quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. sessions: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: i'd ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: mr. president we'll be soon voting on confirmation of mrs. lynch to be the attorney general of the united states of america. that office is a part of the president's cabinet but it also is an office that is the chief law officer for america and it the top official in our government is required to adhere to the law, even to the point of

telling the president "no" if he gets it in his head, as presidents sometimes do, to do something that violates the law. -- as corporate lawyers do for the c.e.o. of corporations. mr. president, you can't do this. this is wrong. don't do this. and at some point attorney generals have been none to resign before they would carry out policies that violate the law. so we are deeply concerned in this country about the president's executive amnesty the unlawfulness of it, the breadth of it the arrogance of it to the point that it's a direct assault on congressional power and legitimacy direct attack on laws passed by the peoples' representatives and we've got a big problem. ms. lynch has said, flat-out,

that she supports those policies and is committed to defending them in court against any complaint about it. so i think congress has a real role here. we do not have to confirm someone to the highest law enforcement position in america if that someone has publicly committed to denigrating congress violating law of congress violating even wishes of congress and the american people. we don't have to confirm anybody. it's a power congress is given. the president is asserting powers. ssert -- the president is asserting powers he's never been given in the constitution or by the american people. i think we should do that. let me note -- i'm goings quote -- i was going to say this anyway but i was pleased that mr. andrew mccarthy, who prosecuted some of the top

terrorist cases in america former u.s. attorney, assistant united states attorney, very critical and very strongly of the belief that she should not be confirmed but he says this: "a vote against ms. lynch's confirmation is not an assessment that she has performed incompetently or un-ethically in a prior government position. it is a vote against the president's blatantly unconstitutional policy and against mrs. lynch's support of that policy. senators are bound by oath to uphold the constitution. ms. lynch's prior laudable record has a federal prosecutor cannot overcome her commitment to violating the constitution. requestings "we have a right to assert that. we're paid to make decisions about that. and i think mr. mccarthy is correct. congress was given certain powers as a coequal branch of

government not only to protect the congress as an institution but to restrain other government branches from overreaching. and one of those powers is the senate's power to confirm or not confirm, and this check on executive powers can be used as congress sees fit. but, it should not be abused, as the president should not use his nominees to abuse the constitution or to advance an unlawful agenda. the attorney general is the top law enforcement officer in the country. this is not a tra -- traditionally a political position. it is a law position. anyone who occupies the office must serve the american people, and under the laws and the constitution of the united states. they're not above it. the supreme court has clearly held the president is subjected to the laws.

it's always been a part of the law of the land. the senate must never confirm an an to an office such as this who will support and advance a scheme that violates our constitution and eviscerates established law and congressional authority. no person who would do that should be confirmed and we don't need to be apologetic about it, colleagues. so ms. lynch has announced that she supports and if confirmed would advance the president's unlawful executive amnesty scheme a scheme that would provide work permits trillions in social security and medicare benefits tax credits up to $35,000 a year, according to the congressional research service and even the possibility of chain migration and citizenship for those who entered our country illegally.

or overstayed their lawful period of admission. so the president has done this even though congress has repeatedly rejected legislation he supports that would allow this scheme to be implemented. he asked for it. congress considered it. congress said "no." president obama's unlawful and unconstitutional executive action nullifies current immigration law to a degree most people have not fully grasped how far he's gone in these actions. the immigration and nationality act is the law of the land, and his actions replaces them with the very measures congress refused to adopt. even king george iii didn't have the power to legislate without parliament. so during her confirmation hearing in the committee judiciary committee i asked her plainly whether she supported the president's unilateral

decision to make his own immigration laws. here's the relevant portion of the transcript. sessions: i have to have a clear answers 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: as i read the opinion opinion" -- that's the department of justice opinion which would be under her supervision -- "i do believe it is senator." of course the lawful duty of the toarpg is to enforce the laws that exist -- of course, the lawful duty. attorney general is to enforce the laws that exist not ones that she or the president wish existed. one of the most stunningment wills of the president of the united states' scheme is the grant of work permits to up to 5 million illegal immigrants taking jobs directly from

citizens and legal immigrants in our country at a time of high unemployment and low wages. peter kersinow, commissioner on the u.s. commission on civil rights has written at length about how this undermines the rights of u.s. workers especially african-american workers and other minorities suffering from high unemployment. he says, "those citizens who are suffering from high unemployment and low wages have their rights undermined when the president ignores plain law that protects them from an excessive surge of illegal workers." so at her confirmation hearing i asked ms. lynch about what she might do to protect the rights of u.s. workers. by the way the attorney general holder our current attorney general, astoundingly in comments he made some months ago

declared that there is a civil rights to citizenship in america for people who enter the country unlawfully. how can this possibly bethat the attorney general can get so removed from his responsibility to enforce the law that he says if someone comes into the country unlawfully, they have a shifl right to citizenship? so that was part of the reason i asked her this question -- quote -- "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 illegally?" ms. lynch: "i believe the right and the obligation to work is one 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 than not participating in the

workplace." so this individual would be the chief law enforcement officer of our country and i believe that is a fundamentally flawed statement and comment. it's unprecedented for someone seeking the highest law enforcement office in the country to say someone in the country illegally has a right to a job when the law says if you're here illegally you can't work. this nation, as george washington university law professor jonathan turley, who has testified a number of times here often called by our democratic colleagues, put it, this nation, he says, is at -- quote -- "a constitutional tipping point." professor turley, who is a nationally recognized

constitutional scholar self-described supporter of president obama testified before the house of representatives in february of last year before the president announced this november amnesty and said this -- quote -- "the current passivity of congress represents a crisis for members 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 balance is not corrected. constitutional authority is easy to lose in the transient shift of politics. it's 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 on 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 of 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. one of those means is advise and consent power to approve or

disapprove nominees for a high office. it was created for just such a high time as this. it is a legitimate constitutional power of congress. it is not only appropriate but necessary that the senate refuse to confirm a president's nominee when that president has overreached and assumed the legislative powers of congress. it is particularly necessary when the president's nominee is being appointed specifically for the improper purpose of advancing the president's unconstitutional overreach as attorney general. all through the powers -- the powers of the office to which they have been nominated.

mr. president, we have a number of problems with regard to executive branch overreach and executive branch failure to be responsive to congress. congress asked legitimate questions ofnlt we don't get -- often we don't get answers from the people who are paid by the taxpayers and who are authorized by us. i think that is another matter we need to consider before we confirm people. the department of justice has been recalcitrant too often in producing information that they should produce. mr. president, i want to go a little bit further because some of this goes to the core of what it is that we're talking about. is this just a dispute a policy dispute between congress and the president? no. it goes much deeper than that. the actions of the president are

just stunning beginning with his so-called morton memos he had an undoing issue orders that carried out what he wanted done, and that's how they've done these unlawful activities. i'll just point out some of them. beginning with the morton memos in 2011, under the guise of prosecutorial discretion, based on limited resources the administration began to flaunt clearly written provisions of immigration and nationality act such as section 235 which requires the secretary of homeland security to place illegal aliens into removal proceedings to be deported in the removal proceedings once they are found which requires them to do that. they're not having discretion to do that.

in direct contravention law the morton memos generally directed u.s. customs and enforcement personnel to refuse proceedings against certain illegal aliens, to administratively close such proceedings if they had been initiated or terminate such proceedings if they had been initiated. thus began the opening salvo in the administration's assault on our immigration laws. this is huge. officers respond to the presidential leadership. the following year, on june of 2012 the administration created through executive fiat a program that congress consistently refused to enact in law. the deferred action for child

hood arrives or daca. this not only shielded certain aliens from the threat of removal but provided them with work authorization the ability to travel outside the united states without fear of being refused reentry through grants of advanced parole. gave them a social security number a photo i.d. by the way colleagues, this resulted in the immigration customs and enforcement officers being so concerned at this radical reversal of the laws of the united states that they filed a lawsuit against their supervisors asserting that they're being required to violate the law of the united states rather than being able to carry out their sworn duty which was to enforce the laws of the united states. the judge was sympathetic to the matter but for technical legal

reasons of standing concluded that the case wouldn't go forward, but it's on appeal now i think still. so this is remarkable that our law officers who have been, many of them 10, 20, 30 years in law enforcement, sued their supervisors because they were being ordered to violate the law instead of to enforce the law. we ought to listen to that. and they've repeatedly told us that what's happening is outrageous and pleaded with congress to stop it. but then in november of last year after congress refused to pass the administration's preferred legislation providing amnesty to illegal aliens, the administration created through executive fiat a number of other programs that further eroded enforcement of our immigration laws. notably, the two most visible programs are the deferred action for parents of americans and

lawful permanent residents the so-called dapa program and an expanded version of daca both of which were blessed by the office of legal counsel and the attorney general. wrong, unlawful actions blessed by the chief law enforcement officer in the country. less visible are policies that prevent the enforcement of immigration laws against certain criminal aliens, such as a november 20, 2014 memorandum from jeh johnson, secretary of the department of homeland security titled "policies for the apprehension, detention and removal of undocumented immigrants" which excludes from enforcement priority categories, whole categories of criminal offenses defined h in sections 2-a, 2 and 237-a-2 of the i.n.a.

we have observed a decimation of law enforcement in this country involving immigration as a direct result of the president's determination to create a legal system that he believes is right but the people through their elected congress has refused to make law. this is a direct threat to who we are. professor turley is so insightful about this. this is not some right-wing extremist. in testimony before the house committee, he said "i believe the president has exceeded his brief. the president is required to faithfully execute the laws. he goes on to say -- quote -- "this goes to the very heart of

what is the mad -- isonian system if the president can unilaterally change the laws in substantial ways or refuse to enforce them, it takes off-line that very thing that stabilizes our system. i believe our members will loathe the day they allow that to happen. when i teach constitutional law i ask my students what is the limiting principle of your argument. when that question is presented to this white house too often the answer is in the first person, that the president is the limiting principal or at least the limiting person. we can't rely on that type of assurance in our system." madison knew no people can be given total power without limits he goes on to say professor turley does -- quote -- "the problem of what the president is

doing is that he is not simply posing a danger to the constitutional system. he is becoming the very danger the constitution was designed to avoid. that is the concentration of power in any single branch. this newtonian orbit that the three branches exist is a delicate one but is designed to prevent justice type of concentration." when asked explicitly does he believe the president violated the constitution, he said, as i quoted before, that this, "there can be no greater danger for individual liberty and i really think the framers would be horrified by that shift because everything they've dedicated themselves to was creating this

orbital balance and we've lost it." he goes on to say to congress, as a challenge to us, colleagues he says this, "i believe congress is facing a critical crossroads in terms of continued relevance in this process. what this body cannot become is a debating society where it can issue rules and laws that are either complied with or not complied with by the president. i think that's where we are. a president cannot ignore an expressed statement on policy grounds in terms of the institutional issue. look around you. is this truly the body that existed when it was formed?" he's sitting there in the house of representatives and he's talking to these members of congress and he said look around you. is this truly the body that existed when it was formed? does it have the same gravitational pull and authority

that was given to it by the framers? you're the keepers of that authority. you took an oath to uphold it. and the framers assumed that you would have the institutional wherewithal and frankly ambition to defend the turf that is the legislative branch. so i think we need to, without apology, defend law in the congress's interests. congress should not confirm someone to lead the united states department of justice who will advance this unconstitutional policy. congress has a limited number of powers to defend the rule of law, and itself as an institution, and to stop executive branch from overreaching. it is unthinkable that we would ignore one of those powers in the face of such a direct threat to our constitutional order. and it is of an escalating

pattern of overreach by the president that we are seeing. every day that we allow the president to erode the powers of congress, we are allowing the president to erode the sacred constitutional rights of the citizens that we serve. we have a duty to this institution and to the american people not to confirm someone who is not committed to those principles but rather, who will continue to violate them. so i'll oppose this nomination and urge my colleagues to do so. i think it should be a bipartisan vote in rejecting this nomination, and in doing so, congress will send the clear message that we expect the president to abide by the law passed by congress, not to violate them. mr. president, i thank the chair and would yield the floor. i note the absence of a quorum. mr. leahy: mr. president?

the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, you know for almost two months i've been returning to the senate floor to urge the majority leader to schedule the confirmation vote for our next attorney general. yesterday afternoon we were finally able to get an agreement that was long overdue. but even now this morning we're not voting to confirm loretta lynch to be the next attorney general of the united states, we're going to vote on whether to invoke cloture in regard to the top law enforcement position. for those not familiar with the rules of the senate, cloture is a rule that allows the senate to end a filibuster. the fact that senate republicans are requiring a cloture vote on her nomination acknowledges what

we've known all along. republicans have been engaged in an unprecedented filibuster of this nomination. when we do vote to confirm loretta lynch this afternoon she will be the first african-american woman to serve as attorney general. she is an historic nominee. but also senate republicans are making history and i would say for the wrong reasons. we've had 82 attorneys general in our nation's history. until now not a one of those 82 have had to overcome a cloture vote. not a one has had to overcome a cloture vote out of 82. but this one, loretta lynch i said the first african-american woman, to serve as attorney general, became the first and only to have to overcome a

cloture vote. you know i would have opposed any filibuster on any president, i've been here with president ford president carter president reagan, president bush, president clinton, another president bush president obama republicans and democrats have never seen this. in fact, the last fall the now majority leader promised that ms. lynch will receive fair consideration by the senate and her nomination should be considered in the new congress through regular order. well she hasn't been treated fairly. there hasn't been regular order. her nomination has been pending

on the senate floor awaiting a combination -- culmination for 56 days. now, i went back over the last seven attorneys general add up all the number of days they wait ed for confirmation on the floor, she's waited longer than all seven of them put together twice over. so twice as long as the seven proceeding -- preceding republican and democratic attorneys general. as u.s. attorney for the eastern district of new york ms. lynch brought terrorists and cyber criminals to justice. she obtained convictions against corrupt public officials from both political parties. she fought tirelessly against violent crime and financial fraud. ms. lynch has protected the rights of victims. she has a proven record of

prosecuting human traffickers and protecting children. i'm glad the -- yesterday the senate was finally able to overcome an impasse in trafficking legislation that, unfortunately, those on the other side of the aisle caused by injecting partisan politics into the debate. that republican leaders tied a vote on ms. lynch's confirmation to human trafficking legislation never made sense at all especially as she has a strong record of prosecuting human traffickers. in a recent article" the guardian" rightly pointed out the republican use of her nomination as a negotiating chip was "painfully wrong-headed, tantamount to holding the sheriff pack until crime goes away" -- close quote. i couldn't agree more. after this extended delay i can

only hope that senate republicans will show her more respect as attorney general of the united states than she has received as a nominee. she deserves our respect. she deserves our gratitude for being willing to continue to serve our nation. she's earned this respect. her story is one of perseverance of grace and grit and i believe this process will only make her stronger. she was born and raised in north carolina. she is the daughter of a fourth generation baptist preacher and a school librarian. her proud mother and father instilled in her the american values of fairness and equality even though as a child those around them were not living up to these values. i've gone through a whole lot of hearings i must say that meeting reverend lynch at these

hearings meeting him at the time of the markup, i was so impressed, so impressed with the strength that man showed and his sense of faith and goodness. this is a pastor that -- and preacher that we can all look up to. in fact, ms. lynch recalls ride ing on reverend lynch's shoulders to their church where students organized peaceful protests against racial segregation. the freedom songs and church music that went hand in hand with those protests undoubtedly made up the sound track of her childhood. as attorney general i'm sure she'll draw upon those childhood experiences and the struggles of her parents her grandparents, her grade grandparents when addressing the current protests

over too many young lives lost in our streets. as i said, the judiciary committee was honored to have her father, the reverend lorenzo lynch with us on both days of her hearing in january at the committee markup when her nomination was favorably reported, bipartisan support. he's here to watch these proceedings today. it's clear this undoubtedly proud daughter instilled in his daughter the grace and resilience she has shown over the past six months. and as a senator like all of us i've gotten to meet wonderful people from all walks of life. up to and including presidents. but i have said many times before and said at home meeting reverend lynch was

really a very special moment in this senator's life. and throughout loretta lynch's life, those who encowboyered her intelligence and her tenacity have not always been prepared to accept her and her impressive accomplishments but in every point the content of her character has shown through through, led her to even greater heights. in elementary school administrators did not believe that loretta lynch could score as high as she did on a standardized test. they demanded that she retaining the -- retake the test. how could this young african-american girl score so high? she took the test again and her second score was even higher. in high school, she rose to the very top of her class. but instead of naming her valedictorian she had to share

the title of valedictorian with two other students, one of whom was white because school administrators feared an african-american valedictorian was too controversial. but this didn't hold her back, either. she kept going forward. she went on to graduate with honors from harvard college and then she went on and earned her law degree from harvard law school. that has been the story of leverage's life. while some are not ready to embrace her distinction she marches forward with grace to prove she is even stronger and more qualified than her detractors can imagine. she has dedicated the majority of her remarkable career to public service we're fortunate as a nation she wants to continue to serve. ms. lynch's record of excellence makes me confident she'll be able to lead through the -- the justice department through the complex challenges that it faces

today. when president obama announced his intention to nominate her last november, i had the privilege of attending that white house ceremony. at that event ms. lynch noted with admiration that the department of justice is the only cabinet department named for an ideal. just think of that. the department of justice is named for an ideal. the ideal of justice. and having served as a state prosecutor not with the complexity of what she has served with, i always thought that was an ideal to uphold, she has. and i believe that when she is sworn in as our next attorney general, she'll work tirelessly to make that ideal a reality for all americans. as i said, i am sorry that the

first time 82 attorneys general we have to have a cloture vote. i have great respect for my friends in the republican leadership but i must say they send an awful signal to america saying for the first time in 82 attorneys general to require a cloture vote for this woman, this highly qualified woman. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: mr. president today i rise to talk about what has come to define the obama

administration which is a consistent pattern of lawlessness that disrespects the constitution that disrespects the congress, and that disrespects the people of the united states. in any administration under any president, the person charged with being the chief law enforcement officer is the attorney general. i've been blessed to work in the u.s. department of justice and there is a long tradition a bipartisan tradition of attorneys general remaining faithful to the law and to the constitution and setting aside partisan considerations of politics. unfortunately, that tradition has not been honored during the obama presidency. attorney general eric holder has been the most partisan attorney general the united states has ever seen. the attorney general has systemically refused to do

anything to seriously investigate or prosecute the i.r.s. targeting citizens for expressing their first-amendment rights. indeed he has assigned the investigation to a major democratic donor and partisan democrat who has given over $6,000 to president obama and the democrats. eric holder has abused the office. and has turned it in many respects into a partisan arm of the democratic party. he is the only attorney general in the history of the united states to be held in contempt of congress. and so there are many, including me who would very much like to see eric holder replaced. there are many, including me, who would very much like to see an attorney general who will return to the bipartisan traditions of the department of justice, of fidelity to law and that includes, most importantly the willingness to stand up to the president who appointed you

even if he or she is from the same political party as are you. during the confirmation hearings i very much wanted to support loretta lynch's nomination. bringing in a new attorney general should be turning a positive page in this country but unfortunately the answers that ms. lynch gave at the confirmation hearing in my opinion render her unsuitable for confirmation as attorney general of the united states. that was a shame. ms. lynch's record as the u.s. attorney for the eastern district of new york had earned her a reputation as a relatively no-nonsense prosecutor, so it was my hope we would see similar approach and similar answers from ms. lynch at the confirmation hearing. instead, she chose to embrace the lawlessness of the holder justice president. when she was asked whether she

would defend president obama's illegal executive amnesty which president obama himself has acknowledged no fewer than 22 times that he had no constitutional authority to undertake, and which a federal court has now enjoined as unlawful, she responded affirmatively, saying she thought the administration's contrived legal justification was -- quote -- reasonable. the nominee went on to say she sees nothing wrong with the president's decision to unilaterally grant lawful status and work authorizations although explicitly barred by federal law, to nearly five million people who are here in this country illegally. when asked further -- quote -- who has more right to a job a united states citizen or a person who came to this country illegally, she responded -- quote -- i believe that the right and the obligation to work is one that's shared by everyone in this country regardless of how they came here.

well mr. president a very large majority of the american citizens would beg to differ. rule of law matters. when she was asked about the limits of prosecutorial discretion the dubious theory that president obama has put forth to justify his illegal executive amnesty she could give no limits to that theory. when asked if a subsequent president could use prosecutorial discretion to order the treasury secretary not to enforce the tax laws and to collect no more income taxes in excess of 25% she refused to answer. when asked if a subsequent president could use that same theory to exempt the state of texas, all 27 million people, from every single federal labor law and environmental law she refused to answer. when asked if she agreed with the holder justice department

that the government could place a g.p.s. censor on the car of every single american without probable cause she refused to answer. that extreme view was rejected by the united states supreme court unanimously. when asked if she agreed with the holder justice department that the first amendment gives no religious liberty protection whatsoever to a church's or synagogue's choice of their own pastor or their own rabbi she again refused to answer. likewise, that extreme view was rejected unanimously by the united states supreme court. indeed justice elena kagan appointed by president obama said that the holder justice department's first amendment says nothing about religious liberty of a church or synagogue, justice kagan said i find your position amazing.

well i'm sorry to say that ms. lynch was unwilling to answer whether she holds that same amazing position that the first amendment does not protect the religious liberty of people of faith in this country. when asked at her hearing if she believed the federal government could employ a drone to kill a united states citizen on u.s. soil if that individual posed no imminent threat, she refused to answer. when asked if she would be willing to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the i.r.s.'s targeting of citizens and citizen groups for their political views something which president obama said he was -- quote -- angry about and the american people had a right to be angry about and when asked if she would appoint a prosecutor who was at the minimum not a major obama donor she refused to answer. this nominee has given every indication that she will

continue the holder justice department's lawlessness. that was her testimony to the senate judiciary committee. i wanted to support this nomination. i wanted to see a new attorney general who would be faithful to law, but her answers made that impossible. and i would note there is a difference. eric holder began disregarding the constitution and laws after he was confirmed as attorney general. ms. lynch has told the senate that's what she's going to do. and that means each and every one of us bears responsibility. in my view, no senator can vote for this confirmation consistent with his or her oath, given the answers that are given. and i would note a particular onus falls on the new republican majority. for several months, i've called on the republican majority to block the confirmation of president obama's executive and judicial nominees other than vital national security positions unless and until the

president rescinds his lawless amnesty. i'm sorry to say the majority leadership has been unwilling to do so. the republican majority, if it so chose could defeat this nomination but the republican majority has chosen to go forward and allow loretta lynch to be confirmed. i would note there are more than a few voters back home that are asking what exactly is the difference between a democratic and republican majority when the exact same individual gets confirmed as attorney general promising the exact same lawlessness, what's the difference? that's a question each of us will have to answer to our constituents when we come home. in my view, the obligation of every senator to defend the constitution is front and center why we are here. we have a nominee who has told the united states senate she is unwilling to impose any limits whatsoever on the authority of the president of the united states in the next 20 months.

we are sadly going to see more and more lawlessness more recklessness, more abuse of power, more executive lawlessness. now more than ever, we need an attorney general with the integrity and faithfulness of law to stand up to the president attorneys general in both parties, republican and democrat have done so, when credible allegations of wrongdoing by richard nixon were raised, his attorney general elliott richardson, appointed a special prosecutor, archibald cox, to investigate regardless of partisan politics. likewise, when credible allegations of wrongdoing by bill clinton arose his attorney general janet reno, a democrat, appointed robert fiske the independent counsel to investigate those allegations. eric holder has been unwilling to demonstrate that same faithfulness to law and unfortunately ms. lynch has told the senate she too is unwilling to do so.

for that reason, i urge all of my colleagues to vote no on cloture and to insist on an attorney general who will uphold her oath to the constitution and to the people of the united states of america. i yield the floor. ms. klobuchar: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: mr. president i come to the floor of the senate today to urge my colleagues to vote in favor of confirming loretta lynch as attorney general. i disagree with my colleague from texas. i serve on the judiciary committee, as does he. i listened to her questions. i asked her questions. i listened to her answers. in my view, she has passed her senatorial interview. she has picked up support from several republicans. she answered questions for eight hours during her confirmation hearing and submitted detailed responses to 900 written questions. and what i would like to most

focus on today is the claims that i just heard from the senator from texas that she is somehow lawless. okay. let's look through the facts here. she has earned the support of members of both parties. do the republicans that support her for this position think she is lawless? i don't think so. she has earned the support of top law enforcement groups and 25 former u.s. attorneys from both republican and democratic administrations. now, let's start with the obvious here. she is supremely qualified for attorney general. she has a world-class legal mind an unwavering commitment to justice an unimpeachable character and an extraordinary record of achievement. during her time as u.s. attorney for the eastern district of new york she tackled some of our nation's hardest cases from public corruption to civil rights violations to massive crime rates.

she currently leads the u.s. attorney's office that has been charged with prosecuting more terrorism cases since 9/11 than any other office in the country including trying the al qaeda operative who plotted to attack new york city's subway system. would you hand this over to a lawless person? no. you would hand this over, this important job of going after terrorists to someone who respects the law who enforces the law not as my colleague from texas has said, someone who is lawless. and let me tell you, this is a concern in my state. just this week, our u.s. attorney andy lugar indicted six people six people in the twin cities area that were plotting to go back to assist isis, to assist a terrorism group. so i care a lot about having an attorney general in place that actually knows how to handle these terrorism cases, that is going to lead the justice department and understand the importance of going after these cases. loretta lynch is exactly the

type of tough and tested leader we need at the justice department to lead the effort. she has been endorsed by leaders ranging from the new york police commissioner. i don't know if my colleague from texas considers him lawless, to the president of the federal law enforcement officers association, the president of the international association of chiefs of police, alberto gonzalez at this time could vote on ms. lynch. rudy giuliani says it's time to confirm her. these are not people that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle normally say are lawless. now, this is the story of loretta lynch and why i think she has been able to wait out this long, long process. loretta lynch has a lot of patience. when she was a little girl, she took a test and she did incredibly well on that test. she did so well that they didn't believe she took that test. then they asked her to take that test over again and she scored even higher. when she was the valedictorian of her class and the principal came up to her and said this is a little awkward you're african, we might want another white student to share the honor, that's what happened to

her, she said all right. that is a woman who has been through something and can wait this out. well she waits no longer after today. now, the other thing i heard from our friend on the other side of the aisle from senator cruz was that somehow she is lawless because she supported something that every president since dwight eisenhower has supported that has asked their attorney general to do, that the attorney general has looked at the legal issues surrounding the issuance of an executive order regarding immigration. every attorney general since eisenhower's administration has advised their president on these issues. george bush, the first george bush the second george bush, ronald reagan. every single one of these presidents, there was some kind of executive order issued involving immigrants. i know because we have liberians in minnesota that have been there for decades because of unrest in their country under an executive order something sometimes congress gets involved in sometimes the president reissues but that is one example of a group of people

that have been able to stay in our country legally work in our hospitals, work in our industries raise their families in this country because of executive orders. so to say that it is sometimes lawless, how lawless for her to support the simple idea that a president can issue an executive order and of course we can debate the merit of that. we can talk about the fact that of course we would rather have comprehensive immigration reform that's why i voted for it. of course that would be better so the president could just tear up his executive action. he said he would be glad to do that. but the point of this is that every attorney general in a republican administration since dwight eisenhower has supported their president when they issued an executive order so this idea that by somehow saying that that is legal makes this nominee lawless is just plain wrong. we look forward to another robust debate on immigration policy. comprehensive immigration reform should be debated and passed by

congress but ms. lynch should be judged on her record and her record alone and when you look at her record, we should be proud to having her as our next attorney general of the united states of america. thank you mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. feinstein: mr. president i'd like to make a few remarks on loretta lynch. while she should have been confirmed as attorney general months ago, i want to make the following points. her qualifications are really sterling. her education and experience as a united states attorney under two presidents as well as her accomplishments are unavailable -- unassailable. i have never seen a nominee in my 22 years handle a confirmation hearing with such poise and answer questions with

such command. you're her hearing, -- during her hearing i said loretta lynch was a combination of steel and velvet and that for me sums her up perfectly. i met with her prior to her hearing and was deeply impressed. i've reviewed her stellar record and find her to be a firm yet fair prosecutor. as a matter of fact, probably the prosecutor in the toughest southern district of new york that exists in america. having led this very large and important united states attorney's office under two presidents she is a proven leader and she also knows how to bring people together to get the job done. and i think that's important. let me just talk about national security. the eastern district of new york where ms. lynch served as u.s. attorney has led the nation in terrorism convictions among all u.s. attorney offices since

2001. she has overseen these cases. the six individuals connected to newsa biofuel agladsy who was part of an al qaeda plot and planned to set off bombs on the new york subway system, neswano of nafis who attempted to use a weapon of mass destruction for russell defratis who threatened to attack j.f.k. airport. and two individuals who allegedly were members of al qaeda and attacked united states military forces overseas. in february, her office announced that three individuals had been charged with attempting and conspiring to provide material support to isil. two were planning to fly to syria to join isil, the third was arrested while boarding a

flight to turkey at j.f.k. her office has also charged 11 individuals alleging that they illegally worked to secure more than $50 million in high-tech equipment for russian military and intelligence agencies. as her confirmation hearing lynch emphasized the importance of the government having -- quote -- "the full panoply of investigative tools and techniques to deal with the ever-evolving threat of terrorism" -- end quote. in sum, i am confident she's going to be a very strong voice leading the justice department on issues of national security. and i can only say i think as those of us on the intelligence committee see and mr. president, you are one of them -- this becomes more important every day. her experience is just as deep on domestic issues.

as united states attorney for a major urban district she clearly understands the importance of protecting us from gangs and organized crime. issues that are front and center in my home state of california. her work in this area shows she understands local and international criminal organizations. so there are four specific cases that i will leave in my remarks for the record that i believe document this very specifically. she's also made combating human trafficking a priority. over the last decade, her office's anti-trafficking program has indicted more than 55 defendants in sex trafficking cases and rescued more than 110 victims of sex trafficking including more than 20 minors. simply put loretta lynch has been on the front lines in

investigating and prosecuting a range of perpetrators, and i believe she will continue that work as attorney general. i would be remiss if i didn't express my extreme disappointment in the delay over ms. lynch's confirmation. we have before us a nominee with impeccable credentials to serve as the nation's chief law enforcement officer. and during her confirmation, senator leahy and -- i think you were there mr. president -- asked a panel of witnesses who were pro and supposedly con to raise their hands in they opposed her. not a single witness raised their hand. to me, that spoke volumes. even republicans who will vote against her because they disagree with the president praise her credentials and

personal qualifications. and -- but despite all that, the senate subjected her to i think an inexcusable delay. and it's particularly sensitive because this would be the first african-american woman as attorney general in the history of the united states. and if you look at race relations today and the impartial and important role that the department of justice plays, it seems to me that her appointment may well be the most important possible appointment at this particular point in time. her nomination has been pending for 56 days on the floor and that's more than twice as long as the seven most recent attorneys general combined. so hopefully it's done now. i recognize that the other side will say they couldn't move the

nomination because of the trafficking bill or for some other reason, but the fact remains that historically we customary mayoral move back and forth between executive and legislative business and we could have done that here as well. we have confirmed district judges we have confirmed individuals who serve in various other executive capacities, including subcabinet positions. so we could have easily considered a nominee for one of the most important posts in the government. let me conclude with this -- i regret that a vote on her nomination cannot be unanimous and i hope it will be close to that but i don't think that will be possible. she is that good. she deserves a unanimous vote. she is as fine as i've seen in my time in the senate. senator durbin remarked in

committee that her confirmation will be a truly momentous occasion for the senate and for our nation. he said that this should be a solemn important and historic moment for america. i really believe he was right. i really believe that this is an uncommon nominee at an uncommon time who can display a tremendous will, drive motivation, and sense of justice as our united states attorney general. i am very honored to cast my vote in favor of her nomination. the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mrs. mccaskill: briefly this should be a happy day for america. this should be a day that is circled in the calendar as another day as the president of the senate knows that this

is about the american dream. this woman is the embodiment of the american dream in action. we should be celebrating her confirmation to the most important law enforcement position in the united states of america. so why am i not happy? i am sad. i am depressed. because what we are going to witness in a few minutes is base politics at its ugliest. doesn't get any uglier than this. because what we are seeing today, what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are saying today it doesn't matter if you're qualified. it doesn't matter if you are one of the most qualified nominees for attorney general in the

history of our country. that makes no difference. we have a new test. you must disagree with the president who nominates you. let me say that again. because we love common sense in missouri and this defies common sense. you must vote against a nominee for the cabinet of the duly elected president of the united states because she agrees with the duly elected president of the united states. think of the consequences of that vote. think what that means to the future of advise and consent in this senate. if we all adopt this base politics play to the cheap seats, i can't get elected president unless i'm against loretta lynch if we all adopt

that in the future, how is any president elected in this country going to assemble a cabinet? because it will be incumbent on all of us to be against cabinet members who have the nerve to agree with the president who has selected them for their team. it is beyond depressing. it's disgusting. she is so qualified she has worked so hard all her life, she is a prosecutor's prosecutor she has prosecuted more terrorists than almost anybody on the face of the planet. and the notion that this has occurred because she agrees with the man who selected her, i think everyone needs to understand what that means for the future if all of us embrace that kind of base politics in these decisions. it is not a happy day. it is a very sad day. i am proud of who loretta lynch is. i am proud that she'll be

attorney general of this country. i am sad it will be such a close vote. thank you mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president loretta lynch is an historic nominee. what i worry about is this body is making history for the wrong reasons. the senate republicans who filibustered her she becomes the first out of 82 attorneys general in our nation's history to face a filibuster has had to wait longer than any other. she is an historic nominee. on one hand she's an historic nominee for the right reasons the first african-american woman, highly, highly qualified, everybody agrees with that. but what a shame that we had the second part of history to have her be the first out of 82

filibustered to be held to this very disturbing double standard. this woman has had to face double standards all her life, why one more. i'm going to proudly vote for her and mr. president, i yield back all time. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mr. cotton: i have 10 unanimous consent requests for committees to meet, they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders, i ask that these requests be agreed to and printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. without objection all time is yielded back. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we the united signed senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules

of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of loretta lynch to be attorney general signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is: is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of loretta e. lynch of new york to be attorney general shall be brought to a close? the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule and the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote: