[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 20 (Monday, February 6, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S825-S832]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EXECUTIVE CALENDAR--Continued
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, first of all, I rise to speak in favor
of the Senate confirming Senator Sessions to the position of Attorney
General, chief law enforcement officer of our country, but I do want to
say thank you to the Democratic minority of my committee because they
did not boycott the meetings. They debated. They debated too long, from
my point of view, but they debated, and we were able to do our work in
a businesslike way. So I want to thank all of them for their
participation.
Now I will take a few minutes to speak in strong support of my friend
and our colleague Senator Jeff Sessions to serve as the 84th Attorney
General.
Last week, the Judiciary Committee spent over 6 hours debating the
nomination. Every single Democrat opposed the nomination, but this
wasn't, of course, much of a surprise. During our committee debate,
Senator Graham correctly pointed out that, based on the standard the
Democrats established, it appears no Republican could ever earn their
support.
It is no secret that our Democratic colleagues don't like the new
President. They are doing what they can do to undermine the new
administration.
With respect to Senator Sessions, my Democratic colleagues disagree
with a number of policy positions he has taken over the years, but this
year seems to be unlike previous administrations, where Senators
supported Cabinet nominees even if they disagreed with the nominee on
policy grounds. That is what happened in 2009, when Senator Sessions
and I both supported Eric Holder for Attorney General, even though we
disagreed with him on many policies.
So after listening to all the reasons they are opposing this
nomination, I can boil their objections down to these points:
Even though many of my colleagues have known this good man for years,
even though many of my colleagues have worked closely with him to pass
important bipartisan legislation, even though many of them have praised
him in the past for his integrity and for being a man of his word, even
though Senator Sessions has pledged to support and defend all laws
passed by Congress, even those he disagrees with, when it comes time to
stand up in support of this good man, they are unwilling to take him at
his word.
This is very troubling because all of us in the Senate know Jeff
Sessions. Some of us have known him for decades. Regardless of what my
colleagues are willing to admit publicly, we all know him to be a man
of deep integrity, a man of his word, and a man committed to fairness,
to justice, and, most importantly, to the rule of law.
We all know that when Senator Sessions served as an assistant U.S.
attorney, as a U.S. attorney, and as attorney general for his home
State of Alabama, he worked hard to promote the rule of law and to
bring justice to both victims and perpetrators. We know he has a deep
commitment to the rule of law, something an Attorney General must
possess or he could not be the chief law enforcement officer of the
United States. In other words, that law or that position is all about
carrying out and having a commitment to the rule of law. As I said,
much of Senator Sessions' hearing focused on his record as a
legislator.
Now, it is true Senator Sessions has voted on legislation in ways
that the left doesn't like, and of course I have even disagreed with
him from time to time, but we all understand that every time we cast a
vote, we are voting the way we see as the best for our country. I think
we all also understand that very rarely is any bill a so-called perfect
piece of legislation.
At one time or another, every single Member of this body has opposed
legislation based upon a principle objection to a particular provision.
So, of course, Senator Sessions has voted differently than his
Democratic colleagues. Now, that is common sense. That is to be
expected. This is the Senate. We are all about debating policy and for
long periods of time. That is how the Senate works.
We all know the role of an Senator and the role of Attorney General
are very, very different. A legislator debates policy and votes on
legislation. The Attorney General enforces the laws, as enacted. All of
us in the Senate understand that difference. Senator Sessions
understands the difference better than most.
In addition to serving as a Senator for 20 years, he served in the
Department of Justice for 15 years, a Department dedicated to law
enforcement and to the rule of law and following what Congress directs
law to be.
I am disappointed in my colleagues who have suggested Senator
Sessions will not be able to put aside his policy differences that he
established here in the United States and enforce the law, even if he
voted against that law.
This is especially troubling after he specifically committed to us
during this confirmation hearing that if he is confirmed, he will
follow the law, regardless of whether he supported that statute as a
policy matter.
The criteria for this nomination is, will this man, whose integrity
is beyond reproach, enforce the law as he said he will?
Senator Sessions answered that question directly during his hearing.
He stated this:
The Justice Department must remain ever faithful to the
Constitution's promise that our government is one of laws and
not of men. It will be my unyielding commitment to you, if
confirmed, to see that the laws are enforced faithfully,
effectively, and impartially.
He goes on to say:
The Attorney General must hold everyone, no matter how
powerful, accountable. No one is above the law, and no
American will be beneath its protection.
Now, whether he said those things one time or dozens of times--and it
is more apt to be dozens of times during the day and a half of hearings
that we had on him, plus the speeches that were given--it can't be much
clearer than what he just said.
But even after he made this promise, Members asked Senator Sessions
if he would defend the laws that he had voted against, and he answered
in the affirmative, stating:
I would defend the statute if it is reasonably defensible.
It is passed by Congress, it would be the duty of the
Attorney General, whether they voted for it or support it, to
defend it.
He was questioned about a host of hot-button policy issues. Time and
again, his answer was the same. He will enforce the law. This will
actually be quite different from the Obama administration, which
refused to enforce laws it didn't like. They did this while the people
who are now in the minority--the Democrats--turned a blind eye when
they didn't enforce the law.
Senator Sessions also made clear that he possesses the independence
necessary for the Attorney General. I have often heard Senator Sessions
ask Executive nominees, including nominees for Attorney General,
whether they will have the fortitude to stand up to the President who
appointed them. So I asked him the same question during my time of
questioning in the committee. I asked if he will be able to say no to
President Trump, and he said:
I understand the importance of your question, I understand
the responsibility of the Attorney General, and I will do so.
You simply have to help the President do things that he might
desire in a lawful way and have to be able to say, ``No,''
both for the country, for the legal system, and for the
President to avoid situations that are not acceptable. I
understand that duty. I have observed it through my years
here, and I will fulfill that responsibility.
Senator Sessions' commitment to be independent from the President
when it is necessary and his promise to enforce the law is exactly what
this Nation needs right now. We haven't seen much of this over the past
8 years.
The Department has been politicized over the past 8 years, and that
has caused great harm. The leadership of the Department of Justice has
undermined our confidence in the rule of law by picking and choosing
which laws it will enforce. I am looking forward to turning a new page
at the Department under our friend's leadership as Attorney General. It
is desperately needed, particularly at this time.
[[Page S826]]
Last weekend, in particular, it showed us how critical it is to have
someone leading the Department who is committed to following the law.
Last week, then-Acting Attorney General Sally Yates announced that she
wouldn't present arguments in defense of the President's recent
Executive order, even though she admitted there was a defense to be
made. As soon as she did this, Democrats ran to her defense and sang
her praises, but after Senator Sessions' hearing, I would have expected
Democrats to come to the opposite conclusion. During his hearing, they
asked Senator Sessions whether he would enforce a law that he didn't
like over and over and over. But last week, Ms. Yates refused to
enforce a law--why?--because she didn't like it, and the Democrats
lauded her ``bravery'' and ``courage.''
They lauded her ``courage.''
Now, let's be very clear. She didn't say that she can't
constitutionally defend the President's order or offer good-faith
defenses of its legality in the court. Instead, this is what--she
explained her decision by saying her job is not the same as the job in
the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel. She said,
importantly, OLC, meaning Office of Legal Counsel, does not address
whether any policy choice embodied in an Executive order is wise or
just. That seems to suggest, of course, that the decision on whether to
defend an Executive order or statute in court turns on whether the
Attorney General believes the law or order is wise or just. But with
all respect to Ms. Yates, that wasn't her job. The Department's job is
to enforce the law, just like Senator Sessions, becoming Attorney
General, said he would enforce the law. Ms. Yates' obligation was
clear. If she couldn't defend the order in good conscience, the only
proper course was to resign.
This unfortunate situation with Ms. Yates highlights why it is
important to swiftly move to confirm an Attorney General who will be
faithful to the Constitution and uphold the law regardless of policy
preferences.
Ultimately, it comes down to this: There is no one more qualified
than Jeff Sessions for this position. He served in the Department for
15 years. He served as attorney general for his home State of Alabama,
and for 20 years he served on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which has
oversight over the Department of Justice.
We all know Senator Sessions is a man of his word. We all know he
will enforce all the laws on the books, regardless of whether he
supported them. Both Republicans and Democrats know he will make an
excellent Attorney General, and the Nation will be served well by his
appointment. I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of the
nomination.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, thank you very much, and I want to
thank the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee for his
remarks. I greatly appreciate the opportunity to work with him, and we
have a number of major issues forthcoming.
I rise to oppose the nomination of Senator Sessions to become the
Attorney General of the United States. I think some of us and I
certainly have lived through many difficult times in this country, but
today this country is as divided as I have ever seen it.
Some Republicans have said that Democrats are in the anger stage of
grief, but with all due respect, those statements just trivialize what
is going on in this country. It is not trivial, and it is not small.
Today America is a country split in half, with at least half objecting
to the actions of this President, including his nominee for Attorney
General.
My office has received approximately 114,000 calls and emails
regarding Senator Sessions, with 112,000--more than 98 percent--opposed
to this nominee. I would like to quote a few of my constituents who
deeply oppose this President and this nominee and have been taking to
the streets to protect the fundamental values of America.
Here is one from a doctor:
I marched because of the thousands of patients I've seen in
the community, people of color, immigrants from all over the
globe, who are terrified about the loss of their rights and
the dramatic explosion of racially and culturally focused
hate crimes we're reading about.
I marched on Saturday because women must not be denigrated,
as we've seen by the attitude exemplified by our new
President in his unmeasured remarks.
I marched on Saturday because I'm desperately worried that
the progress this country has made in recognizing the rights
of all Americans regardless of race, ethnicity and religious
belief, is now threatened with a roll-back to the `50s.
The American process of justice is a beacon and an example
to the world. Jeff Sessions must not be confirmed.
Here is another:
As a Californian who wants to finish school, as a
Californian with ``pre-existing conditions,'' as a Latina and
as the kid of a South American immigrant--I don't know what I
can say other than please, please, protect us from whatever
is coming as best you can.
One woman who marched after the inauguration came to my office the
following Monday and wrote a handwritten note explaining why she
marched. Here is what it said:
Our President quickly dismisses all protesters as
``professionals'' and ``sore losers.'' I am here in
Washington for his first full week of the presidency to send
the message that I am neither a ``professional'' nor a ``sore
loser''--just an ordinary American citizen who can no longer
sleep well at night worrying about how his agenda will
negatively impact not only our country, but democracies all
over the globe. America is already great; what Trump and his
administration will do is destroy it.
To my constituents--112,000 have called and emailed to oppose this
nominee--let me just say this: I hear you.
To my Republican colleagues, this is not grief about losing an
election. At no time when my party lost an election or when the
President was of a different party did I feel the way I feel today. For
most Presidents, there is hope--a hope of unity, a hope of bringing
people together, a sense of common purpose. That is what it means to be
a leader of this country, the whole country--red States and blue
States, all of our people.
President Obama began his tenure in office with a 69-percent approval
rating. President George W. Bush talked about compassionate
conservatism. After a terrorist attack killed nearly 3,000 people,
President Bush went to the Islamic Center in Washington on September
17, 2001, and said: ``Islam is peace.''
He said:
Muslims are doctors, lawyers, law professors, members of
the military, entrepreneurs, shopkeepers, moms and dads. And
they need to be treated with respect. In our anger and
emotion, our fellow Americans must treat each other with
respect.
Incidentally, President Eisenhower dedicated the Islamic Center in
1957, and here is what he said then:
Under the American Constitution, under American tradition,
and in American hearts, this Center, this place of worship,
is just as welcome as could be a similar edifice of any other
religion. Indeed, America would fight with her whole strength
for your right to have here your own church and worship
according to your own conscience.
Now, Mr. President, that was the man who led American and Allied
forces in Europe against Nazi Germany, a regime of pure evil that
targeted Jews based on their religion and exterminated millions of
Jews, Poles, Serbs, Roma, Soviet citizens, gays, lesbians, and many
others. President Eisenhower was saying that this country, the United
States of America, would fight with her whole strength to protect the
religious freedom of Muslims. ``Without that concept,'' President
Eisenhower said, ``we would be something else than what we are.''
Can anybody even imagine Donald Trump uttering words like two of his
Republican predecessors, Dwight Eisenhower and George W. Bush?
Instead, there is attack after attack after attack on minorities, on
immigrants, on Muslims, on women, on his critics, on judges, on the
press, and yes, even on truth itself.
There is the President's Muslim ban Executive order, which our
government says has caused between 60,000 and 100,000 visas to be
revoked. That order, which caused chaos at airports around the country,
is now subject to nearly 60 legal challenges in Federal courts. On
Friday, a Federal judge in Washington State blocked implementation of
major portions of the Executive order. The judge, appointed by
President George W. Bush, was then promptly attacked on Twitter by
President Donald Trump. This afternoon, the Ninth Circuit will review
the stay.
To say this is just a stage of grief after losing an election is
really to ignore reality.
[[Page S827]]
Last week Sally Yates had to stand up and tell the President no. Now
more than ever, it is clear how important it is that the Department of
Justice be independent from the President. When she stood up, she was
promptly fired by this President. And not only was she fired, but her
integrity and her character were maligned in an over-the-top press
statement. This woman is a career prosecutor with 27 years of
experience. She was the lead prosecutor in the terrorist prosecution of
1996 Olympic bomber Eric Rudolph. She actually went after a real
terrorist, and she got a conviction. The President called her a
``disgrace'' and ``weak on borders.''
Here is the point: This is the man for whom Senator Sessions has been
a stalwart campaign advocate. In response to my written questions,
Senator Sessions stated: ``I endorsed him in part because he was a
leader advocating for issues I supported and believed in.''
Senator Sessions was a close campaign adviser and supporter of the
President. He was the first Senator to endorse him. He spoke on Trump's
behalf at the National Republican Convention. He appeared at numerous
rallies. He attended at least 45 campaign events. During the campaign,
he spoke at large rallies, smiling and laughing, while crowds chanted
``Lock her up.''
Then in October of last year, at one of the Presidential debates and
again at a rally in Virginia, Candidate Trump repeatedly referred to
him as ``my attorney general.''
A month after the announcement of his nomination to be Attorney
General, he appeared again with the President-elect on a thank-you tour
in Alabama. This was a rally where many of the President's campaign
promises, such as building the wall, were repeated. Crowds once again
chanted ``Lock her up.'' The President-elect introduced him, and
Senator Sessions came forward. As he walked out to speak to dramatic
effect, he whipped out a ``Make America Great Again'' hat, put it on,
and pumped his fists into the air.
Already, at this point, he had been designated to be the next
Attorney General of the United States, an independent legal check on
the President, a man who responds to the Constitution and the law
independent of the Chief Executive. One would have thought a sense of
the solemn duty of the Office of Attorney General would have counseled
against appearing at yet another political rally with Trump, but it did
not.
At that rally, as Attorney General designate, Sessions said that the
Trump campaign was ``more than a normal campaign, but a movement,'' and
when he finished speaking, he thanked the President-elect for ``the
opportunity to participate in a movement that I believe can help make
America great again.''
So, to me, this is key. This shows how Senator Sessions views this
appointment--as an ``opportunity to participate in a movement'' to
advance the President's agenda. This is not the role of the Attorney
General of the United States. This is more political than any Attorney
General nominee in recent memory has ever been. Can we really expect
him to be an Attorney General who is independent from President Trump?
I do not believe so.
In fact, a recent Washington Post story reports the depth of Senator
Sessions' involvement in the Trump transition. The Washington Post
reported that during the transition, ``Sessions became a daily presence
at Trump Tower in New York, mapping out the policy agenda and making
personnel decisions.'' In fact, you can search C-SPAN, the Web site,
for video of Senator Sessions speaking at Trump Tower about the
transition.
On November 15, in the lobby of Trump Tower, he said:
My former chief of staff is doing a great job under
incredible demands, and the whole team is working long hours
I mean, 20 hours a day kind of work and just remarkable what
is happening. I'm one of the co-chairs, of five, I believe,
co-chairs of the committee under Vice President-elect Pence.
Then Senator Sessions said, ``Steve Bannon is a powerful intellect
and a thoughtful leader that consistently provides good advice.''
We learned last week that Steve Bannon thinks the same thing about
Senator Sessions. As Bannon wrote to the Washington Post just days ago,
Sessions was--and I quote, and here it is--``the fiercest, most
dedicated and most loyal promoter in Congress of Trump's agenda, and
has played a critical role as the clearinghouse for policy and
philosophy to undergird the implementation of that agenda.''
The Post went on to report that Senator Sessions ``lobbied for a
`shock-and-awe' period of executive action that would rattle Congress,
impress Trump's base, and catch his critics unaware, according to two
officials involved in the transition planning.''
The article says: ``Sessions had advocated going even faster.''
Now, we have seen the consequences of those actions, and what is the
result? Division, legal challenges, people marching in the streets.
Senator Sessions is not a man apart from this agenda. He is not
independent of this agenda. He is part of it. He is committed to it. He
is a leader of it.
Now, let me move to other parts of Senator Sessions' record and what
we learned from him in the hearing.
I said earlier that I cannot imagine a more important time for the
Department of Justice to be independent of the President. Part of that
is because of what we know about the Russians and their illegal efforts
to get this President elected.
The Intelligence Community has reached the following conclusions
about Russian activities during the election, among others: ``We assess
Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016
aimed at the U.S. presidential election.''
Quote: ``Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the United
States Democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her
electability and potential presidency.''
Quote: ``We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed
a clear preference for President-elect Trump.''
Quote: ``We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to
help President-elect Trump's election chances when possible by
discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably
to him.''
Quote: ``We assess with high confidence that Russian military
intelligence (General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate or GRU) used
the Guccifer 2.0 persona and DCLeaks.com to release U.S. victim data
obtained in cyber operations publicly and in exclusives to media
outlets and relayed material to WikiLeaks.''
These are just some of the conclusions that our intelligence
agencies--all of them--have reached, including the FBI.
The Department of Justice, through the National Security Division and
the FBI, has an important role to play in investigating and prosecuting
Russians or coconspirators in this matter. The FBI, as I said, was part
of the assessment that led to the January report.
Now, Senator Sessions chaired the President's National Security
Advisory Committee during the campaign. That is a committee on which
National Security Advisor Flynn served. So he was Trump's top person on
national security, and it is no secret that explosive allegations about
the President's and his campaign team's connections to Russia are out
there.
As a Senator, including as a member of the Armed Services Committee,
Senator Sessions was quite critical of Russia. In 2000, he said Russia
is a country where leaders lie, cheat, and steal to maintain political
office.
That was a floor speech on April 13, 2000.
In 2014, after Russia invaded Crimea, Senator Sessions said, ``I
believe a systematic effort should be undertaken so that Russia feels
pain for this.''
This was in the Montgomery Advertiser, March 19, 2014.
When he was a Senator in the 1990s, he and other Republican Judiciary
Committee members called for a special prosecutor because of
allegations of $1 million in Chinese monetary contributions to a
Presidential campaign.
That is from a floor speech on March 9, 2000.
He pointed to the campaign connection and said that meant the
Attorney General needed to appoint a special prosecutor. He said:
``This is serious business. We ought not to treat this lightly.''
Floor speech, March 9, 2000.
Yet, now that our intelligence community has concluded that Russia,
at
[[Page S828]]
the direction of Vladimir Putin, invaded the American political process
with massive hacks and leaks for the purpose of favoring candidate
Trump, Senator Sessions says that he has not even reviewed the
intelligence community's reports.
When asked in writing by myself in Question for the Record 2b after
his hearing whether he had even read the intelligence assessments,
classified or unclassified, he said he had not read either one.
Now, that is stunning. One of the most important national security
revelations in recent years, and he is nominated to be Attorney
General, and he hasn't reviewed it? Why? He attended 45 campaign
events, was intimately involved in the campaign and transition, but
despite all of this, he would not commit himself to recuse himself.
This should be of real concern to all of us.
Another nation--namely, Russia--has attacked our political process in
a major way: hacking a political party and leaking its internal
deliberations. This time, it targeted the Democratic Party; next time,
it could be the Republican Party, but whichever party it is, we can't
let this continue.
Intelligence and law enforcement professionals must be able to follow
the facts wherever they lead. The investigation could lead to the
prosecution of people who helped hack and leak information hacked by
Russia to help the President's campaign. It obviously has the potential
to create embarrassment for the President and his people, and to
implicate people involved in the campaign.
So the question is a big one, and we ought to think about it. How
will this nominee handle investigation and prosecution into an
unprecedented and major foreign intrusion into the election of the
President of the United States? Can he be independent of the White
House? I do not believe he can.
Let me move on to voting rights. Senator Sessions long ago testified
that he thought the Voting Rights Act was an intrusive piece of
legislation. He acknowledged this again in his hearing. In 1986,
Senator Sessions said: ``It is a serious thing . . . for the Federal
Government to come in and sue a county and say we are going to change
the form of government you have been living with for 20 years.''
That implies a hesitation to use the Voting Rights Act to change
certain systems of election in counties that were adopted to
disenfranchise minorities.
When we considered the Voting Rights Act Reauthorization of 2006, the
Senator voted for it. But he also expressed skepticism about the
preclearance provision of the act, section 5, which was a core part of
the act. And then, when the Supreme Court narrowly ruled five to four
in Shelby County--that is a decision--and that section 5 of the Voting
Rights Act could no longer be enforced, Senator Sessions called it
``good news for the South.''
What does that mean? It means State after State that had been
prevented from denying the right to vote by section 5 can now proceed
unless they are affirmatively stopped by a new lawsuit that takes time
to develop, and a wave of new laws suppressing the vote were quickly
passed following the Supreme Court's ruling.
He has tried to argue that he will fully enforce the Voting Rights
Act. In his committee questionnaire, he pointed to 4 cases he claimed
were among the 10 most significant litigated cases he personally
handled. As Senator Franken demonstrated in our committee, his record
of handling these cases is thin, at best. Lawyers who handled three of
the cases say Senator Sessions had no substantive involvement. He did
not mention them in his 1986 questionnaire, even though the cases were
ongoing at that time. And now he says he played a supporting or
assistance role in them.
So these cases do not make me confident that as Attorney General
overseeing the Civil Rights Division, he will ensure that the civil
rights and voting rights laws are fairly enforced.
So I asked him questions to see what he would do. I pointed out in
written questions that several voter ID laws have now been struck down,
or severely limited, under the Voting Rights Act. Just one example: One
of the most conservative appeals courts in the Nation, the Fifth
Circuit, found that Texas's law violates the Voting Rights Act.
According to the courts, 608,470 registered voters in Texas lack
required ID, and Black and Latino voters were far more likely than
White voters to lack the required ID. The court found that the Texas
law had a discriminatory effect, in violation of the Voting Rights Act.
Now, this means the Justice Department can protect the voting rights
of Americans in these cases. So I asked him, would you continue to
enforce the Voting Rights Act in these situations? There is now
precedent for it. He would not answer. He tried to say that the Supreme
Court has actually held that voter ID laws do not necessarily violate
the Voting Rights Act.
That is my written question for the record, No. 14.
But the Supreme Court decision he referenced, Crawford v. Marion
County Election Board, did not talk about the Voting Rights Act at all.
So I asked him to clarify his response. His answer indicated that it
was just his own view that voter ID laws do not necessarily violate the
Voting Rights Act. This was a follow-up question, No. 7a. That may be
his personal view, but the courts' view is that these laws can and in
some circumstances do violate the Voting Rights Act. But he still has
refused to say whether he will bring those cases.
Then, when asked about voter fraud by Senator Coons, Senator Sessions
responded that he believes ``fraudulent activities regularly occur''
during elections. He pointed to a single report to support his view
that voter ID laws are a good idea. That is Senator Coons' question for
the record 9b. He refused to comment on data provided by Senator Coons
that showed the rarity of in-person voter impersonation fraud, which is
the only thing a voter ID law can catch. He didn't comment about the
impact on hundreds of thousands of legitimate voters, many of them
minorities and students, who are denied the fundamental right to vote
by these laws.
Now we have the President on Twitter and television claiming that
millions of illegal votes were cast and that is why he lost the popular
vote by nearly 3 million votes, and he is ordering his administration
to investigate that. If President Trump asks Attorney General Sessions
to carry out his partisan, pointless investigation, what will Senator
Sessions do? Is the legendary Civil Rights Division of the Justice
Department going to become President Trump's political investigator? Or
will it defend and use the Voting Rights Act to protect the right to
vote of millions of Americans against efforts by States to take that
right away? I just don't have confidence that Jeff Sessions will fairly
apply the law in this area.
Now, if confirmed, what will Senator Sessions do when faced with
questions on reproductive rights? Will he undermine a woman's
fundamental right to control her own body and her own reproductive
system?
In 2015, Senator Sessions voted for legislation that would impose a
nationwide ban on abortion after 20 weeks. That legislation had a
penalty of jailing doctors for up to 5 years, and it would have forced
survivors of rape and incest to overcome additional and medically
unnecessary hurdles before they could receive an abortion. The
legislation also had no exception for a woman's health and only a
narrow exception to save her life.
Imagine what it is like to be a woman who learns that she has serious
complications late in pregnancy and that she will suffer debilitating
physical health effects if she cannot get an abortion. Then imagine
having to tell her that her health must suffer for the rest of her life
because politicians have prohibited her from making her own health care
decisions. But this is the outcome Senator Sessions voted for.
Senator Sessions believes the case that established a woman's right
to control her own reproductive system--Roe v. Wade--is one of the
``worst, colossally erroneous Supreme Court decisions of all time.'' In
fact, weeks ago when testifying before our committee, I asked him if
this is still his view, and he said ``it is.'' He even said Roe v. Wade
``violated the Constitution.''
That statement essentially invites States to enact more and more
restrictions on women's fundamental access to health care. It is a
signal to those
[[Page S829]]
States that if they enact restrictions and are challenged in court,
then the Justice Department may in fact support them and try to
overturn Roe v. Wade. In fact, I asked him about that, and he did not
rule out the Justice Department's pushing to overturn Roe. He left the
door open by saying:
Such decisions would depend upon the unique circumstances
of the case or cases as they arise. I will not pre-judge the
issues.
That is the response to my question for the record 6a.
He even refused to rule out punishment for women who have abortions--
a position President Trump took during the campaign. That is a response
to Senator Blumenthal's question for the record 11a.
So what does it mean for him, as Attorney General of the United
States? It means he very well may seek to overturn Roe v. Wade. It
means the Justice Department may go to court and support continued
State efforts to further and further restrict the rights of women to
control their own reproductive system.
The bottom line: I do not have confidence that Senator Sessions will
fairly and independently safeguard the freedoms of the women of
America.
Let me move on to immigration. Senator Sessions has been the
staunchest opponent of comprehensive immigration reform, preventing the
passage of legislation to strengthen the border and prevent families
from being torn apart.
Senator Sessions opposed immigration reform so strenuously that he
drafted and distributed his own book entitled ``Immigration Handbook
for the New Republican Majority.'' This handbook implied that
immigrants were taking jobs from low-income minorities and abusing
public benefit programs--setting people against each other. More
alarmingly, Senator Sessions voted at least twice against the DREAM
Act, which seeks to protect some of our country's most vulnerable
youth, undocumented individuals--children--who were brought here
through no choice of their own.
On President Obama's Executive action to protect those children--
known as DACA--he doesn't just oppose it. He is actively seeking to
take it down. A recent Washington Post article says he is lobbying for
the administration to overturn DACA. It is one thing to disagree on
policy, but it is quite another when the policy could crush the lives
of ordinary people.
In December, I wrote an op-ed in the San Francisco Chronicle about
the importance of DACA and what it means for Californians.
I discussed the story of Denisse Rojas, brought to the United States
as a 10-month-old baby. Rojas' family is similar to many families with
mixed status. Her mother and father came to the United States to create
a better life for their children.
Denisse excelled in high school and majored in biology at UC
Berkeley. She worked as a waitress and commuted an hour each way to
classes because she couldn't afford to live near campus. After
graduation, she volunteered at San Francisco General Hospital. Denisse
dreamed of going to medical school, driven in part by a family member's
early death from cancer. The disease was diagnosed at a late stage
because the family's immigration status made it impossible to afford
health insurance.
Today, Rojas is enrolled in New York's Icahn School of Medicine at
Mount Sinai, where she is on track to earn her degree in 2019. She
intends to specialize in emergency medicine and work in low-income
communities to provide health care to families, like her own, who would
otherwise go without necessary treatment.
This is the perfect case for discretion. This is the perfect case for
the exercise of a just humanity. But Senator Sessions is lobbying to
overturn DACA. The consequences of such a draconian and inhumane action
would be devastating to thousands of people in my State, and I find it
deeply disturbing that Senator Sessions would advocate for the
deportation of children who have known no other country but the United
States.
If he doesn't believe these youth deserve some sort of prosecutorial
discretion when it comes to deportation, how is he going to act as our
Nation's leading Federal criminal prosecutor?
It is no secret that he believes in an aggressive use of executive
enforcement power in the area of immigration. He testified in response
to Senator Flake that he favors ``a zero tolerance'' policy for
immigration crimes. Immigration offenses already make up about a third
of all Federal prosecutions each year. So does it make sense to
increase that substantially? There certainly are more troubling crimes
at the border and across the country that require the attention and
resources of the Department of Justice: human trafficking, smugglers,
organized crime, gangs, drug trafficking, hate crimes, white-collar
crimes, civil rights, and voting rights, just to name a few. So Senator
Sessions' opposition to prosecutorial discretion caused me great
concern.
Let's move on to criminal law.
During the hearing, discussing sentencing with Senator Coons, Senator
Sessions revealed his view about what a Federal prosecutor should be.
He said it was ``a problematic thing'' that is ``difficult to justify''
when a prosecutor uses some discretion to bring lesser charges or not
to charge the maximum drug charge available.
As we know, drug prosecutions were the most common Federal charge in
2015. So Senator Sessions' view on them will have a big impact on the
workload in U.S. attorneys' offices. If it becomes the nationwide
policy of the Department, it will mean mandatory sentences of 5 years,
10 years, 20 years, and even life in prison for drug charges will be
imposed much more often, because depending on how prosecutors charge
cases, the law will tie a judge's hands when it comes to a sentence.
That is how our system works today.
The mission of a prosecutor is to do justice, not instinctively bring
the maximum charge. As then-Attorney General Robert Jackson said in
1940:
The prosecutor has more control over life, liberty, and
reputation than any other person in America. His discretion
is tremendous.
Your positions are of such independence and importance that
while you are being diligent, strict, and vigorous in law
enforcement, you can also afford to be just. Although the
government technically loses its case, it has really won if
justice has been done.
For Senator Sessions to say that a prosecutor cannot exercise some
judgment, based on the circumstances of a case, to seek a lesser charge
or a lesser punishment, in my view, is just not correct.
We have discussed mandatory minimum sentencing in the Judiciary
Committee. The Senator from Illinois, distinguished as he is, has been
a leader in this cause. It has been discussed for years in the context
of the sentencing reform efforts led by Senators Lee, Cornyn, Durbin,
Grassley, Leahy, and Whitehouse. Senator Lee, in particular, has been a
passionate advocate against mandatory minimum sentencing.
I believe in enforcement of the drug laws. I always have. There are
difficult questions about what actions the Justice Department would
take in States that have legalized marijuana in some way or another
under their own laws.
The bottom line is this: sensitivity and good judgment are needed in
prosecutorial decisions. We want to make sure the sentence fits the
crime and that resources are used wisely. Senator Sessions' comments
make it clear that he generally opposes granting discretion to a
prosecutor to impose a lesser charge or a lesser sentence based on the
circumstances of the case before them.
One thing I found striking was that in Senator Sessions' written
statement to the committee, he said the following: ``I understand the
demands for justice and fairness made by the LGBT community.''
I have served on the Judiciary Committee for 24 years. Twenty of them
have been alongside Senator Sessions. I cannot recall a single time
when he spoke about supporting any kind of ``justice and fairness'' for
the LGBT community or made any kind of statement like this. We looked
and couldn't find one in the Congressional Record either. In fact, the
statement stands at odds with his record.
Let me give you a few examples. In 2011, we marked up a bill I had
introduced to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA, that
denied married gay and lesbian couples equal protection under the law.
Not only did Senator Sessions vote no--as
[[Page S830]]
all Republicans on the committee did--but he asked questions like,
``What about two sisters?''--as if to compare same-sex marriage to
incest, a demeaning statement about hundreds of thousands of families
in this country.
He voted against allowing gay and lesbian Americans to serve in the
military. In 2009, he voted against the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd,
Jr. Hate Crimes Act. He said he did not see the kind of discrimination
happening against the LGBT community or women. He said the law was
potentially unconstitutional, which is not an argument that, to my
knowledge, has ever been accepted by a court.
In 2006, he voted to enshrine discrimination in our Constitution by
supporting the constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage
everywhere in the country. What did he say? He said the Senate had to
debate the amendment because of a ``deliberate and sustained effort by
leftists in America,'' ``social activists,'' and ``activist judges.''
He talked about harm to children, ignoring the fact that same-sex
couples are raising children and that denying equal recognition to
their families actually hurts those children. Then he went on to
criticize the 2003 decision of the Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas,
which essentially said that private homosexual conduct cannot be made a
crime in this Nation.
The Lawrence decision, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, was a
victory for freedom. How did Senator Sessions describe it? He argued
the decision was wrong, and ``troubling with far-reaching
ramifications.'' He said it was a ``new vision of social justice,
masquerading . . . as constitutional law.''
He called Justice Scalia's dissent ``brilliant.'' That dissent, by
the way, accused the Supreme Court of ``sign[ing] on to the so-called
homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some
homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that
has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct.''
When he was Attorney General of Alabama, he sought to shut down a
conference of LGBT students on a public university campus in Alabama.
This was despite a Supreme Court decision issued just a year earlier
protecting a Christian student group from discrimination based on
viewpoint.
The Eleventh Circuit Court--in a panel of three judges appointed by
Republican Presidents--called the State's action ``blatant viewpoint
discrimination'' and characterized Sessions' arguments as ``feeble.''
Does any of this sound like the actions of a person who understands
the demands for justice and fairness made by the LGBT community? My
answer is no.
How will that impact the Attorney General? The Attorney General must
enforce Federal hate crimes laws. The Attorney General must ensure that
Federal law treats same-sex couples equally; that the right to marry
and be treated equally under Federal law is recognized and protected.
Here we are, I think, at a very difficult and dangerous turning
point. We have a President with little apparent regard for
constitutional or legal restrictions and who is willing to take to
Twitter to target and abuse individuals and groups of Americans, and
even belittle and demean Federal judges and the Federal court system,
just as he did during the campaign.
We have a President who has taken a ``shock and awe'' approach with
cruel, un-American, and potentially illegal Executive orders even in
his first 2 weeks in office, which this nominee reportedly urged be
done even faster.
We have a President who wants to bring back torture, even though--
thanks to Senator McCain--Congress has already stated it is clearly
illegal. We have a President who is already angering long-term allies
like Australia and making ridiculous threats of sending troops to
Mexico.
We have a nominee for Attorney General who is anything but
independent. He was part and parcel of the Trump campaign apparatus,
transition, agenda, and way of thinking.
As Steve Bannon wrote in the Washington Post just days ago, Sessions
was ``the fiercest, most dedicated and most loyal promoter in Congress
of Trump's agenda, and has played a critical role as the clearinghouse
for policy and philosophy to undergird the implementation of that
agenda.''
Do any of my colleagues--Republican or Democratic--think Steve Bannon
didn't know what he was talking about in this email to the Washington
Post? Do any of my colleagues believe that if Senator Sessions is
confirmed, he is going to take off the political hat and be an even-
handed Attorney General for all Americans who will tell this President
no when it is merited on the basis of the law and the Constitution?
I don't believe it for a second. I must vote no and urge my
colleagues to do the same.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hoeven). The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise in support of the nomination of
Senator Sessions to be Attorney General of the United States. Let me
make a few comments about the process. I would expect that the Attorney
General nominee know the President before they are chosen. This idea
that Senator Sessions was close to President Trump during the campaign
and that it is somehow a disqualifier makes absolutely zero sense to
me.
The bottom line is, that is exactly the kind of people you would
expect a President to pick--someone who has been on their team, someone
they know, someone they believe in to carry out the duties of the
office that they are nominated for.
I don't have the time to go through history, but I would assume that
in past nominations--particularly for Attorney General--there has been
some kind of relationship between the President who nominated him and
the person who is seeking the job. If that is going to be the new
standard, I suggest that nobody in this body ever endorse anybody for
President because apparently you can't serve in the Cabinet. That would
be kind of silly.
I look at this as are you qualified for the job? Our friends on the
other side look at it as if you don't agree with their liberal agenda,
you can't do the job. Big difference. There has been an absolute
wholesale attack on everything Trump when it comes to the nominations,
with a few exceptions.
The basis of the attack is that they don't share the world view of
our friends on the other side. That world view was litigated pretty
thoroughly and you lost. What do you expect Donald Trump to do after
his campaign? I expect him to do what he said he was going to do. Some
of it I agree with, some of it I don't. Where I don't agree with him, I
will challenge him.
The one challenge I will not make against this President is to deny
him the ability to pick somebody who is clearly, in my view, qualified,
even though I may have differences with him on particular issues.
I would say this about Senator Sessions. I have known him for 20
years almost. I have traveled throughout the world with Senator
Sessions and his family. Most of the time I agree with Jeff Sessions.
Sometimes I don't, but I found him to be an incredibly honorable man
worthy of the job of being U.S. Senator from the great State of
Alabama, reflecting the values of the people of Alabama. That is what
he got elected to do, by the way.
I think he will be uniquely qualified to be the Attorney General of
the United States at a time of great challenge. He has been a U.S.
attorney. He has been Attorney General of his State. He is a man
steeped in the law. His biggest crime, I think, is that he is very
conservative. That, to me, is not a disqualifier any more than being
very liberal is a disqualifier.
How do you think we felt when Barack Obama basically turned ObamaCare
upside down with one Executive order after another every time it
started stinking up in public? He would unilaterally change the law to
avoid a political consequence or granting millions of people legal
status with a stroke of a pen, well beyond his lane, struck down by the
Court as being outside his ability as President to do.
Not once did anybody on that side raise an objection. Eric Holder is
a fine man. I can't remember a time when Eric Holder stood up to this
runaway train in the Obama administration. Loretta Lynch is a fine
woman. I can't remember one time she expressed doubt about President
Obama's agenda. When it was left up to the courts to express
[[Page S831]]
doubt in this election, believe it or not, that had a lot to do with
the way the last 8 years rolled out.
This was a check-and-balance election, and you are not going to be
able to undo the consequences of this election unfairly. I think it
would be unfair to say that Senator Jeff Sessions is not qualified for
the job at hand.
Most of the attacks against Senator Sessions could be levied against
almost everybody on this side of the aisle. The NAACP, according to
Jeff Sessions, is one of the premier civil rights organizations in the
history of the country. I think that is a fair characterization. Mr.
Cornell Brooks, CEO of the NAACP, said of Senator Sessions: Senator
Sessions' record throughout his career, whether in the Office of the
U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama, as attorney general
of the State of Alabama or, most recently, as the junior U.S. Senator
from Alabama evinces a clear disregard, disrespect, and even disdain
for the civil and human rights of racial and ethnic minorities, women,
the disabled, and others who suffer from discrimination in this
country--a damning indictment.
Apparently, he doesn't stay in contact with the NAACP chapter in
Alabama. In 2009, the NAACP gave Jeff Sessions--Civic and Human Rights
Convention, April 23 to 26, 2009, NAACP Governmental Award of
Excellence, Senator Jeff Sessions: For the outstanding work you do.
That is one of the awards he forgot to tell us about, so I hope he
will amend. Another attack on Senator Sessions, he received an award
from a David Horowitz group that was labeled by the Senator from
Connecticut as being some rightwing extremist organization. All I can
say is that the Annie Taylor Award is named for a lady who went over
Niagara Falls in a barrel. They give it to conservatives who stood up
under difficult circumstances. I actually received the award as an
impeachment manager. Chris Matthews was there to moderate the dinner.
So I don't know what Mr. Horowitz said after I was there, before he was
there; all I can say is that I received the award, too, and I sure as
hell don't consider myself a bigot.
Voting against the Violence Against Women Act authored by Senator
Leahy--I won't give you a long rendition. I voted against it, too, for
reasons I will be glad to explain to you at a later time.
The bottom line here is that most of the things said about Jeff
Sessions and the way he acted as a Senator could be said about almost
all of us on this side who consider ourselves conservative.
Back to our friends at the NAACP, I asked Mr. Brooks, ``Do you have a
legislative scorecard how you rate people in the Body?'' He said,
``Yes. And Senator Sessions has been historically low rated.''
Here is what I want the body to know: that in the report card of the
113th Congress, the first half, here are the ratings. Senator
Grassley--all Republicans here, 11 percent; Hatch, 25 percent; Graham,
25 percent; Cornyn, 11 percent; Lee, 11 percent; Cruz, 11 percent;
Sasse, he wasn't in Congress; Blake, 29 percent; Crapo, 14 percent;
Tillis and Kennedy were not rated yet. On the Democratic side of the
Judiciary Committee, Feinstein, 100 percent; Leahy, 100 percent;
Whitehouse, 100 percent; Klobuchar, 100 percent; Franken, 100 percent;
Coons, 96 percent; Blumenthal, 100 percent; Hirono, 100 percent. Not
only did Jeff Sessions have a poor rating, all of us did.
So to my friends on the other side, you are making arguments that I
don't think are good for the future of this body and the country as a
whole. You are basically saying: You did not vote for the legislation I
supported. You voted against ideas I embrace that I think make America
a unique place; therefore, you cannot have this job.
Here is what I would say: Senator Sessions voted as a very
conservative Senator from the State of Alabama who has conducted
himself honorably his entire life. And I really regret that we have
gotten to this point. All of us in here know Jeff, and I have been on
this floor fighting with him tooth and nail about immigration reform. I
worked with Senator Durbin, who is going to speak next, and our chief
antagonist most of the time was Senator Sessions. Never in my darkest
day will I ever believe Jeff Sessions said one word on this floor that
he did not truly believe. And he reflects the views of millions of
Americans.
As to the status of the LGBT community, I think Jeff Sessions was
representing the values of his State. And all I can say is, that is
what we are sent up here to do. If we disagree, we disagree, but it is
a big leap from the policy disagreement to not qualified.
I asked the NAACP chairman: Name one Republican you would recommend
to be Attorney General.
I have yet to get a name.
So what we are talking about here, unfortunately, is an attack on
conservatism more than it is Jeff Sessions because almost everything
said about Jeff could be said about me and most of my colleagues over
here. Why did I vote for Holder? Why did I vote for Lynch? Why did I
vote for Sotomayor and Hagel? And the list goes on and on and on.
I expect that when a liberal President wins, they will pick people
who are qualified, who share their view to represent their
administration. When it comes to the Attorney General, you can be
liberal and you can be conservative, but you also still can be fair to
the public as a whole.
I don't believe for 1 second that Jeff Sessions, as Attorney General
of the United States, will take any of his political positions and jam
them down your throat if the law says no. I have never seen that about
the man.
The minority leader of the Alabama Senate, Senator Ross, an African-
American Democratic minority leader, said:
I have worked with Jeff Sessions. I know him personally,
and all of my encounters with him have been for the greater
good of Alabama. We have spoken about everything, from civil
rights to race relations. We agree that as Christian men, our
hearts and minds focus on doing right by all people.
That is the Jeff Sessions I know. That is why I am lending my support
to his nomination.
I have some serious differences with President Trump, and those
differences will materialize over time. And I hope I have the courage
of my convictions to stand up for what I believe even when my party has
the White House. That is a very hard thing to do for all of us. I
intend to do it to the best of my ability, and I will get a lot of
coverage for doing that because that makes for good political
reporting. But what will not be covered is the fact that on the really
big issues, mostly, I agree with President Trump and Jeff Sessions
about what we need to do to change the dynamic regarding crime. I will
work with Senator Durbin to bring about sentencing reform, but it is
now time to go in on the offense against crime.
One of the things that pleases me most about this nomination of
Senator Sessions is that we have been very strong allies in fighting
the War on Terror. Jeff Sessions understands the difference between
fighting a crime and fighting a war. It will be welcome news for me to
have an Attorney General who understands that Bin Laden's son-in-law
who is captured on the battlefield should be treated differently than
somebody who tried to steal your car. Under Jeff Sessions, the Justice
Department will look at enemy combatants for who they are--warriors in
a cause to destroy our lives--and they will be held consistent with the
law of war, not domestic criminal law. And the days of terrorists being
read the Miranda rights as if they were common criminals will soon be
over. That will make us all safer.
I look forward to voting for Senator Sessions and working with him.
And if we have disagreements, the one thing I know for sure is that
Jeff will at least listen to me.
This body is adrift. The country is really divided. I hope that once
this confirmation process is over, we can get back to doing the
business of the American people.
To the extent that Donald Trump becomes the problem, we will push
back. Right now, people are pushing back against everything all the
time, and you are going to hurt yourself, as well as this body, because
there is no way you can ever convince me that Jeff Sessions is not
qualified to be the Attorney General. I can understand why you wouldn't
pick him, but there is no doubt in my mind that he is somebody a
Republican conservative President would pick, and they did.
I yield the floor
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sasse). The Senator from Arizona.
[[Page S832]]
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Illinois for his
courtesy. I think this will take about 7 or 8 minutes, I would say to
my colleague from Illinois.
I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.