Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Will the Senator yield for one more question?

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. SESSIONS. I could not agree more. A half-dozen years ago, the people who are leading the filibuster were the very ones objecting to it. But Senator Hatch and the Republicans, isn't it fair to say, have been consistent?

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may be allowed to speak for up to 20 minutes in morning business.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would ask the Senator, before she leaves--I notice the debates over filibusters have seen people maybe flip and change their views--but I would ask her if it is not true that she just said a few moments ago that we must keep the filibuster, but in 1995 the Senator was one of 19 Senators who voted to eliminate it entirely, not even just against judges but against the whole legislative calendar also?

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize a group of students in my home State of Alabama. On April 30, 2005, students from Vestavia Hills High School in Birmingham, AL, traveled to Washington, D.C. to take part in the national finals of We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution national competition. This competition is an extensive educational program developed specifically to educate young people about the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights. More than 1,200 students from across the country participated in a 3- day academic competition. They participated in a simulated congressional hearing in which they ``testified'' before a panel. Students got to demonstrate their knowledge and understanding of constitutional principles. Additionally, they had the opportunity to evaluate, take, and defend positions on relevant historical and present day issues. Prior to their trip to Washington, these outstanding students from Vestavia Hills High School proved their knowledge of the United States Constitution, by winning their statewide competition, thus earning them the chance to come to our Nation's capital to compete at the national level. I am proud these students represented the State of Alabama on a national level in this year's We the People competition. I would like to pay special tribute to the teacher of the class, Amy Maddox. The students of Vestavia Hills High School participating in the We the People: The Citizens and the Constitution competition are the following: Matthew Barley, Katie Barzler, Maria Begamaz, Michelle Blackburn, Brandon Demyan, Lorey Feagin, Anne Hackney, Ashley Holmes, Abby Jones, Staci Karpova, Thomas Lide, Kristin McDonald, Freman Meri- Glenn, Tucker Reeves, Luke Romano, Erin Snow, and Christopher Willoughby. I would like to applaud their efforts. Mr. President, the achievements of these students are continued proof that the civic education initiative we approved in this chamber is paying dividends. We the People, which is part of the civic education initiative of the No Child Left Behind legislation, is giving students the lifelong skills they need to be effective, engaged, and informed citizens. I commend the Center for Civic Education and the National Conference of State Legislatures for their leadership in sponsoring this excellent service learning-type program. I also would like to commend Janice Cowin, the state coordinator from the Alabama Center for Law & Civic Education for her work in administering the program in my State.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? He quoted that wonderful and very important editorial by former majority leader, Bob Dole, saying without any doubt this is an unprecedented act to filibuster. I notice that Senator Hatch, one of our most distinguished Members, the former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has just joined us on the floor. I will ask the Senator from Missouri if he remembers, several years ago, after Senator Dole had left the Senate, that a discussion was had in the Republican Conference about the possibility of filibustering judges, and that Chairman Hatch explained to us that it was totally against the traditions of the Senate, and we did not maintain a filibuster against Clinton judges. I wonder if he remembers that.

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator from Missouri. I will say, I did not hear all of his remarks, but I heard a good portion of them, and if anyone would like an accurate summary of the status of our situation, I suggest they read his remarks. So far as I can tell, everything he said is accurate. So far as I can tell, much of what we have heard from the other side is inaccurate, distorting of the traditions of the Senate, and not a fair summary of the situation we are in. I feel very strongly about it. There is a huge issue at stake. And the issue is how the Federal courts will be staffed and operate. What do we want and what do we expect from Federal judges? How do we expect them to behave? President Bush says he believes judges should be faithful to the law and the Constitution, that they are not empowered to use activist tactics to reinterpret and manipulate the meaning of the words in the Constitution or a statute to further a personal agenda they might favor. But they are judges. They are referees, umpires to settle disputes by interpreting the law fairly and objectively. If we get away from that, our judiciary is in great danger. I believe Senator Bond is correct, also, in saying this memo that was just produced, and other actions I have seen over the years I have been in the Senate, indicate to me that too often our colleagues have outsourced their valuation, outsourced their decision making process on judges to very hard-left groups who are not honest, who deliberately distort the record of fine nominees, who attempt to manipulate the press nationwide, who raise money with an effort to destroy people's reputations in a way that is not legitimate and unfair. I believe that strongly. I have seen it time and time again. It is time to bring that to a conclusion. One of our great traditions in the Senate is to give a nominee an up-or-down vote. Senator Hatch, who is on the Senate floor, was my chairman of the Judiciary Committee for a number of years. Senator Hatch warned us when I came to the Senate. There were a lot of people who felt strongly about some activist nominees of the Clinton administration. We were very concerned with them. I see my colleague, the Senator from Oklahoma, who was in the House. The House Members were unhappy with us. They thought we ought to filibuster some of these nominees. And we considered it. People discussed it. Senator Hatch made a very strong, clear presentation in the Republican Conference. He said no, that it was against our traditions. It would be bad public policy. It would alter the balance of power in the separation of powers by creating now a super majority needed for the confirmation of judges. He said we should not do it. And the Republicans were in the majority. We had a majority in the Senate, at one time 55 Members. So the question was, What about some of these nominees that were objected to? I objected to two from the Ninth Circuit very strongly. The Ninth Circuit was the most activist circuit in America. It had been reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court in 27 out of 28 cases. It was out of step. The New York Times said in an article that a majority of the Supreme Court considered the Ninth Circuit a rogue circuit. Yet President Clinton was appointing two ultra-liberal activists to the court. But what happened to those two judges? We have heard the democrats complain about on occasion: Judges Paez and Berzon. The Republican majority leader of the Senate, Trent Lott, called those nominees up and asked for an up-or-down vote by cloture motion. Those of us who opposed them--I certainly was one of them--voted for cloture, voted to give them an up-or-down vote, even though we intensely opposed them. They were given an up-or-down vote, and they were confirmed. President Clinton's nominees, when the majority was in the hands of the Republicans, were moved, after full debate and an opportunity to make their case. They brought them up, and they were given that up-or-down vote. That is the principle under which the Senate has operated. Some say, well, we might want to filibuster in the future. Well, we have not filibustered in the past, not for 200 years. Now, how did this situation that we are facing happen? There is no mystery if you look at the history of it. Senator Bond made a number of the points. But not long after President Bush was elected, in 2000, the Democrats went to a retreat. According to a New York Times article that reported on it, three very liberal, capable law professors--Laurence Tribe, Marcia Greenberger, Cass Sunstein--met with them in retreat. And they returned from that retreat with the conclusion that they were going to change the ground rules of confirmations. That is what we have seen time and again in a whole lot of ways. The ground rules were changed. For example, not long after that, one Republican Member switched parties and we ceased to be the majority party, and so the Judiciary Committee had a majority of Democrats on it. The first nine nominees who had been submitted--several of these nominees were in that group, including Priscilla Owen and others--were nominated in 2001. They would not bring them up in committee. Then after they moved two nominees--one was a minority and the other was a Democrat. They moved those two, but these other fine nominees never moved out of committee. They were changing the ground rules then. Then after the Republicans regained the majority, they commenced an unprecedented attempt to filibuster in committee--something we had never seen before. We had to have a fight over that in committee, under Chairman Hatch's leadership, and we reversed that. They were going to filibuster nominees in committee. It is so contrary to what they were saying a few years ago on the floor of the Senate. On Tuesday of this week, Senator Boxer railed against Janice Rogers Brown, but this is what she said about judicial nominees when President Clinton was in office: According to the United States Constitution, the President nominates, and the Senate shall provide advice and consent. It is not the role of the Senate to obstruct the process and prevent numbers of highly qualified nominees from even being given the opportunity for a vote on the Senate floor. Now, she has been inconsistent, I would say. But Chairman Hatch has been consistent. When he opposed Clinton nominees, he gave them an up- or-down vote, and so did Trent Lott. As soon as the situation flops, some of the Democratic Senators flopped. Senator Schumer was one of the most outspoken complainers during the Clinton administration. He said: I also plead with my colleagues to move judges with alacrity--vote them up or down. I agree with that, Senator Schumer.-- But this delay makes a mockery of the Constitution, makes a mockery of the fact that we are here working, and makes a mockery of the lives of the very sincere people who have put themselves forward to be judges and then they hang out here in limbo. Senator Leahy, now leading the filibuster, was on the floor talking about that. Back when the Clinton administration was submitting judges, he said: I have had judicial nominations by both Democrat and Republican Presidents that I intended to oppose. But I fought like mad to make sure they at least got a chance to be on the floor for a vote. I have stated over and over again on this floor that I would refuse to put an anonymous hold on a judge; that I would object and fight against any filibuster on a judge, whether it is somebody I opposed or supported; that I felt the Senate should do its duty. If we don't like somebody the President nominates, vote him or her up or down. But don't hold them in this anonymous unconscionable limbo. . . . Well, I see Chairman Hatch is here. I know the time is a bit drawn. Chairman Hatch and the Republican leadership have been consistent on this issue, even when it was not to their political benefit to do so. We have opposed the idea of filibusters and have not supported it. The Democrats oppose them when it is convenient and support them when it is convenient. I think their position is untenable as a matter of principle and as a matter of public policy, and our country will not be better off for filibustering judges. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I could not agree more with the Senator. He stated that so beautifully and, I believe, so fairly. It is the real question here. As you know--and I am not sure most of the people in our country have fully thought it through--once a judge says the Constitution means that marriage should be redefined and every legislative finding to the contrary is void, the only recourse the American people have is to try to pass a constitutional amendment that requires, as you know, a two- thirds vote of both Houses of Congress and three-fourths of the States. It is a monumental task. And then if you criticize the judge for their ruling, people say: Oh, you are violating the separation of powers. I think when the courts tread into those areas and start imposing political views, they can only expect that there will be criticism in return.

Mr. SESSIONS. Since she was appointed to the Supreme Court, a couple things have happened that provide confidence in her good performance. During the 1998 election, she was on the ballot and had to win the majority of the vote to stay on the bench. The people of California, who didn't vote for President Bush and certainly are not a rightwing electorate, voted to keep Justice Janice Rogers Brown on the court with 76 percent of the vote. That is a big vote by any standard. Probably 20 percent of the people in California vote against anybody on the ballot. Other judges were on the ballot. She got a higher percentage of the vote than any of the other four judges on the ballot. That is an affirmation by the people of California. In 2002, for example, Justice Brown's colleagues on the supreme court relied on her to write the majority opinion for the court more times than any other justice. What happens on a court, such as a supreme court, once the court votes on how a case should be decided, they appoint a member of the court to write the opinion. If you write the opinion, you have to be on the majority side. If some don't agree and the majority agrees, then somebody writes the majority opinion for the court. We have had the suggestion that this justice of the California Supreme Court is somehow out of the legal mainstream, but in 2002, more than any other justice on the court, she was called on to write the majority opinion. That speaks volumes for the fact that she is not out of the mainstream. And there are few courts in the United States more liberal than the California Supreme Court. Professor Gerald Ullman, who is a law professor in California, wrote a beautiful letter supporting her. His statement sums up what we ought to think about as we consider this nomination. He said: I don't always agree with her opinions. And then he said this: I have come to greatly admire her independence, her tenacity, her intellect, and her wit. It is time to refocus the judicial confirmation process on the personal qualities of the candidates, rather than the hot button issues of the past. We have no way of predicting where the hot buttons will be in the years to come, and our goal should be to have judges in place with a reverence for our Constitution who will approach these issues with independence, an open mind, and a lot of commonsense, a willingness to work hard, and an ability to communicate clearly and effectively. Janice Rogers Brown has demonstrated all these qualities in abundance. Her colleagues support her. A bipartisan group of Justice Brown's former judicial colleagues, including all of her colleagues on the court of appeals for the Third Circuit in California, have written in support of her nomination. Twelve current and former colleagues wrote a strong letter to the committee stating: Much has been written about Justice Brown's humble beginnings, and the story of her rise to the California Supreme Court is truly compelling. But that alone would not be enough to gain our endorsement for a seat on the Federal bench. We believe that Justice Brown is qualified because she is a superb judge. We who have worked with her on a daily basis know her to be an extremely intelligent, keenly analytical, and a very hard worker. We know that she is a jurist who applies the law without favor, without bias, and with an even hand. That was received by the committee October 16, 2003, when this process began. Justice Owen and Justice Brown are both immensely qualified to serve on the Federal bench. They deserve fair consideration by this body. That should come in the form of an up-or-down vote, not a filibuster. I trust we will have that soon. They certainly deserve it. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we are debating in the Senate today a very important issue. It is an issue that we must deal with and one that may take days of debate. For a series of reasons, it has become more and more of interest to the American people the nature and quality of judges that we appoint. That has resulted in a serious concern about the role of courts, the critical doctrine of separation of powers; that is, what judges do and what they should do and what their prerogatives are and what their responsibilities are as a judge. President Bush, in his campaigns both times, made absolutely clear that he believed the judge should be a neutral arbiter, a fair referee and, as such, not have an agenda when they go on the bench. He has appointed and nominated judges that share that view. And they have been doing splendid jobs--the judges that have been confirmed. He has not asked that they promote his agenda, his politics, his view of the social policies of America, he has simply asked that they do the jobs they were appointed to do--that they serve in the judicial branch of our government. It is true, however, that the American people have seen some things in the judicial branch that have troubled them. They have seen, for a number of years, two judges on the Supreme Court consistently dissent in death penalty cases. They don't like the death penalty so they dissent in cases that uphold its use. They declare, in every case they consider, that the death penalty cruel and unusual, and therefore, prohibited by the Constitution of the United States. But they failed to note that in that very same Constitution there are eight or more references to capital crimes, permitting the taking of a person's life with due process of law, there are multiple references to the death penalty in the Constitution and I think it is important to note that every State, at the time the Constitution was adopted, had a death penalty and virtually every country had one as well. Therefore, it is inconceivable to me how a judge who would follow his oath to obey the commands of the Constitution could ever interpret the phrase ``cruel and unusual''--certainly it was not unusual if it was the law of every State in the Nation at that time and the Federal Government had laws supporting the death penalty. So we know that some judges continue to conclude that the death penalty is cruel and unusual. That is activism. They have allowed their personal opposition to the death penalty to solely drive them, and they have manipulated the words of the Constitution to make it say something it plainly does not say. Now we are seeing cases of judicial activism on a whole raft of issues. We have seen the Pledge of Allegiance struck down by a Federal court. We have seen the erosion of rights of property protected by the fifth amendment that says you cannot take someone's property without paying them for it. We have had courts redefine the meaning of marriage under the guise of interpreting a constitutional phrase that absolutely was never ever intended to affect the definition of marriage. It was probably the last thing in their minds when the people ratified the Constitution. We have had judges cite as authority proceedings in the European Union, but it is our Constitution we ratified. It is our Constitution, not some other. How can they define and make rulings based on opinions in Europe when they go against the very document that orchestrates and organizes our Government? We have consent decrees in prisons and schools and mental health hospitals where Federal judges dominate whole Government agencies and state legislatures for 30 years. We have had judges say you cannot have a Christmas display because it violates the first amendment. And, we know that jackpot verdicts are all too common. The American people are concerned about these things. These things are bigger than Republican and Democrat, they go to the heart of the separation of powers doctrine. President Bush was honest and direct, and many of the people he has nominated have had an objection to their nomination because, on occasion, they have written something or have made a speech that indicates they share the view that a judge should show restraint and not promote their own personal agenda from the bench. That is the way it has been for 200 years. I remember when this debate got kicked off, I saw ``Meet the Press,'' when Hodding Carter was on it, and used to be on the staff of President Carter, and he said: Well, I have to admit we liberals are at the point we are asking the courts to do for us that which we can no longer win at the ballot box. Too often that is what this is about. A lot of these issues that are being decided by courts and judges would never ever prevail at the ballot box. They would not be passed by the Congress. People say they are nice folks. They are smart people. If you criticize a judge, you are doing something that is highly improper; you should never criticize a judge. That is not the history of the Republic. What the American people need to understand, I cannot emphasize this too much, the principle on these issues I have just talked about is very deep. What we are suggesting is, and what is being implicated here is, that unelected judges who are given a lifetime appointment by which they are independent and unaccountable to the public, should not set social and political policy in this country. Is that too much to ask? We have seen too much of that. It is being taught in the law schools that the good judges are the ones that step out in a bold way and move the law forward to higher realms, they would say. But have they forgotten that the people, if they wish to have a death penalty and it is consistent with a Constitution, their opinion makes little difference? They have one vote in the election, as everyone else does. If their views do not get ratified, so what? Some people say: Well, the courts had to act because the legislature did not act. But when the legislature does not act, that is an act. That is a decision, a decision not to change an existing law, and it deserves respect. Our judges are people who take their office on trust. We have some exceedingly fine ones and most do show discipline, but I do believe this is a point in our history when the American people and the Congress need to decide together what we expect out of judges. Do we expect them to be the avant-garde of social and political policy? Or do we expect them to be faithful and true arbiters of legitimate disputes to interpret the law as they find it? There is only one way, consistent with our Constitution and our history and our body politic, for our system to continue to work, and that is that judges show restraint. That is what this debate is about. It is not about Republicans. It is not about Democrats or such things. One of the things that has occurred in this confirmation process, for now nearly 20 years, has been the influence of outside hard-left activist groups who have a clear agenda with regard to the Judiciary. They know exactly what they want from the Judiciary, and they are determined to get it. They have banded together. They build dossiers on nominees. They systematically take out of context their comments and their statements and their positions. They release that to the public. Frequently, they have support from the major liberal news organizations in the country to the sensational charges they make and they sully the reputations of nominees who are good and fine nominees. It is a very difficult to turn the tide on that. It is unfair. We will talk about that some today. But we have to recognize this. If I criticize my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I would say this: Those people were not elected to the Senate. They have not taken an oath to advise and consent and to do so honestly and with intellectual integrity. They did not do that. They are advocates. They raise money by trying to demonstrate to those who would contribute to them that President Bush's nominees are extreme and out of the mainstream. They should not be calling the shots here. Frankly, my view is, too often they have. Too often they have taken nominees, and they have smeared them up, muddied them up, and then our Senators have not stepped back and given them a fair shake. I do not mean that personally to my colleagues, but I think that is a fair observation. I believe too often that has occurred. Two of the things that are typical of that can be seen in an ad now being run on television against Priscilla Owen--I don't know in how many States--by People For the American Way. Let me remind you that Justice Priscilla Owen, from Texas, was given the highest possible rating by the American Bar Association. She finished at the top of her class in law school. She made the highest possible score on the Texas bar exam. A lot of people take that exam. That is a big deal, in my opinion. She got 84 percent of the vote in her reelection. She had the support of every major newspaper in Texas, and many of them are not Republican newspapers. She is a superb, magnificent nominee. However, the People for the American Way TV ad wants you to believe that she is an activist judge, even though we know that for her whole career her whole philosophy of law is that judges should follow the law and not legislate from the bench. That is her deepest abiding principle--be faithful to it and not depart from it, whether or not she agrees with it. The People for the American Way cites as proof of her activism a fellow justice on that court, now the Attorney General of the United States of America, Alberto Gonzales, who they say accused her of being an activist in an opinion he wrote. So they declare: Ah, she is an activist. The President's own Attorney General said she is an activist. That is simply not so. Let me just talk about the facts of this opinion for a minute. We need to drive this home because so far as I can tell that is the only charge that has been made against her that amounts to anything at all that has ever been consistently raised by those who oppose her nomination. In the opinion the People for the American Way cites as their evidence, what happened was this--the Texas Supreme Court was evaluating the meaning of the Texas parental notification law on abortion for a teenager or a minor. Minors in Texas have to notify at least one of their parents before they undergo the significant medical procedure of an abortion, unless there is a bypass to the parental notification requirement granted by a court. And minors are allowed to ask for that judicial bypass for many reasons. This process allows them to set forth the reasons and not have to tell their parents that they are going to have an abortion. Well, in this circumstance, a trial judge heard the case. He saw the child who wanted to bypass and not tell her parents, and he concluded that she did not meet the statutory requirements and should tell her parents. Lets be clear--the Texas parental notification requirement does not give the parents veto power, it does not mean they have to ``consent.'' She could still have the abortion, just as long as she told them, ``notified'' them, of what she was about to do. The reason to have this kind of law is simple--there is a serious concern that if you cannot give a child an aspirin at school without parental permission, surely we ought not to be having doctors perform abortions on children without at least having the parents notified of it. That is what Texas voted to have as their law. The Supreme Court has upheld parental notification statuses as constitutional. So, in Texas, there became a fuss over the meaning of the law and Justice Owen concluded that the trial judge was correct in their decision that the girl did not meet the requirements for parental notification and should notify her parents before the abortion. Justice Owen dissented from the main opinion and concluded that the trial judge was correct and the child should notify her mama or daddy that she was going to have an abortion. Whereas, Judge Gonzales's opinion said that he had studied the Texas statute and I have concluded that--it is not perfectly clear, but I have concluded the legislature intended A and B. Therefore, if I don't rule the other way, since I have concluded the legislature intended A and B, then I will be an activist even though I personally hate to see this child not tell her parents. So, to help us clear up this matter, he came before the Judiciary Committee, of which I am a member, and testified about this case. Senator Brownback, who is in the Chamber, asked him about it as Attorney General. And he was rock solid. He has written a letter saying he was not referring to Justice Owen when he made that comment in his opinion about activism; certainly, did not mean to. He was referring to his own self, that if he had concluded that the legislature meant these things, then he was compelled to rule against the trial judge or he would be labeling himself an activist. Justice Owen did not agree, she had not concluded the same things about the legislation that Judge Gonzalez had. An SMU law professor wrote a beautiful letter on behalf of Justice Owen. She said: I am pro-choice, absolutely, but I believe she followed the law carefully. She was a scholar. She thought it through like a judge should think it through, and, absolutely, this is not evidence of activism and it, absolutely, should not be held against her. Mr. President, I want to know what the time agreement is and where we are.

Mr. SESSIONS. I wish to share a little bit about Justice Janice Rogers Brown. She grew up not too far from where I grew up in rural Alabama, in Greenville, AL. She, as a young African-American child, had parents who were sharecroppers. They had a tough life. She ended up moving, as a teenager, to California, where she went through the school system there, did exceedingly well, went to UCLA Law School and achieved great success there, and eventually became a judge. It is terrific, the story of her life and her achievements. She has served for 9 years now on the California Supreme Court. She does, every day on the California Supreme Court, the same kind of things which President Bush has nominated her to do on the Court of Appeals here in DC. As such, she reviews the transcripts of the trials of cases conducted by trial judges under them to see if there was an error in the conduct of that trial. The California Supreme Court does not conduct trials. They do not make opinions. They review trials below them to make sure they were conducted properly, that the judge followed the law and did not commit errors. I think she has been trained exceedingly well. As a member of the California Supreme Court she reads briefs. She listens to arguments by counsel, and then writes opinions as they make those judgments. Those opinions should be unbiased and I believe hers have been and will continue to be. We need judges who write well and follow the law and rule consistent with the law. If you look at Justice Brown's career, I do not think anyone can contend she has performed other than admirably on the bench. She has written beautifully and thoughtfully. She graduated from UCLA, one of the Nation's finest law schools. In February of 2004, last year, the alumni of that not so conservative law school presented Justice Brown with an award for public service. In recognizing her, her fellow UCLA alumni--the people who know her--they did not condemn her for being some extremist. They said this: Janice Rogers Brown is a role model for those born to prejudice and disadvantage, and she has overcome adversity and obstacles and, since 1996, has served as a member of the California Supreme Court. The professional training she received at UCLA Law School has permitted her, even now, when decades remain to further enhance her career, to have already a profound and revitalizing impact upon the integrity of American jurisprudence. I will repeat that: She has even now been found to have already a profound and revitalizing impact upon the integrity of American jurisprudence. I could not agree more. They go on to say this: Despite her incredible intellect, work ethic, determination, and resultant accomplishments, she remains humble and approachable. That is important in a judge. A lot of judges get to the point they think they were anointed and not appointed, but she has been on the bench for 9 years, and they still say she keeps her perspective and remains approachable to all. That is not the Janice Rogers Brown you will be hearing about from those who want to tar and feather her. I will take the word of the people who know her, who have actually studied her record, over the rhetoric of the interest groups who are not the least bit interested in the integrity of the judiciary. They are interested in their agenda. From my observation, one of their guiding principles is that the ends justify the means. After law school, Justice Brown served as a deputy legislative counsel in California for 2 years. She then spent 8 years as a deputy attorney general in the office of the California Attorney General, where she wrote briefs and participated in oral arguments before appellate courts on behalf of the State's criminal appeals. So she learned a lot about criminal law, and she prosecuted criminal cases in court and litigated a variety of civil issues. Her keen intellect and work ethic made her a rising star on the California legal scene. In 1994, then-Governor Pete Wilson tapped her as his legal affairs secretary. Governor Pete Wilson came to Washington last week. For the most part, he was here to affirm Justice Brown. He thinks she is a magnificent nominee. He absolutely supports her. He said he couldn't be more proud of her service on the court and that it was outrageous what they were saying about this fine nominee's record. She was then nominated and confirmed as an associate justice on the California Third District Court of Appeals. And in 1996, as a result of her superior performance on the appellate court, Governor Wilson elevated her to the California Supreme Court. I ask to be notified after 30 minutes have been consumed.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I see Senator Brownback is in the Chamber. I will finish within my 30 minutes. I believe he will be speaking in the next 30 minutes; is that correct--or in that 40 minutes?

Mr. SESSIONS. This motive is not talked about regularly in an open way, but in a way it did become open. Shortly after Justice Owen was nominated, the Republicans lost a majority in the Senate. I was chairing at that time the Court Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee, and that changed and Senator Schumer became chairman of the committee. He announced that all judges were basically driven by their politics, and they all had ideologies, and that we ought to just consider their politics when we are confirming them. We had a hearing on the politics of ideology and how we should handle it. I thought the witnesses were uniform, including Lloyd Cutler, counsel to Jimmy Carter and to President Clinton, in their rejection of that principle. They all agreed that the classical American rule of law says that judges are to be nonpartisan, that they are referees and arbiters and objective interpreters of the law, and it would undermine that principle to start treating them like politicians. So it was discussed in a way that was honest, actually, and I think the overwhelming result from the ABA and the witnesses was that considering politics during the judicial confirmation process would not be a good way to go. I know Senator Brownback is aware that a lot of the groups that drive the objections to these nominees are very agenda-driven groups, they are activists, and I think that is pretty obvious to anybody who is watching.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 6 minutes to be equally divided for debate before this vote.

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the distinguished chairman. He is one of my favorite Senators. There is no one I respect more. He has worked hard, and so has the committee, to maximize what we can do to improve transportation infrastructure in this country. I respect that. The problem is, we have passed a budget. The facts are that in pumping more money into highways--which all Members want to see, as this bill does--we have created a $10.7 billion shortfall. The offsets are revenue enhancements or tax increases that have been proposed either are unlikely to reach that $10.7 billion and/or will not be approved by the House of Representatives. That is a pretty well-known fact. In addition, the President has stated he is not going to sign the bill. He started out at $256 billion. He went to $283 billion, and that is where he is going to stay. What can we do to improve funding for highways, which affect every State, every corner of this country, not just certain areas? I proposed an amendment that I believe does the right thing. It does what our constituents pay us to do, and that is to make choices, make decisions. I have proposed where the bill has a 31-percent increase in spending, we alter that; that we reduce the increased level of spending for matters not critical to our infrastructure; that we reduce the mass transit part of the bill by about $5 billion, still leaving an increase in mass transit spending. We can get there. We can be sure the money we spent for highways will be sufficient, the President will sign the bill, and we will be fiscally responsible and be within our budget. We are spending almost $300 billion. Can't we stay within the budget? Can't we be fiscally responsible and tight in how we spend this money? My amendment reduces some of the increases in the other accounts, including mass transit. By the way, 46 percent of the mass transit funds are spent on four States in this country alone, and that does not count $8 billion in bureaucracy and overhead that goes with that in research. This would be the right approach. I thank my colleague, Senator Inhofe, for his work on the bill. I know he has tried to do the impossible, which is to get more and more for our highways without having to bust the budget. I am afraid that is what we are doing. If we do this, we will fund highways for every State in the country. We will put the money where we need to, in concrete, so that every citizen can use for 100 years from now. The result is good for our budget and our integrity as we go through this process. This is the first big bill that deals with a budget conflict. We do not need to fail a test on the first piece of legislation. I thank Senator Inhofe for allowing me the additional time. I believe this is an important amendment. I urge my colleagues to vote fiscally responsibly, to affirm the budget, and pass legislation that will give us highway spending levels that we want and that the President will sign. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I understand there is a unanimous consent to have 2 minutes, 1 minute on each side. I prefer to have more. I ask unanimous consent we have 3 minutes on each side.

Mr. SESSIONS. Two minutes.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be set aside and call up amendment No. 646.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the amendment be modified with the changes that are at the desk.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we have a very real difficulty with this bill. I think there is a strong desire by most Members of this body to increase the amount of money that is set aside for our road infrastructure. The bill, in fact, does increase that. We had a number at which the President said he wanted us to stay. We increased that number nearly $11 billion. We started at $284 billion. Now the number is $295 billion. The best numbers that I can get from the Budget Committee have convinced me that the sad truth is we have $11 billion in this bill over the budget spending cap that we agreed to. It is the first real bill that has come up since we passed the budget agreement. So we are already in violation of it. They say there are offsets, but some of those offsets are not realistic. I think most everybody knows it. They are projecting things are going to happen in conference, and that it is not going to be a pleasant conference because the President has made clear he will veto a bill that is not within his budget. We are facing a real problem. So I have thought what we ought to do in this Senate, in this Congress, is what real people do when they have to face serious financial decisions. They have to accept the fact they cannot do everything. I know Senator Inhofe has worked so incredibly hard on this bill. My admiration for him is unlimited. I know how strongly he wants to see the road portion of this bill be as strong as it possibly can. And I agree. People travel on highways every day. An improved infrastructure can be a positive difference for our communities and Nation. That is why I try to support everything I can and to be as generous as possible in the road construction account. I will not go into the details tonight, but my amendment will look at less critical parts of this bill, including the mass transit title, and other portions of the bill, and it will ask how many increases we can sustain in those accounts. By reducing the increases a little bit, by an amount that would allow an increase to occur--not cutting those accounts but not having an increase as big as has been proposed--we can produce a bill that increases our funding for our basic infrastructure, is faithful to the budget numbers this Congress adopted, and will be signed into law--not vetoed by the President. If we get to conference without something like this, what we are going to see is that the amount of money set aside for our basic highway infrastructure is going to be cut in conference because the offsets are not going to all be accepted. So let me say again, we are heading to conference with an increase over the budget that is supposed to be offset. Some of those offsets are not going to be approved. And I suspect our basic road infrastructure amount that we now have in the bill will not be sustained and will be reduced. My amendment will allow us to sustain those increases that have been proposed and that we desire. It will allow us to stay within the budget. It will fund this by reducing the increases in other noncritical programs, but still allowing them to increase--not cutting them. I think that is what responsible people ought to do. That is what the amendment I have offered does. We will talk about it in more detail. I thank Senator Inhofe for his leadership on this issue and on so many others. I know he has worked hard. They probably have agreements on how this thing has to go, but I believe the amendment I have offered will be helpful to achieving the goal most of us share. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. That is all I am suggesting. Let's go on and make that upfront, and maybe we will be able to hold this full increase for our highway funding. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma. He is a great leader in the Senate. I admire his work on this committee and his leadership as a senior member of the Armed Services Committee on which I serve with him. I don't dispute that the Joint Tax Committee has said the offsets the Finance Committee has proposed, if adopted, might meet the needs of this increase. I understand some of those proposed offsets probably will not have support in the House. I would like to see the Senator's goal of spending more money on our road infrastructure and transportation system that serves the commercial transportation needs of all the products that we eat, buy, and utilize daily--that are shipped from trucks on highways all over America--I would like to see that guaranteed. I am afraid if we go the way we are now, we will not be able to hold the full increase that has been proposed when we get to conference. But if we would face up to the question and set some priorities and choose between some of the things that are in this bill that are less fundamental and some of the things that are desirable-- things we would like to do but we really don't have to do as much as others--and reduce some of the increases proposed for those programs and move that into the fundamental infrastructure for highways, I would feel better about it. I think the Senator is not really in disagreement too much with that. But when you move a piece of legislation as he has, it requires a lot of cooperation and partnership.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. SESSIONS

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