Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Addressing the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, who has served so ably for so many years on these matters, I would like to follow up on that question that was just asked. During your tenure as chairman of the Judiciary Committee when President Clinton was President, and he was nominating judges that sometimes would not have been our choice, or your choice for a judge, did you have occasion to express your opinion as to whether a filibuster was appropriate or not?

Mr. SESSIONS. I hate to interpret the Senator, but his microphone is distorting pretty badly. Maybe the cord is broken?

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

Mr. SESSIONS. I remember that very well. I remember you speaking clearly that the filibuster was inappropriate. You both said it publicly and in the Republican conference when the issue was raised by people who did not have your experience in this matter. Trent Lott, the Republican leader in debate--I voted to end debate, Trent Lott voted to end debate, you voted to end debate and allow an up-or-down vote, and when that occurred I voted against the nominee. But I agree with your argument that a filibuster was not sound. Let me ask you this. At that time, when Senator Daschle was the Democratic leader and Senator Leahy was ranking member on the Judiciary Committee, did they take a public position that a filibuster of Clinton judges was not appropriate?

Mr. SESSIONS. Let me follow up. Now that President Bush is in the White House and he is sending judges over, has your position on whether a filibuster is appropriate or not changed in any way?

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Senator Hatch, so it is clear to me, it is your position, the position of Trent Lott, has not changed as to whether a filibuster was appropriate, and neither has that of our majority leader, Bill Frist?

Mr. SESSIONS. Let me ask you with regard to Tom Daschle, the Democratic leader, and Senator Leahy, the ranking member on the Judiciary Committee, who argued so aggressively against filibusters just 2 or 3 years ago, has their position changed today? Are they, in fact, participating in an unprecedented procedure, an unprecedented filibuster of judicial nominees?

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator for his leadership. I asked those questions because it was suggested last night in debate that somehow those on this side had changed our view. I think it is quite crystal clear the only views that have changed and only positions that have been changed are those on the other side. Unfortunately, it has changed the historical principles of this Senate with regard to filibusters of nominees.

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

Mr. SESSIONS. I do not know where the eight came from.

Mr. SESSIONS. I notice the Senator, when this 98-percent chart was put up the Senator didn't recognize it and neither did I. Isn't it true that the President has nominated some 200 judges and 160 or so have been--and the idea that the 98 percent of his nominations have been confirmed is certainly not accurate; is it?

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we have had a good 39 hours, I guess, of debate. It is great to see my friend from Texas here, Senator Cornyn, who served on the Texas Supreme Court and understands these issues and chairs the constitutional law subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee. I say it is good because we have had a very bad and very historic change in the procedures of the Senate. After all this debate, I think it is doubtful anyone could maintain today that in previous years we did not have filibusters. And I don't think anyone could doubt that we now have sustained filibusters as an organized, systematic way to change the number of votes necessary to confirm a President's nomination from a majority of 51 to 60 votes. This is a big deal. It is not a good deal. It is not good for the Senate. It changes the historic balance of power. It enhances of power of the Senate. Now the Senate can block a nomination with only 40 votes. It weakens the President, and it weakens the courts. It is a classical alteration of the balance of power established by our Founders when this country was created. It is not good. It was driven by politics. It is a further decline in civility and debate, and it is a greater increase in the influence of politics in the confirmation process. This Senate is not and should not be proud of what has occurred to date. I am glad it was brought about with some pain. I am glad it just didn't slide in a banal way without any thought. I am glad there are Senators who stayed here all night last night. I was here past midnight. Some stayed here all night because they wanted to be sure they were on record and Americans understood what we have done. I think it ought to be seared on our souls what occurred here. Every Member of this body needs to think about it. We need to realize that this was not lightly done. There is no doubt that in the spring after the election of President Bush, Democratic Senators met in retreat and they had a conference with some liberal law professors. And as the New York Times reported on that retreat, the Senators decided to change the ground rules for confirmation. We have absolutely seen that. We had nominees blocked in committee on a party-line vote in the Judiciary Committee when the Democrats had their brief period of majority. Jim Jeffords switched parties. We had nominees not brought up for hearing in committee. And we had filibusters on the floor to a remarkable degree. I will just say that this is unhealthy. One of the things we had in the Judiciary Committee, in the courts subcommittee that I chaired and then Senator Schumer chaired after Jim Jeffords switched parties, and he began to have hearings on a number of things. He said the burden of proof should be on the nominee. That has not been the issue. So we had a hearing on the fact that the burden of proof should be on the nominee. We had a hearing that the Supreme Court was an extremist, activist, conservative court, which is so far from the truth, it is hard to believe it. That was the agenda of that. The third thing most threatening to us and to our classical understanding of law was a hearing to say: Well, politics is involved in everything. We ought to ask judges all about their ideology, their politics. That should be openly a part of the confirmation process. I felt so strongly against that. Lloyd Cutler, the White House counsel under President Carter and President Clinton, clearly and unequivocally rejected that. He said it would lead to the politicization of the courts. I practiced before Federal judges for nearly 15 years as a Federal prosecutor. I will just say that we have to believe--criminal defenders, civil litigants, prosecutors have to believe--that the judge who sits on their case will be able to set aside his or her personal political biases and ideas and beliefs, faithful beliefs, whatever; he will set them aside. When they go to that court, there will be a fair and objective trial, and they will be judged on the merits of the law and the facts and not what the judge thinks, not the politics of the judge. Lloyd Cutler was correct, as every other witness was who testified at that hearing. We do not need to politicize the courts. We are heading in that way. Senators are so political. They are driven so much by the special interest groups that they think and believe everything can be settled by political deal. They think courts operate that way. That is not the way they do. I practiced in court. You go to court. You offer to put evidence. Somebody objects. The judge reads the law, and he decides, well, if it meets the standard to come in or it is excluded. You don't admit half of it. It is either admitted or it is not admitted, as Judge Cornyn so ably knew, both as attorney general and as a member of the Texas Supreme Court. Those are things that go to the core of the heritage of law we have been given. The whole world knows that America and the British have a magnificent legal system. The average citizen can borrow $100,000, buy a house, a $200,000 house, pay it back at 6 percent interest over 30 years. The money, the guy who loaned them $100,000 can believe he is going to collect it. If he doesn't pay it, he can foreclose, and there are procedures, and he pays off the debts and gets out and gets himself paid off. That is why he can afford to loan the man the money at this incredibly low rate. You go to undeveloped countries around the world, and you see houses half built and you say: Why? They say, well, they saved up enough money to put up the walls and roof, but not enough for the insides. There is no way for them to borrow money. They don't have a legal system that works like ours. We need to cherish and protect the system. Investors come from all over the world to America because they believe if they have to go to court, they will get a fair shake even though they are a company from Japan or South Korea or Singapore or China or Germany or France. That is something we need to protect. We do not need to allow it to be politicized. We need judges who follow the law as written, who will not impose their personal agendas in the decisionmaking process. All of these things are matters that President Bush talked about in his election campaign. He believes them deeply. The American people share those beliefs by a substantial number. But they are not shared to the degree they should be by others in this Chamber who are blocking these nominations. I hope that somehow, some way, this filibuster procedure can end. I hope that somehow, some way, we can avoid the collision we are engaged in now, the obstruction and the delay we are facing today, and get on with the classical way we have always handled judicial nominations in America. It is just unfortunate. So it has been good that we have had a painful, tough 39 hours. A lot of things have been said. I hope that as we go forward, we can work our way through it. It may take litigation. It may take rules changes. It may take other things. I hope we will continue to back an independent judiciary of men and women of quality and integrity.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator from North Dakota and appreciate his courtesy. I don't think veterans are going to be unhappy we are here working today. They might have been happy to see the scene yesterday when we should have been able to make progress on a number of things, and we had the assistant Democratic leader speaking 8 hours plus and reading from a book about cactus and rabbits. They might be unhappy about that. We have soldiers in the field this very day at risk, carrying out the policy of this Senate, this Congress, that we passed by over a three- fourths vote. We ought to be here talking about our country and doing some of the country's business. In fact, I was in Walter Reed Hospital this morning. I had the honor to meet with the service men and women who have been injured, some fairly seriously, in the service of their country. I met with Sergeant Larry Gill who grew up in Mobile, AL, went to Murphy High School where my daughter went. I knew his father, Lieutenant James Gill, in the Mobile police department, a great officer. Larry Gill had a severe injury to his lower leg. He has been there over a month now. It is getting better. He was so optimistic. It was so wonderful to see his wife Leah who is a school teacher at Murphy High School, and his two children, Sean and Ryan, and be able to talk with them and see the positive attitude he had, the commitment to serving his country. It was so inspiring. Larry Gill in 1983 was a young Marine serving in Beirut, Lebanon when that embassy was attacked, guarding the embassy as a marine, as he was often called upon to do. He was knocked unconscious and had to be dug out from the rubble of the attack. He was a victim of terrorism in 1983. Now he comes back as part of our war on terrorism and is injured again. As he said, he thought he ought to start collecting baseball cards rather than Purple Hearts. That just is an example of his spirit. At the time he was injured, he was part of a National Guard unit from Alabama, the 1165th MP company. SPC Chris Harris and SGT Richard Barns and SPC4 Jose Garcia were injured. I see Senator Lautenberg here. SPC4 Garcia, from New Jersey, was assigned to the unit. He was injured, and he refused to go home; said, no, he wanted to stay with his unit, as did Specialist Harris. Both had flesh wounds that could have caused them to be removed from the theater. They said, no, they wanted to stay with their troops. That is the kind of character and courage we have out there today. It is a pleasure to see them. I also visited PFC Chris Busby from Valley Head, AL, a town of 600. He was injured in Baghdad. He was in an uparmored Humvee. That is important because we have been trying to make sure every uparmored Humvee possible is there because it is much more resistant to attack than regular Humvees. His foot was out the door as he was speaking and a mortar round hit. He said had he not been in an uparmored Humvee, he may well have been far more seriously injured, if not killed. His arm and leg which were outside the door were both severely injured. Asking how he happened to join, he said: Well, it was after September 11. I thought I ought to serve my country. He is 20 years old. His father was there. His father served 7 years as an MP. His brother is in Germany. He is also an MP. That is the kind of great, rock-solid Americans who preserve, protect, and defend our country on a daily basis. I am so proud of them. They serve us so well. Just a little over a week ago I had the burden of calling Mrs. Roxy Bell. Her son, Aubrey Bell, 33, a sergeant with the 214th MP Company, National Guard Company from the Alabama National Guard, was killed in a firefight through an improvised explosive device in Baghdad at the Al Bayra police station where he was working. Sergeant Bell was part of the 214th MP company from Baldwin County, AL. I had the pleasure to visit with them when I was in Iraq in August. I had supper with them. I talked to them. They talked about patrolling the streets of Baghdad with the Iraqi police who had been brought on, which is exactly what we need to do to stabilize that country, bring on more Iraqi police. They were so positive, had such extraordinarily good morale. I was exceedingly proud of them. It was most painful to have to call and talk to his mother at the loss of her fine son who lost his life serving his country. All of us need to remember that. We have sent those young men and women out. They are serving at our direction. They are placing their lives on the line for us on a daily basis. We ask God's blessing and protection be with each one of them and that we are given the wisdom to help guide them in the application of their abilities and their lives in an effective way.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, it has been a great honor and a thrill for me to serve on the Senate Armed Services Committee under the leadership of Senator Warner and Senator Levin. They are the great professionals in this Senate. At the beginning of our Conference there were very difficult and challenging issues that looked as if they could not be settled, and reasonable minds could not reach an accord. But, as Senator Warner and Senator Levin continued to pursue the issues and worked hard on them, realizing that we had a goal and a responsibility to pass this FY04 Defense Authorization Bill, the conferees managed to reach agreements which I believe are sound. The bill before us today is a good step forward for America, for the strength of this country's defense, and for the men and women in uniform. Today is Veterans Day. Some said we should not be here, but I think it is quite appropriate that while our soldiers are in the field today, not taking a holiday in Baghdad, or in Tikrit or Mosul or in Basra or across the border in Afghanistan, we in the United States Senate have work to do with regard to our Defense bill. It is quite appropriate we are here today and moving forward, providing for a 4.1 percent pay raise, and higher pay raises for certain specialities and for mid- grade personnel. We continue today to see good things in our military which is fast approaching a transformed military. All of us are watching very closely those changes and the recruiting and retention figures of our forces, but to date the numbers look good in both categories. I met earlier today with a United States Army Lieutenant Colonel from the 173rd Airborne Brigade at Walter Reed who was injured last month in Iraq and is now recuperating from his combat wounds. He told me when his battalion were taking the highest casualties, they also had the highest reenlistment rate. He said his soldiers, his young men, are warriors and he made that statement with the greatest passion. He was so very, very proud of them. You could sense it and see it in his eyes. I express my appreciation to Senator Warner and Senator Levin for the great work they have done. I thank Judy Ansley, our committee staff director; Bruce Hock and Tom MacKenzie, who helped me so much on the Airland Subcommittee I chair. All in all, we have had a good year and made great progress. We have such talented professional, decent, honest men and women who lead and our part of our armed services staff. I want to make a particular note of appreciation for Archie Galloway on my staff. Archie is a retired Lieutenant Colonel, a Ranger. He served in the 101st Airborne Division. He has been a constant adviser, friend, and counselor on these issues. He really helps me to do what is best for America as we moved forward on these issues. I am also very proud of our Guard and Reserve units and the men and women who serve in them. I served 13 years in the Army Reserve. Alabama has a tremendous National Guard and Army reserve presence and capability. These soldiers are serving with distinction. I believe the reserves will soon have 40 percent of the personnel in Iraqi theater. I visited Iraq last August and visited two of the three Alabama National Guard MP units assigned around Baghdad. Almost half of the men and women in our Alabama MP units are full-time professional police officers, sheriff's deputies, and State troopers in their public life back home in Alabama. They are superbly qualified for the job and the challenges ahead of them. They are taking risks every day working with the local Iraqi police trying to identify, prosecute, and arrest people who are committing terrorist acts. They are trying to knock down crime throughout the country of Iraq and they are doing a superb job. I would like to briefly mention the job our Airland Subcommittee accomplished during this year and during the conference. Of the $401 billion provided by this bill, the Airland Subcommittee managed approximately $25 billion in procurement and $15 billion in research and development (RDT&E). We took our tasks very seriously. These are very large sums of money, in two very important accounts. We worked hard on each issue. Airland responsibilities extend to all the transformational issues in the military, large and small. Most notable is the Army's Future Combat Systems (FCS). The Army's goal is to create a new, more versatile, capabilities based system that can operate in the future across a wide variety of mission areas. Even though the Army will be reporting in three different lines in the future, the work continues and must continue to its inevitable conclusion. Time is short, relatively speaking, for the transformation to be accomplished. Rogue states and more capable adversaries loom on the horizon. We need to constantly ask ourselves: Is our military, the one which exists today, perfectly configured to meet this threat or can we continue to transform it and make it better able to meet the threat in the future? Secretary Rumsfeld is a man who believes in asking tough questions about the future and taking the action today that will transform our military for the future. People have different ideas as to precisely how to achieve that goal. But, I believe this Congress and this Secretary of Defense, and I believe this President of the United States, are committed to making sure we succeed. I was at a NATO conference in Europe not too long ago. The French rapporteur who was reporting on the war in Iraq for the conference shared some thoughts with us. He said the thing they learned most, and it was most clear during the war in Iraq, is that a well-trained, disciplined, technologically advanced military will defeat a much larger military not so advanced. That fact is absolutely clear. We used 500,000 troops in the first Gulf War, Operation Desert Storm, just to remove Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. In Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), we defeated the entire Iraqi Army with less than 250,000 troops. We now have about 130,000 troops in Iraq. We have coalition support from the British and numerous other countries, but our personnel now are at about 130,000. In Afghanistan, we were able to bring down the Taliban Government together with coalition forces. That cruel government was harboring and supporting al-Qaida and was also providing the training grounds for them to attack the United States. We defeated Taliban and al-Quaida forces with, I recall, no more than 4,000 troops US forces on the ground, using high-tech air support, special forces, and employing special operations of all kinds. We all know the story of the soldier on horseback talking to a B-52 at 35,000 feet calling in 2,000-pound bombs to within 30 feet of any spot he needed to hit. That is a new kind of warfare. That is truly transformational. We need to adjust to it and make sure we are fully prepared to handle the next phase of emerging technologies, the next phase of emerging training opportunities, and the next phase of initiative our men and women in uniform bring to the battlefield. There are a lot of things in the bill which we all are proud of tonight. The concurrent receipt progress we have been trying to make is a big step in this legislation, and there are a number of other benefits for our military men and women that are important. As a result of my visits earlier today and last month to Walter Reed, we discovered a problem impacting families when a soldier is facing imminent death. The military tries often to retire that person because they can receive better benefits. It is awfully grim, unpleasant, and wrong to bring a family into that situation. In this bill we fixed that process with a modifying provision. Some of the things being forced upon our military families in an imminent death situation are no longer required. Our doctors and our soldiers no longer have to call families to discuss imminent death retirement measures; rather, they can concentrate on the necessary lifesaving measures which are so important. We also have better benefits in this bill for our soldiers who are killed in combat. Within the Airland Subcommittee jurisdiction, I would just mention a few things that I think are quite significant as we go forward. We have $705 million for the joint direct attack munition for the Navy and Air Force. This is the famous JDAM. These were the bombs I mentioned earlier that can hit within 30 feet of a target using a global positioning satellite (GPS) guidance system. We need plenty of these munitions. JDAMS are the bread and butter of our Naval and Air Force bombers today. I believe this bill has gone a long way toward ensuring that we have adequate supplies to meet the challenges in the future. Frankly, if we err however, we ought to err on the side of having far too many JDAMS. We should not have anything less than absolutely what we need at any given time to defend the just interests of the United States. We moved forward on the FA 22. This new aircraft is so important. There was a challenge earlier this year however. We challenged the contractor. The Subcommittee was not happy with the progress the contractor had been making. We had program hearings and DOD testimony. We heard from witnesses and then we proposed reductions to the program. In the end, we ended up reducing the FA 22 program by $160 million. We already believe, from the time those hearings took place in the early part of the year, that the contractor is making good progress in dealing with the problems and issues that were previously plaguing the program and slowing it down. We believe they are going to continue to make good progress. I hope so. If not, we will be challenging them again next year. We also dealt with the Boeing tanker lease. That was a matter Senator McCain raised early this year. He challenged the way the Department of Defense and the Air Force were planning to fund 100 new Boeing 767 aircraft. He believed that the way that was being handled was not good for the taxpayers. So we went through a long process of debate, IG and GAO evaluations of the funding process. In the end, the committee concluded that the program, as proposed by the administration, was not the best way to fund these aircraft. We therefore came up with a program to lease 20 767's and go forward to purchase the remaining 80. This change in procurement and leasing will save, we believe, $4 billion dollars. I salute Senator McCain for his leadership on this effort, and I also appreciate the great work of both Senator Warner and Senator Levin in reaching this new plan that I believe will work to the benefit of the Air Force and the taxpayers. Another of the subcommittee issues addressed the fleet of HUMVEES found throughout the force structure. One of the things I learned in August while visiting units in Iraq is that many of the Humvees utilized for moving our soldiers around the battlefield are the light skinned, unarmed, and vulnerable Humvee models which are quite susceptible to small arms fire. This bill provides additional monies for the up-armored version, as they call it, Humvee. Just this morning I was at the Walter Reed Army medical center meeting with PFC Chris Busby a military policeman from Alabama. He had severe injuries to his lower leg and one of his arms. He said he was in his Humvee, had his arm and his leg out the door, and a mortar round exploded nearby. It injured his arm and leg. He told me, without my asking: If I had not been in an up-armored Humvee, I may not be here today. Grenades, mines, and all of those are less effective against an up-armored Humvee. We need more of them, particularly in an environment such as Iraq. We also provided funds for friend-or-foe equipment to try to avoid friendly fire problems. We also provided $60 million for the EA6B aircraft outer wing panels. I discovered after talking with senior Navy officials that we are having problems with these aircraft from stress. These funds will do a lot to fix the operational deficiencies of those planes. We also provided $70 million for 7 UH60 Blackhawk helicopters. There are many more proposals and line items in this bill that I think will help make this a stronger and more vigorous nation and will make our military the best. What we need simply is this: We need the best trained military in the world. We need to give them the best equipment that exists in the world. We have both of those at this moment. We need even better equipment. We need even better training. If we maintain that momentum, if we maintain our commitment to research and development and to the utilization of new technologies where ever possible and we apply these capabilities and that desire to the modern battlefield our soldiers will remain the best military force the world has ever known. I am so proud of our men and women in uniform. When I meet them in the hospital, or talk to them after they return home, or when I meet with them in Iraq or Afghanistan or Kosovo, or aboard a ship at sea or at a base here in the United States, I find that they are so highly motivated and committed to serving this country. They believe so deeply in the causes of our country. They are committed incredibly to helping the Iraqi's achieve a better life. They are not just there to fight wars. They deeply want the Iraqi's to do better, to have a government that is free. Would that not be a good thing? Not just for us, and not just for the Iraqi people, but for the whole world. Wouldn't it be wonderful not to have any Saddam Hussein's in the world? Wouldn't it be wonderful not to have 300,000 people in mass graves that we are now uncovering in Iraq--the people Saddam Hussein slaughtered as a result of one of the most brutal regimes the world has ever known? He is gone now and we have an opportunity to step forward and create a government that allows the Iraqi people an opportunity to progress and succeed in the future. That is what we hope will happen. It is indeed a difficult time. Nobody knows what the future will bring, but I believe we will be successful because I am putting my confidence in the men and women who are serving our country around the world tonight. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I thank Senator Bond for his leadership on veterans issues throughout this Congress, as he always does. I have been over to Walter Reed Army Hospital on three different occasions. Families tell me they are being treated extremely well. The soldiers are very complimentary of the health care they have received, but there have been some problems. It is important we make sure every soldier injured in the service of the United States of America be given the best medical care, wherever he or she is in this country. I salute Senator Bond for his work in that regard. We want to make sure that happens. I believe it is happening, at least in the areas I have personally examined. We will continue to monitor them.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I wish to respond to some comments that were just made. The distinguished assistant Democratic leader asserts Mr. Pryor has been rejected before. He has not been rejected before. He has not been given an up-or-down vote. He has not been given a vote. We have a majority of Senators who supported him previously. A majority will support him, and it is absolutely wrong to say he has been rejected. He has not been given a vote. For the first time in the history of this country, we are facing a filibuster of judges, and it is not right. It is time to deal with this situation. I hope our colleagues on the other side will yield. If not, I hope they hear from the American people. I yield time back to the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. SESSIONS. Because he was following the law. I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of the time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, there has been a repeated suggestion that somehow Alabama's brilliant, principled, courageous attorney general, who has stood firm time and again in serious types of disputes within the State legally, is extreme or radical or out of the mainstream. When you ask why and say show me something he has done that indicates that, they say, well, he struck down the Americans with Disabilities Act. As I explained earlier, he appealed a portion of that act that dealt with 4 percent of the cases, cases against States; and the Supreme Court agreed with him and struck down that small portion of the act. He was not against the disabled. He has great compassion for the disabled. It was a legal action taken by this Congress that upset and struck down legitimate States rights issues, and the Supreme Court, when reviewing it, agreed with Attorney General Pryor. This is the kind of argument that has been raised. There is no basis to say this man is extreme. He stood firm on a matter of reapportionment in Alabama, which benefited the Democrats. He took complaints from the Republicans. He declared that the State reapportionment plan dictated by the Democratic majority that favored the Democrats was legally done and he defended it. He lost it in the court of appeals and he won it on behalf of the Democrats in the Supreme Court. At least their provision prevailed. What Bill Pryor said and what he believed was it was his duty to defend Alabama law if it was constitutional. He found that it was, so he defended it, even though he personally would not have agreed with it. In one of the affidavits that Senator Leahy quoted Bob James III is complaining about Attorney General Pryor. In his affidavit, he said: The last conversation I recall with Bill Pryor occurred late in Governor James' last term after the Governor signed Alabama's ``partial-birth'' abortion law. When the law passed, Mr. Pryor instructed Alabama district attorneys not to enforce the law as to previable fetuses. In my review, this gutted the law and defeated its very purpose. An equivalent to Pryor's action would be for Attorney General Ashcroft to instruct U.S. attorneys not to enforce an act of Congress. Everybody knows Bill Pryor is pro-life. Everybody knows Bill Pryor personally abhors partial-birth abortion. Why did he do this?

Mr. SESSIONS. I would like to respond briefly to Senator Schumer's comments. There have been a lot of words used: ``extreme views,'' ``radical views,'' words of that nature, ``way outside the mainstream of legal thought.'' Then you listen. Show me what happened, what positions he has taken that are outside the mainstream. He cited this hitching post case and said people were held without water, which was very much disputed, and I submit was not the truth. But, at any rate, the State had stopped that procedure. The case the attorney general defended was whether or not guards could be sued personally and made personally liable for carrying out what at one time had been the established policy of the prison system. That is what went before the Supreme Court. He did the right thing. He was criticized for certain States rights issues on the Violence Against Women Act. He challenged a small part of that act that violated a State's procedures and rights of immunity and won that case in the Supreme Court. He is recognized for the Children's First Program in Alabama that was to put large amounts of money into improving procedures for children in Alabama. He was one of the leaders in the State in promoting and working for that. Time and time again, he has proven to be a powerful, effective lawyer. Thurbert Baker--the Senator talked about an attorney general from Arizona, who only knew Mr. Pryor, I am sure, only at attorneys general meetings. But Thurbert Baker, the Democratic attorney general of Georgia, an African American, knows him. This is what Thurbert Baker, an attorney general, an African American, said about Bill Pryor: [He] has always done what he thought was best for the people of Alabama. And Mr. Baker said: [He] know[s] that his work on the bench will continue to serve as an example of how the public trust should be upheld. Former Democratic Alabama Governor Don Seigelman said: Bill Pryor is an incredibly talented, intellectually honest attorney general. He calls them like he sees them. He's got a lot of courage, and he will stand up and fight when he believes he's right. Madam President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for 3 minutes and then I will yield to the Senator from Texas.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent that the request for floor privileges that I made earlier be vitiated.

Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent that Marie Rapert, with Senator Inhofe, be allowed the privilege of the floor during the next rollcall vote.