reason and unfortunately it's one that i think congress has got to address. in their wisdom, our founders gave congress certain powers as a coequal branch of government, and one of those powers was the power to confirm our not confirm nominees. long before ms. lynch's nomination was announced i said that i couldn't vote to confirm any candidate for attorney general who supported the president's unlawful executive amnesty. it's a big constitutional issue that we have to talk about and understand and it relates directly to the powers of the executive branch versus the legislative branch. the attorney general is a top law enforcement officer in this country, the senior person. and anyone who occupies that office must have fidelity to the laws of the united states duly

passed and to the constitution of the united states. it's just that simple. the senate cannot confirm any individual must never confirm an individual to such an office as this the one most responsible for maintaining fidelity to law, who would support and advance a scheme that violates our constitution, eviscerates congressional authority. no person should be confirmed who would do that. congress makes the laws, not the president. in that regard, congress has repeatedly rejected legislation to provide amnesty work permits and difs -- benefits to those who entered our country unlawfully. if you want benefits of the united states, you should come lawfully wait your return. we rejected such proposals in 2006 2007, 2010, 2013, and

2014. president obama's unlawful and unconstitutional executive actions nullify the immigration laws that we do have that are on the books. that's the immigration and nationality act. and replaces them with the very measures congress refused to enact. that's just where we are. even king george lacked the power to legislate without parliament. president obama's executive action provides illegal immigrants -- those who come into our country contrary to the immigration laws of the united states, which are generous indeed allowing a million people a year to come to our country -- and provides them, those who violated the law work authorization, photo i.d.'s, trillions in social security and

medicare benefits and tax credits of up to $35,000 a year according to the congressional research service. and i think the i.r.s. commissioner has admitted that also. and even the possibility under the president's action of chain migration and citizenship, which the president says he couldn't do and wouldn't do, but indeed it provides that under certain circumstance, it appears. again, all of these measures were rejected by congress. so i discussed these issues with mrs. lynch. i asked her plainly whether she supported the president's unilateral decision to make his own immigration rules and laws. here is the relevant portion of that hearing transcript. because i wanted to be clear about it. this was in the judiciary committee. and i asked her this as she was there during her confirmation

process. quote, "i have to have a clear answer to this question. ms. lynch, do you believe the executive action announced by president obama on november 20 is legal and constitutional? yes or no? ms. lynch: i was read the office of legal counsel opinion. i do believe it is, senator." close quote. well first we need to understand something. i served 15 years as a federal prosecutor in the department of justice. this is the way it works the office of legal counsel is a part of the department of justice. the office of legal counsel is the one that's been credited with writing this pathetic memorandum that justified the president's actions. but the office of legal counsel works directly for the attorney general, and the attorney general is really the one responsible for forwarding to the president a memorandum that

says the president can do what he said he wanted to do. so he said for 20 different times over a period of years, i am not an emperor i do not have the power to do this, this would be unconstitutional, and like statements 20 times. then he changed his mind as we got close to an election, for reasons that i don't fully intend to speculate about at this time and he asked that he be given the power to do this. this put great pressure on the office of legal counsel but that's one of the historic roles they fulfill, is to analyze these things. and they take an oath to the constitution and they're required to say no if the president is asking for something he's not entitled to do. they're supposed to say no, and the attorney general is supposed to say "no." but the attorney general could review the office of legal

counsel, could take it upon himself or herself to write an opinion and submit it as the position of the department of justice and say the president can do this if they desire. so that's the way the system works. so i-- so what i want to say colleagues is the attorney general played a key role in this presidential overreach. it was the attorney general's office that approved this overreach. and so this nominee says she believes this was correct. she indicated and i'm sure will defend it in every court around the country and advocate for it. some say well, she works for the president. she works for the people of the united states of america. her salary comes from the taxpayers of this country. her duty on occasion is to say no to the president, to try to help him accomplish his goals like a good corporate lawyer

would. but at some point you have to say, mr. corporate c.e.o., mr. president of the united states this goes too far. you can't do this. so she's indicated she's unwilling to do that. so one of the most stunning features of the president's action is the mass grant of work permits for up to five million illegal immigrants. these immigrants will take jobs directly from american citizens and directly from legal p immigrants who have come into the country. the united states civil rights commission member peter kersonow has discussed this issue and written about how a liewg illegal immigrants -- how allowing illegal immigrants to take jobs undermines the legal u.s. workers especially african-american workers and hispanic workers suffering from unemployment today. at her confirmation hearing i therefore asked ms. lynch about

what she might do to protect the lawful rights of u.s. workers. here is the simple question i placed to the person who would be the next top law enforcement officer for america. i asked this question in me preamble tow question i noted that attorney general holder had said that people who came to our country unlawfully, that are in our country unlawfully today have a civil right and human right to citizenship in america. contrary to all law. so i asked her what do you think about this? session: who has more right to a job in this country? a lawful immigrant who is here or a citizen? or a person who entered the country unlawfully? ms. lynch:i believe that the

right -- the right and the obligation to work is one that is shared by everyone in this country, regardless of how they came here. and certainly if someone is here regardless of status, i would prefer that they would be participating in the workplace and not -- than not participating in the workplace. what a stunning and breath taking statement that is for the top law enforcement officer in america to say that a person had a right to work in this country regardless of how they came here. so people who enter don't have to follow the steps that are required? they don't have to establish that they have a lawful justification to enter the united states or work into the united states anymore? if you can just get into the country unlawfully, then you have a right to work? and former attorney general --

still attorney general eric holder said they have a civil right to citizenship. what? so this is not law. i don't know what this is, but it's so far from law, i don't know how to express my concern about it effectively. so it's unprecedented that for someone who is seeking the highest law enforcement office in america to declare that someone in this country illegally has a right to this kind of job. make no mistake, we are at a dangerous time in our nation's history, particularly for our republic legal system and our constitution. and i would like to quote now from professor jonathan turley. this is a professor of public interest law at george washington university law school a nationally recognized constitutional scholar a self-described supporter of president obama and most of his

policies and who has been called by senator leahy and others over the years as expert witness on issues as a democratic witness. he described the current state of affairs as -- quote -- "a constitutional tipping point." he's referring to the presidential overreach. and i'd like to take a moment to read from the testimony he delivered before the house of representatives in february of last year, nine months before the president even announced this amnesty but after the first daca amnesty. and this is what he said -- quote -- "the current passiveivity of congress represents a crisis of faith for members willing to see a president assume legislative powers in exchange for insular policy gains.

the short-term insular victories achieved by this president will come at a prohibitive cost if the current imbalance is not corrected. constitutional authority is easy to lose in the transient shifts of politics. it is far more difficult to regain if a passion for the constitution does not motivate members of congress, perhaps a sense of self-preservation will be enough to unify members. president obama will not be our last president. however, these acquired powers will be passed to his successors. when that occurs, members may loathe the day that they remain silent as the power of government shifted so radically to the chief executive. the powerful personality that engendered this loyalty will be gone but the powers will remain. we are now at the constitutional

tipping point for our system. if balance is to be reestablished, it must begin before this president leaves office and that will likely require every possible means to reassert legislative authority." now that's professor turley a fine constitutional scholar that's warning the united states congress of the dangers to its powers that have been eroded in recent months. so stop it. he says this: that will require congress to use -- quote -- "every possible means to reassert its legislative authority." so stopping an attorney general's nominee not voting to confirm an attorney general's nominee, is that a legitimate

power of congress? well, of course it is. and should we feel obligated and required because the president nominates someone who has announced that they intend to pursue and advance legally through the powers of their office an unconstitutional overreach, should we confirm that person? is that our duty? doesn't congress have a right to say oh no, mr. president we understand how this system works. you get to nominate, but you've overreached here, and we're not going to ratify, we're not going to approve somebody who is going to continue to promote these kind of unlawful activities. so one glaring result of congress's passivity is that the executive branch nominees no longer feel the need to be responsible to congressional oversight. we're not getting sufficient answers from them; that's for

sure. and congress has too often, i think, been quiet slept on its rights. so in the the past, members could perform their constitutional duty of advice and consent, for example by withholding consent until a nominee provided information to which congress was entitled. that is how coequal branches of government are supposed to function. congress has a duty to demand accurate information from the executive branch before it funds and provides funds to that branch. and they have a right to insist on it. they don't have to fund any branches of government they believe is unworthy. so when ms. lynch came before the committee it quickly became apparent that she had no intention of being frank and providing real answers. so that was a problem i think that we have to confront.

but i -- i think the most telling example of concern i had at the hearing was an answer given to a straight guard question i asked which goes to the very core of this debate that we're having in america about the president's powers and what we should do about establishing a lawful system of immigration one that we can be proud of, one that systematically and fairly applied day after day. we don't have that. so the question i asked her was simply this -- quote -- "do you believe that president obama has exceeded his executive authority in any way? if so, how?" and she answered that, "as united states attorney, i have been charged with determining

when and whether the president has exceeded his authority," but that was really not a good-faith answer or attempt to answer the question. i have one more quote madam president, here that i want to get to. i think i've overlooked in this trying to move along so my good friend from florida could --

mr. sessions: so, madam president, i'll wrap up and just say in conclusion that we're dealing with huge constitutional issues. i wish it weren't so. it's not anything personal i would have to complain about this nominee. but in truth we need to use the means that this congress has to defend its legitimate constitutional rights, its powers its been given to legislate. and the president is the chief law -- executive officer of the country. his duties are to execute the laws passed by congress. and one of the key players on his team is the attorney general general. and the attorney general in this situation has taken a position that's contrary to deep fundamental principles. as professor turley has delineated with force and

clarity. that being the case, i think congress has a duty to this institution, to the laws and constitution of this country and to the american people to not confirm someone who is not committed to those principles and, indeed, has asserted boldly that she intends to continue in violation of law. i thank the chair and would yield the floor. mr. nelson: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. nelson: okay. madam president, i've just gotten a signal that i'm going to defer to my colleague from connecticut since at 5:00 we will be discussing the nominees which i will speak to but before we do, i -- i just want to point out two things to the senate. first of all, there was a -- the

lead story on "60 minutes" last night about the death master file which is put out by social security. interestingly the story was from the extraordinary standpoint that a number of people are told that they are dead when, in fact, they are very much alive and all of the horror that they go through in trying to correct somebody having made a mistake a clerical error that in fact they were dead by the alteration of one number or a name or just sheer overlooking. but there's another problem with the death master file, and we have tried and tried to get

social security unless you have an immediate use a legitimate use of the death master file being made public such as a life insurance company, they would have a legitimate use to know who had died so they could stop the payments. something else that the "60 minutes" program pointed out that medicare did not catch with a lot of payments out. but unless you have a legitimate use by suddenly putting on-line the death master file it opens up all of these social security numbers for the criminals to come in and create a new identity and file a tax return and get a refund on a fictitious

tax return. now, i just want to continue to encourage the social security administration which they claim they don't have the legal authority until we can give them that legal authority that they're looking for we think they have it administratively in their power not to put it out there. that's the right thing to do. and furthermore as i yield to the very distinguished senator from connecticut who is a tremendous member of our commerce committee i just want to say, i was sad last week, i am still sad this week that nearly half the senators of the united states senate sought to

inject themselves by writing to the ayatollah trying to derail the negotiations that are going on on matters of life and death. and if you don't think iran having a nuclear weapon is a matter of life and death you better have another thing coming. and trying to derail the negotiations while in fact, the negotiations are going on at the very hour of the writing of that letter and still are and we won't know until the 24th of this month if, in fact, they are successful. so madam president i will come back when we get into the executive session about the nominees. i look forward to hearing from the senator from connecticut.

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: thank you madam president. i'm honored and proud to follow my distinguished friend from florida and to join him in, first of all his observation about the "60 minutes" show but equally if not more important his views on the letter that was sent to the rulers of iran and its divisive and destructive impact on a matter that should be above partisan politics. to inject a partisan political issue into literally a matter of life and death in my view, is unfortunate and inappropriate and truly regrettable. and i want to say equally unfortunate and regrettable and inappropriate is to inject politics into law enforcement. the nomination of the chief law enforcement officer in our

nation the attorney general that position truly ought to be above politics. and, in fact, as we know from the structure of our government is generally regarded to be above politics. the president of the united states has his or her legal counsel to provide advice to the president but the attorney general of the united states enforces law for this nation. not for one party not for one official not on one issue but on all issues for all people in the united states. when my colleagues have said on the floor that the president deserves his no, ma'am his nominee really it's the nation that deserves a nominee to be confirmed. and this nominee has been delayed longer than any in recent history as my colleagues have observed and as this chart

illustrates. 129 days have passed since loretta lynch's nomination from announcement to confirmation. her nomination has been delayed longer than any in recent history. in fact longer than any in modern history putting aside the neece nomination which was delayed by an ongoing investigation into alleged inproprieties. there's no investigation here. there's no question of impropriety. there has been no hint of any reason to reject the loretta lynch nomination. in fact the american people could be forgiven for thinking that some of the members of this body are simply looking for an excuse to delay or deny her

nomination. first it was in our hearing questions about her capacity and qualifications. those reasons or potential excuses for delaying or denying her nomination were quickly extinguished. then it was the immigration issue. and that one too as an excuse for delaying or denying this nomination has been dispensed. and now it is the antitrafficking bill. no reason for delay could be more inappropriate because the fact of the matter is, the threat to delay again her nomination is antithetical to the very goal of the goal of stopping human trafficking. if my colleagues really want to end sex exploitation and human trafficking, they should confirm

the chief law enforcement official who is responsible for fighting it. they should confirm the nominee who has indicated an anathema to this kind of abuse who has shown her determination to fight it and to use all of the laws and potentially this new law in the war against human trafficking. the united states senate is perfectly capable of filling this crucial position the top law enforcement job in the nation even as it debates antitrafficking legislation. in fact, it showed itself capable of doing so just last week when two nominees to department of transportation positions -- important transportation positions -- as i can say personally because they

involvethinvolve the safety and reliability of our system even as it continued to debate the antitrafficking legislation. holding the lynch nomination hostage -- that's what's happening here -- is a disservice to the department of justice but even more so to our system of justice. it undermines integrity and drus trust in the nonpolitical nature of justice in this nation. and it does sop at a time when vigorous and effective leadership are more important and necessary than ever. the nation could be forgiven for assuming as increasingly appears to be so, that the lynch nomination is being held hostage for simply a cynical excuse and

to prevent her from getting to work on protecting the american public from human trafficking which is so important. the american people want action on trafficking and there are legitimate points of debate between our side on the this issue. those points of debate and differences need to be resolved, and i hope they will be, i trust they will be. i believe they are resolvable and that extraneous or relevant provisions now in the bill can be removed so that we can focus on stopping modern-day slavery which is what the -- the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mr. blumenthal: if i may just have another minute to finish. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blumenthal: which is what we should be doing here, and