voting Rights 
Act's preclearance requirement forced States with a history of enacting 
discriminatory measures to get Federal approval before changing their 
voting practices. That is why Alabama was subject to preclearance, but 
he just didn't see it.
  During this hearing and in his responses to written questions, 
Senator Sessions has said that ``all Americans are entitled to equal 
protection under the law, no matter their background.'' He has said 
that, if confirmed, he would ``enforce the laws passed by Congress.'' 
But time and time again, Senator Sessions has demonstrated an inability 
to recognize injustice--whether it is discrimination faced by LGBT 
people, discriminatory barriers to the ballot box, or violence against 
women. If he can't see injustice, what assurance do we have that he 
will act to stop it?
  The communities we represent should be confident that the Nation's 
top law enforcement officer is capable of recognizing the challenges 
they face and will help them overcome those challenges. Before the 
Senate moves to confirm this nominee, it is important to understand 
whether Senator Sessions is able or willing to acknowledge those 
challenges and to take steps necessary to address them, not turn a 
blind eye. I am not confident that he is, and I will be voting against 
him.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, 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. SCHUMER. 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. SCHUMER. Mr. President, we here in the Senate have a tradition of 
mutual respect among our fellow Senators. We have a spirit of comity. 
It is a tradition that I hold in high esteem.
  Last night that tradition was violated, and the Senate went in a very 
bad direction. I believe my Republican colleagues were far too zealous 
in trying to enforce that tradition and in doing so were guilty of the 
exact same thing they were trying to police.
  My friend the Senator from Massachusetts was reading a letter written 
by Mrs. Coretta Scott King, the widow of Martin Luther King, Jr., to 
the Judiciary Committee--her testimony about the nomination of then-
Judge Jeff Sessions to be a Federal judge. For that, the Chair and my 
friend the majority leader interrupted her remarks, invoked rule XIX, 
and forbid her from continuing. The Chair directed the Senator to take 
her seat. In my view, it was totally, totally uncalled for. Senator 
Warren wasn't hurling wild accusations; she was reading a thoughtful 
and considered letter from a leading civil rights figure. Anyone who 
watches the Senate floor on a daily basis could tell that what happened 
last night was the most selective enforcement of rule XIX.
  My friend the Senator from Massachusetts was here when one of her 
colleagues called the leadership of my dear friend Senator Reid 
``cancerous'' and said that he ``doesn't care about the safety'' of our 
troops. That was not enforced as a rule XIX violation, but

[[Page S921]]

reading a letter from Coretta Scott King--that was too much.
  Suggesting that the distinguished majority leader had repeatedly lied 
to the press--a comment made by a fellow Republican, by the way--that 
was fine. Reading the letter of a civil rights icon? At least to the 
other side, unacceptable.
  Just last week I heard a friend on the other side of the aisle accuse 
me of engaging in a ``tear-jerking performance'' that belonged at the 
``Screen Actors Guild awards.'' It was only the second time that week I 
had been accused of fake tears on the floor of the Senate, but I didn't 
run to the floor to invoke rule XIX. But when my friend from 
Massachusetts read a piece of congressional testimony by Coretta Scott 
King, she was told to sit down.
  Why was my friend from Massachusetts cut off when these other, much 
more explicit, much more direct, much nastier attacks were disregarded? 
There is a shocking double standard here when it comes to speech. 
Unfortunately, it is not constrained by the four walls of this Chamber.
  While the Senator from Massachusetts has my Republican colleagues up 
in arms by simply reciting the words of a civil rights leader, my 
Republican colleagues can hardly summon a note of disapproval for an 
administration that insults a Federal judge, tells the news media to 
``shut up,'' offhandedly threatens a legislator's career, and seems to 
invent new dimensions of falsehood each and every day.
  I certainly hope that this anti-free speech attitude is not traveling 
down Pennsylvania Avenue to our great Chamber, especially when the only 
speech being stifled is speech that Republicans don't agree with--even 
speech that is substantive, relevant, on point to the matter this body 
is considering, and appropriate and measured in tone.
  I would make a broader point. This is not what America is about, 
silencing speech, especially in this Chamber. What we do here is 
debate. We debate fiercely and forcefully but respectfully. The 
Founders of the Republic and titans of the early Senate--Webster, Clay, 
and Calhoun--debated until they were blue in the face. From time to 
time, they probably had tough words for one another. We are not afraid 
of tough words in America. We don't look to censor speech. The rule is 
only intended to keep Senators on the facts, to keep them from making 
baseless accusations about another's character. My friend from 
Massachusetts was following the letter and the spirit of the rule last 
night. She was engaging in that tradition of forceful but respectful 
debate when she was cut off. That is not what the Senate is about. That 
is not what our dear country is about.
  Every Member on the other side of the aisle ought to realize that 
what they did to Senator Warren was selective enforcement. It was the 
most selective enforcement of a rarely used procedure to interrupt her, 
to silence her, and it was the only violation of the spirit of mutual 
respect and comity in this body that occurred last night.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the 
prayer, the Senator from Nevada be recognized for such time as he shall 
consume, and then I be recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, 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. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                                 prayer

  Pursuant to rule IV, paragraph 2, the hour of 12 noon having arrived, 
the Senate having been in continuous session since Monday, the Senate 
will suspend for a prayer by the Senate Chaplain.
  The Chaplain, Dr. Barry C. Black, offered the following prayer:
  Let us pray.
  Eternal Lord God, teach us this day, through all our employments, to 
see You working for the good of those who love You.
  Strengthen the hearts of our lawmakers against temptations and make 
them more than conquerors in Your love. Lord, deliver them from all 
dejection of spirit and free their hearts to give You zealous, active, 
and cheerful service. May they vigorously perform whatever You command, 
thankfully enduring whatever You have chosen for them to suffer. Guard 
their desires so that they will not deviate from the path of integrity.
  Lord, strengthen them with Your almighty arms to do Your will on 
Earth, even as it is done in Heaven.
  We pray in Your mighty Name. Amen.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Ernst). The Senator from Nevada.


                          Repealing ObamaCare

  Mr. HELLER. Madam President, I want to take a few moments to discuss 
an issue, one that is on everybody's mind; that is, the status of 
ObamaCare. Congress has taken the first step to repeal ObamaCare. I was 
in the House of Representatives when ObamaCare was passed into law. I 
opposed the law five times while I was in the House before it was 
passed with zero bipartisan, zero Republican support and was signed 
into law by the President.
  I opposed ObamaCare because I feared that this law would increase 
costs, make it harder for patients to see a doctor, increase taxes on 
the middle class, increase taxes on seniors, and hurt the economy.
  Over the last 7 years, all of these fears have become a reality. A 
new Congress and a new administration have heard the people's response 
loud and clear, and that response is that we must repeal ObamaCare. 
Repealing ObamaCare means repealing all of the taxes that go with it--
not part of them, not some of them, but all of them.
  ObamaCare increased taxes on hard-working Americans by $1.1 trillion. 
Higher taxes lead to more money being taken out of the pockets of hard-
working families. Health care costs have increased to a degree where I 
have heard from Nevadans across the State, of all ages and backgrounds, 
all with similar concerns.
  What I wish to do is take a moment to read an email that I received 
just last week from a 13-year-old boy who lives in Las Vegas. He said:

       I wanted to write an email to express my concerns about 
     Obamacare and hopefully persuade you in making a change.
       My family used to have health insurance until ObamaCare 
     kicked in and forced my family to drop our insurance since it 
     tripled the cost and wasn't affordable. We are getting 
     penalized now for not having insurance.

  Think about that. ObamaCare kicked their family off their insurance 
by tripling the costs, making it unaffordable, and then ObamaCare 
penalized that family for not having insurance.
  Going back to the young boy, he said:

       Since then we have had medical bills piling up. This is an 
     issue with a lot of people and I don't know a lot about 
     policies but I do know that something needs to change for the 
     good of the people.
       I've heard President Donald Trump will be addressing this 
     issue. I just hope you will represent Nevada in favor of 
     getting rid of ObamaCare.

  I can assure my constituents back home in Nevada, and especially this 
young man who is advocating for his family, that I am committed to 
repealing ObamaCare. This young man's parents had employer-sponsored 
health care coverage that took care of their family when they needed 
medical care. And as a result of ObamaCare, the costs were too high to 
afford the health insurance they had.
  One of the biggest drivers of cost increases on the middle class is 
the 40-percent excise tax on employee health benefits, better known as 
the Cadillac tax. In Nevada, 1.3 million workers who have employer-
sponsored health insurance plans will be hit by this Cadillac tax. 
These are public employees in Carson City. These are service industry 
workers on the Strip in Las Vegas. These are small business owners and 
retirees across the State.

  We are talking about reduced benefits, increased premiums, and higher 
deductibles. When I first started working on this issue, I knew the 
devastating impact this tax would have on Nevadans, but also in order 
to get anything done, we needed a bipartisan effort to reduce this tax 
and to eliminate it.
  I recruited a good friend by the name of Senator Martin Heinrich from 
New

[[Page S922]]

Mexico, and together we were able to gain huge support on both sides of 
the aisle. During the highly partisan reconciliation debate in 2015, 
where Congress successfully delivered an ObamaCare repeal bill to 
President Obama's desk, Senator Heinrich and I pushed our colleagues to 
include our legislation to fully repeal the Cadillac tax as an 
amendment.
  Our amendment passed with overwhelming bipartisan support by a vote 
of 90 to 10. With this nearly unanimous vote, we were are able to delay 
the Cadillac tax until 2020.
  This Congress, Senator Heinrich and I have reintroduced Senate bill 
58, the Middle Class Health Benefits Repeal Tax Act, which fully 
repeals this bad tax. I hope that my Senate colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle will join Senator Heinrich on this bipartisan piece 
of legislation and on this issue to support our bill and get rid of 
this Cadillac tax once and for all.
  I know that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will have a 
lot of differing opinions on the Affordable Care Act, but one thing we 
can agree on is that the Cadillac tax should be fully repealed.
  Now that we have passed an ObamaCare repeal resolution, we will move 
to the next phase of the repeal process. The budget we just passed 
included reconciliation instructions for the Senate Finance Committee 
and the HELP Committee to repeal ObamaCare.
  We made a promise to repeal ObamaCare, and now it is time to keep 
that promise. This includes my legislation to fully repeal the Cadillac 
tax. The goal of health reform should be to lower costs for those who 
already have health benefits and to expand access to those who do not 
currently have coverage. ObamaCare did not achieve either of those two 
goals.
  I am committed to ensuring that all Americans have access to high-
quality, affordable health care. We must start by repealing the 
Cadillac tax.
  I thank Senator Heinrich for his continued leadership on this issue. 
I want to thank him, and I want to say that Senator Heinrich continues 
to put his constituents above politics. I know that he shares my 
commitment to repeal this bad tax.
  I also want to thank Congressman Kelly and Congressman Courtney for 
their leadership on the House side. I know that we are all eager to 
work together to get this bill to the finish line.
  Madam President, I yield to the senior Senator from Texas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, last night we all witnessed a rather 
extraordinary event. Certainly for the first time in my time in the 
Senate, we saw rule XIX of the Standing Senate Rules invoked. That rule 
says: ``No Senator in debate shall, directly or indirectly, by any form 
of words impute to another Senator or to other Senators any conduct or 
motive unworthy or unbecoming a Senator.''
  I certainly agree with the ruling of the Chair and the decision of 
the Senate as a body that that line was crossed last night. A Senator 
can't evade that rule by somehow claiming: These weren't my words; I 
was reading what somebody else said.
  Specifically, in the case of our former colleague, now deceased, 
Senator Ted Kennedy claimed that the nominee for Attorney General was 
somehow a disgrace to the Justice Department and ought to resign. That 
certainly crossed that line.
  Our colleagues want to point to a letter written by Coretta Scott 
King. That was part but not the whole of the speech given by the 
Senator from Massachusetts. I hope that maybe we have all been 
chastened a little bit, and maybe we have all learned a little bit of a 
lesson here.
  I yearn for the day when the Senate and, frankly, the country as a 
whole would pull back from the abyss of recrimination, personal 
attacks, and we would get back to doing what this institution was 
designed to do--which is to be a great body for deliberation and 
debate--and we would treat each other with the civility with which we 
would all want to be treated.
  We are at a pretty challenging time in our Nation's history, when 
many people who were surprised and disappointed at the last election 
are unwilling to accept the results of that election and the verdict of 
the American people. I can only hope that, after the passage of some 
time, they will return to their senses, and they will agree that no one 
is well served by this race to the bottom in terms of decorum and in 
terms of rhetoric, in terms of how we treat one another. The American 
people are better served when we treat each other with civility and 
respect and when we don't make personal attacks against Senators 
because of the positions that they take.
  This debate over the nomination of Senator Jeff Sessions has taken on 
some rather unusual twists and turns. I want to comment briefly on some 
of the remarks made by our colleague from Minnesota about voting rights 
because I think this is exemplary of the way that Senator Sessions' 
record on voting rights has been misrepresented.
  We all know that in 2006--those of us who were here in the Senate, 
including Senator Sessions, including the Democratic whip and myself--
we all voted to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act. That included 
section 2 and section 5, which was later struck down. Section 2 is the 
provision of the Voting Rights Act that applies to the entire Nation, 
and it authorizes a lawsuit to vindicate voting rights that are 
jeopardized by some illegal practice. Section 5, which was the subject 
of the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Shelby County case 
that was decided in 2013--that was directed not at section 2, which 
applies to the entire Nation, but to section 5, which applied only to a 
handful of jurisdictions around the country. It was based on voting 
practices that existed in the middle 1960s.
  I would be the first to admit that the record of vindicating the 
rights of minority voters in 1965 was nothing to be proud of. We have 
come a long way in this country, and it has been because of the Voting 
Rights Act. It has been because of our collective commitment to the 
right of every citizen to vote that I believe those statistics which 
existed in the mid-sixties are no longer valid today.
  In fact, if you look at many of the jurisdictions covered in the 
1960s, including places like Alabama, where Senator Sessions is from, 
they have records of minority voting that are superior to jurisdictions 
that are not covered by section 5. How our colleagues across the aisle 
can somehow condemn Senator Sessions for the Supreme Court's decision 
in the Shelby County case, when he voted for the reauthorization of the 
entire Voting Rights Act, section 2 and section 5, strikes me as 
extremely misleading and unfortunate, but it does seem to characterize 
the nature of the debate about this nominee.

  During his confirmation hearing, I said: Well, those who don't know 
Senator Sessions are interested to learn his record and his resume, but 
those of us who worked with him--we don't need to read his resume. We 
don't need to hear a recitation of his record. We know the man. We know 
what is in his heart. And he is a thoroughly decent and honorable 
Member of the Senate, and he will do an outstanding job, I believe, 
restoring the reputation of the Department of Justice, as one dedicated 
to the rule of law above all else.
  There is always a risk--and this happens in Democratic 
administrations, as well as Republican administrations--when the 
Attorney General feels like they are an arm of the White House. That is 
not the job of the Attorney General. The President has a lawyer, White 
House Counsel. The Attorney General is supposed to have some measure of 
independence even though he or she is appointed by the President and 
serves at the President's pleasure.
  That is why we ask questions of people, like Deputy Attorney General 
Sally Yates: Can you tell the President no? Well, she said she could. 
And then ultimately, unfortunately, in the case of the Executive order 
that was issued by President Trump later on, said--even though this 
order was vetted by the Office of Legal Counsel and determined that 
this was a legal Executive order both in content and in form, she said: 
I still disagree with the President's Executive order, and I am going 
to order the Justice Department lawyers not to defend it.
  Well, that is the kind of politics that we need none of in the 
Department of Justice. We have plenty of politicians in this country. 
We have plenty of politicians in the Congress and in the White House. 
We don't need another

[[Page S923]]

politician as Attorney General. In fact, we need a nonpolitician, an 
apolitician, somebody who believes that their allegiance to the rule of 
law, irrespective of who is involved, whether it is the President of 
the United States or the least among us--that is what the rule of law 
is all about. And that is one reason why I feel so strongly that 
Senator Sessions will be an outstanding Attorney General, because I 
believe he will restore the Department of Justice to an institution 
that believes in and enforces the rule of law above politics, and that 
is a fundamentally important thing to do.
  We know Senator Sessions, as I said earlier, brings a lifetime of 
relevant experience to this job: former Federal prosecutor, former U.S. 
attorney for the Department of Justice. He said those were some of the 
best years of his life.
  I once had a colleague who now serves on the Fifth Circuit. When he 
became a U.S. district judge in San Antonio, he was recalling his days 
as U.S. attorney. He said--I still remember this after all these many 
years--he said he never had a prouder moment in his life than when he 
appeared in court and he said: ``I am here and I am ready on behalf of 
the United States of America.''
  Senator Sessions is here, and he is ready to serve the American 
people as Attorney General. And we know from his service at the 
Department of Justice, as attorney general of Alabama, and now for the 
past 20 years in the Senate, that he is devoted to the rule of law and 
keeping our country safe. So it has really been sad to see interest 
groups vilifying him over and over again or people mischaracterizing 
him, as they have on his voting rights record, things that he is not 
responsible for after voting to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act in 
2006. He didn't decide the Shelby County case.
  This is a man we have worked with for--some for 20 years, people who 
have been here that long with him, and we know Jeff Sessions to be a 
man who has dedicated his life to public service. Our colleagues across 
the aisle have offered him an occasional compliment, like the 
Democratic leader, who once called him straightforward and fair. The 
assistant Democratic leader called him a man of his word. But now the 
decision to drag out Cabinet nominations as long as possible and to 
waste valuable time that could be used on other bipartisan 
legislation--we know our Democratic colleagues have chosen to slow-walk 
the process, and I think it is a shame, particularly in the case of 
somebody whom we all know so well and who is dedicated to the 
Department of Justice and the restoration of the rule of law.
  Several of us have talked from time to time about how the holding up 
of these nominees is unprecedented. At this point in President Obama's 
term, 21 Cabinet members were confirmed. Senator Sessions, when we vote 
on his nomination tonight, will be No. 8--21 to 8. You have to go back 
to George Washington to find a slower confirmation timeline for a new 
administration. There is no good excuse for it, particularly in light 
of the fact that now, under the Reid precedent, our colleagues across 
the aisle know that all of these nominees, particularly in the case of 
Senator Sessions, will be confirmed. So holding up the nomination just 
for delay alone makes no sense at all.
  Well, some have said holding up Senator Sessions' nomination is 
somehow similar to the confirmation process for Loretta Lynch, but that 
really rings hollow on examination. Let me remind them what happened 
when Loretta Lynch was nominated as Attorney General. At the time, our 
Democratic friends were filibustering a bipartisan bill that later 
passed 99 to 0. They were filibustering a bipartisan anti-trafficking 
bill for no good reason. That is my view; they may think they had a 
good reason. I think actually what it had to do with was the Hyde 
amendment and the longstanding limitation on the use of taxpayer funds 
for abortion that had gone back to roughly 1976. They wanted to 
eliminate that restriction in this anti-trafficking bill, so they 
refused to consider that legislation, which many of them had 
cosponsored, to help thousands of victims of sexual exploitation, 
slavery, and human trafficking find a path to healing and restoration. 
So the majority leader, in an action that I completely endorsed, simply 
said that as soon as they dropped the filibuster, we would move on with 
the Loretta Lynch nomination. They did finally, and we processed her 
nomination. So in no way were those two situations similar.
  Today, our colleagues across the aisle want to keep a new President 
from surrounding himself with the men and women he has selected to help 
run the country. I think if there is one thing that should give people 
more confidence in the new administration, it is the quality of the men 
and women he has chosen for his Cabinet, and I would add Vice President 
Pence, somebody we know here, having served 12 years in the House of 
Representatives.
  So the delay is really for no good reason at all and will have no 
achievable results. They are not going to be able to block the 
nomination but, rather, just try to score political points. And 
preventing an exemplary nominee from filling an important national 
security position I believe makes our country less safe.
  I will give our colleagues across the aisle some credit for allowing 
the confirmation of Secretary of Defense James Mattis and Gen. John 
Kelly at the Department of Homeland Security and finally, after a long 
weekend, Mike Pompeo as Director of the CIA. Those are essential 
components of the President's national security Cabinet, but it also 
includes the Attorney General of the United States, someone whose 
nomination has been delayed until we vote on him tonight. After 9/11, 
the Attorney General became more than just a law enforcement officer; 
he became a counterterrorism official as well, integrally tied, with 
supervision of the FBI, to our efforts to protect the American people 
from terrorists who would kill us or our allies.
  So there is really no good excuse for delaying the confirmation of 
Senator Sessions, and I am confident that tonight we will finally do 
what we should have done at least 3 weeks ago--confirm Senator Sessions 
as the next Attorney General of the United States. And I believe it is 
past time that we do so.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I would like to respond to the statement 
made by the Republican whip, my friend from Texas, Senator Cornyn. This 
is day 20 of the Trump administration. Day 20. Not quite 3 weeks since 
President Trump was sworn in as President of the United States. This 
evening at about 7 p.m., we will vote on his nominee for Attorney 
General. So in the first 20 days of his administration, he will have 
his Attorney General.
  What the Senator from Texas failed to relate was the experience we 
went through not that long ago when President Obama wanted to fill the 
vacancy of the Attorney General's office with Loretta Lynch, a woman 
who had served as prosecutor, U.S. attorney, lifelong professional in 
the Department of Justice, who went through the regular hearing process 
in the Judiciary Committee, was reported from the committee, and she 
was sent more than 20 additional questions by Senator Jeff Sessions of 
Alabama--more questions which of course, she dutifully answered, as she 
was required to do. Then she was reported to the calendar, where she 
sat for 2 months. A 2-month vacancy in the Attorney General's office. 
Why? Was there something substantively wrong or controversial about 
Loretta Lynch? If there happened to be, I never heard it.
  Where then was that argument about national security and leaving the 
Attorney General nomination in limbo when it was President Obama 
seeking to fill that spot? Well, we didn't hear it at all. In fact, the 
Senator from Texas said: Oh, it was related to another bill and whether 
that bill was going to be called; it was actually Senator Reid who was 
holding it up.
  From where I was sitting--and I came to the floor at one point and 
said: What are we waiting for? This lady is eminently qualified. She 
has been reported by the committee. She has answered all the questions. 
She languishes on the calendar.
  She wasn't alone in this experience, incidentally. The Executive 
Calendar, as the Obama Presidency ended, was filled with nominees who 
were held for

[[Page S924]]

no obvious reason by the Republicans. They had been reported from the 
committees. They were ready to fill judicial vacancies across the 
United States and other posts. And the official position of the 
Republican Senators happened to be: We are not going to ever let people 
vote on them because we are hoping and praying we will get a Republican 
President who can fill those same vacancies with people of our 
political persuasion. That was the reality.
  That was the same reality that left Merrick Garland, President 
Obama's nominee to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court, languishing 
for almost 1 year. The Republicans and the leaders in the Senate would 
not give him a hearing or a vote. And Senator McConnell came to the 
floor and said: I won't even meet with him.
  So when I hear these protests now from the Republican side of how we 
are not moving quickly enough on these nominations, we are. And I think 
we are moving in the appropriate way. We are asking hard questions.
  And I don't subscribe to the position of the Senator from Texas, who 
preceded me here, when it comes to the Voting Rights Act. I listened as 
Senator Sessions of Alabama said that he believed the Shelby County v. 
Holder decision was a victory for the South when it ended preclearance 
of legislation that could have a direct impact on the voting rights of 
individuals. And I do recall what happened when the Federal court took 
a specific look at North Carolina's legislation statutes as it related 
to voting and said the North Carolina legislature had ``with surgical 
precision'' found ways to exclude African Americans from voting--not 20 
years ago but just a few months ago, before this last election.
  This is a critical issue, and it is interesting to me that last night 
the dustup on the floor involving the Senator from Massachusetts, 
Senator Warren, was about the same issue, the Voting Rights Act.
  In a letter sent by Coretta Scott King to Strom Thurmond--then 
chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee--when Senator Sessions, 
before he was Senator, was being considered for Federal judgeship--
this is what Coretta Scott King said in the letter. I am not going to 
read the personal and controversial sections that have been pointed out 
before, but it is critical to what her message happened to be. She said 
to Strom Thurmond in a letter about Senator Sessions moving to the 
Federal bench:

       Free exercise of voting rights is so fundamental to 
     American democracy that we cannot tolerate any form of 
     infringement of those rights. Of all the groups who have been 
     disenfranchised in our Nation's history, none has struggled 
     longer or suffered more in the attempt to win the vote than 
     black citizens. No group has had access to the ballot box 
     denied so persistently and intently.

  It was a critical issue over 30 years ago when Mr. Sessions was then 
being considered for a Federal judgeship. It is a critical issue to 
this day because of two things: a decision by the Supreme Court, which 
basically took away one of the major powers of the Voting Rights Act, 
and, secondly, a coordinated effort by Republicans across the United 
States to suppress the vote of minorities and particularly African 
Americans.
  I point directly to that North Carolina decision for what I just 
said. What they have tried to do is to systematically reduce the 
likelihood that poor people and minorities will vote. As chairman of 
the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil 
Rights, and Human Rights, I held public hearings in Ohio and Florida. 
Those hearings were held in those States because they had proposed new 
restrictions on voters.
  So, both in Cleveland and in Florida, I brought the election 
officials--Democrats and Republicans--before my subcommittee, put them 
under oath and asked: What was the incidence of widespread voter fraud 
in the elections in your State which led you to make it more difficult 
and challenging for the people of your State to vote?
  The answer was: There were none. There were no examples of widespread 
fraud. There were only a handful of prosecutions for voter fraud. That 
told the story. This didn't have anything to do with voter fraud. This 
had to do with discouraging turnout in areas that were more friendly to 
Democratic candidates, period. So when we make a big issue of the 
position of Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions on the Voting Rights Act, it 
is with good cause.
  It is historically an issue which has haunted the United States since 
the Civil War, when excuses after excuses were made for African 
Americans seeking the right to vote, and people were denied the right 
to vote with poll taxes and literacy tests and ridiculous standards to 
this very day, when the Republican Party strategy is to diminish the 
African-American vote by voter suppression.
  Is it important that we know the position of Senator Jeff Sessions on 
the Voting Rights Act? To me, it is one of the most important questions 
to be asked. The fact that it evoked controversy on the Senate floor 
with Senator Warren last night is an indication of how seriously we 
take it. Yes, we have added a few more hours to the debate. I disagree 
with the Senator from Utah and the Senator from Texas who say: You know 
how it is going to end; why are you wasting our time?
  I don't think it is a waste of time to have a fulsome debate in the 
Senate on something as fundamental as protecting the right of every 
American citizen to vote.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, will the Senator from Illinois yield for a 
question?
  Mr. DURBIN. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. TESTER. I say to Senator Durbin, there has been a lot of talk 
about the fact that the number of Cabinet appointees were much higher 
in the Obama administration than they are now. Could you take us back 8 
years ago? I mean, we just confirmed a lady to be Secretary of 
Education who has never spent 1 minute in a public school classroom, on 
a school board, teaching, student, otherwise. There are claims out 
there about some of these nominees being involved in insider trading. 
There are claims out there that some of these nominees did not pay 
their taxes.
  Could you take us back 8 years ago and tell us how those folks were 
treated, if there was anything wrong with them when they came to this 
floor?
  Mr. DURBIN. Through the Chair, I will respond to the Senator from 
Montana. Here is the difference. Eight years ago, when Barrack Obama 
was elected President and was to be sworn in on January 20, he brought 
together his team to serve in his Cabinet and said to them: The first 
thing you need to do is to follow the law. You need to file all the 
papers required of you by the ethics standards of the United States 
Government.
  So, I am told that on January 8, almost 2 weeks before he was sworn 
in, their paperwork was on file. So they had complied with the law and 
they were awaiting their opportunity for a hearing. Contrast that with 
the current situation. There are still proposed Cabinet members by 
President Trump who have not filed their required ethics disclosures.
  Why is it important? Because we believe that though we can't reach in 
and require the President to file his income tax returns, which he has 
steadfastly refused to do, we know what the standards are when it comes 
to many of those departments.
  The standards are very demanding. There has to be a disclosure and 
there has to be a process of divestment. If I am about to become the 
head of an agency and my personal wealth includes holdings that have a 
direct impact on that agency, I am required by law to divest myself of 
those holdings. The more complicated my portfolio and net worth might 
be, the more challenging this is.
  Penny Pritzker, a very wealthy individual from Chicago, was chosen by 
President Obama to be the Secretary of Commerce. It took her 6 months, 
I say to the Senator from Montana, to fully comply with the law so she 
could go through the hearing--6 months. Now we hear complaints from the 
Republicans: Well, why aren't the Trump nominees going through more 
quickly? Why aren't our billionaires put on the fast-track?
  I am sorry, but Trump billionaires are subject to the same rules as 
all billionaires. They have to file the necessary documents. I might 
add, you can go back a little further in history and find 
disqualifications for Cabinet positions. Oh, you hired someone in your

[[Page S925]]

household to work for you and you did not pay their Social Security, 
their FICA? Sorry, you are disqualified from being in a Cabinet.
  Now we have Trump nominees where that is happening--not with 
frequency, but it is happening--and it doesn't seem to be even close to 
a disqualification. So it clearly is a double standard. I would say to 
the Senator from Montana, the fact that the Obama nominees moved 
through as quickly as they did showed they took the law seriously, they 
made the disclosures they were required to make, and in virtually every 
case had unique qualifications for the job.
  To put Betsy DeVos as Secretary of Education next to Arne Duncan, who 
headed up the Chicago Public School System as Secretary of Education, 
is to show that contrast.
  Mr. TESTER. I want to thank the Senator from Illinois for his history 
lesson on the confirmation process over the last 8 years, at least in 
the Senate.
  I want to speak today on behalf of the thousands of Montanans who 
have asked me to oppose the nomination of Mr. Sessions as the Attorney 
General of the United States. As this country's top law enforcement 
official, the Attorney General must stand up and fight for all 
Americans. The Attorney General must provide a voice for the folks who 
often are not able to speak for themselves.
  The Attorney General must enforce the law as it is written, not how 
the President wishes it was written. I believe Mr. Sessions has proven 
time and time again that he does not fulfill these qualifications, and 
therefore I will oppose his nomination for Attorney General.
  Mr. Sessions opposed the reauthorization of the Violence Against 
Women Act. This landmark legislation protects women from domestic 
violence and sexual assault and brings perpetrators to justice. In my 
State of Montana, this law helped provide over $10 million every year 
to support women and children. Those are critical resources that make a 
real difference in the lives of women, children, and their families, 
and they keep our communities safe.
  The Violence Against Women Act supports shelters like the Friendship 
Center in Helena, which is literally saving lives and protecting women 
and children from violence every day--in fact, they help over 1,000 
Montanans each and every year--or programs like Rocky Boy Office of 
Victims Services, which is in the Rocky Boy Indian Reservation.
  Thanks to the Violence Against Women Act, this has helped reduce the 
number of sexual assaults on that reservation. If he is confirmed, I 
would invite Mr. Sessions to Red Lodge, Missoula or Browning, and the 
many other places in our State to see how the Violence Against Women 
Act is saving lives and making communities safer. I invite him to sit 
down with the survivors at any of the YWCAs in Montana and explain to 
them why he opposes the Violence Against Women Act.
  As Attorney General, Mr. Sessions will be responsible for 
administering critical resources through the Violence Against Women 
Act, resources that will save lives, but as a Senator, Mr. Sessions has 
turned his back on the survivors of domestic violence. I am not 
confident he will be there for them as Attorney General.
  I will not support a nominee for Attorney General who opposed 
legislation that helps us better investigate and prosecute violent 
crimes against women, but that is not all. I am not convinced that Mr. 
Sessions will stand up for the privacy laws of law-abiding Americans. 
Less than 2 years ago, right on this Senate floor, Mr. Sessions fought 
to preserve the most intrusive aspects of the PATRIOT Act.
  That was not the first time he supported unchecked government 
surveillance. Mr. Sessions has voted in support of the most intrusive 
aspects of the PATRIOT Act seven times--seven times.
  He is a staunch advocate for the NSA's bulk data collection, which 
violates the privacy of millions of Americans. If Mr. Sessions is 
confirmed as Attorney General, will he push back and fight our 
government that undercuts our freedoms? Will he fight on behalf of 
government officials who listen into our phone calls, or scroll through 
our emails or preserve our Snapchats?
  Will he intervene if the government once again spies on citizens 
without a warrant? I think the answer to that, quite frankly, is no. 
When government agencies like the NSA collect bulk data, they do so at 
the expense of our freedoms. If Mr. Sessions is not willing to protect 
our Fourth Amendment rights, can we expect him to fight for other 
constitutional rights?
  Will he fight for the First, the Second, the Fifth? Again, the answer 
is no. We need an Attorney General who will fight and protect our 
individual freedoms, not one who is willing to sacrifice it.
  I am not alone. Thousands of Montanans have contacted my office 
opposing Mr. Sessions. Here are some of the things Montanans have 
written to me. Anne from Missoula wrote me:

       Please vote against the nomination of Jeff Sessions for 
     Attorney General. He has a history of supporting the 
     weakening of our civil liberties. Voting rights should be 
     strengthened, not weakened. His support of the Patriot Act 
     and opposition of the Violence Against Women Act are just a 
     few of the many egregious positions that he has taken.

  Susan from Bigfork:

       Please vote no on Jeff Sessions for Attorney General. She 
     is an inappropriate choice due to women's issues and civil 
     liberty issues. He has shown poor choices in protecting 
     voting rights and women's choices.

  Jerilyn from Belgrade:

       Jeff Sessions is completely the wrong person to be Attorney 
     General. His record on civil rights and women's issues belong 
     in a different century.

  Amy from Whitefish:

       Vote no to the nomination of Jeff Sessions, who has shown 
     himself time and again to be no friend to equality or civil 
     liberties. Please know that we in Montana expect you to 
     uphold our desire for all members of this great Nation 
     regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, religious affiliation 
     or sexual orientation, to be treated with respect and 
     dignity.

  Charles from Livingston:

       He voted no on the Violence Against Women Act.

  That ``he'' being Mr. Sessions. Mr. Sessions voted no on adding 
sexual orientation to the definition of hate crimes. He voted yes on 
loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping.
  Now, I agree with Anne and Susan and Amy and Jerilyn and Charles and 
thousands of other Montanans. Because of that, I will not support Mr. 
Sessions, and I will urge my colleagues to oppose his nomination.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Ms. BALDWIN. Madam President, I rise to urge my colleagues to join me 
in opposing the confirmation of our colleague Jeff Sessions to be 
Attorney General of the United States.
  I have great respect for Senator Sessions' long history of public 
service, and I am pleased to have had the opportunity to work with him 
where we have found common ground. However, Senator Sessions and I have 
frequently and sometimes vehemently disagreed on important issues, 
including matters like civil rights and voting rights, hate crimes 
laws, immigration, and criminal justice reform.
  I want to acknowledge that Senator Sessions' nomination is supported 
by many, including many in the law enforcement community in my home 
State of Wisconsin. It is vital that the Attorney General have a good 
working relationship with the law enforcement community, and I have no 
doubt that Senator Sessions will be a strong voice for law enforcement, 
if he is confirmed.
  But the role and the responsibility of our Attorney General is bigger 
than any one group. Our Attorney General must work on behalf of all 
Americans. The Department of Justice has a broad jurisdiction. So I 
have also heard from over 16,000 Wisconsinites who are opposed to his 
confirmation, many of whom expressed profound concerns about what it 
would mean for racial and ethnic minorities, immigrants, including 
DREAMers, and others, were he to become our Attorney General. Hundreds 
of national civil and human rights organizations have expressed their 
opposition on similar grounds.
  After reviewing his record, getting a chance to meet with him in my 
office, and considering everything that I have heard from my 
constituents, I simply do not believe that Senator Sessions is the 
right choice to be Attorney General of the United States. I have that 
belief for a number of reasons.
  First, I am concerned that Senator Sessions will not be the 
independent

[[Page S926]]

champion for the rule of law that we need with Donald Trump in the 
White House. In any administration, the Attorney General's first duty 
is to the Constitution and to the people of the United States. This 
President has already issued a number of orders--legally questionable 
orders--including one affecting our visa and refugee programs that a 
number of Federal courts have already temporarily blocked. We need an 
Attorney General who will ensure that the President's actions do not 
run roughshod over protections guaranteed by our Nation's laws and 
Constitution. I am not convinced that Senator Sessions will be that 
kind of Attorney General.
  Second, I do not believe that Senator Sessions will be the champion 
of the civil rights of all Americans that an Attorney General must be. 
The Department of Justice plays a central role in enforcing our 
Nation's civil rights laws, from investigating hate crimes to 
safeguarding the right to vote, to fighting discrimination against 
women, racial and religious minorities, and people with disabilities. 
At a time when there has been a disturbing increase in hate-motivated 
crimes, discrimination, and harassment, including, particularly, 
against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people, and people of 
the Muslim faith, it is even more important that the Department of 
Justice be strong and proactive.
  I have heard from constituents in Wisconsin who have faced bigotry 
and hate-motivated speech in the wake of the election of Donald Trump. 
Among them is a family from Fitchburg, WI, with 11 adopted children, 
including children from Ghana and China.
  This family received an anonymous letter proclaiming ``Trump won'' 
and calling them race traitors and telling them to go home. This and 
other reports from Wisconsinites and, frankly, from people throughout 
the United States breaks our hearts.
  Senator Sessions fought against efforts to strengthen and make more 
inclusive Federal hate crimes laws and criticized voting rights laws as 
``intrusive.'' He has shown hostility to the rights of LGBT individuals 
and attacked the reproductive health care rights of women.
  Now more than ever we need a Justice Department that places a 
priority on enforcing our civil rights and voting rights laws, 
proactively combatting hate violence and fighting for the equality of 
all Americans. I am simply not convinced that Senator Sessions will be 
the champion vulnerable Americans need as Attorney General with an 
unflagging commitment to make our country a fairer and more equal 
place.
  Third, I believe Senator Sessions will not take a fair or humane 
approach as Attorney General with regard to immigration. I was deeply 
troubled by candidate Trump's ugly and divisive rhetoric on 
immigration, and I am appalled by the actions that he has taken thus 
far as President.
  Senator Sessions was one of his campaign's key advisers on 
immigration and has been a vocal opponent of bipartisan, comprehensive 
reforms that would address our broken immigration system.
  The Department of Justice is responsible for adjudicating immigration 
cases and ensuring fairness and due process in the treatment of 
undocumented individuals and refugees.
  The Department also plays a key role in our national security 
apparatus, helping to fight terrorism, and keeping the homeland safe.
  The President's recent orders on immigration have furthered 
divisions, created chaos and confusion, proven to be legally and 
constitutionally questionable, and are inconsistent with core American 
values. In the opinion of many national security experts, they will 
make our Nation less safe, not more.
  I simply do not believe that Senator Sessions, with his history of 
hostility to immigration and support for this President's approach, is 
the right person to lead the Department of Justice, as it discharges 
its critical duties on immigration and national security.
  America has made great progress over the last 8 years with an 
administration that has taken seriously a shared responsibility to pass 
on to the next generation a country that is more equal, not less.
  All Americans deserve a strong commitment from America's top law 
enforcement official to act on violence born out of hatred based on 
race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, or any 
other characteristic.
  At a time when voting rights and the constitutional right of women to 
make their own health care decisions are under attack across our 
country, we need an Attorney General who will stay true to these 
constitutional freedoms and not be driven by politics.
  For me, the vote on Senator Sessions' confirmation is a moral choice. 
I am guided by my strong belief that all Americans deserve equal 
opportunity and freedom to pursue their hopes and dreams. I cannot 
support this nomination for Senator Sessions to be Attorney General, 
and I urge my colleagues to oppose him.
  Now I would like to take a moment to discuss what happened last night 
here on the Senate floor. Last night, the Republican leadership of this 
Chamber stopped one of my colleagues from reading the words of Coretta 
Scott King.
  Coretta Scott King wrote a letter and a statement to the Senate 
Judiciary Committee back in 1986, expressing her opposition to Jeff 
Sessions' nomination to serve as a Federal judge.
  Coretta Scott King believed, as I do, that the right to vote is a 
fundamental right afforded to every American. It is a right that people 
have lost their lives seeking and defending.
  Mrs. King wrote in her testimony regarding Jeff Sessions' record:

       Blacks still fall far short of having equal participation 
     in the electoral process. Particularly in the South, efforts 
     continue to be made to deny Blacks access to the polls, even 
     where Blacks constitute the majority of the voters. It has 
     been a long up-hill struggle to keep alive the vital 
     legislation that protects the most fundamental right to vote. 
     A person who has exhibited so much hostility to the 
     enforcement of those laws, and thus, to the exercise of those 
     rights by Black people should not be elevated to the Federal 
     bench.

  Mrs. King's words matter. They matter to me, and they matter to 
millions of Americans. Mrs. King's words should matter in this debate, 
and they deserve to be heard. I believe it is simply wrong to silence 
legitimate questions about a nominee for U.S. Attorney General, and I 
hope that her words can be heard as this debate continues.
  Madam President, 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. PORTMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                  Career and Technical Education Month

  Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, I come to the floor today to talk about 
Career and Technical Education Month. The month of February has been 
set aside as Career and Technical Education Month. It is an opportunity 
for us to talk about something that is working very well in some of our 
States and is giving our young people amazing opportunities, and it 
should be expanded.
  Over the last 6 years, my home State of Ohio has come a long way. We 
have turned a record deficit into a billion-dollar rainy day fund. We 
have created lots of new jobs, but we also have a problem in Ohio and 
around the country, and that is a skills gap.
  If you go on the www.ohiomeansjobs.com Web site right now, I think 
you will see about 122,000 jobs being offered. In other words, these 
are companies saying: We are looking for people.
  At the same time, in Ohio today, we have about 280,000 people who are 
out of work. So how could that be, you ask? Well, if you look at the 
jobs and you look at what the descriptions are, many are jobs that 
require skills, and some of these skills are not available right now in 
the workforce. So you could get a lot of people put back to work just 
by developing these skills in Ohio.
  At the same time, this is happening around the country, and this 
skills gap--this mismatch between the skills that are in demand in a 
local economy and the skills of a worker--is something that can be 
dealt with with more aggressive career and technical education.
  Businesses want to invest more. They want to make better products, 
but they

[[Page S927]]

can't do so if they can't find the right people.
  By the way, when those skilled workers aren't available, often those 
jobs go somewhere else. So in the case of Ohio, some may go to other 
States--let's say Indiana--but some go to other countries--say India.
  So if you don't have the skilled workforce, you are not going to be 
able to keep the jobs that we want here in America because workers are 
such a critical part of making a business successful.
  The Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics says that the 
typical unemployed worker today has been unemployed for about 6 months. 
So we have this long-term unemployment again. The skills gap would help 
deal with that. There are 5.8 million Americans who are now stuck in 
part-time work who would want full-time work. So we have some 
challenges in our economy, and this skills training would really help.
  According to a survey from Deloitte, 98 of the 100 biggest privately 
held employers in my hometown of Cincinnati, OH--98 out of 100--say 
they are struggling to find qualified workers. There is a shortage of 
machinists--machine operators. We are a manufacturing State. There is 
also a shortage of other jobs, IT skills, health care skills. Companies 
want to hire, but they have a hard time finding workers with the right 
skills.

  By the way, it is not just in Cincinnati or in Ohio; it is across the 
country. There was a study done by the National Association of 
Manufacturers that found that three out of every four manufacturers say 
the skills gap is hurting their ability to expand and create more jobs. 
So as soon as this new Congress and new administration get to work, I 
think there is an opportunity for us to address this.
  One thing we have heard about from the administration and also from 
both sides of the aisle here is the need for more infrastructure. We 
have all heard about the funding for our crumbling roads and bridges, 
our water systems, our waste water systems. I think that is all true, 
but it is going to be tough to do it because we don't have the skilled 
workers to rebuild the infrastructure. I think there is an area of 
common ground that if we have skilled workers, we will be much more 
likely to rebuild that infrastructure.
  We had a conference on this issue a couple of weeks ago in Congress, 
and we brought people in from Ohio from the building trades. The point 
they made was: We would love to see this infrastructure expansion 
everybody is talking about. But who is going to do the work? We need 
more skills training, and we need to make sure that is there.
  Yesterday afternoon we confirmed the Secretary of Education, Betsy 
DeVos. One reason I voted for Betsy DeVos is that she talked about 
skills training. Her quote was that CTE, career technical education, is 
an ``important priority,'' and she agrees that we must do more to give 
our young people the job skills they need.
  Some people, when they hear about CTE, wonder what it is. For some in 
my generation, it is what was called vocational education, but I will 
tell you that it is not your father's Oldsmobile. It is really 
impressive to go to these CTE schools and see what they are doing and 
see the changes in the attitudes of the kids and their parents once 
they get into these programs.
  One of the challenges we have is getting kids to enroll in some of 
these CTE programs. Sometimes the parents say to their kids: That is 
not something you should do. You should get on track to go to college 
because that is the track we were on, and that is the track we were 
told was better. I will tell you that is a big mistake. Changing that 
attitude is really important to helping expand CTE because young people 
going into these CTE programs have an incredible opportunity. By the 
way, many of them do go on to college, 2- or 4-year institutions. Many 
of them also get a job out of high school, and, again, that job is very 
important to our employers keeping jobs and economic activity here in 
this country, but it is also a huge opportunity for them.
  I was at a CTE center a couple of years ago. We were sitting around 
the table talking to some of the employers who were there supporting 
the programs, some of the administrators, and, of course most 
importantly, some of the students who were from three local high 
schools who were all involved in this CTE program. Of the three young 
people who were there, two of them were going off to manufacturing jobs 
where they were going to be making 50 grand a year plus benefits, and 
the third was going into an IT position where, again, she was going to 
have a great opportunity.
  My question to the students was: Have you gone back to your high 
school and talked to your friends about this? They all indicated they 
were planning to do that because they had a great experience. They had 
great opportunities. By the way, one of them was interested in being an 
engineer. He was going to CTE and then going to get a job. He had a job 
lined up with a company he had interned for, but that same company was 
willing to send him to school to get a degree in engineering over the 
subsequent years.
  All three of them had college credits already because in Ohio 
students are allowed to get college credits from CTE courses, which 
makes it more likely that they will graduate but also more likely that 
they will be able to get to college and have college be more affordable 
by getting credits in advance. It is a terrific idea.
  There is a story that I heard about recently of a young woman in 
Ohio. Her name is Mackenzie Slicker from Massilon, OH. She will tell 
you that she was not doing very well in school. She was not hitting her 
marks, and she was not very excited about school. Then one day she saw 
there was an opportunity to get into a CTE course in sports medicine. 
She applied for it. The teacher looked at her scores in other classes 
and non-CTE classes, and said: I will take a chance on you, but I am 
concerned about you because your grades are so low. But she applied. 
She said she was embarrassed by those scores. The teacher let her in 
with the understanding that she would do a better job in her other 
classes. The CTE course gave her a totally new-found motivation to work 
hard and get good grades.
  I hear this again and again back home. These kids from CTE are 
excited. They not only stay in school--they are not dropouts--but they 
do better.
  In her senior year in high school she had a 4.0 after getting into 
the CTE program for sports medicine. She is studying at Miami 
University where she is on track for living out her dream of becoming 
an orthopedic surgeon. That is an example of how CTE really works.
  Senator Tim Kaine and I had this in mind when we started the Senate 
CTE Caucus. It is a caucus that started with just a couple of Members, 
and now it has a strong following. Senator Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin 
is among the leaders of that caucus, and she is on the floor today. 
This caucus not only has these conferences that bring people together 
to talk about issues, but we also put together legislation.
  Senator Kaine and I introduced legislation called Jumpstart Our 
Businesses by Supporting Students Act, or the JOBS Act. We tried hard 
to get that acronym, JOBS. We introduced it a couple weeks ago. It 
would let low-income people get Pell grants for job training programs. 
Under current law, financial aid for programs can be used for courses 
lasting 15 weeks or more, but a lot of the licensing programs and the 
job training programs are less than 15 weeks. In Ohio a lot of them are 
9 weeks. So we think this legislation will be helpful, giving young 
people options that they don't have now to be able to have this funding 
to be able to give them opportunities for a better start in their 
careers, getting them the licensing they need, the certificates they 
need, and putting them on the path to joining the middle class and the 
ability to get a job, but also to be able to buy that car, to be able 
to buy that home over time by having this opportunity to get skills 
training.
  Our legislation has been endorsed by education groups like the 
Association of Career and Technical Education, the National Skills 
Coalition, the National Council for Workforce Education, and many other 
groups. We appreciate their help, and we are going to get that 
legislation done.
  I hope colleagues from both sides of the aisle can join us to get 
that legislation enacted. It makes so much sense.

[[Page S928]]

  Senator Kaine and I are also planning to reintroduce another bill 
called Educating Tomorrow's Workforce Act, which improves the quality 
of our CTE programs by setting minimum standards for CTE programs that 
would ensure students are able to transfer their credits, be able to 
have their work graded today based on today's industry standards, and 
use equipment that is up to date. So basically it is legislation--and 
again I thank Senator Baldwin for her support--to help increase the 
quality of CTE education. In some of our States this is working 
incredibly well. Ohio is one of those cutting-edge States. We have to 
ensure that the standards are maintained and expanded everywhere and we 
continue to support reauthorization to strongly support our CTE 
programs.
  Just like the JOBS Act, this bill has been endorsed by a number of 
education experts and groups, and we appreciate their help, including 
the National Career Academy Coalition, the National Career Development 
Association, National Association of Secondary School Principals, and 
many more.
  In Ohio we have some great schools, whether it is Cleveland, OH--the 
Max Hayes High School does an awesome job. I was there for its opening, 
now about a year and a half ago, and they are doing a terrific job of 
working with the building trades, working with private industry, 
working with the high schools in the area, and developing skills that 
are badly needed in Northeast Ohio. Ohio also has some great health 
care CTE programs. I mentioned the young woman who found her motivation 
getting involved in CTE for sports medicine.
  Recently I went to Butler Tech to their health care campus, which is 
north of Cincinnati, and what they are doing there is amazing. You walk 
in and all the kids have on their white medical coats, and whether they 
are dental hygienists who are being trained or technologists or 
students who plan to go to medical school someday or those who are 
interested in getting a degree in nursing, there are some incredible 
sites. They have brought in outside partners, all from the area, who 
are involved with working with them. It is good for our kids but also 
really good for our community.
  Mr. President, if we pass this legislation that I am talking about 
today, if we continue to focus on career and technical education as we 
are supposed to do this month--CTE month, February--we are going to 
help many millions of our young people to be able to have better 
opportunities and, most importantly, we are going to be able to help 
our economy. We are going to help create more jobs and more 
opportunities in this country, to be able to close that skills gap, to 
put people back to work. It makes too much sense for us not to come 
together as Republicans and Democrats alike, and with the new 
administration, to promote career and technical education.
  With that I yield my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tillis). The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I rise today to support the nomination 
of Senator Jeff Sessions for Attorney General of the United States. He 
is a veteran and an outstanding public servant who has worked 
tirelessly for decades in service of his constituents in Alabama, in 
this body, as a U.S. attorney, as Attorney General of Alabama. He is a 
good colleague and a friend to many of us on both sides of the aisle. 
He is gracious with his time, his wisdom, his intelligence.
  In all nomination processes there is some twisting of facts that goes 
on and, unfortunately, even some character attacks, but the twisting of 
his record and the attacks on Senator Sessions, in my view, have been 
particularly egregious. That is why I was very saddened by what 
happened on the floor of the U.S. Senate last night.
  One of our colleagues violated rule XIX. Here is what rule XIX says: 
``No Senator in debate shall, directly or indirectly, by any form of 
words impute to another Senator or to other Senators any conduct or 
motive unworthy or unbecoming a Senator.''
  That is the rule. It has been in place for decades, and I don't think 
you need to be a Harvard law professor to realize that rule was 
violated last night.
  Mr. President, like you, I have been in the Senate for a couple of 
years. I certainly have tried very hard to work with my colleagues, all 
my colleagues across the aisle, Democrats, Republicans. I have respect 
for all of them. I have no problem whatsoever with Senators coming 
down, and in the last week or so, Senators coming down to the floor of 
the Senate to debate their views on nominees for Cabinet positions, up-
or-down votes on the merits and the qualifications of these nominees. 
That is what we should be doing. That is our job. We have seen a lot of 
that over the last several weeks.
  Like the Presiding Officer, in the last couple of years, I supported 
some of President Obama's Cabinet officials, was opposed to others, as 
is our job, on their merits and qualifications. We can do this in a 
respectful manner, especially here on the floor of the U.S. Senate. We 
can certainly do this in a way that does not violate rule XIX by 
imputing conduct and motives unbecoming of a U.S. Senator. More 
importantly, we can do this in a way that is respectful of each 
other. For the sake of the Senate and for the country, I hope we can 
get back to that tradition that is so important to this body.

  Let me try to set the record straight on Senator Sessions, the 
Senator Jeff Sessions I know. I have gotten to know him over the last 2 
years. He certainly has a long, distinguished history of public 
service. Nobody in this body is denying that. Everybody in this body 
knows Senator Sessions well, knows that he is a man of integrity, a man 
of principle. He will support the laws of the land, and he will be a 
fierce advocate for the rule of law and defending the Constitution.
  I wish to spend a few minutes on the broader issue of what is 
happening on the Senate floor right now. We are not getting a lot of 
press on it, but it is the unprecedented obstruction that is happening 
with regard to President Trump's Cabinet. Because of this obstruction--
unfortunately, by my colleagues--more than 2 weeks into President 
Trump's term, he has fewer Cabinet Secretaries confirmed at this point 
than any other incoming President since George Washington. That is some 
pretty serious obstruction. Nineteen days into his term as President of 
the United States, President Obama had 21 Cabinet Members confirmed. 
Right now, President Trump has seven. President Obama had three times 
the numbers we now have today.
  I believe most Americans--certainly the Americans I represent, 
fairminded Alaskans who are desperate to get our country and our 
economy working again--don't like this kind of obstruction. They see a 
new President who should be allowed to move forward with his Cabinet in 
place so the Federal Government can get to work on behalf of the 
American people. I think Americans are also seeing the reputation of 
good people who want to serve their country tarnished for political 
purposes.
  I hope the Members on the other side of the aisle understand that the 
American people are wise. They see through all this theater. We need to 
get to work. We need to let the Trump administration get to work.
  This body has a responsibility to treat the confirmation process with 
the same courtesy, seriousness, and focus the Senate gave to President 
Obama when he came into office, and that has not happened right now. It 
is not happening right now, and we need to move forward on that.


                  Visit By The Prime Minister of Japan

  Mr. President, we are on the eve right now of a very important visit 
of a very important ally. Prime Minister Abe of Japan will be visiting 
the United States here in the next day. He is going to be visiting with 
some Members of the Senate, visiting with President Trump and his team.
  I wish to make a few points on how important this visit is, not only 
for the United States-Japan relationship, but the importance of our 
allies. We are an ally-rich nation. When you look around the world, you 
look at the broad number of allies the United States has, and then you 
look at our adversaries or potential adversaries who are ally-poor. 
This is one of the most important strategic advantages the United 
States has right now in the world, to keep Americans safe and our 
allies safe. We are an ally-rich nation and our adversaries and our 
potential adversaries are ally-poor.
  For over 7 years, since the end of World War II, both the executive

[[Page S929]]

branch and this body and the House of Representatives have worked hard 
on this to build a system of allies all around the world to keep our 
country safe and our allies safe.
  In his inaugural address, I was pleased to see that President Trump 
talked about reinforcing old alliances and forming new ones. That is 
exactly what we need to do as the United States of America. In terms of 
our allies and the importance of different regions, there is no more 
important ally than Japan. There are no more important foreign policy 
and national security challenges that exist in the world than what is 
happening in the Asia-Pacific with the rise of China and the security 
and economic challenges but also opportunities in that part of the 
world.
  I urge all of my colleagues to warmly welcome the Prime Minister of 
Japan and his team and to help focus on making sure that as we move 
forward with a new administration, we are working together with them, 
we are encouraging them. As the Senate, we are very focused on this 
issue of deepening our existing allies and alliances and broadening the 
opportunities to create more.
  The Senate plays a very important role in this regard. In terms of 
being able to keep American citizens safe, there is nothing more 
important than making sure we focus on our allies and, in particular, 
give a warm welcome to the Prime Minister of Japan this week.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I wish to start by responding to my 
new colleague.
  I respect my colleague. We have worked together on many issues, the 
Senator from Alaska and I. I think he would agree it is very important 
that the American people, the public, have a thorough review of 
candidates for a position in public office who are going to have 
incredible influence over all aspects of their lives. That is why it is 
so important we undertake this process. It is a fact that many of the 
nominees put forward by President Trump had massive conflict-of-
interest issues that need to be resolved. Many of them remain 
unresolved. Many of them are still not proceeding through committees 
because either their ethics report information has not been provided 
yet or they haven't passed other clearances.
  So it is absolutely fitting that we in the Senate do our job to make 
sure the people who are placed in these positions of high office are 
thoroughly vetted.
  I also wish to take a moment to respond to the statements regarding 
my good colleague, the Senator from Massachusetts, Elizabeth Warren.
  Last night she was reading from a letter presented by Coretta Scott 
King at the time of the 1986 hearings on the judicial appointment of 
Senator Sessions. At the time he was a nominee to fill the vacancy.
  As a new Member of the Senate, it is difficult to understand how 
reading that letter--I have a copy of that letter right here--could be 
a violation of the Senate rules, but I assume we will all have time to 
investigate that question. I will say that the result has been a lot 
more people around the country have had an opportunity to read that 
important letter from Coretta Scott King.
  Obviously, we are gathered here as we consider the nomination for 
Attorney General. President Thomas Jefferson wrote: ``The most sacred 
of the duties of government [is] to do equal and impartial justice to 
all its citizens.'' This is the job of the Department of Justice, and I 
think it is worth reviewing the mandate and purpose of the Department 
of Justice to determine whether Senator Sessions is the right person 
for this special and unique position in the U.S. Government.
  The Judiciary Act of 1789, the same act in which the first Congress 
created the Federal judiciary, Congress also created the Office of the 
Attorney General. In years thereafter, Congress empowered the Justice 
Department to handle all criminal and civil suits in which the United 
States has an interest. The Department is the largest law office in the 
world and the chief enforcer of our Nation's laws. The Attorney General 
has to be the people's lawyer. Upon taking the office, the Attorney 
General swears an oath to ``protect and defend the Constitution of the 
United States.'' More than almost any other officer of the U.S. 
Government, it is the job of the Attorney General to protect and carry 
out the Constitution's plan of defending the rights and privileges of 
those who most need that protection. There is a Latin motto on the seal 
of the Department of Justice. It refers to the Attorney General as the 
one ``who prosecutes on behalf of justice.'' In the paneling above the 
door of the anteroom outside of the Attorney General's office are 
inscribed the words: ``United States wins its point whenever justice is 
done its citizens in the courts.''
  As former Attorney General Loretta Lynch said after taking the oath 
of office, the employees of the Department of Justice are ``the ones 
who make real the promise of justice and redress for all Americans.'' 
She said they ``continue the core work of our mission--the protection 
of the American people.''
  She said: ``The challenge in that--for you, for me, for all of us 
that love this Department and love the law--is to use the law to that 
end. To not just represent the law and enforce it, but use it to make 
real the promise of America, the promise of fairness and equality, of 
`liberty and justice for all.'''
  I think we all recognize--and I see we have been joined by many of 
our colleagues from the other side of the Capitol from the House of 
Representatives. It is great to see them here as part of this historic 
debate. I see the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. 
Conyers, as well as many other colleagues because they know this is an 
important moment.
  Just as Loretta Lynch described the importance of the Office of 
Attorney General, we all have to take heed because I think all of us 
recognize that the story of America, the story of our country has been 
the story of working to live up to that original promise. It has been a 
long journey, and there have been a lot of broken promises along the 
way, and it is an unfinished journey. We know there has been a lot of 
blood and tears shed in order to try to make good on the ideas of equal 
justice and equal opportunity, of equal rights. We have come a long 
way--there is no denying that--but we also know we have a long way to 
go to meet that full promise.
  The role of the Justice Department is to be a fighter for living up 
to that purpose, for living up to that promise, to be the champion of 
the people, to be the defender of those who are too often undefended, 
to be a fighter for those who do not have an advocate, to be the voice 
for people who do not have high-priced and high-powered lobbyists. They 
need to be the advocate for everybody, the Attorney General--someone to 
whom those who are feeling like they are getting an unfair shake can 
turn. It has to be a refuge for those who have been victimized by the 
powerful, someone who can speak for all of the American people.
  To fulfill this responsibility, the Attorney General overseas over 
114,000 employees, 60 agencies, from the Antitrust Division, the Office 
of Privacy and Civil Liberties, to the U.S. attorneys, and the Office 
on Violence Against Women Act.
  The Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, created in 1957, 
works to uphold the civil and constitutional rights of all Americans, 
particularly the most vulnerable in our society. The division is 
charged with enforcing Federal statutes, prohibiting discrimination on 
the basis of race, color, sex, disability, religion, familial status, 
and national origin.
  The Justice Department's Disability Rights Section works to achieve 
equal opportunity for people with disabilities by implementing the 
Americans with Disabilities Act. Forty-nine million Americans with 
disabilities rely on the Attorney General to protect their rights. The 
Justice Department's Executive Office for Immigration Review 
adjudicates immigration cases by fairly, expeditiously, and uniformly 
interpreting and administrating the Nation's immigration laws. That is 
their charge. Under the supervision of the Attorney General, the office 
conducts immigration court proceedings, appellate reviews, and 
administrative hearings that determine the fate of millions of people--
and we have seen just how important that is in the last few weeks.
  The Justice Department's voting section enforces Federal laws that 
protect

[[Page S930]]

Americans' right to vote, including the Voting Rights Act, the 
Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, the National Voter 
Registration Act, the Help America Vote Act, and the Civil Rights Act. 
That is their charge.
  The Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel provides legal 
advice to the President and the executive branch. They are supposed to 
give their best legal advice and call the balls and strikes without 
political shadowing. The office reviews for legality all Executive 
orders and proclamations proposed to be issued by the President of the 
United States.
  The Justice Department has played a vital role in advancing the 
promise of America. You just have to look historically to how it was 
not just a passive actor but made sure they did their job to be a 
fighter for people who were disenfranchised.
  In 1957, in Little Rock, AR, the Justice Department helped to force 
the Governor of Arkansas to allow African-American children to attend 
an all-White Central High School. That was a Justice Department action 
under President Eisenhower.
  In the years since the Supreme Court's 1999 decision in Olmstead v. 
L.C., the Justice Department has fought to implement the goal of 
integration under the Americans with Disabilities Act to provide people 
with disabilities the opportunity to live their lives to their full 
God-given potential.
  In 2013, in Atlanta, GA, a Justice Department investigation and 
prosecution in response to the beating of a 20-year-old gay Atlanta man 
resulted in the first conviction in Georgia under the sexual 
orientation provision of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate 
Crimes Prevention Act.
  Again, the Justice Department is not a passive actor, enforcing the 
laws of the United States in order to advance equal justice in the 
United States of America.
  This is a really important legacy to uphold, and the question is, Is 
Senator Sessions the right person to uphold that legacy?
  Senator Sessions has represented the State of Alabama in the Senate 
for 20 years. He has served as the ranking Republican member of the 
Budget Committee, among other responsibilities here in the Senate. 
There may be many other positions in the executive branch for which 
that experience would provide an appropriate fit, but the role of the 
Attorney General is different. As I have said, this is a sacred duty 
and somebody in this position has to have a record not just of an 
understanding of the law but a willingness to make sure that we 
implement the law for all the American people.
  I regret that as I examine the history of Senator Sessions' 
statements and actions, I do not believe that he is well suited for the 
position of Attorney General. Nothing in his history or record 
indicates that he will be a fighter for those who are less powerful and 
those who have been left out. Nothing indicates that he will be a 
fighter for people of color, people with disabilities, or people in the 
LGBT community. Nothing in his record suggests that he will be that 
warrior for justice that we need in our Attorney General.
  To the contrary, time and again, Senator Sessions has taken positions 
that vary with those important traditions in our jurisprudence and in 
our law and, indeed, are contrary, in many instances, to the very 
mission of the Justice Department.
  Many years ago, back in 1986, I was on the floor of this Senate in a 
very different capacity. At that time, I was the legislative assistant 
for national security and defense policy to a Maryland Republican 
Senator by the name of Mac Mathias--a very independent Maryland 
Republican Senator, a liberal Republican and a real statesman. Senator 
Mathias was on the Judiciary Committee at the time. Strom Thurmond, the 
Senator from South Carolina, was the chairman. In fact, Mac Mathias 
probably should have been the chairman, but because of his independent 
streak, the Republican caucus at that time worked really hard to make 
sure that Senator Thurmond moved from being chairman of the Armed 
Services Committee to exercise his seniority on the Senate Judiciary 
Committee to become chairman so that Mac Mathias could not assume that 
position.
  Senator Mathias was somebody who always looked at the facts and 
called the balls and strikes as he saw them--a good role model for me, 
a good role model for everyone. I wasn't ever thinking--it was the last 
thing on my mind--of running for office at that time, but as I look 
back, he was a good role model for a U.S. Senator.
  As I said, he was on the Senate Judiciary Committee at the time. He 
was on the Senate Judiciary Committee during the time of the hearings 
when now Senator Sessions, then U.S. Attorney Sessions, was up for his 
nomination for a Federal judgeship. Senator Mathias listened very 
carefully to the testimony. Senator Mathias, I am sure, would have read 
the letter from Coretta Scott King. He always did his homework. He 
always read everything and listened to everybody. After hearing all of 
the testimony, Senator Mathias--and, again, the Republicans were the 
majority in the Senate then, as they are today--and Senator Specter 
from Pennsylvania, another Republican Member, cast their votes in 
opposition to the nomination of then Attorney Sessions for a Federal 
judgeship.
  As I review the materials since that time--since the time that 
Senator Mathias cast that vote exercising his independence as a 
Republican Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee--I find that we 
have received very little assurances that there has been a change in 
the desire of Senator Sessions to be that advocate--that advocate--for 
justice, because all of these many years later, we are now hearing from 
those who have taken the time to update his record.
  I have with me now a letter that many of us received--and I have 
received many letters, as have my colleagues--from the Leadership 
Conference on Civil and Human Rights. The letter reads:

       In our democracy, the Attorney General is charged with 
     enforcing our Nation's laws without prejudice and with an eye 
     towards justice. And just as important, the Attorney General 
     has to be seen by the public--every member of the public from 
     every community--as a fair arbiter of justice.

  They conclude:

       Unfortunately, there is little in Senator Sessions' record 
     that demonstrates that he would meet such a standard.

  They say that his 30-year record of racial insensitivity, bias 
against immigrants, and hostility to the protection of civil rights are 
among the reasons that they oppose his nomination.
  The NAACP reached another and a similar conclusion, strongly urging 
the Senate to vote no on Jeff Sessions' nomination for Attorney 
General.
  The letter reads, in part:

       The Justice Department is a crucial enforcer of civil 
     rights laws and adviser to the President and Congress on what 
     can and should be done if those laws are threatened. Given 
     the disregard for issues which protect the rights and, in 
     some cases, the lives of our constituents, there is no way 
     the NAACP can be expected to sit by and support Senator 
     Sessions' nomination to support the U.S. Department of 
     Justice.

  Another letter from the National Task Force to End Sexual and 
Domestic Violence reads, in part:

       The leadership organizations and individuals advocating on 
     behalf of victims of sexual assault, domestic violence, 
     dating violence, and stalking write to express our opposition 
     to Senator Jeff Sessions' nomination for Attorney General of 
     the United States of America. We have arrived at this 
     position based upon a review of his record as a State and 
     Federal prosecutor, during which he applied the law unevenly, 
     and as a U.S. Senator, during which he supported laws that 
     would afford only some members of our society equal 
     protection under the law.

  There is another opinion letter from the Religious Action Center of 
Reform Judaism, which has spent a lot of their time and energy over 
decades focused on civil rights issues. I quote from their letter of 
January 12, 2017:

       The pursuit of civil rights has been the core of the reform 
     Jewish movement social justice work for over 50 years. Guided 
     by the fundamental principle that all people are created 
     equal in the divine image and words of Leviticus, 19:18, love 
     your neighbor as yourself, we have worked to pass landmark 
     legislation that advances fundamental rights of all people, 
     regardless of race, class, sex, gender identity, sexual 
     orientation, or national origin. As the chief law enforcement 
     officer in the country, the Attorney General has substantial 
     power over the administration of these policies.

  They go on to write:

       Senator Sessions' longstanding record of insufficient 
     commitment to voting rights, to LGBTQ equality, women's 
     rights, immigration reform, and religious freedom causes us

[[Page S931]]

     to believe that he would stand in the way of the Justice 
     Department's mandate to ensure equal protection under the 
     law.

  There are many other letters like this one from people who took a 
thorough review of the record of the President's nominee to be Attorney 
General.
  I would like to discuss something that has received a little bit less 
attention regarding Senator Sessions' record, and that is what I 
believe and what those who pay close attention to these issues believe 
has been a poor record in support for individuals with disabilities. 
This is especially important given the debate we had just the other day 
on the nomination of Mrs. DeVos to be the Secretary of Education, 
because she indicated in her testimony before the HELP Committee that 
she thought that it was a State obligation, not a Federal obligation, 
to enforce the IDEA law--the Individuals with Disabilities Education 
Act. So we should take a little time to look at the record of Senator 
Sessions with respect to the rights of people with disabilities.
  One such occasion was a big moment on the floor of this Senate. It is 
when the Senate considered the ratification of the Convention on the 
Rights of Persons with Disabilities, a treaty that had been negotiated 
under President George W. Bush and later signed by President Obama. 
Although I was serving in the House of Representatives at the time, I 
got lots of urgent calls and letters from constituents and friends in 
the disability community about the importance of the United States 
ratifying that convention. But in his remarks on the floor of the 
Senate, Senator Sessions not only opposed it, but he called the 
convention on the rights of persons with disabilities ``dangerous.''
  There have been few moments on this floor where Senators were more 
eloquent about that convention than former Senator and former 
presidential nominee Bob Dole, who appeared on the floor at the time, 
and who is no longer a Senator. He did in committee testify in favor of 
ratification of the convention that was before the Senate. He recalled 
during his testimony his maiden speech, the very first speech here in 
the U.S. Senate of Senator Dole. His first speech occurred on April 14, 
1969. It was the anniversary of the day he was wounded in World War II. 
He delivered his maiden speech on persons with disabilities, about the 
importance of protecting and ensuring the rights of people with 
disabilities. He, as we know, was disabled in action fighting for our 
country.

  In his testimony to the committee in 2012 on the convention, he said:

       It was an exceptional group I joined during World War II, 
     which no one joins by personal choice. It is a group that 
     neither respects nor discriminates by age, sex, wealth, 
     education, skin color, religious beliefs, political party, 
     power, or prestige. That group, Americans with disabilities, 
     has grown in size ever since. So, therefore, has the 
     importance of maintaining access for people with disabilities 
     to mainstream American life, whether it's access to a job, an 
     education, or registering to vote.

  Those were words of Senator Dole urging the Senate to ratify that 
convention. He went on to point out U.S. leadership on advancing the 
rights of persons with disabilities, particularly with the Americans 
with Disabilities Act. He pointed out that current U.S. laws in place 
in 2012 were already enough to make sure the United States satisfies 
its obligations to the international Convention on the Rights of 
Persons with Disabilities. Joining the treaty, Senator Dole said, would 
``reaffirm the common goals of equality, access, and inclusion for 
Americans with disabilities--both when those affected are in the United 
States and outside of our country's borders.''
  Senator Dole believed so powerfully in the importance of this treaty 
that, as I indicated earlier, he came to the floor of this Senate many, 
many years after he served here and hoped that his presence on the 
floor of the Senate would convince his Republican colleagues--and all 
his colleagues--to support that convention. Unfortunately, when the 
vote came down, it failed in getting the higher level of votes 
necessary for ratification by only 5 votes. One of those votes was that 
of Senator Sessions who, as I indicated, said that this convention on 
disabilities was ``dangerous.'' He rejected an international treaty 
that had been signed and supported by both Republican and Democratic 
Presidents, negotiated by President Bush and signed by President Obama. 
It imposed no additional obligations on the United States. It just said 
that we stand with others in the international community to support the 
billions of people around the globe who have a disability.
  On that issue, Senator Sessions stood against nearly every veterans 
organization in our country. He stood against a broad coalition of 
disability rights groups, including the Alabama Disabilities Advocacy 
Program. He advanced a theory that somehow U.S. sovereignty would be 
called into question. Yet, as then-Senator Dick Lugar, the Republican 
chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, pointed out, the 
United States had already satisfied its obligations and to make that 
clear, the declaration in the resolution of advice and consent stated 
simply at the time: ``The Senate declares that, in the view of the 
reservations to be included in the instrument of ratification, current 
United States law fulfills or exceeds the obligations of the Convention 
for the United States of America.''
  Despite the presence of Senator Dole on the floor and the support of 
the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Lugar, 
Senator Sessions opposed that.
  If that were the only incident where Senator Sessions failed to 
uphold the rights of people with disabilities--maybe, maybe, maybe--I 
am not sure it would be understandable. But it is not the only 
incident. Senator Sessions also made deeply concerning comments about 
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA, which we have 
heard so much about in the last couple of days during the debate on the 
nomination of Mrs. DeVos. Senator Sessions referred to the IDEA, or 
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, as perhaps ``the single 
most irritating problem for teachers throughout America today'' and ``a 
big factor in accelerating the decline of civility and discipline in 
classrooms all over America.'' The most irritating problem was our 
national commitment to try to make sure that every child--every child, 
regardless of disability--had a chance to achieve his or her full God-
given potential. That was apparently irritating.
  Senator Sessions claimed that ``special treatment for certain 
children'' created a distraction in the classroom. Special treatment. 
That is not what IDEA is about. The idea of IDEA legislation was to 
make sure all kids could get an appropriate and decent education. It 
wasn't there to give kids with disabilities some kind of advantage, 
just a chance, along with the other kids.
  As to the so-called issue of special treatment, ``special treatment'' 
is a concerning trend in many of Senator Sessions' statements--not just 
with respect to individuals with disabilities, but in many other cases. 
In far too many circumstances, he appears to conflate steps to protect 
the rights of a minority or disadvantaged group that has historically 
faced persecution or discrimination as somehow an effort to give that 
group an elevated status over everybody else instead of just an equal 
chance with everybody else. The idea that the IDEA legislation to help 
kids with disabilities get an education in school was somehow a big 
advantage to them over other kids without disabilities is a striking 
and revealing statement, and it is one that carries through and on to 
other circumstances.
  I am concerned that Senator Sessions fails to recognize that there 
are communities in this Nation that truly have been subjected to 
discrimination and that are disproportionately affected by certain 
policies and need sustained civil rights protections--not to give them 
an elevated status, but simply to give them an even playing field with 
everybody else.

  It is the job of the Attorney General of the United States to make 
sure all of our citizens are treated equally under the law. The notion 
that somehow protecting the rights of groups that have been 
historically discriminated against is a bad thing and gives them an 
advantage doesn't conform to the reality of our country. I think we all 
know that.
  This same issue came up with respect to Senator Sessions' position on 
the Matthew Shepard hate crimes bill. He called it a ``special 
protection'' for

[[Page S932]]

LGBT individuals rather than an acknowledgement that these individuals 
had been historically discriminated against and put at risk of greater 
violence. He criticized Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotamayor for her 
decision that disenfranchising felons violated the Voting Rights Act, 
saying that her analysis that the policy had a disproportionate impact 
on African Americans was somehow ``a bridge too far.''
  I am sure that if Mrs. Coretta Scott King were here today, she would 
say that we need to continue to travel along our journey toward meeting 
our promise of equal rights, equal justice, and equal opportunity, and 
ensuring justice for groups that have been discriminated against 
historically--whether on racial grounds or on grounds of gender or of 
on sexual orientation. That is not somehow to give them an advantage 
but to recognize that they have faced historic discrimination, and to 
provide them with a chance.
  Just yesterday in Maryland, following the efforts of my good friend 
and our State attorney general Brian Frosh, a Maryland court overhauled 
the cash bail system in our State. I think all of us who have seen the 
way the criminal justice system operates know that far too often cash 
bail ends up criminalizing poverty. According to the Pretrial Justice 
Institute, ``47 percent of felony defendants with financial bonds can't 
pay and stay in jail until their case is heard.'' In other words, they 
simply can't afford to make bail, and so they stay in jail, sometimes 
for years. Not only is it costly to hold people for an extended period 
of time prior to trial, but we know it has sometimes incentivized 
people--people who were innocent of the crimes they were charged with--
to strike plea deals simply because they can't afford to pay the bail 
and they can't afford to spend months or years away from their homes or 
families.
  Like many people in organizations, I have looked at Senator Sessions 
record with respect to the issue of criminal justice reform, and it is 
lacking in the need to find a bipartisan solution to what is recognized 
across party lines as an important effort that we need to make--
criminal justice reform--because we know we have too many people who 
are currently locked up for nonviolent offenses, including many 
substance abuse offenses.
  It makes no sense within our system to have the kind of mass 
incarceration we have seen in our country, where we have 5 percent of 
the world's population but 25 percent of the world's prison population. 
There is a bipartisan recognition that justice demands we change that. 
Unfortunately, I have not seen that recognition in the record of 
Senator Sessions.
  In remarks on the Senate floor in 2002, Senator Sessions also 
criticized a Supreme Court ruling about the execution of people with 
intellectual disabilities. The Court found that people who had 
incredibly diminished intellectual capacity should not be executed--
that it violated the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual 
punishment because these are individuals who could not form a capacity, 
an intent--and that we should not execute people who did not form that 
criminal intent, the mens rea. That was an advance in our Federal 
jurisprudence, yet that was severely criticized by Senator Sessions. So 
that statement, along with his position on IDEA and his opposition to 
the convention on peoples with disabilities raises many, many troubling 
questions regarding his willingness to protect individuals who need 
protection.
  We also recognize that the Attorney General has to be somebody who is 
independent, who is willing to stand up to a President if a President 
is calling upon the Justice Department to take an unlawful action or an 
action inappropriate or inconsistent with the interests of justice.
  In 1904, in a letter to the Attorney General, President Theodore 
Roosevelt said:

       Of all the officers of the Government, those of the 
     Department of Justice should be kept most free from any 
     suspicion of improper action on partisan or factional 
     grounds, so there shall be gradually a growth, even though a 
     slow growth, in the knowledge that . . . the representatives 
     of the Federal Department of Justice insist on meting out 
     even-handed justice to all.

  Senator Sessions himself made the point when he questioned then-
nominee Sally Yates about her responsibilities in the Justice 
Department of President Obama. Senator Sessions told Ms. Yates:

       You have to watch out because people will be asking you to 
     do things and you need to say no. You think the attorney 
     general has the responsibility to say ``no'' to the President 
     if he asks for something that's improper? A lot of people 
     have defended the Lynch nomination, for example, by saying, 
     ``Well, he appoints somebody who's is going to execute his 
     views. What's wrong with that?'' But if the views the 
     President wants to execute are unlawful, should the attorney 
     general or the deputy attorney general say no?

  That was the question posed by Senator Sessions.
  Ms. Yates answered:

       Senator, I believe the attorney general or the deputy 
     attorney general has an obligation to follow the law and the 
     Constitution and to give their independent legal advice to 
     the President.

  That is exactly what she did. That is exactly what Deputy Attorney 
General Yates did just a few days ago when President Trump asked her to 
take an action which in her opinion was inconsistent with the laws of 
the United States. She did what Senator Sessions asked her to do at 
that hearing, and she was fired.
  Let's look at the record of Senator Sessions' willingness to stand up 
in an independent way to some of the outrageous statements that have 
been made by President Trump.
  After the terrorist attack in San Bernadino, CA, Mr. Trump called for 
a ``total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States 
until our country's representatives can figure out what . . . is going 
on.''
  He went on to reiterate his plans for a Muslim ban in a March 2016 
CNN interview and a later speech. What did Senator Sessions do at that 
important moment? At that time, Senator Sessions was an early supporter 
of not only Mr. Trump but his call for a Muslim ban. Just days after 
Candidate Trump first made his Muslim ban proposal, Senator Sessions 
told Steve Bannon on Breitbart's radio program:

       We're in an age that's very dangerous and we're seeing more 
     and more persons enter. And a lot of them have done terrorist 
     acts and a lot of them believe it's commanded by their 
     religion. So I think it's appropriate to begin to discuss 
     this [Muslim ban].

  We all want the greatest security for our country. We all want to 
make sure bad people don't get here. But I think we also understand as 
Americans that a religious test violates the principles of our Nation.
  Senator Leahy pointed out at Senator Sessions' confirmation hearing 
that Senator Sessions opposed a resolution saying the United States 
should not use religious tests for immigration into the country, that 
they were antithetical to our founding principles. Nevertheless, when 
it was time to be counted and stand up, Senator Sessions did not do 
that.
  More recently, we heard President Trump criticize the Washington 
State judge--and I see our leader, my friend Senator Murray, on the 
floor. He criticized the decision of a Federal district judge, and he 
did it, as we know, in a dismissive way, tweeting that he was a ``so-
called judge.'' That is another moment when--whether you support 
President Trump and his campaign or you support his actions as 
President, it is a moment when, if you are going to being the chief law 
enforcement leader in the country, you say: Mr. President, really, that 
is not an appropriate thing to say.
  Senator Sessions had another opportunity to challenge then-Candidate 
Trump on an earlier occasion when Candidate Trump criticized the judge 
who made a ruling against him in the Trump University case and 
criticized him on the grounds of his heritage. That was an opportunity 
when others in this country, even people who were supporting Candidate 
Trump, said: You know what, that is out of line. That is out of bounds.
  We did not hear from Senator Sessions. Maybe Senator Sessions was 
being looked at for another executive agency where that question was 
less important, where maybe it wouldn't carry so much weight. But for 
the Attorney General of the United States, we need somebody there who 
is going to be independent, somebody who is going to be willing to 
challenge the President of the United States when he

[[Page S933]]

suggests unlawful actions or makes statements that are inconsistent 
with the system of justice.
  Finally, on the issue of voter fraud, I think all of us have heard 
from President Trump about his claim that he really won the popular 
vote. We shouldn't even be here talking about it, but he keeps talking 
about it. He claims that he really won the popular vote, that it was 
these 3 million people who cast fraudulent ballots--zero evidence, no 
evidence, and yet when Senator Franken asked Senator Sessions about 
these claims of voter fraud, these unsubstantiated claims of massive 
voter fraud, Senator Sessions didn't take the opportunity to say: You 
know what, I support President Trump, but he is out of line; he is 
wrong to make these outrageous claims. He didn't say that. In fact, 
President Trump at one point was talking about having the Justice 
Department or the FBI look into this very question.
  I am not satisfied at all that Senator Sessions would meet his own 
test--the test he presented to Sally Yates when she was up for her 
nomination for Deputy Attorney General about whether she would stand up 
to what she considered an unlawful order by the President of the United 
States. She did. She was fired. There is no evidence that Senator 
Sessions would stand up under those circumstances, and we need an 
Attorney General who will stand up for the law and for equal justice 
and for every American.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota
  Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, I rise today regarding the upcoming 
confirmation on Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama to be Attorney General 
of the United States. For the past 3 years, I have had the great 
pleasure of working with Senator Sessions in this body. We served 
together on both the Senate Armed Services and Environment and Public 
Works Committees. Within those committees, as well as on other issues 
that have come before the Senate during that same time period, I have 
found that Senator Sessions is extremely forthright, hard-working, and 
Senator Sessions is honest. He has served Alabamans and all Americans 
well during his 20 years in the U.S. Senate.
  In addition to serving on the Armed Services and EPW Committees, he 
also serves on the Senate Judiciary and Budget Committees, all of which 
address vital aspects of our Federal system.
  Senator Sessions also had a distinguished career before he was 
elected the U.S. Senator from Alabama. After graduating from the 
University of Alabama with a law degree, Senator Sessions practiced law 
in Russellville and Mobile, AL. In 1975, he took the oath to defend the 
Constitution of the United States as an assistant U.S. attorney--the 
first step in a long and honorable career as a prosecutor. In 1981, 
Senator Sessions was nominated by President Reagan and confirmed by the 
U.S. Senate as the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama. 
He served honorably in that role for 12 years. Senator Sessions was 
then elected Alabama attorney general and served in that role until his 
election to the U.S. Senate.
  It is clear to me that Senator Sessions is exceptionally and perhaps 
uniquely qualified to serve as the Attorney General for the United 
States. He served as a line prosecutor and, as U.S. attorney and 
Alabama attorney general, as the chief Federal and State law 
enforcement authority. He has personally handled or managed a wide 
variety of cases--criminal and civil, trial and appellate. Senator 
Sessions also has extensive experience in the Federal system and, as a 
former State attorney general, a deep respect for State and local law 
enforcement and the role of States in our Federal system.
  There is an attribute even more important than experience, in my 
opinion, and that is integrity. Over the course of his career, Senator 
Sessions has demonstrated a deep respect for the Constitution and the 
rule of law, and ultimately, I believe that is what is most important 
in an Attorney General of the United States.
  In 1935, the U.S. Supreme Court wrote this about the role of a U.S. 
attorney, and I think it applies similarly to the Attorney General:

       A federal prosecutor ``is the representative not of an 
     ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose 
     obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its 
     obligation to govern at all and whose interest, therefore, in 
     a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but 
     that justice be done.''

  The Supreme Court continued:

       [A]s such, he is in a peculiar and very definite sense the 
     servant of the law, the twofold aim of which is that guilt 
     shall not escape or innocence suffer.

  I support Senator Sessions as Attorney General of the United States 
not only because his experience makes him qualified to serve but more 
importantly because his character makes him qualified to serve. Senator 
Sessions will, in the words of the Supreme Court, be a certain 
``servant of the law'' and will make certain that justice is done for 
all Americans.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cotton). The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I stand here today to give a voice to the 
thousands of people who have contacted me in recent weeks urging me to 
vote no on this nomination. First, I need to express my frustration and 
outrage about what happened here on the floor last night.
  In the middle of a debate about the next Attorney General--someone 
whose job it will be to defend the rights of all Americans; whose job 
it is to defend people from discrimination, inequity, and unfairness; 
whose job it is to defend women, to defend people of color, to defend 
all those who are too often told to sit down, stand down, be quiet--we 
saw the Republican leader selectively use the rules to silence our 
colleague, a woman Senator, who was reading the words of an African-
American woman and a historic civil rights leader, reading the words of 
someone who embodies the fight for justice, for freedom, for equality, 
and for civil rights in America; someone who all of us should be 
looking to for lessons in these times, not someone whose words should 
be silenced because she said something people may not enjoy hearing.

  At a moment when we are engaged in a debate about how best to defend 
our fellow citizens from discrimination and fight back against forces 
that seek to demean others in order to gain power, I was stunned. I 
respect the decorum that the Senate strives to maintain, but there are 
times when you cannot stay silent. This is one of those times. We will 
not be silent.
  So I want to say that I stand with my friend, the Senator from 
Massachusetts. I stand with the words of the late Coretta Scott King, 
and I stand with the many people who have contacted me about this 
nominee that we are debating here today. I can tell you that the day 
President Trump announced he had picked Senator Jeff Sessions to lead 
the Department of Justice, the phones in my office lit up. People from 
across my home State of Washington contacted my office to express their 
shock, their outrage, and their fear.
  The calls came from people who help LGBTQ youth experiencing 
homelessness; groups who have tirelessly advocated for necessary 
criminal justice reform; families caught in a broken immigration 
system; civil rights advocates and community leaders who have fought 
for decades to create a more just society; advocates and nonprofits 
trying to help women escape domestic violence. The list goes on.
  That was in November. And in the weeks and months since the President 
made his choice for Attorney General known, those concerns have not 
died down. In fact, they have only gotten louder and more urgent as the 
public gets a better look at Senator Sessions' long record, what he 
stands for, and where he wants to take this country. I share their 
concerns.
  It is why I will oppose Senator Sessions' nomination to be Attorney 
General. I urge my colleagues to join me to reject this nomination, and 
send a message to the new President about the rule of law in this 
country. Send a message to the new President, who came into office 
showing blatant disregard for our traditions of transparency, 
traditions that tell us the President has a duty to put the needs of 
the American people before the needs of his bank account. Send a 
message to someone who, just weeks into his term, has displayed 
shocking disdain for the U.S. Constitution and the separation of 
powers, the

[[Page S934]]

same President who fired an Acting Attorney General because she refused 
to ignore the law, to approve his hateful and unconstitutional 
Executive order barring refugees; the same President who ridiculed a 
well-respected Federal judge in Seattle, a George W. Bush appointee, 
because the judge didn't rule the way he wanted.
  The U.S. Attorney General is often the last line of defense for our 
Constitution within an administration. And they need to be the first to 
stand up to our President when our President is wrong.
  Senator Jeff Sessions is not that kind of nominee. The people of this 
country expect and deserve an Attorney General who will protect their 
civil and constitutional rights and liberties. They deserve someone 
committed to the principles of inclusiveness and justice--someone who 
will fiercely defend the rights of all Americans to be treated equally 
under the law. The American people need an Attorney General who 
continues to make the fight against racism, discrimination, and hate 
crimes a core part of that Department's mission. We know Senator 
Sessions is not the person for that job.
  More than 30 years ago, he couldn't even pass muster in a Republican-
majority Senate. During his confirmation hearing, Senators cited his 
racially charged comments and his shameful record on civil rights as a 
U.S. attorney as reasons they could not support him. And as my late 
colleague Ted Kennedy said at the time: ``It is inconceivable to me 
that a person of this attitude is qualified to be a U.S. attorney, let 
alone a U.S. Federal judge.''
  I ask my colleagues who are inclined to support his nomination today, 
What has changed? I have served alongside Senator Sessions for years, 
and I know his record all too well. And like my constituents who 
started sounding the alarm back in November, I am deeply concerned by 
his agenda that would take our country backward.
  Senator Sessions has dismissed one of our bedrock civil rights laws, 
the Voting Rights Act, as ``intrusive,'' while pushing restrictive 
voter ID laws and fueling conspiracy theories about voter fraud. I 
watched as he refused to work with a bipartisan majority of the Senate 
on immigration reform and instead pushed extreme policies that would 
punish the most vulnerable members of our communities. And that, by the 
way, included DREAMers across the country who have never known another 
home besides America. His personal passion on that issue and his years 
of advocacy against commonsense immigration policies cause me great 
concern about whether he would use the Department of Justice to pursue 
his extreme anti-immigration agenda.
  On criminal justice reform, he beat back efforts from within his own 
party to address the exploding race of incarceration across this 
country. The injustice of these laws falls disproportionately on 
communities of color.
  Time and again, he has defended laws that favor throwing nonviolent 
offenders in jail rather than working to rehabilitate them, even though 
it has been consistently proven that prison is not a means of 
rehabilitation. This nominee's views on criminal justice reform are so 
out of the mainstream, his position is even at odds with the Koch 
brothers.
  At the very time our Nation engages in a critically important debate 
about ensuring equal treatment under the law, as we continue the 
struggle to make sure equality shines through our education system, our 
justice system, our economy, and our country, Senator Sessions remains 
dismissive of the very tools our Justice Department must use to move us 
forward.
  When I joined so many of my colleagues in the Senate to reauthorize 
and improve the bipartisan Violence Against Women Act to protect women 
across the country, Senator Sessions worked against us to tear it 
apart. As someone who has sat face-to-face with survivors of domestic 
violence and fought to increase protections for those dealing with 
sexual assault, I can see why people would question whether Senator 
Sessions has any intention of enforcing the laws that protect them 
because I wonder that myself.
  This nominee's track record of trying to undermine women's 
constitutionally protected reproductive rights is horrifying and 
should, by the way, scare every woman in this country.
  I have heard from so many members of the LGBTQ community who are 
terrified that Senator Sessions would be tasked with protecting their 
rights. His votes against repealing don't ask, don't tell and expanding 
hate crimes definitions to include LGBTQ Americans confirm those fears.
  This alone has to give my colleagues pause when so many Americans--
our friends, our family members, our coworkers--fear that their 
government will look the other way as they endure violence, 
discrimination, and marginalization just because of who they love or 
how they live. We must fight back with everything we have.
  When this President attacks the independence of our judges--judges 
who have declared the obvious, that the Muslim ban Executive order is 
unconstitutional--we cannot put the person who Steve Bannon calls ``the 
fiercest, most dedicated and most loyal promoter'' of the President's 
agenda at the head of the Department of Justice. This is not who we 
are.
  Senator Sessions is not the Attorney General this country needs. I 
urge members of the Senate to stand up for the Constitution, to stand 
with your fellow Americans. The stakes are far too high to make Senator 
Sessions our next Attorney General.
  I urge you to join with me in voting against this nomination. Now 
more than ever, we need an Attorney General who will be independent and 
willing to stand up to President Trump's illegal and unconstitutional 
actions whenever they happen.
  The last thing this country needs right now is a rubber stamp to 
validate this administration's illegal actions.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. It is always disturbing to sit in this Chamber and listen 
to some of the speeches. I am wondering if even a saint could get 
approved without a filibuster in this body.


                        Nomination of Tom Price

  Mr. President, I am pleased today to come to the floor in support of 
another friend, someone I am honored to have worked with for many 
years, and that would be Dr. Tom Price. When I first heard that 
President Trump nominated Dr. Price to serve as Secretary of Health and 
Human Services, I was reassured to know that one of the most capable, 
well-prepared individuals President Trump could have chosen would fill 
such an important post.
  Health care is highly complex, highly specialized, and it has a 
significant impact on our Nation. Our Federal Government's involvement 
in health care has changed dramatically over the last few decades, and 
that change has accelerated in the last few years. Health care makes up 
one-sixth of our economy, and the Department of Health and Human 
Services has a tremendous impact on all parts of all sectors of health 
care. Who better than a doctor should head an organization that covers 
the wide variety of major health care programs?
  Let me mention just a few that a doctor should be in charge of. One 
would be Medicare, another is Medicaid. And then there is our vast 
biomedical research functions at the National Institutes of Health, 
usually referred to as NIH. Then there is our domestic and 
international public health work at the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention, or CDC; the review of innovative and lifesaving drugs and 
devices at the Food and Drug Administration, or FDA; or how about our 
preparedness in the development of medical countermeasures at the 
Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, or BARDA; and 
many other programs impacting the Nation's health that also provide an 
alphabet of initials.
  Who better to understand the most important side of health care, the 
patient, than one who is, at the end of the day, the person that takes 
care of the patient? The patient is the biggest factor in all health 
policies. These policies are too often put together here in Washington. 
Hundreds of bureaucrats sit in offices, deciding what patients ought to 
have done to them. Sitting here in offices without being doctors, 
without having treated patients, I will be glad to have someone in 
charge there who, instead, considers what the patient wants done.
  In the Senate HELP Committee hearing with Dr. Price, he spoke about 
his

[[Page S935]]

view on the importance of the patient in health care. He reiterated 
that again before the Finance Committee when he said: ``[It is] 
imperative that we have a system that's accessible for every single 
American, that's affordable for every single American, that 
incentivizes and provides the highest quality health care that the 
world knows and provides choices to patients so they are the ones 
selecting who is treating them, when, where, and the like.''
  Tom Price is an ideal candidate for this role. Not only does he know 
the health care system as a physician, he knows it as a policymaker who 
has been a thought leader in health care here in Congress. His resume 
is well rounded. He has practiced and taught medicine, he was a 
business owner, and he served as a legislator.

  Let me repeat. He has not only practiced medicine, he has taught 
medicine, and he has been a business owner of a large business that 
dealt with health care and he served as a legislator.
  His confirmation will also mark the first time since the George H.W. 
Bush administration that a physician has led this agency. Our health 
care system is in a significant time of transformation. Well before 
ObamaCare, there was a need to make changes that would give people more 
options in health insurance and to find a way to contain costs.
  We have even more work to do now as patients find themselves with 
fewer choices and higher costs. The new Secretary's role will be a 
difficult one. In the last year, our health insurance markets have 
teetered into unstable ground, especially in the individual market. 
Even with absolutely no change in the law, more and more people will 
lose access to health insurance coverage.
  It has been suggested that the Republicans should just let the 
current system keep going for another year or so until the Democrats 
would be begging us to make changes, but we are not going to do that. 
We are not going to have those people go through that kind of 
suffering, even though there is a risk to it. We are not going to sit 
and wait for the system to crash. We will be working in Congress to 
repeal ObamaCare and reform our health care system by putting the 
patient first.
  It will be critical to have a partner in the administration to make 
changes and implement the law in a way that reflects the intent of 
Congress and provides for full, open, and transparent input from the 
public. I understand that some of my Democratic colleagues have decided 
that being a Republican is a disqualifying characteristic for any 
Cabinet Secretary. It is all too easy to resort to vilification of our 
political opponents, but I will just point out the words of David Lloyd 
George, who is not a conservative, who said: ``A politician is a person 
with whose politics you don't agree; if you agree with him, he is a 
statesman.''
  Tom Price's nomination is something that I believe would have been 
relatively noncontroversial, even a few years ago. I know that when I 
voted in favor of the confirmation of Sylvia Burwell as the Secretary 
of Health and Human Services for President Obama's Cabinet, I looked at 
her qualifications, not her politics.
  If we look at Dr. Price with the same lens, I am hopeful we will see 
a bipartisan vote for this confirmation. The nomination of Tom Price is 
a great opportunity for our country to benefit from his knowledge, to 
benefit from his dedication, to benefit from his lifetime of service, 
and to benefit from his commitment to working with us all to improve 
health care in the United States.
  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. HEINRICH. 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. HEINRICH. Mr. President, in 1986, Coretta Scott King, the widow 
of civil rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King, wrote a letter urging 
Congress to block the nomination of Jeff Sessions for Federal judge. 
The Senate Judiciary Committee would ultimately reject that nomination.
  Here we are three decades later. Senator Sessions, who cannot erase 
his troubling record on civil rights, is again undergoing a 
confirmation hearing as President Trump's nominee for Attorney General. 
I would like to read an excerpt from Mrs. King's letter, and I ask 
unanimous consent that the letter in its entirety be printed in the 
Record following my remarks.
  Mrs. King wrote:

       I write to express my sincere opposition to the 
     confirmation of Jefferson B. Sessions as a federal district 
     court judge for the Southern District of Alabama. My 
     professional and personal roots in Alabama are deep and 
     lasting. Anyone who has used the power of his office as 
     United States Attorney to intimidate and chill the free 
     exercise of the ballot by citizens should not be elevated to 
     our courts. Mr. Sessions has used the awesome powers of his 
     office in a shabby attempt to intimidate and frighten elderly 
     black voters. For this reprehensible conduct, he should not 
     be rewarded with a federal judgeship.
       I do sincerely urge you to oppose the confirmation of Mr. 
     Sessions.

  When Senator Elizabeth Warren tried to read this exact same letter 
last night here on the Senate floor, Republicans voted to silence her, 
citing that she was in violation of Senate rules aimed at preventing 
Senators from impugning the motives of their colleagues.
  The move by some of my colleagues to silence the words of Senator 
Warren and Mrs. King last night is troubling not only because this is a 
threat to our democratic values, but also, frankly, because it is 
hypocritical. During a scathing speech last year in this same Chamber, 
the Senator from Texas went so far as personally attacking the 
Republican majority leader Mitch McConnell and accusing him of lying. 
In May of last year, the Senator from Arkansas, also here on the Senate 
floor, delivered a speech directly criticizing former Senate Minority 
Leader Harry Reid, using the terms ``vulgar,'' ``incoherent,'' and 
``cancerous'' to describe him.
  He said on the Senate floor:

       I am forced to listen to the bitter, vulgar incoherent 
     ramblings of the minority leader. Normally, like every other 
     American, I ignore them.

  I bring this up because neither of these Senators were silenced. 
Neither were told to sit down and take their seat. Silencing Senator 
Warren for reading Mrs. King's letter under the guise of following 
Senate rules is hypocritical and rightfully leads some to question 
whether the majority leader may have a different standard of expected 
conduct for female Senators compared to their male counterparts.
  I have already announced that I will vote against the nomination of 
Senator Sessions. After this episode last night, I believe now more 
than ever this position will require an unwavering commitment to 
protect American's constitutional rights, and to stand up against 
discrimination and hate.
  Like the thousands of New Mexicans I have heard from, I lack that 
confidence in Senator Sessions. I urge the American people to read and 
share Coretta Scott King's letter and continue to make your own voices 
heard because we will not be silenced. We will persist.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         The Martin Luther King, Jr. Center for Nonviolent Social 
           Change, Inc.,
                                 Atlanta, Georgia, March 19, 1986.
     Re Nomination of Jefferson B. Sessions U.S. Judge, Southern 
         District of Alabama Hearing, March 13, 1986

     Hon. Strom Thurmond,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Thurmond: I write to express my sincere 
     opposition to the confirmation of Jefferson B. Sessions as a 
     federal district court judge for the Southern District of 
     Alabama. My professional and personal roots in Alabama are 
     deep and lasting. Anyone who has used the power of his office 
     as United States Attorney to intimidate and chill the free 
     exercise of the ballot by citizens should not be elevated to 
     our courts. Mr. Sessions has used the awesome powers of his 
     office in a shabby attempt to intimidate and frighten elderly 
     black voters. For this reprehensible conduct, he should not 
     be rewarded with a federal judgeship.
       I regret that a long-standing commitment prevents me from 
     appearing in person to testify against this nominee. However, 
     I have attached a copy of my statement opposing Mr. Sessions' 
     confirmation and I request that my statement as well as this 
     letter be made a part of the hearing record.
       I do sincerely urge you to oppose the confirmation of Mr. 
     Sessions.
           Sincerely,
                                               Coretta Scott King.

[[Page S936]]

     
                                  ____
    Statement of Coretta Scott King on the Nomination of Jefferson 
   Beauregard Sessions for the United States District Court Southern 
                          District of Alabama


          Senate Judiciary Committee, Thursday, March 13, 1986

       Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: Thank you for 
     allowing me this opportunity to express my strong opposition 
     to the nomination of Jefferson Sessions for a federal 
     district judgeship for the Southern District of Alabama. My 
     longstanding commitment which I shared with my husband, 
     Martin, to protect and enhance the rights of Black Americans, 
     rights which include equal access to the democratic process, 
     compels me to testify today.
       Civil rights leaders, including my husband and Albert 
     Turner, have fought long and hard to achieve free and 
     unfettered access to the ballot box. Mr. Sessions has used 
     the awesome power of his office to chill the free exercise of 
     the vote by black citizens in the district he now seeks to 
     serve as a federal judge. This simply cannot be allowed to 
     happen. Mr. Sessions' conduct as U.S. Attorney, from his 
     politically-motivated voting fraud prosecutions to his 
     indifference toward criminal violations of civil rights laws, 
     indicates that he lacks the temperament, fairness and 
     judgment to be a federal judge.
       The Voting Rights Act was, and still is, vitally important 
     to the future of democracy in the United States. I was 
     privileged to join Martin and many others during the Selma to 
     Montgomery march for voting rights in 1965. Martin was 
     particularly impressed by the determination to get the 
     franchise of blacks in Selma and neighboring Perry County. As 
     he wrote, ``Certainly no community in the history of the 
     Negro struggle has responded with the enthusiasm of Selma and 
     her neighboring town of Marion. Where Birmingham depended 
     largely upon students and unemployed adults [to participate 
     in non-violent protest of the denial of the franchise], Selma 
     has involved fully 10 per cent of the Negro population in 
     active demonstrations, and at least half the Negro population 
     of Marion was arrested on one day.'' Martin was referring of 
     course to a group that included the defendants recently 
     prosecuted for assisting elderly and illiterate blacks to 
     exercise that franchise. In fact, Martin anticipated from the 
     depth of their commitment twenty years ago, that a united 
     political organization would remain in Perry County long 
     after the other marchers had left. This organization, the 
     Perry County Civic League, started by Mr. Turner, Mr. Hogue, 
     and others, as Martin predicted, continued ``to direct the 
     drive for votes and other rights.'' In the years since the 
     Voting Rights Act was passed, Black Americans in Marion, 
     Selma and elsewhere have made important strides in their 
     struggle to participate actively in the electoral process. 
     The number of Blacks registered to vote in key Southern 
     states has doubled since 1965. This would not have been 
     possible without the Voting Rights Act.
       However, Blacks still fall far short of having equal 
     participation in the electoral process. Particularly in the 
     South, efforts continue to be made to deny Blacks access to 
     the polls, even where Blacks constitute the majority of the 
     voters. It has been a long up-hill struggle to keep alive the 
     vital legislation that protects the most fundamental right to 
     vote. A person who has exhibited so much hostility to the 
     enforcement of those laws, and thus, to the exercise of those 
     rights by Black people should not be elevated to the federal 
     bench.
       The irony of Mr. Sessions' nomination is that, if 
     confirmed, he will be given life tenure for doing with a 
     federal prosecution what the local sheriffs accomplished 
     twenty years ago with clubs and cattle prods. Twenty years 
     ago, when we marched from Selma to Montgomery, the fear of 
     voting was real, as the broken bones and bloody heads in 
     Selma and Marion bore witness. As my husband wrote at the 
     time, ``it was not just a sick imagination that conjured up 
     the vision of a public official, sworn to uphold the law, who 
     forced an inhuman march upon hundreds of Negro children; who 
     ordered the Rev. James Bevel to be chained to his sickbed; 
     who clubbed a Negro woman registrant, and who callously 
     inflicted repeated brutalities and indignities upon 
     nonviolent Negroes peacefully petitioning for their 
     constitutional right to vote.''
       Free exercise of voting rights is so fundamental to 
     American democracy that we can not tolerate any form of 
     infringement of those rights. Of all the groups who have been 
     disenfranchised in our nation's history, none has struggled 
     longer or suffered more in the attempt to win the vote than 
     Black citizens. No group has had access to the ballot box 
     denied so persistently and intently. Over the past century, a 
     broad array of schemes have been used in attempts to block 
     the Black vote. The range of techniques developed with the 
     purpose of repressing black voting rights run the gamut from 
     the straightforward application of brutality against black 
     citizens who tried to vote to such legalized frauds as 
     ``grandfather clause'' exclusions and rigged literacy tests.
       The actions taken by Mr. Sessions in regard to the 1984 
     voting fraud prosecutions represent just one more 
     technique used to intimidate Black voters and thus deny 
     them this most precious franchise. The investigations into 
     the absentee voting process were conducted only in the 
     Black Belt counties where blacks had finally achieved 
     political power in the local government. Whites had been 
     using the absentee process to their advantage for years, 
     without incident. Then, when Blacks; realizing its 
     strength, began to use it with success, criminal 
     investigations were begun.
       In these investigations, Mr. Sessions, as U.S. Attorney, 
     exhibited an eagerness to bring to trial and convict three 
     leaders of the Perry County Civic League including Albert 
     Turner despite evidence clearly demonstrating their innocence 
     of any wrongdoing. Furthermore, in initiating the case, Mr. 
     Sessions ignored allegations of similar behavior by whites, 
     choosing instead to chill the exercise of the franchise by 
     blacks by his misguided investigation. In fact, Mr. Sessions 
     sought to punish older black civil rights activists, advisors 
     and colleagues of my husband, who had been key figures in the 
     civil rights movement in the 1960's. These were persons who, 
     realizing the potential of the absentee vote among Blacks, 
     had learned to use the process within the bounds of legality 
     and had taught others to do the same. The only sin they 
     committed was being too successful in gaining votes.
       The scope and character of the investigations conducted by 
     Mr. Sessions also warrant grave concern. Witnesses were 
     selectively chosen in accordance with the favorability of 
     their testimony to the government's case. Also, the 
     prosecution illegally withheld from the defense critical 
     statements made by witnesses. Witnesses who did testify were 
     pressured and intimidated into submitting the ``correct'' 
     testimony. Many elderly blacks were visited multiple times by 
     the FBI who then hauled them over 180 miles by bus to a grand 
     jury in Mobile when they could more easily have testified at 
     a grand jury twenty miles away in Selma. These voters, and 
     others, have announced they are now never going to vote 
     again.
       I urge you to consider carefully Mr. Sessions' conduct in 
     these matters. Such a review, I believe, raises serious 
     questions about his commitment to the protection of the 
     voting rights of all American citizens and consequently his 
     fair and unbiased judgment regarding this fundamental right. 
     When the circumstances and facts surrounding the indictments 
     of Al Turner, his wife, Evelyn, and Spencer Hogue are 
     analyzed, it becomes clear that the motivation was political, 
     and the result frightening--the wide-scale chill of the 
     exercise of the ballot for blacks, who suffered so much to 
     receive that right in the first place. Therefore, it is my 
     strongly-held view that the appointment of Jefferson Sessions 
     to the federal bench would irreparably damage the work of my 
     husband, Al Turner, and countless others who risked their 
     lives and freedom over the past twenty years to ensure equal 
     participation in our democratic system.
       The exercise of the franchise is an essential means by 
     which our citizens ensure that those who are governing will 
     be responsible. My husband called it the number one civil 
     right. The denial of access to the ballot box ultimately 
     results in the denial of other fundamental rights. For, it is 
     only when the poor and disadvantaged are empowered that they 
     are able to participate actively in the solutions to their 
     own problems.
       We still have a long way to go before we can say that 
     minorities no longer need be concerned about discrimination 
     at the polls. Blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans and Asian 
     Americans are grossly underrepresented at every level of 
     government in America. If we are going to make our timeless 
     dream of justice through democracy a reality, we must take 
     every possible step to ensure that the spirit and intent of 
     the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Fifteenth Amendment of 
     the Constitution is honored.
       The federal courts hold a unique position in our 
     constitutional system, ensuring that minorities and other 
     citizens without political power have a forum in which to 
     vindicate their rights. Because of this unique role, it is 
     essential that the people selected to be federal judges 
     respect the basic tenets of our legal system: respect for 
     individual rights and a commitment to equal justice for all. 
     The integrity of the Courts, and thus the rights they 
     protect, can only be maintained if citizens feel confident 
     that those selected as federal judges will be able to judge 
     with fairness others holding differing views.
       I do not believe Jefferson Sessions possesses the requisite 
     judgment, competence, and sensitivity to the rights 
     guaranteed by the federal civil rights laws to qualify for 
     appointment to the federal district court. Based on his 
     record, I believe his confirmation would have a devastating 
     effect on not only the judicial system in Alabama, but also 
     on the progress we have made everywhere toward fulfilling my 
     husband's dream that he envisioned over twenty years ago. I 
     therefore urge the Senate Judiciary Committee to deny his 
     confirmation.
       I thank you for allowing me to share my views.

  Mr. HEINRICH. 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. MARKEY. 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. MARKEY. Mr. President, I have heard from literally thousands of 
my constituents who have contacted my office in unprecedented numbers 
with

[[Page S937]]

fears about a Justice Department headed by Senator Jeff Sessions as 
Attorney General of the United States.
  My constituents and Americans all across the country are concerned 
about the independence and integrity of the Justice Department under 
President Donald Trump.
  We are only 3 weeks into the Trump administration, and what we have 
seen so far has been alarming. We have 3 years and 49 weeks left to go 
in President Trump's term of office, and we have already seen in 3 
weeks President Trump issue an illegal and immoral ban on Muslim 
refugees. We then saw President Trump fire Acting Attorney General 
Sally Yates from her job overseeing the Department of Justice--an 
action reminiscent of Watergate's infamous ``Saturday Night 
Massacre''--because she refused to defend in court his unconstitutional 
and un-American Executive order.
  Sally Yates's job and the job of the entire Justice Department is to 
uphold the rule of law. The Attorney General of the United States is 
the lawyer for the people of the United States--not Donald Trump's 
personal lawyer. It is called the rule of law, not the rule of Trump, 
but it is the rule of law that is at stake when the nomination of 
Senator Sessions is in question to run the Department of Justice.
  I have told my constituents that Senator Sessions must be judged 
based on the totality of his record: as a U.S. attorney, as Alabama's 
attorney general, and as U.S. Senator.
  A review of that record, including 2 days of hearings before the 
Senate Judiciary Committee, demonstrates anything but the commitment to 
the equal and impartial administration of justice and an independence 
from the President that we must demand from the Nation's top law 
enforcement officer.
  Senator Sessions' record spanning decades in public office reflects 
hostility to important constitutional rights, hostility to laws 
intended to protect people of color, hostility to laws intended to 
protect women, hostility to laws intended to protect the LGBTQ 
community, and hostility to laws intended to protect immigrants against 
discrimination and violence.
  Senator Sessions has fought against civil rights efforts. He has 
fought against protecting voting rights, and as a U.S. attorney, 
Sessions tried to prosecute three civil rights workers who were helping 
elderly and disabled African-American voters to cast absentee ballots.
  During his 1986 judicial nomination hearing, he called the Voting 
Rights Act ``an intrusive piece of legislation.'' And in his testimony 
to the Judiciary Committee, Senator Sessions would not commit to 
continue the Justice Department's efforts to challenge restrictive 
State voter ID laws. Senator Sessions has fought against comprehensive 
immigration reform, against criminal justice reform, and against 
commonsense gun control measures.
  As for a woman's right to choose, Senator Sessions has said: ``I 
firmly believe that Roe v. Wade and its descendants represent one of 
the worst, colossally erroneous Supreme Court decisions of all time.'' 
At his confirmation hearing, Senator Feinstein pressed him on his 
statement, asking him whether it was still his view. ``It is,'' Senator 
Sessions replied.
  It is simply unimaginable that we would have an Attorney General of 
the United States holding such a view of Roe v. Wade and the rights of 
women to control their own reproductive health. Roe v. Wade is the law 
of the land, and it should remain that way forever.
  Mr. President, I would also like to address the actions last night by 
the Senate majority leader to silence the remarks of my colleague from 
Massachusetts, Senator Elizabeth Warren.
  Coretta Scott King was attending the New England Conservatory of 
Music in Boston when she met a divinity doctoral student at Boston 
University in 1952, in Boston. One year later, Coretta Scott married 
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., as they took their degrees from Boston to 
begin a cause found in the South that became a national and 
international movement.
  The two shared their life, a cause that would change the world. The 
voices and legacy of Coretta Scott King and Dr. Martin Luther King, 
Jr., are as much a part of Massachusetts history as the American 
Revolution, John Adams, and President John Kennedy.
  What Senator Warren was doing last night was standing up for equal 
justice the way Massachusetts has always stood up for equal justice, 
the way Senator Ted Kennedy stood up for equal justice. We have a deep 
and proud history in Massachusetts of fighting for what is right. The 
abolitionist movement was born in Massachusetts.
  In past generations, when young women wanted the right to vote, a 
group of committed activists in Massachusetts formed the Suffragette 
movement, and they changed the U.S. Constitution so women can vote.
  When young people in Massachusetts were upset with the voting rights 
laws for minorities in America's southern States, they became the 
Freedom Riders, and they changed the laws of the United States.
  I make these remarks from the desk once held by Massachusetts Senator 
Edward Brooke. Senator Brooke was the first African American elected to 
the Senate. He was a Republican. He was also a civil rights activist, 
and he also received his law degree at Boston University, in 
Massachusetts.
  From the Founding Fathers to the movement for universal health care, 
to the first same-sex wedding in the United States, and to the Senate 
floor last night, Massachusetts has always been at the heart of 
America's quest for equal justice.
  Leader McConnell used an arcane Senate rule to silence Senator 
Warren, but the people of Massachusetts and all people of good 
conscience will never be silenced when confronted with our moral 
responsibility to speak out.
  Senator Warren deserves an apology for being silenced when she 
attempted to share this very relevant, very powerful part of our 
national history last night. The American people deserve to hear the 
important words of Coretta Scott King. So here they are:

       Dear Senator Thurmond:
       I write to express my sincere opposition to the 
     confirmation of Jefferson B. Sessions as a federal district 
     court judge for the Southern District of Alabama. My 
     professional and personal roots in Alabama are deep and 
     lasting. Anyone who has used the power of his office as 
     United States Attorney to intimidate and chill the free 
     exercise of the ballot by citizens should not be elevated to 
     our courts. Mr. Sessions has used the awesome powers of his 
     office in a shabby attempt to intimidate and frighten elderly 
     black voters. For this reprehensible conduct, he should not 
     be rewarded with a federal judgeship.
       I regret that a long-standing commitment prevents me from 
     appearing in person to testify against this nominee. However, 
     I have attached a copy of my statement opposing Mr. Sessions' 
     confirmation and I request that my statement as well as this 
     letter be made a part of the hearing record.
       I do sincerely urge you to oppose the confirmation of Mr. 
     Sessions.
       Sincerely, Coretta Scott King

  Coretta Scott King was right in the 1960s. Coretta Scott King was 
right in 1986. Coretta Scott King is right today.
  Based on the totality of Senator Sessions' record, I have no 
confidence that he shares a commitment to justice for all Americans. I 
do not believe he will fight to defend the most vulnerable in our 
society. I do not believe he will stand up to President Trump when the 
time comes, as it surely will come.
  The great Robert F. Kennedy, a U.S. Attorney General himself, once 
said ``that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists 
on.''
  We must insist that our top law enforcement officer upholds the law 
for all Americans. I do not have assurance that Senator Sessions will 
meet that challenge.
  I will be voting no on Senator Sessions' nomination this evening, and 
I urge all of my colleagues to do likewise.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, yesterday I spoke at length about my fear 
that Senator Sessions' would not have the ability to act as an 
independent Attorney General. The Attorney General is not the 
President's lawyer. He or she is the chief law enforcement officer of 
the United States. And he or she must faithfully serve all Americans. 
Even if Senator Sessions could demonstrate independence from President 
Trump, my review of his extensive record leaves me unconvinced that he 
is capable of serving and protecting all Americans.
  In 1986, Senator Ted Kennedy called Jeff Sessions a ``throwback'' 
because of his conduct on civil rights issues. I regret to say that, 
since the Judiciary

[[Page S938]]

Committee's bipartisan rejection of Senator Sessions' nomination to be 
a district court judge in 1986, Senator Sessions has not allayed our 
concerns. In his 20 years in the Senate, he has not shown a commitment 
to protecting the most vulnerable in our communities. Time and again, 
when the rights of women, LGBT individuals, and disenfranchised 
communities have been debated here in the Senate, Senator Sessions has 
not sought to protect their civil and human rights. Too often, he has 
been the one standing in the way.
  That is why National Nurses United has written to me to express their 
opposition to Senator Sessions. They wrote: ``We provide the best care 
we possibly can, without regard to race, gender, national origin, 
religion, socio economic circumstances, or other identifying 
characteristic. That is what caring professionals do. Unfortunately, 
that is not what Jeff Sessions has done in his role as a public 
servant.'' I ask unanimous consent that their full letter be printed in 
the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. That is why my friend John 
Lewis testified before the Judiciary Committee in opposition to Senator 
Sessions. Congressman Lewis stated that, ``When faced with a challenge, 
Senator Sessions has frequently chosen to stand on the wrong side of 
history.'' Senate Republicans should be listening to these concerns and 
those of protesters in our streets and airports standing up for our 
Constitution. We should not subject those concerns to a gag rule.
  Yet Senator Sessions and his supporters have painted a different 
picture of his record. They have argued that he has a strong record on 
civil rights. So I asked Senator Sessions in written questions to 
identify areas in which racial inequalities persist. He could have 
talked about sentencing or about areas where the Civil Rights Division 
has found patterns and practices of police departments violating 
people's rights or about the kind of voter suppression efforts that an 
appeals court found ``target[ed] African Americans with almost surgical 
precision.'' Senator Sessions did not identify a single example of 
racial inequality in modern America. That is astonishing. No one can 
uphold the rights of all Americans if he is unwilling to pay attention 
when those rights are being violated.
  Some have suggested that Senator Sessions' record on civil rights has 
been criticized unfairly and he is held to a different standard because 
he is a conservative from the South. I disagree. When the Judiciary 
Committee rejected Senator Sessions' district court nomination in 1986, 
one of the votes against him came from Senator Heflin, who was a 
conservative from Alabama. Moreover, I and most other Democrats just 
voted to confirm as U.N. Ambassador another conservative Southerner: 
Nikki Haley. In 2015, then-Governor Haley made the decision to remove 
the Confederate flag from the South Carolina Statehouse grounds. She 
said, ``[I]t should never have been there'' and that she ``couldn't 
look my children in the face and justify it staying there.'' When 
Senator Sessions was asked about this and other efforts to remove the 
Confederate flag from public buildings, he argued that such efforts 
``seek to delegitimize the fabulous accomplishments of our country.'' 
It can come as no surprise that the civil rights community is concerned 
by his nomination.
  But I will speak to my own experiences with Senator Sessions' views 
on civil rights laws. In 2009, Senator Sessions opposed expanding hate 
crime protections to women and LGBT individuals, groups that have 
historically been targeted based merely on who they are. He stated, ``I 
am not sure women or people with different sexual orientations face 
that kind of discrimination. I just don't see it.'' Thankfully, a 
bipartisan majority of Senators saw it, and the Matthew Shepard and 
James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act is now law. These 
protections are needed now more than ever. According to recent FBI 
statistics, LGBT individuals are more likely to be targeted for hate 
crimes than any other minority group in the country.
  Judy Shepard, Matthew's mother, wrote a letter last month opposing 
Senator Sessions' nomination. She was concerned not just by Senator 
Sessions' opposition to the law that bears her son's name, but by how 
Senator Sessions viewed such hate crimes. She wrote:

       ``Senator Sessions strongly opposed the hate crimes bill--
     characterizing hate crimes as mere `thought crimes.' 
     Unfortunately, Senator Sessions believes that hate crimps 
     are, what he describes as, mere `thought crimes.'
       ``My son was not killed by 'thoughts' or because his 
     murderers said hateful things. My son was brutally beaten 
     with the butt of a .357 magnum pistol, tied him to a fence, 
     and left him to die in freezing temperatures because he was 
     gay. Senator Sessions' repeated efforts to diminish the life-
     changing acts of violence covered by the Hate Crimes 
     Prevention Act horrified me then, as a parent who knows the 
     true cost of hate, and it terrifies me today to see that this 
     same person is now being nominated as the country's highest 
     authority to represent justice and equal protection under the 
     law for all Americans.''

  But that was not all. Senator Sessions also said that ``the hate 
crimes amendment . . . has been said to cheapen the civil rights 
movement.'' I asked him about this comment and whether he still felt 
that way at his hearing, but he did not respond to the question. I 
asked him a second time, in a written follow-up, what he meant by that 
comment. He replied that ``Those were not my words,'' but again did not 
explain what he had meant by that remark. So I asked him a third time. 
The third time, he finally conceded. He wrote to me that ``it is not 
correct to say it cheapens our commitment to civil rights.'' If it is 
not correct to say that, then why did Senator Sessions quote it in the 
first place--and why did it take him three tries to acknowledge the 
error?
  Senator Sessions also opposed the 2013 Leahy-Crapo Violence Against 
Women Reauthorization Act, which overwhelmingly passed the Senate with 
support from a majority of Republican Senators. During his hearing, and 
again in written questions, Senator Sessions refused to commit to 
defend this important law's constitutionality. He said only that he 
``will carefully study'' it to discern whether it is ``reasonably 
defensible.'' His refusal to voice support for VAWA is all the more 
troubling in light of reports that the Heritage Foundation's budget 
blueprint, which is reportedly being relied on by the new 
administration, calls for eliminating all VAWA grants. I asked Senator 
Sessions to commit to stand up for victims and preserve these critical 
programs. Again, he refused.
  Amita Swadhin, who appeared before the Judiciary Committee and 
bravely shared her story of being raped as a child, explained why this 
issue is so important: ``We need an Attorney General who will continue 
the progress we have made since the initial passage of VAWA, someone 
committed to improving and enforcing our laws to ensure the most 
vulnerable victims of crime can come forward to seek accountability and 
to access healing.'' This law and these grants are a matter of life and 
death to many people across the country. We need an Attorney General 
who understands that. The National Task Force to End Sexual and 
Domestic Violence, which has never before taken a position on an 
Attorney General nomination, wrote to the Judiciary Committee because 
they do not believe Senator Sessions understands that. The letter 
states:

       ``Senator Sessions' senate record of strenuous objection to 
     protections for historically marginalized populations, 
     coupled with his record of selective prosecutions, 
     demonstrate his unwillingness to protect marginalized 
     victims' access to justice and disqualify him from holding 
     the position of Attorney General of the United States, a 
     position charged with the responsibility of securing justice 
     for all.''

  I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record at 
the conclusion of my remarks.
  Senator Sessions and his supporters have tried to minimize his 
opposition to the Leahy-Crapo VAWA bill by pointing out that he did 
vote in committee for the Republican substitute amendment. Let me 
explain what that amendment would have done. It would have cut 
authorization levels by 40 percent, hampering efforts to prevent 
violence and provide services to victims in need. It would have removed 
all provisions intended to ensure that victims can receive services, 
regardless of sexual orientation and gender identity. It would have 
removed important provisions to let tribal justice systems reach the 
many criminal and civil cases that fell through the cracks. That 
amendment would have gutted core elements

[[Page S939]]

of the VAWA reauthorization that go to the heart of what VAWA does. A 
vote for that amendment hardly demonstrates a commitment to victims.
  Another issue that concerns me is criminal justice reform. For years, 
I have worked with a bipartisan group of Senators to reduce mandatory 
minimum sentences for drug offenses. These sentences have created 
perverse disparities within our justice system. Racial minorities still 
receive nearly 80 percent of them. Our bipartisan effort has had the 
strong support of the Justice Department and many others in law 
enforcement, but not Senator Sessions. In recent years, no one in the 
Senate has fought harder against even modest sentencing reform than he 
has.
  I am also concerned about Senator Sessions' commitment to ongoing 
civil rights litigation. I asked whether he would maintain the Justice 
Department's position in certain important cases. He would not commit 
to maintaining the Department's position, even in voting rights cases 
where courts have already found that certain voter ID laws are 
discriminatory.
  Senator Sessions would not commit to even maintaining cases that are 
already at the Supreme Court. Last month, the Supreme Court heard oral 
argument in Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District. The Justice 
Department filed an amicus brief in support of the petitioner, arguing 
that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act requires states to 
provide more than de minimis educational benefits and in fact ``give 
eligible children with disabilities an opportunity to make significant 
educational progress.'' Even though it would be extraordinary for the 
Justice Department to take a new position after oral argument has 
already been heard, Senator Sessions would not commit to maintaining 
the Department's position in this case.
  I pointed to a lawsuit the Justice Department filed last year in 
Georgia alleging that Georgia's treatment of students with disabilities 
violated the Americans with Disabilities Act. In this lawsuit, the 
Justice Department noted that some of the facilities used by students 
with disabilities ``are located in poor-quality buildings that formerly 
served as schools for black students during de jure segregation.'' I 
asked Senator Sessions whether he would continue to pursue this case, 
and bring others like it where States are in violation of the ADA. He 
refused to commit to continuing this case. The ADA also contains a 
waiver of State sovereign immunity, which is a critical tool for 
enforcing that landmark law. Twice during the Bush administration, the 
Justice Department argued, and the Supreme Court agreed, that the 
waiver was a valid exercise of Congressional power under section V of 
the 14th Amendment, but Senator Sessions would not commit to defending 
the constitutionality of that provision.
  Senator Sessions' record on disability rights is also of concern 
because of the way he spoke about students with disabilities. He once 
argued that mainstreaming causes a ``decline in civility and discipline 
in classrooms all over America.'' As with my hate crimes amendment and 
VAWA, the problem is not just that Senator Sessions has opposed 
protections for the most vulnerable, it is also the language that he 
uses when opposing them, which denigrate those the laws seek to 
protect. That is why a group of 18 disability rights organizations have 
written to Senate leadership expressing their strong opposition to 
Senator Sessions' nomination.
  Senator Sessions has also demonstrated a shockingly brazen attitude 
when I asked him about the offensive rhetoric used by some of his 
political associates. I asked him whether he would condemn certain 
remarks by David Horowitz, Frank Gaffney, and others. Senator Sessions 
received awards from these individuals. He regularly attended their 
conferences. He has given media statements in support of their 
organizations and the views they put forth. Yet, when Senator Sessions 
was directly asked to respond to some of their statements, he 
effectively shrugged his shoulders. These included comments: referring 
to Muslims as ``Islamic Nazis'' who ``want to kill Jews, that's their 
agenda''; alleging that President Obama ``is an anti-American radical 
and I'm actually sure he's a Muslim, he certainly isn't a Christian. . 
. . He's a pretend Christian in the same way he's a pretend American''; 
alleging that two Muslims members of Congress have ``longstanding 
Muslim Brotherhood ties''; arguing that a Muslim member of Congress 
should not be allowed to serve on the House Intelligence Committee 
because of his ``extensive personal and political associations with . . 
. jihadist infrastructure in America''; claiming that married women by 
definition cannot be raped by their husbands; calling for ``railroad 
cars full of illegals going south; and calling President Obama a 
traitor.
  Senator Sessions responded that he does not hold those views. That is 
fair enough. But he did not explain why he chose to associate with such 
individuals. When someone accuses President Obama of treason, it is not 
at all enough to say, ``I do not hold that view.'' That is why, last 
month, Muslim advocates and 36 other civil rights organizations, 
including the Leadership Conference on Civic and Human Rights and the 
NAACP, wrote a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee expressing 
strong concern that ``Senator Sessions has closely aligned with anti-
Muslim hate groups, accepted their awards and accolades, and publicly 
praised their leadership. Senator Sessions' appointment will only 
embolden these groups and activists and serve to further fan the flames 
of anti-Muslim bigotry already burning in this country.'' If Senator 
Sessions cannot condemn David Horowitz and Frank Gaffney, who the 
Southern Poverty Law Center has repeatedly called ``extremists'' who 
run hate groups, for calling President Obama a traitor, it is fair to 
ask whether he will have the courage to stand up to the President of 
the United States, as Sally Yates did.
  The Attorney General is charged with enforcing the laws that protect 
all Americans. No one can fulfill that obligation who is not clear-eyed 
about the threats facing the most vulnerable in our communities. We 
need an Attorney General who will aggressively confront those who 
appeal to hate and fear. I do not believe that person is Senator 
Sessions. The Senate and the Judiciary Committee have heard from a 
multitude of civil rights, civil liberties, and domestic violence 
organizations, as well as nurses and numerous faith leaders, who oppose 
this nomination. This Senator stands with them.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                       National Nurses United,

                                 Washington, DC, February 7, 2017.
     Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Leahy: We write on behalf of the more than 
     150,000 registered nurse members of National Nurses United to 
     urge you to vote against the confirmation of Senator Jeff 
     Sessions, President-elect Donald Trump's nominee for Attorney 
     General. Much has been said by many others against 
     confirmation of this nominee, so we will be brief.
       Our members work as bedside healthcare professionals in 
     almost every state in the nation. We work in every hospital 
     setting, from small rural facilities to large urban public 
     health systems, in prominent research hospitals affiliated 
     with prestigious public and private universities, as well as 
     Veterans Affairs hospitals and clinics. We care for Americans 
     on every point of the demographic spectrum, at their most 
     vulnerable. We provide the best care we possibly can, without 
     regard to race, gender, national origin, religion, socio 
     economic circumstances, or other identifying characteristic. 
     That is what caring professionals do. Unfortunately, that is 
     not what Jeff Sessions has done in his role as a public 
     servant. And to vote in favor of confirming him as the chief 
     law enforcement officer of the United States would abdicate 
     your responsibility to provide the oversight necessary to 
     ensure that basic legal rights are enforced evenhandedly and 
     for the protection of all people.
       As Senate colleagues, you no doubt know Senator Sessions' 
     record as a lawmaker, as well as his record as the U.S. 
     Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama and as the 
     Alabama Attorney General. It was, of course, his record in 
     the U.S. Attorney's office and his many publically verified 
     racially insensitive comments that resulted in a majority of 
     the Senate Judiciary Committee voting against confirmation 
     for his nomination to be a U.S. District Court judge in 1986. 
     This `no' vote happened while the Judiciary Committee was 
     majority Republican. Even Senator Howell Heflin, a fellow 
     Alabamian, voted against him, citing ``reasonable doubts'' 
     over whether he could be ``fair and impartial.''
       Senator Sessions has oft asserted that his comments over 
     the years were taken out of context, or intended as humor. 
     But his record tells the truth. Early in his career he

[[Page S940]]

     charged civil right leaders (``the Marion Three'') with 
     voting fraud related to their efforts to assist African 
     American voters. The fact that the defendants in that case 
     were acquitted didn't deter Mr. Sessions. Later, as Attorney 
     General of Alabama, he initiated another voter fraud 
     investigation involving absentee ballots cast by black voters 
     that, again, resulted in findings of no wrong doing. During 
     that same timeframe, he was criticized for declining to 
     investigate church burnings, and he ``joked'' that he thought 
     Ku Klux Klan members were ``OK, until [he] learned that they 
     smoked marijuana.''
       Against that background, Senator Sessions aggressively 
     interrogated Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the Court's first 
     nominee of Latino heritage. Further betraying a deep belief 
     in natural division between racial groups, he grilled Justice 
     Sotomayor about whether she could be fair to white Americans, 
     despite her 17-year record as a jurist and having received 
     the American Bar Association's highest rating. And he 
     expressed grave concerns that she would engage in judicial 
     ``empathy'' on the high court, favoring persons of certain 
     races or ethnicities over others. He then voted against her 
     confirmation.
       Senator Sessions' prejudices are not only against people of 
     color. As an organization representing a predominately female 
     profession we are compelled to express our outrage that 
     Senator Sessions defended Donald Trump's statements about 
     grabbing women by the genitals, by saying that such conduct 
     would not constitute sexual assault. The fact that he took a 
     different position during his Committee hearing is of no 
     comfort. It only shows that he will say whatever he believes 
     will help land him in the seat of power to determine whether, 
     and against whom, to enforce our laws. His comments last fall 
     dismissing President-elect Trump's despicable treatment of 
     women is consistent with his vote in 2013 against the 
     Violence Against Women Act. As nurses, we see close up the 
     devastating effects of domestic violence against our 
     patients, and we are disturbed by Senator Sessions' alleged 
     concern that the protection of that statute should not extend 
     to victims of violence on tribal lands.
       Moreover, confirming Senator Sessions to the job of the top 
     prosecutor would exacerbate our national crisis over race 
     issues in policing and our criminal justice system. He 
     personally blocked the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act, 
     a bipartisan effort spearheaded by Sens. Charles Grassley (R-
     Iowa), Mike Lee (R-Utah), and John Cornyn (R-Texas), and 
     Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-Wis.). The fact that law 
     enforcement leadership throughout the nation supported the 
     reform effort made no difference to Senator Sessions. And 
     unfortunately, his actions as U.S. Attorney for the Southern 
     District of Alabama only further illustrate his indifference 
     to this crisis. For example, drug convictions made up 40 
     percent of his cases when he served in that position--twice 
     the rate of other federal prosecutors in Alabama.
       Despite the current trend of focusing resources on violent 
     crime, and away from out-dated drug war policies, Senator 
     Sessions continues to oppose any attempts to legalize 
     marijuana and any reduction in drug sentences. As Attorney 
     General, he could direct federal prosecutors throughout the 
     country to pursue the harshest penalties possible for even 
     low-level drug offenses, a step that would further exacerbate 
     our national record of incarcerating non-violent offenders--
     the vast majority of whom could be successfully treated, at 
     far lower cost to society, with appropriate healthcare 
     treatment.
       Nor should Senator Sessions be trusted to ensure equal 
     access to voting rights. He has publically called the Voting 
     Rights Act ``intrusive,'' and has insisted that its proactive 
     protections of racial minorities were no longer necessary. 
     This is especially disturbing as Senator Sessions voiced 
     public support for voter-ID laws, while his home state 
     recently tried to close over thirty DMV offices, many in 
     majority-black areas, shortly after instituting strict voter-
     ID requirements. We are reminded of the words of Coretta 
     Scott King in her letter opposing Jeff Sessions' nomination 
     to the federal district court in 1986: ``The irony of Mr. 
     Sessions' nomination is that, if confirmed, he will be given 
     a life tenure for doing with a federal prosecution what the 
     local sheriffs accomplished twenty years ago with clubs and 
     cattle prods.''
       We will not attempt to address all the positions Senator 
     Sessions has taken that are out of step with the reality of 
     the difficult times we are in, but as nurses we must include 
     our grave concern that as Attorney General he would not be 
     vigilant in enforcing environmental protections. In a July 
     2012 Senate hearing on climate science, Senator Sessions 
     dismissed the concerns about global warming expressed by 98% 
     of climate scientists, and asserted that this is ``[a] danger 
     that is not as great as it seems.'' These positions are 
     frightening. Climate change is a public health issue that 
     cannot be overstated. As nurses we have been seeing for some 
     time increases in the frequency and severity of respiratory 
     diseases such as asthma, bronchitis, and emphysema, as well 
     as an increase in cancers and aggravation of cardiovascular 
     illness. The effects of air pollution are particularly acute 
     in pediatric patients. They have higher respiratory rates 
     than adults, and consequently higher exposure. Our elderly 
     patients are also especially vulnerable. Respiratory symptoms 
     as common as coughing can cause arrhythmias, heart attacks, 
     and other serious health impacts in geriatric patients. As 
     global warming progresses, we are seeing sharp increases in 
     heat stroke and dehydration, both of which are sometimes 
     fatal.
       In our disaster relief work through our Registered Nurse 
     Response Network, we have been called upon to assist the 
     victims of Hurricane Katrina and Super Storm Sandy--events 
     that many scientists believe would not have been of the 
     magnitude they were if not for rising temperature.
       Current and future generations cannot afford to have a fox 
     minding the hen house on the important issues of civil and 
     criminal protections under the control of the Attorney 
     General. We urge you to set aside your personal loyalty to 
     Senator Sessions and evaluate honestly his record and fitness 
     for this critically important job. We urge you to vote 
     against his confirmation.
           Sincerely,
                                               Deborah Burger, RN,
                             Co-President, National Nurses United.
                                                    Jean Ross, RN,
     Co-President, National Nurses United.
                                  ____

         National Task Force to End Sexual & Domestic Violence
       Dear Member of the Judiciary Committee: We, the steering 
     committee of the National Task Force to End Sexual and 
     Domestic Violence (NTF), a coalition of national, tribal, 
     state, and local leadership organizations and individuals 
     advocating on behalf of victims of sexual assault, domestic 
     violence, dating violence and stalking, write to express our 
     opposition to Senator Jeff Sessions' nomination for Attorney 
     General of the United States of America. We have arrived at 
     this position based upon a review of his record as a state 
     and federal prosecutor, during which he applied the law 
     unevenly, and as a U.S. Senator, during which he supported 
     laws that would afford only some members of our society equal 
     protection of the law. The role of Attorney General requires 
     a demonstrated commitment to providing equal protection under 
     the law--particularly to people who face discrimination 
     because of their race, religion, gender, gender identity, 
     sexual orientation, disability or other identities. We 
     respectfully submit that Senator Sessions' record speaks for 
     itself and that his history of differential application of 
     the law carries with it the potential to harm victims and 
     survivors of gender-based violence, particularly survivors 
     from historically marginalized communities. Thirty years ago, 
     this Committee rejected Senator Sessions' nomination to the 
     federal bench due to well-justified concerns regarding his 
     problematic record on civil rights and troubling history of 
     making racially insensitive statements. These aforementioned 
     concerns, combined with his equally troubling comments on the 
     nature of sexual assault and other concerns raised below, 
     make Senator Sessions an unqualified choice to serve as U.S. 
     Attorney General.
       The position of Attorney General of the United States of 
     America, created by the Judiciary Act of 1789, bears the 
     responsibility of representing the United States in all legal 
     matters in which the country has an interest. Chief among 
     those interests is the affording of equal protection under 
     our criminal, civil and civil rights laws to all members of 
     our society. Under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 503, the President's 
     appointment of an Attorney General must be with the ``advice 
     and consent of the Senate.'' The process ensures that the 
     person holding the post of Attorney General is one fit for 
     such duty, a person with the intellectual, moral and 
     steadfast ethical capacity to uphold the laws and interests 
     of the United States and to apply the laws equally to all 
     members of society.


     Failure to Speak Up for Victims of Violence and Discrimination

       A threshold qualification for the position of Attorney 
     General is a deep understanding of the laws s/he is sworn to 
     uphold. Of critical relevance are Senator Sessions' recent 
     comments on the nature of sexual assault in response to the 
     release of a 2005 video in which President-Elect Donald Trump 
     describes grabbing women's genitalia without their consent. 
     When asked whether he would characterize the behavior 
     described by President-elect Trump as sexual assault, Senator 
     Sessions responded, ``I don't characterize that as sexual 
     assault. I think that's a stretch. I don't know what he 
     meant--.'' Federal statutes enacted prior to Senator 
     Sessions' tenure as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District 
     of Alabama criminalize ``abusive sexual conduct.'' The 
     applicable definition for conduct prohibited by 18 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 2244 is clearly stated: ``the intentional touching, 
     either directly or through the clothing, of the genitalia, 
     anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person 
     with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or 
     arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person.'' Thus, 
     the Senator is either unaware that abusive sexual contact is 
     illegal under federal law, or he feigned ignorance of the 
     laws he was sworn to uphold as an officer of the court for 
     the sake of political expedience.
       The Department of Justice has the exclusive authority to 
     enforce the United States' criminal statutes, including 18 
     U.S.C. Sec. 2244. The Department of Justice also has 
     exclusive jurisdiction over the prosecution of domestic and 
     sexual violence in the District of Columbia, most sexual 
     assaults perpetrated in Indian Country, and concurrent 
     jurisdiction over domestic violence offenses committed in 
     Indian Country. Any candidate for Attorney General of the 
     United States, particularly a former U.S. Attorney, should 
     possess

[[Page S941]]

     a thorough understanding of the legal definition of sexual 
     assault under federal law and under the laws of the 
     jurisdictions in which the Office of the U.S. Attorney has 
     prosecutorial responsibility. The National Task Force has 
     worked collectively for decades to ensure that legal 
     definitions in the U.S. Code and under state and local laws 
     make it absolutely clear that sexual assault is a crime. The 
     job of the Attorney General is to enforce the law without 
     fear or favor. Thus, we expect the Attorney General to 
     enforce federal laws addressing sexual assault without 
     introducing nonexistent ambiguity, because of the 
     perpetrator's identity. Senator Sessions' cavalier statement 
     about sexual assault leaves us fearful that he will not 
     vigorously prosecute sexual assault crimes, a practice 
     unbefitting of the nation's chief law enforcement officer.
       Additionally, Senator Sessions' poor history with respect 
     to fighting for fairness and equity has us justifiably 
     concerned that he will not step in to vindicate the rights of 
     survivors of campus sexual assault and other victims of 
     discrimination. The Justice Department has jurisdiction to 
     enforce a myriad of civil rights statutes, including Title VI 
     of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title IX of the Education 
     Amendments of 1972. These statutes bar discrimination in 
     education based on race, color and national origin and sex 
     (respectively) by educational institutions that receive 
     federal funding. On college and university campuses alone, we 
     know that 20 percent of women are victimized by sexual 
     assault. Absent an Attorney General's commitment to ensuring 
     that educational institutions root out bias and violence and 
     hold perpetrators accountable, victims of discrimination, 
     harassment or violence based on sex, race and/or national 
     origin will be unable to pursue their education in an 
     atmosphere of educational equity. Teachers surveyed since the 
     election have described thousands of incidents of ``bigotry 
     and harassment,'' stemming from incidents involving ``racist, 
     xenophobic or misogynistic comments,'' and/or ``derogatory 
     language directed at students of color, Muslims, immigrants, 
     and people based on gender or sexual orientation.'' It is 
     imperative that the person nominated to the position of 
     Attorney General possess a demonstrated record of work and 
     support for these impacted communities, including people of 
     color, immigrants, Muslims and religious minorities, members 
     of the LGBT community, and people with disabilities.
       Regrettably, Senator Sessions' career is replete with 
     actions taken and statements made in opposition to equitable 
     educational access. While Attorney General of Alabama, 
     Senator Sessions fought equitable educational access for 
     poor, minority and disabled students in Alabama even after 
     being ordered by a federal court to remedy the yawning 
     financial disparities between Alabama's richest (and whitest) 
     and poorest school districts. Additionally, his 
     mischaracterization of the Individuals with Disabilities in 
     Education Act as creating ``special treatment for certain 
     children,'' and being responsible for ``accelerating the 
     decline of civility and discipline in classrooms across 
     America,'' is appalling. In light of these remarks, we are 
     concerned not only about the Senator's willingness to use the 
     civil rights statutes to protect survivors of both campus 
     sexual assault and other forms of harassment and violence in 
     the education context, but also his commitment to ensuring 
     equal access and safety under certain programs in the 
     Violence Against Women Act for victims of sexual and domestic 
     violence who have disabilities.


                        Fair Application of Law

       We have additional concerns regarding the Attorney 
     General's role with respect to the fair, even and unbiased 
     application of the law. Victims and survivors come from all 
     racial or ethnic backgrounds, faith practices, sexual 
     orientations, and gender identities: 33.5% of multiracial 
     women have been raped, as have 27% of American Indian and 
     Alaska Native women, 15% of Hispanic, 22% of Black, and 19% 
     of White women. Additionally, 53.8% of multiracial women and 
     39.3% of multiracial men experience intimate partner physical 
     violence, intimate partner sexual violence and/or intimate 
     partner stalking in their lifetimes, as do 46.0% of American 
     Indian and Alaska Native women, 45.3% of American Indian and 
     Alaska Native men, 19.6% of Asian and Pacific Islander women 
     (data for Asian and Pacific Islander men is not available), 
     43.7% of Black women, 38.6% of Black men, 37.1% of Hispanic 
     women, 26.6% of Hispanic men, 34.6% of White women and 28.2% 
     of White men. We know firsthand that many survivors from 
     vulnerable populations hesitate to contact law enforcement or 
     do not trust the court system to address their victimization 
     because they fear, based on prior experience, that any 
     justice system response may not help them. We expect anyone 
     who serves as Attorney General to create a Justice Department 
     accessible to all; the 5th and 14th Amendments of the U.S. 
     Constitution demand no less.
       Senator Sessions' well-documented prosecutorial record, as 
     U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama and as 
     Attorney General for the State of Alabama, demonstrate his 
     propensity to inequitably apply the law to the disadvantage 
     of historically marginalized populations. Senator Sessions' 
     history leads us to question whether he will vigorously seek 
     to ensure that all victims and survivors of gender-based 
     violence, particularly vulnerable populations and those at 
     the margins of society, have access to vitally needed 
     services and legal protections.


Senator Sessions' Opposition to Protections for the Immigrant and LGBT 
                              Communities

       We are concerned that the positions that Senator Sessions 
     has taken on immigration and LGBT individuals pose grave 
     threats to vulnerable victims of gender-based violence. His 
     consistent support of immigration policies that increase the 
     barriers to safety for undocumented victims of sexual and 
     domestic violence victims pushes immigrant victims further 
     into the shadows and harms families and communities by 
     allowing perpetrators (batterers and rapists) to abuse, 
     traffic and assault with impunity. During the consideration 
     of two major comprehensive immigration reform bills, as well 
     on various other occasions, Senator Sessions has sponsored 
     amendments and stand-alone legislation to limit the 
     availability of critical safety net assistance for immigrants 
     and increase barriers to protections from abuse and 
     exploitation by penalizing local jurisdictions that fail to 
     engage in immigration enforcement activities. He has made no 
     subsequent statement that indicates that he would rethink 
     these punitive policy positions were he to be confirmed.
       His failure to support, and sometimes active opposition to, 
     progress and protections for the LGBT community leave us 
     gravely concerned that if confirmed, he would not stand up 
     for the rights of the LGBT community generally, and 
     particularly with respect to LGBT victims of violence. He 
     opposed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes 
     Prevention Act, which is of particular concern as we witness 
     a spike in harassment of minorities and bias crimes over the 
     last several months. Additionally, he supported a 
     constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. He also 
     opposed the repeal of ``Don't Ask Don't Tell.'' Senator 
     Sessions' record sends the message to marginalized survivors 
     that their experiences will not be understood, nor will their 
     rights be protected, if he is confirmed as the Attorney 
     General.


              Opposition to the Violence Against Women Act

       We are also concerned that the nominee voted against the 
     Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) Reauthorization of 2013. 
     Seventy-eight out of one hundred senators supported the 
     bipartisan bill; Senator Sessions was in the distinct 
     minority. The 2013 Act addresses the gaps in law that were 
     uncovered through outreach to and surveys of programs and 
     service providers and domestic and sexual violence victims 
     themselves.
       Our analysis revealed that many survivors were not able to 
     access services and justice to the extent they needed. Of 
     particular note, we found that LGBT survivors often lacked 
     access to justice and support based on their gender identity 
     or their sexual orientation. We also learned of the 
     deplorable lack of access to justice faced by survivors of 
     domestic violence and sexual assault on tribal lands. VAWA 
     2013 included provisions that removed one of many barriers 
     that prevent access to justice for American Indian and Alaska 
     Native domestic violence survivors. The 2013 statute's 
     provisions expand and ensure that immigrant survivors can 
     access VAWA protections, allowing survivors to come out of 
     the shadows, help hold batterers and abusers accountable, and 
     enable law enforcement to protect community safety. VAWA 
     2013's goal of ensuring equal protection of the law was 
     rejected by Senator Sessions, who cast the bill's 
     advancements toward inclusion and equal protection as 
     political maneuvering and, in that light, voted against the 
     bill. The Attorney General is tasked with ensuring that 
     VAWA's protection and programs are available and accessible 
     to all. Senator Sessions' opposition to the VAWA protections 
     and his prosecutorial record leave us gravely concerned that 
     he would not vigorously or consistently apply these 
     protections.


                               Conclusion

       The 14th Amendment provides the inalienable right that 
     every person receive equal protection under the law. Senator 
     Sessions' senate record of strenuous objection to protections 
     for historically marginalized populations, coupled with his 
     record of selective prosecutions, demonstrate his 
     unwillingness to protect marginalized victims' access to 
     justice and disqualify him from holding the position of 
     Attorney General of the United States, a position charged 
     with the responsibility of securing justice for all. 
     Selective application of the law and outward hostility 
     towards victims of sexual and domestic violence in 
     historically marginalized populations has a chilling effect 
     on their willingness and ability to seek services and 
     protection. It drives sexual violence, domestic violence, 
     dating violence and stalking underground, something we have 
     made great strides to avoid. The Attorney General of the 
     United States must be an individual committed to protecting 
     the inalienable right of equal protection under the law to 
     all within United States' jurisdiction. Moreover, his 
     minimizing comments about the nature of sexual assault call 
     into question his dedication to enforcing the law and 
     providing justice to victims of this serious crime.
       In short, we oppose Senator Sessions' confirmation as 
     Attorney General of the United States and we ask you, as a 
     member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, to ask him direct 
     questions regarding the concerns raised in this letter, and 
     to advise the President, pursuant to the prescription of 28 
     U.S.C.

[[Page S942]]

     Sec. 503, that Senator Sessions' is unqualified to hold this 
     post.
           Yours truly,
      The National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, after a great deal of careful thought and 
consideration, I have decided to oppose Senator Sessions' nomination to 
be the next Attorney General of the United States.
  I have long served with Senator Sessions. While he and I have 
frequently disagreed on certain legal and civil rights issues, I have 
never doubted the sincerity or heartfelt nature of his positions. I am 
deeply concerned, however, that he cannot be the effective check on the 
Executive Branch that our nation currently needs.
  In just the short time since President Donald Trump took office, our 
Nation has faced upheaval and challenges to the way our government 
typically runs. The President's unprecedented refusal to divest himself 
of his business holdings while in office has created legal and 
constitutional conflicts that are unique in our Nation's history. His 
use of social media to antagonize American businesses has already 
caused needless volatility in our economy, which is the cornerstone of 
global financial stability. Most recently, he has unilaterally enacted 
a ban on travel to the United States from several Muslim-majority 
countries--creating chaos in airports, separating families, and 
tarnishing our Nation's image around the world. It is of great concern 
to me that Senator Sessions has already stated his unwillingness, if 
confirmed, to recuse himself from investigations into potentially 
unlawful activities of the Trump campaign and Trump administration.
  Moreover, Senator Sessions and I disagree on how the law should treat 
immigrants, refugees, the LGBTQ community, women, and racial 
minorities, among others. These disagreements go to the heart of the 
Justice Department's law enforcement and civil rights functions. For 
instance, in 2013, Senator Sessions voted against a bipartisan effort 
to reform our Nation's immigration laws. This effort garnered 
overwhelming support from both sides of the aisle and would have done 
much to address the immigration problems facing us today. He also voted 
against the 2013 reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, 
which provides much-needed support to and protections for some of the 
most vulnerable people in our communities--and is overseen by the 
Justice Department that he hopes to administer. Additionally, his 
statements and votes in opposition to reaffirming the prohibition on 
torture run counter to our values and basic precepts of international 
law. And he has voted against every recent effort in this Chamber to 
establish the most basic, commonsense laws that would keep our 
communities safe from the threat of gun violence. He also has called 
into question the Voting Rights Act and praised the Supreme Court's 
harmful decision striking down a key section of this law.
  These are just some of the clear disagreements I have with the 
positions Senator Sessions has taken over the years, which cause me to 
doubt his ability to effectively lead the Justice Department. Our next 
Attorney General should be a champion for all Americans' civil rights 
and civil liberties. The occupant of that office should give Americans 
confidence in our judiciary, our elections, and the impartial due 
process that is the hallmark of the rule of law. Therefore, I cannot 
support Senator Sessions' nomination to be Attorney General of the 
United States.
  Mr. MARKEY. 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. LEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Toomey). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the 
nomination of Senator Jeff Sessions to be the next Attorney General of 
the United States.
  I enthusiastically support this nomination, because I know Senator 
Sessions to be an independent-minded man of great integrity. He is 
someone who understands and respects the rule of law. He values it 
deeply, in fact. He is someone who understands the difference between 
making law and enforcing the law. He understands the difference between 
setting policy and enforcing laws that contain policy, and he is 
someone who understands that, as a lawyer, the very best way to serve 
your client often involves offering honest, independent advice--honest 
independent advice of the sort that might not always occur to the 
client on the client's part.
  I have listened to the remarks of some of my colleagues, and I have 
to state that I have served with Senator Sessions for the last 6 years, 
ever since I first became a Member of this body, and I don't recognize 
the caricature that has been painted of him over the last 24 hours. So 
I want to address head-on several of my colleagues' expressed concerns 
about his nomination.
  Some of my colleagues have expressed and relied upon what really 
amount to policy concerns--policy disagreements between themselves and 
Senator Sessions--as a reason to oppose his nomination.
  As I explained it in our Judiciary Committee markup last week, I have 
disagreed with Senator Sessions not just 1 or 2 times but on many, many 
occasions and not just on a few isolated issues that are only 
tangentially related to something important to me but on circumstances 
and issues that are very important to me and that are at the center of 
my legislative agenda. We have disagreed, for example, about sentencing 
reform. We have disagreed about immigration reform, and several 
important national security issues implicating constitutional law, and 
constitutional policy. All of these issues are very important to both 
of us--to me and to Senator Sessions. They can be emotional issues, and 
they happen to be issues on which Senator Sessions and I disagree, not 
just a little bit, but we happen to disagree taking almost 
diametrically opposed positions in many of these areas.
  Notwithstanding these disagreements--disagreements that I have seen 
in every one of the 6 years I have served in this body so far--I have 
never seen Senator Sessions raise his voice in anger against a 
colleague. To be sure, Senator Sessions makes his arguments vigorously, 
passionately, and forcefully, and yet he does so in a way that ensures 
that he will always treat his colleagues, even though he disagrees with 
them, with dignity and respect. You may not persuade him that your 
position is right and his is wrong, but he always gives you the 
opportunity to make your case. I think Members of this body know that. 
Those Members of this body who have actually taken the time to get to 
know Senator Sessions and actually have the opportunity to work with 
him, even the opportunity to disagree with him know that. Senator 
Sessions interacts with his colleagues in a way that demonstrates a 
degree of respect for differences of opinion that are seldom seen here. 
In fact, I can't think of a colleague who better exemplifies the 
principles of collegiality to which we aspire in this body than does 
Senator Sessions.
  Perhaps even more importantly, Senator Sessions obviously understands 
the difference between lawmaking on the one hand and law enforcement on 
the other hand. This is plain from testimony he provided before the 
Judiciary Committee.
  As just one example, he told us:

       To go from the Legislative branch to the Executive branch 
     is a transfer not only of position, but of the way you 
     approach issues. I would be in an executive function and 
     enforcement function of the law this great legislative body 
     might pass.''

  His commitment to the rule of law and even application of the law is 
also plain from his public record, from his record serving in other 
positions. His record, for example, as U.S. Attorney for the Southern 
District of Alabama, and his record as attorney general for the State 
of Alabama.

  To put the matter quite plainly, a great number of Senators have 
served in the Cabinet over the years. The standard has never been that 
a Senator is somehow unfit for the executive branch--for a Cabinet 
position in the executive branch--if he or she has disagreed with you 
on important issues. If that were the standard, no Senator would ever 
be confirmed because we debate important public policy issues

[[Page S943]]

every single day, and it is never the case that we will find any among 
us, even colleagues, with whom we agree most of the time who are going 
to agree with us 100 percent of the time. So I urge my colleagues to 
put aside any policy differences they might have with Senator Sessions 
when considering his nomination and when deciding how they are going to 
vote in response to his nomination, because those simply are not 
relevant to his job and, at a minimum, ought not to be disqualifying 
factors relevant to his job.
  As to independence, some of my colleagues doubt that Senator Sessions 
will be an independent voice at the Department of Justice. 
Respectfully, I can say with full confidence that anyone who actually 
knows Senator Sessions knows that he is fiercely independent-minded. He 
never shies away from expressing his closely held, sincerely developed 
views on any issue, even when political pressure might suggest a 
different course of action be in order. It is clear that Sessions will 
apply his independent-mindedness to his job after he is confirmed as 
Attorney General of the United States.
  During his testimony before the Judiciary Committee, he repeatedly 
outlined the importance of having an independent Attorney General, and 
he explained how he would fulfill this obligation, how he would become 
precisely such an Attorney General, one who would exercise a degree of 
independence and not simply be a rubber stamp.
  For example, he told us that every Attorney General ``understands, I 
think, that if a President wants to accomplish a goal that he or she 
believes in deeply, you should help them do it in a lawful way but make 
clear and object if it is an unlawful action.'' He described that 
role--being able to tell the President ``no,'' that is--as ``the 
ultimate loyalty to him.''
  He testified: ``I hope that President Trump has confidence in me so 
that if I give him advice that something can be done or cannot be done, 
that he would respect that.''
  Sessions also explained that if the Attorney General were asked ``to 
do something plainly unlawful, he cannot participate in that. He or she 
would have to resign ultimately before agreeing to execute a policy 
that the Attorney General believed would be unlawful or 
unconstitutional.'' Senator Sessions made this point repeatedly. He 
made it with great emphasis and in such a way that it is unmistakably 
clear to me that this is the Attorney General he would aspire to be and 
that he would in fact become after being confirmed.
  Now, some may argue that you cannot necessarily trust his testimony 
because no Attorney General nominee would declare an intention to be a 
rubberstamp to the nominated President. Others may argue that Senator 
Sessions was too involved in the Trump campaign to be impartial. This 
is one of those points that you either believe or don't believe. You 
can't reason your way to an answer. You have to know the person.
  So I urge my colleagues to reflect on their experiences with Senator 
Sessions. If I know one thing about him, he is not a ``yes'' man. If I 
know one thing about him, it is that of all the people with whom I have 
served in the Senate, he is one of the very last who I would ever 
expect in any context to sell out his sincerely held views on the basis 
of political expediency. Instead, Senator Sessions takes his 
professional responsibility very seriously.
  When he was a lawyer, he took seriously his obligations to his client 
and the law. As a Senator, he has taken seriously his obligations to 
the people of the State of Alabama. I know he will do the same thing at 
the U.S. Department of Justice.
  He told us that ``the Attorney General ultimately owes his loyalty to 
the integrity of the American people and to the fidelity of the 
Constitution, and the legislative laws of the country.'' This 
demonstrates that Senator Sessions understands, as any good lawyer 
does, that every lawyer has a client, and you understand how best to 
represent that client and that client's interest. You have to 
understand the nature of the attorney-client relationship. You have to 
know who the client is, you have to know how to interact with that 
client, and you have to be willing to push back on that client, even 
when--especially when--it is difficult, because that is the job of the 
lawyer. The obligations incumbent upon the lawyer provides that the 
lawyer sometimes has to push back on the client.
  At the end of the day, it seems to me that some of my colleagues 
perhaps just want an Attorney General who will be openly, 
affirmatively, presumptively, perennially hostile to the President's 
agenda. Now, that has never been the standard, and it is not a workable 
way of arranging the executive branch of the U.S. Government. The 
President should be allowed to assemble his or her team so long as the 
President picks people who are qualified, people who are willing and 
able to fulfill their constitutional responsibility, and people who do 
not have anything disqualifying in their backgrounds that would suggest 
that they cannot be trusted with this type of very substantial 
responsibility. Senator Sessions plainly satisfies these criteria.
  So I support Senator Sessions' nomination. I do so wholeheartedly. I 
do so, I would add, with a somewhat heavy heart, knowing that as we 
take this step and confirm Senator Sessions as the next Attorney 
General of the United States, we will be losing a colleague--not just 
any colleague but a colleague that has been a dear friend to me, who 
has been a kind mentor and a good example to me at every stage of my 
service in the Senate. He has done this not only when we have agreed, 
but he has done this especially when we have disagreed. That is what I 
love so much about Senator Sessions--that he has taught me much about 
how to get along with and respect people who sometimes reach different 
conclusions than I reach on my own.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.


                              APPOINTMENTS

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair, in accordance with Public Law 93-
618, as amended by Public Law 100-418, on behalf of the President pro 
tempore and upon the recommendation of the chairman of the Committee on 
Finance, appoints the following members of the Finance Committee as 
congressional advisers on trade policy and negotiations to 
International conferences, meetings and negotiation sessions relating 
to trade agreements: the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch), the Senator 
from Iowa (Mr. Grassley), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo), the 
Senator from Oregon (Mr. Wyden), and the Senator from Michigan (Ms. 
Stabenow).
  The Chair announces, on behalf of the majority leader, pursuant to 
the provisions of Public Law 114-196, the appointment of the following 
individuals to serve as members of the United States Semiquincentennial 
Commission:
  Members of the Senate: the Honorable Tom Cotton of Arkansas, and the 
Honorable Patrick Toomey of Pennsylvania.
  Private Citizens: Cathy Gillespie of Virginia, Daniel DiLella of 
Pennsylvania, Lucas Morel of Virginia, and Tom Walker of Alabama.
  Mr. LEE. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. HARRIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. HARRIS. Mr. President, my parents met when they were graduate 
students at the University of California, Berkeley, in the 1960s when 
they were active in the civil rights movement. In fact, my sister and I 
joke that we grew up surrounded by a bunch of adults who spent their 
full time marching and shouting for this thing called justice.
  I was part of only the second class to integrate Berkeley, CA, public 
schools almost two decades after the U.S. Supreme Court declared that 
separate was inherently unequal in the great case of Brown v. Board of 
Education--a case, I might add, that was supported by an amicus brief 
from the then U.S. Attorney General.
  In fact, it was the lawyers in Brown v. Board of Education--Thurgood 
Marshall, Charles Hamilton Houston, and Constance Baker Motley--who 
inspired me at a young age to become a lawyer.
  Simply put, it is likely that had the U.S. Supreme Court not decided 
the

[[Page S944]]

way it did in Brown v. Board of Education, I would not be standing here 
as a Member of the U.S. Senate.
  So then, as a direct beneficiary of landmark rulings by the U.S. 
judicial system and the American judicial system, I am acutely aware of 
the lasting and profound impact our courts can have on the everyday 
lives of Americans. It is with a deep sense of respect and admiration 
for the role of our justice system that I rise to oppose the nomination 
of Senator Sessions to be the next Attorney General of the United 
States.
  The mission of the Department of Justice is clear: ``To enforce the 
law and defend the interests of the United States according to the law; 
to ensure public safety against threats, foreign and domestic; to 
provide Federal leadership in preventing and controlling crime; to seek 
just punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior; and to ensure 
fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans.''
  It is those words--``justice for all''--that best articulate the 
spirit behind our judicial system.
  I am a career prosecutor. In fact, I started my work as a young 
deputy district attorney in the Alameda County District Attorney's 
Office. That office was once led by U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice 
Earl Warren. Every time I filed a case, it would never read with the 
name of the victim versus the name of the defendant. It always read 
``the people'' versus the defendant because in our democracy, in our 
great judicial system, we have rightly said a harm against any one of 
us is a harm against all of us, especially because we know that harm is 
most often directed at some of the most vulnerable and voiceless among 
us. So we rightly have declared that as a civil society, we will not 
require them to fight alone. We will stand with them. Justice for all.
  This point is what raises my question of whether this nominee can 
fulfill the role and responsibility of this job. Let's be clear. This 
is not a debate about a President's nominee. It is not simply a debate 
about a President's nominee. This is a debate about the fundamental 
ideals of our country--ideals that date back to the founding of our 
country and those great words we spoke in 1776: ``We hold these Truths 
to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are 
endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among 
these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.''
  All men are created equal, with unalienable rights. In other words, 
President Lincoln was fulfilling the promise first made in the 
Declaration of Independence, a promise that made clear the basis for 
legal equality derives not through a right that is given but from 
natural rights--rights that have been endowed upon us by our Creator; 
rights that cannot and should not be taken away or given up.
  So let us recognize that civil rights are not given through the 
enactment of a law or the publication of a court decision. Rather, our 
inherent civil rights are fulfilled when we guarantee them through the 
implementation and enforcement of the law.
  Well-meaning people indeed can argue over the best means to ensure 
our fundamental rights, but it is crucial that we do not allow 
ourselves to be drawn into a suggestion that enforcing civil rights is 
favoring one group over another. Protecting civil rights is not about 
taking care of someone else. It is in our common interests. It is in 
each of our self-interests.
  Liberty for each of us depends on liberty for all of us. It is just 
like the Department of Justice's mission, which articulates in those 
three words, ``justice for all.''
  This is the Department's charge. It is its mission, and the next 
Attorney General of the United States must use his powers as a 
prosecutor to uphold it.
  This brings me to the troubling and, frankly, unacceptable record of 
the nominee for this office. It is the U.S. Department of Justice that 
is charged with enforcing the rights of those trying to cast a ballot, 
but Senator Sessions cheered the Supreme Court's decision to gut the 
Voting Rights Act, used his power as a U.S. attorney to prosecute three 
African-American Civil Rights activists in Alabama, and then called the 
NAACP ``un-American.''
  It is the U.S. Department of Justice that addresses systemic 
inequalities that we know, unfortunately, still exist in our criminal 
justice system and have led to mass incarceration--but Senator Sessions 
led the opposition to bipartisan sentencing reform.
  It is the U.S. Department of Justice that investigates and prosecutes 
crimes motivated by hate based on race, religion, gender, nationality, 
disability, or sexual orientation of its victim--but in the 1990s, when 
lawmakers worked to pass hate crime legislation after the brutal 
killing of Matthew Shepard, Senator Sessions was a vocal opponent.
  It is the U.S. Department of Justice that uses the power of the 
prosecutor to protect women who have been victims of crime--but Senator 
Sessions voted no when both Democrats and Republicans came together to 
reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act, which gives support and 
assistance to survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault, 
including members of our LGBT community.
  It is the U.S. Department of Justice that defends that most 
fundamental right of freedom to worship--but it was Senator Sessions 
who was one of the most outspoken defenders of then-candidate and now-
President Donald Trump's unconstitutional Muslim travel ban which, by 
the way, was roundly denounced by many of his fellow Republicans.
  It is the U.S. Department of Justice that enforces Federal laws 
prohibiting employment practices that discriminate on the grounds of 
race, sex, religion, and national origin. But Senator Sessions has 
opposed the Paycheck Fairness Act, Lilly Ledbetter Act, and the 
Employee Non-Discrimination Act.
  It is the U.S. Department of Justice that implements the Americans 
with Disabilities Act. But when both Democrats and Republicans worked 
to reauthorize the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which 
provides resources to children with special needs, Senator Sessions 
said that providing educational services for these children ``may be 
the single most irritating problem for teachers throughout America 
today.''
  Whether you are the father of a special needs child in a classroom, a 
woman trying to earn fair pay, an African-American man in a voting 
booth, or a victim at a police station trying to report a crime, 
Senator Sessions has not been your advocate.
  As a former U.S. Attorney General, the great Bobby Kennedy once said:

       We must recognize the full human equality of all our people 
     before God, before the law, and in the councils of 
     government. We must do this, not because it is economically 
     advantageous, although it is; not because the laws of God and 
     man command it, although they do; not because people in other 
     lands wish it so. We must do it for the single and 
     fundamental reason that it is the right thing to do.

  The right thing to do. That is what makes us special as a country. 
That is what makes us right. That is what makes us great--our values 
and our ideas. It is the belief that no matter who you are, whether 
young or old, rich or poor, gay or straight; whether you are a child 
from Oakland or a child from Birmingham; whether you came here by plane 
to escape the hardships of war and torture or by foot to build a better 
life; whether you have been the victim of gun violence or opioid 
addiction; whether you are paid less than others doing the same work or 
stopped at a red light because of the color of your skin, you deserve 
an Attorney General who recognizes the full human quality of all 
people.
  It is what led Attorney General Herbert Brownell, when there was 
rampant voter discrimination and intimidation here in the United 
States, to create in the United States Department of Justice the Civil 
Rights Division, whose mission is to ``uphold the civil and 
constitutional rights of all Americans, particularly some of the most 
vulnerable members of our society.''
  It is what led Attorney General William Rogers to forcefully demand 
the integration of an elementary school at the Redstone missile center 
in Alabama when the children of Black servicemembers were being denied 
entry.
  It is that commitment that led Bobby Kennedy to send 500 U.S. 
marshals to Oxford, MS, to escort a young Black man, James Meredith, to 
enroll at Ole Miss. It is what led U.S. Attorney General Elliott 
Richardson to resign rather than do the bidding of a corrupt President 
during Watergate.
  It is what led my friend, Attorney General Eric Holder, to sue the 
State

[[Page S945]]

of Arizona over SB 1070, a law that led to the unjust racial profiling 
of immigrants and to say that the U.S. Government would no longer 
defend a law that prevented LGBT Americans from expressing their love 
for one another.
  It is what led Attorney General Sally Yates, on a Monday evening this 
month, to stand up and refuse to defend a Muslim ban.
  More than most Cabinet positions, the U.S. Attorney General enforces 
the principles that are the founding of our country, but I have seen no 
evidence in his record or testimony that Senator Sessions will approach 
this office in furtherance of these noble ideals. The gains our country 
has made are not permanent, and it is incumbent on the Attorney General 
of the United States to fight for the civil rights of all people.
  No one said it better than Coretta Scott King:

       Freedom is never really won. You earn it and win it in 
     every generation.

  If Senator Sessions won't, then it is incumbent upon the rest of us 
to persist.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no.
  Mr. President, 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. NELSON. 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. NELSON. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the nomination 
of Senator Sessions to be the next Attorney General. I believe one of 
the most important jobs of a U.S. Attorney General is to protect the 
people's right to vote.
  In the tumultuous days of the early 1960s, on a hot afternoon, I 
watched on a grainy black and white TV as Dr. King delivered his 
memorable ``I Have a Dream'' speech on the steps of the Lincoln 
Memorial.
  His soaring, spiritually laced speech challenged us to commit our 
lives to ensuring that the promises of American democracy were 
available, not just for the privileged few but for ``all of God's 
children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and 
Catholics.''
  ``Now is the time,'' Dr. King urged, ``to make real the promises of 
democracy.'' He stressed that a central promise made to the citizens in 
a democracy is the right to vote and to have that vote counted. He 
said: ``We cannot be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot 
vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to 
vote.''
  Half a century has passed, and our country has changed with the 
times, but one thing has not changed. The right to vote for ``all God's 
children'' in America is still under assault. Unbelievably, we are not 
so very far from the problems of 1963. Despite the passage of time and 
landmark civil and voting rights legislation, five decades later there 
is still considerable voter suppression in this country.
  In fact, several States have recently enacted restrictive laws 
cutting back voting hours on nights and on weekends, eliminating same-
day registration, and basically making it harder for people to vote. 
Standing in between a citizen and the voting booth is a direct 
contradiction to the vision of equality put forth by our Founding 
Fathers. In 1776, they declared that all men were created equal, but 
many in our country had to wait another 94 years before the 15th 
Amendment to the Constitution granted citizens the right to vote--
though not all citizens. Ratified in 1870, the amendment states: ``The 
right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or 
abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, 
color, or previous condition of servitude. The Congress shall have 
power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.''
  It still took another 50 years before women in America were allowed 
to vote. After her arrest for casting a ballot in the Presidential 
election of 1872, Susan B. Anthony delivered a number of speeches in 
Upstate New York on women's suffrage. In those speeches, she noted that 
the right of all citizens to vote in elections is key to a functioning 
democracy.
  Specifically, one line from her speech stands out. ``And it is a 
downright mockery to talk to women of their enjoyment of the blessings 
of liberty while they are denied the use of the only means of securing 
them by providing the democratic-republican government--the ballot.''
  After the passage of the 19th Amendment granting women the ballot, it 
took another 45 years before our Nation belatedly enacted the Voting 
Rights Act of 1965 intended to guarantee every U.S. citizen the right 
to vote. Does this principle really hold true in practice?
  The continued voter suppression of which I speak may not be as 
blatant as it once was with Jim Crow laws and poll taxes and literacy 
tests and the like, but it is still very much with us.
  In recent years, it is obvious that hurdles have once again been 
placed between the voting booth and the young and minority voters. A 
devastating blow was dealt by the U.S. Supreme Court when it gutted the 
Voting Rights Act in 2013. Our Nation's highest Court struck down a 
central provision of the law that was used to guarantee fair elections 
in this country since the mid-1960s, and that includes the guarantee of 
elections in my State of Florida since that time.
  Congress passed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to protect our right to 
vote. It required States with a history of voter suppression to get 
Federal approval before changing their voting laws. And for nearly five 
decades, the States had to prove to the Department of Justice why a 
change was necessary and demonstrate how that change would not harm 
voters.
  In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court declared that part of the law was 
outdated. It essentially rendered a key part of the law void until a 
bitterly partisan and gridlocked Congress can come up with a new 
formula for determining which States and localities need advance 
approval to amend their right-to-vote laws. The majority justified its 
ruling in the Court by pointing out that we no longer had the blatant 
voter suppression tactics once used to disenfranchise targeted voters 
across the country. I vigorously disagree because removing much needed 
voter protections also prevents the Federal Government from trying to 
block discriminatory State laws before they go into effect. In essence, 
States and local jurisdictions are now legally free to do as they 
please.
  In fact, just moments after the decision, the Texas attorney general 
said his State would begin ``immediately'' honoring local legislation 
that a fellow court had imposed ``strict and unforgiving burdens'' on 
many Texans attempting to cast a ballot.
  As has been noted, the right to vote was not always given to all 
American adults, but our laws adjusted as we became a more mature and 
tolerant democracy. But the reverse is what has been happening in 
America today and especially in Florida.
  Since the 2010 election, in addition to cutting back on early voting, 
North Carolina, Ohio, Wisconsin, and Florida have approved voting 
restrictions that according to some experts are targeted directly at 
reducing turnout among young, low-income, and minority voters who 
traditionally support Democrats.
  One study by the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University 
School of Law reviewed the crop of similar disenfranchisement laws that 
were enacted after the 2010 decision. All told, the center found that 
as many as 5 million Americans could be adversely affected by these 
voting laws, and there is a clear political impact as a result of these 
disenfranchisement laws.
  Two University of Massachusetts professors conducted a study that 
found that there was a clear pattern associated with the voter 
restrictions in the various States. According to Keith Bentele and Erin 
E. O'Brien, States were more likely to pass limits on voting that 
elected those Republican Governors, those States that increased their 
share of Republican lawmakers, and those States that became more 
electorally competitive under Republicans.
  In 2011, the Florida legislature and State officials reduced a number 
of early voting days. They reduced them from 2 weeks down to 8 days, 
including very conveniently canceling the Sunday right before the 
Tuesday election, a day that had historically seen heavy African-
American and Hispanic voting.

[[Page S946]]

  State officials countered that registered voters would still have the 
same number of hours and that they could still vote early, only in 8 
days instead of 2 weeks. Well, it didn't work out that way. Florida 
also made voting harder for people who had been recently moved to 
another county and had an address change, such as college students, 
after it subjected voter registration groups to penalties and fines for 
mistakes--voter registration, mind you, penalties, and fines if you 
didn't turn it in within a certain number of hours.
  They were so burdensome that the League of Women Voters challenged 
the provision in Federal court and they won but not before Jill 
Cicciarelli, a Florida teacher, had helped her students preregister to 
vote and ended up facing legal troubles as the result of her well-
intentioned public service. A schoolteacher, teaching a government 
class, getting her kids preregistered, so when they became 18, they 
could vote, and she got in trouble with the State of Florida. The New 
Smyrna Beach High School civics teacher unwittingly ran afoul of the 
State's new convoluted election law. Cicciarelli, it turned out, hadn't 
registered with the State before beginning the drive and didn't submit 
forms to the elections office within that short number of hours. 
``You're talking about a high-energy teacher who cares about her kids, 
cares about her community and cares about her country,'' is how the New 
Smyrna High School principal, Jim Tager, described the situation.
  Thankfully, the Voting Rights Act allowed the Federal Government to 
go before a panel of Washington, DC, judges who found that Florida's 
2011 reduction of early voting--which I have just chronicled--here is 
what the court said, ``would make it materially more difficult for some 
minority voters to cast a ballot.'' As a result, Florida had to restore 
96 hours of early voting.
  Even with these added protections, the next election in 2012 was a 
fiasco. Lines outside the polling places were prohibitively long, with 
some people waiting up to 8 hours to cast their vote. I am not kidding 
the Senate. There were lines in Dade County, Miami Dade County, 7 and 8 
hours. By the way, some of those lines, there wasn't a nearby bathroom. 
Faced with calls for extending poll hours, the Governor of Florida 
failed to do what its two Republican gubernatorial predecessors had 
done: extend voting hours in some of the most swamped polling places to 
give folks enough time to exercise their right to vote.
  In fact, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology analysis found that 
in 2012, Florida had the Nation's longest waiting lines to vote at an 
average statewide of 45 minutes. More than 200,000 voters in Florida 
gave up in frustration because the lines were so long. They didn't vote 
that year. According to another analysis by Ohio State University, in 
the Orlando Sentinel, they are the ones who came up with that 200,000 
figure, and they aren't done yet.
  As if the 2011 restrictions weren't enough, an elections official in 
Miami-Dade County, in 2012, said that restrooms would be closed to 
voters at polling sites in private buildings over a handicap access 
dispute, even though there were bathrooms in those private buildings 
where the polling place was. The State's top election official in 2012 
also told one of our 67 local election supervisors not to allow voters 
to submit absentee ballots at remote dropoff sites. She, by the way, is 
a Republican supervisor of elections. She told the State Department 
Division of Elections to kiss off; that she was running the elections 
and she was going to make sure there were enough places around that 
county where, if they had an absentee ballot, it was going to be 
convenient for them to go and drop off that absentee ballot than having 
to take it miles and miles to one place, that the Division of Elections 
at the State level was telling them to go to that Supervisor of 
Elections. She knew what she had to do to make it easy for voters to 
vote, and she stuck to her guns.
  At the same time, that same Division of Elections in the Department 
of State, denied a request from the city of Gainesville in a municipal 
election. They denied the request to use the University of Florida 
campus building for early voting. A move that was viewed by some--more 
than some--as an assault on student voting by making it more difficult 
for students to find a place to vote.
  By then, I had asked the U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, for an 
investigation into the changes in Florida's voting law. In response, 
the Attorney General wrote to warn the Governor of Florida that the 
Justice Department would be ``carefully monitoring'' Florida's 
elections. ``During your tenure, your State has repeatedly added 
barriers to voting and restricted access to the polls,'' the Attorney 
General wrote. ``Whenever warranted by the facts and the law, we will 
not hesitate to use all tools and legal authorities at our disposal to 
fight against racial discrimination, to stand against 
disenfranchisement, and to safeguard the right of every eligible 
American to cast a ballot.''
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
the letter from the U.S. Attorney General to the Governor of Florida, 
dated July 21, 2014.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
                                                     Office of the


                                             Attorney General,

                                    Washington, DC, July 21, 2014.
     Hon. Rick Scott,
     Governor of Florida, The Capitol, Tallahassee, FL.
       Dear Governor Scott: In recent years. I have heard from 
     public officials and citizens of Florida expressing their 
     deep concern that certain changes to Florida election law and 
     procedures have restricted voter participation and limited 
     access to the franchise. Because the right to vote is one of 
     our nation's most sacred rights, I strongly urge you to 
     reevaluate laws and procedures that make it harder for 
     citizens to register and to vote so that all eligible 
     Floridians can easily and without burden exercise their right 
     to vote.
       Generations of Americans took extraordinary risks and 
     willingly confronted hatred and violence--including in your 
     home state--to ensure that all American citizens would have 
     the chance to participate in the work of their government. 
     The right to vote is not only the cornerstone or our system 
     of government--it is the lifeblood of our democracy. Whatever 
     the precise contours of federal law, we each have a civic and 
     moral duty to protect, and to expand access to, this right.
       For this reason, I am deeply disturbed that during your 
     tenure your state has repeatedly added barriers to voting and 
     restricted access to the polls. For example, changes in 2011 
     significantly narrowed the early voting window that had 
     previously enabled thousands of Floridians to cast ballots. 
     As the three judge court in Florida v. United Stares, 885 F. 
     Supp. 2d 299 (D.D.C. 2012), observed, the law threatened ``a 
     dramatic reduction in the form of voting that is 
     disproportionately used by African-Americans'' that would 
     have made it ``materially more difficult for some minority 
     voters to cast a ballot than under the benchmark law,'' in 
     part because the decreased opportunity for early voting would 
     produce increased lines at the polls during the remaining 
     hours. Id. at 333. Accordingly, the court refused to approve 
     reduced early voting hours with respect to the five counties 
     in Florida covered by the Voting Rights Act's preclearance 
     provision.
       Indeed, Florida's decision to reduce early voting 
     opportunities in the 2011 legislation was widely recognized 
     as a disaster. A report released by the Orlando Sentinel in 
     January 2013 found that at least 201,000 Florida voters did 
     not cast ballots on Election Day 2012 because they were 
     discouraged by long lines at polling places. I am pleased 
     that last year you signed legislation that restored early 
     voting days. However, I have grave concerns that there 
     remains a troubling pattern in your state of measures that 
     make it more difficult, not easier, for Floridians to vote. 
     For example, as part of the same 2011 law, the state imposed 
     rules on organizations that helped register individuals to 
     vote that were, in the words of a federal court, ``harsh,'' 
     ``impractical,'' ``burdensome,'' and ``unworkable.'' League 
     of Women Voters of Fla. v. Browning, 863 F. Supp. 2d 1155 
     (N.D. Fl. 2012).
       Most recently, the federal courts have concluded that in 
     2012, Florida violated the National Voter Registration Act of 
     1993 (NVRA) by conducting a systematic program to purge 
     voters from its voter registration rolls within the 90-day 
     quiet period before an election for federal office. In doing 
     so, Florida used inaccurate and unreliable voter verification 
     procedures that harmed and confused voters. Arcia v. Fla. 
     Sec'y, of State, 746 F.3d 1273 (11th Cir. 2014).
       Florida is one of just eleven states that continue to 
     restrict voting rights even after a person has served his or 
     her sentence and is no longer on probation or parole; and in 
     2011, you made it more difficult for individuals who have 
     served their sentences to regain the right to vote by 
     eliminating automatic restoration of rights for non-violent 
     felons and requiring a five year waiting period before felons 
     convicted of non-violent crimes can apply to have their 
     rights restored. Approximately ten percent of the entire 
     population is disenfranchised as a result

[[Page S947]]

     of Florida law. The justifications for denying citizens' 
     voting rights for life, especially after they have completed 
     their sentence and made amends, are unpersuasive. On the 
     contrary: there is evidence to suggest that offenders whose 
     voting rights are restored are significantly less likely to 
     return to the criminal justice system. For example. a study 
     recently conducted by a parole commission in Florida found 
     that, while the overall three-year recidivism rate stood at 
     roughly 33 percent, the rate among those who were re-
     enfranchised after they'd served their time was just a third 
     of that.
       And there are a number of other troubling examples 
     involving recent changes:
       In 2013, Florida Secretary of State Ken Detzner issued a 
     directive to county officials who supervise elections stating 
     that they should never solicit the return of absentee ballots 
     at any place other than supervisors' offices. Many have 
     expressed concern that this directive will significantly 
     reduce the number of places to return an absentee ballot and 
     will have a negative impact on citizens whose jobs, access to 
     transportation, or addresses make it difficult to return 
     ballots to supervisors' office which, especially in large 
     counties, may be miles away.
       This year, Gainesville, in an attempt to avoid the long 
     lines that characterized the 2012 election, sought approval 
     to use the University of Florida's student union as an early 
     voting site. Secretary of State Detzner denied the request. 
     As a result, it is more difficult for University of Florida 
     students--who have to travel to alternative early voting 
     locations miles off campus--to participate in early voting.
       In April, it was reported that the Miami-Dade County 
     Elections Department had a policy, according to an email from 
     an Assistant County Attorney, ``not to permit access to 
     restrooms at polling sites on election days.'' As you know, 
     in 2012, Miami-Dade County had some of the longest lines and 
     waiting times to vote in the United States. Some voters 
     reported waiting as much as six hours. Many of the people 
     stuck in lines need to use bathroom facilities in order to 
     remain in line and be allowed to vote.
       Whether or not these changes would ultimately be found to 
     violate specific federal laws, they represent a troubling 
     series of efforts to limit citizens' ability to exercise the 
     franchise. And I write to you today to make clear that the 
     Department of Justice is carefully monitoring jurisdictions 
     around the country--including throughout Florida--for voting 
     changes that may hamper the voting rights we are charged with 
     protecting. Whenever warranted by the facts and the law, we 
     will not hesitate to use all tools and legal authorities at 
     our disposal to fight against racial discrimination, to stand 
     against disenfranchisement, and to safeguard the right of 
     every eligible American to cast a ballot.
           Sincerely,
                                              Eric H. Holder, Jr.,
                                                 Attorney General.

  Mr. NELSON. The Attorney General cited problematic actions of the 
Governor's chief elections official, including purging from the voter 
rolls suspected noncitizens--a move that eventually was blocked after 
outright opposition from county election supervisors.
  So in light of this evidence and following a widespread public 
outcry, what do we do now? As we say, it may not be as obvious as poll 
tactics and all the other blockades to voting, as we have seen in the 
past, particularly by all of the marches and so forth during the 1970s 
civil rights era. It might not be as obvious, but there are all these 
subtle attempts. So what do we do?
  I submit that though the problem is complex, the answer is relatively 
simple. As Americans who cherish the right to vote, we must turn to 
those schemers and say: There is a promise of democracy that we will 
not allow you to break. We have an obligation to keep this promise of 
democracy for our children.
  Congress may be dysfunctional, but we must continue to push lawmakers 
for a fix to the Voting Rights Act that the Supreme Court struck down 
on a 5-to-4 vote, a key provision. We ought to be making it easier to 
vote, not harder. I believe no one should have to wait more than one-
half hour to vote.
  So I joined with others a few years ago to introduce a bill in 
Congress aimed at making that standard 30-minute wait time based on the 
January 2014 recommendation of a bipartisan Presidential Commission on 
Election Administration. Keep in mind what President Johnson said a 
half century ago: ``The vote is the most powerful instrument ever 
devised by man for breaking down injustice and destroying the terrible 
walls which imprison men because they are different from other men.''
  Also remember what Dr. King said:

       So long as I do not firmly and irrevocably possess the 
     right to vote, I do not possess myself. I cannot make up my 
     mind--it is made up for me. I cannot live as a democratic 
     citizen, observing the laws I have helped to enact--I can 
     only submit to the edict of others.

  Don't we owe it to all our children the right to possess themselves 
if this is to be a truly free and fair democracy? I believe that two of 
the most fundamental rights in our democracy are the right to vote and 
the right to know whom you are voting for and the right to have the 
confidence that vote is going to be counted as you intended.
  If that were not enough, just as concerning as the ongoing efforts to 
suppress certain votes in this country is the amount of undisclosed and 
unlimited money that is sloshing around in our campaigns.
  The Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Citizens United has opened the 
floodgates and allowed the wealthiest Americans to spend unlimited 
amounts of money to influence our elections. Allowing such unlimited, 
undisclosed money into our political system is corrupting our 
democracy.
  I have strongly supported several pieces of legislation, such as the 
Disclose Act, to require groups who spend more than $10,000 on 
campaign-related matters to identify themselves. Tell the people who is 
giving the money by filing a disclosure report with the Federal 
Elections Commission. But that is not what the Supreme Court decision 
required.
  The American people have a right to know whom they are voting for--
not just the name on the ballot but who is behind that name on the 
ballot. The Supreme Court itself said that ``transparency enables the 
electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to 
different speakers and messages.''
  I believe we as a Congress have a moral obligation--a moral 
obligation--to correct what has happened to our system and to ensure 
that our voters have the information they need to make an informed 
decision on election day.
  So this Senator has spoken on two subject areas--the right to vote 
and the amount of undetectable, unannounced, undisclosed, and unlimited 
money in our elections. For these and many other reasons I have stated 
and have not stated and the reasons mentioned in these remarks, I will 
vote no on the confirmation for Attorney General.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gardner). The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, we are coming to the conclusion of weeks 
now of debate on the nominee to be the Attorney General of the United 
States, and we still have other debates to have on other people before 
this process ends. In fact, somebody observed this week that you have 
to go back to the very founding of the government, to the first 
administration of George Washington, to find a time when it has taken 
longer to put a Cabinet in place, and George Washington only had to 
find four people in a government that was just trying to establish 
itself. But we are taking a maximum amount of time on a Cabinet and a 
Presidential nomination that usually happen quickly.
  There has traditionally been an understanding in our country that 
when the President is elected--the importance of the President being 
able to put his stamp on the government as quickly as possible. And 
eventually we will be able to say his or her stamp on the government. 
But up until now, Presidents have had that opportunity. I read 
somewhere that from President Garfield right after the Civil War 
through Franklin Roosevelt, that Cabinets--those were put in place in 
the first days of every one of those administrations, often even the 
very first day.
  What we have seen in this debate is also the questioning of people's 
motives, not just their decisions. I don't quote Vice President Biden 
often, but one of the quotes I have heard him give often and one I have 
agreed with in all my time here is that it is appropriate to question 
somebody else's decisions in public debate, particularly when you are 
debating your colleagues, who have also been elected to these jobs as 
well, but it is frankly not appropriate to question their motives. When 
we start doing that, that is always a mistake.
  When I was the whip in the House, I used to tell freshman Members of 
the House: You are going to enjoy this opportunity and be better at it 
while you are here if you can vigorously fight for what you are for but 
if you will also believe that in virtually 100 percent of

[[Page S948]]

the cases, the person on the other side of that debate is as well 
motivated and as genuine as you are. You can be wrong and not be evil. 
You can be wrong and not be badly motivated.
  You know, elections do have consequences. Every person we are talking 
with on this floor in this debate was elected to the Senate.
  I think Senator Sessions will be confirmed Attorney General, so 
sometime later this week, one of our number will have been appointed to 
this job. But these are people who come to this process as the 
Constitution determines, and they serve here as representatives of both 
the State they represent and the Constitution and what it stands for.
  In the case of Senator Sessions, we have a colleague who has been 
here for 20 years. Anybody who has been here less than that served 
every day of their time in the Senate with Senator Sessions. People who 
have been here longer than that have served all 20 years with Senator 
Sessions. I don't know how you can do that and not see the quality he 
brings to that job every day.
  He and I have not always voted the same. In fact, there is probably 
no Member here with whom I have always voted the same. But he comes 
with a background of integrity.
  He started as an Eagle Scout. I think he was a Distinguished Eagle 
Scout. I am not even sure I know the difference between an Eagle Scout 
and a Distinguished Eagle Scout; I thought all Eagle Scouts were 
distinguished. But starting even then, Jeff Sessions has always stood 
out a little above the crowd.
  He has four decades of public service. In 1975, he became an 
assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District in Alabama. Half a 
dozen years after that, he became the U.S. attorney in that district. 
He held that job for 12 years until he became the attorney general of 
Alabama. People trusted him to take that those responsibilities. In 
1997, as I said, he came to the Senate.

  He has been a senior member of the Judiciary Committee for some time 
now. He has worked across party lines, and he has done that in fights 
for justice and fights on behalf of the victims of crime and, frankly, 
on more than one occasion, fights to be sure that those accused of 
crimes also had their day in court, and after they had their day in 
court, it was Senator Sessions who was instrumental in leading the 
fight for the Fair Sentencing Act.
  Senator Sessions was very involved in the Paul Coverdell act for 
forensic sciences to be sure that the evidence that was in court would 
be unassailable to every extent possible. He has been vigorous in 
wanting to be sure those accused of crimes had justice, as well as 
those who were the victims of crime.
  When I came to the Senate, Senator Coons and I--a Democrat from 
Delaware and a good friend of mine. I am thinking about him in this 
week that his father passed away. When we came to the Senate 6 years 
ago, we formed the Law Enforcement Caucus. Senator Sessions was a great 
supporter of that effort.
  When we were able to reauthorize in the last Congress the Victims of 
Child Abuse Act--this is a law that provides Federal assistance to 
locations in virtually every State--22 in the State of Missouri--where 
kids who have been the victims of crime or a witness to crime have a 
place to go and get the information out of their lives that needs to 
get away from them so they can get on to the next thing that happens, a 
law that protects our most vulnerable children and is designed to hold 
the perpetrators of crimes on those children or crimes those children 
witness--allows that to be dealt with in the right way. Senator 
Sessions was a great advocate for that.
  He has been endorsed by the major law enforcement associations of the 
country, as well as many of his colleagues. The law enforcement 
associations that say Jeff Sessions would be a good Attorney General 
are the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Sheriffs' Association, 
the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the Major Cities 
Chiefs Association, the Major Counties Sheriffs' Association, and the 
list goes on.
  Then you get to the victims of crime groups who have endorsed Senator 
Sessions.
  Five former U.S. Attorney Generals and one former FBI Director are on 
that list. They are saying that Jeff Sessions would be a good person--
in the case of five of them--to hold the jobs they held, and they know 
more about that job than any of us do: Michael Mukasey, Alberto 
Gonzales, John Ashcroft, Bill Barr, Ed Meese III. All, along with FBI 
Director Louis Freeh, have endorsed Jeff Sessions for this job.
  There has been some discussions of his relationship with African 
Americans. We have African-American endorsements from his State but 
also from the former Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice; our 
colleague Tim Scott, who will be here later this afternoon, and I 
intend to be here for his remarks; and Larry Thompson, the former 
Deputy Attorney General. These are people who know Jeff Sessions and 
know what he has to offer to that job.
  It is a job of great responsibility. Seldom will we as Senators have 
an opportunity to confirm someone to that job or any other job that we 
know as well as Senator Sessions. We know his family. We know his 
recent addition of twin grandchildren to his family just a little over 
a year ago. We know how much he cares about them. We know the moments 
that he has reached out to each of us as we have had challenges or 
things we needed help with.
  I think he will do a great job as Attorney General. I believe that 
will happen later today. I think the country and the Attorney General's 
office will be in good hands late today when Jeff Sessions undoubtedly, 
I am confident, becomes the Attorney General.
  I look forward to that vote later today and then getting on to the 
next nominee, Dr. Price, whom I served with in the House. Any 
discussion that there have not been ideas that were alternatives to the 
Affordable Care Act--people just have not been paying attention to Dr. 
Tom Price all the time he has been in the Congress or as budget 
director and haven't paid attention to him as a practicing physician. 
He is another great nominee at a time when we really need to set a new 
course.
  We are going to see that happen in both the Attorney General's office 
and at HHS, and I look forward to what we do as those move forward.
  I also look forward to what may not be the official maiden speech but 
what I think will be the first speech on the floor for our new 
colleague, John Kennedy.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I rise to support the nomination of Jeff 
Sessions to be the next Attorney General of the United States of 
America, and I would like to explain why.
  It seems to me that most Americans don't care about the politics on 
Capitol Hill. They don't particularly care about the politics in the 
Senate, and they don't especially care about the politics in 
Washington, DC. Most Americans are too busy earning a living. These are 
the Americans who get up every day, they go to work, they work hard, 
they obey the law, they try to do the right thing by their kids, and 
they try to save a little money for retirement.
  Most Americans I think are fairminded, and most Americans are 
commonsensical. They understand that when they elect a President, the 
President can't do the job alone. He gets help, and he starts with 
appointing members of his Cabinet. Of course, the Senate has to provide 
advice and consent and confirm those appointees.
  Most Americans understand that a President--whoever the President--is 
not going to pick his enemies to do that. He is not going to pick 
somebody he doesn't trust. He is not going to pick someone to advise 
him if he is not qualified. He is going to pick someone he is on 
friendly terms with. He is going to pick somebody who is competent. He 
is going to pick somebody who is experienced. That is what President 
Trump has done. That is what President Obama did. That is what 
Secretary Hillary Clinton would have done, had she been elected 
President.
  Now, President Trump has nominated Senator Jeff Sessions. I recognize 
that not all Americans and not all Members of the Senate agree with his 
political positions. Some folks don't agree with his political party. 
Some folks don't like him because they don't like the person who 
appointed him. I

[[Page S949]]

get that. Some folks may not even like the part of the country he is 
from. That is OK. This is America. In America, you can believe anything 
you want to believe, and as long as you don't hurt anybody, you can say 
it.
  But it seems to me that no reasonable person, if they look at Senator 
Jeff Sessions' record, can argue that he is not qualified, if by 
qualified you mean that he has any potential to be a great Attorney 
General.
  This is a man who has served as a State attorney general. This is a 
man who was a U.S. attorney not for 1 year or 5 years or 6 years. For 
12 years he served as a U.S. attorney. This is a gentleman who has been 
a U.S. Senator for 20 years, three terms, and three times the good 
people of Alabama have sent Jeff Sessions to this body.
  Most people here know him. They have had lunch with him. They have 
met his family. They have worked with him on bills. They have worked 
against him on bills. They know him, and they know he is qualified.
  There has been a lot of discussion about whether Senator Sessions 
will respect the rule of law. He will. He understands the difference 
between making policy, as Congress does, and executing policy. I have 
no doubt whatsoever that Senator Sessions, as the next Attorney 
General, will be more than willing to enforce laws that he might not 
necessarily agree with.
  There has been some discussion about Senator Sessions and the Bill of 
Rights. Senator Sessions understands the importance of personal 
liberty. I listened very attentively in the Judiciary Committee. He was 
asked a lot of questions about our Constitution. It is clear to me that 
Senator Sessions understands that the Bill of Rights is not for the 
high school quarterback. The Bill of Rights is not for the prom queen. 
The Bill of Rights is there to protect the unprotected, the man or 
woman in America who might want to do things a little differently. He 
understands that very, very clearly.
  At some point, we all have to stop regretting yesterday, and we have 
to start creating tomorrow, and that is the point we are at.
  I unconditionally support Senator Jeff Sessions to be the next 
Attorney General of the United States of America.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lee). The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. President, before I get into my speech regarding 
Senator Sessions, I wanted to talk a little bit about what occurred 
last night.
  First, there is no doubt in my mind that the letter written by 
Coretta Scott King should be read by each and every Member of this 
Chamber. Regardless of whether you disagree with her conclusions, her 
standing in the history of our Nation means her voice should be heard. 
What I took issue with last night and the true violation of rule XIX in 
my eyes were the remarks shared last night originally stated by Senator 
Kennedy--not Coretta Scott King--Senator Kennedy.
  Whether you like it or not, this body has rules, and we all should 
govern ourselves according to the rules.
  There is no doubt that last night emotions were very high, and I am 
not necessarily happy with where that has left us today. The Senate 
needs to function. We need to have a comity in this body if we are to 
work for the American people. This should not be about Republicans and 
Democrats. It is not about us; it is about the American people.
  If we remember that point as we move forward, our Nation will be able 
to heal where we hurt. We will be able to disagree without being 
disagreeable. This should be the norm, not a unique experience in 
public discourse.
  Before I decided to give this speech, I had the privilege last night 
around midnight of having to sit in the Chair and presiding. My good 
friend Cory Booker was making an eloquent presentation about where we 
are on issues of race in this Nation. He was talking about the South, 
and he was talking about the pain, the suffering, and the misery.
  Today, as I want to share my thoughts on Jeff Sessions and how I have 
come to my conclusion, I thought it was important for me to not try to 
persuade people but to simply inform, because this issue is not simply 
the issue about our next Attorney General. This is really an issue 
about all of us--not all of us as Senators but all of us as members of 
the American family. This is an issue that digs deep into the core of 
our souls, deep into the core of our Nation, deep into who we can be, 
who we should be, and how we will get there.
  So my objective here, as I speak, will not be to somehow persuade the 
other side that your decision is wrong. I don't think that is my 
responsibility nor my intention. My goal isn't even to persuade those 
who believe that Jeff Sessions will not be a good U.S. Attorney General 
that they are wrong. I simply want to share information. I want to 
share facts. I want to share, as Paul Harvey used to say, ``the rest of 
the story,'' because if you read the news reports, you walk away with a 
clear picture based on facts but not necessarily a clear picture based 
on truth. There has been a distortion in many arenas, in many echo 
chambers about who he is and why I support him.
  My good friend Cory Booker last night spoke about a true American 
hero, John Lewis. John Lewis is an American hero. I know that this may 
or may not be popular with everyone in the Chamber or everyone in 
America on the conservative side or the liberal side, but the reality 
of it is this. He was beaten within an inch of his life so that I would 
have the privilege--not to stand in the Chamber but--to vote, to simply 
vote.
  We should all thank God for the sacrifices of men and women so that 
people like myself, Cory Booker, and Kamala Harris would be allowed one 
day not to simply vote but to serve in the most unique, powerful, and 
one of the most important legislative bodies in the world today. It is 
the sacrifices of men and women of color who fought against injustices. 
We stand as a nation on the shoulders of these giants. I know that I 
don't have to remind my mother or my family, but just as a reminder to 
those who are listening to the conversation, when I leave the Senate 
one day, I am still going to be Black, an African American--Black every 
day, Black every way, and there is no doubt.
  This is an important part of the conversation because, as I read 
through some of the comments of my friends on the left, you will wonder 
if I ever had an experience as a Black person in America. I want to get 
to that in just a few minutes.
  God, in His infinite wisdom, made me Black, born in Charleston, SC, 
for a purpose. I am blessed to be who I am, and I am equally blessed to 
be a Charlestonian. Our country, the South, and, specifically, my State 
have suffered through difficult and challenging times around the issue 
of race. My grandfather, who passed away at 94 years old last January, 
knew a very different South. I remember listening to him talking about 
his experiences of having to step off of the sidewalk when White folks 
were coming. He learned early in life: Never look a White person in the 
eyes. He was in his forties in the 1960s. His whole life view, his 
paradigm, was painted with a broad brush. Separation, segregation, 
humiliation, and challenges.
  It was in my home city of Charleston where the Civil War began. It 
was in my home city of Charleston where nearly 40 percent of all the 
slaves that came to America would come through in Charleston, SC. It 
was a Charlestonian who came up with the concept written into our 
Constitution of three-fifths of a man--a Charlestonian.
  But it was also Charlestonians who, in 2010 had a choice between 
Strom Thurmond's son and a young--I use that word liberally--African-
American guy named Tim Scott.
  The evolution that has occurred in the South could be seen very 
clearly on this day in Charleston. The very first shots of the Civil 
War were in Charleston. They gave me the privilege of representing them 
in Congress, over the son of Strom Thurmond, over the son and the 
namesake of one of the most popular Governors in South Carolina, 
Carroll Campbell, Jr. I thank God that the South Carolina that I have 
come to know, the South that I have had the experience to enjoy is a 
different South. It is a different Charleston than my grandfather knew 
in his 94 years. But my life has not been one of privilege, of promise.
  As I said just a few nights ago, I was born into a single parent 
household, living in poverty, nearly flunking out

[[Page S950]]

of high school. I have been called everything that you can think of 
from a racial perspective--good, not too often bad, very consistently. 
So I understand that there is room for progress. There is a need for us 
to crystallize what we are fighting about, who we are fighting for, and 
how we are going to get there.
  This is an important day and an important issue, and the U.S. 
Attorney General is perhaps one of the most important decisions I will 
make about the Cabinet of President Trump. I will tell you that, for 
me, this has been a challenging journey, one that I have not taken 
lightly because, as I said earlier, I am going to be Black when I leave 
this body, and so when I think about some of the comments and some of 
the challenges for Jeff Sessions around the 1986 process, the trial of 
the KKK and the trial of the Turner family, an African-American 
couple--they were defendants he brought to court--I have heard it, and 
I wanted to know more about what it is we are talking about, not by 
reading it in the paper but by calling folks in Alabama, understanding 
with new eyes who Jeff Sessions is--not the guy I serve with but the 
guy who will have the most powerful position in law enforcement. I 
wanted to know firsthand who he was before he was nominated and how he 
would respond in a room filled with African-American leaders.
  I and my best friend in Congress, Trey Gowdy, for a very long time 
throughout South Carolina have held meetings of African-American 
pastors and leaders coming together with law enforcement to try to 
bridge the gap that is obviously broken, bridge the gap that obviously 
exists between law enforcement and African-American leaders. So I 
brought Jeff Sessions down to see from a distance how he interacts with 
these African-American pastors, hear the tough questions on Walter 
Scott and other issues so I can have an appreciation and affinity of 
how the Justice Department under his leadership would act.
  I take this responsibility seriously, and I wonder if my friends in 
the Chamber have had a chance to see what others think--not the 
political echo chamber, not the organization, but run-of-the-mill 
people.
  So I had that experience, and I will tell you that without any 
question, the conclusion that I have drawn is a pretty clear 
conclusion. I am glad that I dug into the issue. I am glad I took the 
time to know Jeff Sessions the best I can from what I have read from 
1986, what I saw in my own home city of Charleston, with a provocative 
history on race.
  We are at a defining moment in our country, not because of the 
Attorney General, not because of the debate we are going through in 
this body, but because our country is being pulled apart from extremes 
on both ends. This is not healthy for our country. Too often, too many 
particularly on the right are found guilty until proven innocent on 
issues of race, issues of fairness. I say that because, as I think 
about some of the comments that have come into my office over the last 
several weeks, I am used to being attacked. If you sign up to be a 
Black conservative, the chances are very high you will be attacked. It 
comes with the territory, and I have had it for 20 years, two decades. 
But my friends and my staff are not used to the level of animus that 
comes in from the liberal left who suggest that I somehow am not 
helpful to the cause of liberal America and therefore I am not helpful 
to Black America because they see those as one and the same.
  I brought some of the pages of chats that I have from folks, the 
comments I get from Twitter about my support of Jeff Sessions:
  Tracy V. Johnson sent in ``Sen. Uncle Tim Scott.''
  ``Everyone from SC who happens to be a left winger knows that Tim 
Scott is an Uncle Tom. [``S''] is documented.'' ``S'' is not for Scott; 
it is for fertilizer.
  SGaut says: ``A White man in a black body: Tim Scott backs Jeff 
Sessions for attorney general.''
  Until 3 weeks ago the only African-American chief of staff in the 
U.S. Senate out of 100 was the chief of staff for a Republican. The 
second African-American chief of staff in the U.S. Senate is the chief 
of staff of a Republican. Yet they say of my chief of staff that she is 
``high yella,'' an implication that she is just not Black enough.
  I go on to read from folks who wanted to share their opinions about 
my endorsing Jeff Sessions:
  ``You are a disgrace to the Black race!''
  Anthony R Burnam @BurnamR says: ``You an Uncle Tom Scott aren't you? 
Sessions. How does a black man turn on his own.''
  Anthony B. from @PoliticalAnt says: ``Sen. Tim Scott is not an Uncle 
Tom. He doesn't have a shred of honor. He's a House Negro, like the one 
in Jango.''
  He also writes--I guess Anthony Burnam has been active on my Twitter 
feed--that I am ``a complete horror . . . a black man [who is] a 
racist.''
  ``Against black people''
  ``Big Uncle Tom [piece of fertilizer]. You are a disgrace to your 
race.''
  I left out all the ones that use the ``N'' word. I just felt that 
would not be appropriate.
  You see, what I am surprised by, just a smidgeon, is that the liberal 
left that speaks and desires for all of us to be tolerant does not want 
to be tolerant of anyone who disagrees with where they are coming from. 
So the definition of ``tolerance'' isn't that all Americans experience 
a high level of tolerance; it is all Americans who agree with them 
experience this so-called tolerance.

  I am not saying this because it bothers me because, frankly, I have 
experienced two decades of this. You don't necessarily get used to it, 
but you don't find yourself as offended by it all. I just wish that my 
friends who call themselves liberals would want tolerance for all 
Americans, including conservative Americans. I just wish that my 
liberal friends who are self-described liberal would want to be 
innocent until proven guilty and not guilty until proven innocent.
  So back to my findings on Jeff Sessions. I brought Jeff Sessions to 
Charleston. And you can read about it in the Post and Courier, the 
local newspaper. The pastor said that Jeff Sessions was warm and 
friendly, engaging and competent.
  Now, I will say that the response from the NAACP and the NAN, the 
National Action Network, about the meeting that I had with the African-
American pastors--that it was outrageous that I would invite African-
American pastors to meet with this guy and they didn't have an 
invitation. So I invited two of their leaders. I didn't tell anyone who 
was coming because I wanted folks to come into the room and make their 
own decisions and come to their own conclusions. They decided not to 
come. Maybe it was because a conservative invited them. I don't know 
why. But I wanted everyone to have a chance, and they did. It was 
interesting.
  Here are some other interesting facts that I have not seen often in 
the press, which I think is a very important point.
  All of us who engage in conversations around this Nation about race 
and justice, to only have part of the story is just an unfortunate 
reality that we should get used to that I haven't gotten used to. But 
the reality is, 50 years ago, in 1966, Senator Sessions campaigned 
against George Wallace's wife for Governor. As a Senator, Jeff Sessions 
voted in favor of a 30-year extension of the Civil Rights Act. He was 
one of only 17 Republicans to support the first Black Attorney General, 
Eric Holder. He spearheaded the effort to award the Congressional Gold 
Medal to Rosa Parks, an Alabama native and civil rights icon.
  As Cory Booker, my good friend from New Jersey, said last night as I 
presided, he and Jeff Sessions worked wonderfully well together in 
awarding the Congressional Gold Medal to the foot soldiers of the civil 
rights movement in Selma, AL.
  Here is another part of the story that just hasn't seemed to break 
through the threshold of our national media on Jeff Sessions' support 
within the Black community. As I started making phone calls to leaders 
in Alabama who were Black and Democrats, I was very surprised at what I 
started hearing about Jeff Sessions. I will start with an Alabama 
native, Condoleezza Rice, who is not a Democrat but who is an Alabama 
native. She said: Sessions has worked hard to heal the wounds in 
Alabama brought on by the ``prejudice and injustice against the 
descendants of slaves.''
  Willie Huntley, an African-American assistant U.S. attorney under 
Jeff

[[Page S951]]

Sessions, now an attorney in Mobile, AL, has known Jeff Sessions for 
more than 30 years and said in an interview that he has never 
encountered racial insensitivity from Sessions in the three decades 
they have known each other.
  Alabama Senate Democratic leader Quinton Ross said of Jeff Sessions: 
``We have talked about things from civil rights to race relations, and 
I think anyone--once you gain a position like that, actually 
partnership has to go aside because you represent the United States and 
all the people. . . . I feel confident [Jeff Sessions] will be an 
attorney general that will look at it from all perspectives to just do 
what's right for the citizens of the United States.''
  That is from an African-American Democratic leader in the Alabama 
State Senate, Quinton Ross.
  From former Obama administration Surgeon General Regina Benjamin: ``I 
think he'll be fine. I consider him a friend. . . . At least he will 
listen as attorney general. My hope is that he'll do what is best for 
the American people.''
  Former Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson says this. Larry is 71 
years old, so we are not talking about folks who grew up in my New 
South that I talked about earlier. Still we are working through it, 
but, boy, we have changed. This is a 71-year-old who says of Jeff 
Sessions: ``He doesn't have a racist bone in his body.'' He said: ``I 
have been an African American man for 71 years. I think I know a racist 
when I see one. Jeff is far from being a racist. He's a good person, a 
decent person.''
  Gerald Reynolds, former chairman of the U.S. Commission on Civil 
Rights: ``During my discussions with Senator Sessions and his staff, it 
was clear that the senator has a strong interest in ensuring our 
nation's antidiscrimination laws are vigorously enforced. Senator 
Sessions is a man of great character and integrity, with a commitment 
to fairness and equal justice under the law.''
  Just a few more.
  Fred Gray. Fred Gray is an iconic figure in civil rights, for those 
of us who may not be familiar with him. Fred Gray is an African-
American civil rights attorney. He represented the Reverend Dr. Martin 
Luther King, Jr. He represented Rosa Parks. He represented the Tuskegee 
men who were exploited in the syphilis experiment by the government. 
This is what he said in this letter from 2016:

       What would be more noteworthy for the State of Alabama than 
     having an Alabamian follow in the footsteps of the late Mr. 
     Justice Hugo Black? Previously I have expressed appreciation 
     for your acts herein stated. I look forward to working 
     with you in any future capacity in which the Lord permits 
     you to serve.

  That is a quote from a letter that he wrote to Jeff Sessions.
  We are talking about a hero of the civil rights era. We are talking 
about the lawyer for Martin Luther King, Jr., Rosa Parks, and the 
Tuskegee men. We are not talking about someone who doesn't understand 
and appreciate the weight and the importance of civil rights in this 
Nation.
  William Smith was hired as the first African-American Republican 
chief counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee by Jeff Sessions. He 
said:

       Jeff Sessions is a man who cared for me, who looked out for 
     me, and who had my best interests in mind. So, anybody who 
     says anything different simply doesn't know Jeff Sessions.

  One last statement. This is an important one from my perspective.
  I mentioned earlier that there was a case against a couple, the 
Turner couple, where Jeff Sessions was the prosecutor, and the Turners 
were being prosecuted for some voter rights issues. Interestingly 
enough, what you don't hear in the news, by the way, is that the case 
was brought by other African Americans in Alabama against an African-
American couple, the Turners. This is from Albert Turner, Jr., the son 
of the two defendants in that case. He says:

       While I respect the deeply held positions of other civil 
     rights advocates who oppose Senator Sessions, I believe it is 
     important for me to speak out with regard to Senator Sessions 
     personally. First, let me be clear. Senator Sessions and I 
     respectfully disagree on some issues. That won't change when 
     he is the Attorney General of the United States. And I expect 
     that there will be times, as it is with all politicians, when 
     we will legitimately disagree and I will be required by my 
     conscience to speak out. I look forward to those constructive 
     debates, if necessary. However, despite our political 
     differences, the Senator and I share certain Alabama and 
     American values, including love of our State, its people, and 
     our country.
       I have known Senator Sessions for many years, beginning 
     with the voter fraud case in Perry County in which my parents 
     were defendants. My differences in policy and ideology with 
     him do not translate to personal malice. He is not a racist. 
     As I have said before, at no time then or now has Jeff 
     Sessions said anything derogatory about my family. He was a 
     prosecutor at the Federal level with a job to do. He was 
     presented with evidence by a local district attorney that he 
     relied on, and his office presented the case. That is what 
     prosecutors do. I believe him when he says that he was simply 
     doing his job.

  Jeff Sessions has also worked on civil rights cases, including the 
KKK murderer Henry Hays in 1981.
  Jeff Sessions worked with the Department of Justice attorneys, the 
FBI, county investigators, and the county district attorney to solve 
the murder of a 19-year-old African American, Michael Donald. Sessions 
and the U.S. Attorney's Office prosecuted ``Tiger'' Knowles as an 
accomplice, obtaining a guilty plea and a life sentence in Federal 
court. After hard investigative work, Sessions shifted the case of the 
KKK murderer Henry Hays to the State court where he received the death 
penalty, which was not available at that time at the Federal level.
  USA v. Bennie Jack Hays is another successful case against the KKK 
that Jeff Sessions participated in.
  In Conecuh County in 1983, Jeff Sessions joined in bringing the first 
lawsuit in the history of the Department of Justice to stop the 
suppression of African-American voting rights. In United States v. 
Conecuh County, the DOJ Civil Rights Division, along with Jeff 
Sessions, sued white Conecuh County election officials, including the 
chair of the local Republican Party.
  Finally, Dallas County. In 1978, the Department of Justice used 
Dallas County, AL, to replace its at-large election system and go to a 
single-member district so that African Americans would have a better 
chance to be elected. Jeff Sessions supported it, the ACLU supported 
it, as did the DOJ's Civil Rights Division. They were successful.
  Finally, on the criminal justice issue that I support, according to 
Senator Dick Durbin, who said during the confirmation hearing that Jeff 
Sessions saved thousands upon thousands of years of Black men's lives 
because of his push to reduce the disparity between crack and powder 
cocaine from 100 to 1, to where it is today. Jeff Sessions even fought 
against the Bush administration to bring that disparity down.
  In conclusion, as I reflect on the brave men and women who have 
shaped this country, who have fought for my freedom, for me to 
participate fully in this Republic--the greatest experiment of self-
governing the world has ever known--we have an obligation to judge a 
man not by the color of his skin nor by the State of his birth, but by 
the story his life tells and by the content of his character.
  Jeff Sessions has earned my support, and I will hold him accountable 
if and when we disagree moving forward.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I see the majority leader of the Senate. I 
will suspend until he has finished.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I just wanted to congratulate the 
Senator from South Carolina for a very, very meaningful and effective 
presentation on behalf of our colleague, Senator Jeff Sessions.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I too wish to congratulate my colleague 
from South Carolina on his remarks. We don't share the same view on 
this, but he is an important voice in the Senate, and I am glad that he 
is a colleague on the Education Committee in the Senate.
  As a matter of fact, the other day I said that I wish the President 
had the sense to appoint him Education Secretary. The kids whom I used 
to work for in the Denver Public Schools would have been very, very 
well served by him.
  The President, of course, is entitled to choose his team, and that is 
partly

[[Page S952]]

what elections are about. The Attorney General, more than any other 
Cabinet official, must be the people's lawyer, an advocate for the rule 
of law above all else.
  My office has received nearly 23,000 calls and emails opposing this 
nomination. Many of them I cannot read today on the floor for fear of 
violating the Senate rules. But it is clear from these comments that 
young Coloradans who came to the United States and know no other 
country but this country, who arrived here illegally, but, through no 
fault of their own, fear they will be deported back to a country they 
don't know--it is clear to me from the comments that I have received in 
these letters that Coloradans in the LGBTQ community fear that an 
Attorney General Sessions would turn a blind eye toward discrimination. 
It is clear from these comments that Senator Sessions has not earned 
the confidence of many Coloradans who may soon rely on him to protect 
their rights and to identify abuses of constitutional power. And 
Coloradans, many of whom I know, fought for equality and justice during 
the civil rights movement, and fear that it will turn back much of the 
progress we have made.
  We have a disagreement about Senator Sessions' role before he came to 
the Senate, but the fundamental reason I object to his nomination as 
Attorney General is that he led the fight in 2013 against our 
bipartisan effort to reform the broken immigration system in the United 
States. And I sat here on this Senate floor night after night after 
night listening to the Senator use fear and inaccuracies to derail our 
best chance in years to fix this broken immigration system.
  Now, in time, I have come to understand that people come to this 
floor and they don't always--they are not always accurate in what they 
say. Sometimes they don't mean to be accurate; sometimes they are just 
mistaken. That was the first time I had ever heard that kind of 
relentlessness, saying things that just weren't right. I am being 
careful with my language because of last night's ruling.
  He claimed that our bill--and, by the way, that bill, unlike almost 
anything that has happened in this place in the 8 years that I have 
been here--started out as a bipartisan effort, four Democrats and four 
Republicans working together for 7 or 8 months in a room trying to 
solve each other's issues.
  There is a lot about the Senate today that the American people should 
not and cannot be proud of, and I will come to that in a minute. But as 
to the work of the Gang of 8, I would have been happy for people to 
have seen what happened behind closed doors in those 7 months. It is 
how the Senate ought to operate. It went to the Judiciary Committee 
where Democrats and Republicans together amended the legislation. They 
made it better. And then it came to the floor of the Senate and we had 
more amendments, and it passed with 68 votes.
  It still hasn't passed the House. It has never even gotten a vote on 
the floor of the House of Representatives.
  Senator Sessions claimed during that debate that our bill would have 
``dramatically increased incidence of criminal alien violence, 
officially legalizing dangerous offenders, while handcuffing 
immigration officers from doing their jobs.''
  He claimed it would have legalized ``thousands of dangerous criminals 
while making it more difficult for our officers to identify public 
safety and national security threats.''
  Senator Sessions claimed our bill would lead to a ``huge increase in 
immigration,'' invite a flood of immigrants into our Nation who would 
steal jobs from ``struggling American workers.''
  These claims are demonstrably untrue. If our bill had become law, we 
would have secured our borders, we would have bolstered internal 
security, we would have better protected American workers, and we would 
have strengthened our economy.
  Contrary to his characterization of what was in that bill, the 2013 
bill provided far greater security than President Trump's plan.
  The first two words in the title of that bill were ``border 
security.'' That has been completely ignored by the critics. It has 
been completely ignored by people who want to make an issue out of this 
in national campaigns. But the reality is it provided billions of 
dollars toward new technologies to monitor the border. It called for 
the building of a 700-mile fence. By the way, none of the rest of it 
would come to pass until we took care of the border.
  Nearly 20,000 new Border Patrol agents--four times more than ordered 
by President Trump and double the current number--and not paid for by 
raising taxes on the American people at our border with Mexico, not 
paid for in a way that would destroy our trading relationship with 
Mexico, but paid for by fees that people were paying as they were 
becoming lawful in the United States of America. It had protections in 
the bill for American workers to ensure that employers hired American 
labor first. I know he objected to this, and I understand we had a 
difference of opinion, but the bill included a tough but fair path to 
citizenship, requiring people to go through background checks as part 
of a long path to citizenship.
  During the Presidential campaign, Senator Sessions advised President-
Elect, now-President Trump on immigration policy. In fact, my 
understanding is the President's immigration Executive orders--
including one being challenged in court--mirror Senator Sessions' 
positions. These positions are antithetical to our history, to our 
values, to whom we are as a country.
  Last Friday was the highlight of my year. I got on a plane and I left 
Washington--that was pretty good in and of itself--to go home to 
Colorado. On Friday, I went to Dunn Elementary School in Fort Collins, 
CO, where Kara Roth's fifth grade class welcomed 26 new Americans from 
13 countries to the United States. It is an International Baccalaureate 
program in this elementary school. This is an annual event.
  We were there in the gym, and the fifth graders were there singing; a 
young girl had won an essay contest on ``What it Meant to be in 
America.'' There was a color guard. Kids came in wearing their Boy 
Scout uniforms to post the colors, the American flag, and the flag of 
Colorado. The fourth graders were there watching what they would be 
doing next year as fifth graders.
  There was no need for a politician to tell anybody in that room that 
America is an exceptional country. No politician needed to say that to 
the fifth graders in Mrs. Roth's class who were studying the 
Constitution and studying immigration. We certainly didn't need to tell 
that to the immigrants from all over the world. I think I mentioned, 
they were from 13 different countries.
  One of the great parts of the ceremony was when they asked people to 
stand up to the country from which they came, and fifth graders also 
stood up if they were from that country. There were kids from China; 
there were kids from Mexico standing up in this fifth grade class; 
incredibly, three kids from Libya whose parents are at the university 
in some capacity in Fort Collins.
  As always in these naturalization ceremonies, people had tears in 
their eyes because as one of them once said to me at another time in 
Colorado, his dream had come true the minute he became a citizen of the 
United States because he knew his children would be citizens of the 
United States of America. Everybody in the room knew that.
  What is important for us is these fifth graders' perspective on 
American government, on democracy, and on the history of this Republic 
I think probably may not be quite exactly right because they, thank 
goodness, have been untarnished by special interests, untarnished by 
campaign money and partisan fighting, and power struggles that have 
nothing to do with the American people or their priorities.
  Their view of what the essence of self-government is all about is 
really what it is all about. It is really what we are supposed to be 
doing here: a commitment to a republic and democracy, a commitment to 
the rule of law, a commitment to the separation of powers. The stuff 
they are reading in their little Constitution just like this one is 
what this place is supposed to be about. It is supposed to be what we 
are doing here. It is the reason why I am objecting to this nomination.


         Trump Administration and the Judiciary and Free Press

  More than that, I feel compelled to talk a little bit about President

[[Page S953]]

Trump's attacks on the judiciary and free press over the last several 
weeks since he has been sworn into office, since he has taken the oath 
of office to be President of the United States. He has repeatedly 
undermined the credibility of Federal judges doing their constitutional 
duty to uphold the rule of law simply because he disagrees with them.
  The Vice President said the other day: There is a tradition in 
America of one branch of government criticizing another branch of 
government. There is no tradition, that I am aware, of a President 
meddling in an ongoing case in an article III court.
  Just today, he called our courts ``political.'' That is about the 
most damaging thing you could say about our independent judiciary. He 
said that last night's Federal appellate hearing was ``disgraceful.'' A 
decision hasn't even been rendered in the case, and he is saying it is 
``disgraceful.''
  Earlier this week, he accused what he called ``dishonest'' American 
journalists of, his word, ``ignoring'' terrorist attacks in the name of 
some unnamed hidden agenda.
  I wish to say, I sat through the last speech at some length, and I 
want to make sure I get it on the record; so through the Chair, I beg 
the indulgence of my colleagues for a few more minutes.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the editorial be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                  [From the Denver Post, Feb. 6, 2017]

         With Latest Bashing, Lying Trump Gets Sinister Indeed

                  (By The Denver Post Editorial Board)

       Donald Trump's weekend bashing of a federal judge, and 
     Monday's attack of news organizations for supposedly sharing 
     a hidden agenda with terrorists, goes way too far, and would 
     seem out-there crazy if it weren't also rather frightening.
       Where to begin? Let's hope that President Trump wasn't 
     aware of an imminent terror plot in his rush to slam down his 
     refugee and travel ban. For if he was, his approach to the 
     threat has backfired so horrendously it could be some time 
     before his administration is able to reinstate it, or, 
     hopefully, a more thought-out version. Now that Judge James 
     Robart rendered the travel and refugee order unenforceable, 
     it is likely that the matter won't be resolved until it makes 
     it to a divided U.S. Supreme Court, where its chances could 
     meet the futility of deadlock.
       We hope Trump sees the error in his strategy. Even for the 
     president of the United States, working to achieve on-the-
     ground results within our massive federal government takes 
     skill, and some buy-in from those charged with making it so.
       Trump's order had none of that. Officials in all the 
     relevant agencies knew too little about it until it went into 
     effect. No wonder lawsuits resulted, and that one of them 
     persuaded a judge to block the order.
       Sadly, Trump doesn't appear to have gotten the message. 
     Just as he did on the campaign trail, when he insulted a 
     judge by claiming his Mexican heritage disqualified him to 
     rule in a case involving Trump University, Trump attacked 
     Judge Robart. ``Just cannot believe a judge would put our 
     country in such peril,'' the president posted on Twitter on 
     Sunday. ``If something happens blame him and court system. 
     People pouring in. Bad!''
       Had the president stuck to defending his executive power, 
     he would have been on solid ground. But surely it is 
     outrageous to argue that, in making a ruling based on his 
     review of the law, Robart deserves to be held accountable for 
     any lawless action perpetrated from terrorists long sworn to 
     harm Americans.
       Then, on Monday, Trump told members of the military that 
     news organizations have been intentionally covering up terror 
     attacks, saying that ``in many cases the very, very dishonest 
     press doesn't want to report it. They have their reasons, and 
     you understand that.''
       To back his assertion, Trump pointed to the exhaustively 
     reported terror attacks in Paris and Nice.
       American journalists have been killed reporting on 
     terrorists. They've been beheaded. It would be impossible to 
     calculate how many words have been written in the overall 
     war-on-terror beat. To suggest that some kind of shared bias 
     exists throughout American newsrooms so strong that it 
     compels journalists to hide truth and thereby endanger the 
     public is as dangerous as it is demonstrably untrue.
       So, once again, Lying Trump takes the stage. When he can't 
     make the grade, he blames others. Doing so is a common enough 
     human reaction to personal weakness, but to falsely suggest--
     based on the known evidence--that members of the judiciary 
     and the press are somehow on the side of enemies of the state 
     points to either a cracked mind, or something more sinister.
       Americans shouldn't buy what our president is selling. The 
     truth is Trump botched what could have been a reasonable 
     attempt to make the country safer. His mistakes gave our 
     enemies a huge morale and recruiting boost. And his bashing 
     of others is as unseemly as it is dishonest.

  Mr. BENNET. The Denver Post editorialized yesterday, stating the 
obvious horrible truth here:

       American journalists have been killed reporting on 
     terrorists. They've been beheaded. . . . To suggest that some 
     kind of shared bias exists throughout American newsrooms so 
     strong that it compels journalists to hide truth and thereby 
     endanger the public is as dangerous as it is demonstrably 
     untrue.

  That is right. It is dangerous. It is dangerous for the leader of the 
free world to be saying that journalists are crooks; that the facts 
they are publishing in newspapers and online are untrue when they are 
true. It is dangerous when we are engaged in an experiment of self-
government that goes back about 240 years to the founding of this 
country to refute things that are absolutely true as false and to claim 
that the reason they are being raised is because people lack integrity; 
that journalism is all about false news.
  The White House put out a list of, I think it was in the seventies, 
of terrorist attacks they claim had never been reported, and newspaper 
after newspaper after newspaper had to run lists of the events that the 
White House described as unreported and then have links to the stories 
in their own newspapers and other newspapers that had reported on 
terrorists. As the Denver Post noted, and it is worth remembering this, 
there are journalists who have lost their lives trying to cover this 
story to have us better understand what is happening in the Middle 
East, what the threat of terror looks like, and have been beheaded on 
television because they took that risk.
  With respect to the judges, for years it has been so painful around 
here to get anybody confirmed. I see these folks who are lawyers who 
have to put their law practice on hold for something that should be the 
greatest reflection of achievement of their life, being appointed to a 
Federal district court in this country, and who wait and wait and wait 
because of the unconscionable delay and disputes and partisan bickering 
that happens here instead of getting people on the court to do the job 
that they need to do.
  Now we are going to be in the business of accusing judges and the 
judiciary of being crooked, of not following the law, of just playing 
politics. I think it is really important for us--not just Democrats but 
also Republicans--and I know my colleague is here from Florida. I wish 
to say in this body how much I appreciated his comments last night. He 
may not appreciate that I am saying that, but I appreciate his comments 
because a lot of what he said I completely agree with.
  I know it has become fashionable to tear down rather than work to 
improve the democratic institutions which generations of Americans have 
built. This place didn't get here by accident. It is not a fluke. The 
Founding Fathers would be shocked--shocked--to know this Republic still 
exists. They would be proud. I think they would be proud of the 
progress we have made, but they would be shocked, at the time they were 
compromising with one another--slave owners and abolitionists, 
compromising to create this Republic that had never existed in an 
expanse as big as the Thirteen Colonies geographically or with as many 
people in the Thirteen Colonies geographically--for them to see this 
about 240 years later from coast to coast, 330 million people, the 
strongest military on the planet, the strongest economy on the planet, 
a place where people want to come--just as my mother and her parents 
came--to build opportunity for the next generation. That is incredibly 
special in the history of humankind. As I think my colleague from 
Florida was saying last night, we need to treat it with a little more 
care.
  I am not just talking about the Senate. I am talking about our 
responsibility to provide oversight for this administration. I am 
talking about the importance for us to set an example for the children 
I saw last Friday at the naturalization ceremony, just as they are 
setting an example for us.
  None of us is going to be here forever. We have a lot of work to do. 
There are a lot of people here and around the world who are counting on 
us to pull ourselves together and start making this place work.

[[Page S954]]

  I will finish by saying that I think in this world of social media, 
it is also critically important for us to remember the importance of 
edited content and the work that journalists do. There is not a class 
of school kids whom I don't impose at least that thought on, as they 
think about the research they are doing for their papers and the work 
we need to do as Senators.
  I thank my colleagues for their indulgence. Thank you for allowing me 
to speak on this floor. It is a great privilege to be here, but it is a 
privilege we need to exercise in a way that actually reflects the 
values of this country and the expectations that the American people 
have for us to address their priorities.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.


                                 Russia

  Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, first, I do appreciate the words of my 
colleague from Colorado, and I thank him for them, and that topic 
deserves more discussion on the floor of the Senate.
  One of the things that always gives me extraordinary pride to be an 
American and to be a Member of the Senate is the realization--as I sat 
here today and listened to my colleague from South Carolina, Senator 
Scott--that neither my ancestors nor his were participants in terms of 
structuring this Republic. Yet this Republic is so grand that it has 
plenty of room for people like me and him and so many others 
participating--including here, as one of only 100 Americans who are 
entrusted with the responsibility of representing our States and also 
upholding our Constitution in this body.
  The Senator from Colorado is also right in talking about the role of 
the Senate not just in terms of passing laws but in conducting 
oversight irrespective of who occupies the White House. It is a 
difficult thing to do these days because everything in American 
politics is covered through the lens of politics and of elections. 
Almost immediately, whatever I say here on the floor today will be 
analyzed through the lens and construct of elections past and elections 
future. What is he trying to achieve or what are any of us trying to 
achieve politically? There is a place for that. I think we are not 
foolish enough to believe there is no politics in politics.
  There is also something that is incredibly important, and that is the 
Constitution that every single one of us is sworn to uphold. It is a 
pledge I again took recently on these very steps a few feet away from 
where I stand here now a few weeks ago.
  Part of that is, in fact, to oversee the foreign policy conduct of 
the United States. As many of us are aware, there has been recent 
discussion in some circles, including in my party, about a desire to 
achieve a better relationship with Vladimir Putin and with Russia. By 
the way, I share that goal. I think it would be good for the world if 
the United States and Russia had a better relationship and, in 
particular, with the Russian people, with whom we have no quarrel. I 
also think we have a responsibility to understand what the obstacles 
are to better relations.
  It is in that context that I come to the floor of the Senate today 
because I had a lot of people ask me over the last week, over the last 
few months: Why is it that you have such views about our relationships 
with Russia on the way forward?
  I want to take a moment to discuss that in the broader context, with 
everything else that is happening here now. Even as we work through 
these nominations, the world continues to turn, and events around the 
world continue to have an impact on us here.
  Let me begin by saying this. I don't think this is a fact that can be 
disputed. Vladimir Putin today has amassed more power in Moscow and 
Russia than any leader in Russia in about 60 years, if not longer. He 
used to maintain that power through a pretty straightforward deal that 
he had with both elites and the broader society.
  Here is the deal he used to have with them. The deal was this: I will 
help you--especially the elites--make a lot of money and become very 
wealthy, and I will help society at-large by helping to grow our 
economy. In return, however, I need complete power and complete control 
of the government.
  That was basically the arrangement he had up until just a few years 
ago when a combination of falling oil prices and economic decline 
forced them into a different direction. The new model that Vladimir 
Putin is now pursuing in Russia is one in which he is basically trying 
to gin up and rally public support, and he is largely doing it through 
a foreign policy which is aggressive and which is designed to create an 
impression among the Russian people that Russia has now been restored 
to great power status--a status equal or on par with that of the United 
States.
  The first thing we have to understand is that much of what Vladimir 
Putin does is not in pursuit of an ideology, like the Soviet Union did. 
It is about domestic politics in Russia and about needing the Russian 
people to believe that he and his strength are essential to what Russia 
has. So much of it is about that.
  What are the prongs of the strategy? The first is that he has sought 
to make their military modern and strong, and you see evidence of that 
in the fact that while Russia is going through crippling budget cuts as 
a result of a downturn in the global economy, oil prices falling, and 
sanctions against the Putin government, they are increasing defense 
spending. They are modernizing. They are adding capabilities. They are, 
for the first time, although in a limited way, beginning to conduct 
naval exercises and projection of power in places they hadn't been in 
for 25 years or longer.
  The second is a crackdown in internal dissent. For that, I think the 
evidence is overwhelming. I know we have all heard recently about the 
case of Vladimir Kara-Murza, who is a Russian political opposition 
leader. He is a vocal critic of Vladimir Putin. He works at something 
called the Open Russia Foundation, an organization of activists who 
call for open elections, a free press, and civil rights reforms in 
Russia.

  This is an interesting thing to talk about because there has been a 
lot of discussion on this floor a moment ago about the press and a lot 
of discussion about elections, of course, over the last year and 
longer. There has been a lot of discussion about civil rights. Think 
about this. This is what the Open Russia Foundation works for and on 
behalf of in Russia.
  In America, when you believe that civil rights are being violated at 
this moment in our history or you think the election system isn't 
working the way it should or you are defending the press, as my 
colleagues have done here today in the right of a free press, you have 
a bad blog post written about you, someone may run against you for 
office, cable commentators will say nasty things about you from the 
other side, maybe somebody will stand up on the floor and criticize you 
for this or that.
  Let me tell you what happens when you do that in Russia. They poison 
you. Kara-Murza is believed to have been poisoned in February 2017; 
after he experienced organ failure, and he is currently in the 
hospital--just this month. This comes 2 years after another suspected 
poisoning that nearly killed him in May 2015.
  I want to take a moment to urge the administration to do everything 
in their power to ensure that he is receiving the medical care he needs 
and to help determine who was behind the latest apparent attempt 
against him.
  If this was an isolated case, you would say: Well, maybe something 
else happened. There is an incredible number of critics of Vladimir 
Putin that wind up poisoned, dead, shot in the head in their hotel 
room, found in the street, and other things.
  In other instances, just today we have this article from the Wall 
Street Journal about someone who was thinking about running against 
Vladimir Putin. Alexei Navalny was thinking about running for 
President.
  So what happens in America when somebody thinks you are going to run 
for President? They do an opposition research file. They plant negative 
stories about you. They start badmouthing you on cable news. That is 
unpleasant, no doubt. He was found guilty by a kangaroo court of 
corruption, which, of course, according to Russian law, finds him and 
blocks him from running in next year's Presidential election.
  Again, if this were an isolated case, you would say: Maybe this guy 
did

[[Page S955]]

something wrong. The problem is, just about anyone who is either 
thinking about running for office or challenging Putin winds up 
poisoned, dead, in jail, or charged and convicted of a crime.
  The second thing he has done is just completely crack down on all 
internal dissent. There is no free press in Russia. I would venture to 
guess that if I controlled 80 to 90 percent of the press reported about 
me, I would probably have approval ratings in the eighties and nineties 
as well. That is a pretty good deal for the leader but not for the 
people.
  The third thing that is part of this effort is that they are 
basically doing everything they can--Vladimir Putin--to undermine the 
international order that is built on democracy and respect for human 
rights. I think the example of that is in various places.
  Look at what has happened in Syria. Vladimir Putin gets involved in 
Syria, not because he cares about humanitarian crises--because, in 
fact, Russian forces have conducted airstrikes in civilian areas. We 
have seen the images. It is undeniable that it happened. It is by every 
definition of the word a war crime to target civilians with military 
weaponry.
  That is what has happened in Syria. But for Vladimir Putin, it has 
been successful because his engagement basically changes the conflict. 
He now has positioned himself in the eyes of the Russian people and 
many people around the world as a power broker in the Middle East--in 
fact, as an alternative to the United States in that region.
  This is part of his strategy. It wasn't about Syria as much as it was 
about his goal of being able to go to the Russian people and say that 
we matter again on the global stage. In Ukraine, there was talk about 
moving toward the European Union in terms of economic relations. There 
was talk about joining NATO. Then he invaded Crimea, and he kept it. He 
has funded separatists forces in eastern Ukraine. There is no more talk 
of NATO, and there is no more talk of unifying the economy with Europe, 
and they kept Crimea. The last few days we are starting to read open 
press reports of mobilization and unusual activity among eastern 
Ukrainian separatists backed, supported, trained, and equipped by the 
Russians, and we fear that new fighting could be imminent at any moment 
once again.
  Then we have all heard the discussions about the elections in the 
United States and the efforts of other governments to not just hack 
computers. It is not about hacking alone. It is about the strategic 
placing of information, gathered through cyber intrusion, for the 
purposes of undermining political candidates and, therefore, 
influencing the election.
  There was something deeper here. It was part of a broader effort to 
discredit our Republic and our democracy, to be able to go back to the 
Russian people and to the broader world and say that the American 
political system is corrupt. The American political system is not a 
true democracy. The American political system is as bad as all these 
other systems in the world that they criticize. They do not come to 
this with clean hands.
  I often wonder sometimes if we contribute to that argument in the way 
we behave toward one another in our political discourse in this 
country. That is something to think about in the long term. I hope 
people understand that as we engage in these political debates in this 
country, these things are being viewed around the world. For people who 
may not have a clear perspective, or if this information is being used 
negatively--by no means am I saying that we should not have vibrant 
debate in this country; we should, but I also want people to 
understand--that oftentimes gives off the perception that, in fact, our 
Republic is on the verge of collapse.
  We are in challenging times. We have some strong disagreements, and 
oftentimes they become heated. I know for a fact that there isn't a 
single Member of this body prepared to walk away from the Constitution 
or the liberties that it protects and are enshrined therein.
  By the way, I don't believe Vladimir Putin is done in this effort. I 
think you are now going to see him continue to interfere in Yemen. He 
can use that as leverage against the gulf kingdoms, against the Saudis.
  I think you are going to see him continue to engage in Egypt. He will 
go to the Egyptians and say: The Americans are always hassling you 
about human rights. Why don't you just buy your weapons from us? Why 
don't you give us a military base? We are never going to give you grief 
about human rights. We are a much easier and low-maintenance partner.
  I wouldn't even be surprised to see him start dabbling in Afghanistan 
with the Taliban, in some capacity anyway, and couch it in terms of 
fighting ISIS.
  We will see. My point is, it is not done. I bring all that up in the 
context of this suggestion among some, and I think it is important to 
talk about it because I don't think we should dismiss viewpoints. There 
are some, including in the administration, who believe that maybe we 
can do a deal with Vladimir Putin where he helps us fight against ISIS 
and in return we lift sanctions. The argument that I hear from people 
is this: Why wouldn't we want better relations with Vladimir Putin and 
enlist them in the fight against ISIS?
  I come here today in the context of everything I have laid out to 
tell you why I think that is unrealistic and deeply problematic.
  Here is No. 1. Why do we have to do a deal with Vladimir Putin to 
fight ISIS? He already claims that he is. In fact, that is the way he 
describes their operations in Syria--as an anti-terror operation. There 
is no more dangerous terrorist group in the world today than ISIS. 
There is certainly no more dangerous terrorist group in the world today 
than ISIS. There is certainly no more dangerous and capable a terrorist 
group in Syria today than ISIS.
  Isn't that what he is already doing? Why would we then have to cut a 
deal to encourage him to do what he claims to already be doing? There 
are only two reasons. Either No. 1, we think he should do more, which 
in and of itself tells you that he is not doing it; or No. 2, because 
he is not doing it now.
  Here is the second problem: this argument that as part of this whole 
effort with Russia, one of the things we would be able to achieve is to 
break them from the Iranians, to create some sort of split between the 
Russians and the Iranians.
  I saw an article the other day talking about that as part of this 
endeavor. My argument to you is that we don't really need to do that. 
That is going to happen on its own. Say what you want, as soon as ISIS 
is destroyed in Syria and Iraq or in both, the Iranians are going to 
immediately not just push to drive the Americans out of the region but 
drive the Russians out as well.
  The Iranians are not interested in replacing American influence in 
the region with Russian influence. They want to be the hegemonic power 
in the region. As to this argument that we somehow can peel them apart, 
my friends, that is going to happen all on its own. If we abandon there 
tomorrow, the Iranians would immediately turn to driving the Russians 
out as well because they want to be the hegemonic power. They have long 
desired to be the hegemonic power in the region. That is going to put 
them in conflict with the Russians sooner rather than later at some 
point here, at least to some level.
  The third thing I think we have to understand is that there is 
absolutely no pressure, no political rationale why Vladimir Putin needs 
a better relationship with the United States at this time, at least not 
politically. He is not going to lose an election, because if you run 
against him, you go to jail. He controls the press. He controls the 
political discourse in the country. So one of the reasons we should 
always be advocates for democracy is because democratic leaders act 
much more responsibly because they have to answer to their people, but 
in essence that is not what you have in Russia. There is really no 
reason or rationale why he would be pressured to have a better 
relationship with us.

  Do the Russian people want a better relationship with America? I have 
no doubt about that, but I want you to understand that everything they 
learn about our relationship with them is largely derived through the 
Russian press. If you never had the pleasure of watching, for example, 
the RT Network on television, and you are interested in comedy and 
satire, I encourage you to tune into that station from time to time so 
you can see an alternative representation of events that would startle 
you, and perhaps make you laugh.

[[Page S956]]

This is unfortunately the sort of media information that filters to the 
Russian people that Vladimir Putin and the Kremlin completely control.
  Here is the fourth and perhaps most important reason I think this 
endeavor is unrealistic and perhaps even counterproductive. The price 
you would have to pay is simply too high in return for the alleged 
benefit that would come about.
  No. 1, the Russian Federation under Vladimir Putin has basically 
violated every agreement they have made now and in the past. They are 
violating the cease-fire. They violated all sorts of arrangements with 
regard to arms reductions, and they will continue to do that in any 
deal anyone cuts with him.
  The second is one of the first things he is going to ask for is the 
lifting of all sanctions for both Ukraine and interference in our 
elections, in return for no changes to the status in Ukraine and no 
promise of not undertaking efforts like what happened here in the 
future.
  The third thing they are going to demand is recognition of a Russian 
sphere of influence in Eastern Europe, especially in places that are 
now countries that were once part of the Soviet Union. In essence, a 
United States acceptance officially or otherwise that there are 
countries in the world who are not allowed to enter into economic or 
military engagements with the United States unless Russia allows it.
  You think about that. They are basically going to ask us to play some 
game of geopolitical chess, where we basically turn over the 
sovereignty and future of other Nations and say to them there are these 
countries in the world, and we are not going to try to do anything with 
them, economic, political, cultural, socially or militarily, unless you 
give us permission to do so. This would be a requirement. It is one of 
the things he insists upon.
  He would also require the United States to support pulling back NATO 
troops and equipment and personnel and operations from Nations in 
Europe, which would be devastating to the NATO alliance, which one of 
his other goals is to render NATO feckless and irrelevant.
  I just don't think that is a price worth paying in exchange for 
alleged cooperation against ISIS--that he claims to already be 
conducting--and in exchange for basically sending a message to the 
world that America is your ally, unless there is a better deal with us 
for someone else. That would be devastating. What do I think we should 
do, and what I hope the Senate will do, if there is an effort now or 
any time in the future, by anyone, to change or conduct a deal of this 
magnitude?
  I think the first thing we need to do is be committed to the 
principle. These sanctions that are in place should remain in place 
until the conditions in those sanctions are met, until the sovereignty 
of Ukraine is respected, and until these efforts to undermine democracy 
and spread misinformation are fully accounted for.
  The second is, I think it is important for us to reaffirm our 
commitment to NATO, and that includes the building up of defenses and 
exercises, that we continue to do that firmly, not just with our NATO 
allies but with any nation who seeks cooperation with us.
  The third is careful but strategic engagement in the Middle East to 
the Iraqis, to make very clear that the United States will continue to 
be their partner after ISIS falls; that we want Iraq to be prosperous 
and free and that we believe it is better for the world and we are 
prepared to help them achieve that.
  To the Egyptians, we will continue to press them on human rights, and 
we should. We should also be willing at the same time--and, by the way, 
with the argument that respecting human rights is actually good for 
Egypt, that in the long term these conditions that exist will lead to 
constant threats to their government, but we can do that while at the 
same time continuing to partner with them on military sales. I think 
they would welcome a conversation about trade and potentially a 
bilateral trade agreement with them about opening up avenues for 
business investment and so forth.
  The fourth is to point out that if they are not going after ISIS, 
then what exactly are they doing now? It is important for us to point 
that out to the world. Again, I made this point numerous times. I want 
to make it once again; this idea that we are going to get them to 
cooperate much more against ISIS basically implies they are not doing 
it now, but they claim that is why they are in Syria to begin with.
  Finally, I think it is important for us to try to communicate 
directly with the Russian people to the extent possible. It is hard to 
do because the Russian Government, under Putin, also controls the 
Internet with filters and the like. It is important for us to say our 
quarrel is not with the Russian people; that for many years up until 
this unfortunate turn of events over the last decade, the links with 
the United States and the Russian people grew strong and those links 
remain.
  In my home State of Florida, there is a significant number of 
Russians who live in Florida part time and so forth. I hope that will 
continue. Our quarrel is not with the Russian people, and we desire for 
Russia to be powerful and influential in the world. We want Russia to 
be prosperous. This country does not view this as a zero-sum gain. In 
order for America to be influential, Russia must be less influential.
  Our quarrel is not with Russia but a leader who does view it as a 
zero-sum gain, a leader who believes the only way Russia can be more 
important is for America to be less important, a leader who has chosen 
to try to undermine an international order based on democracy and free 
enterprise and human rights that has kept the world out of a third 
world war, and I think it is important for us to do that.
  I think that is important and why we need at least to be prepared in 
this body, if necessary, to move forward with legislation that doesn't 
just codify existing sanctions but that prevents the lifting of those 
sanctions, unless the conditions in those sanctions are met. This is 
our job. It is true that Presidents and administrations have an 
obligation, a duty, and a right to set the foreign policies of the 
United States. There is no doubt about it. I think that is true, no 
matter who is the President.

  But it would be a mistake, and in my opinion, a dereliction of duty 
for the Senate and the Congress to not recognize that we, too, have a 
duty to shape the foreign policy of the United States and the power to 
declare war in the budgets that we pass, in the laws and conditions 
that we put in place, and in our ability to override vetoes, when 
necessary, even in the process of nominating individuals to serve in 
the U.S. Government and the executive branch.
  We not only have the power, we have the obligation; the obligation to 
shape and mold and direct the foreign policy of this Nation, and if we 
don't, then we are not living up to the oath we took when we entered 
this body, and that it is not a political thing. This is not about 
embarrassing anyone. This is not about partisan issues. It should never 
be. In fact, one of the traditions that has existed in this Nation for 
a long time is that foreign policy, when it came to issues that 
impacted the security issues of the United States, there was an effort 
to make sure it was as bipartisan or nonpartisan as possible because 
when America gets in trouble on national security, there is no way to 
isolate on a bipartisan basis.
  It is my hope, as we debate all these other issues, that we continue 
to keep these issues in mind because it is critical to the future of 
our Nation, critical to our standing in the world, and ultimately vital 
and critical to the kind of world and Nation we will leave to our 
children and grandchildren in the years and decades to come.
  I, for one, in the midst of all of this debate about a bunch of 
issues that divide us, will continue to work to ensure that this is one 
that unites us and allows us to live up to our constitutional 
obligation, to participate fully in shaping and directing the foreign 
policy of this great Nation.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the nomination of Senator 
Jeff Sessions to be Attorney General. I thought very carefully about 
this matter and about what it means to oppose a colleague. We had an 
unusual night last night, where one of our Members was ordered to stop 
speaking as she explained her opposition. Comments that

[[Page S957]]

would have been allowed regarding any other Cabinet nominee were ruled 
unacceptable because this nominee also sits in this body. I voted to 
overturn that ruling and restore my colleague's speaking privileges 
because I was of the opinion that the constitutional duty to advise and 
consent on nominations should allow for debate.
  But whatever my opinions about the ruling, I do have to acknowledge 
that standing on the floor to speak in opposition to a colleague is not 
an everyday occurrence. We do disagree every day, all of us, even 
within our own caucuses on matters of policy, but there is something 
more personal about taking the floor to take a position regarding a 
sitting Senator who has been nominated for a Senate-confirmable 
position.
  I know Senator Sessions well. We served together on the Armed 
Services Committee. We attend a weekly Senate Prayer Breakfast 
together. We have taken codel trips together. I consider Senator 
Sessions a friend, and I respect that he has been repeatedly sent to 
this body by the voters of his State, but while we can and should be 
friends, strive to be friends, in this Chamber, we are not ultimately 
here about friendship. We are here to do people's business. And 
significant differences in our opinions and convictions are not to be 
papered over, even when we find ourselves in different positions than 
our friends.
  Some Members of this body ran for President, and I did not support 
them, even though they were my friends. And some people in this Chamber 
did not support me to be Vice President, even though we are friends. 
There is nothing unusual about that. We all understand it. We must 
treat each other with respect and civility. We are still called to, in 
the words of Lincoln, ``be firm in the right as God gives us to see 
what is right.''
  So based upon how I see the right and on my convictions, I cannot 
support my colleague for the position because I do not have confidence 
in his ability to be a champion for civil rights, to wisely advise the 
administration on matters involving immigration, and to be resolute as 
the Nation's chief law enforcement official that torture is contrary to 
American values.
  This one matters to me a lot. This appointment is very critical. The 
Attorney General is one of the four Cabinet appointees who are not 
allowed to be engaged in political activity: Secretary of Treasury, 
Attorney General, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense. They are 
beyond politics and supposed to be above politics. They must have an 
independent gravitas and even be willing to challenge the President. 
The mission of the Department of Justice cannot be more important. For 
17 years, before I got into State politics, I was a civil rights 
lawyer. I read a book, ``Simple Justice,'' when I was in law school, 
about the lawyers who battled to end segregated education in this 
country. Even though I really didn't know any lawyers and certainly 
didn't know any civil rights lawyers--and was living in kind of an 
Irish Catholic neighborhood in the suburbs of Kansas City--I decided I 
wanted to devote my life to this.
  So I moved to Virginia in 1984 and started practicing civil rights 
law, and I did it for 17 years. I will always remember--and I bet you 
will too--my first client, the first case that I had that was really 
mine. A young woman who walked into my office and told me she had been 
turned away from an apartment, and she thought it was because of the 
color of her skin. I was able to prove that was the case, and so we 
were able to win, but what I remember about Lorraine was how it made 
her feel. She was my age. She had just finished school. She was looking 
for an apartment, her first apartment away from home, just like I had 
done. While my experience getting a job, finding an apartment, getting 
out on my own had been a positive, her experience had been a negative. 
And she was going to have that feeling and carry it with her every time 
she looked for a house for the rest of her life: Am I going to be 
treated differently because of the color of my skin? What had been a 
happy occasion for me, as a young man venturing out into the world, had 
been a sad one and a difficult one for her. That started 17 years of 
fighting in State and Federal courthouses for people who had been 
turned away from housing or fired or slander or otherwise treated 
poorly, either because of their race or their disability or because of 
their advocacy about important public policy issues.
  The civil rights laws of this country protect the liberty of 
minorities of all kinds who otherwise could be tyrannized by the 
majority view in their community. The promise of equal justice under 
the law is sacrosanct and fundamental. And in this battle, the Attorney 
General is the guardian of liberty, or in a wise Biblical phrase, the 
``Watcher on the Wall.''
  Judges sit in their courts and they wait for cases to come to them, 
but an Attorney General is charged with going out and finding 
wrongdoing and making sure it stopped. None of the advances that our 
country has made in the civil rights field has happened without a 
supportive Department of Justice and Attorney General. And those of us 
out in the field, lawyers who were taking cases, but especially the 
clients who simply seek equal justice under law, they have to view the 
Attorney General as their champion.
  In 1963, a married couple in Northeast DC sat down at their kitchen 
table not far from here, and they wrote a letter to a lawyer in town. I 
want to read the letter to you.

       Dear sir: I am writing to you concerning a problem we have. 
     5 years ago my husband and I were married here in the 
     District. We then returned to Virginia to live. My husband is 
     white, I am part negro and part Indian. At the time, we did 
     not know that there was a law in Virginia against mixed 
     marriages. Therefore we were jailed and tried in a little 
     town of Bowling Green. We were to leave the State to make our 
     home. The problem is we are not allowed to visit our 
     families. The judge said if we enter the State within the 
     next 30 years that we will have to spend 1 year in jail. We 
     know we cannot live there, but we would like to go back once 
     in a while to visit our families and friends. We have three 
     children and cannot afford an attorney. We wrote the Attorney 
     General, he suggested that we get in touch with you for 
     advice. Please help us if you can. Hope to hear from you real 
     soon. Yours truly--Mr. And Mrs. Richard Loving.

  That attorney, Bernie Cohen, became a friend of mine. And his partner 
Phil Hirshcop and Bernie took the case of this married couple all the 
way to the Supreme Court, and 50 years ago the Supreme Court struck 
down interracial marriage in this country. But the case started with a 
couple who, having no where else to turn, thought, if we write the 
Attorney General, surely he will be a champion for us and he will help 
us redress this horrible wrong. That is who the Attorney General needs 
to be. The powerful never have a hard time finding somebody to 
represent them in court, but the poor or oppressed or those who don't 
have anybody else to stand up for them, they need a justice system that 
will treat them fairly, and they need an Attorney General who will 
embody that value.
  Three areas: civil rights, immigration, and torture.
  In the area of civil rights, Senator Sessions' record here as a 
Senator has been troubling to me. In the past, when he was considered 
for a judicial position, he declared that the voting rights laws were 
``intrusive.''
  He welcomed the ``good news'' when the Supreme Court in the last few 
years struck down, in the Shelby County case, parts of the Voting 
Rights Act. He has not engaged in efforts that many of us have tried to 
engage in to improve and fix the law.
  This is an important issue to know about an Attorney General whose 
Department is supposed to be the chief enforcer of the Nation's voting 
rights laws. Voting rights are under attack all over this country. The 
Attorney General must be a champion of those laws.
  Senator Sessions has opposed protections for LGBT citizens in this 
body. He voted against the elimination of don't ask, don't tell. He 
voted against the passage of the Matthew Shepard hate crimes bill. He 
has publicly stated numerous times his opposition to marriage equality. 
As far as I know, he has never stated otherwise that he has changed 
those opinions.
  The Senator spoke on the Senate floor about the Individuals with 
Disabilities Education Act in 2000. He said that this beneficial law 
was ``a big factor in accelerating the decline in civility and 
discipline in classrooms all over this country.'' This is very 
troubling to me as someone who believes that act is one of the Nation's 
preeminent civil rights laws.

[[Page S958]]

  There are other examples, but I won't belabor the point.
  The Loving family wrote to Attorney Generally Robert Kennedy to help 
them battle injustice because they believed he would protect their 
important civil rights values at stake. I am not confident that people 
hard-pressed in this country, who feel marginalized, will see the 
office as a potential ally and champion under Senator Sessions. This is 
particularly the case when we have a President who has been 
successfully sued in the past for civil rights violations and who makes 
prejudicial comments about people based on their gender, their 
religion, their immigrant status, or their disability.
  Second, immigration. Our immigration policies are critical. We need 
to fix our laws. In my time in the Senate, Senator Sessions has been 
the most vocal Senator in opposition to what I believe are reasonable 
and necessary reforms. His floor comments and his obvious personal 
passion around this issue are clear, but I think his policies are 
simply wrong.
  Immigration does not hurt our economy; it helps it. Jefferson 
recognized this in the Declaration of Independence. In his Bill of 
Particulars against King George, he said: We do not want to live under 
your tyranny. You won't let us have a good immigration system.
  Jefferson recognized it, and all through the years, the inflow of 
talent, the blood of innovation and talent and new ideas from 
immigrants, has been part of what has made our country great. That is 
why there is such a consensus in favor of immigration reform from the 
labor unions and the chambers of commerce. The CBO says that it will 
increases our net worth and GDP.
  Immigration does not hurt our workers, as Senator Sessions often 
claims it does. A reform would help our workers by eliminating the 
ability of people to live and work in the shadows and be paid 
substandard wages that undercut the wages of others.
  Senator Sessions' views on immigration even extend to a critical 
program like the Special Immigrant Visa Program, which grants special 
protection to foreign citizens, especially those from Afghanistan and 
Iraq, who have helped our troops on the battlefield. They signed up to 
help Americans who are in the service. They put their lives at risk for 
doing so. Because of that, we have a special program to accord them a 
welcome that they are deserved in this country.
  Senators McCain, Shaheen, and I and many others have worked on this 
program, and Senator Sessions has been a determined opponent of the SIV 
Program, and I just can't understand why. If we will not help the 
people who help us, then who will choose to help us in the future? Some 
of these SIV immigrants were turned away at airports after the poorly 
conceived and poorly implemented immigration order of President Trump.

  As we contemplate some of this President's outlandish and 
discriminatory claims about immigrants and as we deal with the 
aftermath of this poor order, we have to separate the extreme and the 
untrue from our legitimate security concerns. A good lawyer often needs 
to be a check against the bad instincts of his client. In this area, I 
am not confident Senator Sessions can do that.
  Finally, torture. Like the vast majority of this body, I believe 
torture is contrary to American values. That is why I was proud to work 
with Senators McCain, Reed, Feinstein, and others in 2015 to pass a law 
clearly stating that torture would not be allowed by any agency of our 
government--not just the military but any agency of our government. 
This law passed the Senate overwhelmingly and in a strongly bipartisan 
fashion. But Senator Sessions was one of a small number of Senators who 
opposed the law, who opposed a ban on torture.
  When we met, I asked Senator Sessions why he had opposed the law, why 
he had opposed this bipartisanship bill. This is a fundamental question 
for any of us but certainly for an individual who wants to occupy the 
Nation's chief law enforcement position. His response was not at all 
convincing. I don't think the Nation should have an Attorney General 
with an ambiguous record about torture.
  While most Federal agencies have a general counsel, it is ultimately 
the Attorney General who sits at the very top of the pyramid of 
attorneys advising the President in providing this legal advice. This 
President has--very unwisely, in my view--stated that he thinks torture 
is both justifiable and effective. I believe we need an Attorney 
General who will check that instinct and not support it or justify it.
  I will say this in conclusion: There is an independence that is 
necessary in this position. It is established in law in this position 
and three other Cabinet positions. Any Attorney General must be able to 
stand firm for the rule of law, even against the powerful Executive who 
nominated him or her. In this administration, I believe that 
independence is even more necessary.
  I oppose Senator Sessions, who is a friend, who is someone I respect 
for this position, because I believe his record raises doubts about 
whether he can be a champion for those who need this office most, and 
it also raises doubts about whether he can curb unlawful overage by 
this Executive.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tillis).
  The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in strong support of 
the nomination of Senator Jeff Sessions to be the next Attorney General 
of the United States. I do that as someone who has known him personally 
quite well for 6 years now. I want to do this briefly because we are 
pressed for time, but I want to make a few points.
  First, I think we all recognize the terrific credentials that Senator 
Sessions brings to this job--his career, his lifetime serving his 
country, from his time in the U.S. Army Reserve, to his 12 years as a 
U.S. attorney, to the 2 years he spent as the attorney general of 
Alabama, all before being elected to the U.S. Senate. But much more 
importantly, I am so impressed by this good man, this good and decent 
man's commitment to protecting all members of our society and his sense 
of fairness. Let me give a couple of examples.
  It was Senator Sessions who worked with a Democratic colleague, 
Senator Coons, on legislation to help women and children who were 
victims of abuse. It was Senator Sessions who joined me in our 
successful effort to provide hundreds of millions of dollars of 
additional funds each year to victims of child abuse and sexual assault 
and domestic violence.
  Senator Sessions' sense of fairness is also illustrated in his 
approach to law enforcement. It is probably widely known that he has 
the endorsement of every major law enforcement group in America, but 
Senator Sessions has also spent a lot of time and effort making sure 
people on the other side of law enforcement are treated fairly and 
humanely.
  It was Senator Sessions who led the successful effort to eliminate 
the disparity in sentences for crack users versus cocaine users, 
working with Senator Durbin, a Democrat. They succeeded because Senator 
Sessions understood that the disparity--the much harsher penalty on the 
use of crack cocaine versus white powdered cocaine--was completely 
unfair and overwhelmingly adversely affected African Americans. That 
was not acceptable to Jeff Sessions.
  It was Senator Sessions who in 2003 joined with Democratic Senator 
Ted Kennedy in introducing and helping to successfully enact the Prison 
Rape Elimination Act because of his concern about the appalling abuse 
experienced by some people in our prisons. That was not acceptable to 
Jeff Sessions.
  Let me just say that--I am going to be very candid. The most 
objectionable and offensive slander I have heard against Senator 
Sessions is the notion that somehow he has some kind of racist 
leanings. That is an outrageous and dishonest charge. I have known this 
man very well. There is not a racist bone in his body. This is a man 
who has been endorsed by many, many African-American leaders. This is a 
man who personally took on the KKK every chance he had when he was 
serving as the U.S. attorney. In fact, arguably, he was the reason that 
the law enforcement--in fact, he personally did probably more than 
anyone else to bankrupt the KKK by design so that he could destroy that 
organization in Alabama, which is exactly what he succeeded in doing.
  Jeff Sessions is a man who has tremendous respect for the law, a 
reverence for the law, respect for the rule of law. There is absolutely 
no question

[[Page S959]]

in my mind, from my own personal experience with him for these years, 
that he will enforce the law vigorously and fairly.
  Several of my Democratic colleagues have come down here and they have 
rattled off policy areas in which they disagree with Senator Sessions. 
You know what, there are areas where I disagree with Senator Sessions. 
I guarantee you, there are lots of areas where I had disagreements with 
the members of President Obama's Cabinet. But it never occurred to me 
to expect that I would have complete agreement on every policy issue 
with every candidate for a Cabinet position.
  What I know about Jeff Sessions is that he is an extremely well-
qualified attorney, with outstanding credentials, has spent his adult 
life serving his country and his State, that he has gone to the mat to 
work for people who are some of the least fortunate and people who have 
been through appalling circumstances. He has been their champion. I 
just know he is going to stand up for the principles of the rule of law 
and equal justice before the law.
  The last point I want to make is, when Republican Senators gather 
periodically for our lunches and our private discussions, every 
Republican Senator knows that when we are discussing something, if Jeff 
Sessions believes that we are talking about doing something that is a 
violation of a principle that he holds, he is going to be the first guy 
who is going to stand up, and he is going to say: My colleagues, this 
would be a mistake. This is not the right thing to do.
  He is the one who is the first to stand up to any other member of the 
conference; it doesn't matter who it is. If he thinks what they are 
suggesting is not the right thing to do, not the principled thing to 
do, not consistent with our role as Senators, not consistent with our 
principles, Jeff Sessions is always willing to stand up for what is 
right.
  He will stand up for what is right as the Attorney General of the 
United States. I am proud to support him, and I urge all of my 
colleagues to do likewise.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I think many millions of Americans 
perceive, as I do, that these are not normal times.
  We have had a new President of the United States who called a judge a 
``so-called judge'' because he dared to disagree with President Trump's 
decision on the ban of Muslims coming into this country.
  We have a President who attacks the media in this country as fake 
news; everything they are saying is a lie. We have a President who goes 
before the troops--men and women in the American military--and starts 
talking about politics. It is very clear to me that we have a new 
President who really does not understand the Constitution of the United 
States of America, who does not understand the separation of powers in 
the Constitution, and in that context, we need an Attorney General who 
will have the courage to tell the President of the United States when 
he is acting in a dangerous, authoritarian, or unconstitutional way.
  I have known Jeff Sessions for a number of years, and personally, I 
like Jeff Sessions. But I do not believe at this moment in history, 
when we need people around this President to explain the Constitution 
to him, that Jeff Sessions will be the Attorney General to do that.
  I am deeply concerned about voter suppression in this country. I am 
deeply concerned that, as a result of the Supreme Court's gutting of 
the Voting Rights Act, we have, in State after State after State, 
Governors and legislatures that are working overtime to make it harder 
for poor people, people of color, older people, young people to 
participate in the political process.
  Today in the United States, we have, compared to the rest of the 
world, a low voter turnout. Only about 60 percent of eligible voters in 
America cast a ballot. Our job--whether you are conservative, 
Republican, Progressive, Independent, Democrat--whatever you are, if 
you believe in democracy, what you should believe in is bringing more 
people into the political process, increasing our voter turnout, not 
working as hard as you can to suppress the vote.
  I want an Attorney General of the United States of America to tell 
those Governors, to tell those attorneys general all over this country 
that as Attorney General of the United States, he will fight them tooth 
and nail in every way legally possible to stop the suppression of the 
vote in State after State throughout this country.
  We have the dubious distinction in this country of having more people 
in jail than any other nation on Earth. We have about 2.2 million 
Americans. We are spending about $80 billion a year locking them up, 
and the people who are disproportionately in jail are African American, 
Latino, Native American.
  I want an Attorney General who understands that the current criminal 
justice system is failing, that we have to figure out ways to keep 
people from getting into jail by investing in education, in jobs, and 
that incarceration and more jails are not the answers to the crisis we 
face within criminal justice. I honestly do not believe that Jeff 
Sessions is that person.
  In recent years, we have made significant progress in allowing 
people--regardless of their sexual orientation--to get married and to 
have the full rights of American citizenship. I do not believe that 
Jeff Sessions will be the Attorney General who will be supportive of 
LGBT rights.
  We have some 11 million undocumented people in this country. I 
believe that most Americans see the solution as comprehensive 
immigration reform and a path toward citizenship.
  Today we have some 700,000 people who are DACA recipients, who have 
come out of the shadows and trusted the Federal Government to protect 
them. We need an Attorney General who is sensitive to the needs of DACA 
recipients, who will pursue humane immigration policies, and advocate 
for the need of comprehensive immigration reform. I do not believe that 
Jeff Sessions will be that Attorney General.
  So, Mr. President, for all of those reasons and more, I will be 
voting against Jeff Sessions to become the next Attorney General of the 
United States.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I also rise this evening to talk about the 
nomination of our colleague from Alabama, Senator Jeff Sessions, to 
serve as our next Attorney General.
  Like many of our colleagues, I have heard from an incredible number 
of people in my State regarding this nomination--some in favor, fewer 
than 100--many against. Almost 1,300 Delawareans have called, emailed, 
or written to my office, expressing their opposition to Senator 
Sessions' nomination.
  I would like to share, if I could, just a few excerpts from some of 
the emails that I have received concerning this nomination.
  We will start with Priscilla from the town of Newport in the northern 
part of our State. She wrote to me about the experience of her family 
growing up in a segregated society. Here is what she had to say. She 
said:

       I lived through my parents not having the right to vote, 
     not being able to go through the front door of a restaurant 
     or doctor's office, using the colored fountains and 
     bathrooms. Never again.

  Another person, Rhonda from Dewey Beach wrote to me about Senator 
Sessions' voting record on voting rights. Here is what she had to say. 
She said:

       Mr. Sessions has called the Voting Rights Act of 1965 a 
     ``piece of intrusive legislation.'' Under him, the Justice 
     Department would most likely focus less on prosecutions of 
     minority voter suppression and more on rooting out mythical 
     voter fraud.

  Here is one from Wilmington, DE--my hometown now--from a woman named 
Dawn. She wrote to me about her concerns as a parent of a child with 
autism. She wrote these words:

       I am writing to express my deep concern with Jeff Sessions' 
     nomination for Attorney General. I am a parent of an autistic 
     son and am terrified that people with these types of views 
     will be in power to enforce (or not) the laws that protect 
     the rights of my son and so many others.

  Mr. President, the common theme throughout these letters, these 
calls, these emails is their fear that Senator Sessions will not be an 
Attorney General for all Americans.
  I know that many of my colleagues--our colleagues--will soon be 
voting

[[Page S960]]

their hopes by voting to confirm Senator Sessions to be our next 
Attorney General, but too many of my constituents, including African 
Americans, immigrants, women, Muslims, and other vulnerable 
populations, have called and emailed my office in numbers that I don't 
think I have ever seen before to express their fears and to ask me to 
do something about it as their senior Senator.
  I have heard their voices loud and clear, and I feel compelled to add 
my voice to so many others in opposing this nomination.
  Let me just say this as clearly as I can. I do so with no joy, no 
joy.
  Last night, as I was thinking about what I wanted to share on the 
floor this evening, my mind drifted back to another time and place.
  The Presiding Officer may not know this. I grew up in Danville, VA, 
my sister and I, the last capital of the Confederacy. I got there I 
think when I was just about 9 years old and left when I was about to 
finish high school.
  The home that we lived in right outside of Danville, VA--if you 
walked out the front door, about 100 yards down the road on the other 
side was a church, Woodlawn Baptist Church. That was our church, and my 
mom dragged my sister and me there every Sunday morning, every Sunday 
night, every Wednesday night, and most Thursday nights.
  When my sister and I were in high school, we stood on the doorstep of 
that church Monday through Friday when school was in session, and we 
would catch a school bus. About 200 yards down the road, on Westover 
Drive, there was another school bus stop, where African-American kids 
got on their school bus, 200 yards away. We would drive in our school 
bus 10 miles to our school, Roswell High School, and the kids at the 
other school bus stop would get in their bus, and they would drive past 
our school another 10 miles to get to their school.
  On weekends, my dad worked a lot. He was in the Navy Reserve as a 
chief petty officer. He was gone a lot on the weekends. My mom worked 
in downtown Danville in the five-and-dime store. My sister and I would 
catch a bus, and we would ride downtown to go have lunch with my mom on 
many Saturdays when we were 9, 10, 11, 12 years old.
  I couldn't help but notice when we got on the bus that if you were 
White, you got to sit up front, and if you were Black, you sat in back. 
We would go to a blue plate diner with my mom at lunchtime. There was 
one section where, if you were White, you got to eat there, and another 
section where, if you were Black, colored, you would eat there. To go 
to the restrooms, it was colored only, White only.
  After lunch, my sister and I would go to Rialto Theatre in Danville, 
and my mom would give us each a quarter. And for 25 cents, we could see 
that afternoon three movies until she was finished with work, and we 
would go home together. At that Rialto Theatre, if you were White, you 
sat down in front on the first floor; if you were Black, you sat up in 
the balcony.
  I will never forget that when I was a little boy in Danville, one 
day, I went to the dentist's office for some dental care. I remember 
this older African-American woman coming into the dentist's office, and 
she was in pain with I think an abscessed tooth.
  She said: I know I don't have an appointment, but could someone just 
help me out of my misery?
  They said: I am sorry, ma'am. You don't have an appointment. We can't 
do anything for you. And she left crying.
  My parents--it turns out I am a Democrat; they were Republican, as 
far as I know. They got to vote, and they got to vote regularly. But I 
will bet you dollars to doughnuts that the kids at that bus stop who 
caught that bus to go to that all-Black, all-African-American school, 
my guess is that a bunch of them didn't get to vote because of 
something we had in Virginia called a poll tax.
  Among the lessons that my sister and I learned at Woodlawn Baptist 
Church was the Golden Rule: Treat other people the way we want to be 
treated.
  Among the things that we learned at that church is Matthew 25: We 
should care for the least of these. When I was hungry, did you feed me? 
When I was naked, did you clothe me? When I was thirsty, did you give 
me a drink? When I was sleeping in prison, did you visit me? When I was 
a stranger in your land, did you welcome me? And we were taught: yes, 
yes, yes, yes.
  Micah 6. In my church this past Sunday, the question was raised: What 
is expected of us by the Lord? And we received three answers. And the 
three answers: Do justice, love kindness, walk humbly with thy God.

  I have taken those lessons from my childhood, and those are lessons 
from my own church today. And I want to tell you that as a kid growing 
up in Danville, VA, I can understand how other kids in my community 
were racist or bigoted. I can understand how it happened in Alabama or 
North Carolina, where our Presiding Officer is from.
  But somewhere along the line, somebody got ahold of me and said: You 
know all that stuff you are talking about in church and the Bible? If 
you really believe it, here is how you should act and talk and speak. 
And finally it sunk in.
  I just want to say that Jeff Sessions has been my colleague. I have 
been here for 16 years. He has been my friend and colleague for 16 
years. We read the same Bible. There have been times where we read it 
together over the years. When we met in my office just a few weeks ago, 
we talked about how our faith guides us in our lives. I reminded him of 
how Matthew 25 talks about moral obligations, ``the least of these,'' 
which I have talked about.
  As I carefully considered my friend's nomination to serve our country 
in such a critical role, I found that while we agree on many issues, 
including that our faith is an important guide not only in our personal 
lives but in our capacity as public servants, I found that our views on 
too many important issues diverged.
  Like many Americans, I am troubled by the direction Donald Trump is 
seeking to take our country in these first few weeks of his 
administration. I believe that an independent Attorney General can 
provide a check on this President's legal recklessness, and it may be 
more necessary now than at any point in recent history. Donald Trump 
has already revealed an agenda that reflects his divisive campaign, one 
that I believe will make our economy less robust, less fair, our 
environment less clean, our country less inclusive, our freedoms less 
free, and our allies less inclined to take America at its word.
  Many of us worry that Jeff Sessions will not be the independent check 
on this administration that we need, and many of us worry that Jeff 
will not hold our Justice Department to the principles that everyone, 
no matter their age, income, sex, or color, deserves equal protection 
under the law. My colleagues and I have these concerns with a number of 
Cabinet nominees. I voted for more of them than I voted against.
  Having said that, we need individuals to serve in these key posts who 
are willing to speak truth to power. Ironically, that is what got 
Acting Attorney General Sally Yates in trouble. She did it a few days 
ago when she was fired for refusing to defend the Muslim ban because 
she thought it might not be lawful.
  Throughout the campaign, Senator Sessions supported a religious-based 
test for immigrants, and I fear that Senator Sessions is unlikely to 
stand up to Donald Trump and tell him that he is wrong on this front. 
To be honest with you, I just believe we need somebody who will do 
that, and unfortunately I fear there is a good chance that Senator 
Sessions believes Donald Trump just might be right. I am also afraid 
that Senator Sessions won't be the independent check our country is 
likely to need, especially in this administration.
  Ultimately, however, the votes are where they are, and it appears 
that our friend, our colleague, Senator Sessions, will be our country's 
next chief law enforcement officer and chief attorney. Over these past 
days and weeks, I thought about whether our friend is the best person 
for the job, as I have said. I know others have too. I also thought 
about the millions of Americans who fear that he may have views about 
different races and minorities that could seep into the Justice 
Department, resulting in an unequal applications of our country's laws.
  My thoughts have led me to the example of Lyndon Johnson, a man from

[[Page S961]]

the South who served, as you may recall, in the U.S. House of 
Representatives in Texas for a number of years and later suddenly 
became President under tragic circumstances, as we all recall, in 
November of 1963. LBJ didn't just oppose civil rights while in the 
House of Representatives and in the Senate, he often bragged about it. 
But he went through a public transformation that would lead him to pass 
the first civil rights bill since reconstruction as Senate majority 
leader in 1957 and then signed into law some of our Nation's landmark 
civil rights laws--the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act 
of 1965, the Elementary and Secondary Act, the Fair Housing Act, and 
countless others.
  LBJ's transformation didn't happen overnight, though. The truth is 
that his views on civil rights and racial justice might have been there 
all along.
  Here is what Robert Caro wrote about LBJ in the most recent 
installment on his life:

       Although the cliche says that power always corrupts, what 
     is seldom said, but what is equally true, is that power 
     always reveals. When a man is climbing, trying to persuade 
     others to give him power, concealment is necessary: to hide 
     traits that might make others reluctant to give him power, to 
     hide also what he wants to do with that power. If men 
     recognized the traits or realized the aims, they might refuse 
     to give him what he wants. But as a man obtains more power, 
     camouflage is less necessary. The curtain begins to rise. The 
     revealing begins.

  So it was, in Caro's view--and I think he is probably right--so it 
was with Lyndon Johnson.
  Mr. President, that reminds me of another quote tonight. This is one 
from our former First Lady Michelle Obama, who said these words: 
``Being President doesn't change who you are, it reveals who you are.''
  It reveals who you are.
  We are not confirming Jeff Sessions to be our next President, but we 
are confirming him to be our next Attorney General, and we must ask, as 
the curtain rises, what will it reveal? What will it reveal about Jeff 
Sessions?
  Unfortunately, each time Jeff's career has led to more power, whether 
it was district attorney in Alabama, attorney general for his State, or 
as U.S. Senator, it has revealed a Jeff Sessions who is much the same 
as he has always been. It has revealed Jeff Sessions to be less 
inclined to undergo the transformation that so many others before him 
have undergone to put themselves and our Nation on the right side of 
history.

  I will close with this thought: If Senator Sessions is confirmed, it 
is my sincere hope that our friend and our colleague will recognize the 
awesome responsibility and the opportunity he has to serve not only the 
people of Alabama, not only the people of the South or the Southeastern 
part of our country, but Americans across our country of all races, all 
colors, all creeds. In this body, it is often important that we vote 
with our hopes rather than our fears, and unfortunately, tonight I am 
not yet prepared to vote my hopes. But the words of a reporter writing 
about President Johnson a few years ago give me some hope as we look 
forward, and maybe they will give hope to the rest of us. Here is what 
that reporter wrote about Lyndon Johnson:

       Perhaps the simple explanation, which Johnson likely 
     understood better than most, was that there is no magic 
     formula through which people can emancipate themselves from 
     prejudice, no finish line that when crossed, awards a 
     person's soul with a shining medal of purity in matters of 
     race. All we can offer is a commitment to justice in word and 
     deed that must be honored but from which we will all 
     occasionally fall short.

  And I would just add, and we do.
  I hope these words I have just quoted resonate with our friend and 
colleague, Senator Jeff Sessions. If they do, both he and our country 
will be better for it.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, there has been a lot of discussion about 
Senator Sessions' nomination on this floor in the last 24 hours. Before 
we vote, I want to offer a couple of observations about the unfairness 
in some of the statements.
  First, I was hoping to limit my remarks to all of the reasons why I 
believe Senator Sessions will make an outstanding Attorney General, but 
instead I feel very compelled to say a few words about some of the 
attacks that have been leveled against Senator Sessions here on the 
floor, where he has served the people of Alabama faithfully for 20 
years.
  A number of Senators have come to the floor to talk about Senator 
Sessions' hearing in 1986 when he was nominated to be a Federal judge. 
Now, it happens that I was in the Senate in 1986, at that time by 6 
years. I was on the Judiciary Committee in 1986, by that time for 6 
years, and I want you to know I saw what happened. I don't have time to 
go into all the details here, but I will tell you this: Jeff Sessions' 
hearing in 1986 was an absolute ambush. In fact, it was a planned 
ambush. He was unfairly attacked then and he is being unfairly attacked 
now. I will give just two examples.
  First, in the last 24 hours, we have heard Senator Sessions attacked 
for a voting rights case that he pursued as U.S. attorney in Alabama. 
We have heard a lot about that case. Of course, those who have raised 
the Perry County trial don't tell you Senator Sessions was actually 
asked to pursue that case by two African-American candidates who 
believed that ballots cast by African-American voters had been altered. 
The bottom line is that he was vindicating the voting rights of 
African-American voters whose voting rights had been compromised.
  Second, we have heard Senator Sessions criticized for testimony in 
his 1986 Judiciary Committee hearing about the Voting Rights Act. It 
has been said on this floor and it has been said repeatedly that Jeff 
Sessions called the Voting Rights Act ``intrusive,'' but those speaking 
in the last 24 hours don't know what he actually said. He did use the 
word ``intrusive,'' but then he said the Department of Justice had to 
do it ``because it would not have happened any other way.''
  He said further: ``Federal intervention was essential in the South.'' 
He said it was an intrusive piece of legislation ``because it was a 
necessary piece of legislation, I support it.'' That is right. He said 
the Voting Rights Act ``was a necessary piece of legislation, I support 
it.'' That is what he said. But if you have been listening the last 24 
hours--you wouldn't know any of that by listening to those who have 
come to the floor and talked all about that case in 1986.
  Like I said, I was here way back then. I saw what happened to that 
man who is going to be our next Attorney General, who would go on to 
join the Senate for these 20-some years and become our colleague and 
our friend. So you can understand why it is very frustrating to me to 
listen to all of those attacks, and it is particularly frustrating to 
hear it from Members who were not even here in 1986.
  With that, let me just say this in closing: Senator Sessions has 
served with us for 20 years. Every Member of this body knows him to be 
a man of integrity. Almost all of us have been on the other side of a 
policy debate with Senator Sessions at one time or another. I know I 
have. What we know from those debates is that whether Senator Sessions 
agrees with you or not on any policy question, he handles the debate 
fairly, he handles the debate respectfully, and he handles the debate 
honorably.
  Senator Sessions answered our questions in the Judiciary Committee 
for 10 long hours. He gave us his word on the critical issues that 
should decide our vote on this nomination. Most of that was centered 
around the fact that he is a man devoted to the law, and he is devoted 
as the chief law enforcement officer of our country to enforce the law, 
even if he didn't vote for it and even if he disagreed with it.

  We know from the questioning that Senator Sessions will be 
independent when he said when he has to say no to the President of the 
United States, he will say no to the President of the United States. We 
know Senator Sessions then, as I have said, will enforce the law 
faithfully, without regard to person, for all Americans.
  Motivated by those principles, Senator Sessions will make a very fine 
Attorney General, and most people in this body know that--even those 
who are going to vote against him.
  I am pleased to cast my vote in favor of his nomination, and of 
course I urge my colleagues to do the same thing.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Perdue). The Senator from Alabama.

[[Page S962]]

  

  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise in support of the nomination of my 
colleague and friend Jeff Sessions to be the Attorney General of the 
United States.
  Why? We have had this debate. It has gone on a long time, and we have 
heard from a lot of proponents and opponents of Jeff Sessions. Who 
would know Jeff Sessions better maybe than I would? I have worked with 
Jeff Sessions since he came to the Senate 20 years ago. Between us we 
have been here 50 years, 30 years for me, 20 years for him. Our staffs 
worked day and night on issues that have affected our State and 
affected the Nation.
  I first really got to know Jeff Sessions when he was the Attorney 
General of Alabama. He had been the U.S. attorney. He was pretty well 
known, but I didn't know him. We didn't really know each other until he 
became the Attorney General.
  I urged him to run for the U.S. Senate. I thought he could win, but I 
thought not just that he could win but that he could bring something to 
this body. I thought he would be a good colleague, he would be a good 
Senator for the State of Alabama and for the United States of America, 
and he has been.
  When you deal with people day after day--remember, we all know each 
other as colleagues here. There are just 100 of us. It sounds like a 
lot of people, but it is not. When we interact on committees, when we 
deal with each other, when our families are thrown together, we talk, 
we debate, we maybe even fight a little bit at times over issues. We 
get to really know somebody.
  I know Jeff Sessions pretty well. I believe he is competent as a 
lawyer, he was a good lawyer, he was a good prosecutor, and he served 
our State as Attorney General. He has been active on the Judiciary 
Committee where he has chaired a subcommittee. He has been active on 
the Budget Committee. He has been active on the Armed Services 
Committee. He has been active right here in the Senate--our Senate--on 
the Environment and Public Works Committee, and he is well respected.
  What kind of Attorney General do we want? We want somebody who is 
competent, somebody with integrity--integrity above everything. That is 
what counts in this job. This is a very, very important job. These are 
big shoes. Jeff Sessions can fill those shoes, and I am happy and proud 
to be here and to vote for him tonight. I wish my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle would join us.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask to proceed on leader time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I would like to say a word about the 
nominee we are about to confirm. We have long known our colleague from 
Alabama as Senator Sessions--and soon Attorney General Sessions--but it 
wasn't always this way. There was a time when the distinguished Senator 
from Alabama was known simply as ``Buddy.'' Buddy--the product of a 
small town called Hybart, the son of a country store owner, the 
inheritor of modest beginnings.
  Senator Sessions' parents grew up in the Depression. They taught 
their son the value of a dollar and the importance of hard work. If our 
colleague wasn't at school or football practice, you were likely to 
find him at his dad's store lending a hand to customers. As anyone from 
a small town can attest, that little store served as far more than just 
a place to buy goods. It was also a local gathering place, a place 
where people were liable to share their hopes and concerns, and their 
dreams too.
  This is where Jeff Sessions developed his core values. It is where he 
developed an appreciation for the everyday struggles of working people. 
It is where he learned the importance of listening first, of standing 
up for what matters, of putting others' needs before one's own. It made 
him a better person. It made him a pretty good politician too.
  Senator Sessions is the kind of guy who, with just one conversation, 
can make you feel as if you have known him your entire life. He is 
usually the first to arrive at constituent events and the last to 
leave. He has also made it a priority to travel annually to every 
county in Alabama--all 67 of them.
  His staff will tell you it is these trips home when Senator Sessions 
is really in his element. Driving across Alabama, from sunup to 
sundown, milkshake in hand, or maybe a Blizzard from Dairy Queen, Heath 
bar flavor, thank you very much, that is Senator Sessions.
  Now, it is not hard to see why Alabamians keep sending him back to 
Washington. Last time out he scooped up a modest 97 percent of the 
vote.
  Part of Senator Sessions' secret to success is simple enough; he is 
just a likable guy.
  Our colleague is one of the most humble and most considerate people 
you will ever meet. He is a true Southern gentleman. He is pretty funny 
too. His staff would certainly agree. They still remember the time he 
accidentally ran his suit coat through the paper shredder. They saved 
the evidence too. Let's hope that one makes it into his archives.
  Sessions' alums call this man a mentor. They remain ever grateful for 
his focus on their own development. I know they are going to miss 
grabbing a burger and fries with him at Johnny Rockets.
  They are really going to miss his wife Mary as well. We will around 
here too.
  Now, in Sessions' world, Mary Sessions is something of a legend. She 
has been our colleague's strongest supporter, no matter the task before 
him. She has been a source of encouragement and a friend to all of Team 
Sessions. I doubt they will ever forget Mary's friendship or her famous 
cream cheese pound cake.
  One thing they will not soon forget either is Senator Sessions' 
intense focus on the office's letter-writing operation. Sometimes that 
meant working weekends with the boss to get the constituent 
correspondence just right.
  There is no doubt Senator Sessions is very, very particular about his 
writing, whether it is constituent letters or legal memoranda, and 
there is a good reason for that. Words, as this lawyer is known to say, 
have meaning. It is a philosophy that has animated Senator Sessions' 
longtime love affair with the law.
  He believes in equal application of the law to each of us, regardless 
of how we look or where we come from. It is a genuine passion for him. 
It is an area of deep importance and principle.
  Senator Sessions will stand up for what he believes is right, even 
when it isn't always the easiest thing to do.
  Now, this is a guy who fought for Republican principles long before--
long before--Alabama became a red State. He stood up to the George 
Wallace dynasty as a young man. He stared down the forces of hate as 
U.S. attorney and State attorney general. He has continued to fight for 
the equal application of the law as well, not to mention a growing 
economy, a streamlined government, and a strong defense.
  Of course, as anyone who knows him will tell you, Senator Sessions is 
a lawyer's lawyer. He is willing to hear the other side of an argument. 
He is willing to make the other side of the argument as well. He is 
also willing to be persuaded.
  He has worked across the aisle with Democrats like the late Senator 
Ted Kennedy and the assistant Democratic leader on issues like prison 
reform and sentencing reform. Democrats have praised him as someone who 
is ``straightforward and fair'' and ``wonderful to work with.''
  The politics of the moment may have changed, but the truth of 
statements like these endures. Deep down, each of us knows these things 
remain just as true about Senator Sessions today as they did when our 
Democratic colleagues praised him.
  Fair in action, bound to the Constitution, a defender of civil 
rights, this is the man we have come to know in the Senate. It is the 
same man we can expect to see as Attorney General.
  Senator Sessions may be leaving the Senate, but there is plenty this 
Eagle Scout will be taking with him. That includes the motto he has 
lived by--``Be Prepared''--which is so engrained in our friend that it 
is even engraved into the back of the granite nameplate on his desk. It 
is a simple phrase with a simple message, and it seems particularly 
fitting for our friend today.
  He has a big job ahead of him. I think he is up to the task. He is 
tough, but he

[[Page S963]]

is fair. He is persistent, but he is respectful. He is a likeable guy, 
a principled colleague, and an honest partner. And while we are really 
going to miss him, we also couldn't be prouder of him.
  So let us thank Senator Sessions for his many years of service.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the Sessions 
nomination?
  Mr. CORNYN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS (when his name was called). Present.
  The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 47, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 59 Ex.]

                                YEAS--52

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Manchin
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--47

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Donnelly
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Harris
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Peters
     Reed
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Sessions
       
  The nomination was confirmed.
  (Applause, Senators rising.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote on the 
nomination.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the motion to reconsider.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I move to table the motion to reconsider.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table.
  The motion was agreed to.

                          ____________________