Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing private relief legislation on behalf of Joseph Gabra and Sharon Kamel, a couple living with their four U.S. citizen children in Camarillo, CA.

Joseph and Sharon are nationals of Egypt who fled their home country over 19 years ago after being targeted for their religious membership in the Christian Coptic Church in Egypt. They became involved with this church during the 1990s, Joseph as an accountant and project coordinator helping to build community facilities and Sharon as the church's training director in human resources.

Unfortunately, Joseph and Sharon were also subjected to threats and abuse. Joseph was jailed repeatedly because of his involvement with the church. Sharon's family members were violently targeted, including her cousin who was murdered and her brother whose business was firebombed. When Sharon became pregnant with her first child, she was threatened by a member of a different religious organization for raising her child in a non-Muslim faith.

Joseph and Sharon came to the United States legally on visitor visas in November 1998. Due to their fears of persecution in Egypt based on their religious beliefs, they filed for asylum in the United States in May 1999.

However, Joseph, who has a speech impediment, had difficulty communicating why he was afraid to return to Egypt, and 1 year later their asylum application was denied. Considering that Sharon's brother, who also applied for asylum for similar reasons, was granted asylum in the United States, Joseph and Sharon appealed the denial of their asylum applications, to no avail.

While Sharon's brother, who is now a U.S. citizen, has filed a family-based immigrant petition on Sharon's behalf, it will be at least 4 years until she will even be eligible for a visa number due to visa backlogs.

If Sharon and Joseph are deported before then, they will not only be separated from their family but will be forced to return to a country where persecution of Coptic Christians continues.

Due to their fear of returning to Egypt, Joseph and Sharon have therefore tried to build a life for themselves here in the United States, working hard while building their beautiful family. With the protection of past private bills I filed on their behalf, Joseph was able to get his certified public accountant license and opened his own accounting firm, where Sharon works by his side.

Joseph and Sharon make sure that their four U.S. citizen children-- Jessica, age 18, Rebecca, age 17, Rafael, age 16, and Veronica, age 11--all attend school in California and maintain good grades.

Joseph and Sharon carry strong support from friends, members of their local church, and other Californians who attest to their good character and community contributions.

I am concerned that the entire family would face serious and unwarranted hardships if Joseph and Sharon were forced to return to Egypt. For Jessica, Rebecca, Rafael, and Veronica, the only home they know is in the United States. Separation of this family would be devastating and the alternative--relocating the family to Egypt--could be dire, as it is quite possible that these four American children would face discrimination or worse on account of their religion, as was the experience of many of their family members.

Joseph and Sharon have made a compelling plea to remain in the United States. These parents emphasize their commitment to supporting their children and creating a healthy and productive place for them to grow up in California. I believe this family deserves that opportunity.

I respectfully ask my colleagues to support this private relief bill on behalf of Joseph Gabra and Sharon Kamel.

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing private immigration relief legislation to provide lawful permanent resident status to Jose Alberto Martinez Moreno, Micaela Lopez Martinez, and their daughter, Adilene Martinez. This family is originally from Mexico but has been living in California for over 20 years. I believe they merit Congress's special consideration for this extraordinary form of relief.

When Jose came to the United States from Mexico, he began working as a busboy in restaurants in San Francisco, CA. In 1990, he started working as a cook at Palio D'Asti, an award-winning Italian restaurant in San Francisco.

Jose worked his way through the ranks, eventuall becoming Palio's sous chef. His colleagues describe him as a reliable and cool-headed coworker and as ``an exemplary employee'' who not only is ``good at his job but is also a great boss to his subordinates.''

He and his wife Micaela call San Francisco home. Micaela is a homemaker and part-time housekeeper. They have three daughters, two of whom are U.S. citizens. Their oldest daughter, Adilene, age 28, is undocumented. She currently works fulltime at a cinema and hopes to continue pursuing her studies in the future.

The Martinez's second daughter, Jazmin, age 24, is a U.S. citizen. She graduated from Leadership High School and is now studying at California State University, San Francisco. Jazmin has been diagnosed with asthma, which requires constant treatment. According to her doctor, if Jazmin were to return to Mexico with her family, the high altitude and air pollution in Mexico City could be fatal to her. The Martinez's other U.S. citizen daughter, Karla, is 19 years old and attends San Francisco City College.

The Martinez family attempted to legalize their status through several channels.

In 2001, Jose's sister, who has legal status, petitioned for Jose to get a green card. However, the current green card backlog for siblings from Mexico is very long, and it will be many years before Jose will be eligible to legalize his status though his sister.

In 2002, the Martinez family applied for political asylum. Their application was denied. An immigration judge denied their subsequent application for cancellation of removal.

Finally, Daniel Scherotter, the executive chef and owner of Palio D'Asti, petitioned for an employment-based green card for Jose based upon his unique skills as a chef. Jose's petition was approved by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. However, before he will be eligible for a green card, he must apply for a hardship waiver, which cannot be guaranteed.

The Martinez family has become an integral part of their community in California. They are active in their faith community. They volunteer with community-based organizations and are, in turn, supported by their community. When I first introduced this bill, I received dozens of letters of support from their fellow parishioners, teachers, and members of their community.

The Martinez family truly exemplifies the American dream. Jose worked his way through the restaurant industry to become a chef and an indispensable employee at a renowned restaurant. With great dedication, Micaela has worked hard to raise three daughters who are advancing their education and look forward to continuing the pursuit of their goals.

I believe the Martinez family's continued presence in the United States would allow them to continue making significant contributions to their community in California.

I ask my colleagues to support this private bill.

Mr. President, today I offer private immigration relief legislation to provide lawful permanent resident status to Esidronio Arreola-Saucedo, Maria Elena Cobian Arreola, Nayely Arreola Carlos, and Cindy Jael Arreola. The Arreolas are Mexican nationals living in the Fresno area of California.

Esidronio and Maria Elena have lived in the United States for over 20 years. Two of their five children--Nayely, age 30, and Cindy, age 28-- also stand to benefit from this legislation. The other three Arreola children--Robert, age 25, Daniel, age 22, and Saray, age 20--are U.S. citizens. The story of the Arreola family is compelling, and I believe they merit Congress's special consideration for such an extraordinary form of relief as a private bill.

The Arreolas are facing deportation in part because of grievous errors committed by their previous counsel, who has since been disbarred. In fact, the attorney's conduct was so egregious that it compelled an immigration judge to write to the Executive Office of Immigration Review seeking the attorney's disbarment for his actions in his clients' immigration cases.

Esidronio came to the United States in 1986 and was an agricultural migrant worker in the fields of California for several years. As a migrant worker at that time, he would have been eligible for permanent residence through the Seasonal Agricultural Workers, SWA, Program, had he known about it.

Maria Elena was living in the United States at the time she became pregnant with her daughter Cindy. She returned to Mexico to give birth because she wanted to avoid any immigration issues.

Because of the length of time that the Arreolas were in the United States, it is likely that they would have qualified for suspension of deportation, which would have allowed them to remain in the United States legally. However, the poor legal representation they received foreclosed this opportunity.

One of the most compelling reasons for my introduction of this private bill is the devastating impact the deportation of Esidronio and Maria Elena would have on their children--three of whom are American citizens--and the other two who have lived in the United States since they were toddlers. America is the only country the Arreola children have ever known.

Nayely, the oldest, was the first in her family to graduate from high school and the first to graduate college. She recently received her Masters in Business Administration from Fresno Pacific University, a regionally ranked university, and now works in the admissions office. Nayely is married and has a young son named Elijah Ace Carlos.

At a young age, Nayely demonstrated a strong commitment to the ideals of citizenship in her adopted country. She worked hard to achieve her full potential both through her academic endeavors and community service. As the Associate Dean of Enrollment Services at Fresno Pacific University states in a letter of support, ``[T]he leaders of Fresno Pacific University saw in Nayely, a young person who will become exemplary of all that is good in the American dream.''

In high school, Nayely was a member of the Advancement Via Individual Determination (AVID) college preparatory program in which students commit to determining their own futures through attaining a college degree. Nayely was also President of the Key Club, a community service organization. Perhaps the greatest hardship to Nayely's U.S. citizen husband and child, if she were forced to return to Mexico, would be her lost opportunity to realize her dreams and contribute further to her community and to this country.

Nayely's sister, Cindy, is also married and has a 7-year-old daughter and a 5-year-old son. Neither Nayely nor Cindy is eligible to automatically adjust their status based on their marriages because of their initial unlawful entry.

The Arreolas also have other family who are U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents of this country. Maria Elena has three brothers who are American citizens, and Esidronio has a sister who is an American citizen. They have no immediate family in Mexico.

According to immigration authorities, this family has never had any problems with law enforcement. I am told that they have filed their taxes every year from 1990 to the present. They have always worked hard to support themselves.

As I mentioned, Esidronio was previously employed as a farm worker but now has his own business in California repairing electronics. His business has been successful enough to enable him to purchase a home for his family. He and his wife are active in their church community and in their children's education.

It is clear to me that this family has embraced the American dream. Enactment of the legislation I have reintroduced today will enable the Arreolas to continue to make significant contributions to their community as well as the United States.

I ask my colleagues to support this private bill.

Mr. President, I rise today to offer legislation to provide lawful permanent residence status to Alfredo Plascencia Lopez, a Mexican national who lives in the San Bruno area of California.

I offer legislation on his behalf because I believe that, without it, this hard-working man, wife who is a lawful permanent resident, and children would face extreme hardship. His children would either face separation from their father or be forced to leave the only country they know and give up the education they are pursuing in the United States.

Alfredo and his wife Maria have been in the United States for over 20 years. They worked for years to adjust their status through appropriate legal channels, but poor legal representation ruined their opportunities.

The Plascencias' lawyer refused to return their calls or otherwise communicate with them in any way. He also failed to forward crucial immigration documents. Because of the poor representation they received, Alfredo only became aware that they had been ordered to leave the United States 15 days prior to his scheduled deportation.

Alfredo was shocked to learn of his attorney's malfeasance, but he acted quickly to secure legitimate counsel and filed the appropriate paperwork to delay his deportation and determine if any other legal action could be taken.

Together, Alfredo and Maria have used their professional successes, with the assistance of private bills, to realize many of the goals dreamed of by all Americans. They have worked hard and saved up to buy their home.

They have good health care benefits, and they each have begun saving for retirement. They are sending their children Christina, Erika, and Danny, to college and plan to send the rest of their children to college, as well.

Their oldest child, Christina, is 26 years old, and takes classes at Heald College to become a paralegal. Erika, age 22, graduated from high school and is currently taking classes at Skyline College. Her teachers have praised her abilities and have referred to her as a ``bright spot'' in the classroom. Danny, age 20, currently attends the University of California and volunteers at his local homeless shelter in the soup kitchen. Daisy, age 15, and Juan Pablo, age 10, are in school and plan on attending college.

Allowing Alfredo to remain in the United States is necessary to enable his family to continue thriving in the United States. His children are dedicated to pursuing their education and being productive members of their community.

I do not believe that Alfredo should be separated from his family. I am reintroducing this legislation to protect the best interest of Alfredo's U.S. citizen children and his wife, who is a lawful permanent resident. I believe that Alfredo will continue to make positive contributions to his community in California and this country. I respectfully ask my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing a private relief bill on behalf of Jorge Rojas Gutierrez and his wife, Oliva Gonzalez. The Rojas family, originally from Mexico, is living in the San Jose area of California.

The story of the Rojas family is compelling, and I believe they merit Congress's special consideration for such an extraordinary form of relief as a private bill.

Jorge and Oliva originally came to the United States in 1990 when their son Jorge Rojas, Jr., was just 2 years old. In 1995, they left the country to attend a funeral and then reentered the United States on visitors' visas.

The family has grown to include three U.S. citizen children: Alexis, now 24 years old, Tanya, 22 years old, and Matias, now 7 years old. Jorge and Oliva are also the grandparents of Meena Rojas.

The Rojas family first attempted to legalize their status in the United States when an unscrupulous immigration consultant, who was not an attorney, advised them to apply for asylum. Unfortunately, without proper legal guidance, the family did not realize at the time that they lacked a valid basis for asylum. Their asylum claim was denied in 2008, leaving the Rojas family with no further options to legalize their status.

Since their arrival in the United States more than 20 years ago, the Rojas family has demonstrated a robust work ethic and a strong commitment to their community in California. They have paid their taxes and worked hard to contribute to this country.

Jorge is a hard-working individual who has been employed by BrightView Landscaping Services, formerly known as Valley Crest Landscape Maintenance, in San Jose, CA, for the past 20 years. Currently, he works on commercial landscaping projects. Jorge is well- respected by his supervisor and his peers.

In addition to supporting his family, Jorge has volunteered his time to provide modern green landscaping and building projects at his children's school in California. He is active in his neighborhood association, through which he worked with his neighbors to open a library and community center in their community.

Oliva, in addition to raising her three children, has also been very active in the local community. She volunteers with the People Acting in Community Together, PACT, organization, where she works to prevent crime, gangs, and drug dealing in San Jose neighborhoods and schools.

Jorge Rojas, Jr., who entered the United States as an infant with his parents, is now the father of 6-year-old Meena. He is 28 years old and working at a job that allows him to support his daughter. Jorge graduated from Del Mar High School in 2007. He has obtained temporary protection from deportation through the 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, DACA, Program.

Alexis, age 24, graduated from West Valley College in Saratoga, CA, and is interested in continuing his linguistics studies at San Jose State University. Tanya, age 22, is now in her second semester at San Jose State University. Their teachers have described them as ``fantastic, wonderful and gifted'' students.

Perhaps one of the most compelling reasons for permitting the Rojas family to remain in the United States is the impact that their deportation would have on their four children. Three of the Rojas children--Alexis, Tanya, and Matias--American citizens. Additionally, Jorge Rojas, Jr., has lived in the United States since he was a toddler. America is the only country these children have called home. It seems so clear to me that this family has embraced the American dream, and their continued presence in our country would do so much to promote the values we hold dear,

When I first introduced this bill, I received dozens of letters from the community in Northern California in support of this family. Enactment of the legislation I have reintroduced today will keep this great family together and enable each of them to continue making significant contributions to their community as well as the United States.

I ask my colleagues to support this private bill.

Mr. President, I am reintroducing a private relief bill

on behalf of Alicia Buendia, a woman who has lived in the Fresno area of California for more than 20 years. I believe her situation merits Congress's special consideration.

She is married to Jose Buendia, and together they have raised two outstanding children, Ana Laura, age 28, and Alex, age 26, a U.S. citizen. Both children have excelled in school. Ana Laura graduated from University of California, Irvine, and Alex is currently attending the University of California, Merced.

I previously introduced bills for Alicia, her husband, and Ana Laura. Thankfully, Jose has successfully secured lawful permanent residency for himself through cancellation of removal. This followed 7 unfortunate years of delay in the immigration courts to determine his eligibility under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 for permanent residence. Ana Laura has obtained temporary protection from deportation through the 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, DACA, Program.

However, Alicia, who is eligible to adjust status, is still awaiting a determination on a family-based immigration petition filed by her U.S. citizen son. Additionally, she would be required to file a waiver application, which could result in separation from her family

Alicia warrants private relief and a chance to start fresh in America. She goes to work season after season in California's labor- intensive agriculture industry in Reedley, CA, where she currently works for a fruit packing company.

In the more than 20 years of living in California, Alicia has dedicated herself to her family and community. She and Jose have worked hard to honestly feed their family and have raised two exceptional children who have both pursued and excelled in higher education.

Alicia has a strong connection to her local community, serving as an active member of her church. She and Jose pay their taxes every year, have successfully paid off their mortgage, and remain free of debt. They have shown that they are responsible, maintaining health insurance, savings accounts, and retirement accounts. Without this private bill, Alicia would be separated from her lawful permanent resident husband, two children who rely on her for love, support, and guidance.

I ask my colleagues to support this private bill.

Mr. President, I am reintroducing private relief legislation in the 115th Congress on behalf of Ruben Mkoian, Asmik Karapetian, and their son, Arthur Mkoian. The Mkoian family has been living in Fresno, CA, for over 20 years. I continue to believe this family deserves Congress's special consideration for such an extraordinary form of relief as a private bill.

The Mkoian family is originally from Armenia. They decided to leave Armenia for the United States in the early 1990s, following several incidents in which the family experienced harassment, vandalism and threats to their well-being.

In Armenia, Ruben worked as a police sergeant on vehicle licensing. At one point, he was offered a bribe to register stolen vehicles, which he refused and reported to his superior, the police chief. He later learned that a coworker had registered the vehicles at the request of the same chief.

After Ruben reported the bribe offer to illegally register vehicles and said he would call the police, his family store was vandalized and he received threatening phone calls telling him to keep quiet. A bottle of gasoline was thrown into his family's residence, burning it to the ground. In April 1992, several men entered the family store and assaulted Ruben, hospitalizing him for 22 days.

Ruben, Asmik, and their son Arthur, who was 3 years old at the time, left Armenia and entered the United States on visitor visas. They applied for political asylum that same year on the grounds that they would be subject to physical attacks if returned to Armenia. It took 16 years for their case to be finalized, with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denying their asylum case in January 2008.

At this time, Ruben, Asmik, and Arthur have exhausted every option to obtain immigration relief in the United States. While Ruben and Asmik's other son, Arsen, is a U.S. citizen, he is too young to file a green card petition on their behalf.

It would be a terrible shame to remove this family from the United States and to separate them from Arsen, who is 20 years old and a U.S. citizen. The Mkoians have worked hard to build a place for their family in California and are an integral part of their community.

The family attends St. Paul Armenian Apostolic Church in Fresno. They do charity work to send medical equipment to Armenia.

Ruben works as a driver for Uber. He previously worked as a manager at a car wash in Fresno and as a truckdriver for a California trucking company that described him as ``trustworthy,'' ``knowledgeable,'' and an asset to the company. Asmik has worked as a medical assistant the past 6 years at the Fresno Shields Medical Center.

Arthur has proven to be a hard-working, smart young man who applies himself. He was recognized nationally for his scholastic achievement, having maintained a 4.0 grade point average in high school and serving as his class valedictorian. After graduating on the Dean's Merit List from the University of California, Davis with a major in Chemistry, he is now a full-time analyst at a water testing company. He also teaches Armenian School on Saturdays at the church.

Arthur's brother, Arsen currently attends Fresno State University, is majoring in Computer Science, and maintains a 3.8 GPA. These two young men have already accomplished so much and clearly aspire to do great things here in the United States.

Reflecting their contributions to their community, Representatives George Radanovich and Jim Costa strongly supported this family's ability to remain in the United States. When I first introduced a private bill for the Mkoian family, I received more than 200 letters of support and dozens of calls of support from friends and community members, attesting to the positive impact that this family has had in Fresno, California.

I believe that this case warrants our compassion. I respectfully ask my colleagues to support this private legislation on behalf of the Mkoian family.

Madam President, I rise today to voice my concerns about the nomination of Scott Pruitt for Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.

More than 74,000 Californians have contacted my office expressing serious concerns about Mr. Pruitt's nomination.

Californians want an EPA Administrator with a demonstrated commitment to protecting public health and the environment. Unfortunately, Mr. Pruitt's record shows the opposite: a clear hostility to public health and environmental protections at both the Federal and State level.

Californians rightfully fear that Mr. Pruitt's only plan for the EPA is to dismantle the Agency from within and give polluters free rein.

The EPA is the lead enforcement agency for bedrock environmental laws like the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and the Safe Drinking Water Act. The EPA works with States, local communities and tribes to provide funding and expertise for fulfilling these environmental laws that keep our communities healthy and safe.

Based on his record as Attorney General of Oklahoma and his past statements, including in his confirmation hearing, Scott Pruitt is not the right man for this very important job.

As the Oklahoma Attorney General, Mr. Pruitt eliminated the State's environmental protection unit, which enforces State environmental laws, including suing polluters for criminal negligence.

Meanwhile, he's led or participated in over 14 partisan lawsuits against the EPA, challenging the Agency's ability to implement Federal environmental protections, lawsuits that challenged protections against mercury pollution, ``polluter pays'' clean-up requirements, the Clean Air Act, and the Clean Water Act.

And his rhetoric matches his record. Mr. Pruitt has repeatedly questioned the validity of widely accepted science that undergirds EPA action. He routinely treats the scientific consensus on climate change as merely a debate. In an interview with Exploring Energy, Pruitt stated: ``There are scientists that agree, there are scientists that don't agree, to the extent of man's contribution and whether it is even harmful at this point.''

He dismissed the dangers of mercury pollution, arguing in one of his lawsuits: ``The record does not support EPA's finding that mercury . . . poses public health hazards. . .''

At his confirmation hearing, when asked whether there is any level of lead exposure that is safe for children, he could only reply ``that is something that I have not reviewed nor know about.''

Even on his public profile, he described himself as ``a leading advocate against the EPA's activist agenda.''

We are supposed to trust someone to enforce our environmental laws who considers himself the primary foe of the EPA? That record is troubling enough, but Mr. Pruitt also faces many conflict of interest issues that he has refused to commit to recusing himself from as EPA Administrator, including: conflicts that would exist over ongoing lawsuits that he brought against the EPA as Oklahoma's Attorney General or matters or cases under the EPA's authority that involve organizations from which Pruitt has solicited campaign funding.

During his hearing, Mr. Pruitt deflected questions over potential conflicts of interest by stating the ``EPA ethics counsel will evaluate that if a matter or case comes up in the future.'' This is an inadequate protection against conflicts of interest.

The Environmental Protection Agency is very important to the health and well-being of the people of California.

For example, California received over $100 million in loans from the EPA last year to maintain and improve our water infrastructure, including wastewater treatment systems, drinking water systems, and water recycling facilities. Those funds were vital as our State grappled with an historic drought.

The EPA has also been a vital partner with California in developing stronger motor vehicle efficiency standards. One of my proudest accomplishments was enacting landmark fuel economy legislation, the Ten-in-Ten Fuel Economy Act, which raised fuel economy standards to the maximum achievable rate. This law marked the largest increase in fuel efficiency in more than two decades and led to an administrative program expected to raise average fuel economy to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025.

This program is the greatest tool we have to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector, and it is working. An important technical review concluded this July that automakers are already exceeding Federal benchmarks for improved fuel economy by 1.4 miles per gallon.

A large part of its success is the cooperation between the Federal Government and California to establish a single, coordinated, national program that is strong enough to satisfy all parties and stable enough to guide investment decisions by the auto makers.

During his confirmation hearing, my colleague Senator Harris asked Mr. Pruitt directly if he would commit to upholding California's right to issue its own regulations, which is the way we participate in creating the national program. He declined, committing only to review the issue, which is not acceptable.

We in California know that climate change is real and is happening now. It is contributing to more volatile weather, including longer, stronger droughts and harsher bursts of rain.

We have a limited amount of time left to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions of our transportation and energy systems. If we allow the world to warm by more than 2 degrees C, we will be locking in a future of unacceptable disasters for our children and grandchildren.

Now, more than ever, we need strong leadership as other major countries like China and India have begun to engage on the issue, and we cannot allow the EPA to reverse course and go backward after the progress we have made.

In his words and actions, Scott Pruitt has demonstrated more interest in fighting against the mission of the EPA than in fighting for it.

Mr. Pruitt has done little to nothing to protect the people of Oklahoma from the dangers and health problems caused by pollution, preferring to sue on behalf of corporate interests. There is nothing to suggest he would do anything different for the American people as EPA Administrator.

For this reason and many more, I will vote against Scott Pruitt's confirmation to head the EPA.

Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to defeat a Congressional Review Act resolution that would weaken the FBI's gun background check system and make it easier for individuals with severe mental illness to buy guns.

Gun violence is an epidemic in our communities--killing more than 30,000 people each year; yet this resolution would prevent the. Federal Government from taking even the most basic steps to improve enforcement of current gun laws.

It blocks a rule that requires the Social Security Administration to report to the FBI background check system individuals who have a severe mental illness that prevents them from managing their own affairs. This determination is made during the application process for Social Security disability benefits.

This policy could have prevented tragedies like that of Janet Delana and

her daughter Colby. Colby was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia in 201l. She received Social Security disability payments as a result of her mental illness and lived with her parents in Missouri. A year after her diagnosis, Colby used the money from her disability check to buy a gun at a local dealer. Her mom called the dealer and begged him not to make the sale. Janet explained that her daughter was mentally ill and suicidal and that she would likely use the gun to harm herself or others. Nonetheless, Colby passed her background check and bought the gun. Just an hour later, Colby shot her father to death and tried to kill herself. Janet's now a widow, and Colby lives in an institution. Their story didn't have to end that way. We should all agree that severely mentally ill individuals like Colby should not have access to guns. Federal law already says that individuals with severe mental illness are barred from purchasing or possessing guns. Yet time and again, we have seen prohibited purchasers like Colby pass background checks. That is because the background check system does not have records of all mentally ill individuals barred from buying guns.

While the background check system has denied gun transfers to 1.3 million prohibited individuals--including felons, drug addicts, and fugitives--it isn't perfect. There are individuals like Colby whose information should be in the system--but isn't. We need to improve the background check system and ensure information that is supposed to be in the system is in fact included.

A recent report by the Police Foundation and Major Cities Chiefs Association noted that this is critically important if we are going to reduce violent crime in our country. The 2007 mass shooting at Virginia Tech--the second deadliest mass shooting in our history--could have been prevented if we had a better background check system. Seung-Hui Cho, an angry, mentally disturbed individual, slaughtered 32 students and teachers and wounded many others. After the massacre, we learned that Cho in 2005 had been ordered to attend psychiatric treatment and a judge ruled that he presented ``an imminent danger to himself as a result of mental illness.'' As a consequence of this judge's determination, Cho's name should have been entered in the NICS database. But it wasn't--that is because the FBI didn't have the records.

In response to the shooting, Congress in 2007 unanimously approved the NICS Improvement Amendments Act to improve record keeping in the background check system. Senators Ted Kennedy, Pat Leahy, Chuck Schumer, and Tom Coburn worked together on the bill, and President Bush signed it into law. The bill was supported by both the National Rifle Association and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. That never happens.

It is this bill--passed unanimously and supported by the gun lobby-- that required the Social Security Administration to issue the rule we are debating today. The Social Security Administration engaged in a painstaking process over the past year to develop this policy. It received more than 90,000 comments from advocates and members of the public. The rule was carefully crafted to identify individuals like Colby, while protecting due process.

The majority of individuals with mental illness do not commit acts of violence, and they would not be affected by this rule. The rule covers only individuals with serious conditions, including schizophrenia, who need additional assistance to manage their affairs. This determination is made following an extensive review of medical evidence, which takes place before the person is approved for Social Security disability benefits.

The rule further specifies that it would only apply to prospective claimants--starting in December 2017. That means it would not apply to individuals who already receive disability benefits. Repealing this rule through the Congressional Review Act would not only overturn the policy that's been developed. It would block the Social Security Administration from ever taking action to implement the NICS Improvement Act and report mentally ill individuals to the FBI.

Time and time again, my Republican colleagues respond to horrific mass shootings by saying that we don't need any new gun laws. We just need to better enforce the gun laws we already have. That is exactly what this rule aims to do--improve enforcement of current law and make sure people already barred from buying guns can't buy guns.

So, the question comes: What won't Republicans do to appease the gun lobby?

We lose more than 30,000 people to gun violence each year in this country, many of whom are mentally ill and commit suicide. It should shock the conscience of the American people the Senate is considering weakening our Federal background check system in response to this unabated epidemic of violence.

I urge my colleagues to vote against repealing the Social Security Administration's rule. Thank you.

Mr. President, I am pleased to reintroduce the Santa

Ana River Wash Plan Land Exchange Act. This legislation directs the Bureau of Land Management, BLM, to exchange land with the San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District, the District, in San Bernardino, CA, as part of a regional land management plan.

The bill is the culmination of years of collaboration between numerous Federal and State agencies, private industry, and municipalities representing mining, flood control, water supply and wildlife conservation, among other interests.

Included among the supporters of this land exchange are county of San Bernardino; city of Redlands; city of Highland; San Bernardino Water Conservation District; San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District: East Valley Water District; Endangered Habitats League; CEMEX Construction Materials Pacific; Robertson's Ready Mix and Inland Action

In 1993, representatives from this diverse group formed the Wash Committee to address mining issues in the upper Santa Ana River wash area.

The role of the committee subsequently expanded in 1997 to consider the broad range of land uses in the area, including natural resource conservation.

The Wash Committee developed a strategy that focused best uses for more comprehensive planning and not on private property boundaries that would segment the area. The result is a forthcoming Land Management and Habitat Conservation Plan expected to cover 4,500 acres.

This land exchange will take place in a designated region within the Santa Ana Wash, at the junction of the Santa Ana River and Mill Creek.

Currently, land within the Santa Ana Wash is owned by both the District and BLM.

The land parcels owned by the district are currently used for recharging the local groundwater aquifer through more than 77 basins and also provide critical Riversidian sage scrub habitat for a number of State and federally listed species. In addition, under this plan, new land would be set aside for conservation purposes near land already managed by BLM.

The exchange of land between the district and BLM will connect a current patchwork of separately owned land parcels into a consolidated open space for conservation purposes and will optimize the efficiency of mining operations and water conservation efforts.

The land transfer resulting from this legislation will lead to increased habitat protection, improved connectivity in the wildlife corridor, expanded groundwater recharge for water supply, and the future establishment of public access and trails.

Additionally, the legislation will allow the continued use of land and mineral resources while maintaining the biological and hydrological resources of the area in an environmentally sensitive manner.

I want to applaud diverse members of the Wash Committee that worked together, including the cities of Highland and Redlands, East Valley Water District, the County of San Bernardino, Robertson's Ready Mix, CEMEX, the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District, and the San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District, along with the Federal, State and local stakeholders, for their continued efforts on the Wash Plan.

This group has demonstrated that, while it takes significant time, funding, and cooperation, it is possible to simultaneously protect the environment and support local jobs, business, and community interests.

I would also like to thank my colleagues, Representatives Paul Cook and Pete Aguilar, for introducing similar legislation in the House.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass the Santa Ana River Wash Plan Land Exchange Act.

Mr. President, I am pleased to reintroduce the Santa

Ana River Wash Plan Land Exchange Act. This legislation directs the Bureau of Land Management, BLM, to exchange land with the San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District, the District, in San Bernardino, CA, as part of a regional land management plan.

The bill is the culmination of years of collaboration between numerous Federal and State agencies, private industry, and municipalities representing mining, flood control, water supply and wildlife conservation, among other interests.

Included among the supporters of this land exchange are county of San Bernardino; city of Redlands; city of Highland; San Bernardino Water Conservation District; San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District: East Valley Water District; Endangered Habitats League; CEMEX Construction Materials Pacific; Robertson's Ready Mix and Inland Action

In 1993, representatives from this diverse group formed the Wash Committee to address mining issues in the upper Santa Ana River wash area.

The role of the committee subsequently expanded in 1997 to consider the broad range of land uses in the area, including natural resource conservation.

The Wash Committee developed a strategy that focused best uses for more comprehensive planning and not on private property boundaries that would segment the area. The result is a forthcoming Land Management and Habitat Conservation Plan expected to cover 4,500 acres.

This land exchange will take place in a designated region within the Santa Ana Wash, at the junction of the Santa Ana River and Mill Creek.

Currently, land within the Santa Ana Wash is owned by both the District and BLM.

The land parcels owned by the district are currently used for recharging the local groundwater aquifer through more than 77 basins and also provide critical Riversidian sage scrub habitat for a number of State and federally listed species. In addition, under this plan, new land would be set aside for conservation purposes near land already managed by BLM.

The exchange of land between the district and BLM will connect a current patchwork of separately owned land parcels into a consolidated open space for conservation purposes and will optimize the efficiency of mining operations and water conservation efforts.

The land transfer resulting from this legislation will lead to increased habitat protection, improved connectivity in the wildlife corridor, expanded groundwater recharge for water supply, and the future establishment of public access and trails.

Additionally, the legislation will allow the continued use of land and mineral resources while maintaining the biological and hydrological resources of the area in an environmentally sensitive manner.

I want to applaud diverse members of the Wash Committee that worked together, including the cities of Highland and Redlands, East Valley Water District, the County of San Bernardino, Robertson's Ready Mix, CEMEX, the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District, and the San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District, along with the Federal, State and local stakeholders, for their continued efforts on the Wash Plan.

This group has demonstrated that, while it takes significant time, funding, and cooperation, it is possible to simultaneously protect the environment and support local jobs, business, and community interests.

I would also like to thank my colleagues, Representatives Paul Cook and Pete Aguilar, for introducing similar legislation in the House.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass the Santa Ana River Wash Plan Land Exchange Act.

Mr. President, today I wish to discuss the recent passing of David Culp. He was an unassuming American hero, a man who spent much of his life working quietly but tirelessly to reduce the threat of nuclear weapons and eliminate them from the face of the Earth. For more than 15 years, David led efforts at the Friends Committee on National Legislation and in the arms control community to reach that goal, working with Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle.

Over the years, as I fought to oppose new nuclear weapons and to support vital arms control agreements, I always knew that David would be there with me, fighting for what was right. His persistence, his focus on concrete goals, and his constant, good-natured advocacy helped make the United States and the world a safer place.

It was President Harry Truman who said: ``It's amazing what you can accomplish if you don't care who gets the credit.'' David, who lived by those words, deserves enormous credit. He will be sorely missed.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss why I do not think Betsy DeVos is the right person for this very important job.

As you know, I have been a long and proud supporter of our education system. I have supported public, charter, private, and magnet schools across the great State of California. I have always supported a parent's right to choose the right school for his or her child, and I have always believed that different models of schools provide students with more individualized experiences that are tailored to meet their needs and how they best learn and are enabled to succeed.

While Mrs. DeVos is also a proponent of school choice, I believe we have very different philosophies on this issue. Personally, I can only support schools when there is accountability. Schools should be accredited, well managed with proper fiscal controls, and transparent in regard to student performance for all of the students they serve. We owe it to our parents and students to protect their right to access a high quality education. We owe it to our teachers to provide them with the resources and leadership they need to become master educators.

Mrs. DeVos has never worked in the classroom or as a school administrator, and during the Senate committee hearing on her nomination, she clearly showed she does not have a firm grasp of basic tenets of education policy or program implementation. Mrs. DeVos and her family have been longtime donors to efforts to expand unregulated school choice. Their financial efforts prevented accountability efforts to go into effect that would have provided regulation over the proliferation of the for-profit charter schools throughout Michigan.

Additionally, I found it troubling that, during Mrs. DeVos's confirmation hearing before the Senate Health Education and Pensions Committee, she testified that she would support the repeal of the Gun Free School Zones Act, which bans guns in schools. Mrs. DeVos cited that grizzly bears in Wyoming is one legitimate reason why guns should be allowed in schools; yet the vast majority of our Nation's schools face zero threat of an attack from grizzly bears that would justify the risk of allowing guns on their premises.

Throughout my career, I have been a strong supporter of gun free school zones. And educators, parents, and students--who are all directly affected by this law--support gun free school zones. I find it problematic that Mrs. DeVos makes light of this issue and would go along with the President's opinion on this issue, considering we had 15 school shootings throughout 2016.

The Secretary of Education serves in a very important role. The Secretary ensures that all of our Nation's students have equitable access to a high quality education. They ensure that students' civil rights are protected under Federal law and that schools are held accountable for the performance of all students regardless of socioeconomic status, language barrier or disability.

My colleagues and I have an opportunity to stand up for our children by opposing Betsy DeVos and demand that the President put forward a highly qualified candidate that can best serve our students, parents, and teachers in this important role.

I would also like to mention that I have heard from over 96,000 of my constituents, whether they left comments with my staff or wrote me a letter, explaining why Mrs. DeVos was an unacceptable candidate for Secretary of Education. I heard you all loud and clear, and I want you to know that I am here to serve you, and I will continue to be your voice.

Thank you.

Mr. President, thank you very much, and I want to thank the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee for his remarks. I greatly appreciate the opportunity to work with him, and we have a number of major issues forthcoming.

I rise to oppose the nomination of Senator Sessions to become the Attorney General of the United States. I think some of us and I certainly have lived through many difficult times in this country, but today this country is as divided as I have ever seen it.

Some Republicans have said that Democrats are in the anger stage of grief, but with all due respect, those statements just trivialize what is going on in this country. It is not trivial, and it is not small. Today America is a country split in half, with at least half objecting to the actions of this President, including his nominee for Attorney General.

My office has received approximately 114,000 calls and emails regarding Senator Sessions, with 112,000--more than 98 percent--opposed to this nominee. I would like to quote a few of my constituents who deeply oppose this President and this nominee and have been taking to the streets to protect the fundamental values of America.

Here is one from a doctor:

I marched because of the thousands of patients I've seen in

the community, people of color, immigrants from all over the

globe, who are terrified about the loss of their rights and

the dramatic explosion of racially and culturally focused

hate crimes we're reading about.

I marched on Saturday because women must not be denigrated,

as we've seen by the attitude exemplified by our new

President in his unmeasured remarks.

I marched on Saturday because I'm desperately worried that

the progress this country has made in recognizing the rights

of all Americans regardless of race, ethnicity and religious

belief, is now threatened with a roll-back to the `50s.

The American process of justice is a beacon and an example

to the world. Jeff Sessions must not be confirmed.

Here is another:

As a Californian who wants to finish school, as a

Californian with ``pre-existing conditions,'' as a Latina and

as the kid of a South American immigrant--I don't know what I

can say other than please, please, protect us from whatever

is coming as best you can.

One woman who marched after the inauguration came to my office the following Monday and wrote a handwritten note explaining why she marched. Here is what it said:

Our President quickly dismisses all protesters as

``professionals'' and ``sore losers.'' I am here in

Washington for his first full week of the presidency to send

the message that I am neither a ``professional'' nor a ``sore

loser''--just an ordinary American citizen who can no longer

sleep well at night worrying about how his agenda will

negatively impact not only our country, but democracies all

over the globe. America is already great; what Trump and his

administration will do is destroy it.

To my constituents--112,000 have called and emailed to oppose this nominee--let me just say this: I hear you.

To my Republican colleagues, this is not grief about losing an election. At no time when my party lost an election or when the President was of a different party did I feel the way I feel today. For most Presidents, there is hope--a hope of unity, a hope of bringing people together, a sense of common purpose. That is what it means to be a leader of this country, the whole country--red States and blue States, all of our people.

President Obama began his tenure in office with a 69-percent approval rating. President George W. Bush talked about compassionate conservatism. After a terrorist attack killed nearly 3,000 people, President Bush went to the Islamic Center in Washington on September 17, 2001, and said: ``Islam is peace.''

He said:

Muslims are doctors, lawyers, law professors, members of

the military, entrepreneurs, shopkeepers, moms and dads. And

they need to be treated with respect. In our anger and

emotion, our fellow Americans must treat each other with

respect.

Incidentally, President Eisenhower dedicated the Islamic Center in 1957, and here is what he said then:

Under the American Constitution, under American tradition,

and in American hearts, this Center, this place of worship,

is just as welcome as could be a similar edifice of any other

religion. Indeed, America would fight with her whole strength

for your right to have here your own church and worship

according to your own conscience.

Now, Mr. President, that was the man who led American and Allied forces in Europe against Nazi Germany, a regime of pure evil that targeted Jews based on their religion and exterminated millions of Jews, Poles, Serbs, Roma, Soviet citizens, gays, lesbians, and many others. President Eisenhower was saying that this country, the United States of America, would fight with her whole strength to protect the religious freedom of Muslims. ``Without that concept,'' President Eisenhower said, ``we would be something else than what we are.''

Can anybody even imagine Donald Trump uttering words like two of his Republican predecessors, Dwight Eisenhower and George W. Bush?

Instead, there is attack after attack after attack on minorities, on immigrants, on Muslims, on women, on his critics, on judges, on the press, and yes, even on truth itself.

There is the President's Muslim ban Executive order, which our government says has caused between 60,000 and 100,000 visas to be revoked. That order, which caused chaos at airports around the country, is now subject to nearly 60 legal challenges in Federal courts. On Friday, a Federal judge in Washington State blocked implementation of major portions of the Executive order. The judge, appointed by President George W. Bush, was then promptly attacked on Twitter by President Donald Trump. This afternoon, the Ninth Circuit will review the stay.

To say this is just a stage of grief after losing an election is really to ignore reality.

Last week Sally Yates had to stand up and tell the President no. Now more than ever, it is clear how important it is that the Department of Justice be independent from the President. When she stood up, she was promptly fired by this President. And not only was she fired, but her integrity and her character were maligned in an over-the-top press statement. This woman is a career prosecutor with 27 years of experience. She was the lead prosecutor in the terrorist prosecution of 1996 Olympic bomber Eric Rudolph. She actually went after a real terrorist, and she got a conviction. The President called her a ``disgrace'' and ``weak on borders.''

Here is the point: This is the man for whom Senator Sessions has been a stalwart campaign advocate. In response to my written questions, Senator Sessions stated: ``I endorsed him in part because he was a leader advocating for issues I supported and believed in.''

Senator Sessions was a close campaign adviser and supporter of the President. He was the first Senator to endorse him. He spoke on Trump's behalf at the National Republican Convention. He appeared at numerous rallies. He attended at least 45 campaign events. During the campaign, he spoke at large rallies, smiling and laughing, while crowds chanted ``Lock her up.''

Then in October of last year, at one of the Presidential debates and again at a rally in Virginia, Candidate Trump repeatedly referred to him as ``my attorney general.''

A month after the announcement of his nomination to be Attorney General, he appeared again with the President-elect on a thank-you tour in Alabama. This was a rally where many of the President's campaign promises, such as building the wall, were repeated. Crowds once again chanted ``Lock her up.'' The President-elect introduced him, and Senator Sessions came forward. As he walked out to speak to dramatic effect, he whipped out a ``Make America Great Again'' hat, put it on, and pumped his fists into the air.

Already, at this point, he had been designated to be the next Attorney General of the United States, an independent legal check on the President, a man who responds to the Constitution and the law independent of the Chief Executive. One would have thought a sense of the solemn duty of the Office of Attorney General would have counseled against appearing at yet another political rally with Trump, but it did not.

At that rally, as Attorney General designate, Sessions said that the Trump campaign was ``more than a normal campaign, but a movement,'' and when he finished speaking, he thanked the President-elect for ``the opportunity to participate in a movement that I believe can help make America great again.''

So, to me, this is key. This shows how Senator Sessions views this appointment--as an ``opportunity to participate in a movement'' to advance the President's agenda. This is not the role of the Attorney General of the United States. This is more political than any Attorney General nominee in recent memory has ever been. Can we really expect him to be an Attorney General who is independent from President Trump? I do not believe so.

In fact, a recent Washington Post story reports the depth of Senator Sessions' involvement in the Trump transition. The Washington Post reported that during the transition, ``Sessions became a daily presence at Trump Tower in New York, mapping out the policy agenda and making personnel decisions.'' In fact, you can search C-SPAN, the Web site, for video of Senator Sessions speaking at Trump Tower about the transition.

On November 15, in the lobby of Trump Tower, he said:

My former chief of staff is doing a great job under

incredible demands, and the whole team is working long hours

I mean, 20 hours a day kind of work and just remarkable what

is happening. I'm one of the co-chairs, of five, I believe,

co-chairs of the committee under Vice President-elect Pence.

Then Senator Sessions said, ``Steve Bannon is a powerful intellect and a thoughtful leader that consistently provides good advice.''

We learned last week that Steve Bannon thinks the same thing about Senator Sessions. As Bannon wrote to the Washington Post just days ago, Sessions was--and I quote, and here it is--``the fiercest, most dedicated and most loyal promoter in Congress of Trump's agenda, and has played a critical role as the clearinghouse for policy and philosophy to undergird the implementation of that agenda.''

The Post went on to report that Senator Sessions ``lobbied for a `shock-and-awe' period of executive action that would rattle Congress, impress Trump's base, and catch his critics unaware, according to two officials involved in the transition planning.''

The article says: ``Sessions had advocated going even faster.''

Now, we have seen the consequences of those actions, and what is the result? Division, legal challenges, people marching in the streets.

Senator Sessions is not a man apart from this agenda. He is not independent of this agenda. He is part of it. He is committed to it. He is a leader of it.

Now, let me move to other parts of Senator Sessions' record and what we learned from him in the hearing.

I said earlier that I cannot imagine a more important time for the Department of Justice to be independent of the President. Part of that is because of what we know about the Russians and their illegal efforts to get this President elected.

The Intelligence Community has reached the following conclusions about Russian activities during the election, among others: ``We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S. presidential election.''

Quote: ``Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the United States Democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency.''

Quote: ``We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump.''

Quote: ``We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump's election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him.''

Quote: ``We assess with high confidence that Russian military intelligence (General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate or GRU) used the Guccifer 2.0 persona and DCLeaks.com to release U.S. victim data obtained in cyber operations publicly and in exclusives to media outlets and relayed material to WikiLeaks.''

These are just some of the conclusions that our intelligence agencies--all of them--have reached, including the FBI.

The Department of Justice, through the National Security Division and the FBI, has an important role to play in investigating and prosecuting Russians or coconspirators in this matter. The FBI, as I said, was part of the assessment that led to the January report.

Now, Senator Sessions chaired the President's National Security Advisory Committee during the campaign. That is a committee on which National Security Advisor Flynn served. So he was Trump's top person on national security, and it is no secret that explosive allegations about the President's and his campaign team's connections to Russia are out there.

As a Senator, including as a member of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Sessions was quite critical of Russia. In 2000, he said Russia is a country where leaders lie, cheat, and steal to maintain political office.

That was a floor speech on April 13, 2000.

In 2014, after Russia invaded Crimea, Senator Sessions said, ``I believe a systematic effort should be undertaken so that Russia feels pain for this.''

This was in the Montgomery Advertiser, March 19, 2014.

When he was a Senator in the 1990s, he and other Republican Judiciary Committee members called for a special prosecutor because of allegations of $1 million in Chinese monetary contributions to a Presidential campaign.

That is from a floor speech on March 9, 2000.

He pointed to the campaign connection and said that meant the Attorney General needed to appoint a special prosecutor. He said: ``This is serious business. We ought not to treat this lightly.''

Floor speech, March 9, 2000.

Yet, now that our intelligence community has concluded that Russia, at

the direction of Vladimir Putin, invaded the American political process with massive hacks and leaks for the purpose of favoring candidate Trump, Senator Sessions says that he has not even reviewed the intelligence community's reports.

When asked in writing by myself in Question for the Record 2b after his hearing whether he had even read the intelligence assessments, classified or unclassified, he said he had not read either one.

Now, that is stunning. One of the most important national security revelations in recent years, and he is nominated to be Attorney General, and he hasn't reviewed it? Why? He attended 45 campaign events, was intimately involved in the campaign and transition, but despite all of this, he would not commit himself to recuse himself.

This should be of real concern to all of us.

Another nation--namely, Russia--has attacked our political process in a major way: hacking a political party and leaking its internal deliberations. This time, it targeted the Democratic Party; next time, it could be the Republican Party, but whichever party it is, we can't let this continue.

Intelligence and law enforcement professionals must be able to follow the facts wherever they lead. The investigation could lead to the prosecution of people who helped hack and leak information hacked by Russia to help the President's campaign. It obviously has the potential to create embarrassment for the President and his people, and to implicate people involved in the campaign.

So the question is a big one, and we ought to think about it. How will this nominee handle investigation and prosecution into an unprecedented and major foreign intrusion into the election of the President of the United States? Can he be independent of the White House? I do not believe he can.

Let me move on to voting rights. Senator Sessions long ago testified that he thought the Voting Rights Act was an intrusive piece of legislation. He acknowledged this again in his hearing. In 1986, Senator Sessions said: ``It is a serious thing . . . for the Federal Government to come in and sue a county and say we are going to change the form of government you have been living with for 20 years.''

That implies a hesitation to use the Voting Rights Act to change certain systems of election in counties that were adopted to disenfranchise minorities.

When we considered the Voting Rights Act Reauthorization of 2006, the Senator voted for it. But he also expressed skepticism about the preclearance provision of the act, section 5, which was a core part of the act. And then, when the Supreme Court narrowly ruled five to four in Shelby County--that is a decision--and that section 5 of the Voting Rights Act could no longer be enforced, Senator Sessions called it ``good news for the South.''

What does that mean? It means State after State that had been prevented from denying the right to vote by section 5 can now proceed unless they are affirmatively stopped by a new lawsuit that takes time to develop, and a wave of new laws suppressing the vote were quickly passed following the Supreme Court's ruling.

He has tried to argue that he will fully enforce the Voting Rights Act. In his committee questionnaire, he pointed to 4 cases he claimed were among the 10 most significant litigated cases he personally handled. As Senator Franken demonstrated in our committee, his record of handling these cases is thin, at best. Lawyers who handled three of the cases say Senator Sessions had no substantive involvement. He did not mention them in his 1986 questionnaire, even though the cases were ongoing at that time. And now he says he played a supporting or assistance role in them.

So these cases do not make me confident that as Attorney General overseeing the Civil Rights Division, he will ensure that the civil rights and voting rights laws are fairly enforced.

So I asked him questions to see what he would do. I pointed out in written questions that several voter ID laws have now been struck down, or severely limited, under the Voting Rights Act. Just one example: One of the most conservative appeals courts in the Nation, the Fifth Circuit, found that Texas's law violates the Voting Rights Act. According to the courts, 608,470 registered voters in Texas lack required ID, and Black and Latino voters were far more likely than White voters to lack the required ID. The court found that the Texas law had a discriminatory effect, in violation of the Voting Rights Act.

Now, this means the Justice Department can protect the voting rights of Americans in these cases. So I asked him, would you continue to enforce the Voting Rights Act in these situations? There is now precedent for it. He would not answer. He tried to say that the Supreme Court has actually held that voter ID laws do not necessarily violate the Voting Rights Act.

That is my written question for the record, No. 14.

But the Supreme Court decision he referenced, Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, did not talk about the Voting Rights Act at all.

So I asked him to clarify his response. His answer indicated that it was just his own view that voter ID laws do not necessarily violate the Voting Rights Act. This was a follow-up question, No. 7a. That may be his personal view, but the courts' view is that these laws can and in some circumstances do violate the Voting Rights Act. But he still has refused to say whether he will bring those cases.

Then, when asked about voter fraud by Senator Coons, Senator Sessions responded that he believes ``fraudulent activities regularly occur'' during elections. He pointed to a single report to support his view that voter ID laws are a good idea. That is Senator Coons' question for the record 9b. He refused to comment on data provided by Senator Coons that showed the rarity of in-person voter impersonation fraud, which is the only thing a voter ID law can catch. He didn't comment about the impact on hundreds of thousands of legitimate voters, many of them minorities and students, who are denied the fundamental right to vote by these laws.

Now we have the President on Twitter and television claiming that millions of illegal votes were cast and that is why he lost the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes, and he is ordering his administration to investigate that. If President Trump asks Attorney General Sessions to carry out his partisan, pointless investigation, what will Senator Sessions do? Is the legendary Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department going to become President Trump's political investigator? Or will it defend and use the Voting Rights Act to protect the right to vote of millions of Americans against efforts by States to take that right away? I just don't have confidence that Jeff Sessions will fairly apply the law in this area.

Now, if confirmed, what will Senator Sessions do when faced with questions on reproductive rights? Will he undermine a woman's fundamental right to control her own body and her own reproductive system?

In 2015, Senator Sessions voted for legislation that would impose a nationwide ban on abortion after 20 weeks. That legislation had a penalty of jailing doctors for up to 5 years, and it would have forced survivors of rape and incest to overcome additional and medically unnecessary hurdles before they could receive an abortion. The legislation also had no exception for a woman's health and only a narrow exception to save her life.

Imagine what it is like to be a woman who learns that she has serious complications late in pregnancy and that she will suffer debilitating physical health effects if she cannot get an abortion. Then imagine having to tell her that her health must suffer for the rest of her life because politicians have prohibited her from making her own health care decisions. But this is the outcome Senator Sessions voted for.

Senator Sessions believes the case that established a woman's right to control her own reproductive system--Roe v. Wade--is one of the ``worst, colossally erroneous Supreme Court decisions of all time.'' In fact, weeks ago when testifying before our committee, I asked him if this is still his view, and he said ``it is.'' He even said Roe v. Wade ``violated the Constitution.''

That statement essentially invites States to enact more and more restrictions on women's fundamental access to health care. It is a signal to those

States that if they enact restrictions and are challenged in court, then the Justice Department may in fact support them and try to overturn Roe v. Wade. In fact, I asked him about that, and he did not rule out the Justice Department's pushing to overturn Roe. He left the door open by saying:

Such decisions would depend upon the unique circumstances

of the case or cases as they arise. I will not pre-judge the

issues.

That is the response to my question for the record 6a.

He even refused to rule out punishment for women who have abortions-- a position President Trump took during the campaign. That is a response to Senator Blumenthal's question for the record 11a.

So what does it mean for him, as Attorney General of the United States? It means he very well may seek to overturn Roe v. Wade. It means the Justice Department may go to court and support continued State efforts to further and further restrict the rights of women to control their own reproductive system.

The bottom line: I do not have confidence that Senator Sessions will fairly and independently safeguard the freedoms of the women of America.

Let me move on to immigration. Senator Sessions has been the staunchest opponent of comprehensive immigration reform, preventing the passage of legislation to strengthen the border and prevent families from being torn apart.

Senator Sessions opposed immigration reform so strenuously that he drafted and distributed his own book entitled ``Immigration Handbook for the New Republican Majority.'' This handbook implied that immigrants were taking jobs from low-income minorities and abusing public benefit programs--setting people against each other. More alarmingly, Senator Sessions voted at least twice against the DREAM Act, which seeks to protect some of our country's most vulnerable youth, undocumented individuals--children--who were brought here through no choice of their own.

On President Obama's Executive action to protect those children-- known as DACA--he doesn't just oppose it. He is actively seeking to take it down. A recent Washington Post article says he is lobbying for the administration to overturn DACA. It is one thing to disagree on policy, but it is quite another when the policy could crush the lives of ordinary people.

In December, I wrote an op-ed in the San Francisco Chronicle about the importance of DACA and what it means for Californians.

I discussed the story of Denisse Rojas, brought to the United States as a 10-month-old baby. Rojas' family is similar to many families with mixed status. Her mother and father came to the United States to create a better life for their children.

Denisse excelled in high school and majored in biology at UC Berkeley. She worked as a waitress and commuted an hour each way to classes because she couldn't afford to live near campus. After graduation, she volunteered at San Francisco General Hospital. Denisse dreamed of going to medical school, driven in part by a family member's early death from cancer. The disease was diagnosed at a late stage because the family's immigration status made it impossible to afford health insurance.

Today, Rojas is enrolled in New York's Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, where she is on track to earn her degree in 2019. She intends to specialize in emergency medicine and work in low-income communities to provide health care to families, like her own, who would otherwise go without necessary treatment.

This is the perfect case for discretion. This is the perfect case for the exercise of a just humanity. But Senator Sessions is lobbying to overturn DACA. The consequences of such a draconian and inhumane action would be devastating to thousands of people in my State, and I find it deeply disturbing that Senator Sessions would advocate for the deportation of children who have known no other country but the United States.

If he doesn't believe these youth deserve some sort of prosecutorial discretion when it comes to deportation, how is he going to act as our Nation's leading Federal criminal prosecutor?

It is no secret that he believes in an aggressive use of executive enforcement power in the area of immigration. He testified in response to Senator Flake that he favors ``a zero tolerance'' policy for immigration crimes. Immigration offenses already make up about a third of all Federal prosecutions each year. So does it make sense to increase that substantially? There certainly are more troubling crimes at the border and across the country that require the attention and resources of the Department of Justice: human trafficking, smugglers, organized crime, gangs, drug trafficking, hate crimes, white-collar crimes, civil rights, and voting rights, just to name a few. So Senator Sessions' opposition to prosecutorial discretion caused me great concern.

Let's move on to criminal law.

During the hearing, discussing sentencing with Senator Coons, Senator Sessions revealed his view about what a Federal prosecutor should be. He said it was ``a problematic thing'' that is ``difficult to justify'' when a prosecutor uses some discretion to bring lesser charges or not to charge the maximum drug charge available.

As we know, drug prosecutions were the most common Federal charge in 2015. So Senator Sessions' view on them will have a big impact on the workload in U.S. attorneys' offices. If it becomes the nationwide policy of the Department, it will mean mandatory sentences of 5 years, 10 years, 20 years, and even life in prison for drug charges will be imposed much more often, because depending on how prosecutors charge cases, the law will tie a judge's hands when it comes to a sentence. That is how our system works today.

The mission of a prosecutor is to do justice, not instinctively bring the maximum charge. As then-Attorney General Robert Jackson said in 1940:

The prosecutor has more control over life, liberty, and

reputation than any other person in America. His discretion

is tremendous.

Your positions are of such independence and importance that

while you are being diligent, strict, and vigorous in law

enforcement, you can also afford to be just. Although the

government technically loses its case, it has really won if

justice has been done.

For Senator Sessions to say that a prosecutor cannot exercise some judgment, based on the circumstances of a case, to seek a lesser charge or a lesser punishment, in my view, is just not correct.

We have discussed mandatory minimum sentencing in the Judiciary Committee. The Senator from Illinois, distinguished as he is, has been a leader in this cause. It has been discussed for years in the context of the sentencing reform efforts led by Senators Lee, Cornyn, Durbin, Grassley, Leahy, and Whitehouse. Senator Lee, in particular, has been a passionate advocate against mandatory minimum sentencing.

I believe in enforcement of the drug laws. I always have. There are difficult questions about what actions the Justice Department would take in States that have legalized marijuana in some way or another under their own laws.

The bottom line is this: sensitivity and good judgment are needed in prosecutorial decisions. We want to make sure the sentence fits the crime and that resources are used wisely. Senator Sessions' comments make it clear that he generally opposes granting discretion to a prosecutor to impose a lesser charge or a lesser sentence based on the circumstances of the case before them.

One thing I found striking was that in Senator Sessions' written statement to the committee, he said the following: ``I understand the demands for justice and fairness made by the LGBT community.''

I have served on the Judiciary Committee for 24 years. Twenty of them have been alongside Senator Sessions. I cannot recall a single time when he spoke about supporting any kind of ``justice and fairness'' for the LGBT community or made any kind of statement like this. We looked and couldn't find one in the Congressional Record either. In fact, the statement stands at odds with his record.

Let me give you a few examples. In 2011, we marked up a bill I had introduced to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA, that denied married gay and lesbian couples equal protection under the law. Not only did Senator Sessions vote no--as

all Republicans on the committee did--but he asked questions like, ``What about two sisters?''--as if to compare same-sex marriage to incest, a demeaning statement about hundreds of thousands of families in this country.

He voted against allowing gay and lesbian Americans to serve in the military. In 2009, he voted against the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Act. He said he did not see the kind of discrimination happening against the LGBT community or women. He said the law was potentially unconstitutional, which is not an argument that, to my knowledge, has ever been accepted by a court.

In 2006, he voted to enshrine discrimination in our Constitution by supporting the constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage everywhere in the country. What did he say? He said the Senate had to debate the amendment because of a ``deliberate and sustained effort by leftists in America,'' ``social activists,'' and ``activist judges.''

He talked about harm to children, ignoring the fact that same-sex couples are raising children and that denying equal recognition to their families actually hurts those children. Then he went on to criticize the 2003 decision of the Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas, which essentially said that private homosexual conduct cannot be made a crime in this Nation.

The Lawrence decision, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, was a victory for freedom. How did Senator Sessions describe it? He argued the decision was wrong, and ``troubling with far-reaching ramifications.'' He said it was a ``new vision of social justice, masquerading . . . as constitutional law.''

He called Justice Scalia's dissent ``brilliant.'' That dissent, by the way, accused the Supreme Court of ``sign[ing] on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct.''

When he was Attorney General of Alabama, he sought to shut down a conference of LGBT students on a public university campus in Alabama. This was despite a Supreme Court decision issued just a year earlier protecting a Christian student group from discrimination based on viewpoint.

The Eleventh Circuit Court--in a panel of three judges appointed by Republican Presidents--called the State's action ``blatant viewpoint discrimination'' and characterized Sessions' arguments as ``feeble.''

Does any of this sound like the actions of a person who understands the demands for justice and fairness made by the LGBT community? My answer is no.

How will that impact the Attorney General? The Attorney General must enforce Federal hate crimes laws. The Attorney General must ensure that Federal law treats same-sex couples equally; that the right to marry and be treated equally under Federal law is recognized and protected.

Here we are, I think, at a very difficult and dangerous turning point. We have a President with little apparent regard for constitutional or legal restrictions and who is willing to take to Twitter to target and abuse individuals and groups of Americans, and even belittle and demean Federal judges and the Federal court system, just as he did during the campaign.

We have a President who has taken a ``shock and awe'' approach with cruel, un-American, and potentially illegal Executive orders even in his first 2 weeks in office, which this nominee reportedly urged be done even faster.

We have a President who wants to bring back torture, even though-- thanks to Senator McCain--Congress has already stated it is clearly illegal. We have a President who is already angering long-term allies like Australia and making ridiculous threats of sending troops to Mexico.

We have a nominee for Attorney General who is anything but independent. He was part and parcel of the Trump campaign apparatus, transition, agenda, and way of thinking.

As Steve Bannon wrote in the Washington Post just days ago, Sessions was ``the fiercest, most dedicated and most loyal promoter in Congress of Trump's agenda, and has played a critical role as the clearinghouse for policy and philosophy to undergird the implementation of that agenda.''

Do any of my colleagues--Republican or Democratic--think Steve Bannon didn't know what he was talking about in this email to the Washington Post? Do any of my colleagues believe that if Senator Sessions is confirmed, he is going to take off the political hat and be an even- handed Attorney General for all Americans who will tell this President no when it is merited on the basis of the law and the Constitution?

I don't believe it for a second. I must vote no and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I yield one hour of the time under my control to Senator Booker.

And I yield 30 minutes of my time to Senator Leahy.

And I yield 10 minutes of my time to Senator Klobuchar.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.