Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the Senator from Montana is here and I know he would like to finish up.

Mr. SESSIONS. The Senator from Virginia.

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

Mr. SESSIONS. With regard to that matter, Attorney General Pryor did file a brief on behalf of Judge Moore and argued that the Ten Commandments were legitimate because there are three depictions of the Ten Commandments in the Supreme Court. And right on this wall are the words ``In God We Trust.'' He defended that. When the case was lost, the judicial inquiry commission brought a charge against the chief justice because he did not comply with the court order, and it was the duty of the attorney general to bring that case under Alabama law. So he was required to present the case that had been brought by something akin to a grand jury.

Mr. SESSIONS. I ask another question: They show a chart that says 168 to 4. Is that the 4 they were filibustering last week or is that the 4 who have been held hostage? What 4 are they talking about? There are well over 10 nominees who are being actively filibustered or obstructed at this point.

Mr. SESSIONS. I do not know how that chart comes about, either.

Mr. SESSIONS. It is absolutely following the law. There are a host of other examples to a degree I have never seen before in America. Bill Pryor always does what he believes the law compels him to do. Many times it is something he does not personally like to do.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Did the Senator know that although the Senator from Alabama strongly opposed Berzon and Paez and voted against both those nominees, that there were holds on those nominees, and the Republican leader, Trent Lott, moved for cloture to move the nominations forward, and this Senator, as did Trent Lott, voted for cloture to bring an up- or-down vote and voted against the nomination although we----

Mr. SESSIONS. That is not the kind of filibuster we have going on today.

Mr. SESSIONS. The Senator from New York was not here during the Clinton years in the Senate; he was in the House.

Mr. SESSIONS. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Texas.

Mr. SESSIONS. If the Senator from South Carolina wants to make a comment, I will yield to him.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. SESSIONS. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, maybe I would suggest, as we go forward here, the time be counted to each side. We are now in the next hour anyway. Is that where we are?

Mr. SESSIONS. All right. So in the next time block we set aside perhaps we can count the time against each side if we speak. Let me explain what happened. The Senator from New York was not here--

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Chair.

Mr. SESSIONS. Let's talk, then, about Berzon and Paez and get this straight. That is real good to remember. I just assumed the Senator couldn't have been here or he might have understood a little differently. Holds are placed on legislation by Senators. Holds are placed on nominees by Senators. One way to break that hold is to file for cloture which guarantees an up-or-down vote. Holds were placed on Berzon and Paez. President Clinton was President of the United States. These were two of his most liberal nominations to the most liberal circuit in America; the one that struck down the death penalty, struck down the Pledge of Allegiance, struck down the ``three strikes and you're out'' law in California, and Berzon and Paez participated in all those opinions. Anyway, when they were up for nomination, I strongly believed those were not good nominees and opposed them. We discussed these nominations within the Republican ranks. Somebody said: Why don't we filibuster? The chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Orrin Hatch, said: No, filibusters are not appropriate for judges. We should not enter a filibuster. A Democrat said: We want a vote on Berzon and Paez. We have waited long enough. So we got to the point where Trent Lott, the Republican majority leader, the equivalent of Tom Daschle in this circumstance, filed for cloture. He said: Let's bring these two nominations up for a vote. I and a whole lot of others did not support the Berzon and Paez nominations but did not believe in filibusters. The Senator from New York suggested we were unprincipled. He suggested that we are now opposing filibusters which we then favored. But when Trent Lott moved for cloture, I voted for cloture. Only half a dozen or so voted against cloture, and the nominees came up, and they got an up-or-down vote. Trent Lott voted against the nominees. I voted against the nominees. They had an up-or-down vote, and they were confirmed. You can say that is a filibuster, but it is not the same thing as a filibuster organized by the Democratic leader and unified Democratic ranks to block now six nominees from even getting an up-or-down vote. It is not the same. I don't think there is any doubt about it, it is the first time a filibuster has been used systematically under these circumstances.

Mr. SESSIONS. No.

Mr. SESSIONS. I object to the change, if he is making a point.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I object.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, how much time is left in the first section for the majority?

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, in response to a number of things that have been said, first of all, I want to correct Senator Durbin. I think he misspoke when he said the Senate has said no to these nominees. What the Senate has said no to is an up-or-down vote. They have denied these nominees a vote. In each case, these nominees have proven they have a majority of the Senators in this body ready and willing to confirm them, if they are given the up-and-down vote. The systematic use of the filibuster that is occurring now has never before occurred in the history of this Senate. As to the Constitution, I will just point out article II, section 2, quoted by the Senator--this is what it says--the President ``shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors [and] judges. . . .'' Historically, this body has felt that constitutional language meant treaties required a supermajority, two-thirds vote, and judges would be confirmed by a majority vote, and that is what we have done. I would just like to ask--I was going to ask Senator Reid early, the distinguished assistant Democratic leader--name one position taken by the Federalist Society that is extreme. He will not be able to give you one of those, and neither would Senator Durbin. This is a society of people who meet and discuss ideas. For example, they have had, in recent weeks, Senator Schumer's chief counsel speaking to the Federalist Society, as has Cass Sunstein, Marcia Greenberger, Laurence Tribe--three of the architects of the Democratic strategy for changing the ground rules of nominating judges. This is really odd for me. I know Senator Durbin said he has some legislation he would like to offer. Maybe he should have offered it Monday when the assistant majority leader was talking 10 hours down here about rabbits and cactus in Nevada and his book. That was all very interesting, but why weren't we doing any work then? I did not hear any complaints then when we were not passing legislation. That would have been an outstanding opportunity, I submit, to move forward. Let me just say one thing about where we are on nominations. President Clinton had 377 judges confirmed. One judge was voted down on an up-or-down vote on this floor, a majority voted no--only one. When he left office, there were 41 judges pending and unconfirmed--only 41. President Clinton personally withdrew the nominations of 18. That is how they get 60. When former President Bush left office, under Democrat control of the Senate, as Republicans were under Clinton, he had 54 nominees left unconfirmed. The record of the Republican Senate under President Clinton was superior under any standard of confirmations to that of the Democrats. I believe we need to remember those numbers. We need to remember the Republicans rejected consistently the use of the filibuster. It was discussed by people. They said: Why don't we filibuster? Senator Hatch and others would say: We do not filibuster judges. This is why you do not filibuster judges. We never filibustered judges. In fact, one nominee I felt strongly about, whom I voted against, I voted for cloture to bring that nominee up for a vote to overcome a hold that was on the nominee. My colleagues complain about the Federalist Society. They say they are extreme. They take no extreme positions whatsoever. They are a society that believes in the rule of law and they discuss those issues in free and open debate. But they have moved forward here such as Marsha Berzon and Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court. ACLU members, American Civil Liberties Union members--do you want to know what their stated positions are on a lot of issues? They oppose steadfastly the death penalty. They openly support partial-birth abortion. They are consistently hostile to law enforcement. They oppose pornography laws, all pornography laws, in fact, even child pornography laws. They favor legalization of drugs. We have confirmed a lot of ACLU members, as the Senator knows. They have stated positions that are contrary to the mainstream of American thought--no doubt whatsoever. Somebody such as Attorney General Bill Pryor, who has a record of following the law to the letter, whether he agrees with it or not, is castigated because he makes a talk to the Federalist Society. It is suggested that is an extreme thing for him to do and it is not correct. Mr. President, I yield back the time.

Mr. SESSIONS. I yield the floor.