Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, let me ask the Senator, on that question, are the American people right or are the people who promoted this bill right? Are costs going up and is the quality of health care going down? What is the Senator's opinion?

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the week before last, we had the hearing on Elena Kagan for her nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court, which is a tremendously serious and important position. Five members of the Supreme Court--not just nine but only five--can redefine the meaning of words in our Constitution and really alter, in many ways, the very structure of our government. We have seen activist judges that I think have tended in that direction, and it is dangerous and harmful because judges are given lifetime appointments. They are not accountable to the public. They are protected. Even their salaries are not reducible while they serve in office. So we have to know and believe they will be neutral, impartial, unbiased, and will render judgments based on the law and the facts and not on any preconceived commitments they may have had. Ms. Kagan is now the Solicitor General of the United States. She has taken some sort of leave of absence in recent weeks since this nomination occurred, but she holds that title. The Department of Justice Solicitor General represents the U.S. Government in Federal court, usually before the Supreme Court, and in important cases before the courts of appeals and often is involved in setting legal policy for the United States and helping to advise on that. So it is important that the American people know, before she is confirmed--if she is confirmed--that she has not been involved in matters that would bias her and cause her not to be able to serve impartially under the law and under the Constitution of the United States. That is an important question. The day before yesterday, I believe, the Wall Street Journal had an editorial entitled ``Kagan and ObamaCare'' in which it raised questions about the objectivity she might bring to the Court and whether she had been involved legally in the discussions or drafting the ideas concerning the development and promotion of the health care reform bill so massively affecting health care in America. It raised the question: Should she recuse herself if that comes up, if she has been involved in that? I think that is a very important question. The seven Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee wrote yesterday and asked Ms. Kagan to give detailed explanations as to what extent she may have been involved in any discussions regarding the promotion or legality of the health care reform bill. I think we are entitled to that. It is an important matter. I see my friend Dr. Barrasso on the floor, who has been a great expert in our debates on health care reform. He has repeatedly explained how this legislation will impact health care throughout America. As a physician, he understands that, and he has been able to explain it to us in ways that any of us should be able to understand. In fact, he gave us some very serious warnings about the fact that the promises made for this legislation were not legitimate, weren't real, weren't accurate, and in study after study and report after report that has come out, Senator-Dr. Barrasso has been proven correct. The warnings he gave us that it is not going to reduce costs and that other difficulties will arise have been proven true--too much, in fact--and it is a matter of real seriousness. So I guess I wish to say that a judge should recuse himself or herself if their impartiality might reasonably be questioned on any matter that came before them. I believe Dr. Barrasso has raised previously his concern about what it really means if the U.S. Government tells an individual American citizen who is minding his own business that he has to have an insurance policy. I will recognize him at this point and ask him to at least share his thoughts on that important issue and why he believes having a fair judge on the Supreme Court is important.

Mr. SESSIONS. This is a fundamental question. The Constitution gives the U.S. Government the right to regulate interstate commerce, that is true. The Supreme Court, at times, has taken a most minimal effect on interstate commerce and says the Federal Government can regulate it. But I am not aware of a circumstance in which an individual in Wyoming, or Alabama, minding their own business and not participating in an interstate commerce health insurance policy in any way, and the Federal Government waltzes in and says you must participate in this in interstate commerce--you are not participating in it and they require that you do participate in it. If you believe--and there is only one view--that the Constitution is a government of limited power, it has only powers that are delegated to it--and they are enumerated powers--then have we crossed a divide here that we have not crossed before. That is why these lawsuits are being filed. They are very real. The one in Florida may be farther along than most of them; it is already out there. Ms. Kagan, at this very moment, sits as a Solicitor General of the United States--in title, if not fully acting--and was, I think, before this lawsuit was filed fully acting, and it impacts the Federal Government. The question we have asked that I think must be answered by her is exactly what kind of relationship and discussion she may have had concerning this legislation. First, I ask Senator Barrasso--and not being a lawyer can be a benefit in this body, but I assume from the tone of his comments that he is a little uneasy that this high official in the Obama administration--an administration that has committed the whole of its resources to the passing of this legislation--is now about to rise to the Court and would be asked to decide what could be a deciding issue of whether this health care bill stays law or is struck down. So without the niceties at this moment on recusal issues, does that make the Senator nervous?

Mr. SESSIONS. Well, I think that is exactly correct. I will say that whether or not being a high official in this administration, which is so committed to passing this legislation, whether that in itself legally requires a person to recuse themselves on the Supreme Court from hearing such a case, I am not prepared to say at this moment, but it makes me uneasy. I believe a judge who decides that question must be impartial and cannot be corrupted by friendship or empathy or bias in favor of the person who appointed them. That is important. Secondly, I ask Senator Barrasso, our question goes to a more specific situation that could mandate recusal, and that is whether the nominee has participated in any discussions, strategies, or making legal advice designed to promote this legislation. I think that would be a clear situation that would require recusal. Also, specific questions could come up regarding to what extent have these lawsuits that have been filed affected her and has she expressed any opinions concerning the lawsuits. Finally, I do not believe the President is entitled to launch onto the Supreme Court a political loyalist who will be a legal rubberstamp for anything that gets proposed, whether it is the takeover of AIG or of automobile companies or other things that may be decided. I think we need to be careful about this. This nominee needs to answer those questions because what the Senator is hearing is what I hear.

Mr. SESSIONS. I believe that is correct. The standard is, among other things, if your impartiality might reasonably be questioned--and many judges are very sensitive about this--if you own a bunch of stock and you have one share in a big company like GE, and a case involving GE comes before you, you are expected to recuse yourself, even though it is unlikely to have an impact on your finances. But it doesn't look good. I think we are entitled to know how sensitive this nominee is going to be to the dangers of her impartiality being questioned, even if her actions are not such that clearly, as a matter of judicial ethics, mandates her recusal. I think we need to talk about that, and I feel like the American people that we meet with, who are concerned about governmental overreach, who wonder if we have lost all sense of the limited power of this government in Washington, I believe those people are entitled to have absolute confidence that anybody confirmed to the Supreme Court will not sit on a case if they can't be impartial, or if their impartiality could even reasonably be questioned. I thank the Senator for his leadership on the issue, and I am glad we had this colloquy. I hope we are going to get a complete answer from the nominee soon about any involvement she may have had explicitly, and then to perhaps also inquire further about to what extent she will be prepared to not participate if her impartiality can be questioned.

Mr. SESSIONS. I think that is correct. I appreciate the way the Wall Street Journal expressed that. I think that is a legitimate position. I hope the nominee will take very seriously those concerns and will respond promptly to the questions we have asked of her. I ask unanimous consent that the Wall Street Journal editorial be printed in the Record.

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 ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the e-mails I made reference to earlier.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, how much time remains on this side?

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, since Ms. Kagan was nominated, President Obama and his administration have attempted to defend not only her discriminatory treatment of the military at Harvard but to do so through misleading and even untrue statements. Indeed, Vice President Biden said Ms. Kagan's policy was ``right,'' and he suggested she was merely following the law, both of which were not correct. The recent statements made by the White House after the release late Friday of relevant records on this matter are most troubling. The records not only prove Ms. Kagan deliberately obstructed military activity at the Harvard campus during wartime, but they reveal her actions were even more concerning than previously known. The White House continues to insist she worked to accommodate military recruiters--which is just the opposite of accurate--that she assiduously worked to follow the law--not so--and to ensure that Harvard law students could choose a career in the military service. Well, I guess they could, but she certainly was not furthering that opportunity. The documents revealed late Friday night show these statements are not accurate and really seem to be part of a campaign to rewrite what happened there. The documents show that Ms. Kagan reversed Harvard's policy--which allowed the military to come and recruit, as any other group would--without basis or notice, in order to block the access of the recruiters, not to accommodate them. That is not disputed. It shouldn't be disputed. The documents further show that she defied Federal law, forcing the Department of Defense to use its authority to bring Harvard into compliance. They had to threaten to cut off Harvard's money. They showed she did not ensure access to military careers and recruiters, but that the Office of Career Services prevented the military from even posting job openings on campus. They show that she sanctioned a demeaning second-class entry system for the military that the Department of Defense finally stood up to and said: No, that is intolerable and we will not accept it. The documents also show that Ms. Kagan continued to fight military recruitment even when her defiance of the law meant that Harvard could lose $\1/2\ billion a year. In a memorandum we obtained from the Department of Defense, Larry Summers--then president of Harvard, now President Obama's chief economic adviser--approved the entrance of the military recruiters fully on campus over the objection of Dean Kagan. Now, that is the fact. So this policy was designed to obstruct recruiters and not only to end recruiting on campus, really, but to punish and demean the military in an attempt to force them to change the ``Don't Ask Don't Tell'' policy. But that rule was not enacted by the military. It was enacted by Congress and Ms. Kagan's former boss, President Bill Clinton, in whose White House she worked for 5 years--without apparently any serious objection to his signing of the policy. Ms. Kagan's actions, combined with the fact that she had little to say about recruiting policy while working with President Clinton, raise questions about whether this is just a hostility to the military. They were just saluting and following the policy of Congress and the President. Why should they be blamed for this? Why should people who risk their lives to ensure Harvard's freedom be given second-class treatment on the Harvard campus? It was absolutely unacceptable then; it is unacceptable now. I was involved, and this Congress had to pass a new law, an updated Solomon amendment, to end this policy. And Dean Kagan was one of the leaders of the law school's efforts. That is just a fact. And to suggest otherwise is misleading. Here are some quotes from some of the e-mails that were released. Harvard Law School is delaying and providing a ``slow role'' to Air Force's efforts to recruit during the Spring recruiting season. Seems they have delayed sufficiently in providing permission that the Season may already be ``too late.'' That was in February 2005, when she was dean. In March 2005, this memo was written: The Army was stonewalled at Harvard. Phone calls and e- mails went unanswered and the standard response was--we're waiting to hear from our higher authority. How about another one? This was in April of 2006: We're all searching for a way to limit the polarizing nature of the anti Solomonites-- Those are the people who were trying to have the Solomon amendment passed in Congress thrown out-- who now rattle sabers over an intent to shout down the military. Dean Kagan is a case in point below as she reportedly ``encouraged students to demonstrate against the presence of recruiters . . . . (and to) express their views clearly and forcefully.'' Indeed, she sent out e-mails to students explaining why she thought this was so important. She was a national leader in this effort. Another e-mail, March 10 of 2005. This military person said he explained to Harvard that the Third Circuit opinion they were using as a pretext to not follow the law had issued a stay of injunction and the Solomon amendment remained current law. He goes on to say: I asked him if I could at least post a job posting via their office and he said no. He stressed that I could contact interested students via the Harvard veterans Student Group but that his office could not provide any support to us. So we need a fair and honest evaluation. I, for one, have frankly been disappointed in this administration's obfuscation, deliberately attempting to hide the nature of what happened at Harvard, because it was, in fact, inexcusable. The administration should not defend this. They should give her a chance. Maybe she would say she made a mistake; maybe she would defend it. But I can't imagine an administration would to want defend this kind of policy.

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank my colleagues for their remarks. It is worthy of all of us giving most serious consideration. Perhaps we have been too silent in failing to criticize some of the activities of Russia. We want to be friends with them, but good friends tell friends the truth. I believe my colleagues are speaking the truth.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the Judiciary Committee is now reviewing the record of Elena Kagan, President Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court. The truth is, her legal record is thin. She has never been a judge and has very limited experience even in the practice of law. She has never tried a case, never cross-examined a witness or made a closing argument in a trial. A lack of judicial experience is not a total disqualifier for the job of Supreme Court Justice, but it is true and fair to say this nominee has less real legal experience than any nominee confirmed to the Court in the last 50 years. That fact concerns me and many Americans. Ms. Kagan's lack of experience puts even greater emphasis on the central question in the nomination process: If confirmed, what kind of judge will Elena Kagan be? Will she take the traditional view that judges are impartial umpires who decide cases based on the rule of law under the Constitution? Or is she from the activist school, which teaches that judges may take sides and reinterpret the meaning of our laws to advance certain political agendas the judge may find acceptable or desirable or better? Are judges empowered to do that in the American system? The American people have a right to know. This is no time for a stealth candidacy to the Court. We know one thing. We know her political views are leftist and progressive. That is clear from her record. She has a rather extensive political record. But with no judicial record and little legal record, clues to Ms. Kagan's judicial philosophy can be found perhaps by looking at people she admires, her mentors, judges she thinks represent the best way of conducting their office. The three judges Ms. Kagan most often mentions are Judge Abner Mikva, Justice Thurgood Marshall, and former Israeli Judge Aharon Barak. Together I think it is fair to say these three judges represent the vanguard of a judicial activist movement that has certain intellectual roots and is quite afoot in our law schools and some of our legal commentators. Each of these judges affirms the concept that a judge's own views, their personal views, may--sometimes even should--guide their interpretations of the law. In effect, this philosophy argues that the outcome of the case is more important than the legal process that guides the decisions, more important than fidelity to the Constitution. These Kagan heroes believe judges should have the power to make law. This results-oriented philosophy raises questions about whether Ms. Kagan may see judicial power as a way to advance her philosophy. It is a liberal, big government agenda for America. She has been active in that philosophy throughout her lifetime. Let's look at some of her heroes in more detail. Judge Mikva is someone with whom she has been close. He was appointed to the bench by President Carter a number of years ago to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. She clerked for Judge Mikva in 1986 and 1987 and later worked for him in the Clinton White House. After he had resigned from the bench and came into the Clinton White House, she was hired to work with him in that office. On the day she accepted President Obama's nomination, Ms. Kagan noted that Judge Mikva ``represented the best in public service'' and that working for him was part of the ``great good fortune'' that had marked her career. He served five terms as a Congressman from Chicago, where he earned the reputation as ``the darling of American liberals.'' He has advocated for strict gun control, reportedly referring to the National Rifle Association as a ``street-crime lobby.'' He was a fierce opponent of the war in Vietnam and has said he supports the results in Roe v. Wade. The results. Regarding how to interpret the Constitution or statute, Mikva has said that for ``most law, there is no original intent.'' The general view is that one should find out what the law was intended to mean when it was passed. Some people dismiss that and are cynical about that, think that is an impossible goal. That is what Judge Mikva apparently believes. He has defined judicial activism as ``the decisional process by which judges fill in the gaps'' in the law and the Constitution. That is similar to President Obama's theory--which I think is flawed--that for ``the five percent of the cases that are truly difficult,'' the judge's decision depends on ``the depth and breadth of one's empathy.'' So the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in a judge's heart. Whatever a heart is, it is not the mind and it is not, therefore, objective judgment. It is more akin to something else. I have said this kind of thinking is more akin to politics than law. It is certainly not law, not in the American tradition of law. Ms. Kagan also clerked for Justice Thurgood Marshall, whom she refers to as her hero. Indeed, Marshall is a historic figure. He was courageous at a time when courage was definitely needed and an effective leader in the civil rights movement. He was a great attorney and a fierce advocate for his clients and his ideals. He could be a hero of anyone as an American advocate and a person who played a fundamental role in the breakdown of segregation in America. But he also became one of the most active judges on the Court in our Nation's history. In describing his own judicial philosophy, Marshall said that ``[y]ou do what you think is right and let the law catch up.'' He dissented in all death penalty cases because he and Justice Brennan declared the prohibition of ``cruel and unusual'' punishment that is in the Constitution barred any death penalty. That might sound plausible in one sense. But in truth, this can never be a fair interpretation of the cruel and unusual clause in the Constitution, since there are multiple references in the Constitution to the death penalty and how it should be carried out. How could you possibly construe the document as a whole to say that ``cruel and unusual'' prevents the death penalty? Well, they did not like the death penalty; Marshall and Brennan did not. They thought it was wrong. They thought the world had developed and moved forward to a ``higher land'' and they were just going to declare it and the law would follow. Well, according to Kagan, in Justice Marshall's view, ``constitutional interpretation demanded . . . that the courts show a special solicitude for the despised and disadvantaged.'' Certainly the courts should be sure that the despised or disadvantaged have a fair day in court. But the way this plays out, I believe, as suggested in the full remarks, is that it untethers the judge from the rule of law. I think it contradicts, in fact, the sworn oath of a judge, which reads ``I do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me under the Constitution and laws of the United States, so help me God.'' Even so, Ms. Kagan said that showing ``a special solicitude'' for certain groups was Marshall's ``vision of the Court and Constitution. And . . . it [was] a thing of glory.'' Well, it certainly represents a great vision for an advocate, but I do think we need to be sure that the judge who puts on the robe is going to follow their oath to be impartial and to decide matters based on the law and facts. But, interestingly, the judge Ms. Kagan praises the most happens to be perhaps the most activist judge on Earth: Aharon Barak, the former president--or chief justice--of the Israel Supreme Court. The respected Federal judge Richard Posner flatly described Barak as a ``judicial activist.'' Elena Kagan described him as her ``judicial hero.'' To judicial activists around the world, Aharon Barak is an icon. After inviting him to Harvard, Ms. Kagan called him ``a great, great judge'' who ``presided over the development of one of the most principled legal systems in the world.'' Her comments are troubling to anyone who believes in limited government and democracy and a limited role for judges. Under Barak, the Israeli court assumed extraordinary governmental power over the people of Israel. The basic democratic rights we take for granted in our country were ignored in his actions. The unelected court in Israel assumed the authority to set aside legislation and executive actions when there were disagreements about policy--not violations of the constitution, but disagreements about policy. It would alter the meaning of enacted laws and override even national defense measures. Judge Posner wrote that Barak inhabits ``a completely different--and, to an American, a weirdly different--juristic universe.'' He goes on to say: ``What Barak created . . . was a degree of judicial power undreamed of even by our most aggressive Supreme Court justices.'' Judge Posner compared Barak's actions to ``Napoleon's taking [of] the imperial crown out of the Pope's hands and crowning himself.'' Well, is that what we want in the Court? Do we want someone who sees this judge as one of the most admirable judges in the world? Do we want to allow a disregard for the limits of governmental power to further infect our own government? Is that disrespect for the views of ordinary men and women something to which we should aspire? In other words, do unelected, lifetime judges, who are unaccountable to the people--are they entitled to this kind of power? Is this progressive idea that ``experts'' know best consistent with the American view of individual responsibility and popular sovereignty? I think not. What is Judge Barak's judicial philosophy, as he expresses it? He has written that a judge's role ``is not restricted to adjudicating disputes'' between parties, as is required by the cases and controversies clause of our Constitution. Rather, he says: The judge may give a statute new meaning. . . . ``The judge may give a statute new meaning''-- a dynamic meaning, that seeks to bridge the gap between law and life's changing reality without changing the statute itself. The statute remains as it was, but its meaning changes, because the court has given it a new meaning that suits new social needs. Well, I would say that Justice Barak let the cat out of the bag. In America, activist judges firmly deny this is what they are doing, but in reality, often that is exactly what they are doing--just taking plain statutes and giving the words new meaning and making them say what they would like for them to have said had they written them in that given period of time. I believe that to the American people, those words, are offensive and strike at the heart of our democracy. I do not know how you would describe that philosophy, but I do not think it is law, not the law in the great American English tradition of law, a tradition that has attracted people all over the world because they believe they have an opportunity to achieve justice here. Again, I think it is more akin to politics, which should not be a judge's role. There is no place for politics in the courtroom. Perhaps we should not be surprised that Ms. Kagan--President Obama's nominee--so greatly admires someone who endorses a results-oriented approach, however, because President Obama's Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs, just recently described the President himself as ``results- oriented'' when it comes to law and judging. Amazingly, Gibbs said this about President Obama's view of judging: The president is a very pragmatic person who is far less wedded to the process and the mechanics of how you get something done and more wedded to what will the results be. He is results-oriented, Gibbs said. What do we mean by ``results- oriented''? Results-oriented judging can only mean that a judge enters the courtroom with a preconceived idea of what the results should be, even before he has reviewed the law or heard the facts of the case. And what kinds of conclusions do they have in mind before the trial starts? Well, it is based on the judge's political views or personal feelings about parties or issues in the case. What else could they be? He or she might suggest that those views are somehow provided to them as knowing better than anyone else and that they, therefore, have a duty to impose those ``wise'' ideas on the people and the parties in the case. But I think most of us are not so willing to acknowledge judges are any wiser than anyone else. And what if the Constitution does not support such a result? The judge simply would then declare the law to mean something other than it says. So that is the philosophy, I contend, that has been endorsed, frankly, by the President. I fundamentally disagree with his philosophy, which is also a philosophy shared by the heroes of Ms. Kagan. This nominee has a very slim legal record, and it is difficult to evaluate that. She does have a very clear liberal political record. What legal record she has seems to be outside the concept that a judge must serve under the law and under the Constitution. So it is fair to ask, Does she agree with her heroes? Does she agree with her President? Does she see her lifetime appointment to the Court as an opportunity to promote ideas she desires and then let the law catch up? To that question, we cannot simply accept a confirmation testimony: I will follow the Constitution. Too often, nominees have testified before the committee like Chief Justice John Roberts and gone on to rule more like Aharon Barak. Lipservice to the rule of law is not enough. Activists who have a postmodern view of the law think the Constitution really has no set meaning, there is no way to honestly interpret what it means. So it is easy for them to promise to follow the law because the law, to them, is something that can be changed. It is malleable. It is inexact. It is not finite. They can make it say what they want it to say. So the question is, Is that the approach Ms. Kagan will take at the hearing? And is that her basic philosophy of judging? She has written that judges should be forthcoming at the confirmation process, and I think we will need to talk about those issues. It is an important confirmation. It is not a coronation. This is a lifetime appointment. This young nominee could easily serve for more than three decades. Indeed, the man she is replacing is--if she lives to his age and serves to his age, she would serve 40 years. So I think she is entitled to fair and respectful treatment. She is entitled to have an opportunity to discuss and respond to the questions I have raised and others will raise. That is absolutely true, and we cannot use unfairness to besmirch a nominee. But we do need to know: Is this her philosophy of law? What kind of judge will she be? Isn't it true that a person's heroes tell a great deal about who they really are? Few would dispute that these heroes of hers represent three of the most well-known activist judges in the world. So I think the questions are important. As I have said before, I will oppose--and every Senator should oppose--any nominee who does not understand and fully accept that their duty is to serve, as the oath says, ``under the Constitution and laws of the United States.'' That is why I think it is only fair to state these concerns before the hearing. I hope my colleagues will be following it. I know our committee members are working hard. It is being a bit rushed, but we are doing our best to be ready next Monday to commence the hearing. I think it will be a good time. I look forward to it, and I hope people who see it will feel as if it was fairly conducted and beneficial not only to Senators, who must vote, but to the American public at large. I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask to be recognized to speak in morning business and to be notified at 7 minutes.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the legislation we have before us today and have been working on is problematic. It is just not healthy because it is going to increase the debt to a significant degree. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Democrats' first draft of the extenders bill--that is what we are calling this legislation--presented this week would have added $78.6 billion to the debt--another $78 billion. Total spending in that bill was $126 billion. They claim that $47 billion of this amount had been offset, meaning paid for. However, what we were not told is they were double counting many of the items. It was a manipulation. The numbers were worse than that. They were double counting some of the money and hiding the extent of the debt. There were just too many budget gimmicks, and the total impact of the bill, in truth, would have vastly exceeded the $78.6 billion that had been in the score. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the annual deficit for this fiscal year will be $1.5 trillion--$1,500 billion. This represents the largest annual deficit in the history of the American Republic. The CBO estimates that deficits will average--average--$1 trillion per year over the next 10 years under the budget as presented to us by President Obama. The lowest projected deficit in the 10-year period-- the lowest year--would be $724 billion. That is in 2014. The way the economy is moving, I have my doubts that would occur. In fact, a fair analysis of the entire amount would indicate those numbers are less than likely to occur, unless we make significant changes, which we should do. Last week, the gross public debt exceeded $13 trillion. This represents 89 percent of our GDP. So the debt of $13 trillion represents 89 percent of GDP. This is a serious matter. According to Carmen Reinhart's testimony before the Budget Committee--who studied this and has written a book about it--when gross debt exceeds 90 percent of GDP, growth in your country is reduced. What otherwise would be an economic growth of 3 percent would be reduced to 2 percent. You would have, in their estimation--Ms. Reinhart's and her partner, Mr. Rogoff's, book--it would knock off 1 percent of growth, which is huge. One percent of growth dragged down as a result of debt and interest is a huge matter. Interest payments rise--interest payments on the debt we have to pay. We borrow the money, we have to pay interest on it in the form of T- bills held by people. China and other places and individuals buy these T-bills. We pay them interest. Interest in 2010 will be $209 billion. As of September 30 of this year, when fiscal year 2010 ends, it will be $209 billion. The Federal highway bill is about $40 billion, the baseline highway bill. Just to give an indication, Alabama's general fund budget is less than $10 billion a year. We are an average-sized State, so $210 billion in interest is significant. Well, what happens at the rate we are going, with budget deficits averaging a trillion dollars a year for the next 10 years? According to the Congressional Budget Office, that calculates this out carefully, they estimate that interest in 2020--for that 1 year--just 10 years from now, would be $916 billion--the largest single expenditure in the Federal budget, and our debt will have tripled in 10 years under the President's budget. So this is clearly unsustainable; every witness, every economist, every person on Wall Street, every talking head you see on television says it is unsustainable. But we have not seen any action to get us off this path. How much longer can we go before we do something? The bullet, as one person said a number of years ago about a bank that went bankrupt-- they found out the Atlanta housing market collapsed, and he said: It was too late. The bullet was in the heart. When will the bullet be in our heart? When will it be too late to fight back? On Wednesday of this week, the Democratic majority--after having brought up their bill that I have referred to; and the Senate rejected this excessive debt and spending by a vote of 45 to 52--a number of Democrats said: No, we are not going for that, Mr. Leader. A vast majority of the Democrats supported the bill, but a significant number said: No, we are not going to keep doing this. So they have now proposed yet another version of the extenders bill, on Thursday, yesterday. This version would add $55 billion to the deficit instead of $78 billion. But the number is a distortion, and it is done as a result of double counting certain funds and simply shortening the time some of the provisions would take effect--not fixing it in a significant way. To pay for some of this spending, the Democratic majority proposes to increase the oil excise tax that funds the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund to 49 cents from its current 8 cents a barrel. So the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund was created to have a fund to pay costs that might relate in the future to oil--

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Acting President pro tempore and will wrap up. There is so much to be said about this. But I just wish to point out how the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund is a complete shell game. It is an absolute double counting of money, and it adds to the debt, and the debt of the bill in the way it has been scored hides the real impact. The legislation would increase the tax on oil but does not set aside the increased revenue and save it in a fund to clean up the oil spill in the gulf or other such disasters as it is supposed to. Instead, it takes the money and creates a paper trust fund but sends the money directly over to the Treasury in order to pay some of the spending in this package and is used to reduce the amount of debt they say the bill will create. Do you follow me? They claim they are creating a trust fund but at the same time using the money to fund the spending in this bill and claiming this money as income to justify that. Well, what is going to happen when the fund needs money to clean up a spill, which is what it was created for? Well, it is not going to be there because it is going to already have been spent. There is no dispute about this. This is absolute fact, and it is just another example of the recklessness and irresponsibility of the spending that is going on here. It is time for the American people to rise up and say to Congress: We need to have honest spending and restraint in spending. I thank the Acting President pro tempore and yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I know the majority leader has many challenges, and he certainly is entitled to respect to make this kind of announcement.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business and be notified in 5 minutes.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I wish to thank Senator LeMieux for raising this matter. I was at the Alabama gulf coast on Friday. We were told there was a batch of oil 30 feet wide, 2 miles long that they could see coming onto the shores of the beaches that had not yet been hit in any significant way. In my mind, a good skimmer, even at 1 or 2 miles per hour, could get every bit of that, virtually. I first thought skimmers wouldn't be that effective. I assumed the oil would be very thin and it would come in and be hard to skim, but apparently it is coming in patches and bunches, which makes it more skimmable than I had originally thought. The admiral, whom we spoke to less than an hour ago, indicated that he was requesting of the Navy, as I heard what he said, a certain number of skimmers, and they had 400, and we haven't gotten them yet. Perhaps some plan somewhere calls for them to have skimmers in this bay or this harbor in case something happens, but when we have a national catastrophe as we have going on, every one that could possibly be spared should have already been moved to the gulf coast. I really feel as though this is a frustrating event. It is more serious than I had realized. Also, I think there are several thousand worldwide that have not been asked for that could be asked for. So I think we can do better. I am going to find out if the decisionmaking process is so bureaucratic that for no good reason, we have been delayed in receiving help that could make a big difference on the gulf coast. I asked him about President Obama's speech last night. As a result, he made comments---- Mr. REID addressed the Chair.

Mr. SESSIONS. I would be pleased to yield.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Our Governor has called up 300 National Guardsmen, and I think it needs to be done under title 32, which is Federal status under State control. The President on Tuesday evening said: I have authorized the deployment of over 17,000 National Guard members along the coast. These service men and women are ready to help stop the oil from coming ashore, clean beaches, train response workers, or even help with processing claims, and I urge the governors in the affected states to activate these troops as soon as possible. Well, the Federal status under State control is the procedure by which the Guard people operate under State control, which eliminates some of the prohibitions on military people being used, Federal military people being used for nonmilitary matters, and it allows payment by the Federal Government. I guess I would just say that this is not worked out yet. As a matter of fact, Governor Riley has personally been engaged in this, and I have been so proud of his leadership. He has called these guardsmen for some time and has been requesting that they be approved under title 32. The Admiral told me today that there are still bureaucratic problems--the Department of Defense says this and some law says this. I would just say that the Commander in Chief, the President of the United States, said: Call them up and let's get busy about it. And I hope somehow this can be taken care of promptly, as it is impacting the budget of the State of Alabama in a significant way. Madam President, I thank the Chair. And I thank Senator LeMieux for driving home the problem that, to me, is most inexplicable; that is, our failure to maximize our ability to have skimmers available to protect our beaches. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. Before the Senator leaves, I will ask a question to my colleague, because he has come to this lately. He might share with us-- the Senator has had personal conversations with Admiral Allen, the point person, about this for some time, has he not? We still have difficulty getting firm numbers, as the Senator pointed out, about how many might be available and what prospects we have for the arrival of more skimmers, is that correct?

Mr. SESSIONS. Does the Senator understand that Admiral Allen has the power--or the President does--to enter into Jones Act waivers that need to be entered into, and that presumably could be done in a matter of minutes or hours? What is holding this up? Has the Senator been able to ascertain that?

Mr. SESSIONS. Well, has the Senator ascertained that anybody in our government is scouring the world and the United States to try to move every single skimmer that could possibly be brought to the gulf coast? If not, we are awfully late, wouldn't the Senator think? Shouldn't that have been done weeks ago?