Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would like to talk a little about this amendment tonight, in general terms, and talk a little more precisely about it in the morning. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that there be time tomorrow for me to have approximately 30 minutes sometime during the day to speak on the amendment, unless some others would want more time on the other side.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I am troubled by our efforts, which I support, to help the nation of Colombia. I serve on the Narcotics Committee. I serve on the Armed Services Committee. Over quite a number of months, we have had testimony and hearings involving this issue. I have become quite concerned about the stability of the nation of Colombia. I believe it is a democracy, and it is one of the oldest in the Western Hemisphere. It is worthy of our support. I believe Colombia is in a critical point in its history with over 50 percent of its territory--or at least over 40 or perhaps 50 percent of its territory--under the hands of insurgent forces. This great nation is in trouble. I hope we can devise a way to effectively assist them in their efforts to preserve democracy and freedom, economic growth and prosperity, and safety and freedom for their people. That is the intent of my amendment. It goes to an issue that I think is important. This is the problem we are dealing with. The President, his State Department, and his representatives have testified and said repeatedly that our goal here is to reduce drugs in America and to save lives in America. Our goal is to fight drug dealers in Colombia. Our goal is to help defoliate and destroy coca production in Colombia. The administration has steadfastly avoided and refused to say that this Nation, the United States of America, stands with the democratically-elected Government of Panama against two major Marxist organizations that seek to overthrow the Government of Colombia, and have actually occupied large portions of that nation. It is baffling to me why this is so. I do not understand what it is. Maybe it is an effort to appease the hard left in this country. Maybe it is an effort to appease certain liberal Members of this Senate who just can't see giving money to fight a left-wing guerrilla group anywhere in the world. Indeed, I can't recall an instance in which this administration has ever given any money to support democratically- elected governments, or other kinds of governments, for that matter, against left-wing Marxist guerrillas. These guerrilla groups have been involved in Colombia for many years. They have destabilized the country. They have undermined economic progress. They have provided cover and protection for drug dealers. They have in fact damaged Colombia substantially. I believe it is time for us to encourage Colombia to stand up to these organizations, to retake this country, and to preserve democracy in the country. It is a serious matter, in my view. Colombia has been an ally. We have encouraged them to enter into peace negotiations, and President Pastrana has tried his best to negotiate with these guerrilla groups. In fact, Colombia has given a piece of their territory, I am informed, the size of Senator Leahy's State of Vermont to the guerrillas as a cease-fire zone, a safe zone in which they can operate without fear, and that the duly constituted Government of Colombia would not enter there and do something about it while they attempt to establish peace. But this concession, this appeasement to the guerrilla groups, has not appeased them. It has not caused them to be less violent or aggressive. But in fact it appears it has encouraged them in some ways. I believe Colombia is at the point where they can achieve stability. I believe they can drive home, through a combination of diplomacy and military efforts to these insurgent forces, that war is not going to pay off, that war is a dead-end street for everyone, that they are willing to accept divergent views in their democracy, that they are willing to hear from the underlying concerns of the guerrilla groups. In fact, President Pastrana has said that over and over again. But fundamentally they have to send a message that they are willing to pay the price, that they are going to produce an army capable of putting these guerrillas on the defensive, and that they will take back their territory and unify their country. There are also right-wing para-military groups in the country, a right-wing militia, that is involved in terrorist-type acts and violations of human rights. They also need to be defeated and disbanded before Colombia can be unified. There can be no higher goal than that, from my perspective, for our country at this critical point in time. What are our goals? Why won't the President discuss them plainly? Our goal in Colombia is to produce regional stability. The collapse of Colombia can undermine nearby nations, whether Bolivia or Peru or other countries that border it. It can have a tremendous adverse effect on their stability. Instability in Columbia, should it occur, would knock down and damage one of our strongest trading partners. Colombia has 40 million people. Those people trade with the United States to a heavy degree. It would be a tragedy if they were to sink into chaos and could not maintain a viable economy. We have a self-interest in that, but we have a real human interest in trying to make sure we utilize our abilities, our resources, to help that nation to right itself and take back its territory. As I had occasion to say to President Pastrana recently: I want to see that we help. I want to help you strengthen your country. But I would like you to think about a great American. I would like you to think about Abraham Lincoln, who was faced with division of his country. Nearly 50 percent of his country had fallen under the hands of the Southern States. He had to make a big, tough decision. That decision was whether he was going to accede to that, was he going to allow the United States to be divided. He decided no, and he rallied the American people. In the course of it, as I told Senator Biden, at one point when we discussed it, he had the occasion to have my grandfather killed at Antietam, who fought for the South at that time. But that was a tough war. It was a tough decision. But in the long run, this country is better because we are unified today. I do not believe we can achieve any lasting ability to reduce drugs being imported into this country from Colombia if Colombia cannot control its territory. How is it possible we can expect we will make any progress at all if Colombia cannot control nearly 50 percent of its territory? It boggles the mind. I have been a Federal prosecutor for 15 years. Prosecuting drug cases was a big part of my work starting in the mid-1970s, through the 1980s and through the early 1990s. At one point, I chaired the committee in the Department of Justice on narcotics. I had briefings from everybody. During the time I was working on this issue, we believed and worked extraordinarily hard to achieve the end of drugs in America by stopping drug production in South America. Colombia, for well over 20 years, has been the primary source of cocaine for this country. They remain so. In fact, cocaine production in Colombia has exploded. It has more than doubled in the last 3 years. It is a dramatic increase. That is a concern of ours. I believe we can, I believe Colombia can, make some progress in reducing that supply. My best judgment tells me that after years of experience and observation, this Nation is not going to solve its drug problem by getting other countries in South America to reduce their production. In fact, an ounce of cocaine sells in the United States for maybe $150. The cost of the coca leaf utilized to make that $150 product is about 30 cents. Farmers in South America are making a lot of money producing coca at 30 cents for those leaves. They could pay them $2, $3, $4, 10 times what they are paying now for coca leaf, and these farmers would yield to the temptation and produce coca. I do not believe this market of illegal cocaine is going to be eliminated from our country by efforts to shut off production in South America. The reason countries need to shut off the production of cocaine--and Bolivia and Peru have made progress in that regard--is to preserve the integrity of their own country. They do not want to allow illegal Mafia-type drug cartels to gain wealth and power to destabilize their countries in democracy and turn it into chaos and violence as has so often occurred. They have a sincere interest in achieving that goal, but that interest has to be understood to be primarily their own interest. This administration refuses to talk about the real situation in Colombia. It refuses to be honest with the American people. Their foreign policy request was $1.6 billion. That has been approved in the House. This bill wisely reduces that, I believe, to a little less than $1 billion. They are requesting this much money to make a government that our Nation, the President, and the Secretary of State will not assert to be a country we support in their efforts against these guerrilla groups. I believe that is wrong. I think we need to be more clear eyed, more honest about our foreign policy. I believe that would be the healthy approach. It will help the American people to understand exactly what their money is being spent for. It will help them to understand what our goals are in the region. It will help them to understand whether or not we are achieving those goals. If we do so correctly, we could utilize this money to inspire President Pastrana and the people of Colombia to rise up, take back their country, to preserve their democracy, take back their territory from those who don't believe in democratic elections, who kidnap, kill, protect drug dealers, who rob and steal. That is what is going on. We can do something about it. We have an opportunity to utilize the wealth of this country to encourage that kind of end result. If we do so, it would be a magnificent thing for the country. To say we will spend $1 or $2 billion in Colombia, give it to a country we don't even support in their efforts to take back their territory, is typical of the kind of disingenuousness that has characterized this administration's foreign policy. It is not healthy. It should not be done. Therefore, I have offered a simple amendment that will say one thing: Mr. President, you can spend this money, but you have to publicly state and assert and certify to this Congress that you support the duly elected Government of Colombia in their efforts against the Marxist, drug dealing insurgents who are bent on destroying the nation. This is more important than many know. I thank the distinguished Senator from Kentucky for allowing me to have this time, and more than that, for his leadership on a foreign operations bill that protects the interests of the United States. It is frugal, as frugal can be in this day and age. He has done his best to contain excessive spending and has improved and reduced this spending bill. I appreciate his leadership. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I have worked with Chairman Warner for nearly a year on this bill. It is time to pass this bill. If we put this nongermane Internal Revenue Code amendment on it, it will be blue- slipped by the House as a revenue bill. It will come back like a rubber ball off the wall. This is not what we are here for. This is not a campaign finance vote. It is a vote involving the defense of these United States of America. That is what we need to do. I support the chairman. I believe this is a good bill.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, May 25. I further ask that on Thursday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. I further ask consent that the Senate then proceed to a period of morning business until 10:30 a.m., with Senators speaking for up to 5 minutes each, with the following exceptions: Senator Biden, or his designee, 9:30 a.m. to 10 a.m. and Senator Thomas, or his designee, 10 a.m. to 10:30 a.m.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order, following the remarks of Senator Leahy.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I note that Senator Leahy is not here. I believe he is not coming, so I renew my unanimous consent request to adjourn.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. On behalf of the majority leader, and for the information of all Senators, the Senate will convene at 9:30 a.m. on Thursday and be in a period of morning business until 10:30 a.m. Following morning business, the Senate will resume debate on the Mikulski amendment to the legislative branch appropriations bill for 10 minutes prior to a vote on the amendment. Following that vote, the Senate will immediately proceed to a vote on third reading of the bill. Therefore, Senators can expect two back-to-back votes at approximately 10:45 a.m. I ask unanimous consent that after the votes the Senate return to a period of morning business for 1 hour with Senators Roberts and Cleland in control of the time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, it is hoped that the Senate can consider the crop insurance conference report tomorrow afternoon. Therefore, Senators can expect votes throughout the day.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 560, S. 484.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, Senators Helms and Biden have an amendment at the desk, and I ask for its consideration.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period for morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Foreign Relations Committee be discharged from consideration of S. Con. Res. 110, and that the Senate then proceed to its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I understand that the following bills are at the desk: H.R. 1291, H.R. 3591, H.R. 4051, and H.R. 4251. I ask for the first reading of each of these bills, and ask unanimous consent that it be in order to read the titles consecutively.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I object to further proceedings on these bills at this time.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that, notwithstanding the adjournment of the Senate, committees have from 11 a.m. until 1 p.m. on Thursday, June 1, in order to file legislative matters.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to use my time on two judicial nominations.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I have great respect for Senator Moynihan and Senator Schumer. I know they have great affection and admiration for Mr. Lynch. In no way do I question his integrity. I do not question his legal ability. He is certainly a scholar and a person of intellect. Except for two leaves of absence, he has been a law professor. The old rule must apply: The A students become professors; B students, judges; and C students make the money. Regardless, he has been a professor, worked on a few cases, and spent several years with the U.S. Attorney's Office prosecuting cases. By all accounts, he is a man of good personal character. The problem I have with this nomination is that I have come to believe from his writing that he is, indeed, a judge who is an activist. There is only one opportunity for the people of this country to confront the question as to whether or not an individual nominated to be a judge will obtain a lifetime appointment. That is our role under the Constitution, to advise and consent to nominations of the President. The President has nominated Mr. Lynch. I think it is our duty, if we are not to be a potted plant or rubber stamp his record, his skill, his background, his philosophy, and see if we want to authorize him, for the rest of his life, to preside over cases, to interpret the law, to interpret the Constitution, and make major decisions in that regard. That is our question: Do we want to do that? It would be bad to impose upon the people of New York or any other State any person who is not clearly committed to the judicial role. The judicial role is that a judge should require himself to follow the Constitution of the United States and the laws duly passed by the Congress of the United States. The Constitution is a contract. It was an instrument of agreement between the American people and the government when they formed it. They gave to the government certain limited powers. They reserved for themselves and for the States other powers. That is a fundamental principle. I think our courts in recent years have done a little better. At one point, they were exceedingly activist. The leader of that activism crusade in the Federal courts was none other than Justice Brennan for whom Mr. Lynch clerked. Subsequent to that, he has written in the Columbia Law Review on two separate occasions. The Columbia Law Review is a prestigious law review and the Columbia Law School is a prestigious law school. One does not write for the Columbia Law Review without giving careful thought to each and every word he utilizes in that law review, even more so if he is a professor at that school. In the course of writing these articles, Mr. Lynch made some statements that I think represent very serious indications of his philosophy and his willingness to be bound by the law and the Constitution as a judge. Take, for example, this 1984 article, ``Constitutional Law as Moral Philosophy'': The Supreme Court, because it is free of immediate political pressures of the sort that press on those who must face the voters, is better placed to decide whether a proposed course of action that meets short-term political objectives is consistent with the fundamental moral values to which our society considers itself pledged. That is a very risky, dangerous statement, a carefully written statement, words Mr. Lynch chose carefully. He says the Supreme Court, because it doesn't have to answer to the American people in elections, is better placed to decide a proposed course of action that meets short-term political objectives and is consistent with moral values which our society considers itself bound. Our Constitution is deeply rooted in our moral order and heritage, but our Constitution is a contract; our Constitution is an agreement with the people. It has specific ideas and requirements in it that I expect a judge to abide by. To show the danger in this philosophy, let me share the example of the death penalty. The eighth amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. Justice Brennan, for whom Mr. Lynch clerked, declared that the death penalty was cruel and unusual and therefore it violates the eighth amendment to the Constitution. I suggest that is bizarre because at the time the Constitution was adopted, every State had a death penalty. There are six or more references within the very document itself, the Constitution, to a death penalty. Yet he feels it violates some sort of contemporary standards of morality. Justice Brennan used his lifetime appointment as a judge to dissent on every single death penalty case, saying it violates the Constitution, while the Constitution contemplates and says you can take life with due process in several different places. That is judicial activism.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I will use what time I have remaining on the Lynch nomination for the Dyk nomination, and I will yield the floor to Senator Smith who wants to speak. Mr. Dyk has been nominated to the Federal circuit here in Washington. Mr. Dyk is a good lawyer, apparently with a good academic background, and has certain skills and abilities that I certainly do not dispute. I do not have anything against him personally, but I do have serious concerns about this court. I do not believe we need another judge on this court. The Federal circuit is a court of limited jurisdiction. It handles patent cases and Merit Systems Protection Board cases, certain international trade cases, and certain interlocutory orders from district courts. It is a specialized court and does not get involved in too many generalized cases. We have analyzed the caseload of this circuit. I serve on the Administrative Oversight and Courts Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee with Senator Chuck Grassley, who is chairman. I have been a practicing prosecutor for 15 years in Federal court before Federal judges; that is where I spent my career. I know certain judges are overwhelmed with work, and I have observed others who may not be as overwhelmed with work. I will go over some numbers that indicate to me without doubt that this circuit is the least worked circuit in America. It does not need another judge, and I will share this concept with fellow Members of the Senate. They handle appeals in the Federal Circuit, appeals from other court cases and boards. In 1995, there were 1,847 appeals filed in the Federal Circuit. Four years later, in 1999, that number had fallen to 1,543 appeals, a 16-percent decline in cases filed. Another way to look at the circuit is how many cases are terminated per judge. The Administrative Office of Courts provides a large statistical report. They analyze, by weighted case factors, judges and cases by circuits and districts and so forth. It is a bound volume. They report every year. The numbers are not to be argued with. The Federal Circuit has by far the lowest number of dispositions per judge. The Federal Circuit has 141 cases per judge terminated. There are 11 judges now on that circuit. As a matter of fact, those 141 cases were when the court had 10 judges. We now have 11 judges on that court, and we are talking about adding Mr. Dyk, who would be the 12th judge on that court, to take the numbers down even further. The next closest circuit is a circuit that is also overstaffed--the D.C. Circuit. I have opposed nominees to the D.C. Circuit in Washington. Oddly enough, both the circuits that I believe are overstaffed and underworked are located in this city. The average case dispositions for a circuit judge in America are more than double that. Let me provide some examples. The Third Circuit average number of terminations per judge is 312; the Fourth Circuit, 545; the Fifth Circuit, 668--that is four times what the Federal Circuit does--the Seventh Circuit, 352; Eighth Circuit, 440; Ninth Circuit, 455, the Tenth Circuit, 350; the Eleventh Circuit--my circuit, Florida, Alabama, and Georgia--820 cases, compared to 141. That is six times as many cases per judge in the Eleventh Circuit as in the Federal Circuit. The taxpayers of this country need to give thought to whether or not we need to add a judge to this circuit. It is pretty obvious we ought to consider that. Terminations per judge on the Federal Circuit represent only 17 percent of the cases terminated by a judge on the Eleventh Circuit. Senator Grassley issued a report on March 30, 1999, ``On the Appropriate Allocation of Judgeships in the United States Court of Appeals.'' The report assessed the need to fill one vacancy on the Federal Circuit. The court already had 11 active judges of the 12 authorized. The Federal Circuit also had five senior judges at that time. Senior judges contribute a lot to the workload. That is a pretty high number. Almost half as many judges are senior judges who come in on a less-work level. They don't handle the most important en banc cases, but they participate in drafting opinions. They have law clerks. Many of them do almost as many cases as an active judge. So they have five senior status judges. Maybe it is down to four now, but at that time there were five senior judges. The Grassley report states: In fact, the current status of the circuit actually supports the argument that the court could do its job with a smaller complement of 11 judges. As such, the case has not yet been made that the current vacancy should be filled. That remains true today. The Federal circuit has 11 active judges now and 4 senior judges. On the issue of the cost of a judgeship, people ask, how much does it cost to add another judge? Just add a judge and pay his salary, $140,000, $150,000 a year? That is not too bad. However, the actual cost of a Federal judge is $1 million annually. They have two, three law clerks, secretaries, office space, libraries, computers, travel budgets, and everything that goes with being a Federal appellate judge. It is an expensive process. That number is a legitimate number, 1 million bucks. We have judges in this country who are working night and day, but this circuit is not one of them. Before we do not fill some of those vacancies, before we do not add new judges to some of those districts-- and it is not that many, but some are really overworked--we ought to think about whether we ought to continue a judge where we don't need one. The Grassley report also dealt with the problem of having more judges than you need, sort of a collegiality question. The report said: Judge Tjoflat [chief judge at the Eleventh Circuit at one time] testified that some scholars maintain that a ``perfect'' appellate court size is about 7 to 9 judges, and when a court reaches 10 or 11 judges, ``you have an exponential increase in the tension on the court of the ability of the law not to be certain.'' Judges claimed that there is a marked decrease in collegiality when the appeals court is staffed with more than 11 or 12 judges. Chief Judge Posner of the Seventh Circuit thought that with 11 judges, the Seventh Circuit was ``at the limit of what a court ought to be'' in terms of size. The Seventh Circuit had more than twice as many cases per judge as the Federal Circuit does today. The Grassley report further stated there is a consistency cost with expanding courts: Not only is there a loss in collegiality the larger a court becomes, there is also an increase in work required by the judges to maintain consistency in the law. Judge Wilkinson felt that more judges would not lighten the burdens of a court, but would actually aggravate these burdens further. The Federal Circuit, to which this judge would like to be appointed-- and it would be a good position to draw that big Federal judicial salary and have the lowest caseload in America --has the lowest terminations per judge of any circuit court of appeals. It has a 16- percent decrease in overall caseload, with a clear recommendation from the Grassley subcommittee report that there is not a need to add another judge to this circuit. I suggest that we not approve this judge, not because he is not a good person but because we don't need to burden the taxpayers with $1 million a year for the rest of his life to serve on a court that doesn't need another judge. In fact, they could probably get by with two or three fewer judges than they have right now and still have the lowest caseload per judge in America. We don't have money to throw away. People act as though a million dollars isn't much money. A million dollars is a lot of money where I came from. I think we ought to look at that and put our money where we have to have some judges. There are some of those areas. I thank the Chair for the time to express my thoughts on the Dyk matter and yield the remainder of my time to Senator Smith from New Hampshire.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I think Senator Schumer raises a good point. I never said he opposed the death penalty. What I was trying to point out is that judges, if they desire to impose their fundamental moral values on people when they don't get elected, can end up doing things like Justice Brennan did, for which, certainly, Mr. Lynch admires him. I have another quote I think is even more clear, a more clear indication of Mr. Lynch's willingness to utilize personal opinions-- justifying judges who want to use personal opinions instead of interpreting the law. He was talking about Justice Brennan. This was in 1997, just a few years ago: Justice Brennan's belief that the Constitution must be given meaning for the present seems to me a simple necessity; his long and untiring labor to articulate the principles of fairness, liberty, and equality found in the Constitution-- Fairness, liberty, and equality sound a little bit like the French Revolution, words they used to chop off a lot of people's heads. Our Constitution is a document of restraint. But: . . . in the way that he believed made most sense today. Justice Brennan's belief that the Constitution must be given: . . . meaning for the present in the way he believed made most sense today seems far more honest and honorable than the pretense that the meaning of those principles can be found in 18th- or 19th-century dictionaries. In the course of my time on the Judiciary Committee, I have voted for well over 90 percent of the nominees, I suppose, that the President has submitted. This Senate has confirmed a large number of them. I suggest that this may be the most dramatic example of any nominee that we have had, that they have explicitly stated that a judge has the ability to ignore the meaning of the words that were put in the Constitution. In other words, he doesn't have to use the dictionary definition of words. He doesn't have to use dictionary definitions of words. He just goes to whatever the meaning of ``is,'' is, I suppose. In other words, there is no constraint on a judge who will not adhere to the words himself and admit that he needs to be bound by the plain words in a statute or our Constitution. He puts down the philosophy that a judge has to show restraint. Even if he did not like the constitutional provision, even if he or she did not like the statute involved, he would be bound to enforce it. It is a fundamental matter of great importance. Just as Professor VanAlstyn, speaking at a Federal court conference a number of years ago, said: It is absolutely critical that we enforce this Constitution, the one that we have, the good and bad parts of it. That is what law is all about, enforcement of law that is written. Without it, we do not have justice. Professor VanAlstyn says you do not respect the Constitution if you don't enforce its plain meaning. You say the Constitution is great; it is a living document. It is not; it is on paper. It is not living; it doesn't breathe. It is a contract with the people of America about how they are going to give power to people who govern them. It is a limited grant of power to the people who govern them. I will say this. That is another dramatic statement of a judge's ability, according to Mr. Lynch, to redefine meanings of words and to line up contemporary events, as of today, so he can impose a ruling on the people that he believes is just and fitting with community standards and moral decencies and things of that nature. That is a very dangerous philosophy. It is not the philosophy of the mainstream law in America today. It was advocated by and probably reached its high-water mark under Justice Brennan when he tried to declare the death penalty to be in violation of the U.S. Constitution, when the Constitution provided for the death penalty. That is big-time stuff, when a Justice on the Supreme Court is prepared to say something like that and dissented on every single death penalty case based on that theory. I suggest Mr. Lynch is a brilliant lawyer, a man of great skill, a lawyer/professor, and he knows what he means and he said what he meant when he wrote that. What else can we think? If that is so, then I believe we cannot be sure, Members of this Senate, that he would consider himself bound by the plain meaning of words, of statutes passed by this body or even more significant, not consider himself bound by the Constitution itself that was ratified by the American people to protect their liberties. Remember, when we have a judge who believes in activism, it is at its most fundamental an antidemocratic act. It is an act that goes against democracy because we have a lifetime-appointed judge whose salary cannot be cut so long as he lives. He can stay on that bench as long as he lives. He is asserting for himself or herself the right to declare what he or she thinks is appropriate today. ``It may not have been what they thought when they wrote that old Constitution, but things have changed today. I think today the death penalty is unconstitutional.'' That kind of philosophy is a danger. It disrespects the Constitution. It undermines the Constitution and undermines democracy. I wish I would be able to support Mr. Lynch. I supported the overwhelming majority of the nominees, some of them maybe even more liberal than Mr. Lynch, but I haven't had anything to indicate that or I would have probably opposed them. Some I have. This document, these law review articles are extraordinarily troubling to me. I do not think it is a minor point. I think it is a big point. I know the Senator from New York, both Senators from New York, think highly of Mr. Lynch and I respect that. But based on what I have observed, I believe his written remarks indicate he is unwilling to be bound by the law. Therefore we should not impose him on the people of New York and the United States. I see the Senator from New York might want to comment on that before I go to the next nominee? I have one more nominee I would like to comment on.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I note that Mr. Lynch's words are pretty explicit and leave little doubt. I am pleased to see before his hearing--talk about a death-bed conversion. His testimony sounds somewhat improved over the language here, but it does concern me when he dismisses concepts such as actually looking at dictionaries that refer to the time of the people who wrote the document and review words to see what they actually were intended to mean. That is what a judge really ought to do, and Mr. Lynch dismisses that almost with contempt. We have to consider it awfully dangerous when a judge feels the principles of the Constitution of liberty, equality, and fairness are in the Constitution when that phrase is really not in the Constitution, and the danger of those words are they are great ideals, but they are general; they have no definitiveness, and they give a platform for a judge to leap off into different issues about which he may personally feel deeply and simply do so on the basis that it is fair or it is a question of equality: This is fairness so I will just rule this way. We have preserved our Nation well by insisting that our judiciary remain faithful to the plain and simple words of the Constitution and the statutes involved. Nomination of Timothy B. Dyk

Mr. SESSIONS. What is the time left on the Lynch nomination?

Mr. SESSIONS

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