Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I thank the chairman of our committee. He is doing what I would do if I were in his place, in saying: Let's give this nominee an up-or-down vote and let's have a debate on it. Our leaders are working on that, and perhaps that can be accomplished. But it must be noted that this is a nominee who has some controversy. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. SESSIONS. I would say as to the question raised by my esteemed colleague, I respect his economic judgment, but I respect the economic judgment more of Mr. Zandi of Moody's, Mr. Blinder of Princeton, and Mr. Taylor of the Taylor rule. They all have said without exception: Do not raise taxes in this economy, and those persons who might be making higher incomes most likely are the people who have the most employees and could be affected. They could pay for that by reducing employees. I would also cite him Mr. Peter Orszag, President Obama's own former budget director. Therefore, I object.

Mr. SESSIONS. I will be brief, but I do appreciate so much the comments of the Senator from Tennessee. He is one of our most valuable Members. He is an honest person. He can summarize complex matters in ways even I can understand. I think he stated honestly and fairly where we are today. Not only did President Obama's own Office of Management and Budget Director, Peter Orszag, say we ought to keep the rates where they are, not go up on the upper income people at this time of economic stress and job loss, not raise taxes on them--although my colleague is saying that somehow if we pass this legislation it would be a bonus. For 10 years these rates have been at this level. We are talking about raising the rates if we don't take action. I am going to recall that Senator Alexander serves on the Budget Committee, as does Senator McCaskill. We worked hard on some important legislation together that I think will be helpful in containing spending. We recently had a Budget Committee hearing a few months ago. I think Senators Alexander and McCaskill were there. We had three premier, exceedingly well-known economists testify, two called by the majority and one called by the Republican minority. That is sort of traditional. We had Mr. Zandi from Moody's, Allen Blinder of Princeton, and John Taylor of the Taylor rule. The violation of his rule by Mr. Bernanke was a significant factor in the bubble in housing. But Mr. Taylor was a Republican witness. All three said: Don't raise taxes now in this economy. It is offensive to me a bit to have my colleagues stand up and in a demagogic way say: You are trying to give a tax benefit, a bonus to millionaires. I don't believe that is accurate. These three premier economists, two of them called by the Democratic majority, said: Don't raise taxes. Do you think these economists were saying this because they want to help millionaires, or do you think they were making that opinion because they believe it would be best for the economy and help more Americans who are out of work get work?

Mr. SESSIONS. And Mr. Orszag was a former Congressional Budget Office head and also was chosen by President Obama when he first came to office for that significant, premier center of the government, the Office of Management and Budget, a student of these issues, far more liberal in ways than I would be in a lot of matters. But he has indicated he did not think we should raise taxes now that he has left the administration.

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator for sharing those thoughts. I would say it is concerning that this gets boiled down to some sort of an idea that we are just trying to protect the rich. What we are trying to do is to do something to help this economy to allow the private sector to create jobs and reduce this unemployment, which is maddeningly remaining at very high, unacceptable levels. Everybody, all the economists and others, tells us the economy will not come back until we have a lower unemployment rate. Raising taxes is not the way to lower unemployment, and we are talking about a significant increase to 39.6 percent on upper income taxpayers. These are small businesspeople. I met one gentleman who has 10 fast food restaurants and 200 employees. He told me with the health care bill and the stress he is seeing, he expects to be laying off 70 of those employees. We do not need to even be laying off 7. We need to be able to hire more, if we can, so we can have more people working. Then we have, in addition, a 2.9-percent increase on upper income people, a 2.9-percent additional tax for Medicare. That makes the total tax rate about 42.8 percent or 42.6 percent. Plus, my State of Alabama has a 5-percent income tax. That makes it 47 percent. Some have 10 percent income tax. Then we pay sales taxes. Then we pay property taxes, and other taxes, gasoline taxes and those things. So the idea that we can just continue to ratchet up taxes without consequence to the economy is not accurate. I do remember and would say one more thing. I talked to a businessman at an airport of an international company. He is the CEO for North America. He told me they had sought to obtain an environmental chemical process in the United States at their plant, and he thought he had won it. The people in Europe, who evaluate the proposals--it would have added 200 jobs in my State of Alabama--they said: Sorry, you have lost because you did not count taxes. And tax rates are higher in the United States than for the competing company. They had plants all over the world. This other plant, in another country that had lower taxes, was going to get it. We lost 200 jobs in the United States as a direct result of higher taxes. So I just want to repeat, it is an absolute myth that we can just raise taxes on productive enterprises and small businesspeople who do a subchapter S and take their money directly rather than through corporate taxes; that we can raise those taxes and it will not have a job impact. It will have a job impact. That is why all three of the economists who testified before the Budget Committee--two of them Democrats--said: Don't raise taxes now. That is why Mr. Orszag said: Don't raise taxes now. I see my colleague seeking the floor, and I am pleased to yield.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I am honored to bring to the attention of the Senate the work of a remarkable American and constituent of mine, Mr. Ron Hayes, of Fairhope, AL. As blessed as we are to be living in America, we would do well to remember that our society continues to be enhanced through the noble efforts of those who tirelessly and passionately pursue a better quality of life for us all. These often unsung heroes seek only the reward of knowing they have transformed our laws and our land for the better. Today I wish to honor one such individual who has spent nearly two decades advocating for strengthened workplace safety regulations and timely communication between the government and accident victims and their families. His efforts have made a difference. Ron Hayes began his journey to improve workplace safety in 1993 when he lost his beloved 19-year-old son, Patrick, to a grain silo accident in Florida. Facing tremendous emotional pain, Ron and his wife Dot sought details of their son's death as well as survivor's benefits from local, State and Federal agencies, only to be met with delays and few answers. After 2 years of navigating the bureaucracy, they resolved to learn everything they could about workplace safety standards and sought ways to improve both job safety rules and enforcement. Ron Hayes' dedication resulted in the revision of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's, OSHA, grain handling standards. But this was only the beginning. Ron and his wife founded the Families In Grief Hold Together ``FIGHT'' Project, a nonprofit group devoted to assisting families and workers cope with the consequences of workplace accidents and deaths. Some 10,000 people lose their lives while working each year. Ron Hayes worked with OSHA to create a policy which the agency often uses in communicating with family members after a workplace accident. Since its founding, the FIGHT Project has reached out to nearly 800 families, providing valuable help in the grieving process, negotiating the red tape and ultimately in healing. Ron Hayes could have stopped there, but his dedication to improving worker safety has motivated him to speak to almost 50,000 workers and taken him to some of the largest companies in the world. He has testified before Congress on numerous occasions and has served as a special adviser to the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. In the process, Ron Hayes has received many awards for humanitarian efforts. I commend Ron Hayes' selfless dedication to worker safety while providing comfort and valuable counsel to families. In our society it is possible for one person, or in this case a husband and wife, to make a difference that will positively impact the lives of millions. Ron Hayes has shown us that a lone voice for good cannot only be heard but it can change society for the better.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I wish to take a moment to honor an exceptional program in Alabama. For many young men and women, their experiences during World War II were a profound time in their lives. This Nation owes a debt of gratitude for the sacrifices of those Americans who left their families and lives behind to go ``fight the good fight''. The Honor Flight Network was established to honor the remaining WWII veterans and provide them a trip to the WWII Memorial in Washington, DC which was built in their honor. The Honor Flight Tennessee Valley program, which also serves northern Alabama, began in the summer of 2006 and flew 14 WWII veterans on their first flight on April 4, 2007. Their final mission was on September 11th, 2010. In this time, Honor Flight Tennessee Valley has flown over 1,300 WWII veterans to Washington, DC. This could not have been accomplished without the leadership and outstanding efforts of the president and founder of Honor Flight Tennessee Valley, Joe Fitzgerald. His organizational skills and ability to put a plan together were essential to the overall success of the program. Joe put a special emphasis on honoring the veterans who died before they were able to make the trip to DC. I am thankful that these revered veterans were able to come to our Nation's Capital to be recognized and remembered for their individual sacrifices. Among the most important of the historic sites they visited was the new World War II Memorial, which honors the 16 million veterans who served in the Armed Forces of the United States, the more than 400,000 of our finest Americans who gave the ultimate sacrifice for our Nation, and all who supported the war effort from home. I have met many Honor Flight groups from all over Alabama at the WWII Memorial. Without exception, they are men and women of character and positive spirit who love their country and thoroughly enjoy the visit. They also have not asked for recognition but are humbled and thankful for this honor. Visiting these veterans is one of the most enjoyable things I get to do as a Senator. On behalf of my Senate colleagues and the State of Alabama, I thank these veterans for their service to the United States of America and am proud of the work Honor Flight Tennessee Valley and the Honor Flight Network have done for our WWII Veterans.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. That is correct.

Mr. SESSIONS. I would be pleased to yield.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the World Economic Forum recently published its global competitiveness survey. It shows that the competitiveness of the United States has declined from first place in the world to fourth place since President Obama took office in January. What is the main reason for this decline? Too much debt and too much spending. There are other reasons, but that is the primary one they cited. I would suggest that the proposals to drive up the cost of energy by regulation and cap and tax--supposedly to create green jobs-- are another form of anticompetitiveness that hurts our productivity as a nation. A study of Spain, which has some of the most powerful alternative energy proposals and has taken some of the most dramatic action, has shown that even though there are green jobs created, the overall rise in the cost of energy in Spain has cost that nation more jobs than were created by the green activities. According to the Washington Post, a senior economist at the World Economic Forum said: It was government debt and the country's overall economic outlook that pushed the United States down. The article goes on to note: Government debt affects a country's competitiveness by limiting its ability to respond to crises or to make infrastructure and other investments that could boost future productivity. It may also lead to higher interest rates. I would note also that the EU has a corporate tax rate of 19 percent, whereas the United States has a corporate tax rate of 35 percent, and that costs jobs in America. I talked to a CEO recently who said that 200 Alabama jobs were lost because of the higher corporate tax rate in the United States. We cannot sustain that. How high is our debt today? It is $13.6 trillion or $44,000 for every man, woman, and child in America, and it is 93 percent of our gross domestic product, which is significant because a famous study produced earlier this year by economists Kenneth Rogoff and Carmen Reinhart demonstrated that economic growth slows substantially--it reduces GDP growth by 1 percent--when debt exceeds 90 percent of GDP. We are already over that. And when our economy is only growing at 1.6 percent--as it was in the second quarter--an extra 1 percent is a lot when you are talking about growth. They talk about a new normal where we may be showing only 1, 2, 3 percent growth for years to come. So if you lose a percent based on debt, that is very damaging to the American economy. Well, do we have a plan to reduce it? Have we taken any steps? Actually, the President's budget makes the problem worse. It shows that the gross debt by 2019 would go to $23 trillion--106 percent of GDP. Look at this chart on interest payments. It is so stunning that I think every American needs to examine it. It reflects the analysis by the Congressional Budget Office, our professional budget office that serves us, the leadership of which is hired by the Democratic majority. They are good people, and this is what they have calculated. In 2009, the interest we paid on all the debt in this country was $187 billion. By 2020, they calculate that the 1 year's interest payment would be $916 billion--almost $1 trillion. This is a stunning figure. Last year, the baseline budget--or at least 2 years ago--on highways was about $40 billion. I think the spending on education totally is about $100 billion. So we are talking about $900 billion in interest now because the public debt will triple from last year to 2019 under the budget submitted by the President. You would think we would be talking about that in Congress and we would be dealing with a budget and plans to try to bring that under control, would you not? Surprisingly, we haven't had any real discussion about the budget this year. Indeed, we haven't debated the budget on the floor of the Senate at all. This will be the first year since the modern budget process was created in 1974 that Congress has not even considered a budget. It was not brought up. It has not even been produced here.

Mr. SESSIONS. I would be pleased. I see my colleague from Mississippi is here.

Mr. SESSIONS. If the Senator wants just 1 minute, I would----

Mr. SESSIONS. That is correct, and I thank my colleague for mentioning that. Senator Claire McCaskill, my Democratic colleague from Missouri, and I have offered legislation that would essentially take the budget that was submitted last year, which had a 5-year number. The first-year numbers were not very good. I will show some of the spending increases last year in our baseline accounts. I know my colleagues will find this hard to believe because it is so stunning, but the State Department and Foreign Operations got a 32-percent increase in baseline spending last year. EPA got a 35- percent increase. Commerce, Science, Justice, that is, the Commerce Department and the Justice Department, received 12.3 percent. The Treasury-HUD number was 23 percent; Agriculture, 8; and Defense, 4.1. So we have been spending rapidly, but the budget called for less spending this year and next year and the next year. It was a 5-year budget. So we asked our colleagues: Let's, on a bipartisan basis, pass legislation very similar to what was passed in the 1990s. That really was a critical act in achieving a balanced budget in the late 1990s, and this action would say that if you went above that spending level, which is basically projected to be 1 percent or so, it would take a two-thirds vote of the Congress. This would help us maintain spending, wouldn't my colleague agree, if we had a two-thirds vote?

Mr. SESSIONS. Well, I think that is important to note, and I would further note that every single Republican supported the McCaskill- Sessions amendment, but also 18 Democrats supported that. I believe that if we had the leadership just say yes instead of no, it would pass easily. It would be a healthy thing because it would send a message to the financial markets worldwide that we at least have some fiscal discipline, and it would be very unlikely that spending would go above this level if we had a two-thirds supermajority point of order to object to spending over that level. I would note that the amendment is supported by a number of bipartisan groups, including the Concord Coalition, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, the National Taxpayers Union, the Heritage Foundation, former Congressional Budget Office and OMB Director Alice Rivlin--she served under President Clinton--and former CBO Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin. So this is a bipartisan piece of legislation that would bring us to a point that, I believe, we can say to the world that we are going to stand by the numbers the President gave us last year-- not Republican numbers but the President's numbers. Remember, the baseline budget increases are already there. So I think what we are really going to have to do--when we really get a budget and get some new leadership and get committed after this election, when we get a spanking by the American people--is to get budget numbers based on the 2008 spending levels. It will not bankrupt us. The country is not going to sink into the ocean. If we went back to the 2008 levels, the 2007 levels, and then had some modest increases based on inflation rates, we would see an even larger improvement in our financial situation and be more competitive.

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I wish to speak about the Senate's processing of judicial nominations, and I ask you to forgive me if I am a bit irritable, but we have had a lot of complaints about how fast President Obama's nominations are going forward. I think they are moving rather well. I think some people who are now complaining have forgotten how they handled President Bush's nominees--and in a much more unacceptable fashion. I wish to emphasize that all of this is not to lay the groundwork for some sort of payback, because I think we all ought to rise to the challenge of handling nominations properly, but to set the record straight, because there has been a lot of misinformation and some of our newer Senators don't know how things have happened. Allegations of unprecedented obstruction and delay have been bandied about--some in the press also--but the reality is that the Democrats' systematic obstruction of judicial nominees during the Bush administration was unprecedented then and it is unmatched now. Soon after President Bush was elected, a group of well-known liberal professors--Laurence Tribe, Marsha Greenberger, and Cass Sunstein--met with the Democratic leadership in the Senate. The New York Times reported on that meeting. I believe it was in January, before the session began, and the Times reported that they proposed ``changing the ground rules'' of the confirmation process. They proposed that with a Republican President and Democrats in the Senate, Senators consider a nominee's ideology--their personal political views, I suppose, they meant. For the first time in the history of the country, they proposed that the burden be shifted to the nominee to prove they are worthy of the appointment instead of having the Senate respect the presumptive power of the President to make the nomination and then object if there was a disagreement. As time went on, it became clear that a majority of the Democratic Members of the Senate began to execute their unprecedented obstruction plan, targeting President Bush's circuit court nominees while moving district court nominees to mask the obstruction. After Democrats took control of the Senate in 2001, the Senate confirmed only 6 of President Bush's 25 circuit court nominations that year. Two of the six were prior Clinton nominees that President Bush had renominated as an act of good faith. They weren't his nominations. He renominated them and they promptly confirmed them--two of the six. The majority of President Bush's first nominees--nominated on May 9, 2001--waited years for confirmation. Let me list some of the names: Priscilla Owen, who was then on the Supreme Court of Texas--a brilliant jurist--was confirmed but only after 4 years, on May 25, 2005. These were in that first group. Now Chief Justice John Roberts--a fabulous nominee; probably--not probably, he was the premier appellate lawyer in America--was nominated to the DC Circuit. He was confirmed, but only after 2 years and after undergoing two Judiciary Committee hearings. He eventually was confirmed by a voice vote. Jeffrey Sutton, another superb lawyer with great skill in the appellate courts, was confirmed but only 2 years later. Deborah Cook, for the Sixth Circuit, was confirmed 2 years later on May 5, 2003. Dennis Shedd was confirmed more than a year and a half later. Michael McConnell, for the 10th Circuit, was confirmed more than a year and a half later but also by voice vote--he was delayed that long for no reason. Terrence Boyle waited almost 8 years until his nomination was allowed to lapse at the end of President Bush's Presidency. He was never confirmed. Perhaps the most disturbing story was that of Miguel Estrada, whose name was raised during the Supreme Court nomination of Justice Kagan. He was an outstanding, highly qualified nominee who was nominated on May 9, 2001, just like the others, right after President Bush took office. He waited 16 months just for a hearing in the Judiciary Committee, only to be confronted with demands that the Department of Justice turn over internal legal memoranda that had never been turned over before. They used that for 2\1/2\ years, leaving him in limbo, and then had a protracted 6-month filibuster. I think it was the first overt, direct filibuster of a highly qualified nominee the Senate had seen. This was one of the ground rule changes that occurred. There were seven cloture votes on Miguel Estrada, seven attempts by the Republicans to produce an up-or-down vote on the floor of the Senate on Miguel Estrada. It went on for weeks. I participated in that. I probably spoke on his behalf more than any other Senator. Eventually, Mr. Estrada withdrew his name from consideration. He had a private law practice to deal with. He could not continue this. I remain baffled today as to why such a fine nominee was treated so poorly, his character assassinated, and his nomination was ultimately blocked for no reason. The record that they claim needed to be produced from the Department of Justice was, by every former living Solicitor General--they said those are internal lawyer-client documents that should not have been produced. It was a sad day. I hope the Senate has learned from that unfortunate event. One of the most blatant examples of obstruction of Bush nominees occurred in the Fourth Circuit. This court sat one-third vacant. One- third of the judges had retired, and it was vacant. They needed judges. I did not hear any of my Democratic colleagues worrying then about vacancies and caseloads when they were deliberately delaying and blocking outstanding, well-qualified nominees to that court, including Federal District Court Chief Judge Robert Conrad, Judge Glen Conrad, Mr. Steve Matthews, and Mr. Rod Rosenstein. They deliberately blocked these nominees to keep those vacancies open so that a Democratic President would perhaps have the opportunity to fill them. That actually turned out to be a success, from their perspective. A 2007 Washington Post editorial at the time lamented the dire straits of the Fourth Circuit at the time, writing: [T]he Senate should act in good faith to fill vacancies-- not as a favor to the president but out of respect for the residents, businesses, defendants and victims of crimes in the region the Fourth Circuit covers. Two nominees--Mr. Conrad and Mr. Steve A. Matthews--should receive confirmation hearings as soon as possible. But they did not. He was the chief presiding trial judge in a district court, a Federal district court. He was nominated to the seat for which President Obama's nominee, Judge James Wynn, was confirmed on August 5 of this year. They held that seat open for 8 years. Since the President has been in office, he nominated someone else, and he got his nominee confirmed by this Senate. Chief Judge Conrad had the support of his home State Senators and received an ABA rating of unanimously ``well qualified,'' the highest rating you can get. He met Chairman Leahy's standard for a noncontroversial, consensus nominee. He previously received bipartisan approval by the Judiciary Committee and was unanimously approved by the Senate to be U.S. attorney and later to be district court judge for the Western District of North Carolina. Of all the lawyers in the country, Attorney General Reno, when he was a Federal prosecutor, reached out to him and picked him to preside over the investigation of one of the campaign finance task force cases that implicated, perhaps, President Clinton, the President of the United States. He did that investigation professionally. He returned no indictments against the President or his top people. He was respected on both sides of the aisle. Yet he was flatly blocked, although representing the highest quality. On October 2, 2007, home State Senators Burr and Dole sent a letter to Senator Leahy requesting a hearing--at least a hearing on Judge Conrad. They also spoke on his behalf at a press conference on June 19 that featured a number of Judge Conrad's friends and colleagues who traveled all the way from North Carolina to show their support. The request for a hearing was denied. On April 15, 2008, Senators Burr, Dole, Graham, and DeMint sent a letter to Senator Leahy asking for a hearing on Judge Conrad and Mr. Matthews. That request was denied. Despite overwhelming support and exceptional qualifications, Judge Conrad waited 585 days for a hearing that never came. His nomination was returned to the President on January 2, 2009. That was a horrible event, in my view. The Senate failed in its duty. Judge Conrad was a powerful, bipartisan nominee with great credentials and served Attorney General Reno and the Democratic President and should have been confirmed. Another of President Bush's outstanding nominees was Judge Glen Conrad. He also had the support of his home State Senators, including Democratic Senator Jim Webb of Virginia, and received an ABA rating of ``well qualified,'' the highest rating. He, too, met Chairman Leahy's standard because he had already been confirmed to the District Court for the Western District of Virginia by a unanimous vote--89 to nothing. Despite his extensive qualifications, Judge Conrad, who was nominated on May 8, 2008, waited 240 days for a hearing--just a hearing in the committee--that never came. His nomination was returned to the President in 2009, as President Bush left office. In stark contrast, President Obama's nominee to this seat, Judge Barbara Milano Keenan, received a hearing a mere 23 days after her nomination and a committee vote just 22 days later, and she was confirmed at the beginning of this year--a slot that should have been filled by Mr. Conrad. President Bush nominated Steve Matthews in 2007 to the same seat on the Fourth Circuit to which Judge Diaz has now been nominated. Mr. Matthews had the support of his home State Senators and received an ABA rating of ``qualified.'' He was a graduate of Yale Law School and had a distinguished career in private practice in South Carolina. Despite these qualifications, he waited 485 days for a hearing that never came. His nomination was returned to the President as he was leaving office. That does not seem to slow down my Democratic colleagues who have forgotten all this, I guess, and their allies in the press from unabashedly complaining that Judge Diaz had been waiting too long for this seat, for a confirmation vote, or decrying the need to rush to fill the vacancy--a vacancy that just has to be filled right now. The truth is that the vacancy should never have existed if Mr. Matthews had been confirmed when he was supposed to have been confirmed. Earlier this year, we confirmed Judge Andre Davis to the ``Maryland'' seat on the Fourth Circuit. A brief history of that bears mention. President Bush nominated Rod Rosenstein to fill that vacancy in 2007. The ABA rated him unanimously ``well qualified,'' the highest rating. Previously, he had been confirmed unanimously as the U.S. attorney for Maryland. Prior to that, he held several positions in the Department of Justice under both Republican and Democratic administrations. Despite these stellar qualifications, Mr. Rosenstein waited 414 days for a hearing--just a hearing in the Judiciary Committee, which the Democrats never gave him. His nomination was returned to the President on January 2, 2009. The reason given by the home State Senators for why his nomination was blocked was that he was ``doing [too] good [of a] job as U.S. Attorney in Maryland.'' I think the Washington Post editorial painted a more accurate picture, saying: Blocking Mr. Rosenstein's confirmation hearing . . . would elevate ideology and ego above substance and merit, and it would unfairly penalize a man who people on both sides of this question agree is well qualified for a judgeship. But it was only when President Obama nominated Judge Davis to this seat that we heard our Democratic colleagues express outrage over the fact that it had been vacant for 9 years. I said that was like the man who complained about being an orphan after having murdered his parents. Ironically, however, Judge Davis fared far better than President Bush's nominees to the Fourth Circuit. He received a hearing a mere 27 days after being nominated. A committee vote occurred 36 days later, and he has been confirmed. Suffice it to say that the Democrats have capitalized on their 8 years of obstruction of outstanding, well-qualified Bush nominees by packing the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals with Obama-picked nominees. I want to say, parenthetically, President Bush did an excellent job of picking high-quality judicial nominees. Consistently, they sought out highly competent men and women of integrity and ability to appoint to the courts, people who had this fundamental belief--that some on the other side do not like--that a judge should follow the law, should be a neutral umpire, and should not take sides and ought not to be an activist and ought not to promote their personal agenda when they get a chance to rule and define the words of statutes and the Constitution. There is a fundamental difference. I will talk about that later. I may not get to that today, but I am going to talk about it some more. It is a big deal, what you think the role of a judge is. Should they be an activist? Should they promote greater vision, as President Obama said, of what America should be? Is that what we want judges to do? Classically, in America, judges are empowered to do one thing: to decide the discrete case before them objectively, impartially, under the laws and Constitution of the United States. The Democratic Senators perpetrated similar systematic obstruction in the Sixth Circuit. I hate to say it. I hate to talk about it. I sound like I am being a partisan person over here, complaining. I am just reading the record. In November of 2001, President Bush nominated Judges David McKeague, Susan Neilson, and Henry Saad to fill vacancies on that court. In June of 2002, he nominated Richard Griffin to fill an additional Sixth Circuit vacancy. Mr. President, I see my time is up. I don't see anyone on the floor. I ask unanimous consent that I be able to proceed.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I will yield the floor if and when my colleagues seek it. But the Democratic home State Senators refused to return their blue slips for any of these nominees for the Sixth Circuit. President Bush renominated all four on January 2003. This time the Democratic home State Senators returned their blue slips--negative blue slips, opposing all four nominees. Despite this, on July 30, 2003, 629 days after the initial nomination and 204 days after his renomination, the Republican-controlled Judiciary Committee--Republicans had just taken control--held a hearing on Judge Saad's nomination. However, Democrats continued to delay the nomination for a year, until he was finally and favorably reported out of committee on a party-line vote. But it did not matter. The Democrats filibustered his nomination on the floor, and he never received an up-or-down vote in the Senate. He was filibustered, which was a changing of the ground rules. We had not filibustered judges before in the Senate. All this occurred after 2001. President Bush renominated Judge Saad in February 2005, but the Senate failed to act on his nomination, and he was never confirmed. Judges Griffin and McKeague eventually received hearings on June 16, 2004, 721 days after Judge Griffin had been nominated, and 951 days after Judge McKeague's original nomination. They were both reported favorably out of committee a month later, but the Democrats filibustered them on the floor, and their nominations were returned to the President. Both were renominated in the 109th Congress and were finally and overwhelmingly confirmed, Judge Griffin by a vote of 95 to 0 and Judge McKeague by a vote of 96 to 0. As these votes show, the nominations were not controversial. They were just being held up. Yet they still waited over 1,000 days for their confirmation. Judge Susan Nielson received a hearing on September 8, 2004, over 1,000 days after her original nomination and over 600 days after her renomination. Although her nomination was reported favorably out of committee on October 4, 2004, Democrats refused to give her an up-or-down vote in the full Senate, and her nomination was returned to the President. He renominated her in 2005, and 7 months later the Democratic home State Senators finally returned positive blue slips, after delaying the nomination for this long. She was easily confirmed 97 to zip, 1,449 days after her original nomination. Unfortunately, Judge Nielson passed away shortly thereafter. On June 28, 2006, President Bush nominated Stephen Murphy and Raymond Kethledge to fill still more vacancies on the Sixth Circuit. However, the Democratic home State Senators withheld their blue slips, and the nominations were returned to the President. The President renominated them in March of 2007. After almost a year of delay, as part of a compromise, President Bush agreed to withdraw Mr. Murphy's nomination and to nominate Judge Helene White in his place. In exchange, home State Senators finally returned positive blue slips for Mr. Kethledge. There is a story behind this. Why was there so much needless obstruction in the Sixth Circuit? One reason, it appears, was that the NAACP National Defense League made a personal request to Democratic Senators on the Judiciary Committee that they stall the confirmation of nominees to the Sixth Circuit until cases regarding the constitutionality of affirmative action in higher education were decided. They believed, apparently, that if Bush appointees were confirmed to that circuit, the outcome of the cases would not be to their liking. They were afraid President Bush's judges would be committed to color-blind policies. So this is just one example of a larger agenda. Our Democratic colleagues criticized, during the Kagan confirmation hearings, Chief Justice Roberts' metaphor that a judge should act like a neutral umpire in a ball game, calling balls and strikes and applying the law to the facts. No, they seem to want judges who will make policy and rule based on their personal policy preferences and political beliefs to advance desired outcomes. Well, what is activism? Is this an exaggeration? I think we need to be frank that there are activist judges--and you can be a conservative activist or a liberal activist, but there is a difference in the sense that liberal judges and law professors and commentators advocate judges being activists. Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito were articulate spokesmen for the classical American view that a judge should be a neutral umpire and should be impartial and should decide the cases and not try to make law or advance a vision for America. Many judges, however, are overriding the will of the people this very day. It is becoming apparent that many on the left hold the Federal judiciary as an engine to advance the agenda of the left, picking and choosing which constitutional rights they will protect and which ones they will cast aside. The only consistent principle--of which sometimes I think, and I am exaggerating, but I sometimes think--is to advance the agenda of the leftwing of the Democratic Party. That is about the only consistent guiding principle you can find in some of these opinions. Just a few months ago, the preservation of the explicit constitutional right to keep and bear arms was upheld by a single vote on the Supreme Court. Four Justices, including Justice Sotomayor, contrary to, I think, what she said just 1 year earlier in her confirmation hearing, would have held that the right to keep and bear arms is different from other liberties protected by the Bill of Rights and should not apply to the States. Hugely significant. If that were to be so, any State, any city or county, for that matter, could ban firearms altogether because the constitutional right to keep and bear arms would not apply to them. Four Justices on the Supreme Court ruled that way. During the last term, the free speech clause of the first amendment barely escaped being rewritten by a single vote in Citizens United. In that case, the Supreme Court invalidated a portion of the McCain- Feingold campaign finance law, holding that political speech is not exempted from the first amendment guarantee of free speech merely because the speaker's expression is funded, in part, by money from a corporation, a group of Americans. Four Justices on the Supreme Court would have rewritten the free speech clause to allow the government to ban statements made by such groups in an election cycle. I mean, the last thing we need to be doing is whacking away at the great liberties in free speech clause of the first amendment. Just a couple years ago, one vote on the Supreme Court decided that a city could use its eminent domain power to take property, to take a woman's house, in order to give it to a private company for a redevelopment project, not for public use. So much for the constitutional guarantee of life, liberty and property and the constitutional guarantee that your property can only be taken for public use, not private use. You cannot take somebody's property because you would like to take it to give to somebody else who would use it in a way that the city thinks is better, maybe spend more money on it so they can get more tax revenue. By one vote, the Supreme Court held it did not violate the first amendment for a public university to require a religiously oriented student organization to accept officers and members who do not subscribe to the organization's religious beliefs. How could they say that? Recently, a judge in the Western District of Wisconsin, the same district to which Louis Butler has been nominated, held that the statute establishing the National Day of Prayer was unconstitutional because its sole purpose ``is to encourage all citizens to engage in prayer.'' In so doing, the judge held that the government had ``taken sides on a matter that must be left to individual conscience.'' Well, nobody is being made to pray. You do not have to bow your head if someone has a prayer, for heaven's sake. One wonders, then, does this Senate violate the establishment clause each day when we open the session with a prayer, most often led by a paid Chaplain, former head of the entire Chaplain Corps of the United States Military? There is a constitutional guarantee to the right of free exercise of one's religion, the free exercise clause, not found in the first amendment of the judge's constitution. I will repeat, if other Senators would desire to speak, I will yield the floor. The liberal Ninth Circuit, to which Professor Goodwin Liu has been nominated, held recently that the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in an elementary school was unconstitutional under the establishment clause of the first amendment because the pledge includes the words ``under God,'' and amounted to a government endorsement of a religion. One wonders what the Ninth Circuit would have to say about teaching children the Declaration of Independence. After all, it does say: ``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.'' Is that now unconstitutional, to read the Declaration of Independence? A single judge on the U.S. district court in Massachusetts recently invalidated the congressionally passed Defense of Marriage Act that passed on this floor. I remember the debate about it. The judge found it unconstitutional. Basically, what he said is: No State would have to give full faith and credit to a marriage in another State if it does not meet their definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. The judge, in great wisdom, not having had to run for office, with a lifetime appointment, unaccountable to the public in any way, objected, found it to be unconstitutional because it did not have ``a legitimate government interest'' and was outside the scope of ``legislative bounds.'' Well, I remember the debate on that. People quoted the Constitution, and we discussed it at great length. I cannot imagine how that can be held to be unconstitutional. A single judge in the Northern District of California, the same court to which Edward Chen has been nominated, held that a statewide ballot initiative defining marriage--this was a California initiative, statewide, that defined marriage as between a man and a woman, which was passed by a majority of California voters--violated the due process and equal protection clauses of the fourteenth amendment. The judge decided, essentially by fiat, that the State, the people of California, had no legitimate interest in defining marriage. Marriage has always been a matter of State law. A single judge in the central district of California recently held Congress's don't ask, don't tell policy was unconstitutional. This is the policy on gays in the military. The judge in the central district of California held that this policy was unconstitutional because it did not ``significantly further the government's interest in military readiness or unit cohesion.'' It was an impermissible content-based restriction that violated free speech, free association, and the petition clauses of the first amendment. I don't think this judge has any responsibility for or knowledge about readiness and unit cohesion in the military. It is a matter Congress appropriately has dealt with, will have the opportunity to deal with again, and may well do so, although we did not move forward yesterday. This is not a matter for the courts. The American people know this. They sense activism in their courts, and they are concerned and unhappy because these judges, once they declare something to be constitutional, or find something in the Constitution, it is as if an entire amendment was passed, and it becomes impossible for a city or county, a State or congressional action to overturn it. These are big issues we have been talking about for some time. I do have my back up a little bit about being accused of obstructing, when nominees are moving along at a very good pace today, in my opinion. A few are controversial, and I could talk about them, but I see Senator Kerry in the Chamber now. I believe when we get all the facts out, people will remember that many of the changes in the process occurred as a deliberate plan by the Democratic leadership in 2001. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, this is a policy of the President of the United States. He determined to change the policy that has been in effect for quite a number of years, and by all accounts has been working very well. All four service chiefs favor keeping that policy. He selected Admiral Mullen. He selected Secretary Gates, who has not been an enthusiastic supporter of this change, frankly. He has gone along with the Commander in Chief who appointed him. He has indicated that we ought to have a study first--made a commitment, really, to our men and women in uniform that there would be a study first, and we are not running an objective study. So Admiral Mullen did testify he personally believed this was a change that ought to be made. But the Army Chief of Staff, General Casey; the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Roughead; Air Force Chief of Staff Schwartz; the Commandant of the Marine Corps, General Conway; and now General Amos--who just testified this morning will be replacing General Conway--oppose it and believe we owe it at least to the men and women in uniform to study the impact this might have. I just believe it is not necessary to ram this through this fast before we complete a study. I oppose that. We had reports of a general--he has denied how he was quoted in the Washington Times, General Bostick, in Europe, who made statements that upset a very large group of people--he is a personnel general, three stars--about how everybody had to go along with this agenda, be on board with it, and suggested, according to the article, you would not be able to stay in the military if you were not endorsing this proposal. He said it was the equivalent of civil rights and you were being a bigot if you somehow had a different view. I just think that is dangerous. To say this is not going to have a corrosive impact on the men and women in the military is a mistake. I think it is being raised up in importance and being raised up in the potential to damage the military by the fact that it is being rammed through before a fair and objective review of the policy is conducted. I believe that firmly. If this is going to be changed it ought to be done respectfully, carefully, not moved through right now on this bill because of fear that the study will not be positive and it will not be able to be passed next year, maybe after the American people have sent some new Senators to this Senate. Maybe then it will not be so popular and have so much support. I am frustrated that I would have to vote against moving to the Defense authorization bill. Last year was the first time I did that because attached to the bill was an unrelated, controversial hate crimes piece of legislation. I voted for bills that had other stuff in it I didn't agree with, but I try to be supportive. But I will not, and I urge my colleagues not to allow the Defense bill to be a train that carries through controversial, unpopular pieces of legislation. It is just not the right thing for us to do, and we are going at it again this year. We have had a tradition of bipartisan support of Defense bills. I guess the first 12 years I was here we have always had massive bipartisan support, and I have signed them. This action is overriding that tradition. It is not helpful. I will just note, as the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, I am very disappointed that the majority leader has made clear that one of the amendments he is going to approve for us to vote on would be the controversial, unpopular DREAM Act that has not had a hearing--at least in years that I can recall--in the Judiciary Committee where it should be--to give amnesty to people who came into our country illegally.

Mr. SESSIONS. I urge my colleagues to vote against moving to this bill until it is cleaned up and does not have this controversial legislation on it. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would like to share some thoughts about the surprising decisions that were noted in some of the media that the majority leader, certainly with the support of the administration, plans to introduce a very significant, very controversial, unacceptable amnesty amendment to the Defense authorization bill. The proposal is called the DREAM Act. A lot of people think this is legislation that we need to deal with, and some have supported it over the years. It has been coming up for quite a number of years and never passed. So what do we have now? We have a scheme to bring it up, not having had it go through the committee process. The bill was introduced March 2009. I assume that is what Majority Leader Reid plans to bring up, but we have not been given the amendment language. So they have got this DREAM Act proposal. They want to add it to the Defense bill, and put it on a bill that is so important they think the Congress will pass it anyway. Pass it as part of the Defense bill. We are weighing down the Defense bill--I am on the Armed Services and Judiciary Committees where both of these matters have come up. They want to weigh down this armed services bill with controversial legislation that ought not to be on it, to jeopardize it and put us in a position where a lot of good people who otherwise want to support the bill will not be able to do so, No. 1. No. 2, let's talk about the DREAM Act. The American people have every right to be unhappy with this Congress. They have every right to be unhappy with the President of the United States. This Congress and this President have not shown any inclination to end the massive lawlessness that is occurring at our borders. We have learned that. We went through this debate several years ago. I was engaged in it deeply, spent a lot of time and effort on it, and the message the American people sent to us, when they shut down the switchboards in this Senate by so many phone calls, was border security first. We have got to end the lawlessness. So when you take a policy that says you are going to reward people who have entered our country illegally with a guaranteed pathway to citizenship, and with billions of dollars in financial aid or benefits they would not otherwise be entitled to, what message are we sending? We are sending a message, as we have too often sent year after year after year, that we are not committed to a lawful process of immigration in our country. Let me say, a lot of people some years ago thought that we could never get to a legal system of immigration. And we can. We have made some progress. We have built a fence--not all that was supposed to be built, but the fencing has helped. We have done some things that have helped, but we are not there yet. I believe there is a national consensus out there--polling data shows it. My conversation with my people in my State and around the country in airports and so forth indicates that what we have to do is end the massive illegality and then we can begin to talk about people who have been in our country a long time. I am not saying that is something that should never be talked about and dealt with. But in 1986, this country said, well, we have got a lot of people here illegally. What we have got to do is to make them all legalized and that will end the problem, see. Everybody will be legal then. We do not have a real problem anymore. We promise we will enforce the law in the future. Well, the amnesty took place immediately and the ending of illegality did not occur. In fact, illegality increased dramatically. Why? Because the message that went out, not the words that were said by politicians on the floor of the Senate, but the real message that went out around the world was, Americans do not care if you get in the country illegally and if you can stay there for a while, you are going to get amnesty too. It is the same people today who are making the same argument. It cannot sustain scrutiny. It cannot sustain any critical analysis. It will not work. It is a failed policy. Look at the DREAM Act. It would eliminate the statute passed a little over 10 years ago in 1996 that said, if you are in the country illegally, you should not be given in-State tuition. A really big deal. Oh, it is mean spirited. If you are in the country illegally, I am not sure what you should be entitled to, but certainly not discounted tuition or Pell grants, or student loans. The first thing you do when you want to end illegality on immigration policy is stop subsidizing it, for heaven's sake. Stop subsidizing it. What kind of mixed message is it when you have people in the country illegally and you give them special benefits, including Social Security and other benefits too? They will be given a green card that has certain conditions. But, in fact, basically, I would say if you do not commit a felony, you are put on a guaranteed path to citizenship. Well, oh, you have to go to school or get a GED or be enrolled in a community college. What happens when you do these kind of things? I mean, there are people here who have nephews and nieces, children not in this country. They read that we passed such a bill as this. Why would they not think, well, I need to see if I can get my relatives in, my grandchild or whoever, in this country illegally. They are not allowed to come in. Everybody else has to wait in line, maybe hire lawyers to make sure they can get their entry into the country legally. I will bring in my niece, my nephew, and they will qualify for this act in a few years. Why would that not increase the amount of people who would come into the country illegally? It certainly would do so. We have discussed these issues before. This is a bogus policy. And after a few years, you are placed on a path to become a full citizen of the United States, ahead of millions of people who waited in line dutifully to get their citizenship. It is a reward for illegality. You can spin it any way you want to. We discussed this for years in this body. It will not stand scrutiny. It is not good policy. I understand some of my colleagues are saying this is somehow relevant to the Defense bill, because there is an option to serve in the military for two years that will put you on a path to citizenship. Well, there are programs already for people who join the military to enhance their ability to get citizenship. But this bill is plainly legislation that has been kicked around here for a decade, at least, and it has never been brought up as a Defense bill. It has always been brought up as an immigration bill, which it plainly is. So now to come in and try to say it is somehow connected because of this minute possibility, that 5 percent, probably at most, would demonstrate their educational advantage through the military is a stretch. I want to repeat: What is happening here? This administration, it has been reported, is having internal analyses done to determine how amnesty can be given without congressional action. They have announced recently that people apprehended in our country illegally will not be deported unless they have committed a felony, presumably DUI or larceny, misdemeanor theft. So as long as you do not plead guilty to a drug felony, that will not lead to deportation. That is the kind of action that eviscerates enforcement. We do not need to be having that kind of policy in our country. We had the spectacle, shortly after President Obama was elected, when a hard- working, honest ICE agent conducted a raid at a company in Bellingham, Washington and found a whole bunch of people there illegally working, and it caused an uproar. Secretary Napolitano said, I am going to get to the bottom of it. Was she getting to the bottom of this company that hired a bunch of illegal aliens? No. She was going to get to the bottom of how it was that a law enforcement officer actually had the gumption or the initiative to go out and try to enforce the law in this country. They announced a policy based on campaign promises they had made during the campaign that they were not going to do that anymore. And, presumably, I am not aware of any that have been conducted since. They have people from immigration advocacy groups running to the administration in high concern--you promised us you would not enforce this kind of law. What do the American people think about this? They are not happy. People should not be happy about it. We are a nation of laws. We need to end the lawlessness. I was a Federal prosecutor for 15 years. I know something about how this has played out, and I have looked at it closely over the last decade. It was not something I chose to be involved with. We almost had to raise a question and begin to examine it. What I have discovered is, the potential is there, it is within our grasp, to be able to end this massive lawlessness and create a lawful system. At that point, we will be able to involve the American people and then ask how should we treat people who might have come here young and have been here quite a number of years? How should they be treated? But to do anything that creates a guaranteed path to citizenship for people who are here illegally now will only undermine the progress we have made in enforcement in recent years. People can wish things were different. But in my analysis, we simply have to follow through on the law of the land, to end the lawlessness. We may need to pass legislation to help, and we will. But we also have to have the will of the Commander in Chief, the chief law enforcement officer, the President of the United States. We have to have the support of the majority leader of the Senate, the Speaker of the House, and the majority party in the Senate. They have to be committed to ending lawlessness. Are they or are they not? They will say they are. But I would say this DREAM Act gimmick, this manipulation to stick it on the Defense bill is a clear statement that they are not committed to it. In fact, what they are committed to is a political plan to assuage some campaign promises made last time and to provide another method of legalizing those who have entered the country illegally. That is not right. What are we going to do? Let's get busy. Let's end the lawlessness now. We can do this in a few years. It is not going to break the bank. I have been there and looked at it and studied it. If we followed up on the gains we have made, we would make even more and be in a position to wrestle with these kinds of issues. My concern is the following: First, it ought not to be on the Defense bill. It ought to come through in the regular order and in the light of day so people can have hearings and testimony, and citizens who are concerned about it on either side can have their view and their say. Secondly, we don't have the money. Estimates I have seen have indicated that this bill, amazingly, could cost the Treasury of the United States $19.2 billion just for the first 2 years. Where are we getting that money from? We are already in record deficits, having almost doubled the debt, and will triple the debt in 8 more years. We are going to add another $19 billion to subsidize illegal activity? In addition to that, Social Security entitlement benefits, welfare, Pell grants, student loans, all those would be added to the cost also. Are there any funds to investigate whether someone is qualified? It may be that the average American hearing this debate says: These people came here at age 3. They should qualify for in-state tuition, even if they illegally came here. But those qualifications, coming here at that age, is not the requirement, first. No. 2, they only have to prove they have been in the country for 5 years. How do they prove it? They produce false documents. This is commonly done. How do they prove they came here at age 14, age 12? They may or may not have documents. Do you think the FBI is going to take a document submitted to the immigration people to justify qualifications under the DREAM Act? Does anybody think the FBI is going to investigate to see if these are forged documents? Nobody is going to check this out; they don't have time. There is no money in the legislation to do so, no requirement that I can see to do so. I know illegal immigration causes significant social and emotional problems throughout society. Some would say the way to remedy it is to not let anybody suffer any consequences as a result of violating the laws of the United States. Just don't enforce the laws. Reward the people who came in here illegally. Don't do anything about it. Of course, on the surface that is untenable. But when you come up with a plan that simply says if you are in our country illegally, you don't qualify for in-state tuition, or you don't get subsidized student loans if you came into the country illegally, this is seen as harsh and mean spirited and should not occur. But great governments have to decide how they are going to conduct their business, and they have to decide whether we are going to end this lawlessness and have a lawful system of immigration. This country, by the American people, has made up its mind. They have told the Congress what they want. But the arrogance, the total disrespect of the decent, honorable plea from the American people to end the lawlessness and create a system we can be proud of is surprising to me. I would think the Congress, after all we have been through, would have understood that the plea of the American people is not mean spirited. It is not unfair. It is quite legitimate and decent. We believe in immigration. We want immigrants to come to the country. We believe they should apply. We believe people who qualify should come here before people who do not qualify. That is what America is all about. That kind of legal system is one of the things that attracts people all over the world to come here. It should not be undermined. If we do the right thing, we will reject this amendment. Hopefully, it will not even be brought up. Please, I hope it is not brought up. It is just going to cause a lot of frustration and tension on the Defense bill that ought to be focused on the men and women in harm's way and how to help them do their job better and more safely. I hope it does not come up. But if it does, it needs to be voted down. We need to tell the President, tell his Secretary of Homeland Security and his ICE department, tell Members of Congress we are tired of fooling around. Let's get busy and complete the job and create a lawful system of immigration of which we can be proud. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the significant threat prostate cancer poses to the male population in the United States. The American Cancer Society estimates that more than 217,000 American men will learn that they have prostate cancer in 2010, and 32,000 American men will lose their lives to the disease this year, making prostate cancer the second most common cause of cancer death among men. One out of every six American men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer, and an estimated one in 36 men will die from this disease. African-American men experience a significantly higher incidence rate of prostate cancer than White males, and more than double the mortality rate. This disease is also affecting young Americans. Thirty percent of those battling prostate cancer are under the age of 65, prime years of productivity for families and for this Nation. Doctors across our country agree: early detection presents the best chance for a cure. However, this motto is more than good public policy for me. As a 10 year prostate cancer survivor myself, I know the value of early detection and surgery, and it is painful for me to know that many good people in this great country are not being diagnosed early and are therefore greatly increasing their risk. The simple PSA blood test can be the key to detection. Millions have taken advantage of it, but unfortunately millions do not. We must do better. Approximately 98 percent of men diagnosed with early stage prostate cancer are still alive after 10 years, but only 18 percent of those diagnosed with advanced stage prostate cancer survive 10 years. Increasing awareness of prostate cancer is particularly important to my home State of Alabama. Although we have world class medical research facilities at the University of Alabama at Birmingham and excellent doctors across the State, 3,300 men in Alabama will develop prostate cancer in 2010, and 600 deaths in our State will be attributed to prostate cancer this year. In May 2006, Alabama was one of 5 States to receive a failing grade in regards to its ``prostate cancer awareness'' by the National Prostate Cancer Coalition. A 2006 CDC study found that 38 out of 100,000 Alabama men die from prostate cancer, ranking Alabama 47th in the US. Every year since 2002, I have introduced a resolution to increase awareness about prostate cancer and to encourage men to talk with their doctors about this disease. I am pleased to partner with ZERO: The Project to End Prostate Cancer in promoting this year's resolution and other activities throughout the month of September to increase public knowledge about prostate cancer including risk factors, prevention, and treatment options. Last night the Senate passed S. Res. 597, a resolution to designate September 2010 as National Prostate Cancer Awareness Month. The purpose of this resolution is to bring attention to prostate cancer and encourage Americans to take an active role in the fight to end the devastating effects of prostate cancer on individuals and their families. I am honored to be joined on this resolution with 28 cosponsors, including Senators Bayh, Bennett, Boxer, Burr, Burris, Cardin, Casey, Chambliss, Cochran, Crapo, Dodd, Dorgan, Feingold, Feinstein, Hatch, Inhofe, Inouye, Isakson, Johanns, Johnson, Kerry, Landrieu, Lugar, Schumer, Shelby, Specter, Tester, and Vitter. I thank my Senate colleagues that have worked to increase prostate cancer awareness through this resolution, and I applaud the work of countless Americans who give up their time and energy to raise awareness of this disease and fight prostate cancer's impact on families and our Nation.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank my colleagues for this nice and valuable discussion. I will say that one of the unjustifiable actions of the judicial activist philosophy that is too much afoot in America today is their willingness to completely be oblivious to plain constitutional rights, things that are flatly stated, and then to create rights that do not exist. For example, the Constitution gives the right to free press, but we had Solicitor General Kagan arguing before the Supreme Court in defense of this campaign finance bill that a corporation could be prohibited from producing a pamphlet before an election that might be critical of a politician. I mean, that is what the first amendment was about. It wasn't about pornography or flag burning, for heaven's sake. It was about political speech, plainly in the Constitution. Yet we had four members of the Supreme Court--a vote in an opinion recently--who said the government could ban the pamphlets. Actually, another lawyer for the government argued you could ban books. The Supreme Court, by a 5-to-4 majority did, in fact, say that you could take a man's private drugstore--the government could--and give it to another man who had a competing drugstore; in other words, taking private property for private use. The Constitution says you can't take private property except for public use under condemnation. A plain violation, 5-to-4 approved. By two 5-to-4 decisions--the narrowest of margins--we had the plain constitutional right that Americans have to keep and bear arms hang by one vote. We have another example of a judge in California yesterday declaring that the Constitution somewhere says a State must declare that a union between same-sex couples has to be defined in the same way and recognized in the same way as a marriage, even after California had a referendum in which millions of Californians voted differently. A single judge, with no clear constitutional authority at all--in fact, no real constitutional authority--declared that invalid and wiped it out. So I would suggest that people who are using this court to promote their agendas need to be careful. Don't think you can play with the first amendment. Don't think you can play with the second amendment. Don't think you can play with the constitutional right to have your property not taken by the government except for public use. If you can start wiping those rights out, what right next will the Court come and take? What right next will the central government come and take from you? So if you love this Constitution and respect it and believe it is a great bulwark for freedom, prosperity, and liberty, I suggest there is only one way to handle it, Mr. President: enforce it as written whether you like it or not. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.