[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 20 (Monday, February 6, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S832-S841]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                     Tribute to Vladimir Kara-Murza

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, last week I was heartbroken to learn that 
a dear friend and great fighter for freedom, Vladimir Kara-Murza, had 
been hospitalized in Moscow. Those of us who know the work of this 
brave Russian patriot could not afford to hope or assume that he was 
suffering some ordinary illness. Just 2 years ago, under mysterious 
circumstances, Vladimir grew very ill and fell into a coma.
  Many suspected he was poisoned, to intimidate him or worse. That is 
why last week's news signaled another shadowy strike against a 
brilliant voice who has defied the tyranny of Putin's Russia.
  Many Americans are not familiar with the life of Vladimir Kara-Murza, 
but it is one that reflects the best qualities of leadership, courage, 
selflessness, idealism and patriotism, and it is a life dedicated to 
the principles we all hold dear: truth and justice, freedom and 
fairness, human rights and human dignity.
  All his life, Vladimir has been a brave, outspoken, and relentless 
champion for the Russian people. He is a deputy leader of the People's 
Freedom Party, Russia's leading pro-democracy party. He is a leading 
coordinator of Open Russia, a foundation that promotes civil society 
and democracy in Russia. In 2011, he helped mobilize the largest anti-
Kremlin demonstration since the early 1990s, leading tens of thousands 
of Russians to march in protest of widespread fraud and corruption in 
the parliamentary elections.
  In the United States, Vladimir was one of the most passionate and 
effective advocates for passage of the Magnitsky Act, legislation that 
gives the Federal Government powers to punish human rights violators in 
Russia. Most recently he has eloquently and persuasively campaigned to 
expand the Act to impose sanctions on those Russians journalists who 
were so cowed and corrupted by the Kremlin that they become 
indispensable to propagating the lies and atmosphere of hate, fear, and 
violence the Putin regime relies on to maintain power.
  Vladimir's family has a long history of heroism for years, dating 
back to the early 1900s. Vladimir once described the experience of 
visiting the KGB archives in Moscow where he reviewed the thin file on 
his great grandfather who was executed. It contained the scant evidence 
required for a death sentence in Stalin's Russia. He recalled the 
weight that fell upon him when he read the modest document to which the 
executioners affixed the date and their signatures to signify that the 
judgment had been carried out.
  Vladimir also learned what it takes to be a revolutionary from our 
mutual friend Boris Nemtsov. Vladimir and Boris struggled together for 
years in the cause of freedom and democracy. Vladimir once called Boris 
the best President Russia never had.
  Boris was one of the first to warn of the incoming Putin 
dictatorship, even when many of his fellow liberals could not see it. 
He told the truth about Putin's reign of terror, rampant corruption, 
and his illegal invasion of Ukraine. For the crime of telling the truth 
in Putin's Russia, Boris Nemtsov was murdered in the shadow of the 
Kremlin in 2015.
  He died a martyr. He died a martyr for the rights of people who were 
taught to hate him but who will one day mourn his death, revere his 
memory, and despise his murderers. After Boris's assassination, many 
urged Vladimir not to return to Russia. He had every reason not to. He 
knew his own family's history with tyranny. He knew what happened to 
Boris Nemtsov, and he knew all too well about the culture of impunity 
that Putin has created in Russia, where individuals are routinely 
persecuted and attacked for their beliefs, including by the Russian 
Government, and no one is ever held responsible.
  He knew about Sergei Yushenkov, who was investigating the Kremlin's 
potential role in the 1999 apartment bombings in Russia when he was 
shot and killed at the entrance of his apartment. He knew about 
American journalist Paul Klebnikov, who was investigating Russian 
Government connections to organized crime when he was shot to death in 
Moscow in 2004.
  He knew about Anna Politkovskaya, a journalist, human rights 
activist, and fierce critic of Putin's brutal war in Chechnya, who was 
murdered in the stairwell of her apartment building on Putin's birthday 
in 2006.
  He knew about former FSB officer Alexander Litvinenko, who exposed 
the Putin regime's massive corruption tied to organized crime and 
involving assassination and murder. He was poisoned to death in 2006 
with a radioactive isotype in a brazen act of nuclear terrorism.
  He knew about Sergei Magnitsky, that most unlikely of heroes in the 
cause of freedom, the humble tax attorney who blew the whistle on tax 
fraud and large-scale theft by Russian Government officials, only to be 
charged with their crimes and die in a squalid cell inside the prison 
that once held the political opponents of the Czars and the Soviets.
  In short, Vladimir knew that Putin is a killer--and he is a killer. 
He might very well be the next target. Vladimir knew that there was no 
moral equivalence between the United States and Putin's Russia. I 
repeat: There is no moral equivalence between that butcher and thug and 
KGB colonel and the United States of America, the country that Ronald 
Reagan used to call a shining city on a hill. To allege some kind of 
moral equivalence between the two is either terribly misinformed or 
incredibly biased. Neither can be accurate in any way.
  Knowing all this, knowing that his life was at risk, Vladimir 
returned to Russia. He continued to speak truth to power. He kept faith 
with his ideals and was in confrontation with a cruel and dangerous 
autocracy. He kept faith honorably and bravely with the example of his 
friend and comrade Boris Nemtsov.
  Now it appears that Vladimir has once again paid the price for his 
gallantry and integrity, for placing the interests of the Russian 
people before his own self-interest. He is very ill, but I am 
encouraged to learn his condition is now stable.
  So today, speaking for so many Americans, I offer my most heartfelt 
prayers for the recovery of Vladimir Kara-Murza and for the success of 
the cause to which he has dedicated his life: truth and justice for the 
Russian people. And I do so with the confidence Vladimir himself once 
expressed: ``I am sure that in the end, we will win, because even when 
dictators prevail for some time, sooner or later, freedom wins.''
  I thank my colleague from Illinois for his indulgence.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, let me say at the outset that I am glad I 
was here for the statement made by the Senator from South Carolina. We 
disagree on many things. We agree on things as well. I respect him very 
much and turn to him often to find bipartisan support when, frankly, no 
one else will answer the phone. He has been a great friend and ally and 
has been very blunt with me when we disagree. We do disagree today, and 
I do it respectfully because Senator Graham is a person I do, in fact, 
respect as a Senate colleague.
  He is right about one thing: You would expect a new President to pick 
someone to be an Attorney General whom they know and trust. It might 
have even been someone from the campaign trail.
  A classic example is 1960, when President John Kennedy was elected 
and chose his brother Robert Kennedy, who had worked on his campaign, 
to serve as Attorney General of the United States. You can't think of a 
clearer analogy to what has been described today. But the point that 
was made earlier by Senator Feinstein about the relationship of Senator 
Sessions with Candidate Trump is one that goes beyond familiarity, 
beyond support in a political campaign. In fact, they did work 
together, and they do agree on some fundamental issues.
  If the press can be trusted--and the White House is the first to tell 
us they can't--but if the press can be trusted,

[[Page S833]]

in a Washington Post article of January 31, 2017, we see a very clear 
working relationship that extends beyond the would-be Attorney General 
Jeff Sessions and the new President Donald Trump but includes a former 
key staffer for Senator Sessions, Steve Miller, and a man named Steve 
Bannon, who is with Breitbart News and is now a political inspiration 
to the Trump White House. It appears that they have a very close 
working relationship among them. That in and of itself is not 
troubling, except when you look at the issues they have worked on 
closely together--the issue of immigration, the Executive orders, of 
which the Post said Senator Sessions was the ``intellectual 
godfather.'' That is a clear example pointed out by this article, and 
that is one of the reasons it was raised by Senator Feinstein.
  I understand what Senator Graham has to say: that Senator Sessions 
has been nothing more than a Senator loyal to his home State of Alabama 
in his politics and in his views on issues. I do acknowledge that and 
can tell you that, over 20 years, I have heard Senator Sessions's 
speeches repeatedly, and he does take those positions. But the thing 
that troubles me is the question about whether the values of the 
Senator from Alabama are the values we want in the Attorney General of 
the United States. To be very blunt, in some cases, they are not, as 
far as I am concerned.
  I understand that President Trump won the election, but that doesn't 
mean, when it comes to advice and consent, that every Member of the 
Senate has to bow and step back a few steps for every nominee proposed 
by this new President. We have a responsibility to ask what is right 
for America, what is right in terms of values and judgments that we 
bring to this job, as well.
  It is not a happy moment for me to say this, but I do stand in 
opposition to the nomination of Jeff Sessions to serve as Attorney 
General of the United States. The reason I don't view this as a happy 
moment is I have known him for 20 years. We have worked in the Senate, 
in committees, and on the floor. I know him personally. I met his 
family. And to say that I don't support him for this elevation to 
Attorney General is something that is hard to say, but I know that I 
have to. This is not a decision I have come to lightly. Senator 
Sessions is a colleague of over 20 years. But the question we now face 
is whether he is the right person to be the No. 1 law enforcement 
official in the United States of America.
  He comes to this new opportunity in a sharply divided nation. We have 
a controversial new President who already has seen an Executive order 
blocked by the courts in what appears to be record time. Think about 
that for a moment. Donald Trump has been President of the United States 
for 19 days. In those 19 days, he has issued an Executive order stopped 
by the Federal courts of the land from implementation and he has 
dismissed an Attorney General. No other new President, in 19 days, can 
point to that happening. It is an indication of the types of policies 
he is promoting. It is also an indication that in the future, he is 
likely to again test the separation of powers in this government.
  In this context, the need for an independent Attorney General has 
never been greater. We need an Attorney General who will not just serve 
as the President's lawyer or cheerleader but who will defend the 
constitutional rights of everyone, including protecting those rights 
from an overreaching President, if necessary. As a member of the 
Judiciary Committee, I have carefully considered this nomination, and I 
am not persuaded that Senator Sessions will serve that level of 
independence.
  Also, I have strong concerns that. if he is confirmed, he won't 
adequately pursue the cause of justice on a range of important issues. 
In his nomination hearing, Senator Sessions said on issue after issue 
that he would simply follow the law, enforce the law, but that doesn't 
come close to capturing the real role of the Attorney General. The 
Attorney General, as chief prosecutor in America, doesn't just ``follow 
the law''; that person uses his discretion to determine how the law is 
enforced and whom it is enforced against. Ignoring that is to ignore 
one of the key elements of service as Attorney General.
  As Acting Attorney General Sally Yates reminded us, the Attorney 
General has a critical role at times in even standing up to the 
President. The American Bar Association standards say that the duty of 
the prosecutor is to seek justice, not merely to convict. I don't have 
confidence, based on the answers he has given me, that Senator Sessions 
would follow that standard.
  Here is one example. At the hearing, I introduced Senator Sessions to 
Alton Mills of Chicago, who in his youth was a street-level courier for 
drug dealers. He was sentenced to life without parole and prison at age 
24--life without parole at age 24 under the Federal three strikes and 
you are out law. He was sentenced on a nonviolent drug offense--no 
guns, no violence. He sold drugs a third time and got a life sentence.
  Even the judge imposing the sentence did not agree with it, but he 
said the law said what he had to follow and his hands were tied. Alton 
Mills needed to pay for his mistakes, but he did not need to spend the 
rest of his life in prison. In December 2015, President Obama commuted 
Alton's sentence, after he had served 22 years in prison.
  Under the Obama administration, Justice Department prosecutors were 
directed to search out low-level offenders like Alton Mills and use the 
discretion of the Department of Justice and make sure that they were 
given a second chance. Senator Sessions has said that he strongly 
opposes these guidelines.
  When it came to clemency, Senator Sessions fiercely criticized 
President Obama, saying he commuted sentences in ``an unprecedented 
reckless manner.'' Senator Sessions also said: ``So-called low-level 
non-violent offenders simply do not exist in the Federal system.''
  When it came to changing the law that led to Alton Mills sentence, 
Senator Sessions led the opposition. I appreciate the work we did 
together on the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010. But every time I have 
returned to Senator Sessions and asked him to work with me for the 
thousands still stuck in Federal prison for nonviolent drug offenses 
under the old sentencing disparities which we have now rejected, he 
refused, time and again. He has opposed every bipartisan effort, 
including a bill that I put together with Senator Grassley, Senator 
Cornyn, and others to allow individuals to petition on an individual 
basis for sentence reductions.
  So to sum it up, Senator Sessions has staunchly opposed using 
prosecutorial discretion, clemency, or legislation to address the 
plight of thousands of people like Alton Mills. What can we expect of 
Attorney General Jeff Sessions in the next 4 years when it comes to 
criminal justice and criminal sentencing reform? I am afraid we can't 
expect a caring person to take a look at the simple injustice in our 
system.
  I have listened. time and again, as many other colleagues have, to 
the statements made by Senator Sessions on the issue of immigration. I 
have said before on this floor--and I will say it again--that I am the 
proud son of an immigrant. For generations. America has been renewed 
and enriched through immigration. Since World War II, we have set an 
example to the world when it comes to providing a safe haven for 
refugees.
  We have four Hispanic Senators in this Chamber. Three of them are 
Cuban Americans. What can we say about the Cuban refugees who came to 
the United States by the hundreds of thousands to flee the oppression 
of Castro? They were not subjected to extreme vetting. In most cases, 
we said: If you can find freedom in this country you are welcome. They 
have made America a better nation for it.
  Since World War II, that has been America's standard. Now it is being 
challenged. It is hard to understand how the Trump administration could 
consider spending so much on a Mexican wall that Texas Republican 
Congressman Will Hurd, whose district covers 800 miles of the southwest 
border, described as ``the most expensive and least effective way to 
secure the border.''
  I have come to this floor and voted for more money for walls and 
obstacles and technology on that border than I ever imagined necessary, 
in the hopes that we could finally put to rest this notion that we 
could always do more. I wonder what image it creates of this

[[Page S834]]

country, as we continue to talk about walls and banning travel.
  President Trump signed an Executive order on January 27 banning 
immigration from seven Muslim-majority countries, and banning refugees 
from those countries into the United States. As I go through the list 
of the people who were affected by this, overwhelmingly they are women 
and children, victims of war, terrorism, and persecution. Many of them 
have been waiting literally for years to come to the United States. 
Since World War II, we have accepted so many refugees from Eastern 
Europe, from Vietnam, from Cuba, as I mentioned earlier, and from 
Yugoslavia. Over 100,000 Soviet Jews make their home in the United 
States because we accepted them as refugees.
  Now President Trump has issued this Executive order that is being 
challenged in court, and we will know within a matter of days whether 
it will be stayed or continued, contested or if it will stand as law. 
Acting Attorney General Sally Yates said that she could not stand to 
defend that order. She felt it was illegal and unconstitutional.
  The question, obviously, is what would the new Attorney General, if 
it is Jeff Sessions do, when faced with that same challenge? My fear is 
that he would not stand in independent judgment of the actions of the 
President. That to me is unfortunate and falls short of what we expect 
from the Attorney General.
  We need someone like Edward Levi, the longtime president of the 
University of Chicago, who served as a truly nonpartisan Attorney 
General under President Ford. He restored honor and integrity to the 
Justice Department after Watergate. Where would Senator Sessions stand 
once confirmed? Would he defend the President's Executive orders? Would 
he stand up to the President if he disagreed with him? I have strong 
concerns.
  Mr. President, one of the most important issues when it comes to the 
Attorney General is the oversight of the Civil Rights Division, which 
is, in fact, the crown jewel of the Justice Department, as far as I am 
concerned. It is responsible for protecting the civil rights of all 
Americans.
  Senator Cory Booker and Congressmen John Lewis and Cedric Richmond 
gave powerful testimony at Senator Sessions' hearing. They discussed 
their concerns about the Justice Department under his leadership and 
whether it would protect the civil and voting rights of all Americans. 
I took their words to heart. I want to talk specifically about their 
concerns about the Voting Rights Act.
  One month from now, we will recognize the 52nd anniversary of what 
came to be known as Bloody Sunday--March 7, 1965. John Lewis and Rev. 
Hosea Williams led 600 brave civil rights activists in a march over the 
Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, AL. The marchers were brutally beaten as 
State troopers turned them back and chased them down. John Lewis was 
beaten unconscious and nearly killed.
  A few months after Bloody Sunday, President Lyndon Johnson signed the 
Voting Rights Act into law, guaranteeing that the right to vote would 
not be restricted through clever schemes like poll taxes and literacy 
tests devised to keep African Americans from voting.
  In 2006, Congress voted to reauthorize that same act after holding 21 
hearings, hearing testimony from more than 90 witnesses, and receiving 
15,000 pages of evidence.
  Congressman Lewis said in an op-ed about the ongoing need for that 
act:

       Congress came to a near-unanimous conclusion: While some 
     change has occurred, the places with a legacy of long-
     standing, entrenched and state-sponsored voting 
     discrimination still have the most persistent, flagrant, 
     contemporary records of discrimination in this country. While 
     the 16 jurisdictions affected by Section 5 represent only 25 
     percent of the nation's population, they still represent more 
     than 80 percent of the lawsuits proving cases of voting 
     discrimination.

  While Senator Sessions ultimately voted to reauthorize the Voting 
Rights Act, his comments about the law have been very troubling.
  In contrast to Congressman Lewis's statement about the need for a 
strong Voting Rights Act, Senator Sessions repeatedly criticized the 
law's section 5 preclearance provision, which required certain 
jurisdictions--including, but not limited to, Alabama--to ``preclear'' 
any changes to their voting laws with the Department of Justice. At his 
nomination hearing last month, Senator Sessions reiterated his view 
that section 5 of the law, in his words, was ``intrusive.''
  He also celebrated the Supreme Court's decision in Shelby County v. 
Holder when a divided Court--5 to 4--gutted the Voting Rights Act and 
struck down the preclearance provision. That decision left the 
Department of Justice with fewer tools to protect Americans' right to 
vote. Nonetheless, on the day of that awful decision, Senator Sessions 
stated: ``[The decision was] good news, I think, for the South, in that 
[there was] not sufficient evidence to justify treating them 
disproportionately.'' Senator Sessions was wrong to dismiss the vital 
role that preclearance has played in protecting voters from 
discriminatory laws.
  When Senator Sessions came to my office for a personal meeting before 
this hearing began, I sat down with him and talked about the Voting 
Rights Act. I gave to him a book written by Carol Anderson. She is a 
political science professor at Emory University in the State of 
Georgia. The book is entitled ``White Rage.'' Carol Anderson 
systematically goes through the history of race in America after the 
Civil War, and she points out in each section how Congress would, on 
one hand, give rights to African Americans and then turn around and 
take them away. The most recent example relates to the Voting Rights 
Act itself and all the efforts of the 1960s to guarantee that 
minorities had the right to vote in America. She follows it with the 
undeniable record of efforts toward voter suppression when it comes to 
minorities in the United States.
  I pointed this out to Senator Sessions because he has been in denial 
over this reality. I told him about hearings that we held in Ohio, in 
Florida, taking election officials, putting them under oath--officials 
from both political parties--and asking them point blank: Before you 
established the need for these voting restrictions in your State, what 
was the incidence of widespread voter fraud that led you to believe it 
was necessary? And the answer repeatedly was, there was none. No 
incidents of widespread voter fraud to speak of. No incidents of 
anything substantial when it came to prosecution. Clearly the motive 
behind these voter suppression laws are just that--to suppress voters 
from their opportunity to vote.
  What can we expect of Attorney General Sessions on this issue? I am 
afraid, based on his statements, his record, his voting, we can expect 
the worst.
  Example: A three-judge Federal appeals court struck down a North 
Carolina law that required voter ID and limited early voting. The court 
found that the law was crafted and passed with ``racially 
discriminatory intent,'' in violation of the Constitution and section 2 
of the Voting Rights Act. In the decision, this Federal court noted 
this regarding the North Carolina statute:

       Before enacting [the] law, the legislature requested data 
     on the use, by race, of a number of voting practices. Upon 
     receipt of the race data, the General Assembly enacted 
     legislation that restricted voting and registration in five 
     different ways, all of which disproportionately affected 
     African Americans.

  We are still facing this challenge in America. I wish it were not the 
case. I had hoped at this point in my life that I would be pointing to 
our problems with race as something from the past, but it is a current 
challenge we face, and it is a challenge the Attorney General must face 
squarely. I do not believe that Attorney General Jeff Sessions will do 
that, and that is why I can't support him for that position.
  Of course there is also Senator Sessions' decision as U.S. attorney 
to bring the 1985 Perry County case when he was in Alabama. He 
prosecuted three African-American civil rights activists for voter 
fraud. All three were acquitted. That case prompted former 
Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, who was an attorney for the 
defendants, to send a letter to members of our committee saying, ``To 
use prosecutorial discretion to attempt to criminalize voter assistance 
is wrong and should be disqualifying for any aspirant to the Nation's 
highest law enforcement post.''
  Senator Sessions' statements and his records are particularly 
concerning in

[[Page S835]]

light of President Trump's recent repeated, baseless claims about voter 
fraud in the 2016 Presidential election. Make no mistake--President 
Trump's false claim that there were millions of fraudulent votes cast 
in the last election is an excuse for further voter suppression 
efforts.
  It is imperative that the Department of Justice be led by someone who 
values the vital role the Department plays in protecting the right to 
vote. Given Senator Sessions' dismissive comments about the Voting 
Rights Act and his history of supporting burdensome voting laws, I am 
not confident he is prepared to do that.
  Senator Sessions' record on religious freedom also raises significant 
questions. The free exercise of religion is enshrined in the First 
Amendment of the Constitution. However, Senator Sessions has only been 
outspoken in his defense of religious freedom for some faiths. For 
example, he denounced a 1997 court order that limited prayer in Alabama 
public schools, calling it ``one more example of the effort by the 
courts to eliminate the natural expression of religious belief from 
public life.''
  A year later, he introduced a Senate resolution ``affirming the right 
to display the Ten Commandments in public places, including government 
offices and courthouses.'' He said ``[w]e've got to end the hostility 
toward the display of the Ten Commandments in public places.''
  But he has been much more ambivalent about Islam. He has referred to 
Islam as ``a toxic ideology'' and said of American Muslims ``our nation 
has an unprecedented assimilation problem.'' When President Trump first 
proposed his ban on Muslim immigrants during the 2016 campaign, Senator 
Sessions said, ``I think it's appropriate to begin to discuss this, and 
he has forced that discussion.''
  I am also concerned about Senator Sessions' support of laws and cases 
that permit individuals and companies to discriminate against other 
Americans on the basis of religious beliefs. For example, in 2015, the 
Supreme Court held that marriage equality is the law of the land in the 
landmark Obergefell v. Hodges decision. Sessions referred to the 
decision as an:

     effort to secularize, by force and intimidation, a society 
     that would not exist but for the faith which inspired people 
     to sail across unknown waters and trek across unknown 
     frontiers.

  After disparaging the decision, Senator Sessions went on to cosponsor 
the First Amendment Defense Act, which would permit widespread 
discrimination against LGBTQ individuals on the basis of religious 
beliefs.
  Senator Sessions also praised the Supreme Court's troubling 5-4 
decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, which held that the Religious 
Freedom Restoration Act permits closely held, for-profit corporations 
to deny contraceptive coverage to employees due to religious 
objections.
  If confirmed to be the next Attorney General, Senator Sessions will 
be responsible for protecting the rights of all Americans, regardless 
of their faith or beliefs. That is why I am deeply concerned about 
Senator Sessions' record, which suggests that he may prioritize the 
freedom of certain faiths over others, and permit religious freedom to 
be used as a guise for discrimination.
  The Attorney General also has great power to determine how the 
Department of Justice's resources will be prioritized. I am alarmed 
that Senator Sessions will not commit to support funding for important 
programs like COPS and Byrne-JAG. And I am deeply disappointed that he 
will not commit to increase Justice Department resources for Chicago to 
address the city's surge in gun violence.
  I asked Senator Sessions about this when we met in person before his 
hearing and again as part of my written hearing questions. It is well 
known that there's been an epidemic of gun violence facing the City of 
Chicago. There were more than 760 homicides in Chicago last year, a 58 
percent increase over the previous year. More than 4,300 people were 
shot last year in the city. It is a crisis.
  At our meeting, I handed Senator Sessions a copy of Mayor Emanuel's 
plan to improve public safety. The plan calls for hiring nearly a 
thousand more Chicago police; more training and equipment, like body-
worn cameras and gunshot detection technology; more mentoring programs 
for youth; and reforms to rebuild trust and cooperation between police 
and the community.
  All of these are areas where the Justice Department can, and must, 
help. The Justice Department's COPS program helps local police 
departments put more cops on the beat. The Byrne-JAG program helps them 
buy equipment. The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
Prevention provides mentoring and violence prevention funds. And the 
Civil Rights Division was invited in by me, the mayor, and the state 
Attorney General to review the Chicago Police Department's practices. 
On January 13, they reached an agreement in principle with the City to 
pursue much-needed reforms and to seek to enforce the reforms through a 
consent decree.
  I asked Senator Sessions about his support for these efforts, 
especially in light of President Trump's tweets where he has urged 
Mayor Emanuel to ask for Federal help--even though the Mayor has 
already asked for aid--and threatened to ``send in the Feds'' to 
Chicago. But Senator Sessions has steadfastly refused to make any 
commitment of Justice Department resources to help reduce Chicago's 
violence. He refused to commit to increase Justice Department funding 
for Chicago. He wouldn't even commit not to cut funding. He refused to 
commit to honor the agreement in Principle that the Justice Department 
signed with the city to reform the Chicago Police Department.
  And he refused to commit not to request budget cuts to the COPS and 
Byrne-JAG programs and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
Prevention.
  This is unfathomable to me. Now is not the time for the Justice 
Department to turn its back on the City of Chicago and its people. It 
is hard to understand how the Trump administration could think about 
spending $15 billion on an inexpensive and ineffective wall and not 
commit to spend another penny to address gun violence in Chicago. If 
the administration took just 1 percent of what they want for a border 
wall and used it to help Chicago implement the mayor's public safety 
plan with more police, training, and youth job programs, we could save 
a lot of lives. But instead Senator Sessions and the Trump 
administration are threatening to cut Federal funds for Chicago. Their 
priorities are profoundly misplaced.
  Senator Sessions did say he would increase Federal gun prosecutions. 
That may be helpful, but it is not enough to reduce gun violence. The 
Chicago Sun-Times looked at Federal gun prosecutions over the past 5 
years and found that cities like Detroit and Baltimore had 
significantly more than Chicago, but their per-capita homicide rates 
are still higher that Chicago's. So that is not enough.
  Senator Sessions also seems to think that immigrants are at the root 
of most of our Nation's crime problems. That is why he pushes to 
withhold critical Federal funding to so-called sanctuary cities. But 
many studies have shown that immigrants are less likely to commit 
serious crimes than native-born individuals. And there is no evidence 
whatsoever that undocumented immigrants are responsible for any 
significant proportion of the murders in Chicago. If sanctuary cities 
are the problem, why did a sanctuary city like New York City experience 
record low crime in 2016? Senator Sessions' priorities when it comes to 
these issues does not give me confidence.
  I am also troubled by the casual approach that Senator Sessions has 
adopted when it comes to Russian interference in our Presidential 
election.
  Election Day 2016 is a day that will live in cyber infamy. A foreign 
adversary intentionally manipulated America's Presidential election. 
Amid warnings of Russian manipulation going back to early October, 
President Donald Trump not only resisted these findings, he has praised 
Russian President Vladimir Putin and dismissed the true nature of Putin 
and his threat. As early as July of last year, then-candidate Trump 
urged a foreign adversary of the United States to conduct espionage 
against Hillary Clinton. He said, ``I will tell you this, Russia: If 
you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are 
missing . . . I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our 
press.'' And

[[Page S836]]

President Trump, who has impulsively attacked just about anyone who 
criticizes him, has not criticized the one person who is guilty of 
sponsoring this cyber attack: Vladimir Putin.
  This is bigger than one election or one person. This is about our 
national security, and we should take it seriously.
  For those who have been following Putin's actions over the last 
several years, this attack should come as no surprise. Russia has 
conducted cyber warfare against Ukraine, the Netherlands, Georgia, 
Lithuania, Estonia, and a host of other nations. Russia now appears 
focused on disrupting the upcoming German elections over Putin's 
dislike of Chancellor Merkel. And it could happen again here.
  We need to know that the next U.S. Attorney General will take this 
matter seriously as well and will be independent of the White House. 
This means allowing career Justice Department prosecutors and the FBI 
to follow the facts and the law.
  I am concerned about Senator Sessions when it comes to this 
assignment. I asked Senator Sessions questions about this. In his 
written responses, he admitted that he has not even read the January 6 
intelligence community assessment on Russian involvement in the U.S. 
election--neither the classified nor the unclassified version. As 
recently as last week, Senator Sessions admitted he still has not read 
this report.
  The unclassified version incidentally is just a few pages if you 
don't count the annexes. I read it in less than 15 minutes.
  Senator Sessions, seeking to be the top law enforcement official in 
the land, should have found time to read this report. His failure to do 
so is inexplicable. This does not give me confidence that Senator 
Sessions is giving this matter the attention it deserves.
  I also asked Senator Sessions if he would commit not to impede or 
terminate ongoing Justice Department or FBI investigations into Russian 
involvement in the 2016 election. He would not make any commitment 
about allowing investigations to continue if confirmed.
  And I asked Senator Sessions if he would recuse himself from any FBI 
or DOJ investigation into Russian efforts to influence the election. He 
said he was not aware of a basis to recuse himself.
  Well, Department of Justice regulations call for recusals from 
investigations due to personal or political relationships. And it is 
clear that Senator Sessions has a close relationship with President 
Trump, including on Russia issues. Senator Sessions was a prominent 
supporter of the President's campaign.
  On March 3, 2016, then-candidate Trump announced that Sessions would 
serve as chairman of Mr. Trump's National Security Advisory Committee 
and that he would ``provide strategic counsel to Mr. Trump on foreign 
policy and homeland security.''
  In a July 31, 2016 interview with CNN, Senator Sessions stated the 
following:

       What I want to tell you is that Hillary Clinton left her 
     email system totally vulnerable to a Russian penetration. 
     It's probably clear that they have what was on that system. I 
     have people come up to me all the time and say, why don't 
     you--if you want to find out where those 30,000 emails are, 
     why don't you ask the Russians? They're the ones that have 
     them . . . The big issue is, can we, should we be able to 
     create a new and positive relationship with Russia. I think 
     it's . . . it makes no sense that we're at the hostility 
     level we are.

  On August 15, 2016, USA Today published an article entitled ``Sen. 
Jeff Sessions backs Donald Trump on Russia Policy'' detailing how 
Sessions changed his hawkish position on Russia to align with then-
candidate Trump's statements. It said:

       "Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., has long supported increased 
     military spending and tough talk about the threat Russia 
     poses to the U.S. and its allies in Europe. Since becoming an 
     adviser to Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, 
     however, those principles appear to have undergone some 
     revisions. Trump has upended traditional conservative caution 
     toward Russia by exchanging niceties with President Vladimir 
     Putin and expressing hope for warmer relations. And Sessions, 
     a frequent surrogate for the Trump campaign in public 
     appearances, is nodding in agreement.''

  On October 7, 2016, Politico published a story entitled ``Lobbyist 
advised Trump campaign while promoting Russian pipeline: Richard Burt 
helped shape the candidate's first foreign-policy speech while lobbying 
on behalf of a Moscow-controlled gas company.'' The Politico story 
noted that the lobbyist in question ``attended two dinners this summer 
hosted by Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, who had been named chairman of 
Trump's national security committee'' and that the lobbyist ``was 
invited to discuss issues of national security and foreign policy, and 
wrote white papers for Sessions on the same subjects . . . `'
  In an October 30 interview with DefenseNews, Senator Sessions said, 
``The United States and Russia should be able to be far more harmonious 
than we are today.''
  Clearly, an investigation into the reported Russia-Trump allegations 
has the potential to significantly impact the interests of Senator 
Sessions' soon-to-be-boss, if he's confirmed, and his close political 
ally.
  Again, Senator Sessions' answers to my questions do not give me 
confidence. In the end, the American people deserve the truth about 
Russian involvement in our election. The stakes too high to ignore.
  There are other aspects of Senator Sessions' record that give me 
serious concerns about what his priorities would be if confirmed as 
Attorney General, including his vote against reauthorizing the Violence 
Against Women Act; his votes against the Detainee Treatment Act and the 
McCain-Feinstein Army Field Manual Amendment; his past statement that 
the use of prison chain gangs was ``perfectly proper''; his opposition 
to laws such as the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes 
Prevention Act; his questioning of the 14th Amendment's guarantee of 
birthright citizenship; and his refusal to commit to recuse himself 
from involvement in any case, investigation or Office of Legal Counsel 
decision involving the receipt of emoluments by President Trump. All of 
these factors have weighed on me as I have considered this nomination
  Mr. President, let me conclude.
  We need a nonpartisan Attorney General with the independence, 
judgment, and backbone to stand up to a President when his actions are 
illegal or unjust. Senator Sessions is an able politician. He has been 
an able representative of his State of Alabama. But he is not the right 
person to serve as Donald Trump's Attorney General.
  The Justice Department's motto ``qui pro domina justitia sequitur'' 
refers to an Attorney General ``who prosecutes on behalf of justice.'' 
Based on his record and his responses to questions over the past few 
weeks, I am not confident Senator Sessions would be such an Attorney 
General. I cannot support his nomination, and I will vote against him.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this week we have to decide whether Senator 
Sessions, somebody whom many of us have known and worked with for many 
years--I certainly have during all of the time he has been in the 
Senate--is the right person to lead the Department of Justice. I 
thought long and hard on it. I decided he is not. I would like to share 
a few reasons why.
  In fact, the Trump administration itself underscored what is at stake 
with this nomination. When the administration accused Acting Attorney 
General Sally Yates of having ``betrayed the Department of Justice,'' 
it exposed a view of the Justice Department that is disturbing and 
dangerous. The claim that Ms. Yates ``betrayed'' the Department by 
refusing to defend the President's illegal and shameful Executive 
order--you have to believe that in the Attorney General's office, your 
job is to defend the President at all costs. That is wrong. I think 
Senator Sessions knows that.

  There is a reason the Justice Department is not led by a Secretary of 
Justice: the Attorney General is the people's attorney, not the 
President's attorney. The Trump administration has already shown us why 
this distinction

[[Page S837]]

matters. Within its first two weeks, the current administration found 
itself rebuked in numerous Federal courts around the country. Its 
extreme agenda cast a shadow over all the President's nominees. This is 
an administration that was even criticized yesterday by a very 
conservative Republican, John Yoo, in a New York Times op-ed entitled, 
``Executive Power Run Amok.'' You know there is a problem when the same 
man who twisted the law in order to green-light torture thinks you have 
gone too far.
  The President seems to have a penchant for going too far. During the 
campaign he promised--and he said this a number of times; it was 
covered in the press--he would implement a Muslim ban. He actually 
stood before the cameras and said that. As President, he then signed an 
Executive order that barred immigration from certain Muslim-majority 
countries but created an exception that gave preference to members of 
minority religions in those countries; that is, non-Muslims. He even 
spoke to a Christian press organization stating he would protect 
Christians. That is nothing more than a Muslim ban by another name.
  My parents and grandparents fought religious biases in this country. 
I have always felt one greatness of this country is when we said there 
would be no religious bias and we would actually stand up for the First 
Amendment. The First Amendment says you can practice any religion you 
want or none if you want, and it gives you freedom of speech. Now if 
you have a country and a government that protects your right to 
practice any religion you want and protects your right of free speech, 
then that same government is protecting diversity, and if you have 
diversity, it is very easy to have democracy.
  When a Federal judge in Washington State temporarily blocked this 
order, President Trump did not express respectful disagreement as every 
President I have ever known, Republican or Democrat, would. He took to 
Twitter--Twitter, like a teenage kid--to attack the judge's legitimacy, 
labeling him a ``so-called judge.'' President Trump attempted to blame 
this judge who was nominated by a Republican President and confirmed by 
a Republican-led Senate for any future terrorist attack on this 
country. The President's words are beyond outrageous. It is almost as 
though he wants to precipitate a constitutional crisis.
  That is why the question of who should be our next Attorney General 
is so critical. This is a President who must have an Attorney General 
who is willing to stand up and say no for going beyond the law. Sally 
Yates knew that. Two years ago, Senator Sessions asked Ms. Yates: ``Do 
you think the Attorney General has a responsibility to say no to the 
President if he asks for something that's improper? A lot of people 
have defended the Lynch nomination, for example, by saying, well, he 
appoints somebody who's going to execute his views. What's wrong with 
that? But if the views the President wants to execute are unlawful, 
should the Attorney General or the Deputy Attorney General say no?''
  Ms. Yates answered that her duty was to the Constitution. Just two 
years later she proved that by telling the President that his travel 
ban was indefensible under the law. Perhaps she was remembering the 
commitment she made to Senator Sessions, and that is exactly what she 
did.
  Many around Senator Sessions felt that she never should have stood up 
to President Trump. She should stand up to President Obama but not 
President Trump.
  I have reviewed Senator Sessions' long record. I have reviewed his 
responses to many questions from members of the Senate Judiciary 
Committee. I am not convinced that he is capable of telling the 
President no.
  Under oath, Senator Sessions denied that he was involved in creating 
the Muslim ban Executive order. Well, I will take him at his word, but 
Senator Sessions' views on this issue are well known to Members of the 
Senate Judiciary Committee. In 2015 I offered a simple resolution in 
the committee. It expressed the sense of the Senate that the United 
States must not bar individuals from entering into the United States 
based on their religion--a very simple resolution. Every Democrat, most 
of the Republicans--including the Republican chairman, Senator 
Grassley--voted in support of my resolution. The committee recognized 
that imposing a religious test for those who seek to enter this country 
violates our most cherished values, but Senator Sessions broke away 
from the majority of his Republican colleagues, and he strongly opposed 
the resolution. I found that deeply concerning in 2015 when he was a 
Member of the committee. I find it even more disturbing now that he 
seeks to be our Nation's top law enforcement official. We need an 
Attorney General who will stand in the way of religious discrimination, 
not one who endorses it.
  Today I am introducing a very similar resolution. It reaffirms that 
no one should be blocked from entering into the United States because 
of their nationality or their religion. I invite Senator Sessions--and 
I invite all Senators--to cosponsor this resolution. Senator Sessions 
is still taking an active role in the Senate, including voting on 
controversial Cabinet nominees for President Trump. If he cosponsored 
it, it would help to reassure Americans that he stands against 
religious discrimination and religious tests.
  But my concerns about whether Senator Sessions would be willing to 
tell President Trump no extend well beyond religious tests. In fact, in 
his testimony before the Judiciary Committee, both Republicans and 
Democrats, he did not demonstrate to the Judiciary Committee that he 
would be willing to tell the President no on any issue, no matter how 
objectionable.
  Take, for example, the President's many conflicts of interest. For 
months, there has been media coverage about President Trump's conflicts 
of interest and the constitutional concerns they present. Yet Senator 
Sessions repeatedly evaded my written questions on this topic by 
claiming that he has ``not studied the issue.''
  I asked Senator Sessions whether President Trump should follow 
guidance from the Office of Government Ethics and divest from assets 
that might create a conflict of interest. Senator Sessions said that he 
has not studied the issue.
  I asked Senator Sessions whether President Trump receiving payments 
from entities controlled by foreign governments raises any concerns 
under the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution, which forbids such 
payments absent Congressional consent. Senator Sessions said that he 
has not studied the issue.
  I asked Senator Sessions whether President Trump's family members who 
are running the organization that he still owns should participate in 
policy discussions or meetings with foreign governments. Again Senator 
Sessions said that he has not studied the issue.
  Senator Sessions has refused to acknowledge that there is a conflict 
of interest for a President to have a personal financial stake in the 
policies pursued by his administration. Actually, that is definition 
101 of a conflict of interest. The President should not personally 
profit from their decisions. This answer was particularly troubling 
because I know that he knows the right answer. Senator Sessions told 
Senator Feinstein at his hearing: ``I own no individual stocks because 
I want to be sure that I don't have conflicts of interest.'' He added, 
``I want to adhere to high standards.'' Well, I appreciate that. But 
Senator Sessions--and I assume Attorney General Sessions--apparently 
refuses to hold the President to any standards at all.
  In fact, his woeful blindness extends even to the Russian 
interference into our democracy. In response to questions in the 
Intelligence Committee's report on Russian interference--the 
intelligence community found without a doubt that we had Russian 
influence in our democracy--he said: ``I have not reviewed the report, 
but I have no reason not to accept the intelligence community's 
conclusions as contained in the report.''
  Well, if he hasn't read the report on something as critical as this, 
I suspect he is one of very few Senators who hasn't. I asked him 
whether the activities described in the report are illegal: Are they a 
threat to our democratic process? For anyone other than President 
Trump, that is not a difficult question. Reading the report, the answer 
should be an obvious yes, but Senator Sessions refused to answer. If 
Senator Sessions is not willing even to acknowledge facts that make 
President

[[Page S838]]

Trump uncomfortable, how can we believe that Attorney General Sessions 
will ever say no to President Trump?
  Senator Sessions also refused to answer questions from all nine 
Democrats on the Judiciary Committee on how he would respond if 
President Trump pressured him to end any investigations into Russian 
interference in our elections.
  There is absolutely nothing in Senator Sessions' testimony before the 
Judiciary Committee that gives me confidence that he would be willing 
to stand up to the President. He has demonstrated only blind 
allegiance. This is a President who first cited what is now called 
``alternative facts'' to deny his small crowd size at the inauguration, 
but now he is citing ``alternative facts'' to excuse murders and 
assassinations by Putin's regime. That should alarm us all. It 
shouldn't matter what party you belong to; as Americans, that should 
alarm us.
  Later tonight I will describe my concerns about Senator Sessions' 
record on civil rights issues. But I have one concern that is made much 
worse, given Senator Sessions' lack of independence from President 
Trump. I am particularly worried that, if confirmed, Senator Sessions 
will fail to protect Americans' constitutional right to vote. There is 
nothing more sacred in a democracy than the right to vote. Yet Senator 
Sessions called it ``a good day for the South''--not for the country 
but for the South--when the Shelby County decision, which effectively 
gutted the Voting Rights Act, was handed down, something that virtually 
every Republican and Democrat in both the House and Senate voted for 
that President Bush signed into law.
  The fact that Senator Sessions voted to reauthorize the Voting Rights 
Act in 2006 doesn't give me much comfort when immediately after that 
unanimous vote, he turned around and argued, notwithstanding his vote, 
that it was unconstitutional.
  We cannot view his record on this issue in isolation because if he is 
nominated and confirmed to be President Trump's Attorney General--well, 
we know the President has his own views on voting in America. Several 
Republicans, like the Speaker of the House, Mr. Ryan, and our own 
colleague Senator Graham, have rightly condemned President Trump's wild 
conspiracy theory that there millions of illegal votes cost him the 
popular vote, which he lost by nearly 3 million votes. I fear that 
continuing this dangerous falsehood can be used to justify further 
attacks on the hard-won right to vote for racial minorities, students, 
poor and elderly citizens.
  What bothers me the most is that Senator Sessions again refused to 
acknowledge the fundamental and plainly visible fact that the President 
is flat out wrong that there were 3 million illegal votes cast. Senator 
Sessions responded to me that he doesn't know what data the President 
may have relied on. Well, the rest of us know there isn't any such 
data, but Senator Sessions refuses to admit as much.
  So his close ties to President Trump and the important role he played 
in forming President Trump's agenda raise important questions about his 
impartiality in matters involving the President. I asked him several 
times, What is the scenario in which he would recuse himself, given 
clear conflicts of interest? But he brushed those questions off. He 
claimed he was ``merely . . . a supporter of the President's during the 
campaign.'' Well, that would be fine, but I think Senator Sessions is 
selling himself short.
  He was widely reported to be a central figure in the Trump campaign. 
A key figure in the Trump campaign, Steve Bannon, called him the 
President's ``clearinghouse for policy and philosophy.''
  This relationship appears to fly in the face of the Justice 
Department's recusal standards. The Department's standards mandate 
recusal when the attorney has ``a close identification with an elected 
official . . . arising from service as a principal adviser thereto or a 
principal official thereof.'' I asked Senator Sessions the obvious 
question--whether that language would apply to his relationship with 
President Trump, but he refused to say one way or the other.
  The Justice Department has to be independent because it is the chief 
law enforcement department in our government. But I worry about that 
independence in this administration. It is already clear that if you 
say no to this President, there goes your job. Now more than ever, we 
need an Attorney General who is willing to pay that cost for the good 
of the country--for the good of the country. Country outweighs any 
partisan interest of a particular officeholder or a particular 
President.
  I am not convinced that that kind of independence describes Senator 
Sessions. He has not demonstrated the independence that he himself used 
to demand of nominees.
  David Frum, a former speechwriter for President George W. Bush, 
recently wrote an article in the Atlantic addressing whether someone 
should accept an invitation to serve in the Trump administration, given 
the real risks that there may be tremendous ``pressure to do the wrong 
thing.'' The ``very first thing to consider,'' said the former Bush 
speechwriter, is, ``How sure are you that you indeed would say no? And 
then humbly consider this second troubling question: If the Trump 
administration were as convinced as you are that you would do the right 
thing--would they have asked you in the first place?''
  In the case of the nominee before us--the Trump administration's 
``clearinghouse for policy and philosophy,'' as Mr. Bannon called him--
I fear the answer to these questions is clear. That is why I am going 
to be voting against this nominee.
  It is ironic that as we consider the nomination of Senator Sessions 
to be the Attorney General, a position which he is going to be 
responsible for is defending the fundamental rights and liberties of 
the American people--all of us--whether you were supporters during the 
last campaign of President Trump or Secretary Hillary Clinton. But even 
though Senator Sessions is supposed to defend our fundamental rights, 
we see President Trump continuing to praise Russian President Vladimir 
Putin, who has repeatedly demonstrated his disdain for freedom of 
speech, of association, of due process, and of the rule of law.
  In less than a week the President has attacked a Federal judge for 
performing his constitutional duty. He has called unfavorable polls 
``fake.'' He has continued to discredit as ``dishonest'' any media 
outlet that dares criticize him. His spokesperson, Sean Spicer, echoes 
these sentiments. They sound remarkably like what one would expect to 
hear from Vladimir Putin.
  In fact, President Trump has done this while reiterating his support 
of torture and his admiration of Putin. Remember, Putin's critics 
continue to turn up dead. Putin has stolen tens of billions of dollars 
that were taken in bribes from oil and gas and other industries. 
President Trump seems unaware of this, or is unconcerned about it, even 
though everybody knows about it.
  It is hard to avoid the conclusion that, after repeatedly lauding 
Putin's leadership, Trump is now attempting to emulate Putin's efforts 
to spread misinformation, chastise his critics, and intimidate those 
responsible for upholding the law. His assaults on anyone he perceives 
to be standing in his way, including a Federal judge nominated by 
President George W. Bush, is even worse than his routine expressions of 
contempt for political norms that seem to be coming straight out of 
Stephen Bannon's playbook. Not only has the President expressed little, 
if any, concern that every U.S. intelligence agency--every U.S. 
intelligence agency--believes that Russia sought to influence, and 
quite possibly did influence, the Presidential election, and that Putin 
himself was involved, but Senator Sessions, who campaigned for the 
President, refused to recuse himself from decisions related to Russia's 
cyber attacks.
  Can anybody imagine what the Republican leadership would be saying if 
the table was turned? They would try to shut down the government to 
hold a new election.
  Failing that, they would demand that an independent commission be 
established to investigate the Russian hacking, and they would insist 
that the nominee for Attorney General pledge to recuse himself.
  Well, along with Senator Durbin and others, I have called for such an 
independent commission outside of Congress, but the Republican leaders 
have

[[Page S839]]

summarily rejected it. It is cynical politics at its worst that puts 
partisanship over the integrity of our elections.
  President Trump and Senator Sessions both speak about the importance 
of law and order. President Trump and Vladimir Putin seem to agree 
about what those words mean. Senator Sessions has said nothing to 
suggest that he disagrees, even though the Congressional Republican 
leadership recognizes Putin as a dangerous thug who tramples on the 
rule of law.
  Why does our President keep praising this man who assassinates his 
critics, who has killed people who have criticized him in the media, 
who has stolen so much money, and taken so many bribes? He has become 
one of the wealthiest people in the world, but he is not a person to 
praise. We have a lot of leaders in our own country--both Republicans 
and Democrats--whom we can praise, but not Vladimir Putin.
  I think we have to be careful. We have to care about the integrity of 
our democracy, about due process, the rule of law, and about the 
constitutional checks and balances that distinguish this country from 
autocracies like Russia. We should expect the nominee for Attorney 
General to demonstrate that he will defend these principles, not to 
remain silent when they are attacked, even if the person attacking them 
is the President of the United States.
  Mr. President, I see the distinguished senior Senator from 
Connecticut on the floor.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Johnson). The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am honored to follow my 
distinguished colleague from Vermont who has led the Judiciary 
Committee with such vision and courage over so many years, and whom I 
respect as a former prosecutor, as I am, as well as a litigator and a 
conscience of the Senate.
  I am deeply concerned that our Nation is careening toward a 
constitutional crisis, a legal nightmare that will test the 
independence of the judiciary and require the utmost resolve and 
integrity from everyone involved in the justice system and from the 
Congress, because only the Congress may provide the kind of check on 
the ongoing assault against our court system.
  President Trump repeatedly has tried to put himself above the law, 
and in just a few weeks has moved from scorning conflict-of-interest 
and disclosure principles to promulgating destructive, discriminatory 
Executive orders, and openly attacking the judiciary. His personal 
invectives and insults are unprecedented for the President of the 
United States against the judiciary. Without respect for the rule of 
law and the court system, democracy fails. No Cabinet member has more 
responsibility to ensure that the justice system is given this 
necessary respect and trust than the Attorney General of the United 
States. The sweeping authority in this position impacts the lives and 
livelihoods of everyday Americans, implicating everything from our 
immigration system to law enforcement, to civil rights, national 
security, capital punishment, sentencing, and the U.S. Supreme Court.
  This job is one I know well. Like some of my colleagues, I served as 
U.S. attorney in the Department of Justice as the chief Federal 
prosecutor for Connecticut, for several years, reporting to the U.S. 
Attorney General, and, then, for several years afterward, as a private 
litigator, and, then, for 20 years as attorney general of the State of 
Connecticut. I fought alongside, and sometimes against, the U.S. 
Attorney General and the armies of lawyers at his disposal. In fact, 
the Attorney General commands thousands of lawyers who embody his power 
to speak on behalf of the United States. His job is to protect the 
public from criminal offenders and to convict the guilty, but also to 
protect the innocent who may be wrongly accused and to assure that 
justice is done.
  In fact, as Justice Jackson said about the role of the U.S. Attorney 
General, which he filled, he is to seek justice, not just win cases. I 
know how powerful this position can be and how crucial the Attorney 
General is not as the appointee of a politician but as a servant of 
justice.
  In discharging this sacred obligation, the Attorney General must 
always remain independent, not just in reality but in appearance. His 
decisions must supersede partisan politics. In most cases, there is, in 
fact, no recourse from his decision without political interference, 
which would be improper. He is not just another government lawyer. He 
is not just another Cabinet position. He is the Nation's lawyer. He is 
the people's lawyer. He must be the Nation's legal conscience.
  This job requires a singular level of intellect and integrity, and a 
nonpartisan, but passionate devotion to the rule of law.
  Over the past week, as our Nation's courts did their job and sorted 
through the implications of the President's hasty, ill-conceived, and 
illegal Executive orders, President Trump called into question the very 
integrity of our judicial system. Not only did he label U.S. District 
Court Judge Robart a ``so-called judge,'' but he also suggested that 
the American people should blame him and our ``court system'' if 
something should happen as a result of the court's blocking his 
Executive order.
  In this anticipatory blame, the bluster and bullying are 
inappropriate and un-Presidential, and I believe they threaten harm to 
our democracy as well as the judicial system.
  The comments were deeply disturbing to all of us who believe in the 
integrity of the judicial system--including the American Bar 
Association, which said through Linda Klein, its president, that 
``personal attacks on judges are attacks on our Constitution,'' and 
``the independence of the judiciary is not up for negotiation . . . 
independence from party politics, independence from Congress, and 
independence from the president of the United States himself.''
  Ms. Klein called upon all lawyers to defend the rule of law in light 
of these attacks on the Constitution. I echo this call proudly today, 
the importance of which cannot be overstated. Nowhere is that job more 
significant than the Department of Justice and the Attorney General of 
the United States as head of that Department. The agency is tasked with 
seeking and achieving justice, not with carrying out the President's 
agenda as a priority.
  That does not mean lawyers at the Department of Justice who are 
currently defending the orders in court are acting improperly or 
wrongly. What it means is, the country needs an independent justice 
system staffed by people who are ready to stand up and speak out to a 
President whose orders may contravene constitutional law.
  We saw this principle in action last week. We saw what it really 
means to serve at the Department of Justice and represent not the 
President but the American people, the Constitution, and the rule of 
law. Former Acting Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General Sally 
Yates took a stand based on moral and legal principle, and I thank Ms. 
Yates for her courage and strength in that action. Holding herself to 
the highest traditions of the Department of Justice, Ms. Yates said 
that in her judgment these orders cannot be defended, that the rule of 
law and morality is more important than the politics of the moment and 
the impulsive edicts of a ruler who apparently fails to uphold the law. 
Her actions raised the question of whether the next Attorney General 
will have the same courage and strength.
  Ms. Yates demonstrated genuine grit and grace in standing strong for 
the rule of law. Her actions are in the long, proud tradition of the 
Department. Not since Watergate has an Attorney General or Acting 
Attorney General been fired for acting in accordance with their 
conscience and the rule of law. Unfortunately, President Trump 
threatens to return us to that era. He has made his intentions clear: 
The Department of Justice will not be an independent authority acting 
on behalf of the American people. Instead, it will be just another 
enabler of the President's ongoing efforts to substitute his whims and 
wishes for legal and ethical responsibilities.
  I believe the President's orders are misguided and illegal. The 
courts will rule in days. His orders are wrong, in no small part, 
because they threaten to take away one of the primary reasons why ours 
is the greatest country in the history of the world--the country that 
my father, a refugee from Nazi Germany, sought in 1935. He arrived here 
at 17 years old with not much more than the shirt on his back, speaking

[[Page S840]]

little English, knowing just about no one. This country gave him the 
chance to succeed.
  I think about how sad and ashamed he would be if he saw the actions 
taken by this President: orders to ban people from coming into this 
country because of their religion; prioritizing one religion against 
another and raising fears that do damage to our core constitutional 
principles.
  Barring refugees like children who are harmed in other lands seeking 
to come to this country deprives us of the great talents, gifts, and 
energy that have helped to shape and build this country because we are 
truly stronger as a result of our diversity. We are a nation of 
immigrants. Our strength comes from the talents, energy, and vibrancy 
of these individuals who come to this country as children with their 
parents.
  This order makes us less safe because it provides a recruiting tool 
to extremists like ISIS. We are at war with ISIS, and we must win that 
war. It frays trust between law enforcement and Muslim communities, but 
it also weakens us in a deeper moral sense. It is wrong. It is morally 
wrong. It is wrong for this great country, devoted and founded on the 
ideals welcoming people seeking that beacon of hope, opportunity, and 
protection.
  The rule of law protects us from these moral harms, but the rule of 
law depends on people. Fortunately, even as we have seen the harms of 
these past few days play out in real time, we have also seen people who 
are willing to stand strong against them. People have gone to the 
streets in marches and rallies in the New Haven Green and in front of 
our State capitol in Connecticut, and all across our State, saying it 
is not only wrong, but they will rally against this wrong.
  All of these points are simply to say that the position of Attorney 
General is so important because he must stand strong as well for the 
rule of law. He must be able to speak truth to power. He must have the 
courage and strength to say to the President of the United States: This 
order is unconstitutional, not just unwise and unwarranted but illegal.

  I have, unfortunately, reached the conclusion that Senator Sessions 
cannot be counted on to play that role, to defend the rule of law, to 
be a champion of civil rights and civil liberties, not to just follow 
the law but to lead in this challenge that faces our country as never 
before because our rights and liberties are now threatened as never 
before. He must be a vigorous advocate, not a passive follower of the 
law.
  Senator Sessions showed this point to me through his testimony at his 
hearing and his subsequent responses. While he must be ready to say no 
to the President, what we saw demonstrated so vividly is that Senator 
Sessions' record and testimony indicates he is unwilling or unready to 
perform his core tasks.
  President Trump's vast business holdings present an unprecedented 
threat of conflict of interest. Yet the President has not only refused 
to divest himself, he has mocked the idea that he should. Should 
conflicts arise, the Attorney General must be willing to maintain 
impartiality, including appointing a special counsel or prosecutor if 
necessary. There are so many scenarios requiring this step. Yet when I 
asked Senator Sessions about enforcement of cases against illegal 
conflicts of interest involving the President and his family--such as 
violations of the emoluments clause or the STOCK Act--he equivocated. 
When I asked him about appointing a special counsel to investigate 
criminal wrongdoing at Deutsche Bank, owed more than $300 million by 
President Donald Trump, he equivocated. When I asked him about the 
investigation of Russian hacking, he equivocated. His answers to 
questions I submitted to him in writing were no better. Those answers 
give me no confidence that he will be an independent, nonpolitical 
enforcer against conflicts of interest and official self-enrichment 
that the Nation needs. At a moment when the incoming administration 
faces ethical and legal controversies that are unprecedented in scope 
and scale, Senator Sessions has simply given us no confidence that he 
will appoint an independent counsel or demonstrate the independence 
that is necessary.
  His record over many years and his recent testimony fail to 
demonstrate the core commitments and convictions necessary to be our 
next Attorney General. He has failed to show how he can be that legal 
conscience, that unmistakable, unshakable, ethical voice independent 
from the White House. He has failed to prove that he will be a champion 
of constitutional rights. Indeed, his career demonstrates an antipathy 
and hostility to the very rights and liberties that the Nation's chief 
law enforcement officer must always promote proactively, as well as 
defend.
  Focus for a moment, shall we, on some of the rights that affect women 
and their privacy. Women comprise more than half the population, but 
unfortunately our society and our laws have too frequently prevented 
them from achieving the equality that every American should enjoy. Over 
the course of his career, Senator Sessions has opposed key legislation 
that protects and further enhances women's rights. As a Senator, that 
trend was worrying. As Attorney General of the United States, it must 
be disqualifying.
  In 1973, the Supreme Court recognized a vital constitutional right of 
privacy for women. It is a right that is both basic and fundamental, 
now enshrined in five decades of precedent, that women have the freedom 
to choose what medical procedures they will undergo to make private 
health care decisions and personal reproductive rights decisions 
without interference from the government.
  As we all know, declaring abortion illegal solves no problem. Laws 
against abortion do not stop them from happening, it simply stops them 
from happening in a safe, legal manner. Laws that restrict abortion 
force women to put their own lives at peril rather than enjoying full 
freedom. Yet Senator Sessions' congressional record and hearing show 
that he is inherently opposed to providing women with the ability to 
make those preeminently private health care decisions.
  He has gone on record stating he believes Roe v. Wade was 
constitutionally unsound and wrongly decided. He voted against an 
amendment that expressed constitutional support for the underlying 
Supreme Court decision. Most troubling, he supported a constitutional 
amendment to ban abortion with only a few inadequate exceptions. It is 
no surprise that he has been supported by extremist groups like 
Operation Rescue. As Attorney General of the United States, Senator 
Sessions would be tasked with protecting the very women whose rights he 
has criticized.
  Far too many women seeking to exercise their constitutional rights 
are already faced with violence and harassment outside of health 
clinics. I know only too well the kind of intimidation and fear-
inspired actions that can take place because as attorney general of my 
State, I enforce the statute to protect those clinics.
  Those women look to the Department of Justice to enforce the Federal 
law that prohibits interference with people seeking to access these 
clinics, and it keeps them safe. There is a very real concern about 
whether these women will receive the same protection under Senator 
Sessions' tenure. With limited resources across the Department of 
Justice, decisions must be made by the Attorney General in setting 
priorities for enforcement.
  Senator Sessions' past positions and stances make clear that the 
protection of women's rights is far from a priority for him. He told me 
at the hearing that he would ``enforce the law.'' But when important 
constitutional rights are under threat, American women need more than 
someone who will simply follow or enforce the law. They need a champion 
and so do all of our civil rights and civil liberties and voting rights 
and other key freedoms.
  I am disturbed as well by Senator Sessions' vote against 
reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act. He has stated that he 
does not oppose the principle or some of the provisions of the law, and 
I take him at his word, but the circumstances behind his vote are no 
less disturbing. We must recognize that our Nation's tribal communities 
face epidemics of both domestic and sexual violence. Studies show that 
almost three out of five Native American women have been assaulted and 
that one-third of all Native American women are raped during their 
lifetime.
  The VAWA Reauthorization of 2013, the Violence Against Women Act, 
that

[[Page S841]]

he voted against included significant new language that closed a 
glaring loophole in the jurisdictional requirements of this basic law. 
The bill guaranteed and granted tribal communities power over non-
Indian defendants who commit domestic violence against Native Americans 
in Indian Country. Before the reauthorization act, tribal courts lacked 
jurisdiction to prosecute these horrific crimes and often the assaulter 
would escape prosecution entirely.
  During his confirmation hearing, Senator Sessions told us that he had 
``a big concern'' about that jurisdictional provision in the 
reauthorization act. He was concerned that the law would leave non-
Native Americans open to prosecution under tribal law, despite 
safeguards in the bill that were clear and unequivocal. The large gaps 
that the original law left were apparently acceptable to him.
  Additionally, the VAWA reauthorization included a nondiscrimination 
clause. This provision protects members of the LGBT community from 
discrimination in housing and employment, schools, and other areas of 
civil rights cases.
  Senator Sessions also took this issue with the nondiscrimination 
provisions in the reauthorization act, including the protection for 
LGBT individuals. He took issue with those provisions.
  I am concerned, also, by several other votes that Senator Sessions 
took in 2004. He voted against extending Federal unemployment benefits 
to people who leave their jobs as a result of being victims of domestic 
or sexual assault.
  In 2009, he voted against an amendment which would have strengthened 
the rights of victims of wage discrimination, contributing to the 
roadblocks and hurdles that women encounter while facing issues of 
inequality.
  As recently as March of 2015, Senator Sessions voted against the 
Paycheck Fairness Act, a vote he has taken multiple times before. These 
bills sought to strengthen women's rights and opportunities in the 
workplace.
  In 2017, our world is one where women still struggle to obtain the 
same pay levels as men in the workplace for the same work. This kind of 
discrimination is un-American and really an embarrassment to our 
Nation.
  Senator Sessions' voting record consistently shows his opposition to 
this kind of key legislation designed to protect women from oppression 
and discrimination and protect women's autonomy and choice, and I 
cannot support an Attorney General with this record.
  Speaking on the floor some time ago, I added other details as to the 
reasons why I have opposed Senator Sessions. I see colleagues on the 
floor right now so I will end here with this point. Over the past 
weeks, I have received an outpouring of outrage from throughout my 
State of Connecticut, more than 4,500 letters from Connecticut 
residents opposing this nomination because they recognize the need, the 
desperate imperative for a true champion of civil rights and liberties, 
constitutional freedoms in this office facing the threat that is more 
real and urgent than ever before in our history.
  Just hours ago, I received a million signatures on a petition from 
civil rights groups. They are contained magically on a thumb drive that 
is so easy to display, even if the signatures are not readily visible, 
but these million brave and steadfast individuals and the organizations 
that represent them. The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and 
Liberties, other groups that have proudly and actively worked on this 
cause are to be thanked, as are the advocates throughout the country 
who have galvanized public opinion, raised awareness, and shown what 
democracy looks like.
  This is what democracy looks like. This is what America looks like. 
This is what Connecticut looks like--people rallying and rising up 
against an unconstitutional immigration ban, against a set of nominees 
that fail to reflect and serve America against an Attorney General 
nominee, in particular, who cannot be relied upon to actively and 
aggressively, vigorously, and vigilantly protect our constitutional 
rights and liberties. We need a champion of those rights and liberties.
  I regretfully oppose Jeff Sessions as our next Attorney General 
because we cannot count on him to do so, and I urge my colleagues to 
join in this opposition.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following my 
5 minutes, the distinguished senior Senator from New Hampshire, Mrs. 
Shaheen, be recognized for 5 minutes; and following Mrs. Shaheen, the 
distinguished whip of the Republican Party, Mr. Cornyn, be recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.