Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Thank you all. (Applause, Senators rising.)

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I present to the body my letter of resignation, which I ask unanimous consent be printed in the Record.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues in the Senate. Serving in this body for 20 years has been one of the great honors of my life. I remember coming up when I was running for the Senate and going to the Republican luncheon. They said: Well, you have a few minutes. You can say something, but don't talk very long because people don't want to hear a lot from you, frankly. So I told them that I could think of no greater honor than to represent the people of Alabama in the greatest deliberative body in the history of the world. That is what I feel about this body. I want to say, I appreciate the full debate we have had. I want to thank those who, after it all, found sufficient confidence in me to cast their vote to confirm me as the next Attorney General of the United States of America. I have to tell you, I fully understand the august responsibilities of that office. I served as United States attorney for 12 years and assistant United States attorney for a little over 2 years. During that time, the very idea of those great leaders in Washington leading those departments I served under make it almost impossible for me to conceive, I am that person and will have that opportunity and that responsibility. So I understand the seriousness of it. I have an interest in law enforcement. I have an interest in the rule of law. So I want to thank those of you who supported me and had confidence in me. I want to thank President Donald Trump. He believes in the rule of law. He believes in protecting the American people from crime and violence. He believes in a lawful system of immigration that serves the national interest, within bounds, and those are things that may from time to time come before the Office of Attorney General. I look forward to lawfully and properly advancing those items and others that we as a body support, and the American people believe in. The Attorney General--this is a law enforcement office first and foremost. People expect the Department defend us, defend us from terrorists, defend us from criminals, defend the country from fraudsters who raid the U.S. Treasury time and time again and too often are not being caught or held to account for it. I believe that is a big responsibility of the U.S. Attorney General and the whole Department of Justice. As a former Federal prosecutor, I worked regularly, nights, weekends, and became personal friends with fabulous Federal investigative agents. They give their lives, place their lives on the line for us to promote public safety, to try to do the right thing for America. Sometimes people think of them in terms of taking away our freedoms. That is not so. They are out there every day putting their lives on the line to advance our freedoms, to protect our liberties, to protect public safety, to stop terrorism that threatens our government. So I feel strongly about that. I had the honor to lead some of the finest assistant United States attorneys in America. Our goal--well, before I became an assistant, I was told that Mobile had the best U.S. attorney's office in America. So when I came back as U.S. attorney some 6 years later, I told them that was our goal. We were going to have the best United States attorney's office in America. What a great time we had. We had wonderful people. They worked nights and weekends to prepare their cases. We went before great Federal judges. It was a glorious time. It was really a special time. I will never ever forget that. I was before the Judiciary committee in 1986, and Senator Kennedy--later my friend--spoke harshly about me. It was on the TV. They would show his statement. He said I should resign my office. So a few minutes later I had a chance to say something. I said: Senator Kennedy, what you said breaks my heart. Nothing I have ever done have I been more proud of than serving as United States Attorney. I still believe that. Nothing I have ever done am I more proud of than the work we did in that little office in Mobile, AL, representing the United States of America. You go into court, you stand before the judge, and you say: The United States is ready. I represent the United States of America in a litigation. So this is a big deal. So I would say to you, friends and colleagues, that this is a special honor. I feel it in my bones. I hope and pray I can be worthy of the trust you have given me. I will do my best to do that. Let me comment a minute on the heated debate we have had here in the Senate on my nomination and others. It was an intense election. There is no doubt about that. There have been strong feelings expressed during the election and throughout this confirmation process. Sometimes we have philosophical disagreements, just sincere disagreements about policy, what is right and what is wrong, what the law says, what it does not say. I believe words ought to be given their fair and plain meaning. Words are not tools that can be manipulated to make it say what you want it to say. I believe words have objective meanings. So sometimes we have differences about that, but that is what elections are about. I have always liked the debate. I have always enjoyed participating in this great body, where we are free to speak and be able to advocate for the values that we have. But I don't think we have such a classical disagreement that we can't get together. I have always tried to keep my disagreements from being personal. I have always tried to be courteous to my colleagues. Still, tension is built in the system. It is there. The plain fact is that our Nation does have room for Republicans and Democrats. That is what freedom is all about. I am fairly firm, I have to say, in my convictions, but that does not mean that all of us have to agree on the same thing. We need latitude in our relationships. So let's agree on what we can agree on, and I suggest that to my colleagues as I leave here, and take action where we can agree on things, but denigrating people whom you disagree with I think is not a healthy trend for our body. After I had been here for a number of years, I had gotten along pretty well with Senator Kennedy on the Judiciary Committee. He asked me to be the lead sponsor with him on the significant, pretty controversial bill to eliminate prison rape. There were a number of honorable people who opposed it, some friends of mine. He said: I want to do this with you. People asked me: Did you ever have a reconciliation? Did he apologize? He said: I want to do this bill with you. And I knew what that meant. I appreciated that. I said: I want to do this bill with you. And so we were able to pass that bill together. It was a moment of reconciliation that meant a lot to me. I think he appreciated it too. We later got involved in another major piece of legislation, just the two of us, that would have established a portable savings plan for young workers like the Federal thrift plan. About that time, the financial crisis hit, and then he became ill and it never came to fruition. But reconciliation is important. We ought to do that in this body. We ought to try to fight for our values and not give an inch. You don't have to back down if you believe you are right, and you should not back down. But there are ways that we can get along personally. I would say that would be my prayer for this body; that in the future maybe the intensity of the last few weeks would die down and maybe somehow we would get along better. So, colleagues, I can't express how appreciative I am for those of you who stood by me during this difficult time. I could start calling all their names, but it would not be appropriate. I want to say again, I appreciate the President and his confidence in me, and by your vote tonight, I have been given a real challenge. I will do my best to be worthy of it. I look forward to working with each of you during that time and maybe make sure that we have a good open door at the Department of Justice. My wife has picked up pretty quickly that we have a chef, and we can actually invite people for lunch or breakfast there. Maybe we can do that. Finally, let me thank my family because without their support, I could not be here. It is great. My children have been so engaged in this. They were young when my 1986 adventure occurred. Now they are grown. Your support and affirmation have meant much to me. Letter Of Resignation

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, today I would like to take the opportunity to recognize Mr. Jay Grinney, the president and chief executive officer of HealthSouth Corporation. Mr. Grinney will be retiring from his position at the end of 2016, and his tenure at HealthSouth has been marked with success and expansion for the company. Jay Grinney earned his bachelor's degree from St. Olaf College and received a masters of business administration and a masters of health care administration from Washington University. He served as senior vice president at the Methodist hospital system in Houston, the primary teaching affiliate for the Baylor College of Medicine, then went on to become president of the Eastern Group at Hospital Corporation of America, the Nation's largest health care company. Jay Grinney has been with HealthSouth for over 20 years and served as president and CEO since 2004. Throughout his career, he has maintained a strong work ethic and exercised excellent management of every organization he has led. Mr. Grinney's leadership at HealthSouth Corporation in particular cannot be underappreciated. HealthSouth is one of the Nation's largest providers of postacute health care services, offering both facility- based and home-based postacute services in 33 States and Puerto Rico through its inpatient rehabilitation clinics. Mr. Grinney became CEO at a critical time in HealthSouth's history and engineered the company's turnaround and repositioning as one of the Nation's leading providers of postacute services. He has overseen the diversification of the company and ensured its financial stability and future. He led the HealthSouth acquisition of Encompass Home Health and Hospice, Reliant Hospital Partners, and CareSouth, successfully expanding the HealthSouth network to 34 States. Along the way, he established a strong senior management team to ensure growth for HealthSouth in the years to come. For the over 20 years I have known Mr. Grinney, he has proven himself to be a man of great character, and without his guidance, HealthSouth would not be the company it is today. HealthSouth's head corporation office is located in Birmingham, AL, and HealthSouth operates five rehabilitation hospitals and one outpatient rehabilitation clinic across the State. The company provides jobs to hundreds of Alabamians and quality health care to so many more. Jay Grinney's strong leadership and dedication have enabled this company to continue to provide critical care to our communities. Mr. Grinney himself is involved with a number of community organizations, serving on the boards of directors of the Birmingham Business Alliance, where he is on the executive committee, the Community Foundation of Greater Birmingham, where he is chairman of the audit committee, and the Public Affairs Research Council of Alabama. He previously served as chairman of the board of directors of the Federation of American Hospitals and as a director on the boards of directors of the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute and the United Way of Central Alabama. Though Mr. Grinney was not born in Alabama, he embodies all the qualities we most appreciate and respect. I speak for the citizens of Alabama when I thank Jay Grinney for all the work he has done for our State and so many others across the country through his tenure at HealthSouth. Mr. Grinney will be greatly missed, but the effects of his leadership will guarantee the growth and success of this company for years to come.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise today to remember Tyree A. Richburg of Mobile, AL. Reverend, marshal, and chief, Richburg had a wonderful life that blessed so many. He was a great law enforcement officer, starting as a patrolman for the Mobile Police Department, where he worked for over 40 years earning the rank of lieutenant in 1978, and then as chief of police for Prichard, AL. Following that, he was appointed as U.S. marshal for the Southern District of Alabama, where he served with distinction from 1978 to 1981. Appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, U.S. marshals stand with the U.S. attorney as the representatives for the executive branch of the government in the judicial districts. Marshal Richburg was supported by his fine team of deputies and staff and, under his leadership, he fulfilled his duties in an exceptional manner. In 1988, after years of dedicated service in law enforcement, he accepted a calling to ministry and in 2001 began his tenure as pastor of the Tabernacle Missionary Baptist Church. Indeed, in many ways his concept of law enforcement was as a ministry. He was firm with lawbreakers, but he treated each one with dignity and the kindness the situation would allow. Tyree Richburg was honest, courageous, determined, generous, and kind. He reflected the great qualities we should all strive for. During the time I was U.S. attorney, he was a good friend and we worked together in a relationship of confidence and trust. His beloved wife of 63 years, Celestine Richburg, preceded him in death, but he leaves behind 4 children, 10 grandchildren, 5 great- grandchildren, and many loving clergy associates and friends.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to Douglas Moore from Montgomery, AL, who passed away on June 4, 2016. Doug was a good man who loved his family, his country, his many friends, and was always positive and productive, and he was a good friend, adviser, and helper to me. He made his own decisions and worked hard to achieve the values he believed in even when it was not easy to do so. That determination and courage was something I appreciated and admired, as did so many. Doug and I knew each other for many years and grew up in rural Alabama not too far away from each other and at a similar time. We understood each other and shared a history of time and place. Doug was one of my favorite people. His positive spirit was contagious, as he was always thinking and always working to make America a better place. That is the definition of a patriot. He was a man of many talents and a successful businessman. He owned a wide variety of businesses, from restaurants to a cosmetics line, courier service, and a car dealership. He worked particularly hard in Alabama to promote small and minority businesses. I was pleased to successfully urge his appointment by President Bush to the committee overseeing the U.S. Department of Agriculture responsibilities in Alabama. The Alabama Farm Service Agency handles programs including commodities, loans, disaster assistance, food assistance, and export credits. He had a farming background and was a valuable member of the committee, fully understanding the needs of small and minority farmers in the State. Doug will always be remembered for his love of his family, church, and fellow man. He leaves behind his wife of 45 years, Shirley Ann Moore; his loving daughter, Carmen Moore-Zeigler; son-in-law, Henry Zeigler; a granddaughter who was the apple of his eye, Da Brianna Zeigler; and 11 brothers and sisters.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Franklin Primary Health Center, Inc. Franklin Primary Health Center is a nonprofit, federally qualified health center founded in 1975 by Dr. Marilyn Aiello and a group of Alabamians who recognized the need for quality health care in the underserved counties of southwest Alabama. Franklin Primary Health Center is named after Dr. James Alexander Franklin, a physician, scholar, and humanitarian who faithfully served his community for over 60 years. The small nonprofit community health center was founded in 1975 to care for the underserved Davis Avenue community, and in the early days, a small staff struggled to see as many patients as possible. Since 1982, the health center has been led by CEO Charles White. Mr. White is a well-known and respected member of the southwest Alabama community, and the health center has thrived and grown under his years of leadership. The health center now consists of 21 locations in six counties in Alabama, including Mobile, Baldwin, Choctaw, Escambia, Monroe, and Conecuh. It is the first community health center in Alabama to become accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations, JCAHO. I recently had the opportunity to attend the grand opening and ribbon-cutting ceremony for Franklin's newest branch, the Hadley Family Medical Center in Mobile. I remain impressed with and proud of Franklin's impact and outreach in southwest Alabama. Because of Franklin Primary Health Center, underserved residents of this area of the State can access quality care in their own communities. Franklin Health Center provides a wide array of services such as pediatrics, OB/GYN, family medicine, internal medicine, geriatrics, rheumatology, dentistry, optometry, physical therapy, nutrition services, wellness and fitness, social services, substance abuse prevention and treatment, HIV/AIDS services, health education, pharmacy, laboratory, x-ray, and transportation services for the homeless. The health center's total staff of over 200 employees serves nearly 40,000 patients annually. These employees focus on the center's values of dedication, integrity, respect, excellence, creativity, and teamwork in fulfilling its mission. I would like to extend my sincerest appreciation to Franklin Primary Health Center for its 41 years of excellence in care and service to the community and to celebrated their continued expansion.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure and the highest regards that I speak on the accomplishments of my valued constituent and friend, Dr. Robert Witt. On August 31, 2016, Dr. Witt retired after 4 years as chancellor of the University of Alabama System and 13 total years of service with the system. Dr. Witt served as the 26th president of the University of Alabama from 2003-2012, which were some of the most successful years in the history of the university. Indeed, I believe it will be difficult for any other president of the university to match his success. When Dr. Witt first arrived in Tuscaloosa, he pursued a strategy called for increasing enrollment, stimulating growth in research, supporting economic expansion in Alabama, raising faculty salaries, boosting financial aid, and expanding university facilities. And he accomplished it all. Dr. Witt's record of groundbreaking enrollment is unparalleled. In 2003, there were less than 20,000 students on campus. His plan called for increasing student enrollment to 28,000 by 2013. This goal was achieved much sooner, as the university enrolled 28,807 students in 2009. Throughout Dr. Witt's tenure, the University of Alabama experienced explosive growth with phenomenal increases in enrollment of both instate and out-of-State students. The university had a record-breaking year in 2012, when 33,602 students registered for classes. Each subsequent year brought another record student enrollment, and today the student population exceeds 37,000. The Washington Post recently named the university as the fastest growing flagship university in the Nation after finding it has experienced a stunning 92 percent rate of growth. The Post's analysis acknowledged that the growth at the University of Alabama has surpassed that of all the other growing Southeastern Conference universities. Even with this unprecedented and dramatic growth, academic quality and scholarship opportunities increased. This increase in student population was accompanied by new construction and renovations to campus buildings, such as new residence halls and dining facilities. Dr. Witt's vision positioned the University of Alabama as one of the fastest growing public research institutions in the Nation. Dr. Witt brilliantly created the university's honors college in 2003. It has grown today to more than 6,500 students. The honors college is rooted in four pillars of the educational experience: innovative scholarship, advanced research, civic engagement, and cultural interaction. It has been instrumental in attracting the very top tier of academic talent from all over the Nation and the world to the school. The growth of the student population was complemented by the athletic success. After several trying years on the football field, Dr. Witt and his administration selected Nick Saban as the head football coach in 2007. Nine years and four national championships later, Coach Saban proved to be the best of his profession. Dr. Witt has stated that hiring Coach Saban was the best financial investment that the university has ever made. Sports success increased enthusiasm among the alumni, students, and prospective students. Dr. Witt used this excitement to further his goals. The university's capital improvement campaign goal was exceeded by several millions of dollars. Bryant-Denny Stadium was also expanded from 84,000 to 101,821 seats. His capital campaigns were highly successful. High-quality construction increased the size, beauty, and utility of the campus. In 2003 when Dr. Witt began his career in Tuscaloosa, student enrollment was 20,333. The incoming freshman class that year was 3,075. Total enrollment has since grown to 37,100, and in 2015, the incoming freshmen class had 7,211 students, all the while raising academic scores. During his tenure, Dr. Witt also contributed to the prestige of the University of Alabama School of Law. The law school has been consistently ranked in the top tier of law schools and is currently ranked 28th of all law schools, State and private, in the Nation by US News. Dr. Witt's success has continued over these last 4 years in his time as chancellor of the University of Alabama System. As chancellor, he oversaw three university campuses, with a budget exceeding $5 billion. In this position, Dr. Witt endeavored to strengthen the system's support for economic development. During this time, total enrollment and total faculty continued to grow. Dr. Witt is chairman of the council of presidents of Alabama's public colleges and universities. His other leadership activities include the Governor's College & Career Ready Task Force; the American Cast Iron Pipe Company Board of Directors; the Alexis deTocqueville Executive Committee; and the Advisory Board, Elizabeth Project Care Board. He is past chairman of the Chamber of Commerce of West Alabama, a past member of the Tuscaloosa County IDA Board, and the Black Warrior Council Boy Scouts of America. In 2011, he was inducted into to the Alabama Academy of Honor, which is comprised of 100 living Alabamians elected on the basis of service to the State. On June 15, 2016, he was honored with a bronze statue on the Tuscaloosa campus's Presidential Village. Additionally, the dorms on the north side of campus and the activity center will be named in his honor. Upon his retirement, Dr. Witt plans to take a yearlong sabbatical before returning to the university to teach at his honors college. In light of these and all of his many accomplishments, I want to congratulate Dr. Witt on his outstanding career and to wish him the very best in his next endeavor. Dr. Witt's record of positive leadership at the University of Alabama must be recognized as perhaps the most successful in Alabama's history. Words fail to fully capture the enormity of his achievement. A fine, respected, and solid State university has been transformed. On behalf of the people of Alabama, let me express my appreciation.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I am pleased to compliment the extraordinary work of James Wallner for the U.S. Senate. James is one of the most intelligent, diligent, and principled Senate staffers I have ever known. He started in my office as a legislative assistant, then was promoted to be my legislative director. He impressed us all with his ability to master complex legislation, to get to the core of an issue, and to intelligently discuss it with regular Alabamians and national experts. He then became the staff director of the Steering Committee, where he also performed superbly. I was able to work closely with him during this time, also. In these roles, he has combined an acute intellectual interest in the Senate rules, along with a strong interest in public policy and practical politics. James knows how rare is the beauty of the American Republic. He is a student of history and has worked relentlessly to preserve and enrich our heritage of law and policy. He has a brilliant mind and is always thinking. A real conservative in the classical sense, James has constantly worked to undergird our spasmodic political system with the timeless principles that have made her great. I am a great admirer. James represents the best in public service. He has rock-solid values, and he is unafraid to fight for them. The Senate's great loss will be the great gain of our most valuable Heritage Foundation. There, one can be sure he will continue to be a champion for America.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I worked with Senator McCain and Senator Shaheen, and we agreed to 2,500 new refugees who would enter under this program, and we had some language in there that tightened it up. This legislation allows an unlimited number to come here under the program and does not have the language that tightens up the program and brings it to an end eventually. That is the difference of opinion at this point. I am disappointed this was brought up, and last night we first learned about it. I would just note, there are 7,000 visas authorized over the last few years; only 3,500 have been used and 3,500 remain. The House extends the program. It does not add any additional number. They considered it at length. Chairman Goodlatte opposes this. Also, the motion fails to acknowledge the need to pay for and prioritize the visas. These visas will cost, according to CBO, $281 million over 10 years. Just 2,500 would cost that much so this has an unlimited number. I think the right thing for us to do is to not agree to this motion to instruct. I would be glad to work with Senator McCain and Senator Shaheen and support the agreement we reached last time that got blocked by other Members for other reasons, but I oppose this because it is unlimited, it is unpaid for, and I don't believe it is necessary based on the facts on the ground.

Mr. SESSIONS. I object.

Mr. SESSIONS. I object.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, as soon as Senator McCain speaks in favor of this, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 2 minutes in opposition.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I continue to be concerned by the determination of a number of people to move through the Senate the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal, the 5,554-page document, which the American people have clearly rejected and do not favor, even though powerful forces continue to push for it. It has been reported that both Presidential candidates oppose it; however, it does appear that Secretary Clinton's opposition is in doubt, and there was a troubling report yesterday. Her top Asia policy adviser, who served as her Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia, Kurt Campbell, told an Australian news outlet that Clinton's opposition to TPP is not real. He said: ``Every trade agreement goes through the deepest, darkest tunnel before it is ultimately passed.'' Her top adviser is saying to our Australian allies that it is going to pass, and that is contrary to what she has been telling the American people. In fact, I think it is fair to say that the worst-kept secret in Washington is that Hillary Clinton, if elected, intends--in some way and some fashion--to see that the TPP becomes law. She made 45 different statements during her time before this lawless agreement was being negotiated--up to the very end of Congressional debate over fast track--that she supported it. This statement by her top adviser is not only shocking but really confirms the fears that so many people have had--that her opposition to the TPP on the campaign trail is a result of the pressure of the voters and is not a real conversion. After voicing her support for the 5,554-page agreement 45 times before running for President, and after refusing to take a position on it when asked about it for months during her campaign, she has since made statements to the American people that she opposes the agreement. Her senior policy advisor is overseas touting the benefits of TPP. Just as her email scandal problem proves, Mrs. Clinton tends to say one thing to the American people but another thing to her globalist friends. The TPP creates a 12-country Pacific union, whereby each country gets a single vote. This will allow the union to legislate and change its own rules. It is described as a living agreement. They can even change their own rules. They can pass laws and regulations that make it very difficult--virtually impossible--for the American people to have control over it. It is going to be very difficult to contain this union where each country gets one vote. The United States gets one vote. The Sultan of Brunei gets one vote. Vietnam gets one vote. This makes no sense. We absolutely should not pass this massive agreement that erodes the economic strength of America, giving our competitors the same votes on important issues as we have. Even the rosiest Trans-Pacific Partnership projections cited by the Obama administration estimate that this agreement--their own estimate is it will slow the growth of manufacturing in the United States and cost us 120,000 manufacturing jobs over the next 15 years. But other studies show the United States could lose much more. A Tufts University study said we could lose 400,000 jobs. That is their analysis of it. Secretary Clinton's adviser, Kurt Campbell, and other expansive trade advocates always believe in these free-trade agreements no matter what is in them. They seem to remain oblivious to the impacts that such a massive trade deal will have on the already-struggling economy and middle America. Mr. Campbell's statements are further confirmation that the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton have not given up on this deal. Indeed, President Obama continues to push for it openly and without apology. They fully intend to do everything they can to sneak the TPP through Congress, with perhaps some cosmetic changes to say they have fixed the problem, after the election--most likely during the lameduck session of the House or the Senate--when many Members are no longer accountable to the American people, or it could be even in the next Congress. While talking with the newspaper The Australian, the former Assistant Secretary of State, Mr. Campbell, also found time to denigrate and talk bad about the presumptive nominee of one of our national parties, Donald Trump. The Australian reported that the former Australian Foreign Minister has written that Mr. Campbell ``will be Secretary of State if Mrs. Clinton becomes the President at the end of the year.'' Well, that is the first I have heard of that. We learned that maybe from Australia. I believe this is another example of the kind of political duplicity that irritates, frustrates, and angers--legitimately--the American people. They have their leader saying one thing, promising one thing during the election season, all the while they are working to advance a different agenda entirely. It is the same about fixing illegal immigration. They always promise it during the campaign, but when we get in the Senate and start actually voting on the things that would be necessary to create a lawful system of immigration that protects the national interests, it never seems to happen. So it is pretty clear Hillary Clinton really supports the TPP. It was only an election-cycle diversion that caused her to back off of it, and she refuses to rule out its passage entirely. The media should demand that she clarify her position. Why will she not rule out passing it? Does her top adviser to Asia, meeting with Asian nations that would participate in this TPP--does he speak for her or not? As quoted by PolitiFact, Mrs. Clinton said: ``I waited until it had actually been negotiated''--she is explaining why she now opposes it when she supported it previously. She said: ``I waited until it had actually been negotiated because I did want to give the benefit of the doubt to the (Obama) administration. Once I saw the outcome, I opposed it.'' Well, that was not a very satisfactory answer to me at the time. I was very uneasy about that conversion to opposition, and now we have her top adviser to Asia saying something entirely different. This is what the Australian newspaper said about him and this agreement. He says that--he did acknowledge globalization has sometimes been disruptive to politics, disruptive in countries like the United States. He is talking about disruptive for jobs and workers in the United States. I think he is certainly correct about that. How did PolitiFact analyze Mrs. Clinton's statements? Here are some of the things they reported in their analysis. ``Once I saw what the outcome was, I opposed it.'' That is a pretty clear statement, it appears. Speaking in Australia in 2012, however, she hailed the deal as ``setting the gold standard.'' She said: ``This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements to open, free, transparent, fair trade, the kind of environment that has the rule of law and a level playing field.'' It seems to me to be a total commitment to supporting the trade deal. Remember, as Secretary of State, she is the chief diplomatic official for the United States. The Trade Representative does most of the negotiations, but the Secretary of State is involved in these negotiations. It involved the economic relationship of the United States with 11 other Pacific nations. So she knows what is going on in these negotiations and should be well aware of them. If she wasn't, she was not doing her job. Hillary Clinton's support for the TPP goes on as she said that it would create ``Better jobs with higher wages and safer working conditions, including for women, migrant workers and others too often in the past excluded from the formal economy will help build Asia's middle class and rebalance the global economy.'' Well, I don't have any doubt that if this trade agreement is like the other trade agreements--and I believe it is--it will definitely help Asian trade competitors of ours. The question is, who is representing the American people? That is whom our legal, moral, and political responsibility is to--the American people. Is it going to be a better transaction for them or not? They don't think so, I don't think so, and a growing number of economists are beginning to understand why these trade deals I have so often supported in the past are not working effectively. PolitiFact reported in October that she also described this trade deal over time as ``exciting, innovative, ambitious, groundbreaking, cutting- edge, high-quality, and high-standard.'' That is the way she has described it over the years. PolitiFact concludes with this: ``Nonetheless, her comments at the time were so positive and so definitive, it becomes disingenuous to argue, as she's doing now, that she didn't endorse it before it was finalized.'' So that is where we are. I will yield the floor if someone else arrives. That is the main point I wanted to make. I would urge our colleagues to understand what is happening. There has been an analysis and a growing understanding within the developed nations of the world that their middle-class working people are being hammered by these trade agreements. Last year, it was reported that 55 percent of the people in Germany supported the transatlantic trade agreement, and this is a follow-on to the TPP, all part of the fast- track authority Congress gave to the Trade Representative of the United States. I opposed it, but Congress voted to approve it. He is negotiating right now with the Europeans on a matching-type treaty that will also be monumental involving the Atlantic trade deal. Last year, 55 percent of the people in Germany supported this agreement. A recent poll in Germany showed now only 17 percent support it. In recent weeks, clear messages have also been sent by the people of the United Kingdom, our British allies; they don't like being placed in these large international trade organizations where the UK only gets one vote. If they get that in the European Union, I don't know if they have a single vote--and they don't believe it has been working in their interests. That was a factor in them voting to withdraw from the EU, even though the EU is pushing this trade deal--the TTIP--exceedingly hard. What has been the impact on our trade deals in the past? In 2011, I supported the South Korea trade deal. It was an important deal, one of our biggest trade agreements, and they are allies. I believe in the South Koreans. They are good people. So we voted for it. Congress passed it. President Obama advocated for it and signed it. At the time, he declared that our exports to South Korea would increase $10 billion a year and that would help create manufacturing jobs in the United States; that it would be a win-win: Korea would import more to us, but we would export more to Korea too, the trade deficit would not increase, and it would be a job creator in the United States. So Congress voted for it--a big vote for it. Well, what has happened since 2011? Last year, our exports to Korea were not $10 billion, not $1 billion but $30 million. Their exports to us from South Korea were $15 billion. So what happened? The data, the projections were not right. That is very damaging for America. Our trade deficit with South Korea more than doubled. I would say to my colleagues somebody needs to be asking: What is happening to jobs in America? What is happening to wages in America? The situation is not good. Since 1999, wages in America have declined $4,186, adjusted for inflation. That is the way to calculate it properly. Median family income is down over $4,000 since 1999. Make no mistake, bad trade deals are a part of that. Another part of that is, when you bring in more workers than you have jobs for, you create a surplus of labor and wages go down, if there are any free-market people left on Wall Street, they understand that. So we have had a double whammy, in addition to high regulations and stupid taxes that we impose on the economy. All of these things have created a situation in which we are not healthy economically. Wages are declining. Middle-class Americans are hurting. They have a right to ask: Who in Washington is looking out for my interests? That is the way I see it. This trade agreement--5,500-some-odd pages--is bad. We do not need to pass it, and we absolutely do not need to go into another European Union-like trade agreement where the United States gets only one vote even though we have by far the dominant economy. What do all of these countries want first and foremost? It is understandable. It is not evil. They want to sell in our market. They want to bring home American dollars. That is their goal. When we enter into a trade agreement with somebody who wants to sell here, we should make sure that we do it in a way that protects American workers and makes sure that our trading partners open their markets to us so that we can export as much to them as we allow them to import to us. Mr. President, I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the week of September 17, 2016, as National Constitution Week. In September of 1787, our Founding Fathers signed the most influential document in American history, the U.S. Constitution. Constitution Week was first observed in 1956 with the purpose of celebrating this historic document and recognizing the Constitution as the basis for America's great heritage and the foundation for our way of life. In addition, this week is observed to emphasize the responsibilities of citizens for protecting and defending the Constitution and encouraging the study of the historical events which led to the framing of the Constitution. The students at Olive J. Dodge Elementary in Mobile, AL, taught by Janet Leffard, annually ring bells during Constitution Week to recognize the importance of this document to our country. I would like to follow their example honoring Constitution Week and its significance. The U.S. Constitution established America's national government and fundamental laws, while also guaranteeing certain rights for its citizens. Out entire structure of government is directed by this brilliant charter. Though we are a relatively new nation, our Constitution is the longest existing constitution in the world. It has provided us security, prosperity, stability, and freedom--qualities of life few other people in the world possess. Please join me in recognizing the week of September 17 as Constitution Week, the anniversary of the day the framers signed this great document. I thank the Chair.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, today the Supreme Court, in the case of the United States v. Texas, rendered an interim victory for the rule of law in America. It is a victory for the constitutional process by which Congress passes laws, and the President faithfully executes those laws. He has taken an oath to do that. He is the chief law enforcement officer in America, and Congress is the body that passes and makes laws. We have immigration laws, most of which have been on the books for many years. They reflect the decided view of the government and people of the United States of America. Those laws must be enforced in an effective and consistent way. The decision that was made today means that the injunction issued below stands, at least on an interim basis. In other words, an order was issued by the lower court to block the President of the United States from carrying out a series of actions that he wants to carry out, but could not because he lacks the authority. It is a huge, significant constitutional matter. If you remember, colleagues, it wasn't too long ago that we had a national debate and vote about reforming immigration laws in the United States. I believe that was not a good reform. We debated it and it failed in the Congress. It did not get the support of both Houses, although it did get the support of the Senate. The proposal failed. The American people spoke clearly on it. They contacted us in large numbers. People began to understand that the bill would not be effective in doing what it promised to do; that is, to end the illegality. It was going to be effective in granting amnesty to virtually everybody unlawfully in the country today, but it would not have been able to carry out an effective and lawful system for the future. That is what I believe. I was a Federal prosecutor for 15 years. We tried to read the law and make sure it was effective; but this law was not effective. So the President just decided: ``I am going to use my pen and I am going to issue orders to all of the executive departments and agencies that are obliged to enforce the laws of the United States and I am going to tell them to do what the Congress rejected. I am going to execute an amnesty by the signing of my pen that legalizes everyone in the country here today.'' It is an unbelievable overreach, a matter of tremendous import, and it is an affront to the legislative process. It is an affront to the majority of the American people who want a lawful system of immigration--one that serves their interests, serves the interest of America, the national interest, not some special interest that wants cheaper labor, and not some political interest that is looking for votes--but what is the policy that best serves the American people. That is what this issue is all about. The Supreme Court, by a 4-to-4 vote, concluded that the injunction should remain; that is, they blocked the President, at least on the portion of the Executive orders that were before the Court. He has done some other things that were not before the Court, and I think would be at risk, too, if properly challenged, but they haven't made it to the Court yet. If my colleagues remember, the judge heard the case and issued an injunction, blocking the President from going forward with his own plan for immigration and one that Congress had rejected. Then the United States Court of Appeals ruled that the judge was correct, and now, by a 4-to-4 vote, the ruling of the Fifth Circuit has been upheld. In November of 2014, the Obama administration went on strike. It just announced: ``We are not going to follow the requirements and the laws of the United States with regard to immigration.'' President Obama said: ``I am going to direct my offices to carry out a policy that I think should be the national policy. I am sorry Congress didn't pass it, and the historic law remains in place, but I am going to direct my officers not to do it.'' That is what he did. In effect, it was a seizing of the enforcement of immigration law in so many key ways. Under the guise of what he called exercising prosecutorial discretion, his orders directed law enforcement officers not to enforce plain law, forcing them to violate their oath of office to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and his own oath, which is to see that the laws are faithfully executed. In so doing, he effectively eliminated entire sections in the United States Code. Not only did President Obama direct his officers and agents, all of whom are in the executive branch under his supervision as the President of the United States--the Chief Executive--he ordered those agencies of the Department of Homeland Security not to follow the plain law. He further decreed that those who came here illegally and had children in the United States would be allowed to stay in the United States and be granted work permits and access to certain Federal benefits--people who entered the country unlawfully. No wonder Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers have such low morale. An objective Federal study that is done every year or periodically evaluates the morale of the Federal officers in the United States found, I think again this year, that the morale of the Department of Homeland Security is the lowest of any Federal agency. Why is this? Because they have been ordered not to do their duty. They put their lives on the lines in dangerous circumstances, and they arrest people, they bring them in, and what happens? They are not deported. They are released on bail or some sort of promise to appear, and they go into the country as they planned to do all along. This is extremely discouraging for our officers and agents. It is wrong, it should not happen, and it is a cause of the increasing number of illegal immigrants we have in the Nation today. In fact, I say to my colleagues, a few years ago, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Officers Association filed a lawsuit against Secretary Janet Napolitano and John Morton--their supervisors--and said that you are ordering us to violate our oath to enforce the law. I have never seen a lawsuit like this, thousands of officers suing their supervisors for ordering them not to do their duty. This is wrong. It lowers morale. When you have that kind of situation, what message does it send to the world? It sends a message to the world that if you can get into the United States, you are going to be successful, you can stay here, and you don't have to come according to the procedures in law. We have seen an increase in lawlessness in recent years. In fact, it looks like this year, among a number of categories, we have already reached the same level of arrests we did in all of last fiscal year. So we are having a rather significant increase again this year. Well, what happened? Over half the States in the United States filed a lawsuit in Federal court. Judge Andrew Hanen in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, heard the case. It went on for a considerable amount of time. The Department of Justice defended President Obama's actions. So the top lawyers in the U.S. Department of Justice went to Texas, they defended the administration, and they were opposed by more than half of the States. Judge Hanen heard the case and he issued an injunction. He said: Mr. President, you are changing the regulations of the United States that have been issued pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act. You are changing those, and before you can change regulations, you have to be able to go through a process. You have to have notice and opportunity for people to be heard and objections to be made before the regulations can be altered. That was basically the decision he rendered. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the injunction, and today's decision confirms that the Obama administration's lawless plans may not proceed. But the fight is far from over. The case will now be sent back to Judge Hanen for additional litigation on the merits, and the ultimate outcome remains uncertain. To issue a stay and block a Federal agency from going forward with a rule or regulation, a Federal court must find that the opposition litigants have a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits. I think this decision indicates Judge Hanen, the Fifth Circuit, and even the Supreme Court believe it is likely the States would prevail on the merits of their challenge. What is clear, as highlighted by the egregious, unethical conduct of the lawyers of the U.S. Department of Justice, is that the Obama administration will stop at nothing to advance its agenda. I worked at the Department of Justice for almost 15 years--and we worked our hearts out to always be faithful and operate with integrity before the Federal judges, and always, since we were representatives of the United States of America, made sure every representation we made to the Court was accurate and had a high standard. Most assistant U.S. attorneys and Department of Justice lawyers should know that and adhere to that at the highest level. Other lawyers frequently don't, private attorneys don't, but the Federal attorneys representing the people of the United States of America have that high duty. Well, what happened? Judge Hanen found that the administration was determined to go forward with these unlawful actions, even though he had ordered them to stop, and they appeared to cause some substantial violation of the integrity of their Department. I believe they are going to have a further hearing soon on whether there will be additional penalties. He already imposed a penalty on the Department of Justice lawyers for their improper conduct, for which he severely condemned them. The message this administration is sending to the world is that if you can get here, you can stay here. According to official statistics from U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the number of so-called family units who have been apprehended at the southern border has already exceeded the number who were apprehended in all of fiscal year 2015. Approximately, 12 percent more so-called family units were apprehended through May than were apprehended through all of last year. Total apprehensions of all aliens appear to be on the rise, which is an indice of increased illegality into this country. Last month, the head of the National Border Patrol Council testified before the Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest, which I chair, that for every alien apprehended at the border by the U.S. Border Patrol, we could assume at least one evaded detection. He said they are catching half of the people who enter, and they apprehended more than 300,000 illegally into the country last year. He further testified--this is important, critically important and shows the extreme nature of the Obama administration's policies with regard to immigration--that of the half who are apprehended, at least 80 percent of those are released into the country and not deported. They are told: OK. Come back to court. Sometimes they have a bail, sometimes they don't. At another hearing, a Federal agency official testified that they take young people to their destination city when they are apprehended. What does that mean? It means that if somebody enters the country and they are 17 years of age and they don't know what to do with them, instead of deporting them and sending them back at that time, they say: Where did you intend to go? Well, my destination was Chicago. So the Federal Government takes them to Chicago, turns them over to a cousin or an uncle or an aunt or whatever. There is no effort to ascertain whether the person they are turned over to is legally in the country or not either. So this is the kind of thing that is causing such disturbance within the law enforcement field, and that is so discouraging to them. The extent to which the administration has directed its officers not to enforce plain law is one of the most brazen acts of legal disobedience in the history of America. Could the next President refuse to enforce tax laws? Could the next President say: I don't like this tax, I believe this tax is too high, or I don't believe we should tax these entities so he tells his subordinate units, the head of the IRS, just like he tells the head of Homeland Security, don't enforce this law. I know that Congress passed it, but I don't think it is a fair tax. Don't collect it and tell everybody in the country that if you don't pay that tax, you can be certain the IRS is not going to spend its time and effort to collect it, so you are home free. That is the kind of logic we are dealing with. These unlawful actions fly in the face of what the American people have asked for. Yet, despite having the Obama Administration having the most radical immigration policies in our Nation's history, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has promised to go even further. I am astounded at some of the things she has declared. She promises to deport only those who commit violent felonies or happen to be terrorists. Anybody else can come in, get in illegally, sell drugs, get caught for fraud, get caught for fraudulent ID, credit card fraud, and all those kinds of things, but as long as they are not committing a violent crime, they never get sent home. They get to stay here. How is this in harmony with the will of the American people to have a lawful system of immigration, one that protects their public safety, protects them from criminal activity, protects them from terrorism and those kind of things? It is breathtaking to me. Moreover, if Secretary Clinton is provided with the ability as President to appoint a new Justice to the Supreme Court, the outcome of this case might change. Who knows? But it certainly is clear that she has been vigorously critical of the decision and says it is correct, essentially. She said this in her statement today: ``Today's decision by the Supreme Court is purely procedural, casts no doubt on the fact that DAPA and DACA,'' these amnesty programs, ``are entirely within the President's legal authority.'' She says this is entirely within the President's authority. Well, again, let me remind you what the President did. On the issue before the Supreme Court, he not only said to 4 million adults that they will not be deported, he declared that they are able to work. He has given them work authorization when the laws of the United States don't allow people illegally here to take jobs. Not only that, he gave them the right to Social Security. He gives them Social Security numbers. They will pay into Social Security and be able to get Social Security, Medicare, and other programs. Basically, he gave illegal persons established by the laws of the United States the ability to participate as American citizens on virtually every matter of importance. It is unacceptable. Former Secretary Clinton said that she will introduce ``comprehensive immigration reform with a path to citizenship'' within the first 100 days of her Presidency. In other words, she would give legal status, citizenship, to everybody who has come into the country illegally. It is a damaging thing. It has remarkable consequences and impacts on the legal system, and it also incentivizes more people to come to America. The American people have every right to demand that our very generous legal immigration flow be followed according to the law and that it reflect their wishes. The American people are good and decent people. They are not asking for anything extreme. What is extreme is this idea that we systematically refuse to guarantee the laws of the United States be executed. The actions and policies advanced by President Obama, and apparently even more radical policies by Secretary Clinton, are radical things; they are not traditional in any way. They are directly contrary to our constitutional principles and the clear will of the American people. They must be stopped. We have a generous immigration system. We have 1.1 million at least-- I think it may now be even closer to 1.2 million people every year. That is more than any nation in the world. So it is a remarkable thing that we do. In addition to that, at any given time there are 700,000 people in the United States, foreign born, who take jobs in the United States. These are supposed to be temporary jobs for the most part. A lot of them are basically permanent jobs that can be reupped and reextended. We don't have enough jobs for the American people now. We have a surplus of labor in this country. If you believe in free markets, colleagues, that is why, since 1999 until last year, median household income in America is down $4,000 per family. A big part of that is an excessive labor flow into the United States. It is not disputable, colleagues. Look at the great professor on this, Professor Borjas of Harvard. Born in Cuba himself, he came here as a young person. Dr. Borjas shows that an excessive labor flow pulls down wages. Why would it not? It is a commonsense, free market principle. He documented it through labor reports, census data, and there is no doubt about it. We are hammering American working people. Their lives are being diminished while some make more money because they pay a lower wage. I am not saying we are going to end immigration. Nobody is talking about that. But we have extremely high immigration levels legally, and on top of that we have this massive illegality. So the first thing the American people have asked us to do is end the illegality, please. They have been pleading for that for 30 years, and all we have here is some complaint about any bill that actually takes a step toward that end getting blocked. We can't even get votes on amendments. I just want to say that I think the American people are correct. Any nation state that sees itself as sovereign, sees itself as having a loyalty to its own people, should protect those people from unfair policies, should defend their legitimate interests, and we are not doing it. We are pulling down wages right now. There are people that don't have jobs today. We have the lowest percentage of Americans with a job than we have had in 40 years. Last month we created 38,000 jobs--a paltry, shockingly low number. It sent some shock waves through the business community. We need to have close to 200,000 a month. We are bringing in almost 100,000 immigrants a month. From 2000 to 2014--14 years--the native born population of the United States has increased throughout that period by millions. How many jobs were created and how many jobs did native born Americans get during that period? None. The actual number of workers from 2000 to 2014 went down. All jobs that were created during that period of time went to the foreign born. Is it any surprise that wages have fallen? Is it any surprise that we have gone from around a low $50,000-a-year median American income for a family to $4,000 less? It is simple. Somebody needs to talk about this and defend the legitimate concerns of families in this country and working Americans. I want to say a couple more things. The outcome of this Court ruling is not going to cause any major change in what is happening today; in fact, we have been living under the policies that the Court ordered for some time now. It is not going to change. We are not going to have any mass roundups as people have suggested. That is ridiculous. The President has ordered, basically, an end to deportation except for those who commit serious crimes. Secretary Clinton has said the crime has to be a violent crime or terrorism connected before they get deported. So we are heading in that direction. This is not a sound policy for America. We are going to have to work our way through the many difficulties we have in the future, but the simple demand we have from the majority of the people, I believe, is to end the illegality. Do that first, and then we will talk about what we are going to do next about the people who have been here for a long time. A lot of people just came. They just used a fraudulent identification or drove across the border or they were caught and released on bail and went to Los Angeles or Chicago or somewhere. Do they get to demand to be given legal status in America? Do they get to demand to be made a citizen when other people around the world who have waited for their time may never get into the United States because they don't qualify? That is the question we are facing. I truly believe that we believe in immigration as Americans in this country. We are always going to have immigration, but the level of it and the nature of it should be such that we admit people who are most likely to be successful, to flourish and to benefit America, and not people who are going to have a hard time, who don't speak English and don't have skills that we need in this country today. I believe it is wrong to bring in more workers, particularly with low skills, who compete directly against Americans who are trying to get a job, pulling down their wages while making it harder for them to get a job. I think that is going beyond what the responsibility of the government is. It is our responsibility to follow the law as it is written, and it is the President's responsibility under his oath and duties as the Chief Executive and the chief law enforcement officer in America to see that our laws are enforced. If he wants to come back again with some other changes in the law, let him bring it up. Let's talk about it. But he does not get to do that on his own. I am pleased that the Supreme Court has stopped him at least with regard to this specific program, the so-called DAPA program. I appreciate the opportunity to share these remarks. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Edgar Welden of Birmingham, AL, for being named the Alabama Sports Hall of Fame's 2016 ``Distinguished American Sportsman.'' Edgar is a distinguished businessman and friend whose life has been marked by service to the people of his community, State, and Nation. His untiring work to benefit young people through athletics makes him most deserving of this honor. Edgar has an extraordinary record of accomplishment. A Wetumpka native, he grew up with a great passion for sports, playing football, baseball, and basketball in high school before earning a degree from the University of Alabama. His passion for athletics has only grown since then. In fact, he spent 1997 traveling to seven continents and all 50 states to attend more than 250 sporting events, and he chronicled his journeys in his book ``Time Out! A Sports Fan's Dream Year.'' One of his most valuable contributions to Alabama was his service as director of the important Alabama Development Office and the Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs and as special assistant to the Governor for Economic Affairs. He has been widely recognized as one of the key players in Governor Guy Hunt's successful first term. This work for the State, performed on a volunteer basis, earned him recognition in 1987 by the Alabama Broadcasters Association as Alabama's Citizen of the Year. In 1988, he was appointed by Governor Hunt as voluntary chairman of the Alabama Reunion, a 2-year statewide celebration and promotion of the State's heritage and economic development opportunities. As the architect of this nationally recognized program, he was awarded the 1992 National Governor's Association Award for Distinguished Service to State Government. Despite his impressive accomplishments in government, business, and politics, it is through athletics that he has had perhaps his greatest influence. Edgar has a special place in his heart for young people, and with his keen insight, he has found ways to utilize athletics to promote character and education and improve the lives of young people across our State. His accomplishments in this regard are too many to list comprehensively. His work with high school athletics includes the Crippled Children's Foundation, where he currently serves as chairman, and the Monday Morning Quarterback Club, where he is a board member. In 2002, he founded the nonprofit Birmingham Athletic Partnership to support the city's middle and high school athletic programs. This program has provided Birmingham city schools with over $3.5 million in financial support. Edgar believes that children in the inner city should have the same chances for athletic success as better funded programs and his goal is to ensure their athletes, bands, and cheerleaders are able to compete on a level playing field. In addition, since 2003, he has served as the chairman and president of the hugely successful Bryant-Jordan Scholarship Program, which has awarded over $9 million college scholarships to more than 2,700 student-athletes in Alabama who excelled athletically and scholastically while overcoming adversity. In 2006, he was appointed by President George W. Bush to serve as a member of the President's Council on Physical Fitness & Sports. Edgar also serves as chairman of the Alabama Sports Hall of Fame Museum, a true State treasure which maintains for generations to come the stories of legendary Alabama athletes whose stories never fail to inspire us today. Many say it is the best sports hall of fame in America. And in a great victory for the city of Birmingham, he cochaired the committee that landed the 2021 World Games. This was a huge effort to land this event, and Edgar used all his energy and people skills to do so. He was inducted into the Alabama High School Sports Hall of Fame in 2007 and was recently elected to the board of directors of the National Football Foundation. Indeed, while he would never say so himself, perhaps no other sportsman in the country has done more for their State than Edgar has for Alabama. Edgar also serves on the president's cabinet at the University of Alabama and, in 2010, was honored with the Distinguished Alumnus Award. He has accomplished all of this while building a successful business career in real estate development and property management. An essential part of his success has been the support and partnership of his wonderful wife, Louise. She is a star in her own right and has always enjoyed seeing young people grow and progress. They are a great pair. Edgar and Louise get great pleasure out of random acts of kindness. On a plane flight, Edgar met the wife of a soldier that was returning from combat--so typical of his generosity, Edgar arranged for them to have the honeymoon suite in his hotel for free. Edgar and Louise are people of generosity, patriotism, and positive spirit. To know Edgar and Louise is to love them. For all of his accomplishments, I commend and congratulate my friend today. Being named to receive the Distinguished American Sportsman Award is a fitting honor indeed. It is appropriate that our Nation pauses periodically to recognize, celebrate, and give thanks to citizens like Edgar and Louise whose lives make our country so wonderful.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the 40th anniversary of Alabama's Special Camp for Children and Adults, a nationally recognized leader in therapeutic recreation for children and adults with both physical and intellectual disabilities. Also known as Camp ASCCA, the organization was founded in 1976 with the goal of helping eligible individuals achieve equality, dignity, and maximum independence. Camp ASCCA is the only one of its kind in the State of Alabama and hosts between 6,000 and 8,000 people each year, all varying in age. On the shores of Lake Martin, the camp offers 230 wooded acres and handicapable facilities. The camp strives to increase the level of individuality and confidence of its guests, and that impact lasts long after the camp session ends. Camp ASCCA maintains a trained staff dedicated to accommodating the needs of its visitors. The mission statement of ASCCA is to serve those who can derive maximum benefit from the resident camp experience and provide a healthier, happier, longer, and more productive life for children and adults of all abilities. On August 6, 2016, ASCCA will be celebrating its 40th anniversary. Please join me in recognizing Alabama's Special Camp for Children and Adults for its long-term commitment to creating an enjoyable atmosphere for those guests who attend.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, Federal judges decide cases every day that have a significant real world impact on our criminal justice system--sometimes good, sometimes bad. Let me point out this case. It gives an insight into the kinds of things I saw every day as a prosecutor, and it is happening every day right now in courts all over America. Here is the case before United States District Judge Royce C. Lamberth. He denied a request by the prosecutor for early release of two top associates of Rayful Edmond III, a notorious drug kingpin in Washington, DC. I think they made a movie about him or a film about him, one of the most notorious gang leaders around. The Washington Post described Judge Lamberth's astonishment when the U.S. Attorney did not object to the drug felon's request for early release. Quote: The judge rebuked the Office of acting United States attorney Vincent H. Cohen Jr., of the District, saying prosecutors did not give due weight to the criminal history of Butler, 52, the Los Angeles-based cocaine broker and partner of D.C. drug lord Rayful Edmond III, and Jones, 58, one of four top armed enforcers of Edmond's violent trafficking network. The group imported as much as 1,700 pounds of Colombian cocaine a month. That is almost a ton a month. That is the largest amount I have ever seen. I thought the biggest case I had ever seen was 600 pounds flown in on about 20 plane loads over several months. This is 1,700 pounds a month. Edmond's organization enabled drug addiction on a scale that until then ``was unprecedented and largely unimaginable'' in Washington, Lamberth wrote, and the harm the defendants caused ``is immeasurable and in many cases irreversible.'' ``To put it bluntly, the court is surprised and disappointed by the United States Attorney's decision to not oppose the present motions,'' Lamberth said. Quote: ``The court struggles to understand how the government could condone the release of Butler and Jones, each convicted of high-level, sophisticated and violent drug trafficking offenses.'' So that is a Federal judge doing their duty. I am not sure where Ms. Xinis would be on this. Contrast that with many courts across the country that are currently rubberstamping motions for early release for Federal drug trafficking felons under the Sentencing Commission's reductions to the sentencing guidelines that have already occurred and that are impacting the prison population significantly, as we will see. That is according to an October 2015 article in the Los Angeles Times entitled ``The face of the federal prison release: A heavy dose of meth, crack, and cocaine.'' This is what the article says: A federal analysis of the expected impact of the first wave of those approved for early release shows 663 prisoners from California had filed for shorter sentences as of late July. Federal judges denied 92 of them. It looks as though six out of seven were granted. According to an October 2015 article regarding offenders released in the Pittsburgh area, the U.S. Attorney's Office there ``erred on the side of granting'' the motions. So the U.S. attorney's office is not defending the legitimate, original sentence that was imposed. They walk in and just don't--if there is any doubt about it, they just go along with the prisoner's request. According to a November 2015 article entitled ``Upstate NY gang members on secret list of 6,000 freed early from prison,'' it is happening in New York too. Quote: In the Northern District of New York, the [Court, prosecutors, and defense attorneys] agreed on the eligibility of almost all of the inmates, and disagreed on only five cases that became subject to litigation. . . . Of those five cases, a judge ordered early release for three and rejected one. A fifth case is pending. So out of all the cases, only one was rejected. Judges have a duty to make sure that they--they don't have to take everything the prosecutor says. The prosecutor sometimes asks for a higher sentence than a judge wants to give, but a judge is equally required to reject a prosecutor's failure to oppose unjustified reductions. This is, frankly, President Obama's policy, and the policy of the Attorney General, whom he has appointed--Loretta Lynch and Eric Holder before her--basically to cut people's sentences that have been lawfully imposed throughout this country. In my opinion, it is impacting public safety and will continue to do so in the future. Judges must protect the rights of the accused, absolutely, and give them a fair hearing, as they are required to do, but they must give the people, the police, and the prosecutor the right to a fair trial also. These kind of cases cause concern about who is protecting the public. Would Judge Xinis be more likely to follow the pattern of Judge Royce Lamberth in saying no or go along with these other cases? Over the past year, our law enforcement officers across the country have been shot at, assaulted, and murdered, too often simply because they wear a badge. Last year we lost 123 police officers--35 in the first 4 months of 2016. Violent crime and murders have increased across the country at alarming rates. Let me share with my colleagues some of the things we are seeing in trends in violent crime. Recently, the Major Cities Chiefs Police Association, a long-established group, called an emergency meeting to deal with the numbers I am going to share with you today. The numbers I will quote represent the percentage of increase in total murders in the first quarter of this year, 2016, over the first quarter of 2015: Las Vegas, 82 percent increase; Dallas, TX, 73 percent increase; Chicago, 70 percent; Jacksonville, FL, 67 percent; Newark, NJ, 60 percent increase; Miami-Dade, 38 percent; Los Angeles, 33 percent; Atlanta, 20 percent; Baltimore, 10 percent. These are substantial increases in crime. The FBI Director, Mr. Comey, a long-term experienced law officer, who served at the top of the Department of Justice as a prosecutor, recently said he believes the pushback on police officers--this trend of attacking and blaming police officers--has caused some drawback and reluctance of police officers to take on situations like the guy at the store standing out front that was cursing the police officer. Properly handled, those kinds of things reduce crime. They help violence not to start. Once it gets started, bad things can happen. Oftentimes, somebody gets killed. It is not like on television where somebody punches somebody and they get up and walk away and laugh about it. A good punch breaks teeth, jaws, and can kill. This increase in murder rates is significant, and we have to be aware of it. Lives are at stake, many innocent people. If we get off the right path, we will lose lives as a result of criminal conduct. Think about some of the cases, such as that of Kate Steinle in California, who was out with her father and was murdered by an illegal immigrant who had been deported multiple times. Judges have to know this isn't a game. We don't want to put anybody in jail, but if we don't maintain order in cities, chaos can result, innocent people will die, and prosperity will be reduced. According to the FBI statistics released just this year, the number of violent crimes committed across the country was up in the first half of 2015 compared to the same period of 2014. The number of murders, rapes, assaults, and robberies were up all over the first 6 months of 2015. There was a 6.2-percent increase in murder. Violent crime across America rose 5.3 percent in large cities, and overall violent crime increased 1.7 percent, an increase that followed two consecutive years of decline. In my judgment, what I am seeing is this is a long-term trend. I think we will continue to see this increase. I wish it weren't so, but I am afraid it is. According to statistics released Friday by the Major Cities Chiefs Police Association, the number of homicides increased in the first months of 2016 in more than two dozen major cities. The Washington Post reports ``the numbers were particularly grim for a handful of places--Chicago, Los Angeles, Dallas and Las Vegas--where the numbers of homicides increased in the first three months of 2016. . . . '' The article goes on to quote FBI Director Comey. He said: I was very worried about it last fall, and I am in many ways more worried, because the numbers are not only going up, they're continuing to go up in most of those cities faster than they were going up last year. Something is happening. I don't know what the answer is, but holy cow, do we have a problem. He also said before our committee that he remembered the last crimewave in the seventies and the sixties and how enforcement brought it down dramatically. He said we don't want to forget the lessons we learned previously. Director Comey has further suggested that possible explanations for this spike in violent crime included gang and drug violence. He has also suggested that greater scrutiny of police as they do their duty has possibly changed the way officers and communities interact, something he calls the ``viral video effect,'' which he believes leads to less aggressive policing. Less aggressive policing means more crime and more deaths. On Mother's Day weekend in Chicago, more than 50 people were shot between Friday afternoon and early Monday. During a 3\1/2\-hour period early Saturday, one man was killed and 14 others wounded, as the Chicago Tribune said, ``the equivalent of someone being shot every 14 minutes.'' According to the Tribune, Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson ``saved his harshest criticism for a criminal justice system that he said isn't putting away the city's most dangerous offenders for long enough periods. `Until we have real truth in sentencing and hold these offenders accountable, this will be the unfortunate reality in the city of Chicago.' '' According to an article in the Washington Post, April 2 of this year, ``violence is occurring at levels unseen for years [in Chicago]. In the first quarter of 2016, 141 people were killed, up from 82 last year, according to police department data. The number of shootings surged to 677 from 359 a year earlier. The city is on track to have more than 500 killings this year, which would make this just the third year since 2004 that Chicago topped that figure.'' Some say we have too many people in prison. We have heard that. It is certainly our responsibility, in part, in Congress, to set sentencing laws that are smart, that protect the public, don't put too many people in jail, and strike the right balance. In the early to mid-1980s, Congress passed, in a bipartisan, overwhelming vote, mandatory minimum sentences and sentencing guidelines. They allowed dangerous people to be denied bail on appeal. They allowed people who made frivolous appeals--for the judge to assert that there was no substantial basis for the appeal and he could leave them in jail while they made their appeals because too many people were filing for appeals just to stay out of jail and committed crimes while they were out. All of these are great reforms. They are now under systemic attack. During that entire period of time, the crime rate in America went down. The murder rate in the late nineties was half what it was in 1980. How many good people are alive today because of this improvement in law enforcement? We ended the revolving door, where people were arrested, released, arrested. They came in another time and they are arrested and then they would get out and murder somebody. It was happening all the time. We didn't have the jail capacity to put the people in jail. We didn't have enough police to deal with the surging crime rate. When you have 20-, 30-, 40-percent increases in crime, you are talking about doubling the crime and murder rate in America in 2 or 3 years, after we spent 20 years bringing it down by half. We have to be sure that what we are doing, colleagues, is smart, and we are not signing death warrants for thousands of American innocent citizens. Well, what is the prison situation today? Is the population going up? According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the rate of imprisonment in the United States is at its lowest in a decade. The Federal prison population--195,914 as of May 12, 2016--is at its lowest level since 2006. Since 2013, the Federal prison population has decreased by over 20,000, and it is projected to continue downward. According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, the population is projected to drop another 10,000 this year, which will bring it to its lowest levels since 2005. The Bureau of Prisons, which houses prisoners, ``projects that the inmate population will continue to decline for the next couple of years, particularly as a result of retroactive changes to sentencing guidelines.'' Indeed, the 46,276 Federal drug trafficking inmates made eligible for early release comprise 25 percent of the current prison population. Admissions to Federal prisons have declined every year since 2011 and will likely decline further due to the Obama administration's policy directing prosecutors not to charge certain criminal offenses. I don't think this Congress has a duty to confirm everyone who is appointed by the President. We know the President has hostility toward prisons. He has directed his Attorney General to reduce prison populations, and that is happening. He has directed the Bureau of Prisons to participate in this. He has directed the Attorney General and the Attorney General has agreed and issued policy that rejects Attorney General Thornburgh's policies when I was a U.S. attorney. Basically, the Thornburgh policy was, if a person used a gun during a crime, a bank robbery, or drug dealing, they were required, under the law, to get an additional 5 years' penalty in addition because the goal was to deter people from carrying guns during the criminal act, therefore, having fewer people killed in this country. It actually worked. In my opinion, it was part of the reason for the decline in the murder rate, clearly. You were required to charge them because the law said, if you carried a gun, you must get 5 years in addition to the other penalties. Now the Attorney General tells everybody: Well, prosecutors, you don't have to charge that; in fact, we don't want you to charge too much on these kinds of cases. As a result, the prosecutions are down, drug prosecutions are down 21 percent, and sentencing is down too. When I asked the Attorney General why the prosecutions of these cases are down so much, she said they are prosecuting bigger cases. I have to say that for the last 50 years, that is the excuse that prosecutors use for having a decline in statistics. They say: Well, we are working bigger cases. But regardless if you are working bigger cases, why are the sentencing numbers down? Presumably, she is saying: We are prosecuting more serious criminals, but the sentences are going down. We are seeing from the prosecutorial end a significant retrenchment or backing off of strong prosecution policy. A judge who gets a lifetime appointment and is no longer accountable to the American people--or anyone else, for that matter--is not entitled to confirmation if we have doubts about the ability over the years to treat police fairly and protect the public from serious criminals. Certainly, it does not send a positive message to police and the community in Baltimore, where she will hear cases if confirmed. Last year was the deadliest year in Baltimore's history--344 murders and countless crimes against persons and property. I believe Ms. Xinis's record demonstrates such a lack of understanding of the reality of law enforcement and the duty of our whole criminal justice system to protect the public as to disqualify her from the Federal bench. That is why I will oppose the nomination. I do not believe she lacks the personal qualities or the integrity needed to be a judge or be a successful person throughout her life, whatever job she holds. She certainly has many admirers. I am not questioning that, but her record, as I have discussed, indicates an approach to law enforcement that does not justify the support of a lifetime appointment. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I wish to speak in opposition to the nomination of Paula Xinis to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. By all accounts, she is a nice person and has a number of admirers. I don't question her integrity. I had an exchange with her at the Judiciary Committee hearing when she came before the committee. I think this nominee has perhaps the most hostile record toward police of any I have seen in a long time. Her background is troubling to me, and I believe it justifies us not allowing her to have a lifetime appointment where she is unaccountable to anyone as she conducts her daily duties involving, on a very frequent basis, the appearance of police before her in criminal cases of all kinds. She would even hear cases against police officers for misconduct that may come before her over her career. I was a prosecutor for almost 15 years in Federal court before Federal judges. I was blessed to appear before Federal judges of high quality who gave the prosecutor a fair trial and gave the defendant a fair trial, and that is what we are looking for. I am aware of a lot of Federal judges who have a clear bias against law enforcement and have made the communities less safe, made prosecuting a nightmare, and I don't believe it is good for the legal system. There is nothing you can do about it. A judge can declare that the evidence is insufficient to convict on his or her own motion which nobody can appeal. That is the final word even though a jury, had they been able to hear the case, might have found otherwise. Yesterday was Peace Officers Memorial Day, and this week is Police Week. We take special occasion each year to remember the service and sacrifice of law enforcement officers and their indispensable role in ensuring law and order in our cities and towns throughout the country. Too often when something goes wrong on the streets today, the media is quick to point their fingers at the police, and that is why we have an impartial justice system--so that the facts can come out in open court. In my experience, when those facts do come out--and I have had the duty of prosecuting police officers--many more times than not, we learn that the police did everything they could according to the procedures and that the complaints we heard about in the media and through others are not accurate. That is what the facts show us time and time again. It is critical that we have judges who respect the rights of the accused but also respect the role of law enforcement and the dangers they face on a daily basis. We have a nominee for the Federal court in Maryland before us, and every police officer in the country needs to know where she stands and how she approaches the duties, responsibilities, and requirements of the police and how she approaches law enforcement. Will she give them a fair hearing? Aren't they entitled to that? Ms. Paula Xinis worked as a Federal public defender for the District of Maryland for 13 years; that is, she was on a paid defender's staff who defended the criminals who were being prosecuted in Federal court, those accused for a whole lot of crimes. There is nothing wrong with that. It is a perfectly honorable profession, and I certainly want to emphasize that. For 6 of those 13 years, she simultaneously served as a complaint examiner in the Office of Police Complaints for the District of Columbia here in DC. During the course of her work there, she heard complaints against police officers for conduct as part of their duties. She heard six complaints, and in every one of those cases, every single one, she found against the police officers. It troubled me, and I asked her some questions about it. In one of the cases, an officer arrested a man who was loitering amidst a group of individuals outside a grocery store while talking on his cell phone. When he was asked to move along, he refused to do so. Then the man became belligerent and repeatedly swore and cursed at the police officer. The officer eventually arrested the man for disorderly conduct. On the panel, Ms. Xinis concluded that the police had harassed the man and found the police officer guilty of misconduct. When I asked her about this decision at her confirmation hearing in the Judiciary Committee, she said she didn't even know what consequences this finding might have on the career of a police officer as a result of having this on their record. In 2011, Ms. Xinis began work with her current 11-attorney law firm in Baltimore, where she focuses her practice emphasis on lawsuits against the police. According to her firm's Web site, she and two of her colleagues recently settled a $5 million police brutality lawsuit. Notably, her firm also represented the family of Freddie Gray, Jr., the 25-year-old man who was arrested on April 12, 2015, for possessing an illegal switchblade and who subsequently tragically died in police custody, causing riots in Baltimore, if my colleagues recall. On September 8, 2015, the suit against the city and the police department, in which her firm represented the plaintiff, settled for $6.4 million. This may have been a totally justified settlement. I certainly believe that any death in the custody of a police officer by any accused is entitled to and requires a thorough investigation. But in a big city like Baltimore, when there is civil unrest and huge public attention, cities are under political, if not legal, pressure to reach some sort of financial settlement. This was a tragic case. The details were disputed. But it appears that some of the facts were not clear, certainly. The point is, Ms. Xinis has built a career of dealing with lawsuits against police and police departments and dealing with complaints against the police. In every complaint case she heard, she ruled against the police, which, frankly, makes me uneasy, as it does many law enforcement officers. When a lawyer sits as a complaint examiner in a case involving alleged police misconduct, the examiner--the judge, almost, in that case--should know and understand the reality of police work and what our people have to do every day to defend us from crime. I asked her about her findings that the arrest of a loud, cursing loiterer outside a store was police harassment. In other words, the cursing loiterer was OK, but the police officer was wrong. I would think that someone who has spent their entire professional career in this arena would be familiar with some of the concepts and procedures in policing in cities around the country today. For example, broken windows policing is well known. I think most people know what broken windows policing is. It is a short-hand way to describe a policy that originally grew and became predominant in New York City under Mayor Rudy Giuliani, and many believe it saved New York City. Crime was surging, disorder was about, the city's financial status was at risk, and they started a systematic smart method of policing, and the murder rate is less than half of what it was in New York City. The entire city has been transformed. So here she is judging police officers about how to handle confrontations on the street and how to make our communities safer. Shouldn't she know about these things? Broken windows policing suggests that when law enforcement consistently enforces the law in cases involving minor crimes--not just big crimes but even minor crimes--that consistency helps to prevent major crimes. It is proven to work. It is a major trend. Virtually every city in America does it. Yes, we have people who are out on the streets causing trouble or risks, and they get their backs up and complain when anybody says anything to them. Police officers have to use judgment. But this police officer, to me, did what one would normally expect him to do. He certainly didn't need to be charged and convicted of harassment. Her statement that she did not know what ``broken windows'' was and was not familiar with it I think evidenced a real lack of understanding. There is concern about this appointment by people who have to deal with this every day. Here is a letter from the Fraternal Order of Police, the Baltimore City lodge, signed by Lieutenant Gene Ryan, President. Again, this is the Baltimore City Fraternal Order of Police: On behalf of almost 5,000 members of the Baltimore City Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge #3, I write this letter in extreme opposition to the appointment of Paula Xinis as a United States District Judge in the Federal District Court system. While on paper, Ms. Xinis appears to be a highly qualified criminal attorney, our membership is urgently concerned about her obvious disdain for the law enforcement profession as expressed time and again through the various court appearances in which she has represented citizens claiming harm caused by police personnel. In fact, her current partnership in the Baltimore firm of Murphy, Falcon, & Murphy itself is of concern as this is a firm well known in our area for hostility toward our profession and our members and, as a result, we question the ability of Ms. Xinis to remain impartial in any Federal cases involving law enforcement. Senators, we respectfully request that you give consideration to our request to deny the appointment of Paula Xinis to the Federal bench at this time. I also have a letter from the Maryland State Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police, President Ismael Vincent Canales. He writes: As President of the Maryland Fraternal Order of Police and on behalf of over twenty-thousand active and retired law enforcement officers throughout the State of Maryland, I respectfully request that members of the U.S. Senate vote unfavorably on the appointment of Paula Xinis as a Judge to the United States District Court of Maryland. I believe that Ms. Xinis at this time fails to have the requisite temperament and ability to be fair and impartial on matters that directly affect law enforcement. And he goes on. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these two letters be printed in the Record.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I appreciate Senator Durbin's comments, and I believe there is clear bipartisan support for dealing with the Zika virus. And something will be done on that, but make no mistake-- there is a disagreement, and our colleagues on the Democratic side, as they always do, just want to add whatever new expense comes up during the year to the deficit of the United States of America. There are many ways we can save money to pay for new expenditures, and that is what Senator Cornyn is talking about. He wants to have it paid-for so we don't add more debt. You say: How can that be? Well, we are already in debt. This year we borrowed approximately $540 billion to fund the government. We spent $4 trillion and we borrowed $540 billion of that. That is a very large number. It is unsustainable, and it is getting worse. We have to start paying for things that we want to do around here and make some choices and set some priorities. That is the entire dispute about this matter, if you want to know the truth about it. There is no way we can't find the money to fund this Zika challenge--sufficient funds to do that--within the spending we already have.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I wish to share some remarks and ask unanimous consent that I be allowed such time as I may consume.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, today I wish to congratulate Mr. Neal Acker, who at the end of this year will be retiring from a distinguished 12-year career as the general counsel of the Alabama Housing Finance Authority, AHFA. Neal graduated from the University of Alabama School of Law and was formerly associated with the law firm of Capell and Howard in Montgomery. Neal and his wife, Beth, have been close and valued friends of mine for many years and have been wonderful public spirited citizens. The Alabama Housing Finance Authority was established by the Alabama State Legislature in 1980 to provide financing options for low and moderate-income families. In its first year, AHFA issued $150 million in low-interest loans, but since then, that number has grown by over $2 billion. The last 35 years, the organization has expanded from providing financing to individual homeowners, to capitalizing substantial housing investment projects across the State. Neal served AHFA through some of the worst natural disasters in Alabama's history. Through his leadership and dedication, the organization was able to provide temporary lodging to those affected by Hurricane Katrina and the 2011 tornado outbreak. Throughout his service to the people of Alabama, Neal also worked closely with the Tuscaloosa VA to develop housing options for homeless veterans. Neal is a brilliant lawyer with great judgment. These qualities have played a key role in the success of the AHFA. AHFA has been governed most effectively during its dramatic growth. It is certainly one of the finest Housing Finance Authorities in America. Neal has been a right hand to this success and helped my office assist the authority in its good work. I am honored to have been able to work with Neal and am proud to call him my friend.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.