[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 20 (Monday, February 6, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S873-S921]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EXECUTIVE CALENDAR--Continued
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I rise this evening to continue the
dialogue of the conversation about the candidate, the nominee for
Attorney General. I rise to join my colleagues in opposition to the
nomination.
I witnessed earlier tonight something that greatly disappointed me.
One of my colleagues, as was mentioned earlier, stood up to read into
the Record a letter, as we just saw, that has been a part of the record
of this body for decades--to read that letter into the Record. That was
then stopped through the Chair because it was said to impugn another
sitting Senator.
As Chuck Schumer said, that is selective enforcement, but to me there
is that going on and a lot more.
I used to preside in the first months I was in the U.S. Senate and
sat and listened to the speeches of many of my colleagues. I have to
say, I am proud to be a Member of the body, where folks on both sides
comport themselves with a level of comity that is admirable.
I heard some people tonight decry the descending of this body into
unfortunate places, but the reality is, my experience has been, on the
whole, very positive. The respect and the collegiality here is
something that makes this place incredibly valuable to work. Though the
public might not see it, there are a lot of bills that get worked on
together and even get to the floor, many of them get votes, many of
them get passed. I am proud to have passed many of those bills with my
colleagues, colleagues whom I don't just consider colleagues; frankly,
I consider them friends.
But within that context, I have to say I have watched when I sat in
the Chair and had to listen many times when people said things that
made me feel they were unfortunate. I watched the President of the
United States talk about his character and his motives in ways that I
thought were disparaging, but amidst all of this, in my 3 years, I have
never seen someone stopped from speaking on the Senate floor when, as
the Democratic leader said so clearly, there could have been many other
times where that rule was used, and that is a frustration.
But what makes it more of a frustration is the context in which it
happened tonight. You see, Senator Warren stood up and was speaking
with a passion about this nomination. And in the midst of her speaking
her truth, in the midst of her speaking her heart, she was stopped as
she read something into the Record that had been there for decades. To
me that is problematic not just because it was a regular speech but
because this had to do with her constitutional duty of providing advice
and consent. She wasn't just quoting someone, something that she heard
on the street, some hearsay. She was actually quoting Coretta Scott
King, a civil rights hero, the wife of the slain Martin Luther King,
who we, as Americans in our Nation--we don't have many of them--
literally recognize with a national holiday. So that makes it all the
more disturbing to me that Senator Warren would stand up, exercising
what is one of her specifically constitutional, mandated duties and was
stopped because of a rule being enforced that in my opinion, as well as
Leader Schumer's, is selectively enforced. But let's go further into
the fact that the contents of that letter, much of it shared, are
actually substantive and have bearing on the thoughts and feelings of
many people in the Senate.
I was raised by a family who made very clear to me something that I
think Elie Wiesel said: The opposite of love is not hate, it is
silence. It is a profound sin to witness injustice, to see something
wrong, and to simply be a bystander, to not speak up.
What I respect about many of my colleagues, even those with whom I
disagree--and what I respect about Senator Warren--is that they embody
a tradition that I was taught by my parents: to speak truth to power,
to speak truth even if your legs are shaking, even if your voice
quivers. Speak truth. Do not be a bystander. Do not sit in
indifference. Stand up and speak your truth. Do not let your soul be
silenced.
We are here as a country because at a time of rife moral injustice,
people didn't remain silent. This idea of speech in this country is so
important that it is enshrined in the Constitution that we should have
freedom of speech, and, yes, it is not always comfortable to hear.
I sat where the Presiding Officer, the Senator from Alaska, is
sitting, and
[[Page S874]]
there were many times I heard things that were uncomfortable, that I
disagreed with, that I thought were wrong, but this body should respect
the idea of free speech.
Tonight, I am proud of Senator Warren. She stood and told her truth.
To see this body act as it did tonight is disappointing to me, and it
is not a violation of the ideals of comity. It is not.
I heard great conversations from people I revere. Senator Hatch spoke
tonight. He is a great man. I don't agree with him all the time. I
think some of his ideas--I actually think sometimes they are dangerous
ideas, but I respect him. He and Teddy Kennedy--two men who argued with
each other, sometimes with voices raised in a lack of comity--had a
love for each other.
I was told by other senior Senators when I first arrived: Yeah, give
it all you have got in debates. Argue and fight, but understand that in
the end we are all people who love our country.
Nobody is questioning Jeff Sessions' love of country. Nobody here is
questioning his kindness and collegiality. I experienced that. I have
spent 3 years in the Senate. He is far senior to me, and there is no
time that we connected on the floor or in the Senate gym in which he
didn't show me kindness and respect. Let's put that aside.
He and I even stood together and passed a resolution here in this
body to give the Medal of Freedom to marchers across the Edmund Pettus
Bridge. One of those marchers was John Lewis.
Does that mean that if John Lewis believes strongly that to have Jeff
Sessions ascend to the most powerful law enforcement office in the
land, he should remain silent? Does that mean he should be quiet about
that? No. In fact, John Lewis testified in the hearings in the
Judiciary Committee against Jeff Sessions. Why? Because that is our
tradition.
So I start my remarks tonight, aggrieved by what I saw happen to
Elizabeth Warren. In fact, it stunned me. I didn't even believe it when
I heard that a U.S. Senator would be silenced by another U.S. Senator
from reading something that had been in the record for 30 years, as if
somehow we are afraid to hear that truth on that paper or in her heart.
God bless her for standing up and speaking up and refusing to be
silent, and then, in the tradition of the King family, taking the
consequences.
I want to state that what she did respects a difference that is worth
analyzing for a moment. We have colleagues here with whom we disagree.
We are part of the U.S. Senate. There is a lot of respect back and
forth. Again, the senior Senator from Utah is a giant in my eyes. The
eulogy he gave at Senator Teddy Kennedy's funeral was one of my
favorite U.S. Senate moments, even though it didn't happen on this
floor. But it did show that two men could fight and disagree and could
still have respect for each other; two men could raise their voices at
times and have passionate arguments about what they believed in. This
body was designed to bring people of diverse geographies--thank God,
eventually diverse racial backgrounds, diverse gender--all together to
represent our States and to have it out.
No one Senator has supreme power. This is not the Executive branch.
Both sides have to want things. We have to meet a 60-vote threshold on
some occasions. That is the type of power we have here.
When someone from here leaves this position and moves to the
executive branch and is heading an agency, they have tremendous power.
In fact, the Attorney General is one of the most powerful positions in
America and actually even in some sense is independent of the
Presidency. The idea of the Attorney General is that when the President
is wrong, the Attorney General has a role and lets the President know
that, taking the appropriate action.
So while Jeff Sessions is a valued colleague as a Senator, there is a
moral obligation that all of us have enshrined in the Constitution of
the advice and consent power to tell our truth because here our power
as individuals is made manifest by our ability to develop coalitions.
But in the executive branch, especially in the Attorney General's
position, that power is residing in the individual, that power is real,
that power has dramatic effects on the lives of everyday Americans. So
when that is happening, we cannot remain silent.
I am so proud that Senator Elizabeth Warren actually did not just
read a letter of Coretta Scott King; she honored that Martin Luther
King tradition. King said: ``Our lives begin to end the day we begin to
be silent about things that matter.'' King also wrote: ``There comes a
time when silence is betrayal.''
I can't betray my values or my ideals. This body is in many ways a
testimony to the ideals of freedom of speech in America, a body that is
exhibiting in many ways to this country why fervent debate is so
important in the marketplace of ideas.
To silence a voice, to silence a Senator--that is unconscionable
under the pretext that somehow she was impugning the character of
another Senator. That is unacceptable, especially in light of so many
things that have been said on the Senate floor that weren't checked,
weren't called out. But at a time when a Senator is standing strong for
what she believes and speaking her truth, there is what is tantamount
to a censure.
I came to this body on a very auspicious day. It was Halloween. I was
sworn in on Halloween, 2013. It was October, and my election was just
days earlier. Six days before I had been elected to the U.S. Senate, my
father died.
I confess, on that day I was feeling a sense of pride, standing right
over there with the Vice President. I was feeling pride, but I was also
hollow in my heart. I was hurting because I knew my dad would have
wanted to see me become a Senator. This guy who was born poor in a
segregated community in the South, in the mountains of North Carolina,
could never have imagined that one day his son would be sworn in as a
U.S. Senator.
My dad taught me lessons, as so many of our fathers did. I learned
about hard work. I learned about sacrifice. Jane Baldwin said it best:
Children are never good at listening to their elders, but they never
fail to imitate them. I thank God to this day that I had models to
emulate.
But if there is anything my father taught me, it is: Son, you didn't
get where you are on your own. That is interesting for me to hear from
a guy who, by every other measure, was a self-made man. To watch my dad
go at his craft, to watch him work and sacrifice on snow days in New
Jersey, when I was a grade school kid, the first sound I would hear
would be him shoveling the driveway because he was going to be the
first person at work, no matter what. Often I would come home from
school or go to my games and my dad wouldn't be there because he was
going to make sure to be the last one to leave the office, setting the
bar as a manager.
But here was a self-made man, looking at me every step of the way,
and letting me know: Son--sometimes it would be boy--you didn't get
here on your own. I would walk around my house, staring in the
refrigerator, and he would say: Boy, don't you dare walk around this
house like you hit a triple. You were born on third base.
Well, yes, I got it after years because my father said: Son, you are
where you are because of this Nation, not just the values and ideals. I
mean, come on, I want to tell the truth. This is a country that was
formed with a level of genius that I can't take away from, a level of
ascendant thought in the span of human history that is remarkable, and
my father respected that, but he knew that what makes this country real
was not just what our Founders did, it is what average Americans did to
make real the promise of this democracy. Even when challenges occurred
in this country, they didn't think they befell themselves, they somehow
fought to make this country more real.
As great as our Founders are and as great as our Constitution is,
let's look at those documents and be honest with each other. Native
Americans are referred to as savages in our Declaration of
Independence. Women aren't referred to at all. African Americans were
fractions of human beings. What was the spirit that took an imperfect
document and founding ideals and made them more perfect? What was that
spirit?
(Mr. SCOTT assumed the Chair.)
I want to read the words of Thurgood Marshall. He delivered them in
May of 1987. I was a high school student. It was
[[Page S875]]
on the vacation of the bicentennial of the Constitution itself. This is
what he said:
The year 1987 marks the 200th anniversary of the
Constitution. A commission has been established to coordinate
the celebration.
He goes on:
Like many anniversary celebrations, the plan for 1987 takes
particular events and holds them up as the source of all the
very best that followed.
He writes:
Patriotic feelings will swell, prompting proud
proclamations of the wisdom, foresight and sense of justice
shared by the Framers and reflected in a written document now
yellowed with age. This is unfortunate--not the patriotism
itself but the tendency for the celebration to oversimplify,
and overlook the many other events that have been
instrumental to our achievements as a nation. The focus of
this celebration invites a complacent belief that the vision
of those who debated and compromised in Philadelphia yielded
the ``more perfect Union'' that is said we now enjoy.
This is Thurgood Marshall:
I cannot accept this invitation, for I do not believe that
the meaning of the Constitution was forever fixed at the
Philadelphia Convention. Nor do I find the wisdom, foresight,
and sense of justice exhibited by the Framers particularly
profound. To the contrary, the government they devised was
defective from the start, requiring several amendments, a
civil war, and momentous social transformation to attain the
system of constitutional government, and its respect for the
individual freedoms and human rights, we hold as fundamental
today. When a contemporary American cites ``The
Constitution,'' they invoke a concept that is vastly
different from what the Framers barely began to construct two
centuries ago.
For a sense of the evolving nature of the Constitution we
need look no further than the first three words of the
document's preamble: ``We the People.'' When the Founding
Fathers used this phrase in 1787, they did not have in mind
the majority of America's citizens. ``We the People''
included, in the words of the Framers, ``the whole Number of
free Persons.''
On a matter so basic as the right to vote, for example,
Negro slaves were excluded, although they were counted for
representational purposes as three-fifths each. Women did not
gain the right to vote for over 130 years.
Thurgood Marshall writes:
These omissions were intentional. The record of the
Framers' debates on the slave question is especially clear:
The Southern States acceded to the demands of the New England
States for giving Congress broad power to regulate commerce,
in exchange for the right to continue the slave trade.
The economic interests of the regions coalesced; New
Englanders engaged in the ``carrying trade''--and it
continues.
Thurgood Marshall goes on:
Even these ringing main phrases from the Declaration of
Independence are filled with irony, for every draft of what
became the Declaration assailed the King of England for
suppressing legislative attempts to end the slave trade.
The final draft adopted in 1776 did not contain this
criticism. And so again at the Constitutional Convention,
eloquent objections to the institution of slavery went
unheeded.
Thurgood Marshall goes on to so eloquently discuss the evolutions it
took to come to where we are today. He writes that the men who gathered
in Philadelphia in 1787 could not have envisioned the changes that have
taken place that resulted in the world in which he was living here in
1987.
He writes:
I could not have imagined, nor would they have accepted,
that the document they were drafting would one day be
construed by the Supreme Court, to which had been appointed a
woman and the descendant of an African slave--
Thurgood Marshall himself--
that ``We the People'' no longer enslave, but the credit does
not belong to the Framers, it belongs to those who refused to
acquiesce an outdated notion of liberty, justice, and
equality, and who strived to make them better.
So when I swore my oath, days after my father died--after the man who
taught me that the liberties and the freedoms and the privileges and
the abundance that I enjoyed when I had the fortune of calling myself
an American--that those liberties, those freedoms, the justice, the
opportunity that I enjoy--yes, I may be a hard worker; yes, I may
sacrifice; yes, I may struggle; but all of this was made possible
because of the fights and the struggles and the courage of others. It
was made possible by people who did not sit on the sidelines of
history, who understood that democracy is not a spectator sport; that
even though it is not comfortable or convenient or easy, sometimes, in
the course of human events, for the cause of your country, you have to
stand up and fight.
So before I swore that oath, my mom--before I hit the Senate floor
and became a Member of this august body, she took me across the Capitol
to meet with another man because she wanted the last thing that I did
to be a humble recognition of upon whose shoulders I stood. The last
thing I did before I became a U.S. Senator was to meet with John Lewis.
Congressman Lewis, if you know him, you are shaken by his goodness
and his decency. You are shaken by his kindness. I don't want to
elevate him. He is not a perfect man, but this is a hero to me and to
so many Americans. He is someone who lives his values, doesn't just
preach them. And when I sat to have a meal with him--he had put a
spread together--he told me that when I was sworn in as the fourth
popularly elected African American in the history of this body, it was
a triumph for him, that it made him proud. Here I am standing before my
mom's classmate, my parents' generation, and he is elevating me and
telling me how important this day is to him.
What is fascinating to me was he didn't just speak those words. I
looked around his office and it was like a civil rights museum--people
who marched for me and you and others; people who went on freedom rides
for me and you and others; people who fought for voting rights for me
and you and others. All the while I am sitting there, and he will not
even let me get up. He is serving me food. That is his spirit.
What is incredible to me is it gives incredible testimony to this
truth that this Nation is great not because it was easy to get here,
not because it was destined to be so but because Americans all along in
our history did the challenging thing to try to move this democracy
forward.
So does John Lewis love Senator Sessions? Yes. John Lewis is an
embodiment of love. He is a man who has forgiven his attackers, who
literally has had people who beat him years later become people he
embraces. And even though we love each other and respect each other,
love is difficult and hard. It is a hard thing to do. Sometimes love
requires telling the truth. Love requires not being silent. Love isn't
politic, and sometimes love breaks traditions.
I chose to testify against a Senator, and I took criticism for it--
probably deservedly so--but I did so because when I testified, what
made it more evidently clear or highlighted my decision is that I was
sitting next to John Lewis. He never asked if it was convenient or
politic for him to freedom ride. He didn't ask if it was safe to march
across the Edmund Pettus Bridge. He didn't ask if it might make people
feel uncomfortable or be the subject of scorn. He was telling people to
go out and register to vote. He decided to do it because it was the
right thing to do.
I want to read from his testimony. On that day, I was privileged to
sit next to my hero in a judiciary hearing. This is what he wrote. This
is what he spoke:
Millions of Americans are encouraged by our country's
effort to create a more inclusive democracy the last 50
years, but what some of us call a beloved community, a
community at peace with itself. We are not a minority. A
clear majority of Americans said they want this to be a fair,
just, and open Nation. They are afraid that this country is
headed in the wrong direction. They are concerned that some
leaders reject decades of progress and want to return to the
dark past when the power of the law was used to deny the
freedoms protected by the Constitution, the Bill of Rights,
and the amendments. These are the voices I represent today.
We can pretend that the law is blind. We can pretend that
it is even handed. But if we are honest with ourselves, we
know that we are called upon daily by the people we represent
to help them deal with unfairness in how the law is written
and enforced.
Those who are committed to equal justice in our society
wonder whether Senator Sessions' call for law and order will
mean today what it meant in Alabama when I was coming up back
then. The rule of law was used to violate the human and civil
rights of the poor, the dispossessed, people of color. I was
born in rural Alabama, not very far from where Senator
Sessions was raised. There was no way to escape or deny the
choke hold of discrimination and racial hatred that
surrounded us. I saw the signs that said ``White Waiting,
Colored Waiting.'' I saw the signs that said, ``White Men,
Colored Men;'' ``White Women, Colored Women.'' I tasted the
bitter fruits, the bitter fruits of segregation and racial
discrimination. Segregation was the law of the land to order
our society
[[Page S876]]
in the Deep South. Any Black person who did not cross the
street when a White person was walking down the same
sidewalk, who did not move to the back of the bus, who drank
from a White water fountain, who looked at a White person
directly in their eyes, could be arrested and taken to jail.
The forces of law and order in Alabama were so strong that to take a
stand against its injustice we had to be willing to sacrifice our lives
for our cause. Often, the only way we could demonstrate that a law on
the books violated a higher law was by challenging that law, by putting
our bodies on the line and showing the world the unholy price we had to
pay for dignity and respect. It took massive, well-organized,
nonviolent dissent for the Voting Rights Act to become the law. It
required criticism of this great Nation and its great laws to move
toward a greater sense of equality in America. We had to sit in, we had
to stand in, we had to march. And that is why more than 50 years ago a
group of unarmed citizens, Black and White, gathered on March 7, 1965,
in an orderly, peaceful nonviolent fashion to walk from Selma to
Montgomery, AL, to dramatize to the Nation and to the world that we
wanted to register to vote, wanted to become participants in a
democratic process. We were beaten, tear-gassed, left bloodied, some of
us unconscious, some of us had concussions, some of us almost died on
that bridge.
But the Congress responded. President Lyndon Johnson
responded, and the Congress passed a Voting Rights Act, and
it was signed into law on August 6, 1965. We have come a
distance. We have made progress. But we are not there yet.
There are forces that want to take us back to another place.
We don't want to go back. We want to go forward. As the late
A. Philip Randolph, who was the dean of the March on
Washington of 1963, often said, ``maybe our forefathers and
our foremothers all came to this great land in different
ships, but we are all in the same boat now.''
It doesn't matter how Senator Sessions may smile, how
friendly he may be, how he may speak to you. But we need
someone who is going to stand up, speak up, and speak out for
the people that need help, for people that have been
discriminated against. And it doesn't matter whether they are
Black or White, Latino, Asian, Native American, whether they
are gay or straight, Muslim, Christian, or Jews. We all live
in the same house--the American house. We need someone as
Attorney General who is going to look out for all of us and
not just for some of us.
Now, he speaks:
I ran out of time. Thank you for giving me a chance to
testify.
John Lewis had 5 minutes before the Judiciary Committee--5 minutes to
enter words into one of the greatest historical records of all time--
the record of this body, the record of the Judiciary Committee. He
brushed on issues that aren't a passing fancy to him. He has lived for
these issues. He has fought for these issues. He has dedicated his life
to these issues. This man, this champion, chose not to be silent. He
had a window of opportunity.
That doesn't mean he doesn't love Jeff Sessions. I know he does. It
doesn't mean that he doesn't think he is kind and collegial when the
two meet. I have watched them. Senator Jeff Sessions and I were there
to present him with the Congressional Medal. But what it means is that
he has real concerns about the cause of our country, because this
Nation has made such dramatic strides towards freedom and justice. It
has made those strides because people like him, folks from all
different backgrounds didn't just pledge allegiance to the flag. They
didn't just say the words ``liberty and justice for all.'' They put
their lives on the line to make it happen.
I have seen this kind of patriotism made real in my lifetime by the
men and women who put the uniform on to serve us overseas, all the way
to men and women putting uniforms on to protect our neighborhoods, who
make rational choices every day to fight for our safety, our security,
for our liberty, and for our justice.
I stand here now to speak out against Jeff Sessions becoming the
highest law enforcement officer of the land, not because of any
personal feelings I have about him--because I too, like I was called to
do as a little boy in Sunday school, believe in the ideals of love thy
neighbor. It doesn't detract from that love to speak up, to speak my
heart, to speak my mind.
Senator Elizabeth Warren stood up speaking the words of Coretta Scott
King. It doesn't detract from the collegiality of this institution for
her to speak her mind, especially when those are issues that are at the
core of our Constitution.
Take voting rights. I don't have the authenticity to speak on voting
rights that someone like John Lewis has. But I have watched what is
happening in my country--all this talk coming from the highest office
in the land about voting fraud. The chances of encountering in-person
voting fraud in this Nation is about the chances of getting struck by
lightning. You might even have a better chance of going and playing the
lottery tonight and winning than in encountering voter fraud. But the
real issue is voter suppression.
Now, I am not just saying that as a partisan spouting. I am actually
referring to actual judicial inquiries of the Federal Government. In
the State of North Carolina, as soon as the Shelby decision came and
before the ink got dry, States like North Carolina, Texas, and others
started to change their voting laws. It is hard to do things in the
cover of night without the power to investigate what actually happened.
A Federal judge saw in North Carolina, and said that they were
discriminating against African Americans, that they had tailored this
law--I think the quote exactly is--with surgical precision to
discriminate against African-American voters. This is not fiction. This
isn't made up. These are the facts.
There are still people in this country in positions of power who are
seeking to pervert the law to discriminate against certain populations
and advantage themselves politically. It is not just cheaters. But it
is clearly discriminatory in this case on race.
Now, if we know that is going on, John Lewis, myself, millions of
Americans, Republicans, Democrats, and Independents believe that we
should investigate these things. But the problem is we now have someone
that is nominated to the very office, the Justice Department, who has
said that the activities around voting rights to investigate these
issues are intrusive. This is at a time when we still have issues with
voting where States are moving not to open up the access to voting, not
to make it easier, not to make it more free and fair. There are folks
who are trying to create laws that are choking it, and some of these
laws factually have been designed to disadvantage certain populations.
The highest law enforcement officer in the land has an obligation to
aggressively investigate these potential violations of law. But we have
listened to what the priorities are of Senator Sessions. It is not to
investigate what is real, what is substantive, what has happened and
likely will happen. It is to investigate the fiction created,
documented, that somehow millions of Americans woke up in the morning
and said: Do you know what I am going to try to do? I am going down to
a polling place and fake my way into voting. It is hard to get millions
of Americans to vote, period, sometimes, but somehow this fiction is
the highest priority when it comes to voting of this Attorney General.
I will not be silent on this issue. I am here and we are here because
people fought to stop violations of voting. We as Americans should have
confidence that the highest law enforcement officer in the land won't
criticize any efforts on voter suppression but will actually work to do
something about it.
Something else that was spoken about in John Lewis's testimony that
is a real issue in America and this has to do with the prevalence in
this country of ongoing hate crimes. Senator Sessions, as a Senator,
again in a body in which one Senator does not have the power to pass
legislation, failed to stand with the majority of Senators when it came
to issues of laws that were designed for dealing with bias-motivated
crimes that target specifically people's sexual orientation and gender
identity.
There was a specific law, the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr.,
law. These are two Americans who were targeted because of their
respective sexual orientation and race. Senator Sessions' comments at
the time were that this law would ``cheapen the Civil Rights
Movement.''
You have in the testimony a civil rights hero talking about the
challenges facing the LGBT community, a civil rights hero who is joined
with me and others, decrying the fact that in this country right now
you may have
[[Page S877]]
the right to marriage equality, but still in most States in America if
you get married, you post it on your Facebook page, you go to work the
next day, your boss says you are fired because you got married to
someone of the same sex, and there is no legal recourse.
Senator Sessions on same-sex marriage even went as far as to say it
is not disputable that adopting a same-sex marriage culture undermines
and weakens marriage. I don't even know what to say about a same-sex
marriage culture. I would never question that love and that bond
between two Americans that now is the law of the land.
I don't know what it means to someone when they criticize a law that
is going to work against violence. Please understand, this violence is
not a rare thing like in-person voter fraud. We know that today still
too many lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans feel unsafe
in their communities. A significant percentage of gay and lesbian
children report missing school because of fear.
The data from the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs shows
that 20 to 24 percent--about one in five--of lesbian and gay people
experience hate crimes and that LGBT Americans of color are
particularly at risk. Often those hate crimes are utterly tragic.
In 1998, Matthew Shepard was a 21-year-old student at the University
of Wyoming. He went to the bar that evening, like many 21-year-olds do.
Two men offered him a ride home, and he accepted. Instead of bringing
him home, they brought him out into a field. They taunted him with
epithets, hatred directed at him because he was gay, and then they beat
him savagely and left him for dead.
This is what one of our Nation's magazines, Vanity Fair, wrote:
A passing cyclist saw what he thought was a scarecrow
lashed to a wooden buck fence on a remote plot of land. The
scarecrow turned out to be Matthew, unconscious, a huge gash
in his head, his face drenched with blood except where his
tear trails had washed it clean. His shoes were missing.
After police questioning, Aaron McKinney confessed that he
and his friend Russell Henderson had met Matthew at the
Fireside Bar & Lounge on Tuesday night and posed as gay to
lure him into their truck. Then they drove him to an out-of-
the-way location, bound him to a fence, pistol-whipped him,
and taunted him while he begged for his life. Then they
banded the gentle five-foot-two, 105-pound freshman to hang
there for 18 hours, losing blood as the temperature dropped.
That same year, James Byrd, Jr., a 49-year-old African-American man,
was walking home from his parents' house in Texas when he was also
offered a ride home. They didn't bring him home either. They brought
him to the middle of the woods where he was beaten and then chained to
a pickup truck and dragged along the road for 2 miles. He had been
targeted by three White supremacists.
The Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division
at the Department of Justice Jocelyn Samuels wrote the following in
2013: But while the men responsible for the Shepard and Byrd killings
were later convicted of murder, none of them were prosecuted for
committing a hate crime. At the time these murders were committed,
neither Wyoming nor Texas had hate crime laws, and existing Federal
hate crime protections did not include violent acts based on the
victim's sexual orientation and only covered racial violence against
those engaged in a federally protected activity, such as voting or
attending school. Four years ago today, President Barack Obama signed
the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crime Prevention Act. This
landmark legislation, championed by the late Senator Ted Kennedy,
greatly expanded the Federal Government's ability to prosecute hate
crimes. The law enables the Justice Department to prosecute crimes
motivated by race, color, religion, and national origin without having
to show that the defendant was engaged in a federally protected
activity. The Shepard-Byrd Act also empowers the department to
prosecute crimes committed because of a person's sexual orientation,
gender identity, gender or disability as hate crimes. The law also
marked the first time that the words ``lesbian, gay, bisexual and
transgender'' appeared in the U.S. Code. Under the leadership of
Attorney General Holder, the Criminal Section of Civil Rights Division
and U.S. attorney's offices around the country have used that law to
address the most serious hate crimes. Over the last 4 years, 44 people
in 16 States have been convicted under the Shepard-Byrd act for their
discrimination in crimes against others on the basis of race, religion,
national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability.
This is what we expect from the Department of Justice. Hate crimes
against gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgender are tragically
common in this country. Discrimination, hate, and violence is not rare
in this community. It is real. It is a scourge. It must be stopped, and
the highest law enforcement officer in the land must follow the Federal
law, must see it as a priority, must see it as an urgency, must use
their prosecutorial discretion to put resources toward those
prosecutions.
So when Civil Rights leaders like John Lewis understand the truth
that the Civil Rights Movement wasn't about Black people, it was about
American people, it was about justice for all, it was about freedom
from violence for all, it was about equal rights for all, that he
cannot be silent when someone is discriminated against because of how
they pray or how they love.
None of us can be silent if we believe in those words: liberty and
justice for all. At a time where this is a real problem, we should
trust that the highest law enforcement officer would do something about
it, would vigorously and seriously defend and fight against the kind of
horrific crimes that are still being perpetrated in America. That is
not all.
We see that in his testimony. We see that Jeff Sessions spoke at
length about this idea of law and order. I respect that idea of law and
order, but the call of our country isn't law and order. We have seen
totalitarian States. We have seen dictatorships. We have seen all kinds
of countries that restrained freedoms and liberties, found the
repression and oppression. We found that law and order can be
established in many ways. This country was founded with a higher ideal
to pursue. It is what has called so many Americans forth in pursuit of
this high ideal.
It is not just law and order. It is the pursuit of justice. It is an
understanding that as King said, ``Injustice anywhere is a threat to
justice everywhere.'' One of those fundamental principles of justice is
this idea of equal protection under the law.
The Attorney General has an obligation to pursue this idea of equal
justice. I used to be a mayor. In the city in which I still live, in
Newark, NJ, we were always looking to fight crime, and we knew lowering
crime didn't just have to do with police. Sometimes police are busily
working on the symptoms of the deeper problems, and we as a society
have to address them. That is why drug treatment is such a critical way
of delivering justice and fighting crime. That is why programs that
help people coming home from prison help to lower crime. That is why
mental health care is so important for fighting crime, but you cannot
take it away from any American.
The truth is there is so much of a need to celebrate our law
enforcement in this country. I have watched law enforcement officers do
acts of heroism and courage that shows they are worthy of the highest
celebrations, and so many Americans don't know this. They don't
understand that so many law enforcement officers every single day risk
danger, and our law enforcement officers should be lauded for these
great women and men who, every single day, are out in our communities
entering into difficult circumstances.
I still remember my police director--one time he was on the phone.
There was an awful hostage situation, and we were discussing how to
deal with it. Then over the phone I heard gun shots go off, and
suddenly in the background I heard officers yelling, ``Go, go, go,
go!'' These officers, hearing bullets firing, had no situational
awareness whatsoever and stormed into that building. Most of us hearing
gun fire would drop down; these men and women stood up. Most of us
hearing gun fire might run in the other direction; these men ran toward
that problem.
As the mayor of a city working directly with police officers, I could
give countless examples and great testimony as to the strength and
courage of
[[Page S878]]
officers. I commend Jeff Sessions for talking about how important our
police officers are, but understand that it does not diminish our
respect and our love and our admiration and our gratitude toward police
officers, toward law enforcement in this country to ask that we make
sure, through systems of accountability, that we are holding law
enforcement officers to the highest levels of professional conduct.
There is not an officer I know that has any problem with that.
This is what concerns me: We know in this country that we have
challenges with an equal application of the law. One recent study from
researchers at the University of Louisville and the University of South
Carolina documented that unarmed Black men were shot and killed in 2015
at disproportionately higher rates. We have seen other challenges with
poor communities and African-American communities having unjust usage
of the law directed toward them. We all know about Ferguson, MO, where
the city's law enforcement practices disproportionately impacted
African Americans. It was the Justice Department that investigated the
Ferguson Police Department and found that from 2012 to 2014, Blacks
accounted for 85 percent of vehicle stops, 90 percent of citations, and
93 percent of arrests. This is in spite of the fact that Blacks made up
only 67 percent of the total population. The information came to light
because of the Justice Department's investigation.
In Baltimore, the Department of Justice found that the Baltimore
Police Department targeted policing of certain Baltimore neighborhoods
with minimal oversight or accountability, disproportionately harming
Black residents; the Baltimore Police Department stops African-American
drivers at disproportionate rates. African Americans accounted for 82
percent of all vehicle stops compared to 60 percent of the driving age
population in the city and only 27 percent of the driving age
population in the greater metropolitan area. Racial disparities in the
Baltimore Police Department's arrests are more pronounced for highly
discretionary offenses. Blacks accounted for 91 percent of the people
charged solely with failure to obey or ``trustpass.'' Blacks were 89
percent of the 1,353 people charged for making a false statement to an
officer; 84 percent of the people were arrested for disorderly conduct.
These challenges with policing are complex. Even communities very
conscious of and sensitive to these issues struggle with the equal
application of justice. I don't just say this; I experienced it.
When I was mayor of Newark, we were making a very conscious effort to
improve, yet we still found difficulties. When the Department of
Justice came to our city, they were able to do data gathering that we
did not do. Perhaps we didn't have the resources, didn't understand the
urgency. But when the Department of Justice came in and pulled that
data, put a lot of resources into analyzing it, they found about 80
percent of the Newark Police Department stops and arrests involved
Blacks, while the population is 53.9 percent Black. Black residents of
Newark were at least 2.5 times more likely to be subjected to a
pedestrian stop.
The data that was pulled by the Department of Justice helped us to
step up our work with the ACLU and others and begin to address these
issues. The Department of Justice's investigations, accountability,
working with local law enforcement departments have helped make changes
in Newark and Ferguson and will help make change in Baltimore and all
around our country.
But Senator Sessions has aggressively criticized the use of these
kinds of consent decrees, this kind of intervention. This is a critical
tool that the Justice Department is now using to curtail patterns and
practices of discrimination within police departments. But Senator
Sessions calls them an end run around the democratic process.
During his confirmation hearings, Senator Sessions said: ``I think
there is a concern that good police officers and good departments can
be sued by the Department of Justice when you just have some
individuals within the department doing things wrong.'' That is
problematic to me because it is a failure to understand the larger
challenges we have with policing in America: This is not something; it
is just a few bad officers. And even that construction of this idea
that it is somehow bad officers versus good officers--when it comes to
implicit racial bias, and how it is impacting law enforcement in
America, sometimes people don't even feel comfortable with those terms,
``implicit racial bias,'' as if it is somehow calling people racist,
which it is not. It is actually this idea that we, at the Federal
Government, the Justice Department, working with localities, can
actually help departments begin to address the reality in this country
that we have a justice system that does not have equal application of
law enforcement. This is a real problem in this country. And when I say
it is a real problem, again, this is not a partisan issue.
FBI Director James Comey, one of our highest law enforcement
officers, to my knowledge, is a Republican. This law enforcement
officer speaks with clarity about the urgency and the need to address
this issue within American policing. He says that, unfortunately, in
places like Ferguson and New York City and in some communities around
this Nation, there is a disconnect between police agencies and many
citizens, predominantly in communities of color. Serious debates are
taking place about how law enforcement personnel relate to the
communities they serve. This is Director Comey in a speech he gave:
Serious debates are taking place about how law enforcement
personnel relate to the communities they serve, about the
appropriate uses of force, and about real and perceived
biases, both within and outside of law enforcement. These are
important debates.
Every American should feel free to express an informed
opinion--to protest peacefully, to convey frustration and
even anger in a constructive way. That is what makes our
democracy great. Those conversations--as bumpy and as
uncomfortable as they can be--help us understand different
perspectives, and better serve our communities. Of course,
these are only conversations in the true sense of that word
if we are willing not only talk, but to listen, too.
Director Comey continues in his speech:
I worry that this incredibly important and incredibly
difficult conversation about race and policing has become
focused entirely on the nature and character of law
enforcement officers, when it should also be about something
much harder to discuss. Debating the nature of policing is
very important, but I worry that it has become an excuse, at
times, to avoid doing something harder.
Much research points to the widespread existence of
unconscious bias. Many people in our white-majority culture
have unconscious racial biases and react differently to a
white face than a black face.
We simply must find ways to see each other more clearly.
And part of that has to involve collecting and sharing better
information about encounters between police and citizens,
especially violent encounters.
The first step to understanding what is really going on in
our communities and in our country is to gather more data
related to those we arrest, those we confront for breaking
the law and jeopardizing public safety, and those who
confront us. ``Data'' seems a dry and boring word but,
without it, we cannot understand our world and make it
better.
How can we address concerns about ``use of force,'' how can
we address concerns about officer-involved shootings if we do
not have a reliable grasp on the demographics and
circumstances of these incidents? We simply must improve the
way we collect and analyze data to see the true nature of
what's happening in the all of our communities.
The FBI tracks and publishes the number of ``justifiable
homicides'' reported by police departments, but again,
reporting by police departments is voluntary and not all
departments participate. That means we cannot fully track the
number of incidents in which force is used by police, or
against police, including nonfatal encounters, which are not
reported at all.
Without complete and accurate data, we are left with
``ideological thunderbolts.'' And that helps to spark unrest
and distrust, and does not help us to get better.
Because we must get better, I intend for the FBI to be a
leader in urging departments around this country to give us
the facts we need for an informed discussion, the facts all
of us need, to help us to make sound policy and sound
decisions with that information.
This is the FBI Director talking about the urgency of collecting data
and what the Justice Department has been doing for departments where
people are making a case for bias in policing. I know this because it
happened in Newark. The Justice Department comes in and collects data,
analyzes the data, and comes to objective conclusions that are not, as
Director Comey says, ``ideological thunderbolts.'' And what they seem
to be finding where they do these investigations is: Do you know what?
Yes, a lot of
[[Page S879]]
these communities have a right to be upset because the policing
practices do reflect bias, and there is not an equal application of the
law.
If we are to breathe understanding and cooperation--trust me, I know
this--to lead to even more effective policing, better police-community
relations, we need to get the data out there. But we now have someone
who is nominated to the highest law enforcement office in the land who
has criticized this kind of work during a time over the last few years
that we have seen cities erupting in protests. We have seen the call of
hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people trying to talk about
Black Lives Matter, at a time when people are questioning law
enforcement. What Director Comey and others are saying is: Let's get to
the bottom of this. Let's not talk from sentiments or feelings; let's
talk from experience and data.
So Senator Sessions' views on this are out of date. They run contrary
to where criminal justice reform is moving. They are in direct conflict
with the people whom his office obliges itself to serve.
Given what he has said on the record, we can have no confidence that
the issue of policing will be a priority if he is leading the Justice
Department. In fact, we actually, with some certainty, can be confident
that the Justice Department will not do this kind of aggressive data
collection to understand the facts--the kind of work the FBI Director
is calling for.
But it is not just the FBI Director. Listen to a letter from a group
of over 160 law enforcement officials that was sent to the Senate about
the need for comprehensive criminal justice reform. They write:
As current and former leaders of the law enforcement
community--police chiefs, U.S. Attorneys, federal law
enforcement, and heads of national law enforcement
organizations--we believe that protecting public safety is a
vital goal. Our experience has shown us that the country can
reduce crime while also reducing unnecessary arrests,
prosecutions, and incarceration. We believe the Sentencing
Reform and Corrections Act will accomplish this goal and
respectfully urge you to support it. We appreciate your
leadership on and concerns for the important criminal justice
issues facing the country today.
Our group, Law Enforcement Leaders to Reduce Crime and
Incarceration, unites more than 160 current and former police
chiefs, district attorneys, U.S. Attorneys, and attorneys
general from all 50 states. Our mission is to replace
ineffective police policies with new solutions that both
reduce crime and incarceration. To achieve this goal, we
focus on four policy priorities--one of which is reforming
mandatory minimum sentences.
Let me pause there for a second. The wisdom in law enforcement now
understands that you have to build faith and legitimacy in a
department, and you do that through police-community relations. Law
enforcement officers know that data collection is important.
When I was mayor of Newark, we made CompStat stronger and better--
analysis of crime patterns and data. We use it to more effectively
fight crime. But at a time of heightened suspicion and concern, at a
time when leaders are talking about the reality of implicit racial
bias, the highest law enforcement officer in the land should respect
the truth and direction of criminal justice reform. But it is not just
in policing; it is also in how we are looking at overall criminal
justice reform.
In the United States of America, we have seen now that our criminal
justice system since about 1980 on the Federal level has grown close to
800 percent, costing us as taxpayers billions and billions of dollars
to lock up nonviolent offenders. We are disproportionate with the rest
of planet Earth. We only have 4 to 5 percent of planet Earth's
population, but one out of every four imprisoned people on the planet
Earth is right here in the United States of America.
Do not tell me that when it comes to human beings on the planet
Earth, Americans have a greater proclivity for criminality. That is
just not true. Yet our so-called War on Drugs took us from being on par
with the rest of planet Earth and suddenly shot us up with an 800-
percent increase on the Federal level--500 percent overall in our
Nation in throwing people in jail. This is disproportionately
overwhelmingly nonviolent people.
This drug war, incontrovertibly, has been persecuted on the poor.
Drug laws are not equally enforced in this country, leading one great
legal mind in our country, Bryan Stevenson, to say: We have a nation
that seems to sometimes treat you better if you are rich and guilty
than poor and innocent.
Well, let me tell you, in America, if you just use the lens of race,
there is no difference between Blacks and Whites for using drugs or
dealing drugs--none whatsoever. But if you are African American, you
are about 3.7 times more likely to be arrested for those nonviolent
drug crimes. But the truth is, if you use just race, socioeconomic
status, you look at these issues, you see the poorest Americans
disproportionately filling our jails and prisons. But what is worse
than that, disproportionately you see addicted Americans not getting
treatment, getting jail time; mentally ill people not getting health
care, getting jail time.
All of this is running up the bill to a point in American history--at
around the time I went to law school to the time I became mayor of
Newark, we were building a new prison--about one every 12 days. The
rest of the world was building better bridges, faster trains, better
infrastructure than us. Our infrastructure has been crumbling, but,
hey, as we are battling it out for infrastructure bills in this body--
or hopefully will be--the reality is that we have been building out
infrastructure like crazy, putting the rest of the Earth to shame when
it comes to building one type of infrastructure: prisons--
overwhelmingly, disproportionately warehousing poor people, addicted
people, mentally ill people, and people of color.
What is beautiful about this issue amidst all of the negativity that
I am expressing is that there is a bipartisan coalition of Americans
that range from Grover Norquist, to Newt Gingrich, the Koch brothers,
Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute--these are all
folks on the right--who believe we need to reform our criminal justice
laws, joining with people like me who are Democrats and Independents,
Christian Evangelicals who know what the Bible says about people in
prison. All of these coalitions, from libertarians, to Christian
Evangelicals, even some vegetarians--we all are coming to a national
consensus on criminal justice reform.
In this body, you have Patrick Leahy and Dick Durbin partnering with
the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Chuck Grassley; Mike Lee; the
Senator from Texas, Senator Cornyn--all came together to put together a
bill that was talked about by these law enforcement officers, a bill
that would help us to bring justice to our criminal justice system, a
bill that would help us reduce the level of incarceration but empower
people to be more successful.
What is astonishing about this is this was not a bill showing
leadership; it was showing followership because similar bills are being
passed in States all across our country, from Georgia to Texas. Guess
what they are finding out. When they lower their prison populations,
they lower crime as well.
These mandatory minimums in our country have perverted our criminal
justice system. In fact, most people still think that criminal justice
is about courts and judges and juries, but that is not the case. Since
we have seen this War on Drugs, this race to put more and more
mandatory minimums, what has actually happened is, now most criminal
convictions happen through plea bargain--about 98 percent are done
through plea bargain--not trials any more.
There was a great book about why innocent people plead guilty. That
is because you suddenly have a nonviolent drug offense for doing things
that past Presidents have admitted to doing, but you have a mandatory
minimum charge thrown at you that you either plead guilty to or we are
going to take you in for 5 years or more.
Well, our law tried to do the obvious: Lower these mandator minimums.
Stop wasting taxpayer money by putting nonviolent criminals in jail for
extraordinarily long times.
I was just at a Federal prison in New Jersey. I had the warden
walking with me, telling me: There are people in here way too long.
They are not a danger, but we are paying tens of thousands of dollars a
year to lock them up. Meanwhile, our kids can't get money for public
schools. We can't get money for fixing our roads.
[[Page S880]]
So this bipartisan coalition came together and put together
legislation that reflects what is happening in the States. That would
have brought more justice to our criminal justice system, but it was
fought against and criticized by Jeff Sessions.
But even beyond that, the Justice Department, acting on its own, has
been lowering mandatory minimums, has been giving instructions to
prosecutors on nonviolent drug offenses not to use mandatory minimums.
So with all of this, from policing, to sentencing, to rehabilitation,
to access to drug treatment, all of this reform that is going on--not
in a partisan way at all--one of the few people standing against this
bipartisan work, not just criticizing the legislation but criticizing
the Justice Department for their work, has been Jeff Sessions.
Why is this an issue that, just like voting rights, LGBT, freedom
from fear, freedom from violence, women's rights--why is this issue
important? Why is it an issue that should be seen as so fundamental to
our country? What we are seeing is the issue of mass incarceration
affect our Nation in ways that most people don't fully understand.
It affects voting rights. One in five Black folks in Florida has lost
their right to vote because of felony disenfranchisement overwhelmingly
involving drug crimes, often doing things that people in Washington, in
elected offices, have admitted to doing. That affects voting rights.
It affects poverty. One study came out that said we would have about
20 percent less poverty in America if we had incarceration rates that
were similar to other nations. Why would we have 20 percent less
poverty if we didn't have one-fifth of the global prison population?
Well, because when you make that mistake for doing something that
George Bush or Barack Obama admitted to doing, when you create that
felony crime, what happens is you come out of prison and you can't get
a Pell grant. You come out of prison and you can't get a job. You come
out of prison and you can't get food stamps. You have door after door
closed to you.
So these issues, taken together, are more than just about
incarceration. It is about public safety. It is about empowering
communities. It is about equal justice under the law.
The most powerful law enforcement office in the land sets priorities
and has to drive forward the ideals of our country.
We are a nation that is great not just because, as I said earlier in
my remarks, of our founding document, which, as Thurgood Marshall
wrote, took a civil war and amendments, took an expansive vision of who
is included in the ideal of ``we the people,'' but it is the spirit of
America that has pushed forward, where people in positions of power as
well as grassroots folks embody that great American spirit.
I want to read from one of our great Americans, a man named Learned
Hand. Judge Learned Hand wrote a speech called the ``Spirit of
Liberty.'' He hand-delivered the speech during World War II to 1.5
million people. It was a time when a whole bunch of naturalized
citizens were there. He spoke to first-generation Americans and folks
who could have traced their lineage far, far back.
He writes:
We have gathered here to affirm a faith, a faith in a
common purpose, a common conviction, a common devotion.
Some of us have chosen America as the land of our adoption;
the rest have come from those who did the same. For this
reason, we have some right to consider ourselves a picked
group, a group of those who had the courage to break from the
past and brave the dangers and the loneliness of a strange
land. What was the object that nerved us, or those who went
before us, to this choice? We sought liberty--freedom from
oppression, freedom from want, freedom to be ourselves. This
then we sought; this we now believe that we are by way of
winning.
What do we mean when we say that first of all we seek
liberty?
I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much
upon constitutions, upon laws, upon the courts. These are
false hopes; believe me, these are false hopes.
Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies
there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no
constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it.
While it lies there, it needs no constitution, no law, no
court to save it.
And what is this liberty which must lie in the hearts of
men and women? It is not the ruthless, the unbridled will; it
is not freedom to do as one likes. That is the denial of
liberty, and leads straight to its overthrow. A society in
which men recognize no check upon their freedom soon becomes
a society where freedom is the possession of only a savage
few, as we have learned to our sorrow.
What then is the spirit of liberty?
I cannot define it; I can only tell you my own faith. The
spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it
is right; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which seeks to
understand the minds of other men and women; the spirit of
liberty is the spirit which weighs their interest alongside
its own without bias; the spirit of liberty remembers that
not even a sparrow falls to Earth unheeded; the spirit of
liberty is the spirit of him who, near two thousand years
ago, taught mankind that lessons it has never learned, but
has never quite forgotten--that there may be a kingdom where
the least shall be heard and considered side-by-side with the
greatest.
And now in that spirit, that spirit of an American which
has never been, and which may never be--nay, which never will
be except as the conscience and courage of Americans create
it--yet in the spirit of America which lies hidden in some
form in the aspirations of us all; in the spirit of that
America for which our young men are this moment fighting and
dying; in that spirit of liberty and of America so
prosperous, and safe, and contented, we shall have failed to
grasp its meaning, and shall have been truant to its promise,
except as we strive to make it a signal, a beacon, a standard
to which the best hopes of mankind will ever turn; in
confidence that you share that belief, I now ask you to raise
your hands and repeat with me this pledge:
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of
America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
It is this spirit that, to me, must be emboldened in our country. We
still have work to do. We still have challenges. We still have
unfinished business. We have a position of Attorney General because
there is still injustice. It is not just the fact that we still have
crime in communities, still have people who live in fear of violence.
That is a reality. But there are also people who live in fear of hatred
and in fear of discrimination. There are people who often don't have
people at the local level to go to, and only the Federal Government can
play that role of strident actor for justice.
There are still people who, for all these years, have their basic
American freedoms--like their right to vote--being undermined, where
people in power are trying to craft ways to discourage, to stop them
from exercising that franchise. We still have a nation in which people
are striving for justice.
I am proud of the voices we have heard tonight. I am proud of my
colleague Elizabeth Warren, who felt the need to stand up and speak her
truth. I am proud of heroes like John Lewis who testified and told his
truth.
I realize that the hour is late, but the Senator from Hawaii is now
here.
I oppose the nomination of Jeff Sessions and will vote no on the
floor, and I hope my colleagues will join me in doing so as well.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cotton). The Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I am an institutionalist. I believe in
this place. I love this place. People don't always like the rules or
how they are interpreted, how they are administered, but the rules have
historically differentiated the Senate from any other legislative body
in the world, and I believe in that.
But what Senator Warren did earlier tonight was not over the line.
And here we are worrying about decorum and rule XIX, which says that
``No Senator in debate shall . . . impute to another Senator . . . any
conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a Senator.''
And let's be really clear here. This would not be a problem if
Senator Sessions were not a Senator.
In other words, anytime a Senator is nominated for a Cabinet
position, you can be as positive as you want, but if you want to be as
tough on a Senator who has been nominated as we have been on Rex
Tillerson or Betsy DeVos, you run the risk of breaking the rules.
Now let's pause a moment to understand how divorced from reality this
is. While debating Jeff Sessions as the next Attorney General,
Elizabeth Warren crossed an invisible line, and a rule almost never
used was invoked.
The rule was not invoked when somebody called another Member a
cancer. The rule was not invoked when somebody called another Member a
liar.
Now, this is ridiculous, but it is actually not the main point. Here
is the
[[Page S881]]
point. Lots of people--almost everybody in the world--everybody in this
country does not have the luxury of worrying about decorum. What a
luxury we have to debate if a stray comment crossed some theoretical
line.
This place, this place of privilege, this place, the dome next door
built by slaves, this place, where there were hardly any women or
people of color or gay people out of the closet until very recently,
yet we spent hours worrying about whether Elizabeth hurt Jeff's
feelings or broke a sense of decorum. What a luxury it is to worry
about that.
In the meantime, Muslim families in America are terrified. In the
meantime, DACA kids are worrying about whether they have to go into
hiding. In the meantime, LGBT youth are bullied in school. In the
meantime, anti-Semitic attacks are on the rise across the country.
And we are here worrying about whether it is impolite to quote in
full the statement of the widow of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Look, I am for this body. I am old-school. I like the rules. I spend
a lot of time talking with the Parliamentarian at this desk so I can
better understand it. But this body and its rules have to be in service
to the country. The country is not in service to the rules and the body
of the Senate.
Before I go on, I just want to thank the stenographers who are such a
critical aspect of the Senate and have been running marathon sessions--
literally marathon sessions. We rotate through. There are at least 30
of us doing about 30 hours of debate, but there are only seven of you,
and your wrists are sore, your legs are sore. This is incredibly
challenging. Yet without you, we have no Senate Record.
So thank you for your service and your contributions to the world's
greatest deliberative body.
In his final speech as Attorney General, Eric Holder gave us a
warning and one that remains relevant in the Senate today. He said:
Beware those who would take us back to a past that has
really never existed or that was imbued with a forgotten
inequity. Our destiny as Americans is always ahead of us.
Today our country faces a stark choice. Do we want to pursue an
imaginary past or do we want to continue to follow the path toward
progress? Do we continue in our struggle to form a more perfect union,
to secure the blessings of liberty? It is hard to believe, but these
are the dramatic choices before us as we consider the Cabinet
nominations of this administration. And that choice is perhaps most
clear in the nomination of our colleague Senator Jeff Sessions for
Attorney General.
The Attorney General is the highest law enforcement official in the
country. He or she is the defender of American values, of human rights,
and of civil rights, and this person needs to have an unbreakable
commitment to fight for what is right and to lead that pursuit in
making America more free and more just. That is the kind of approach we
need because that is what the job demands.
The Attorney General leads the No. 1 watchdog for civil rights in our
country. It is the Department charged with protecting voting rights and
prosecuting human trafficking and hate crimes. They determine and
defend the constitutionality of U.S. policies. Our next AG will face
critical challenges that will test our justice system and our values.
We need a leader committed to protecting the rights of every American
regardless of race, religion, gender, national origin, or sexual
orientation.
While I do like him as a colleague, Senator Sessions is the wrong
person to serve as our Nation's Attorney General. In my judgment, his
policies, priorities, and overall philosophy fall short of the standard
our country has for the leader of the Justice Department. Throughout
Senator Sessions' career, he has been on the wrong side of history. If
you look at the key issues that this Attorney General will work on, it
is clear that Senator Sessions' views fall outside the mainstream of
America.
That is certainly true when it comes to criminal justice. Look at
Senator Sessions' opposition to the Sentencing Reform and Corrections
Act. This bill was a big deal. It would have reduced mandatory minimum
sentencing for low-level, nonviolent crimes, while keeping tougher
penalties for serious or violent crimes; it would strengthen drug
addiction, rehabilitation and mental health treatments, and improve our
efforts to help people who were leaving prison to settle into their
communities and get back on track. Everybody liked it. Senator Grassley
introduced it with cosponsors from both sides of the aisle. The bill
had support from the House Speaker, the International Association of
Chiefs of Police, the Major Counties Sheriffs' Association, the
National District Attorneys Association, the Leadership Conference on
Civil and Human Rights, among many others. Even the Koch brothers liked
this piece of legislation. That is because it tackled problems we all
agreed needed to be solved.
No one wants to see excessively punitive sentences that expand the
Federal prison population, which has grown by 734 percent between the
year 1980 and 2015. No one wants to see unnecessary barriers that make
it harder for formerly incarcerated people to stay out of jail. No one
wants to see taxpayer money spent needlessly.
So we had a thoughtful, bipartisan bill, but we were not able to
enact it into law. Senator Sessions personally blocked the bill from
being considered after it passed the Judiciary Committee last Congress.
And he said: ``Federal drug and sentencing laws have already been
considerably relaxed.''
The failure of reform impacts the lives of people who are hurt by
unfair and outdated sentencing rules. It especially affects the
families and communities of color who have been ravaged by the
overincarceration of minorities. The ACLU reports that sentences
imposed on Black men in the Federal system are almost 20 percent longer
than sentences imposed on White men with similar crimes. Think about
that--the same crime, and you get 20 percent more time if you are
African American. And while people of color are just as likely as White
people to sell or use illegal drugs, they are more likely to be
arrested. Think about how preposterous that is--equal for justice for
all, equal application of the laws, right?
People of color and Caucasians use drugs and distribute drugs in the
same percentages, yet they are more likely to be arrested. African
Americans make up 14 percent of regular drug users but 37 percent of
people arrested for drug offenses. This raises the question of bias in
law enforcement. Senator Sessions opposes holding State and local law
enforcement accountable for racial bias and policing or the excessive
use of force. He has called the approach the Justice Department took to
this accountability an end run of the democratic process. He has
attacked bipartisan efforts to reduce the sentences of nonviolent, low-
level drug offenders, and he opposed President Obama's initiative to
address racial disparities in our criminal justice system and restore
fairness by granting clemency. Senator Sessions was critical of a
Justice Department initiative that reduced overcrowding in Federal
prisons by 20 percent over just the last 3 years.
Senator Sessions' views on drug policy are maybe even more out of the
mainstream. He has been one of the most outspoken advocates against the
legalization of marijuana, both recreational and medicinal. In an April
2016 hearing, he suggested that the Federal Government must send the
message that ``good people don't smoke marijuana.''
This is 2016. This isn't 1975. This is 2016. Our Attorney General
nominee says ``good people don't smoke marijuana.'' Tell that to the
cancer victim. Tell that to my good friend John Radcliffe, who has
stage 4 liver and colon cancer.
But Senator Sessions supports aggressive Federal intervention in
States that have legalized medical or recreational marijuana. He
criticized the Federal Government's guidance on Federal marijuana
regulation, which directed the Justice Department to respect the
decisions of States to determine their own criminal laws. Because of
this guidance, Federal prosecutors stopped targeting patients who rely
on medical marijuana products for relief. They stopped targeting local
dispensaries that are operating squarely within State law. Instead they
went after criminal drug traffickers and violent drug crimes. That
seems like a
[[Page S882]]
smart prioritization of resources within the Justice Department--not
going after people who want to utilize marijuana to alleviate pain but
rather going after violent drug crimes. That seems smart, but Senator
Sessions opposed that.
The respect for federalism reflected in the Justice Department's
guidance should be right in line with conservative values. Under the
guidance, as long as States are preventing the distribution of
marijuana to minors, if they are preventing the growing of marijuana on
Federal lands, and if they are stopping State-authorized marijuana
activities being used as fronts for other illegal activities, then the
Justice Department doesn't interfere.
I would like to quote from Senator Sessions' argument against this
policy. He said:
I think one of Obama's great failures that is obvious to me
is his lax treatment and comments on marijuana. . . . It
reverses 20 years almost of hostilities in drugs that began
really when Nancy Reagan started ``Just Say No.''
But here's the thing. There is a bipartisan consensus now that the
drug war is a failure. The drug war did not work. The drug war did not
decrease the percentage of people utilizing illegal drugs. Every time
the government succeeded in shutting down a drug trafficking ring,
another would pop up. And a harsh penalty didn't slow addiction rates,
it just incarcerated mostly young men. They didn't slow the flow of
drugs; instead, they crowded our prisons, hurt taxpayers, and increased
drug-related violence in other countries.
Now is the time to shift our strategy and focus on people who
struggle with addiction. We also need to respect the decision in many
cities and States to decriminalize drug possession. It is up to them as
to how to ascribe relief to citizens who could benefit from using
medical marijuana.
There is another area where I believe Senator Sessions is out of the
mainstream, and that is his views on LGBTQ equality. Senator Sessions
opposed the Employment Nondiscrimination Act, a bill that I was proud
to support that would have ended workplace discrimination for LGBTQ
people. Right now there are no Federal laws that explicitly protect
LGBTQ individuals from discrimination. That is not because we haven't
tried. Last Congress, I cosponsored a bill to prohibit this kind of
discrimination, but even without a law on the books, the Justice
Department has interpreted the Civil Rights Act to include sexual
orientation and gender identity. That could change, however, under the
next Attorney General.
As head of the Justice Department, Senator Sessions could choose to
interpret the law differently, and his record gives us every reason to
be concerned. Senator Sessions also voted against the reauthorization
of the Violence Against Women Act. He voted against the reauthorization
of the Violence Against Women Act because of a provision that ensures
that victims of domestic violence are not turned away because of their
sexual orientation or gender identity. That is why he voted against
VAWA, because there is a provision that says you have to provide
services to individuals regardless of their sexual identity. He
advocated for stripping that provision and ultimately voted against the
bill. As Attorney General, he could choose not to enforce this
nondiscrimination clause.
Think about this. If a gay person is a victim of sexual assault, are
they not morally and legally entitled to the same humanity, the same
protection under the law? Senator Sessions has repeatedly opposed hate
crimes protections against LGBTQ Americans, even attempting to insert a
poison pill amendment to stop the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr.,
Hate Crimes Prevention Act from moving forward. He has argued against
Federal prosecution of hate crimes, saying on the Senate floor that
there is no need for the Justice Department to get involved. As
Attorney General, Mr. Sessions would be in charge of enforcing the Hate
Crimes Prevention Act. It is not a stretch to ask whether or not his
enforcement would be vigorous. In fact, Senator Sessions has repeatedly
supported laws that criminalize the LGBTQ community. In the 1990s, he
tried to block an LGBTQ student conference--a student conference for
gay kids that ``promoted a lifestyle prohibited by sodomy and sexual
misconduct laws.'' He argued against a conference for kids to give each
other support and come up with strategies to survive bullying, to
understand that what they are going through other kids are going
through, arguing that it promoted a lifestyle prohibited by sodomy and
sexual misconduct laws. And he sharply criticized the legal decision
that put a rightful end to the criminalization of same-sex
relationships.
He supported don't ask, don't tell, saying that it was pretty
effective. And he opposed the repeal of that law.
On marriage equality, Senator Sessions has vowed to work again and
again to amend the Constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage. We went
through this in 1998 in the State of Hawaii. How unusual it is to
enshrine in the Constitution the removal of a right.
I want you to just think about that--that you want to amend the
Constitution, not to provide additional rights, not to clarify
something, but to explicitly prohibit Americans from having a certain
right.
I don't think there are many families who would agree on Senator
Sessions' views here. People don't want their sons and daughters to
have to hide their sexuality in order to serve their country. They
don't want to go back to the days when our Nation failed to recognize
the legitimacy of same-sex relationships. And they certainly don't want
to see their friends and family lose a job or even go to jail because
of whom they love, but that is the record that we are dealing with.
To be clear, these aren't views from the 1970s. These are his views
as of last year. These are his current views on these matters.
The Senator has a similarly out-of-step approach on immigration. Mr.
Sessions was instrumental in defeating the 2007 immigration reform
bill, referring to it as ``terrorist assistance.'' He was a strong
opponent of a 2013 bipartisan immigration bill, even though the bill
had the strongest border security provision ever seen in an immigration
bill. It was such a strong security border provision that I hated it. I
had to think about whether I was going to vote for this thing because I
felt it was too much of a militarization of our southern border. I
thought it was a giveaway and a waste of money. But it had a strong
border security provision, and it was voted out of the Senate by a wide
margin.
If it were up to him, we would also limit legal immigrants coming to
our country. During the markup in the Judiciary Committee, Senator
Sessions offered an amendment to limit legal immigration, which failed
17 to 1. If you are wondering whether it is rhetorical to say his views
on immigration are out of the mainstream, the record shows 17 to 1--17
to 1.
In addition, he promotes cutting Federal funding for sanctuary
cities. Sanctuary cities is a brand. People aren't sure what that
means. Let's be clear what we mean by that. Stripping funding from
sanctuary cities is wrong because cities have decided that the strength
of their relationship between their police and their citizens is more
important for public safety than doing the Federal Government's job of
enforcing immigration laws.
Senator Sessions, of course, is against the right of children born in
the United States to be American citizens. He is against helping the
many DREAMers in this country.
Let's have an honest discussion about immigration. We need to start
talking about why people come to this country. Some of them come
because they want to escape their own awful circumstances and live in
freedom and opportunity. It is my grandparents escaping the Ukraine. It
is my wife's grandparents leaving China. It is the Schatz; it is the
Binders; it is the Kwoks. It is Albert Einstein; it is Madeleine
Albright. This is who we are. We are people from all over the world who
are united not by our ethnic extraction or our religious affiliation,
but tied together by our love for America and our belief in this
country as the beacon of hope, the shining city on the hill. The idea
that we would shred that legacy in the face of some imaginary public
desire for immigration reductions, frankly, is disturbing.
Look at the protests happening every weekend at our country's
international
[[Page S883]]
airports. Americans are not out in the streets demanding that we shut
off the lamp outside the golden door. They are demanding that we stay
true to our history and to our roots.
That is why we saw close to 100 companies file a legal brief earlier
this week against the Muslim ban put in place by the President and
implemented by a man who has been mentored by Senator Sessions. The
brief they filed notes an important statistic about our country. More
than 200 companies currently listed on the Fortune 500 list are founded
by immigrants or the children of immigrants, and this stands in direct
contrast to the nominee's views. If immigrants are coming to the United
States and starting businesses and hiring people, they aren't taking
jobs from Americans. They are creating jobs for Americans, and that has
been the story of our country since the very beginning.
Immigration is one of the cornerstones of our country, and the
nominee's policy proposals would chip away at that.
The world is watching. History is watching. We have to ask ourselves:
What do they see? Do they see Lady Liberty? Or do they see something
else, something darker?
Our country is asking similarly ominous questions about the basic,
most fundamental right in our society, and that is the right to vote.
Our country's history books are filled with stories of the struggle for
voting rights, of African-American men risking it all to go to the
polls and women in white marching through the streets of Washington,
DC, demanding to vote. But that struggle and that progress is in danger
with the kinds of policies that are being promoted. It is on all of us
to honor that history and make sure that whoever is eligible to vote is
able to vote. This is the bedrock of all other rights, because it is
what gives us the voice when incumbent leaders and our representatives
fail to protect the other rights.
In his testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Mr. Sessions
said:
The Department of Justice must never falter in its
obligation to protect the civil rights of every American,
particularly those who are most vulnerable. A special
priority for me in this regard would be aggressive
enforcement of our laws to ensure access to the ballot for
every eligible American voter, without hindrance or
discrimination, and to ensure the integrity of the electoral
process.
But his record does not support that view. Senator Sessions supports
voter ID laws that will disenfranchise many, many voters. He has called
the Voting Rights Act ``intrusive,'' and he has praised the Supreme
Court ruling that dismantled a key part of the Voting Rights Act. He
has already had his nomination rejected by the Senate because of his
views on this issue.
This should concern anyone and everyone who cares about our democracy
because, at the most basic level, democracy is built on the ability of
American citizens to go to the polls.
Let's be honest. Our right to vote is being restricted. It is being
restricted even though the United States has some of the lowest voter
turnout of any developed democracy on the planet, and it is being
restricted based on a lie. There is no voter fraud. Voter fraud is not
the problem. Voter disenfranchisement is the problem.
I talked with a buddy of mine back home who was watching FOX News and
he was watching MSNBC, and he said: Democrats are saying there is voter
disenfranchisement and Republicans are saying there is voter fraud, and
I don't know what to believe. Well, here are the facts. There is a
vanishingly small amount of voter fraud. You are more likely to be
struck by lightning than to be convicted of voter fraud. This is a
made-up problem. Why would you make up a problem such as this? Because
it gives you a context and a pretext to do the systematic dismantling
of voting rights. This is happening in North Carolina, this is
happening in Wisconsin, and this is happening all over the country.
The final policy area I would like to raise is women's rights. The
nominee's record is very clear on these issues. He opposed the Lilly
Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which lifts the legal restrictions for people
who may have faced pay discrimination. That, in itself, is
extraordinary, because Lilly Ledbetter is from Senator Sessions' home
State. She worked in a factory in Alabama for years, and then one day
someone slipped her an anonymous note--what a story. Someone slipped
her an anonymous note that said: You are paid way less than everyone
else in this same job.
But when Ms. Ledbetter tried to address the pay disparities, she hit
a brick wall and at every turn. When she turned to the justice system
for help, she found that the laws had statutes of limitations that kept
her from getting the pay she was denied for years and years and years,
working side by side with men, doing the same job, and getting paid
less in that factory.
The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act changes that. It makes it so that if
women find themselves in an ugly, unequal pay structure, just as Ms.
Ledbetter did--and we all know people, such as sisters, wives,
children, and mothers who have a suspicion they are pretty much doing
the same thing to them, especially in a factory setting, a blue collar
setting, or a clerical setting. This is not impossible to decipher when
you have the same job description.
Just as Ms. Ledbetter did, they can do something about it.
Senator Sessions voted against that law. He also voted against
another equal pay bill called the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would go
even further and try to close the gender wage gap.
On women's health, his record is similarly troubling. He has opposed
funding for title X, which would ensure that low-income women have
access to contraception, breast cancer screening, and other health
services. He has voted time and again to defund Planned Parenthood, an
organization that provides health care to some of the most underserved
women across the country. Finally, Senator Sessions voted against the
Violence Against Women Act, not once but three times.
Senator Sessions' voting record should concern everyone who cares
about fair pay, reproductive rights, access to health care, and access
to services for survivors of domestic violence.
The last policy area I want to highlight is our environment and
climate change. Just 2 years ago, the nominee voted for a resolution
that would kill the Clean Power Plan. He also voted for a bill that
would deny protections for streams that are the water source for
hundreds of millions of Americans.
This is bad news for the world's race to address climate change,
which is one of the biggest civil rights battles of our time. This
isn't just a battle against fossil fuels. It is a battle to save the
air we breathe and the water we drink. It is a battle to save the land
we live on. It is a battle for things that we take for granted.
I worry that under an Attorney General Sessions, we are going to have
a hard time. That is because even if we really don't have great laws on
climate--and we don't yet--they are being rolled back as we speak. Even
if Senator Sessions does not push back on those laws, he still has the
ability to prioritize certain things over others. So it is not just his
policies that we need to consider. It is also his priorities.
Every AG makes decisions about what problems the Justice Department
should move to the front of the line. I have seen lots of reports that
leave me wondering if Senator Sessions' priorities might be misguided.
The Web site FiveThirtyEight wrote a piece about Senator Sessions'
confirmation process, and I wish to read a section of it now. ``I care
about civil rights,'' Sessions said. ``I care about voting rights.''
Sessions has cited his record as evidence.
In 2009, he said he'd been involved in 20 or 30
desegregation cases as a prosecutor, and this year, he told
the Judiciary Committee that four civil rights cases were
among the 10 most important cases he'd worked on in his
career. Some committee members were skeptical.
Democratic Sen. Al Franken of Minnesota said Tuesday that
Sessions had overstated his role in the anti-segregation
litigation. This is an area where the administration's
priorities are clearly going to matter.
The number of anti-discrimination and voting-rights cases
brought by the Justice Department civil rights division
dropped sharply under President George W. Bush compared with
his predecessor, Bill Clinton. The Voting Rights Act recently
moved closer to Sessions' personal beliefs.
When a 2013 Supreme Court ruling weakened the law, Sessions
said it was ``good news . . . for the South.'' On Tuesday,
Sessions called the act ``intrusive.''
[[Page S884]]
So what does this write-up say about what priorities an Attorney
General Sessions might choose? Well, to me, it says that voting rights
are going to be dealt a bigger blow than we have seen in the past few
years. Again, we come back to the sense of being extreme. Senator
Sessions' priorities and his policy views are not in the mainstream for
the Justice Department.
I don't think the American people are comfortable with letting
politics about policing trump data. I don't think they are comfortable
with overlooking our history and our commitment to democracy. So why
are we comfortable with this nomination?
The final area I want to touch on is Senator Sessions' philosophy.
The Washington Post published a news article about a week ago that
looks at the Executive orders we have seen out of this White House. It
is called ``Trump's hard-line actions have an intellectual godfather:
Jeff Sessions.''
I would like to read a few excerpts from the article.
In jagged black strokes, President Trump's signature was
scribbled onto a catalogue of executive orders over the past
10 days that translated the hardline promises of his campaign
into the policies of his government. The directives bore
Trump's name, but another man's fingerprints were also on
nearly all of them: Jeff Sessions.
The early days of the Trump presidency have rushed a
nationalist agenda long on the fringes of American life into
action--and Sessions, the quiet Alabamian who long cultivated
those ideas as a Senate backbencher, has become a singular
power in this new Washington. Sessions' ideology is driven by
a visceral aversion to what he calls ``soulless globalism,''
a term used on the extreme right to convey a perceived threat
to the United States from free trade, international alliances
and the immigration of nonwhites.
And despite many reservations among Republicans about that
world view, Sessions--whose 1986 nomination for a federal
judgeship was doomed by accusations of racism that he
denied--is finding little resistance in Congress to his
proposed role as Trump's attorney general.
Sessions' nomination is scheduled to be voted on Tuesday by
the Senate Judiciary Committee, but his influence in the
administration stretches far beyond the Justice Department.
From immigration and health care to national security and
trade, Sessions is the intellectual godfather of the
President's policies. His reach extends throughout the White
House with his aides and allies accelerating the president's
most dramatic moves, including the ban on refugees and
citizens from seven mostly Muslim nations that has triggered
fear around the globe.
The tactician turning Trump's agenda into law is deputy
chief of staff Rick Dearborn, Sessions' long time chief of
staff in the Senate. The mastermind behind Trump's incendiary
brand of populism is chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon, who,
as chairman of the Breitbart website, promoted Sessions for
years.
Here's a quote from Bannon:
Throughout the campaign, Sessions has been the fiercest,
most dedicated, and most loyal promoter in Congress of
Trump's agenda, and has played a critical role as the
clearinghouse for policy and philosophy to undergird the
implementation of that agenda.
Sessions helped devise the President's first-week strategy,
in which Trump signed a blizzard of Executive orders that
begin to fulfill his signature campaign promises--although
Sessions had advocated for going even faster. The senator
lobbied for a ``shock and awe'' period of executive action
that would rattle Congress--
I think we got that--
impress Trump's base--
I assume we got that--
and catch his critics unaware--
I don't know about that--
according to the two officials involved in the transition
plan.
Trump opted for a slightly slower pace, these officials
said, because he wanted to maximize news coverage by
spreading out his directives over several weeks. Trump makes
his own decisions, but Sessions was one of the rare lawmakers
who shared his impulses.
There are limits to Sessions's influence, however. He has
not persuaded Trump--so far, at least--to eliminate the
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, under which
children brought to the United States illegally are allowed
to stay in the country.
Sessions became a daily presence at Trump Tower in New
York, mapping out the policy agenda and making personnel
decisions. Once former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani was out
of consideration for secretary of state, Trump considered
nominating Sessions because he was so trusted by the inner
circle, including Kushner, although Sessions' preference was
to be attorney general, according to people familiar with the
talks.
Since his nomination, Sessions has been careful to not be
formally involved even as his ideas animate the White House.
In a statement Sunday, he denied that he has had
``communications'' with his former advisers or reviewed the
executive orders.
I have no reason to doubt that he established a proper distance while
he was the nominee.
Sessions has installed close allies throughout the
administration. He persuaded Cliff Sims, a friend and
adviser, to sell his Alabama media outlet and take a job
directing message strategy at the White House.
Sessions also influenced the selection of Peter Navarro, an
economist and friend with whom he coauthored an op-ed last
fall warning against the ``rabbit hole of globalism,'' as
director of the National Trade Council.
John Weaver, a veteran GOP strategist who was a consultant
on Sessions' first Senate campaign and is now a Trump critic,
said that Sessions is at the pinnacle of power because he
shares Trump's ``1940s view of fortress America.''
``That's something you would find in an Allen Drury
novel,'' Weaver said. ``Unfortunately, there are real
consequences to this, which are draconian views on
immigration and a view of America that is insular and not an
active member of the global community.''
Inside the White House and within Sessions's alumni
network, people have taken to calling the Senator ``Joseph,''
referring to the Old Testament patriarch who was shunned by
his family and sold into slavery as a boy, only to rise
through unusual circumstances to become right hand to the
pharaoh and oversee the lands of Egypt.
In a 20-year Senate career, Sessions has been isolated in
his own party, a dynamic crystallized a decade ago when he
split with President George W. Bush and the business
community over comprehensive immigration changes.
In lonely speeches on the Senate floor, Sessions would
chastise ``the masters of the universe.'' He hung on his
office wall a picture of He-Man from the popular 1980s comic
book series.
As he weighed a presidential run, Trump liked what he saw
in Sessions, who was tight with the constituencies Trump was
eager to rouse on the right.
``Sessions was always somebody that we had targeted,'' said
Sam Nunberg, Trump's political adviser at the time.
In May 2015, Nunberg said, he reached out to Miller, then
an adviser to Sessions, to arrange a phone call between Trump
and the senator. The two hit it off, with Trump telling
Nunberg, ``That guy is tough.''
The next month, Trump declared his candidacy. In August of
that year, Sessions joined Trump at a megarally in the
senator's home town of Mobile and donned a ``Make America
Great Again'' cap. By January 2016, Miller had formally
joined the campaign and was traveling daily with the
candidate, writing speeches and crafting policies.
That Washington Post article offers a look into the nominee's
philosophy. Out of the gate, the President has pushed for all
punishment and no mercy. The administration has shown a willingness to
trample on rights to satisfy political objectives. This should trouble
everybody on both sides of the aisle who cares about Executive
overreach.
This week, John Yoo--the driving force of enhanced interrogation
under the Bush administration, the torture man, the famous John Yoo
from the Office of Legal Counsel, the John Yoo demonized by
progressives for sort of being the key thinker behind understanding
Executive power as more expansive than it had ever been understood
before--this week, John Yoo came out saying that he thinks this
President has taken Executive power too far. John Yoo is saying that--
not Sheldon Whitehouse, not the ACLU; John Yoo from George W. Bush's
administration. If that is what John Yoo is saying, then we should all
be worried.
Think of what the President might do with an Attorney General in
place who shares his philosophy on immigrants, minority communities,
gay Americans, voting rights, and women's rights.
The NAACP has pulled together a list of facts about the Senator that
further flushes out this philosophy, and it is deeply concerning.
In July 2015, during the confirmation hearing of a district
court nominee from Maryland, Sessions made the nominee answer
for her career as a public defender and civil rights lawyer,
and invoked Freddie Gray, the teenager unlawfully arrested
and killed by Baltimore police in 2015, as a client
inappropriate for a lawyer nominated to the bench:
``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 decisionmaking?'' he asked.
``And I raise that particularly because I see your firm is
representing Mr. Freddie Gray in that case that's gathered so
much attention in Maryland, and there's lots 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?''
[[Page S885]]
In December 2010, Sessions took to the Senate floor to rail
against judicial nominees who have what he calls ``ACLU DNA''
or the ``ACLU chromosome.'' The ACLU ``seeks to deny the will
of the American people,'' he said, ``and has taken positions
far to the left of mainstream American and the ideals and
values the majority of Americans hold dear.''
In October 2009, Sessions opposed a district court nominee
and former ACLU staff attorney by saying, ``I think we're
seeing a common DNA run through the Obama nominees, and
that's the ACLU chromosome.''
I know people have mixed feelings about the ACLU. Sometimes I have
mixed feelings about the ACLU. But remember what happened when this
Executive order was issued: It was the ACLU that took them to court to
protect every American's civil liberties, and they were the ones who
won in court right away. So I say that we need to have special respect
for the lawyers who protect our civil liberties.
These events should give us all pause because our country has long
associated groups like the NAACP and the ACLU with the mission of the
Justice Department, and now we may have an Attorney General who has, at
least in the past, relished opposition to these groups.
Before concluding, I just want to say that I understand there may be
a distinction between politician-elected official representing a
certain State and a certain perspective Jeff Sessions, Senator
Sessions, and Attorney General Sessions. This sometimes does happen as
people move from legislative to executive or as they advance in their
careers. It is entirely possible, and I sure hope that there will be an
evolution, that he understands he may have his views or he may have
been vigorously advocating for the views of his constituents, but now
he has a different role as the chief law enforcement officer for the
United States of America, somebody who is there to uphold equal justice
for everyone.
So as critical as I have been of his record, I hope to be proven
wrong. There are people on the other side of the aisle and one Democrat
on our side of the aisle whom I respect greatly who really love Jeff
Sessions. I hope everything they believe about him and the way he will
conduct himself as Attorney General ends up being true. I just don't
see any evidence for that yet, other than the word of my colleagues.
That means a lot, but the record is too decisively against all of the
things I care for and all of the things I believe are important in an
Attorney General.
I know I am not alone in having these concerns. Millions of people
have signed petitions, made calls, and posted online in opposition to
this nominee.
I have received very thoughtful messages from people in Hawaii about
Senator Sessions. I wish to quote a few of them.
I'm writing as a thoughtful voter and human being that Mr.
Sessions is not the right man for the job of Attorney
General. He may be a friend of the president and his inner
circle, but he does not represent the values of our
democracy.
Given his approval of the ban on immigration, I believe he
will help the president radicalize and destabilize this
country.
Another person mentioned the former Acting Attorney General, who was
fired by the President because she was true to the word she gave
Senator Sessions in her own confirmation hearing. Sally Yates said what
so many people are thinking, which is that this Muslim ban cannot
stand.
Here is another letter from Hawaii:
I'm writing to express my most heartfelt disappointment at
the direction our country is quickly taking with the Trump
administration.
While I accept that those with more conservative views than
mine are now in power, I find the actions being taken a gross
and crass disregard of our diverse and tolerant national
identity.
I want to end by making something very clear: We can respect Senator
Sessions as a colleague while still believing that his policies, his
priorities, and his philosophy are too extreme for the Justice
Department. And there are too many issues that this country cares about
to confirm him as Attorney General.
If you care about criminal justice reform, if you care about seeing
fewer people go to jail for petty crimes, if you care about directing
fewer taxpayer dollars to the prison industry, then you have to be
opposed to this nomination.
If you care about the LGBT community; if you believe that people
shouldn't be discriminated against or punished because of whom they
love; if you believe that people, regardless of their identity, should
be able to get married or wear our Nation's finest uniform, then you
have to be opposed.
If you care about immigration; if you believe in immigration; if you
are a business owner who wants to hire the best and the brightest; if
your family came to this country to pursue the American dream; if you
are a person of faith who believes in caring for those who suffer, for
the stranger in our midst, you have to be opposed to this nomination.
If you care about women's rights; if you believe that women are not
to be treated like second-class citizens, that our daughters are just
as capable as our sons and that they have the right to make their own
decisions about their own health care; if you believe they should be
paid the same for doing the same job, then you have to be opposed.
If you care about our democracy; if you want people to raise their
voices and take part in shaping the future of our country; if you are
dismayed to know that millions of people are being prevented from
voting not because they aren't eligible but because of senseless laws
that restrict their rights, then you have to oppose this nomination.
The Senate must stand up for civil rights, for voting rights, for
women's rights, for immigrants' rights, and that means we must vote no
on Jeff Sessions for Attorney General.
I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this nomination.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tillis). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
appointments
The Chair announces, on behalf of the majority leader, pursuant to
the provisions of Public Law 68-541, as amended by the appropriate
provisions of Public Law 102-246, and in consultation with the
Democratic leader, the reappointment of the following individuals to
serve as members of the Library of Congress Trust Fund Board for a five
year term: Chris Long of New York and Kathleen Casey of Virginia.
Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I have to admit that this is a bittersweet
moment for me. I come here tonight to express my support for Jeff
Sessions' nomination to be the next Attorney General of the United
States. It is a high honor, and the nominee is more than worthy. The
truth is, I will be sad to see him go.
In all the time I have known Senator Sessions, I have found him to be
a consummate gentleman. We actually met before I entered the Senate. It
was 2013. I was serving in the House of Representatives--a first-term
Congressman. Senator Sessions, of course, was my elder in both age and
rank. Yet he reached out to me humbly to discuss a hot topic--
immigration. Back then, there was an effort afoot to force through
Congress a massive immigration bill the American people clearly did not
want. So the two of us worked together to stop it, and I am glad to say
we were successful.
I took away more from that experience than an appreciation of the
Senator's legislative skills. I got a sense of his character: how he
saw the world, what he believed, and why. If I had to sum it up, I
would say this is a man who loves the law--who has spent decades doing
all he could.
Senator Sessions knows the law shouldn't be the spider's web of old,
which catches the weak but cannot constrain the mighty. It is supposed
to uphold the entire community so all Americans can thrive. What we
have is a legal system that at its best strives to be a justice system.
I think if you look at Senator Sessions' career, you can see the same
qualities represented by the balance, the blindfold, and the sword of
Lady Justice. First, like the balance, he has a judicious mind--honed
over his 12 years as a U.S. attorney and his 2 years as attorney
general of the State of Alabama. He evaluates the evidence carefully
and comes to a well-considered
[[Page S886]]
conclusion. I would argue it is this very approach that led him to
advocate for an immigration system that works for working Americans. I
have every confidence, as our top law enforcement officer, he will keep
the interests of American citizens uppermost in his mind.
Second, like the blindfold, he is impartial and fair-minded. I think
of the fair sentencing law he passed, with bipartisan support, to bring
harsh penalties that fell disproportionately on African Americans more
in line with the kinds of penalties that fell on other criminals. I
also think of his work on behalf of a more equitable distribution of
funding for HIV-AIDS patients. Just as Senator Sessions strove to
represent the interests of all Alabamians, I think Attorney General
Sessions will strive to uphold the rights of all Americans.
Third, like the sword, Senator Sessions believes in swift and strong
enforcement. Perhaps the best argument for his candidacy is the
extensive list of endorsements he has received: the Fraternal Order of
Police, the National Sheriffs' Association, and the list goes on. I
would think such widespread support among the people he would oversee
would make a deep impression on any Senator's mind. If the people who
actually enforce the law believe in his leadership, then so do I.
So I am sorry to see him say goodbye to this august body, but I am
confident he will serve the American people well. He is the right man
for the job. I urge all Senators to vote for his confirmation.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Perdue). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I am rising to speak this morning about
the nomination of our colleague, Senator Jeff Sessions from Alabama, to
become the 84th Attorney General of the United States. As the highest
law enforcement officer in the land, it is the responsibility of the
Attorney General to ensure that all Americans receive the equal justice
under the law they are entitled to as American citizens.
A commitment to that equal justice has rarely been more necessary
than it is today. We need an Attorney General wholly committed to
serving the people of the Nation, and we need an Attorney General who
fights to expand American's civil rights, not to restrict them, hobble
them, or eliminate them, or to eliminate the Justice Department's
Office of Civil Rights.
We need an Attorney General who will stand up to the President when
he tries to put an illegal and unconstitutional policy in place. So it
has been part of our journey, the story of America, that we have
strived to form a more perfect union. We have worked over time--like
Martin Luther King said, the long arc of history bends toward justice.
But we have worked to bend toward justice. Our vision of opportunity
was incomplete at the founding of our Nation. It was not extended to
all genders and all ethnicities and all races. We have worked hard to
change that, but here we are at this point in time, still not at the
end of that journey.
Part of the question is, How does any given individual fit into the
position of Attorney General in that fight for that more perfect vision
of our Nation?
So I thought I would share a little bit about that. Hillary Shelton,
the Director of NAACP's Washington office, told the New Republic that
Senator Sessions has ``consistently opposed the bread and butter civil
rights agenda.'' When the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act of
2013 with Shelby v. Holder, Senator Sessions celebrated the decision
saying: If you go to Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, people are not
denied a vote because of the color of their skin.
Well, indeed, part of this--the point is, when the Voting Rights Act
was in place, it prevented many activities that would have otherwise
denied the vote. We have seen the resurgence of all kinds of measures
since the Voting Rights Act was modified by the Supreme Court, which it
eliminated key provisions.
We have seen the ``almost surgical precision'' of North Carolina's
voter ID law that the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down
because they were created specifically to reduce the vote of African
Americans. We are living in times that it just feels like our Nation is
a bit under siege.
During the campaign of last year, we had so many divisive attacks as
part of the Presidential primaries. Even during the general election,
very divisive rhetoric passed from the man who would then become our
President, President Trump--attacks on women, attacks on minorities,
attacks on African Americans, attacks on Hispanics, attacks on people
with disabilities.
Yet, against that, we have a vision of a system of law that treats
everyone equally, impartially. We learned when we were children that
Lady Liberty wears a blindfold with the scales of justice in her hand.
We need an Attorney General who has at their core that vision of
impartial justice, justice for every American, justice regardless of
skin color, regardless of ethnicity, regardless of geography. That is
essential, and we need it now particularly in a powerful way to help
address the divisive rhetoric of the last year, which has left many
people doubting that their government is willing to fight for them,
that they will receive this form of impartial justice.
We have seen what has happened with the strong work of the Justice
Department's Civil Rights Division under President Obama. For more than
half a century, the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division fought
for and enforced laws that uphold the basic rights of all Americans,
steadily expanding opportunities.
The work of that division was stifled, restricted in many ways during
George W. Bush's administration. But under President Obama, the Civil
Rights Division has worked hard to apply, in a powerful way, civil
rights for all Americans. In just the last few weeks of the Obama
administration, they won the first hate crime case involving a
transgender victim, they sued two cities that were blocking mosques
from opening, they settled lending discrimination charges with two
banks and sued a third, they filed legal briefs on behalf of New York
teenagers held in solitary confinement, and they accused a business in
Louisiana of moving mental patients into nursing homes. They were
actively, aggressively fighting for the rights of all Americans.
Many wonder now, under the new administration, whether we will have a
powerful Civil Rights Division fighting for those whom others would
choose to exploit. Senator Sessions has downplayed the need for the
Justice Department to prosecute crimes against women and members of the
LGBTQ community, saying: I am not sure women or people with different
sexual orientations face discrimination. I just don't see it, he said.
Well, if you talk to LGBTQ Americans, they will tell you their
stories of harassment and discrimination. So it is very hard not to be
aware of the extraordinary amount of discrimination they experience,
unless you are determined not to see it. To those who say we don't see
discrimination, if you ask, you will hear the stories of
discrimination. You will hear the stories of profiling, individual
young African-American men picked out time and time again to be stopped
and questioned at a rate that someone of a different skin color would
not experience, but you do not see it unless you open your eyes to see
it. At his confirmation hearing, Senator Sessions said: These lawsuits
undermine respect for police officers. He was referring to the
investigation of two dozen police agencies, knowing that the Civil
Rights Division reached consent decrees with 14 of them.
He said: These lawsuits undermine the respect of police officers and
create an impression that the entire department is not doing their work
consistent with fidelity to law and fairness. Well, let me explain that
the reason the departments were investigated is because there were a
lot of reports that in fact they were not doing their work consistent
with fidelity to the law. It was not an impression; it was a report
about failure to do that.
Don't we want an Attorney General who rather than relegating the
complaint to, well, don't pursue them because it creates an impression
they are
[[Page S887]]
not doing work, instead says: These are complaints we must investigate
and remedy that situation. That is the responsibility of the Civil
Rights Division, to investigate and to remedy, and that is what this
division did under President Obama. They didn't turn a blind eye. They
didn't say that would be embarrassing to the Department, but my
colleague had a different take, saying: We need to be careful before we
do that because it might create an impression that they are not doing
their work well. Just think if we take that attitude.
We anticipate to have hearings for a labor commissioner. The nominee
for Labor runs a company that has a tremendous number of Hardee's and
Carl's Jr. outlets, and those outlets have a horrendous record of labor
rights abuses, but we wouldn't know about those abuses if the
investigator said: We won't investigate because it might create an
impression that they are doing something wrong.
So I am very concerned about the attitude that you don't investigate
because you might embarrass someone.
When there are reports of injustice, that is the point, that it gets
investigated. And it not only gets investigated in order that the
problems will get remedied but also so it will send a message to others
to operate within the bounds of the law.
Our next Attorney General needs to make civil rights a priority,
fighting for them, ensuring them, securing them as the North Star of
the Justice Department--not something that can simply be left to the
States, not something that can be ignored, not something that will be
allowed to slip backward.
Communities of color aren't the only ones watching Senator Sessions'
confirmation process with some anxiety. Over the last 8 years, the
rights of the LGBTQ community have leapt forward in incredible ways,
from the greater acceptance of gay and lesbian Americans and
transgender Americans. And certainly we cannot forget the historic
milestone of the legalization of same-sex marriage a year and a half
ago. But so many of these long-fought-for and hard-won rights are so
new that the community is terrified that President Trump's
administration will work to restrict those rights or roll those rights
back. But it is the duty of the Attorney General to protect those
rights, to fight for those rights.
So it is of some concern--for me, it is a substantial concern--that
the nominee voted against the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate
Crimes Prevention Act. This act was passed on October 22, 2009, and
signed by President Obama 6 days later. It was part of the National
Defense Authorization Act of 2010, and it expands the 1969 U.S. Federal
hate crime law to include crimes motivated by a victim's actual or
perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.
The bill removes the prerequisite that the victim be engaging in a
federally protected activity, like voting or going to schools. It is
much, much broader. It gives Federal authorities a greater ability to
engage in hate crimes investigations that local authorities choose not
to pursue.
It provided funding for fiscal years 2010 to 2012 to help State and
local agencies pay for investigations and prosecuting hate crimes.
It requires the FBI--the Federal Bureau of Investigation--to track
statistics of hate crimes based on gender and gender identity. Hate
crimes for other groups were already being tracked.
It was named after Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. In 1998,
Matthew Shepard, a student, was tied to a fence, tortured, and left to
die in Laramie, WY, because of his sexuality. In that same year, James
Byrd, an African-American man, was tied to a truck by two White
supremacists. He was dragged behind it and was decapitated in Jasper,
TX. At the time, Wyoming hate crime laws did not recognize homosexuals
as a subset class, and Texas had no hate crimes laws at all.
Supporters of an expansion in hate crimes laws argue that hate crimes
are worse than regular crimes without a prejudice motivation from a
psychological perspective. The time it takes to mentally recover from a
hate crime is almost twice as long as it is for a regular crime. And
LGBTQ people feel as if they are being punished for their sexuality,
which leads to a higher incidence of depression, anxiety, and post-
traumatic stress disorder.
In short, in multiple ways, in ways I have enumerated, this law more
aggressively pursued justice. I was pleased to be here as a first-year
Senator to be able to support that law. Hate crimes tear at our
collective spirit. They are based on divisions in our society,
divisions that some choose to amplify and inflame, divisions that
victimize people for being who they are as individuals.
I was proud of this Chamber, of this Senate, that we passed a bill
that would give State and local law enforcement the necessary tools to
prevent and prosecute these types of crimes and move our Nation down a
path toward equality--equality under the law and freedom from
persecution. But my colleague, the nominee, voted against this pursuit
of greater justice for a persecuted group within our society, and that
certainly bothers me substantially. It is my understanding that he
didn't feel that people actually faced discrimination, but the fact is,
they do.
LGBTQ individuals, especially transgender women of color, are more
likely than any other group to be targets of discrimination and hate
crimes. Across the category, and more so in some, look at the 49 people
killed, the 53 more injured at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando last
summer. The attacker purposely targeted a gay nightclub for his attack.
LGBTQ people are twice as likely as African Americans to be targets of
hate crimes. Nearly one-fifth of the 5,462 so-called single-bias hate
crimes reported to the FBI in 2014 were because of the person's
sexuality or perceived orientation.
Another issue was raised in 2010 when the proposal was put forward to
repeal a discriminatory law in the military, the don't ask, don't tell
law, which barred openly gay and lesbian individuals from serving in
our armed services. My colleague, our nominee, said that gay
servicemembers would have a corrosive effect on morale, essentially
saying discrimination is justified because of the prejudices of others
who serve. But it is not justified, and the prejudices have taken a bit
of movement along that journey toward justice.
More than 14,500 people were discharged from the military during the
18 years of don't ask, don't tell. An estimated 66,000 lesbian, gay,
and bisexual servicemembers were in the military at the time the ban
was lifted. But here is what happened after that 2010 change--a change
that our nominee opposed. The military family embraced the LGBTQ
community, and instead of having a corrosive effect, repealing don't
ask, don't tell has strengthened the military family. In fact, in 2016,
just last year, the first openly gay Army Secretary was confirmed, Eric
Fanning. Last year, the Navy named a ship after Harvey Milk, the gay
politician and former member of the Navy who was assassinated in 1978.
So a robust pursuit of equality would have been to voice principled
opposition to this discrimination in armed services that was actually
robbing our armed services of a tremendous amount of talent and
experience and was damaging the lives of those who were expelled from
the military. That would have been a principled pursuit of justice, but
that is not the path my colleague, our nominee, chose to travel.
Instead, it was a path of justifying discrimination, justifying
injustice.
During the confirmation hearing, my colleague, our nominee, softened
his stance on LGBTQ issues, and he said he would uphold the statute
protecting LGBT people's safety and ensure that the community's civil
rights are enforced. Well, I wish we had more statutes that protected
LGBT people's safety. Promising to uphold them when they largely don't
exist is somewhat of an empty promise. It sounds good, but it lacks
punch.
We had a debate in this Chamber about the Employment Non-
Discrimination Act. This act was specifically about anti-discrimination
in the process of job hiring in America, and I was deeply involved in
this effort.
Back in Oregon, when I became speaker, I worked to end discrimination
for our LGBT community--discrimination in hiring, discrimination in
public accommodations, discrimination on a whole spectrum of aspects of
our society. And we passed a very strong law in the State of Oregon to
end that discrimination, and a piece of
[[Page S888]]
it--a big piece of it--was to end employment discrimination. How can we
claim, as a nation, that we are the land of opportunity if we slam shut
the door to opportunity on a large number of our fellow Americans by
allowing discrimination in employment?
Well, because of that work I did in Oregon--when I came here to the
Senate, Senator Kennedy was ill. Senator Kennedy would champion this
legislation. Senator Kennedy, who had been here--he had been on the
floor, I believe it was 1998 or 1996. And that bill had only failed by
one vote back before the turn of the century. It was a 50-to-49 vote.
The individual who was not here probably have voted for it. The Vice
President breaking a tie probably would have passed it. It would have
been adopted. It would have been signed.
Fast-forward to 2013, and here we were on the floor debating this
issue, and I was very pleased to see it on the floor because Senator
Kennedy and his team had asked me to carry the torch on the bill and
work to see it passed. I had worked for us to hold hearings, and I had
advocated with our leadership that it was time to put this issue on the
floor, that we couldn't allow this discrimination to continue without
at least working to address it. We might fail on the floor to pass this
bill, but we should at least put it before the body, make the case,
have the argument, fight to end this discrimination.
Here on the floor, we no longer have to get 50 votes and the
President because the habits of the Senate changed, and now it is
almost always required to get a supermajority to close debate. So we
had to get 60 votes, not 51, but we did get 60 votes. We did close
debate and go to a final vote. But one of the individuals who placed
himself directly in the path to obstruct success on the bill, to
obstruct the end of discrimination--job discrimination for LGBTQ
communities--was our colleague and our nominee for Attorney General. I
would hope to have a voice in the office that was seasoned through
tough battles and stood up in difficult times to fight any
discrimination, not to perpetuate discrimination. So that concerns me--
substantially concerns me.
In 2013, the Senate voted to reauthorize the Violence Against Women
Act, often referred to as VAWA, after Congress passed it. That was an
important effort because a woman should never be a victim of violence
in her own home. Nobody should be a victim of violence, but
particularly to address the challenges that we see. And the National
Center for Injury Prevention and Control notes that women in the United
States experience roughly 4.8 million assaults and rapes per year from
their intimate partner, and they are afraid to seek medical treatment.
Less than 20 percent of battered women sought medical treatment.
The National Crime Victimization Survey--the statistics that I have
here from 2006, so quite a while ago--says that over the course of the
year, 33,000 women were sexually assaulted, more than 600 women every
day. Women ages 20 to 24 are at greatest risk of nonfatal domestic
violence, and women age 20 and higher suffer from the highest rates of
rape.
The Justice Department estimates that one in five women will
experience rape or attempted rape during her college years--just during
those college years--and that less than 5 percent of these rapes will
be reported.
Income is a factor. The poorer the household, the higher the rate of
domestic violence. Women in the lowest income category experience more
than six times the rate of intimate partner violence as compared to
women in the highest income category. African-American women face the
highest rates of violence. American-Indian women are victimized at a
rate double that of women of other races.
The impact of these kinds of violence is huge and long-lasting.
According to the Family and Violence Prevention Fund, growing up in a
violent home may be terrifying, a traumatic experience that can effect
every aspect of a child's life, growth, and development. Children who
have been exposed to family violence suffer symptoms of post-traumatic
stress disorder, such as bed-wetting and nightmares, and were at
greater risk than their peers of having allergies, asthma,
gastrointestinal problems, headaches, and flu. In addition, women who
experience physical abuse as children are at greater risk of
victimization as adults.
Well, I go through all these statistics to note what a substantial
issue this is in terms of crime and violence and the impact both on the
victims and on the children in homes--an impact that damages children's
ability to pursue a full, healthy path toward thriving as an adult, an
impact that creates a cycle of violence.
In 2011, during one 24-hour period, 1,600 Oregon victims were served
by domestic violence services. What are those services? Emergency
shelter, children's support, transitional housing, support for teen
victims of dating violence, therapy or counseling for children,
advocacy related to cyber stalking. Additionally, during the same 24-
hour period, Oregon domestic violence programs answered more than 27
hotline calls every hour.
VAWA, the Violence Against Women Act, has been a powerful tool in
fighting these kinds of abuse, these kinds of violence in our
community, and it has proven to dramatically reduce domestic violence.
Among other things, in 2013 the VAWA reauthorization included measures
to ensure that LGBTQ men and women cannot be turned away from domestic
violence shelters. It addressed threats of violence against women in
transgender communities, who face rates of domestic violence and sexual
assault at much higher rates, as I noted before, than those faced by
the general population. It provides tools and encourages best
practices, which have proven to be effective to prevent domestic
violence homicides by training law enforcement, victims service
providers, and court personnel to identify and connect high-risk
victims with crisis intervention services--all of this in the interest
of preventing violence against women, and when such violence occurs, to
get the treatment to be as robust and available as possible to assist
those women.
I would hope to have the champion in this fight to decrease violence
against women in the position of Attorney General of the United States
of America, but my colleague, our nominee for Attorney General, voted
against these practices for decreasing violence, voted against these
efforts to provide greater support when the violence did occur, and
that, for me, is a very substantial concern. This turned many women's
advocacy groups into a position of opposing this confirmation.
And another factor came into play. In October of this last year when
our nominee for Attorney General was asked his opinion about a 2005
audio recording which then-Candidate Trump was--well, he wasn't yet a
candidate at the time of the audio recording--but he was heard bragging
about inappropriately groping women. The nominee said he didn't think
the behavior that was described was sexual assault. Senator Sessions
said: ``I don't characterize that as sexual assault. I think that is a
stretch,'' he said.
I couldn't more profoundly disagree. When someone grabs the intimate
parts of an individual, that is an assault. How can one reach any other
conclusion? Envision that your loved one is the one who is groped--your
wife, your sister, your mother, or your daughter. You don't believe
that is a sexual assault? I would like to have as our Attorney General
an individual who would understand in the core of his or her being that
this is an assault and wrong. The law makes it an assault. Morality
makes it an assault. So that bothers me a great deal.
I do want to note that in a confirmation hearing, my colleague
Senator Sessions changed his opinion on this and he noted what we would
expect one to note. He said that yes, activity such as was noted on the
recording of our now President, when asked whether it was an assault,
he said clearly it would be. I appreciate that evolution, but the
initial reaction before the confirmation hearing still disturbs me.
Earlier this month, the National Task Force to End Sexual Violence
issued an open letter opposing his confirmation based on the record. In
the letter, they stated, when referring to the nominee, that ``his
history leads us to question whether he will vigorously seek to ensure
all victims and survivors of gender-based violence, particularly
vulnerable populations and those at the margins of society, have access
to vitally needed services and legal protections.''
[[Page S889]]
This goal to champion justice for all--perhaps it is easy to champion
justice for the groups one most closely identifies with, but the role
is to fight for justice for everyone throughout our society, and that
is why this is of substantial concern.
The letter went on to say: ``Selective application of the law and
outward hostility towards victims of sexual and domestic violence in
historically marginalized populations has a chilling effect on their
willingness and ability to seek services and protection. It then noted
that the Attorney General of the United States must be an individual
committed to protecting the inalienable rights of equal protection
under the law to all--to all within the jurisdiction of the United
States.
Let me say it again. We need an Attorney General who fights for equal
justice for all.
Another issue we face--set of issues, really--is related to
immigration. As we know, President Trump recently signed an Executive
order barring travel by those from seven Muslim countries and also
barring refugees into our country and having a longer ban on refugees
specifically from Syria. And the first ban, the Muslim ban, came out as
Rudy Giuliani told us of instructions to create a Muslim ban that would
be changed enough to make it legal under the law.
There are many reasons to be concerned about this ban based on
religion. We have a tradition of freedom of religion in our country. It
is a freedom enshrined in our Constitution. We have a tradition of
religious tolerance. If we are a nation with religious freedom,
religious tolerance goes hand in hand with that, but we have heard over
the course of President Trump's campaign statement after statement that
essentially presented a war on Islam, the Nation is at war with Islam--
the opposite of religious freedom, the opposite of religious tolerance.
The worst aspect of this--and there are many bad aspects to it--is
that it endangers our national security because of the recruiting
strategy of ISIS. Our President says he wants to diminish and
extinguish. Their recruiting strategy is to claim that the United
States is conducting a war on Islam, so this ban and this campaign feed
right into that recruiting strategy. It has been pointed out by
security expert after security expert after security expert that this
makes us less safe.
Sally Yates, the Acting Attorney General, refused to defend this
order in court because she believed it was illegal and
unconstitutional. That is a principled stance, that despite that the
head of the executive branch put something forward, the Attorney
General said: No, that is wrong. That is not constitutional.
Well, she was fired shortly thereafter, for taking that stand, by
President Trump. But then, two attorneys general from Washington State
and Minnesota took the case to court, pointing out that they had
substantial harm in their States as a result of this, giving them
standing to challenge it--harmed because of professors trapped
overseas, harmed from students trapped overseas, harmed from citizens
in the States of Washington and Minnesota whose family members were
trapped overseas. They put it to a district court judge, James Robart,
a judge who was appointed by George W. Bush. The judge put a
restraining order on the Executive order. To do that, one has to reach
the standard that the case has merit and is likely to prevail.
So a judge, given this issue, the design of this issue, and the facts
surrounding these orders, struck them down. And then it went to the
Ninth Circuit Court, and the Ninth Circuit didn't find that there was
enough information to change the decision of the district judge, but
they asked for additional briefs, and they are expected to rule later
this week. We will find out of course then how they weigh the issues.
Part of what is being taken into account are the facts on the ground,
including was this designed around national security, and part of that
debate recognizes that individuals from those seven countries have not
come to America and killed Americans.
Now, individuals from other countries have come to America and killed
Americans, but not from those seven countries. Then there is the
question of whether it was based on religion, and they will be taking
into account and looking at the fact that Rudy Giuliani said he was
instructed to develop a Muslim ban but to make it look legal. So,
clearly, there is evidence that the real intent of this wasn't national
security but was religious discrimination.
Then there is the fact that the Executive order itself has a clause
that says we will discriminate based on religion, letting in Christians
while closing out Muslims. They will consider all of that. We will see
what they say.
There is considerable power in the executive branch and the
Presidency for making rules related to immigration. There is
considerable power to take actions related to national security, but
the design of this suggests serious constitutional problems, and two
very capable lawyers--one, the acting AG for the United States of
America and, second, a district court judge--have found it fails the
test.
I would like for us to have a nominee for Attorney General who would
have the courage and convictions to stand up to a President when the
President goes off track in violating the Constitution, and I am
concerned that our nominee wouldn't reach the same courageous point of
view that Sally Yates found or James Robart found. Even while noting
that the courts are yet to ultimately decide, there are certainly heavy
concerns that should be weighed intensely in this consideration, and I
am not sure that would happen.
In 2015, Senator Sessions, my colleague, our nominee, authored a bill
that would automatically cut off Federal funding to sanctuary cities
that refused to have their police officers act as agents of our
immigration force, as ICE agents. Just today, I had the sheriff of
Multnomah County in Oregon come and speak to me. He was formerly the
police chief of our largest city--the city of Portland. What he
conveyed was that if you have police officers pursue each person they
interact with on the basis of immigration, pretty soon people in the
community will not work with you to solve crimes, and you actually
create enormous public safety risks for the citizens in Multnomah
County. Numerous mayors have pointed this out; that if you see your
police force as one that is continuously trying to be an immigration
agent rather than a police officer and you are pursuing folks with
profiling--stopping everyone in the Hispanic community--that pretty
soon the Hispanic community folks don't want to talk to you. They will
not help you solve the crimes that occur. The community becomes less
safe.
So this assault on public safety is a profound concern across this
country.
I am disturbed that our nominee authored a bill to penalize cities
and States that are seeking to reduce public violence and enhance
public safety. That seems the opposite of what an Attorney General
should do.
During his nomination hearing, Senator Sessions advocated for ending
the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program, or DACA. This is a
program on which one needs to understand it by meeting individuals who
are childhood arrivals. There are folks who have crossed the border
into our country who have brought with them a baby in their arms, or a
toddler, or a 4-year-old. Those individuals--those children, those
babies--grow up in America. They speak English. They only know America.
Most of the time--I will not say most of the time, but in many cases
they don't know they were even born outside the country.
So these children were put into a position of saying: If you disclose
your status and fill out all this paperwork, we will not send you back
to a country you don't even know, that speaks a language you don't even
know because you have grown up in America and you are going to
contribute to America, if we embrace you. And you will just be a lost
citizen--a citizen without a country--if you are sent out of the
country to somewhere that would be totally unfamiliar to you.
In this position that our nominee took, that he thinks we should end
this program, it means that those children would now be eligible for
deportation. There is a substantial concern here because they were
promised that their information would not be used, would not be turned
over for their deportation when they signed up. They trusted that when
the United States of America
[[Page S890]]
made this promise to them, that promise would be kept, but it appears
we have a nominee who wants to end that program and, therefore, place
all of these children at risk of deportation.
The nominee had no answer for what to do with the 800,000 children
who have come out of the shadows because of that program.
In December 2015, Senator Sessions voted against Senator Leahy's
sense-of-the-Senate resolution that affirmed that the United States
must not bar people from another country because of their religion. Our
nominee spoke for 30 minutes against the resolution. This takes me back
to the echoes of this issue of the Muslim ban and discrimination based
on religion that is so alien to the United States of America.
This resolution that affirmed that the United States would not bar
people from our Nation because of their religion had the support of 96
Senators. Four Senators voted against the resolution, essentially
saying it is OK to discriminate based on religion. Our nominee was one
of those four Senators who conveyed through their vote that it would be
OK to use a religious test for those entering the United States.
According to Bloomberg News, our nominee was one of the few lawmakers
to defend President Trump's effort to propose a complete shutdown of
Muslims entering the United States, in this report of November 18,
2016. He told CNN's Dana Bash last June: Well, all I can tell you is,
the public data we have had indicated that there are quite a number of
countries that have sent a large number of people here who have become
terrorists.
During his nomination hearing, our nominee tried to walk back his
support for the Muslim ban. He said he would not back a complete and
total shutdown of all Muslims entering the United States. So he evolved
from a position he took in December of 2015 and was more moderate
during the nomination hearing. But still I am concerned about the
position he put forward at that debate in December of 2015, when he
spoke for 30 minutes and was one of four Senators to refuse to support
a resolution saying that the United States should not discriminate
based on religion.
This Muslim ban and the vote on the December 2015 resolution leaves
Muslim Americans wondering if our nominee would fully defend and
advocate for them; whether our nominee, the President's nominee for
Attorney General, would fight for equal justice for Muslims after
supporting the position that it is OK to discriminate against Muslims
entering our country. That concerns me because that is not the position
I would like to see represented in the President's nominee for this
office.
My office has been receiving an enormous number of phone calls,
emails, and letters about a whole host of nominees, and I think it is
appropriate to share some of those as well as to note that a group of
1,424 law school professors nationwide sent a letter to Congress urging
us to vote no on this nomination, representing 180 law schools in 49
States.
I am not going to share all of the letter because I want to stay
within the bounds of the debate. So I will just note this: They lay out
a whole number of concerns about positions taken in the past.
I will summarize it with a final paragraph: As law faculty who work
every day to better the understanding of the law and to teach it to our
students, we are convinced that the President's nominee will not fairly
enforce our Nation's laws and promote justice and equality in the
United States.
That is 1,424 law school professors from 180 law schools looking at
the record of the President's nominee.
The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and Human Rights gives our
nominee a zero-percent score. The Human Rights Campaign, which fights
for justice for the LGBT community, gives the President's nominee a
zero-percent score. The NAACP has repeatedly given grades of F to the
nominee. The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and the ACLU have
voiced vigorous opposition.
I will share some of the letter from back home. Cobin from Portland,
an assistant professor, writes: I am writing today to state my strong
dissent for the nominee to be U.S. Attorney General. While this should
be self-evident given his record, in light of this past week's events,
it is all the more critical we have an Attorney General willing to
fight for our Constitution. Protecting our fundamental values as
Americans is priceless.
From Southern Oregon, Karen of Jackson County writes: I am strongly
opposed to the nomination of Jeff Sessions as Attorney General. His
support of President Trump's views regarding immigration and voting
rights are unacceptable and make him unacceptable to be the Nation's
chief law enforcer.
Letter after letter expresses concerns about the record.
Earlier tonight, my colleague from Massachusetts was sharing
testimony Coretta Scott King presented on March 13, 1986, to the Senate
Judiciary Committee when my colleague was nominated to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Alabama. The Senate at that
point in time rejected the nomination. They did so after examining a
whole series of events which had transpired under his leadership. I
can't read those events under the rules of the Senate because they
would constitute a critique of a fellow Senator. So I am just
summarizing that her letter laid them out, and the Senate Judiciary
Committee fully explored the issues presented by Coretta Scott King,
and by many others, and decided there wasn't the judicial vision
appropriate for someone to serve as a judge in the United States of
America.
If that series of events led to the unusual outcome of the Senate
deciding that an individual's background--a background related to
efforts to prevent African Americans from voting, weighed it
incorrectly, not right that an individual be serving as a judge, that
same background should be weighed by all of us here this morning, in
this debate, over whether a nominee has the judicial heart of Lady
Liberty to judge everyone without discrimination, to fight equally for
everyone without discrimination. The answer years ago by this Chamber
was no.
After I have weighed the many positions presented tonight which are
deeply troubling, and the history that led this Chamber to make the
decision it did back in 1986, I will have to join those who say and
vote no on this nomination.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I come to the floor this morning to join
my colleague from the Pacific Northwest speaking in opposition to the
nomination of our colleague to the position of U.S. Attorney General.
I thank the Senator from Oregon. I know he has been here for several
hours. I listened to much of his remarks, and many of the issues he
brought up in his statement reflect the issues that we in the Pacific
Northwest are dealing with--the population of the Pacific Northwest
concerns--and how many people in our part of the country have moved
forward on so many important issues of equal protection for all
Americans under the law. So I thank my colleague for being here. I
thank him for the many things he had to say this evening on this
subject.
I hearken back in my own life, as I reflect on this decision, to the
time I grew up. This is something that has been instilled in me as a
young person growing up in the 1960s and 1970s.
I saw the most incredible events happen in our Nation's government,
and I saw a position--both the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney
General, someone who is now a Pacific Northwest resident--use that
office, the power of the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General,
to say they disagreed with the President of the United States. Not only
did they disagree with the President of the United States, they would
rather resign from office than carry out the acts he was asking them to
carry out.
As a young person, that Saturday night massacre was an incredible
indelible image of how people should act responsibly in carrying out
their duties.
So when I think about this position of Attorney General, I think of
that very issue; that I want an Attorney General who will stand up for
the citizens of the United States, no matter what, even if he has to go
against the President of the United States. That, to me, is the
ultimate in serving the people of this country.
In many ways, in the last several weeks, I feel like we have been
relitigating the 1960s and 1970s. When we
[[Page S891]]
talk about the civil liberties of American citizens, whether they are
the LGBT community; or whether we are talking about government maybe
using backdoor devices to spy on American citizens; or whether we are
talking about immigrant rights, we are talking about the same things
people fought for in the 1960s and 1970s. So it is no surprise that my
colleague--also from Massachusetts--reflected on this in some of the
comments she made last night that raised such a ruckus and concern on
the floor. I certainly supported her and supported her in her rights to
make those comments, but these larger issues about how one wields power
at the enormous office of responsibility of Attorney General is what is
at question in the Senate. I could go on this morning about many other
issues I am concerned about in relation to the nexus of the Attorney
General to the other positions that we are also considering, but this
morning I am going to keep my remarks specifically to the Attorney
General.
In this new information era--and I have been out here on other
nights, in fact with my colleague from Kentucky Mr. Paul, to discuss
these very important issues of encryption and making sure the U.S.
government does not unduly spy on U.S. citizens.
I am concerned that the President's nominee has supported President
Bush's warrantless wiretapping and domestic surveillance programs. He
also has supported law enforcement's backdoor key to encryption.
I will say, there are many things we need to do to fight this war on
terrorism and to be strong in working together with law enforcement all
across the United States and on an international basis. I will be the
first to say there are great things we can do as it relates to
biometrics and using biometrics effectively, but when it comes down to
it, it is all about us working with the international community and
getting cooperation from them to work that way, as opposed to running
over the civil liberties of U.S. citizens. So I do have concerns that
the President's nominee on this issue may not stand up to the President
of the United States in making sure civil liberties of Americans are
protected.
I am also concerned this nominee will not fully protect the rights of
lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans. The reason I say
that is because of his record, and the doubts it raises because of his
opposition to various pieces of legislation which have moved through
these Halls--opposition to gay rights, same-sex marriage, hate crime
laws, voting rights for historically disfranchised communities, and
workplace protection for women, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender
communities. All of these are things I wish we would have in an
Attorney General who had been a greater advocate for the transition
that America has made in protecting civil liberties in these issues.
These are very big issues in my State. They are very big issues that
have been long discussed--probably discussed before they reached this
body--and decided decisively in favor of the civil liberties of these
Americans. So I find it troubling that in his position, the nominee
used his power to target the LGBT student housing and education
conference at the University of Alabama, and that he consistently voted
against LGBT Americans' right to live where they choose, and voted for
the constitutional amendment my colleague mentioned, the Matthew
Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crime Prevention Act--not being
supportive on those issues.
These are important issues that mark our country's ability to stand
up for civil liberties. It is important in this era and time, because
of the hate crimes and the horrific things that have happened to these
individuals, that we have someone who not only recognizes those, but
embodies the fact that these individuals are facing discrimination and
must continually--continually--have someone to fight for their civil
liberties.
The nominee sponsored legislation to roll back, as I said, LGBT
rights in housing, employment, and health care, and there are an
estimated 10 million LGBT Americans who are protected by our Nation's
hate crime and anti-discrimination laws. What we want is leadership. We
want leadership to continue on these issues. We want leadership that
when we see problems, they are going to be addressed, even if it means
fighting what the President of the United States has to say.
My colleague also had opposed the reinstatement of the Voting Rights
Act and strongly supported voter ID laws that put barriers up for the
elderly, indigent communities, and communities of color to get access
to their ballots. I can tell you as a Washingtonian that nothing is
more important to us than this issue of voting rights, and I would
match our system with any other State in the Nation. We vote by mail.
We have seen as high as 84-percent voter turnout in a Presidential
year, and incredibly high turnout even in a midterm election.
We know that giving our citizens the right to vote, and making
progress on everyone having the right to vote, including the use of
provisional ballots, making sure the law is clear in embracing and
making sure people have the opportunity to vote, and have their votes
counted, are going to continue to be issues in the United States of
America. We want people to have total confidence in our voting system,
and we want them to have confidence that every citizen has a right to
cast a vote, and will not be turned away at the ballot box because of
an artificial barrier.
Believe me, there are lots of ways to catch fraud and corruption in
the voting system in the State of Washington because it is based on
your signature. Have we had people make mistakes in the system? Yes.
They have been caught or corrected.
The notion that our system needs all of these other artificial
barriers is not true. It is a system that has worked well for us and,
as I said, has empowered more people to participate in our electoral
system.
I want someone who is going to help us move forward in this country.
The notion that we are putting up lines of obstacles for voting in this
country should not be the way we are going. We need to go in the other
direction.
I am concerned that the next Attorney General will fail to protect
the civil liberties of all Americans, irrespective of their race, and
protect opportunities to participate in our democracy and to make sure
we are continuing to move forward. He has called the work of the
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the
American Civil Liberties Union ``un-American.'' Let us remember that in
our time, we need people who are going to recognize the rights of
individuals and stand up for them. If in the past his judgment and
temperament on these issues has expressed a lack of concern for these
individuals, my question for all of us is, what kind of leadership will
that drive for the next Attorney General?
He has called the decision in Roe v. Wade ``a colossal mistake'' and
has cast 86 anti-choice votes, including a vote against protecting
abortion providers and their patients from anti-choice violence.
Washington State has one of the strongest statutes in the country for
protecting a woman's right to choose. It was something we did before
the national law. It is something many people in my State feel strongly
about, and, yes, in the past, we have experienced violence at clinics.
In fact, in September 2015, there was a devastating bombing of a
Planned Parenthood clinic in Pullman, WA--a tragedy that was
unbelievable. The fact that those clinicians showed up in the parking
lot the next day and continued to deliver services, and that law
enforcement was there to help them and respect them is what I expect
out of our system and the U.S. Attorney General--that someone will be
there to help enforce the law and deter these kinds of crimes and make
sure that we are moving forward as a country.
I said earlier that I feel as though we are relitigating the sixties
and seventies. I wish that those issues had all gone away, but I feel
as if they are still with us. These examples of disrespect toward the
civil liberties of individuals, and using violence as a way to
demonstrate that disrespect, require a swift hand of justice to oppose
them.
My colleague voted against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which
amended the Civil Rights Act of 1964 so that gender-based pay disparity
claims could be heard in court. This is also something of great concern
to many Americans, not just women. It is a concern to men as well,
because men want
[[Page S892]]
their wives to make the salary they deserve, to make certain their
family has the income it deserves.
These are battles that we are going to continue to fight in the
United States of America until we have fair pay. I do view it as a
civil rights issue. As I said, Lilly Ledbetter amended the Civil Rights
Act.
He also voted against the 2013 reauthorization of the Violence
Against Women Act, which ensures that law enforcement has the every
resource necessary to investigate cases of rape, and provides colleges
with the tools to educate students about dating violence, sexual
assault, and to maintain the National Domestic Violence Hotline, which
fields 22,000 calls a month from Americans facing threats of domestic
violence.
That issue in and of itself, along with the amount of domestic
violence that women face in the United States of America, is something
that needs constant vigilance and constant attendance in order to fight
against. I don't know all the reasons he did not support that
legislation, but I know one aspect. He opposed language in the Violence
Against Women Act allowing tribes to prosecute nontribal members who
commit domestic violence against tribal members on reservation land.
That is right. People were coming onto Indian reservations across our
country. In Washington State, we have 29 recognized tribes. On those
sites, people were committing crimes of domestic violence but, because
of a loophole, weren't being prosecuted. There were unbelievable
amounts of violence.
The last administration came up with a way to work together to make
sure that those crimes were prosecuted. It is as if the Federal system
couldn't affect all the activity that was happening, but it could work
in concert with local law enforcement officials to come up with a way
to make sure that women, who were being abused just because they were
Native American on a tribal reservation, would get their fair justice.
I do have concerns about these issues as they relate to tribal
sovereignty, to the issues of domestic violence and, particularly,
domestic violence that is happening in Indian Country.
I also want to bring up an issue I think my colleague from Oregon
brought up, which is something I don't know that all of our colleagues
agree on, but I am here to advocate for my State; that is, the nominee
in his testimony said that he would leave to the States the question of
legalizing and regulating marijuana in this administration.
In the past, he has refused to respect the rights of States that have
democratically chosen to legalize marijuana for medical or recreational
use. This is an important subject for us in the Pacific Northwest
because we had a previous Attorney General who, after we had passed
medical marijuana laws, tried to shut down our medical clinics. This
was years before we passed legislation allowing for the legalization of
marijuana by the broader public, not just medical marijuana.
We have seen an Attorney General who has aggressively pursued this
medical use, and now we have concerns, as our State and several other
States have legalized marijuana, about how this Attorney General is
going to treat those actions.
We hope that this past record is not a reflection of the future and
how he plans to treat individuals, but I know my colleague from Hawaii
was here earlier and mentioned several cases of individuals in his
State who needed that medical attention, who needed that product, who
were given great comfort in their medical treatments by having access
to that.
Is that now all in question? Is that something that Americans who
have resided in States that have taken this action now have something
to fear from the next Attorney General?
I know that there were many discussions in the confirmation hearing,
and that there are concerns today relating to the issue of a ban on
Muslims entering the United States. I will not go into great detail
here, but will say that it is clear that the State of Washington has an
opinion about this and that our State Attorney General and our Governor
are trying to represent that viewpoint in the judicial process.
It is important to me that we get these issues right because I want
to protect the civil liberties of individuals, and I see a path forward
for us to be tough on these cases; that is, the true cases of terrorist
activity. I say that because Washington had a case in 1999 of an
individual who entered the United States at Port Angeles, WA. He had
come from Algiers, and then when he got to France, he cooked up a new
identity. When he left France and went to Canada, he cooked up another
identity, and then he arrived at the U.S. border from Canada on a boat
with explosives and a plan to either blow up the Space Needle or travel
to LAX and blow up the LAX Airport.
There was very good work by customs and border agents who found
something unusual about this individual. It didn't add up. His passport
looked as though it was valid, but something that was said gave the
border agent reason to conduct a more thorough check.
In fact, they did. They opened the trunk of his car, and as they did,
he ran, and with good reason because they saw a car full of explosive
materials in the trunk. That so-called Millennial Bomber was caught.
Since then, I have been an advocate for using biometrics as a standard
for us pushing visa waiver countries for letting people into their
country, as Mr. Ressam did travel, as I said, from Algiers to France,
cooking up a new identity, and then France to Canada, and Canada to the
United States, each time cooking up an identity.
But if we had cooperation with these countries on biometric
standards; if we had implemented those biometric standards, and pushed
those countries that give access to our country through the Visa Waiver
Program, we would be a lot further down the road in finding those
individuals who mean to do us harm.
We need cooperation by these other countries and the best techniques
and standards to help us. That is far different than denying access to
individuals, for example, from the Somali community that is a very big
refugee community in our State. As I said, I will leave it to our
Washington attorney general and our Governor to continue to pursue that
effort.
I have heard from many Washingtonians who are concerned about this
nomination. I heard from a young woman from Yakima, WA, who said she
was flabbergasted by this nomination, that ``if he was deemed
inadequate during the days that Strom Thurmond was in office, why now
is he adequate?''
I heard from a constituent in central Washington who said: ``I am a
transgender and gay, and much of the time I worry about my rights as a
U.S. citizen, whether they'll be revoked despite the fact that my
family has fought in every war in the U.S. since the Civil War. I am
worried that legislation would be implemented that would dehumanize me
and other LGBT community individuals, and that doesn't align with the
nominee's religious beliefs.''
So these are concerns my constituents have, and I have to agree with
them, that our nominee's record leaves question about his ability to
fervently advocate on behalf of these individuals, given his record and
history in the past. And I know that my colleague, the ranking member
from the Judiciary Committee, has been out here on the floor, going in
detail about the questioning that happened during the committee process
on all sorts of issues, as it relates to women's rights and
reproductive choice, and how we are going to continue to move forward
to make sure these individuals are protected.
So, to me, my constituents are loud and clear. They want these civil
liberties protected. They want an Attorney General who is going to make
sure that those civil liberties are fought for and respected every day
and are going to get equal protection under the law.
Here are some additional excerpts from the letters of our concerned
constituents.
KS from Yakima, WA, a concerned constituent, writes: ``I am simply
flabbergasted that Jeff Sessions was chosen to be our Attorney General.
If he was deemed inadequate in the days when Strom Thurmond was in
office, then he's certainly inadequate in 21st century America. As you
are politicians, I shouldn't have to remind you of this, but I'm going
to anyway. One, America was built by immigrants from
[[Page S893]]
all over the world, on top of an already diverse nation of the First
Peoples. Two, there are over 300 languages spoken in the U.S., nearly
half of which are indigenous. Three, people have had to fight tooth and
nail against discrimination based on their race and ethnicity, and the
fact that so many are still doing to that today is extremely worrisome.
Four, it's been our legally protected right since 1967 to marry and
have a family with someone of a different race. Five, it's only been
our legally protected right to marry and have a family with someone of
the same gender since 2015. Six, my generation, the Millennials, is the
most diverse of any in American history. Since 2000, 40 percent of all
children have been born to multiracial families. And those children
will be eligible to vote before you know it. The ones born in 2000 will
likely have a lot to say come the midterm election. This America
cannot, should not, MUST NOT have an attorney general who thought the
Klan was too liberal. He has no place at a school crosswalk, let alone
leading the most powerful nation in the free world. PLEASE do not let
this happen!''
SL from Wenatchee, WA, writes: ``He has repeatedly shown within his
career that he clearly sees the LGBTQ+ community as something that is
acceptable to discriminate against. Most notably is his support of the
Defense of Marriage Act. This worries me very deeply since I am
Transgender and gay. Much of the time I worry that my rights as a US
citizen will be revoked, despite the fact that my family has fought in
every war in the US since the Civil War. I am worried that he would
allow legislation to be law that would dehumanize me and other LGBTQ+
individuals because it doesn't align with his apparent religious
beliefs. He also seems to not hold much issue with civil rights as long
as they don't go `too far.' Additionally, his continual stance against
immigrants could have a distinct impact on my city and community. We
have a large Hispanic and Mexican population, many of them around the
neighborhoods where I live. The many years I've lived here I've found
our multicultural community to be hard working and not the `evil' that
Trump is adamant to make them out to be. I do not feel reassured if he
becomes the Attorney General that he would stand up to Trump and fairly
support these marginalized individuals in the Department of Justice.''
JH from Seattle, WA, writes: ``I trust that you will protect and
stand for the ideals of our country and vote no to the appointment of
Jeff Sessions as Attorney General. The job of the Justice Department is
to protect all people, and to enforce the laws of the land to do so.
Sessions has not in word or deed demonstrated he is capable of doing
so. Even while awaiting confirmation, he is supporting discrimination
against LGBTQ people by his support of the FADA. I expect any person
confirmed in our government to clearly support all people--black,
brown, white, male, female, transgender, gay, lesbian, bisexual, queer,
Jew, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Native, atheists, and people of all
ethnicity. The Attorney General is responsible for upholding The
Constitution--including Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the
people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a
redress of grievances. This means upholding the Constitution, including
Press's right to cover Mr. Trump and report as they see fit--not
censored news. This also means supporting The right of the people to be
secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no
Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and
the persons or things to be seized. This means insisting that the
Justice Department hold themselves and local police forces accountable
for detaining and searching people--and do promulgate brutality from
behind the badge. Instead of Jeff Sessions, please garner support for
and vote for a legal mind who has a demonstrated record of upholding
all people's rights. There are many fine minds and hearts in our
country who are up to the task. It is your responsibility as a Senator
of our fine Democracy to vote only for one of them.''
Gary from Spokane, WA: ``Jeff Sessions does not believe that our laws
should protect everyone. He believes certain groups should have less
rights and/or less protection under the law. He will allow
discrimination, based on his record. There is enough volatility in this
time of ours to understand the importance of a fair minded, tempered
and balanced person to head the department of justice. There is no
denying we are entering a tumultuous time. There is enough concern over
Jeff Sessions to give pause, consider the times we are in, and come up
with a better choice. Concerns over our country turning to
totalitarianism are real. The president elect is extremely polarizing
and may very well be breaking the US Constitution as soon as he's sworn
in, due to conflicts of interest. The attorney general certainly needs
to understand these concerns and be able to enforce the laws of the
American people. There are many other talented legal professionals with
a wide variety of skill sets related to law enforcement. This is the
time to slow down a bit; delay . . . at least this appointment. There
is an appointment process for a reason. Make Mr. Trump come up with a
better choice. No matter your party, there is no win in becoming a
rubber stamp for Mr. Trump. I vote nay for Jeff Session as Attorney
General. Consider the importance of this time, consider the future of
our country, consider the rights guaranteed in the bill of rights. The
choice then is easy, nay for Sessions, yay for thoughtful, accountable
and tempered governance.''
Betsy from Waldron, WA, writes: ``Please oppose the appointment of
Jeff Sessions as Attorney General. He is opposed to basic civil rights
for all people and he cannot be put in charge of protecting those same
rights. Please do not compromise with Trump or try to compromise as if
he were a normal president. Please oppose, blockade, filibuster, and
refuse to go along with Trump's plans to tear our country apart. I am
relying on you to be our first wall of defense against this terrifying
man.''
RaGena from Spokane, WA, writes: ``As a constituent I urge you to
oppose the confirmation of Senator Jeff Sessions as Attorney General of
the United States His voting record as senator and the content of his
speeches to the Senate do not inspire confidence in his ability to
discharge the responsibilities of the Attorney General's office in
keeping with role of the Department of Justice in contemporary American
society. His responses to the Judiciary Committee raised further,
serious concerns. All this, coupled with the reasons for his failure to
be confirmed as a federal judge decades ago, suggest that he is not the
person for this job.''
DH from Tacoma, WA, writes: ``I am writing to express my strong
opposition to the nomination of Jeff Sessions as Attorney General.
Everything I know about this man makes him uniquely unqualified for the
post. He has not supported equal rights of minorities and has supported
vote suppression as a means to reduce the effect of minority votes. In
the attorney general seat, Sessions will be able to make decisions that
will negatively affect the daily lives of some of our most vulnerable
citizens. Please reinforce my belief in you as a leader and vote no on
Jeff Sessions for attorney general.''
JG from Seattle, WA, writes: ``You must vote against confirming Jeff
Sessions as Attorney General. His record makes clear that he will not
support voting rights for all Americans and will not act to protect the
rights of minorities or work to improve the criminal justice system. In
fact, his record makes clear he will move to suppress voting rights and
will promote DOJ actions that will hurt minorities in particular. He is
not fit to serve as this country's Attorney General.''
AM from Seattle, WA, writes: ``I am a criminal defense attorney in
Seattle. I write to ask you to vote against confirming Jeff Sessions as
United States Attorney General. Under the Obama administration, many
inroads have been made into remedying the harms of mandatory minimum
drug sentencing and other forms of drug sentencing reform.
Additionally, states like Washington have been allowed to sell
marijuana, legal under state law, without
[[Page S894]]
fear of federal prosecution. Finally, the Obama administration made
good use of the civil rights division to assist in reforming police
departments engaged in improper policing practices, such as Seattle. I
have no confidence that Jeff Sessions will continue to support any of
these policies. Please do not vote to confirm him.''
LB from Seattle, WA, writes: ``Please block Jeff Sessions from
becoming Attorney General. The idea of having a racist attorney general
is appalling. We need to improve race relations in this country and in
our law enforcement officers, especially. I am 41 and feel like the
race relations in this country had been improving steadily throughout
my life, at least on the west coast. It's very scary to me that this
new administration has to brought to light all the issues that still
remain but to be a great country we cannot be a divided one and with
half our population being minorities this appointment seems like a huge
huge step in the wrong direction.''
LR from Seattle, WA, writes: ``I am writing to ask you to do
everything you can to stop the nomination of Jeff Sessions as Attorney
General. His record shows his hostility toward civil rights, the ACLU,
the NAACP, the LGBT community and more. I am especially concerned about
his ability to send us backwards on gay marriage and other civil rights
laws. His appointment to head the Justice Department would be a
disaster for civil rights law in this country. Please help stop this
travesty.''
MY from Edmonds, WA, writes: ``I am writing to urge you to continue
due diligence on the appointment of Jeff Sessions as attorney general.
I do not believe the political commercial I just saw trying to paint
him in a wonderful light and asking people to contact senators to urge
confirmation. I continue to have concerns about what he will do to
lessen voter rights and other issues under his authority. The
advertisement did not change my opinion and I feel it's just full of
alternative facts. Please continue to ask tough questions on all of
these appointments.''
RR from Bellingham, WA, writes: ``Please do not consider Jeff
Sessions for Attorney General. His views, clearly displayed over the
course of his career, are the antithesis of what our country stands for
around the world. The United States has been a bastion of freedom,
truth and inclusiveness. Sadly, those qualities are rapidly
disappearing, faster than o thought possible, under the Trump
administration. ALL of our citizens are entitled to equality under the
law. All of our citizens are entitled to live freely regardless of
their race, religion, lack of religion, gender or sexuality. Jeff
Sessions is dangerous. He will dismantle civil rights laws, allow
racial profiling, support laws that prevent access to voting and
encourage the abuse of the LGBT community. Please vote no.''
I also know there are letters from many organizations that also have
opposed this nomination, and my colleague has talked about many of
those, but the NAACP, civil and human rights organizations, the HRC,
and the American Federation of State and County Municipal Employees
have said they question the objectivity and sense of justice needed on
these important issues.
I mentioned the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and other issues of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, things that people are
concerned that they get the fair attention and enforcement of law. I
ask unanimous consent that these letters be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People,
Washington, DC, February 7, 2017.
Re The NAACP Strongly Urges the U.S. Senate To Vote No on
Sen. Jeff Sessions Nomination as Attorney General.
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator: On behalf of the NAACP, our nation's oldest,
largest and most widely-recognized grassroots-based civil
rights organization, I strongly urge you to vote against
Jefferson ``Jeff'' Beauregard Sessions III for Attorney
General. Throughout this contentious debate, and through his
past actions, his recorded words, and his voting record as a
United States Senator, Sen. Sessions has demonstrated a clear
disregard, disrespect, and disdain for the rights and needs
of all American people. Senator Sessions possesses neither
the political nor the moral temperament to serve as Attorney
General.
The NAACP staunchly opposes the confirmation of Senator
Jeff Sessions based on several factors, including the fact
that he does not agree with us on a majority of issues as is
reflected in our federal legislative report card. Since 1914,
our report card has been reflective of our bread-and-butter
civil rights issues, and the fact that Senator Sessions has
averaged, since coming into Congress, just over 10%,
demonstrates his clear disregard for issues that are
important to us and to those we represent and serve. It would
be a disservice to these people who support our priorities
for us to not speak out against this nomination. Supporters
of the NAACP would argue, in fact, that the Department of
Justice is a crucial enforcer of civil rights laws and
advisor to the President and Congress on what can and should
be done if those laws are threatened. Given his disregard for
issues which protect the rights, and in some cases the lives,
of our constituents, there is no way that the NAACP can or
should be expected to sit by and support Senator Sessions'
nomination to head the U.S. Department of Justice.
The disdain Senator Sessions has shown for civil rights
organizations, including the NAACP, is as palatable as it is
disturbing. During his confirmation hearing in 1986 for a
federal judgeship in Alabama, Senator Sessions replied to one
question by saying, ``I'm often loose with my tongue. I may
have said something about the NAACP being un-American or
Communist, but I meant no harm by it.'' Yet he denied saying
anything disparaging about the NAACP in his recent hearing
before the Senate Judiciary Committee on January 9, 2017.
Lastly, in a floor statement made earlier today, Senator
Lindsey Graham suggested that the opposition of the national
NAACP is out of step with the sentiments of Alabamians.
Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the
President of the Alabama State Conference of NAACP Branches
has been a leader in opposing this nomination. He was up here
on January 9, 2017, to hear Senator Sessions' testimony, a
trip he took with busloads of NAACP Members who also opposed
the confirmation. This was a day after he was arrested for
sitting in on Senator Sessions' office in Mobile as a means
of protest in which he urged Senator Sessions to withdraw his
nomination from consideration by the Senate.
In summation, I would like to reiterate that it is the
experiences of the NAACP that lead us to oppose Senator
Sessions' nomination. We further call on President Trump to
nominate an individual who have a demonstrated commitment to
the constitutional promises of civil rights, voting rights
and civil liberties protection and enforcement for all, and
an articulated respect and promise to promote the civil and
human rights of all people, regardless of their race,
ethnicity, gender, age, religion, place of national origin,
sexual preference or station in life. Thank you in advance
for your attention to the position of the NAACP. Should you
have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to
contact me at my office.
Sincerely,
Hilary O. Shelton,
Director, NAACP Washington Bureau & Senior Vice President
for Policy and Advocacy.
____
The Leadership Conference on
Civil and Human Rights,
Washington, DC, December 1, 2016.
An Open Letter to the United States Senate
Civil and Human Rights Organizations Oppose Confirmation of Jeff
Sessions
Dear Majority Leader McConnell, Democratic Leader Reid,
Chairman Grassley, and Ranking Member Leahy: On behalf of The
Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, a coalition
of more than 200 national organizations committed to promote
and protect the civil and human rights of all persons in the
United States, and the 144 undersigned organizations, we are
writing to express our strong opposition to the confirmation
of Senator Jefferson B. Sessions (R-AL) to be the 84th
Attorney General of the United States.
Senator Sessions has a 30-year record of racial
insensitivity, bias against immigrants, disregard for the
rule of law, and hostility to the protection of civil rights
that makes him unfit to serve as the Attorney General of the
United States. In our democracy, the Attorney General is
charged with enforcing our nation's laws without prejudice
and with an eye toward justice. And, just as important, the
Attorney General has to be seen by the public--every member
of the public, from every community--as a fair arbiter of
justice. Unfortunately, there is little in Senator Sessions'
record that demonstrates that he would meet such a standard.
In 1986, when then-U.S. Attorney Sessions was nominated by
former President Ronald Reagan to serve as a judge on the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama, the
Republican-controlled Senate upheld its constitutional duty,
undertaking a careful and comprehensive review of his record
at that time. The Judiciary Committee was presented with
compelling evidence that then-U.S. Attorney Sessions had a
deeply troubling record as an opponent of civil rights
enforcement, a champion of voter suppression tactics
targeting African
[[Page S895]]
Americans, and a history of making racially-insensitive
statements. This record included warning an African-American
colleague to be careful about what he said ``to white
folks,'' and speaking favorably about the Ku Klux Klan, as
well as his prosecution of three African-American voting
rights activists on dozens of charges that were promptly
rejected by a jury.
As you know, the Attorney General is our nation's highest
law enforcement official, with a particular responsibility to
protect the civil and human rights of all Americans. The
Leadership Conference opposes Senator Sessions' nomination to
become Attorney General, in part, because of the previous
record we have cited. However, it would be a grave mistake to
assume that our opposition is based only on incidents prior
to his judicial nomination.
Indeed, the following are examples of his actions as a
Senator over the past 20 years that raise very disturbing
questions about his fitness to serve as Attorney General:
Voting Rights: In addition to his failed 1985 prosecution
of three voting rights activists who were working to increase
African-American registration and turnout, Senator Sessions
has voiced strong support for restrictive voter ID laws that
have had the effect of disenfranchising many otherwise
eligible voters, called the Voting Rights Act ``intrusive''
as it seeks to protect eligible minority voters, and praised
the Supreme Court ruling in Shelby County v. Holder (2013)
that gutted a key part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. This
is hardly the record of someone to be entrusted with the
protection of voting rights for all Americans.
Association with White Nationalist and Hate Groups
regarding Immigration Policy: Senator Sessions has been a
fierce opponent of comprehensive immigration reform,
referring to a bipartisan 2007 bill as ``terrorist
assistance.'' He has closely associated himself with
NumbersUSA, the Federation for American Immigration Reform,
and the Center for Immigration Studies, all three of which
were founded by John Tanton, who held white nationalist
beliefs and called for the preservation of a ``European-
American majority.'' Senator Sessions has also received
awards from the David Horowitz Freedom Center and Frank
Gaffney's Center for Security Policy, two organizations
designated as anti-Muslim hate groups by the Southern Poverty
Law Center.
Hate Crimes and LGBT Rights: Senator Sessions opposed the
Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention
Act, even though a unanimous Supreme Court had long ago
upheld a similar state law in Wisconsin v. Mitchell (1993).
This is particularly disturbing at a time when there have
reportedly been more than 700 hate incidents committed in the
weeks since the election. The next Attorney General must
recognize that hate crimes exist, and vigorously investigate
them.
In addition, on LGBT rights, Senator Sessions supported a
constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. He also
opposed the repeal of ``Don't Ask Don't Tell.''
Women's Rights: Senator Sessions has consistently opposed
legislation to advance women's rights, notably opposing
multiple efforts to address the pay gap, to protect women's
access to reproductive health services, which
disproportionately affect low-income women and women of
color, and to address the scourge of violence against all
women. Specifically, Senator Sessions opposed the Lilly
Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, enabling women to file
ongoing pay discrimination claims, and has voted multiple
times against consideration of the Paycheck Fairness Act.
Senator Sessions also opposed Title X funding legislation,
which supports contraception, breast cancer screening and
other health services for low-income women. In addition,
Senator Sessions repeatedly voted to defund Planned
Parenthood, and in 2014, he voted against S. 2578 to fix the
Hobby Lobby decision by prohibiting employers from denying
coverage of any health care service, such as contraception,
required under federal law. Senator Sessions also opposed the
reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act in 2013,
and when then-candidate Donald Trump was revealed in a 2005
video to have made comments bragging about physically forcing
himself on women, Senator Sessions declined to condemn the
remarks, even questioning whether the comments described
sexual assault.
Criminal Justice Reform: Though Senator Sessions was a
longtime supporter of eliminating sentencing disparities
between crack and powder cocaine offenses, he has since been
an ardent supporter of maintaining draconian mandatory
minimum sentences. Recently, Senator Sessions helped to block
broad-based, bipartisan efforts to reduce sentences for
certain nonviolent drug offenses. He also opposed the
President's initiative to address disparities and restore
fairness to the justice system through the use of his
constitutionally granted executive clemency power. He
criticized the Department of Justice's Smart on Crime
Initiative, which has focused on prosecuting fewer but ``more
serious'' drug cases and over the last three years, has
contributed to a 20 percent reduction in overcrowding in the
federal Bureau of Prisons. Finally, Senator Sessions
condemned the Department of Justice's use of its powers to
investigate law enforcement agencies accused of misconduct
and a ``pattern or practice'' of violating civil rights,
calling consent decrees that mandate reform following these
investigations ``an end run around the democratic process.''
Failing to Protect our Communities from Pollution and
Climate Change: Climate change and environmental degradation
disproportionately affect low-income families and communities
of color. Senator Sessions has a long record of voting
against protections for our clean air, water, and climate.
Among his many anti-environmental votes, in 2015 he voted for
the resolution to kill the clean power plan and for the
Barrasso bill to deny protections for streams that provide
drinking water for 113 million Americans. In 2012, he
supported a resolution that would roll back protections from
toxic mercury. America needs and deserves an Attorney General
who will take into account the health and safety of all
communities. Senator Sessions is not qualified in this regard
and cannot be counted on to protect our air, water, and
climate.
Rights of People with Disabilities: Senator Sessions
opposed efforts to implement Alabama's obligation to provide
community-based services to individuals with disabilities who
were needlessly institutionalized. In addition, he called the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act's requirements to
include children with disabilities in mainstream education
``the single most irritating problem for teachers throughout
America today'' and ``a big factor in accelerating the
decline in civility and discipline in classrooms all over
America.'' This opposition to integration and inclusion is
extremely concerning given the active role that the Justice
Department plays in enforcing the Americans with Disabilities
Act to enable people with disabilities to live independent
lives, be full participants in their communities, and to be
educated in neighborhood schools and regular classrooms.
Senator Sessions also opposed ratification of the Convention
on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
These aspects of Senator Sessions' record are among those
that led The Leadership Conference to believe that he should
not be confirmed as our next Attorney General. At the very
least, these issues must be fully aired and deliberated
before each Senator makes a final decision with respect to
his nomination--otherwise, the Senate's constitutional duty
to provide ``advice and consent'' would be reduced to a mere
farce.
Given Senator Sessions' record and public statements, the
burden should be on him to prove to the Judiciary Committee,
the Senate, and the American people--especially to
communities of color and immigrant communities--that he can
be trusted with the tremendous power of the U.S. Justice
Department to enforce our nation's civil rights and
immigration laws with integrity, fairness, and a sense of
justice.
The burden on Senator Sessions is not to prove that he is
not a ``racist.'' For the record, The Leadership Conference
has never made such an allegation, as we do not claim to know
what has been in his heart when he has taken the actions and
made the statements we have described above. Nevertheless, we
believe those actions and statements are themselves
disqualifying.
This is notwithstanding our recognition that Senator
Sessions' record does include some positive actions. For
example, the Southern Poverty Law Center, while expressing
opposition to his confirmation, acknowledged that he was
helpful in the Center's successful effort to sue and bankrupt
the Ku Klux Klan following its role in the 1981 lynching
death of Michael Donald. The Leadership Conference also
worked with Senator Sessions in an effort that culminated in
the passage of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, which reduced
racial disparities in federal cocaine sentencing provisions.
While these actions are noteworthy, they do not change our
conclusion that Senator Sessions' overall record is too
troubling for him to be confirmed as Attorney General.
The collegiality that ordinarily governs Senate decorum is
no substitute for, and must not supersede, the Senate's
profoundly important duty to vigorously and fairly review
each nominee who comes before it. We believe that based on
this review, there can be only one conclusion: Senator
Sessions is the wrong person to serve as the U.S. Attorney
General.
Thank you for your consideration of our views. If you would
like to discuss this matter further, please contact Wade
Henderson, President and CEO, or Nancy Zirkin, Executive Vice
President.
____
American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees,
Washington, DC, February 7, 2017.
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator: On behalf of the 1.6 million members of the
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
(AFSCME), I am writing to express our strong opposition to
the confirmation of Sen. Jeff Sessions as Attorney General of
the United States. Sen. Sessions has a lengthy record of
public service, but his record does not demonstrate that he
possesses the objectivity and sense of justice needed to
serve as the nation's chief law enforcement officer.
Sen. Sessions has a troubling pattern of antipathy toward
legal protections on which working families depend. He
opposed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act enabling women to
challenge pay discrimination. He denounced the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act provisions that ensure that
children with disabilities are included in mainstream
education. He also opposed the
[[Page S896]]
reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act and the
Shepard-Byrd Hate Crimes Act.
Sen. Sessions has expressed strong support for voter ID
laws which restrict the rights of many, otherwise, eligible
voters. He has called the Voting Rights Act ``intrusive'' as
it seeks to protect minority voters and praised the U.S.
Supreme Court ruling in Shelby County v. Holder which gutted
a key part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Recently, Sen. Sessions helped to block bipartisan efforts
to reduce sentences for certain nonviolent drug offenses. He
has also criticized the Department of Justice's use of
consent decrees to address misconduct and violations of civil
rights by law enforcement agencies.
Testimony provided by Sen. Sessions during his hearing has
not alleviated our grave concerns about his suitability to
lead the Department of Justice. We urge you to reject his
nomination.
Sincerely,
Scott Frey,
Director of Federal Government Affairs.
____
National Nurses United,
Washington, DC, February 7, 2017.
Hon. Maria Cantwell,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Cantwell: We write on behalf of the more than
150,000 registered nurse members of National Nurses United to
urge you to vote against the confirmation of Senator Jeff
Sessions, President-elect Donald Trump's nominee for Attorney
General. Much has been said by many others against
confirmation of this nominee, so we will be brief
Our members work as bedside healthcare professionals in
almost every state in the nation. We work in every hospital
setting, from small rural facilities to large urban public
health systems, in prominent research hospitals affiliated
with prestigious public and private universities, as well as
Veterans Affairs hospitals and clinics. We care for Americans
on every point of the demographic spectrum, at their most
vulnerable. We provide the best care we possibly can, without
regard to race, gender, national origin, religion, socio
economic circumstances, or other identifying characteristic.
That is what caring professionals do. Unfortunately, that is
not what Jeff Sessions has done in his role as a public
servant. And to vote in favor of confirming him as the chief
law enforcement officer of the United States would abdicate
your responsibility to provide the oversight necessary to
ensure that basic legal rights are enforced evenhandedly and
for the protection of all people.
As Senate colleagues, you no doubt know Senator Sessions'
record as a lawmaker, as well as his record as the U.S.
Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama and as the
Alabama Attorney General. It was, of course, his record in
the U.S. Attorney's office and his many publically verified
racially insensitive comments that resulted in a majority of
the Senate Judiciary Committee voting against confirmation
for his nomination to be a U.S. District Court judge in 1986.
This `no' vote happened while the Judiciary Committee was
majority Republican. Even Senator Howell Heflin, a fellow
Alabamian, voted against him, citing ``reasonable doubts''
over whether he could be ``fair and impartial.''
Senator Sessions has oft asserted that his comments over
the years were taken out of context, or intended as humor.
But his record tells the truth. Early in his career he
charged civil right leaders (``the Marion Three'') with
voting fraud related to their efforts to assist African
American voters. The fact that the defendants in that case
were acquitted didn't deter Mr. Sessions. Later, as Attorney
General of Alabama, he initiated another voter fraud
investigation involving absentee ballots cast by black voters
that, again, resulted in findings of no wrong doing. During
that same timeframe, he was criticized for declining to
investigate church burnings, and he ``joked'' that he thought
Ku Klux Klan members were ``OK, until [he] learned that they
smoked marijuana.''
Against that background, Senator Sessions aggressively
interrogated Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the Court's first
nominee of Latino heritage. Further betraying a deep belief
in natural division between racial groups, he grilled Justice
Sotomayor about whether she could be fair to white Americans,
despite her 17-year record as a jurist and having received
the American Bar Association's highest rating. And he
expressed grave concerns that she would engage in judicial
``empathy'' on the high court, favoring persons of certain
races or ethnicities over others. He then voted against her
confirmation.
Senator Sessions' prejudices are not only against people of
color. As an organization representing a predominately female
profession we are compelled to express our outrage that
Senator Sessions defended Donald Trump's statements about
grabbing women by the genitals, by saying that such conduct
would not constitute sexual assault. The fact that he took a
different position during his Committee hearing is of no
comfort. It only shows that he will say whatever he believes
will help land him in the seat of power to determine whether,
and against whom, to enforce our laws. His comments last fall
dismissing President-elect Trump's despicable treatment of
women is consistent with his vote in 2013 against the
Violence Against Women Act. As nurses, we see close up the
devastating effects of domestic violence against our
patients, and we are disturbed by Senator Sessions' alleged
concern that the protection of that statute should not extend
to victims of violence on tribal lands.
Moreover, confirming Senator Sessions to the job of the top
prosecutor would exacerbate our national crisis over race
issues in policing and our criminal justice system. He
personally blocked the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act,
a bipartisan effort spearheaded by Sens. Charles Grassley (R-
Iowa), Mike Lee (R-Utah), and John Cornyn (R-Texas), and
Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-Wis.). The fact that law
enforcement leadership throughout the nation supported the
reform effort made no difference to Senator Sessions. And
unfortunately, his actions as U.S. Attorney for the Southern
District of Alabama only further illustrate his indifference
to this crisis. For example, drug convictions made up 40
percent of his cases when he served in that position--twice
the rate of other federal prosecutors in Alabama.
Despite the current trend of focusing resources on violent
crime, and away from out-dated drug war policies, Senator
Sessions continues to oppose any attempts to legalize
marijuana and any reduction in drug sentences. As Attorney
General, he could direct federal prosecutors throughout the
country to pursue the harshest penalties possible for even
low-level drug offenses, a step that would further exacerbate
our national record of incarcerating non-violent offenders--
the vast majority of whom could be successfully treated, at
far lower cost to society, with appropriate healthcare
treatment.
Nor should Senator Sessions be trusted to ensure equal
access to voting rights. He has publically called the Voting
Rights Act ``intrusive,'' and has insisted that its proactive
protections of racial minorities were no longer necessary.
This is especially disturbing as Senator Sessions voiced
public support for voter-ID laws, while his home state
recently tried to close over thirty DMV offices, many in
majority-black areas, shortly after instituting strict voter-
ID requirements. We are reminded of the words of Coretta
Scott King in her letter opposing Jeff Sessions' nomination
to the federal district court in 1986: ``The irony of Mr.
Sessions' nomination is that, if confirmed, he will be given
a life tenure for doing with a federal prosecution what the
local sheriffs accomplished twenty years ago with clubs and
cattle prods.''
We will not attempt to address all the positions Senator
Sessions has taken that are out of step with the reality of
the difficult times we are in, but as nurses we must include
our grave concern that as Attorney General he would not be
vigilant in enforcing environmental protections. In a July
2012 Senate hearing on climate science, Senator Sessions
dismissed the concerns about global warming expressed by 98%
of climate scientists, and asserted that this is ``[a] danger
that is not as great as it seems.'' These positions are
frightening. Climate change is a public health issue that
cannot be overstated. As nurses we have been seeing for some
time increases in the frequency and severity of respiratory
diseases such as asthma, bronchitis, and emphysema, as well
as an increase in cancers and aggravation of cardiovascular
illness. The effects of air pollution are particularly acute
in pediatric patients. They have higher respiratory rates
than adults, and consequently higher exposure. Our elderly
patients are also especially vulnerable. Respiratory symptoms
as common as coughing can cause arrhythmias, heart attacks,
and other serious health impacts in geriatric patients. As
global warming progresses, we are seeing sharp increases in
heat stroke and dehydration, both of which are sometimes
fatal.
In our disaster relief work through our Registered Nurse
Response Network, we have been called upon to assist the
victims of Hurricane Katrina and Super Storm Sandy--events
that many scientists believe would not have been of the
magnitude they were if not for rising temperature.
Current and future generations cannot afford to have a fox
minding the hen house on the important issues of civil and
criminal protections under the control of the Attorney
General. We urge you to set aside your personal loyalty to
Senator Sessions and evaluate honestly his record and fitness
for this critically important job. We urge you to vote
against his confirmation.
Sincerely,
Deborah Burger, RN,
Co-President, National Nurses United.
Jean Ross, RN,
Co-President, National Nurses United.
Ms. CANTWELL. I also note that the National Nurses United, on behalf
of 150,000 registered nurses, also urge the opposition to this nominee.
And the record of this individual has made these individuals concerned
about the resources and focus on crimes and actions that they see in
their day-to-day lives.
They want to make sure they are going to work effectively in
addressing these issues that they see through the health care system.
All of these issues add up to a great deal of concern about this next
vote that we are going to be taking.
[[Page S897]]
We are not under the illusion that somehow, magically, the vote is
going to turn out any differently than it did on the last nominee. Why
are we here at 4:30 in the morning to talk about this? Why are we going
to continue to pursue efforts, as the minority, to get time to discuss
these nominees? We are going to do that because we have great concerns
about their record. And, frankly, in the case of the next two nominees
who are coming before us, we had specific questions asked about their
actual actions and statements and the testaments before the Finance
Committee. Instead of the majority answering those questions for us,
they decided not to answer them and push the vote to the floor of the
United States Senate.
I am very concerned about the Price nomination, and the discussion
that I hope we are going to have time to have here on that nomination
and to bring light to the issues that we didn't get to bring to light
in the Finance Committee.
The Treasury nominee that we will give time to in the next several
days, the discussion of that record, the things I am interested in,
obviously, are the protection of Medicare and Medicaid, and making sure
we expose what is the concept and idea to either cap or cut the
benefits that Americans are getting under those programs today and to
have a great discussion about a very important issue that was talked
about during the campaign and was put into party platforms on both
sides of the aisle, but now all of a sudden seem to be forgotten. That
mysterious, but all-important issue, something called Glass-Steagall,
the separation of commercial and investment banking. That is what the
Trump campaign, now President Trump, working with Republicans, put into
a platform. Let us have Glass-Steagall.
Let us have separation of commercial and investment banking. Why?
Because it is the disaster that brought us the implosion of our economy
and cost our economy $14 trillion, according to the Dallas fed. Yet,
many Americans have not fully recovered from that event. I get that a
lot of banks have recovered because we gave them the keys to the
Treasury, and they got bailed out, but a lot of everyday Americans have
not recovered. And certainly there are pension issues in the
questioning of nominee Mnuchin. There was some discussion, ``Well, that
is not what we meant. That is in the party platform, but that is not
what we meant, and that is not what we are going to pursue.'' And
certainly the rollback of Dodd-Frank provisions, that were just done in
a Congressional Review Act, without very much discussion or fanfare or
understanding by the American public, these kinds of actions are the
things we seek debate on.
As these nominees come right after this, my constituents in the State
of Washington are feeling as if these nominees need to be questioned on
how they are going to uphold existing law and how they are going to
implement and enforce existing law as it relates to these many issues.
We are doing our best here. We would rather not do it at 4:30 in the
morning. We would rather not do it at 4:30 in the morning, but we will
do it at 4:30 in the morning if that is what it takes to get the airing
on these issues and this amount of attention.
So I do find that the other side of the aisle, trying to gavel down
my colleague from Massachusetts, was an attempt to try to say that you
can control this debate. You can control the questions we have or the
discussions we want to have or the concerns that our constituents have,
which are real. I don't think it takes a genius to see that many people
marching in Seattle on women's issues or an attorney general or a
Governor who files a case or all the discussion that is happening, as I
said, in response to a bombing at a health clinic just within the last
few years or a bombing that happened in Spokane, an attempt on a Martin
Luther King Day parade just several years ago, where somebody left a
backpack trying to do harm--these are issues today.
They may be the same struggles that our Nation has had, but we have
made it through, and we want a law enforcement officer in the land to
uphold the law, enforce it, and to fight for the civil liberties of
these individuals.
So I go back to my opening comments about this. And that is that I
truly believe that mark that was set in the Saturday night massacre is
the mark we should always strive for. I happened to ask at the time,
when I first got on the Senate, I sat on the Judiciary Commission for 2
years, and I asked Attorney General Ashcroft about these issues. I
asked him specifically, if you become the Attorney General for the
Nation--at this time we had a law that had been implemented, the
roadless area rule. Even though it had become the force of law, would
he enforce that, even though the new President wanted to overturn it?
Because I wanted to get across this very issue: Are you working for the
American people? Will you uphold the law if, in fact, that is the law
of the country? At this point in time, Mr. Ashcroft hesitated about
whether it did have the force of law but said that if it did have the
force of law, he would certainly uphold it. Obviously, we saw a lot of
Executive orders in the early days of the Bush administration trying to
overturn many of these things, and we saw an Attorney General's office
that stood by. Instead of defending these laws in court, basically they
were effective at not implementing fighting them because basically they
did a very poor job in the court process--or decided not to argue or to
file on behalf of the existing law, as opposed to answering to the
Senate of the United States.
So we have seen examples of this. We have seen examples of Attorneys
General who are responding more to the President of the United States
than upholding the laws of the land.
I think Americans--at least the Washingtonians who are writing me in
record numbers, who are speaking out in record numbers, who are
concerned in record numbers--want the laws on the book to be enforced,
and they want the steps they are taking and making progress on as a
State to also work in coordination with the next Attorney General.
I will be honest with people. I did not vote for the law to legalize
marijuana in my State. I did not vote for it. I did not think that
given some challenges and issues we had, it was the right thing to do.
That is how I cast my vote. But more than 20 counties in our State, out
of 39, voted for this law. It is not something that just Seattle did
and it dominated the State, and there were just a bunch of people in
Seattle who wanted to legalize marijuana; it was counties throughout
our State. Some of our most rural counties voted for the legalization
of that product.
In the ensuing years, we have had a good relationship with the
Attorney General and the Department of Justice on how that law was
going to continue to play out. So, as you can imagine, it is a much
more integrated system now several years later. Several questions still
remain about how this country is going to address that issue as a
nation as a whole.
But right now, right now, we want to know we are going to have an
Attorney General, and my obligation to a citizenry who has passed by
initiative this decision is to make sure that I am looking for people
here who are going to work with the State of Washington on that right
that our State has to continue to move forward.
So it is of concern. As I said, the notion that a previous Attorney
General did not agree--not this past Obama administration, but the
previous Bush administration literally came to our State when we had a
medical marijuana law and forced the investigation and shutdown of some
facilities, caused great concern to medical patients throughout our
State. So this is raising a question for people here. It is my
obligation to make sure these issues are raised and brought up as we
seek this discussion on the Sessions nomination to be Attorney General
for our country.
I again thank my colleagues for being out here and for all of the
discussions we have had on these issues. We should not be afraid to
have these discussions. We should not be afraid to think about how we
are going to work not only across the aisle, as I have done with my
colleague Susan Collins on those homeland security Court issues--we
worked successfully with Jeh Johnson, the last Homeland Security
director, to make sure that we were moving some of our airport border
control issues to overseas airports. We were able to get that done in
December
[[Page S898]]
after the San Bernardino event and make sure that we are now working.
Why do we want them over there? Why do we want the border control and
efficiency over there? Because then you can work more in coordination
with law enforcement about who bad actors are before they reach the
shores of the United States. By working with local law enforcement in
those countries, we have better ways to find information about
individuals we have concerns about. That is the best nexus for us, and
so she and I have worked on that issue.
As I mentioned earlier, Senator Collins and I are big advocates for
the use of biometrics because you can identify people. As I mentioned,
in the Ressam case, if we had identified Ressam the first time he
entered France, we would have known who he was when he got to Canada.
It would not have taken him going to the U.S. border. We would have
found out when he arrived in Canada. But this is the United States
using our clout and using our efforts to say to our European
counterparts: We have implemented these biometric standards, and we
want you to implement them, and we want to work together to make sure
people we have great suspicion and concern about are being addressed.
So, yes, we can work across the aisle on these issues. We can find
ways to make sure that we are protecting civil liberties and also
addressing the most heinous of these crimes and working to find
individuals in a cooperative fashion, knowing that we are going to have
to do this on an international basis.
So I urge our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to think
about what America now needs in moving forward on the protection of
civil liberties. I hope that--I am sure it is tempting to want to reach
and to do some of these issues in Executive orders.
I mentioned the other issues of government surveillance in the
Pacific Northwest that the State of Washington for sure has concerns
about. These are our issues.
Infringing on the civil liberties of American citizens is not a
pursuit we should be following. We should be working in coordination
with law enforcement on verifying that people are who they say they are
and pursuing an agenda, working with our international counterparts, to
stop people in those countries before they even plot a case like the
Ressam case in the State of Washington.
I know my other colleagues will be showing up here shortly, but I
just wanted to put an additional note in. If any of our colleagues on
the other side of the aisle are up early and just happen to turn on the
television, if that is one of the things they do in the morning--we
asked our colleagues to give us ample time to debate on the Price and
Mnuchin nominations. We can continue to do the all-night thing. We can.
I feel for the floor staff and the people who are here all night and
the extra strain that it puts on the stenographers who are here and
have been working around the clock. But what we want is to have a
hearing on the issues we are concerned about. We want to be able to
have these issues discussed not necessarily in the middle of the night
but during the broad daylight so that we can engage the American people
on what these choices are so that our colleagues on both sides of the
aisle will hear from their constituents and will hear why these issues
are so important.
In the two cases we are going to see following this nomination for
Attorney General, we are going to individuals who did not fully respond
and answer the questions we wanted answered as it related to
information they supplied to the Finance Committee.
So when you talk about--some people say: Why are you guys doing this?
We say: Well, it is the Treasury nominee and the head of our health
care system. So basically it represents all our revenue and a big chunk
of our spending. That is what those two individuals represent. They
represent the revenue that our country raises and a big chunk of the
money. In fact, I think health care is 7 percent of our economy. It
represents a big aspect of our economy--those two individuals. So we
want to make sure we have ample time to discuss those nominees, to
raise the questions we have about those nominees. Maybe in that
discussion here on the Senate floor in the bright light of day, we will
get some answers. We will get some answers about some of the things
that were discussed in the hearing about opposition to certain issues
or incorrect information. We will engage our colleagues in a debate,
and maybe they can help us understand the support for ideas like
basically, you know, changing Medicare into a program that caps the
benefits on individuals or taking Medicaid and doing the same thing.
I am a big proponent of changes in delivery system reform that have
driven great efficiencies into the health care system. I think many of
our colleagues don't know, for example, about a program that got people
out of nursing homes and into community-based care; that a lot of
States in the country that use this part of the Affordable Care Act now
are driving more efficient health care services into those States--a
lot of States that did not support President Obama, did not support the
Affordable Care Act, but took the money from the Affordable Care Act
and are now implementing a much better delivery system for those who
are living longer and need assistance on health care.
Why is that so important? Because back to my point about Glass-
Steagall and the implosion of our economy, what we are going to see is
a very great tragedy on retirement issues. We are going to see a lot of
people who don't have enough money to retire and certainly not enough
to take care of their health care. So what happens then? Those
individuals end up on Medicaid. If they end up on a Medicaid system
that is based on nursing home care, the U.S. Government is going to be
paying a lot more money for those services.
Those are all issues that we want to discuss with our colleagues, and
we want to have an opportunity to do so during the next several days.
We hope you will give us the ability to do that instead of holding all-
night sessions--do that during the day--and give us ample time on those
nominees and push those to next week so that we can have that
discussion now.
Again, I want to thank the floor staff and everybody who has been
here these two nights. It is a long haul. It is a long haul to do
there. But behind every Member who has spoken on my side of the aisle,
I can tell you, there is a passion of our constituents. There are true
concerns, both by individuals and I would say businesses, as you can
probably see from those who joined the case Washington State brought.
You can see that there are issues here of how our economy works and how
businesses work as well.
The passion and fervor that drive people to come here and speak on
these issues is really one that represents the whole society we in the
Northwest represent, the economic issues and the challenges that we
face and how we have lived together in the diversity that has emerged
and how much that diversity in the Pacific Northwest has grown our
economy. That is what people are telling us. People want to know: What
is the economic engine of the Pacific Northwest? And one of the things
that scientists and researchers come up and say is that it is
diversity.
The diversity adds to the creativity, the creativity adds to the
inventiveness and the ingenuity, and the ingenuity is what is
propelling these various businesses all across the various sectors. I
am not just talking about high-tech sectors; I am talking about in
agriculture, in aerospace, certainly in tech, but in many other aspects
of manufacturing as well. So we want a nominee for Attorney General who
is going to recognize that diversity, fight for that diversity, who is
going to stand up to the President of the United States when they need
to stand up and continue to make the effort that previous Attorney
Generals have made in doing the job that it takes to be the top law
enforcement officer in the land of the United States.
With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Young). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, as I began last night at 4 in the
morning--
[[Page S899]]
now 5:30--I thank the staff, both the nonpartisan staff and those in
the majority and minority for enduring another late night. These are
exceptional times. Thus we are here again in the early, early morning
to talk about a nomination to the President's Cabinet.
This is my first time on the floor since Senator Warren was gaveled
down last evening. Let me just speak for a moment about my deep, deep
disappointment at the events of early last evening. I want to put this
in the context of the political moment that we are living in.
We have a President of the United States today who is a bully, who is
using his office to try to stifle and quell debate. If you dare oppose
him--frankly, whether you are a Republican or a Democrat--you are going
to be called names, you are going to be mocked in an effort to try to
silence you.
In the last week, we have seen President Trump attempt this tactic on
members of the judiciary. When he got a ruling he didn't like from a
judge in Washington that temporarily halted his ban on Muslims entering
the country, he started personally attacking this judge, sending a
signal to those in the judicial branch that, if you dare oppose him,
you are going to be singled out for ridicule.
The President of the United States is going to try to destroy your
reputation and your career as a judge, as a jurist, as an impartial
arbiter of the law if you rule against his political interests. It is
an exceptional moment. It is an exceptional moment in which the
President of the United States is trying to bully judges into ruling in
his favor. It is an exceptional moment, though we have been watching it
for the last 2 years, in which the President is trying to bully Members
of Congress to cow to his interests.
I want to be very careful about how I talk about this because I have
great respect for the parliamentary rulings of this body. But I don't
understand why our majority leader chose to gavel down Senator Warren
when she was simply reading a letter from Coretta Scott King.
We celebrate the legacy of Martin Luther King with a holiday every
year in this country. In the pantheon of individual greatness in the
United States of America, it doesn't get any higher than Martin Luther
King. His widow wrote us a letter expressing her objections to the
nomination of Jeff Sessions based upon the belief that he would not
live up to the legacy of her husband and his work in civil rights.
Nothing could be more relevant to this discussion than the opinion of
a member of Martin Luther King's family on whether or not this nominee
was going to enforce appropriately, vigorously the civil rights laws of
this Nation, and Senator Warren was silenced.
Now, I don't know what the motive was, and it certainly would be
inappropriate for me to guess at it. But the effect of the majority
leader's action is to stifle debate, to make it less likely that
Members of the Democratic minority will raise objections to Senator
Sessions' nomination and record objections as to his conduct.
I am not trying to equate what happened here last night with what our
President has done, but there is a practice now. There is a pattern of
behavior among Republicans, trying to stifle and quell opposition to
this President. The President uses the bullying power of Twitter, and
the majority leader now is twisting the rules of the Senate.
I say that because, while it may be true that technically the rules
of the Senate don't allow you to talk about the conduct of a fellow
Senator, how on Earth can you debate a nominee from this body to the
Cabinet without questioning their conduct?
So technically, the rule may say that you cannot talk about the
conduct of a fellow Senator, but how on Earth can this body operate
when Members of it are nominated to important positions if we cannot
talk about the conduct of fellow Members and we cannot criticize the
conduct of fellow Members?
Now, I appreciate the fact that Senator Merkley was able to come down
to the floor and read the full letter into the Record overnight. I
appreciate the fact that Senator Booker was able to read into the
Record testimony from another civil rights hero, John Lewis, without
being similarly gaveled down for his conduct.
But this effort, this continued effort to try to stop people who
oppose President Trump and his agenda from speaking truth to power is
not right. It is not right. And it will, frankly, have the opposite
effect.
You have seen what happened overnight on our side. We are not going
to stop talking about Senator Sessions' record and how we believe it is
disqualifying for his nomination for Attorney General. The protests and
the numbers of people gathering around the country to object to the
policies of President Trump are getting bigger and bigger the more that
he bullies and bullies. This isn't going to work.
So I am going to speak to Senator Sessions' record. I am going to
speak to how I believe it does not qualify him to be Attorney General,
and that doesn't mean that I don't have great respect for him. I have
worked with Senator Sessions on a number of issues. But if I can't talk
about Senator Sessions' record, if I can't talk about his conduct as a
Senator, as it relates to whether or not he can be the chief law
enforcement official in this country, then there is no use in having
this debate at all.
Senator Sessions has publicly called the Voting Rights Act intrusive.
In response to the Supreme Court's 2013 decision in Shelby County, AL,
v. Holder, which gutted section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, Senator
Sessions called it a good thing for the South.
That decision made it vastly more difficult for the Federal
Government to protect individuals from racial discrimination in voting.
The Supreme Court effectively substituted their political judgment on
the status of racism in America for the judgment of this Congress.
Effectively, the Supreme Court was saying in that decision that in our
belief, racism is no longer a problem in the way that it was when the
Voting Rights Act was passed, and, thus, there is no longer an
imperative for section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which allows for the
Federal Government to oversee the voting laws of a select number of
counties with patterns of racial discrimination.
That was an absurd ruling.
I have great respect for the members of the Supreme Court, but they
live inside the ivory-ensconced marble of the Supreme Court chamber.
They don't have experience on the ground, like the elected Members of
this body do, to understand the reality of racism in America today. I
wish it were gone, but it is not. Blacks and Hispanics are still
discriminated against.
You just have to look to see what happened in North Carolina to
understand the truth of that. North Carolina passed a number of laws
which, on their face, they argued were not discriminatory. They were
just, in their words, voter protections, buffers against voter
fraud. And then, when we read the correspondence of the members of the
State legislature to pass that law, what we learned is that they were
specifically intended to try to stop African Americans from voting. The
people who were passing those laws were talking to each other trying to
figure out how they could most effectively target laws to stop African
Americans from voting. That was their clear intent, even though they
argue that there was no racial bias implicit in the passage of that
law.
Racism is not dead in America. You don't wash away discrimination in
just one generation--a generation and a half, maybe--after laws that
separated the races with respect to public accommodations and
restaurants and drinking fountains and bathrooms. That doesn't just
vanish in one generation later. Everybody understands that.
Poll after poll will show you that there are still people in this
country who believe that African Americans and Hispanics are inferior.
I wish it weren't the case, but it still is. So we still need the
Voting Rights Act. We still need the Civil Rights Act. And we are about
to vote on a nominee to be Attorney General who calls the Voting Rights
Act intrusive, who says that a Supreme Court decision that guts the
Voting Rights Act is ``a good thing for the South.'' It is not a good
thing for African Americans in the South. It is not a good thing for
Hispanics in the South. It may be a good thing for the people who wrote
those discriminatory laws, but it is not a good thing for those who are
trying to vote who have
[[Page S900]]
witnessed and lived through decades of discrimination.
Let me talk about Senator Sessions' record on immigration. In 2007,
Senator Sessions referred to a comprehensive immigration reform bill as
``terrorist assistance.'' He has been a leading voice in Congress in
arguing against immigration reform. In two decades in the Senate,
Senator Sessions has opposed every single immigration bill that has
included a pathway to citizenship. He has favored, similar to President
Trump, an ideological test for admission to the United States. He said
this:
Immigration policy must be guided by our understanding that
western society is unique and special. Our values, our rules,
our traditions are what make our society succeed where others
fail. It is necessary and proper to choose who among the
world's 7 billion people will be granted the high honor of
immigration to the United States on the basis of confidence
that they share our values.
That is a radical idea. Why don't we think about that for a second.
The Attorney General of the United States will make important decisions
about the enforcement of immigration law in this country. Much of what
happens in immigration policy happens in the Department of Homeland
Security, but the Attorney General makes important decisions about
upholding the law on immigration policy, and we are about to vote to
confirm a Member of this body who has said that there should be an
ideological test for admission to the United States and that you have
to share our values. I don't know what that means, but the greatness of
the United States is based on the fact that we have been able to bring
people from a variety of different backgrounds, a variety of different
value sets, a variety of different religions--bring them into this
country and allow them to keep part of their heritage, part of their
belief system from the places they came from, whether they be Ireland
or England or China or Mexico, and then also assimilate into the whole
and adopt part of this country's short history of tradition over the
last 240 years. What makes America great is that we allow people to
bring values different from ours into this country, which in turn
strengthens our collective set of values. We are constantly challenging
ourselves with new ideas, with new perspectives.
Senator Sessions has been an opponent of Delayed Action for Childhood
Arrivals policy. This is commonly referred to as DACA--the idea that if
you are a child who came to this country when you were very young,
knowing nothing other than the United States, an American in name if
not legal status, then you should be able to stay in this country. It
is cruel and inhumane to take a young man or woman who came to this
country when they were 3 or 4 years old and send them back to their
country of birth, and I think Democrats and Republicans of goodwill
generally agree, if not on the broad aspects of the pathway to
citizenship, that for these kids, these DREAMers as they call them,
they should be able to stay in the United States. Senator Sessions has
vigorously opposed this policy and many DACA-protected immigrants now
fear deportation under a Department of Justice that is led by Senator
Sessions.
His conduct tells us that he opposes protections for young men and
women who know nothing other than the United States and want simply to
have a shot with the American dream. That conduct is relevant to
whether he is qualified to be Attorney General.
On criminal justice reform, Senator Sessions has personally blocked
the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act, which is a bipartisan effort
spearheaded by Senators Grassley, Lee, Cornyn, and Speaker of the House
Paul Ryan. As Attorney General, Senator Sessions will have the power to
direct Federal prosecutors throughout the country to pursue the
harshest penalties possible for even low-level drug offenses, a step
that would further exacerbate our national record of incarcerating
nonviolent offenders, the vast majority of whom can be successfully
treated at far lower cost to society with appropriate health care
treatment for their addiction or mental illness. Senator Sessions'
conduct in this body has been to oppose efforts to try to treat with
more compassion and commonsense offenders in this country who would be
better served through treatment than through incarceration, so it is
relevant to his nomination to be Attorney General where he will have
broad discretion to lock up people for low-level offenses.
In Connecticut, we made the decision to divert people who are
convicted of crimes but have serious mental illness or addiction into
treatment. We have made the decision to reserve our prison system for
the worst of the worst, mainly for violent offenders, for those who are
convicted of serious crimes.
Connecticut has seen its prison population fall to a 20-year low. On
September 3, 2016, the prison population in Connecticut dropped below
15,000 for the first time since January of 1997. At the same time,
rates of reported violent crimes have plummeted in Connecticut. So the
proof is in the pudding in my State. My State has reduced its prison
population and at the same time has reduced its level of violent crime
and many States can tell the same story. Yet we can predict through his
record on the floor of the U.S. Senate that Senator Sessions may use
his power as Attorney General to reverse that trend line and lock up
more of my constituents, which I would argue will have an upward effect
on the rates of violent crime. Why? Because those individuals, having
gone through the process of incarceration and coming out unreformed,
untreated, will be no less of a danger to society.
Finally, I want to talk about the issue of gun violence in this
country. Obviously this is very personal to me, still watching the
community of Newtown spiral through ripples of grief associated with
the trauma of December of 2012. Senator Sessions and I clearly have
differences about the way in which the Federal Government should
restrict the flow of firearms in this country.
You know, it has to be relevant to the decision that I make. This is
the chief law enforcement official of this country, so the views on
firearms are relevant. Whether or not the Attorney General has the
discretion to make policy on the issue of what firearms are legal and
what aren't or what sales are subject to background checks and what
aren't, there is a bully pulpit associated with the chief law
enforcement official that carries weight, so Senator Sessions' beliefs
on firearms policy are relevant. His record and his conduct in the U.S.
Senate on the question of gun violence is relevant as to whether he
should be our next Attorney General. Senator Sessions has lined up with
the gun lobby over and over again against commonsense reform of our gun
laws that are supported by 90 percent of Americans.
He has voted against expanding background checks to cover sales at
gun shows or online. He has voted against a bipartisan effort in the
Senate to make sure that if you are on the terrorist watch list that
you cannot purchase a weapon. He has voted against efforts to try to
restrict sales of high capacity magazines and assault weapons, the
kinds of magazines and the kinds of weapons that were used in the
horrific crime in Sandy Hook. What Senator Sessions has said is that,
if he were confirmed, he would take on the rising homicide rates in
some American cities by working against illegal firearms use. He has
pledged that he will enforce the law. Yet, again, coming back to his
conduct and his record in this body, he has been part of an effort to
try to strip from the Department of Justice and its appendages the
tools they need in order to enforce the law. Every year we have on our
appropriations bills riders that specifically stop the ATF from
enforcing existing law. We restrict their ability to do inventories of
gun dealers. We prohibit them from keeping modern databases on gun
sales across the country.
The policy that Senator Sessions has backed and voted for in this
body runs contrary to the statements that he has made. He has supported
efforts to rob from the Department of Justice the ability to enforce
the existing law on guns, yet he says when he gets there that he is
going to use all efforts to enforce the law. Further, he has opposed
efforts to give new tools to the Department of Justice to try to keep
our streets safer. Shortly after Sandy Hook, he specifically debated on
this floor legislation that would make it a Federal crime to traffic in
illegal guns. I don't know how much less controversial you can get when
it comes to gun policy. We all agree that you shouldn't
[[Page S901]]
be able to walk into a store, buy guns, say they are for you, and then
go out on to the streets and sell them to criminals. It happens all the
time in our cities.
Somebody goes and buys a mess of guns at a gun store or gun show and
then goes into a city and sells them out of a trunk of a car to
criminals who couldn't otherwise go buy these guns because of their
criminal background.
So we proposed a simple Federal law that would make it a Federal
crime to do that, and you need that, because States can't enforce that
on a State by State basis because these guns are often trafficked
across State lines. Senator Sessions voted against that. He is not
going to be a champion for enforcing the gun laws of this Nation. His
record is not going to magically transform when he becomes Attorney
General. I have great respect for Senator Sessions, but he has been a
chief opponent of making the gun laws of this country more amenable to
proper and appropriate and efficient enforcement, and that is not going
to change when he becomes Attorney General.
So I am going to vote against his nomination later today, and I
encourage my colleagues to do so as well. His record on civil rights,
on criminal justice, on immigration, and on gun policy do not qualify
him to be Attorney General.
I am deeply sad about what happened here last night with respect to
the letter read into the Record by Senator Warren. I understand that
things seem to be breaking down a little bit in this Chamber, that
nerves are frayed and people are acting in ways that maybe they
wouldn't have acted a few years ago. These are exceptional times. I
have never seen a President like this, trying to divide us from each
other, using his position to bully and intimidate his political
opponents. Raving about a brutal dictator in Moscow who murders people.
We have never seen a moment like this. We should be really careful that
we don't model that behavior here in the Senate.
What makes me sad is that it looked to me like that is what
happened--that in this body the majority party tried to use the rules
of the Senate in order to bully Members of the minority into silence.
It is not going to work. If we want to get back to being able to
function as a body, then we better be OK with being able to have some
open, honest conversations about the future of this country and the
future of this body.
I am going to vote against Senator Sessions today. That doesn't mean
that I haven't enjoyed working with him on a number of subjects, but he
is not the right person to be Attorney General--not close, frankly--and
I hope that over the course of the day my colleagues continue to talk
about his conduct, continue to talk about his record, and continue to
explain why it does not qualify him in any way, shape, or form to be
the chief law enforcement official in this country.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. HASSAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. HASSAN. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in
opposing the nomination of Senator Jeff Sessions to be Attorney General
of the United States.
Now more than ever, it is critical to have an Attorney General who is
an independent defender of our Constitution, who puts the rule of law
before all else, and who is committed to ensuring that all Americans
have equal access to justice. Unfortunately, I do not believe that
Senator Sessions is fully committed to enacting those principles, and
every American should be concerned that he will not independently stand
up to President Trump.
Senator Sessions was one of Trump's earliest supporters and has been
a key source of influence for the President's actions. White House
Strategist Stephen Bannon recently wrote to the Washington Post:
``Throughout the campaign, Sessions has been the fiercest, most
dedicated, and most loyal promoter in Congress of Trump's agenda, and
has played a critical role as the clearinghouse for policy and
philosophy to undergird the implementation of that agenda.''
In the wake of President Trump's first few weeks in office, in which
he signed dozens of Executive orders--including the un-American
backdoor Muslim ban--it was reported that Senator Sessions played a
role in influencing the President's policy and strategy.
My office has heard from thousands in New Hampshire who have had
serious legitimate concerns about the President's actions in his first
few weeks. I am concerned by reports that Senator Sessions pushed for
an even more aggressive approach.
The Washington Post reported: ``The Senator lobbied for a `shock-and-
awe' period of executive action that would rattle Congress, impress
Trump's base, and catch his critics unaware. . . . `'
Senator Sessions' record in Congress and his history of standing
against the constitutionally protected rights of millions of Americans
is deeply troubling. These are issues that my office has heard from
constituents across New Hampshire. As a resident from Merrimack wrote:
``Pick a current civil rights issue and Sessions is on the wrong side
of history.''
I do not have confidence that Senator Sessions would be an
independent Attorney General who would put the rights of all Americans
before the whims of this President, and that is why I oppose this
nomination.
I am incredibly proud that my home State of New Hampshire understands
that the values of inclusion and equality are at the very core of what
makes us American and at the core of our constitutional system. We
believe in freedom and the value of every person, and that is our duty
and our destiny--to extend the same freedoms we enjoy to all of our
people. We value human rights and we see inclusion and equality as core
principles in our laws. These values have helped our State become a
leader in advancing the rights of the lesbian, gay, bisexual,
transgender, and queer community, recognizing that all people deserve
the legal right to fully participate in the social, civic, and economic
life of our communities.
Years ago, New Hampshire led the way in becoming one of the first
States in the Nation to pass marriage equality, and I took great pride
in casting my vote for that legislation as a State senator. When we
passed that legislation, we made clear once again that when we as a
State or a country bring people in from the margins into the heart and
soul of our democracy, we all get stronger.
About a year after we took that step in New Hampshire to enact
marriage equality, I was sitting on a plane in the window seat, and the
man next to me noticed my name on the notebook I was reading and said:
Aren't you elected in New Hampshire? What do you do there?
I told him I had been a State senator.
He looked at me and said: Did you have anything to do with marriage
equality passing?
Now, I wasn't sure what this man's point of view was as I sat next to
him on this plane ride. I said: Well, yes, I was in the New Hampshire
Senate, and I voted to pass marriage equality.
He said: I want to thank you for it. I am a recruiter for one of our
State's largest employers, and marriage equality is one of the best
recruitment tools we have.
I asked him to expand a little bit on that. He said: It isn't that we
have any particular percentage of LGBTQ applicants or employees that is
unusual, but the fact that New Hampshire passed marriage equality
signals to people we are trying to recruit that we are an open and
inclusive State, where everybody is welcome if they are willing to work
hard and do their part to move us forward.
During my time as Governor, we continued to fight for progress for
the LGBTQ community, including issuing an executive order to prohibit
discrimination in our State government on the basis of gender identity
or gender expression.
Unfortunately, Senator Sessions' record and previous comments call
into question whether he will enforce the Federal laws designed to
promote equality and protect the LGBTQ community. Senator Sessions has
been a vocal opponent of marriage equality, going as far as to label
same-sex marriages as dangerous.
[[Page S902]]
In 2004, he stated: ``But I do believe that it is not disputable that
adopting a same-sex marriage culture undermines and weakens marriage.''
Following the Supreme Court's 2015 decision that guaranteed marriage
equality in all 50 States, Senator Sessions said: ``The marriage case
goes beyond what I consider to be the realm of reality.''
As Attorney General, it would be Senator Sessions' job to implement
and defend this ruling. I am extremely concerned that he would not
follow through with that responsibility.
Senator Sessions has also worked to undermine the Federal hate crimes
law designed to protect LGBTQ Americans. In explaining his vote against
the 2009 Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention
Act, Sessions argued that Federal protections for LGBTQ Americans were
not necessary. When debating the law, Sessions said: ``I am not sure
women or people with different sexual orientations face that kind of
discrimination.''
Following Senator Sessions' nomination as Attorney General, Judy
Shepard, the mother of Matthew Shepard, for whom that law was named,
wrote a letter for the Human Rights Campaign opposing Sessions'
nomination. Shepard wrote:
In 1998 my son, Matthew, was murdered because he was gay, a
brutal hate crime that continues to resonate around the world
even now.
Following Matt's death, my husband, Dennis, and I worked
for the next 11 years to garner support for the federal Hate
Crimes Prevention Act. We were fortunate to work alongside
members of Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, who
championed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate
Crimes Prevention Act with the determination, compassion, and
vision to match ours as the parents of a child targeted for
simply wanting to be himself. Senator Jeff Sessions was not
one of these members. In fact, Senator Sessions strongly
opposed the hate crimes bill--characterizing hate crimes as
mere ``thought crimes.''
My son was not killed by ``thoughts'' or because his
murderers said hateful things. My son was brutally beaten
with the butt of a .357 magnum pistol. [They] tied him to a
fence, and left him to die in freezing temperatures because
he was gay. Senator Sessions' repeated efforts to diminish
the life-changing acts of violence covered by the Hate Crimes
Prevention Act horrified me then, as a parent who knows the
true cost of hate, and it terrifies me today to see that this
same person is now being nominated as the country's highest
authority to represent justice and equal protection under the
law for all Americans.
As Attorney General, Senator Sessions would be responsible
for not only enforcing the Hate Crimes Prevention Act, but a
myriad of other Civil Rights laws including the Violence
Against Women Act, which includes explicit protections for
LGBTQ people. Senator Sessions' very public record of
hostility towards the LGBTQ community and federal legislation
designed to protect vulnerable Americans, including the
Voting Rights Act, makes it nearly impossible to believe that
he will vigorously enforce statutes and ideas that he worked
so hard to defeat.
I agree with Judy Shepherd, and it is clear that Senator Sessions'
record shows that he will not stand up for the rights of LGBTQ Granite
Staters and Americans if he becomes Attorney General.
There are other issues of concern as well. I have always fought to
protect a woman's constitutionally protected right to make her own
health care decisions and control her own destiny, and I always will.
Roe v. Wade is a landmark decision that protects women and their access
to abortion. It guarantees a fundamental right for women, and it
affirms that a woman has the right to decide whether to continue or
terminate a pregnancy without government interference.
Sessions' record leaves questions on whether he will enforce the law
in this area. During his time in the Senate, Sessions has been
dedicated to opposing a woman's constitutional right to safe and legal
abortion. He voted to grant legal status to an embryo. He has
repeatedly voted to deny women in the military the right to use their
own private funds for abortion care at military hospitals. He has said
that he would like to see a woman's constitutional right to make her
own health care decisions overturned.
This is unacceptable for a nominee to lead the Department of Justice
whose role would be to uphold the very law that he seeks to overturn.
We also know that a woman's right to make her own health decisions
isn't just a matter of freedom. It is a matter of health. It is also a
matter of economics and finances.
When women have to pay more for their health care, and it puts them
in an economic disadvantage. As Governor, I restored family planning
funds and pushed to restore State funding to Planned Parenthood because
I know how critical access to these services are for the women and
families of my State.
Planned Parenthood provides critical primary and preventive health
care services to thousands of New Hampshire women, including preventive
care, birth control, and cancer screenings. There are countless stories
of women whose lives have been changed as a result of access to Planned
Parenthood in my State.
A young woman named Alyssa in my State lost her health insurance. She
was on her father's health insurance. She was younger than age 26.
Suddenly her father passed away, and then she had a medical emergency.
She didn't know where to go. Grieving for her father, she was also
without health insurance. She turned to Planned Parenthood, and they
were able to provide her the care that she needed.
Alyssa's story and the stories of thousands of others across our
State make it clear why it is essential that we have an Attorney
General who will protect a woman's constitutionally protected right to
make her own health care decisions.
Senator Sessions has voted six times to block patients from accessing
health care at Planned Parenthood health centers. Senator Sessions has
stated that Planned Parenthood should not receive Federal funds for any
services because, among the other health care services it provides, it
provides the constitutionally protected care--abortion--that a woman
needs when she decides she must terminate a pregnancy.
Senator Sessions has opposed women's access to no-cost birth control
that is now provided through the Affordable Care Act. Sessions even
refused to condemn President Trump's remarks in the ``Access
Hollywood'' tapes released last year, saying that he did not
characterize the behavior President Trump described as sexual assault.
He voted against the 2014 reauthorization of the Violence Against
Women Act, which is critical for the investigation and prosecution of
violent crimes against women. The Violence Against Women Act was signed
into law by President Clinton in 1994 and has been reauthorized by
bipartisan majorities in Congress in 2000 and 2005 and signed by
President George W. Bush.
The idea that the Attorney General of the United States would not
support his commonsense legislation to protect women from violence is
unacceptable. As Governor, I also fought to expand economic opportunity
for women and families.
We passed the New Hampshire Paycheck Fairness Act in New Hampshire,
making sure that an equal day's work gets an equal day's pay.
I also strongly support efforts to expand paid family leave to ensure
that workers are able to support their families during times of need at
home.
I am troubled that Senator Sessions has worked to roll back the
progress of equal pay. Senator Sessions voted against the Lilly
Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and has consistently voted against the Paycheck
Fairness Act.
I am far from the only one in New Hampshire who opposes the idea of
Senator Sessions as our Nation's top law enforcement officer. I have
heard from many of my constituents regarding the impact of Senator
Sessions' nomination on women's right.
One constituent wrote:
I truly fear for the future of women's rights and my
daughter's right to an autonomous life if Jeff Sessions is
confirmed. The bottom line, Senator Sessions has a record of
undermining the civil and constitutional rights of women in
this country.
On another topic, in recent weeks there has been much discussion
about the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, otherwise known
as IDEA, and the fact that Education Secretary Betsy DeVos seemed
confused about the fact that IDEA is Federal law and also declined to
commit to enforcing it. This contributed to my vote against Mrs.
DeVos's nomination yesterday.
What is also appalling is Senator Sessions' previous comments on
IDEA. In 2000, Senator Sessions gave a speech
[[Page S903]]
on the Senate floor suggesting that disciplinary problems in schools
stemmed from IDEA. Sessions said:
Teachers I have been talking to have shared stories with
me. I have been in 15 schools around Alabama this year. I
have talked to them about a lot of subjects. I ask them about
this subject in every school I go to, and I am told in every
school that this is a major problem for them. In fact, it may
be the single most irritating problem for teachers throughout
America today.
He continued.
There is no telling how many instructional hours are lost
by teachers in dealing with behavior problems. In times of an
increasingly competitive global society, it is no wonder
American students fall short. Certain children are allowed to
remain in the classroom robbing the other children of hours
that can never be replaced.
There is no need to extend the school day. There is no need
to extend the school year. If politicians would just make it
possible for educators to take back the time that is lost on
a daily basis to certain individuals, there is no doubt we
would have better educated students.
He added:
It is clear that IDEA '97 not only undermines the
educational process, it also undermines the authority of
educators. In a time when our profession is being called upon
to protect our children from increasingly dangerous sources,
our credibility is being stripped from us.
As I have discussed over the last couple of weeks, the passage of
IDEA was a groundbreaking moment in American history for people who
experience disabilities in their families. After IDEA was passed, all
schools--all public schools in our country--were required to provide a
free and appropriate education for children with disabilities.
Children like my son, now 28 years old, and a graduate of Exeter High
School, who used to be relegated to institutions, subjected to inhumane
conditions and maltreatment, treated as truly less than human were
included in our public schools. There is not a parent of a child like
my son who does not acknowledge that including new people with
different needs in any setting can be challenging, but we are
Americans, and we are supposed to do challenging things, and that is
what IDEA challenged us to do.
I have seen the power of inclusion not only in my own home, but in my
community and in our schools. I have seen it strengthen other students.
Just last week, one of my son's classmates from fifth grade reached out
because he had seen the coverage of the hearing concerning Mrs. DeVos's
nomination. He said in an email to me: You know, I don't remember much
about fifth grade, but I do remember having lunch with Ben. And I
remember even now Ben's lighthearted disposition.
What a lesson for our children to learn that even if you have severe
and debilitating physical disabilities that prevent you from speaking
or typing or walking or eating in a typical way, you could be
lighthearted and love your life. There are always challenges connected
to including new students with different learning styles, different
behaviors. But because of IDEA, we have learned how to help those
students cope and learn and adjust their behavior. And for anybody to
suggest that it is the fault of people with disabilities, that it is
their disability that is undermining our education, is appalling.
Various groups who represent individuals with disabilities have,
therefore, voiced their opposition to Senator Sessions' nomination. The
Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates has written to the Judiciary
Committee arguing that:
[Sessions] has compiled a longstanding and consistent
record, including public statements, policy proposals, and
other various actions that serve to discriminate against the
rights and dignity of children and adults with disabilities.
Sessions' disdain for special education and opposition to
community integration of individuals with disabilities is at
odds with the laws, inconsistent with our nation's commitment
to supporting individuals with disabilities, and will lead to
far higher societal costs in the future.
And a constituent with Etna, NH, wrote to share her concerns on
Senator Sessions' record on individuals with disabilities. She said:
Senator Sessions has a long, well-documented history of
active opposition to respect for the human rights of the
American citizenry, particularly those of us who experience
multiple marginalizations in our society. And as such, he is
unfit for the office of Attorney General. It is abundantly
clear to me, as a disabled woman, that his Justice Department
would not support my equal protection under the law.
Americans with disabilities and their families deserve better than an
Attorney General who has consistently spoken out against their rights.
I also have concerns about Senator Sessions' voting rights record.
Voting is our most fundamental right, and ensuring that everyone can
exercise that right is critical to making our democracy successful.
Everyone deserves representation and the opportunity to vote on who
represents them.
Throughout his time in office, Senator Sessions has demonstrated an
opposition to ensuring that all Americans have the right to vote. In
1986, Senator Sessions called the Voting Rights Act ``an intrusive
piece of legislation.'' In 2006, after the Senate passed the Voting
Rights Act reauthorization, Senator Sessions joined other Republicans
in issuing a highly unusual committee report that sought to undermine
the same legislation that they had all just voted to support. Chief
Justice Roberts cited the report in his Shelby County v. Holder
opinion, which gutted a key provision of the Voting Rights Act. Senator
Sessions celebrated the Shelby County decision and stated it was,
``good news for the South.''
Since that decision, and despite the passage of voting restrictions
in several States by Republican legislatures, Sessions has said, ``I
don't think the Supreme Court ruling has damaged voting rights in any
real way.''
It is clear that Senator Sessions is not committed to protecting
voting rights. Many Granite Staters have written to my office,
highlighting Senator Sessions' record on voting rights as a reason that
the Senate should oppose his nomination.
A constituent from Tilton, NH, said:
Our country has battled long and hard to throw off the
errors of our past, but voting rights are under assault. Jeff
Sessions is not the right person to safeguard the integrity
of our voting process, nor can he be trusted to work on
behalf of all Americans in the cause of Justice.
At a time when we are discussing ensuring equality, justice, and
inclusion for all of our citizens, I am reminded of my father's story.
My father was born and raised in the segregated South. His father was a
traveling shoe salesman, and his mother was a school teacher who,
during the Depression, got paid in food stamps. That is what kept the
family going. Through hard work, a scholarship, taking on jobs like
waiting tables and moving furniture, and a bit of good luck, my dad was
able to attend Princeton University. It wasn't long before his studies
were interrupted, however, when, following the bombing of Pearl Harbor,
he left to volunteer to fight in World War II, eventually being thrown
into the Battle of the Bulge.
The Battle of the Bulge marked one of the first times in World War II
that White and Black American soldiers fought alongside each other.
Thousands of miles away from the school where he had been studying,
this young man from the Deep South found himself learning more about
the values of equality and inclusion than he ever could have learned
back at home. And after my father's experience in that battle, where
African-American soldiers fought and died alongside their White
counterparts, Dad returned home to a life of working to make the notion
that every single one of us counts a reality. Our Founders believed in
that principle, that when you count everyone and bring more people in
from the margins, we all grow stronger.
We know that our Founders didn't count everyone at first, but they
had faith that we would continue striving, as our Constitution commands
us to, to build a more perfect union, that generation after generation,
we would continue to deliver on our Nation's promise of equality. And
while the road to greater inclusion is not without significant
challenges, time and again, we have persevered to build a better
future.
We need leaders who are committed to those values and who are
committed to enforcing the laws that have included more and more
Americans. Senator Jeff Sessions' record shows that he is not committed
to those values, and he has demonstrated that he lacks the independence
needed to stand up to President Trump.
For these reasons, I cannot support Senator Sessions to be the next
Attorney General of the United States. I
[[Page S904]]
urge my colleagues to vote no on this nomination.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Barrasso). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose the nomination
of Senator Sessions for Attorney General.
I would like to preface my remarks with just a statement and
recognition of the outpouring I have received from my State, from
constituents. I have letters. I have postcards sent, some with the
Statue of Liberty. I have letters from constituents from every corner
of my State, passionately writing about their views on President
Trump's nominations, particularly Senator Sessions.
I would like to read one letter because I think it really summarizes
the views of so many New Yorkers. This constituent writes:
As your constituent and as a Reform Jew, I strongly urge
you to oppose the nomination of Jeff Sessions as Attorney
General.
As the top law enforcement official in the country, the
Attorney General has substantial power over the
administration of key legislation that advances the
fundamental rights of all people, regardless of race, class,
sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or national origin.
Senator Sessions' firmly established record of opposition to
protection of and advancements in voting rights, LGBTQ
equality, women's rights, immigration reform and religious
freedom suggests that he would not fulfill the Department of
Justice's mandate to provide equal protection under the law
for all people.
The letter goes on to talk about his votes particularly against the
Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act when it
was added as an amendment to the 2008 Defense Authorization Act. He
also talks about voting against the Violence Against Women's Act.
He continues:
The words of Leviticus 19:18: ``Love your neighbor as
yourself, guide us to stand up against bias, prejudice and
discrimination.''
We cannot place the responsibility of leading the
Department of Justice, the federal agency directly
responsible for ensuring equal protection, in the hands of
someone whose record demonstrates insufficient commitment to
key civil rights protections.
I urge you to oppose Senator Sessions.
Our country desperately needs an Attorney General who will reject
discrimination in all forms. We need an Attorney General who will
defend our civil rights and human rights--with no exceptions. We need
an Attorney General who will not be afraid to challenge the President
if an order is illegal or unconstitutional.
Senator Sessions has not made it clear that he would use his power as
Attorney General to stand up for the voiceless and the oppressed or to
stand up to the President when he is wrong.
Already, in just the first weeks of this new administration,
President Trump has begun to test the strength and limits of our
Constitution. He has challenged the separation of powers. He has lashed
out against the free press. He has singled out individual religions--
and even individual judges.
Now, more than ever, we need an Attorney General whose commitment to
defending our Constitution goes far beyond the commitment to any one
particular President or political party. Would Senator Sessions
challenge the President when he needs to be challenged?
During the Presidential campaign, when the tape was revealed of then-
Candidate Trump bragging about groping a woman against her will,
Senator Sessions said he thought it was a ``stretch'' to call it sexual
assault. He said: ``I don't characterize that as sexual assault.''
We need an Attorney General who knows very clearly what sexual
assault is, and who cares enough to prosecute it.
Senator Sessions has voted to make our gun background check system
even weaker. He voted against limits on high-capacity magazines, and he
opposed legislation to make interstate gun trafficking a Federal crime.
We need an Attorney General who will stand up for victims of gun
violence and their families.
Throughout his career in the Senate, Senator Sessions has voted
against or spoken out against important legislation so important to my
constituents, including the Violence Against Women's Act, the Lilly
Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, and the Voting Rights Act. These are important
pieces of legislation that protect individuals from discrimination.
We need an Attorney General who will defend the rights of women, who
will defend the rights of our communities of color, who will defend the
rights of the LGBT community, and who will defend the rights of Muslim
Americans, and all minorities.
We need an Attorney General who will fight every day for equal
justice and equal protection under the law.
Senator Sessions has no record of doing that, and I have no reason to
believe that he will do that as Attorney General. So I oppose Senator
Sessions' nomination as Attorney General, and I urge my colleagues to
do the same.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter I referred to
be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
As your constituent and as a Reform Jew, I strongly urge
you to oppose the nomination of Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
as U.S. Attorney General.
As the top law enforcement official in the country, the
Attorney General has substantial power over the
administration of key legislation that advances the
fundamental rights of all people, regardless of race, class,
sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or national origin.
Senator Sessions' firmly-established record of opposition to
protection of and advancements in voting rights, LGBTQ
equality, women's rights, immigration reform and religious
freedom suggests that he would not fulfill the Department of
Justice's mandate to provide equal protection under the law
for all people.
Senator Sessions has called the Voting Rights Act of 1965
`intrusive.' He vocally opposed the Matthew Shepard and James
Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act when it was added as an
amendment to the 2008 Defense Authorization Act because it
added sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of
classes protected under federal hate crimes law. In addition,
Senator Sessions joined 21 other senators to vote against the
2012 reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, which
included new protections for immigrants and LGBTQ people.
Finally, he staked out positions that put him far outside the
mainstream as the Senate considered and passed comprehensive
immigration reform legislation in 2013 and has expressed
support for a religious test for entry into the country.
The words of Leviticus 19:18, `love your neighbor as
yourself,' guide us to stand up against bias, prejudice and
discrimination. We cannot place the responsibility of leading
the Department of Justice, the federal agency directly
responsible for ensuring equal protection, in the hands of
someone whose record demonstrates insufficient commitment to
key civil rights protections.
I urge you to oppose Senator Sessions' nomination and to
vote against his confirmation on the Senate floor.
Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, the job of the Attorney General of the
United States is to enforce laws that protect the rights of each and
every American. More than ever--more than ever--we need leaders who can
bring Americans together to improve police-community relations, to
ensure that all Americans have access to the ballot, and to reform our
criminal justice system.
In the city in which I live, in Cleveland, we are under a consent
decree today which already is improving relations between the police
and the community. We saw it more than a decade ago in Cincinnati,
where Mayor Cranley--then a member of the council and now the mayor--
has worked with the community, as have others. We see more people of
color in the police department, and we see better training for police.
We see improved relations in that community, in large part because the
community came together--police, community leaders, citizens--to make
[[Page S905]]
for better relationships and better relations inside the community. The
consent decree there made a huge difference in that city. The consent
decree in Cleveland is making a difference there. That is partly the
job of the Attorney General--to make sure the Department of Justice
stays on course to do that.
When we think of leaders whom we need to improve police-community
relations, to ensure Americans have access to the ballot, and to reform
our criminal justice system, Senator Sessions is simply not that
leader. It is not personal. I have worked with Senator Sessions on
issues like trade. I actually told him that, if he had been nominated
as the Trade Representative, I would have happily voted for him. But we
have strong policy differences on the issues that directly fall under
the role of the Attorney General.
I examined his nearly 40-year record as a U.S. attorney, the attorney
general of Alabama, and as U.S. Senator. Based on that record, I was
the first in the Senate to say I cannot support his nomination. I told
Senator Sessions on the floor of the Senate after I made that decision,
before I announced it.
I have serious concerns that Senator Sessions' record on civil rights
is at direct odds with the task of promoting justice and equality for
all. What is more important in an Attorney General than that?
Senator Sessions has a history of racial insensitivity, bias against
immigrants, disregard for the rule of law, hostility to the protection
of civil rights--exactly what we don't need in the Attorney General of
the United States of America.
He condemned the Department of Justice's investigation of law
enforcement agencies accused of violating civil rights. He voted
against the Violence Against Women Act. One issue after another after
another disqualifies him from being the Attorney General of the United
States.
Senator Sessions is wrong on voting rights. I served as Secretary of
State of Ohio in the 1980s. I take voting rights very seriously. I
believe we should be doing everything we can to make it easier for
Americans to vote. In those days, in the 1980s, during the Reagan years
in Washington, in Ohio we had voter registration, voter outreach,
aggressive enrollment of new people to vote, of young people, of people
regardless of political affiliation, regardless of ideology, regardless
of age and race and income. We encouraged people to vote. We had good
cooperation from Republicans and Democrats alike in the legislature.
I even approached the McDonald's corporation and asked them to print
tray liners. They put tray liners on every tray. You go to McDonald's
and order food. So I asked them to print the voter registration form on
tray liners. They printed a million registration-form tray liners,
resulting in thousands and thousands of voter registrations--some
perhaps with ketchup stains or mustard stains on them, but nonetheless
voter registration forms that were accepted by local boards of
elections.
Utility companies included voter registration forms in their bills.
Newspapers printed them in their daily papers so people could tear them
out, fill them out, and send them in.
That was what we did for aggressive voter outreach, supported by
people across the political spectrum.
But Senator Sessions doesn't seem to agree with that kind of voter
outreach. He has a history of supporting voter ID laws that make it
harder to vote. He refused to disavow President Trump's false
statement--provably false. Lots of people may believe it because
President Trump said it, but it is a provably false statement that
there were 3 to 5 million illegal votes in this past election--no
evidence, just demagoguery, just lies. But Senator Sessions was
unwilling to disavow his perhaps future boss's comments.
Do we want an Attorney General, chief law enforcement official that
is going to let the President go out and make statements like that that
are provably false? Call them what they are--lies from the President of
the United States. Do we want an Attorney General who is simply going
to brush those away and pay no attention?
Senator Sessions called Shelby County v. Holder, which gutted a key
part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, good news for the South, even
though, overwhelmingly, Senators in both parties had voted to renew and
reauthorize the Voting Rights Act. He called it good news for the South
to weaken protections for people of color and others in voting rights.
Since that misguided decision, States across the country have passed
new voting restrictions that would disenfranchise hundreds of thousands
of Americans. As Senator Sessions apparently was celebrating by saying
``good news for the South,'' Texas moved within 2 hours of the
decision. Alabama, taking their cue from people like Senator Sessions,
acted the next day to restrict voting rights. As soon as the Court
moved in a way the Court hadn't moved in five decades, State after
State began to restrict voting rights because they had license to,
because they had a green light, because they now had legal authority--
something they had not had in 50 years.
At least 17 States have passed new voting restrictions since the
Shelby County decision, although my State wasn't covered by it. My
State, shamefully, is one of those that has restricted voting rights,
even though from the 1980s into the 1990s, people of both parties
joined me in wanting to expand voting rights and make sure that
everybody--regardless of disability, age, gender, race, nationality, or
income--was able to vote.
We know who is hurt most by these laws, and there is political reason
for it. We know who is hurt most--it is African Americans, Latinos,
young people, and seniors. It just happens to be the voters who
potentially might vote against the far right, which has lobbied hard
after the decision to scale back voting rights.
Senator Sessions called the Voting Rights Act intrusive. Tell that to
Congressman Lewis, who was beat up walking across the Edmund Pettus
Bridge in Selma, in Senator Sessions' State, who risked his life
numbers of times, who was injured more, probably, than anybody in the
civil rights movement, including in his home State of Alabama--
Congressman Lewis' and Senator Sessions' home State of Alabama.
Senator Sessions knows what happened to secure those voting rights
for African Americans in his State. He was a young man at the time and
saw what happened in the 1950s, and Rosa Parks and John Lewis in the
1950s and 1960s, and still he calls the Voting Rights Act intrusive.
I remember in my State, in 2004, people had to wait 6 hours in Greene
County to vote, in Knox County people had to wait 9 hours to vote. The
people who are penalized the most are not people of higher income, who
tend to have a little more flexibility in their schedule and who can
leave work during lunch, go vote, and go back to work. If they have to
wait more than 30, 40, 50 minutes or an hour, they often can't do it.
They have to pick up their kids where daycare is expensive, and we know
that many of them give up and don't vote, which might just be the
purpose of people behind the Shelby County vs. Holder decision.
In 1981, when signing an extension to the Voting Rights Act,
President Reagan called the right to vote the crown jewel of American
liberties. President Reagan said it is the crown jewel of American
liberties. Senator Sessions called the Voting Rights Act intrusive.
A couple of extensions later, the Court pulled back with Shelby
County vs. Holder. Keep this in mind. Sometimes these pass the Congress
unanimously. President Reagan said it was the crown jewel of American
liberties. The Attorney General-designee calls the Voting Rights Act
intrusive.
We need an Attorney General who will use the full extent of his
powers to protect the right to vote, not stand by as State after State
attempts to suppress it. The Attorney General as a Senator has stood by
while the President of the United States has simply lied about 3 to 5
million illegal voters.
The Attorney General-designee stood by and said nothing and was
unwilling to criticize the President of the United States. I am
concerned that when State after State attempts to suppress the vote and
roll back voting rights, he will stand by and do nothing because he
called the Voting Rights Act intrusive.
As to criminal justice reform, we need to reform our criminal justice
[[Page S906]]
system and stop ruining the lives of far too many young Black men over
nonviolent offenses. Senator Sessions has opposed bipartisan efforts,
and there have been a number of them and a number of courageous leaders
in this body who have sometimes taken politically unpopular positions
on criminal justice reform and done the right thing. Senator Sessions,
however, has opposed bipartisan efforts in the criminal justice reform.
At the outset of my speech, I mentioned Cleveland and Cincinnati, where
it is a decade and a half later, and it has proven to be a success. In
Cleveland, it is shaping up to be a success. He has called consent
decrees that mandate reform of law enforcement agencies ``an end run
around the democratic process.''
Reform of law enforcement agencies in many ways means better police
training, with real dollars and real effort put into that police
training. Again, he calls all of this ``an end run around the
democratic process.'' Senator Sessions blocked bipartisan efforts to
reduce sentences for certain nonviolent drug offenses.
There is surely a need for an independent Attorney General, and that
is my third macro concern about my colleague Senator Sessions being
elevated to be the Attorney General of the United States of America. In
light of President Trump's cruel and foolish and badly executed
Executive order on immigrants and refugees, we need an Attorney General
who will be an independent voice beholden to the Constitution and the
American people, not to the President. We have seen this order wreak
havoc on Ohio students and families.
A Cleveland father who had waited 4 years to reunite with his 14-
year-old son was forced to wait even longer when his refugee son was
banned.
We are a nation that embraces refugees. My son-in-law, at the age of
10, was living in El Salvador with his family. His mother was a
journalist. His mother was the target of threats to her life because of
political violence in El Salvador. My son-in-law's family came to the
United States and was welcomed in this country. We welcome refugees who
were victims, potential victims, or about to be victims of political
violence or violence of any kind. That is what we are as a nation.
My son-in-law is married to our daughter. They now have a son who is
not much more than 1 year old. He has been a terrific citizen of this
country. He has contributed a lot. We know that when a great majority
of refugees come here they build lives, they make a difference in the
world, and they can live in a free, prosperous nation with opportunity.
I mentioned the Cleveland father. I mentioned my son-in-law. A doctor
on her way to the Cleveland Clinic to help treat Ohioans was sent back.
She now has returned to the United States, finally, after expensive
legal issues, trauma, and all the things that happen when somebody is
pushed around by a system like that with an arrogant White House
inflicting that kind of pain on her family.
The Iraqis who risked their lives to help American troops have been
told: There is no place for you here.
Think about that. The first night after the Executive order, a
translator from Iraq, an Iraqi, who had helped American troops and
whose own life was threatened, knew he had to leave his country because
a number of people targeted people who helped the Americans. He came
here. He was handcuffed for hour after hour in a New York airport.
What message does that send to people who help Americans, who help
the American Armed Forces around the world?
Students are prevented from coming to our State to learn and
contribute in our great Ohio universities. We saw that in Ohio State.
We are seeing that in other places. Judges across the country,
appointed by Republican and Democratic Presidents, are striking down
this order because it is not constitutional. It does not represent
American values. It makes us less, not more, safe.
In 2015, Senator Sessions questioned Sally Yates in her confirmation
to be Deputy Attorney General, asking her this question: ``Do you think
the Attorney General has the responsibility to say no to the President
if he asks for something that is improper?''
Senator Sessions is asking an Obama nominee: ``Do you think the
Attorney General has the responsibility to say no to the President if
he asks for something that is improper?''
He went on to say: ``If the views the President wants to execute are
unlawful, should the Attorney General or the Deputy Attorney General
say no?''
That was a Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing for Deputy
Attorney Sally Yates in 2015.
Ms. Yates responded: ``Senator, I believe the Attorney General or the
Deputy Attorney General has an obligation to follow the law and the
Constitution and to give their independent legal advice to the
President.''
Senator Sessions, to his credit, was right to ask that question.
Sally Yates, to her credit, gave the right answer, and when she was
tested just last week, she stood by her word.
Senator Sessions has failed to assure the American people he will
follow the law and uphold the Constitution--not simply follow the
President of the United States, not blindly follow the President of the
United States just because he is his boss. That is not the kind of
Attorney General we want. That is not the kind of Attorney General we
should vote to confirm today.
There is one last point. I watched the confirmation yesterday of the
Secretary of Education. It was so clear to me, so clear to so many of
my colleagues, and so clear to the American public that confirming this
Secretary of Education was an unprecedented historical move. The Vice
President came in and broke the tie, 51 to 50. Two Republicans stood up
and voted against the Secretary of Education-designee, showing great
courage.
What was so evident was the overwhelming opposition to her. Our mail,
phone calls, and emails were 200 to 1 against her confirmation. It was
that way everywhere in the country. In Senator's office after Senator's
office, we were all hearing much, much more opposition to her than
support.
I sensed the fear among my Republican colleagues that voting against
a Trump nominee put their political lives at risk; that they all knew
that President Trump would tweet about their vote, would call them
names, would attack them, would sic his political allies on them. A
number of my colleagues were scared, and they knew that voting against
her confirmation--even though I know a number of colleagues wanted to
vote no on Betsy DeVos because she was singularly unqualified, one of
the worst performances ever in a confirmation hearing. She knew so
little about the issue of education and so little about the Department
which she was charged to run. Nonetheless, they voted for her. Some
voted for her for legitimate reasons in their mind: They like her
ideology; they like her for-profit charter schools; they are anti-
public education--all those things.
A number of colleagues, I am convinced, voted for her because they
were afraid of what the President of the United States would do. You
can't run a country by being fearful of the President of the United
States. I am afraid that in this Attorney General vote we are seeing
some of the same fear from some of my Republican colleagues--about
standing up to this President, which they will eventually do but they
are unwilling to do it now. That is why we only have seen two
Republican Senators--Senator Murkowski and Senator Collins--vote no on
any of these nominations.
I voted for about half of them. I voted against about half of them. I
plan to vote against Congressman Price because he wants to raise the
eligibility age of Medicare.
I think about the barber in Warren, the factory worker in Mansfield,
the waitress in a diner in Findlay, and the manufacturing worker in
Huber Heights. I know they shouldn't be expected to work until they are
67 or even 70 to be eligible for Medicare. I will vote against him.
I will vote against Mr. Mnuchin, who lied to the committee, first
about a $100 million investment he had, which he forgot about. It is an
understandable problem. Of course, people forget about $100 million
investments they have. And he lied to the committee about some of the
things he did at OneWest.
A whole host of these nominees simply aren't qualified, and their
ethics
[[Page S907]]
are questionable. Other than Senator Murkowski and Senator Collins, I
have not seen any of my Republican colleagues--out of fear of this
President, fear of this President personally attacking them, publicly
and personally--I have seen them shrink back from doing their
constitutional duty and voting their conscience.
I hope maybe today, maybe in Senator Sessions' vote, which I believe
will be tonight, some of my Republican colleagues will realize they
need to do their jobs. They need to stand up for what they believe when
they realize this Attorney General-designee, Senator Sessions--a
colleague I like personally, but a colleague that simply is not
prepared--is not independent. He has not had a record of support for
voting rights, for criminal justice reform--all the things that we want
in the Attorney General of the United States of America. I plan to vote
no today. I ask my colleagues to join me.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Paul). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I want to outline a number of concerns that
I have this morning about Senator Sessions' nomination to be the next
Attorney General. I will try to keep it to a short list. I have limited
time this morning. But I wanted to start with the voting rights issue.
In our State of Pennsylvania, we have a long history of litigation
and battles about the right to vote. And when the Supreme Court
decision in Shelby v. Holder was issued a couple of years ago, folks in
the Senate took one, two, or three different positions. The position
that I took was one of disagreement with the basic holding of Shelby v.
Holder, which in my judgment gutted the Voting Rights Act's
requirements that certain States and certain jurisdictions with
histories of discrimination seek what is called preclearance from the
Federal government before changing voting rules. That was a substantial
change from the policies that had been in place for years.
Since the Shelby decision, more than half of the so-called
preclearance States have implemented restrictive voting laws--some as
soon as the very next day after the decision was handed down. And over
800 polling places in preclearance States alone have been closed since
the decision. So on this issue, it is a basic difference of opinion.
I think Shelby was decided the wrong way, and Senator Sessions
believes it was decided the right way. That is a fundamental
disagreement. I have real concerns about an Attorney General who would
have that position or that point of view on that case. I don't know for
sure what he would do as Attorney General. I can't predict that, but I
can certainly raise concerns about that decision.
When you think about what led to decisions like that over time, it is
hard to encapsulate when you are speaking on the Senate floor all of
the misery, all of the suffering, all of the trauma to individuals, all
of the trauma that our country endured first to get the right to vote
for every American and then to enforce the law and to make it real.
There is no way--if I had 9 hours on the floor, I probably couldn't
encapsulate or do justice to all of that work. So it is a fundamental
divide, a fundamental debate about voting rights.
As someone who represents Pennsylvania, we have a particular interest
in the issue of voter ID laws. They are the kinds of laws that follow
the Shelby decision. Some of them predated Shelby. But we had a major
debate in Pennsylvania back in 2012, where the Pennsylvania General
Assembly passed--meaning the House and Senate passed--and the Governor
signed into law a voter ID law. Then litigation commenced and went all
the way through the court system in Pennsylvania. The final decision
was that the law was struck down. The voter ID law was struck down, so
it is a major point of contention in Pennsylvania.
Over time, some have asserted that there is widespread voter fraud.
We have heard that even more recently. I am still waiting for the
evidence of that, but that is certainly an issue that we will continue
to debate here in Washington.
I think the last thing we need in the United States of America is
more restrictive voter ID laws. We should be hoping we can expand the
opportunity for people to vote. Where there are barriers erected, knock
them down. Where there are impediments to the right to vote, push
through them or put in place strategies to overcome them.
Again, I think that is just the basic difference between Senator
Sessions and me, in terms of our approach to voter ID laws. We had a
searing experience in Pennsylvania, which left a lasting impression on
the people of our State.
Another issue, which I think is of critical importance in every
administration at every time, but maybe ever more so today with regard
to this new administration: The administration now is in a major
litigation battle regarding what has been described as a travel ban. It
is probably shorthand, but that is my best description of it. It has
been a matter that has been litigated in several U.S. Federal district
courts, and now it is in front of an appellate court. Who knows, the
next step after this may be the U.S. Supreme Court. I raise that not to
debate the substance of it; we can do that for a long while, I guess,
but I raise it on the question of independence.
There are certain jobs in government--I had one of them in State
government. I was elected as a State auditor general in Pennsylvania. I
served two terms. In that job, for example, at the State level, the
most important quality or metric by which you are judged is your
independence. You are either independent or not. And if you are
independent, you can do auditing investigations that demonstrate that
independence. Then you are doing what the people expect.
At the Federal level, even though the Attorney General is appointed
by a President, I also believe the Attorney General has to demonstrate
independence every day, in every decision, in every interaction with
our government or with citizens across the country. I hope that Jeff
Sessions can do that, were he to be confirmed. I have some doubts, not
only based upon the recent campaign statements made, but I also have
some significant concerns in light of what has happened recently.
I would hope, and I think every American has a reasonable
expectation, that any Attorney General will be totally independent when
it comes to basic questions of law and justice, even if they agree with
the President on a number of issues. I have some doubts in the case of
this nominee.
So independence is a significant concern across the country. We have
had a long debate in this country. Part of it, I think, came to closure
a couple of years ago in the Supreme Court with regard to marriage
equality. That worked its way through the courts, as well. I was in
support of, and happy about, the decision the Supreme Court made on
marriage equality.
It is another basic difference that I have with the nominee for
Attorney General. Once again, I think that is one of those basic issues
that divides the parties. It doesn't mean you can't work together. It
doesn't mean you can't have a good relationship. But I would hope that
the Attorney General of the United States, of either party, would make
sure that decision as it relates to marriage equality would be enforced
and that it would be the subject of some praise or at least some
rhetorical support for the outcome in that case.
I think the country took a step in the right direction, where every
American, whether they are gay or lesbian or bisexual or transgender,
was finally accorded the full measure of respect, the full measure of
inclusion, when it came to the issue of marriage. That is another basic
disagreement that we have.
We don't know what the outcome of this confirmation vote will be. I
think we have some sense of it, but regardless of the final outcome,
these differences will remain. We have to be honest about basic,
fundamental differences, and that is one of the reasons we have a
confirmation process. That is why we have advice and consent. That is
why we have hearings and hundreds, if not thousands, of questions
because each of these nominees is granted enormous power. In some
instances--unlike Senator Sessions--but
[[Page S908]]
in some instances, they are appointed to positions where they will have
substantial impact on people's lives for years. Tens of millions of
Americans' lives will be impacted by their decisions, so they should
have to go through a thorough vetting process and a very rigorous
ultimate confirmation process because they are being accorded great
power, and they are servants of the people. They have to remember that
is what their job is: to be servants.
I know some want to shorten or truncate or make easier this path to
confirmation for all of these Cabinet nomination positions. I think the
people expect a thorough vetting, and we are still in the midst of that
with regard to several of these positions.
So I just wanted to outline my objections--or I should say
disagreements with--Senator Sessions. I will be voting no on his
nomination.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the
confirmation of Senator Jeff Sessions to be the Attorney General.
It is never easy to oppose a President's cabinet nominees, especially
when one is your Senate colleague. I generally think the President
should be able to assemble his team.
But with this President, we are in uncharted territory. President
Trump doesn't want to hire a team that will represent the American
people.
Many of the nominees are billionaires who are out of touch with the
struggles of average Americans, and many of them have shown great
disdain for the very agencies they will lead.
People like Betsy DeVos, who is a billionaire with zero experience in
public schools, has been selected to run the Education Department.
People like Scott Pruitt, who has been nominated to be head of the
Environmental Protection Agency, which he is sued many times.
When the people nominated to the President's cabinet are intent on
dismantling the very agency they are nominated to run, our
Constitutional role of advise and consent takes on new importance.
But the position of Attorney General is unique. The nominee requires
even more scrutiny. The Attorney General is our Nation's chief law
enforcement officer with enormous power to either advance--or roll
back--our constitutional protections.
Perhaps Senator Sessions said it best during the confirmation hearing
for Sally Yates to be Deputy Attorney General.
In that hearing, Senator Sessions said, ``You have to watch out
because people will be asking you to do things you just need to say
`no' about.''
He then asked Ms. Yates, ``Do you think the Attorney General has the
responsibility to say no to the President if he asks for something that
is improper?''
I completely agree with Senator Sessions. The Attorney General has
the responsibility--the duty--to tell the President no when he is
wrong.
And that is why I cannot vote to confirm Senator Sessions. I don't
have the faith that he will tell President Trump no when the situation
requires it.
But I have even less faith that the President will listen. Sally
Yates told him no--she refused to let the Justice Department defend the
President's misguided travel ban. She was fired for doing exactly what
the position of Attorney General requires.
And when Acting AG Yates said his travel ban was wrong, the President
didn't simply relieve her of her position. Instead, he put out a press
release attacking her personally. Sally Yates had served the country
for almost three decades as a career prosecutor and Justice Department
attorney. She deserved the president's respect, regardless whether he
agreed with her.
Time and time again, President Trump has shown that he will not
tolerate dissent. You are either with him or--in his mind--you are
wrong. And you become the enemy. President Trump has put the ``bully''
back into the bully pulpit.
He frequently--and publicly--lashes out against those who express
different views. And more dangerously, he lashes out at the
institutions that are the fabric of our democracy.
This weekend he attacked a Federal judge who ruled against his travel
ban. Rather than respecting the rule of law, and the coequal judicial
branch, he once again took to Twitter personally denigrate the federal
judge who dared rule against his policy--Federal judge who was
appointed by George W. Bush.
President Trump disparages the free press at every opportunity. Any
article or story that is critical of his policies is now dubbed ``fake
news.'' Members of the press are punished for coverage of the
administration that he deems negative. He said he wants to weaken libel
laws so it is easier for him to sue the press.
President Trump will continue his assault on the first amendment,
defining the press that holds him accountable as the enemy, deriding
and belittling those who speak out against him and attacking the free
expression of religion and targeting those who practice Islam.
And when he takes these actions, it is up to the Attorney General to
tell him that he is wrong. It is up to the Attorney General to speak
truth to power, and to be ready to be fired for doing so.
But it is far from clear that Senator Sessions will be that
independent voice within the Department of Justice the American public
needs.
The Washington Post reports--that Senator Sessions not only agreed
with the President's flurry of extreme executive orders, but that he
wanted the president to go further and faster.
In an email to the Post Senior Strategist Stephen Bannon said that
throughout the campaign, Senator Sessions ``has been the fiercest, most
dedicated, and most loyal promoter in Congress of Trump's agenda, and
has played a critical role as the clearinghouse for policy and
philosophy to undergird the implementation of that agenda. What we are
witnessing now is the birth of a new political order. . . .''
Loyalty is a valued characteristic in politics. But the Nation's
chief law enforcement officer must be independent, first and foremost.
He or she must defend the Constitution and all Americans, not be the
President's personal architect of ``a new political order'' that
excludes many people.
Mr. President, for these reasons I must vote no on this nomination.
We have had a very, very long night, and I want to say that I saw my
good friend Senator Casey here. I want to thank all the Senators on the
Democratic side who have spoken up over the course of these 30 hours.
We are trying to address this issue--a very, very important issue--of
whether Senator Jeff Sessions should be Attorney General of the United
States.
In the remarks I am going to give now, I may draw some of them from
the formal remarks I have.
I just want to say that my home State of New Mexico is a majority
minority State. We have--and these are the rough numbers--about 46, 47
percent Hispanic, 10 percent Native American. Those are our large
minority populations. It is a majority minority State.
I can tell you, since this administration has come in, people are
very worried about their voting rights, and they are worried about
their democracy. I have been home in New Mexico and heard the
exchanges. I have read the various emails. People are concerned about
the issue that goes to the heart of this nomination, which is how
Senator Sessions would behave as Attorney General on the issue of
voting rights.
I fully understand the importance of rule XIX and civility. In my
activity here on the Senate floor, I try to be as civil as possible,
but I think there is a bigger issue here. So I fully understand the
importance of rule XIX. God knows we need to maintain civility in this
esteemed body. But when a Member of this body has chosen to be
considered for an office outside this body--and in the case of Senator
Sessions, for an office in a department in which he has previously
served--then his record in that office, better or worse, is critical to
our consideration.
When Mr. Sessions exercised his duties as U.S. attorney in Alabama
under
[[Page S909]]
the supervision of the U.S. Attorney General--the office he now seeks--
his record on voting rights, the backbone of our democracy, was subject
to serious question. In the context of this confirmation, that record
must be included in the context of this confirmation hearing. So here
we are on the floor. We have debated. The record must be included in
the debate on the floor.
As Senator Warren has brought to our attention, it was the judgment
of Coretta Scott King, widow of slain civil rights leader Martin Luther
King, that he used the Office of the U.S. Attorney for Alabama to--
these are Coretta Scott King's words--``chill the free exercise of the
vote by black citizens.'' That was her opinion at the time.
Similarly, in the words of our former colleague Senator Ted Kennedy,
he was ``a disgrace to the Justice Department,'' the Department which
Mr. Sessions will lead if he is confirmed.
I would like to read into the Record today the letter from Mrs. King,
which supports her opinion of Mr. Sessions' lack of commitment to
justice for all and leave this for my colleagues here today to assess
in considering his nomination.
To me, the letter she wrote back on March 19, 1986, goes right to the
heart of what we are debating here on the Senate floor. What we are
debating is our voting rights and whether we will have, for the next 4
years or 8 years, an Attorney General who is going to enforce the laws,
particularly with regard to voting rights.
I first ask unanimous consent to have the letter printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
The Martin Luther King, Jr. Center for Nonviolent Social
Change, Inc.,
Altanta, GA, March 19, 1986.
Re Nomination of Jefferson B. Sessions, U.S. Judge, Southern
District of Alabama Hearing, March 13, 1986
Hon. Strom Thurmond,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Thurmond: I write to express my sincere
opposition to the confirmation of Jefferson B. Sessions as a
federal district court judge for the Southern District of
Alabama. My professional and personal roots in Alabama are
deep and lasting. Anyone who has used the power of his office
as United States Attorney to intimidate and chill the free
exercise of the ballot by citizens should not be elevated to
our courts. Mr. Sessions has used the awesome powers of his
office in a shabby attempt to intimidate and frighten elderly
black voters. For this reprehensible conduct, he should not
be rewarded with a federal judgeship.
I regret that a long-standing commitment prevents me from
appearing in person to testify against this nominee. However,
I have attached a copy of my statement opposing Mr. Sessions'
confirmation and I request that my statement as well as this
letter be made a part of the hearing record.
I do sincerely urge you to oppose the confirmation of Mr.
Sessions.
Sincerely,
Coretta Scott King.
Mr. UDALL. This letter is dated on March 19, 1986. It is a letter
from Coretta Scott King, The Martin Luther King, Jr. Center for
Nonviolent Social Change. This is at the top of the letterhead. She is
writing a letter to Strom Thurmond, and she says:
I write to express my sincere opposition to the
confirmation of Jefferson B. Sessions as a Federal district
court judge for the Southern District of Alabama. My
professional and personal roots in Alabama are deep and
lasting. Anyone who has used the power of his office as
United States Attorney to intimidate and chill the free
exercise of the ballot by citizens should not be elevated to
our courts. Mr. Sessions has used the awesome powers of his
office in a shabby attempt to intimidate and frighten elderly
black voters. For this reprehensible conduct, he should not
be rewarded with a federal judgeship.
I regret that a longstanding commitment prevents me from
appearing in person to testify against this nominee. However,
I have attached a copy of my statement opposing Mr. Sessions'
confirmation, and I request that my statement as well as this
letter be made a part of the hearing record.
I do sincerely urge you to oppose the confirmation of Mr.
Sessions.
There is a carbon copy of this to Senator Joe Biden. This happened in
March of 1986.
Coretta Scott King is speaking out against Jeff Sessions, who was at
the time a U.S. attorney, and he was going to be promoted as a Federal
judge. We all know the history--he was not promoted as a Federal judge.
Here is her statement, which she asked to have read at the Senate
Judiciary Committee on Thursday, March 13, 1986.
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 towards 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
nonviolent protest of the denial of the franchise, Selma has
involved fully 10 percent of the Negro population in active
demonstrations, and at least half the Negro population of
Marion was arrested on one day.'' 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 20 years ago, that a united
political organization would remain in Perry County long
after other marchers had left. This organization, the Perry
County Civil 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--
Here she is talking about Jeff Sessions--
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 20
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 cannot 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 gamut 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
[[Page S910]]
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 Civil 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 1960s.
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 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 in power 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
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 competent
that those selected as federal judges will be able to judge
with fairness others holding differing 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.
Now this was a letter that Coretta Scott King wrote--I just finished
reading it--in March 1986. We know the results of that. After the
testimony was taken, Jeff Sessions, because of his record at the time,
was not allowed to become a Federal judge. Today, the issue that we
have before us, the issue we have before us is, is he fit to be our
Attorney General of the United States, based on his overall record, and
this is part of the record.
When the majority leader comes to the floor and strikes the words of
Elizabeth Warren for just reading parts of this letter, he is not
allowing the full record to be before the American people, and he is
not allowing a full debate to occur in this Chamber. That is really
what this is about today. Are we going to, as a Senate, where we have
debate, we have open debate, cut off that debate? Are we able to say
things about one another--and especially in this case. This just isn't
a debate from one Senator to another.
As to Senator Warren, in which it was said she impugned the integrity
of Senator Sessions. Senator Sessions is in a different category here
today. Senator Sessions is seeking the office of U.S. Attorney General.
This is the most important law office in the land--the most important
law enforcement office. This is an office where you can be active and
go out and file civil rights cases, you can protect voting rights, you
can do numerous things. This is an awesome responsibility. So this
should be part of the Record, and I believe it is very important that
we put it in the Record, that we talk about it, and then we look at the
whole picture.
As I said earlier, I rise in opposition to the confirmation of
Senator Sessions. It is not easy to oppose a nominee, especially when
one is your Senate colleague. And I generally think the President
should be able to assemble his team. But with this President we are in
uncharted territory.
President Trump doesn't want to hire a team who will represent the
American people. Many of the nominees are billionaires who are out of
touch with the struggles of average Americans, and many of them have
shown great disdain for the very agencies they will lead. People such
as Betsy DeVos, a billionaire with zero experience in public schools,
selected to run the Education Department. As we all know, yesterday, we
saw what happened; two courageous Republicans--Lisa Murkowski and Susan
Collins--voted against Betsy DeVos. In an unprecedented move, the Vice
President of the United States had to come and sit where the President
of the Senate is and cast the tie-breaking vote in order to get her
through. I think we are going to look back on that as a sad day for
public education because she sure doesn't stand up for public
education.
People such as Scott Pruitt to be head of the Environmental
Protection Agency, which he sued many times.
When the people nominated to the President's Cabinet are intent on
dismantling the very Agency they are nominated to run, our
constitutional role of advise and consent takes on a new importance.
The position of Attorney General is unique. The nominee requires even
more scrutiny. The Attorney General, as our nation's chief law
enforcement officer, has enormous power to either advance or roll back
our constitutional protections, and that power resides in that one
person.
The other important role of the Attorney General is to make sure the
President is obeying the law. In this case, we have a real problem
here. Within the first couple of weeks, the courts are calling the
President in and telling him he is issuing Muslim bans and other orders
and that he is violating the law. So we need an Attorney General who is
going to stand up for what the law is, not be political and not be
ideological.
Perhaps Senator Sessions said it best during the confirmation
hearings for Sally Yates to be Deputy Attorney General. In that
hearing, Senator Sessions said: ``You have to watch out, because people
will be asking you to do things you just need to say `no' about.'' That
is his full quote there.
When he asked Ms. Yates, ``Do you think the Attorney General has the
responsibility to say no to the President if he asks for something that
is improper?'' That is the standard we are looking at--pretty tough
standard--speaking truth to power, the Attorney General to the
President of the United States.
I completely agree with Senator Sessions that the Attorney General
has the responsibility, the duty to tell the President no when he is
wrong. That is why I cannot vote to confirm Senator Sessions. I don't
have the faith that he will tell President Trump no when the situation
requires it, but I have less faith that the President will listen.
Sally Yates told the President no. She refused to let the Justice
Department defend the President's misguided
[[Page S911]]
travel ban. She was fired for doing exactly what the position of
Attorney General requires.
When the Acting AG, Acting AG Yates, said his travel ban was wrong,
the President didn't simply relieve her of her position, instead he put
out a press release attacking her personally. Sally Yates, who served
the government for three decades as a career prosecutor, Justice
Department attorney, deserved the President's respect regardless of
whether he agreed with her or not.
Time and again, President Trump has shown that he will not tolerate
dissent. You are either with him or in his mind you are wrong, and you
become the enemy. President Trump has put the bully back into the bully
pulpit. He frequently and publicly lashes out against those who express
different views, and more dangerously, he lashes out at the
institutions that are the fabric of this democracy. This weekend he
attacked a Federal judge who ruled against his travel ban, rather than
respecting the rule of law and the coequal judicial branch. He once
again took to Twitter to personally denigrate the Federal judge who
dared rule against this policy--a Federal judge who was appointed by
George W. Bush.
President Trump disparages the free press at every opportunity. Any
article or story that is critical of his policies is now dubbed
``fake'' news. Members of the press are punished for coverage of the
administration that he deems negative. He says he wants to weaken libel
laws so it is easier for him to sue the press.
President Trump will continue his assault on the First Amendment,
defining the press that holds him accountable as the enemy, deriding
and belittling those who speak out against him, attacking the free
expression of religion and those who practice Islam.
When he takes these actions, it is up to the Attorney General of the
United States to tell him he is wrong. That is where that awesome
responsibility resides.
It is up to the Attorney General to speak truth to power and to be
ready to be fired for doing so, but it is far from clear that Senator
Sessions will be that independent voice within the Department of
Justice that the American public needs.
The Washington Post reports that Senator Sessions not only agreed
with the President's flurry of extreme Executive orders but that he
wanted the President to go further and faster.
In an email to the Post, senior strategist Stephen Bannon said that
throughout the campaign, Senator Sessions ``has been the fiercest, most
dedicated, most loyal promoter in Congress of Trump's agenda and has
played a critical role as the clearinghouse for policy and philosophy
to undergird the implementation of that agenda. What we were witnessing
now is the birth of a new political order.''
Stephen Bannon. This is an amazing quote, a contemporary quote from
the President's top strategist. Everybody who is now talking in the
press--and there are a lot of leaks out of this White House--say Steve
Bannon is the puppeteer. He is the one telling Trump what to do. It is
absolutely clear, of all the people in the White House, this is the guy
who has the most clout, and it is a debate for all whether he is the
puppeteer in telling the President what to do.
But listen again to what he said about Senator Sessions, that he
``has been the fiercest, most dedicated, and most loyal promoter in
Congress of Trump's agenda, and has played a critical role as the
clearinghouse for policy and philosophy to undergird the implementation
of that agenda. What we are witnessing now is the birth of a new
political order.''
I don't know what this new political order is, where you don't
respect the rule of law and don't respect democracy--headed in the
wrong direction, in my opinion.
Loyalty is a valued characteristic in politics, but the Nation's
chief law enforcement officer must be independent, first and foremost.
I hearken back to when Senator Sessions and I were both attorneys
general back many years ago, and I remember assuming that role at the
State level. It is an awesome role because early on in my
administration they brought me cases where Democrats who were in the
State legislature were violating the law, and they said: They are
violating the law. They said they are violating the law. We have to
enforce the law, and I did, and we prosecuted people in my own party.
We had many rulings that came in as Attorney General where people
would say: Interpret this law. And the law could be interpreted in a
political way where you moved it toward your party, or the law could be
interpreted the way it was written, with fairness. It ended up that we
did everything we could to try to be fair to the law and fair as it was
written.
I don't think Senator Sessions is able to do that, not only based on
his history in Alabama as U.S. attorney, but his entire career up to
this date.
We talk about loyalty being a valued characteristic in politics. The
Nation's chief law enforcement officer must be independent, first and
foremost. He or she must defend the Constitution and all Americans, not
be the President's architect of a new political order that excludes
many people.
For these reasons, I must vote no on this nomination.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
the Washington Post article I referred to so that people can see that
full article and be able to judge Steve Bannon's quote, who is the
President's top strategist.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Washington Post, Jan. 30, 2017]
Trump's Hard-Line Actions Have an Intellectual Godfather: Jeff Sessions
(By Philip Rucker and Robert Costa)
In jagged black strokes, President Trump's signature was
scribbled onto a catalogue of executive orders over the past
10 days that translated the hard-line promises of his
campaign into the policies of his government.
The directives bore Trump's name, but another man's
fingerprints were also on nearly all of them: Jeff Sessions.
The early days of the Trump presidency have rushed a
nationalist agenda long on the fringes of American life into
action--and Sessions, the quiet Alabamian who long cultivated
those ideas as a Senate backbencher, has become a singular
power in this new Washington.
Sessions's ideology is driven by a visceral aversion to
what he calls ``soulless globalism,'' a term used on the
extreme right to convey a perceived threat to the United
States from free trade, international alliances and the
immigration of nonwhites.
And despite many reservations among Republicans about that
worldview, Sessions--whose 1986 nomination for a federal
judgeship was doomed by accusations of racism that he
denied--is finding little resistance in Congress to his
proposed role as Trump's attorney general.
Sessions's nomination is scheduled to be voted on Tuesday
by the Senate Judiciary Committee, but his influence in the
administration stretches far beyond the Justice Department.
From immigration and health care to national security and
trade, Sessions is the intellectual godfather of the
president's policies. His reach extends throughout the White
House, with his aides and allies accelerating the president's
most dramatic moves, including the ban on refugees and
citizens from seven mostly Muslim nations that has triggered
fear around the globe.
The author of many of Trump's executive orders is senior
policy adviser Stephen Miller, a Sessions confidant who was
mentored by him and who spent the weekend overseeing the
government's implementation of the refugee ban. The tactician
turning Trump's agenda into law is deputy chief of staff Rick
Dearborn, Sessions's longtime chief of staff in the Senate.
The mastermind behind Trump's incendiary brand of populism is
chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon, who, as chairman of the
Breitbart website, promoted Sessions for years.
Then there is Jared Kushner, the president's son-in-law and
senior adviser, who considers Sessions a savant and forged a
bond with the senator while orchestrating Trump's trip last
summer to Mexico City and during the darkest days of the
campaign.
In an email in response to a request from The Washington
Post, Bannon described Sessions as ``the clearinghouse for
policy and philosophy'' in Trump's administration, saying he
and the senator are at the center of Trump's ``pro-America
movement'' and the global nationalist phenomenon.
``In America and Europe, working people are reasserting
their right to control their own destinies,'' Bannon wrote.
``Jeff Sessions has been at the forefront of this movement
for years, developing populist nation-state policies that are
supported by the vast and overwhelming majority of Americans,
but are poorly understood by cosmopolitan elites in the media
that live in a handful of our larger cities.''
He continued: ``Throughout the campaign, Sessions has been
the fiercest, most dedicated, and most loyal promoter in
Congress of Trump's agenda, and has played a critical role as
the clearinghouse for policy and philosophy to undergird the
implementation of
[[Page S912]]
that agenda. What we are witnessing now is the birth of a new
political order, and the more frantic a handful of media
elites become, the more powerful that new political order
becomes itself.''
Trump, who is never shy about showering praise on his
loyalists, speaks of Sessions with reverence. At a luncheon
the day before his inauguration, Trump singled out someone in
the audience: ``the legendary Jeff Sessions.''
Trump said in an email to The Post that Sessions is ``a
truly fine person.''
``Jeff was one of my earliest supporters and the fact that
he is so highly respected by everyone in both Washington,
D.C., and around the country was a tremendous asset to me
throughout the campaign,'' Trump wrote.
Sessions helped devise the president's first-week strategy,
in which Trump signed a blizzard of executive orders that
begin to fulfill his signature campaign promises--although
Sessions had advocated going even faster.
The senator lobbied for a ``shock-and-awe'' period of
executive action that would rattle Congress, impress Trump's
base and catch his critics unaware, according to two
officials involved in the transition planning. Trump opted
for a slightly slower pace, these officials said, because he
wanted to maximize news coverage by spreading out his
directives over several weeks.
Trump makes his own decisions, but Sessions was one of the
rare lawmakers who shared his impulses.
``Sessions brings heft to the president's gut instincts,''
said Roger Stone, a longtime Trump adviser. He compared
Sessions to John Mitchell, who was attorney general under
Richard M. Nixon but served a more intimate role as a
counselor to the president on just about everything. ``Nixon
is not a guy given to taking advice, but Mitchell was
probably Nixon's closest adviser,'' Stone said.
There are limits to Sessions's influence, however. He has
not persuaded Trump--so far, at least--to eliminate the
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, under which
children brought to the United States illegally are allowed
to stay in the country.
Sessions has also been leading the internal push for Trump
to nominate William H. Pryor Jr., his deputy when Sessions
was Alabama's attorney general and now a federal appeals
court judge, for the Supreme Court. While Pryor is on Trump's
list of three finalists, it is unclear whether he will get
the nod.
In his senior staff meetings, Trump talks about Sessions as
someone who ``gets things done,'' calmly and without fanfare,
said Kellyanne Conway, the White House counselor.
``He does it in a very courtly, deliberative manner,'' she
said. ``There's never a cloud of dust or dramatic flourish.''
Newt Gingrich, a former speaker of the House and informal
Trump adviser, said, ``Sessions is the person who is
comfortable being an outsider to the establishment but able
to explain the establishment to Trump. There is this New
York-Los Angeles bias that if you sound like Alabama, you
can't be all that bright, but that's totally wrong, and Trump
recognized how genuinely smart Sessions is.''
Sessions was especially instrumental in the early days of
the transition, which was taken over by Dearborn after a
purge of New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie's associates.
Sessions became a daily presence at Trump Tower in New York,
mapping out the policy agenda and making personnel decisions.
Once former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani was out of
consideration for secretary of state, Trump considered
nominating Sessions because he was so trusted by the inner
circle, including Kushner, although Sessions's preference was
to be attorney general, according to people familiar with the
talks.
Since his nomination, Sessions has been careful to not be
formally involved even as his ideas animate the White House.
In a statement Sunday, he denied that he has had
``communications'' with his former advisers or reviewed the
executive orders.
Sessions has installed close allies throughout the
administration. He persuaded Cliff Sims, a friend and
adviser, to sell his Alabama media outlet and take a job
directing message strategy at the White House. Sessions also
influenced the selection of Peter Navarro, an economist and
friend with whom he co-authored an op-ed last fall warning
against the ``rabbit hole of globalism,'' as director of the
National Trade Council.
Sessions's connections extend into the White House media
briefing room, where press secretary Sean Spicer took the
first question at his Jan. 24 briefing from a journalist at
LifeZette, a conservative website run by Laura Ingraham, a
Trump supporter and populist in the Sessions mold. The
website's senior editor is Garrett Murch, a former
communications adviser to Sessions.
Another link: Julia Hahn, a Breitbart writer who favorably
chronicled Sessions's immigration crusades over the past two
years, was hired by Bannon to be one of his White House
aides.
More mainstream Republicans have been alarmed by Sessions's
ascent. John Weaver, a veteran GOP strategist who was a
consultant on Sessions's first Senate campaign and is now a
Trump critic, said Sessions is at the pinnacle of power
because he shares Trump's ``1940s view of fortress America.''
``That's something you would find in an Allen Drury
novel,'' Weaver said. ``Unfortunately, there are real
consequences to this, which are draconian views on
immigration and a view of America that is insular and not an
active member of the global community.''
Inside the White House and within Sessions's alumni
network, people have taken to calling the senator ``Joseph,''
referring to the Old Testament patriarch who was shunned by
his family and sold into slavery as a boy, only to rise
through unusual circumstances to become right hand to the
pharaoh and oversee the lands of Egypt.
In a 20-year Senate career, Sessions has been isolated in
his own party, a dynamic crystallized a decade ago when he
split with President George W. Bush and the business
community over comprehensive immigration changes.
In lonely and somewhat conspiratorial speeches on the
Senate floor, Sessions would chastise the ``masters of the
universe.'' He hung on his office wall a picture of He-Man
from the popular 1980s comic book series.
As he weighed a presidential run, Trump liked what he saw
in Sessions, who was tight with the constituencies Trump was
eager to rouse on the right. So he cultivated a relationship,
giving Sessions $2,000 for his 2014 reelection even though
the senator had no Democratic opponent.
``Sessions was always somebody that we had targeted,'' said
Sam Nunberg, Trump's political adviser at the time.
In May 2015, Nunberg said, he reached out to Miller, then
an adviser to Sessions, to arrange a phone call between Trump
and the senator. The two hit it off, with Trump telling
Nunberg, ``That guy is tough.''
The next month, Trump declared his candidacy. In August of
that year, Sessions joined Trump at a mega-rally in the
senator's home town of Mobile and donned a ``Make America
Great Again'' cap. By January 2016, Miller had formally
joined the campaign and was traveling daily with the
candidate, writing speeches and crafting policies.
``Senator Sessions laid a bit of groundwork . . . on
matters like trade and illegal immigration,'' Conway said.
``It was candidate Trump then who was able to elevate those
twin pillars in a way that cast it through the lens of what's
good for the American worker.''
As Trump kept rising, so did Sessions.
``It's like being a guerrilla in the hinterlands preparing
for the next hopeless assault on the government,'' said Mark
Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration
Studies, a conservative research institute. ``Then you get a
message that the capital has fallen.''
Mr. UDALL. Thank you.
With that, I will yield the floor momentarily, and I may be back in a
minute or two.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, as I reflect on the nomination of Jeff
Sessions to be Attorney General, one of the things that hits me is,
when we look at the broad scope of how America has been moving forward
in the last 100 years, the three big movements that have changed
America have been the civil rights movement; the women's rights
movement--women's suffrage, women's rights, women wanting freedom over
their choices on reproductive rights; and then conservation and
environmental rights, which have kind of changed everything since Teddy
Roosevelt and Franklin Roosevelt and my father and Uncle Mo Udall, who
served in the Congress.
I grew up believing civil rights was something that was moving us
forward, was inclusive, and was something where we really cared about
every person.
The job of the United States Senator is to represent your State. My
State of New Mexico is majority-minority, very diverse, and I am very
proud to speak out for the people of New Mexico and their civil rights.
I have told many of them back home the story I learned through my
father and through his public service, when he was a college student at
the University of Arizona.
Both he and my Uncle Morris Udall were at the University of Arizona
in the lunchroom. Way back in the 1940s, the lunchroom was segregated
so the Black students had to eat outside under the trees. They couldn't
eat inside. My father and Mo had a friend, a young man by the name of
Morgan Maxwell. Morgan still is a good friend of the family, and I am
good friends with his son who lives in New Mexico.
Morgan was sitting out under the tree, and Mo and my father went over
and said: We want you to have lunch with us. They took him through the
line at the University of Arizona. The
[[Page S913]]
people serving looked at him like they were a little shocked and
surprised. They said: He is our friend. He is going to have lunch with
us. They served him, and they sat down at the lunch table in the
lunchroom. It ended up that they had a good lunch that day.
But that push to bring Morgan Maxwell, a Black student, into a
segregated lunchroom ended up with the president of the university
facing a decision: Was he going to discipline the Udall brothers or was
he going to change the rule and integrate the lunchroom? Thank God, he
integrated the lunchroom, and the University of Arizona, at that time,
moved forward with integration.
I had always heard that story, and it resonated with me a lot. Then,
later, as I was growing up here in Washington when my father was
Secretary of the Interior, there was a great commotion around the fact
that the Washington Redskins was the last team in the NFL to integrate
their team. Here, we are talking in the 1960s. The owner of the
Washington Redskins was named George Preston Marshall. Everyone knew he
was a bigot and racist. He said: This is never going to happen. We are
not going to integrate the Redskins. So there was a big movement in
Washington to get my father to do something about it.
He took this in a serious way and passed it on to the Solicitor. The
Solicitor came back and said: Stewart, actually, you can do something
about it. The stadium resides on Park Service property and you are the
landlord. Tell him next year when he gets his lease, if his team isn't
integrated, you can terminate the lease, or he can integrate. George
Preston Marshall raised hell and went to Jack Kent and Bobby Kennedy at
Justice and did everything they could to push it aside. The Kennedys
backed my dad.
I know my colleague Senator Hirono is here.
The short story is that the Washington Redskins got Bobby Mitchell
and had the first winning season the next year in a long, long time.
Those civil rights are things you grow up with. They are things you
want to move forward with. That is why I rise today to say I am deeply
disturbed about what Coretta Scott King said about Jeff Sessions in
1986 when he was going to be promoted. As U.S. attorney, he chilled the
free exercise of vote by Black citizens. That is how he carried out his
responsibilities.
I think if you look at the whole history here, he is not fit to be
Attorney General, and that is why I am going to vote no, and I urge
everybody to vote no.
I see my great colleague from Hawaii, Senator Hirono, here. She may
want to speak. Others may come in.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cotton). The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, it is a sad day for our democracy when the
words of Coretta Scott King are not allowed on the floor of the U.S.
Senate. I wish to share those words with you today in their entirety.
Dear Senator Thurmond:
I write to express my sincere opposition to the
confirmation of Jefferson B. Sessions as a federal court
judge for the Southern District of Alabama. My professional
and personal roots in Alabama are deep and lasting. Anyone
who has used the power of his office as United States
Attorney to intimidate and chill the free exercise of the
ballot by citizens should not be elevated to our courts. Mr.
Sessions has used the awesome powers of his office in a
shabby attempt to intimidate and frighten elderly black
voters. For this reprehensible conduct, he should not be
rewarded with the federal judgeship.
I regret that a long-standing commitment prevents me from
appearing in person to testify against this nominee. However,
I have attached a copy of my statement opposing Mr. Sessions'
confirmation and I request that my statement as well as this
be made a part of the hearing record.
I do sincerely urge you to oppose the confirmation of Mr.
Sessions.
Sincerely,
Coretta Scott King.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I have served with Jeff Sessions
throughout my time in the Senate and respect him very much as a
colleague. I come to the floor of the Senate today not to decide
whether Jeff Sessions is doing a good job as the Senator from Alabama,
for, of course, that is for his constituents to decide; I come to the
floor today to vote on whether to support Jeff Sessions for Attorney
General of all the people of America, not just the people of Alabama.
That is an awesomely different role and responsibility.
I have deep concerns about Jeff Sessions' independence from the
President and how he would use his prosecutorial discretion to address
a number of critical issues confronting our country.
The Attorney General is the American people's lawyer, not the
President's, and the job requires the Attorney General to stand up to
the President as the people's lawyer.
In his first 2 weeks in office, President Trump has demonstrated his
intolerance of dissent and independent thinking. He fired Acting
Attorney General Sally Yates because she did what an Attorney General
is supposed to do: She stood up and refused to defend President Trump's
Executive order effectively restricting Muslims from coming to or
returning to our country. Would Jeff Sessions have stood up to the
President as Sally Yates did?
During his confirmation hearing, I asked Senator Sessions if he would
honor the historical role of the Attorney General and maintain strict
independence from the White House. I did not receive a satisfactory
answer. This is deeply troubling in light of the ongoing litigation in
Federal court challenging the President's Muslim ban as overreaching
and unconstitutional.
Since the President announced the ban just over a week ago, hundreds
of thousands of protesters have taken to the streets to oppose it.
Lawyers have been camping out in arrivals terminals in airports across
the country to help those who are trying to come back or come to our
country with legal visas. State attorneys general have been speaking
out and filing lawsuits to block this ban.
Last week, Hawaii attorney general Doug Chin filed a lawsuit to block
the Executive order. I wish to read a section from the State's brief
outlining the State's case.
Hawaii joins the many voices that have condemned the Order.
But this pleading is not about politics or rhetoric--it is
about the law. The simple fact is that the Order is unlawful.
By banning Muslims and creating a preference for Christian
refugees, the Order violates the Establishment Clause of the
United States Constitution. By those same acts, it violates
the equal protection guarantee of the fifth amendment. By
failing utterly to provide procedures or protections of any
kind for people detained or turned away at our airports, it
violates the Due Process Clause. And by enshrining rank
discrimination on the basis of nationality and religion, it
flies in the face of statutes enacted by Congress.
Attorney General Chin is standing up for the people of Hawaii. The
people of the United States deserve the same from our Attorney General.
To understand how an Attorney General should discharge his or her
responsibility, we need only turn to Senator Sessions' own words in an
exchange between Sally Yates and Senator Sessions during her
confirmation hearing in 2015.
I wish to read the exchange. Senator Sessions said at her
confirmation hearing:
Do you understand that in this political world, there will
be people calling, demanding, pushing, insisting on things
that they do not know what they're asking for and could
indeed be corrosive of the rule of law, could diminish the
respect the Department of Justice has, could diminish the
rule of law in the United States? Are you aware of that?
You've already learned that the time you've been there.
Nominee Yates said:
Well, you're right, Senator, I'm not from here. I've only
been here for a couple of months, but I can tell you I'm
committed to the Department of Justice.
I love our department. I care deeply about our mission, and
I would do everything in my power to protect the integrity
that is the Department of Justice.''
Senator Sessions said:
You have to watch out, because people will be asking you to
do things you just need to say no about. Do you think the
Attorney General has the responsibility to say ``no'' to
[[Page S914]]
the President if he asks for something that is improper? If
the views of the President are unlawful, should the Attorney
General or the Deputy Attorney General say no?
Yates' response:
Senator, I believe the AG or deputy AG has an obligation to
follow the law and the Constitution and to give their
independent legal advice to the President.
The people of the United States need an Attorney General who will
stand up to the President to defend the Constitution--especially, as
Senator Sessions pointed out in his questions of Nominee Yates, when
the President is wrong.
Based on Nominee Sessions' long-held restrictive views on
immigration, I do not think he would stand up to the President as Sally
Yates did. I am also deeply concerned about how Senator Sessions would
use his prosecutorial discretion to address a number of critical
issues.
During his confirmation hearing, I pressed Senator Sessions for a
commitment to vigorously protect every citizens' right to vote,
particularly with regard to section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which
safeguards Americans from discriminatory voting laws.
At a time when our President is making unsubstantiated claims of
massive voter fraud, we need an Attorney General who will vigorously
protect the right to vote and not give in to these kinds of alternative
facts to justify voter suppression laws.
Senator Sessions did not provide me with a satisfactory answer that
he would affirmatively scrutinize voting laws for impermissible
discriminatory impact. If the Attorney General does not weigh in on
these kinds of situations, this means that challenging these kinds of
voting laws, these kinds of impermissible discriminatory voting laws,
will be left to individuals and groups with limited resources, such as
the NAACP.
I also asked Senator Sessions whether he would honor the Department
of Justice's consent decrees, some 20 of them, that address police
misconduct and enhance accountability. Senator Sessions did not
adequately assure me that as Attorney General, he would uphold these
amendments. In fact, he left the door open for renegotiating these
agreements. I pressed Senator Sessions for a commitment to defend Roe
v. Wade in Federal court and to enforce laws that guarantee the
constitutionally protected women's right to choose. Senator Sessions
refused to disavow his past comments that Roe v. Wade was one of the
worst Supreme Court cases ever decided and, in his view, not based on
the Constitution, when, in fact, the majority decision had a
constitutional basis.
Should the Supreme Court be presented with a case that provides them
the opportunity to overturn Roe v. Wade, I asked Senator Sessions,
would he instruct the Solicitor General to argue for the overturning of
Roe v. Wade? He said that was a hypothetical and did not respond.
Senator Sessions' view on Roe v. Wade is clear. Would anyone be
surprised if, as Attorney General, he would support overturning Roe v.
Wade given that opportunity?
In addition, in one of his first actions, the President reinstated a
ban on foreign aid to health providers abroad who discussed abortion.
This vow would compromise the health care of millions of women in
places where the need is greatest. Taking the President's lead, I
seriously question whether his Cabinet nominees, including the Attorney
General nominee, will protect a woman's right to choose.
I want to turn again to the topics of President Trump's Executive
order, basically banning Muslim immigration, because our next Attorney
General will likely weigh in on this, as well as other immigration
cases. In fact, the Justice Department is already in Federal courts
right now defending President Trump's Muslim ban. So while there is an
argument being made that this really is not a Muslim ban, I say, you
can call a duck a chicken, but if it looks like a duck, quacks like a
duck, walks like a duck, it is a duck. That is what this Executive
order is, a Muslim ban.
Sadly, stoking fears in minorities and immigrants is a tragic but
undeniable part of our Nation's history, and this fear has been used to
justify the terrible treatment of minorities from Native peoples to
slaves, to immigrants who helped build our country. In 1882, decades of
incitement against Chinese immigrants resulted in the passage of the
Chinese Exclusion Act, an immoral law that banned all Chinese
immigration. This law, and others that followed, created a culture of
fear that culminated in the mass internment of Japanese Americans
during World War II.
This was one of the darkest periods of American history, and it took
decades for our country to acknowledge our error.
Last week, we commemorated what would have been civil rights icon
Fred Korematsu's 98th birthday. As Japanese Americans were rounded up
for incarceration, Mr. Korematsu, who was only 23 at the time, bravely
resisted internment all the way to the Supreme Court, which upheld Mr.
Korematsu's conviction as being justified by the exigencies of war.
Forty years later, documents kept from the Supreme Court showed that
the Americans of Japanese ancestry were not involved in seditious
actions justifying mass incarceration. Mr. Korematsu waited more than
40 years for a court in California to overturn his conviction.
During the Judiciary Committee's markup on this nomination, I read
the full text of President Ronald Reagan's remarks in 1988, apologizing
for the internment. I would like to read some of the excerpts.
I do see the majority leader here. Would you like me to yield?
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Hawaii, I
have a very short statement, if I could do that.
Ms. HIRONO. I assume I will be able to resume my comments after the
majority leader's statement?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. HIRONO. Thank you.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, we came together yesterday to confirm
Betsy DeVos as Secretary of Education so she could get to work
improving our schools and putting students first.
We will come together to confirm Tom Price as Secretary of Health and
Human Services so he can get to work helping to provide relief from
ObamaCare and stabilizing the health care markets.
We will come together to confirm Steve Mnuchin as Secretary of the
Treasury, too, so he can get to work continuing the President's efforts
to relieve the regulatory pressure on America's economy and American
job creation.
We will also come together later today to confirm a new Attorney
General. We all know our colleague from Alabama. He is honest. He is
fair. He has been a friend to many of us on both sides of the aisle. It
has been tough to watch all this good man has been put through in
recent weeks. This is a well-qualified colleague, with a deep reverence
for the law. He believes strongly in the equal application of it to
everyone.
In his home State, he has fought against the forces of hate. In the
Senate, he developed a record of advocacy for crime victims but also
for the fair and humane treatment of those who break our laws, both
when they are sentenced and when they are incarcerated.
Jeff Sessions has worked across the aisle on important initiatives.
He is, in the words of former Democratic Vice-Presidential Candidate
Joe Lieberman, ``an honorable and trustworthy person, a smart and good
lawyer, and a thoughtful and open-minded listener,'' someone who ``will
be a principled, fair and capable Attorney General.''
Our colleague wants to be Attorney General for all Americans. Later
today, we will vote to give him that chance, and I will have more to
say about our friend and colleague at that time.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Ms. HIRONO. I would like to resume my remarks.
Mr. President, I want to read some excerpts from President Ronald
Reagan's remarks in 1988, apologizing for the internment of Japanese
Americans.
More than 40 years ago, shortly after the bombing of Pearl
Harbor, 120,000 persons of Japanese ancestry living in the
United States were forcibly removed from their homes and
placed in makeshift internment camps. This action was taken
without trial, without jury. It was based solely on race, for
these 120,000 were Americans of Japanese descent.
[[Page S915]]
Yet we must recognize that the internment of Japanese
Americans was just that: a mistake. For throughout the war,
Japanese Americans in the tens of thousands remained utterly
loyal to the United States. Indeed, scores of Japanese
Americans volunteered for our Armed Forces, many stepping
forward in the internment camps themselves.
The 442nd Regimental Combat Team, made up entirely of
Japanese Americans, served with immense distinction to defend
this Nation, their Nation. Yet back at home, the soldiers'
families were being denied the very freedom for which so many
of the soldiers themselves were laying down their lives.
The legislation that I am about to sign provides for a
restitution payment to each of the 60,000 surviving Japanese
Americans of the 120,000 who were relocated or detained. Yet
no payment can make up for those lost years. So, what is most
important in this bill has less to do with property than with
honor. For here we admit a wrong; here, we reaffirm our
commitment as a nation to equal justice under the law.
President Reagan's words powerfully demonstrated the wrongness of the
internment, but just after this Presidential election, a top Trump
surrogate said that the Japanese internment should be used as
``precedent'' for a Muslim registry. And a Supreme Court Justice,
Justice Scalia, in 2014, warned that a civil rights atrocity similar to
the internment of Japanese Americans could happen again. Justice Scalia
explained his thinking with the Latin phrase that means: ``In times of
war, the laws fall silent.'' Justice Scalia in 2014, went on to say:
That is what was going on--the panic about the war, and the
invasion of the Pacific and whatnot. That's what happens. It
was wrong, but I would not be surprised to see it happen
again--in times of war. It's no justification, but it is the
reality.
The internment of Japanese Americans is yet another example of how,
when we do not stand up against unconstitutional actions like President
Trump's Muslim ban, we will be complicit in what follows. Time and
again, when our country targets minorities for discriminatory
treatment, history proves us to have been deeply wrong. I commend my
Republican colleagues, Senators Graham, McCain, Hatch, Flake, Sasse,
and others, for their statements questioning President Trump's
immigration Executive order.
Senators Lindsey Graham and John McCain issued a joint statement,
which I would like to read in whole because I very much admire the
position they took. In their joint statement they said:
Our government has the responsibility to defend our
borders, but we must do so in a way that makes us safer and
upholds all that is decent and exceptional about our Nation.
It is clear from the confusion at our airports across the
nation that President Trump's Executive order was not
properly vetted. We are particularly concerned by reports
that this order went into effect with little to no
consultation with the Departments of State, Defense, Justice,
and Homeland Security.
We should not stop green-card holders from returning to the
country they call home. We should not stop those who have
served as interpreters for our military and diplomats from
seeking refuge in the country they risked their lives to
help.
And we should not turn our backs on those refugees who have
been shown, through extensive vetting, to pose no
demonstrable threat to our Nation, and who have suffered
unspeakable horrors, most of them women and children.
Ultimately, we fear this Executive order will become a
self-inflicted wound in the fight against terrorism. At this
very moment, American troops are fighting side-by-side with
our Iraqi partners to defeat ISIL.
But this Executive order bans Iraqi pilots from coming to
military bases in Arizona to fight our common enemies.
Our most important allies in the fight against ISIL are the
vast majority of Muslims who reject its apocalyptic ideology
of hatred.
This Executive order sends a signal, intended or not, that
America does not want Muslims coming into our country.
That is why we fear this Executive order may do more to
help terrorist recruitment than improve our security.
That is the end of the joint statement by Senators McCain and Graham.
I read the statement and I cannot but admire our two Senators for
making the statements. I cannot overstate the fearful message that
President Trump is sending by pursuing this ban on Muslims.
Last night, our colleague, the senior Senator from Massachusetts, was
silenced for sharing a letter from Coretta Scott King. If we cannot
make a distinction between talking about a fellow Senator from a person
who is a nominee that we must confirm, then the rule that shuts down
debate should be called a gag rule.
Over the last 2 months, I have heard from thousands of my
constituents and a number of prominent civil rights organizations,
including a number who testified at Jeff Sessions' hearing questioning
his nomination. So I will vote against the nomination of Jeff Sessions
to serve as Attorney General because I am deeply concerned about how he
would use his prosecutorial discretion to uphold voting rights, protect
civil rights, and safeguard a woman's right to choose. I am seriously
concerned about Jeff Sessions' willingness to say no to the President
when he needs to.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I want to say a few words about the
Sessions nomination for Attorney General, but I also want to express my
very strong opposition to Senator McConnell's effort to deny Senator
Elizabeth Warren the opportunity to express her point of view.
There are two separate issues. No. 1, this is the Senate. The
American people expect from us a vigorous debate on the important
issues facing this country. I think all of us are aware that issues of
civil rights, issues of voter suppression, issues of criminal justice
reform are enormous issues that people from one end of this country
feel very strongly about. Those are issues that the next Attorney
General of the United States will be dealing with.
So clearly we need a vigorous discussion regarding the qualifications
of President Trump's nominee, Jeff Sessions, to be Attorney General. We
need to hear all points of view. The idea that a letter and a statement
made by Coretta Scott King, the widow of Martin Luther King, Jr., a
letter that she wrote, could not be presented and spoken about on the
floor of the Senate is, to me, incomprehensible.
It comes at a time when we have a President who has initiated, and I
hope it will not stand, a ban on Muslims entering the United States of
America. We have a President who refers to a judge who issues a ruling
in opposition to the President as a so-called judge, which tells every
judge in America that they will be insulted and marginalized by this
President if they dare to disagree with him.
I was under the impression we had three separate branches of
government: Congress, the President, and the Judiciary, equal branches,
not to be insulted because one branch disagrees with another branch.
Here we are now on the floor of the Senate and one of our outstanding
Senators, Ms. Warren of Massachusetts, brings forth a statement made by
one of the heroines, one of the great leaders of the civil rights of
the United States of America, a statement that she made before the
Senate Judiciary Committee on March 13, 1986.
Anyone who knows anything about Coretta Scott King understands, this
is not a vicious woman; this is not a woman who is engaged in personal
attacks. This is a woman who stood up and fought for civil rights, for
dignity, for justice for her whole life. Yet when Senator Warren read
her statement, she was told that she could no longer participate in
this debate over Senator Sessions' nomination, which I regard as an
outrage.
I want the American people to make a decision on whether we should be
able to look at Senator Sessions' record and hear from one of the
heroines of the civil rights movement.
This is the statement of Coretta Scott King on the nomination of
Jefferson Beauregard Sessions for the U.S. District Court, Southern
District of Alabama, made before the Senate Judiciary Committee on
Thursday, March 13, 1986, and this is what the statement is about. Let
the American people judge.
This is from Coretta Scott King:
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
[[Page S916]]
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
nonviolent 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.'' 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 20 years ago, that a united
political organization would remain in Perry County long
after other marchers had left. This organization, the Perry
County Civil 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, 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 petitions for their
constitutional right to vote.''
Free exercise of voting rights is so fundamental to
American democracy that we cannot 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 gamut 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 Civil 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 the 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 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
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 differing 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.
That is the letter of Coretta Scott King, one of the great leaders of
our civil rights movement, who, along with her husband and many others,
finally managed to get passed the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
That is it. That is the letter Senator Elizabeth Warren wanted to
communicate to other Members of the Senate as part of the discussion as
to whether Jeff Sessions should become our next Attorney General.
Let me say that I will vote against Jeff Sessions for a number of
reasons, but the idea that in the United States Senate, the same exact
letter that I just read and the American people have heard it--was
there some kind of vicious personal attack?
This is a letter written by one of the leaders of the civil rights
movement, expressing strong concerns about Jeff Sessions before the
Judiciary Committee in 1986, opposing his nomination
[[Page S917]]
to be a Federal judge. Yet Senator Elizabeth Warren, one of our leading
Senators, was denied the right to read that letter to inform fellow
Senators and the American people.
I think Leader McConnell owes Senator Warren an apology, and I
believe it is unconscionable and outrageous that Senator Warren not be
allowed to participate in the discussion about whether Jeff Sessions
becomes our next Attorney General.
There is a great fear in this country right now, starting at the
White House, where we have a President who has issued a ban on Muslim
visitors coming into this country. There is a fear that we have a
President who denigrates a judge as a ``so-called judge'' because this
judge issued an opinion in disagreement with the President, that we are
moving in a direction which is un-American, which is moving us toward
an authoritarian society.
We pride ourselves as a nation because when we have differences of
opinion, we debate those differences and we tolerate differences of
opinion. That is what democracy is about in our country, that is what
freedom of speech is about, and that is what debate is about here in
the U.S. Senate.
So I am going to vote against Jeff Sessions to become our next
Attorney General, but I am even more alarmed about the decision of the
majority leader here in the Senate to deny one of our leading Senators
the right to voice her opinion, the right to put into the Congressional
Record what I have just said. And if Mr. McConnell or anybody else
wants to deny me the right to debate Jeff Sessions' qualifications, go
for it. But I am here. I will participate in the debate. I will oppose
Jeff Sessions. And I think Senator Warren is owed an apology.
With that, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in
the Record the statement of Coretta Scott King.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. First of all, Mr. President, I thank my colleague, the
Senator from Vermont, for his statement, and remarkably, the events of
the last 24 hours, with Senator Warren's comments and now Senator
Sanders' comments and others, and the fact that it is now out there--
using social media, this letter has now reached this morning more than
5 million Americans. I know that Senator Sanders' comments this morning
continue to expand, reaching Americans. And out of every challenge
comes an opportunity--the opportunity to make sure more Americans hear
the very powerful words and her rationale against Senator Sessions I
think was very important, and so I thank him for his work.
Mr. SANDERS. Thank you very much.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I also rise today to voice my concerns
about Senator Jeff Sessions to serve as U.S. Attorney General. While I
respect Senator Sessions' public service, I cannot and will not support
his nomination.
I also rise to raise the concerns of thousands of my constituents who
have contacted me about Senator Sessions. These Virginians worry about
what his confirmation would mean for the rights of all Virginians and
all Americans.
Senator Sessions' long record of opposing bipartisan, commonsense
policies relating to voting rights, anti-discrimination, domestic
violence, and criminal justice reform leads me to conclude that he is
not the right person to serve as Attorney General.
I would like to take a couple of minutes--and I know I have my friend
the Senator from Minnesota coming after me--to talk about five areas of
concern I have with his nomination.
First, voting rights. In 2013, the Supreme Court ruled in Shelby
County v. Holder to gut a key section of the Voting Rights Act. Senator
Sessions applauded that decision which eroded voter access and
protection in several States once covered by the preclearance
provisions in the Voting Rights Act. Those States included the
Commonwealth of Virginia. Moreover, he has failed to support important
legislation that would restore those protections.
The bipartisan legislation, the Voting Rights Advancement Act, was
introduced last Congress and would serve to once again protect our
Nation's hard-fought equal access to the ballot. I was proud to
cosponsor this bill and remain committed to working with my colleagues
to put a fair process in place that ensures our elections are open to
all. Senator Sessions unfortunately opposed this legislation.
The second area is nondiscrimination. I also have concerns about
Senator Sessions' record on a broad range of anti-discrimination
provisions. He was one of only four Senators to oppose an amendment in
the Judiciary Committee that would have reaffirmed the principle that
the United States does not discriminate against immigrants on the basis
of religion--an issue that unfortunately has reared its head most
recently by the President's action.
He opposed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which codifies
protection for LGBTQ Americans, and denies the reality that too many of
our LGBTQ neighbors still face down discrimination and hatred every
day.
While nearly two-thirds of the Senate voted for the Matthew Shepard
and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act in 2009, Senator
Sessions stated this instead: ``I'm not sure that women or people with
different sexual orientations face that kind of discrimination. I just
don't see it.''
From opposing the DREAM Act, to opposing the repeal of don't ask,
don't tell, Senator Sessions' views are well outside of the mainstream.
The third area is the Violence Against Women Act. In 2013, Senator
Sessions voted against reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act.
This landmark legislation, originally drafted in 1994, provides crucial
protections and resources for the investigation and prosecution of
violent crimes against women. The 2013 reauthorization bill updated
those programs within the Department of Justice and extended resources
and protections to additional populations, such as those in same-sex
relationships. That bill passed with the support of a large bipartisan
majority in the Senate, including a majority of the Republican caucus.
However, Senator Sessions opposed the entire bill due to concerns about
one provision in the legislation related to domestic violence against
Indians on tribal lands.
We in the Senate have all on occasion been faced with legislation
that contains one or more provisions that we have concerns about or
would not have included in the legislation. Yet my colleagues on both
sides of the aisle can attest that we very often strike compromises to
get important legislation over the finish line. Oftentimes the sign of
a good bill is when not one of us gets 100 percent of what we may have
wanted. Opposing a much broader, commonsense bipartisan bill meant to
reduce violence and protect domestic violence victims calls into
question Senator Sessions' commitment to administering these important
programs at the Department of Justice.
Fourth, various sentencing reforms. There is broad, bipartisan
recognition in the Senate that our broken criminal justice system is
badly in need of reform. Likewise, there is bipartisan support for
updating outdated statutes that tie judges' hands and often force them
to hand down overly punitive mandatory minimum sentences. Yet last year
Senator Sessions again was one of only five Republicans on the
Judiciary Committee to vote against this bipartisan criminal justice
reform legislation, of which I am a proud cosponsor, the Sentencing
Reform and Corrections Act.
There is overwhelming support both in this body and among the
American public for reforming a broken justice system and giving
thousands of Americans a second chance to be productive members of
society. I believe that Senator Sessions' views on criminal justice are
at odds with what the American people want and at odds with the basic
principles of fairness and equality under law that are supposed to be
the hallmark of our Nation's justice system.
Finally, on the question of independence, I am concerned that Senator
Sessions won't be sufficiently independent to execute the
responsibilities of Attorney General effectively. Doing this job the
way our Founding Fathers intended requires a certain level of
impartiality to fully and independently enforce our laws and protect
the rights of the disenfranchised. Senator Sessions has said achieving
this level of neutrality means saying no to the President sometimes.
This is one area in which I agree with my colleague and very much
want to
[[Page S918]]
take him at his word; however, given his vocal, partisan support for
President Donald Trump and his refusal to commit in his confirmation
hearing to fully enforce certain laws, I am not convinced that Senator
Sessions is fully prepared to faithfully execute this new set of
responsibilities with the amount of independence that the job demands.
Again, I stress that the main duties of serving as Attorney General
include enforcing our Nation's laws and by doing so, protecting the
civil rights of all Americans. That is the most basic tenet of being
Attorney General. Given Senator Sessions' long record of opposing many
of these fundamental laws that protect civil rights and equality for
all, I have grave concerns about him fulfilling and taking this
position.
For these reasons, I am unable to support Senator Sessions'
nomination to be Attorney General, and I encourage my colleagues to
take these concerns under consideration as we move toward a final vote
on this nomination.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sullivan). The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. FRANKEN. Thank you, Mr. President. I rise in opposition to the
nomination of Senator Jeff Sessions to serve as our Nation's next
Attorney General.
The U.S. Attorney General has a job like none other. Our Nation's top
law enforcement officer doesn't enforce just the laws designed to
protect national security and keep the public safe but also the laws
designed to protect Americans' civil rights and civil liberties, the
laws that guarantee each and every American access to the same
opportunities and to participate fully in our democracy.
I know Senator Sessions. He and I have served on the Judiciary
Committee together since I joined the Senate back in 2009, and I have a
good relationship with Senator Sessions. I respect him as a colleague.
But as anyone who has observed Senator Sessions or me in a Judiciary
Committee hearing could probably tell you, he and I have very different
views about many of the issues that he stands to influence as Attorney
General, particularly matters of equal justice. So once the President
announced his nomination and after Senator Sessions submitted his
material to the committee, I reviewed his background carefully, and I
paid special attention to how he described his work on civil rights. I
noticed some discrepancies in the way he described his involvement in
civil rights cases filed during his time as U.S. attorney. Those
discrepancies stood out to me, and they didn't just stand out because
civil rights is an issue I care about personally or because it is an
issue I know Senator Sessions and I have disagreed about in the past;
the discrepancies caught my attention because the information seemed to
misrepresent the nominee's record, and that is something Senator
Sessions himself promised not to do.
You see, back in 2009 when Senator Sessions became the ranking member
of the Judiciary Committee, he was interviewed about how he would
approach the committee's work in general and nominations in specific.
Senator Specter, who was serving as the ranking Republican at the time,
had just changed his party affiliation to join the Democrats, and so
the gavel passed to Senator Sessions. Some people, particularly on my
side of the aisle, were anxious about how Senator Sessions would lead
the committee's Republicans given his more conservative views, but
during that interview with the National Review, Senator Sessions
indicated that Democrats should expect him to be an honest broker, to
be fair to the Democratic nominee.
Senator Sessions cited his experience before the Judiciary Committee
back in 1986 when President Reagan nominated him to serve on the
Federal bench. The committee rejected his nomination then, and Senator
Sessions felt that in doing so, the committee had distorted his record.
He said: ``What I learned in that process is that we're not going to
misrepresent any nominee's record, and we're not going to lie about
it.''
Senator Sessions said, as ranking member, that nominees before the
committee would be ``entitled to explain the charges against them. That
doesn't mean I'll accept their explanation or agree with it.''
In my view, that seemed like a fair way to conduct the committee's
business. When I set about the task of reviewing Senator Sessions'
record and the materials that he provided to the committee, I expected
that those materials would not misrepresent his record. I took him at
his word.
So when I noticed discrepancies regarding the nominee's record, I
gave Senator Sessions an opportunity to explain them. I asked him about
his claim to have filed 20 or 30 desegregation cases, a claim he made
in that same 2009 National Review interview. In response, in the
committee hearing Senator Sessions said: ``The records do not show that
there were 20 or 30 actually filed cases.'' Of the claim, he said:
``The record does not justify it.''
I then moved on to question him about four cases he had listed on his
committee questionnaire, which asked him to list the ``10 most
significant litigated matters [he] personally handled.'' Among those 10
cases were three voting rights cases and a desegregation case.
I know Senator Sessions, and I know his record on voting rights. He
is no champion of voting rights. He has called the Voting Rights Act
``intrusive'' and complained about States with a history of
discrimination being subject to preclearance. But here his
questionnaire seemed to tout his personal involvement in three voting
rights cases and one desegregation case. It seemed to me that, given
his previous experience before this committee and given the concern the
civil rights community had expressed about his nomination, perhaps the
transition team or others managing Senator Sessions' nomination had
attempted to revise some of his history and recast him as a civil
rights champion.
I questioned Senator Sessions about the questionnaire's claim of
personally handling those four civil rights cases. I mentioned that the
Department of Justice attorneys who had worked on three of those four
cases wrote an op-ed stating that Senator Sessions had no substantive
involvement in those cases. Two of those attorneys also submitted
testimony to that effect, explaining that Senator Sessions had no
personal involvement in some of the cases that he had listed among the
top 10 matters that he had personally listed.
I asked Senator Sessions about this. In my view, he deserved an
opportunity to explain himself. I asked him whether these attorneys had
distorted his record by stating that with regard to three of those four
cases: ``We can state categorically that Sessions had no substantive
involvement in any of them.''
Senator Sessions said: Yes, he believed they were distorting his
record. He said that he had supported the attorneys, and he had signed
the complaints they had brought.
Senator Sessions' reply mirrored answers he provided in a supplement
to his initial questionnaire. In that supplement, which he filed 2
weeks after his initial questionnaire, the nominee clarified that his
role was to ``provide support for'' DOJ attorneys. He said he
``provided assistance and guidance'' and ``cooperated'' with DOJ
lawyers--not quite ``personally handled,'' if you ask me. I suspect
that is why he felt the need to file the supplement.
It is also worth noting that all four of the civil rights cases at
issue--the ones at issue here--had either concluded or were still
active back when Senator Sessions first appeared before the Judiciary
Committee in 1986. But 30 years ago, when he submitted his
questionnaire, which also asked him to list the ``ten most significant
litigated matters which [he] personally handled,'' Senator Sessions did
not list a single one of these four cases--not a single one. I wonder
what changed between 1986 and now that caused these four civil rights
cases to take on new significance for the nominee. Look, the fact of
the matter is that Senator Sessions simply did not personally handle
the civil rights cases that his questionnaire indicates he personally
handled. His questionnaire overstates his involvement in these cases
and the supplement he filed makes that perfectly clear. As I said, in
the Judiciary Committee, Senator Sessions would not have tolerated that
kind of misrepresentation, and no Member of this body should either.
Senator Sessions said in 2009:
We're are not going to misrepresent any nominee's record. .
. . They'll be entitled to
[[Page S919]]
explain the charges against them. That doesn't mean I'll
accept their explanation or agree with it.
And neither do I.
The Senate has an important job to do. It requires that each and
every one of us understand the nominee's record accurately. The duties
and responsibilities of our Nation's top law enforcement officer demand
that the President nominate an individual who puts country before party
and who is willing to pursue justice for the most vulnerable among us.
But I do not have confidence that a nominee whose submissions to the
Judiciary Committee inflate and exaggerate his handling of the critical
issues--issues such as protecting the right to vote--is, frankly,
capable of pursuing equal justice under the law.
I questioned Senator Sessions about voting rights during his hearing.
I asked him about an extraordinary claim by the then President-elect.
In late November, President-Elect Trump tweeted: ``In addition to
winning the electoral college in a landslide, I won the popular vote if
you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally.'' Let me repeat
that: ``the millions of people who voted illegally.''
Let's be clear. President Trump lost the popular vote by 2.86 million
votes--the popular vote for the President. He is the President of the
United States, but he lost the popular vote by 2.86 million votes. When
he says, ``I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people
who voted illegally,'' he is saying that at least 2.86 million people
voted illegally.
That is a pretty extraordinary charge. During Senator Sessions'
hearing, I asked, do you agree with the President-elect that millions
of fraudulent votes had been cast?
He responded: ``I don't know what the President-elect meant or was
thinking when he made that comment, or what facts he may have had to
justify his statement.''
Senator Sessions didn't say whether he agreed. I asked him whether he
had talked to the President-elect about that issue. Senator Sessions
said: ``I have not talked to him about that in any depth.''
Under the Attorney General's leadership and direction, the Department
of Justice is tasked with protecting the right to vote and with
prosecuting fraud. It seems unusual to me that the President-elect
would make such an outrageous claim, backed with no evidence, asserting
that a fraud of truly epic proportion had occurred and that he wouldn't
bother to discuss it with the man nominated to lead the Justice
Department nor that the man tasked to head the Justice Department
wouldn't ask him about it and ask what his evidence was so that when he
became Attorney General, he could prosecute this voter fraud.
But, in my questioning, none of this seemed to bother Senator
Sessions. I suppose that shouldn't come as a surprise, because another
thing that didn't seem to bother Senator Sessions was the speed with
which States previously covered by the Voting Rights Act, covered by
preclearance, moved to restrict voting rights after the Supreme Court's
Shelby County decision. He and I discussed this at his hearing. I
pointed out that after Shelby County, States moved quickly to enact new
restrictions, but he didn't seem concerned.
We discussed North Carolina, which enacted restrictions that the
Fourth Circuit eventually described as targeting African Americans with
``almost surgical precision''--targeting African Americans with almost
surgical precision to make it harder for them to vote, to suppress
their vote, which suppressed African-American votes in the 2014
election. So this had happened.
But it didn't seem to bother Senator Sessions. All he said was
``every election needs to be managed closely and we need to ensure that
there is integrity in it, and I do believe we regularly have fraudulent
activities occur during election cycles.''
Now, let's be clear. Claims of apocryphal voter fraud are used to
justify voter suppression. Claims of bogus fraud are exactly what
States cite when they enact laws designed to keep certain people from
voting.
So understanding Senator Sessions' views on voting rights and
understanding how he responded to the President-elect's outrageous
claims of fraud--and is there anyone here in this body who doesn't
believe that the President's claims are outrageous and, indeed,
pernicious? Keeping Senator Sessions' views on voting rights in mind
and understanding how he responded to the President's claims is
important to helping us assess whether he is capable of filling one of
the Attorney General's most important duties, protecting the right to
vote.
That is how we all got here. We won elections. That is how the
Presiding Officer won an election in Alaska, fair and square. This is
so basic. The Fourth Circuit ruled that North Carolina had surgically
targeted African Americans, and because of the Shelby decision, the
Justice Department couldn't review that, couldn't do preclearance,
couldn't prevent African Americans from having their votes suppressed.
That should bother us.
That should bother every one of us. It really should. We are here. We
had some arguments over the last evening. The ones having the arguments
were all elected. Protecting the franchise is the most basic duty in a
democracy. And whose job is that? That is the job of the Attorney
General.
Think about how basic and fundamental this is. It is all the words
that are said here on the floor, they are said by people who won
elections. I won an election by 312 votes. Every vote is important. To
suppress votes, to surgically target a race of people, how
fundamentally wrong is that? It should make us shiver. It should, I
would hope, clarify to my colleagues why there is so much fear in this
country, when a man who is President of the United States says there
are 3 million to 5 million votes fraudulently cast. I wonder how he got
3 million. Could it possibly have anything to do with the fact that he
lost the popular vote by 2.86 million? How did he bring that figure out
of the air?
What are the American people supposed to think when the President
makes these laughable claims, faced with no facts whatsoever?
He told the story about a German golfer in line in Florida. Do my
colleagues remember this? He heard this story thirdhand. This is his
proof to the congressional leadership. I believe Senator Cornyn was
actually there. I think he was part of the group who went there as the
leadership of the Senate. The President said that part of his evidence
was this story that this German golfer in line had three Hispanic
people in front of him and three in back. The President then went into
conjecture about what Latin American countries they could be from. Then
he said that none of them were pulled out of the line; only the German
golfer, the famous German golfer. He has won some PGA tournaments. He
is a great golfer. He is not registered to vote in the United States.
The story was apocryphal. Doesn't this send a chill down the spine of
every Member of this Senate who cares about the franchise?
Think about it. This is the fundamental building block of our
democracy--the franchise.
Now, Senator Sessions said during his hearing that he believes we
regularly have fraudulent activities during our election cycles. That
might explain why he didn't talk with the President-elect in any depth
about the now-President's claim that millions of fraudulent votes were
cast. Perhaps Senator Sessions didn't find it alarming because he
believes there is a kernel of truth in the claim. There is not. That
claim has been fact-checked to death. Nearly 138 million votes were
cast in the 2016 election. State officials found virtually no credible
reports of fraud and no sign whatsoever of widespread fraud.
In 2014, a comprehensive study examined elections over 14 years,
during which more than 1 billion ballots were cast, and they found just
31 incidents of in-person fraud, but that didn't stop President Trump.
Never let the truth get in the way of a good story. He again claimed
that he won the popular vote and continued to claim it and asked for an
investigation.
This is so profoundly disturbing. I ask my colleagues, doesn't it
bother you?
The President went on to tweet about this ``major investigation into
VOTER FRAUD, including those registered to vote in two states, those
who are illegal, and even, those registered to vote who are dead, and
then (and many for a long time).''
[[Page S920]]
I know on my deathbed, which I hope is many, many years from now,
surrounded by my family, my grandchildren, and hopefully my great-
grandchildren, if they say: Grandpa, Great-grandpa, any last wishes, I
would say: Yes, I want to, before I leave this world, ``slip my mortal
coil,'' or whatever Shakespeare said; I want to make sure that I
unregistered to vote because I was a U.S. Senator and I wouldn't want
to commit voter fraud, so, please, somebody, call the county clerk. I
am too weak to do that.
But I want to unregister because clearly anyone who doesn't
unregister to vote before they die is committing some kind of fraud,
and clearly anyone who is registered to vote in two States is
committing fraud--people like Steve Bannon, Sean Spicer, the Press
Secretary, Steve Mnuchin, Treasury Secretary designee, the President's
daughter Tiffany, and his son-in-law Jared Kushner. We really should
investigate them.
The President has said the administration would form a commission led
by Vice President Pence to investigate this voter fraud.
This raises serious concerns, not the least of which is whether such
an order or commission would serve as a pretext for nationwide voter
suppression. Before my colleagues vote on Senator Sessions' nomination,
we deserve to know whether the President intends for the Attorney
General or the Justice Department to lead or participate in these
investigations.
When the President of the United States lies about the existence of
massive, widespread fraud, it is the job of the Attorney General to
call him on it. It is the job of the Attorney General to call him on
it. The Attorney General has an obligation to tell it like it is.
Senator Sessions may have said it best himself. When Sally Yates was
nominated to be the Deputy Attorney General, Senator Sessions
questioned her during her confirmation hearing. He said: ``You have to
watch out because people will be asking you to do things and you will
need to say no.''
Do you think the Attorney General has a responsibility to say no to
the President if he asks for something that is improper? A lot of
people have defended the Lynch nomination, for example, by saying:
Well, he will appoint somebody who is going to execute his views. Well,
what is wrong with that? But if the views the President wants to
execute are unlawful, should the Attorney General or the Deputy
Attorney General say no?
Ms. Yates responded: Senator, I believe the Attorney General or the
Deputy Attorney General has an obligation to follow the law and the
Constitution, to give their independent legal advice to the President.
As everyone here should agree, that is exactly what Ms. Yates did
last week--I think it was last week. These weeks seem long. This Nation
owes her a debt of gratitude. She did exactly what Senator Sessions
asked if she would do, but I fear Senator Sessions has not demonstrated
that he is capable of fulfilling that obligation, and his record, as
demonstrated by the fact that he did not discuss these claims with the
President, suggests that he is simply not willing to speak truth to
power.
Now, Senator Sessions has a long record, not just during his time as
U.S. attorney and as Alabama's attorney general but here in the U.S.
Senate. But regardless of the posts he held, Senator Sessions has not
exhibited what I would characterize as a commitment to equal justice.
In my view, it is the obligation of elected officials, law
enforcement officers to recognize injustice when they see it and stand
in opposition to it, but on far too many occasions, it seems that
Senator Sessions has not followed that obligation.
In 2009, the Senate debated the Matthew Shepard and James Senator
Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, the bill that extended Federal
hate crimes protections to people targeted on the basis of their sexual
orientation or gender identity. In the hearing on that bill, Senator
Sessions said, ``I am not sure women or people with different sexual
orientations face that kind of discrimination. I just don't see it.''
Senator Sessions repeatedly opposed a bill to reauthorize the
Violence Against Women Act, or VAWA, the landmark law combating
domestic sexual violence. The bill would have expanded the law to
protect LGBT people, Native American women, and immigrant women, but he
voted against it three times. He said that ``there are matters put on
the bill that almost seem to invite opposition.'' I raised this with
Senator Sessions prior to his hearing, and I pointed out that Native
women experience an epidemic of sexual and domestic violence, much of
it at the hands of non-Indians--most of it--a large majority of it.
That is not a new development. But Senator Sessions said to me that at
the time he voted on the issue, he didn't understand the gravity of the
problem. He must not have seen it.
In 2006, when the Judiciary Committee held a hearing on reauthorizing
the Voting Rights Act, Senator Sessions said there is ``little present
day evidence'' of State and local officials restricting access to the
ballot box. He complained that the Voting Rights Act's preclearance
requirement unfairly targeted certain States. He said, ``Alabama is
proud of its accomplishments, but we have the right to ask why other
areas of the country are not covered by it.'' Now, the Voting Rights
Act's preclearance requirement forced States with a history of enacting
discriminatory measures to get Federal approval before changing their
voting practices. That is why Alabama was subject to preclearance, but
he just didn't see it.
During this hearing and in his responses to written questions,
Senator Sessions has said that ``all Americans are entitled to equal
protection under the law, no matter their background.'' He has said
that, if confirmed, he would ``enforce the laws passed by Congress.''
But time and time again, Senator Sessions has demonstrated an inability
to recognize injustice--whether it is discrimination faced by LGBT
people, discriminatory barriers to the ballot box, or violence against
women. If he can't see injustice, what assurance do we have that he
will act to stop it?
The communities we represent should be confident that the Nation's
top law enforcement officer is capable of recognizing the challenges
they face and will help them overcome those challenges. Before the
Senate moves to confirm this nominee, it is important to understand
whether Senator Sessions is able or willing to acknowledge those
challenges and to take steps necessary to address them, not turn a
blind eye. I am not confident that he is, and I will be voting against
him.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, we here in the Senate have a tradition of
mutual respect among our fellow Senators. We have a spirit of comity.
It is a tradition that I hold in high esteem.
Last night that tradition was violated, and the Senate went in a very
bad direction. I believe my Republican colleagues were far too zealous
in trying to enforce that tradition and in doing so were guilty of the
exact same thing they were trying to police.
My friend the Senator from Massachusetts was reading a letter written
by Mrs. Coretta Scott King, the widow of Martin Luther King, Jr., to
the Judiciary Committee--her testimony about the nomination of then-
Judge Jeff Sessions to be a Federal judge. For that, the Chair and my
friend the majority leader interrupted her remarks, invoked rule XIX,
and forbid her from continuing. The Chair directed the Senator to take
her seat. In my view, it was totally, totally uncalled for. Senator
Warren wasn't hurling wild accusations; she was reading a thoughtful
and considered letter from a leading civil rights figure. Anyone who
watches the Senate floor on a daily basis could tell that what happened
last night was the most selective enforcement of rule XIX.
My friend the Senator from Massachusetts was here when one of her
colleagues called the leadership of my dear friend Senator Reid
``cancerous'' and said that he ``doesn't care about the safety'' of our
troops. That was not enforced as a rule XIX violation, but
[[Page S921]]
reading a letter from Coretta Scott King--that was too much.
Suggesting that the distinguished majority leader had repeatedly lied
to the press--a comment made by a fellow Republican, by the way--that
was fine. Reading the letter of a civil rights icon? At least to the
other side, unacceptable.
Just last week I heard a friend on the other side of the aisle accuse
me of engaging in a ``tear-jerking performance'' that belonged at the
``Screen Actors Guild awards.'' It was only the second time that week I
had been accused of fake tears on the floor of the Senate, but I didn't
run to the floor to invoke rule XIX. But when my friend from
Massachusetts read a piece of congressional testimony by Coretta Scott
King, she was told to sit down.
Why was my friend from Massachusetts cut off when these other, much
more explicit, much more direct, much nastier attacks were disregarded?
There is a shocking double standard here when it comes to speech.
Unfortunately, it is not constrained by the four walls of this Chamber.
While the Senator from Massachusetts has my Republican colleagues up
in arms by simply reciting the words of a civil rights leader, my
Republican colleagues can hardly summon a note of disapproval for an
administration that insults a Federal judge, tells the news media to
``shut up,'' offhandedly threatens a legislator's career, and seems to
invent new dimensions of falsehood each and every day.
I certainly hope that this anti-free speech attitude is not traveling
down Pennsylvania Avenue to our great Chamber, especially when the only
speech being stifled is speech that Republicans don't agree with--even
speech that is substantive, relevant, on point to the matter this body
is considering, and appropriate and measured in tone.
I would make a broader point. This is not what America is about,
silencing speech, especially in this Chamber. What we do here is
debate. We debate fiercely and forcefully but respectfully. The
Founders of the Republic and titans of the early Senate--Webster, Clay,
and Calhoun--debated until they were blue in the face. From time to
time, they probably had tough words for one another. We are not afraid
of tough words in America. We don't look to censor speech. The rule is
only intended to keep Senators on the facts, to keep them from making
baseless accusations about another's character. My friend from
Massachusetts was following the letter and the spirit of the rule last
night. She was engaging in that tradition of forceful but respectful
debate when she was cut off. That is not what the Senate is about. That
is not what our dear country is about.
Every Member on the other side of the aisle ought to realize that
what they did to Senator Warren was selective enforcement. It was the
most selective enforcement of a rarely used procedure to interrupt her,
to silence her, and it was the only violation of the spirit of mutual
respect and comity in this body that occurred last night.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the
prayer, the Senator from Nevada be recognized for such time as he shall
consume, and then I be recognized.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
prayer
Pursuant to rule IV, paragraph 2, the hour of 12 noon having arrived,
the Senate having been in continuous session since Monday, the Senate
will suspend for a prayer by the Senate Chaplain.
The Chaplain, Dr. Barry C. Black, offered the following prayer:
Let us pray.
Eternal Lord God, teach us this day, through all our employments, to
see You working for the good of those who love You.
Strengthen the hearts of our lawmakers against temptations and make
them more than conquerors in Your love. Lord, deliver them from all
dejection of spirit and free their hearts to give You zealous, active,
and cheerful service. May they vigorously perform whatever You command,
thankfully enduring whatever You have chosen for them to suffer. Guard
their desires so that they will not deviate from the path of integrity.
Lord, strengthen them with Your almighty arms to do Your will on
Earth, even as it is done in Heaven.
We pray in Your mighty Name. Amen.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Ernst). The Senator from Nevada.