Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I will wrap up, briefly, if I could. Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the chair.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, is there an agreement as to the time?

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would assume the chairman, who will be speaking in favor, would want to go first, and I yield to Senator Leahy.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, Mr. Martinez, I know, has a lot of good supporters and friends, as I have noted. But he did refuse to answer a simple question of whether the U.S. Constitution prohibits the death penalty, which I believe the ACLU, of which he was a member and a member of the legal panel, definitely favored. I do believe Judge Pearson's view that somehow there should be a balancing test about whether we should actually slaughter a steer based on the need for food or hide is an extreme view also. We have had about 15 members of the ACLU confirmed by this administration. But we expect this President to submit mainstream judges. The ACLU is not mainstream in its positions. I do believe the administration needs to understand that this is going to be a more contentious matter if we keep seeing the ACLU chromosome as part of this process.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the two nominees today are nominees who came out of the Judiciary Committee with substantial negative votes. Mr. Martinez is a long-time member of the American Civil Liberties Union. He has refused, when asked at the hearing, by myself and in written questions, to state whether he believes the Constitution of the United States prohibits the death penalty--not whether he believed in it. That is his prerogative. He hid behind the answer that the Supreme Court says it is. But the ACLU holds to the view that the cruel and unusual punishment provision of the Constitution prohibits the imposition of the death penalty and, therefore, it is unconstitutional. He refused to answer that question, and I believe that is an untenable view. There are four references, at least, in the Constitution to the death penalty, and I do not know how somebody could take the cruel and unusual clause to override specific references to the death penalty which was provided for in every Colony and the Federal Government when the Constitution passed. With regard to the other nominee, Mrs. Benita Pearson, she has some very extreme views on animal rights. When asked by Senator Coburn whether it would be in the best interests of a steer to be slaughtered--she was asked that in the committee--she said probably not in the best interests of the steer, sir. But then you have to look beyond that. I mean, the steer is going to lose its life. It is a painful situation. And steers, evidence has shown, may have some idea or apprehension about the slaughter that is impending. But the next step is, is it necessary to slaughter the steer in order to provide food for those who might otherwise go hungry or perhaps be malnourished without the sustenance that this steer's flesh and hide could provide in terms of clothing and matters necessary for the well-being of animals. Basically, what I understand this to be is that she is suggesting a court should enter into some sort of balancing test on whether it is legitimate to slaughter a steer, and also she is a member of the ALDF, the defense of animals group, that is very extreme in its views. For that reason, the National Cattleman's Beef Association and the Farm Animal Welfare Coalition strongly oppose the nomination. I think her views on this issue are out of the mainstream. I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. How much time is remaining on this side?

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I agree with Senator Kyl and support the Risch amendment. I remember at a NATO conference not too many years ago President Bush was advocating for Georgia being a member of NATO, to show you how serious these matters are. So had we voted to bring Georgia into NATO--and they were on the short list--we would be in a situation in which the Russians would be invading a NATO country. The act of Russia invading Georgia was a dramatic event. The proponents of the treaty portrayed this matter as advancing our relationship with Russia. I think Senator Kerry has been not so aggressive--that hasn't been one of his themes. But a lot of people have, and I think he was wise not to go down that road. A lot of people have tried to say we are going to get along with Russia better by signing this treaty with them. That is not a sound basis to sign a treaty. We all need a better relationship with Russia. That I certainly acknowledge. Georgia would certainly benefit from it, and hopefully the world will have a better relationship with Russia. But I am unable to fathom a lot of the Russian activities, frankly. It is just difficult for me. Why have they negotiated so hardheadedly on this treaty to actually reduce the number of inspections over what we had in the previous treaty? Why? I thought Russia was about wanting to move forward into the world and be a good citizen in the world community. I haven't seen it. I am worried about it. So the question is, if we abandon or concede too much, are we helping develop a positive relationship? I think Senator Risch is saying: Look, we have a serious problem. They are holding our military equipment. Are we not even going to discuss that? How do we get to a more positive relationship with our Russian friends? I think the people of Russia are our friends. How do we get there? Is it through strength, constancy, consistency, principle, and position, or is it through weakness, placating, concession, and appeasing? Is that the way to gain respect and move us into a healthier relationship? I don't think so. I think we have only one charge, and that is to defend our legitimate interests. I believe this administration has been too fixed on a treaty, and, as one observer and former treaty negotiator has said: If you want it bad, you will get it bad. In other words, if you want the treaty too badly, you won't be an effective negotiator. I remember during this process, on more than one occasion, warning and expressing concern to our negotiators that we appeared to be too anxious to obtain this treaty and, if so, the Russians would play us like a fiddle. I am afraid that is what has happened. I think this Congress would do the President, the world, Russia, and our country a service if we said what Senator Risch says: OK, guys, how about letting our equipment be sent back. If you are not willing to do that, then we have a serious problem. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. It is agreeable to me.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I wish to take a brief moment to express my pleasure in the fact that the continuing resolution that passed and will now be going to the House had within it a provision to allow the Navy to award the littoral combat ship competition to two of the bidders. It took a bit of a modification of the procedure to allow them to do that. It is a product of good news. At one point in the late nineties, I chaired the Seapower Subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee. I have been a member of it. I have seen the development of the littoral combat ship concept. ADM Vern Clark determined it was the future of the Navy. We expect to have 55 of them in the fleet. They would be manned by only 40 sailors. They would be high speed, able to travel in shallow waters, and be effective for pirates or be effective for mine sweeping and other activities of that nature. The House put in this language. We had a hearing in the committee a few days ago with Admiral Roughead and Navy officials, Secretary of the Navy Mabus, and representatives from the CRS, GAO and CBO--those ABC agencies that evaluate these kinds of proposals--and it has moved forward. I thank Senator Levin for his leadership. I thank Senator Inouye and Senator Cochran on our side and the House leaders also who saw fit to support the Navy's idea. It is not a plan I suggested, but it is one I believe is good. The good news is this was enabled by the fact that as a surprise, the bids on the ships were very much below what was anticipated. The legislation required that the bids come in under $480 million per ship, and it looks as if these bids are going to be at $450 million. By having both shipyards go forward, the Navy gets a fixed price today. In other words, if aluminum goes up or electricity goes up, the shipyards are going to eat it. We will bring on both ships at the same time. Not only that, but we would get 20 ships total in this first tranche of ships rather than 19. In addition to that, the Navy scores that it will save $1 billion, and that $1 billion they hope to apply to other ships the Navy needs in their 313-ship Navy of the future. Ashton Carter, the DOD's acquisition executive, said: The U.S. Navy's recent decision to buy both classes of Littoral Combat Ship due to lower than expected bid prices is an example of what good competition can do. It was a competitive bid. I think the Navy may have made a mistake in not allowing more benefit to the bidders based on how valuable the ship was, the total value, but they made it a rigorous cost competition and apparently got very good bids. The average bids were, as I said, $450 million. The Chief of Naval Operations, ADM Gary Roughead, on December 14--a few days ago--testified before the Armed Services Committee. He said: I think the two different types [of ships] give us a certain amount of flexibility, versatility that one would not, and as I talked earlier about this ability to mix the capabilities of a force that we put in there. This may have been when I asked a question about it at that same hearing. He said: I . . . believe that the designs of the ships and the flexibility of the ships . . . and also the cost of these ships open up potential of foreign military sales that would otherwise not be there. In other words, not only could we create jobs, perhaps 3,000 to 4,000 jobs immediately, but many of our allies, with the approval of the Defense Department, might want to buy these ships for their fleets, and we would have the ability to export these products abroad. Having been involved in seeing the vision of the Navy over a decade plus and to see that finally come to fruition is good. One Navy official was quoted in one of the major publications as saying the nature of these competitions is such there be a 100-percent chance of a protest, whichever one won the bid, and one reason is because the bid was so close. We will avoid a protest and will be able to move forward, get the ships faster, lock in the lowest possible cost, clearly lower than what would be otherwise, and maybe even be able to save enough money to build an even larger ship with it. I thank my colleagues who worked on this issue. I believe it will be a good thing. One of the ships will be built in my hometown of Mobile, AL. I know how excited the workers at the shipyards will be to hear they will have jobs in the future producing one of the finest, most modern warships in the history of the Navy. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, would the Senator yield for a moment?

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I want to make a 1-minute comment about a Navy fellow who has been in my office. I am reluctant to interrupt, but the Senator is so eloquent, I know he can handle the interruption almost better than anybody else. CDR Brent Breining has been assigned to my office for the year by the Navy. I hope it has been beneficial to him. I think it has been. It has certainly been beneficial to us on a host of matters. He is a man of ability, of integrity and hard work, and he symbolizes the kind of bright young men and women we have so many of in our military. I wanted to take this moment to express my appreciation for his fabulous service. I thank the Chair, I yield the floor, and I thank my colleague for letting me interrupt him.

Mr. SESSIONS. A Navy officer, yes.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I will share one thought I remember so vividly before Russia invaded Georgia. We were at a NATO conference. There was a discussion outside the normal meeting. One weak-kneed, I suppose, European explained to the Georgians why it was difficult for the other nations to support Georgia in their idea to be in NATO and suggested it was difficult because Russia was a big and powerful country. The Georgian replied--and I have never forgotten it--saying: Well, sir, we think it is a question of values. Mr. Putin said last year the greatest disaster of the 20th century was the collapse of the Soviet Union. We in Georgia believe it was the best thing that happened in the 20th century. It is a question of values. We share your values. We want to be with you. I have to say it is deeply troubling to me that our Russian friends are being so recalcitrant and so aggressive and so hostile to sovereign states such as Georgia, the Ukraine, the Baltics, and Poland. They used to be a part of the Soviet empire. They are now sovereign nations, independent in every way. Conceding, as part of these negotiations, the deployment of a ground- based interceptor missile defense system in Poland to comply with Russian demands during this treaty process was a terrible thing, especially when we did not even tell our friends in the sovereign nation of Poland we intended to do it before we announced it with the Russians. The Senator is just raising a reality. I say to Senator Risch, we have some problems here, and we might as well put it out on the table, be realistic about it, and take off the rose-colored glasses. This amendment is one way to say let's get serious and talk with our Russian friends about some serious difficulties we have. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I see my other colleagues. I do wish to talk about one or two judicial nominees, but I want to say first how much I appreciate Senator Specter. I have had the honor to serve on the Senate Judiciary Committee with Senator Specter the entire time I have been in the Senate--going on 14 years, I guess. No one has a clearer legal mind. The clarity of his thought and expression is always impressive to me. And as someone who practiced law, I see the great lawyer skills he possesses. Also, I note that he has not just today but throughout his career defended the legitimacy of the powers of the Senate. He was very articulate over the past number of years in criticizing the abuse of filling the tree, where bills can be brought up and amendments are not allowed. He has believed that is an unhealthy trend in the Senate, and he has been one of the most effective advocates in opposition to it. He sponsored and helped pass the Armed Career Criminal Act. He was one of the leaders in that. Having been a longtime prosecutor in Philadelphia, I like to tease our good friend Senator Leahy that he was a prosecutor, but it was in Vermont. Senator Specter had to deal with a lot of crime in Philadelphia and was consistently reelected there for his effectiveness and is a true source of insight into crime in America and has been an effective advocate for fighting crime. I note also that he has a good view about a Senator. He respects other Senators. He was talking with me one time or I was sharing with him my concern about a matter, and he used a phrase I heard him use more than once: Well, you are a U.S. Senator. In other words, if you do not like it, stand up and defend yourself. He respected that, even if he would disagree. I remember another time Senator Specter was on the floor. I had just arrived in the Senate. I wanted him to do something--I have long since forgotten what. I said: Senator Specter, you could vote for this, and back home, you could say thus and so. He looked right at me, and he said: Senator, I don't need your advice on how to conduct myself back home politically. I learned a lesson from that. I never told another Senator that, I say to Senator Specter. Who am I to tell you how to conduct yourself politically back home in the State of Pennsylvania? Senator Specter chaired the Judiciary Committee during the confirmations of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito. He was the leading Republican chair at that time. He raised questions about the nominees. But as chairman of the committee, with the votes and support of his Republican colleagues, he protected our rights, he protected our interests. He did not back down one time on any action by the other party that would have denied the ability to move that nomination forward to a vote and protect the rights of the parties on our side. Those are a few things that come to mind when I think about the fantastic service he has given to the Senate. He is one of our most able Members, one of our most effective defenders of senatorial prerogative and independence, one of our crime fighters without par, and one of the best lawyers in the Senate, a person who is courageous and strong. Even when he was conducting those very intense Alito and Roberts hearings--it was just after he had serious cancer treatment, the chemotherapy. I know he didn't feel well, but he was fabulous in conducting himself at that time. Throughout all of that treatment, his work ethic surpassed by far that of most Senators in this body. It has been an honor to serve with him. I see my other colleagues. I know Senator Coburn wanted to come down. He was told he might be able to speak around noon. Senator Specter

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would be pleased to yield to the majority leader for that. And if I could ask consent to be recognized afterward. I would note I did have time set aside for these remarks.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the President's nomination of Mr. William Martinez to the United States District Court for Colorado. I will oppose the nomination, and I have several reasons for doing so. He has a lot of good friends and people who respect him and like him, but we are trying to make a decision about a lifetime appointment to the federal district court. There are some concerns with this nomination that are serious and, in particular, trends of the President to nominate individuals with judicial philosophies outside the mainstream. There is one reason in particular that concerns me about Mr. Martinez. It is his longtime affiliation with the American Civil Liberties Union and the questions we asked him about that were answered insufficiently for me. We have had a number of ACLU nominations. I have supported some and opposed others. The ACLU is a very leftwing organization. It seeks openly to defy the will of the American people in many lawsuits while at the same time they endeavor to undermine and oppose traditions and institutions that make up the very fabric of our culture, our national identity, and who we are as a people, assuming those things are insignificant and only pure philosophical approaches, as they have, of an extreme nature should guide our Nation. Mr. Martinez has been a member of the ACLU in Colorado for nearly a decade, and since 2006 served on its legal panel. In this role he reviews memorandum prepared by ACLU staff and attorneys and decides whether to pursue litigation, a very significant post in that organization. Of course that is not disqualifying. One can be a member of an organization, even though some of us might not like it or agree with the organization. But any nominee from a conservative organization who takes extreme positions would certainly have to answer those positions and justify why they might take them. Likewise it is fair and appropriate to ask questions about this nominee and about this organization and whether the nominee agrees with them or why, if they don't agree, they are a member. A lot of people say they didn't agree with this position or that position. I was left asking: Why are you a member? It is on their Web site. When asked about some of the positions on important issues, he failed to clearly respond and repeatedly refused to answer questions in a direct and clear manner. For example, at his hearing I asked whether he agreed with the ACLU's position that the death penalty was unconstitutional in all circumstances. He refused to answer. Instead he noted that the Supreme Court has held the death penalty constitutional, adding: What my view would be as a sitting Federal district judge is something that would be quite different from my views as a personal citizen or an advocate or a litigant and member of the ACLU. I asked him whether he personally thinks the death penalty violates the Constitution and whether he had ever expressed that view. He again failed to answer, stating only that he had never expressed any view. So I put the question to him again, and again he did not answer. Let me stop and say why I think this is a very important issue. The Constitution was passed as a unified document with 10 amendments. The American people ratified it. Some people, in recent years, have come up with the ingenious idea that they could disqualify and eliminate the death penalty without a vote of the people, without the popular will to change laws that exist all over the country. They decided they could change it by finding something in the Constitution that would say the death penalty is wrong, and they reached out to the provision that says you should not have cruel and unusual punishment. They said the death penalty is cruel and unusual and is unconstitutional, which is not sound. Let me be respectful. Why is that not a sound policy? There are multiple references in the Constitution to a death penalty. It talks about capital crimes, taking life without due process. it is in the Constitution. How could one say, when there are multiple provisions explicitly providing for the death penalty, how could we reach over here and take a position on cruel and unusual punishment which was designed to prevent people from being hung on racks and tortured and that kind of thing? But that is the ACLU position. This nominee, who is going to be given a lifetime appointment, the power to interpret the Constitution on this very real issue of national import that good lawyers know about, refused to state that the Constitution is clear, that the death penalty is legal. In fact, I note parenthetically that every Colony, every State had a death penalty at the time, and so did the United States Government. Surely the people, when they ratified it, had no idea that somebody coming along in 2000 would create the view that the Constitution prohibits the death penalty. I also asked Mr. Martinez whether he agreed with the President's so- called empathy standard, but rather than state flatly that empathy should play no role in decisionmaking, as did Justice Sotomayor when she came up--she flatly said no, a judge has to be impartial; one should decide it on the facts and the law, not on feelings--he said that empathy ``can provide a judge with additional insight and perspective as to the intent and motivations of the parties appearing before the court.'' Empathy, to me, is far too much like politics, far too much like something other than law. It is certainly not law. When a nominee such as Mr. Martinez, who has dedicated so much time and legal expertise to the ACLU, refuses to answer basic questions about these issues, it is fair and appropriate to conclude that perhaps he agrees with the other positions of the ACLU. I have done a little checking on that. What is this organization of which he is a member? Some people like the position they take on this issue or that issue. But what overall are some of the policy and legal positions taken by the ACLU? Over the last several decades it has taken positions far to the left of mainstream America and the ideals and values the majority of Americans hold dear. Roger Baldwin, the ACLU's founder, was openly vocal about his support and belief in ``socialism, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the State itself as an instrument of violence and compulsion.'' He was quoted as saying: I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the profited class and sole control by those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal. Mr. Baldwin's influence and impact on the ACLU could not be overstated. As former ACLU counsel Arthur Hays says: The American Civil Liberties Union is Roger Baldwin. As I mentioned earlier, the ACLU opposes the death penalty under any circumstances, even for child rapists. They filed a brief recently in Kennedy v. Louisiana arguing that a State could not apply the death penalty to a child rapist regardless of the severity of the crime or the criminal history unless the child died from his or her injuries. Here the defendant had raped his own 8-year-old stepdaughter and caused horrific injuries that a medical expert said were the most severe he had ever seen. The defendant had done the same thing to another young girl within the family a few years earlier. Even President Obama, when the case came before the Supreme Court, said he opposed that view. Yet President Obama continues to nominate a host of ACLU lawyers to the Federal bench and presumably has some sort of sympathy with the views they have been taking. In recent years, the ACLU has litigated on behalf of sex offenders, including suing an Indiana city on behalf of a repeat sex offender who was barred from the city's park after he admitted stalking children who played there. Even though the convicted offender had admitted that he thought about sexually abusing the children in the park, the ACLU sued to give him full access to the park and the children. I agree with the mayor of the city who said: Parents need to be able to send their children to a park and know they are going to be safe, not being window shopped by a predator. I would hope all nominees would share this view rather than the ACLU's position on the subject. Although many view the ACLU as a neutral defender of the Bill of Rights, the ACLU takes a very selective view of the rights it advocates. That is just a fact. Otherwise, if they were defending the Constitution and what it says plainly, they would defend the constitutionality of the death penalty. It should not take them 2 seconds to figure that out. They have an agenda. As it explains on its Web site, the ACLU openly disagreed with the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in the Heller case--the right to keep and bear arms--in Washington because the ACLU does not believe the second amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms. Well, OK. So the lawyers might disagree on that. But if this institution, this ACLU, is so committed to constitutional rights and opposes the power of the State, why would they not read the plain words of the second amendment: The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Why wouldn't they defend that individual right of free Americans to be armed and oppose the power of the State to take away what has historically been an American right? I think it represents and reveals a political agenda as part of this organization. It also has a selective view of what exactly is protected by the first amendment. It has done some good work on the first amendment, the ACLU has, but it has gone to great lengths to limit freedom of religion, as provided for in the first amendment, suing religious organizations and groups such as the Salvation Army and even individuals and supported the removal of ``under God'' from the Pledge of Allegiance and ``in God we trust'' from our currency. It sued the Virginia Military Institute to stop the longstanding tradition of mealtime prayer for cadets. You do not have to bow your head if you go to lunch and somebody wants to have a prayer. Nobody makes you pray. But if other people want to take a moment before they partake of their meal and, say, acknowledge a bit of appreciation for the blessings they have received, what is wrong with that? I do not believe it violates the first amendment. The Constitution says that you cannot establish a religion in America, and we cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion either. The establishment clause and the free exercise clause are both in that amendment. But the ACLU only sees one. They see everything as an establishment of religion. The ACLU has also argued for the removal of religious symbols and scriptures from national parks and monuments and cemeteries that have stood for years regardless of how innocuous they may be. I am very surprised we do not have the ACLU filing a lawsuit to deal with those words right over that door: ``In God We Trust.'' It won't be long. They will want to send in gendarmes with chisels to chisel it off the wall. It is an extreme view of the first amendment, and has never been part of what we understood the Constitution to be about. The reference in a public forum to a ``higher being'' is not prohibited by the Constitution--except in the minds of some extremists. So the ACLU has argued for the removal of all vestiges of Christmas, going so far as to sue school districts to bar them from having Santa Claus at school events and threatening to sue if Christmas carols are sung anywhere on school grounds. Give me a break. In addition, the ACLU has sought to limit or remove the rights of children to salute the U.S. flag, recite the Pledge of Allegiance, and openly pray. It has sued the Boy Scouts--I am honored to have been an Eagle Scout at one time in my life--and government entities that have supported this honorable institution. It has sued them. It has fought for the rights of child pornographers and against statutes seeking to stop its production and distribution or limit children's exposure to it. The ACLU absolutely not only opposes adult pornography laws, they oppose laws that prohibit child pornography, which is where so much of the problem of pedophilia occurs. The ACLU has sought to overturn the will of the people by challenging numerous State laws that define marriage as between a man and a woman and has encouraged city mayors across the country to openly defy State law by granting same-sex marriage licenses, even in contradiction to law. It has vehemently opposed the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, calling it ``a deplorable act of hostility unworthy of the United States Congress.'' That passed a year before I came here--not too long ago. It just said that if one State allows a marriage to be between members of the same sex, another State would not be forced to acknowledge it and recognize it. That is what the Defense of Marriage Act did, and it passed here not too many years ago. The ACLU has consistently opposed all restrictions on abortion--all restrictions--including partial-birth abortion, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, and statutes requiring parental notification before a minor child can have an abortion. If they want to defend the innocent against wrongdoing, what about defending a child partially born whose life is taken from them? The ACLU's extreme advocacy on abortion would force even religious health care providers--doctors and nurses--to perform abortions as a condition of Medicare or Medicaid reimbursement eligibility. A doctor could not say: I will treat you, but I don't do abortions. Oh, if you take Medicare or Medicaid money, then under the ACLU's position, you would have to do so. According to the ACLU: There is no basis for a hospital to impose its own religious criteria on a patient to deny [her] emergency care. So this type of religious liberty is not, I think, what the Founders said. I do not think a hospital that is founded on personal values and has certain moral values should be required to give them up as a capitulation to State domination, which is what they were asking for actually, having the State be able to tell a hospital that did not believe in abortion. What about other issues that may come up, such as end-of-life issues. Hospitals ought to be able to have--and doctors and nurses should be able to have moral views about those matters and not do something they think is wrong and not have to give up their practice or their hospital in order to comply with what this group thinks is the right way to do business. So those are some of the examples of the ACLU's out-of-the-mainstream point of view. It is no secret that this administration shares this kind of legal reasoning. This is, of course, one of a long line of ACLU nominees whom we have seen, and this kind of reasoning and legal thought is well to the left of and out of touch with the American people and, I think, for the most part, established law. It seeks to impose its liberal progressive agenda any way it can, including by filing lawsuits and having judges--unelected lifetime appointed judges who have been popped through the Senate--ratify what the people who filed the lawsuits want to achieve as a matter of policy, not being neutral umpires who adjudicate disputes and decide them narrowly but to try to use the courts as a vehicle to advance an agenda. That is what has really been at the core of the debate in recent years over judicial nominations. So it is not surprising that many of the President's judicial and executive branch nominees have been deeply involved in the ACLU--many of them. For example, President Obama's first nominee, Judge David Hamilton, who was confirmed to the Seventh Circuit last year, was a leading member of the Indiana Civil Liberties Union for 9 years, where he served as a board member and its vice president for litigation. Judge Gerard Lynch, who now sits on the Second Circuit, was a cooperating attorney and member of the ACLU for 25 years. Judge Rogeriee Thompson, who was confirmed to the First Circuit earlier this year, had been a member of the ACLU for 10 years. Judge Dolly Gee, who now sits on the District Court for the Central District of California, had been a member of the ACLU for 9 years. Carlton Reeves, who was confirmed two days ago to the Southern District of Mississippi, was a member for 12 years and served as a board member. Three of President Obama's most controversial judicial nominees have had extensive involvement with the ACLU. Edward Chen, nominated to the Northern District of California, was a staff attorney on staff and member of the ACLU of Northern California for 16 years. Goodwin Liu, a professor, one of the most extreme nominees now pending, was nominated to the Ninth Circuit, already the most activist circuit in America. He was a member of the board of directors of the ACLU of northern California for years. Jack McConnell, nominated to the district of Rhode Island, was a volunteer lawyer for the ACLU as recently as last year. A number of nominees who were recently considered by the Judiciary Committee also have significant ties to the ACLU. Amy Totenberg, nominated to the Northern District of Georgia, has been a member for 21 years. Robert Wilkins, nominated to the District of DC, was also a member. Michael Simon, nominated to the District of Oregon, has been a member since 1986. He served on the lawyers committee and the board of directors and as its vice president for legislation and vice president for litigation. That is more than I thought when we started going back and looking at this. I am sure less than 1 percent of the lawyers in America are members of the ACLU, but it seems if you have the ACLU DNA, you get a pretty good leg up on being nominated by this President. It is clear the President, our President, a community activist, a liberal progressive, as his own friends have described him, and former law professor is attempting to pack the courts with people who share his views and who will promote his vision of, as he has said about judges, what America ``should be.'' That was his phrase. He said, We want judges who help advance a vision of what America should be. But that is not good. We all have visions of what America should be. I wish to see us be a more frugal nation, more local government, more individual responsibility. I do not support cradle-to-grave government. His vision is what? That we want judges on the bench promoting an agenda because they were picked by a President who shares that agenda? That is not the classical American heritage of what judges should be about. Judges should take the bench and they should attempt, as objectively as they possibly can, having put on that robe and having taken an oath to do equal justice to the poor and the rich, and to be not a respecter of persons, but to analyze that case objectively and decide it based on the law and the facts, not on their empathy and not on what their vision of what America should be because it may not be what the people's vision is. Democracy is undermined if a judge gets on the bench and feels that they can promote visions. I have to tell my colleagues, they are not appointed to be vision promoters. They are appointed to decide the strict matters of law and fact, to the best of the ability the Lord gives them. We can't stand idly by and allow that heritage of law that benefits us so greatly, the American rule of law and the greatest strength this Nation has, in my opinion, to be altered by promoting a Federal judiciary that is agenda oriented. Any individual--regardless of the position to which they have been nominated, to what kind of court position they are nominated to--who demonstrates unwillingness to subordinate his or her personal views, religious, political, ideological, social, liberal, or conservative. Conservatives can't promote their views, either--if they can't be faithful to the law and the Constitution, they should not be on the bench. I am not going to support such nominees and no Senator should support them. I have given it a lot of thought. I know Mr. Martinez has had a long affiliation with the ACLU. He refused to give clear answers to these questions I posed to him. I am not convinced that those views, which I think are outside legitimate constitutional theory, have been objected to and are not by Mr. Martinez--indeed, it appears he supports them because he has not with clarity rejected a single one. He has not made any defense to participating in an organization that openly advocates these kinds of legal views. We ask a lot of the nominees: Do you believe the Constitution prohibits the death penalty? They said, No. Even though they were part of an organization and some of them--a lot--have been confirmed and I have voted for a number of them, but I am not able to vote for this one. I have to say this: We are paid to judge and to vote, and when it comes down to some of the positions taken by the ACLU--let's take the one that the Constitution prohibits the death penalty--are so extreme and are so nonlegal that if a person can't understand that, I have serious doubt that they can understand any other significant constitutional principle. Therefore, I have concluded I would not be able to support the nominee, although I respect my colleagues who think he will do well. I certainly don't think he is a bad person. I think he is an able person who has a wonderful background, but his legal history evidences an approach to law that I think is outside the mainstream and I will oppose the nomination. We are not blocking a vote. We will allow him to have his up-or-down vote and Senators will cast their vote based on how they conclude it should be decided. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I was pleased to yield to the majority leader and just observe that although we do fuss a lot around here, many things are done by agreement. Senator Reid has obviously talked with the Republican leaders and reached this agreement on how we can proceed on some of these matters, and I was pleased to yield to him.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would ask to be advised after 4 minutes have lapsed. Mr. President, I think Senator Risch is correct and Senator Chambliss is correct to make the point that tactical nuclear weapons are more available for theft and to transship than strategic nuclear weapons, and it is a high priority of the United States to reduce the risk of terrorists obtaining weapons of this kind, and this treaty does nothing about that. It does nothing about tactical nuclear weapons, which the Russians do care about. It is a big part, apparently, of their defense strategy, and they gave not one whit on it; whereas our President, who says he wants to move toward zero nuclear weapons in the world--a fantastical view, really, and one that endangers our country and would create instability around the world and create more national security risks--did not negotiate this in any effective way. I think that was a failure of the treaty, a failure of negotiations, and another example of the fact that we wanted the treaty too badly for what, I guess, are primarily public relations matters rather than substantive matters. That is just the way I see it. So the Russians have been steadily reducing their strategic weapons, we are reducing ours, and this strategic relationship has been moving along. There does not have to be a treaty. We would like to have a treaty. I think the Russians would probably like to have a treaty. But it is not essential that we have one if they will not agree to some of the things that are important, such as tactical nuclear weapons. I do think this is a weakness in the treaty, and I am disappointed our negotiators didn't insist on it. As Mr. Feith said, who negotiated with the Russians, and they made a number of demands on a previous negotiation over the SORT treaty in 2002: You just have to say no, and then you can move forward once the Russians know we are not going to give. But they will push, push, push until they are satisfied you are not going to give on it, and then they will make a rational decision at that point whether to go forward with the treaty or not go forward with the treaty. He said no on curtailment of missile defense in 2002. The Russians insisted, insisted, insisted, and he said, finally, no treaty. We don't have a treaty with China, we don't have one with England, we don't have one with India, and they have nuclear weapons. We don't have to have one. We would like to, but we don't have to. At that point the Russians conceded and agreed. So I don't think we negotiated this well at all. We do not need to continue with this large disparity of tactical weapons between the United States and Russia, and I appreciate Senator Risch's raising it. I will perhaps talk a little later about the national missile defense question in President Obama's letter, but President Obama's letter----

Mr. SESSIONS. On my time or yours?

Mr. SESSIONS. I am not giving up any of mine. I want to finish this 1 minute on the subject of the President's letter. What it fails to acknowledge is that we were on the cusp of implanting a GBI in Europe by 2016, and that was completely given up in the course of these negotiations. This is the same missile we have in the ground in Alaska and California. That was given up, and we are now proceeding with a phase four theory that might be completed by 2020, if Congress appropriates the money for the next five Congresses and some President who is then in office--not President Obama 10 years from now--is still supportive and pushes it through and Congress passes it. So this is a big mistake. We made a major concession on national missile defense and even put words in the treaty that compromise our ability to do the new treaty. The statement from Putin that we will be obliged to take action in response did not say just GBI; it also referred to the capabilities of an SM-3 Block IIB, which would be what the President said is going to be deployed in 2020. I thank the Chair, I thank Senator Risch, and I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, under the previous discussion we had, I had been authorized to use 15 of our 45 minutes, and I would ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for 15 minutes.

Mr. SESSIONS. I assume this will be counted against our time.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.