Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I want to share a few thoughts at this time with the Senate concerning the damages we received from the hurricane, ``Ivan the Terrible.'' It was a major hurricane. It did tremendous damage to properties and houses, timber, and agricultural crops throughout the State of Alabama and even into our region of the United States. I had the pleasure yesterday to travel with President Bush as he went down to Orange Beach, AL, and the Gulf Shores areas, and we examined the losses that occurred there. They are quite significant. I had flown over the area earlier, and it already looked a little better to me yesterday than it did before. The tides are still high. The water level in the Gulf of Mexico remained higher than for the highest tide for maybe 24 hours after this storm hit because the hurricane had pushed so much water in. The water went over the beachfront areas into the lagoons and flooded houses on the lagoons. It blew homes down. Some well-constructed homes stood up well. Most of the condominiums that are multistory condominiums seemed to hold up well, but the net effect was a major loss for many people. The homes and buildings will have to be structurally examined--all of them--to make sure there is not some structural damage that is not anticipated today. I am proud of the people there. The numbers I have received indicate there were 70 deaths in the Caribbean as a result of Hurricane Ivan and that, according to the Associated Press, there were 52 deaths in the United States. We had four deaths in Alabama. That is a very large loss of life. It is something we need to think about, to see if we can anticipate in the future these kinds of problems and minimize the loss of life. I want to say how proud I am of the people in Alabama, from the sheriffs, the fire chiefs, the emergency management people, FEMA, and every agency of Government that participated in the preparations leading up to the hurricane for the success we have had to date in Alabama where the storm hit. Governor Riley, early on, recognized the danger of this storm. He insisted that we have evacuations from the dangerous areas. People do not like to leave their homes. They think they can ride these things out. They may remember one several years ago that was not so bad. But when a major category 3 or category 4 hurricane hits, like Ivan was, nobody is safe on the beaches and the low-lying areas of our State. The Governor pushed hard, and people listened and moved out. For that, we are most grateful and thankful. It could have been so much worse. First of all, I want to say, President Bush made absolutely clear that the Federal Emergency Management Agency will do whatever it takes, complying with the law, to help our people in the State of Alabama. Mike Brown, the Administrator at FEMA, was down. He traveled with us. He has been down several days. He is going back today, I believe, to visit some of the smaller towns off the beach that suffered badly also. We have had a good response from the Federal Government. We find there are some problems. Somehow we can't get things done quite as well as we would like. Of course, FEMA is dealing now with its third major hurricane in just a matter of weeks, so they are stretched to the limits, but they are responding well. Most people are pleased with that. We have to have ice. We need to have the electricity on wherever possible. Some areas need water, and making that available is critical to the health and welfare of these communities. I want to mention a couple things I believe are worth noting. Mr. President, our colleague, Trent Lott, called me Saturday and told me that he had an individual from Pascagoula, MS, who had two truckloads of ice he was sending over. I tried to figure out how we were going to pay for it, and he said he is not asking to be paid. He said: This is from Mississippi with love. We love you. We are sending this ice to you because we care about you. We know you are hurting. It could have been us. We are thankful for that. We want to give this to you. So I salute Mark Mavar, an individual who cared enough to send a large and valuable amount of ice to the people of Alabama. Groups have come from around the country to help. I was with the mayor of Atmore on Friday, and he talked about people coming there from around the country. Today, the mayor told me that Volunteers of America had served 6,000 people in his small town, and I think then 10,000 people yesterday, and that maybe they would feed as many as 15,000 today. As is the case with other towns, the whole town of Atmore for days has had no electricity, zero, anywhere in town. One farmer told me he had gotten his diesel fuel tank and filled it up with gasoline to go around town to provide gasoline for the power saws. People could not get gasoline for their power saws. The gas stations that were opened had lines sometimes with 100, 200 cars. In Monroeville, where I went through Saturday, people were lined up with probably 100, 200 cars at one of the gas stations there. They are just beginning to get electricity in Monroeville. Just maybe a quarter of the town had it, or less. One of the fast food restaurants had it, and there were probably 100 cars out there. Electricity is so important to these individuals and communities. All of the food in their refrigerators and freezers is spoiling. It will have to be thrown out. In normal conditions, you would just go down to the grocery store and buy more food or you would go down to the fast food restaurant and get a hamburger. But when the whole town is out, and it may be 30, 40, 50 miles before you can find gasoline or fast food--and the lines are so long you cannot afford to spend the time there--it becomes a pretty serious crisis for the people. I was able to go with my friend, Bob Sharp, who is a former president of the Alabama Forestry Association, and he showed me and explained to me how our timber stands have been damaged. That is a big deal. We had agricultural loss--cotton, peanuts, pecans--but I do not think anything is going to show the damage and losses as much as in the timber industry. He had a stand of pines. He said he bought the property from a paper company. The trees had been planted, and he had thinned them not long before the hurricane hit. There were substantial losses. Trees were down throughout that area. He was going to manage that timber, as he knew how to do, and hopefully he was going to be able to, over time, make payments on that, and it was going to be his retirement. He talked about a friend of his, who is the same age, who had driven out and looked at his timber losses and just had to sit there and cry when he saw those trees, so many of them, down. It is a real economic hardship for a lot of good people, but they are responding well. Mayor Shell, at Atmore, is such a fine leader. He was an engineer at one of the companies there. He is now retired. He gives his time so well to lead that community. I met Mayor Anne Farrish in Monroeville. She is such a wonderful mayor. Eddie Everett is the fire chief, and Tommy Tate is the sheriff. We sat down and talked about all the trees they had lost. It is not just power lines being down, but a tree on top of a tree on top of a tree, all on top of a power line. Power poles are broken. It is going to take some time for them to recover. I have to say another bit of good news. Alabama Power Company today announced they expected to have 99 percent of the power restored in the State of Alabama by Friday. That is better than I would have expected. That is something to be proud of. As I went through Monroeville, on up the road to where I grew up, to the little family house I grew up in, trees were all across that road. They had been cut and moved off the road to a degree. Sometimes you had to curve around them. This is a State highway, and the sheriff, Tommy Tate, told me one of the people in the timber business there took his own equipment and spent the day going up and down that road clearing that road so traffic could go through there. It took a day or two to get that done. That is the kind of spirit of which I am proud. As I went through my community, I passed a company working on the power line. I stopped to thank them and asked them where they were from. They were from Indiana. They were a cable TV company. They had a crew that could handle clearing and improving lines. They were down in rural Alabama helping. From all over, Oklahoma, other places, these companies are there. Nothing is more important to the recovery of a community than getting electricity on. We should salute and thank the people who have come from around the country, as well as the Alabama Power Company employees who are working their hearts out to get that power back on. We have electric cooperatives that are also doing the same thing. It is not just the Alabama Power Company. So many companies are helping. I salute them. I thank them. When I was talking to that company from Indiana, way out there in the rural areas of Alabama, I asked them: How long are you going to be working today? They said: There is a substation down the road, and we are going to try to get there by midnight tonight. They are working until midnight. That is the kind of hours people are putting in. There is no place with electricity for them to spend the night or to get a hot meal, unless somebody in the community provides it. They are performing at an extremely high level which makes us all proud. We are going to come out of this. We have a long way to go. People's homes are damaged all over. At the home I grew up in, a big oak tree crashed down on the little garage there and smashed it flat and knocked a couple of holes in our house. That was small. If you go out further, you see a huge pine tree cutting off a part of a house, and people are thanking the good Lord they were not injured. You see people there who had 6 inches to 8 inches of water in their house and flooding during the rain that came with this hurricane. You begin to count your blessings. They were counting theirs. They weren't complaining. People whose home flooded had a young child there. The tree hit their roof. They were thankful. I saw a person who was working in the yard, and I went up to him to speak and said: Do you live here? He said: No, this is my friend, and we didn't have any real damage at my house, just lost some shingles, so I am here helping him. I saw people with power saws cutting trees. A timber company had cherry picker equipment that was lifting one of the logs off a house for no charge, just to help a neighbor be able to seal up the house so the rain won't do damage to it. Those are the kinds of things that make this a great country. It does not require the direction of somebody from Washington, DC. It does not require direction from Montgomery, AL, or even the counties. But in the very communities and neighborhoods of our country live some of the finest people the world has ever known. They know how to stand up and make decisions, utilize equipment, take care of their neighbors, and help one another who are in need. They do that on a daily basis in this crisis. I am proud beyond words to represent them. Yes, the Federal Government has a role. We expect them to fulfill that. The State of Alabama has a role, and the county and city governments have a role. They are working hard. I have talked to those mayors. I have talked to the leaders in the communities, and they are working hard. They are intense. They are alert. They are insisting that things be done. They are insisting that if they need some equipment and it is available, they get it. I am proud of that kind of leadership. That is perfectly legitimate. Fundamentally, the people are responding well. The power will be turned back on. FEMA will come around, under the supervision of the Corps of Engineers, and pick up all the limbs and trees that are there. These are not just small trees. Some of them are huge, representing many loads just to haul off the wood product of one major oak tree or one big pine tree. It is going to take months to get all that done. But the system has been proven. We need to refine it and make it better. But it will work. This relief will apply not just to the people who have houses on the beach but to every town and community in the State. I was pleased to see Mr. Brown make that comment just today on the national news media. I talked to him about it. It is not just the people on the beaches who were hurt but in Atmore and Brewton and Monroeville, Frisco City, Evergreen, Greenville, and Camden, my hometown where I went to school. I talked to Mayor Henrietta Blackmon there today. She is struggling to get some electricity. They just got a little bit in town, and they are excited about that. They will be able to have gasoline provided. Some of the restaurants have electricity so people can get a hot meal. That was good news. That is the kind of thing they are doing. They are worried about the nursing home. Generators are keeping that going right now so far. Her husband is a doctor there, and the hospital is getting by on a generator. Linden, Thomasville, Jackson, all these communities were hard hit. Birmingham, much further up the State, had substantial power outages, and the storm continued on north. We have had flooding in West Virginia and many deaths. Whatever else a storm such as Ivan teaches us, it teaches us that we don't control our fate. We are just here a short period of time in this life; our lives are but a vapor, the Scriptures say. We can't control the winds and waves, as my daughter e-mailed me. That is controlled by a higher power. We are called upon to love our neighbors, take care of our communities, and help one another. I believe that is happening in my State to a degree that makes me very proud. We are going to get through it. We are going to stay together. We are going to be a better State when it is over. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I will make a few remarks concerning NASCAR and our soldiers at Walter Reed. On June 3, I attended a Memorial Day dinner at the Walter Reed Army Hospital honoring our country's wounded soldiers. I occasionally visit the hospital to pay my respects to our country's wounded heroes. On this occasion, however, I had the opportunity to meet two of NASCAR's greatest drivers, Rusty Wallace and Jimmie Johnson, who were also participating in this event. Many of the soldiers at the hospital follow NASCAR, and the racers' appearance at the hospital lifted the spirits of both wounded soldiers and dedicated hospital staff members. I am sure Rusty and Jimmie would agree with me when I say that nothing is more humbling or gratifying than meeting these real-life heroes, the men and women who have served our country in such a noble manner. I want to personally thank Rusty Wallace and Jimmie Johnson for taking the time to share in this rewarding experience. They too are great patriots giving of their time to recognize these heroes. Walter Reed Army Hospital is an amazing place. I have seen firsthand why it is the Nation's most effective military health care facility. Our soldiers and those who represent all the other military services are the reason that America is the paramount military force in the world today. The caregivers at Walter Reed, Bethesda and military hospitals overseas are some of America's great unsung heroes. They are the doctors and nurses who are responsible for helping our soldiers get well and back to their families or in uniform as soon as possible. Their needs and concerns are equally important to me and my colleagues. With the help of these doctors and nurses, our military services are improving the quality of care provided to soldiers, their family members, our veterans and retirees. Most of these soldiers were doing well although most had received serious wounds. Their loyalty to their brothers at arms and to America is inspiring. We sent them there in our place so we would be safer at home. And they have performed superbly. Jimmie and Rusty understand that all of us, whether racer, politician, critic, or protestor, enjoy the good life in this country because of the courage of the soldier, their willingness to serve for us. NASCAR and its fans love America. Their skills and their cars reflect our freedom and the technological skills that make us world leaders. It was a great thing, that these super stars found time in their hectic and intense schedule to provide comfort, sympathy, and inspiration to these who have sacrificed for us. I thank them for it.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to recognize the town of Chatom in my home state of Alabama. On October 4, 2004, the Town of Chatom will celebrate its 100th birthday. Named the county seat of Washington County in 1907, the town later became the home of the county's first high school. Washington County Hospital and Nursing Home, where an uncle of mine was ably cared for, was founded there in 1952. In 1956, Chatom citizens founded the beautiful Washington County Public Library. Chatom became a regional leader in aviation when Roy Wilcox Airport was established there in 1963. In 1995, the town extended its appeal to additional tourists and golf enthusiasts by opening an eighteen hole golf course. Reflecting the hospitable environment of the town, residents established the Chatom Community Center in 2000. Lake Ellis opened that same year, providing increased avenues for fellowship and leisure to both residents and visitors. Currently, the Town of Chatom encompasses a population of 1,205. I firmly believe that it is out of the small towns and rural communities of America that there arises the rich values that shape our State and Nation. People know and care for one another. They go to church. They encourage the children of the community. They stand up for truth, justice and common sense. That is the way they were raised and that raising forms the basis for a fierce sense of independence, a respect for the ownership of property, and a love of democracy, where people from the heart of America rule. They love and respect America, they understand the exceptional character of our country, obey her laws, and send their sons and daughters to defend her just national interests. Without the people of Chatom and millions like them, we would cease to bear the stamp, ``American''. Chatom has been a commercial and educational center for southwest Alabama for many years. In fact, I recently found a diploma of another uncle, Harry A. Powe, Jr., who came down from Black Creek outside Silas to graduate from Chatom High School in the 1920s. The rich history and character of Chatom are proof of the leadership potential of Americans intent upon the pursuit of the American dream and the promotion of American ideals. Since its founding on October 4, 1904, the Town of Chatom has been a leader of Washington County, due not only to its expanding educational and economical opportunities but also to the hard work and good hearts of its people. As Chatom prepares to celebrate its centennial, we should pause to look forward to the future achievements of its citizens. I congratulate and commend Chatom for its accomplishments and continued growth. I thank the residents of Chatom for their examples of American ideals and southern hospitality.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I join the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch, in supporting Henry Saad for the U.S. Circuit Court for the Sixth Circuit. He is an exceptionally qualified nominee who has great support in his area. He graduated with distinction from Wayne State University and then magna cum laude at Wayne State University School of Law. He has served for a decade on the Michigan Court of Appeals. He was nominated for this position by former President Bush 10 years ago and was held up, blocked, and did not get a hearing, and now he is back and being held up again. He has the necessary experience to serve. He has been active in his community. He is a Heart Association board member, Oakland College Community Foundation chairman, member of the board of the Judges Association, Michigan Department of Civil Rights hearing referee. He is a Community Foundation of Southeast Michigan board member. He has written a number of articles on subjects such as employment discrimination, AIDS in the workplace, libel standards, and legal ethics. He has given a number of speeches, primarily on appellate advocacy. He has been nominated for a position as an appellate judge, so this is good experience. Appellate judges do not try cases, as the Presiding Officer knows. Appellate judges review trials that went on before. They review briefs carefully and they hear arguments from attorneys involved in a case and who have written briefs in summary, and then they make written rulings to decide whether the trial was properly tried or not. We need him on this circuit. I have to share some thoughts about this matter because it is important and something smells bad. It is not good what has occurred with regard to this nominee and other nominees to the Sixth Circuit. There has been an orchestrated effort to block rule of law nominees for some time now. The House of Representatives had hearings on this matter some time ago and was highly critical about what has occurred. Frankly, I am not sure we fully know the story yet of all that occurred. Let's take recent history when the Democrats were in the majority in the Senate and they controlled the Judiciary Committee and could decide what nominees came up for vote. The Democrats made a number of questionable decisions, and they took care of some outside groups, and they took certain steps that were quite significant. A number of nominees were delayed or blocked. As I recall, even then there were four, maybe six, vacancies in this circuit. Right now, 25 percent of the circuit is vacant. It is an emergency situation, according to the courts, because we have so many vacancies there. Thirty-one assistant United States attorneys--these are the prosecutors who try cases every day, not a political group, but a group of workhorse attorneys trying cases--have expressed concern about the failure to fill these appointments and how long it takes their criminal appeals to be decided. But I want to share this with my colleagues because I think we might as well talk about it. I wish it had not happened, but it has. Take the case of Julia Gibbons of Tennessee. She was a very talented nominee to the Sixth Circuit early on. When the Democrats were in control of the Judiciary Committee, her nomination in 2001 was mysteriously slowed down. It did not move. At one point in March of 2002, Senator McConnell spoke on the floor, and he complained that she had waited 164 days and never had a hearing, and we wondered what was going on and why this fine nominee was being held up. We now know through the release of internal memos that were published in newspapers, in the Wall Street Journal and other places that discussed this case, what happened. Frankly, I do not think these memos should have been made public--under the circumstances, they were, based on what I know. But things leak around here. That is the way it is. I have to share with this body what occurred. What we know is that in April of 2002, there was a staff memorandum to Senator Kennedy from his staff that indicates that the NAACP, which was a party to a Sixth Circuit case, the Michigan affirmative action case to be exact, that they considered to be an important case--this is what the memorandum says: That the NAACP would like the Judiciary Committee to hold off on any Sixth Circuit nominees until the University of Michigan case regarding the constitutionality of affirmative action in higher education is decided by the en banc, Sixth Circuit. . . . The thinking is that the current Sixth Circuit will sustain the affirmative action program, but that if a new judge with conservative views is confirmed before the case is decided, the new judge will be able . . . to review the case and vote on it. The Kennedy memorandum further states that some ``are a little concerned about the propriety of scheduling hearings based on the resolution of a particular case. We are also aware that the Sixth Circuit is in dire need of judges.'' The memorandum goes on to conclude: Nevertheless we recommend that Gibbons be scheduled for a later hearing: The Michigan case is important. Even though it was understood to be wrong to influence the outcome of a pending case, it was recommended that Gibbons be delayed. Now, people like to suggest that the holdup in these nominations is some flap with the home State Senators, that it is tit for tat. I remember a good friend who former President Bush nominated, John Smietanka, for this circuit. He was blocked. He was a wonderful nominee, a saintly person really, a great judge. He was blocked, so they say this is all tit for tat, but I do not think so. I am afraid what really is at work is this circuit was narrowly divided. In fact, as I recall, the University of Michigan case was decided by one vote. Had the new judge been confirmed and voted the other way, it would have been a tie vote. That verdict would not have come out as it did. So I think there is an attempt to shape the makeup of this court. Let's not make any mistake about this whole issue. The judiciary debate is not about politics; it is not Republican versus Democrat. This debate is about the beliefs, the value judgment, and the legal philosophy of President Bush, and I dare suggest a vast majority of American citizens. President Bush and the American people believe that judges should be bound by the law, they should follow the law, they should strictly follow the law, and that unelected, lifetime appointed Federal judges are not in power to set social policy because they are unaccountable to the public. So that is the big deal. There are people who believe otherwise. There are people who can no longer win these issues at the ballot box, if they ever could. They want judges to declare things that they do not want to have their fingerprints on, like taking God out of the Pledge of Allegiance. These are activist decisions. So I believe this is a matter far deeper than just Republican versus Democrat; it represents a debate about the nature of the American judiciary--do we stay true to an Anglo-American tradition that judges are not political, that they are independent, that they wear that robe to distinguish themselves from the normal person, that they isolate themselves from politics, and that they study the law and rule on the law? That is what I believe a judge ought to do. That is the ideal of American law. It is very important that we maintain that. When we have nominees held up explicitly to affect the outcome of a case that might come before them, a very important and famous case, indeed perhaps the most significant case that year--maybe even in the last half- dozen years--to be shaped and blocked simply because of that case is bad. In fact, after the case was over, Judge Gibbons was confirmed 95-0 by this body. There never was any objection to her other than they were afraid it would affect the outcome of the case. There are vacancies on the Sixth Circuit. The President is empowered to make the appointments. He is empowered to make the appointments according to the legal philosophies and principles he announced to the American people when he ran for office. President Bush declared that he was going to nominate and fight for judges who would follow the law, not make law, who would show restraint, who would be true to the legitimate interpretation of the statutes and the Constitution, not using that document to further promote their own personal agendas. That is what he has done, and that is what Judge Saad's record is. He is not going to impose his values on the people of the Sixth Circuit. That is not his philosophy of judging. His philosophy is to follow the law, not to make the law. We have no fear of that kind of judge. We ought to confirm him. The people of this Nation need to know that the Democratic leader, Senator Daschle, and the Democratic machine is time after time mustering 40 votes to block these nominees from even getting an up-or- down vote. In fact, when we vote on cloture to shut off debate and we have to have 60 votes, we are constantly getting 53, 54, 55 votes for these nominees, which is more than enough to confirm them, but we cannot shut off the debate and get an up-or-down vote. So by the unprecedented use of the filibuster, these judges are not getting an up-or-down vote. I say to the American people, they need to understand this. I believe the rule of law in this country is jeopardized by the politicization of the courts. We must not allow that to happen. I believe the collegiality and traditions of this Senate are being altered. There is no doubt we have not had filibusters of judges before. In fact, about 4 years ago, Senator Leahy was denouncing filibusters when President Clinton was in office, and now he is leading it. The ranking member of the Judiciary Committee is leading a host of filibusters. It is an unprincipled thing. I remember Senator Hatch, as chairman of the Judiciary Committee and a guardian of the principles and integrity of the Senate, on many occasions told Republicans when they said, Well, we do not like this judge, we ought to filibuster him, why do we not filibuster him, and he said, You do not filibuster judges; we have never filibustered judges; that is the wrong thing to do. And we never filibustered President Clinton's judges. I voted to bring several of them up for a vote and cut off debate even though I voted against those judges because they should not be on the bench. I did not vote to filibuster the judge, and I think that is the basic philosophy of this Senate. I hope we will look at this carefully. These nominees are highly qualified. They are highly principled. Many of them have extraordinary reputations, like Miguel Estrada, Judge Pickering, Bill Pryor, and Priscilla Owen from Texas, a justice on the Texas Supreme Court who made the highest possible score on the Texas bar exam. These are highly qualified people who ought to be given an up-or-down vote. If they were given an up-or-down vote, they would be confirmed just like that. Unfortunately, we are having a slowdown, unprecedented in its nature. If this does not end and we cannot get an up-or-down vote on these judges, those of us on this side need to take other steps. And we will take other steps. We need to fight to make sure that the traditions of this Senate and the constitutional understanding of the confirmation process are affirmed and defeat the political attempts to preserve an activist judiciary that our colleagues, it appears, want to keep in power so that they can further their political agenda, an agenda they cannot win at the ballot box. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to pay tribute to an outstanding citizen from my home State of Alabama. Dr. Neal Berte has been president of Birmingham-Southern College in Alabama since 1976. He recently retired, ending his 29 years of service to this great liberal arts institution. It has been my pleasure to work with Dr. Berte during my time in the Senate on issues affecting higher education and community service in the Birmingham area. Dr. Berte recognized early on in his career the need to produce future leaders rich in a background of service to others. Therefore, he made service-learning a priority for himself and Birmingham-Southern students. Almost every student who graduates from Birmingham Southern College leaves the Hilltop having had some type of community-service experience. From serving food at a homeless shelter to mentoring children at the local elementary school, the opportunities are endless and involvement is always encouraged. Dr. Berte has led this effort by deeds, not words. He is the first to arrive at a service event and the last to leave. His involvement in the local community is unparalleled and has led to his being awarded Birmingham's Distinguished Citizen Award, Citizen of the Year, and the Erskine Ramsey Award for Outstanding Civic Service. While developing and implementing an aggressive service-learning component to higher education has been a great achievement at Birmingham-Southern, it is far from being his only accomplishment. During the ``Berte years,'' Birmingham-Southern College's student enrollment has doubled, the academic profile of the student body has increased and regularly leads other Alabama colleges and universities, the number of faculty has increased by almost 70 percent, the student- faculty ratio has lowered from 18-to-1 to 12-to-1, the campus has expanded, and the college's endowment has grown from $11 million to more than $122 million. It is difficult to fully gauge the impact Dr. and Mrs. Berte have had over the past 29 years, however, perhaps it is best captured in Dr. Berte's relationship with the students that have flowed through the campus. Dr. Berte's support of the student body has been unwavering. From attending campus sporting events to carrying the boxes of new students on move-in day, Dr. Berte's face has been a constant presence at events throughout each school year. Amazingly, he has learned the name and face of almost every student who has walked the halls at BSC and makes it a priority to greet each person he meets by name and to inquire about something occurring in his or her life at the moment. I think this commitment to the students, the life of any college, is what sets Dr. Berte apart and makes his retirement so poignant for so many of the school's faculty, alumni, and friends. For many, Dr. Berte is Birmingham-Southern. Birmingham-Southern has achieved great success during Dr. Berte's time as president. The college has been consistently recognized by U.S. News & World Report as one of America's top national liberal arts colleges. It is currently a Tier I institution and ranked among the top 66 liberal arts colleges in the country. Its other recognitions include ``100 Best Values in Private Colleges,'' ``America's Best Christian Colleges,'' ``Most Efficiently Operated Schools in America,'' ``Colleges that Encourage Character Development,'' and ``Best Values.'' The school is home to a Phi Beta Kappa chapter and annually ranks No. 1 among Alabama schools in percentage of all graduates accepted to medical and dental schools. When Dr. Berte took over at Birmingham-Southern things were not so rosy. There had been several short-term presidents and the college faced many challenges. Few would dispute that his leadership has guaranteed that Birmingham-Southern is one of the premier liberal arts colleges in America and that few, if any, such colleges have had better leadership in the past 30 years. Dr. Berte has led with vision, compassion, constancy, faith, and courage. His superb graduates daily validate the value of the liberal arts curriculum. I have watched his success over the years with growing admiration. He has truly been one of the best college presidents in America. But, as it is with any great thing, Dr. Berte's tenure must end. He will remain chancellor of Birmingham-Southern College and go on to increase his involvement in the community, as well as spend some much deserved time with his wife, children, and grandchildren. As Birmingham-Southern begins a new era with a new president, I would just like to take a moment to thank Dr. Berte for his service to this institution and the State of Alabama. I wish him the best and would like to echo his optimism that ``the best is yet to come.''

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I wish to speak on the William Myers' nomination to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. He is a man of skill, a man with a proven record of public service, a man with a broad background in legal matters, a man perfectly suited to help improve the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which has had an extraordinary number of problems in recent years. William Myers has bipartisan support. He has had a distinguished legal career. Ranging from his service as a solicitor for the Department of Interior, the chief legal officer at the Department of Interior, to his extensive private practice at Holland & Hart, one of Idaho's most prestigious law firms, where he specialized in Federal litigation involving public lands and natural resource issues. He served for close to 4 years on the staff of former Senator Alan Simpson as legislative counsel. Senator Simpson served for many years in the Senate. William Myers has also served as an assistant to the Attorney General in the U.S. Department of Justice and as Deputy General Counsel for Programs in the United States Department of Energy. These are broad experiences, the kinds of experiences that will be most valuable to him as a Federal judge because many Federal cases involve relations and litigation affecting Federal agencies in matters of land, conservation, and energy. This is particularly true of the West. He is qualified to serve. The American Bar Association, certainly not a conservative organization, has rated him qualified to serve, and he has won many plaudits from across party lines. Cecil Andrus, former Idaho Democratic Governor, had this to say about Mr. Myers: He possesses the necessary personal integrity, judicial temperament, and legal experience, as well as the ability to act fairly on matters of law that will come before him on the court. Mike Sullivan, former Democratic Governor of Wyoming and U.S. Ambassador under the Clinton administration, calls Mr. Myers a thoughtful, well-grounded attorney who has reflected by his career achievements a commitment to excellence. He would provide serious, responsible, and intellectual consideration to each matter before him as an appellate judge and would not be prone to extreme or ideological positions unattached to the legal precedence or the merits of a given matter. That is a high compliment. I think it goes to the heart of what a judge is; that, yes, one can be active politically; yes, one can be a person who has public policy views about what America should do to make this a better country. But when the question is, when one comes on the bench, what is their philosophy about judging? How do they think about judging? What do they think the role of a judge should be? Do they think the role of a judge is to try to use the power of the robe, the power of the bench, to implement their political views? Frankly, if people come up for a judgeship and have never been active in any way in public policy issues, I wonder if they are qualified. Surely, they ought to have some views about issues that come before this country and care about America and have spoken out on them. The question simply is, do they understand when they put on that robe they are not a politician. They are judicial officers required to interpret the laws of this country as best they can, to give plain meaning to the words of the statute and the Constitution and not to utilize that bench as a mechanism to impose their personal views on the people in their district or their circuit? Because, of course, Federal judges have lifetime appointments. Some would think our Founding Fathers, if they made an error, it was when they gave one group of people, the third branch of our Government, unreviewable power. So we need judges who show personal restraint, and that is Judge Myers' judicial philosophy. Frankly, it could be utilized on the Ninth Circuit to a great degree. Some have questioned his commitment to environmental issues, even called him anti-environment. His record indicates otherwise. In fact, he is most knowledgeable and skilled in these areas. He has been a leader in the American Bar Association's Section on Environmental Energy and Resources and has served as vice chairman of the ABA's Public Lands Committee. Now, as my colleagues know, the ABA is certainly not a right-wing organization, but they have rated him qualified. They know him. He has been active in their issues in a professional and legal manner, not in a partisan way but on the American Bar Association committees. He has done a number of things such as settling a big case on behalf of the Government against the Shell Oil Company for flaring and venting natural gas in the Gulf of Mexico. They had to pay $49 million as a result of that settlement. An environmental group sought Mr. Myers' aid to protect Atlantic salmon and 10 other species of native fish in a dispute over removing two dams on the Penobscot River. At the end of the day, the Myers' settlement allowed a dramatic increase in raising the population of these fish and the environmental groups called the agreement ``the biggest restoration project north of the Everglades.'' He understands environmental issues. He understands legitimate concerns about the American environment, the need for us to make sure that the environment is protected and that the law is followed. I hope, however, he is not one who believes the environmental laws the Congress has passed, some of them somewhat complex, can be twisted around and utilized as a weapon to further a personal political environmental agenda. I do not believe that is his idea. From what we have seen from some of our Federal judges, too often in the Ninth Circuit, that is how they have acted. Some have expressed concern about this nominee being one who is from the West. He understands the Government lands issue. He has served on ABA committees and served in areas of the Government that have dealt with those issues. He is knowledgeable on environmental issues and other issues that are important to that region of the country in which he is called on to serve. Now, what is wrong with that? I am sure we have Members of this body from Massachusetts out on Martha's Vineyard, and they would like to tell everyone that if someone is a member of the Cattleman's Association and a lawyer for them, that person cannot be trusted, they do not understand what life is about, they are not committed to the environment; you know, the cows eat grass, and it is not helpful, that kind of thing. Mr. Meyers is a nominee who has a record of adhering to the law. I have no doubt he will be a fine judge, and he deserves to be confirmed. I think it is important that we take a minute to say this: If we get a judge who is committed to the rule of law, committed to showing restraint, committed to the judicial philosophy that a judge ought to follow the law and not make it, where better should they be sent than the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals? I will share some thoughts about that circuit. Politically, let's just say that party affiliation should not affect a judge's ruling, but to those who say this man is conservative, he is a Republican, and he ought not be confirmed, let me point this out about the Ninth Circuit: Of the 26 active judges, 17 were appointed by Democratic Presidents. Only 9 are Republican appointees. A remarkable 14 of the 26 judges, 54 percent, over half were appointed by President Clinton alone. In the year 2000, a Presidential year, President Clinton appointed four judges to this court. The last year in office, he appointed and we confirmed four judges to this court. Of course, it is the biggest circuit in America and having quite a bit of difficulty, frankly. It needs some help, and we need to see in what kind of bipartisan way we can work to improve this Ninth Circuit. We need some rule of law balance on this court. I believe that Mr. Meyers will provide that. I will go on. The Ninth Circuit has established a pattern of issuing the most activist decisions in the country. On one day earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed three decisions from the Ninth Circuit. The Supreme Court ended its 2003-2004 term having reversed the Ninth Circuit in 81 percent of the cases appealed from it. As the Presiding Officer knows--and I see Senator Cornyn from Texas, who is a former attorney general and a member of the Texas Supreme Court, who would also know--the Supreme Court of the United States can only hear a small fraction of the cases that come from the entire United States. They can hear only a small fraction of the cases that are appealed from the Ninth Circuit, and they reversed them 81 percent of the time. That means hundreds and perhaps thousands of other litigants in California and the West did not have their cases heard by the Supreme Court. Perhaps they, too, would have been reversed had they been heard, but they are stuck with the Ninth Circuit as the final court that ever heard their case. The Ninth Circuit has established a pattern of issuing the most activist decisions in the country. I will give some more examples. During the last decade, in the last 10 years, the Ninth Circuit has reversed death sentences at an increasingly high rate. The Supreme Court has affirmed the legality of the death penalty in America, and Congress and States like California and other States in the West have it, as does my home State. But they are being reversed at an increasingly high rate which moves it out of step with the other circuits in America. While all the other circuits uphold approximately 80 percent of death penalty convictions, the Ninth Circuit has gone the other way, reversing a majority of convictions in most years, and approximately 80 percent of the convictions over the last 3 years. I served as a prosecutor for most of my professional career--almost 17 years. An 80-percent reversal by the Federal court, which is simply to review the State court's decisions to see if fundamental Federal principles have been violated, is a stunning statistic. So I say, if Myers has a little different view of these things, we need him in a hurry on the Ninth Circuit. Most recently, in September of 2003, an 11-judge en banc Ninth Circuit panel ruled 8 to 3 that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Ring v. Arizona, which held that capital defendants have a constitutional right to a jury determination of the facts supporting their death sentences, applies retroactively to over 100 death row inmates who were sentenced by judges. Of the 11 panel judges--I want to point this out, how this circuit is made up--of the 11 judges on this panel, one was appointed by a Republican President. Fortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit's decision, but such lack of balance on that court has produced the almost tiresomely predictable set of results. The balance I speak of is rule of law balance, not conservative versus liberal balance. In 2001, the Ninth Circuit acted to invalidate an application of California's three-strikes law as a violation of the eighth amendment's protection against cruel and unusual punishment, a decision fortunately overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. It would be funny, if it were not so serious. There is no doubt that the rather significant decline in criminal activity in America today is driven by tough sentences and things like California's ``three strikes and you are out'' laws which have sent repeat offenders off to jail for longer periods of time. It has saved the lives of hundreds, thousands of Californians who would have been murdered by some of these people, much less raped, assaulted, had their homes vandalized and burglarized, their automobiles stolen, and drugs sold in their neighborhoods. This law was struck down by the Ninth Circuit. Fortunately, it was reversed by the Supreme Court. The Ninth Circuit opinion, of course, was authored by Clinton nominee Richard Paez, who came through here and was confirmed in this Senate several years ago. I opposed his confirmation. The Ninth Circuit, then, after the Supreme Court reversed the decision, only implemented the reversal of through a divided panel. After the Supreme Court told them what to do, the panel still divided, with Judge Reinhardt, the epitome of judicial activism in America, upholding the defendant's sentence only under the Supreme Court ``compulsion,'' he said. And Judge Pregerson stated that ``in good conscience'' he could not follow the Supreme Court's decision. This kind of contempt and disrespect for the U.S. Supreme Court is a matter of concern, of real concern. What is not a matter of concern is that Mr. Myers represented the Cattlemen's Association and understands land issues in the West. That is what we need on this court, some respect for law. The Ninth Circuit reinstated in another case a claim by a prisoner who had been convicted of making terrorist threats and sentenced to 100 years to life. They ruled he had a constitutional right to artificially inseminate his wife from prison via overnight mail. The en banc Ninth Circuit reversed the decision over the dissents of four Clinton appointees, including Marsha Berzon and Richard Paez, who I voted against, but I voted not to filibuster, to bring them out so they could get an up-or-down vote in this body. My suspicions about their activist nature have been confirmed in case after case, unfortunately. In 2002, the Ninth Circuit struck down Alaska's Megan's Law, a sex offender notification law. Both plaintiffs in the case had been convicted of sexual abuse of a minor. Judge Reinhardt's opinion was joined by Clinton nominee Sidney Thomas and Carter nominee Dorothy Nelson. The Supreme Court reversed their decision 6 to 3. Many of those cases have been reversed by the Supreme Court 9 to nothing. The Ninth Circuit infamously declared the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional. The Ninth Circuit panel, including Stephen Reinhardt, ruled the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional because it contained the word ``God.'' The en banc court later refused to reconsider the ruling and the case thankfully was reversed earlier this summer on summary grounds by a unanimous Supreme Court. The Ninth Circuit ruled that California State courts erred as a matter of State law when they found that a defendant, convicted of selling cocaine, had failed to present sufficient evidence to warrant a jury instruction on entrapment. This is a Federal court sitting in review of an oversight of a State court ruling. They are State judges, by the way, who are sworn to uphold the Constitution and sworn to uphold the laws of the State of California. Judge Susan Graber, writing in dissent, faulted the majority for failing to adhere to the proper standard of review of State court decisions. She noted that: [t]he Supreme Court of the United States has just chastised this court, in the strongest possible terms, for substituting our judgment for that of a state court on matters of federal law. . . . We have even less justification for substituting our judgment for that of a state court on matters of its own state law. I am pleased that one justice spoke up there. There are quite a number of other cases I could mention. I will not go into them. Actually, there are quite a number of others. I will say this. This judge has the ``qualified'' rating by the American Bar Association. He has had broad public experience. He has had private litigation experience with a good law firm in Idaho and in the West and back here in Washington. He knows what he is doing. He has bipartisan support, Democrats and Republicans. He is a person who is qualified and should take this position. But we have a small group who thinks these people in the South, they put judges up who want to turn back the clock. They believe we have nominees, if they come from the West and represent the Cattlemen's Association, that they do not believe in the Constitution, they don't believe in the environmental laws. It is a conceit of the elites. It is not correct. This judge is committed to following the law. He would be a wonderful addition to a circuit that is in serious trouble today and needs some reform and needs some judges with good skills, a commitment to the law, common sense, personal integrity, and a willingness to follow the Supreme Court rulings whether they agree with them. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Seventeen and a half minutes total?

Mr. SESSIONS. In opposition.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I know Senator Lott wants to speak, also. I will try to keep my comments to 6 minutes or 5 minutes. So I don't want to object to the 4 minutes, but I think the Senator would need to come in on that time or there won't be enough for this side to be heard effectively. So I will not object.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I yield the Senator from Iowa 4 minutes.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I guess it is only in the Congress that we can have one bad bill that cannot be passed on its own, and we can add to that another bad bill that cannot be passed on its own, and, lo and behold, we can have two bad bills that you would think would not have a dog's chance of passage, and here we are on the verge, I am sure, of passing this amendment. I do not know how the quotas need to be paid out, and how much people ought to get, but we really need to spend some time on it. It was basically suggested to me recently that we ought to be thankful this bill started out at $18 billion in buyout costs and that now it is only $13 billion. We are supposed to say thank you for saving us. But I wonder how we started out at that figure to begin with. Mr. President, I ask to be notified when I have used 5 minutes.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the chairman of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, Senator Judd Gregg, has worked very hard on the tobacco regulation issue. He has had hearings. He has studied it. His staff has worked on it. Members of the committee have been engaged in it. His ideas have been completely bypassed in this amendment that is going forward today. Senator Mike Enzi is a champion of small business, who has spent a lot of time dealing with small convenience stores and working with them on their problems. The breadth of this language they feel very strongly about. He had amendments and some ideas to fix that. All of that has been bypassed. The trade bill is a critically important bill. We want to see that pass. It is just too typical of how we have to do business or feel we have to do business that the bill gets these two pieces of legislation--neither one of which has been thoroughly considered and effectively analyzed--attached to it. I don't believe it is about public policy, and it is something we ought not support. They say they are going to tax the manufacturers. I can understand some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle believing that is not a tax on consumers, but everybody knows a tax on the manufacturer drives up the cost of the product and is, in fact, a tax on the people who consume the product. We might as well put it on the cigarette package so the citizens will know how much the Federal Government has made them pay extra for the cost of the product they wish to consume. I do not favor tobacco. I believe it is a deadly product. We ought to eliminate it in any way we possibly can in a reasonable way. But I also believe in freedom, and I know that there are people who believe that they have a right to smoke and have been given that right. To just exorbitantly continue to exercise more and more of our ability to put taxes on it is not a good idea. The regulations in the FDA bill are very troubling. We know there was a lawsuit over this issue sometime ago, and the courts ruled that the FDA did not have the power to regulate tobacco. As a result of that, we now come back with this legislation. I know there are some good people involved in this, wanting to see this bill pass for various reasons. One group is absolutely committed to increased regulation of tobacco, and they don't care if we spend $50 billion on the buyout. Another group wants a big buyout, and they don't care what kind of regulations we put on convenience stores or on the sale of this product. The net result is an unhealthy deal for public policy in America. I wish we had more time to get into it. I am told that the cost of the buyout per acre is $20,000. I know Senator Lott has some fine farmland in Mississippi. I don't know how much he could buy at $20,000. It would be more than one acre, I am sure. He probably could buy land in Jackson, MS. I am just kidding. I think we are moving in the wrong direction. I want to be on record as objecting to this process. I am sorry that it was sprung on us this way. It is adding too much. We should not allow this to happen. I hope we can make this thing better as time goes by. I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of the time for this side.

Mr. SESSIONS. Seven minutes.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask the question: Why are we here? The reason we are here is because of court rulings. The Massachusetts decision took effect May 17, just a few weeks ago. That is why we are here today. This is not a matter I had any intention of being engaged in 2 years ago or 6 years ago when I came to the Senate. We are here to protect the rights of legislative bodies in all 50 States to define marriage as they always have. I believe that is appropriate. Some suggest there is not a real threat to marriage and the courts will not strike down the traditional definition of marriage. I do not think that is something we can say. As a matter of fact, marriage, as we have traditionally known it, is without any doubt in great jeopardy by the rulings of the courts in America. It has already occurred in Massachusetts. I would like to show the language of one of the opinions that is relevant in this situation. In the Lawrence v. Texas case, just last year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled and said this: In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, the court reaffirmed the substantive force of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause. That is vague language but dangerous language, in my view. They go on to say: The Casey decision again confirmed that our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage. . . . And then a little further on in the opinion, they say: Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do. ``For these purposes'' clearly refers back to marriage in the above paragraph. That is the U.S. Supreme Court. That decision was cited by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court to justify their decision under the equal protection clause. Justice Scalia, in his comments in dissent in this case, said about Lawrence: Today's opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned. . . . He made clear his view of what that opinion was, and he was in the conference when the judges discussed the opinion when it was decided 6 to 3. They can even lose one judge on the issue and still come down against traditional marriage when a challenge comes before them. Second, marriage is good, Mr. President. I had a hearing in the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. We had a host of excellent witnesses who testified about the strength and importance of marriage. The numbers and science are indisputable. Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, who wrote one of the most important articles in the second half of the 20th century called ``Dan Quayle was Right,'' testified. She has become an expert on the subject. She said she was at first criticized, and now everybody agrees with her statistics. She gathered them from independent studies around the country. She found this: On average, married people are happier, healthier, wealthier, enjoy longer lives, and report greater sexual satisfaction than single, divorced or cohabitating individuals. Married people are less likely to take moral or mortal risks, and are even less inclined to risk-taking when they have children. They have better health habits and receive more regular health care. They are less likely to attempt or to commit suicide. They are also more likely to enjoy close and supportive relationships with their close relatives and to have a wide social support network. They are better equipped to cope with major life crises, such as severe illness, job loss, and extraordinary care needs of sick children or aging parents. Children experience an estimated 70 percent drop in their household income in the immediate aftermath of divorce and, unless there is a remarriage, their income is still 40 to 45 percent lower 6 years later than for children in intact families. She goes on and on to discuss those issues. No reputable scientist today would dispute the fact that although single parents do heroic jobs, and many of them overcome all the statistical numbers.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I believe under the unanimous consent agreement Senator Santorum is to be recognized next. We discussed that. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak at this time for 5 minutes.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I think it is important for us to know that marriage is good, that it is in jeopardy by the courts. The American people have a right to a legitimate constitutional amendment process--not the illegitimate process of courts amending the Constitution--but a legitimate process to amend this Constitution by allowing the States to vote. A constitutional amendment will not become law unless the States vote on it. Why is that not empowering States? Three-fourths of them must do so. I believe this is the right thing. It has been a good debate, a good discussion. It is not going away. We will be back again and again. This issue will be discussed more. It will become law. We will protect marriage because it is critical to the culture of this country. I thank the President and yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I could not agree with the Senator more. Why would we do this? I think most Senators who are elected to this Senate have campaigned on and heard from their constituents a growing concern and unease about some of the cultural trends we are seeing, particularly in family and values in the family. All of us have said we are going to do something about it. We need to strengthen family and not undermine it. I believe this is a step downwards. I know the Senator was an admirer, as I have been, of former Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a great scholar, a man who studied social policy in depth as a professor, as a Cabinet member, and as a Senator. The Senator stated the other day how important that Democratic Senator from New York felt about marriage. If the Senator recalls those words, it would be important for us to hear them again.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I yield the floor to the Senator from Kansas.

Mr. SESSIONS. Will the Senator yield for two brief questions? One is, as you discussed and I attempted to discuss, isn't it valid and doesn't a government have a rational basis to affirm traditional marriage? Isn't there evidence, based on the data we have heard and seen, that there is a rational, foundational basis for a government to affirm the traditional marriage as opposed to other relationships in society?

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I will briefly reiterate an important factor-- Senator Santorum has eloquently argued the legal and the policy issues that are so important with regard to marriage and why that institution needs to be strengthened, not weakened. Policies of government create tendencies in the culture. The recognition of same- sex marriages would have a tendency to weaken marriage, and that is exactly the wrong direction we ought to go. How did it occur that we are debating the question of the definition of marriage in the Senate? It occurred because of a ruling last year by the U.S. Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas that clearly implied that the Supreme Court of the United States believes that the Equal Protection clause of the U.S. Constitution says one cannot have marriage only between a man and a woman, as has been done in every culture that I know of since the beginning of time and as I believe every single legislature that has ever sat in the history of the American Republic has so defined. These judges in Massachusetts have now followed up on that Lawrence case of the U.S. Supreme Court and taken it to its conclusion, citing the Lawrence case in its opinion. They have declared that the Equal Protection clause of the constitution of Massachusetts--basically similar to the U.S. Constitution--says one cannot treat same-sex unions differently from traditional marriage. That is a serious stretch, in my view. That indicates that our courts are losing discipline; our courts are imposing, through interpretations of the Constitution, their personal values on society. That is not correct. It undermines democracy. It undermines the power of the American people to decide for themselves how their culture and their society ought to be ordered. I believe very strongly in that. So it is not surprising to me that the senior Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, probably the leading defender of judicial activism in this body, is the only one who I have heard since we have been in this debate say he agreed with that activist decision. It is a decision by a court to step out and impose through interpretation of the language of the Constitution values on the American people of which they do not approve. Indeed, it is not even the values of the people of Massachusetts, as we know the Governor has roundly opposed this. The legislature has taken action. Efforts are being undertaken to pass a constitutional amendment to fix it. So even in the most liberal State in the Nation, even with Senator Kennedy--and his colleague, I suppose, opposing this amendment--the people and the legislature and the Governor do not approve of this. So certainly the American people have a right to be concerned. I see the Senator from Pennsylvania. He spoke on this. I have heard him speak on the issue of judges before. I would like to ask his view-- is this not just one more example of the divide and the difference of opinion that exists in this body about the role of a judge? Is this not indicative of what President Bush has expressed his concern about, which is activism in judges? Does not judicial activism undermine democracy when we have unelected judges setting social policy?

Mr. SESSIONS. I couldn't agree with you more. You stated it so well. I do not want to demean or speak down about any relationship or any persons and the choices they make. But let's say this. Statistically speaking, do fathers and mothers both make different contributions to the health and development of a child?

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator.

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Presiding Officer and Senator Allard for his leadership on this issue. I am proud to cosponsor this legislation with him. I think a constitutional amendment is appropriate, and I believe it is worthy of this Senate to take time to discuss it. I believe it is important for the American people to understand the danger, the threat to marriage as we have known it in this culture and, indeed, as it has been known for thousands of years. It is endangered by the decisions of unelected judges who are not accountable to the public. As a result, it is their States rights that are being eroded through this kind of activity. The U.S. Supreme Court, as I discussed in some detail last night, through the ruling in Lawrence v. Texas has very clearly-- philosophically and as a matter of principle--placed marriage as we have known it in jeopardy. Indeed, Justice Scalia predicted, in dissent, this is exactly where the Court is headed. It is exactly what the Supreme Court of the United States is going to do. It is going to rule consistent with the Supreme Court of Massachusetts. We are on the verge of seeing that happen. If they do not do it next year, or even the year after that, that does not mean that marriage as we know it in America today is not under threat of a Supreme Court ruling. No one in this body would assert with confidence that the Supreme Court, in light of their language in the Lawrence case, is not about to adopt a ruling similar to that of Massachusetts. So marriage is in jeopardy by the U.S. Supreme Court, jeopardy in terms of the way we have defined it traditionally. This is not an act of the people. It is not an act of any legislature. No State or Federal legislative body that has ever sat has concluded this way. None. None has voted for this kind of definition of marriage. I will emphasize, first of all, for those who believe that States have the ability to do something by passing a constitutional amendment or a State statute dealing with marriage to affirm traditional marriage, that would be wiped out by one ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court, when it defines the equal protection clause of the due process clause of the U.S. Constitution, trumps any State law. What we are doing is to protect, defend the rights of the States to adopt legislatively the position they have always adopted. I believe it is an important national issue, as has been discussed by a number of very fine lawyers. Jon Kyl, yesterday, in his statement--and Senator Kyl has argued three cases before the U.S. Supreme Court--delineated the mess we will be in when people move from State to State with children they have adopted. Their relationships are one in one State, another in another State. A national definition of marriage is healthy for the country. But I tell you, I would admit, we would not be here if it were not for the courts. We would not be seeking a constitutional amendment. We would not be in this debate had we not been placed in a position where the American people have to stand up and defend their democratic powers against an activist judiciary. Let me add parenthetically, this is what the debate over judges is about; it has been going on in this Congress for several years now. President Bush believes in judges who follow the law, not make the law, judges who do not believe it is their right and that they have the power to impose their personal views on people through their ``definition'' of the Constitution of the United States. For 200 years plus, we have had an equal protection clause. It is only recently that some judges seem to believe that allows them to redefine marriage. That is a stunning activist decision. It is the same kind of decision we have seen on the Pledge of Allegiance, the same kind of decision we have seen on many other issues coming before us today. It would be very appropriate that the American people, following the constitutionally approved process of a constitutional amendment, would answer that and say what they think about marriage and how it ought to be defined. The truth is that we will be better off with a fundamental definition of marriage nationally. It is important that we do so because of the action of the courts. Some say: Well, the American people don't want this. My phones are ringing off the hook. I don't know about Senator Allard or the Presiding Officer. I had my people check. We have had 1,500 calls for this amendment and less than 30 or 40 opposed. The American people are concerned about it, and rightly they should be. Maybe, as with a lot of important issues that come before the Senate, they are not fully informed of what is happening, and this debate will help them become better informed. I don't know. My colleague, Senator McCain, suggested that the American people don't support this constitutional amendment. I am just looking at some recent survey data. Here is one from June 23-24, 2004. Do you favor or oppose a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman: Favor, 57 percent; opposed, 38 percent. That was New Models survey. Here is one, CBS News-New York Times. Would you favor or oppose an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would allow marriage only between a man and a woman: Favor, 59 percent; opposed, 35 percent. That is March of this year. I don't think the American people are fully understanding of just how far the courts have moved and just how much the traditional definition of marriage is under attack today. Members of this Congress need to think about that. I don't believe it is going away after this vote. The issue will remain alive. The American people are going to continue to contact their legislators because the matter is important. Marriage is important. Senator Brownback, who does such a good job, has gone into some detail today and yesterday on how we have seen in Europe and Scandinavia that the adoption of same-sex marriages has furthered the decline in respect for marriage in those countries. And after those acts have occurred, we have seen a substantial surge in the number of out-of-wedlock births in those countries and the decline of marriage. It is rather dramatic. Just within the last few days, six experts from Scandinavia have written a letter to other European nations and the United States, I suppose, telling them that they ought to be careful when they start tinkering with the traditional definition of marriage. It has serious sociological impacts on the life and culture of those countries. It is time for us to back up a little bit. I would also note parenthetically that we have not adopted the socialist model of Europe. Our economy is stronger. Our unemployment is less. Our growth rate is higher. Our economy is healthier than Europe. We have not followed their mentality on national defense and we have the strongest military in the world and we have the strongest capability in the world. So why would we want to adopt their ideas about marriage? It would be the wrong thing for us to do. The fact that we have resisted in those areas tells me that we are not on an inevitable decline in marriage.