Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the Senator from Arizona has asked that I apologize for disparaging Captain Fishback in my earlier remarks. I do not believe I did so in any way. The Captain has a distinguished record in the military. Nobody questions that. I did note, however, that his allegations contained in the New York Times article said that he had: . . . seen at least one interrogation where prisoners were being abused and was told about other ill treatment of detainees by his sergeants. In my statement I simply raised the question of what ``abuse'' meant precisely, and whether, by implication, if this was a basis for a charge, as the newspapers were making and others were, that there was systematic abuse of prisoners--which I do not believe to be the case. I did note that, when asked to name the individual sergeants who admitted they had been misbehaving or that bad activities had occurred, he refused to give those names. If something is in error about that--I simply quoted from the New York Times--I would be pleased to apologize. But I think those in this Senate who have accused the up-and-down members of the chain of command of the U.S. Army, the U.S. Marines, and Department of Defense of promoting policies to abuse prisoners, they ought to think about whether they should apologize. I believe that accusation is false. I thank the chairman and I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I see the chairman. I suppose we are ready to go forward. Does the chairman have anything he needs to say at this time?

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask if I might be given, as a matter of personal privilege, 2 minutes to respond to the statement of Senator McCain?

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, we in this country have the highest standards of conduct in our legal system, and our military has the highest standards of behavior as they deal with prisoners with whom they come in contact. Have problems occurred? Yes, they have. Has that occurred in every war we have ever been involved in, that any nation has ever been involved in? Unfortunately so. But I want to take a few minutes now to express my deep feeling that we do not have a program of systematic abuse of prisoners going on by our U.S. military; that they are maintaining the discipline of our troops; and that they are, day after day, subjecting themselves to personal risk--not firing randomly or rapidly but hesitating to make sure innocents are not injured, and have complied with the most extensive set of requirements dealing with prisoners that any nation and army has ever had in the history of the world. Our military has taken disciplinary action time and time and time again if anybody violates those standards. We should all remember that event that made a good bit of news when a fine Army colonel was in a combat area taking fire and captured an enemy, and to save the lives of his troops, as his soldiers later testified, he fired a gun beside the head of a captured prisoner in order to frighten him and see if he would provide information that might be of value in saving the lives of the American soldiers he commanded. He was kicked out of the Army for it. The news media did not discover this occurrence. The military did and acted upon it. We all heard about Abu Ghraib, and the sick and unacceptable behavior that went on in that prison. But I remember distinctly that within one day of the information being brought to the commanders of our soldiers in Iraq, an investigation was commenced. Within 3 days, they had made a public announcement to the world that there had been allegations of abuse in Abu Ghraib and that an investigation was ongoing. And it was months--2 or 3 months--later that these pictures came out. Why do I say that? I say that because the military took the allegations seriously from the beginning. They were not reacting to the release of pictures that embarrassed them. Rather, they immediately initiated the investigation about what happened on this midnight shift by these soldiers who lost discipline in Abu Ghraib and abused prisoners in a way that is unacceptable to us. Those guards, have all been tried and convicted. The Wall Street Journal, just a couple of days ago, published an op-ed entitled ``The `Torture Narrative' Unravels.'' It noted that the trial and conviction of PFC Lynndie England, who was sentenced as the ``leash girl'' for her activities there, ``was relegated to the innards of newspapers.'' That did not make any big news--the Army's professional, proper response to a lack of discipline. The op-ed goes on to note that ``by one of the greatest leaps of logic ever seriously entertained in our national discourse, those memos''--that were written by the Department of Justice in analyzing what the President's proper powers were with regard to the detaining of enemy soldiers, who are not lawful combatants--that it was ``one of the greatest leaps of logic ever seriously entertained in our national discourse'' to say that memos as part of a discussion in the Department of Justice of the United States had anything to do with those soldiers in Iraq carrying out that abuse. But that is what was alleged. It was during a campaign season, I understand, and it resulted in calls for the resignation of Secretary Rumsfeld and, I guess, to call for the removal of the President of the United States before the election. We had one Senator, whose name is known all over the world, say: ``Saddam's torture chambers reopened under new management, U.S. management.'' I submit that was a slander on our troops and our soldiers who are in harm's way because we sent them there. We asked them to go there to defend the legitimate national interests of our country. We put them at risk, and when we say things about them that are not true, to suggest to the world that we have systemic abuse in our military. Those charges place them at greater risk. It makes it harder for us to negotiate peace treaties with people who are suspicious of us. They believe these things. When we have Members of the House and the Senate and political leaders in our country making irresponsible and unfounded charges against the military, that they are systematically abusing prisoners, it is wrong. It ought to stop, and I feel strongly about that. Oh, we remember those comments, when all the pictures of the abuses were leaked and were made available. They said higher-ups were involved, it went all the way to the Secretary of Defense, and that these people were using interrogation techniques according to some memo written somewhere, and that it was all part of poor leadership and mismanagement, and our military discipline was not being maintained. Remember those comments? It could not be just the lower-ranking soldiers; ``why don't you prosecute the higher ups?'' We heard Senators saying that time and again. It just was not so. This is what the Wall Street Journal article said. They quote the judge when PFC Lynndie England was before the court. The judge asked her this: ``You feel that by doing these things you were setting conditions for interrogations?'' Remember that allegation, that the abuses of these prisoners were carried out to set them up, to prime them to be interrogated by the Army interrogators or other interrogators, and that this was part of a systemic plan to soften up the prisoners so they could be interrogated? So the judge asked her under oath--she could use this as a defense: You feel that by doing these things you were setting conditions for interrogations? Her answer: No, sir. So the judge responded: So this was just a way to embarrass them? Referring to the prisoners. And she replied: Yes, sir. Or consider the testimony of SP Jeremy C. Sivits. He pled guilty, too, as I recall. This is what Sivits said about their behavior in that prison: Our command would have slammed us. They believe in doing the right thing. If they saw what was going on, there would be hell to pay. I will say right now, every one of these Senators who has been complaining that this misbehavior in the prison was a direct result of some sort of approved interrogation techniques by the Secretary of Defense or the President or the Department of Justice, and they were overruling JAG officers somewhere in doing these things, is not so. I was a prosecutor for quite a long time. I am telling you, when you have somebody being prosecuted and you are accusing them of a crime--I know the chairman has been a prosecutor--and they have an excuse or defense, don't they say it? They say: It wasn't my fault; they told me to do it; I was following orders. These people did not say that. They took their medicine, they were tried and convicted or pled guilty, and many are serving a very long sentence in jail for that misbehavior. It embarrassed the soldiers. I had soldiers tell me: This is an embarrassment to me. We worked our hearts out to make Iraq a better place, and this was an embarrassment to us. It undermined our ability to do our job. They were angry with these people who misbehaved. They were glad to see them prosecuted. It galls me that we have people suggesting this was the policy of our Army. It is not correct. We had the complaints about Guantanamo Bay, that there were systematic abuses going on down there. By the way, we have had over 25 hearings in this Senate and in the House dealing with prisoner abuse. We have had more hearings on this issue than we have had on how to win the war. In addition to that, there have been 10 major reviews, assessments, inspections, and investigations. I mean major reviews. We had those generals and admirals who conducted the reviews before our committees. We interviewed them, and we made them explain their reports. Mr. President, 16,000 pages of documents have been delivered to the Congress, and 1,700 different interviews were conducted. Detentions, operations, enhancement, oversight training--all those issues were brought up. There are 390 criminal investigations completed or ongoing. People who are responsible for misbehavior are being held to account. If I thought our military was not responding well, I would be very concerned. I have seen law officers involved with a bad criminal, and that person runs and they chase him and have to wrestle him down. They are so pumped up sometimes they do more to that person they have apprehended than they should. Maybe they beat them. You have to contain the felon, but sometimes you go too far. I have seen abuse cases filed against them. It breaks your heart sometimes because you know the police officers lost control in tough conditions and went too far, but they have to be disciplined because we do not allow that in our country. The same is true for our soldiers. It is easy for us to talk about what it is like being out in combat, having your life at risk. Some of us might lose some of our discipline, too. We don't excuse it. We understand it. The activities at Guantanamo have been proven to involve only two or three incidents that have been indefensible, and action has been taken concerning those. Also, we have had tremendous evidence of how good the conditions are there, how well they are being fed, their full rights to conduct their religious expression openly and freely, and the other things that have gone on. Now we have a letter pop up from a Captain Fishback who has made allegations concerning the 82nd Airborne. I don't know the full details of it. I will quote a small portion. We heard all these complaints that say that he has submitted proof of systemic abuses in the prisons. This is a New York Times article, and the New York Times has made a full- time effort to try to root out and expose and publicize any misbehavior that has occurred there. They have gone too far, sometimes, in my opinion. But this is what the New York Times says: Captain Fishback said he had seen at least one interrogation where prisoners were being abused. I don't know what ``abused'' means. I am a former prosecutor. What does ``abused'' mean? Did they shake him? Did they respond to being spit on by prisoners, as many of our guards have been? Did they injure him in some way? I think if they were beaten, he would have said they were beaten. He didn't say that. He used a far more general term, that they were ``abused.'' Then he goes on to say that he was told about other ill-treatment of detainees by his sergeant. ``Ill-treatment,'' what is that? He didn't say they were beaten, shot, killed, wounded, or tortured. An investigation is being undertaken of these allegations. It is odd, though, when asked to name the sergeants and the people who conducted the activity so they could follow up and investigate and make sure people who did wrong were disciplined, Captain Fishback refused to disclose the names of the sergeants, one who left the Army and the other who has been reassigned because he did not want to reveal his identity. It is hard for the Army to investigate if the guy making the complaint, telling Human Rights Watch and the New York Times all these points, will not tell the Army what actually occurred. I am dubious, for complex technical reasons, of the amendment that has been offered today and which we will vote on later tonight because I am not sure it makes good legal sense to have a law that is a moving law, it seems to me, that complies with the Army regulations. Army regulation is going to change, and you have a law and the law is going to change while the regulation changes? A statute is supposed to be permanent. As a lawyer, I am troubled by that. I don't think this is a necessary action. I don't intend to vote for the amendment for that reason and a number of other complex reasons. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 3863, which was received from the House.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that during the adjournment of the Senate, the majority leader and the junior Senator from Alabama be authorized to sign duly enrolled bills or joint resolutions.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I understand there is a bill at the desk that is due for a second reading.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to further proceeding.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 3 p.m. on Monday, October 3. I further ask unanimous consent that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved, and the Senate then resume consideration of H.R. 2863, the Defense appropriations bill.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, yesterday the Senate began consideration of the DOD appropriations bill, the Defense appropriations bill. Today we had hoped to lock in an amendment filing deadline for Monday afternoon, but the other side has objected to that proposal. I know the majority leader and the chairman of the committee are disappointed we are unable to lock in a deadline. Next week is a very compressed work week due to the observance of Rosh Hashanah. It is very important we make progress on the Defense appropriations bill, given that short schedule. We also hoped to clear a number of nominations, including an Assistant Secretary for Homeland Security, several Assistant Secretaries at the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Assistant Secretary for Terrorist Financing. These are very important positions that we expected to confirm today. But, again, there has been an objection on the other side. As the leader has previously announced, there will be no votes Monday or Tuesday in observance of the Jewish holiday, but we will be in session and Senators are encouraged to offer their amendments during that time. We will have stacked votes later in the day on Wednesday.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that the Foreign Relations Committee be discharged from further consideration of Margaret Spelling, PN 9-45; provided further that the Senate proceed to its consideration. I further ask unanimous consent that the Senate also proceed en bloc to the following nominations on the Executive Calendar: 148, 318 through 337, and all nominations on the Secretary's desk. I further ask unanimous consent that the nominations be confirmed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would like to express my agreement with the Senator from Kentucky. He stated the case very clearly for the proper role for a judge. I know he faced many an umpire in his Hall of Fame baseball career. But he knows when they make the call, they are stuck with it, and he has every right to expect that that umpire is going to make the call not based on whether they favor one team or another or one side or another but what the rules of the game are. I think that metaphor Judge Roberts utilized as he talked about the role of a judge is an apt one. I saw Senator Burns here. He used to be a football referee. I wanted to ask him: Senator Burns, if you thought that the holding call was a little bit inadvertent and it wasn't too a bad a holding call but the penalty called for 15 yards, should the referee be free to impose 10 yards because they think that might be more fair? No. Of course, not. Those are the basic principles of rules. I am pleased that we have a nominee who I think understands it. Activism is a concern of the American people. It is something that should concern all of us because it represents a movement by unelected, lifetime-appointed judges to impose policy decisions and values on the American people. If it is required by the Constitution, that is their job. If it is not required and not a part of the Constitution, they should not be engaged in those kinds of issues. The high point I think of activism was when two Supreme Court Justices in every death penalty case declared that they dissented and they would oppose all death penalty cases in the United States because they believed the Constitutional prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment prohibited the death penalty. That might sound plausible. But the Constitution itself has half a dozen references to capital crimes. That means crimes for which you may take somebody's life. It has references to not being able to take life without due process of law. Obviously, you could take life with due process of law. And when the Constitution was written, every single State, every single Colony, members of the Confederacy, had the death penalty, and they did when the Constitution was written. So it is obviously the judges' decision that they didn't like the death penalty. They declared it was unenlightened public policy involving a standard of decency and all of that, and that justified their opinion. But that wasn't so, was it? Because State after State has maintained the death penalty. Many have enacted death penalties after they eliminated the death penalty. It is not what the American people rejected, in fact, and would never have been rejected by the members of the legislatures of all the States. They tried to say the Constitution prohibited any State from having a death penalty. That is an extreme abrogation of power, and it is something we should be concerned about. What did Judge Roberts say? I see my chairman, Senator Specter, who has done such a great job in moving this nomination forward. I want to speak long and will yield the floor to him. I had my opportunity to make a few remarks earlier. But I think it is important for us to listen to the eloquent, beautifully repeated--I am going to touch on a few of his statements-- but the repeated statements of Judge Roberts in different ways that affirm so clearly that he knows what the role of the judge is in the American legal system. I picked out a few. It is that rule of law that protects the rights and liberties of all Americans. It is the envy of the world, because without the rule of law any rights are meaningless. Mr. Chairman, I come before this committee with no agenda. I have no platform. Neither the President nor Members of our side of the aisle are asking any nominee to impose our political agenda on this country. I would never do that. That is not the role of a judge. But neither do I think the judge ought to be opposing any agenda. And I certainly am offended when they oppose the agenda which I don't agree with, which I think is the province of the legislative branches. Judge Roberts understands that. Then he goes on: That's a paraphrase, but the phrase, calmly poise the scales of Justice if, if anything, the motto of the court on which I now sit. That would be the guiding principle for me whether I am back on that court or a different one, because some factors may be different, the issues may be different, the demands may be different, but the Bill of Rights remains the same. And the obligation of a court to protect those basis liberties in times of peace and in times of war, in times of stress and in times of calm, that doesn't change. What a beautiful statement. Another: Like most people, I resist the labels. I have told people when pressed that I prefer to be known as a modest judge, and to me that means some of the things that you talked about in those other labels. It means an appreciation that the role of the judge is limited, that a judge is to decide the cases before them, they're not to legislate, they're not to execute the laws. Another: I don't think the courts should have a dominant role in society and stressing society's problems. It is their job to say what the law is. Isn't that correct? But the Court has to appreciate that the reason they have that authority is because they're interpreting the law, they're not making policy, and to the extent they go beyond their confined limits and make policy or execute the law, they lose their legitimacy, and I think that calls into question the authority they will need when it's necessary to act in the face of unconstitutional action. That is a brilliant statement. If a court consistently abuses its power, does not remain faithful to the Constitution, at some point it may have to take a very unpopular stand to truly and rightfully defend the Constitution against congressional Presidential overreaching. Will they have the credibility to do so? Not so, perhaps, if they have squandered it by improper legislation for many years that has undermined public confidence in the Court. That is exactly what he is saying--a beautiful statement. If you believe in our Constitution, if you believe in the laws to protect our liberties and that laid the foundations for our prosperity, one must believe that we have to enforce the Constitution, even if you might not agree with some part of it. He was asked, ``Are you an originalist? Are you a strict constructionist? What label do you put on yourself, Judge?'' He said this: I do not have an overarching judicial philosophy that I bring to every case, and I think that's true. I tend to look at the cases from the bottom up rather than the top down. And like I think all good judges focus a lot on the FACTS. We talk about the law, and that's a great interest for all of us, but I think most cases turn on the facts, so you do have to know those, you have to know the record. In other words, we were asking him to blithely make his views known on how he would rule on this case or that case. By the time it gets to the Supreme Court of the United States there has been a full trial and maybe hundreds, maybe thousands of pages of transcript and records. There are facts that underlie the dispute, and it is only after the facts are asserted that a judge needs to be making a decision about the outcome of a case. Judges apply the facts to the legal requirements of the situation, and only then make a decision. He refused to make opinions on cases that may come before him. Of course, he should not make opinions on that. He has not studied the record, the transcript, talked with the other judges, read the briefs, or heard the oral arguments of counsel. He should not be up there making opinions on the cases. That is so obvious. He was pushed, pushed, and pushed to do that and criticized for not doing so. That is the rule of the law: Do not make a decision until you know the facts and the law. I will say this: We have had a tutorial on the rule of law under the American system. We have had a classroom exercise beyond anything any Member could ask for on the role of a judge in the American system. It was a beautiful thing. I am pleased to see many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have seen fit now to announce they intend to support Judge Roberts. That is the right thing. I am confident, also, the President will submit another nominee, just like he promised, who will be consistent with the same philosophy of Judge Roberts--one who does not seek to impose any political agenda, liberal or conservative, on the American people, but will simply consider the facts, consider the arguments of counsel, and decide the case before them. That is what we have a right to ask and to insist on to preserve the rule of law in this country, which, more than any other country in the world, reveres and respects and venerates law and order. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, what is pending before the Senate?

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to share some thoughts on this important matter and I probably will speak again before this final vote occurs. Mr. President, this is an important process. What we are doing here is more important than the average confirmation, in my view. What has been going on for virtually the entire time I have been in the Senate, going on 8 years, and certainly in the last 5 years, has been a rigorous and vigorous debate over the role of courts in American life. The American people have become very concerned that those we appoint and confirm to the Federal judiciary and have been given a lifetime appointment, as a result of that are unaccountable to the American people; that they are not, therefore, any longer a part of the democratic process and can only be removed from office on causes relating to an impeachment or their own resignation or death. This has raised concerns because these lifetime-appointed, unaccountable officials of our Government have set about to carry out political agendas. There is no other way to say it. I hate to be negative about our courts because I believe in our courts. The courts I practiced before, the Federal courts in Alabama, are faithful to the law. If a Democratic judge or Republican judge, a liberal or conservative, is faithful to the law, I do not see a problem. Overwhelmingly, in the courts of America today, justice is done. But we have a growing tendency among the members of our Supreme Court. Many of them have been there for many years. It strikes me that perhaps they have lost some discipline. They have forgotten they were appointed and not anointed. As my good friend said--a former judge, now deceased, Judge Thomas, in the Southern District of Alabama: Remember, you were appointed, not anointed. I think they have forgotten that. I believe they have begun to think it is important for them and the courts to settle disputed social issues in the country; that they are somehow an elite group of guardians of the public health and that they should protect us from ourselves on occasion. We have seen that. We have seen a series of opinions that, as a lawyer, I believe cannot be justified as being consistent with the words or any fair interpretation of the words of the Constitution of the United States. That is what a judge is sworn to uphold. These issues are important, as I said, because if this is true, and if judges are going beyond what they have been empowered to do, and they are twisting or redefining or massaging the words of the Constitution to justify them in an unjustified act of imposing a personal view on America, then that is a serious problem indeed, and I am afraid that is what we have. They say it is good. The law schools, some of them, these professors, believe judges should be strong and vigorous and active and should expand the law and that the Constitution is living. So, therefore ``living'' means, I suppose, you can make it say what you want it to say this very moment. But Professor Van Alstyne at Duke once said to a judicial conference I attended many years ago: If you love this Constitution, if you really love it, if you respect it, you will enforce it--``it''--as it is written. When judges don't do that they therefore do not respect the Constitution. In fact, they create a situation in which a future court may be less bound by that great document. It can erode our great liberties in ways we cannot possibly imagine today. The name of Justice Ginsburg sometimes came up at Judge Roberts hearings because of her liberal positions on a number of issues before she went on the bench. Yet she was confirmed overwhelmingly. An argument was made therefore Judge Roberts, who has mainstream views, ought to be confirmed. She just recently made a speech to the New York Bar Association. She said she was not happy being the only female Justice on the Court but she stated: Any woman will not do. There are some women who might be appointed who would not advance human rights or women's rights. What about other groups' rights? Do you need to advance all those other rights, too? And what is a right? Then she dealt with the question of foreign law being cited by the Supreme Court of the United States. We have had a spate of judges, sometimes in opinions and sometimes in speeches, making comments that suggest their interpretation of the law was influenced by what foreign people have done in other countries. She said: I will take enlightenment wherever I can get it. I don't want to stop at the national boundary. Then she noted that she had a list of qualified female nominees, but the President hadn't consulted with her--and I would hope not, frankly. Why are we concerned about citing foreign law? We are concerned because this is an element of activism. Our historic liberties are threatened when we turn to foreign law for answers. This is a bad philosophy and a bad tendency because we are not bound by the European Union. We didn't adopt whatever constitution or laws or documents they have in the European Union. What does our Constitution say? We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. Not some other one. Not one you would like, not the way you might like to have had it written, but this one. That is the one that we passed. That is the one the people have ratified. That is the one the people have amended. And that is the one a judge takes an oath to enforce whether he or she likes it or not. You tell me how an opinion out of Europe or Canada or any other place in the world has any real ability to help interpret a Constitution, a provision of which may have been adopted 200 years ago. I submit not. You see, we have to call on our judges to be faithful to that. I do not want, I do not desire, and the President of the United States has said repeatedly that he does not want, he does not desire that a judge promote his political or social agenda. That is what we fight out in this room right here, right amongst all of us. We battle it out, and I am answerable to the people in my State, the State of Alabama. That is who I answer to, and each one of us answers to the people in our states; and the President answers to all the people of the United States. That is where the political decisions are made, and we leave legal decisions in the court. My time to speak is limited. I will close with this: We have never had a judge come before this Senate, in my opinion, who has in any way come close to expressing so beautifully and so richly and so intelligently the proper role of a court. Judge Roberts used a common phrase: You should be a neutral umpire. Certainly he should be that. Absolutely that is a good phrase. A judge should be modest. He should decide the facts and the law before the court, not using that in an expansive way to impose personal views beyond the requirement of that court; that a court does not seek to set out to establish any result, it simply decides the dispute that is before a court. That is why I think we have had a long political battle over this. Frankly, Senator after Senator has been elected after committing to support the kind of judges President Bush has said he would nominate and has, in fact, nominated. If we continue this process, we will return our courts to that wonderful station they need to always hold; that is, they will be neutral, fair, objective arbiters, will not legislate in any way based upon their personal views, their personal biases, their political opinions, their social agendas to affect or infect and corrupt their decisions as they go about their daily jobs. John Roberts understands that completely. He has articulated that principle far more eloquently than I could ever do, and he has won the support of the people. Everywhere I go, people tell me how magnificent they thought he has been in explaining these issues. It is what the American people want. The President has given us that. And I believe, in the long run, this could be a turning point in which we take politics out of the courtroom, leave the politics to the politicians, and put the courts back in the business of deciding the legal cases. I think my time has expired. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent that my chief counsel on the Judiciary Committee, William Smith, be granted the privilege of the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I appreciate the leadership of Senator Specter in this confirmation process. We stayed on track and on time better than at any time I can remember. We had a lot of people with a lot of strong views and ideas they wanted to express and they were given plenty of time to do that. We had 30-minute rounds of questioning and then 20-minute rounds. Some got more who asked for it. Judge Roberts was appropriately forthcoming under certain circumstances and appropriately failing to be drawn into discussions of cases that may come before him. I think things went well. A lot of people doubted whether we would be in position to have a vote this week, but the Senator from Pennsylvania was tireless. He stayed as long as it took. He listened to all of it, chaired the hearings, and kept us going straight, and made sure on occasion the witness had a chance to answer. Sometimes he was given more questions and interruptions than he was given a chance to answer. The Senator did a great job and I want to thank him for that. I also join the Senator in saying that one never knows what a judge will be confronted with 10, 12, 15, 20 years from now. We might as well get the best person we can get who can deal with those questions that are unanticipated now and who can construct a philosophy of the judiciary that will be healthy and faithful to the Constitution, to the people who have ratified that Constitution, who have elected the representatives, to be respectful of all of that, and who understands the proper role of a judge. I think Judge Roberts meets every one of those qualities. I think he is an extraordinary individual. Everyone who has been watching the hearings has been very impressed. I think he represents the American ideal of what a judge should be. The President deserves great credit for nominating the best. I asked Professor Fried of Harvard, who is a former Solicitor General of the United States and had himself argued cases before the Supreme Court--he is now at Harvard teaching philosophy of law--how would he rank Judge Roberts as an advocate before the Supreme Court, and he said the best, as so have certain legal magazines that rate the best lawyers in the country. I think the people like him. I think his idea that judges should show modesty and be faithful to the Constitution, his expression that the greatest threat to the Court could be judicial activism, where the people feel the judges are not faithful to the Constitution and are imposing their political views on the people that are not required by the Constitution, that this is a threat to the rule of law because at some point in the future the Court may have to call on the American people to do things they do not want to do, they may not be popular, to be faithful to the Constitution. To erode and give away that good respect the American people have for the courts and the law would be a mistake. I want to express how strongly I feel that our nominee is an extraordinary individual. I saw on C-SPAN today John Roberts' former coach and teacher, and he said he was the finest student we had in our school and the finest student the school has ever produced. He did not hesitate to say that. He coached him in wrestling. He played football. He was top academically in the class and cared about those kinds of things. He worked hard and he was honest. He said, I remember when he came up at graduation and they gave the award for the finest student in English, it was John G. Roberts; they gave the one for French, and it was John Roberts; in Latin, it was John Roberts; mathematics, it was John Roberts. He said nobody, none of the students, had the slightest doubt that he deserved those honors and he earned them, because of both his work and his intelligence. John Roberts went to Harvard to do his undergraduate degree, finished Harvard in 3 years, not 4, and was magna cum laude on his graduation from Harvard in 3 years. Then he went to law school at Harvard, likewise did exceedingly well, and was selected for Law Review, which is a great honor for a student in law school to be selected for the Law Review. I suppose some of us might grumble, but most people would probably admit that the Harvard Law Review is the finest, most prestigious Law Review in the country. His fellow members of the Law Review elected him to be managing editor of the Law Review, which again is an affirmation of their respect for him and his abilities. After law school, he clerked for Judge Friendly, one of the great circuit judges in America. This is the court of appeals that is just below the Supreme Court. I note that outstanding law graduates apply for these courts of appeal clerkships. There are not that many of them. They are very coveted and only the best students are selected. Judge Friendly, one of the great circuit judges in the last 50 years in the United States, would have been very competitive. Many students would have liked to have clerked for him. He chose John Roberts. After that, I am sure Judge Friendly recommended him--or however it occurred, he was recommended to Chief Justice Rehnquist. I believe Justice Rehnquist was not chief at that time but a justice on the Supreme Court. He clerked for the Supreme Court, the very Court on which he will now sit. Trust me, it is an honor for a lawyer to be chosen to clerk for the U.S. Supreme Court, because they want the very best young lawyers who can help them decide the most complex cases. So I think that is something we should remember. Then he is in private practice. He goes to the Department of Justice. He is called over as part of Fred Fielding's efforts to bring the brightest to the White House. He found him and snatched him away to the White House. He was White House counsel under President Reagan, helped President Reagan carry out his agenda, an agenda that 48 States affirmed when he was reelected by one of the largest votes in history. Some have tried to say, oh, he worked in the Reagan White House. He was conservative and out of the mainstream. President Reagan carried 48 States. He was not out of the mainstream. We have some leftists in this country who are out of the mainstream, but I do not think because he worked in the Reagan White House anybody could suggest he is not a mainstream lawyer. He later becomes principal Deputy Solicitor General in the Department of Justice. The Solicitor General represents the United States of America before the Supreme Court. That is the job many lawyers call the greatest lawyer job in the world, to be able to represent the United States of America before the Supreme Court. That is a great honor. He was the principal deputy. He argued cases there and in private practice. He has argued a total of 39 cases before the Supreme Court. I am sure there is no lawyer in America his age who has argued 39 cases before the Supreme Court. We have maybe a few lawyers in the Senate. I know Jon Kyl has argued two cases before the Supreme Court. I doubt there are any of us who have; maybe others who have done it. It will not be me. But 39 means he is a professional practitioner before the Supreme Court, a student of the Supreme Court, so good that when anyone else is preparing to make an argument for the Court, they want to have a moot court practice before John Roberts because he knows how the Court thinks, what the issues are, how the cases are handled. I asked him to explain what a Chief Justice on the Court does and how the Supreme Court works. He explained in great detail about how cases are tried in the trial courts, the U.S. district courts, how every word is written down. They have juries. They have lawyers who argue the case before the juries. The judge makes rulings on the law and the evidence. After the case is over, a transcript is prepared. If someone wishes to appeal, they do so, and they point out what in that record is in error and argue that the case should be reversed or some other remedy. They go first to the court of appeals, such as where Judge Friendly served. We have 11 circuit courts of appeal and the DC Circuit in the United States. They review the record. The lawyers argue why this transcript proved a judge committed error or error occurred. They argue why the case should be affirmed or not affirmed. They submit briefs on that, citing the record and the detailed facts, and why they believe their views should be affirmed. It goes up that way. They have oral arguments. Then the court of appeals judges meet, discuss it, and they render a written opinion. Then if someone is not happy with that, they can appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. All of this is already prepared before it gets to the judge. They have oral arguments, and then they have briefs. Then friends of the court submit briefs and everybody can submit briefs.

Mr. SESSIONS. They meet with their fellow judges, they read the law and the transcripts, and they make a decision after all of that. I asked him, isn't that why, Judge Roberts, you ought not to blithely, here in this Senate committee room, start expressing opinions on cases when they have not had all the study in advance to clarify the issues? He answered that yes. Madam President, I see the distinguished ranking member of our committee, Senator Leahy. I will note he has worked hard to make sure that every opportunity has been presented on his side. He had every question answered. He got extra time for people who wanted extra time. But after hearing it all, I think he made the right decision in his choice to vote for Judge Roberts. He was an effective advocate for his views of his members and at the same time I think he made an independent decision that I respect. I enjoyed working with him and I think we did a pretty good job with these hearings--although my daughter told me not long ago, she said: Daddy, it was pretty clear who the brightest bulb in that room was, and it was not the Senators. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I ask to have 1 minute to wrap up.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Yes I do, and I appreciate the comments of the Senator from Texas. In Alabama, we have enjoyed great successes from the implementation of Project Safe Neighborhoods and its State and local grant program for which full funding is important. What would represent sufficient funding for this important program?

Mr. SESSIONS. That is absolutely right. In fact, in 2002, all of the U.S. Attorney's Offices in Alabama kicked off Alabama ICE, which stands for Isolate the Criminal Element. It is a partnership among Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials designed to help get guns out of the hands of convicted felons. As an example, the number of indictments for the Middle District of Alabama is expected to reach 110 by the end of this fiscal year, up from 15 in 2001. The program allows law enforcement to charge convicted felons with felonies through the Federal court system if found in possession of a gun, or in possession of a gun during violent or drug trafficking crimes. If charged at the State level, a convicted felon would likely be charged with a misdemeanor if found in possession of a gun. And the results have been exceptional. As I said, Alabama ICE was first implemented in Alabama in April 2002. During the first 11 months of 2003, the number of violent crimes in Montgomery showed significant decreases. Criminal homicides decreased 45 percent, robberies 10 percent, aggravated assaults 16 percent, and domestic violence aggravated assaults 43 percent. I know the Senator must have countless examples from his home State of Texas; isn't that right?

Mr. SESSIONS. I would like to thank my friend from Alabama and I offer any assistance that I or my staff can give as you work on this important issue for us.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, is it appropriate to speak on hurricane matters at this time?