Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator.

Mr. SESSIONS. I think that is more acceptable, but even then the policies in the field manual should reflect the executive branch, it seems to me, being able to use extraordinary events and extraordinary circumstances.

Mr. SESSIONS. Was there a unanimous consent request made for that?

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I will try to conclude and sum this up. This country was attacked by a very dangerous group of people. I certainly respect my colleagues' concern and commitment that our prisoners be treated humanely and consistent with the rules of war. I have also said that the rules of the Geneva Conventions do not apply to these unlawful combatants. The field manual is an Army Department of Defense document that sets the rules for our conduct. But the DOD can alter that. As I understand what this amendment would do, it would make the field manual, with regard to the section involving interrogation and intelligence, the equivalent of law; that before the Army or Department of Defense could make any changes in those field manuals, somebody would have to offer legislation in the House and the Senate, which would be subject to a filibuster and maybe we could fix it and maybe we could not. It becomes force of law. I think that is a mistake. Finally, alterations in procedure by which these prisoners or detainees were handled was done with review by the Department of Justice. We had Attorney General Gonzales, when he was White House counsel and Attorney General, testify about how it came about and all the legal research that went into it. We had the Department of Defense leadership discuss this. They reviewed it. The generals reviewed the heightened techniques personally, individually, and carefully on a case-by-case basis, and they recommended this general at Guantanamo, Miller, be disciplined because these combination of events exceeded what was proper. It was overruled later, but that is how seriously they take this. I don't think this is the way to fix this situation. Some prisoners need to be handled differently than others. We should not bind by law what the field manual states.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. It would be no more than 5 minutes--less than that, probably.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his comments. We would disagree on this, but he is a skilled person in the defense of our country, and I respect his comments. Three weeks ago, this Senate voted 53 to 43 on this amendment. I am glad we are having this debate. Some have said there is not enough time to have a debate on these issues, to bring up and highlight points that the other side may want to raise. But we just voted on it 3 weeks ago. We voted on this twice last year. This amendment to strike this language was defeated; the language was kept in the bill. Overwhelmingly, the Senate has maintained its view that a study of this robust nuclear earth penetrator is valid and needed and the Defense Department and the Energy Department have certified to that and we ought to go forward with it. But it is perfectly legitimate that we talk about it. I would just say this for emphasis, to follow up on Chairman Warner's comments: The way this language is placed in this legislation, it mandates explicitly that the Department of Energy or Department of Defense cannot go forward to commence development engineering without the specific approval of Congress. This robust nuclear earth penetrator issue began being discussed by the military in 1985, and when the need was recognized, it was supported by the Clinton administration Defense and Energy Departments. Secretary O'Leary specifically supported this. There were no limitations of the kind I just mentioned in the language that came forward during the Clinton administration to decide to conduct this study. But now we are putting that in there to allay the concerns that any might have, that somehow authorizing a study would result in development and deployment of a weapons system. We know that cannot happen without Congress's approval, but this really clamps it down to say there would have to be an affirmative legislative act by Congress before the Energy Department could go forward with developing any such weapon as this. I think that ought to allay the concerns. I will suggest that is why there has been so much support for it on a bipartisan basis. A couple of years ago, Secretary of State Colin Powell wrote Chairman Warner in support of the RNEP. He asked us to fund a feasibility and cost study of it, and noted that: I do not believe that these legislative steps will complicate our ongoing efforts with North Korea, inasmuch as the work was funded and authorized in last year's Defense bill. I believe that North Korea has already factored RNEP into its calculations. It is important for you to work on these issues and please do not hesitate to call on me. . . . Secretary Powell supported it and said it basically furthered our foreign policy. So, again, this would be a multiyear feasibility study, and we are talking about $4 million being spent on it. In the scheme of our huge budget, I would say that is not excessive. Suggestions have been made that somehow this indicates that we are indifferent to nuclear weapons, the powers that they contain, the danger that they represent, and that somehow this administration is not sensitive to the need to reduce the threat from nuclear weapons in the world. Nothing could be further from the truth. Let me mention a few things about what this Nation is doing with regard to its nuclear arsenal. We have already done more than any other nation in the world to reduce our nuclear arsenal. We are committed to huge reductions in our nuclear weapons. In the last 15 years, the number of U.S. deployed strategic warheads has declined from 10,000 to less than 6,000. Under the treaty we signed, the Moscow Treaty, we will reduce our strategic nuclear warheads to between 1,700 and 2,200 by 2012--from over 10,000. That is a huge reduction. In fact, we have already dismantled more than 13,000 nuclear weapons since 1988 and eliminated nearly 90 percent of U.S. nonstrategic nuclear weapons. (Mr. Allard assumed the Chair.) We have not produced high enriched uranium for weapons since 1964, nor plutonium for weapons since 1988. In fact, we are the only nuclear power in the world that has no capability at this moment to produce nuclear weapons. We are simply relying on our old stockpile, and that is a matter that a number of people are concerned about, but it is true. As Senator Allard, now I see is the Presiding Officer, who last year chaired the strategic subcommittee in the Armed Services Committee that deals with these issues, and I now chair that strategic subcommittee-- has gone on to bigger and better things--but it is an important subcommittee and it deals with the strategic defense of America. We are moving to incredible reductions in our nuclear weapons, but we are going to keep something like 2,000. How does it threaten the world in peace and make us a warmonger, if we can design and make a few of those weapons capable of being effective against hardened targets? Let's be realistic. People say, ``This is a new weapon. This is a new weapon,'' even when we get to the bottom, 2,000 or more nuclear weapons. What is wrong if we have figured out a way to use a targeted nuclear weapon to deal with a hardened site? It makes a lot of sense. It certainly does not indicate we are in a warmongering mode. I have a number of other things I would say on this subject. I see the Senator from California is here. I am pleased to yield the floor. I assume the Senator from California is talking on Armed Services issues?

Mr. SESSIONS. I will be pleased to yield. I have just a minute, as I know the Presiding Officer is committed to leaving and I am supposed to replace her.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I think under the UC, I was given a few minutes.

Mr. SESSIONS. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I thank Senator Allard for his leadership in the Senate and for his leadership on nuclear issues. There is no one who understands the issue more. No one has been more committed to effectively and efficiently eliminating the difficulties at Rocky Flats than he has, and the Nation is in his debt. That I say with certainty. At one time in my life, I was a U.S. attorney and am aware that Federal officials are limited in certain of their powers. Somebody might say they have earned something, but maybe they have not legally earned it. And if they have not legally earned it, they cannot be paid for it. I don't know where we will come out with this amendment the Senator has offered. I know how committed Senator Allard and Senator Salazar are to helping these employees, but I note that as I understand it, these are not governmental employees but employees of a private contractor. That complicates matters, to say the least. We are talking about providing benefits to employees of a private contractor over and above the collective bargaining agreement they had. Since this program has been scheduled to be completed, they did have benefits in the agreement for them for early termination and early generous payments when this contract ended. I say to my friend how much I respect him. I am telling you, Madam President, he is working. He has almost shut down the Senate over this issue, but I am not sure we can ask the Department of Energy and I am not sure this Congress can take this step. We are closing BRAC sites around the country. We have a chemical weapons facility in my State destroying poison gases. I hope it finishes early. I am not sure we can give every private contractor employee a bonus. Presumably the company had that in their contract. Those are the problems with which we are dealing. It is not a lack of concern. It is real difficulties that exist. I salute both Senators from Colorado for their interest in these employees. I share those concerns.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the recess or the adjournment of the Senate, that when the Senate receives from the House a concurrent resolution relating to the enrollment of H.R. 3377, the text of which is at the desk, the resolution be considered agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. If there is no further business, I ask unanimous consent the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 10 a.m. on Friday, July 22. I further ask 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 the Defense authorization bill.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Tomorrow the Senate will resume consideration of the Defense authorization bill. We hope to make further progress on the bill. A number of colleagues have indicated they will be available to offer amendments to the Defense bill, and I encourage them to come over early tomorrow morning. Although we will not have any rollcall votes, we will be able to debate amendments and agree to any amendments that can be cleared on both sides of the aisle.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, July 21. I further ask 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 begin 1 hour of debate on the nomination of Thomas Dorr to be Under Secretary of Agriculture for Rural Development, with the time equally divided between the majority leader or his designee and Senator Harkin or his designee. I further ask consent that following the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to a vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the Dorr nomination.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the chairman. There is no committee on which I serve that is more of a pleasure to work and has a better bipartisan spirit. Chairman Warner and Senator Levin deserve much credit for that. We get to make a number of trips. Nobody makes more trips than Chairman Warner, but it is a thrill to visit our fine men and women in uniform in the highly dangerous areas that we many times get to visit. It is an honor to be on the committee whose responsibility it is to support them. I thank the chairman.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the bill before us, S. 1042, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2006. I am pleased to serve under Chairman Warner and Ranking Member Levin on the Armed Services Committee. It is a particular thrill for me to have that honor. I am privileged to serve as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces. In that capacity, I have worked hard, our staff has worked hard, in cooperation particularly with my ranking member on the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, Senator Nelson of Florida. Our efforts have been to contribute our part to the bill that is now before the Senate. Under the leadership of Senator Warner, we believe we have achieved our goal of bringing forward legislation that serves the national security needs of this country, protects the interests of our fighting men and women, and does so while making deliberate and judicious use of precious taxpayer dollars. We simply have to be frugal. There is no money to waste. The Strategic Forces Subcommittee exercised oversight for the Department of Defense budget request for missile defense, strategic forces, space, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, and intelligence support activities. The DOD budget request in these areas included $9.5 billion in procurement, $27.2 billion in research and development, and $3 billion in operations and maintenance. The administration budget request also included $14.8 billion for the Department of Energy nuclear weapons and environmental management programs and activities. The bill reflects a net increase of $40 million in procurement, a net decrease of $16 million in research and development, and a net increase of $11 million in the amount requested in operations and maintenance, for a total net increase of $35 million--not a lot of increase. It also reflects the requested level of funding for the Department of Energy programs and activities. The bill fully funds the request for missile defense, but it does so in a way that reduces some funding for longer term developmental efforts to support near-term capabilities and enhanced testing. Overall, $8.8 billion was requested for missile defense activities, of which $7.8 billion is for the Missile Defense Agency. Significant funding actions in the markup include an increase of $100 million for the ground-based midcourse defense system to enhance ground and flight testing, and an increase of $75 million for the Aegis BMD system to improve system performance and to accelerate SM-3 missile delivery in 2007. Both of these systems, while continuing to undergo development and testing, are available today for use in an emergency to protect the United States and its allies against limited ballistic missile attacks. By focusing on near-term capabilities, this bill sends a strong message to potential adversaries that the United States is no longer vulnerable to ballistic missile threats or coercion. The bill makes significant adjustments to the President's budget request for military satellite programs. The bill recommends a $200 million reduction in the Transformational Satellite Program, TSAT, to put the program on a healthier developmental track; an increase of $100 million for the Advanced Extremely High Frequency Satellite Program, AEHF, to begin procuring a fourth AEHF communications satellite; and a reduction, however, of $75 million for the Space Radar Program due to insufficient programmatic and cost definition. We expect this Space Radar Program to be successful as time goes by. Related to the Department of Energy, the bill includes $14.8 billion for nuclear weapons and environmental management programs for the fiscal year 2006, the amount requested by the administration. Of this amount, $6.6 billion is for the National Nuclear Security Administration nuclear weapons activities. The bill includes a few modest increases to help reduce deferred maintenance and to support the infrastructure of the nuclear weapons complex. The bill also increases funding for security at Department of Energy sites. This is a reflection of the need to enhance security at these sites in response to the potential threats that exist after 9/11. The bill also includes authorization at the budget request to continue the feasibility study of the robust nuclear earth penetrator, RNEP. This bill does not, however, provide any funding for Air Force activities to integrate RNEP into a delivery platform. The committee has honored the balance struck 2 years ago when Congress enacted a provision prohibiting the administration from proceeding beyond a feasibility study of RNEP without explicit authorization from Congress. No such authorization was sought by the administration this year, and none is provided. The $4.0 million provided for RNEP is for continuation of the feasibility study and nothing beyond that. The bill also funds the Department of Energy Environmental Management Program at $6.6 billion. The Environmental Management Program is addressing the environmental cleanup needs at Department of Energy nuclear sites. This environmental contamination is an unfortunate and highly expensive legacy of our victory in the Cold War. Our bill provides appropriate funding to continue this cleanup program. Again, I thank the ranking member on the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, Senator Nelson, for working with me on this legislation and throughout our hearings and in the markup leading up to this point. The Armed Services Committee takes a lot of time and deliberation to produce this bill. It is the product of a lot of hard work, a lot of hard choices, and a fair amount of compromise. I hope my colleagues will support the bill that our committee has produced. I again express my appreciation to Chairman Warner for his leadership, for the fact that we have been able to move this bill promptly this year. I think our Nation is going to benefit from many of the important provisions that are contained in it. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise today to briefly discuss the nomination of Judge John Roberts and commend the President for submitting for our consideration a superbly qualified nominee who has the requisite background and experience to serve the Nation well as the next Justice of the Supreme Court. Indeed, I think the President, after hearing advice from a whole host of different areas, simply decided to appoint the best person he found in America. That is what he did. I am proud of him. I think it is the right thing to do, and I believe this will be proven out as time goes by. I don't know John Roberts personally, but I do know his record. I studied it 2 years ago when this Senate provided its unanimous advice and consent to place him in his current position on the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals. We did so with the knowledge that the D.C. Circuit in many instances has served as the launching pad for Supreme Court nominees. So I hope this process will be conducted with dignity and respect and that we will be able to have him in place before the Supreme Court convenes in October. We considered his record then in great detail. People were heard from; people submitted information. In fact, 152 lawyers wrote in support of him. But he was looked at hard then. Only three people voted against him in the committee, and he was unanimously confirmed in this Chamber. A Supreme Court Jurist should have high standards. He or she should be committed to the rule of law and to resist the temptation to legislate from the bench. He or she should believe in the Constitution and adhere to the provisions provided in that great document regardless of whether he or she believes personally that those are correct. They do not have to agree with the provisions. They didn't write the provisions. They were written by ``we the people'' of the United States of America. I participated in that hearing 2 years ago, and he gave the committee a commitment that he would not carry a political agenda to the D.C. Circuit, that he would adhere to the law rather than follow politics. And over the last 2 years as a judge on the D.C. Circuit he has fulfilled that commitment. So I think and hope that he is off to a good start in this process. Make no mistake about it, Senators will have some questions, and having witnessed Mr. Roberts' eloquent testimony and principled approach to jurisprudence during his last hearing, I know he will have the answers to those questions. He very simply won Senators over during his last hearing, and this is why I believe he was confirmed with a strong vote. I am sure the results will be the same this year. The Senate must treat the nominee fairly and have a fair and dignified process. Converting legal disagreements into personal attacks on the nominees as we have seen in the past in recent years is not appropriate. It is beneath the dignity of the Senate. It is not proper, and it should not be done. In many instances nominees have been unfairly personally attacked for simply following the law as they saw it. So I am concerned about a fair process, not so much from the Members of our Senate--hopefully, that will not occur this time--but from some of the hard left attack groups. A few weeks ago this cartoon appeared in the paper, and I would like to refer to it. I think it is a bit humorous, but I agree it raised a lot of money. It says: Don't let Bush nominate this rightwing extremist nut to the Supreme Court. And then leaves blank the name. So he hasn't nominated anybody yet, but they have already raised their money and laid the game plan to attack whoever comes up as being some extremist rightwing nut. I think that is pretty interesting. They say here we will plug the photo in as soon as we find out who it is. I believe we have another one that I think is also humorous, but it has a lot of truth in it. It says: We're here to voice our strongest opposition to the Bush Supreme Court nominee--whoever he may be. That is where we are. A lot of money has been raised by groups. For the first time I think, Mr. President, conservative groups, or groups that tend to support the President's nominees raise money, too, so we might have activity on both sides. That has not been the case in the past. We laugh at these little cartoons and they are not a perfect truth, but they have some truth in them. But last night the NOW group announced right after the nomination that the President had nominated an anti-Roe judge and that the lives of women in America were at stake. The People for the American Way contend that Judge Roberts' record does not demonstrate a fundamental commitment to civil and constitutional rights. And other complaints have been raised about him before the ink was dry on the nomination. So I hope that instead of buying into these groups' broken records--the same charges that are paraded out every time a Bush nominee is submitted--we will study Judge Roberts' record and have a fair process and consider what scholars in this country are saying--practicing lawyers, judges with whom he practiced and before whom he practiced. These are objective observers. Many of them are Democrats. They will provide far more valid insight than hard left groups such as MoveOn.Org or People for the American Way. This is what we know about Judge Roberts so far. He has a keen intellect, sound legal judgment, and the highest level of integrity. He graduated from Harvard college in 3 years summa cum laude and the Harvard Law School where he served as managing editor of the Harvard Law Review. And, of course, serving on the law review at a law school is a great honor, and to be an editor or managing editor of that law review is one of the highest honors any graduating senior can be given by his peers who elect him to that position. After graduating from law school, he clerked for one of the most esteemed and respected jurists in the country, Judge Henry J. Friendly on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York, and then went on to clerk with Chief Justice William Rehnquist on the U.S. Supreme Court, the very Court he has now been nominated to serve on. He has clerked for the Chief Justice of the United States. He sat there at his right hand. He has helped him develop and write the opinions and do the research that goes into rendering an opinion. As a result, he has had very good experience for that position. I am sure there are perhaps many, hundreds perhaps, lawyers who would love to serve as Judge Henry Friendly's law clerk. There would be thousands that apply before the few are selected to clerk on the U.S. Supreme Court. Why? Because they select only the best. They select candidates who have high academic records and proven public integrity. So he served in the White House counsel's office, served as the Principal Deputy Solicitor General to the United States Department of Justice. The Solicitor General is the Government's lawyer to the courts of America, the appellate courts. The Solicitor General's office sends the lawyers into the U.S. Supreme Court to stand up in that Court and represent the United States. I was a U.S. attorney, and in the U.S. district court in Mobile, AL, it was my honor and pleasure on a regular basis to stand before the U.S. district judge and say, ``The United States is ready, Your Honor.'' To represent the United States of America in court is a great honor. To represent the United States of America in the greatest Court in the history of the world, the U.S. Supreme Court, is a great honor. As the Principal Deputy Solicitor General, that is what he did on a regular basis. Prior to assuming his current position, he was known as probably the most respected appellate lawyer in the United States, having argued 39 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. When you have an important case, you want the best lawyer in America to represent you in the Supreme Court, and he was selected time and again by people to represent them in this highest Court, which is, indeed, a high compliment. His experience goes beyond what I have described here. He practiced in one of the Nation's top law firms and has extensive government experience. The American Bar Association, which rates judge nominees--they go out and interview people who have litigated for them, litigated against them, judges before whom they practice, and they evaluate how fine that nominee is. They have just a few levels of recommendation, but the best one, ``well-qualified,'' is reserved for a small number. Judge Roberts was given the highest rating of the American Bar Association to serve in his current position, and I would not be surprised if he doesn't get it for the Supreme Court. So I hope we will give him a fair process, that we will avoid establishing a litmus test. However, it does concern me that one Member has already said, ``We need to know where John Roberts is on the issues, whose side he's on.'' Well, you can't demand that a judge be on your side as a price for confirmation. What do we mean, whose side they are on? What do we mean? Whose side are they are on? By definition, a judge is a person who is unbiased, a neutral referee, a person who treats everyone respectfully and then follows the law in a dispassionate, disinterested manner. That is why we give them a lifetime appointment. We cannot go down this road asking judges, nominees, to commit to a specific decision or to promise to be favorable to one view or another that a certain Senator may have. What kind of disaster would that be? It would invade the independence of the judiciary. Judges have to be neutral arbiters. They are not to call the balls and strikes before the pitches are thrown, for Heaven's sake. We must not require him or demand of him that he state how he expects to decide cases. That violates the independence of the judiciary. What I will ask him to do is to demonstrate a fidelity to the law, a commitment not to legislate from the bench, and to leave the legislation to the Congress and the State. He has demonstrated that over time. The President has made a very wise decision. This nominee, from his past performance in the Judiciary Committee, has shown poise, good judgment, and a clear ability to articulate important issues to the Senators in an effective way that has won their respect. I am excited for him. I also am pleased to note he was chosen to be captain of his high school football team. I will say this: They do not elect flakes to be captain of the football team. These are people who players have seen and worked with under difficult circumstances, and they respected him enough to choose him. He will be an outstanding member of the U.S. Supreme Court. This Senate will be tested. Will we be objective? Will we be fair? Will we give this incredibly superb nominee the fair and just hearing to which he is entitled?

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Allison Thompson, a marine fellow in Senator Dole's office, be allowed floor privileges during consideration of S. 1042, the Defense authorization bill.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, tomorrow, at approximately 10:30 a.m., the Senate will vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of Thomas Dorr. This will be the first vote of the day. It is the majority leader's hope and expectation that cloture will be invoked on the nomination and the Senate can then expedite the vote on confirmation. Following the disposition of the Dorr nomination, the Senate will resume consideration of the Department of Defense authorization bill. Chairman Warner and Senator Levin have been on the Senate floor this afternoon and have made real progress in disposing of a number of amendments. We anticipate a full day of debate and voting on amendments to the Defense bill. I encourage Senators to contact the bill managers if they have amendments they wish to have considered.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order following the remarks of Senator Akaka, for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, who has the floor?