[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 20 (Monday, February 6, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S934-S943]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Nomination of Tom Price
Mr. President, I am pleased today to come to the floor in support of
another friend, someone I am honored to have worked with for many
years, and that would be Dr. Tom Price. When I first heard that
President Trump nominated Dr. Price to serve as Secretary of Health and
Human Services, I was reassured to know that one of the most capable,
well-prepared individuals President Trump could have chosen would fill
such an important post.
Health care is highly complex, highly specialized, and it has a
significant impact on our Nation. Our Federal Government's involvement
in health care has changed dramatically over the last few decades, and
that change has accelerated in the last few years. Health care makes up
one-sixth of our economy, and the Department of Health and Human
Services has a tremendous impact on all parts of all sectors of health
care. Who better than a doctor should head an organization that covers
the wide variety of major health care programs?
Let me mention just a few that a doctor should be in charge of. One
would be Medicare, another is Medicaid. And then there is our vast
biomedical research functions at the National Institutes of Health,
usually referred to as NIH. Then there is our domestic and
international public health work at the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, or CDC; the review of innovative and lifesaving drugs and
devices at the Food and Drug Administration, or FDA; or how about our
preparedness in the development of medical countermeasures at the
Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, or BARDA; and
many other programs impacting the Nation's health that also provide an
alphabet of initials.
Who better to understand the most important side of health care, the
patient, than one who is, at the end of the day, the person that takes
care of the patient? The patient is the biggest factor in all health
policies. These policies are too often put together here in Washington.
Hundreds of bureaucrats sit in offices, deciding what patients ought to
have done to them. Sitting here in offices without being doctors,
without having treated patients, I will be glad to have someone in
charge there who, instead, considers what the patient wants done.
In the Senate HELP Committee hearing with Dr. Price, he spoke about
his
[[Page S935]]
view on the importance of the patient in health care. He reiterated
that again before the Finance Committee when he said: ``[It is]
imperative that we have a system that's accessible for every single
American, that's affordable for every single American, that
incentivizes and provides the highest quality health care that the
world knows and provides choices to patients so they are the ones
selecting who is treating them, when, where, and the like.''
Tom Price is an ideal candidate for this role. Not only does he know
the health care system as a physician, he knows it as a policymaker who
has been a thought leader in health care here in Congress. His resume
is well rounded. He has practiced and taught medicine, he was a
business owner, and he served as a legislator.
Let me repeat. He has not only practiced medicine, he has taught
medicine, and he has been a business owner of a large business that
dealt with health care and he served as a legislator.
His confirmation will also mark the first time since the George H.W.
Bush administration that a physician has led this agency. Our health
care system is in a significant time of transformation. Well before
ObamaCare, there was a need to make changes that would give people more
options in health insurance and to find a way to contain costs.
We have even more work to do now as patients find themselves with
fewer choices and higher costs. The new Secretary's role will be a
difficult one. In the last year, our health insurance markets have
teetered into unstable ground, especially in the individual market.
Even with absolutely no change in the law, more and more people will
lose access to health insurance coverage.
It has been suggested that the Republicans should just let the
current system keep going for another year or so until the Democrats
would be begging us to make changes, but we are not going to do that.
We are not going to have those people go through that kind of
suffering, even though there is a risk to it. We are not going to sit
and wait for the system to crash. We will be working in Congress to
repeal ObamaCare and reform our health care system by putting the
patient first.
It will be critical to have a partner in the administration to make
changes and implement the law in a way that reflects the intent of
Congress and provides for full, open, and transparent input from the
public. I understand that some of my Democratic colleagues have decided
that being a Republican is a disqualifying characteristic for any
Cabinet Secretary. It is all too easy to resort to vilification of our
political opponents, but I will just point out the words of David Lloyd
George, who is not a conservative, who said: ``A politician is a person
with whose politics you don't agree; if you agree with him, he is a
statesman.''
Tom Price's nomination is something that I believe would have been
relatively noncontroversial, even a few years ago. I know that when I
voted in favor of the confirmation of Sylvia Burwell as the Secretary
of Health and Human Services for President Obama's Cabinet, I looked at
her qualifications, not her politics.
If we look at Dr. Price with the same lens, I am hopeful we will see
a bipartisan vote for this confirmation. The nomination of Tom Price is
a great opportunity for our country to benefit from his knowledge, to
benefit from his dedication, to benefit from his lifetime of service,
and to benefit from his commitment to working with us all to improve
health care in the United States.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, in 1986, Coretta Scott King, the widow
of civil rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King, wrote a letter urging
Congress to block the nomination of Jeff Sessions for Federal judge.
The Senate Judiciary Committee would ultimately reject that nomination.
Here we are three decades later. Senator Sessions, who cannot erase
his troubling record on civil rights, is again undergoing a
confirmation hearing as President Trump's nominee for Attorney General.
I would like to read an excerpt from Mrs. King's letter, and I ask
unanimous consent that the letter in its entirety be printed in the
Record following my remarks.
Mrs. King wrote:
I write to express my sincere opposition to the
confirmation of Jefferson B. Sessions as a federal district
court judge for the Southern District of Alabama. My
professional and personal roots in Alabama are deep and
lasting. Anyone who has used the power of his office as
United States Attorney to intimidate and chill the free
exercise of the ballot by citizens should not be elevated to
our courts. Mr. Sessions has used the awesome powers of his
office in a shabby attempt to intimidate and frighten elderly
black voters. For this reprehensible conduct, he should not
be rewarded with a federal judgeship.
I do sincerely urge you to oppose the confirmation of Mr.
Sessions.
When Senator Elizabeth Warren tried to read this exact same letter
last night here on the Senate floor, Republicans voted to silence her,
citing that she was in violation of Senate rules aimed at preventing
Senators from impugning the motives of their colleagues.
The move by some of my colleagues to silence the words of Senator
Warren and Mrs. King last night is troubling not only because this is a
threat to our democratic values, but also, frankly, because it is
hypocritical. During a scathing speech last year in this same Chamber,
the Senator from Texas went so far as personally attacking the
Republican majority leader Mitch McConnell and accusing him of lying.
In May of last year, the Senator from Arkansas, also here on the Senate
floor, delivered a speech directly criticizing former Senate Minority
Leader Harry Reid, using the terms ``vulgar,'' ``incoherent,'' and
``cancerous'' to describe him.
He said on the Senate floor:
I am forced to listen to the bitter, vulgar incoherent
ramblings of the minority leader. Normally, like every other
American, I ignore them.
I bring this up because neither of these Senators were silenced.
Neither were told to sit down and take their seat. Silencing Senator
Warren for reading Mrs. King's letter under the guise of following
Senate rules is hypocritical and rightfully leads some to question
whether the majority leader may have a different standard of expected
conduct for female Senators compared to their male counterparts.
I have already announced that I will vote against the nomination of
Senator Sessions. After this episode last night, I believe now more
than ever this position will require an unwavering commitment to
protect American's constitutional rights, and to stand up against
discrimination and hate.
Like the thousands of New Mexicans I have heard from, I lack that
confidence in Senator Sessions. I urge the American people to read and
share Coretta Scott King's letter and continue to make your own voices
heard because we will not be silenced. We will persist.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
The Martin Luther King, Jr. Center for Nonviolent Social
Change, Inc.,
Atlanta, Georgia, March 19, 1986.
Re Nomination of Jefferson B. Sessions U.S. Judge, Southern
District of Alabama Hearing, March 13, 1986
Hon. Strom Thurmond,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Thurmond: I write to express my sincere
opposition to the confirmation of Jefferson B. Sessions as a
federal district court judge for the Southern District of
Alabama. My professional and personal roots in Alabama are
deep and lasting. Anyone who has used the power of his office
as United States Attorney to intimidate and chill the free
exercise of the ballot by citizens should not be elevated to
our courts. Mr. Sessions has used the awesome powers of his
office in a shabby attempt to intimidate and frighten elderly
black voters. For this reprehensible conduct, he should not
be rewarded with a federal judgeship.
I regret that a long-standing commitment prevents me from
appearing in person to testify against this nominee. However,
I have attached a copy of my statement opposing Mr. Sessions'
confirmation and I request that my statement as well as this
letter be made a part of the hearing record.
I do sincerely urge you to oppose the confirmation of Mr.
Sessions.
Sincerely,
Coretta Scott King.
[[Page S936]]
____
Statement of Coretta Scott King on the Nomination of Jefferson
Beauregard Sessions for the United States District Court Southern
District of Alabama
Senate Judiciary Committee, Thursday, March 13, 1986
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: Thank you for
allowing me this opportunity to express my strong opposition
to the nomination of Jefferson Sessions for a federal
district judgeship for the Southern District of Alabama. My
longstanding commitment which I shared with my husband,
Martin, to protect and enhance the rights of Black Americans,
rights which include equal access to the democratic process,
compels me to testify today.
Civil rights leaders, including my husband and Albert
Turner, have fought long and hard to achieve free and
unfettered access to the ballot box. Mr. Sessions has used
the awesome power of his office to chill the free exercise of
the vote by black citizens in the district he now seeks to
serve as a federal judge. This simply cannot be allowed to
happen. Mr. Sessions' conduct as U.S. Attorney, from his
politically-motivated voting fraud prosecutions to his
indifference toward criminal violations of civil rights laws,
indicates that he lacks the temperament, fairness and
judgment to be a federal judge.
The Voting Rights Act was, and still is, vitally important
to the future of democracy in the United States. I was
privileged to join Martin and many others during the Selma to
Montgomery march for voting rights in 1965. Martin was
particularly impressed by the determination to get the
franchise of blacks in Selma and neighboring Perry County. As
he wrote, ``Certainly no community in the history of the
Negro struggle has responded with the enthusiasm of Selma and
her neighboring town of Marion. Where Birmingham depended
largely upon students and unemployed adults [to participate
in non-violent protest of the denial of the franchise], Selma
has involved fully 10 per cent of the Negro population in
active demonstrations, and at least half the Negro population
of Marion was arrested on one day.'' Martin was referring of
course to a group that included the defendants recently
prosecuted for assisting elderly and illiterate blacks to
exercise that franchise. In fact, Martin anticipated from the
depth of their commitment twenty years ago, that a united
political organization would remain in Perry County long
after the other marchers had left. This organization, the
Perry County Civic League, started by Mr. Turner, Mr. Hogue,
and others, as Martin predicted, continued ``to direct the
drive for votes and other rights.'' In the years since the
Voting Rights Act was passed, Black Americans in Marion,
Selma and elsewhere have made important strides in their
struggle to participate actively in the electoral process.
The number of Blacks registered to vote in key Southern
states has doubled since 1965. This would not have been
possible without the Voting Rights Act.
However, Blacks still fall far short of having equal
participation in the electoral process. Particularly in the
South, efforts continue to be made to deny Blacks access to
the polls, even where Blacks constitute the majority of the
voters. It has been a long up-hill struggle to keep alive the
vital legislation that protects the most fundamental right to
vote. A person who has exhibited so much hostility to the
enforcement of those laws, and thus, to the exercise of those
rights by Black people should not be elevated to the federal
bench.
The irony of Mr. Sessions' nomination is that, if
confirmed, he will be given life tenure for doing with a
federal prosecution what the local sheriffs accomplished
twenty years ago with clubs and cattle prods. Twenty years
ago, when we marched from Selma to Montgomery, the fear of
voting was real, as the broken bones and bloody heads in
Selma and Marion bore witness. As my husband wrote at the
time, ``it was not just a sick imagination that conjured up
the vision of a public official, sworn to uphold the law, who
forced an inhuman march upon hundreds of Negro children; who
ordered the Rev. James Bevel to be chained to his sickbed;
who clubbed a Negro woman registrant, and who callously
inflicted repeated brutalities and indignities upon
nonviolent Negroes peacefully petitioning for their
constitutional right to vote.''
Free exercise of voting rights is so fundamental to
American democracy that we can not tolerate any form of
infringement of those rights. Of all the groups who have been
disenfranchised in our nation's history, none has struggled
longer or suffered more in the attempt to win the vote than
Black citizens. No group has had access to the ballot box
denied so persistently and intently. Over the past century, a
broad array of schemes have been used in attempts to block
the Black vote. The range of techniques developed with the
purpose of repressing black voting rights run the gamut from
the straightforward application of brutality against black
citizens who tried to vote to such legalized frauds as
``grandfather clause'' exclusions and rigged literacy tests.
The actions taken by Mr. Sessions in regard to the 1984
voting fraud prosecutions represent just one more
technique used to intimidate Black voters and thus deny
them this most precious franchise. The investigations into
the absentee voting process were conducted only in the
Black Belt counties where blacks had finally achieved
political power in the local government. Whites had been
using the absentee process to their advantage for years,
without incident. Then, when Blacks; realizing its
strength, began to use it with success, criminal
investigations were begun.
In these investigations, Mr. Sessions, as U.S. Attorney,
exhibited an eagerness to bring to trial and convict three
leaders of the Perry County Civic League including Albert
Turner despite evidence clearly demonstrating their innocence
of any wrongdoing. Furthermore, in initiating the case, Mr.
Sessions ignored allegations of similar behavior by whites,
choosing instead to chill the exercise of the franchise by
blacks by his misguided investigation. In fact, Mr. Sessions
sought to punish older black civil rights activists, advisors
and colleagues of my husband, who had been key figures in the
civil rights movement in the 1960's. These were persons who,
realizing the potential of the absentee vote among Blacks,
had learned to use the process within the bounds of legality
and had taught others to do the same. The only sin they
committed was being too successful in gaining votes.
The scope and character of the investigations conducted by
Mr. Sessions also warrant grave concern. Witnesses were
selectively chosen in accordance with the favorability of
their testimony to the government's case. Also, the
prosecution illegally withheld from the defense critical
statements made by witnesses. Witnesses who did testify were
pressured and intimidated into submitting the ``correct''
testimony. Many elderly blacks were visited multiple times by
the FBI who then hauled them over 180 miles by bus to a grand
jury in Mobile when they could more easily have testified at
a grand jury twenty miles away in Selma. These voters, and
others, have announced they are now never going to vote
again.
I urge you to consider carefully Mr. Sessions' conduct in
these matters. Such a review, I believe, raises serious
questions about his commitment to the protection of the
voting rights of all American citizens and consequently his
fair and unbiased judgment regarding this fundamental right.
When the circumstances and facts surrounding the indictments
of Al Turner, his wife, Evelyn, and Spencer Hogue are
analyzed, it becomes clear that the motivation was political,
and the result frightening--the wide-scale chill of the
exercise of the ballot for blacks, who suffered so much to
receive that right in the first place. Therefore, it is my
strongly-held view that the appointment of Jefferson Sessions
to the federal bench would irreparably damage the work of my
husband, Al Turner, and countless others who risked their
lives and freedom over the past twenty years to ensure equal
participation in our democratic system.
The exercise of the franchise is an essential means by
which our citizens ensure that those who are governing will
be responsible. My husband called it the number one civil
right. The denial of access to the ballot box ultimately
results in the denial of other fundamental rights. For, it is
only when the poor and disadvantaged are empowered that they
are able to participate actively in the solutions to their
own problems.
We still have a long way to go before we can say that
minorities no longer need be concerned about discrimination
at the polls. Blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans and Asian
Americans are grossly underrepresented at every level of
government in America. If we are going to make our timeless
dream of justice through democracy a reality, we must take
every possible step to ensure that the spirit and intent of
the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Fifteenth Amendment of
the Constitution is honored.
The federal courts hold a unique position in our
constitutional system, ensuring that minorities and other
citizens without political power have a forum in which to
vindicate their rights. Because of this unique role, it is
essential that the people selected to be federal judges
respect the basic tenets of our legal system: respect for
individual rights and a commitment to equal justice for all.
The integrity of the Courts, and thus the rights they
protect, can only be maintained if citizens feel confident
that those selected as federal judges will be able to judge
with fairness others holding differing views.
I do not believe Jefferson Sessions possesses the requisite
judgment, competence, and sensitivity to the rights
guaranteed by the federal civil rights laws to qualify for
appointment to the federal district court. Based on his
record, I believe his confirmation would have a devastating
effect on not only the judicial system in Alabama, but also
on the progress we have made everywhere toward fulfilling my
husband's dream that he envisioned over twenty years ago. I
therefore urge the Senate Judiciary Committee to deny his
confirmation.
I thank you for allowing me to share my views.
Mr. HEINRICH. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I have heard from literally thousands of
my constituents who have contacted my office in unprecedented numbers
with
[[Page S937]]
fears about a Justice Department headed by Senator Jeff Sessions as
Attorney General of the United States.
My constituents and Americans all across the country are concerned
about the independence and integrity of the Justice Department under
President Donald Trump.
We are only 3 weeks into the Trump administration, and what we have
seen so far has been alarming. We have 3 years and 49 weeks left to go
in President Trump's term of office, and we have already seen in 3
weeks President Trump issue an illegal and immoral ban on Muslim
refugees. We then saw President Trump fire Acting Attorney General
Sally Yates from her job overseeing the Department of Justice--an
action reminiscent of Watergate's infamous ``Saturday Night
Massacre''--because she refused to defend in court his unconstitutional
and un-American Executive order.
Sally Yates's job and the job of the entire Justice Department is to
uphold the rule of law. The Attorney General of the United States is
the lawyer for the people of the United States--not Donald Trump's
personal lawyer. It is called the rule of law, not the rule of Trump,
but it is the rule of law that is at stake when the nomination of
Senator Sessions is in question to run the Department of Justice.
I have told my constituents that Senator Sessions must be judged
based on the totality of his record: as a U.S. attorney, as Alabama's
attorney general, and as U.S. Senator.
A review of that record, including 2 days of hearings before the
Senate Judiciary Committee, demonstrates anything but the commitment to
the equal and impartial administration of justice and an independence
from the President that we must demand from the Nation's top law
enforcement officer.
Senator Sessions' record spanning decades in public office reflects
hostility to important constitutional rights, hostility to laws
intended to protect people of color, hostility to laws intended to
protect women, hostility to laws intended to protect the LGBTQ
community, and hostility to laws intended to protect immigrants against
discrimination and violence.
Senator Sessions has fought against civil rights efforts. He has
fought against protecting voting rights, and as a U.S. attorney,
Sessions tried to prosecute three civil rights workers who were helping
elderly and disabled African-American voters to cast absentee ballots.
During his 1986 judicial nomination hearing, he called the Voting
Rights Act ``an intrusive piece of legislation.'' And in his testimony
to the Judiciary Committee, Senator Sessions would not commit to
continue the Justice Department's efforts to challenge restrictive
State voter ID laws. Senator Sessions has fought against comprehensive
immigration reform, against criminal justice reform, and against
commonsense gun control measures.
As for a woman's right to choose, Senator Sessions has said: ``I
firmly believe that Roe v. Wade and its descendants represent one of
the worst, colossally erroneous Supreme Court decisions of all time.''
At his confirmation hearing, Senator Feinstein pressed him on his
statement, asking him whether it was still his view. ``It is,'' Senator
Sessions replied.
It is simply unimaginable that we would have an Attorney General of
the United States holding such a view of Roe v. Wade and the rights of
women to control their own reproductive health. Roe v. Wade is the law
of the land, and it should remain that way forever.
Mr. President, I would also like to address the actions last night by
the Senate majority leader to silence the remarks of my colleague from
Massachusetts, Senator Elizabeth Warren.
Coretta Scott King was attending the New England Conservatory of
Music in Boston when she met a divinity doctoral student at Boston
University in 1952, in Boston. One year later, Coretta Scott married
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., as they took their degrees from Boston to
begin a cause found in the South that became a national and
international movement.
The two shared their life, a cause that would change the world. The
voices and legacy of Coretta Scott King and Dr. Martin Luther King,
Jr., are as much a part of Massachusetts history as the American
Revolution, John Adams, and President John Kennedy.
What Senator Warren was doing last night was standing up for equal
justice the way Massachusetts has always stood up for equal justice,
the way Senator Ted Kennedy stood up for equal justice. We have a deep
and proud history in Massachusetts of fighting for what is right. The
abolitionist movement was born in Massachusetts.
In past generations, when young women wanted the right to vote, a
group of committed activists in Massachusetts formed the Suffragette
movement, and they changed the U.S. Constitution so women can vote.
When young people in Massachusetts were upset with the voting rights
laws for minorities in America's southern States, they became the
Freedom Riders, and they changed the laws of the United States.
I make these remarks from the desk once held by Massachusetts Senator
Edward Brooke. Senator Brooke was the first African American elected to
the Senate. He was a Republican. He was also a civil rights activist,
and he also received his law degree at Boston University, in
Massachusetts.
From the Founding Fathers to the movement for universal health care,
to the first same-sex wedding in the United States, and to the Senate
floor last night, Massachusetts has always been at the heart of
America's quest for equal justice.
Leader McConnell used an arcane Senate rule to silence Senator
Warren, but the people of Massachusetts and all people of good
conscience will never be silenced when confronted with our moral
responsibility to speak out.
Senator Warren deserves an apology for being silenced when she
attempted to share this very relevant, very powerful part of our
national history last night. The American people deserve to hear the
important words of Coretta Scott King. So here they are:
Dear Senator Thurmond:
I write to express my sincere opposition to the
confirmation of Jefferson B. Sessions as a federal district
court judge for the Southern District of Alabama. My
professional and personal roots in Alabama are deep and
lasting. Anyone who has used the power of his office as
United States Attorney to intimidate and chill the free
exercise of the ballot by citizens should not be elevated to
our courts. Mr. Sessions has used the awesome powers of his
office in a shabby attempt to intimidate and frighten elderly
black voters. For this reprehensible conduct, he should not
be rewarded with a federal judgeship.
I regret that a long-standing commitment prevents me from
appearing in person to testify against this nominee. However,
I have attached a copy of my statement opposing Mr. Sessions'
confirmation and I request that my statement as well as this
letter be made a part of the hearing record.
I do sincerely urge you to oppose the confirmation of Mr.
Sessions.
Sincerely, Coretta Scott King
Coretta Scott King was right in the 1960s. Coretta Scott King was
right in 1986. Coretta Scott King is right today.
Based on the totality of Senator Sessions' record, I have no
confidence that he shares a commitment to justice for all Americans. I
do not believe he will fight to defend the most vulnerable in our
society. I do not believe he will stand up to President Trump when the
time comes, as it surely will come.
The great Robert F. Kennedy, a U.S. Attorney General himself, once
said ``that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists
on.''
We must insist that our top law enforcement officer upholds the law
for all Americans. I do not have assurance that Senator Sessions will
meet that challenge.
I will be voting no on Senator Sessions' nomination this evening, and
I urge all of my colleagues to do likewise.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, yesterday I spoke at length about my fear
that Senator Sessions' would not have the ability to act as an
independent Attorney General. The Attorney General is not the
President's lawyer. He or she is the chief law enforcement officer of
the United States. And he or she must faithfully serve all Americans.
Even if Senator Sessions could demonstrate independence from President
Trump, my review of his extensive record leaves me unconvinced that he
is capable of serving and protecting all Americans.
In 1986, Senator Ted Kennedy called Jeff Sessions a ``throwback''
because of his conduct on civil rights issues. I regret to say that,
since the Judiciary
[[Page S938]]
Committee's bipartisan rejection of Senator Sessions' nomination to be
a district court judge in 1986, Senator Sessions has not allayed our
concerns. In his 20 years in the Senate, he has not shown a commitment
to protecting the most vulnerable in our communities. Time and again,
when the rights of women, LGBT individuals, and disenfranchised
communities have been debated here in the Senate, Senator Sessions has
not sought to protect their civil and human rights. Too often, he has
been the one standing in the way.
That is why National Nurses United has written to me to express their
opposition to Senator Sessions. They wrote: ``We provide the best care
we possibly can, without regard to race, gender, national origin,
religion, socio economic circumstances, or other identifying
characteristic. That is what caring professionals do. Unfortunately,
that is not what Jeff Sessions has done in his role as a public
servant.'' I ask unanimous consent that their full letter be printed in
the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. That is why my friend John
Lewis testified before the Judiciary Committee in opposition to Senator
Sessions. Congressman Lewis stated that, ``When faced with a challenge,
Senator Sessions has frequently chosen to stand on the wrong side of
history.'' Senate Republicans should be listening to these concerns and
those of protesters in our streets and airports standing up for our
Constitution. We should not subject those concerns to a gag rule.
Yet Senator Sessions and his supporters have painted a different
picture of his record. They have argued that he has a strong record on
civil rights. So I asked Senator Sessions in written questions to
identify areas in which racial inequalities persist. He could have
talked about sentencing or about areas where the Civil Rights Division
has found patterns and practices of police departments violating
people's rights or about the kind of voter suppression efforts that an
appeals court found ``target[ed] African Americans with almost surgical
precision.'' Senator Sessions did not identify a single example of
racial inequality in modern America. That is astonishing. No one can
uphold the rights of all Americans if he is unwilling to pay attention
when those rights are being violated.
Some have suggested that Senator Sessions' record on civil rights has
been criticized unfairly and he is held to a different standard because
he is a conservative from the South. I disagree. When the Judiciary
Committee rejected Senator Sessions' district court nomination in 1986,
one of the votes against him came from Senator Heflin, who was a
conservative from Alabama. Moreover, I and most other Democrats just
voted to confirm as U.N. Ambassador another conservative Southerner:
Nikki Haley. In 2015, then-Governor Haley made the decision to remove
the Confederate flag from the South Carolina Statehouse grounds. She
said, ``[I]t should never have been there'' and that she ``couldn't
look my children in the face and justify it staying there.'' When
Senator Sessions was asked about this and other efforts to remove the
Confederate flag from public buildings, he argued that such efforts
``seek to delegitimize the fabulous accomplishments of our country.''
It can come as no surprise that the civil rights community is concerned
by his nomination.
But I will speak to my own experiences with Senator Sessions' views
on civil rights laws. In 2009, Senator Sessions opposed expanding hate
crime protections to women and LGBT individuals, groups that have
historically been targeted based merely on who they are. He stated, ``I
am not sure women or people with different sexual orientations face
that kind of discrimination. I just don't see it.'' Thankfully, a
bipartisan majority of Senators saw it, and the Matthew Shepard and
James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act is now law. These
protections are needed now more than ever. According to recent FBI
statistics, LGBT individuals are more likely to be targeted for hate
crimes than any other minority group in the country.
Judy Shepard, Matthew's mother, wrote a letter last month opposing
Senator Sessions' nomination. She was concerned not just by Senator
Sessions' opposition to the law that bears her son's name, but by how
Senator Sessions viewed such hate crimes. She wrote:
``Senator Sessions strongly opposed the hate crimes bill--
characterizing hate crimes as mere `thought crimes.'
Unfortunately, Senator Sessions believes that hate crimps
are, what he describes as, mere `thought crimes.'
``My son was not killed by 'thoughts' or because his
murderers said hateful things. My son was brutally beaten
with the butt of a .357 magnum pistol, tied him to a fence,
and left him to die in freezing temperatures because he was
gay. Senator Sessions' repeated efforts to diminish the life-
changing acts of violence covered by the Hate Crimes
Prevention Act horrified me then, as a parent who knows the
true cost of hate, and it terrifies me today to see that this
same person is now being nominated as the country's highest
authority to represent justice and equal protection under the
law for all Americans.''
But that was not all. Senator Sessions also said that ``the hate
crimes amendment . . . has been said to cheapen the civil rights
movement.'' I asked him about this comment and whether he still felt
that way at his hearing, but he did not respond to the question. I
asked him a second time, in a written follow-up, what he meant by that
comment. He replied that ``Those were not my words,'' but again did not
explain what he had meant by that remark. So I asked him a third time.
The third time, he finally conceded. He wrote to me that ``it is not
correct to say it cheapens our commitment to civil rights.'' If it is
not correct to say that, then why did Senator Sessions quote it in the
first place--and why did it take him three tries to acknowledge the
error?
Senator Sessions also opposed the 2013 Leahy-Crapo Violence Against
Women Reauthorization Act, which overwhelmingly passed the Senate with
support from a majority of Republican Senators. During his hearing, and
again in written questions, Senator Sessions refused to commit to
defend this important law's constitutionality. He said only that he
``will carefully study'' it to discern whether it is ``reasonably
defensible.'' His refusal to voice support for VAWA is all the more
troubling in light of reports that the Heritage Foundation's budget
blueprint, which is reportedly being relied on by the new
administration, calls for eliminating all VAWA grants. I asked Senator
Sessions to commit to stand up for victims and preserve these critical
programs. Again, he refused.
Amita Swadhin, who appeared before the Judiciary Committee and
bravely shared her story of being raped as a child, explained why this
issue is so important: ``We need an Attorney General who will continue
the progress we have made since the initial passage of VAWA, someone
committed to improving and enforcing our laws to ensure the most
vulnerable victims of crime can come forward to seek accountability and
to access healing.'' This law and these grants are a matter of life and
death to many people across the country. We need an Attorney General
who understands that. The National Task Force to End Sexual and
Domestic Violence, which has never before taken a position on an
Attorney General nomination, wrote to the Judiciary Committee because
they do not believe Senator Sessions understands that. The letter
states:
``Senator Sessions' senate record of strenuous objection to
protections for historically marginalized populations,
coupled with his record of selective prosecutions,
demonstrate his unwillingness to protect marginalized
victims' access to justice and disqualify him from holding
the position of Attorney General of the United States, a
position charged with the responsibility of securing justice
for all.''
I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record at
the conclusion of my remarks.
Senator Sessions and his supporters have tried to minimize his
opposition to the Leahy-Crapo VAWA bill by pointing out that he did
vote in committee for the Republican substitute amendment. Let me
explain what that amendment would have done. It would have cut
authorization levels by 40 percent, hampering efforts to prevent
violence and provide services to victims in need. It would have removed
all provisions intended to ensure that victims can receive services,
regardless of sexual orientation and gender identity. It would have
removed important provisions to let tribal justice systems reach the
many criminal and civil cases that fell through the cracks. That
amendment would have gutted core elements
[[Page S939]]
of the VAWA reauthorization that go to the heart of what VAWA does. A
vote for that amendment hardly demonstrates a commitment to victims.
Another issue that concerns me is criminal justice reform. For years,
I have worked with a bipartisan group of Senators to reduce mandatory
minimum sentences for drug offenses. These sentences have created
perverse disparities within our justice system. Racial minorities still
receive nearly 80 percent of them. Our bipartisan effort has had the
strong support of the Justice Department and many others in law
enforcement, but not Senator Sessions. In recent years, no one in the
Senate has fought harder against even modest sentencing reform than he
has.
I am also concerned about Senator Sessions' commitment to ongoing
civil rights litigation. I asked whether he would maintain the Justice
Department's position in certain important cases. He would not commit
to maintaining the Department's position, even in voting rights cases
where courts have already found that certain voter ID laws are
discriminatory.
Senator Sessions would not commit to even maintaining cases that are
already at the Supreme Court. Last month, the Supreme Court heard oral
argument in Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District. The Justice
Department filed an amicus brief in support of the petitioner, arguing
that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act requires states to
provide more than de minimis educational benefits and in fact ``give
eligible children with disabilities an opportunity to make significant
educational progress.'' Even though it would be extraordinary for the
Justice Department to take a new position after oral argument has
already been heard, Senator Sessions would not commit to maintaining
the Department's position in this case.
I pointed to a lawsuit the Justice Department filed last year in
Georgia alleging that Georgia's treatment of students with disabilities
violated the Americans with Disabilities Act. In this lawsuit, the
Justice Department noted that some of the facilities used by students
with disabilities ``are located in poor-quality buildings that formerly
served as schools for black students during de jure segregation.'' I
asked Senator Sessions whether he would continue to pursue this case,
and bring others like it where States are in violation of the ADA. He
refused to commit to continuing this case. The ADA also contains a
waiver of State sovereign immunity, which is a critical tool for
enforcing that landmark law. Twice during the Bush administration, the
Justice Department argued, and the Supreme Court agreed, that the
waiver was a valid exercise of Congressional power under section V of
the 14th Amendment, but Senator Sessions would not commit to defending
the constitutionality of that provision.
Senator Sessions' record on disability rights is also of concern
because of the way he spoke about students with disabilities. He once
argued that mainstreaming causes a ``decline in civility and discipline
in classrooms all over America.'' As with my hate crimes amendment and
VAWA, the problem is not just that Senator Sessions has opposed
protections for the most vulnerable, it is also the language that he
uses when opposing them, which denigrate those the laws seek to
protect. That is why a group of 18 disability rights organizations have
written to Senate leadership expressing their strong opposition to
Senator Sessions' nomination.
Senator Sessions has also demonstrated a shockingly brazen attitude
when I asked him about the offensive rhetoric used by some of his
political associates. I asked him whether he would condemn certain
remarks by David Horowitz, Frank Gaffney, and others. Senator Sessions
received awards from these individuals. He regularly attended their
conferences. He has given media statements in support of their
organizations and the views they put forth. Yet, when Senator Sessions
was directly asked to respond to some of their statements, he
effectively shrugged his shoulders. These included comments: referring
to Muslims as ``Islamic Nazis'' who ``want to kill Jews, that's their
agenda''; alleging that President Obama ``is an anti-American radical
and I'm actually sure he's a Muslim, he certainly isn't a Christian. .
. . He's a pretend Christian in the same way he's a pretend American'';
alleging that two Muslims members of Congress have ``longstanding
Muslim Brotherhood ties''; arguing that a Muslim member of Congress
should not be allowed to serve on the House Intelligence Committee
because of his ``extensive personal and political associations with . .
. jihadist infrastructure in America''; claiming that married women by
definition cannot be raped by their husbands; calling for ``railroad
cars full of illegals going south; and calling President Obama a
traitor.
Senator Sessions responded that he does not hold those views. That is
fair enough. But he did not explain why he chose to associate with such
individuals. When someone accuses President Obama of treason, it is not
at all enough to say, ``I do not hold that view.'' That is why, last
month, Muslim advocates and 36 other civil rights organizations,
including the Leadership Conference on Civic and Human Rights and the
NAACP, wrote a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee expressing
strong concern that ``Senator Sessions has closely aligned with anti-
Muslim hate groups, accepted their awards and accolades, and publicly
praised their leadership. Senator Sessions' appointment will only
embolden these groups and activists and serve to further fan the flames
of anti-Muslim bigotry already burning in this country.'' If Senator
Sessions cannot condemn David Horowitz and Frank Gaffney, who the
Southern Poverty Law Center has repeatedly called ``extremists'' who
run hate groups, for calling President Obama a traitor, it is fair to
ask whether he will have the courage to stand up to the President of
the United States, as Sally Yates did.
The Attorney General is charged with enforcing the laws that protect
all Americans. No one can fulfill that obligation who is not clear-eyed
about the threats facing the most vulnerable in our communities. We
need an Attorney General who will aggressively confront those who
appeal to hate and fear. I do not believe that person is Senator
Sessions. The Senate and the Judiciary Committee have heard from a
multitude of civil rights, civil liberties, and domestic violence
organizations, as well as nurses and numerous faith leaders, who oppose
this nomination. This Senator stands with them.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
National Nurses United,
Washington, DC, February 7, 2017.
Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Leahy: We write on behalf of the more than
150,000 registered nurse members of National Nurses United to
urge you to vote against the confirmation of Senator Jeff
Sessions, President-elect Donald Trump's nominee for Attorney
General. Much has been said by many others against
confirmation of this nominee, so we will be brief.
Our members work as bedside healthcare professionals in
almost every state in the nation. We work in every hospital
setting, from small rural facilities to large urban public
health systems, in prominent research hospitals affiliated
with prestigious public and private universities, as well as
Veterans Affairs hospitals and clinics. We care for Americans
on every point of the demographic spectrum, at their most
vulnerable. We provide the best care we possibly can, without
regard to race, gender, national origin, religion, socio
economic circumstances, or other identifying characteristic.
That is what caring professionals do. Unfortunately, that is
not what Jeff Sessions has done in his role as a public
servant. And to vote in favor of confirming him as the chief
law enforcement officer of the United States would abdicate
your responsibility to provide the oversight necessary to
ensure that basic legal rights are enforced evenhandedly and
for the protection of all people.
As Senate colleagues, you no doubt know Senator Sessions'
record as a lawmaker, as well as his record as the U.S.
Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama and as the
Alabama Attorney General. It was, of course, his record in
the U.S. Attorney's office and his many publically verified
racially insensitive comments that resulted in a majority of
the Senate Judiciary Committee voting against confirmation
for his nomination to be a U.S. District Court judge in 1986.
This `no' vote happened while the Judiciary Committee was
majority Republican. Even Senator Howell Heflin, a fellow
Alabamian, voted against him, citing ``reasonable doubts''
over whether he could be ``fair and impartial.''
Senator Sessions has oft asserted that his comments over
the years were taken out of context, or intended as humor.
But his record tells the truth. Early in his career he
[[Page S940]]
charged civil right leaders (``the Marion Three'') with
voting fraud related to their efforts to assist African
American voters. The fact that the defendants in that case
were acquitted didn't deter Mr. Sessions. Later, as Attorney
General of Alabama, he initiated another voter fraud
investigation involving absentee ballots cast by black voters
that, again, resulted in findings of no wrong doing. During
that same timeframe, he was criticized for declining to
investigate church burnings, and he ``joked'' that he thought
Ku Klux Klan members were ``OK, until [he] learned that they
smoked marijuana.''
Against that background, Senator Sessions aggressively
interrogated Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the Court's first
nominee of Latino heritage. Further betraying a deep belief
in natural division between racial groups, he grilled Justice
Sotomayor about whether she could be fair to white Americans,
despite her 17-year record as a jurist and having received
the American Bar Association's highest rating. And he
expressed grave concerns that she would engage in judicial
``empathy'' on the high court, favoring persons of certain
races or ethnicities over others. He then voted against her
confirmation.
Senator Sessions' prejudices are not only against people of
color. As an organization representing a predominately female
profession we are compelled to express our outrage that
Senator Sessions defended Donald Trump's statements about
grabbing women by the genitals, by saying that such conduct
would not constitute sexual assault. The fact that he took a
different position during his Committee hearing is of no
comfort. It only shows that he will say whatever he believes
will help land him in the seat of power to determine whether,
and against whom, to enforce our laws. His comments last fall
dismissing President-elect Trump's despicable treatment of
women is consistent with his vote in 2013 against the
Violence Against Women Act. As nurses, we see close up the
devastating effects of domestic violence against our
patients, and we are disturbed by Senator Sessions' alleged
concern that the protection of that statute should not extend
to victims of violence on tribal lands.
Moreover, confirming Senator Sessions to the job of the top
prosecutor would exacerbate our national crisis over race
issues in policing and our criminal justice system. He
personally blocked the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act,
a bipartisan effort spearheaded by Sens. Charles Grassley (R-
Iowa), Mike Lee (R-Utah), and John Cornyn (R-Texas), and
Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-Wis.). The fact that law
enforcement leadership throughout the nation supported the
reform effort made no difference to Senator Sessions. And
unfortunately, his actions as U.S. Attorney for the Southern
District of Alabama only further illustrate his indifference
to this crisis. For example, drug convictions made up 40
percent of his cases when he served in that position--twice
the rate of other federal prosecutors in Alabama.
Despite the current trend of focusing resources on violent
crime, and away from out-dated drug war policies, Senator
Sessions continues to oppose any attempts to legalize
marijuana and any reduction in drug sentences. As Attorney
General, he could direct federal prosecutors throughout the
country to pursue the harshest penalties possible for even
low-level drug offenses, a step that would further exacerbate
our national record of incarcerating non-violent offenders--
the vast majority of whom could be successfully treated, at
far lower cost to society, with appropriate healthcare
treatment.
Nor should Senator Sessions be trusted to ensure equal
access to voting rights. He has publically called the Voting
Rights Act ``intrusive,'' and has insisted that its proactive
protections of racial minorities were no longer necessary.
This is especially disturbing as Senator Sessions voiced
public support for voter-ID laws, while his home state
recently tried to close over thirty DMV offices, many in
majority-black areas, shortly after instituting strict voter-
ID requirements. We are reminded of the words of Coretta
Scott King in her letter opposing Jeff Sessions' nomination
to the federal district court in 1986: ``The irony of Mr.
Sessions' nomination is that, if confirmed, he will be given
a life tenure for doing with a federal prosecution what the
local sheriffs accomplished twenty years ago with clubs and
cattle prods.''
We will not attempt to address all the positions Senator
Sessions has taken that are out of step with the reality of
the difficult times we are in, but as nurses we must include
our grave concern that as Attorney General he would not be
vigilant in enforcing environmental protections. In a July
2012 Senate hearing on climate science, Senator Sessions
dismissed the concerns about global warming expressed by 98%
of climate scientists, and asserted that this is ``[a] danger
that is not as great as it seems.'' These positions are
frightening. Climate change is a public health issue that
cannot be overstated. As nurses we have been seeing for some
time increases in the frequency and severity of respiratory
diseases such as asthma, bronchitis, and emphysema, as well
as an increase in cancers and aggravation of cardiovascular
illness. The effects of air pollution are particularly acute
in pediatric patients. They have higher respiratory rates
than adults, and consequently higher exposure. Our elderly
patients are also especially vulnerable. Respiratory symptoms
as common as coughing can cause arrhythmias, heart attacks,
and other serious health impacts in geriatric patients. As
global warming progresses, we are seeing sharp increases in
heat stroke and dehydration, both of which are sometimes
fatal.
In our disaster relief work through our Registered Nurse
Response Network, we have been called upon to assist the
victims of Hurricane Katrina and Super Storm Sandy--events
that many scientists believe would not have been of the
magnitude they were if not for rising temperature.
Current and future generations cannot afford to have a fox
minding the hen house on the important issues of civil and
criminal protections under the control of the Attorney
General. We urge you to set aside your personal loyalty to
Senator Sessions and evaluate honestly his record and fitness
for this critically important job. We urge you to vote
against his confirmation.
Sincerely,
Deborah Burger, RN,
Co-President, National Nurses United.
Jean Ross, RN,
Co-President, National Nurses United.
____
National Task Force to End Sexual & Domestic Violence
Dear Member of the Judiciary Committee: We, the steering
committee of the National Task Force to End Sexual and
Domestic Violence (NTF), a coalition of national, tribal,
state, and local 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 of the law. The role of Attorney General requires
a demonstrated commitment to providing equal protection under
the law--particularly to people who face discrimination
because of their race, religion, gender, gender identity,
sexual orientation, disability or other identities. We
respectfully submit that Senator Sessions' record speaks for
itself and that his history of differential application of
the law carries with it the potential to harm victims and
survivors of gender-based violence, particularly survivors
from historically marginalized communities. Thirty years ago,
this Committee rejected Senator Sessions' nomination to the
federal bench due to well-justified concerns regarding his
problematic record on civil rights and troubling history of
making racially insensitive statements. These aforementioned
concerns, combined with his equally troubling comments on the
nature of sexual assault and other concerns raised below,
make Senator Sessions an unqualified choice to serve as U.S.
Attorney General.
The position of Attorney General of the United States of
America, created by the Judiciary Act of 1789, bears the
responsibility of representing the United States in all legal
matters in which the country has an interest. Chief among
those interests is the affording of equal protection under
our criminal, civil and civil rights laws to all members of
our society. Under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 503, the President's
appointment of an Attorney General must be with the ``advice
and consent of the Senate.'' The process ensures that the
person holding the post of Attorney General is one fit for
such duty, a person with the intellectual, moral and
steadfast ethical capacity to uphold the laws and interests
of the United States and to apply the laws equally to all
members of society.
Failure to Speak Up for Victims of Violence and Discrimination
A threshold qualification for the position of Attorney
General is a deep understanding of the laws s/he is sworn to
uphold. Of critical relevance are Senator Sessions' recent
comments on the nature of sexual assault in response to the
release of a 2005 video in which President-Elect Donald Trump
describes grabbing women's genitalia without their consent.
When asked whether he would characterize the behavior
described by President-elect Trump as sexual assault, Senator
Sessions responded, ``I don't characterize that as sexual
assault. I think that's a stretch. I don't know what he
meant--.'' Federal statutes enacted prior to Senator
Sessions' tenure as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District
of Alabama criminalize ``abusive sexual conduct.'' The
applicable definition for conduct prohibited by 18 U.S.C.
Sec. 2244 is clearly stated: ``the intentional touching,
either directly or through the clothing, of the genitalia,
anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person
with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or
arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person.'' Thus,
the Senator is either unaware that abusive sexual contact is
illegal under federal law, or he feigned ignorance of the
laws he was sworn to uphold as an officer of the court for
the sake of political expedience.
The Department of Justice has the exclusive authority to
enforce the United States' criminal statutes, including 18
U.S.C. Sec. 2244. The Department of Justice also has
exclusive jurisdiction over the prosecution of domestic and
sexual violence in the District of Columbia, most sexual
assaults perpetrated in Indian Country, and concurrent
jurisdiction over domestic violence offenses committed in
Indian Country. Any candidate for Attorney General of the
United States, particularly a former U.S. Attorney, should
possess
[[Page S941]]
a thorough understanding of the legal definition of sexual
assault under federal law and under the laws of the
jurisdictions in which the Office of the U.S. Attorney has
prosecutorial responsibility. The National Task Force has
worked collectively for decades to ensure that legal
definitions in the U.S. Code and under state and local laws
make it absolutely clear that sexual assault is a crime. The
job of the Attorney General is to enforce the law without
fear or favor. Thus, we expect the Attorney General to
enforce federal laws addressing sexual assault without
introducing nonexistent ambiguity, because of the
perpetrator's identity. Senator Sessions' cavalier statement
about sexual assault leaves us fearful that he will not
vigorously prosecute sexual assault crimes, a practice
unbefitting of the nation's chief law enforcement officer.
Additionally, Senator Sessions' poor history with respect
to fighting for fairness and equity has us justifiably
concerned that he will not step in to vindicate the rights of
survivors of campus sexual assault and other victims of
discrimination. The Justice Department has jurisdiction to
enforce a myriad of civil rights statutes, including Title VI
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title IX of the Education
Amendments of 1972. These statutes bar discrimination in
education based on race, color and national origin and sex
(respectively) by educational institutions that receive
federal funding. On college and university campuses alone, we
know that 20 percent of women are victimized by sexual
assault. Absent an Attorney General's commitment to ensuring
that educational institutions root out bias and violence and
hold perpetrators accountable, victims of discrimination,
harassment or violence based on sex, race and/or national
origin will be unable to pursue their education in an
atmosphere of educational equity. Teachers surveyed since the
election have described thousands of incidents of ``bigotry
and harassment,'' stemming from incidents involving ``racist,
xenophobic or misogynistic comments,'' and/or ``derogatory
language directed at students of color, Muslims, immigrants,
and people based on gender or sexual orientation.'' It is
imperative that the person nominated to the position of
Attorney General possess a demonstrated record of work and
support for these impacted communities, including people of
color, immigrants, Muslims and religious minorities, members
of the LGBT community, and people with disabilities.
Regrettably, Senator Sessions' career is replete with
actions taken and statements made in opposition to equitable
educational access. While Attorney General of Alabama,
Senator Sessions fought equitable educational access for
poor, minority and disabled students in Alabama even after
being ordered by a federal court to remedy the yawning
financial disparities between Alabama's richest (and whitest)
and poorest school districts. Additionally, his
mischaracterization of the Individuals with Disabilities in
Education Act as creating ``special treatment for certain
children,'' and being responsible for ``accelerating the
decline of civility and discipline in classrooms across
America,'' is appalling. In light of these remarks, we are
concerned not only about the Senator's willingness to use the
civil rights statutes to protect survivors of both campus
sexual assault and other forms of harassment and violence in
the education context, but also his commitment to ensuring
equal access and safety under certain programs in the
Violence Against Women Act for victims of sexual and domestic
violence who have disabilities.
Fair Application of Law
We have additional concerns regarding the Attorney
General's role with respect to the fair, even and unbiased
application of the law. Victims and survivors come from all
racial or ethnic backgrounds, faith practices, sexual
orientations, and gender identities: 33.5% of multiracial
women have been raped, as have 27% of American Indian and
Alaska Native women, 15% of Hispanic, 22% of Black, and 19%
of White women. Additionally, 53.8% of multiracial women and
39.3% of multiracial men experience intimate partner physical
violence, intimate partner sexual violence and/or intimate
partner stalking in their lifetimes, as do 46.0% of American
Indian and Alaska Native women, 45.3% of American Indian and
Alaska Native men, 19.6% of Asian and Pacific Islander women
(data for Asian and Pacific Islander men is not available),
43.7% of Black women, 38.6% of Black men, 37.1% of Hispanic
women, 26.6% of Hispanic men, 34.6% of White women and 28.2%
of White men. We know firsthand that many survivors from
vulnerable populations hesitate to contact law enforcement or
do not trust the court system to address their victimization
because they fear, based on prior experience, that any
justice system response may not help them. We expect anyone
who serves as Attorney General to create a Justice Department
accessible to all; the 5th and 14th Amendments of the U.S.
Constitution demand no less.
Senator Sessions' well-documented prosecutorial record, as
U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama and as
Attorney General for the State of Alabama, demonstrate his
propensity to inequitably apply the law to the disadvantage
of historically marginalized populations. Senator Sessions'
history leads us to question whether he will vigorously seek
to ensure that all victims and survivors of gender-based
violence, particularly vulnerable populations and those at
the margins of society, have access to vitally needed
services and legal protections.
Senator Sessions' Opposition to Protections for the Immigrant and LGBT
Communities
We are concerned that the positions that Senator Sessions
has taken on immigration and LGBT individuals pose grave
threats to vulnerable victims of gender-based violence. His
consistent support of immigration policies that increase the
barriers to safety for undocumented victims of sexual and
domestic violence victims pushes immigrant victims further
into the shadows and harms families and communities by
allowing perpetrators (batterers and rapists) to abuse,
traffic and assault with impunity. During the consideration
of two major comprehensive immigration reform bills, as well
on various other occasions, Senator Sessions has sponsored
amendments and stand-alone legislation to limit the
availability of critical safety net assistance for immigrants
and increase barriers to protections from abuse and
exploitation by penalizing local jurisdictions that fail to
engage in immigration enforcement activities. He has made no
subsequent statement that indicates that he would rethink
these punitive policy positions were he to be confirmed.
His failure to support, and sometimes active opposition to,
progress and protections for the LGBT community leave us
gravely concerned that if confirmed, he would not stand up
for the rights of the LGBT community generally, and
particularly with respect to LGBT victims of violence. He
opposed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes
Prevention Act, which is of particular concern as we witness
a spike in harassment of minorities and bias crimes over the
last several months. Additionally, he supported a
constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. He also
opposed the repeal of ``Don't Ask Don't Tell.'' Senator
Sessions' record sends the message to marginalized survivors
that their experiences will not be understood, nor will their
rights be protected, if he is confirmed as the Attorney
General.
Opposition to the Violence Against Women Act
We are also concerned that the nominee voted against the
Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) Reauthorization of 2013.
Seventy-eight out of one hundred senators supported the
bipartisan bill; Senator Sessions was in the distinct
minority. The 2013 Act addresses the gaps in law that were
uncovered through outreach to and surveys of programs and
service providers and domestic and sexual violence victims
themselves.
Our analysis revealed that many survivors were not able to
access services and justice to the extent they needed. Of
particular note, we found that LGBT survivors often lacked
access to justice and support based on their gender identity
or their sexual orientation. We also learned of the
deplorable lack of access to justice faced by survivors of
domestic violence and sexual assault on tribal lands. VAWA
2013 included provisions that removed one of many barriers
that prevent access to justice for American Indian and Alaska
Native domestic violence survivors. The 2013 statute's
provisions expand and ensure that immigrant survivors can
access VAWA protections, allowing survivors to come out of
the shadows, help hold batterers and abusers accountable, and
enable law enforcement to protect community safety. VAWA
2013's goal of ensuring equal protection of the law was
rejected by Senator Sessions, who cast the bill's
advancements toward inclusion and equal protection as
political maneuvering and, in that light, voted against the
bill. The Attorney General is tasked with ensuring that
VAWA's protection and programs are available and accessible
to all. Senator Sessions' opposition to the VAWA protections
and his prosecutorial record leave us gravely concerned that
he would not vigorously or consistently apply these
protections.
Conclusion
The 14th Amendment provides the inalienable right that
every person receive equal protection under the law. Senator
Sessions' senate record of strenuous objection to protections
for historically marginalized populations, coupled with his
record of selective prosecutions, demonstrate his
unwillingness to protect marginalized victims' access to
justice and disqualify him from holding the position of
Attorney General of the United States, a position charged
with the responsibility of securing justice for all.
Selective application of the law and outward hostility
towards victims of sexual and domestic violence in
historically marginalized populations has a chilling effect
on their willingness and ability to seek services and
protection. It drives sexual violence, domestic violence,
dating violence and stalking underground, something we have
made great strides to avoid. The Attorney General of the
United States must be an individual committed to protecting
the inalienable right of equal protection under the law to
all within United States' jurisdiction. Moreover, his
minimizing comments about the nature of sexual assault call
into question his dedication to enforcing the law and
providing justice to victims of this serious crime.
In short, we oppose Senator Sessions' confirmation as
Attorney General of the United States and we ask you, as a
member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, to ask him direct
questions regarding the concerns raised in this letter, and
to advise the President, pursuant to the prescription of 28
U.S.C.
[[Page S942]]
Sec. 503, that Senator Sessions' is unqualified to hold this
post.
Yours truly,
The National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, after a great deal of careful thought and
consideration, I have decided to oppose Senator Sessions' nomination to
be the next Attorney General of the United States.
I have long served with Senator Sessions. While he and I have
frequently disagreed on certain legal and civil rights issues, I have
never doubted the sincerity or heartfelt nature of his positions. I am
deeply concerned, however, that he cannot be the effective check on the
Executive Branch that our nation currently needs.
In just the short time since President Donald Trump took office, our
Nation has faced upheaval and challenges to the way our government
typically runs. The President's unprecedented refusal to divest himself
of his business holdings while in office has created legal and
constitutional conflicts that are unique in our Nation's history. His
use of social media to antagonize American businesses has already
caused needless volatility in our economy, which is the cornerstone of
global financial stability. Most recently, he has unilaterally enacted
a ban on travel to the United States from several Muslim-majority
countries--creating chaos in airports, separating families, and
tarnishing our Nation's image around the world. It is of great concern
to me that Senator Sessions has already stated his unwillingness, if
confirmed, to recuse himself from investigations into potentially
unlawful activities of the Trump campaign and Trump administration.
Moreover, Senator Sessions and I disagree on how the law should treat
immigrants, refugees, the LGBTQ community, women, and racial
minorities, among others. These disagreements go to the heart of the
Justice Department's law enforcement and civil rights functions. For
instance, in 2013, Senator Sessions voted against a bipartisan effort
to reform our Nation's immigration laws. This effort garnered
overwhelming support from both sides of the aisle and would have done
much to address the immigration problems facing us today. He also voted
against the 2013 reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act,
which provides much-needed support to and protections for some of the
most vulnerable people in our communities--and is overseen by the
Justice Department that he hopes to administer. Additionally, his
statements and votes in opposition to reaffirming the prohibition on
torture run counter to our values and basic precepts of international
law. And he has voted against every recent effort in this Chamber to
establish the most basic, commonsense laws that would keep our
communities safe from the threat of gun violence. He also has called
into question the Voting Rights Act and praised the Supreme Court's
harmful decision striking down a key section of this law.
These are just some of the clear disagreements I have with the
positions Senator Sessions has taken over the years, which cause me to
doubt his ability to effectively lead the Justice Department. Our next
Attorney General should be a champion for all Americans' civil rights
and civil liberties. The occupant of that office should give Americans
confidence in our judiciary, our elections, and the impartial due
process that is the hallmark of the rule of law. Therefore, I cannot
support Senator Sessions' nomination to be Attorney General of the
United States.
Mr. MARKEY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Toomey). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the
nomination of Senator Jeff Sessions to be the next Attorney General of
the United States.
I enthusiastically support this nomination, because I know Senator
Sessions to be an independent-minded man of great integrity. He is
someone who understands and respects the rule of law. He values it
deeply, in fact. He is someone who understands the difference between
making law and enforcing the law. He understands the difference between
setting policy and enforcing laws that contain policy, and he is
someone who understands that, as a lawyer, the very best way to serve
your client often involves offering honest, independent advice--honest
independent advice of the sort that might not always occur to the
client on the client's part.
I have listened to the remarks of some of my colleagues, and I have
to state that I have served with Senator Sessions for the last 6 years,
ever since I first became a Member of this body, and I don't recognize
the caricature that has been painted of him over the last 24 hours. So
I want to address head-on several of my colleagues' expressed concerns
about his nomination.
Some of my colleagues have expressed and relied upon what really
amount to policy concerns--policy disagreements between themselves and
Senator Sessions--as a reason to oppose his nomination.
As I explained it in our Judiciary Committee markup last week, I have
disagreed with Senator Sessions not just 1 or 2 times but on many, many
occasions and not just on a few isolated issues that are only
tangentially related to something important to me but on circumstances
and issues that are very important to me and that are at the center of
my legislative agenda. We have disagreed, for example, about sentencing
reform. We have disagreed about immigration reform, and several
important national security issues implicating constitutional law, and
constitutional policy. All of these issues are very important to both
of us--to me and to Senator Sessions. They can be emotional issues, and
they happen to be issues on which Senator Sessions and I disagree, not
just a little bit, but we happen to disagree taking almost
diametrically opposed positions in many of these areas.
Notwithstanding these disagreements--disagreements that I have seen
in every one of the 6 years I have served in this body so far--I have
never seen Senator Sessions raise his voice in anger against a
colleague. To be sure, Senator Sessions makes his arguments vigorously,
passionately, and forcefully, and yet he does so in a way that ensures
that he will always treat his colleagues, even though he disagrees with
them, with dignity and respect. You may not persuade him that your
position is right and his is wrong, but he always gives you the
opportunity to make your case. I think Members of this body know that.
Those Members of this body who have actually taken the time to get to
know Senator Sessions and actually have the opportunity to work with
him, even the opportunity to disagree with him know that. Senator
Sessions interacts with his colleagues in a way that demonstrates a
degree of respect for differences of opinion that are seldom seen here.
In fact, I can't think of a colleague who better exemplifies the
principles of collegiality to which we aspire in this body than does
Senator Sessions.
Perhaps even more importantly, Senator Sessions obviously understands
the difference between lawmaking on the one hand and law enforcement on
the other hand. This is plain from testimony he provided before the
Judiciary Committee.
As just one example, he told us:
To go from the Legislative branch to the Executive branch
is a transfer not only of position, but of the way you
approach issues. I would be in an executive function and
enforcement function of the law this great legislative body
might pass.''
His commitment to the rule of law and even application of the law is
also plain from his public record, from his record serving in other
positions. His record, for example, as U.S. Attorney for the Southern
District of Alabama, and his record as attorney general for the State
of Alabama.
To put the matter quite plainly, a great number of Senators have
served in the Cabinet over the years. The standard has never been that
a Senator is somehow unfit for the executive branch--for a Cabinet
position in the executive branch--if he or she has disagreed with you
on important issues. If that were the standard, no Senator would ever
be confirmed because we debate important public policy issues
[[Page S943]]
every single day, and it is never the case that we will find any among
us, even colleagues, with whom we agree most of the time who are going
to agree with us 100 percent of the time. So I urge my colleagues to
put aside any policy differences they might have with Senator Sessions
when considering his nomination and when deciding how they are going to
vote in response to his nomination, because those simply are not
relevant to his job and, at a minimum, ought not to be disqualifying
factors relevant to his job.
As to independence, some of my colleagues doubt that Senator Sessions
will be an independent voice at the Department of Justice.
Respectfully, I can say with full confidence that anyone who actually
knows Senator Sessions knows that he is fiercely independent-minded. He
never shies away from expressing his closely held, sincerely developed
views on any issue, even when political pressure might suggest a
different course of action be in order. It is clear that Sessions will
apply his independent-mindedness to his job after he is confirmed as
Attorney General of the United States.
During his testimony before the Judiciary Committee, he repeatedly
outlined the importance of having an independent Attorney General, and
he explained how he would fulfill this obligation, how he would become
precisely such an Attorney General, one who would exercise a degree of
independence and not simply be a rubber stamp.
For example, he told us that every Attorney General ``understands, I
think, that if a President wants to accomplish a goal that he or she
believes in deeply, you should help them do it in a lawful way but make
clear and object if it is an unlawful action.'' He described that
role--being able to tell the President ``no,'' that is--as ``the
ultimate loyalty to him.''
He testified: ``I hope that President Trump has confidence in me so
that if I give him advice that something can be done or cannot be done,
that he would respect that.''
Sessions also explained that if the Attorney General were asked ``to
do something plainly unlawful, he cannot participate in that. He or she
would have to resign ultimately before agreeing to execute a policy
that the Attorney General believed would be unlawful or
unconstitutional.'' Senator Sessions made this point repeatedly. He
made it with great emphasis and in such a way that it is unmistakably
clear to me that this is the Attorney General he would aspire to be and
that he would in fact become after being confirmed.
Now, some may argue that you cannot necessarily trust his testimony
because no Attorney General nominee would declare an intention to be a
rubberstamp to the nominated President. Others may argue that Senator
Sessions was too involved in the Trump campaign to be impartial. This
is one of those points that you either believe or don't believe. You
can't reason your way to an answer. You have to know the person.
So I urge my colleagues to reflect on their experiences with Senator
Sessions. If I know one thing about him, he is not a ``yes'' man. If I
know one thing about him, it is that of all the people with whom I have
served in the Senate, he is one of the very last who I would ever
expect in any context to sell out his sincerely held views on the basis
of political expediency. Instead, Senator Sessions takes his
professional responsibility very seriously.
When he was a lawyer, he took seriously his obligations to his client
and the law. As a Senator, he has taken seriously his obligations to
the people of the State of Alabama. I know he will do the same thing at
the U.S. Department of Justice.
He told us that ``the Attorney General ultimately owes his loyalty to
the integrity of the American people and to the fidelity of the
Constitution, and the legislative laws of the country.'' This
demonstrates that Senator Sessions understands, as any good lawyer
does, that every lawyer has a client, and you understand how best to
represent that client and that client's interest. You have to
understand the nature of the attorney-client relationship. You have to
know who the client is, you have to know how to interact with that
client, and you have to be willing to push back on that client, even
when--especially when--it is difficult, because that is the job of the
lawyer. The obligations incumbent upon the lawyer provides that the
lawyer sometimes has to push back on the client.
At the end of the day, it seems to me that some of my colleagues
perhaps just want an Attorney General who will be openly,
affirmatively, presumptively, perennially hostile to the President's
agenda. Now, that has never been the standard, and it is not a workable
way of arranging the executive branch of the U.S. Government. The
President should be allowed to assemble his or her team so long as the
President picks people who are qualified, people who are willing and
able to fulfill their constitutional responsibility, and people who do
not have anything disqualifying in their backgrounds that would suggest
that they cannot be trusted with this type of very substantial
responsibility. Senator Sessions plainly satisfies these criteria.
So I support Senator Sessions' nomination. I do so wholeheartedly. I
do so, I would add, with a somewhat heavy heart, knowing that as we
take this step and confirm Senator Sessions as the next Attorney
General of the United States, we will be losing a colleague--not just
any colleague but a colleague that has been a dear friend to me, who
has been a kind mentor and a good example to me at every stage of my
service in the Senate. He has done this not only when we have agreed,
but he has done this especially when we have disagreed. That is what I
love so much about Senator Sessions--that he has taught me much about
how to get along with and respect people who sometimes reach different
conclusions than I reach on my own.
Thank you, Mr. President.
I yield the floor.