[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 20 (Monday, February 6, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S954-S963]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                                 Russia

  Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, first, I do appreciate the words of my 
colleague from Colorado, and I thank him for them, and that topic 
deserves more discussion on the floor of the Senate.
  One of the things that always gives me extraordinary pride to be an 
American and to be a Member of the Senate is the realization--as I sat 
here today and listened to my colleague from South Carolina, Senator 
Scott--that neither my ancestors nor his were participants in terms of 
structuring this Republic. Yet this Republic is so grand that it has 
plenty of room for people like me and him and so many others 
participating--including here, as one of only 100 Americans who are 
entrusted with the responsibility of representing our States and also 
upholding our Constitution in this body.
  The Senator from Colorado is also right in talking about the role of 
the Senate not just in terms of passing laws but in conducting 
oversight irrespective of who occupies the White House. It is a 
difficult thing to do these days because everything in American 
politics is covered through the lens of politics and of elections. 
Almost immediately, whatever I say here on the floor today will be 
analyzed through the lens and construct of elections past and elections 
future. What is he trying to achieve or what are any of us trying to 
achieve politically? There is a place for that. I think we are not 
foolish enough to believe there is no politics in politics.
  There is also something that is incredibly important, and that is the 
Constitution that every single one of us is sworn to uphold. It is a 
pledge I again took recently on these very steps a few feet away from 
where I stand here now a few weeks ago.
  Part of that is, in fact, to oversee the foreign policy conduct of 
the United States. As many of us are aware, there has been recent 
discussion in some circles, including in my party, about a desire to 
achieve a better relationship with Vladimir Putin and with Russia. By 
the way, I share that goal. I think it would be good for the world if 
the United States and Russia had a better relationship and, in 
particular, with the Russian people, with whom we have no quarrel. I 
also think we have a responsibility to understand what the obstacles 
are to better relations.
  It is in that context that I come to the floor of the Senate today 
because I had a lot of people ask me over the last week, over the last 
few months: Why is it that you have such views about our relationships 
with Russia on the way forward?
  I want to take a moment to discuss that in the broader context, with 
everything else that is happening here now. Even as we work through 
these nominations, the world continues to turn, and events around the 
world continue to have an impact on us here.
  Let me begin by saying this. I don't think this is a fact that can be 
disputed. Vladimir Putin today has amassed more power in Moscow and 
Russia than any leader in Russia in about 60 years, if not longer. He 
used to maintain that power through a pretty straightforward deal that 
he had with both elites and the broader society.
  Here is the deal he used to have with them. The deal was this: I will 
help you--especially the elites--make a lot of money and become very 
wealthy, and I will help society at-large by helping to grow our 
economy. In return, however, I need complete power and complete control 
of the government.
  That was basically the arrangement he had up until just a few years 
ago when a combination of falling oil prices and economic decline 
forced them into a different direction. The new model that Vladimir 
Putin is now pursuing in Russia is one in which he is basically trying 
to gin up and rally public support, and he is largely doing it through 
a foreign policy which is aggressive and which is designed to create an 
impression among the Russian people that Russia has now been restored 
to great power status--a status equal or on par with that of the United 
States.
  The first thing we have to understand is that much of what Vladimir 
Putin does is not in pursuit of an ideology, like the Soviet Union did. 
It is about domestic politics in Russia and about needing the Russian 
people to believe that he and his strength are essential to what Russia 
has. So much of it is about that.
  What are the prongs of the strategy? The first is that he has sought 
to make their military modern and strong, and you see evidence of that 
in the fact that while Russia is going through crippling budget cuts as 
a result of a downturn in the global economy, oil prices falling, and 
sanctions against the Putin government, they are increasing defense 
spending. They are modernizing. They are adding capabilities. They are, 
for the first time, although in a limited way, beginning to conduct 
naval exercises and projection of power in places they hadn't been in 
for 25 years or longer.
  The second is a crackdown in internal dissent. For that, I think the 
evidence is overwhelming. I know we have all heard recently about the 
case of Vladimir Kara-Murza, who is a Russian political opposition 
leader. He is a vocal critic of Vladimir Putin. He works at something 
called the Open Russia Foundation, an organization of activists who 
call for open elections, a free press, and civil rights reforms in 
Russia.

  This is an interesting thing to talk about because there has been a 
lot of discussion on this floor a moment ago about the press and a lot 
of discussion about elections, of course, over the last year and 
longer. There has been a lot of discussion about civil rights. Think 
about this. This is what the Open Russia Foundation works for and on 
behalf of in Russia.
  In America, when you believe that civil rights are being violated at 
this moment in our history or you think the election system isn't 
working the way it should or you are defending the press, as my 
colleagues have done here today in the right of a free press, you have 
a bad blog post written about you, someone may run against you for 
office, cable commentators will say nasty things about you from the 
other side, maybe somebody will stand up on the floor and criticize you 
for this or that.
  Let me tell you what happens when you do that in Russia. They poison 
you. Kara-Murza is believed to have been poisoned in February 2017; 
after he experienced organ failure, and he is currently in the 
hospital--just this month. This comes 2 years after another suspected 
poisoning that nearly killed him in May 2015.
  I want to take a moment to urge the administration to do everything 
in their power to ensure that he is receiving the medical care he needs 
and to help determine who was behind the latest apparent attempt 
against him.
  If this was an isolated case, you would say: Well, maybe something 
else happened. There is an incredible number of critics of Vladimir 
Putin that wind up poisoned, dead, shot in the head in their hotel 
room, found in the street, and other things.
  In other instances, just today we have this article from the Wall 
Street Journal about someone who was thinking about running against 
Vladimir Putin. Alexei Navalny was thinking about running for 
President.
  So what happens in America when somebody thinks you are going to run 
for President? They do an opposition research file. They plant negative 
stories about you. They start badmouthing you on cable news. That is 
unpleasant, no doubt. He was found guilty by a kangaroo court of 
corruption, which, of course, according to Russian law, finds him and 
blocks him from running in next year's Presidential election.
  Again, if this were an isolated case, you would say: Maybe this guy 
did

[[Page S955]]

something wrong. The problem is, just about anyone who is either 
thinking about running for office or challenging Putin winds up 
poisoned, dead, in jail, or charged and convicted of a crime.
  The second thing he has done is just completely crack down on all 
internal dissent. There is no free press in Russia. I would venture to 
guess that if I controlled 80 to 90 percent of the press reported about 
me, I would probably have approval ratings in the eighties and nineties 
as well. That is a pretty good deal for the leader but not for the 
people.
  The third thing that is part of this effort is that they are 
basically doing everything they can--Vladimir Putin--to undermine the 
international order that is built on democracy and respect for human 
rights. I think the example of that is in various places.
  Look at what has happened in Syria. Vladimir Putin gets involved in 
Syria, not because he cares about humanitarian crises--because, in 
fact, Russian forces have conducted airstrikes in civilian areas. We 
have seen the images. It is undeniable that it happened. It is by every 
definition of the word a war crime to target civilians with military 
weaponry.
  That is what has happened in Syria. But for Vladimir Putin, it has 
been successful because his engagement basically changes the conflict. 
He now has positioned himself in the eyes of the Russian people and 
many people around the world as a power broker in the Middle East--in 
fact, as an alternative to the United States in that region.
  This is part of his strategy. It wasn't about Syria as much as it was 
about his goal of being able to go to the Russian people and say that 
we matter again on the global stage. In Ukraine, there was talk about 
moving toward the European Union in terms of economic relations. There 
was talk about joining NATO. Then he invaded Crimea, and he kept it. He 
has funded separatists forces in eastern Ukraine. There is no more talk 
of NATO, and there is no more talk of unifying the economy with Europe, 
and they kept Crimea. The last few days we are starting to read open 
press reports of mobilization and unusual activity among eastern 
Ukrainian separatists backed, supported, trained, and equipped by the 
Russians, and we fear that new fighting could be imminent at any moment 
once again.
  Then we have all heard the discussions about the elections in the 
United States and the efforts of other governments to not just hack 
computers. It is not about hacking alone. It is about the strategic 
placing of information, gathered through cyber intrusion, for the 
purposes of undermining political candidates and, therefore, 
influencing the election.
  There was something deeper here. It was part of a broader effort to 
discredit our Republic and our democracy, to be able to go back to the 
Russian people and to the broader world and say that the American 
political system is corrupt. The American political system is not a 
true democracy. The American political system is as bad as all these 
other systems in the world that they criticize. They do not come to 
this with clean hands.
  I often wonder sometimes if we contribute to that argument in the way 
we behave toward one another in our political discourse in this 
country. That is something to think about in the long term. I hope 
people understand that as we engage in these political debates in this 
country, these things are being viewed around the world. For people who 
may not have a clear perspective, or if this information is being used 
negatively--by no means am I saying that we should not have vibrant 
debate in this country; we should, but I also want people to 
understand--that oftentimes gives off the perception that, in fact, our 
Republic is on the verge of collapse.
  We are in challenging times. We have some strong disagreements, and 
oftentimes they become heated. I know for a fact that there isn't a 
single Member of this body prepared to walk away from the Constitution 
or the liberties that it protects and are enshrined therein.
  By the way, I don't believe Vladimir Putin is done in this effort. I 
think you are now going to see him continue to interfere in Yemen. He 
can use that as leverage against the gulf kingdoms, against the Saudis.
  I think you are going to see him continue to engage in Egypt. He will 
go to the Egyptians and say: The Americans are always hassling you 
about human rights. Why don't you just buy your weapons from us? Why 
don't you give us a military base? We are never going to give you grief 
about human rights. We are a much easier and low-maintenance partner.
  I wouldn't even be surprised to see him start dabbling in Afghanistan 
with the Taliban, in some capacity anyway, and couch it in terms of 
fighting ISIS.
  We will see. My point is, it is not done. I bring all that up in the 
context of this suggestion among some, and I think it is important to 
talk about it because I don't think we should dismiss viewpoints. There 
are some, including in the administration, who believe that maybe we 
can do a deal with Vladimir Putin where he helps us fight against ISIS 
and in return we lift sanctions. The argument that I hear from people 
is this: Why wouldn't we want better relations with Vladimir Putin and 
enlist them in the fight against ISIS?
  I come here today in the context of everything I have laid out to 
tell you why I think that is unrealistic and deeply problematic.
  Here is No. 1. Why do we have to do a deal with Vladimir Putin to 
fight ISIS? He already claims that he is. In fact, that is the way he 
describes their operations in Syria--as an anti-terror operation. There 
is no more dangerous terrorist group in the world today than ISIS. 
There is certainly no more dangerous terrorist group in the world today 
than ISIS. There is certainly no more dangerous and capable a terrorist 
group in Syria today than ISIS.
  Isn't that what he is already doing? Why would we then have to cut a 
deal to encourage him to do what he claims to already be doing? There 
are only two reasons. Either No. 1, we think he should do more, which 
in and of itself tells you that he is not doing it; or No. 2, because 
he is not doing it now.
  Here is the second problem: this argument that as part of this whole 
effort with Russia, one of the things we would be able to achieve is to 
break them from the Iranians, to create some sort of split between the 
Russians and the Iranians.
  I saw an article the other day talking about that as part of this 
endeavor. My argument to you is that we don't really need to do that. 
That is going to happen on its own. Say what you want, as soon as ISIS 
is destroyed in Syria and Iraq or in both, the Iranians are going to 
immediately not just push to drive the Americans out of the region but 
drive the Russians out as well.
  The Iranians are not interested in replacing American influence in 
the region with Russian influence. They want to be the hegemonic power 
in the region. As to this argument that we somehow can peel them apart, 
my friends, that is going to happen all on its own. If we abandon there 
tomorrow, the Iranians would immediately turn to driving the Russians 
out as well because they want to be the hegemonic power. They have long 
desired to be the hegemonic power in the region. That is going to put 
them in conflict with the Russians sooner rather than later at some 
point here, at least to some level.
  The third thing I think we have to understand is that there is 
absolutely no pressure, no political rationale why Vladimir Putin needs 
a better relationship with the United States at this time, at least not 
politically. He is not going to lose an election, because if you run 
against him, you go to jail. He controls the press. He controls the 
political discourse in the country. So one of the reasons we should 
always be advocates for democracy is because democratic leaders act 
much more responsibly because they have to answer to their people, but 
in essence that is not what you have in Russia. There is really no 
reason or rationale why he would be pressured to have a better 
relationship with us.

  Do the Russian people want a better relationship with America? I have 
no doubt about that, but I want you to understand that everything they 
learn about our relationship with them is largely derived through the 
Russian press. If you never had the pleasure of watching, for example, 
the RT Network on television, and you are interested in comedy and 
satire, I encourage you to tune into that station from time to time so 
you can see an alternative representation of events that would startle 
you, and perhaps make you laugh.

[[Page S956]]

This is unfortunately the sort of media information that filters to the 
Russian people that Vladimir Putin and the Kremlin completely control.
  Here is the fourth and perhaps most important reason I think this 
endeavor is unrealistic and perhaps even counterproductive. The price 
you would have to pay is simply too high in return for the alleged 
benefit that would come about.
  No. 1, the Russian Federation under Vladimir Putin has basically 
violated every agreement they have made now and in the past. They are 
violating the cease-fire. They violated all sorts of arrangements with 
regard to arms reductions, and they will continue to do that in any 
deal anyone cuts with him.
  The second is one of the first things he is going to ask for is the 
lifting of all sanctions for both Ukraine and interference in our 
elections, in return for no changes to the status in Ukraine and no 
promise of not undertaking efforts like what happened here in the 
future.
  The third thing they are going to demand is recognition of a Russian 
sphere of influence in Eastern Europe, especially in places that are 
now countries that were once part of the Soviet Union. In essence, a 
United States acceptance officially or otherwise that there are 
countries in the world who are not allowed to enter into economic or 
military engagements with the United States unless Russia allows it.
  You think about that. They are basically going to ask us to play some 
game of geopolitical chess, where we basically turn over the 
sovereignty and future of other Nations and say to them there are these 
countries in the world, and we are not going to try to do anything with 
them, economic, political, cultural, socially or militarily, unless you 
give us permission to do so. This would be a requirement. It is one of 
the things he insists upon.
  He would also require the United States to support pulling back NATO 
troops and equipment and personnel and operations from Nations in 
Europe, which would be devastating to the NATO alliance, which one of 
his other goals is to render NATO feckless and irrelevant.
  I just don't think that is a price worth paying in exchange for 
alleged cooperation against ISIS--that he claims to already be 
conducting--and in exchange for basically sending a message to the 
world that America is your ally, unless there is a better deal with us 
for someone else. That would be devastating. What do I think we should 
do, and what I hope the Senate will do, if there is an effort now or 
any time in the future, by anyone, to change or conduct a deal of this 
magnitude?
  I think the first thing we need to do is be committed to the 
principle. These sanctions that are in place should remain in place 
until the conditions in those sanctions are met, until the sovereignty 
of Ukraine is respected, and until these efforts to undermine democracy 
and spread misinformation are fully accounted for.
  The second is, I think it is important for us to reaffirm our 
commitment to NATO, and that includes the building up of defenses and 
exercises, that we continue to do that firmly, not just with our NATO 
allies but with any nation who seeks cooperation with us.
  The third is careful but strategic engagement in the Middle East to 
the Iraqis, to make very clear that the United States will continue to 
be their partner after ISIS falls; that we want Iraq to be prosperous 
and free and that we believe it is better for the world and we are 
prepared to help them achieve that.
  To the Egyptians, we will continue to press them on human rights, and 
we should. We should also be willing at the same time--and, by the way, 
with the argument that respecting human rights is actually good for 
Egypt, that in the long term these conditions that exist will lead to 
constant threats to their government, but we can do that while at the 
same time continuing to partner with them on military sales. I think 
they would welcome a conversation about trade and potentially a 
bilateral trade agreement with them about opening up avenues for 
business investment and so forth.
  The fourth is to point out that if they are not going after ISIS, 
then what exactly are they doing now? It is important for us to point 
that out to the world. Again, I made this point numerous times. I want 
to make it once again; this idea that we are going to get them to 
cooperate much more against ISIS basically implies they are not doing 
it now, but they claim that is why they are in Syria to begin with.
  Finally, I think it is important for us to try to communicate 
directly with the Russian people to the extent possible. It is hard to 
do because the Russian Government, under Putin, also controls the 
Internet with filters and the like. It is important for us to say our 
quarrel is not with the Russian people; that for many years up until 
this unfortunate turn of events over the last decade, the links with 
the United States and the Russian people grew strong and those links 
remain.
  In my home State of Florida, there is a significant number of 
Russians who live in Florida part time and so forth. I hope that will 
continue. Our quarrel is not with the Russian people, and we desire for 
Russia to be powerful and influential in the world. We want Russia to 
be prosperous. This country does not view this as a zero-sum gain. In 
order for America to be influential, Russia must be less influential.
  Our quarrel is not with Russia but a leader who does view it as a 
zero-sum gain, a leader who believes the only way Russia can be more 
important is for America to be less important, a leader who has chosen 
to try to undermine an international order based on democracy and free 
enterprise and human rights that has kept the world out of a third 
world war, and I think it is important for us to do that.
  I think that is important and why we need at least to be prepared in 
this body, if necessary, to move forward with legislation that doesn't 
just codify existing sanctions but that prevents the lifting of those 
sanctions, unless the conditions in those sanctions are met. This is 
our job. It is true that Presidents and administrations have an 
obligation, a duty, and a right to set the foreign policies of the 
United States. There is no doubt about it. I think that is true, no 
matter who is the President.

  But it would be a mistake, and in my opinion, a dereliction of duty 
for the Senate and the Congress to not recognize that we, too, have a 
duty to shape the foreign policy of the United States and the power to 
declare war in the budgets that we pass, in the laws and conditions 
that we put in place, and in our ability to override vetoes, when 
necessary, even in the process of nominating individuals to serve in 
the U.S. Government and the executive branch.
  We not only have the power, we have the obligation; the obligation to 
shape and mold and direct the foreign policy of this Nation, and if we 
don't, then we are not living up to the oath we took when we entered 
this body, and that it is not a political thing. This is not about 
embarrassing anyone. This is not about partisan issues. It should never 
be. In fact, one of the traditions that has existed in this Nation for 
a long time is that foreign policy, when it came to issues that 
impacted the security issues of the United States, there was an effort 
to make sure it was as bipartisan or nonpartisan as possible because 
when America gets in trouble on national security, there is no way to 
isolate on a bipartisan basis.
  It is my hope, as we debate all these other issues, that we continue 
to keep these issues in mind because it is critical to the future of 
our Nation, critical to our standing in the world, and ultimately vital 
and critical to the kind of world and Nation we will leave to our 
children and grandchildren in the years and decades to come.
  I, for one, in the midst of all of this debate about a bunch of 
issues that divide us, will continue to work to ensure that this is one 
that unites us and allows us to live up to our constitutional 
obligation, to participate fully in shaping and directing the foreign 
policy of this great Nation.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the nomination of Senator 
Jeff Sessions to be Attorney General. I thought very carefully about 
this matter and about what it means to oppose a colleague. We had an 
unusual night last night, where one of our Members was ordered to stop 
speaking as she explained her opposition. Comments that

[[Page S957]]

would have been allowed regarding any other Cabinet nominee were ruled 
unacceptable because this nominee also sits in this body. I voted to 
overturn that ruling and restore my colleague's speaking privileges 
because I was of the opinion that the constitutional duty to advise and 
consent on nominations should allow for debate.
  But whatever my opinions about the ruling, I do have to acknowledge 
that standing on the floor to speak in opposition to a colleague is not 
an everyday occurrence. We do disagree every day, all of us, even 
within our own caucuses on matters of policy, but there is something 
more personal about taking the floor to take a position regarding a 
sitting Senator who has been nominated for a Senate-confirmable 
position.
  I know Senator Sessions well. We served together on the Armed 
Services Committee. We attend a weekly Senate Prayer Breakfast 
together. We have taken codel trips together. I consider Senator 
Sessions a friend, and I respect that he has been repeatedly sent to 
this body by the voters of his State, but while we can and should be 
friends, strive to be friends, in this Chamber, we are not ultimately 
here about friendship. We are here to do people's business. And 
significant differences in our opinions and convictions are not to be 
papered over, even when we find ourselves in different positions than 
our friends.
  Some Members of this body ran for President, and I did not support 
them, even though they were my friends. And some people in this Chamber 
did not support me to be Vice President, even though we are friends. 
There is nothing unusual about that. We all understand it. We must 
treat each other with respect and civility. We are still called to, in 
the words of Lincoln, ``be firm in the right as God gives us to see 
what is right.''
  So based upon how I see the right and on my convictions, I cannot 
support my colleague for the position because I do not have confidence 
in his ability to be a champion for civil rights, to wisely advise the 
administration on matters involving immigration, and to be resolute as 
the Nation's chief law enforcement official that torture is contrary to 
American values.
  This one matters to me a lot. This appointment is very critical. The 
Attorney General is one of the four Cabinet appointees who are not 
allowed to be engaged in political activity: Secretary of Treasury, 
Attorney General, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense. They are 
beyond politics and supposed to be above politics. They must have an 
independent gravitas and even be willing to challenge the President. 
The mission of the Department of Justice cannot be more important. For 
17 years, before I got into State politics, I was a civil rights 
lawyer. I read a book, ``Simple Justice,'' when I was in law school, 
about the lawyers who battled to end segregated education in this 
country. Even though I really didn't know any lawyers and certainly 
didn't know any civil rights lawyers--and was living in kind of an 
Irish Catholic neighborhood in the suburbs of Kansas City--I decided I 
wanted to devote my life to this.
  So I moved to Virginia in 1984 and started practicing civil rights 
law, and I did it for 17 years. I will always remember--and I bet you 
will too--my first client, the first case that I had that was really 
mine. A young woman who walked into my office and told me she had been 
turned away from an apartment, and she thought it was because of the 
color of her skin. I was able to prove that was the case, and so we 
were able to win, but what I remember about Lorraine was how it made 
her feel. She was my age. She had just finished school. She was looking 
for an apartment, her first apartment away from home, just like I had 
done. While my experience getting a job, finding an apartment, getting 
out on my own had been a positive, her experience had been a negative. 
And she was going to have that feeling and carry it with her every time 
she looked for a house for the rest of her life: Am I going to be 
treated differently because of the color of my skin? What had been a 
happy occasion for me, as a young man venturing out into the world, had 
been a sad one and a difficult one for her. That started 17 years of 
fighting in State and Federal courthouses for people who had been 
turned away from housing or fired or slander or otherwise treated 
poorly, either because of their race or their disability or because of 
their advocacy about important public policy issues.
  The civil rights laws of this country protect the liberty of 
minorities of all kinds who otherwise could be tyrannized by the 
majority view in their community. The promise of equal justice under 
the law is sacrosanct and fundamental. And in this battle, the Attorney 
General is the guardian of liberty, or in a wise Biblical phrase, the 
``Watcher on the Wall.''
  Judges sit in their courts and they wait for cases to come to them, 
but an Attorney General is charged with going out and finding 
wrongdoing and making sure it stopped. None of the advances that our 
country has made in the civil rights field has happened without a 
supportive Department of Justice and Attorney General. And those of us 
out in the field, lawyers who were taking cases, but especially the 
clients who simply seek equal justice under law, they have to view the 
Attorney General as their champion.
  In 1963, a married couple in Northeast DC sat down at their kitchen 
table not far from here, and they wrote a letter to a lawyer in town. I 
want to read the letter to you.

       Dear sir: I am writing to you concerning a problem we have. 
     5 years ago my husband and I were married here in the 
     District. We then returned to Virginia to live. My husband is 
     white, I am part negro and part Indian. At the time, we did 
     not know that there was a law in Virginia against mixed 
     marriages. Therefore we were jailed and tried in a little 
     town of Bowling Green. We were to leave the State to make our 
     home. The problem is we are not allowed to visit our 
     families. The judge said if we enter the State within the 
     next 30 years that we will have to spend 1 year in jail. We 
     know we cannot live there, but we would like to go back once 
     in a while to visit our families and friends. We have three 
     children and cannot afford an attorney. We wrote the Attorney 
     General, he suggested that we get in touch with you for 
     advice. Please help us if you can. Hope to hear from you real 
     soon. Yours truly--Mr. And Mrs. Richard Loving.

  That attorney, Bernie Cohen, became a friend of mine. And his partner 
Phil Hirshcop and Bernie took the case of this married couple all the 
way to the Supreme Court, and 50 years ago the Supreme Court struck 
down interracial marriage in this country. But the case started with a 
couple who, having no where else to turn, thought, if we write the 
Attorney General, surely he will be a champion for us and he will help 
us redress this horrible wrong. That is who the Attorney General needs 
to be. The powerful never have a hard time finding somebody to 
represent them in court, but the poor or oppressed or those who don't 
have anybody else to stand up for them, they need a justice system that 
will treat them fairly, and they need an Attorney General who will 
embody that value.
  Three areas: civil rights, immigration, and torture.
  In the area of civil rights, Senator Sessions' record here as a 
Senator has been troubling to me. In the past, when he was considered 
for a judicial position, he declared that the voting rights laws were 
``intrusive.''
  He welcomed the ``good news'' when the Supreme Court in the last few 
years struck down, in the Shelby County case, parts of the Voting 
Rights Act. He has not engaged in efforts that many of us have tried to 
engage in to improve and fix the law.
  This is an important issue to know about an Attorney General whose 
Department is supposed to be the chief enforcer of the Nation's voting 
rights laws. Voting rights are under attack all over this country. The 
Attorney General must be a champion of those laws.
  Senator Sessions has opposed protections for LGBT citizens in this 
body. He voted against the elimination of don't ask, don't tell. He 
voted against the passage of the Matthew Shepard hate crimes bill. He 
has publicly stated numerous times his opposition to marriage equality. 
As far as I know, he has never stated otherwise that he has changed 
those opinions.
  The Senator spoke on the Senate floor about the Individuals with 
Disabilities Education Act in 2000. He said that this beneficial law 
was ``a big factor in accelerating the decline in civility and 
discipline in classrooms all over this country.'' This is very 
troubling to me as someone who believes that act is one of the Nation's 
preeminent civil rights laws.

[[Page S958]]

  There are other examples, but I won't belabor the point.
  The Loving family wrote to Attorney Generally Robert Kennedy to help 
them battle injustice because they believed he would protect their 
important civil rights values at stake. I am not confident that people 
hard-pressed in this country, who feel marginalized, will see the 
office as a potential ally and champion under Senator Sessions. This is 
particularly the case when we have a President who has been 
successfully sued in the past for civil rights violations and who makes 
prejudicial comments about people based on their gender, their 
religion, their immigrant status, or their disability.
  Second, immigration. Our immigration policies are critical. We need 
to fix our laws. In my time in the Senate, Senator Sessions has been 
the most vocal Senator in opposition to what I believe are reasonable 
and necessary reforms. His floor comments and his obvious personal 
passion around this issue are clear, but I think his policies are 
simply wrong.
  Immigration does not hurt our economy; it helps it. Jefferson 
recognized this in the Declaration of Independence. In his Bill of 
Particulars against King George, he said: We do not want to live under 
your tyranny. You won't let us have a good immigration system.
  Jefferson recognized it, and all through the years, the inflow of 
talent, the blood of innovation and talent and new ideas from 
immigrants, has been part of what has made our country great. That is 
why there is such a consensus in favor of immigration reform from the 
labor unions and the chambers of commerce. The CBO says that it will 
increases our net worth and GDP.
  Immigration does not hurt our workers, as Senator Sessions often 
claims it does. A reform would help our workers by eliminating the 
ability of people to live and work in the shadows and be paid 
substandard wages that undercut the wages of others.
  Senator Sessions' views on immigration even extend to a critical 
program like the Special Immigrant Visa Program, which grants special 
protection to foreign citizens, especially those from Afghanistan and 
Iraq, who have helped our troops on the battlefield. They signed up to 
help Americans who are in the service. They put their lives at risk for 
doing so. Because of that, we have a special program to accord them a 
welcome that they are deserved in this country.
  Senators McCain, Shaheen, and I and many others have worked on this 
program, and Senator Sessions has been a determined opponent of the SIV 
Program, and I just can't understand why. If we will not help the 
people who help us, then who will choose to help us in the future? Some 
of these SIV immigrants were turned away at airports after the poorly 
conceived and poorly implemented immigration order of President Trump.

  As we contemplate some of this President's outlandish and 
discriminatory claims about immigrants and as we deal with the 
aftermath of this poor order, we have to separate the extreme and the 
untrue from our legitimate security concerns. A good lawyer often needs 
to be a check against the bad instincts of his client. In this area, I 
am not confident Senator Sessions can do that.
  Finally, torture. Like the vast majority of this body, I believe 
torture is contrary to American values. That is why I was proud to work 
with Senators McCain, Reed, Feinstein, and others in 2015 to pass a law 
clearly stating that torture would not be allowed by any agency of our 
government--not just the military but any agency of our government. 
This law passed the Senate overwhelmingly and in a strongly bipartisan 
fashion. But Senator Sessions was one of a small number of Senators who 
opposed the law, who opposed a ban on torture.
  When we met, I asked Senator Sessions why he had opposed the law, why 
he had opposed this bipartisanship bill. This is a fundamental question 
for any of us but certainly for an individual who wants to occupy the 
Nation's chief law enforcement position. His response was not at all 
convincing. I don't think the Nation should have an Attorney General 
with an ambiguous record about torture.
  While most Federal agencies have a general counsel, it is ultimately 
the Attorney General who sits at the very top of the pyramid of 
attorneys advising the President in providing this legal advice. This 
President has--very unwisely, in my view--stated that he thinks torture 
is both justifiable and effective. I believe we need an Attorney 
General who will check that instinct and not support it or justify it.
  I will say this in conclusion: There is an independence that is 
necessary in this position. It is established in law in this position 
and three other Cabinet positions. Any Attorney General must be able to 
stand firm for the rule of law, even against the powerful Executive who 
nominated him or her. In this administration, I believe that 
independence is even more necessary.
  I oppose Senator Sessions, who is a friend, who is someone I respect 
for this position, because I believe his record raises doubts about 
whether he can be a champion for those who need this office most, and 
it also raises doubts about whether he can curb unlawful overage by 
this Executive.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tillis).
  The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in strong support of 
the nomination of Senator Jeff Sessions to be the next Attorney General 
of the United States. I do that as someone who has known him personally 
quite well for 6 years now. I want to do this briefly because we are 
pressed for time, but I want to make a few points.
  First, I think we all recognize the terrific credentials that Senator 
Sessions brings to this job--his career, his lifetime serving his 
country, from his time in the U.S. Army Reserve, to his 12 years as a 
U.S. attorney, to the 2 years he spent as the attorney general of 
Alabama, all before being elected to the U.S. Senate. But much more 
importantly, I am so impressed by this good man, this good and decent 
man's commitment to protecting all members of our society and his sense 
of fairness. Let me give a couple of examples.
  It was Senator Sessions who worked with a Democratic colleague, 
Senator Coons, on legislation to help women and children who were 
victims of abuse. It was Senator Sessions who joined me in our 
successful effort to provide hundreds of millions of dollars of 
additional funds each year to victims of child abuse and sexual assault 
and domestic violence.
  Senator Sessions' sense of fairness is also illustrated in his 
approach to law enforcement. It is probably widely known that he has 
the endorsement of every major law enforcement group in America, but 
Senator Sessions has also spent a lot of time and effort making sure 
people on the other side of law enforcement are treated fairly and 
humanely.
  It was Senator Sessions who led the successful effort to eliminate 
the disparity in sentences for crack users versus cocaine users, 
working with Senator Durbin, a Democrat. They succeeded because Senator 
Sessions understood that the disparity--the much harsher penalty on the 
use of crack cocaine versus white powdered cocaine--was completely 
unfair and overwhelmingly adversely affected African Americans. That 
was not acceptable to Jeff Sessions.
  It was Senator Sessions who in 2003 joined with Democratic Senator 
Ted Kennedy in introducing and helping to successfully enact the Prison 
Rape Elimination Act because of his concern about the appalling abuse 
experienced by some people in our prisons. That was not acceptable to 
Jeff Sessions.
  Let me just say that--I am going to be very candid. The most 
objectionable and offensive slander I have heard against Senator 
Sessions is the notion that somehow he has some kind of racist 
leanings. That is an outrageous and dishonest charge. I have known this 
man very well. There is not a racist bone in his body. This is a man 
who has been endorsed by many, many African-American leaders. This is a 
man who personally took on the KKK every chance he had when he was 
serving as the U.S. attorney. In fact, arguably, he was the reason that 
the law enforcement--in fact, he personally did probably more than 
anyone else to bankrupt the KKK by design so that he could destroy that 
organization in Alabama, which is exactly what he succeeded in doing.
  Jeff Sessions is a man who has tremendous respect for the law, a 
reverence for the law, respect for the rule of law. There is absolutely 
no question

[[Page S959]]

in my mind, from my own personal experience with him for these years, 
that he will enforce the law vigorously and fairly.
  Several of my Democratic colleagues have come down here and they have 
rattled off policy areas in which they disagree with Senator Sessions. 
You know what, there are areas where I disagree with Senator Sessions. 
I guarantee you, there are lots of areas where I had disagreements with 
the members of President Obama's Cabinet. But it never occurred to me 
to expect that I would have complete agreement on every policy issue 
with every candidate for a Cabinet position.
  What I know about Jeff Sessions is that he is an extremely well-
qualified attorney, with outstanding credentials, has spent his adult 
life serving his country and his State, that he has gone to the mat to 
work for people who are some of the least fortunate and people who have 
been through appalling circumstances. He has been their champion. I 
just know he is going to stand up for the principles of the rule of law 
and equal justice before the law.
  The last point I want to make is, when Republican Senators gather 
periodically for our lunches and our private discussions, every 
Republican Senator knows that when we are discussing something, if Jeff 
Sessions believes that we are talking about doing something that is a 
violation of a principle that he holds, he is going to be the first guy 
who is going to stand up, and he is going to say: My colleagues, this 
would be a mistake. This is not the right thing to do.
  He is the one who is the first to stand up to any other member of the 
conference; it doesn't matter who it is. If he thinks what they are 
suggesting is not the right thing to do, not the principled thing to 
do, not consistent with our role as Senators, not consistent with our 
principles, Jeff Sessions is always willing to stand up for what is 
right.
  He will stand up for what is right as the Attorney General of the 
United States. I am proud to support him, and I urge all of my 
colleagues to do likewise.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I think many millions of Americans 
perceive, as I do, that these are not normal times.
  We have had a new President of the United States who called a judge a 
``so-called judge'' because he dared to disagree with President Trump's 
decision on the ban of Muslims coming into this country.
  We have a President who attacks the media in this country as fake 
news; everything they are saying is a lie. We have a President who goes 
before the troops--men and women in the American military--and starts 
talking about politics. It is very clear to me that we have a new 
President who really does not understand the Constitution of the United 
States of America, who does not understand the separation of powers in 
the Constitution, and in that context, we need an Attorney General who 
will have the courage to tell the President of the United States when 
he is acting in a dangerous, authoritarian, or unconstitutional way.
  I have known Jeff Sessions for a number of years, and personally, I 
like Jeff Sessions. But I do not believe at this moment in history, 
when we need people around this President to explain the Constitution 
to him, that Jeff Sessions will be the Attorney General to do that.
  I am deeply concerned about voter suppression in this country. I am 
deeply concerned that, as a result of the Supreme Court's gutting of 
the Voting Rights Act, we have, in State after State after State, 
Governors and legislatures that are working overtime to make it harder 
for poor people, people of color, older people, young people to 
participate in the political process.
  Today in the United States, we have, compared to the rest of the 
world, a low voter turnout. Only about 60 percent of eligible voters in 
America cast a ballot. Our job--whether you are conservative, 
Republican, Progressive, Independent, Democrat--whatever you are, if 
you believe in democracy, what you should believe in is bringing more 
people into the political process, increasing our voter turnout, not 
working as hard as you can to suppress the vote.
  I want an Attorney General of the United States of America to tell 
those Governors, to tell those attorneys general all over this country 
that as Attorney General of the United States, he will fight them tooth 
and nail in every way legally possible to stop the suppression of the 
vote in State after State throughout this country.
  We have the dubious distinction in this country of having more people 
in jail than any other nation on Earth. We have about 2.2 million 
Americans. We are spending about $80 billion a year locking them up, 
and the people who are disproportionately in jail are African American, 
Latino, Native American.
  I want an Attorney General who understands that the current criminal 
justice system is failing, that we have to figure out ways to keep 
people from getting into jail by investing in education, in jobs, and 
that incarceration and more jails are not the answers to the crisis we 
face within criminal justice. I honestly do not believe that Jeff 
Sessions is that person.
  In recent years, we have made significant progress in allowing 
people--regardless of their sexual orientation--to get married and to 
have the full rights of American citizenship. I do not believe that 
Jeff Sessions will be the Attorney General who will be supportive of 
LGBT rights.
  We have some 11 million undocumented people in this country. I 
believe that most Americans see the solution as comprehensive 
immigration reform and a path toward citizenship.
  Today we have some 700,000 people who are DACA recipients, who have 
come out of the shadows and trusted the Federal Government to protect 
them. We need an Attorney General who is sensitive to the needs of DACA 
recipients, who will pursue humane immigration policies, and advocate 
for the need of comprehensive immigration reform. I do not believe that 
Jeff Sessions will be that Attorney General.
  So, Mr. President, for all of those reasons and more, I will be 
voting against Jeff Sessions to become the next Attorney General of the 
United States.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I also rise this evening to talk about the 
nomination of our colleague from Alabama, Senator Jeff Sessions, to 
serve as our next Attorney General.
  Like many of our colleagues, I have heard from an incredible number 
of people in my State regarding this nomination--some in favor, fewer 
than 100--many against. Almost 1,300 Delawareans have called, emailed, 
or written to my office, expressing their opposition to Senator 
Sessions' nomination.
  I would like to share, if I could, just a few excerpts from some of 
the emails that I have received concerning this nomination.
  We will start with Priscilla from the town of Newport in the northern 
part of our State. She wrote to me about the experience of her family 
growing up in a segregated society. Here is what she had to say. She 
said:

       I lived through my parents not having the right to vote, 
     not being able to go through the front door of a restaurant 
     or doctor's office, using the colored fountains and 
     bathrooms. Never again.

  Another person, Rhonda from Dewey Beach wrote to me about Senator 
Sessions' voting record on voting rights. Here is what she had to say. 
She said:

       Mr. Sessions has called the Voting Rights Act of 1965 a 
     ``piece of intrusive legislation.'' Under him, the Justice 
     Department would most likely focus less on prosecutions of 
     minority voter suppression and more on rooting out mythical 
     voter fraud.

  Here is one from Wilmington, DE--my hometown now--from a woman named 
Dawn. She wrote to me about her concerns as a parent of a child with 
autism. She wrote these words:

       I am writing to express my deep concern with Jeff Sessions' 
     nomination for Attorney General. I am a parent of an autistic 
     son and am terrified that people with these types of views 
     will be in power to enforce (or not) the laws that protect 
     the rights of my son and so many others.

  Mr. President, the common theme throughout these letters, these 
calls, these emails is their fear that Senator Sessions will not be an 
Attorney General for all Americans.
  I know that many of my colleagues--our colleagues--will soon be 
voting

[[Page S960]]

their hopes by voting to confirm Senator Sessions to be our next 
Attorney General, but too many of my constituents, including African 
Americans, immigrants, women, Muslims, and other vulnerable 
populations, have called and emailed my office in numbers that I don't 
think I have ever seen before to express their fears and to ask me to 
do something about it as their senior Senator.
  I have heard their voices loud and clear, and I feel compelled to add 
my voice to so many others in opposing this nomination.
  Let me just say this as clearly as I can. I do so with no joy, no 
joy.
  Last night, as I was thinking about what I wanted to share on the 
floor this evening, my mind drifted back to another time and place.
  The Presiding Officer may not know this. I grew up in Danville, VA, 
my sister and I, the last capital of the Confederacy. I got there I 
think when I was just about 9 years old and left when I was about to 
finish high school.
  The home that we lived in right outside of Danville, VA--if you 
walked out the front door, about 100 yards down the road on the other 
side was a church, Woodlawn Baptist Church. That was our church, and my 
mom dragged my sister and me there every Sunday morning, every Sunday 
night, every Wednesday night, and most Thursday nights.
  When my sister and I were in high school, we stood on the doorstep of 
that church Monday through Friday when school was in session, and we 
would catch a school bus. About 200 yards down the road, on Westover 
Drive, there was another school bus stop, where African-American kids 
got on their school bus, 200 yards away. We would drive in our school 
bus 10 miles to our school, Roswell High School, and the kids at the 
other school bus stop would get in their bus, and they would drive past 
our school another 10 miles to get to their school.
  On weekends, my dad worked a lot. He was in the Navy Reserve as a 
chief petty officer. He was gone a lot on the weekends. My mom worked 
in downtown Danville in the five-and-dime store. My sister and I would 
catch a bus, and we would ride downtown to go have lunch with my mom on 
many Saturdays when we were 9, 10, 11, 12 years old.
  I couldn't help but notice when we got on the bus that if you were 
White, you got to sit up front, and if you were Black, you sat in back. 
We would go to a blue plate diner with my mom at lunchtime. There was 
one section where, if you were White, you got to eat there, and another 
section where, if you were Black, colored, you would eat there. To go 
to the restrooms, it was colored only, White only.
  After lunch, my sister and I would go to Rialto Theatre in Danville, 
and my mom would give us each a quarter. And for 25 cents, we could see 
that afternoon three movies until she was finished with work, and we 
would go home together. At that Rialto Theatre, if you were White, you 
sat down in front on the first floor; if you were Black, you sat up in 
the balcony.
  I will never forget that when I was a little boy in Danville, one 
day, I went to the dentist's office for some dental care. I remember 
this older African-American woman coming into the dentist's office, and 
she was in pain with I think an abscessed tooth.
  She said: I know I don't have an appointment, but could someone just 
help me out of my misery?
  They said: I am sorry, ma'am. You don't have an appointment. We can't 
do anything for you. And she left crying.
  My parents--it turns out I am a Democrat; they were Republican, as 
far as I know. They got to vote, and they got to vote regularly. But I 
will bet you dollars to doughnuts that the kids at that bus stop who 
caught that bus to go to that all-Black, all-African-American school, 
my guess is that a bunch of them didn't get to vote because of 
something we had in Virginia called a poll tax.
  Among the lessons that my sister and I learned at Woodlawn Baptist 
Church was the Golden Rule: Treat other people the way we want to be 
treated.
  Among the things that we learned at that church is Matthew 25: We 
should care for the least of these. When I was hungry, did you feed me? 
When I was naked, did you clothe me? When I was thirsty, did you give 
me a drink? When I was sleeping in prison, did you visit me? When I was 
a stranger in your land, did you welcome me? And we were taught: yes, 
yes, yes, yes.
  Micah 6. In my church this past Sunday, the question was raised: What 
is expected of us by the Lord? And we received three answers. And the 
three answers: Do justice, love kindness, walk humbly with thy God.

  I have taken those lessons from my childhood, and those are lessons 
from my own church today. And I want to tell you that as a kid growing 
up in Danville, VA, I can understand how other kids in my community 
were racist or bigoted. I can understand how it happened in Alabama or 
North Carolina, where our Presiding Officer is from.
  But somewhere along the line, somebody got ahold of me and said: You 
know all that stuff you are talking about in church and the Bible? If 
you really believe it, here is how you should act and talk and speak. 
And finally it sunk in.
  I just want to say that Jeff Sessions has been my colleague. I have 
been here for 16 years. He has been my friend and colleague for 16 
years. We read the same Bible. There have been times where we read it 
together over the years. When we met in my office just a few weeks ago, 
we talked about how our faith guides us in our lives. I reminded him of 
how Matthew 25 talks about moral obligations, ``the least of these,'' 
which I have talked about.
  As I carefully considered my friend's nomination to serve our country 
in such a critical role, I found that while we agree on many issues, 
including that our faith is an important guide not only in our personal 
lives but in our capacity as public servants, I found that our views on 
too many important issues diverged.
  Like many Americans, I am troubled by the direction Donald Trump is 
seeking to take our country in these first few weeks of his 
administration. I believe that an independent Attorney General can 
provide a check on this President's legal recklessness, and it may be 
more necessary now than at any point in recent history. Donald Trump 
has already revealed an agenda that reflects his divisive campaign, one 
that I believe will make our economy less robust, less fair, our 
environment less clean, our country less inclusive, our freedoms less 
free, and our allies less inclined to take America at its word.
  Many of us worry that Jeff Sessions will not be the independent check 
on this administration that we need, and many of us worry that Jeff 
will not hold our Justice Department to the principles that everyone, 
no matter their age, income, sex, or color, deserves equal protection 
under the law. My colleagues and I have these concerns with a number of 
Cabinet nominees. I voted for more of them than I voted against.
  Having said that, we need individuals to serve in these key posts who 
are willing to speak truth to power. Ironically, that is what got 
Acting Attorney General Sally Yates in trouble. She did it a few days 
ago when she was fired for refusing to defend the Muslim ban because 
she thought it might not be lawful.
  Throughout the campaign, Senator Sessions supported a religious-based 
test for immigrants, and I fear that Senator Sessions is unlikely to 
stand up to Donald Trump and tell him that he is wrong on this front. 
To be honest with you, I just believe we need somebody who will do 
that, and unfortunately I fear there is a good chance that Senator 
Sessions believes Donald Trump just might be right. I am also afraid 
that Senator Sessions won't be the independent check our country is 
likely to need, especially in this administration.
  Ultimately, however, the votes are where they are, and it appears 
that our friend, our colleague, Senator Sessions, will be our country's 
next chief law enforcement officer and chief attorney. Over these past 
days and weeks, I thought about whether our friend is the best person 
for the job, as I have said. I know others have too. I also thought 
about the millions of Americans who fear that he may have views about 
different races and minorities that could seep into the Justice 
Department, resulting in an unequal applications of our country's laws.
  My thoughts have led me to the example of Lyndon Johnson, a man from

[[Page S961]]

the South who served, as you may recall, in the U.S. House of 
Representatives in Texas for a number of years and later suddenly 
became President under tragic circumstances, as we all recall, in 
November of 1963. LBJ didn't just oppose civil rights while in the 
House of Representatives and in the Senate, he often bragged about it. 
But he went through a public transformation that would lead him to pass 
the first civil rights bill since reconstruction as Senate majority 
leader in 1957 and then signed into law some of our Nation's landmark 
civil rights laws--the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act 
of 1965, the Elementary and Secondary Act, the Fair Housing Act, and 
countless others.
  LBJ's transformation didn't happen overnight, though. The truth is 
that his views on civil rights and racial justice might have been there 
all along.
  Here is what Robert Caro wrote about LBJ in the most recent 
installment on his life:

       Although the cliche says that power always corrupts, what 
     is seldom said, but what is equally true, is that power 
     always reveals. When a man is climbing, trying to persuade 
     others to give him power, concealment is necessary: to hide 
     traits that might make others reluctant to give him power, to 
     hide also what he wants to do with that power. If men 
     recognized the traits or realized the aims, they might refuse 
     to give him what he wants. But as a man obtains more power, 
     camouflage is less necessary. The curtain begins to rise. The 
     revealing begins.

  So it was, in Caro's view--and I think he is probably right--so it 
was with Lyndon Johnson.
  Mr. President, that reminds me of another quote tonight. This is one 
from our former First Lady Michelle Obama, who said these words: 
``Being President doesn't change who you are, it reveals who you are.''
  It reveals who you are.
  We are not confirming Jeff Sessions to be our next President, but we 
are confirming him to be our next Attorney General, and we must ask, as 
the curtain rises, what will it reveal? What will it reveal about Jeff 
Sessions?
  Unfortunately, each time Jeff's career has led to more power, whether 
it was district attorney in Alabama, attorney general for his State, or 
as U.S. Senator, it has revealed a Jeff Sessions who is much the same 
as he has always been. It has revealed Jeff Sessions to be less 
inclined to undergo the transformation that so many others before him 
have undergone to put themselves and our Nation on the right side of 
history.

  I will close with this thought: If Senator Sessions is confirmed, it 
is my sincere hope that our friend and our colleague will recognize the 
awesome responsibility and the opportunity he has to serve not only the 
people of Alabama, not only the people of the South or the Southeastern 
part of our country, but Americans across our country of all races, all 
colors, all creeds. In this body, it is often important that we vote 
with our hopes rather than our fears, and unfortunately, tonight I am 
not yet prepared to vote my hopes. But the words of a reporter writing 
about President Johnson a few years ago give me some hope as we look 
forward, and maybe they will give hope to the rest of us. Here is what 
that reporter wrote about Lyndon Johnson:

       Perhaps the simple explanation, which Johnson likely 
     understood better than most, was that there is no magic 
     formula through which people can emancipate themselves from 
     prejudice, no finish line that when crossed, awards a 
     person's soul with a shining medal of purity in matters of 
     race. All we can offer is a commitment to justice in word and 
     deed that must be honored but from which we will all 
     occasionally fall short.

  And I would just add, and we do.
  I hope these words I have just quoted resonate with our friend and 
colleague, Senator Jeff Sessions. If they do, both he and our country 
will be better for it.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, there has been a lot of discussion about 
Senator Sessions' nomination on this floor in the last 24 hours. Before 
we vote, I want to offer a couple of observations about the unfairness 
in some of the statements.
  First, I was hoping to limit my remarks to all of the reasons why I 
believe Senator Sessions will make an outstanding Attorney General, but 
instead I feel very compelled to say a few words about some of the 
attacks that have been leveled against Senator Sessions here on the 
floor, where he has served the people of Alabama faithfully for 20 
years.
  A number of Senators have come to the floor to talk about Senator 
Sessions' hearing in 1986 when he was nominated to be a Federal judge. 
Now, it happens that I was in the Senate in 1986, at that time by 6 
years. I was on the Judiciary Committee in 1986, by that time for 6 
years, and I want you to know I saw what happened. I don't have time to 
go into all the details here, but I will tell you this: Jeff Sessions' 
hearing in 1986 was an absolute ambush. In fact, it was a planned 
ambush. He was unfairly attacked then and he is being unfairly attacked 
now. I will give just two examples.
  First, in the last 24 hours, we have heard Senator Sessions attacked 
for a voting rights case that he pursued as U.S. attorney in Alabama. 
We have heard a lot about that case. Of course, those who have raised 
the Perry County trial don't tell you Senator Sessions was actually 
asked to pursue that case by two African-American candidates who 
believed that ballots cast by African-American voters had been altered. 
The bottom line is that he was vindicating the voting rights of 
African-American voters whose voting rights had been compromised.
  Second, we have heard Senator Sessions criticized for testimony in 
his 1986 Judiciary Committee hearing about the Voting Rights Act. It 
has been said on this floor and it has been said repeatedly that Jeff 
Sessions called the Voting Rights Act ``intrusive,'' but those speaking 
in the last 24 hours don't know what he actually said. He did use the 
word ``intrusive,'' but then he said the Department of Justice had to 
do it ``because it would not have happened any other way.''
  He said further: ``Federal intervention was essential in the South.'' 
He said it was an intrusive piece of legislation ``because it was a 
necessary piece of legislation, I support it.'' That is right. He said 
the Voting Rights Act ``was a necessary piece of legislation, I support 
it.'' That is what he said. But if you have been listening the last 24 
hours--you wouldn't know any of that by listening to those who have 
come to the floor and talked all about that case in 1986.
  Like I said, I was here way back then. I saw what happened to that 
man who is going to be our next Attorney General, who would go on to 
join the Senate for these 20-some years and become our colleague and 
our friend. So you can understand why it is very frustrating to me to 
listen to all of those attacks, and it is particularly frustrating to 
hear it from Members who were not even here in 1986.
  With that, let me just say this in closing: Senator Sessions has 
served with us for 20 years. Every Member of this body knows him to be 
a man of integrity. Almost all of us have been on the other side of a 
policy debate with Senator Sessions at one time or another. I know I 
have. What we know from those debates is that whether Senator Sessions 
agrees with you or not on any policy question, he handles the debate 
fairly, he handles the debate respectfully, and he handles the debate 
honorably.
  Senator Sessions answered our questions in the Judiciary Committee 
for 10 long hours. He gave us his word on the critical issues that 
should decide our vote on this nomination. Most of that was centered 
around the fact that he is a man devoted to the law, and he is devoted 
as the chief law enforcement officer of our country to enforce the law, 
even if he didn't vote for it and even if he disagreed with it.

  We know from the questioning that Senator Sessions will be 
independent when he said when he has to say no to the President of the 
United States, he will say no to the President of the United States. We 
know Senator Sessions then, as I have said, will enforce the law 
faithfully, without regard to person, for all Americans.
  Motivated by those principles, Senator Sessions will make a very fine 
Attorney General, and most people in this body know that--even those 
who are going to vote against him.
  I am pleased to cast my vote in favor of his nomination, and of 
course I urge my colleagues to do the same thing.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Perdue). The Senator from Alabama.

[[Page S962]]

  

  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise in support of the nomination of my 
colleague and friend Jeff Sessions to be the Attorney General of the 
United States.
  Why? We have had this debate. It has gone on a long time, and we have 
heard from a lot of proponents and opponents of Jeff Sessions. Who 
would know Jeff Sessions better maybe than I would? I have worked with 
Jeff Sessions since he came to the Senate 20 years ago. Between us we 
have been here 50 years, 30 years for me, 20 years for him. Our staffs 
worked day and night on issues that have affected our State and 
affected the Nation.
  I first really got to know Jeff Sessions when he was the Attorney 
General of Alabama. He had been the U.S. attorney. He was pretty well 
known, but I didn't know him. We didn't really know each other until he 
became the Attorney General.
  I urged him to run for the U.S. Senate. I thought he could win, but I 
thought not just that he could win but that he could bring something to 
this body. I thought he would be a good colleague, he would be a good 
Senator for the State of Alabama and for the United States of America, 
and he has been.
  When you deal with people day after day--remember, we all know each 
other as colleagues here. There are just 100 of us. It sounds like a 
lot of people, but it is not. When we interact on committees, when we 
deal with each other, when our families are thrown together, we talk, 
we debate, we maybe even fight a little bit at times over issues. We 
get to really know somebody.
  I know Jeff Sessions pretty well. I believe he is competent as a 
lawyer, he was a good lawyer, he was a good prosecutor, and he served 
our State as Attorney General. He has been active on the Judiciary 
Committee where he has chaired a subcommittee. He has been active on 
the Budget Committee. He has been active on the Armed Services 
Committee. He has been active right here in the Senate--our Senate--on 
the Environment and Public Works Committee, and he is well respected.
  What kind of Attorney General do we want? We want somebody who is 
competent, somebody with integrity--integrity above everything. That is 
what counts in this job. This is a very, very important job. These are 
big shoes. Jeff Sessions can fill those shoes, and I am happy and proud 
to be here and to vote for him tonight. I wish my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle would join us.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask to proceed on leader time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I would like to say a word about the 
nominee we are about to confirm. We have long known our colleague from 
Alabama as Senator Sessions--and soon Attorney General Sessions--but it 
wasn't always this way. There was a time when the distinguished Senator 
from Alabama was known simply as ``Buddy.'' Buddy--the product of a 
small town called Hybart, the son of a country store owner, the 
inheritor of modest beginnings.
  Senator Sessions' parents grew up in the Depression. They taught 
their son the value of a dollar and the importance of hard work. If our 
colleague wasn't at school or football practice, you were likely to 
find him at his dad's store lending a hand to customers. As anyone from 
a small town can attest, that little store served as far more than just 
a place to buy goods. It was also a local gathering place, a place 
where people were liable to share their hopes and concerns, and their 
dreams too.
  This is where Jeff Sessions developed his core values. It is where he 
developed an appreciation for the everyday struggles of working people. 
It is where he learned the importance of listening first, of standing 
up for what matters, of putting others' needs before one's own. It made 
him a better person. It made him a pretty good politician too.
  Senator Sessions is the kind of guy who, with just one conversation, 
can make you feel as if you have known him your entire life. He is 
usually the first to arrive at constituent events and the last to 
leave. He has also made it a priority to travel annually to every 
county in Alabama--all 67 of them.
  His staff will tell you it is these trips home when Senator Sessions 
is really in his element. Driving across Alabama, from sunup to 
sundown, milkshake in hand, or maybe a Blizzard from Dairy Queen, Heath 
bar flavor, thank you very much, that is Senator Sessions.
  Now, it is not hard to see why Alabamians keep sending him back to 
Washington. Last time out he scooped up a modest 97 percent of the 
vote.
  Part of Senator Sessions' secret to success is simple enough; he is 
just a likable guy.
  Our colleague is one of the most humble and most considerate people 
you will ever meet. He is a true Southern gentleman. He is pretty funny 
too. His staff would certainly agree. They still remember the time he 
accidentally ran his suit coat through the paper shredder. They saved 
the evidence too. Let's hope that one makes it into his archives.
  Sessions' alums call this man a mentor. They remain ever grateful for 
his focus on their own development. I know they are going to miss 
grabbing a burger and fries with him at Johnny Rockets.
  They are really going to miss his wife Mary as well. We will around 
here too.
  Now, in Sessions' world, Mary Sessions is something of a legend. She 
has been our colleague's strongest supporter, no matter the task before 
him. She has been a source of encouragement and a friend to all of Team 
Sessions. I doubt they will ever forget Mary's friendship or her famous 
cream cheese pound cake.
  One thing they will not soon forget either is Senator Sessions' 
intense focus on the office's letter-writing operation. Sometimes that 
meant working weekends with the boss to get the constituent 
correspondence just right.
  There is no doubt Senator Sessions is very, very particular about his 
writing, whether it is constituent letters or legal memoranda, and 
there is a good reason for that. Words, as this lawyer is known to say, 
have meaning. It is a philosophy that has animated Senator Sessions' 
longtime love affair with the law.
  He believes in equal application of the law to each of us, regardless 
of how we look or where we come from. It is a genuine passion for him. 
It is an area of deep importance and principle.
  Senator Sessions will stand up for what he believes is right, even 
when it isn't always the easiest thing to do.
  Now, this is a guy who fought for Republican principles long before--
long before--Alabama became a red State. He stood up to the George 
Wallace dynasty as a young man. He stared down the forces of hate as 
U.S. attorney and State attorney general. He has continued to fight for 
the equal application of the law as well, not to mention a growing 
economy, a streamlined government, and a strong defense.
  Of course, as anyone who knows him will tell you, Senator Sessions is 
a lawyer's lawyer. He is willing to hear the other side of an argument. 
He is willing to make the other side of the argument as well. He is 
also willing to be persuaded.
  He has worked across the aisle with Democrats like the late Senator 
Ted Kennedy and the assistant Democratic leader on issues like prison 
reform and sentencing reform. Democrats have praised him as someone who 
is ``straightforward and fair'' and ``wonderful to work with.''
  The politics of the moment may have changed, but the truth of 
statements like these endures. Deep down, each of us knows these things 
remain just as true about Senator Sessions today as they did when our 
Democratic colleagues praised him.
  Fair in action, bound to the Constitution, a defender of civil 
rights, this is the man we have come to know in the Senate. It is the 
same man we can expect to see as Attorney General.
  Senator Sessions may be leaving the Senate, but there is plenty this 
Eagle Scout will be taking with him. That includes the motto he has 
lived by--``Be Prepared''--which is so engrained in our friend that it 
is even engraved into the back of the granite nameplate on his desk. It 
is a simple phrase with a simple message, and it seems particularly 
fitting for our friend today.
  He has a big job ahead of him. I think he is up to the task. He is 
tough, but he

[[Page S963]]

is fair. He is persistent, but he is respectful. He is a likeable guy, 
a principled colleague, and an honest partner. And while we are really 
going to miss him, we also couldn't be prouder of him.
  So let us thank Senator Sessions for his many years of service.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the Sessions 
nomination?
  Mr. CORNYN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS (when his name was called). Present.
  The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 47, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 59 Ex.]

                                YEAS--52

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Manchin
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--47

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Donnelly
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Harris
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Peters
     Reed
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Sessions
       
  The nomination was confirmed.
  (Applause, Senators rising.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote on the 
nomination.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the motion to reconsider.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I move to table the motion to reconsider.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table.
  The motion was agreed to.

                          ____________________