[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 60 (Thursday, April 23, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2363-S2371]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


         NOMINATION OF LORETTA E. LYNCH TO BE ATTORNEY GENERAL

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will proceed to executive session 
to consider the following nomination, which the clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Loretta 
E. Lynch, of New York, to be Attorney General.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 2 
hours of debate equally divided in the usual form.
  Mr. REID. 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. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I didn't realize the time in the quorum call 
would be equally divided, so I ask unanimous consent that the time be 
equally charged to both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. 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. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rounds). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we will be voting soon on confirmation 
of Ms. Lynch to be the Attorney General of the United States of 
America. That office is a part of the President's Cabinet, but it also 
is the office of the chief law officer for America. The Attorney 
General is the top official in our government who is required to adhere 
to the law, even to the point of telling the President `no' if he gets 
it in his head, as Presidents sometimes do, to do something that 
violates the law--just as corporate lawyers sometimes do for the CEO of 
corporations. `Mr. President, you can't do this. This is wrong. Don't 
do this.'
  Some Attorneys General have been known to resign before they would 
carry out policies that violate the law.

[[Page S2364]]

We are deeply concerned in this country about the President's Executive 
amnesty--the unlawfulness of it, the breadth of it, and the arrogance 
of it to the point that it is a direct assault on congressional power 
and legitimacy, a direct attack on laws passed by the People's 
representatives; we have a big problem. Ms. Lynch has said flat-out 
that she supports those policies and is committed to defending them in 
court against any complaint about them.
  I think Congress has a real role here. We do not have to confirm 
someone to the highest law enforcement position in America if that 
person is publicly committed to denigrating Congress, violating the 
laws of Congress, or violating even the wishes of Congress and the 
American people. We do not have to confirm anybody. It is a power 
Congress is given. The President is asserting powers he has never been 
given anywhere in the Constitution or by the American people, but if we 
don't confirm Ms. Lynch, we will be doing what we have a right to do, 
and what I think we should do.
  I am pleased that Mr. Andrew McCarthy, who prosecuted some of the top 
terrorist cases in America as a former U.S. attorney or as an assistant 
U.S. attorney, is very critical and is very strongly of the belief that 
Ms. Lynch should not be confirmed. He says this:

       A vote against Ms. Lynch's confirmation is not an 
     assessment that she has performed incompetently or 
     unethically in her prior government positions. It is a vote 
     against the President's blatantly unconstitutional policy and 
     against Ms. Lynch's support of that policy. Senators are 
     bound by oath to uphold the Constitution; Ms. Lynch's prior, 
     laudable record as a federal prosecutor cannot overcome her 
     commitment to violating the Constitution.

  We have a right to assert that. We are paid to make decisions about 
that. I think that Mr. McCarthy is correct. Congress was given certain 
powers as a coequal branch of government, not only to protect the 
Congress as an institution but to restrain other government branches 
from overreaching. One of those powers is the Senate's power to confirm 
or not confirm, and this check on Executive powers can be used as 
Congress sees fit. But it should not be abused, just as the President 
should not use his nominees to abuse the Constitution or to advance an 
unlawful agenda. The Attorney General is the top law enforcement 
officer in the country. This is not traditionally a political position. 
It is a law position. Anyone who occupies the office must serve the 
American people under the laws and the Constitution of the United 
States. They are not above the law.
  The Supreme Court has clearly held that the President is subjected to 
the laws. It has always been the case and always has been a part of the 
law of the land. The Senate must never confirm an individual to an 
office such as this who will support and advance a scheme that violates 
our Constitution and eviscerates established law and Congressional 
authority. No person who would do that should be confirmed. We do not 
need to be apologetic about it.
  Ms. Lynch has announced that she supports and, if confirmed, would 
advance the President's unlawful Executive amnesty scheme--a scheme 
that would provide work permits, trillions in Social Security and 
Medicare benefits, tax credits of up to $35,000 a year--according to 
the Congressional Research Service--and even the possibility of chain 
migration and citizenship to those who have entered our country 
illegally or overstayed their lawful period of admission. The President 
has done this even though Congress has repeatedly rejected legislation 
he supports that would allow this scheme to be implemented. He asked 
for it, Congress considered it, and Congress said `no.'
  President Obama's unlawful and unconstitutional Executive action 
nullifies current immigration law to a degree most people have not 
fully grasped. The Immigration and Nationality Act is the law of the 
land, and his actions replace it with the very measures Congress 
refused to adopt. Even King George III didn't have the power to 
legislate without Parliament.
  During her confirmation hearing in the Judiciary Committee, I asked 
Ms. Lynch plainly whether she supported the President's unilateral 
decision to make his own immigration laws.
  Here is the relevant portion of the transcript:

       Mr. Sessions: I have to have a clear answer to this 
     question--Ms. Lynch, do you believe the executive action 
     announced by President Obama on November 20 is legal and 
     Constitutional? Yes or no?
       Ms. Lynch: As I've read the opinion,--

  That is, the opinion of the Department of Justice, which would be 
under her supervision--

       I do believe it is, Senator.

  Of course, the lawful duty of the Attorney General is to enforce the 
law that exists, not one that she or the President wish existed. One of 
the most stunning elements of the President's scheme is the grant of 
work permits to up to 5 million illegal immigrants--taking jobs 
directly from citizens and legal immigrants in our country at a time of 
high unemployment and low wages.
  Peter Kirsanow, Commissioner on the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 
has written at length about how this undermines the rights of U.S. 
workers, especially African-American workers, and other minorities 
suffering from high unemployment. He says: Those citizens who are 
suffering from high unemployment and low wages have their rights 
undermined when the President ignores plain law that protects them from 
an excessive surge of illegal workers.
  So at her confirmation hearing, I asked Ms. Lynch about what she 
might do to protect the rights of U.S. workers. By the way, Attorney 
General Holder, our current Attorney General, astoundingly, in comments 
he made some months ago, declared that there is a civil right to 
citizenship in America for people who enter the country unlawfully. How 
can this possibly be, that the Attorney General can get so removed from 
his responsibility to enforce the law that he says that if someone 
comes into the country unlawfully, they have a civil right to 
citizenship?
  That was part of the reason I asked her this question:

       Mr. Sessions: Who has more right to a job in this country? 
     A lawful immigrant who's here or a citizen--or a person who 
     entered the country unlawfully?
       Ms. Lynch: I believe that the right and the obligation to 
     work is one that's shared by everyone in this country 
     regardless of how they came here. And certainly, if someone 
     is here, regardless of status, I would prefer that they would 
     be participating in the workplace than not participating in 
     the workplace.

  So this individual would be the chief law enforcement of our country, 
and I believe that is a fundamentally flawed statement and comment. It 
is unprecedented for someone who is seeking the highest law enforcement 
office in America to declare that someone in the country illegally has 
a right to a job when the law says if you are here illegally, you 
cannot work.
  This Nation is--as George Washington University law Professor 
Jonathan Turley, who has testified a number of times here, often called 
by a number of our Democratic colleagues, put it--at ``a constitutional 
tipping point.'' Professor Turley, who is a nationally recognized 
constitutional scholar and self-described supporter of President Obama, 
testified before the House of Representatives in February 2014, nine 
months before the President announced his unprecedented executive 
action, and said:

       The current passivity of Congress represents a crisis of 
     faith for members willing to see a president assume 
     legislative powers in exchange for insular policy gains. The 
     short-term, insular victories achieved by this President will 
     come at a prohibitive cost if the current imbalance is not 
     corrected. Constitutional authority is easy to lose in the 
     transient shift of politics. It is far more difficult to 
     regain. If a passion for the Constitution does not motivate 
     members, perhaps a sense of self-preservation will be enough 
     to unify members. President Obama will not be our last 
     president. However, these acquired powers will be passed to 
     his successors. When that occurs, members may loathe the day 
     that they remained silent as the power of government shifted 
     so radically to the Chief Executive. The powerful personality 
     that engendered this loyalty will be gone, but the powers 
     will remain. We are now at the constitutional tipping point 
     of our system. If balance is to be reestablished, it must 
     begin before this President leaves office and that will 
     likely require every possible means to reassert legislative 
     authority.

  One of those means is the advice and consent power to approve or 
disapprove nominees for high office. It was created for just such a 
time as this. It is a legitimate constitutional power of Congress. It 
is not only appropriate but necessary that the Senate refuse to confirm 
a President's nominee when

[[Page S2365]]

that President has overreached and assumed the legislative powers of 
Congress. It is particularly necessary when the President's nominee is 
being appointed specifically for the improper purpose of advancing the 
President's unconstitutional overreach--all through powers of the 
office to which they have been nominated.
  Mr. President, we have a number of problems with regard to executive 
branch overreach and executive branch failure to be responsive to 
Congress. When Members of Congress ask legitimate questions, we often 
don't get answers from the people who are paid by the taxpayers and who 
are authorized by us. I believe that is another matter we need to 
consider before we confirm people. The Department of Justice has been 
recalcitrant too often in producing information it should produce.
  I wish to go a little bit further because some of this goes to the 
core of the issues before us. Is this just a policy dispute between 
Congress and the President? No, it goes much deeper than that. The 
actions of the President are stunning--beginning with his so-called 
Morton memos. He had an underling carry out orders to achieve what he 
wanted done, which is often how he has proceeded with these unlawful 
activities. I will point out some of them.
  Beginning with the Morton memos in 2011--under the guise of 
prosecutorial discretion based on limited resources--the Administration 
began to flaunt clearly written provisions of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act, such as section 235, which requires the Secretary of 
Homeland Security to place illegal aliens into removal proceedings to 
be deported once they are found. Section 235 requires DHS to do that, 
they do not have any discretion there.
  In direct contradiction of clearly written law, the Morton memos 
generally directed U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement personnel 
to refuse to initiate removal proceedings against certain aliens, and 
to administratively close or terminate such proceedings if they had 
been initiated. Thus began the opening salvo in the Administration's 
assault on our immigration laws. This is huge. Officers respond to the 
President's leadership.
  The following year, June 2012, the Administration created, through 
Executive fiat, a program that Congress consistently refused to enact 
into law--the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals or DACA. This 
program not only shielded certain illegal aliens from the threat of 
removal, but it also provided them with work authorization, the ability 
to travel outside of the United States without fear of being refused 
reentry through grants of advanced parole. It gave them a Social 
Security number and a photo ID.
  By the way, colleagues, this resulted in the Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement officers being so concerned at this radical reversal of the 
laws of the United States that they filed a lawsuit against their 
supervisors asserting that they were being required to violate the law 
of the United States rather than being allowed to carry out their sworn 
duty, which was to enforce the laws of the United States.
  The judge was sympathetic to the matter, but for technical and legal 
reasons, concluded that the case would not go forward, but I believe it 
is still on appeal now.
  This is remarkable. There are law officers--many of them have been in 
law enforcement for 10, 20, 30 years--who sued their supervisors 
because they were being ordered to violate the law instead of enforce 
the law. We ought to listen to them. They have repeatedly told us that 
what is happening is outrageous and they pleaded with Congress to stop 
it.
  But then in November of last year, after Congress refused to pass the 
Administration's preferred legislation providing amnesty to illegal 
aliens, the Administration created, through Executive fiat, a number of 
other programs that further eroded enforcement of our immigration laws. 
Notably, the two most visible programs are the Deferred Action for 
Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents, the so-called DAPA 
Program, and an expanded version of DACA, both of which were blessed by 
the Department of Justice, the Office of Legal Counsel, and the 
Attorney General--wrong, unlawful actions blessed by the chief law 
enforcement officer in the country.
  Less visible are policies that prevent the enforcement of immigration 
laws against certain criminal aliens, such as the November 20, 2014 
memorandum from Jeh Johnson, the Secretary of the Department of 
Homeland Security, entitled ``Policies for the Apprehension, Detention, 
and Removal of Undocumented Immigrants.'' That memo excludes from 
enforcement priority categories whole categories of criminal offenses 
defined in sections 2(a)(2) and 237(a)(2) of the INA.
  We have observed a decimation of law enforcement in this country 
involving immigration as a direct result of the President's 
determination to create an immigration system that he believes is 
right, but the People, through their elected Congress, have refused to 
make law. This is a direct threat to who we are.
  Professor Turley is so insightful about this issue. This is not some 
rightwing extremist. In testimony before the House committee, he said:

       I believe the President has exceeded his brief. The 
     President is required to faithfully execute the laws.

  He goes on to say:

       This goes to the very heart of what is the Madisonian 
     system. If a president can unilaterally change the meaning of 
     laws in substantial ways or refuse to enforce them, it takes 
     offline that very thing that stabilizes our system. I believe 
     the members will loathe the day that they allow that to 
     happen. There will be more presidents who will claim the same 
     authority.
       When I teach constitutional law, I often ask my students, 
     what is the limiting principle of your argument? When that 
     question is presented to this White House, too often it's 
     answered in the first person, that the President is the 
     limiting principle or at least the limiting person. We can't 
     rely on that type of assurance in our system.

  Madison knew no one can be given total power without limits.
  Professor Turley goes on to say:

       The problem of what the President is doing is that he is 
     not simply posing a danger to the constitutional system; he 
     is becoming the very danger the Constitution was designed to 
     avoid: that is, the concentration of power in any single 
     branch. This Newtonian orbit that the three branches exist in 
     is a delicate one, but it is designed to prevent this type of 
     concentration.

  When asked explicitly if he believed the President violated the 
Constitution, he said, as I quoted before, ``The center of gravity is 
shifting, and that makes it unstable. And within that system you have 
the rise of an uber presidency. There could be no greater danger for 
individual liberty, and I really think that the framers would be 
horrified by that shift because everything they've dedicated themselves 
to was creating this orbital balance, and we've lost it. . . . ''
  He goes on to say to Congress as a challenge to us:

       I believe that [Congress] is facing a critical crossroads 
     in terms of continued relevance in this process. What this 
     body cannot become is a debating society where it can issue 
     rules and laws that are either complied with or not complied 
     with by the president. I think that's where we are . . . [A] 
     president cannot ignore an express statement on policy 
     grounds . . . [In] terms of the institutional issue . . . 
     look around you. Is this truly the body that existed when it 
     was formed?

  So he was sitting there in the House of Representatives and he was 
talking to Members of Congress and said:

        . . . look around you. Is this truly the body that existed 
     when it was formed? Does it have the same gravitational pull 
     and authority that was given to it by its framers? You're the 
     keepers of this authority. You took an oath to uphold it. And 
     the framers assumed that you would have the institutional 
     wherewithal and, frankly, ambition to defend the turf that is 
     the legislative branch.

  I think we need to--without apology--defend the law, and I think this 
is in the Congress' interest. Congress should not confirm someone to 
lead the U.S. Department of Justice who will advance this 
unconstitutional policy. Congress has a limited number of powers to 
defend the rule of law and itself as an institution and to stop the 
executive branch from overreaching. It is unthinkable that we would 
ignore one of those powers in the face of such a direct threat to our 
constitutional order--an escalating pattern of overreach by the 
President.
  Every day that we allow the President to erode the powers of the 
Congress, we are allowing the President to erode the sacred 
constitutional rights of the citizens we serve. We have a duty to this 
institution and to the American people not to confirm someone who is 
not committed to those principles but rather who will continue to 
violate them.

[[Page S2366]]

  I will oppose this nomination and urge my colleagues to do so. I 
think we should see a bipartisan vote rejecting this nomination, and in 
doing so, Congress will send a clear message that we expect the 
President to abide by the law passed by Congress, not to violate it.

  Mr. President, I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. For almost 2 months, I have been returning to the Senate 
floor to urge the majority leader to schedule the confirmation vote for 
our next Attorney General. Yesterday afternoon, we were finally able to 
get an agreement that was long overdue. But even now, this morning, we 
are not voting to confirm Loretta Lynch to be the next Attorney General 
of the United States; we are going to vote on whether to invoke cloture 
in regard to this top law enforcement position.
  For those not familiar with the rules of the Senate, cloture is a 
rule that allows the Senate to end a filibuster.
  The fact that Senate Republicans are requiring a cloture vote on her 
nomination acknowledges what we have known all along: Republicans have 
been engaged in an unprecedented filibuster of this nomination.
  When we do vote to confirm Loretta Lynch this afternoon, she will be 
the first African-American woman to serve as Attorney General. She is a 
historic nominee, but it is Senate Republicans who are making history--
and I would say for the wrong reasons. We have had 82 Attorneys General 
in our Nation's history. Until now, not one of those 82 has had to 
overcome a cloture vote. But this one, Loretta Lynch, as I said, the 
first African-American woman to serve as Attorney General, became the 
first and only to have to overcome a cloture vote.
  I would have opposed any filibuster on any President. I have been 
here with President Ford, President Carter, President Reagan, President 
Bush, President Clinton, another President Bush, and President Obama. 
Neither Republicans nor Democrats have seen this.
  President Obama first announced Ms. Lynch's nomination more than 5 
months ago. At the time, Senate Democrats acceded to the request of 
Senate Republicans not to move her nomination during the lame duck 
period. Republicans promised that she would be treated fairly.
  In fact, last fall, the now-majority leader promised that ``Ms. Lynch 
will receive fair consideration by the Senate. And her nomination 
should be considered in the new Congress through regular order.'' But 
she hasn't been treated fairly. There hasn't been regular order.
  The nomination of Ms. Lynch has been pending in the Senate awaiting 
confirmation for 56 days. I went back over the last seven Attorneys 
General. I added up the number of days they waited for confirmation on 
the floor. She has waited longer than all seven of them put together 
twice over, so twice as long as the seven preceding Republican and 
Democratic Attorneys General combined: Richard Thornburgh, 1 day; 
William Barr, 5 days; Janet Reno, 1 day; John Ashcroft, 2 days, Alberto 
Gonzales, 8 days; Michael Mukasey, 2 days; and Eric Holder, 5 days. I 
have said it repeatedly, but it bears repeating again: this historic 
delay is an embarrassment for the United States Senate.
  As the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York, Ms. Lynch 
brought terrorists and cyber criminals to justice. She obtained 
convictions against corrupt public officials from both political 
parties. She fought tirelessly against violent crime and financial 
fraud. Ms. Lynch has protected the rights of victims. She has a proven 
record prosecuting human traffickers and protecting children.
  I am glad that yesterday the Senate was finally able to overcome an 
impasse on trafficking legislation which, unfortunately, those on the 
other side of the aisle caused by injecting partisan politics into the 
debate. That Republican leaders tied a vote on the confirmation of Ms. 
Lynch to human trafficking legislation never made sense at all, 
especially given her strong record of prosecuting human traffickers.
  In a recent article, the Guardian rightly pointed out that the 
Republican leaderships' use of her nomination as a negotiating chip was 
``painfully wrongheaded--tantamount to holding the sheriff back until 
crime goes away.'' I could not agree more. I ask unanimous consent that 
the Guardian article be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my 
remarks.
  We all know that Loretta Lynch is eminently qualified to be our next 
Attorney General. She should not have been delayed for so many months 
by the Senate majority. And we should not be forced to vote to cut off 
debate on this nomination, especially when no other Attorney General 
nominee has ever needed such a vote. This is the complete opposite of 
the fair treatment that Senate Republicans promised last November. 
After this extended delay on the Lynch nomination, I can only hope 
Senate Republicans will show her more respect as Attorney General of 
the United States than she has received as a nominee. She deserves our 
respect and gratitude for being willing to continue to serve our 
Nation. She has earned this respect.
  Ms. Lynch's story is one of perseverance, grace, and grit and I 
believe this process will only make her stronger. She was born and 
raised in North Carolina. She is the daughter of a fourth-generation 
Baptist preacher and a school librarian. Her proud mother and father 
instilled in her the American values of fairness and equality, even 
though as a child those around them were not living up to these values.
  I must say that meeting Reverend Lynch at these hearings and then 
meeting him at the time of the markup--I was so impressed with the 
strength that man showed and his sense of faith in goodness. This is a 
pastor and a preacher we can all look up to. In fact, Ms. Lynch recalls 
riding on Reverend Lynch's shoulders to their church, where students 
organized peaceful protests against racial segregation. The freedom 
songs and the church music that went hand in hand with those protests 
undoubtedly made up the sound track of her childhood. As Attorney 
General, I am sure she will draw upon those childhood experiences and 
the struggles of her parents, her grandparents, and her great-
grandparents when addressing the current protests over too many young 
lives lost on our streets.
  As I said, the Judiciary Committee was honored to have her father, 
the Reverend Lorenzo Lynch, with us on both days of her hearing in 
January, as well as at the committee markup when her nomination was 
favorably reported with bipartisan support. He is here to watch these 
proceedings today. It is clear this undoubtedly proud father instilled 
in his daughter the great resilience she has shown over the past 6 
months.
  As a Senator, as have other Senators, I have gotten to meet wonderful 
people from all walks of life, up to and including Presidents, but I 
have said many times before and I will say again that meeting Reverend 
Lynch was really a very special moment in this Senator's life.
  Throughout Loretta Lynch's life, those who encountered her 
intelligence and her tenacity have not all been prepared to accept her 
and her impressive accomplishments. But at every point, the content of 
her character has shone through and led her to even greater heights.
  In elementary school, administrators did not believe that Loretta 
Lynch could score as high as she did on a standardized test. They 
demanded that she retake the test. How could this young African-
American girl score so high? She took the test again and her second 
score was even higher.
  In high school, she rose to the very top of her class but had to 
share the title of valedictorian with two other students, one of whom 
was White, because school administrators feared an African-American 
valedictorian was too controversial. But that didn't hold her back, 
either. She kept going forward. She went on to graduate with honors 
from Harvard College, and then she went on and earned her law degree 
from Harvard Law School.
  This has been the story of Loretta Lynch's life. While some are not 
ready to embrace her distinction, she marches forward with grace to 
prove she is even stronger and more qualified than her detractors can 
imagine. She has dedicated the majority of her remarkable career to 
public service, and

[[Page S2367]]

we are fortunate as a nation that she wants to continue to serve.
  Ms. Lynch's record of accomplishments makes me confident she will be 
able to lead the Justice Department through the complex challenges it 
faces today.
  One issue the outgoing Attorney General prioritized was the 
protection of Americans' right to vote. After the Supreme Court's 
disastrous ruling in Shelby County v. Holder, Republican governors and 
State legislatures exploited the decision and implemented sweeping 
voter suppression laws that disproportionately affect African Americans 
and other minorities. Ms. Lynch will have to continue the commitment to 
fighting voting rights for all Americans.
  At a time of severe budget cuts for too many vital programs that help 
victims and support public safety, something must be done about the 
massive financial burden that is the Bureau of Prisons. One-third of 
DOJ's budget goes to BOP. This imbalance has largely been driven by our 
reliance on drug mandatory minimum sentences, which do not make us 
safer but are costing us plenty. These sentences explain why the United 
States has the largest prison population in the world. We must work 
together on more thoughtful solutions to address our mass incarceration 
problem.
  Few issues affect communities and families as intimately as 
addiction. Vermont, like many parts of the country, has seen a recent 
surge in the abuse of heroin and other opioids. The Department must 
work with States to find solutions to support communities struggling 
with heroin and other opioids, and help them break the cycle of 
addiction.
  The Attorney General will also be called upon to build on the 
sometimes strained relationship between law enforcement and communities 
of color, which has been exacerbated by the recent tragic events in 
Ferguson, New York, and South Carolina. Restoring that trust will be as 
great a responsibility as she will have while in office.
  Nor are these issues of trust limited to local law enforcement. Just 
the other day, a Washington Post article detailed the fact that the 
Justice Department and the FBI acknowledged numerous instances of 
flawed testimony by FBI examiners over a two-decade period in 
connection with hair analysis evidence. This included dozens of cases 
involving defendants who were sentenced to death row. This troubling 
revelation means that the FBI must conduct a comprehensive analysis to 
prevent future breakdowns such as this.
  The Justice Department must also keep up with the rapid development 
of technology. We must stay ahead of the curve to prevent and fight 
threats to cybersecurity and data privacy. The growing threat of cyber 
crime is very real but so is the specter of unchecked government 
intrusion into our private lives--particularly dragnet surveillance 
programs directed at American citizens. The intelligence community 
faces a critical deadline this June when three sections of the Foreign 
Intelligence Surveillance Act are set to expire. We must protect our 
national security and our civil liberties. We must work together to 
reform our Nation's surveillance laws so we can achieve both goals and 
restore the public's trust.
  When President Obama announced his intention to nominate Ms. Lynch 
last November, I had the privilege of attending the White House 
ceremony. At that event, Ms. Lynch noted with admiration that ``the 
Department of Justice is the only cabinet department named for an 
ideal.'' Just think of that. The Department of Justice is named for an 
ideal--the ideal of justice. And having served as a State prosecutor, 
although not with the complexity she has encountered, I always felt 
that was an ideal to uphold, and she has. I believe that when Loretta 
Lynch is sworn in as our next Attorney General, she will work 
tirelessly to make that ideal a reality for all Americans.
  As I said, I am sorry that for the first time, after 82 Attorneys 
General, we have to have a cloture vote. I have great respect for my 
friends in the Republican leadership, but I must say they sent an awful 
signal to America in saying that for the first time in 82 Attorneys 
General, we require a cloture vote for this highly qualified woman.
  I yield the floor.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                   [From the Guardian, Apr. 21, 2015]

Loretta Lynch `Led the Nation' on Human Trafficking Despite Republican 
                                Standoff

                           (By Tom McCarthy)

       Republican leaders say they'll hold up Lynch's confirmation 
     until trafficking bill passes--and yet Lynch has been one of 
     America's boldest pursuers of sex traffickers, Guardian 
     review reveals.
       After almost six months, the Republican blockade on the 
     confirmation of Loretta Lynch as the next US attorney 
     general--once a grand fight over immigration, then banking 
     prosecutions, then abortion--appears headed for a final 
     legislative showdown over protecting victims of sex 
     trafficking.
       But the biggest Congressional headache of the year--a 
     single cabinet nomination effectively hijacking the 
     legislative calendar--has culminated in ``a very sad irony'': 
     Lynch has been one of the country's premier guardians of 
     victims of sex trafficking, and a tireless scourge of sex 
     traffickers, a review of her record and conversations with 
     current and former colleagues reveal.
       Lynch--according to prosecutors, officials and victims' 
     advocates familiar with her tenure as US attorney for the 
     eastern district of New York--has a prodigious history of 
     throwing sex traffickers in prison, breaking up prostitution 
     rings, rescuing underage victims forced to work as 
     prostitutes and reuniting mothers held captive by the rings 
     with their long-lost children.
       Heading into what could be the final day of protracted 
     negotiations over her job as the nation's highest law 
     enforcement officer, Lynch's supporters spoke at length with 
     the Guardian about what they say is one of the most powerful 
     legacies of her tenure.
       Republicans have not challenged Lynch's record as a 
     prosecutor of sex trafficking--or any other part of her 
     record. But Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell has clung 
     to an announcement that he would hold up her nomination until 
     the Senate completed work on the Justice for Victims of 
     Trafficking Act, which would create a compensation fund for 
     victims. Republican and Democratic senators are squabbling 
     over abortion language in the bill.
       ``I had hoped to turn to her next week, but if we can't 
     finish the trafficking bill, she will be put off again,'' 
     McConnell said. More than a month later, that hold is still 
     in place, although Republicans aides on Friday signaled 
     potential new movement on the nomination, after President 
     Obama called the delay ``embarrassing''.
       To those with close knowledge of Lynch's record on human 
     trafficking, the hold-up has not been embarrassing, so much 
     as painfully wrong-headed--tantamount to holding the sheriff 
     back until crime goes away.
       Carol Robles-Roman, who in 12 years as deputy mayor of New 
     York City worked closely with Lynch's office to stop young 
     girls from falling victim to sex traffickers, said Lynch had 
     made ``protecting the most vulnerable members of our society 
     a hallmark of her tenure''.
       ``The irony that it's a trafficking bill that's holding 
     everything up is just . . . it's a very sad irony,'' said 
     Robles-Roman, who now runs the nonprofit Legal Momentum. 
     ``The fact of the matter is, with this record, she has been 
     one of the top leaders in the country around the fight 
     against human trafficking.
       ``This is such a difficult area for prosecutors to wrap 
     their hands around. And her office, the eastern district, has 
     really distinguished itself in the cases that they have 
     brought, and the fearlessness that they have shown in 
     prosecuting these cases.''


                 `Heinous' cases with real resolutions

       Lori Cohen, director of the anti-trafficking initiative at 
     New York-based Sanctuary for Families, has worked closely 
     with Lynch's office, including to reunite victims of sex 
     trafficking with their children, who in multiple cases have 
     been held in Mexico by members of the trafficking 
     organization.
       ``The eastern district prosecutors have been exceptional in 
     terms of their willingness to listen to the clients,'' Cohen 
     said. ``And I think that, frankly, that came from the top, 
     that came from the attorney general nominee. I think she has 
     always had a very high degree of professionalism, but also a 
     very strong sense of compassion for victims. And a strong 
     sense of justice, that people who are exploiting these 
     vulnerable immigrant women and children in the commercial sex 
     industry need to be held accountable.''
       In the typical sex trafficking case prosecuted under Lynch, 
     a community services organization might tip off law 
     enforcement to the presence of a prostitution ring based in 
     Brooklyn or Queens, New York. Investigators would discover 
     many girls and young women living under the control of men 
     who forced them to work in brothels or who drove them around 
     the city, sometimes to as many as 20 assignments a day.
       Anne Milgram, a former prosecutor on human trafficking 
     cases in the eastern district, who went on to serve as 
     attorney general of New Jersey and is now a senior fellow at 
     the New York University school of law, said one after another 
     of the trafficking cases were prosecuted because Lynch made 
     them a ``personal priority''.
       ``Under her leadership, the eastern district has really led 
     the nation in this area,''

[[Page S2368]]

     Milgram said. ``I really couldn't say enough good things 
     about both the office and Loretta Lynch's record on human 
     trafficking. If you look nationally to find a US attorney who 
     was as thoughtful and progressive in prosecuting human 
     trafficking cases, I don't think you could find one.''
       Lynch's office has specialized in breaking up rings that 
     share a remarkable similarity. Members of family-based crime 
     syndicates in Mexico, in a repeated pattern, would seek out 
     young girls in poor, rural areas and make them promises of 
     love and a better life in the United States. Sometimes a 
     marriage would follow. And then the girls would be introduced 
     to a new life, in which they were coerced to work as 
     prostitutes. Obedience was enforced with rape, beatings, 
     imprisonment, and, in some cases, by threatening the lives of 
     children born of the corrupt ``love'' affairs.
       ``Any trafficking victim is going to be suffering in a 
     tremendous physical and emotional harm, and pretty extensive 
     sexual abuse,'' Cohen said. ``But these particular Mexican 
     trafficking cases are so difficult for our victims because 
     usually the trafficker is an intimate partner. So it could be 
     a man who held himself out to be a boyfriend, or a fiance, 
     and in at least one case it's been a husband. Who courted a 
     client, who won her trust, and her love, and in a number of 
     cases had children with her.''
       ``You just pull the facts of one of these cases, and 
     they're heinous,'' Robles-Roman said. ``They almost don't 
     sound real.''


                 The most active record in the country

       Lynch's office has specialized in breaking up these rings. 
     The eastern district of New York has delivered more than 55 
     indictments in human trafficking cases and rescued more than 
     110 victims, including at least 20 minors, in the past 10 
     years.
       Under Lynch, the eastern district is currently prosecuting 
     at least five cases relating to the prostitution of US minors 
     or sex trafficking--more active prosecutions than any other 
     US attorney's office in the country, according to 
     knowledgeable observers.
       In 2012, Lynch's office reunited a child and mother who had 
     been separated for more than 10 years when the woman was 
     taken from Mexico to New York and forced to work as a 
     prostitute. It was one of 18 such mother-and-child reunions 
     completed by the eastern district.
       Cohen worked with a client who was reunited with her child 
     after a conviction by Lynch's office.
       ``It was really very moving,'' Cohen said. ``My client had 
     been separated from her child for a number of years and was 
     really frantic about her child's safety. Frankly it's 
     terrifying for a victim to come forward and report the abuse, 
     when she is afraid that if word of her cooperation gets back 
     to her traffickers, there's very little protection available 
     for her child back in Mexico.
       ``These clients, when they have children, they are mothers 
     first. And they'll do anything to protect their children. In 
     fact some of them continue to be trafficked because they were 
     afraid that if they stopped or refused, that their children 
     would be harmed.''
       In December 2012, Lynch announced the extradition and 
     arraignment of four suspects from Mexico in two separate sex 
     trafficking cases. In 2013, Lynch sent a New York bar owner 
     and two co-defendants to prison for dozens of years each for 
     running a sex-trafficking ring between Central America, 
     Mexico and two bars on Long Island. In 2014, three brothers 
     convicted of sex trafficking were sentenced to double-digit 
     prison terms for enticing victims as young as 14 to be 
     transported illegally into the United States and forced to 
     work as prostitutes in New York City and elsewhere.
       ``It's horrible to think that children in the United States 
     are being exploited sexually,'' said Robles-Roman. ``They 
     are. [But Lynch's] office has shown that they have the 
     courage, the know-how, and the expertise to prosecute these 
     people--some of them involving international criminal 
     enterprises.
       ``From my perspective, somebody who has that vision, and 
     that eye, to protect our most vulnerable, can protect us all. 
     It is a fearlessness that we need in our attorney general.''
       As of Monday, after what minority leader Harry Reid called 
     ``164 very long days'', there was still no Senate deal over 
     the abortion language in the trafficking legislation, 
     although signs emerged that a deal may be close.
       If Republicans stick to their promise, it will then be 
     Lynch's turn. And if she is confirmed, to hear Lynch's former 
     colleagues tell it, the Senate will have made a difference on 
     behalf of society's most vulnerable.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rubio). The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, today I rise to talk about what has come to 
define the Obama administration, which is a consistent pattern of 
lawlessness that disrespects the Constitution, that disrespects the 
Congress, and that disrespects the people of the United States.
  In any administration, under any President, the person charged with 
being the chief law enforcement officer is the Attorney General. I have 
been blessed to work in the U.S. Department of Justice, and there is a 
long, bipartisan tradition of Attorneys General remaining faithful to 
the law and to the Constitution and setting aside partisan 
considerations and politics. Unfortunately, that tradition has not been 
honored during the Obama Presidency.
  Attorney General Eric Holder has been the most partisan Attorney 
General the United States has ever seen. The Attorney General has 
systematically refused to do anything to seriously investigate or 
prosecute the IRS for targeting citizens for expressing their First 
Amendment rights. Indeed, he has assigned the investigation to a major 
Democratic donor and partisan Democrat who has given over $6,000 to 
President Obama and the Democrats. Eric Holder has abused the office 
and has turned it, in many respects, into a partisan arm of the 
Democratic Party. He is the only Attorney General in the history of the 
United States to be held in contempt of Congress.
  So there are many, including me, who would very much like to see Eric 
Holder replaced. There are many, including me, who would very much like 
to see an Attorney General who will return to the bipartisan traditions 
of the Department of Justice of fidelity to law, and that includes most 
importantly the willingness to stand up to the President who appointed 
you even if he or she is from the same political party as are you.
  During the confirmation hearings, I very much wanted to support 
Loretta Lynch's nomination. Bringing in a new Attorney General should 
be turning a positive page in this country. But, unfortunately, the 
answers Ms. Lynch gave in the confirmation hearing, in my opinion, 
rendered her unsuitable for confirmation as Attorney General of the 
United States. That was a shame.
  Ms. Lynch's record as the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of 
New York had earned her a reputation as a relatively no-nonsense 
prosecutor, so it was my hope that we would see a similar approach and 
similar answers from Ms. Lynch at the confirmation hearing. Instead, 
she chose to embrace the lawlessness of the Holder Justice Department.
  When she was asked whether she would defend President Obama's illegal 
Executive amnesty, which President Obama has acknowledged no fewer than 
22 times that he had no constitutional authority to undertake and which 
a Federal court has now enjoined as unlawful, she responded 
affirmatively, saying she thought the administration's contrived legal 
justification was ``reasonable.''
  The nominee went on to say that she sees nothing wrong with the 
President's decision to unilaterally grant lawful status and work 
authorizations that are explicitly barred by Federal law to nearly 5 
million people who are here in this country illegally.
  When asked further who has ``more a right to a job, a United States 
citizen or a person who came to this country illegally?'' she 
responded, ``I believe that the right and obligation to work is one 
that is shared by everyone in this country, regardless of how they came 
here.'' Well, a very large majority of American citizens would beg to 
differ. Rule of law matters.
  When she was asked about the limits of prosecutorial discretion--the 
dubious theory President Obama has put forth to justify his illegal 
executive amnesty--she could give no limits to that theory.
  When asked if a subsequent President could use prosecutorial 
discretion to order the Treasury Secretary not to enforce the tax laws 
and to collect no more income taxes in excess of 25 percent, she 
refused to answer.
  When asked if a subsequent President could use that same theory to 
exempt the State of Texas--all 27 million people--from every single 
Federal labor law and environmental law, she refused to answer.
  When asked if she agreed with the Holder Justice Department that the 
government could place a GPS sensor on the car of every single American 
without probable cause, she refused to answer. That extreme view was 
rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously.
  When asked if she agreed with the Holder Justice Department that the 
First Amendment gives no religious liberty protection whatsoever to a 
church's or synagogue's choice of their own pastor or their own rabbi, 
she

[[Page S2369]]

again refused to answer. Likewise, that extreme view was rejected 
unanimously by the U.S. Supreme Court. Indeed, Justice Elena Kagan--
appointed by President Obama--said at the oral argument that the Holder 
Justice Department's position that the First Amendment says nothing 
about the religious liberty of a church or a synagogue--Justice Kagan 
said, ``I find your position amazing.'' Well, I am sorry to say that 
Ms. Lynch was unwilling to answer whether she holds that same amazing 
position, that the First Amendment does not protect the religious 
liberty of people of faith in this country.
  When asked in her hearing if she believes the Federal Government 
could employ a drone to kill a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil if that 
individual posed no imminent threat, she refused to answer.
  When asked if she would be willing to appoint a special prosecutor to 
investigate the IRS's targeting of citizens and citizen groups for 
their political views--something which President Obama said he was 
``angry about and the American people had a right to be angry about''--
and when asked if she would appoint a prosecutor who was at a minimum 
not a major Obama donor, she refused to answer.
  This nominee has given every indication that she will continue the 
Holder Justice Department's lawlessness. That was her testimony to the 
Senate Judiciary Committee.
  I wanted to support this nomination. I wanted to see a new Attorney 
General who would be faithful to law. But her answers made that 
impossible.
  I would note that there is a difference. Eric Holder began 
disregarding the Constitution and laws after he was confirmed as 
Attorney General. Ms. Lynch has told the Senate that is what she is 
going to do. That means each and every one of us bears responsibility. 
In my view, no Senator can vote for this confirmation consistent with 
her or her oath given the answers that were given.
  I would note that a particular onus falls on the new Republican 
majority. For several months, I have called on the Republican majority 
to block the confirmation of President Obama's executive and judicial 
nominees other than vital national security positions unless and until 
the President rescinds his lawless amnesty. I am sorry to say the 
majority leadership has been unwilling to do so.
  The Republican majority, if it so chose, could defeat this 
nomination, but the Republican majority has chosen to go forward and 
allow Loretta Lynch to be confirmed.
  I would note that there are more than a few voters back home who are 
asking: What exactly is the difference between a Democratic and 
Republican majority when the exact same individual gets confirmed as 
Attorney General promising the exact same lawlessness? What is the 
difference? That is a question each of us will have to answer to our 
constituents when we go home.
  In my view, the obligation of every Senator to defend the 
Constitution is front and center why we are here. We have a nominee who 
has told the Senate she is unwilling to impose any limits whatsoever on 
the authority of the President of the United States for the next 20 
months. We are sadly going to see more and more lawlessness, more 
regulatory abuse, more abuse of power, more Executive lawlessness.
  Now more than ever, we need an Attorney General with the integrity 
and faithfulness of law to stand up to the President. Attorneys General 
in both parties, Republican and Democratic, have done so. When credible 
allegations of wrongdoing by Richard Nixon were raised, his Attorney 
General, Elliot Richardson, appointed a special prosecutor, Archibald 
Cox, to investigate regardless of partisan politics. Likewise, when 
credible allegations by Bill Clinton arose, his Attorney General, Janet 
Reno--a Democrat--appointed Robert Fisk as the independent counsel to 
investigate those allegations. Eric Holder has been unwilling to 
demonstrate that same faithfulness to law, and unfortunately Ms. Lynch 
has told us that she, too, is unwilling to do so. For that reason, I 
urge all of my colleagues to vote no on cloture and to insist on an 
Attorney General who will uphold her oath to the Constitution and to 
the people of the United States of America.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I come before the Senate today to vote 
and to urge my colleagues to vote in favor of confirming Loretta Lynch 
as Attorney General.
  I disagree with my colleague from Texas. I serve on the Judiciary 
Committee, as does the Senator from Texas. I listened to her questions. 
I asked her questions. I listened to her answers. In my view, she 
passed her senatorial interview. She has picked up support from several 
Republicans. She answered questions for 8 hours during her confirmation 
hearing and submitted detailed responses to 900 written questions.
  What I would like to focus on today are the claims I just heard from 
the Senator from Texas that she is somehow lawless.
  Let's look through the facts. She has earned the support of Members 
of both parties. Do the Republicans who support her for this position 
think she is lawless? I don't think so. She has earned the support of 
top law enforcement groups and 25 former U.S. attorneys from both 
Republican and Democratic administrations.
  Now let's start with the obvious. She is supremely qualified for 
Attorney General. She has a world-class legal mind, an unwavering 
commitment to justice, an unimpeachable character, and an extraordinary 
record of achievement.
  During her time as U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New 
York, she tackled some of our Nation's hardest cases, from public 
corruption, to civil rights violations, to massive crime rings. She 
currently leads the U.S. attorney's office that has been charged with 
prosecuting more terrorism cases since 9/11 than any other office in 
the country, including trying the Al Qaeda operative who plotted to 
attack New York City's subway system. Would you hand this over to a 
lawless person? No. You would hand this over--this important job of 
going after terrorists--to someone who respects the law, who enforces 
the law, not, as my colleague from Texas said, to someone who is 
lawless.
  This is a concern in my State. Just this week, our U.S. attorney, 
Andy Luger, indicted six people--six people--in the Twin Cities area 
who were plotting to go back to assist ISIS, to assist a terrorist 
group. So I care a lot about having an Attorney General in place who 
actually knows how to handle these terrorism cases, who is going to 
lead the Justice Department and understands the importance of going 
after these cases. Loretta Lynch is exactly the type of tough and 
tested leader we need at the Justice Department to lead the effort.
  She has been endorsed by leaders ranging from the New York police 
commissioner--I don't know if my colleague from Texas considers him 
lawless--to the president of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers 
Association, to the president of the National Association of Chiefs of 
Police. Alberto Gonzales says it is time to vote on Ms. Lynch. Rudy 
Giuliani says it is time to confirm her. These are not people my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle normally say are lawless.
  This is the story of Loretta Lynch and why I think she has been able 
to wait out this long process. Loretta Lynch has a lot of patience. 
When she was a little girl, she took a test and did incredibly well on 
that test. She did so well that they didn't believe she took that test. 
They asked her to take that test again, and she scored even higher. 
When she was valedictorian of the class, the principal came up to her 
and said: You know, this is a little awkward. You are African American, 
and we might want another White student to share the honor. That is 
what happened to her. She said: All right. That is a woman who has been 
through something and can wait this out. She will wait no longer after 
today.
  The other thing I heard from our friends on the other side of the 
aisle--from Senator Cruz--was that somehow she is lawless because she 
supported something that every President since Dwight Eisenhower has 
supported, has asked their Attorney General to do. The Attorney General 
has looked at the legal issues surrounding the issuance of an Executive 
order regarding immigration. Every Attorney General since Eisenhower's 
administration has advised their President on these issues. The first 
George Bush, the second George Bush, Ronald Reagan--with

[[Page S2370]]

every single one of these Presidents, there was some kind of Executive 
order issued involving immigrants.
  I know because we have Liberians in Minnesota who, because of unrest 
in their country, have been there for decades under an Executive order, 
something that sometimes Congress gets involved and sometimes the 
President reissues. But that is one example of a group of people who 
have been able to stay in our country legally, work in our hospitals, 
work in our industries, and raise their families in this country 
because of Executive orders.
  So to say that it is sometimes lawless--how lawless for her to 
support this simple idea that a President can issue an Executive order. 
Of course, we can debate the merits of that. We can talk about the fact 
that of course we would rather have comprehensive immigration reform. 
That is why I voted it. Of course that would be better, so the 
President could just tear up his Executive action. He said he would be 
glad to do that.
  But the point of this is that every Attorney General in the 
Republican administrations since Dwight Eisenhower has supported their 
President when they issued an Executive order. So this idea that by 
somehow saying that is legal makes this nominee lawless is just plain 
wrong.
  We look forward to another robust debate on immigration policy. 
Comprehensive immigration reform should be debated and passed by 
Congress. But Ms. Lynch should be judged on her record and her record 
alone. When we look at her record, we should be proud to have her as 
our next Attorney General of the United States of America.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I would like to make a few remarks 
about Loretta Lynch. While she should have been confirmed as Attorney 
General months ago, I want to make the following points: Her 
qualifications are sterling. Her education, her experience as a U.S. 
attorney under two Presidents, as well as her accomplishments are 
unassailable.
  I have never seen a nominee in my 22 years handle a confirmation 
hearing with such poise and answer questions with such command. During 
her hearing, I said Loretta Lynch was a combination of steel and 
velvet, and that, to me, sums her up perfectly.
  I met with her prior to her hearing and was deeply impressed. I 
reviewed her stellar record and found her to be a firm yet fair 
prosecutor--as a matter of fact, probably the prosecutor in one of the 
toughest districts--the Eastern District of New York--that exists in 
America.
  Having led this very large and important U.S. Attorney's Office under 
two Presidents, she is a proven leader and she also knows how to bring 
people together to get the job done. I think that is important.
  Let me just talk about national security. The Eastern District of New 
York, where Ms. Lynch served as U.S. attorney, has led the Nation in 
terrorism convictions among all U.S. Attorney Offices since 2001. She 
has overseen these cases. The six individuals connected to Najibullah 
Zazi, who was part of an Al Qaeda plot and planned to set off bombs on 
the New York subway system; Rezwanul Nafis, who attempted to use a 
weapon of mass destruction against the New York Federal Reserve Bank; 
four individuals, including Russell Defreitas, who plotted to attack 
JFK Airport; an individual who tried to go to Yemen to join Al Qaeda in 
the Arabian Peninsula; and two individuals who allegedly were members 
of Al Qaeda and attacked U.S. military forces overseas.
  In February, her office announced that three individuals had been 
charged with attempting and conspiring to provide material support to 
ISIL. Two were planning to fly to Syria to join ISIL. The third was 
arrested while boarding a flight to Turkey at JFK. Her office has also 
charged 11 individuals, alleging that they illegally worked to secure 
more than $50 million in high-tech equipment for Russian military and 
intelligence agencies.
  At her confirmation hearing, Lynch emphasized the importance of the 
government having the ``full panoply of investigative tools and 
techniques to deal with the ever-evolving threat of terrorism.'' In 
sum, I am confident she is going to be a very strong voice leading the 
Justice Department on issues of national security. I can only say I 
think, as those of us on the Intelligence Committee see--and the 
Presiding Officer is one of them--this becomes more important every 
day.
  Her experience is just as deep on domestic issues. As U.S. attorney 
for a major urban district, she clearly understands the importance of 
protecting us from gangs and organized crime, issues that are front and 
center in my home State of California.
  Her work in this area shows she understands local and international 
criminal organizations.
  In the last year, under her leadership, three individuals connected 
to a major organized crime family pleaded guilty to a racketeering 
conspiracy.
  A gang leader was found responsible, after a five-week trial, ``for 
six murders, two attempted murder[s], armed robberies, murder-for-hire, 
narcotics, distribution, and gambling on dog fighting.''
  Another gang leader was convicted and sentenced to 37 years in prison 
for ordering the murder of two individuals, one of whom was believed to 
be associated with a rival gang.
  Three individuals in a New York cell of an international cybercrime 
organization were also convicted on charges stemming from cyberattacks 
that resulted in $45 million in losses.
  She has also made combatting human trafficking a priority. Over the 
last decade, her office's anti-trafficking program has indicted more 
than 55 defendants in sex trafficking cases and rescued more than 110 
victims of sex trafficking, including more than 20 minors.
  Simply put, Loretta Lynch has been on the frontlines in investigating 
and prosecuting a range of perpetrators, and I believe she will 
continue that work as Attorney General.
  I would be remiss if I did not express my extreme disappointment in 
the delay over Ms. Lynch's confirmation. We have before us a nominee 
with impeccable credentials to serve as the Nation's chief law 
enforcement officer. During her confirmation, Senator Leahy asked a 
panel of witnesses who were pro and supposedly con to raise their hands 
if they opposed her. Not a single witness raised their hand. To me, 
that spoke volumes.
  Even Republicans who will vote against her because they disagree with 
the President praise her credentials and personal qualifications. But 
despite all of that, the Senate subjected her to, I think, an 
inexcusable delay. It is particularly sensitive because this would be 
the first African-American woman as Attorney General in the history of 
the United States.
  If you look at race relations today and the impartial and important 
role that the Department of Justice plays, it seems to me that her 
appointment may well be the most important possible appointment at this 
particular point in time. Her nomination has been pending for 56 days 
on the floor. That is more than twice as long as the seven most recent 
Attorneys General combined.
  So, hopefully, it is done now. I recognize the other side will say 
they could not move the nomination because of the trafficking bill or 
for some other reason. But the fact remains that, historically, we 
customarily move back and forth between executive and legislative 
business. We could have done that here as well. We have confirmed 
district judges, we have confirmed individuals who serve in various 
other executive capacities, including subcabinet positions. So we could 
have easily considered the nominee for one of the most important posts 
in this government.
  Let me conclude with this. I regret that a vote on her nomination 
cannot be unanimous. I hope it will be close to that. I do not think 
that will be possible. She is that good. She deserves a unanimous vote. 
She is as fine as I have seen in my time in the Senate.
  Senator Durbin remarked in committee that her confirmation will be a 
truly momentous occasion for the Senate and for our Nation. He said 
this should be a ``solemn, important, and historic moment for 
America.'' I truly believe he was right. I truly believe this is an 
uncommon nominee at an uncommon time who can display a tremendous will, 
drive, motivation, and sense of justice as our U.S. Attorney

[[Page S2371]]

General. I am very honored to cast my vote in favor of her nomination.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, briefly, this should be a happy day 
for America. This should be a day that is circled on the calendar as 
another day, as the Presiding Officer of this Senate knows, that this 
is about the American dream. This woman is the embodiment of the 
American dream in action. We should be celebrating her confirmation to 
the most important law enforcement position in the United States of 
America.
  So why am I not happy? I am sad. I am depressed, because what we are 
going to witness in a few minutes is base politics at its ugliest. It 
does not get any uglier than this because what we are saying today--
what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are saying today is 
that it does not matter if you are qualified. It does not matter if you 
are one of the most qualified nominees for Attorney General in the 
history of our country. That makes no difference. We have a new test: 
You must disagree with the President who nominates you. Let me say that 
again because we love common sense in Missouri. This defies common 
sense. You must vote against a nominee for the Cabinet of the duly 
elected President of the United States because she agrees with the duly 
elected President of the United States. Think of the consequences of 
that vote. Think what that means to the future of advise and consent in 
this Senate.
  If we all adopt this base politics ``place in the cheap seats,'' I 
can't get elected President unless I am against Loretta Lynch, if we 
all adopt that in the future, how is any President elected in this 
country going to assemble a Cabinet? Because it will be incumbent on 
all of us to be against Cabinet members who have the nerve to agree 
with the President who has selected them for their team.
  It is beyond depressing. It is disgusting. She is so qualified. She 
has worked so hard all of her life. She is a prosecutor's prosecutor. 
She has prosecuted more terrorists than almost anybody on the face of 
the planet. The notion that this has occurred because she agrees with 
the man who selected her--I think everyone needs to understand what 
that means to the future if all of us embrace that kind of base 
politics in this decision. It is not a happy day. It is a very sad day.
  I am proud of who Loretta Lynch is. I am proud she will be Attorney 
General of this country. I am sad it will be such a close vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Loretta Lynch is an historic nominee. What 
I worry about is this body is making history for the wrong reasons. 
Senate Republicans have filibustered her. She becomes the first out of 
82 Attorneys General in our Nation's history to face a filibuster.
  On one hand she is an historic nominee for the right reason; the 
first African-American woman for Attorney General, a woman who is 
highly, highly qualified. Everybody agrees with that. But what a shame 
that we have the second part of history, to have her be the first out 
of 82 Attorneys General to be filibustered--to be held to this very 
disturbing double standard. This woman has had to face double standards 
all her life--why one more? I will proudly vote for her.
  I ask unanimous consent to yield back all time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, all time is yielded back.