next's president obama's reaction followed by debate from the senate floor. te on the senate floor. this is an hour and a half. president obama: before i start with other issues i want to say publicly for the first time, i have been looking forward to saying this, i am very pleased that loretta lynch has been confirmed -- [cheers] president obama: and, you know, america will be better off for it. she spent her life fighting for

the fair and equal justice that is the foundation of our democracy. she is going to do a great job of helping our communities keeping them safe and making sure that businesses are protected by equal justice under the law. she has got credibility with law enforcement and also with communities and she knows the things i want to work with her own, to work around the country to rebuild trust with respect to police forces and making sure that they and the communities together are working so that everybody feels safe and everybody felt like the law is working on their behalf. the former majority leader, harry reid. . president, "the wall street journal" had a great editorial today. to show you how senseless it was, i'll read a line from it. the headline: "the g.o.p. used

its advice and consent power to beat harry reid." think about that, mr. president. a major newspaper in this country that is the audacity to say the g.o.p., the republicans used its advice and consent power to beat harry reid. reading the editorial what they're talking about is the republicans were really smart in delaying loretta lynch to be confirmed. mr. president, the reason that she was delayed is because a very vital issue came up with the trafficking bill that dealt with women's reproductive rights and it took a long time to work that out. in fact, it took us a long enough time to work it out until the republicans capitulated to what we wanted. we protect the women's right to choose. the hyde language no longer allowed, as was in the

underlying legislation no longer allows the hyde language to apply to nontaxpayer money. so for them to say that they beat harry reid, they didn't beat harry reid. what they did was beat up on themselves. loretta lynch it took longer to confirm her than if you take every attorney general who has been submitted to the senate for confirmation, add them all together from the time we were a country until today add them all together and they didn't take as long as it takes to confirm this good woman. so to think that they beat harry reid i repeat, all they did was beat up on themselves. later today the senate will do something that it should have done months ago: confirm loretta lynch as the 83rd attorney general of the united states. i repeat: prior to 82, add all the time together how long it took to confirm them and it

wouldn't add up to as much time as the republicans have stalled this good woman. she's as qualified a candidate as i've ever seen during my time in the senate which is more than three decades. so qualified in fact that today will mark the third time she's been confirmed by the united states senate. twice before unanimously confirmed as u.s. attorney for the eastern district of new york. by all accounts, loretta lynch's confirmation should have sailed through the senate. after awhile it seemed that it would. we had senators, republican senators who were saying what a wonderful woman she is. she's great. they were very vocal in their support. the senior senator from utah, the senior senator from south carolina, senior senator from arizona. but it soon became apparent the republican leader pressed these people a little bit and suddenly they weren't as interested in moving the lynch confirmation

along, even though that's what they said it they should do. her nomination dragged on, has dragged on for months. in fact, i repeat, she's waited longer to be confirmed in the first 54 attorneys general combined longer than attorneys general nominated by every president from george washington to woodrow wilson and beyond. what should have been a quick confirmation will be anything but that. instead mrs. lynch became the first attorney general nominee in history to be filibustered. the editorial from the newspaper is really insulting mr. president. they said that reid accused republicans of racism and sexism. i dare, i dare anyone to find a single word that i said dealing with race or sex. i didn't do that. but maybe that's something the republicans hoped i would do,

but i didn't do that. there was even a hunger strike. listen to this, the depth of this editorial from the "wall street journal". reverend al sharpton vowed a hunger strike until ms. lynch received a vote, and they have in parenthesis "al please go through with it." i guess i was naive in thinking my republican colleagues would treat loretta lynch with the dignity that she and her office deserve. perhaps my mistake was forgetting that for republicans this isn't about loretta lynch. it's about president obama. because republicans will do everything and anything they can to make president obama's life more difficult. they said they would do that when he was elected and they've stuck with it. president obama's cabinet officials have been treated worse than any president in

history. today's vote on loretta lynch marks the seventh cloture vote the republicans forced on a cabinet official during the obama administration. forcing cloture, that is terminating a filibuster is something that was rare in the entire history of this country. it was used only in most extreme circumstances. but once ms. lynch was confirmed, five sitting members of the president's cabinet will have been filibustered by senate republicans. put that in contrast, it rarely happened before. rarely. unlike today's senate republicans, democrats showed restraint in our disagreements with presidents over appointments. we showed great deference to his choice for president. by that i'm talking about george w. bush, the latest bush who was president. some say that's water under the bridge. there will be those republicans

who after confirming lynch today will say all's well that ends well. they're wrong. i'm pleased that she will be confirmed as attorney general. her nomination process is proof of all that is wrong with the republican leadership. senate republicans made loretta lynch's nomination linger more than ten times longer than the average attorney general and you've heard what i said before about that, just to spite barack obama. the viciousness with which the majority leader's party has treated the president is unconscionable and is bad for our country. republicans have become so blinded by their nastyness that they even named filibusters of -- made filibusters of cabinet officials the norm around here, the first time we had a secretary of defense filibustered they did it. the first time attorney general they did it. how sad that in the future we can expect delays and filibustered nominations like loretta lynch to no longer be the exception but the rule. how unfortunate this 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 ra