[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.