[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 60 (Thursday, April 23, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2371-S2374]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                             Cloture Motion

  Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending 
cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination 
     of Loretta Lynch to be Attorney General.
         Mitch McConnell, Richard Burr, John Cornyn, Lamar 
           Alexander, Bob Corker, Jeff Flake, Susan M. Collins, 
           Orrin G. Hatch, Thom Tillis, Lisa Murkowski, Harry 
           Reid, Richard J. Durbin, Patrick J. Leahy, Patty 
           Murray, Amy Klobuchar, Kirsten E. Gillibrand, Charles 
           E. Schumer.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
nomination of Loretta E. Lynch, of New York, to be Attorney General 
shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 66, nays 34, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 164 Ex.]

                                YEAS--66

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Flake
     Franken
     Gardner
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Johnson
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Udall
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--34

     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Grassley
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Lankford
     Lee
     McCain
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Perdue
     Risch
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). On this vote, the yeas are 66, 
the nays are 34.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  Cloture having been invoked, under the previous order, there will be 
up to 2 hours of postcloture debate equally divided between the two 
leaders prior to a vote on the Lynch nomination.
  Mr. LEAHY. 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. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                 Unanimous Consent Agreement--H.R. 1191

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, last week the Senate entered a 
unanimous consent agreement to get on the bipartisan Iran congressional 
review act at a time to be determined by the two leaders. Now that the 
Senate has passed the antitrafficking bill and the Lynch confirmation 
vote has been scheduled for later today, it is my intention to turn to 
the Iran legislation.
  Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that at 3 p.m. today the Senate 
agree to the motion to proceed to H.R. 1191, as under the previous 
order, with debate only during today's session of the Senate following 
the offering of a substitute amendment by Senator Corker or his 
designee, as under the previous order.
  I further ask that following leader remarks on Tuesday, April 28, 
2015, Senator Corker be recognized to offer an amendment to the pending 
substitute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Democratic leader.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, it is my understanding that on Monday 
there will be opportunity for debate.
  Is that right, Mr. Leader?
  We will do that at closing tonight. That would be good.
  Madam President, I appreciate very much the understanding of the 
Republican leader, the majority leader, about how to proceed on this. 
This is a really important piece of legislation. I don't know of a 
piece of legislation in recent years that is more important than this. 
So I look forward to the Senate turning to this legislation.
  I again applaud and commend Senators Corker and Cardin for the 
delicate and very good work they have done on this. This measure, I 
repeat, is important. It deals with matters of international affairs 
and Congress's role in carrying out the constitutional responsibilities 
we have. This bill will take some time. I hope we can finish it as 
rapidly as possible. That is what I want.

[[Page S2372]]

  I also want to comment that I think it is important we have the 
opportunity--and I am sure the Republican leader--to have our caucus on 
Tuesday, so that we by that time will have an idea how we are going to 
proceed forward on this.
  I have heard some Senators want to offer amendments really to hurt 
this bill. I hope that, in fact, is not the case. I hope people are 
trying to be constructive. Regardless of that, the leader has assured 
us that there will be an open amendment process. So no matter how a 
person feels about this bill, they will have an opportunity to offer 
amendments. In my opinion, we need to support the Corker-Cardin 
agreement. Those Senators worked so we can get the bill passed as soon 
as possible.
  So I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam 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. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, today the Senate takes up the 
nomination of the 83rd Attorney General.
  We all know the former Democratic leadership could have processed 
this nomination during last year's lame duck. But in the limited time 
we had, they chose to concentrate on confirming a number of judges and 
getting a losing vote on NSA reform. Ms. Lynch, at that time, wasn't 
high on the priority of the Democratic majority, but now I am pleased 
that the Senate was finally able to come to an agreement on the sex 
trafficking legislation, so we can turn to the Lynch nomination.
  I voted against Ms. Lynch's nomination in committee and will oppose 
her nomination again when it is time to vote this afternoon. I will 
spend a few minutes now explaining my reasons to my colleagues.
  This nomination comes at a pivotal time for the Department of Justice 
and our country. The next Attorney General will face some very 
difficult challenges--from combatting cybercrime, to protecting our 
children from exploitation, to helping fight the war on terror. But 
beyond that, the new Attorney General has a mess to clean up. The 
Justice Department has been plagued the last few years by 
decisionmaking driven by politics--pure politics. Some of these I have 
mentioned before, but I would like to give just a few examples.
  The Department's own inspector general listed this as one of the top 
management challenges for the Department of Justice: ``Restoring 
Confidence in the Integrity, Fairness, and Accountability of the 
Department.'' That is quite a major management challenge the Department 
faces.
  This inspector general cited several examples, including the 
Department's falsely denying basic facts in the Fast and Furious 
controversy. The inspector general concluded this ``resulted in an 
erosion of trust in the Department.''
  In that fiasco, our government knowingly allowed firearms to fall 
into the hands of international gun traffickers, and, I am sorry to 
say, it led to the death of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry.
  Then how did the Department respond to all this obviously wrong 
action on their part? They denied, they spun, and they hid the facts 
from Congress. And if you hide the facts from the American Congress, 
you are hiding the facts from the American people.
  They bullied and intimidated whistleblowers, members of the press, 
and, you might say, anyone who had the audacity to investigate and help 
us uncover the truth.
  But Fast and Furious isn't the Department's only major failing under 
the Holder tenure. It has also failed to hold another government agency 
accountable, the Internal Revenue Service.
  We watched with dismay as that powerful agency was weaponized and 
turned against individual citizens who spoke out in defense of faith, 
freedom, and our Constitution. What was the Department's reaction to 
the targeting of citizens based on their political beliefs? They 
appointed a campaign donor to lead an investigation that hasn't gone 
anywhere, and then, after that, the Department called it a day.
  Meanwhile, the Department's top litigator, the Nation's Solicitor 
General, is arguing in case after case for breathtaking expansions of 
Federal power.
  I said this before, but it bears repeating: Had the Department 
prevailed in just some of the arguments it pressed before the Supreme 
Court in the last several years--and I will give five examples:
  One, there would be essentially no limit on what the Federal 
Government could order States to do as a condition for receiving 
Federal money.
  Two, the Environmental Protection Agency could fine homeowners 
$75,000 a day for not complying with an order and then turn around and 
deny that homeowner any right to challenge the order or those fines in 
court when the order is issued.
  Three, the Federal Government could review decisions by religious 
organizations regarding who can serve as a minister of a particular 
religion.
  Four, the Federal Government could ban books that expressly advocate 
for the election or the defeat of political candidates.
  And five, lastly, the way this Solicitor General argued, as I said, 
would bring the most massive expansion of Federal power in the history 
of the country. The Fourth Amendment wouldn't have anything to say 
about the police attaching a GPS device to a citizen's car without a 
warrant and constantly tracking their every movement for months or 
years.
  Now, I have given five reasons of expansion of the Federal 
Government. These positions aren't in any way mainstream positions. At 
the end of the day, the common thread that binds all of these 
challenges together is a Department of Justice which has become deeply 
politicized. But that is what happens when the Attorney General of the 
United States views himself--and these are his own words--as the 
President's ``wingman.''
  Because of all the politicized decisions we have witnessed over the 
last few years, I have said from the very beginning of this process 
that what we need more than anything else out of our new Attorney 
General is independence. Ever since she was nominated, it was my 
sincere hope that Ms. Lynch would demonstrate that sort of 
independence. It was my hope that she would make clear that, while she 
serves at the pleasure of the President, she is accountable to the 
American people, because the job of Attorney General is defined by a 
duty to defend the Constitution and uphold the rule of law. The job is 
not simply to defend the President and his policies.
  I voted for Attorney General Holder despite some reservations and 
misgivings, but I have come to regret that vote because of the 
political way he has led the Department. I realize that the quickest 
way to end his tenure as Attorney General is to confirm Ms. Lynch, but, 
as I have said, the question for me from the start has been whether Ms. 
Lynch will make a clean break from the Holder policies and take the 
Department in a new direction.
  Some of my Democratic colleagues have said that no one has raised any 
objection to Ms. Lynch's nomination. This, of course, is inaccurate. No 
one disputes that she has an impressive legal background. It was her 
testimony before the committee that caused concerns for many Senators, 
including me. After thoroughly reviewing that testimony, I concluded 
that she won't lead the Department in a different direction. That is 
very unfortunate. After 6 years of Attorney General Holder's 
leadership, the Department desperately needs a change of direction.
  I would like to remind my Democratic colleagues that it was not too 
long ago that a majority of Democrats voted against Judge Mukasey for 
Attorney General--not based on his records but instead based upon his 
testimony before the committee. In fact, then-Senator Obama had this to 
say about Judge Mukasey: ``While his legal credentials are strong, his 
views on two critical and related matters are, in my view, 
disqualifying.''
  I asked Ms. Lynch about her views on Fast and Furious, on the IRS 
scandal, and other ways the Department has been politicized. She did 
not demonstrate that she would do things differently. Instead, she gave 
nonanswers.

[[Page S2373]]

She was eloquent and polished but nonresponsive.
  The bottom line is that Ms. Lynch does not seem willing to commit to 
a new, independent way of running the Department. That surprised me 
very much. Based on everything we were told, I expected Ms. Lynch to 
demonstrate a bit more independence from the President. I am confident 
that if she had done so, she would have garnered more support.
  As I said when the committee voted on her nomination, to illustrate 
this point, we need to look no further than the confirmation of 
Secretary Carter to the Department of Defense earlier this year. When 
he testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Secretary 
Carter demonstrated the type of independent streak that many of us were 
hoping we would see in Ms. Lynch.
  Most of the media reporting on the two nominations seemed to agree. 
Headlines regarding the Carter nomination in the New York Times and the 
Washington Post commended his shift from the President's policies with 
headlines such as ``Defense nominee Carter casts himself as an 
independent voice,'' which was in the Washington Post, and in the New 
York Times, ``In Ashton Carter, Nominee for Defense Secretary, a Change 
in Direction.'' But on the Lynch nomination, those same newspapers 
highlighted that she defended the President's policies on immigration 
and surveillance with headlines such as ``Lynch Defends Obama's 
Immigration Action,'' which was in the New York Times, and from the 
Huffington Post, ``Loretta Lynch Defends Obama's Immigration Actions.''
  Secretary Carter was confirmed with 93 votes. Only five Senators 
voted against Secretary Carter's nomination. That lopsided vote was a 
reflection of his testimony before the Senate, which demonstrated a 
willingness to be an independent voice within the administration. 
Unfortunately, Ms. Lynch did not demonstrate the same type of 
independence.
  I sincerely hope Ms. Lynch proves me wrong and is willing to stand up 
to the President and say no when the duty of office demands it. But 
based upon my review of her record, I cannot support the nomination.
  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. Madam President, I rise today to discuss the nomination 
of Loretta Lynch, a proud New Yorker and soon-to-be Attorney General of 
the United States of America. She was born in North Carolina, and her 
father was a fourth-generation Baptist minister, a man who grew up in 
the segregated South, and her mother picked cotton when she was a girl 
so her daughter would never have to. Their daughter grew up to be one 
of the keenest legal minds our country has to offer, someone who has 
excelled at every stage of her education and her career while 
cultivating a reputation--well deserved--as someone who is level-
headed, fair, judicious, and eminently likable.
  If there is an American dream story, Loretta Lynch is it. Still, 
despite her intellectual and career achievements, Ms. Lynch has always 
been a nose-to-the-grindstone type, rarely seeking acclaim, only a job 
well done.
  Throughout her career, she has had a yearning to serve the public, 
which began when she took a 75-percent pay cut to join the Eastern 
District as a prosecutor. There, she found her calling, handling some 
of the toughest litigation cases in the country on cyber crime, public 
corruption, financial fraud, police abuse, gang activity, organized 
crime, and especially terrorism.
  When you look at the breadth and the depth of the cases she has 
handled, it is clear that Loretta Lynch is law enforcement's 
Renaissance woman. Because of her judicious, balanced, and careful 
approach to prosecuting on complex and emotional community-police 
relations matters, Ms. Lynch has always emerged with praise from both 
community leaders and the police. America needs this kind of leadership 
in our top law enforcement position.
  In this age of global terrorism, the Attorney General's role in 
national security has never been more important.
  I know her well. I was the person who recommended her to the 
President to be U.S. attorney twice. I know how good she is. In some of 
the most difficult cases--cases where the community was on one side and 
the police were on the other--she emerged with fair decisions that made 
both sides praise her. In this difficult world we are in, where we have 
so much tension, she is going to be great. That is why I was so proud 
when the President nominated her for Attorney General. She is just 
great. But one sad note--there is one cloud on this sunny day, and that 
is the long time it took to confirm her. We heard about a whole lot of 
issues completely unrelated to her experience or her qualifications. No 
one can assail Loretta Lynch--who she is, what she has done, how good 
an Attorney General she would be.

  One quick story about Ms. Lynch. As I mentioned, I originally 
recommended Loretta Lynch for the position of U.S. attorney in 1999 
because I thought she was excellent. Sure enough, she was.
  When President Bush took office, Ms. Lynch went to the private sector 
to earn some money. When I had the opportunity to recommend a candidate 
for U.S. attorney again when President Obama became President in 2009, 
I was certain I wanted Ms. Lynch to serve again. She had only served 
for about 1\1/2\ years. She had done such a good job, I said, we need 
her back. But she had a good life. She was making a lot of money and 
had gotten married in the interim.
  Knowing what a great person she is, I decided I would call her late 
on a Friday afternoon. I was confident that with the weekend to think 
it over, she would be drawn to answer the call to public service. When 
I called her Friday afternoon, she said to me, I was dreading this 
call, because she was happy in her life. But sure enough on Monday 
morning she called me back and said, I cannot turn this down because my 
desire to serve is so strong.
  She is a great person in every way. On top of decades of experience 
at the highest levels of law enforcement and a sterling track record, 
Loretta Lynch brings a passion and deep commitment to public service 
befitting of the high office she is about to attain.
  She will make an outstanding Attorney General. I believe every Member 
of this body will be proud of her, and I look forward to voting for her 
with great enthusiasm.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, today I underscore my opposition to the 
nomination of Loretta Lynch to be the next Attorney General of the 
United States. While her experience is extensive, both her judgment and 
independence were called into question by her expressed views on 
President Obama's clearly unconstitutional actions on immigration, and 
this is something that cannot be overlooked when considering a nominee 
to be our Nation's chief law enforcement officer.
  Let's review Ms. Lynch's testimony before the Judiciary Committee on 
whether she believes the President's actions are constitutional. During 
that hearing, Ms. Lynch stated that she ``thought the legal opinion was 
reasonable'' and that the President's actions were a ``reasonable way 
to marshal limited resources to deal with the problem.'' When asked for 
a yes or no answer on whether she thinks Obama's executive actions on 
immigration were legal and constitutional, she stated, ``[A]s I've read 
the opinion, I do believe it is.''
  What do these statements tell us? On the specific question of whether 
she thought the executive action was constitutional, Ms. Lynch was, at 
best, ambiguous. She attempted to obfuscate by saying that she found 
the underlying legal opinion ``reasonable.'' In my view, all 
obfuscation aside, she sufficiently conveyed to the committee that she, 
in fact, thought the executive actions were legal and constitutional.
  Many have asked me: But, Senator McCain, wouldn't you expect a 
Presidential nominee to support a position being taken by the President 
who is nominating her? In most cases, the answer is yes. And, it is 
well known that, historically, I have been deferential to the 
President's prerogative to select his senior advisors--even those who 
require Senate confirmation. But, on

[[Page S2374]]

matters regarding the U.S. Constitution--particularly those that 
implicate the separation of powers between the executive and 
legislative branches, the Attorney General is different.
  It is the job of the U.S. Attorney General to represent the people of 
the United States and to ``do justice.'' It is not to serve as a policy 
instrument or cheerleader for the President. We have had years of that 
with Attorney General Holder. It has to stop with this nomination. 
Inasmuch as, by her own testimony, Ms. Lynch sees merit in a position 
that impinges on the constitutional prerogatives of the branch of 
government that I serve, I must vote in opposition to her nomination.
  By the President's own repeated appraisal, the executive actions on 
immigration are unconstitutional. At least 22 times in the past few 
years, President Obama claimed he did not have the authority to 
unilaterally change the law in the way he did. For years, he pointed to 
Congress as the only way this change could take place, but reversed 
that position last November with his executive actions declaring the 
law as currently drafted to be inapplicable to millions of people. The 
following is a just a sampling of these oft-repeated statements:
  ``Comprehensive reform, that's how we're going to solve this problem. 
. . . Anybody who tells you it's going to be easy or that I can wave a 
magic wand and make it happen hasn't been paying attention to how this 
town works.''
  ``I can't simply ignore laws that are out there. I've got to work to 
make sure that they are changed.''
  ``I am president, I am not king. I can't do these things just by 
myself.''
  ``But there's a limit to the discretion that I can show because I am 
obliged to execute the law. That's what the Executive Branch means. I 
can't just make the laws up by myself. So the most important thing that 
we can do is focus on changing the underlying laws.''
  ``With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations 
through executive order, that's just not the case . . .''
  ``Believe me, the idea of doing things on my own is very tempting. I 
promise you. Not just on immigration reform. But that's not how our 
system works. That's not how our democracy functions. That's not how 
our Constitution is written.''
  Whether you call it prosecutorial discretion or prioritizing 
enforcement, the argument does not survive scrutiny. With the stroke of 
a pen, the President's Executive action on immigration unilaterally 
changed the law as he saw fit, in violation of our Constitution and the 
way our system of government wisely provides for laws to be changed.
  To the extent Ms. Lynch is willing to characterize this as reasonable 
and even constitutional, I cannot support her nomination. For all these 
reasons, I cast my vote in opposition to her confirmation to be U.S. 
Attorney General and urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. SCHUMER. 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 (Mr. Sasse). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.