[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 20 (Monday, February 6, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S928-S934]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Visit By The Prime Minister of Japan
Mr. President, we are on the eve right now of a very important visit
of a very important ally. Prime Minister Abe of Japan will be visiting
the United States here in the next day. He is going to be visiting with
some Members of the Senate, visiting with President Trump and his team.
I wish to make a few points on how important this visit is, not only
for the United States-Japan relationship, but the importance of our
allies. We are an ally-rich nation. When you look around the world, you
look at the broad number of allies the United States has, and then you
look at our adversaries or potential adversaries who are ally-poor.
This is one of the most important strategic advantages the United
States has right now in the world, to keep Americans safe and our
allies safe. We are an ally-rich nation and our adversaries and our
potential adversaries are ally-poor.
For over 7 years, since the end of World War II, both the executive
[[Page S929]]
branch and this body and the House of Representatives have worked hard
on this to build a system of allies all around the world to keep our
country safe and our allies safe.
In his inaugural address, I was pleased to see that President Trump
talked about reinforcing old alliances and forming new ones. That is
exactly what we need to do as the United States of America. In terms of
our allies and the importance of different regions, there is no more
important ally than Japan. There are no more important foreign policy
and national security challenges that exist in the world than what is
happening in the Asia-Pacific with the rise of China and the security
and economic challenges but also opportunities in that part of the
world.
I urge all of my colleagues to warmly welcome the Prime Minister of
Japan and his team and to help focus on making sure that as we move
forward with a new administration, we are working together with them,
we are encouraging them. As the Senate, we are very focused on this
issue of deepening our existing allies and alliances and broadening the
opportunities to create more.
The Senate plays a very important role in this regard. In terms of
being able to keep American citizens safe, there is nothing more
important than making sure we focus on our allies and, in particular,
give a warm welcome to the Prime Minister of Japan this week.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I wish to start by responding to my
new colleague.
I respect my colleague. We have worked together on many issues, the
Senator from Alaska and I. I think he would agree it is very important
that the American people, the public, have a thorough review of
candidates for a position in public office who are going to have
incredible influence over all aspects of their lives. That is why it is
so important we undertake this process. It is a fact that many of the
nominees put forward by President Trump had massive conflict-of-
interest issues that need to be resolved. Many of them remain
unresolved. Many of them are still not proceeding through committees
because either their ethics report information has not been provided
yet or they haven't passed other clearances.
So it is absolutely fitting that we in the Senate do our job to make
sure the people who are placed in these positions of high office are
thoroughly vetted.
I also wish to take a moment to respond to the statements regarding
my good colleague, the Senator from Massachusetts, Elizabeth Warren.
Last night she was reading from a letter presented by Coretta Scott
King at the time of the 1986 hearings on the judicial appointment of
Senator Sessions. At the time he was a nominee to fill the vacancy.
As a new Member of the Senate, it is difficult to understand how
reading that letter--I have a copy of that letter right here--could be
a violation of the Senate rules, but I assume we will all have time to
investigate that question. I will say that the result has been a lot
more people around the country have had an opportunity to read that
important letter from Coretta Scott King.
Obviously, we are gathered here as we consider the nomination for
Attorney General. President Thomas Jefferson wrote: ``The most sacred
of the duties of government [is] to do equal and impartial justice to
all its citizens.'' This is the job of the Department of Justice, and I
think it is worth reviewing the mandate and purpose of the Department
of Justice to determine whether Senator Sessions is the right person
for this special and unique position in the U.S. Government.
The Judiciary Act of 1789, the same act in which the first Congress
created the Federal judiciary, Congress also created the Office of the
Attorney General. In years thereafter, Congress empowered the Justice
Department to handle all criminal and civil suits in which the United
States has an interest. The Department is the largest law office in the
world and the chief enforcer of our Nation's laws. The Attorney General
has to be the people's lawyer. Upon taking the office, the Attorney
General swears an oath to ``protect and defend the Constitution of the
United States.'' More than almost any other officer of the U.S.
Government, it is the job of the Attorney General to protect and carry
out the Constitution's plan of defending the rights and privileges of
those who most need that protection. There is a Latin motto on the seal
of the Department of Justice. It refers to the Attorney General as the
one ``who prosecutes on behalf of justice.'' In the paneling above the
door of the anteroom outside of the Attorney General's office are
inscribed the words: ``United States wins its point whenever justice is
done its citizens in the courts.''
As former Attorney General Loretta Lynch said after taking the oath
of office, the employees of the Department of Justice are ``the ones
who make real the promise of justice and redress for all Americans.''
She said they ``continue the core work of our mission--the protection
of the American people.''
She said: ``The challenge in that--for you, for me, for all of us
that love this Department and love the law--is to use the law to that
end. To not just represent the law and enforce it, but use it to make
real the promise of America, the promise of fairness and equality, of
`liberty and justice for all.'''
I think we all recognize--and I see we have been joined by many of
our colleagues from the other side of the Capitol from the House of
Representatives. It is great to see them here as part of this historic
debate. I see the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Mr.
Conyers, as well as many other colleagues because they know this is an
important moment.
Just as Loretta Lynch described the importance of the Office of
Attorney General, we all have to take heed because I think all of us
recognize that the story of America, the story of our country has been
the story of working to live up to that original promise. It has been a
long journey, and there have been a lot of broken promises along the
way, and it is an unfinished journey. We know there has been a lot of
blood and tears shed in order to try to make good on the ideas of equal
justice and equal opportunity, of equal rights. We have come a long
way--there is no denying that--but we also know we have a long way to
go to meet that full promise.
The role of the Justice Department is to be a fighter for living up
to that purpose, for living up to that promise, to be the champion of
the people, to be the defender of those who are too often undefended,
to be a fighter for those who do not have an advocate, to be the voice
for people who do not have high-priced and high-powered lobbyists. They
need to be the advocate for everybody, the Attorney General--someone to
whom those who are feeling like they are getting an unfair shake can
turn. It has to be a refuge for those who have been victimized by the
powerful, someone who can speak for all of the American people.
To fulfill this responsibility, the Attorney General overseas over
114,000 employees, 60 agencies, from the Antitrust Division, the Office
of Privacy and Civil Liberties, to the U.S. attorneys, and the Office
on Violence Against Women Act.
The Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, created in 1957,
works to uphold the civil and constitutional rights of all Americans,
particularly the most vulnerable in our society. The division is
charged with enforcing Federal statutes, prohibiting discrimination on
the basis of race, color, sex, disability, religion, familial status,
and national origin.
The Justice Department's Disability Rights Section works to achieve
equal opportunity for people with disabilities by implementing the
Americans with Disabilities Act. Forty-nine million Americans with
disabilities rely on the Attorney General to protect their rights. The
Justice Department's Executive Office for Immigration Review
adjudicates immigration cases by fairly, expeditiously, and uniformly
interpreting and administrating the Nation's immigration laws. That is
their charge. Under the supervision of the Attorney General, the office
conducts immigration court proceedings, appellate reviews, and
administrative hearings that determine the fate of millions of people--
and we have seen just how important that is in the last few weeks.
The Justice Department's voting section enforces Federal laws that
protect
[[Page S930]]
Americans' right to vote, including the Voting Rights Act, the
Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, the National Voter
Registration Act, the Help America Vote Act, and the Civil Rights Act.
That is their charge.
The Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel provides legal
advice to the President and the executive branch. They are supposed to
give their best legal advice and call the balls and strikes without
political shadowing. The office reviews for legality all Executive
orders and proclamations proposed to be issued by the President of the
United States.
The Justice Department has played a vital role in advancing the
promise of America. You just have to look historically to how it was
not just a passive actor but made sure they did their job to be a
fighter for people who were disenfranchised.
In 1957, in Little Rock, AR, the Justice Department helped to force
the Governor of Arkansas to allow African-American children to attend
an all-White Central High School. That was a Justice Department action
under President Eisenhower.
In the years since the Supreme Court's 1999 decision in Olmstead v.
L.C., the Justice Department has fought to implement the goal of
integration under the Americans with Disabilities Act to provide people
with disabilities the opportunity to live their lives to their full
God-given potential.
In 2013, in Atlanta, GA, a Justice Department investigation and
prosecution in response to the beating of a 20-year-old gay Atlanta man
resulted in the first conviction in Georgia under the sexual
orientation provision of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate
Crimes Prevention Act.
Again, the Justice Department is not a passive actor, enforcing the
laws of the United States in order to advance equal justice in the
United States of America.
This is a really important legacy to uphold, and the question is, Is
Senator Sessions the right person to uphold that legacy?
Senator Sessions has represented the State of Alabama in the Senate
for 20 years. He has served as the ranking Republican member of the
Budget Committee, among other responsibilities here in the Senate.
There may be many other positions in the executive branch for which
that experience would provide an appropriate fit, but the role of the
Attorney General is different. As I have said, this is a sacred duty
and somebody in this position has to have a record not just of an
understanding of the law but a willingness to make sure that we
implement the law for all the American people.
I regret that as I examine the history of Senator Sessions'
statements and actions, I do not believe that he is well suited for the
position of Attorney General. Nothing in his history or record
indicates that he will be a fighter for those who are less powerful and
those who have been left out. Nothing indicates that he will be a
fighter for people of color, people with disabilities, or people in the
LGBT community. Nothing in his record suggests that he will be that
warrior for justice that we need in our Attorney General.
To the contrary, time and again, Senator Sessions has taken positions
that vary with those important traditions in our jurisprudence and in
our law and, indeed, are contrary, in many instances, to the very
mission of the Justice Department.
Many years ago, back in 1986, I was on the floor of this Senate in a
very different capacity. At that time, I was the legislative assistant
for national security and defense policy to a Maryland Republican
Senator by the name of Mac Mathias--a very independent Maryland
Republican Senator, a liberal Republican and a real statesman. Senator
Mathias was on the Judiciary Committee at the time. Strom Thurmond, the
Senator from South Carolina, was the chairman. In fact, Mac Mathias
probably should have been the chairman, but because of his independent
streak, the Republican caucus at that time worked really hard to make
sure that Senator Thurmond moved from being chairman of the Armed
Services Committee to exercise his seniority on the Senate Judiciary
Committee to become chairman so that Mac Mathias could not assume that
position.
Senator Mathias was somebody who always looked at the facts and
called the balls and strikes as he saw them--a good role model for me,
a good role model for everyone. I wasn't ever thinking--it was the last
thing on my mind--of running for office at that time, but as I look
back, he was a good role model for a U.S. Senator.
As I said, he was on the Senate Judiciary Committee at the time. He
was on the Senate Judiciary Committee during the time of the hearings
when now Senator Sessions, then U.S. Attorney Sessions, was up for his
nomination for a Federal judgeship. Senator Mathias listened very
carefully to the testimony. Senator Mathias, I am sure, would have read
the letter from Coretta Scott King. He always did his homework. He
always read everything and listened to everybody. After hearing all of
the testimony, Senator Mathias--and, again, the Republicans were the
majority in the Senate then, as they are today--and Senator Specter
from Pennsylvania, another Republican Member, cast their votes in
opposition to the nomination of then Attorney Sessions for a Federal
judgeship.
As I review the materials since that time--since the time that
Senator Mathias cast that vote exercising his independence as a
Republican Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee--I find that we
have received very little assurances that there has been a change in
the desire of Senator Sessions to be that advocate--that advocate--for
justice, because all of these many years later, we are now hearing from
those who have taken the time to update his record.
I have with me now a letter that many of us received--and I have
received many letters, as have my colleagues--from the Leadership
Conference on Civil and Human Rights. The letter reads:
In our democracy, the Attorney General is charged with
enforcing our Nation's laws without prejudice and with an eye
towards 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.
They conclude:
Unfortunately, there is little in Senator Sessions' record
that demonstrates that he would meet such a standard.
They say that his 30-year record of racial insensitivity, bias
against immigrants, and hostility to the protection of civil rights are
among the reasons that they oppose his nomination.
The NAACP reached another and a similar conclusion, strongly urging
the Senate to vote no on Jeff Sessions' nomination for Attorney
General.
The letter reads, in part:
The Justice Department is a crucial enforcer of civil
rights laws and adviser to the President and Congress on what
can and should be done if those laws are threatened. Given
the disregard for issues which protect the rights and, in
some cases, the lives of our constituents, there is no way
the NAACP can be expected to sit by and support Senator
Sessions' nomination to support the U.S. Department of
Justice.
Another letter from the National Task Force to End Sexual and
Domestic Violence reads, in part:
The leadership organizations and individuals advocating on
behalf of victims of sexual assault, domestic violence,
dating violence, and stalking write to express our opposition
to Senator Jeff Sessions' nomination for Attorney General of
the United States of America. We have arrived at this
position based upon a review of his record as a State and
Federal prosecutor, during which he applied the law unevenly,
and as a U.S. Senator, during which he supported laws that
would afford only some members of our society equal
protection under the law.
There is another opinion letter from the Religious Action Center of
Reform Judaism, which has spent a lot of their time and energy over
decades focused on civil rights issues. I quote from their letter of
January 12, 2017:
The pursuit of civil rights has been the core of the reform
Jewish movement social justice work for over 50 years. Guided
by the fundamental principle that all people are created
equal in the divine image and words of Leviticus, 19:18, love
your neighbor as yourself, we have worked to pass landmark
legislation that advances fundamental rights of all people,
regardless of race, class, sex, gender identity, sexual
orientation, or national origin. As the chief law enforcement
officer in the country, the Attorney General has substantial
power over the administration of these policies.
They go on to write:
Senator Sessions' longstanding record of insufficient
commitment to voting rights, to LGBTQ equality, women's
rights, immigration reform, and religious freedom causes us
[[Page S931]]
to believe that he would stand in the way of the Justice
Department's mandate to ensure equal protection under the
law.
There are many other letters like this one from people who took a
thorough review of the record of the President's nominee to be Attorney
General.
I would like to discuss something that has received a little bit less
attention regarding Senator Sessions' record, and that is what I
believe and what those who pay close attention to these issues believe
has been a poor record in support for individuals with disabilities.
This is especially important given the debate we had just the other day
on the nomination of Mrs. DeVos to be the Secretary of Education,
because she indicated in her testimony before the HELP Committee that
she thought that it was a State obligation, not a Federal obligation,
to enforce the IDEA law--the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act. So we should take a little time to look at the record of Senator
Sessions with respect to the rights of people with disabilities.
One such occasion was a big moment on the floor of this Senate. It is
when the Senate considered the ratification of the Convention on the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities, a treaty that had been negotiated
under President George W. Bush and later signed by President Obama.
Although I was serving in the House of Representatives at the time, I
got lots of urgent calls and letters from constituents and friends in
the disability community about the importance of the United States
ratifying that convention. But in his remarks on the floor of the
Senate, Senator Sessions not only opposed it, but he called the
convention on the rights of persons with disabilities ``dangerous.''
There have been few moments on this floor where Senators were more
eloquent about that convention than former Senator and former
presidential nominee Bob Dole, who appeared on the floor at the time,
and who is no longer a Senator. He did in committee testify in favor of
ratification of the convention that was before the Senate. He recalled
during his testimony his maiden speech, the very first speech here in
the U.S. Senate of Senator Dole. His first speech occurred on April 14,
1969. It was the anniversary of the day he was wounded in World War II.
He delivered his maiden speech on persons with disabilities, about the
importance of protecting and ensuring the rights of people with
disabilities. He, as we know, was disabled in action fighting for our
country.
In his testimony to the committee in 2012 on the convention, he said:
It was an exceptional group I joined during World War II,
which no one joins by personal choice. It is a group that
neither respects nor discriminates by age, sex, wealth,
education, skin color, religious beliefs, political party,
power, or prestige. That group, Americans with disabilities,
has grown in size ever since. So, therefore, has the
importance of maintaining access for people with disabilities
to mainstream American life, whether it's access to a job, an
education, or registering to vote.
Those were words of Senator Dole urging the Senate to ratify that
convention. He went on to point out U.S. leadership on advancing the
rights of persons with disabilities, particularly with the Americans
with Disabilities Act. He pointed out that current U.S. laws in place
in 2012 were already enough to make sure the United States satisfies
its obligations to the international Convention on the Rights of
Persons with Disabilities. Joining the treaty, Senator Dole said, would
``reaffirm the common goals of equality, access, and inclusion for
Americans with disabilities--both when those affected are in the United
States and outside of our country's borders.''
Senator Dole believed so powerfully in the importance of this treaty
that, as I indicated earlier, he came to the floor of this Senate many,
many years after he served here and hoped that his presence on the
floor of the Senate would convince his Republican colleagues--and all
his colleagues--to support that convention. Unfortunately, when the
vote came down, it failed in getting the higher level of votes
necessary for ratification by only 5 votes. One of those votes was that
of Senator Sessions who, as I indicated, said that this convention on
disabilities was ``dangerous.'' He rejected an international treaty
that had been signed and supported by both Republican and Democratic
Presidents, negotiated by President Bush and signed by President Obama.
It imposed no additional obligations on the United States. It just said
that we stand with others in the international community to support the
billions of people around the globe who have a disability.
On that issue, Senator Sessions stood against nearly every veterans
organization in our country. He stood against a broad coalition of
disability rights groups, including the Alabama Disabilities Advocacy
Program. He advanced a theory that somehow U.S. sovereignty would be
called into question. Yet, as then-Senator Dick Lugar, the Republican
chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, pointed out, the
United States had already satisfied its obligations and to make that
clear, the declaration in the resolution of advice and consent stated
simply at the time: ``The Senate declares that, in the view of the
reservations to be included in the instrument of ratification, current
United States law fulfills or exceeds the obligations of the Convention
for the United States of America.''
Despite the presence of Senator Dole on the floor and the support of
the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Lugar,
Senator Sessions opposed that.
If that were the only incident where Senator Sessions failed to
uphold the rights of people with disabilities--maybe, maybe, maybe--I
am not sure it would be understandable. But it is not the only
incident. Senator Sessions also made deeply concerning comments about
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA, which we have
heard so much about in the last couple of days during the debate on the
nomination of Mrs. DeVos. Senator Sessions referred to the IDEA, or
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, as perhaps ``the single
most irritating problem for teachers throughout America today'' and ``a
big factor in accelerating the decline of civility and discipline in
classrooms all over America.'' The most irritating problem was our
national commitment to try to make sure that every child--every child,
regardless of disability--had a chance to achieve his or her full God-
given potential. That was apparently irritating.
Senator Sessions claimed that ``special treatment for certain
children'' created a distraction in the classroom. Special treatment.
That is not what IDEA is about. The idea of IDEA legislation was to
make sure all kids could get an appropriate and decent education. It
wasn't there to give kids with disabilities some kind of advantage,
just a chance, along with the other kids.
As to the so-called issue of special treatment, ``special treatment''
is a concerning trend in many of Senator Sessions' statements--not just
with respect to individuals with disabilities, but in many other cases.
In far too many circumstances, he appears to conflate steps to protect
the rights of a minority or disadvantaged group that has historically
faced persecution or discrimination as somehow an effort to give that
group an elevated status over everybody else instead of just an equal
chance with everybody else. The idea that the IDEA legislation to help
kids with disabilities get an education in school was somehow a big
advantage to them over other kids without disabilities is a striking
and revealing statement, and it is one that carries through and on to
other circumstances.
I am concerned that Senator Sessions fails to recognize that there
are communities in this Nation that truly have been subjected to
discrimination and that are disproportionately affected by certain
policies and need sustained civil rights protections--not to give them
an elevated status, but simply to give them an even playing field with
everybody else.
It is the job of the Attorney General of the United States to make
sure all of our citizens are treated equally under the law. The notion
that somehow protecting the rights of groups that have been
historically discriminated against is a bad thing and gives them an
advantage doesn't conform to the reality of our country. I think we all
know that.
This same issue came up with respect to Senator Sessions' position on
the Matthew Shepard hate crimes bill. He called it a ``special
protection'' for
[[Page S932]]
LGBT individuals rather than an acknowledgement that these individuals
had been historically discriminated against and put at risk of greater
violence. He criticized Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotamayor for her
decision that disenfranchising felons violated the Voting Rights Act,
saying that her analysis that the policy had a disproportionate impact
on African Americans was somehow ``a bridge too far.''
I am sure that if Mrs. Coretta Scott King were here today, she would
say that we need to continue to travel along our journey toward meeting
our promise of equal rights, equal justice, and equal opportunity, and
ensuring justice for groups that have been discriminated against
historically--whether on racial grounds or on grounds of gender or of
on sexual orientation. That is not somehow to give them an advantage
but to recognize that they have faced historic discrimination, and to
provide them with a chance.
Just yesterday in Maryland, following the efforts of my good friend
and our State attorney general Brian Frosh, a Maryland court overhauled
the cash bail system in our State. I think all of us who have seen the
way the criminal justice system operates know that far too often cash
bail ends up criminalizing poverty. According to the Pretrial Justice
Institute, ``47 percent of felony defendants with financial bonds can't
pay and stay in jail until their case is heard.'' In other words, they
simply can't afford to make bail, and so they stay in jail, sometimes
for years. Not only is it costly to hold people for an extended period
of time prior to trial, but we know it has sometimes incentivized
people--people who were innocent of the crimes they were charged with--
to strike plea deals simply because they can't afford to pay the bail
and they can't afford to spend months or years away from their homes or
families.
Like many people in organizations, I have looked at Senator Sessions
record with respect to the issue of criminal justice reform, and it is
lacking in the need to find a bipartisan solution to what is recognized
across party lines as an important effort that we need to make--
criminal justice reform--because we know we have too many people who
are currently locked up for nonviolent offenses, including many
substance abuse offenses.
It makes no sense within our system to have the kind of mass
incarceration we have seen in our country, where we have 5 percent of
the world's population but 25 percent of the world's prison population.
There is a bipartisan recognition that justice demands we change that.
Unfortunately, I have not seen that recognition in the record of
Senator Sessions.
In remarks on the Senate floor in 2002, Senator Sessions also
criticized a Supreme Court ruling about the execution of people with
intellectual disabilities. The Court found that people who had
incredibly diminished intellectual capacity should not be executed--
that it violated the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual
punishment because these are individuals who could not form a capacity,
an intent--and that we should not execute people who did not form that
criminal intent, the mens rea. That was an advance in our Federal
jurisprudence, yet that was severely criticized by Senator Sessions. So
that statement, along with his position on IDEA and his opposition to
the convention on peoples with disabilities raises many, many troubling
questions regarding his willingness to protect individuals who need
protection.
We also recognize that the Attorney General has to be somebody who is
independent, who is willing to stand up to a President if a President
is calling upon the Justice Department to take an unlawful action or an
action inappropriate or inconsistent with the interests of justice.
In 1904, in a letter to the Attorney General, President Theodore
Roosevelt said:
Of all the officers of the Government, those of the
Department of Justice should be kept most free from any
suspicion of improper action on partisan or factional
grounds, so there shall be gradually a growth, even though a
slow growth, in the knowledge that . . . the representatives
of the Federal Department of Justice insist on meting out
even-handed justice to all.
Senator Sessions himself made the point when he questioned then-
nominee Sally Yates about her responsibilities in the Justice
Department of President Obama. Senator Sessions told Ms. Yates:
You have to watch out because people will be asking you to
do things and you need to say no. You think the attorney
general has the responsibility to say ``no'' to the President
if he asks for something that's improper? A lot of people
have defended the Lynch nomination, for example, by saying,
``Well, he appoints somebody who's is going to execute his
views. What's wrong with that?'' But if the views the
President wants to execute are unlawful, should the attorney
general or the deputy attorney general say no?
That was the question posed by Senator Sessions.
Ms. Yates answered:
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.
That is exactly what she did. That is exactly what Deputy Attorney
General Yates did just a few days ago when President Trump asked her to
take an action which in her opinion was inconsistent with the laws of
the United States. She did what Senator Sessions asked her to do at
that hearing, and she was fired.
Let's look at the record of Senator Sessions' willingness to stand up
in an independent way to some of the outrageous statements that have
been made by President Trump.
After the terrorist attack in San Bernadino, CA, Mr. Trump called for
a ``total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States
until our country's representatives can figure out what . . . is going
on.''
He went on to reiterate his plans for a Muslim ban in a March 2016
CNN interview and a later speech. What did Senator Sessions do at that
important moment? At that time, Senator Sessions was an early supporter
of not only Mr. Trump but his call for a Muslim ban. Just days after
Candidate Trump first made his Muslim ban proposal, Senator Sessions
told Steve Bannon on Breitbart's radio program:
We're in an age that's very dangerous and we're seeing more
and more persons enter. And a lot of them have done terrorist
acts and a lot of them believe it's commanded by their
religion. So I think it's appropriate to begin to discuss
this [Muslim ban].
We all want the greatest security for our country. We all want to
make sure bad people don't get here. But I think we also understand as
Americans that a religious test violates the principles of our Nation.
Senator Leahy pointed out at Senator Sessions' confirmation hearing
that Senator Sessions opposed a resolution saying the United States
should not use religious tests for immigration into the country, that
they were antithetical to our founding principles. Nevertheless, when
it was time to be counted and stand up, Senator Sessions did not do
that.
More recently, we heard President Trump criticize the Washington
State judge--and I see our leader, my friend Senator Murray, on the
floor. He criticized the decision of a Federal district judge, and he
did it, as we know, in a dismissive way, tweeting that he was a ``so-
called judge.'' That is another moment when--whether you support
President Trump and his campaign or you support his actions as
President, it is a moment when, if you are going to being the chief law
enforcement leader in the country, you say: Mr. President, really, that
is not an appropriate thing to say.
Senator Sessions had another opportunity to challenge then-Candidate
Trump on an earlier occasion when Candidate Trump criticized the judge
who made a ruling against him in the Trump University case and
criticized him on the grounds of his heritage. That was an opportunity
when others in this country, even people who were supporting Candidate
Trump, said: You know what, that is out of line. That is out of bounds.
We did not hear from Senator Sessions. Maybe Senator Sessions was
being looked at for another executive agency where that question was
less important, where maybe it wouldn't carry so much weight. But for
the Attorney General of the United States, we need somebody there who
is going to be independent, somebody who is going to be willing to
challenge the President of the United States when he
[[Page S933]]
suggests unlawful actions or makes statements that are inconsistent
with the system of justice.
Finally, on the issue of voter fraud, I think all of us have heard
from President Trump about his claim that he really won the popular
vote. We shouldn't even be here talking about it, but he keeps talking
about it. He claims that he really won the popular vote, that it was
these 3 million people who cast fraudulent ballots--zero evidence, no
evidence, and yet when Senator Franken asked Senator Sessions about
these claims of voter fraud, these unsubstantiated claims of massive
voter fraud, Senator Sessions didn't take the opportunity to say: You
know what, I support President Trump, but he is out of line; he is
wrong to make these outrageous claims. He didn't say that. In fact,
President Trump at one point was talking about having the Justice
Department or the FBI look into this very question.
I am not satisfied at all that Senator Sessions would meet his own
test--the test he presented to Sally Yates when she was up for her
nomination for Deputy Attorney General about whether she would stand up
to what she considered an unlawful order by the President of the United
States. She did. She was fired. There is no evidence that Senator
Sessions would stand up under those circumstances, and we need an
Attorney General who will stand up for the law and for equal justice
and for every American.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota
Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, I rise today regarding the upcoming
confirmation on Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama to be Attorney General
of the United States. For the past 3 years, I have had the great
pleasure of working with Senator Sessions in this body. We served
together on both the Senate Armed Services and Environment and Public
Works Committees. Within those committees, as well as on other issues
that have come before the Senate during that same time period, I have
found that Senator Sessions is extremely forthright, hard-working, and
Senator Sessions is honest. He has served Alabamans and all Americans
well during his 20 years in the U.S. Senate.
In addition to serving on the Armed Services and EPW Committees, he
also serves on the Senate Judiciary and Budget Committees, all of which
address vital aspects of our Federal system.
Senator Sessions also had a distinguished career before he was
elected the U.S. Senator from Alabama. After graduating from the
University of Alabama with a law degree, Senator Sessions practiced law
in Russellville and Mobile, AL. In 1975, he took the oath to defend the
Constitution of the United States as an assistant U.S. attorney--the
first step in a long and honorable career as a prosecutor. In 1981,
Senator Sessions was nominated by President Reagan and confirmed by the
U.S. Senate as the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama.
He served honorably in that role for 12 years. Senator Sessions was
then elected Alabama attorney general and served in that role until his
election to the U.S. Senate.
It is clear to me that Senator Sessions is exceptionally and perhaps
uniquely qualified to serve as the Attorney General for the United
States. He served as a line prosecutor and, as U.S. attorney and
Alabama attorney general, as the chief Federal and State law
enforcement authority. He has personally handled or managed a wide
variety of cases--criminal and civil, trial and appellate. Senator
Sessions also has extensive experience in the Federal system and, as a
former State attorney general, a deep respect for State and local law
enforcement and the role of States in our Federal system.
There is an attribute even more important than experience, in my
opinion, and that is integrity. Over the course of his career, Senator
Sessions has demonstrated a deep respect for the Constitution and the
rule of law, and ultimately, I believe that is what is most important
in an Attorney General of the United States.
In 1935, the U.S. Supreme Court wrote this about the role of a U.S.
attorney, and I think it applies similarly to the Attorney General:
A federal prosecutor ``is the representative not of an
ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose
obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its
obligation to govern at all and whose interest, therefore, in
a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but
that justice be done.''
The Supreme Court continued:
[A]s such, he is in a peculiar and very definite sense the
servant of the law, the twofold aim of which is that guilt
shall not escape or innocence suffer.
I support Senator Sessions as Attorney General of the United States
not only because his experience makes him qualified to serve but more
importantly because his character makes him qualified to serve. Senator
Sessions will, in the words of the Supreme Court, be a certain
``servant of the law'' and will make certain that justice is done for
all Americans.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cotton). The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I stand here today to give a voice to the
thousands of people who have contacted me in recent weeks urging me to
vote no on this nomination. First, I need to express my frustration and
outrage about what happened here on the floor last night.
In the middle of a debate about the next Attorney General--someone
whose job it will be to defend the rights of all Americans; whose job
it is to defend people from discrimination, inequity, and unfairness;
whose job it is to defend women, to defend people of color, to defend
all those who are too often told to sit down, stand down, be quiet--we
saw the Republican leader selectively use the rules to silence our
colleague, a woman Senator, who was reading the words of an African-
American woman and a historic civil rights leader, reading the words of
someone who embodies the fight for justice, for freedom, for equality,
and for civil rights in America; someone who all of us should be
looking to for lessons in these times, not someone whose words should
be silenced because she said something people may not enjoy hearing.
At a moment when we are engaged in a debate about how best to defend
our fellow citizens from discrimination and fight back against forces
that seek to demean others in order to gain power, I was stunned. I
respect the decorum that the Senate strives to maintain, but there are
times when you cannot stay silent. This is one of those times. We will
not be silent.
So I want to say that I stand with my friend, the Senator from
Massachusetts. I stand with the words of the late Coretta Scott King,
and I stand with the many people who have contacted me about this
nominee that we are debating here today. I can tell you that the day
President Trump announced he had picked Senator Jeff Sessions to lead
the Department of Justice, the phones in my office lit up. People from
across my home State of Washington contacted my office to express their
shock, their outrage, and their fear.
The calls came from people who help LGBTQ youth experiencing
homelessness; groups who have tirelessly advocated for necessary
criminal justice reform; families caught in a broken immigration
system; civil rights advocates and community leaders who have fought
for decades to create a more just society; advocates and nonprofits
trying to help women escape domestic violence. The list goes on.
That was in November. And in the weeks and months since the President
made his choice for Attorney General known, those concerns have not
died down. In fact, they have only gotten louder and more urgent as the
public gets a better look at Senator Sessions' long record, what he
stands for, and where he wants to take this country. I share their
concerns.
It is why I will oppose Senator Sessions' nomination to be Attorney
General. I urge my colleagues to join me to reject this nomination, and
send a message to the new President about the rule of law in this
country. Send a message to the new President, who came into office
showing blatant disregard for our traditions of transparency,
traditions that tell us the President has a duty to put the needs of
the American people before the needs of his bank account. Send a
message to someone who, just weeks into his term, has displayed
shocking disdain for the U.S. Constitution and the separation of
powers, the
[[Page S934]]
same President who fired an Acting Attorney General because she refused
to ignore the law, to approve his hateful and unconstitutional
Executive order barring refugees; the same President who ridiculed a
well-respected Federal judge in Seattle, a George W. Bush appointee,
because the judge didn't rule the way he wanted.
The U.S. Attorney General is often the last line of defense for our
Constitution within an administration. And they need to be the first to
stand up to our President when our President is wrong.
Senator Jeff Sessions is not that kind of nominee. The people of this
country expect and deserve an Attorney General who will protect their
civil and constitutional rights and liberties. They deserve someone
committed to the principles of inclusiveness and justice--someone who
will fiercely defend the rights of all Americans to be treated equally
under the law. The American people need an Attorney General who
continues to make the fight against racism, discrimination, and hate
crimes a core part of that Department's mission. We know Senator
Sessions is not the person for that job.
More than 30 years ago, he couldn't even pass muster in a Republican-
majority Senate. During his confirmation hearing, Senators cited his
racially charged comments and his shameful record on civil rights as a
U.S. attorney as reasons they could not support him. And as my late
colleague Ted Kennedy said at the time: ``It is inconceivable to me
that a person of this attitude is qualified to be a U.S. attorney, let
alone a U.S. Federal judge.''
I ask my colleagues who are inclined to support his nomination today,
What has changed? I have served alongside Senator Sessions for years,
and I know his record all too well. And like my constituents who
started sounding the alarm back in November, I am deeply concerned by
his agenda that would take our country backward.
Senator Sessions has dismissed one of our bedrock civil rights laws,
the Voting Rights Act, as ``intrusive,'' while pushing restrictive
voter ID laws and fueling conspiracy theories about voter fraud. I
watched as he refused to work with a bipartisan majority of the Senate
on immigration reform and instead pushed extreme policies that would
punish the most vulnerable members of our communities. And that, by the
way, included DREAMers across the country who have never known another
home besides America. His personal passion on that issue and his years
of advocacy against commonsense immigration policies cause me great
concern about whether he would use the Department of Justice to pursue
his extreme anti-immigration agenda.
On criminal justice reform, he beat back efforts from within his own
party to address the exploding race of incarceration across this
country. The injustice of these laws falls disproportionately on
communities of color.
Time and again, he has defended laws that favor throwing nonviolent
offenders in jail rather than working to rehabilitate them, even though
it has been consistently proven that prison is not a means of
rehabilitation. This nominee's views on criminal justice reform are so
out of the mainstream, his position is even at odds with the Koch
brothers.
At the very time our Nation engages in a critically important debate
about ensuring equal treatment under the law, as we continue the
struggle to make sure equality shines through our education system, our
justice system, our economy, and our country, Senator Sessions remains
dismissive of the very tools our Justice Department must use to move us
forward.
When I joined so many of my colleagues in the Senate to reauthorize
and improve the bipartisan Violence Against Women Act to protect women
across the country, Senator Sessions worked against us to tear it
apart. As someone who has sat face-to-face with survivors of domestic
violence and fought to increase protections for those dealing with
sexual assault, I can see why people would question whether Senator
Sessions has any intention of enforcing the laws that protect them
because I wonder that myself.
This nominee's track record of trying to undermine women's
constitutionally protected reproductive rights is horrifying and
should, by the way, scare every woman in this country.
I have heard from so many members of the LGBTQ community who are
terrified that Senator Sessions would be tasked with protecting their
rights. His votes against repealing don't ask, don't tell and expanding
hate crimes definitions to include LGBTQ Americans confirm those fears.
This alone has to give my colleagues pause when so many Americans--
our friends, our family members, our coworkers--fear that their
government will look the other way as they endure violence,
discrimination, and marginalization just because of who they love or
how they live. We must fight back with everything we have.
When this President attacks the independence of our judges--judges
who have declared the obvious, that the Muslim ban Executive order is
unconstitutional--we cannot put the person who Steve Bannon calls ``the
fiercest, most dedicated and most loyal promoter'' of the President's
agenda at the head of the Department of Justice. This is not who we
are.
Senator Sessions is not the Attorney General this country needs. I
urge members of the Senate to stand up for the Constitution, to stand
with your fellow Americans. The stakes are far too high to make Senator
Sessions our next Attorney General.
I urge you to join with me in voting against this nomination. Now
more than ever, we need an Attorney General who will be independent and
willing to stand up to President Trump's illegal and unconstitutional
actions whenever they happen.
The last thing this country needs right now is a rubber stamp to
validate this administration's illegal actions.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. It is always disturbing to sit in this Chamber and listen
to some of the speeches. I am wondering if even a saint could get
approved without a filibuster in this body.