Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak as in morning business.

Mr. SESSIONS. We need to think about those issues and consider seriously the direction this country intends to take on marriage. That is all I am saying. I urge my colleagues to realize this is a significant vote. What we say indicates what this Nation, what this culture thinks about marriage. I am going to talk in a moment about why it is important. But I do believe it is not disputable that adopting a same-sex marriage culture undermines and weakens marriage. We had two articulate African-American leaders speak to a group of us a few days ago. They pointed out how hard they worked to sustain marriage in their churches and in their communities, how important they believe it is that there be stable, strong families so that children can be raised in that environment, and how hard they have worked at it and how frustrated they are that we would think about changing the definition of marriage because they are convinced that it would undermine the classical marriage relationship. Let me just say one more thing parenthetically. I do not believe this debate should be negative. I do not believe it should put down any person, any group of people who have alternative lifestyles. Our Nation allows people to express themselves and live as they choose. I do believe, however, that it is important for us to have as the marital relationship in our country the ideal relationship of a man and a woman. That is what we have always done, and that is what we ought to proceed with now. I do not believe it is appropriate for me to judge someone else's behavior. That is between them and their Lord. One wise thinker talked about the Scriptures. He said: The Scriptures say we should not be greedy, that we should not be violent. The Scriptures say we should not be angry. All of us violate all kinds of values, principles, moral rules of behavior that our Creator has set for us. So I am not here to judge anybody or condemn anybody. They must live and make their own judgments about how to behave. I have certain beliefs about proper standards of behavior, but I am not able to say I am any better than anybody else who may or may not fail to act in a proper way. Let's talk about why marriage is important. If we are at a point where we are convinced that this judicial change could further weaken the institution of marriage, then what impact will that have on the people of this country? What impact will that have on the quality of life and the health and vitality of our next generation of young people? I had the privilege to chair a hearing recently in the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. It was entitled ``Healthy Marriage: What Is It and Why Should We Promote It.'' It was a very excellent hearing. I learned an awful lot. We asked three questions. First, is marriage good? Is it a good thing? Second, if marriage is good, should the Government involve itself in promoting that good? And finally, significantly, can the Government make any difference in marriage in a culture? After listening to a distinguished panel of witnesses, I determined that the answer to each of these questions is yes. First, we know that marriage is a social good. Children are more likely to be healthy in two-parent homes, and there is less government dependence when people are in families led by married parents. Second, while government should not be involved in the decision to marry--of course, that is an individual decision--once that decision is made, government should be on the side of supporting marriage, affirming marriage, certainly doing nothing to undermine marriage or reduce its power, its legitimacy, and its sanctity in society. Government is often on the side of promoting social good. For example, government incentives exist for home ownership. Why? Because we believe home ownership makes for a more stable community. It allows families to generate wealth and create wealth and have something to live in in their old age. That is a good goal and we promote it. We have tax breaks for charitable giving because we want to encourage charity. We have government grants, loans, and tax breaks to encourage people to enhance their education. We have government incentives for preventive health care. Finally, government can make a difference. Positive examples of government involvement in helping marriage include the Oklahoma marriage savers initiative, as former Oklahoma Gov. Frank Keating testified at our hearing. The marriage savers community policy is something we studied carefully. In the community that has a marriage savers policy, it has strengthened marriage. I thought the most dramatic testimony came from Dr. Barbara Dafoe Whitehead. I will talk about her testimony in a moment. We also heard from Roland Warren and Dr. Wade Horn, who testified on a number of issues. All right. So if we continue the European model of deemphasizing the importance of classical marriage, defining it down, if we follow that direction and that further undermines marriage in a society, will it hurt our society? Will we be diminished by it? Let me share with you some of the facts that have been assembled by Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, Ph.D., director of the National Marriage Project. Ten years ago, she wrote an article that was voted one of the most significant articles in the second half of the 20th century. The title was, ``Dan Quayle Was Right.'' It had to do with former Vice President Dan Quayle's speech in which he questioned the blase way we treat divorce in our society, and he raised aggressively the importance of marriage. He was roundly condemned and made fun of at that time. Dr. Whitehead later wrote her article. She said she took a lot of criticism. She had criticism from colleges and universities about the data that she had reported from various studies around the country. She noted that she doesn't hear criticism today. Nobody disputes the data. No one disputes that a two-parent traditional family is a healthy, positive force for our society. That is why it is perfectly legitimate for any government to provide laws that further that. That is what we want to do. Government has a right to further social institutions, to affirm them legally, those institutions that make their society more healthy. This is some of what she said in her statement to the committee: On average, married people are happier, healthier, wealthier, enjoy longer lives, and report greater sexual satisfaction than single, divorced, or cohabitating individuals. Well, after that, I went home and thanked my wife for putting up with me all these years. That is a good affirmation of marriage. There are very few matters that are not encompassed in there that are improved by marriage. She went on to say: Married people are less likely to take moral or mortal risk, and are even less inclined to risk-taking when they have children. Isn't that a good thing? I think so. They have better health habits and receive more regular health care. They are less likely to attempt or to commit suicide. They are more likely to enjoy close and supportive relationships with their close relatives and to have a wider social support network. They are better equipped to cope with life crises, such as severe illness, job loss, and extraordinary care needs of sick children or aging parents. Those are things that come from a marriage. She said: If family structure had not changed between 1960 and 1998, the black child poverty rate in 1998 would have been 28 percent rather than 45 percent, and the white child poverty rate would have been [less, also]. Children experience an estimated 70 percent drop in their household income in the immediate aftermath of divorce and, unless there is a remarriage, the income is still 40 percent to 45 percent lower 6 years later than for children in intact families. Mr. President, we know these are statistical numbers. We know many families do an extraordinary job outside of the two-parent relationship. Single moms are some of the most courageous people this country has today. They do a great job in many ways, but it is more difficult. Statistically speaking, we know it is more difficult to be as effective. I will add some other things. The risk of high school dropout for children from two- parent biological families is substantially less than that for those from single-parent or stepfamilies. Children from married-parent families also have fewer behavioral or school attendance problems and higher levels of educational attainment. They are better able to withstand pressures to engage in early sexual activity and to avoid unwed teen parenthood. I think those are important values. They are significantly more likely to earn four-year college degrees or better, and to do better occupationally than children from divorced or single-parent families. On average, children reared in married-parent families are less vulnerable to serious emotional illness, depression and suicide than children from non-intact families. Close to 4 out of 10 American children go through a parental divorce. Children from married-parent families have more satisfying dating relationships, more positive attitudes toward future marriage, and greater success in forming lasting marriages. . . . [Y]oung men from married families are less likely to be divorced and more likely to be married. . . . In addition, young men from married-parent households have more positive attitudes toward women, children, and family life than men who grew up in nonintact families. Poverty rates for married couples are half those of cohabitating couple parents and one-third those of noncohabitating single parents in households with other adults. The traditional family is a protection against poverty. The numbers are indisputable on it. I don't see how we can dispute it. So the question is, Do we agree that the rulings of the courts that threaten traditional marriage will further a decline and disrespect for marriage? Will it weaken the definition of marriage, reduce its power and sanctity and integrity? Is that true? I think it is. If that is so, then that is not good for our culture. If there are not families here to raise children, if there are not families here to nurture them, if there are not families to educate them, to hug them at night, to take them to church, or to help them with their homework, or to tell them how to get over their anger and forgive people who have wronged them, and to go on and be happy and be strong and courageous and do the right thing, who is going to do that? Is it going to be the government, through increased social taxes and welfare, or a secular institution who, by definition, as we have learned in this body, cannot say anything of a spiritual nature in terms of raising children? Do they have to be raised by some secular State? Are we going to be better off if that occurs? I don't think so. I am not talking about partnerships by people who choose to live together. I am talking about the State definition of marriage. Is that important for America? I think it is. I see the Senator from Kansas. He eloquently, as I indicated earlier, delineated and explained why the redefinition of marriage guarantees that continual erosion of marriage, and if we erode marriage, we erode this culture, and it will hurt children. It will undermine them and it will undermine our strength as a nation, something any State, any nation has a right to be engaged in, and it ought to be engaged in through its elected representatives, the people they elect, and the people should be able to decide this. I could go on with point after point from Dr. Barbara Dafoe Whitehead. Her scientific, indisputable evidence of the dangers we face if we think we can blithely go along with the idea that marriage is only what makes people feel good, that marriage is only for adults and what they feel at the time and what they would like to do at the time. People can do what they like to do--they really can--in this country. We are not putting people in jail for that. But they do not need to have a definition of marriage apply to relationships of that kind. The American people have not voted for it. They have never voted for it. They do not favor it now, and I do not believe they are going to vote for it. The question is, Will we allow them, through this constitutional amendment process, to speak to the unelected judges through the proper amendment process? Will we block it in the Senate? Or are we going to send it out to the States and let the people have a chance to be heard? I think that is what we ought to do. I cannot imagine why we would not want to do that. A lot of people say: I do not believe in same-sex unions, or I believe marriage ought to be between a man and a woman. It is nice to say that. Why don't you vote for it? Let's have people up here vote for it; otherwise, we are facing a very strong likelihood we will continue to see the courts erode this historic institution that is so important to our culture. I thank the Chair.

Mr. SESSIONS. I will be pleased to attempt to answer the question of the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. SESSIONS. I am not aware of that.

Mr. SESSIONS. I think the Senator from Pennsylvania is exactly correct.

Mr. SESSIONS. I have not been here throughout the day. I have not heard all of those charges made, but it does seem close to what I have been reading and hearing; yes.

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania. I think he is correct. I love the Federal courts. I practiced there full time for the biggest part of my legal career. I have tremendous respect for Federal judges. But I tend to agree with the Senator from Pennsylvania. The senior judges in the U.S. Supreme Court, many of whom are in their eighties, have become detached from America. If they follow their role as the Founders considered, which is simply to be removed, to be independent, to analyze the language fairly and justly without partisan or personal interest, that is good. But if they develop some idea that they know what is good for the country better than the people do, if they start drifting into that mentality, then it is very unhealthy for this society. And it is anti-democratic. It is not democratic. Because they have life-appointed positions. I have heard the Senator from Colorado speak on this and I know he believes the jurisdiction of the courts can be constrained, and he has taken a lead in that effort. He has done so in a highly intelligent and effective way, a proper way, by presenting legislation now to be discussed. But I am troubled by this trend that demonstrates to me that the Supreme Court is out of control. Senator Allard, in addition to the powerful need for this Senate to protect marriage because of the cultural impact and the impact on families and children that will occur if marriage continues to decline, I think it is important for us to defend our legislative power against a branch of government that is encroaching on it. If we do not defend this power, if the Members of this body sit by and allow the courts to erode our power, then shame on us. And our children will not respect us. We defend our interests against the President. The Senate defends its interests against the House when they try to encroach on the Senate's power. And well we should. That is what Madison and the Founders expected. I think he would expect us to defend our legitimate interests against the encroachment of the courts. I thank the President and yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. I couldn't agree more.

Mr. SESSIONS. No, I think the Senator made a very critical point, and that is there is no room to suggest that those of us who read the Supreme Court opinion of the United States, who watch what is happening in Massachusetts, who have seen what is happening in other places around the country, actions that are contrary to the will of the people of the United States of America through their elected representatives-- and people say--they agree with the people. People indicate they are supportive of where the people are. So how can they condemn an amendment that Senator Allard has worked on that simply affirms the traditional definition of marriage that they say they support?

Mr. SESSIONS. I will be pleased to yield.

Mr. SESSIONS. I would follow up on that. I remember when I was a U.S. attorney in Alabama, I got a call from an educator who was looking at their school textbook and discovered it asked a question about amending the Constitution. The first section stated that you amend it according to the way the Constitution says it should be amended. And the second paragraph says the Constitution is amended by the courts. He asked me: You are the Federal attorney here; is that true? I said: No, it is not true. And he asked me to do a video. But the point is that you are right, I say to my colleague, Senator Santorum. This judiciary believes it has the power to amend the Constitution by taking words such as ``equal protection'' or ``due process,'' which in the hands of a person not disciplined can be made to say a lot of different things. But good lawyers and good judges know that can be abused and they do not do so. I think we are at a point where the American Republic has its democratic heritage at risk-- if we just get to the point where we can never respond, if they can make these rulings and the Congress can never pass an amendment to overturn them, or set our own policy on behalf of the people.

Mr. SESSIONS. Well, with regard to Madison, that father of the Constitution and a man I admire, he set up coequal branches and he expected each one to be a check and a balance on the other. Would not the Senator expect that Madison would have expected this Senate and this Congress to defend its prerogative to set policies concerning marriage and family and resist the encroachment of that power from the courts?

Mr. SESSIONS. The Senator is in part of the leadership in this Senate on the Republican side. Is it not true, based on his experience, that even the House and the Senate defend amongst themselves their prerogatives and do not the House and the Senate defend their own power against the executive and does not the executive branch defend its own power against the legislative branch?

Mr. SESSIONS. Could I interrupt the Senator and just follow up on that?

Mr. SESSIONS. The Senator is absolutely correct. Dr. Wade Horn, from the Department of Health and Human Services, who testified before my committee, says that any welfare reform we pass must help strengthen marriage because without marriage, poverty is increased.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. If California passed it with 90 percent of the vote, or 60 percent, as I believe they did pass a statute by ballot initiative, no matter what the people voted, it would be trumped and wiped out by the ruling.

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator from Arizona. Mr. President, I would like to share a few thoughts this afternoon. I thank him for his insight into the complexity and the confusion that will result if we don't have a national standard as we have always had on marriage. I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania for his courage and compassion and understanding of the importance of family. I thank the President for his eloquent remarks last Friday on this important matter. I thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch, for his brilliance and for the comprehensive statements he made today and Friday concerning the need for and the custom and the legality of a constitutional amendment on this question. People say, Why do we need to do it now? I was in a hearing and one of the individuals said, Well, the State of Massachusetts may pass a constitutional amendment, and that would sort of, he indicated, solve the problem. I asked him, if it is all right for the people of Massachusetts or Michigan or Alabama or Utah to pass a constitutional amendment that defines marriage, what is wrong with the people of the United States and the Federal system passing a constitutional amendment to deal with marriage? All of the people who seem to be questioning and suggesting we should not go forward with this kind of amendment are doing so on the basis that State constitutions are being amended. But as we heard from Senator Kyl, a State constitution will not solve the matter if the Supreme Court acts as they have indicated they will. I believe it is perfectly appropriate for the people of the United States to consider whether they would want to amend our Constitution. Some say that marriage is just not important, that this is not a matter we ought to spend any time on, and why now. They say, you are just bringing this up because there is an election ongoing. Let me say that it was just last year that the Supreme Court ruled in Lawrence. It was less than a year ago when Massachusetts ruled in their case that made so much of an impact, and the result of the Massachusetts case was just brought into effect May 17 of this year. What started this debate was not people who believe in family as we have always known it. They didn't start this debate. They didn't start the discussion, the debate and legal activism, that attempts to change a fundamental American institution. It was the courts that did so activist lawyers and activist judges. It would indeed be unthinkable to most people that we would ever need to discuss a constitutional amendment to defend marriage. Unfortunately, the integrity of the legal system is being eroded as political agendas are being implemented more and more through rulings of the courts. That, let me say, fundamentally goes to the heart of the American democracy. Democracy in this country rests power with the people. But lifetime- appointed judges usurp this power--and it does not even take all nine on the Supreme Court, or all seven on the Massachusetts Supreme Court. In fact, it was four out of the seven judges on the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, unaccountable to the public, who issued an opinion and cannot be held to account. If we vote on issues the American people do not affirm, do not approve of and object to, we can be removed from office. That is the way the system works. We must not allow this power to go to the courts. In fact, that is precisely the issue that has driven the debate ever since President Bush has been in office, even going back to President Reagan: What do you want out of judges on the courts of America? Do we want judges who impose agendas to do what they think is right under the circumstances? Or do you want judges who follow the law--Judges who care about the law and are respectful of it and indeed respectful of the people of the United States of America who, through their elected representatives, they believe should be setting social policy in this country. That is the challenge we are facing. That is the second important part of this debate. The first is marriage is an institution of tremendous importance and the rulings we have seen in courts today will undoubtedly erode the validity, impact, and power of that institution that has helped raise healthy generations of Americans year after year. That is one aspect. The other aspect is the power of unelected judges. That power is frightening. We have seen a number of opinions from the Supreme Court of the United States that cause concern. We saw the Supreme Court avoid ruling recently on the Pledge of Allegiance case that challenged the ``under God'' language in the Pledge. They could have ruled on that and nailed that issue down. I suspect it suggests the Court is undecided about that. Certainly a number of their opinions have given a basis for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to strike down the Pledge of Allegiance. The Supreme Court of the United States, in my view, is seriously drifting from its principles. We have had members of that court, more than one, start talking about European law as they analyze legal matters. They have forgotten the American Constitution is a contract between the American people and their Government. It empowers our Government to carry on certain powers and not to do others and retain to the democratic process other actions. This amendment will have a twofold impact. No. 1, it will protect the integrity of marriage, a critical institution to our culture; No. 2, it will indicate to our courts that the American people are not incapable of defending their liberties when they are under attack by courts. They seem to think this issue will be stirred up for a number of months and then it will settle down and people will go away; that is the way it is going to be, do not worry about it. There will be editorials and church people will carry a sign and someone will sign a petition, but we have lifetime appointments and we are like philosopher kings. We can see the long term and what is good for America. We have decided this is the right thing for America to do. We will take the heat for a few months or a year or two and it will go away, we will be affirmed, and we will affirm our view and stand by it and that will be the end of that. These small-minded citizens will go away. I am afraid there is an arrogance in some of these opinions that goes that far. It disturbs me. One of the dissenting justices in the State of Massachusetts, I suppose the most liberal State in the country, certainly the most liberal judiciary, stated that the Goodridge v. Massachusetts decision ``exceeds the bounds of judicial restraint,'' and he went on to note this decision ``replaces the intent of the legislature with that of the court.'' In other words, that is precisely what they did. The judges on the court, four of the seven, got it in their minds how marriage ought to be defined in America and they went back and took the equal protection clause of the state constitution, very similar to the U.S. Constitution, and the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court interpreted that clause to effect a policy change that the founders and the drafters of that constitution certainly never thought possible many years before when that equal protection clause was passed. I suggest, without doubt, it replaced the intent of a legislature, a body in Massachusetts that is accountable to the public, with the intent of the court. That is what activism is. That is what Senator Hatch so eloquently talked about for many years in the committee he chairs. When judges impose their personal or political views, liberal or conservative, through the redefinition of the meaning of language in the Constitution, they are activist judges. We need to deal with that. I will take a moment to go over something that has been discussed before, the Lawrence v. Texas case in 2003. Some say the Supreme Court is not going to say we have to recognize same-sex marriages along with traditional marriage. Read that opinion. Senator Hatch pointed it out. This is the language of the Court: In Planned Parenthood in Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, the court reaffirmed the substantive force of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause. That is broad language, trust me. I don't know what that means, but it is not good. I repeat: ``reaffirmed the substantive force of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.'' And continuing: The Casey decision again confirmed that our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education . . . And they went on to state: Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do. So, persons ``in homosexual relationship may seek'' the same protections for these purposes, the purposes above, which includes marriage. Justice Kennedy, who wrote the opinion for the majority in Lawrence, made clear that the holding of the case did not involve formal recognition of same-sex marriage because the holding of the case had to do with sodomy laws in Texas. It didn't have anything to do with marriage. It does not involve whether the Government must give formal recognition to any relationship that ``homosexual persons seek to enter.'' He suggests it was not about marriage. The Court did not issue a decision about marriage--that is correct. Justice Scalia is also correct in responding, saying ``this case `does not involve' the issue of homosexual marriage only if one entertains the belief that principle and logic have nothing to do with the decisions of this court.'' In other words, the logic of the case is so compelling and powerful that if properly applied to the next case that comes before the Court, it will hold that homosexual marriage must be recognized in the same way. That is why we are here. No one, in my view--not one Member of this body--would be able to say that marriage, as we have traditionally known it in America, is not in jeopardy as a result of this opinion. Everybody knows the Supreme Court of the United States is on the verge or may be on the verge of ruling like the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court did. So marriage in America under the U.S. Supreme Court is in jeopardy. Marriage as we know it is in jeopardy by the Supreme Court. So what is wrong with this body simply allowing the American people, through their elected representatives, to pass a constitutional amendment on something as important as marriage? It is not unimportant. I reject the idea that this institution which is so valuable to our culture is not important and not worth debate in this body. They are the same ones who say: Oh, look, States are passing constitutional amendments. We don't need to pass one. But if States can pass a constitutional amendment, what is wrong with the Federal Government passing one? And talk about confusion, as Senator Kyl said, let's say the Supreme Court rules consistent with Massachusetts. How long will it take for a constitutional amendment to be passed? In the meantime, what will happen to the marriages and all the arrangements that will be accruing around the country legally? Are they all going to be upset? So if we are concerned about the power of the courts--I know Senator Hatch is because they are reaching beyond the traditional role of a court through activist decisions--and if we are concerned about marriage, why don't we move on this amendment? Why don't we send it forward to the people of the United States so they can consider it? Somebody said: Well, I don't like every word that is in this constitutional amendment. Maybe I could support it, but I would like it to be a little different. Well, if we move this amendment forward on the floor so it can be considered by this body, then people can offer amendments to change it. We will debate and talk about how to better word the amendment if it needs to be changed. I feel comfortable with the way it is, but I am willing to debate and talk about any changes. I believe this body can make a difference. I believe we need to speak on this issue for several reasons. One is because we need to send a message to the courts that we control the culture of this country, we control how intimate relationships like marriage ought to be defined; that is, we the people, and not unelected, lifetime-appointed judges. I have another chart to show; a lot of liberal lawyers in the country also agree with what I have been saying. Laurence Tribe, from Harvard Law School, last fall, right after the decision in Lawrence or about the time this decision was rendered, said: You'd have to be tone deaf not to get the message from Lawrence that anything that invites people to give same-sex couples less than full respect is constitutionally suspect. So again, isn't that affirmation of what I have said, that the Supreme Court is on the verge or may yet step forward with a Massachusetts-type ruling? There is another quote I think is interesting. In Justice Scalia's dissent, he said the Lawrence decision: leaves on pretty shaky grounds state laws limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples. ``Pretty shaky grounds.'' Evan Wolfson, director of the Freedom to Marry group that favors the Massachusetts ruling, said: But when [Scalia's] right, he's right. We stand today on the threshold of winning the freedom to marry. He is talking about the U.S. Supreme Court. I believe this Senate needs to consider the matter of marriage in America. We need to think seriously about it. We need to consider whether the social science evidence I have discussed and others have discussed earlier indicate these rulings will further undermine marriage in America, thereby endangering our culture, as it inevitably will. And we need to consider the reach of Federal judges which continues to expand beyond their legitimate role. This amendment provides an opportunity for the people to speak on both those questions. I think it is important for us. I urge my colleagues to think clearly about it. This is not harmful or negative or targeted to anybody. It is an amendment that will focus on affirming traditional marriage, family, and children, which is what a State has a right to be interested in: the institution that nurtures, raises, and educates the next generation who will lead our country. Those are important issues. I hope we will move forward with the debate, we will allow this issue to come before the Senate, we will debate it and debate the language of the amendment--and if we improve it, so be it-- and then pass it and send it out to the people of America. I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Arizona. He is one of the Senate's finest legal scholars. He has argued a number of cases before the Supreme Court, I believe three or more. He won all of those cases. There is not one lawyer in a thousand in America who has argued a case before the Supreme Court, much less three. I would like to just ask one simple fundamental question, if the Senator could explain it to our colleagues and to the people of this country. If the Supreme Court found, as they indicated that they may in the case of Lawrence v. Texas, that marriage under the Due Process or Equal Protection clauses of the Constitution has to include same-sex marriages rather than just the traditional marriage form, will that not wipe out all of the constitutional amendments that are being passed in the States of America and all the statutes in America and the Defense of Marriage Act that we passed in this Congress?

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

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, as we finish up today, I want to share a few thoughts on the problem we have with the activist courts redefining marriage. Marriage has been defined by every legislature that has ever sat in the United States from every State, now 50 States, the same way, but now we have unelected judges altering and changing that fundamental institution. It is not a little matter. It is a very big matter. It is a matter the American people have a right to be asked about. It is a matter the American people have a right to be engaged in. It is an institution that no one can dispute is central to American culture. Regarding the culture of any country in the world, the status of family and marriage is critical to that culture. I had the privilege of chairing a committee that had a hearing on marriage. It was a remarkable thing. Barbara Dafoe Whitehead was one of the witnesses. She had written an article that was voted one of the most significant articles in a news magazine in the second half of the 20th century. The Presiding Officer, the Senator from Mississippi, served with Dan Quayle, the former Vice President and Senator of this body. The name of the article was, ``Dan Quayle Was Right.'' She has since continued to study the science of families. She told us when she originally did her report she was criticized by academics around the country, but in the 10 years since she wrote that article there is no dispute that children do so much better--every objective scientific test shows that--if they are in a traditional two-parent family. Indeed, the husband and wife do better. It is a healthy relationship that the State, the Government--without any doubt, it seems to me--has every right to want to affirm and nurture and encourage through legislation. To me, there is no discrimination whatsoever in a State deciding they are going to give a special protection to the marriage relationship that produces children, who will eventually run our country when we are gone. Any nation, any country, and any State has an interest in producing children who will take over and lead their country in the future. They also have an interest in how those children are raised. It is a big deal here. Some people in this body continually push for more State and Federal Government involvement in the raising of children. I will ask you this: If there are not families to raise those children, who will raise them? Who will do that responsibility? It will fall on the State. There will be a much less effective job done, at greater cost to the taxpayers. Who could dispute that? I think the State has a remarkable and deep interest in it. Likewise, when you have a universal, unequivocal, unbroken, consistent decision by every State and virtually every nation, until the last few years, that a marriage should be between a man and a woman, I think anybody ought to be reluctant to up and change it; to come along and say, well, you know, everybody has been doing this for 2000 years, but we think we ought to try something different. We should not do that. I mean, if you want to bring it up in the legislature of the State of Alabama or the State of Massachusetts and you want to debate it and have hearings on it and take evidence and then you decide you want to vote on it, maybe that is one thing. But what we have had in this circumstance is a situation in which the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, citing language from the U.S. Supreme Court, up and declared it violates the equal protection clause of their Constitution to treat same-sex unions differently from heterosexual unions. Maybe that is an equal protection violation. Maybe we could say that is what the Constitution says. But nobody, since the founding of this country, has ever interpreted it that way. What happens if a court makes a mistake? What happens if a group of judges says: I don't like the way the legislature has been handling this marriage thing. I don't think they have been affirming same-sex couples' unions and they ought to do it. Why don't we rule that way? Why don't we do that? Somebody says, How are you going to do it? They say, We will study the Constitution. Here, it says everyone should be given equal protection of the laws. So we can overrule the State legislatures and we will say treating those two unions differently violates the equal protection of the laws. We will declare it unconstitutional. Where did that leave the people of Massachusetts? We are on the verge of it, if the U.S. Supreme Court does it, for the entire United States. Where does that leave the people? I remember in the early 1980s, Hodding Carter, who used to work for President Jimmy Carter, was on ``Meet the Press'' or one of those shows he was on regularly and they were talking about judicial activism. He said the sad truth is we liberals have gotten to the point where we ask the court to do for us that which we can no longer win at the ballot box. This cannot be won at the ballot box. It can only be imposed on the people of America through a judicial ruling under the guise of interpreting the Constitution. That is what activism is. It is judges allowing personal political views to infect their decision-making process, where they override the actions of the legislature. I am sure some say they will pass a law and overturn the Supreme Court. You cannot do that. It is important for everybody in this body to understand that. If the Supreme Court of the United States declares the Constitution prohibits a differentiation between a traditional marriage and other unions, the Constitutions of Massachusetts, or Illinois, or Alabama, or Mississippi is ineffective. It is trumped by the U.S. Constitution. If we in the Congress pass a piece of legislation, a DOMA-like piece of legislation--I am sure it has been referred to earlier--it will not be effective in the face of a declaration by the U.S. Supreme Court that it is a violation of the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution to treat these unions differently. So it is a big deal for us. We have one of the great institutions of our entire culture, for which there is virtually unanimous public support, virtually unanimous support among all the legislatures who have ever sat in the States of the United States of America, and it is in danger of being wiped out by the Federal courts. I know Massachusetts has already so ruled on May 17. Less than 2 months ago they began to conduct same-sex marriages in Massachusetts. They say those unions have to be given the same, equal treatment as the other unions. I would ask, what about two sisters who live together, care for one another, have been together 40, 50, 60 years? Are they treated as a marital relationship? Why don't we call that a marriage? Two brothers? A brother and sister? A mother and a daughter who live together many years without any kind of sexual activity? Why is this same-sex union given a preferential treatment over those unions? When you get away from the classical definition of marriage, we get into big trouble about where those lines will stay. The reason a State has an interest in preserving marriage, traditional marriage, is because children are produced in that arrangement. Out of that arrangement a new generation is born, raised, nurtured, trained, and educated. We need to affirm that. We had an African American who spoke to a group of us yesterday. He was Secretary of State of Ohio and he talked about that and how deeply people felt about it and how important he thought it was. Another African American was pastor of a 2,000-member church. He was a bishop. He was also a city councilman in Detroit. He talked about how hard they have worked to overcome the breakdown of marriage in America and strengthen marriage in America. We ought to be passing laws that encourage marriage, not discourage it. We ought to be, as a policymaking body, involved in establishing policies that affirm that relationship. We know scientifically, we know intuitively, and we know morally that this is the better way. I am not putting down single parents. I am not condemning people who have a different sexual orientation. I don't mean that in any way whatsoever. But the State, the government, has a right to define marriage in the classical term because that is where children are born, that is where they are nurtured, raised, and cared for. If the parents don't do it, I guess the State has to, which is what is happening in Europe. Earlier today, one of the Senators may have mentioned a new letter that has come out of the Netherlands. Five scholars--social scientists and lawyers--have written a letter to warn that their actions in the Netherlands to affirm through legislation same-sex unions may well have contributed to the collapse, decline, and very rapid disorder of marriage in the Netherlands. We know that over 50 percent of the children in Norway, which a number of years ago created defacto same- sex marriage, are born out of wedlock. It is an incredible collapse of marriage in northern Europe--Norway, Sweden and Denmark have declined, and the Netherlands has shown a rapid decline. These social scientists warned other nations that are considering going in this direction, that are considering passing laws in this direction, that it would further weaken marriage and family. We ought to pay heed to that. Why would we want to go down that way? We do not follow the European model of national defense. We have an extraordinary, modern, and effective national defense capability that the Europeans do not have. We do not follow the European model on taxing and spending. That is why our Nation is stronger, more economically dynamic, and is growing far faster than the European nations. They are not growing. Their growth rate is down. Their population is aging. They are having fewer and fewer children. Their welfare rolls are growing. They have a workweek of 35 hours. We are supposed to find more people more jobs so more people can work. And their unemployment is about twice ours. We don't follow their idea on the economy, thank goodness. The socialist model has not worked there and they are in a pell-mell race to secularize Europe. And we have not done that either. They don't allow a Muslim child to wear a scarf, or Christian child to wear a cross. Why would we want to go that way? We should not go that way. We do not have to. We can make a choice to go a different way. Some in this country, and I think some on our courts, seem to believe this is the wave of the future; that this is the enlightened Europe, and we ought to follow the enlightened Europe with a negative growth rate, I guess, and a rapid increase in secular relations in society. I don't think we need to go there. There is an opportunity and a big moment. This is a big moment. It is an opportunity for this Senate to allow the people of the United States to speak on this issue, to say how they want the future of this country to be handled, for them to say who is in charge of this country. As Senator Cornyn from Texas said earlier, when an unelected judge makes a ruling in a political manner, like on the definition of marriage, it is an anti-democratic act. These are people, unelected, with lifetime appointments, not answerable to the public. If we vote wrong, you can remove us from office. That is the way the system works and the Founding Fathers all thought about it. That is what democracy is. But we have unelected people not having hearings, not having debate, not going out and having town hall meetings throughout their State, as I do and most Senators do, listening to the people, thinking about the issues, having a sensitivity of what is occurring in society. They are sitting up there in their robes rendering rulings to go to the heart of who we are as a people. I am concerned about it. I think we have every right to be concerned. The substance of the matter is large. It is a very big deal. The dynamics of it are very crucial. It is time for us as a people to utilize the power of the Constitution given us through our elected representatives to amend the Constitution. That is what it provides. Frankly, when a judge redefines the Constitution's traditional meaning and makes it say something it does not, that judge has amended the Constitution contrary to the provisions in that document. I remember back when I was U.S. attorney in Alabama. I had a parent come to me and show me the textbook in the classroom. It said how the Constitution is amended. The one way was the amendment process, as provided for in the Constitution. And they mentioned another way: Amended by ruling of the court. They are teaching children--the truth-- which is courts, through their rulings, if they are not true and faithful to the document itself, amend the Constitution. We ought not to allow that to occur. I think this would be in no way extreme, in no way improper, and highly appropriate for this Senate to say let's let the American people decide about this fundamental institution of marriage, and let us tell the courts that we control life in this country, not them. They are not accountable. Some say, well, this is all not going to happen; that you are not going to have the courts do this. It is not just not going to happen. It is not thinkable. Was it thinkable that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in this country, the largest court of appeals in the United States, would rule that ``under God'' could not be in the Pledge of Allegiance? When it got to the Supreme Court of the United States, do you see what happened? They punted. They moved it out on procedural grounds and did not state clearly what their view of it is. A number of their rulings, frankly, would indicate that it is not appropriate. The Supreme Court has a problem in a lot of issues. They are not perfect. People are not without flaw. Many of these decisions are made by just a slim majority. It is not nine votes that are needed out of nine; it is only five, a majority. Five judges can redefine marriage and do a lot of other definitions that can impact significantly this country if they don't show personal discipline and fidelity to the law. Let me just say this: This is the whole basis of a debate in this body between our Members on the other side of the aisle and on this side of the aisle and President Bush over judges. It is over whether or not judges will show restraint, whether they will remain true to the document, and not use the opportunity to rule as an opportunity to impose their personal views on the American public. That is what this debate is about over judges. It is not Republicans this, and Democrats that, how many judges I confirmed here and how many judges you confirmed there. It is a deep, fundamental difference. The liberal activist groups in this country cannot win at the ballot box. So they are determined to utilize court rulings like this to further their agendas that are contrary to the American people. I make one point before I wrap up. We have the language from the U.S. Supreme Court, our Supreme Court. In Lawrence v. Texas, Justice Kennedy, writing for a six-person majority, says: In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, the court reaffirmed the substantive force of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause. When the Presiding Officer was in law school and was taught law, I am not sure he was told there was a substantive due process right to liberty. I don't think substantive due process is mentioned in the Constitution, but here we have ``liberty protected by the Due Process Clause. The Casey decision again confirmed that our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education . . . '' This case has to do with whether a State could prohibit sodomy, and they ruled they could not. It says in the case, Casey confirmed that our laws and our tradition afford constitutional protection. So we are defining the Constitution, this says. The Constitution says you have a right to ``protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception,'' and more. Then further it says: Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do. Obviously referring back to marriage above. That is a pretty good indication that the Supreme Court--in dicta, not a holding of the case but in language and logic--made a clear suggestion they were prepared to rule that heterosexual marriage could not exist without homosexual marriage. Let's hear how one of the brilliant Justices of the Court, Justice Scalia, who believes the Court should show restraint, analyzed the impact of it. Justice Scalia said it does mean we must recognize same- sex marriages. Justice Kennedy says in the decision, ``The present case . . . does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter.'' But, the logic and language I read earlier indicated that. Justice Scalia, who dissented from the case, said in his dissent, ``This case `does not involve' the issue of homosexual marriage only if one entertains the belief that principle and logic have nothing to do with the decisions of this court.'' Justice Scalia is correct. If you read the logic of that Court decision, the language they used--dicta that it was--would indicate that is where they are heading, and six judges signed off on that language. It only takes five. When a case comes up of this kind, we can say with certainty there is a likelihood, and many scholars believe a very high likelihood, that the Court would rule that traditional marriage is too restrictive, it has to be changed from the way the people have defined it. We do not have to accept that. We have every right to amend the Constitution. The laws in the Constitution provided for slavery--that was changed. The laws of the Constitution provide for free speech. It applies to every State. The right to keep and bear arms. All kinds of guarantees are in our Constitution. The American people can define what marriage is. This amendment is narrowly drawn. It does not in any way threaten liberties. It does not take our money, it will not put us in jail, it will not do all these horrible things that sometimes you have to deal with in the law if you are not careful and the Constitution might get away from you. It is a narrowly drawn matter dealing with one issue, and that is marriage. We have every right to do that. I am disappointed that some of the people I know, particularly on the other side of the aisle, are not going to vote for this constitutional amendment, and they are not even here to talk about the amendment. They don't want to talk about it. They say it is somehow wrong to discuss it during a time when we are leading up to an election. What is wrong with that? What is wrong with having a vote? The reason it is coming up now is because a month and a half ago is when the marriages first started being conducted in Massachusetts, November was when the first ruling came out of there, and last year was Lawrence v. Texas. This has been building. Law reviews by liberal law professors are pushing this issue all over the country. Lawsuits are being filed throughout the country. The pressure is on to destroy the traditional definition of marriage. It is time and perfectly appropriate for us to deal with it. I hope we will. The American people need to be watching this vote, watching the issues that are debated. They need to ask themselves how much confidence they have in their representatives if they do not share their views on this important issue. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the critical need for class action reform. The class action fairness bill that is before us, S. 2062, seeks to guarantee that plaintiffs in a class action, the people who have actually been harmed and who have a right to be compensated, are the actual beneficiaries of class action and not only attorneys. The Class Action Fairness Act provides, one, the ability to remove actions to Federal court in cases where the aggregate amount in question exceeds $5 million and the home State plaintiffs are no more than two-thirds of the class. In other words, class actions that are essentially State court matters will remain in State court, but matters that involve major amounts of money and large numbers of plaintiffs in multi-State regions, which frequently occurs, ought to be in Federal court. Why should a single county in a single State, a State judge, decide a matter that affects all 50 States and perhaps hundreds of thousands of individuals? It will provide special scrutiny for the abused coupon settlements. That is something we have heard a lot about and is not right; that the victims get coupons for the product and the lawyers get paid millions of dollars. It provides protections against unwarranted higher awards for certain class members based on geographic location. The bill is responsible, it is restrained, it will curb class action abuses, and produce a more productive class action system. As I understand the situation today, the majority leader wants to proceed to this bill, and I hope we can do that in short order. The bill passed out of the Judiciary Committee, of which I am a member, in June of 2003 by a 12 to 7 strong bipartisan support. Since passing out of committee, the bill has been through two major substantive periods of negotiation, each one bringing on more Senators in support of the legislation. Currently, 62 Senators have either voted for cloture on the previous version of the bill or have publicly expressed their support for this version. It is time to proceed to the bill, to debate the substance of the bill, and have an up-or-down vote on class action reform. But I am concerned, I must say, that many of the people who say they are for it, my Democratic colleagues who in the past have been reluctant to sign on, but they studied it more and said they are for it, that they may not really want to move to this bill. One way we can do that--and all Members of this body understand how it works: Add amendment after amendment to legislation, and they draw out the debate on issues nonrelated, nongermane to the legislation and, in effect, they can kill legislation through a filibuster by amendment. The majority leader has a lot of things we need to do. We need to pass this bill. We have strong bipartisan support for it, but he has a lot of other legislation that needs to be done. The majority leader has propounded a series of proposals that would provide an opportunity for Members on the other side to offer minimum wage amendments and other amendments, unlimited germane amendments, amendments related to this bill, unlimited, and they have been rejected. So what that suggests is there is not a serious commitment, that this bill is being obstructed and being blocked from even having an up-or- down vote by a device that does not give any limits on the amount of debate. That is very unfortunate. It is not the right thing to do. As I indicated, it is a device that allows a group of Senators to block the passage of the bill even if they say they are for it. But if we try to cut off and limit debate and have a definite time for a vote, they say, no, they will not support that; I am for the bill, I just will not give this time limit; I will not agree to how many amendments we can put on. The majority leader goes to it, we spend a week to 10 days on it and we still have not passed it. Then what can he do? So he cannot move to a bill under those circumstances. We need to have an agreement. I hope Senators will reevaluate those circumstances so we can reach an agreement and move forward with this legislation that is very important. If not, everybody needs to know it was blocked again, obstructed from being able to be brought up, debated, and amendments offered to it. I know the Presiding Officer served on the Texas Supreme Court and also as attorney general of Texas. He understands the legal issues perhaps better than any other Member of this body. I think we would agree, and most lawyers would agree, class actions are not evil in themselves. In fact, they are good tools to deal with litigation in which there is a single type of cause that injured a whole host of people, where perhaps hundreds of thousands of people were injured or wronged by the same act or series of acts. So as the matter of proof gets to be unjustifiable, if the amount of loss is $100 or $200, 100,000 people in America have to hire a lawyer to file 100,000 lawsuits, so a person can file a class action and a lawyer can represent the whole class to determine how much that group of people were damaged and get them checks, pay them and get them recompensed. I think that is a good procedure, and I am all for that. It is a real good procedure. It is something we ought not to believe is bad in and of itself. State courts are being overwhelmed by these actions. I saw the numbers from 1988 to 1998. The number of class actions pending in State courts increased by 1,042 percent while the number in Federal courts increased only 338 percent during that period. State courts have often been unable to give class actions the attention they need, and abuses have occurred too often under those circumstances. It has hurt class members sometimes to the benefit of attorneys. Make no mistake about it, an attorney in a class action is in a delicate position. That attorney's interest, when the settlement negotiations come around, can be in conflict with the interest of the people he represents. So what happens sometimes in these negotiations is that lawyers demand from the big companies, or whoever they are suing, big fees to be paid to the lawyers, millions of dollars, and then acquire only token benefits for the members of the class. That is not good, and I will talk later about some of the cases where this has happened. Lawyers in such cases have lost their perspective and have not handled the interest of their clients with integrity. This bill would crack down on that. It would give more power to the judge to make sure those kinds of abuses do not happen. Sometimes these class action cases are being used as judicial blackmail, forcing defendants to settle cases that are basically unjustified, even frivolous, rather than spend millions of dollars in litigation and the risk of loss of a whole customer base maybe because of bad publicity. So the defendants are compelled to pay even if they are really at fault, and sometimes they will pay the lawyers more than they will pay the people who have been victimized. Other examples of class action problems include what has been referred to as ``drive-by'' class actions where the class is certified even before the defendant has notice. There are ``copycat'' class actions where the actions are filed in multiple jurisdictions to see which court will certify the class first, or they are filed by another lawyer to try and steal what appears to be a lucrative claim from the person who filed the first class action; get in a race to the courthouse. This is a matter of significance. Lawyers are supposed to have fidelity to their clients. In some cases, the fidelity to their clients leads them to do things that are lawful and proper under the law but are really abusive. This is one of those examples. Class action lawyers are known to forum shop by naming irrelevant parties in class actions in order to destroy diversity and to agree to settlements that pay bounties for someone discovering a class action, awarding the original plaintiff more than any other member of the class. It is hard to criticize a lawyer for forum shopping. If he looks all over the United States of America, he has a complaint that involves everybody, maybe it is a MasterCard that in every county in America somebody has one, and there is a complaint about that, he can pick the best jurisdiction in America, the best county. Maybe he knows the judge who is very favorable to his theories. He can file it in any county in the United States that he chooses. There are some counties in Alabama that are known for this. He gets total choice of where to file the case. I cannot say that is morally bad for the lawyer to do that, but those of us who set the laws, who set the policy for class actions, we ought to review that. We ought to create laws that make it more difficult for a lawyer to be able to pick the single most favorable jurisdiction in the whole United States in which to file an action. Let me talk about this situation in the Toshiba case. A class action suit was filed in Texas, complaining of an entirely theoretical defect in the floppy disk controllers of Toshiba laptops. There were no allegations that the asserted defect had resulted in injury to any user, and not one customer had ever reported a problem attributable to the defendant. However, Toshiba faced potential liability of $10 billion, and they decided to try to settle the claim. The class members received between $200 and $400 in a coupon off the purchase price of Toshiba products. The two named plaintiffs received $25,000, and the attorneys received $147 million. The class members in this case only benefitted from the lawsuit if they purchased additional products from Toshiba and used the coupons. This is not the way the legal system is supposed to work. Class action reform is also needed so that people who are not injured do not receive compensation. If members of a class are unable to demonstrate damage, they ought not to be paid. Lawyers are supposed to represent real clients with real problems. They are ethically bound to represent the interests of their client foremost beyond their own interest. Class action lawsuits are designed to be available when lawyers realize that an entire class of people has been harmed in the same way his client had been harmed. Class action should not become a way for creative lawyers to gain excessive fees. It should not be a situation where good advocates figure out a way, by adding unrelated defendants or otherwise, to file actions in friendly circuits or to use other methods that maximize the benefit to their clients while ignoring the rest of the class members. Another case touched on my home State of Alabama, the famous, or infamous, Bank of Boston case. In this case, a class action was filed by a Chicago attorney in the circuit court of Mobile, AL. The case alleged that the bank did not properly post interest to its clients' real estate escrow accounts. The class settlements limited the maximum recovery to individual class members at $9 each. That $9 was the maximum amount anybody could recover. After the State approved the settlement, the bank disbursed more than $8 million to the class action attorneys in legal fees and credited most of the accounts of the victims with sums of less than $9. The legal fees which were automatically debited from the class members' bank accounts total 5.3 percent of the balance of each account. It was bad enough that a lot of these people did not even know they had been in a class action or that they owed an attorneys' fee for the $9 recovery that had been won for them, the worst part is that many accounts were debited for amounts that exceeded the credit they obtained from the settlement, meaning that the attorney fee that came out of their account far exceeded the $9 benefit they received from the class action. For example, Dexter J. Kamowitz, of Maine, a case which a Chicago attorney filed in Mobile, AL, and the plaintiff, who is supposed to be winning a verdict, who lives in Maine, who did not initiate the class action against the Bank of Boston--he just happened to be declared a member of the class--but he received a credit of $2.19 on the settlement. At the same time, the class action attorney debited his account for $91 in legal fees, producing a net loss of $87.81. Such results, as might be expected, produced outrage from class members in other States affected by the action. Judge Frank Easterbrook, circuit judge of the seventh circuit, asked: What right does Alabama have to instruct financial institutions in Florida to debit the account of citizens in Maine and other States? So we need to be careful about these matters. We need to be careful that these cases are handled fairly. This bill takes steps forward in that regard. That is why it received strong support throughout the Nation, and that is why so many Senators have committed to supporting it, Republicans and Democrats. S. 2062, offered by Senator Grassley and passed out of the Judiciary Committee last summer, will help eliminate many of these abuses. I think I have noted those. I will just note it will eliminate forum shopping, keeping State judges of a case of less than one-third of the member class who are members of that State from dictating the fate of plaintiff members in 49 States. I hope we will have a healthy debate on this process and that we can move forward and get this bill before us and confront a problem that is jeopardizing America. We have a lot of members here who say: We believe in jobs, we want to see the economy grow, they are not creating enough jobs in America. But when you have huge, multimillion dollar, sometimes virtually extortionate lawsuits filed against businesses on a regular basis--they go up more than 1,000 percent in State court in 10 years, 300-something percent in Federal court in 10 years; these lawsuits are gaining momentum all over the country--it does impact our productivity as a Nation. No nation carries the kind of litigation cost that the United States does. When we export a product outside our country, the total value and cost of producing that product, which has to be competitive in prices in the world market, that cost is created and added to by litigation costs. Much of that is just insurance premiums. The more these cases are filed, the higher insurance premiums go. So it is a real problem for us. It has hurt our job creation, it has hurt our economic growth. It is time for this Nation to get in sync with the rest of the world and bring some containment to the abuses in litigation. I believe in litigation. I believe in the court system of America. I believe many of these lawyers are not improper or immoral; they are just using the existing legal system in every way they can to maximize the benefit they can obtain for their client. So what happens then? It is up to us to deal with it. A lot of people have talked about this question of federalism, States' rights, how we ought to handle this and why should the Federal Government involve itself in class actions or why are we dealing with it. Over the last 30 years, we have had a host of pieces of legislation that poured through this body, many of them driven by our friends on the other side of the aisle, that impact States' rights. Now all of a sudden they are claiming States' rights will be violated by class action reform. Let me just say a few things about that question because it is very important. It is one we should think about and analyze honestly. First, there is no doubt whatsoever that the kind of cases we are talking about ought to be or can be handled in Federal court. That is perfectly constitutional. The Constitution provides for the litigation between citizens of different States to be in Federal court to begin with. It is only through the device of undermining diversity by suing a local defendant that Federal jurisdiction has been avoided in many of these cases. The intention of the Framers of the Constitution was, in these interstate lawsuits, jurisdiction should be in Federal court. So it is not unconstitutional for these cases to be tried in Federal court. I don't think there is a single Senator in this body who would argue that making these a Federal case somehow violates the State's rights because they are interstate cases. They involve plaintiffs from more than one State. That really was always thought to be appropriately handled in Federal court. I know that. The next question is: Should we do it? Is it proper that we put more of these cases in Federal court? I think so. I believe it is proper because we are seeing abuses of state court jurisdiction and because Federal courts have a better ability to handle multi-state litigation issues. Let's take this practical example. Let's say there is a lawsuit--I think there was one filed a number of years ago involving the construction of seatbelts for automobiles. It was filed on behalf of the class of everybody in America who had automobiles, and virtually every county in America had one of those automobiles and so they go to a certain county in the Midwest where thousands of these class action lawsuits are being filed and they filed it there, the result of which could be an order and financial judgment that would impact the way seatbelts are handled throughout America. If you appealed any verdict from that county, where would it go? It would go to the supreme court of the State that handled it. But it is going to affect everybody in America. So if you file this lawsuit in Alabama or Texas or Illinois, and you get a verdict that impacts the whole United States and you appeal it, a single State gets to decide whether it was properly tried and whether the order was appropriate. But if it is tried in Federal court, the appeal would be to the U.S. Supreme Court, which handles the jurisdiction of the whole United States of America, where it ought to be if the verdict is going to impact a multitude of States. So I think that is perfectly logical and a good policy reason for us to do it in that way. We are seeing a problem in which litigation is impacting adversely our ability to create economic growth and impacting adversely our ability to create jobs. It adds to the cost of products that we want to export around the world. It adds to the cost of products produced here and sold in America making them less competitive against imports that come into this country. If we can reduce the cost of litigation on businesses in America, they will be more effective about their business. We do not want to deny people who are wronged fundamental rights. In no way does this legislation do that. It says the litigation ought to be tried in Federal court if it involves these kinds of situations and it contains some provisions to limit abuses. Frankly, let me say this: I was a Federal prosecutor in Mobile, AL, for 15 years, and 12 years as U.S. attorney. I have tried cases in State court and in Federal court. I know the Presiding Officer knows that by and large Federal judges have a lot fewer cases than State judges. The fact is, in our State, Federal judges probably carry on their dockets one-fourth or less the number of cases in State court, or maybe one-tenth the number of cases. State court judges have thousands of cases. Frequently, State court judges have fewer law clerks-- sometimes no law clerk--when the Federal judges usually have one or two law clerks to help them do their work. Where would a big, complex multi-state, multimillion-dollar lawsuit be better filed? Which court is best able to handle these cases? Which ones were designed by the original founders to handle interstate cases to begin with? It is clear to me that it is in Federal court. That is where these cases ought to go. Frankly, I could see taking more class action cases than this legislation provides for in Federal courts. I think it would be justified. But because of the objections of some of my colleagues, we negotiated and worked out concerns that some lawyers had, these negotiations will keep more cases in state court than the bill originally intended, but I am willing to live with that. Article III of the Constitution vests the Federal courts with jurisdiction over ``controversies between citizens of different states.'' When you have a bank in Miami, a lawyer in Chicago, victims in Maine and Alabama and other places, that is a controversy between citizens of different States. It is only through the reinterpretation of the diversity rule that these cases have many times been able to be kept in the State court system rather than to be allowed to go through the Federal courts. I think this is right way for us to go. I think this is a logical, fair, restrained, professional response to a problem of the abuse of class actions in America. It is important for our economy. It is important for our business in America. I believe we need to pass it. I hope our colleagues who are holding up this bill today will reevaluate and reach an agreement with majority leader Bill Frist to have some amendments or all the amendments that are relevant to the bill they want but not an unlimited number of amendments on any subject they want to offer amendments on. That won't work. That is not right. Let us move this bill forward. Let us pass it. Let us do what at least 60 Senators in this Senate believe is proper. I thank the Chair. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I would like to talk today briefly about an important matter. As many of you may know, today is Cost of Government Day. Not that we need to celebrate it, but it is an important day. What is Cost of Government Day, you ask? It is the day on which the average American worker has earned enough money to cover his or her share of the Federal, State, and local government. That means that our government is so large and spends so much money that we must work our poor citizens 189 days a year before they can break even with spending. Think about it like this. Say you go out and buy a house and the monthly mortgage you have to pay for your house is one-half of your monthly salary. That is a huge amount. One-half of the money you earn-- one-half of your salary--has to go to pay your house mortgage. Say every month you get your paycheck and about half of it is written off to the bank to cover your mortgage. That is the same way our government works. The cost of government consumes 51.6 percent of our national income. It is taking more than the hypothetical mortgage payment of half your salary. I cannot help what someone's mortgage payment is but we in this body can have some impact on the cost of the government. I say to those here today, that spending is getting out of hand. Since 1977, the earliest Americans have paid off their cost of government was June 28. Now it is July 7. The United States prides itself in being a frontrunner in human and civil rights protections. We come together under the values of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, those values that the Founders declared to be the basis of this great Nation. But there is a dragon in the midst, a burglar in the basement, sucking Americans dry of their hard-earned money. The perpetrators are right here among us. Our government is being burdened with cumbersome and unnecessary legislation and regulation for which the American citizens also pay the bill. In this season of budget and appropriations bills, we need to think about who we are representing and the sacrifices they are making for each bill we pass. We are not celebrating Cost of Government Day, a day 189 days into the year. I am here to celebrate America. The strength and vitality of this Nation is its belief and its investment in individual American citizens, entrepreneurs, people working hard, giving their very best every day. They do not mind paying a reasonable amount in taxes. But we need to fight every day. We need to analyze the situation with every bill and ask ourselves: How much more can we expect the American people to pay? How much burden can we expect them to carry? How can they carry a dynamic and growing economy that creates jobs and allows higher pay, where people work and save and invest and do well economically with these burdens? We do better, slightly better, somewhat better than the Europeans. Their taxes are going through the roof. I notice that the leadership in Germany cited the U.S. tax cuts that have spurred our economic growth in recent months, something we are definitely celebrating. They are discussing whether they need to do that. The Europeans, though, are further down the road in social welfare, in burdens economically, than even we are. We need to watch what we are spending. We need to indelibly imprint in our mind that the cost of Federal, State, and local government is the work of American citizens for 189 days this year, 51.6 percent of the income earned. That is more than we need to allow. We do not need to see those numbers increase. They need to start going down. It is something we ought to work on. We must remember every day there is a limit to the burden that the American citizens can carry if we expect them to be competitive in the world market. I yield the floor.

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