[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 20 (Monday, February 6, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S844-S854]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                       Nomination of Neil Gorsuch

  Last week, President Trump announced his nomination for the Supreme 
Court. He made an outstanding choice. Judge Neil Gorsuch has a 
distinguished resume. He graduated with honors from Harvard Law School 
and went on to receive a doctorate in legal philosophy from Oxford 
University, where he was a Marshall scholar.
  He clerked for two Supreme Court Justices, Byron White and Anthony 
Kennedy. He worked in both private practice and at the Justice 
Department before being nominated to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals 
where he served with distinction for 10 years. He is widely regarded as 
a brilliant and thoughtful jurist and a gifted writer whose opinions 
are known for their clarity.
  Above all--above all--he is known for his impartiality, for his 
commitment to following the law wherever it leads, whether he likes the 
results or not. A judge who likes every outcome he reaches is very 
likely a bad judge, Judge Gorsuch has said more than once. Why? Because 
a judge who likes every outcome he reaches is likely making decisions 
based on something other than the law. That is a problem.
  The job of a judge is to interpret the law, not to write it; to call 
balls and strikes, not to design the rules of the game. Everyone's 
rights are put in jeopardy when judges step outside their appointed 
role and start changing the meaning of the law to suit their personal 
opinions.
  Judge Gorsuch's nomination has been greeted with praise by liberals 
as well as conservatives. I think one of the biggest reasons for that 
is that both groups know that Judge Gorsuch can be relied on to judge 
impartially. Here is what Neal Katyal, an Acting Solicitor General for 
President Obama had to say about Judge Gorsuch:

       I have seen him up close and in action, both in court and 
     on the Federal Appellate Rules Committee (where both of us 
     serve); he brings a sense of fairness and decency to the job 
     and a temperament that suits the Nation's highest Court. I, 
     for one, wish it were a Democrat choosing the next justice, 
     but since that is not to be, one basic criterion should be 
     paramount: Is the nominee someone who will stand up for the 
     rule of law and say no to a President or Congress that strays 
     beyond the Constitution and law?

  I have no doubt that if confirmed, Judge Gorsuch would help to 
restore confidence in the rule of law.

       His years on the bench reveal a commitment to judicial 
     independence, a record that should give the American people 
     confidence that he will not compromise principle to favor the 
     President who appointed him.

  Again, those are the words of Neal Katyal, formerly an Acting 
Solicitor General for President Obama.
  When Judge Gorsuch was nominated to the Tenth Circuit Court of 
Appeals, his nomination sailed through the Senate. Both of his home 
State Senators--one a Republican and one a Democrat--supported his 
nomination, and he was confirmed by a unanimous vote.
  Then-Senator Obama could have objected to the nomination. He didn't. 
Senator Schumer could have objected to the nomination. He didn't. Then-
Senators Biden or Clinton or Kennedy could have objected to the 
nomination, but they didn't. Why? Presumably because they saw what 
almost everybody sees today; that Judge Gorsuch is exactly the kind of 
judge we want on the bench--supremely qualified, thoughtful, fair, and 
impartial.
  Unfortunately, this time around, some Senate Democrats are being less 
public-spirited. They are upset that their party didn't win the 
Presidential election so they are threatening to filibuster an 
eminently qualified nominee, an eminently qualified nominee that a 
number of them had previously supported.
  The Democratic leader recently said:

       Now more than ever, we need a Supreme Court Justice who is 
     independent, eschews ideology, who will preserve our 
     democracy, protect fundamental rights, and will stand up to a 
     President who has already shown a willingness to bend the 
     Constitution.

  That, of course, is precisely the kind of judge that Judge Gorsuch 
is, as pretty much everyone who knows him--both liberal and 
conservative--can attest, but leaving that aside, if the Democratic 
leader really has these concerns about Judge Gorsuch, why did he allow 
him to receive a unanimous confirmation to the Tenth Circuit?

[[Page S845]]

Surely, if he had these concerns, it was his obligation to speak up.
  No one likes to lose an election, but that is what happens in a 
democracy, and throwing a temper tantrum and refusing to play ball 
after you lose is not the most enlightened response. Democrats are not 
really concerned that Judge Gorsuch is a raving rightwing ideologue. 
When liberal after liberal attests to his fairness and impartiality, it 
is pretty hard to pretend that he is anything but an excellent pick for 
the Supreme Court. Democrats just don't want to confirm him because 
they are mad that President Trump is the one who nominated him.
  Well, it is time for them to get over that. It is one thing to oppose 
the President when he does something they believe truly endangers our 
country; it is another thing entirely for them to oppose this 
outstandingly well-qualified nominee because they are still upset about 
the election.
  Republicans lost the Presidential elections in 2008 and 2012, but we 
allowed up-or-down votes when President Obama nominated Justices Elena 
Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor. Had this election gone the other way, we 
were prepared to consider a Hillary Clinton nominee.
  It is time for Democrats to stop threatening obstruction and to get 
down to the business of considering Judge Gorsuch's nomination.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I just wanted to take a minute. I know 
we have several people waiting to speak, but I wanted to respond to my 
colleague from South Dakota because I think for Senator Thune to come 
to the floor and castigate Democrats for holding up Judge Gorsuch, who 
has just been nominated, and for suggesting we are going to filibuster, 
the fact is, throughout most of last year, we saw the Republican 
majority in this body hold up the nominee Merrick Garland, President 
Obama's nominee.
  For the first time in history, this body refused to hold a hearing on 
a nominee for the Supreme Court, refused to give an up-or-down vote, 
and to suggest that we should not get a fair hearing on the nominee to 
the Supreme Court--Judge Gorsuch--I think is just not someone who is 
going to be good for the American people.
  Unlike the Republican majority, I haven't heard any Democrats saying: 
We don't think that Judge Gorsuch should get a hearing or that he 
should get an up-or-down vote. Everybody I have talked to agrees he 
should get a hearing and an up-or-down vote.
  As for the time that it is taking us to review the nominees of this 
administration, the fact is, the Trump administration was delayed in 
putting forward nominees. They were much later than the previous two 
Presidents. We are still waiting for many of those nominees to provide 
the background information that is required for those positions to have 
the background checks done, to have the questions that have been put 
forward to them in hearings answered. So I think we should all work 
together to move these nominees. That is what I have done on the Small 
Business Committee as the ranking member, and we have worked very well 
because that nominee provided all the required information. She had the 
FBI background check done, and we were able to hold a hearing on her. 
Well, that is what we expect from every nominee.
  So I am disappointed to hear my colleague come down and say that we 
are not going to give Judge Gorsuch a fair hearing. I think we are 
going to do that, but we are going to do it in a way that provides 
information to the American people so we all know where this judge 
stands and what he thinks about the role on the Supreme Court.
  I think rather than name-calling, it would be more effective for us 
to work together to get this done.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I will just point out to the Senator from 
New Hampshire--perhaps she knows it, perhaps she doesn't, but her 
leader has suggested a 60-vote threshold for this nominee.
  I am delighted to hear her say that they are going to provide a 
hearing for consideration. I hope that she, like all of our colleagues, 
will provide this judge an opportunity to be heard, to respond to 
questions because I think they will find, as most of us who have looked 
at his record, that this is an exceptionally well-qualified judge. He 
is a very bright legal mind and somebody who I think understands what 
the role of a judge is in our constitutional democracy.
  With respect to the nominees we are considering, we are here right 
now, and the Senator from New Hampshire and some of her colleagues were 
here overnight last night stalling, if you will, to allow for votes on 
nominees that have been put forward by this administration.
  I don't think you can dispute the record. At this time 8 years ago, 
President Obama had 21 of his nominees in place. This President has 
seven. What I mentioned earlier, you have to go back to the time of 
Dwight Eisenhower, roll back to today, and every President from that 
point forward has had, on this day, all or most of their nominees in 
place and confirmed by the Senate. So there is no question. There is no 
question what is going on here.
  I am not calling anybody names. I am just pointing out what I see 
every single day; that is, foot-dragging and delays and obstruction 
trying to prevent a President--whom they, understandably, didn't like 
getting elected--from being able to get his team in place.
  All I am simply saying is I think the American people expect more of 
us, I think they expect better of us, and I think we have to answer the 
call to duty to allow that team to be put in place so this President 
and his team can go about the important business of governing this 
country.
  But you cannot dispute the facts with respect to the number of 
nominees who have been confirmed to date with this President and 
Presidents going back in history, and I said earlier, you have to go 
back to George Washington. I think that is accurate. I think you have 
to go back a long way in the annals of history to find any time where 
you see what is happening today happen in the Senate with any President 
historically of either party.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes to talk about a 
couple of my friends. I want to say a few words and praise President 
Trump's nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court of the 
United States.
  I first met Judge Gorsuch several years ago when I met with several 
circuit court judges for a dinner. He was and has been impressive. 
Judge Gorsuch is an admirable choice to be America's next Supreme Court 
Justice. His many years of dedication to the law and service to 
America's judicial system clearly qualify him to serve on America's 
highest Court.
  His work itself speaks highly of his understanding of the 
Constitution and the values that we, as Americans, hold dear. Some of 
the first signs Judge Gorsuch would be a great jurist happened just 
around the corner from here in Washington, DC, where he won a national 
debate championship in high school.
  He attended college at Columbia University and received a scholarship 
to attend Harvard Law School. As a new lawyer, he was back here in 
Washington learning from some of the best jurists in America. He 
performed clerkships first to the U.S. Supreme Court of Appeals for the 
DC district court and later for Justice Byron White and Anthony Kennedy 
at the U.S. Supreme Court.
  After working in private practice and at the Department of Justice, 
in 2006, President George W. Bush nominated Judge Gorsuch to serve as 
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit--that is my circuit. 
The Senate confirmed him by voice vote. Let me say that again. In 2006, 
this body was so confident about Neil Gorsuch, his character and his 
qualifications to serve as a Federal judge--yes, a circuit court 
judge--that he was confirmed without anyone even asking for a recorded 
vote. I consider that unanimous.
  On the bench of the busy Tenth Circuit, Judge Gorsuch has proven he 
takes seriously his duty to uphold the Constitution. He is known for 
his legal opinions that stridently defend our

[[Page S846]]

most fundamental constitutional rights and for writing those opinions 
in a way that is engaging and easy to understand.
  He knows that his work as a judge is about serving this institution, 
not his personal preferences. As he said recently at the White House, 
shortly after his nomination was announced by President Trump, ``A 
judge who likes every outcome he reaches is very likely a bad judge 
stretching for results he prefers rather than those the law demands.''
  I love that quote.
  As a uniquely exceptional scholar and respected jurist, not to 
mention a fellow westerner and avid outdoorsman who shares my love of 
fly fishing, he is the kind of man I trust to serve America on the 
highest Court of the land.
  I have met Judge Gorsuch, and he has a lot of support from folks in 
Wyoming, in the Wyoming legal community, and from both parties. I got 
calls from people of both parties saying he is the one we want to put 
up. I know and I trust those people, and I know and trust Judge 
Gorsuch, and I value those people's opinions. I believe he has a good 
understanding of the legal issues that matter to people in my home 
State.
  I would be remiss if I didn't state my disappointment in all the 
unproductive distraction about this pick by activists bent on 
politicizing the judicial nomination process. If their rhetoric and 
antics in the last days and weeks have told us anything, it is that no 
matter who President Trump nominated to fill the spot on the Supreme 
Court, they would have objected--no matter how learned, how objective, 
or how many hundreds of hours a nominee had already spent on the bench.
  In November, millions of people went to the polls and rejected this 
kind of tired partisan bickering when they voted for a change in 
Washington. Those same voters went to the polls knowing that there was 
a vacancy on the Supreme Court and that whoever became the next 
President would choose the nominee.
  Mr. President, among our most important duties, as Members of this 
body, is carefully vetting all nominees who come before us. Never is 
that responsibility so stark and so substantial as when our Nation 
faces a vacancy on the Supreme Court.
  I believe Judge Neil Gorsuch is up to the solemn and mighty task of 
serving as the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. I look 
forward to a timely and fair confirmation process focused on Judge 
Gorsuch's qualifications.
  Now I want to talk a little bit about my other friend. I rise in 
support of President Trump's nominee to serve as the next Attorney 
General of the United States. That is my good friend and colleague 
Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama.
  Senator Sessions is an admirable and appropriate choice to be 
America's next Attorney General. His many years of legal practice, his 
service as a U.S. attorney, and as Alabama's attorney general, and 20 
years of legislative service in the U.S. Senate have prepared him well 
to lead America's Department of Justice. His work itself speaks highly 
of his understanding of the Constitution, of his respect for the law, 
and of his reverence for the values that we as Americans hold dear. 
Jeff Sessions is qualified to be the next U.S. Attorney General because 
he spent decades studying and practicing the law.

  He grew up in a small town in Alabama and worked his way through 
college before studying law at the University of Alabama. Senator 
Sessions began his law practice at a small firm, where he worked on 
cases involving probate matters, domestic relations, criminal defense, 
real estate, wills, and civil litigation--what a combination.
  He then worked as an assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District 
of Alabama from 1975 to 1977. In that position, he handled a variety of 
cases at the trial level, including those related to wrongful death, 
gun violations, forgeries, bank robberies, drugs, and enforcing 
criminal penalties for pollution.
  I am not an attorney myself, but I understand those are exactly the 
kinds of cases that teach foundational legal skills to a young 
attorney--managing a docket that may include dozens of cases at any one 
time; working long hours to track down key evidence and witnesses; 
developing relationships with investigators and closely advising them 
to ensure relevant and admissible evidence is gathered lawfully; giving 
up nights and weekends to prepare witnesses, motions, and arguments for 
trial to get a case across the finish line; and conferring with victims 
to assure they are afforded the rights guaranteed to them by law.
  That kind of hard work and legal training paid off in 1981, when 
Senator Sessions was nominated by President Ronald Reagan to serve as 
the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama. For the next 12 
years Jeff Sessions represented Federal agencies in legal 
controversies, prosecuted criminal cases, collected debts owed to the 
government, and defended the civil rights of U.S. citizens. He did this 
while also serving his country in the U.S. Army Reserve from 1973 to 
1986. He worked as a transportation officer and later as a military 
attorney, where the Army no doubt benefited greatly from his years of 
civilian legal training and practice.
  In 1995, Senator Sessions was elected attorney general for the State 
of Alabama, and he served for 2 years as the State's chief legal 
officer. Two years later he was elected to the U.S. Senate.
  I was first elected to the Senate in that same year, and Jeff 
Sessions has been my friend ever since. But I personally know the man, 
not just the Senator, and I believe him to be a caring person who wants 
justice for people and has compassion for people, no matter their 
backgrounds.
  During his 20 years in the Senate, Jeff Sessions has worked on many 
tough legislative issues that further qualify him to serve as Attorney 
General. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, he has fought 
for the confirmation of judges committed to following the law. 
Consistent with his experience as a prosecutor, he has led successful 
legislative efforts to improve law and order, many times working with 
his colleagues across the aisle. He worked with another of my good 
friends, the late Senator Ted Kennedy, on legislation to reduce sexual 
assaults in prisons. He worked with Senator Durbin to pass legislation 
in 2010 to bring fairness to Federal drug sentencing and provide 
tougher penalties to repeat drug traffickers.
  But his efforts haven't been limited to the Judiciary Committee. As a 
member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, he has been a strong 
advocate for America's military and for those who serve in it. In 2006, 
he worked with Senator Lieberman to pass a law increasing death 
benefits for family members of fallen combat personnel and to increase 
Servicemembers Group Life Insurance benefits.
  He has worked to restrain the growth of Federal spending and 
rebalance Federal funding for HIV/AIDS treatment through the Ryan White 
CARE Act. Those are just a few of his many legislative accomplishments 
as a U.S. Senator.
  Jeff Sessions is a well-educated attorney, an accomplished 
prosecutor, and a skilled legislator. But I also believe his character, 
work ethic, and temperament make him well-suited to serve as the chief 
law enforcement officer of the Federal Government.
  As I mentioned, he has been my friend and colleague for over 20 
years. So I am proud to personally attest to this. He is a man who is 
guided by his principles. He is very active in his family's church back 
in Mobile and in the entire Methodist community of Alabama. He and his 
wife Mary have raised three wonderful children who have given them ten 
grandchildren.
  I believe Senator Sessions has the experience, character, and drive 
to be a fantastic Attorney General. If confirmed, he is committed to 
strengthening partnerships between Federal and local law enforcement 
officers to fight crime, and, specifically, to take out drug cartels 
and criminal gangs. He has vowed to prosecute criminals who use guns in 
committing crimes. And he will prosecute individuals who repeatedly 
violate America's immigration laws.
  In November millions of voters went to the polls and voted for 
change. I believe the priorities Senator Sessions will pursue if 
confirmed as Attorney General are shared by those voters. I would note 
the many organizations and individuals who have endorsed his 
nomination, including the Fraternal Order

[[Page S847]]

of Police, the National Sheriffs' Association, and 25 State attorneys 
general. These are people at the frontlines of law enforcement, and I 
think they know what it takes to make a great Attorney General.
  Among our most important duties as Members of this body is to 
carefully vet all nominees that come before us. We have before us an 
opportunity to support the nomination of a man of high moral character, 
whose training, education, and professional experience make him 
extremely well-qualified to serve our country. I urge my colleagues to 
join me in supporting Senator Jeff Sessions to serve as our next U.S. 
Attorney General.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Ms. DUCKWORTH. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my debate time 
to Senator Schumer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
  The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I yield one hour of the time under my 
control to Senator Booker.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. And I yield 30 minutes of my time to Senator Leahy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. And I yield 10 minutes of my time to Senator 
Klobuchar.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I yield one hour under my control to Senator Murphy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
  The Senator from Minnesota.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues and 
make remarks on Senator Sessions' nomination to serve as Attorney 
General. I will be coming back later this evening to focus on voting 
rights and some of the other issues at hand--freedom of the press, 
antitrust. I am actually the ranking member on that subcommittee, and 
while Senator Sessions has assured me that if confirmed, he will keep 
the independence of that part of the Justice Department away from 
outside influence from the White House, I am very focused on that 
because I think we have seen a wave of mergers, and I want to address 
that more in depth later.
  I worked successfully with Senator Sessions on a number of UC's over 
the years such as adoption and human trafficking. We have worked 
together well, and if he is confirmed, I am sure we will find some 
areas of common agreement. I am not supporting him, however, and I have 
told him this in person and I have talked about it at the Judiciary 
Committee because of my concerns relating to some of his views on some 
of the core functions of the Justice Department, and that is enforcing 
voting rights, the handling of immigration issues, the freedom of the 
press, and the Violence Against Women Act.
  Now, he has assured me that he will keep the Office on Violence 
Against Women funded--which I appreciate--in the Justice Department, 
but I was very concerned that he had actually voted against the 
Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization recently. It was something 
that the majority of Republican Senators voted for and every single 
woman Senator, Democrat or Republican, voted in favor of.
  As a prosecutor and a U.S. Senator, one of my main criminal justice 
priorities has been enforcing and reauthorizing VAWA or the Violence 
Against Women Act. It is a bill that took roots in my State, thanks to 
the efforts on the initial bill of former Senator Paul Wellstone and 
his wife Sheila. Both of them tragically died in a plane crash, and we 
miss them very much. But Paul and Sheila's legacy lives on in the work 
of the Violence Against Women Act.
  It has a long history, as the President knows, of bipartisan support. 
Since it was first passed in 1994, we have made great strides in 
raising awareness that these are serious crimes, not shameful secrets. 
Since the enactment of the Violence Against Women Act, annual domestic 
violence rates have fallen by 50 percent, but the statistics make clear 
that domestic violence, stalking, and sexual assault are still a major 
problem in America. According to data from the Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention, for every minute, 20 people in the United 
States are victims of physical violence by an intimate partner. That is 
about 10 million people every year.
  Millions more individuals are the victims of stalking crimes each 
year, with approximately 15 percent of women at some point during their 
lifetime experiencing stalking, during which they feel very fearful or 
believe that they or someone close to them could be harmed or killed.
  I would like to note briefly that I am pleased that the Senate 
recently passed the resolution that Senator Perdue and I introduced on 
stalking to raise awareness. I have been confronted by these issues of 
domestic violence and stalking since before I became a Senator. In 
fact, that is when I was Hennepin County attorney. That is the largest 
prosecutor's office in our State. I managed an office of about 400 
people. With that big office handling everything from representing our 
State's biggest public hospital to violent murder cases, the poster 
that you saw when you walked into our office and down the hallway so 
that everyone could see it was a picture of a woman who was beaten up. 
She had a Band-Aid over her nose, and she was holding a little baby 
boy. The words read: Beat your wife, and it is your son that goes to 
jail. Why? That poster reminds everyone that domestic violence and 
sexual assault just don't hurt the immediate victims. They hurt 
children, families, and entire communities. We know that kids who see 
violence happen are twice as likely to commit it themselves and to 
continue the cycle. That is why I worked with Senator Leahy along with 
Senator Crapo to make sure that the Violence Against Women Act was 
reauthorized.
  What does this legislation do? The legislation ensures that law 
enforcement has the tools to prosecute domestic and sexual violence and 
ensures that victims have the support they need to get back on their 
feet. But we also made some important updates on the law, including 
addressing the problem of above average levels of domestic violence in 
tribal areas, by allowing tribal courts to prosecute and to handle 
cases with people who are tribal members and in very specific cases 
when violence is committed on the reservation.
  Providing a uniform nondiscrimination provision was also included to 
ensure services are available to everyone who needs them, including 
victims in same-sex relationships. The new bill included stronger 
housing protections for victims and increased accountability for grant 
recipients. It also strengthened and updated anti-stalking laws to 
better address the new technologies that predators are using to harass 
their victims. This was a bipartisan provision that I authored with 
Republican former Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas.
  As I said, all 20 women Senators supported this critical legislation, 
and it passed with bipartisan support on a vote of 78 to 22, with 
support from a majority of Senators in Senator Sessions' own party, not 
to mention men and women across the country.
  The reason Senator Sessions had for not voting for the bill was that 
it was the tribal provisions that he didn't like because of the dual 
jurisdiction. That just doesn't hold up for me, given what I have seen 
in my State.

  Now, what does this really mean to people? Let me end this portion of 
my remarks with two stories. The first is about a case that our office 
handled, and a prosecutor in our office who was very well thought of 
handled it in our office, involving two immigrants. This was a case 
where this man was from Russia, and he beat up his wife repeatedly over 
the years. They had a little daughter. One day he killed his wife, and 
then he went to Home Depot and he bought a saw. And then he basically 
dismembered her and put her in a garbage bag and brought her to another 
State and dumped her in a river. He left the head in his trunk, and he 
brought it back to the Twin Cities. He eventually confessed to his 
crime.
  The family gathered--and they were a very small family. The mom and 
dad came from Russia, and then there was the little girl who had been 
left behind with really no parent to take care of

[[Page S848]]

her anymore. I went to meet with the family before the funeral with our 
prosecutor and our victim witness advocate. I heard the story then that 
at the airport--the little girl had never met her deceased mother's 
twin sister. They were identical twins. And as they got off the 
airplane and her grandparents and that aunt got off the airplane, the 
little girl ran up to that aunt and grabbed her and said ``Mommy, 
Mommy'' because she thought that it was her mother and that her mother 
was still alive.
  Those are the victims of domestic violence. It is not just the 
immediate victim; it is everyone around them.
  Or, the case in Lake City, MN, of Officer Shawn Schneider, an 
incredibly brave police officer who was called one day to a domestic 
violence case. It was a man who was clearly affected by mental illness, 
who was threatening his 17-year-old girlfriend, and the cop went up to 
the door, and there he was. He had his bullet proof vest on, but the 
man shot the police officer in the head, and he died. I attended that 
funeral.
  When I was there, I saw their young family, the two young little boys 
and this little girl. I heard the story about the last time they were 
in their church for the nativity play, and the dad was sitting there--
the police officer--in the pew, watching his family and his children 
perform. The next time they were in the church was when that little 
girl with the blue dress covered in stars was walking down the aisle 
for her dad's funeral.
  That is domestic violence. It does concern me that we did not get 
support from the nominee. I do appreciate that he said he would 
continue to fund the Office on Violence Against Women, and I believe 
that that is very important to the functioning of the Justice 
Department.
  Since its inception in 1995, the Office on Violence Against Women has 
provided financial and technical assistance to communities nationwide--
very important to the Department of Justice.
  The last thing I want to mention--and I will come back again to some 
of these other priorities that I think are important, if Senator 
Sessions is confirmed, to continue to be a focus in the Justice 
Department, as well as other concerns that I have--is the funding of 
the COPS program. Republican Senator Murkowski and I are leading that 
effort. We have always had, especially in the House of Representatives, 
bipartisan support for the COPS program.
  During Senator Sessions' hearing, I made a special note to discuss 
that issue with Chuck Canterbury, who is the president of the Fraternal 
Order of Police, and we had a good discussion about that. He stated 
that he shared my view that this is a very important program, 
particularly with the sharp decrease in staffing levels we have seen 
for law enforcement around the country in recent years, including 
training funding--something that is really important.
  The Community Oriented Policing Services, or the COPS program, was 
established many years ago. It helped to place more than 129,000 police 
officers on the beat in more than 13,000 State, local, and tribal law 
enforcement agencies. In fiscal year 2015, the COPS office was able to 
award grants to just 209 of the over 1,000 law enforcement agencies 
that applied. It translated into about 915 officers, which is still a 
lot, but, in fact, there were requests for over 3,000 officers.
  I think we can all agree, and hope the administration agrees, that 
this is a very important program. I will continue to work with Senator 
Sessions, if he is confirmed, to make sure we have the support from the 
administration for this program, which, again, is one of the top 
priorities of the Fraternal Order of Police and other police 
organizations across the country.
  I look forward to discussing other issues when I return, but for now, 
I yield the floor. Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the nomination of 
Senator Jeff Sessions to be the next Attorney General of the United 
States and to head the U.S. Department of Justice.
  I have had the privilege to serve with Senator Sessions in the U.S. 
Senate for nearly a decade. I have served on several committees with 
him, including the years that I was on the Judiciary Committee. I no 
longer serve on that committee, but I served there with Senator 
Sessions.
  I was listening to Senator Klobuchar's explanations of her concerns. 
Senator Sessions is a person whom we work with, but it is his views and 
his record that give me great concern.
  Just looking back at the first 2 weeks of the Trump administration, I 
think a growing number of Americans understand the importance of the 
Constitution, the rule of law, the system of checks and balances, the 
separation of powers, and the critical importance of the position of 
the Attorney General of the United States.
  Over the years, the Justice Department has grown into one of the 
largest Cabinet departments, with over 100,000 employees, which touches 
just about every aspect of life in America today. It is known as the 
world's largest law office and the chief enforcer of Federal laws.
  Just think about the work every day to keep America safe undertaken 
by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Drug Enforcement 
Administration, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and 
Explosives, the Bureau of Prisons, the U.S. Marshals Service, and the 
U.S. Attorneys in every State and territory. Think about the work of 
the National Security Division that tackles some of the toughest 
terrorism and intelligence challenges we face every day. All of that 
comes under the Department of Justice. All of that comes under the 
Attorney General.
  Think about the work of the Civil Rights Division to protect all 
Americans, regardless of their background, to ensure that every 
American--every American--enjoys full constitutional rights and 
privileges. Think about the work of the Environmental and Natural 
Resources Division, the Antitrust Division, and the Tax Division, and 
so many other offices within the Department of Justice. It is the 
direction of all of those agencies that come under the Attorney General 
of the United States. These hard-working employees of the Justice 
Department keep America safe every day while protecting American lives, 
and some of them put their lives on the line to do so. We need an 
Attorney General that will strengthen, not weaken, the Justice 
Department and will help carry out its important missions.
  The Justice Department is charged with ``[enforcing] the law and 
[defending] the interests of the United States according to the law,'' 
``[ensuring the] public safety against threats foreign and domestic,'' 
as well as ``[ensuring] fair and impartial administration of justice 
for all Americans.'' That is their mission. That is their 
responsibility.
  The Attorney General is not the President's lawyer; he or she is the 
people's lawyer. After carefully examining Senator Sessions' record--
including his Senate service, confirmation hearing, and advocacy on the 
campaign trail for Mr. Trump--I am not convinced that he would be 
independent and impartial to the President and Federal agencies. I am 
not convinced he would enforce the law fairly and protect the civil 
liberties and civil rights of all Americans.
  Let me discuss some of my concerns with Senator Sessions' nomination. 
In this debate, I do want to mention my resolution calling on President 
Trump to divest his interest and sever his relationship to the Trump 
organization. My resolution was first introduced last year. It is 
intended to uphold the value and strictures of one of the most sacred 
documents: the Constitution, the instrument that the President took an 
oath to preserve, protect, and defend. It makes clear that Congress 
will consider all transactions by foreign governments and their agents 
with the Trump organization as potential violations of the emoluments 
clause of the Constitution.
  The Attorney General is likewise sworn to uphold the U.S. 
Constitution and provide legal advice to President Trump and the 
various Cabinet departments. He must exercise independent judgment. I 
am concerned as to whether Senator Sessions would, in fact, advise the 
President, as he should, that by holding on to Trump enterprises--by 
not divesting or setting up a blind trust--he is putting himself at 
risk of violating the Constitution of the United States.
  It is not what the President wants to hear; it is what he must hear. 
We need

[[Page S849]]

an independent Attorney General in order to make that recommendation to 
the President of the United States.
  Senator Sessions has strongly supported restrictive voter ID laws 
that have had the effect of disenfranchising many otherwise eligible 
voters and are frankly modern-day poll taxes. He has called the Voting 
Rights Act intrusive as it seeks to protect minority voters. He praised 
the Supreme Court's ruling in Shelby County v. Holder, which gutted a 
key part of the Voting Rights Act, saying that it was ``a good day for 
the South'' when the decision was handed down.
  Our next Attorney General should be working on how to expand the 
franchise, not restrict it. Now President Trump has said he will direct 
Vice President Pence to lead a task force or commission to examine so-
called voter fraud in the 2016 Presidential election.
  We need an independent Attorney General.
  Why is President Trump taking this action? Because Hillary Clinton 
won the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes, and that gets under his 
skin. He feels slighted. He feels his legitimacy is brought into 
question. It doesn't matter that he won the electoral vote. So the 
President will direct the Vice President, and presumably his next 
Attorney General, to investigate these bogus claims of voter fraud. 
Instead, the new Attorney General should examine voter suppression and 
disenfranchisement in the elections. I fear this new study on 
widespread ``voter fraud'' is simply a pretext to impose more onerous 
restrictions on the right to vote--to try to keep a certain segment of 
Americans--making it more difficult for them to vote because they may 
be more likely to vote for someone other than Mr. Trump. That is not 
what the Attorney General should be doing.
  Based on his record, Senator Sessions would work with the Trump 
administration to further restrict the right to vote and roll back the 
clock on this cherished civil right, which is protected by our 
Constitution.
  On the issue of immigration, Senator Sessions has a long record where 
he has fought against bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform in 
the Senate. He led the efforts in 2007 and in 2013 to defeat bipartisan 
legislation in the Senate. He used the untruthful ``amnesty'' tag to 
describe the tough-but-fair pathway to citizenship in this legislation, 
which passed by a 68-to-32 vote in 2013. He has opposed relief for the 
DREAMers and has opposed the Delayed Action for Childhood Arrivals--
DACA--program. He supported anti-immigration State laws in Arizona and 
elsewhere that the Supreme Court has struck down as unconstitutional.
  During the Presidential campaign, Mr. Trump issued a press release 
``calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the 
United States.'' Several days later, Senator Leahy offered a resolution 
in the Judiciary Committee that stated, ``It is the sense of the Senate 
that the United States must not bar individuals from entering the 
United States based on their religion, as such action would be contrary 
to the fundamental principles of which this nation was founded.'' The 
vote was 16 to 4 in favor of the Leahy resolution. Senator Sessions 
voted no and spoke against the resolution for nearly half an hour and 
concluded by stating that the Leahy resolution ``goes beyond being 
unwise. It is reckless. It is absolute and without qualification. It 
could have pernicious impacts for decades, even centuries to come. It 
may be even a step from the concept of the nation-state to the idea of 
`global citizenship.' ''
  Barring a religious test of people coming into our Nation would 
create that type of a Nation? That is who we are as a Nation. Those are 
our core values. We embrace diversity.
  Senator Sessions' views are far outside the mainstream and would 
unsettle many years of law and precedent that protect individual 
religious beliefs. I am gravely concerned about how an Attorney General 
Sessions would advise President Trump on the lawfulness of a Muslim 
ban. He recently issued his Executive order, which a district court has 
put on hold and is now being challenged in the Ninth Circuit. I 
cosponsored legislation to rescind President Trump's discriminatory 
Executive order barring immigrants from Muslim-majority countries and 
suspending the U.S. refugee program.

  I am also concerned as to how Attorney General Sessions would advise 
the President on matters of immigration. Former Acting Attorney General 
Sally Yates was fired and her conduct was called shameful by President 
Trump, simply because she was upholding the Constitution, giving her 
advice. The President has criticized the ``so-called judge'' who 
temporarily stayed his travel ban with an ``outrageous'' decision, and 
said that the judge would be blamed if a terrorist attack occurred in 
the United States. The Attorney General has to be able to stand up to 
even the President with these reckless words and actions. We need an 
independent Attorney General who will uphold the Constitution and 
recognize that he is not the President's attorney, he is the people's 
attorney. I am not convinced that Attorney General Sessions would be 
that type of person.
  Senator Sessions led the opposition to the nomination of my fellow 
Marylander Tom Perez to be the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil 
Rights Division at the Department of Justice when President Obama 
nominated him in 2009. At the time, Senator Sessions said:

       I am also concerned Mr. Perez will not be committed to 
     fully enforcing our Nation's immigration laws, some I have 
     worked hard on. We need to create a lawful system of 
     immigration. . . . He previously served as the President of 
     the Board of CASA of Maryland, an immigrant advocacy 
     organization that has taken some extreme views and been 
     criticized by a number of people in the media. CASA of 
     Maryland issued a pamphlet instructing immigrants confronted 
     by the police to remain silent. CASA also promotes day labor 
     sites. This is where people, often without lawful status, 
     come and seek work . . . and [they] oppose restrictions on 
     illegal immigrants receiving drivers' licenses. He was 
     President of the Board.

  That was Senator Sessions' quote. Senator Sessions also commented on 
Mr. Perez directly:

       I am concerned where Mr. Perez will be in this [running the 
     Department of Justice Civil Rights Division]. He has been 
     pretty active politically. When he ran for the Montgomery, 
     MD, county council he responded to a question asking, `What 
     would you like the voters to know about you?' Mr. Perez said: 
     `I am a progressive Democrat and always was and always will 
     be.' This is a free country and that is all right. I am just 
     saying, in all fairness, that statement makes me a little 
     nervous.

  Again, quoting from Senator Sessions. The Senate did right by my 
friend and colleague Tom Perez. He was confirmed by the Senate to the 
Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice by a 72-to-22 vote. 
Now, I understand people may have a reason to vote one way or the 
other, but the reasons stated by Senator Sessions in regard to Mr. 
Perez caused me great, great concern. Senator Sessions again opposed 
Mr. Perez when he was later nominated to be Secretary of Labor. In both 
of these cases, Senator Sessions' views were far outside the mainstream 
on Mr. Perez.
  As the senior Senator from Maryland, I know CASA of Maryland. I have 
been there. I have seen the people they service. They do extraordinary 
work to help the immigrant community. They are not a fringe advocacy 
group. While Mr. Perez is a progressive, he is a dedicated public 
servant, having been elected by the people of Maryland to the 
Montgomery County Council and appointed by President Obama to run the 
Civil Rights Division at the Justice Department and later the Labor 
Department. Mr. Perez worked to expand the right to vote, protect the 
rights of all Americans, and ensure American workers had a decent wage 
and employers treated their employees with fairness and respect.
  I fear Attorney General Sessions would turn back the clock on so many 
civil and worker rights that we hold dear as Americans.
  Senator Sessions opposed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate 
Crimes Prevention Act. Senator Sessions supported a constitutional 
amendment to ban same-sex marriages, opposed the repeal of don't ask, 
don't tell in the military, and harshly criticized the Supreme Court's 
recent decision legalizing same-sex marriages across the country. He 
harshly criticized the Court for redefining a ``sacred and ancient 
institution,'' and called the ruling ``part of a continuing effort to 
secularize, by force and intimidation'' the Nation. Once again, I fear 
an Attorney General Sessions would turn back the clock on LGBT rights 
to a

[[Page S850]]

time when individuals would no longer have the legal right to marry the 
person they love.
  Senator Sessions voted against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, the 
Paycheck Fairness Act, title X funding for contraception, breast 
screening, and health services for low-income women, and 
reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. He voted to defund 
Planned Parenthood. I am concerned whether Senator Sessions would 
enforce equal rights and protection for women as our next Attorney 
General.
  Senator Sessions has consistently fought against criminal justice 
reform in the Senate and led the effort to defeat the recent bipartisan 
proposals that would modestly reduce sentencing disparities and ease 
ex-offenders' reentry into society.
  Senator Sessions opposed my Ramos and Liu blue alert act due to 
fiscal concerns, even though the legislation cost was scored at nominal 
or less than $1 million for implementation by CBO. Law enforcement 
agencies strongly supported my legislation, which was signed into law 
by President Obama in 2015. Blue Alert helps our law enforcement 
officers, those who are threatened or endangered or where there has 
been an incident. It gives law enforcement the opportunity to apprehend 
the suspect in a timely way. It scored nominal or less than $1 million, 
and was used by Senator Sessions to block this important tool to help 
our law enforcement officers.
  Senator Sessions has generally condemned the Department of Justice's 
use of its power to investigate law enforcement agencies accused of 
misconduct and a ``pattern and practice'' of violating civil rights, 
calling consent decrees that mandate reform following these 
investigations ``an end run around the democratic process.'' That 
causes me concern because that is an important part of what we are 
doing in my hometown of Baltimore.
  We had a major problem in the Freddie Gray episode. We requested a 
pattern and practice investigation. We are now working with the consent 
decree. The people of Baltimore and the people of Maryland are anxious 
to get this matter moving forward and are anxious to see this consent 
order bring a successful conclusion to that recommendation and 
investigation.
  Senator Sessions led the opposition to Senator Mikulski and my 
recommendation of Paula Xinis to be a U.S. district judge for the 
District of Maryland in the Judiciary Committee and on the floor. The 
Alliance for Justice provided an account of Paula Xinis' confirmation 
hearing, which I will quote from at length here.
  ``Turning to the nominee of the District Court of Maryland, Paula 
Xinis, Senator Sessions unleashed a line of accusatory questions 
suggesting that Xinis' career as a public defender and civil rights 
lawyer showed an `agenda' that she would invariably `bring to the 
bench.' The questions were absurd and unfounded, but they could not be 
dismissed as such. Instead, Mrs. Xinis had to patiently explain that 
protecting the rights of America's most vulnerable and disenfranchised 
had not left her tainted with disqualifying bias.''
  ``Senator Sessions felt compelled to verify that someone with Mrs. 
Xinis' professional background--which also includes time as a complaint 
examiner in the DC Office of Police Complaints--would not be biased 
against police officers. After asking her whether `police have a 
responsibility to try to maintain an orderly and safe environment for 
the people who live in a city' and whether a judge `should show empathy 
for the difficulties that police officers face as well as' for those 
who allege that police have violated their civil rights. Senator 
Sessions closed with this:''
  ``Can you assure the police officers in Baltimore and all over 
Maryland that might be brought before your court that they'll get a 
fair day in court, and that your history would not impact your 
decision-making? And I raise that particularly because I see your firm 
[Billy Murphy] is representing Mr. Freddie Gray in that case that's 
gathered so much attention in Maryland, and there's a lot of law 
enforcement officers throughout the state and they want to know that 
they don't have someone who has an agenda to bring to the bench--can 
you assure them that you won't bring that to the bench?''
  ``The implication is clear: If you defend people against criminal 
prosecutions, and especially if you represent people in civil rights 
cases against police, there is a presumption of bias that you must 
rebut before the Judiciary Committee. One wonders whether Senator 
Sessions has asked a prosecutor if she would bring to her judicial role 
an `agenda' against indigent criminal defendants or if a corporate 
defense lawyer would be biased against employees who allege unlawful 
discrimination or unpaid wages. I doubt very much he would ask that 
same question in that circumstance.''
  ``The depth of this double standard is underscored by Senator 
Sessions' invoking Freddie Gray in particular. Freddie Gray, of course, 
was fatally injured in Baltimore police custody after being arrested 
without cause. His death led to grand jury indictments for six officers 
on homicide and assault charges, and the Department of Justice opened a 
civil rights investigation. Under these circumstances, representing Mr. 
Gray's family hardly seems like an act of radical subversion that would 
call into question one's ability to be fair, but in Senator Sessions' 
view, any challenge to police authority can be done only in pursuit of 
some extralegal `agenda.'''
  Senator Sessions led the floor opposition to Paula Xinis. I am 
pleased to report she was confirmed by the U.S. Senate, and she is now 
one of our distinguished members of the District Court of Maryland, 
where she serves with great distinction.
  Senator Sessions was one of only nine Senators to vote against the 
Detainee Treatment Act, which contained the McCain-Feinstein amendment 
that prohibits ``cruel, inhumane, and degrading'' punishment for 
individuals in American custody. He has left the door open to 
reinstating waterboarding as needed. He has opposed shutting down 
Guantanamo Bay.
  These issues are critically important because we got word of a draft 
Executive order that would bring back these types of torture centers--
which are not only a stain on America's reputation, they are 
counterproductive and against our values and our law. We expect the 
Attorney General of the United States to speak out against such 
reprehensible types of proposals.
  Thomas Jefferson wrote: ``The most sacred of the duties of government 
[is] to do equal and impartial justice to all of its citizens.'' This 
sacred duty remains the guiding principle for the women and men of the 
U.S. Department of Justice, according to the Justice Web site. I would 
urge all of us to keep that in mind.
  I regret I do not have confidence that Senator Sessions will carry 
out this task so I must oppose his nomination.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Daines). The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I rise to express my strong opposition to 
the nomination of Senator Jeff Sessions to serve as Attorney General of 
the United States.
  I ask: Where are the Senators who will say no to the nomination of 
Senator Jeff Sessions as Attorney General of the United States? I hope 
there are at least enough Senators here who understand that America is 
careening over a constitutional cliff and that all of us, regardless of 
political party, need an Attorney General who can be relied on to 
enforce the laws fairly and fight back against lawless overreach by an 
out-of-control President.
  On January 27, the world turned upside down for tens of thousands of 
people directly affected by President Trump's Executive order turning 
America's back on refugees around the world and immigrants from seven 
Muslim-majority countries.
  Last week, I recalled many of their stories. I spoke about students 
and professors, about mothers and children, about friends and 
neighbors, real people who were turned away, detained, or deported 
based solely on their religion or the simple fact that they were 
fleeing war. We all breathed a sigh of relief when a court temporarily 
halted that order, but we know the fight continues to permanently 
overturn this unlawful, unconstitutional, and deeply immoral Executive 
order.
  That isn't all that happened last week. Last week, the Acting 
Attorney General of the United States refused to

[[Page S851]]

defend President Trump's unlawful and unconstitutional Executive order 
so President Trump fired her. That is right, the President of the 
United States fired the Nation's top law enforcement officer for 
refusing to defend an unlawful, unconstitutional, and deeply immoral 
order.
  Last week, after days of slow-walking or ignoring judicial decisions, 
President Trump went on the attack. He raged against the judge who 
temporarily halted his order, calling him a so-called judge and 
questioning his authority to act. That is right. The President of the 
United States attacked the legal authority of an individual district 
court judge, lawfully appointed by George W. Bush and confirmed 
unanimously by the Senate, to pass judgment on Trump's Executive 
orders.
  These are dangerous times. At times like this, it is more important 
than ever that the Attorney General of the United States has the guts, 
the independence, and the good moral judgment to stand up to the 
President when he seeks to violate the Constitution and ignore the law.
  At his confirmation hearing last month, Senator Sessions claimed to 
be that person. I have to say, I wish it were true. I really do. I wish 
the President's campaign had been different. I wish his actions now 
were different. I wish we could give his nominees the benefit of the 
doubt, but I will not ignore the real world, as unpleasant as it is, 
and neither can anyone in this Senate.
  In the real world, Senator Sessions obviously isn't going to stand up 
to the President's campaign of bigotry. How could he? In the real 
world, Senator Sessions is one of the principal architects of that 
campaign.
  Senator Sessions made a special name for himself for being a 
particularly vitriolic opponent of commonsense immigration policies. He 
railed against legal immigrants. He attacked cities and States that 
focus on keeping their communities safe instead of serving as a 
national deportation force. He called Islam a toxic ideology and a 
threat to our Nation. Despite the plain language of the Constitution, 
Senator Sessions doesn't think that children born in the United States 
should automatically become citizens. He wants to round up and deport 
DREAMers, who were brought to the United States as kids. Does that all 
sound familiar? Well, it should because Senator Sessions was an early 
and energetic supporter of then-candidate Donald Trump, and the Senator 
played a key role in shaping what has become the most extreme, most 
divisive, and most dangerous immigration policies of any President in 
decades.
  Senator Sessions' radical views are not limited to immigration. On 
issue after issue, Senator Sessions has displayed open hostility to the 
rights of all Americans.
  He has made derogatory and racist comments that should have no place 
in our justice system.
  As a Federal prosecutor, he got involved in a voting rights case 
against those who were trying to help American citizens who were 
lawfully registered to vote. Yes, that is right--he brought a case 
against civil rights workers who helped African-American voters submit 
absentee ballots.
  While serving as Alabama's attorney general, he reportedly made 
numerous racist comments, including saying he thought the KKK was OK 
until he learned that they smoked weed.
  He called a White attorney representing Black clients in a civil 
rights case a disgrace to his race.
  He claimed that the NAACP and the ACLU were un-American.
  In a speech in 2006, he said: ``Fundamentally, almost no one coming 
from the Dominican Republic to the United States is coming here because 
they have a provable skill that would benefit us and that would 
indicate their likely success in our society.'' According to Sessions, 
Dominicans come to the United States by engaging in fraud.
  Senator Sessions is also extraordinarily hostile to any effort to 
root out discrimination based on gender or sexual orientation. 
According to Senator Sessions, marriage equality is a threat to the 
American culture.
  Roe v. Wade is constitutionally unsound.
  Employers should be able to fire you because they don't like whom you 
love.
  He voted against equal pay for equal work.
  He even voted against the Violence Against Women Act.
  It doesn't stop there. On crime, Senator Sessions' solution is to 
lock up people for even minor, low-level offenses; throw away the key. 
He has advocated for expanding prisons for youth, aggressively 
prosecuting marijuana offenses, and eliminating parole or reduced 
prison time for good behavior.
  During the 2016 Presidential campaign, he heaped praise on then-
candidate Donald Trump for having once taken out a racially tinged 
full-page newspaper ad advocating for the death penalty for the Central 
Park Five, the Black and Latino teenagers who were falsely accused and 
convicted of raping a young woman in New York's Central Park.
  Senator Sessions is not a plain-old conservative Republican. No. 
Senator Sessions occupies a place way out at the radical fringe of his 
party, regularly taking positions that are far more extreme than his 
other Republican colleagues. For example, when Republicans and 
Democrats came together to pass a commonsense, bipartisan immigration 
bill, Senator Sessions worked overtime to make sure the bill did not 
make it through the House. When Republicans and Democrats came together 
to propose legislation to reform our broken Federal criminal sentencing 
laws, Senator Sessions was part of the handful of Senators who ensured 
that the bill would not get a vote here in the Senate.
  Senator Sessions has been a public figure for decades. None of this--
none of this is secret, and much of it is completely indefensible, but 
President Trump wants this man. So the same Republican Senators who 
once fought Senator Sessions tooth and nail have now launched a massive 
PR campaign to try to repair his public image.
  That case against the civil rights workers helping Blacks in Alabama 
to vote? Hey, you go it all wrong. He was just trying to help out other 
African Americans who were concerned about voting irregularities.
  His vote against the Violence Against Women Act? His position on 
LGBTQ rights? His opposition to a woman's right to choose? Hey, don't 
worry about it. He says he will vigorously enforce the law once he 
becomes Attorney General. Give me a break.
  The law enforcement power of the United States of America is an 
awesome thing. In the right hands, in steady and impartial hands, it 
can be used to defend all of us, to defend our laws, to defend our 
Constitution. In the wrong hands, it can be used to bully and 
intimidate the defenseless, to destroy lives, to undermine American 
democracy itself.
  Senator Sessions is not misunderstood. Senator Sessions has never 
been misunderstood. For decades, it has been absolutely clear where he 
stands. Now the time is here for every Senator to make absolutely clear 
where they stand as well.
  Let's be clear. Winning a seat in the U.S. Senate does not exempt a 
Cabinet nominee from the close scrutiny that all nominees to lead our 
government deserve. It does not change the Senate's constitutional 
responsibility to examine a nominee to make certain that nominee will 
faithfully and fairly enforce the laws of the United States of America. 
It does not relieve the Senate of its duty to reject nominees whose 
records demonstrate that they will not stand up for American values and 
constitutional principles.
  When it comes to the Senate confirming someone to be Attorney 
General--the highest law enforcement officer in this country--we are 
all personally responsible for that choice. To put Senator Sessions in 
charge of the Department of Justice is an insult to African Americans. 
To put Senator Sessions in charge of the Department of Justice is a 
direct threat to immigrants. To put Senator Sessions in charge of the 
Department of Justice is a deliberate affront to every LGBTQ person. To 
put Senator Sessions in charge of the Department of Justice is an 
affront to women.
  I ask again, where are the Senators who will say no to Senator 
Sessions as Attorney General of the United States? Thirty years ago, a 
Republican-controlled Senate took the extraordinary step of rejecting 
Senator Sessions' nomination to serve as a Federal judge.

[[Page S852]]

They had the courage to stand up for the principles that transcend 
party affiliation--fairness, equality, justice for all. Their rejection 
sent a message that that kind of dangerous, toxic hatred has no place 
in our courts. I urge them again today to exert that moral leadership 
and to send a message that this kind of dangerous, toxic hatred has no 
place in our Justice Department. I urge them to set aside politics and 
do what they know is right.
  I wish to read two statements that really stood out to me as I was 
reviewing Senator Sessions' record on civil rights. One is the powerful 
speech that the late Senator from Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy, gave in 
1986, and the other is a very moving letter from Coretta Scott King, a 
letter she wrote to the Judiciary Committee that same year.
  I want to start with what Senator Kennedy said. He said:

       The confirmation of nominees for lifetime appointments to 
     the Federal judiciary is one of the most important 
     responsibilities of the Senate mandated by the U.S. 
     Constitution, and the examination by the Senate of a 
     nominee's fitness to serve as a Federal judge is the last 
     opportunity to determine whether the candidate possesses the 
     education, experience, skills, integrity, and, most 
     importantly, the commitment to equal justice under law, which 
     are essential attributes of a Federal judge.
       Once confirmed, a Federal judge literally has life and 
     death authority over citizens that appear before him, with 
     limited review of his decisions. Our Federal judiciary is the 
     guardian of the rights and liberties guaranteed to all of us 
     by the U.S. Constitution, and the decisions of fellow judges 
     are constantly shaping and reshaping those rights and 
     liberties.
       This committee has a duty to our citizens to carefully 
     examine the qualifications of nominees for the Federal bench 
     and to give our approval only to those who have demonstrated 
     a personal commitment to the principle of equality for all 
     Americans and a sensitivity to the long history of inequality 
     which we are still struggling to overcome.

  Mr. Sessions, as a U.S. attorney for the Southern District of 
Alabama, comes to this committee with a record which regrettably 
includes presiding over the now-infamous so-called Perry County voting 
fraud prosecutions. In the Perry County case, the government indicted 
three well-known and highly respected Black civil rights activists on 
charges of voter fraud and assisting elderly Black voters to vote by 
absentee ballot. But for the efforts of the defendants 20 years ago, 
these Black citizens would not have been allowed to vote. All three of 
the defendants were acquitted on all charges in the indictments, and 
some of the elderly Blacks have responded to their experiences during 
the prosecution, vowing never to vote again. Mr. Sessions' role in that 
case alone should bar him from serving on the Federal bench.
  There is more--much more. We just received a sworn statement from a 
Justice Department attorney I know--which will be the subject of a good 
deal of questioning during the course of this hearing--who has worked 
on civil rights cases with Mr. Sessions over the period Sessions was 
U.S. attorney. Mr. Huber has stated to the committee investigators that 
Mr. Sessions on more than one occasion has characterized the NAACP and 
the ACLU as un-American, Communist-inspired organizations. Mr. Huber 
reports that Mr. Sessions said that these organizations did more harm 
than good when they were trying to force civil rights down the throats 
of people who were trying to put problems behind them. Mr. Huber also 
stated that Mr. Sessions suggested that a prominent White civil rights 
lawyer who litigated voting rights cases was a disgrace to his race for 
doing it. Mr. Sessions is a throwback to a shameful era which I know 
both Black and White Americans thought was in our past.

  It is inconceivable to me that a person of this attitude is qualified 
to be a U.S. attorney, let alone a U.S. Federal judge.
  ``He is, I believe, a disgrace to the Justice Department, and he 
should withdraw his nomination and resign his position.'' Those were 
the words of Senator Ted Kennedy, and I will stand with Senator 
Kennedy, and, like he did, I will cast my vote against the nomination 
of Senator Sessions.
  Coretta Scott King also wrote to the Judiciary Committee about the 
Sessions nomination in 1986. This is what she wrote:

       Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee:
       Thank you for allowing me this opportunity to express my 
     strong opposition to the nomination of Jefferson Sessions for 
     a federal district judgeship for the Southern District of 
     Alabama. My longstanding commitment, which I shared with my 
     husband, Martin, to protect and enhance the rights of Black 
     Americans, rights which include equal access to the 
     democratic process, compels me to testify today.
       Civil rights leaders, including my husband and Albert 
     Turner, have fought long and hard to achieve free and 
     unfettered access to the ballot box. Mr. Sessions has used 
     the awesome power of his office to chill the free exercise of 
     the vote by black citizens in the district he now seeks to 
     serve as a federal judge. This simply cannot be allowed to 
     happen. Mr. Sessions' conduct as U.S. Attorney, from his 
     politically-motivated voting fraud prosecutions to his 
     indifference toward criminal violations of civil rights laws, 
     indicates that he lacks the temperament, fairness and 
     judgment to be a federal judge.
       The Voting Rights Act was, and still is, vitally important 
     to the future of democracy in the United States. I was 
     privileged to join Martin and many others during the Selma to 
     Montgomery march for voting rights in 1965. Martin was 
     particularly impressed by the determination to get the 
     franchise of blacks in Selma and neighboring Perry County. As 
     he wrote, ``Certainly no community in the history of the 
     Negro struggle has responded with the enthusiasm of Selma and 
     her neighboring town of Marion. Where Birmingham depended 
     largely upon students and unemployed adults [to participate 
     in non-violent protest of the denial of the franchise], Selma 
     has involved fully 10 per cent of the Negro population in 
     active demonstrations, and at least half the Negro population 
     of Marion was arrested on one day.''

  Mrs. King continues:

       Martin was referring of course to a group that included the 
     defendants recently prosecuted for assisting elderly and 
     illiterate blacks to exercise that franchise. In fact, Martin 
     anticipated from the depth of their commitment twenty years 
     ago, that a united political organization would remain in 
     Perry County long after the other marchers had left. This 
     organization, the Perry County Civic League, started by Mr. 
     Turner, Mr. Hogue and others, as Martin predicted, continued 
     ``to direct the drive for votes and other rights.'' In the 
     years since the Voting Rights Act was passed, Black Americans 
     in Marion, Selma and elsewhere, have made important strides 
     in their struggle to participate actively in the electoral 
     process. The number of Blacks registered to vote in key 
     Southern states has doubled since 1965. This would not have 
     been possible without the Voting Rights Act.
       However, Blacks still fall far short of having equal 
     participation in the electoral process. Particularly in the 
     South, efforts continue to be made to deny Blacks access to 
     the polls, even where Blacks constitute the majority of the 
     voters. It has been a long, up-hill struggle to keep alive 
     the vital legislation that protects the most fundamental 
     right to vote. A person who has exhibited so much hostility 
     to the enforcement of those laws----

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is reminded that it is a violation 
of rule XIX of the Standing Rules of the Senate to impute to another 
Senator or to other Senators any conduct or motive unworthy or 
unbecoming a Senator.
  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I don't think I quite understand. I am 
reading a letter from Coretta Scott King to the Judiciary Committee 
from 1986 that was admitted into the Record. I am simply reading what 
she wrote about what the nomination of Jeff Sessions to be a Federal 
court judge meant and what it would mean in history for her.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. This is a reminder--not necessarily what you 
just shared--however, you stated that a sitting Senator is a disgrace 
to the Department of Justice.
  Ms. WARREN. I think that may have been Senator Kennedy who said that 
in the record, although I would be glad to repeat it in my own words.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The rule applies to imputing conduct or 
motive, through any form or voice, to a sitting Senator; form or voice 
includes quotes, articles, or other materials.
  Ms. WARREN. So quoting Senator Kennedy, calling then-Nominee Sessions 
a disgrace, is a violation of Senate rules? It was certainly not in 
1986.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. In the opinion of the Chair, it is, and the 
Senator is warned.
  Ms. WARREN. So let me understand. Can I ask a question, in the 
opinion of the Chair? I want to understand what this rule means.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state her inquiry.
  Ms. WARREN. Is it the contention of the Chair, under the rules of the 
Senate, I am not allowed to accurately describe public views of Senator 
Sessions, public positions of Senator Sessions, quote public statements 
of Senator Sessions?

[[Page S853]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair has not made a ruling with respect 
to the Senator's comments. The Senator is following process and 
tradition by reminding the Senator from Massachusetts of the rule and 
to which it applies.
  Ms. WARREN. I am asking what this rule means in this context. So can 
I continue with Coretta Scott King's letter?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may continue.
  Ms. WARREN. Thank you. I will pick up, then, with Mrs. King's letter 
to the Judiciary Committee when the Judiciary Committee was 
considering, not then-Senator Sessions, Nominee Sessions for a position 
on the Federal bench.
  She makes the point:

       However, Blacks still fall far short of having equal 
     participation in the electoral process. Particularly in the 
     South, efforts continue to be made to deny Blacks access to 
     the polls, even where Blacks constitute the majority of the 
     voters. It has been a long, up-hill struggle to keep alive 
     the vital legislation that protects the most fundamental 
     right to vote. A person who has exhibited so much hostility 
     to the enforcement of those laws, and thus, to the exercise 
     of those rights by Black people, should not be elevated to 
     the federal bench.
       The irony of Mr. Sessions' nomination is that if confirmed, 
     he will be given life tenure for doing with a federal 
     prosecution what the local sheriffs accomplished twenty years 
     ago with clubs and cattle prods. Twenty years ago, when we 
     marched from Selma to Montgomery, the fear of voting was 
     real, as the broken bones and bloody heads in Selma and 
     Marion bore witness. As my husband wrote at the time, ``it 
     was not just a sick imagination that conjured up the vision 
     of a public official, sworn to uphold the law, who forced an 
     inhuman march upon hundreds of Negro children; who ordered 
     the Rev. James Bevel to be chained to his sickbed; who 
     clubbed a Negro woman registrant, and who callously inflicted 
     repeated brutalities and indignities upon nonviolent Negroes 
     peacefully petitioning for their constitutional right to 
     vote.''
       Free exercise of voting rights is so fundamental to 
     American democracy, that we can not tolerate any form of 
     infringement of those rights. Of all the groups who have been 
     disenfranchised in our nation's history, none has struggled 
     longer or suffered more in the attempt to win the vote than 
     Black citizens. No group has had access to the ballot box 
     denied so persistently and intently. Over the past century, a 
     broad array of schemes have been used in attempts to block 
     the Black vote. The range of techniques developed with the 
     purpose of repressing black voting rights run the gambit from 
     the straightforward application of brutality against black 
     citizens who tried to vote to such legalized frauds as 
     ``grandfather clause'' exclusions and rigged literacy tests.
       The actions taken by Mr. Sessions in regard to the 1984 
     voting fraud prosecutions represent just one more technique 
     used to intimidate Black voters, and thus deny them this most 
     precious franchise. The investigations into the absentee 
     voting process were conducted only in the Black Belt 
     counties, where blacks had finally achieved political power 
     in the local government. Whites had been using the absentee 
     process to their advantage for years, without incident. Then, 
     when Blacks, realizing its strength, began to use it with 
     success, criminal investigations were begun.
       In these investigations, Mr. Sessions, as U.S. Attorney, 
     exhibited an eagerness to bring to trial and convict three 
     leaders of the Perry County Civic League, including Albert 
     Turner despite evidence clearly demonstrating their innocence 
     of any wrongdoing. Furthermore, in initiating the case, Mr. 
     Sessions ignored allegations of similar behavior by whites, 
     choosing instead to chill the exercise of the franchise by 
     blacks by his misguided investigation. In fact, Mr. Sessions 
     sought to punish older black civil rights activists, advisors 
     and colleagues of my husband, who had been key figures in the 
     civil rights movement in the 1960's. These were persons who, 
     realizing the potential of the absentee vote among Blacks, 
     had learned to use the process within the bounds of legality, 
     and had taught others to do the same. The only sin they 
     committed was being too successful in gaining votes.
       The scope and character of the investigations conducted by 
     Mr. Sessions also warrant grave concern. Witnesses were 
     selectively chosen in accordance with the favorability of 
     their testimony to the government's case. Also, the 
     prosecution illegally withheld from the defense, critical 
     statements made by witnesses. Witnesses who did testify were 
     pressured and intimidated into submitting the ``correct'' 
     testimony. Many elderly blacks were visited multiple times by 
     the FBI, who then hauled them over 180 miles by bus to a 
     grand jury in Mobile when they could have more easily have 
     testified at a grand jury twenty miles away in Selma. These 
     voters, and others, have announced they are now never going 
     to vote again.
       I urge you to consider carefully Mr. Sessions' conduct in 
     these matters. Such a review, I believe, raises serious 
     questions about his commitment to the protection of the 
     voting rights of all American citizens. And consequently his 
     fair and unbiased judgment regarding this fundamental 
     right. When the circumstances and facts surrounding the 
     indictments of Al Turner, his wife, Evelyn, and Spencer 
     Hogue are analyzed, it becomes clear that the motivation 
     was political, and the result frightening--the wide-scale 
     chill of the exercise of the ballot for blacks, who 
     suffered so much to receive that right in the first place. 
     Therefore, it is my strongly-held view that the 
     appointment of Jefferson Sessions to the federal bench 
     would irreparably damage the work of my husband, Al 
     Turner, and countless others who risked their lives and 
     freedom over the past twenty years to ensure equal 
     participation in our democratic system.
       The exercise of the franchise is an essential means by 
     which our citizens ensure that those who are governing will 
     be responsible. My husband called it the number one civil 
     right. The denial of access to the ballot box ultimately 
     results in the denial of other fundamental rights. For, it is 
     only when the poor and disadvantaged are empowered that they 
     are able to participate actively in the solutions to their 
     own problems.
       We still have a long way to go before we can say that 
     minorities no longer need to be concerned about the 
     discrimination at the polls. Blacks, Hispanics, Native 
     Americans, and Asian Americans are grossly underrepresented 
     at every level of government in America. If we are going to 
     make our timeless dream of justice through democracy a 
     reality, we must take every possible step to ensure that the 
     spirit and intent of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the 
     Fifteenth Amendment of the Constitution is honored.
       The federal courts hold a unique position in our 
     constitutional system, ensuring that minorities and other 
     citizens without political power have a forum in which to 
     vindicate their rights. Because of this unique role, it is 
     essential that the people selected to be federal judges 
     respect the basic tenets of our legal system: respect for 
     individual rights and a commitment to equal justice for all. 
     The integrity of the Courts, and thus the rights they 
     protect, can only be maintained if citizens feel confident 
     that those selected as federal judges will be able to judge 
     with fairness others holding different views.
       I do not believe Jefferson Sessions possesses the requisite 
     judgment, competence, and sensitivity to the rights 
     guaranteed by the federal civil rights laws to qualify for 
     appointment to the federal district court. Based on his 
     record, I believe his confirmation would have a devastating 
     effect on not only the judicial system in Alabama, but also 
     on the progress we have made everywhere toward fulfilling my 
     husband's dream that he envisioned over twenty years ago. I 
     therefore urge the Senate Judiciary Committee to deny his 
     confirmation.
       I thank you for allowing me to share my views.

  Mrs. King's views and words ring true today. The integrity of our 
Justice Department depends on an Attorney General who will fight for 
the rights of all people. An honest evaluation of Jeff Sessions' record 
shows that he is not that person.
  My concerns regarding Jeff Sessions go far beyond his disappointing 
record on civil rights. Take immigration, for example. The Daily Beast 
published an article a few weeks ago entitled, ``Donald Trump's Refugee 
Ban Has Attorney General Nominee Jeff Sessions's Fingerprints All Over 
It.'' Here is what the article says:

       To longtime Jeff Sessions observers, the chaos that 
     unfolded in American airports on Saturday morning wasn't a 
     surprise. At all. Rather, the refugee ban was the predictable 
     culmination of years of advocacy from two of President Donald 
     Trump's most trusted advisors: White House Senior Advisor 
     Stephen Miller, and attorney general designate Jeff Sessions. 
     For years, Sessions and Miller--who was the Alabama Senator's 
     communications director before leaving to join the Trump 
     campaign--pushed research and talking points designed to make 
     Americans afraid of refugees.
       Press releases, email forwards, speeches on the Senate 
     floor--Miller and Sessions used it all to make the case 
     against Obama's refugee program was a huge terror threat. The 
     executive order Trump signed late in the day on Friday is 
     just the logical conclusion of their work.
       I started getting press releases that Miller sent on behalf 
     of Jeff Sessions in March 2013, shortly after I moved to D.C. 
     to cover Congress. The emails went to my Gmail, and kept 
     coming over the years--hundreds and hundreds of them. By the 
     time he left Sessions' office to join the Trump campaign, 
     Miller's press releases were legendary among Hill reporters: 
     There were just so many of them at all hours of the day, and 
     they never stopped. Some were lengthy diatribes; some were 
     detailed, homemade charts; some were one-liners; one was just 
     a link to Facebook's stock page on Google Finance with the 
     subject line, ``Does this mean that Facebook has enough money 
     now to hire Americans?''
       ``I wanted to put together a little book of the best emails 
     I ever sent,'' Miller told Politico last June. ``I spent 
     hours and hours of research on those.''
       Some of that research had serious methodological problems, 
     according to Alex Nowrasteh, an immigration expert at the 
     libertarian Cato Institute.

[[Page S854]]

       ``Miller's work vastly overstates the threat of foreign 
     terrorists to the homeland,'' Nowrasteh said.
       He pointed to Miller's efforts to chronicle cases of 
     refugees implicated in terrorist activity. It is true that 
     some refugees in the U.S. have been indicted for terrorism-
     related crimes, Nowrasteh said. But instances of refugees 
     actually planning terror attacks on American soil, he added, 
     were vanishingly rare.

  ``Almost all the refugees that I was able to specifically identify in 
his set were trying to support a foreign terrorist organization, mostly 
Al Shabab in Somalia, by giving them money or something like 
that,'' Nowrasteh said. ``I don't know about you, but I think there's a 
big difference between sending a militia in your home country funds and 
trying to blow up a mall in Cincinnati.''

       The collective effect of Miller and Sessions' messaging was 
     to enthusiastically push a narrative that now dominates the 
     Trump administration: that refugees and other immigrants 
     steal Americans' jobs, suck up too much welfare money, 
     incubate terrorists in their communities and, overall, are a 
     big problem.
       The conclusion was always the same: The government should 
     let in far fewer refugees, and it should think twice about 
     welcoming Muslims.
       And now, that's exactly what Trump is doing.
       For instance, in one ``Dear Colleague'' letter that 
     Sessions co-authored with conservative Republican Rep. David 
     Brat--a letter Miller blasted out to his press list--the 
     would-be Attorney General ripped into the refugee program.
       ``There can be no higher duty as lawmakers than to keep our 
     constituents and their families safe,'' Brat and Sessions 
     wrote. ``Yet our reckless refugee programs, lax green card 
     and visa policies, utter failure to enforce rampant visa 
     overstays, along with our wide open southern border, put the 
     U.S. at grave and needless risk.''
       ``Grave and needless risk''--it is a view that clearly 
     informs Trump's decision to temporarily ban refugees.
       And a Miller press release, blasted out on November 25, 
     2015, included this ominous title: ``U.S. Issued 680,000 
     Green Cards to Migrants from Muslim Nations Over the Last 5 
     Years.''
       Sessions then forwarded that email to his email list on 
     Jan. 12, 2016, the day of Obama's final State of the Union 
     address, and added this note: ``Some numerical context for 
     any discussions of refugee policy that may arise tonight. As 
     further context, the top-sending country for migrants are 
     Iraq and Pakistan, according to Pew, `Nearly all Muslims in 
     Afghanistan (99%) and most in Iraq (91%) and Pakistan (84%) 
     support Sharia law as official law.' ''
       The implication was clear as a bell: Muslim immigrants are 
     flooding into the U.S., and they are bringing Sharia with 
     them. Someone who agreed with Miller's assessment would do 
     what Trump just did.
       Just about any time a refugee living in the U.S. was 
     charged, implicated, or otherwise connected to terrorism, 
     Miller emailed his list about it.
       Another Sessions press release, sent jointly with Sen. 
     Richard Shelby, also included ominous intonations about 
     refugees and Muslims.
       ``Congress must cancel the President's blank refugee check 
     and put Congress back in charge of the program,'' Sessions 
     and Shelby said. ``We cannot allow the President to 
     unilaterally decide how many refugees he wishes to admit, nor 
     continue to force taxpayers to pick up the tab for tens of 
     billions of unpaid-for welfare and entitlement costs.''
       ``The omnibus''--

  Still quoting the letter from Senators Shelby and Sessions--

     would put the U.S. on a path to approve admission for 
     hundreds of thousands of migrants from a broad range of 
     countries with jihadist movements over the next 12 months, on 
     top of all the other autopilot annual immigration--absent 
     language to reduce the numbers,'' the release continued.
       That same statement also suggested that refugees were 
     robbing elderly Americans of their benefits.
       ``Refugees are entitled to access all major welfare 
     programs, and they can also draw benefits directly from the 
     Medicare and Social Security Disability and retirement trust 
     funds--taking those funds straight from the pockets of 
     American retirees who paid into these troubled funds all 
     their lives,'' Sessions and Shelby said.
       Now that Trump is president, those numbers are getting 
     reduced--and fast.
       Another foreboding subject line from Miller showed up in 
     reporters' inboxes on Nov. 20, 2015: ``ICYMI: Each 5 years, 
     U.S. issuing more new green cards to migrants from Muslim 
     nations the population of Washington, D.C.''
       Sessions also took to the Senate floor to argue that Muslim 
     immigrants are uniquely dangerous. On Nov. 19, 2015, the 
     Alabaman said the following about Muslims:
       ``It is an unpleasant but unavoidable fact that bringing in 
     a large unassimilated flow of migrants from the Muslim world 
     creates the conditions possible for radicalization and 
     extremism to take hold.''
       In the speech, Sessions argued that the U.S. should set up 
     safe zones in Syria where refugees could settle--instead of 
     allowing any of them into the United States. Miller emailed 
     reporters as Sessions spoke to highlight his argument. Now 
     it's Trump's position.
       At Breitbart, Julia Hahn covered Sessions' speech, in an 
     article headlined ``Afghanistan Migration Surging into 
     America: 99% Support Sharia Law.'' News broke earlier this 
     week that Hahn got a job in the White House as an assistant 
     to Trump and senior advisor Stephen Bannon.
       And on and on and on, for hundreds of emails, without even 
     a whisper of flip-flopping.
       Trump's crack-down on Muslims and refugees should not 
     surprise anyone. He is just taking his advisors' advice.

  Trump's Executive order sparked protests and resistance all across 
the Nation. People across the country and around the world are standing 
up to say that it contradicts our core values and that it violates the 
law.
  Massachusetts is on the frontlines of challenging this illegal and 
downright offensive Executive order. Last week, Massachusetts Attorney 
General Maura Healey joined a Federal lawsuit to challenge that 
Executive order. This is what she said. I am quoting Attorney General 
Healey:

       Harm to our institutions, our citizens, and our businesses 
     is harm to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. . . . The 
     President's Executive order is a threat to our 
     Constitution. Rather than protecting our national 
     security, it stigmatizes those who would lawfully 
     immigrate to our State. With this policy, our global 
     universities, hospitals, businesses, and startups and far 
     too many students and residents have been put at risk. On 
     behalf of the Commonwealth, my office is challenging the 
     immigration ban to hold this administration accountable 
     for its un-American, discriminatory, and reckless 
     decision-making.

  In 2013, Senator Sessions voted against reauthorizing the Violence 
Against Women Act, a bill that expanded protections and services 
provided to victims of sexual assault and domestic violence.
  There is a piece from the Bedford Minuteman that really tells the 
story of how sexual violence impacts Massachusetts. This is what it 
said: ``They are mothers, daughters, sisters, fathers, sons, and 
brothers.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Majority leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the Senator has impugned the motives 
and conduct of our colleague from Alabama, as warned by the Chair.
  Senator Warren said Senator Sessions ``has used the awesome power of 
his office to chill the free exercise of the vote by Black citizens.''
  I call the Senator to order under the provisions of rule XIX.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I am surprised that the words of Coretta 
Scott King are not suitable for debate in the United States Senate.
  I ask leave of the Senate to continue my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator will take her seat.


                   Appealing the Ruling of the Chair