[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.