Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator. 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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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 want to speak briefly on the President's nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court. The more we examine her record, the more concerns there are that her legal judgments might be infected by her very liberal political views. We see strong evidence of that in Ms. Kagan's memos as a clerk on the Supreme Court. In her work as Domestic Policy Adviser in the White House for President Clinton, we see those strong political views. We see strong evidence of this during her time as dean of Harvard Law School. Perhaps to some in the elite progressive circles of academia it is acceptable to discriminate against the patriots who fight and die for our freedoms, but the vast majority of Americans, I think, correctly know that such behavior is wrong. It has an arrogance about it and, really, it is not ethical. When Dean Kagan became dean in 2003, she inherited a policy of full, equal access for the military. But she reversed that policy in clear open defiance of Federal law. She kicked the military out of the campus recruitment office as our troops, at that very moment, risked their lives in two wars overseas. Some have recently attempted to defend this conduct by arguing that she deigned to speak with the student veterans to discuss whether they would coordinate a sort of second-class system for the recruiters who would come on campus to seek young men and women to serve as JAG officers. This all happened after she had defied the law and had shut down those official channels of recruitment at the official recruiting office. But the Harvard Student Veterans Association plainly expressed to Ms. Kagan in a letter to the entire law school that they lacked the resources to take the place of the campus office now closed to the military. The letter reads in part: Given our tiny membership, meager budget, and lack of any office space, we possess neither the time nor the resources to routinely schedule campus rooms or advertise extensively for outside organizations, as is the norm for most recruiting events. But Ms. Kagan was unmoved. Instead of welcoming the military recruiters on campus, she punished them, relegating them to second- class status, even leading student veterans to arrange recruiter meetings off campus. In fact, Dean Kagan's public comments contributed to a hostile on-campus environment for both recruiters and student veterans alike. In fact, she said she ``abhorred'' the military's recruitment policy--blaming soldiers for the decisions of lawmakers-- the Congress--and the President. She called it a ``moral injustice of the first order,'' and participated in a student protest opposing military recruiting on campus. Stunningly, she expressed sympathy for students and faculty for whom she said ``the military's presence on campus feels alienating.'' Those alienated by the military's presence were not the ones who needed the sympathy, they needed a history lesson. They had the freedom to complain and protest from the safety of Harvard's campus because of the blood and sacrifice of the men and women who wear our uniform. If you talk to student veterans who were on campus during 2004 and 2005, you will learn many of them felt exploited. Here were people who had just returned from battles in Iraq, dodging enemy gunfire, and they were supposed to quietly hustle the military recruiters through the back door and provide political cover for Dean Kagan. In a report for NPR, one student veteran who was there summed it up this way: Getting us to carry her water on military recruitment through the back door was a bridge too far. I came to view her as a very smooth political person. Ms. Kagan said her mistreatment of the military was justified by her view that don't ask, don't tell was a ``moral injustice of the first order.'' But don't ask, don't tell was created and implemented by President Clinton. Where was her outrage during the 5 years she served in the Clinton White House? Why would she blame the military? They didn't pass the rule. It was Congress and the President. So Ms. Kagan didn't take a stand in Washington when she was here, where the policy was adopted, but waited until she got to Harvard and then stood in the way of hard-working military recruiters who had nothing to do with establishing the policy. Now information has come to light suggesting that Ms. Kagan may even have been less morally principled in her approach than has been portrayed. Around the same time that Dean Kagan was campaigning to exclude military recruiters--citing what she saw as the evils of don't ask, don't tell--Harvard University accepted $20 million from a member of the Saudi Royal family to establish a center for ``Islamic Studies'' and Sharia law. An Obama State Department report concerning Saudi Arabia and the Sharia law concept noted: Under Shari'a as interpreted in [Saudi Arabia] sexual activity between two persons of the same gender is punishable by death or flogging. Ms. Kagan was perfectly willing to obstruct the military, which has liberated countless Muslims from the hate and tyranny of Saddam Hussein and the Taliban, but it seems she was willing to sit on the sidelines as Harvard created a center funded by--and dedicated to--foreign leaders presiding over a legal system that would violate what would appear to be her position. She fought the ability of our own soldiers to access campus resources but not those who spread the oppressive tenets of Sharia-type law. Perhaps her response was guided by campus politics, but certainly Ms. Kagan lacks any experience as a judge or as a lawyer, and not much as a scholar of law. She hasn't written much. Much of her career has been spent actively engaged in liberal politics not legal practice, and there are serious questions as to whether she would be able to set aside that political agenda that has defined so much of her career. I think that is the test we try to give a fair evaluation of this nominee. So these are important issues, and she will have an opportunity to discuss her views. I expect many Americans will be listening closely, but it will be important that any nominee to the Supreme Court be able to assure with great confidence the American people--and this Senate-- that if confirmed, he or she would be faithful to the law, to serve under the Constitution, and not above it, and not have their political agenda infect their rulings, which must be nonpolitical. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I know Senator Thune will be here in a moment. I saw him just a while ago. One of the things hurting our economy is that Congress is sending no message whatsoever that we are serious about reducing the uncontrollable debt that every economist says is unsustainable, and that this is a cloud over our economic recovery. The sooner we quit thinking we can make the economy rebound by just spending a few more billion dollars and increasing our debt, the better off we will be and we will get on a sound track to go forward. I know good people can disagree, but I believe very strongly in this, and I just wanted to share that thought. Oilspill in Alabama I would like to make a few brief comments about the oilspill in the Gulf of Mexico, and my home State of Alabama. I was there Friday and visited Orange Beach, Gulf Shores, Dauphin Island, and Bayou La Batre, examined the beaches and talked with our good mayors and other officials who are there. There are a few things I would like to share that indicate we are not where we need to be. I have not been one who wants to run out and blame the President for everything. But I do believe as we are now going into day 57 that we need to understand our response is not working well. It could be much better. For example, I visited Mayor Tony Kennon and his team in Orange Beach. Perdido Pass has a very strong current. You would think you could put up boom and stop oil from coming in. They told us oil was out there. They were expecting it to come in, maybe the biggest amount they had expected since the beginning of the spill. It was expected to hit the coast this past Saturday or Sunday, and it did indeed hit. The city is developing their own plan with their own engineer about how to deal with the currents and the flow of oil to keep it out of the estuaries that are inside of Perdido Pass. It is complicated. They had a top engineer, Henry Seawell, one of Alabama's best. He was there working on it. I just happen to know him. But the Coast Guard was not there; BP was not there. The mayor said: You know, we feel like we are not even at the table, we are not at the children's table. They are not talking to us. But we know more about how to deal with this pass than anybody else in the U.S. Government because we have been working on it, it is our area, and we are trying to protect it. Sure enough, the oil came. We were behind schedule. They started late. Nobody had done anything until the city started, apparently a good bit of oil got in and that is not good. It also got on the beach. We can clean that up pretty quickly, however a lot hit the beach. Then a little further down the beach, at Gulf Shores, we had a similar discussion. I went to Fort Morgan, across the mouth of the Mobile Bay where Admiral Farragut sailed in, and we went across to Dauphin Island. The mayor there, Jeff Collier, had some of the same concerns as Mayor Robert Craft in Gulf Shores. Then I went up and met with Mayor Stan Wright, the mayor of Bayou La Batre, himself a seafood processor. He noted to me, and has repeatedly stated, that Bayou La Batre probably represents the largest seafood processing on the entire gulf coast. They are basically being shut down, and a lot of people who work there are losing their jobs. They are low-income workers who do not have extra money to live on, and they are hurting, really hurting. If we are going to receive money from BP, they need to get it out there to the people right now, before they lose their homes or have their power cut off. The mayor told me how people are calling him about their electricity being cut off. It is not a little matter. The whole situation is a big deal. I am glad the President has gone to the gulf coast. I am hopeful tonight we will hear some good ideas for progress. I just wanted to share one thing that struck me very vividly. Mayor Kennon's team in Orange Beach told us they had seen a strip of compact oil from the air and a boat about 6 miles offshore. It had the red color, thick process--a strip about 30 miles wide and 2 miles long. This was Friday morning. It was expected to hit Friday night or early Saturday morning. Nobody knew for sure. But it had been out there for a number of days. So we are asking, Why don't we put a skimmer there? This is the only thing coming in that threatens the beaches. Apparently there were two strips of this offshore at some distance. It represents a significant threat. You could see that threat getting closer and closer. The obvious thought--Mr. President, having been from Alaska, you know the importance of these matters--if you had a good skimmer--where two boats pull the boom and direct the oil into a central location, then you can get it out and put it in a barge or tanker. There was not any. It would have been rather easy, I suggest, with a good skimmer, to have gone out, with plenty of time to scoop up almost all of that oil or at least a big portion of it. That was not done. It kept coming in, and coming in, and basically by Saturday it was hitting the beaches. You ask, where are they? We are not talking with one another enough, it seems to me. It does appear there are more skimmers, more boom, more vessels, equipment, and pumps available around the world that could be called on to assist, and we have not accepted all offers of assistance. Nor have we, apparently, sought to lease, buy or purchase the boom, pumps, and skimmers that might help us. I was just looking at a press release today that stated, Admiral Allen, the national incident commander, Provides Guidance to Ensure Expedited Jones Act Waiver Processing Should It Be Needed.'' He says he will process any requests for waivers of the Jones Act. For some reason the admiral is still talking about waivers and offering to expedite them. Who is requesting them? Why doesn't he request it? If there is a ship that can skim, it can be brought down to the gulf coast, and it would make a big difference. In fact, I saw the admiral, I believe, the day before yesterday on the television say we need to do a better job. This would have been Monday. We need to do a better job of intercepting the oil between the spill site and the shore. Good. I thought it might be harder to do. I thought it might be little splotches here and there, all over, and it would be impossible to scoop it all up. But if it is moving, and it tends to move in lines and fairly compact 30-foot strips, then with good equipment we can make a big dent and just stop it. So I don't know what the problem is. But we do know 17 countries have offered to help, however we only have two skimmers, as I understand it, in the gulf, and those are from Mexico--which we are glad to have. Pumps have been offered. I do not believe we have taken advantage of that. It takes some pretty good pumping equipment to get this oil soaked up, and only 600,000 feet of boom have been received from abroad. The UK has also offered us dispersants, which we have not taken. I don't know what all the details are, but it seems to me that we can and must do a better job of coordinating. We need to ensure people who need resources are paid now, and we need to understand that there is great potential for effective skimming to occur where the oil has formulated and configured in groups so it can be skimmed. That apparently is more feasible than a lot of people understand. We need to be focusing on that. The people along the gulf coast are upset about it. One mayor told me: I am a man of good judgment. I am worried about BP's slow response. They talk about responding. They talk about paying, but not enough payment is actually getting out where we have clear cases of substantial losses. Of course, the economy is not where it has been and where we need to see it develop. The beach areas probably wouldn't have been as strong this year as previous years because of the economic downturn. But the testimony from people at public meetings I have attended is crystal clear that we have almost a 50-percent drop in reservations, a 50-percent drop in bookings, and this ripples through the entire community. We already have real estate problems. We already have a little decline in beach attendance. Now we have all this horrible news on the TV and large amounts of cancellations. Some people do need money now. This process needs to be accelerated, and I hope we will hear something in some of what the President tells us tonight. I think he has heard that. He has been down to the gulf coast. He has talked to people. He probably has a better understanding today, after we are 2 months into it, than he previously had. Maybe we can make this system work a little better. I don't only want to complain. I am thankful the President is showing attention. I am thankful he has stepped out and is showing some leadership. But for some reason, there still seems to be a lack of connection between the talk up at the top and what is happening on the ground. I have been there. I have talked to people. People are not getting money. People are in serious crisis already, people who would be entitled to receive moneys. I don't think BP should pay out money fraudulently. They don't need to pay those who don't deserve it. They ought to be careful in how they handle these payments. But for the most part, people are making legitimate claims. Some of them are desperate now. I don't think we have a unified effective plan to intercept as much of the oil as we could offshore. Nor have we had the kind of support from the Federal Government we would like to see, with scientifically determined processes, placing boom and skimming equipment to stop the flow of the oil, particularly into our estuaries, including Mobile Bay. Mobile Bay is not that wide of an opening. People thought we could stop it. You could put boom across and stop it. The truth is, with the tides, it is a strong current. Anchors won't hold it. When water moves in, it will go over or under or even break the boom. It is not an easy thing. We need some sort of Chevron-like layers of boom outside the entrance to try to catch as much as we can before it comes in. A little, but I don't think enough, effort has been made. In fact, we now had a significant amount of oil that have gotten into that great estuary. I wanted to share those thoughts. I believe we can do better. I believe oil production in the gulf is essential for the national interest. I believe this spill, this accident should not have happened. I believe if people had been exceedingly careful and competent in what they did, this would not have happened. I believe after this accident, there is going to be a complete review by every company out there. I think we will have an even lower possibility of accidents in the future. But we need more confidence that blowout preventers work, and that we have safety mechanisms in place. We need more confidence that this will happen. We need to understand there is always a possibility that some sort of blowout or spill will occur, but we can do better to prevent it. We can do better about plugging the leak or capturing the oil where it comes out of the pipe. I believe all of these are possible. I am not happy. I am disappointed that we weren't better prepared in case such an accident did occur. Very disappointed. I believe the oil industry, in particular BP's plan, as the Mobile Press Register has pointed out, was not well thought out. Their plan talked about what to do with walruses and things such as that. We don't have any walruses on the gulf coast. This was not a well thought out plan. Criticism is justified in many different areas. I thank the Chair for the opportunity to share my thoughts. Again, I appreciate the President visiting the gulf coast. Hopefully, they are breaking down some of these dysfunctional areas to get us to a higher level of response and effectiveness, and maybe they will also be able to continue to make progress in reducing the amount of flow coming out of this well. Obviously, that is the most critical point. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I want to first say how much I support the Murkowski resolution, and I will be voting for it. But I want to point out, as ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, how it is we got into this circumstance and why it is not justified. Why it should never have happened, and why it is a product of the worst kind of judicial activism. And finally, why we need to see how we can work our way out of it. In 1970, the Congress passed the Clean Air Act, and they allowed EPA to regulate pollutants. Rather than try to specifically define pollutants, they said it would be defined by the Director of the EPA, and he would have that decision-making authority. That is the way it was for many years. Then years went by and people began to talk about global warming. Global warming developed a certain momentum and a number of scientists signed onto this idea. Even though CO2 is a plant food and the more CO2 that is in the atmosphere the better plants grow. And even though we breathe out CO2 and plants breathe in CO2 which produces the oxygen that we breathe in this wonderful system that we are a part of. They concluded that CO2 was increasing because we were taking carbon fuels mostly from our soils, burning it, and that was increasing the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere. Presumably it had at one time been in the atmosphere and had been sucked up by plants. So this argument arose that it would create global warming. In 1997 Congress had a vote on the Kyoto accord, to deal with whether we wanted to take these firm, aggressive steps to reduce CO2. By a vote of 97 to 0 we voted not to do that. We were not prepared to do that. Someone filed a lawsuit. In 2007, it came before the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court was asked to decide on the prohibition of air pollutants, which passed in 1970 when nobody was thinking about global warming, instead they were thinking about particulate matter, NOX and SOX, acid rain, and those kinds of pollutants that go into the atmosphere. The question was, did that word ``pollutant'' include CO2? To me, a responsible court would have said Congress had all these years to pass a law and specifically add CO2 as a pollutant if they wanted to. In fact, we have amended the law and never added it. They would have asked, Is this a big economic issue we are deciding? It is a huge economic issue, because it would give the Environmental Protection Agency the right to regulate every single emission of CO2--every automobile, every factory, every home, every hospital, every steel mill; everybody who emits CO2 would be under the regulation of the EPA. They voted and by a 5-to-4 margin the Supreme Court of the United States just declared--just by dictate declared--that Congress intended to cover CO2 when they passed the Clean Air Act of 1970. It is a stunning thing. It is a huge activist decision. In my opinion, it shows how dangerous judges are who are not committed to restraint and responsible action--how dangerous it can be when you give them the power to pass something Congress would not have passed. They didn't pass it then. And in my opinion, they would not pass it today. But the Supreme Court said so. I support the Murkowski resolution.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I move to waive the applicable section of the budget resolution with respect to my amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I call up the amendment that is at the desk.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, Senator McCaskill and I are again offering this amendment that would place a cap on discretionary spending in which we participate in every day but that tends to violate the budget. Our budget is a critically important component of our financial management. I have been a member of the Budget Committee for a number of years, and it is very frustrating to see how it has gotten around the budget. The legislation that is before us is just another example of violating the budget in ways that are not responsible. For example, the unemployment compensation and the payments to physicians are not emergencies. They are just not. Any responsible household, any responsible city, county, or State government knows that. When those leaders deal with financial crises, they have to figure out how to handle them. What we are doing with this legislation before us is borrowing money to pay a fundamental obligation of the United States of America, which is to pay doctors an adequate wage for doing Medicare work. They are already paid less for Medicare than private insurance pays them for doing the very same procedures, but we have another shortfall here. If Congress does not pass legislation, physicians will take a 21-percent cut in the amount of money they are paid. That cannot work because our physicians are already, in many cases, losing money on Medicare treatment of our seniors. They cannot take a 21-percent cut. They will quit doing the work. This is not a matter of debate. It will collapse the Medicare system. We need to do this, but that is the kind of expenditure that is fundamental. It is part of the obligation we have had for many years to pay physicians to do Medicare work. They do not do it for nothing. It ought not to be paid for by borrowing the money on top of all the debt we are now running up in this country. Our national debt just hit $13 trillion. We will, in 5 years--now 4-- double the national debt, and in 10 years we will triple the national debt. Why? Because we are taking items that are baseline requirements of this government and miraculously converting them to emergencies and then breaking the budget. If anybody objects, such as Senator Bunning did on behalf of his 40-some-odd grandchildren, he is attacked as being against physicians or against the unemployed. Senator Coburn has raised these issues. I support both of them. They are both right. If the American people understood how irresponsibly we are managing their money, they would be even more upset with us than they already are. The American people are right to be upset with us. We are converting fundamental governmental obligations to emergency spending. Why? Because we do not have to pay for it; we can just borrow it. That is not right. Senator McCaskill, my Democratic colleague, is concerned about these issues. We have worked together to offer this amendment that would make it harder to violate the budget caps, to make it more difficult and to help us to be more responsible in our spending. Quite a number of my Democratic colleagues joined with us in this amendment and voted for it. Fifty-nine Senators voted for it on one of our previous votes. We were one short of what is necessary to make it law--just one vote short. We are offering this amendment again. We have taken quite a number of steps to make this legislation palatable and to respond to concerns that some have raised, such as, would it impact the military? No. Would it impact legitimate emergency spending? No. We have done some things that some may believe weaken the amendment a bit, but it still adds some real strength to it and real value. This kind of budget cap legislation is what allowed us to balance the budget in the late 1990s. I know President Clinton has touted that he balanced the budget. If I recall, Congress--which appropriates every dollar that is spent--shut the government down at one point to try to contain President Clinton's proposed spending, and succeeded in doing so. That eventually led to a balanced budget. The legislation that was in effect at that time, which was very similar to this proposal, expired, and this is one reason spending has surged. I thank the Chair for the opportunity to offer this amendment. We will talk on it again later. I hope that we can enact these provisions into law and that we will get that one extra vote necessary to make a real bipartisan statement. We had bipartisan support for this amendment last time, and it would make a real bipartisan statement to the whole financial world that we are beginning to take seriously our responsibility to reduce this surging deficit. Only then will we begin to see the kind of stability in our economic markets that we must have. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I wish to tell you about a true leader in Alabama sports, Chet Moeller of Montgomery, AL, who was inducted into the College Football Hall of Fame on May 27, 2010. Mr. Moeller first gained national recognition for his gridiron accomplishments at the Naval Academy in 1975, where he was elected unanimously as the First Team All-America Eastern College Athletic Conference All-Conference Player of the Year. He continued on to become a two-time ECAC selection and a Naval Academy Athletic Association Sword recipient. In 3 seasons with the Midshipmen, Mr. Moeller averaged 92 tackles per season. He also served as cocaptain of the 1975 team, which won more games than any Midshipmen squad since the 1963 team that played for the national championship. He proved to be a leader in the classroom as well as he was a Second Team Academic All-American. Mr. Moeller's induction is no small feat. He was selected by more than 12,000 National Football Foundation members and current members of the College Football Hall of Fame. The votes were submitted to the National Football Federation's Honors Court, which deliberated and selected a class from among the 4.72 million Americans who have played college football. To date, only 866 players have earned this prestigious honor. The discipline and dedication Mr. Moeller developed on the field were applied as he faithfully served his country as a first lieutenant in the U.S. Marine Corps. He has also served his community as a board member for the Fellowship of Christian Athletes and as a deacon in his church. He is currently serving as a church elder. He and his wife Jenny have resided in Montgomery, AL, for over 30 years. They have two children: Trey, who played football for the University of Virginia, and Rachael, who attended Auburn University. I commend Mr. Moeller for all of his accomplishments and successes. I share with this body today my pleasure in congratulating Mr. Moeller for this prestigious honor, as he is certainly a worthy recipient.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we had a number of votes this week, including one last night in the Armed Services Committee concerning whether to utilize the National Guard to confront the raging illegality that is occurring particularly in the Tucson sector of Arizona. It is a national crisis. The American people fully understand that. President Obama announced, with some fanfare, that he would send 1,200 National Guard troops to the border. To some, that may have sounded like a good thing. It is certainly not a bad thing. But the truth is, President Bush, under Operation Jumpstart, had 6,000 National Guard at the border at one point, and they made a positive difference. The immigration and Border Patrol people were very complimentary of the National Guard. They repeatedly stated how much it helped them do their job. Since that period, a lot of developments have occurred on the border that have put us in a much better position to be effective in ending this massive illegality than had been the case previously. For example, we have completed close to 350 miles of pedestrian fencing and almost 300 miles of vehicle fencing along the Southern border. Though this only half of the 700 miles of reinforced pedestrian fencing mandated by the Secure Fence Act of 2006, it is a good start. President Bush reluctantly signed that bill into law, and started the process of building fencing and vehicle barriers. Much of it is has been completed now, but we still need to finish what Congress mandated. The fence has multiplied the capabilities of law enforcement officers in many sectors along the border. In addition, the Operation Streamline concept that had begun under the Bush administration in certain sectors of the border is working superbly and is a valuable tool. Other steps have been taken, including increasing the number of Border Patrol agents we authorized several years ago. They are just now coming on line and have been trained. So we have a lot more agents at the border. The number of people being arrested at the border remains unacceptable, but it is better than it has been. The numbers are down and, in some sectors, down dramatically. For example, in the Yuma sector of Arizona, about 6,900 people were arrested at the border trying to enter the country illegally in 2009. That may sound like a lot--and it is--but it is much less than the over 118,000 apprehended in 2006. In fact, that is a 94 percent decrease in just three years. But in the Tucson sector, where we have old fencing and limited Operation Streamline in effect, over 240,000 were arrested last year--a stunning number. Over a million pounds of marijuana were seized as part of that enforcement effort in the Tucson sector. That is what has caused such a pushback by the people of Arizona. The President and Washington say: It is our job to end illegality at the border. You can't do anything. You have no jurisdiction. We don't want you to do anything. That is not correct legally. I have done research on that point. A local law enforcement officer can stop and detain a person whom he identifies as being in the country illegally and turn them over to the Federal Government for the crime of entering the country illegally and for the crime of any other Federal offense they ascertain. This is classical law. It is well recognized. There is no dispute about it. The people of Arizona rightly have gotten a bellyful. Their hospitals are being overrun. Crime is up. Phoenix is now the second leading kidnapping center in the world, second only to Mexico City in kidnappings, apparently. It is not acceptable. It is a Federal responsibility. It is the President's responsibility. The President is the chief law enforcement officer. The ICE agents, the Border Patrol agents, Homeland Security, and the Defense Department are under the executive branch, of which the President is the head. I have been through this. We have talked about this. I made a speech before the last election and went into detail about what it would take to end the illegality at the border. It is not hard. It can be done. But we have to have the President committed. Congress can pass laws. We can send money and force it on the departments. But if they are not willing to utilize it and apply it in an effective way, then we have problems. Someone came up with the idea of having a virtual fence. They were going to apply that concept. We have now spent over $1.1 billion to create this virtual fence and it didn't work. In fact, Secretary Napolitano has suspended work on the project. But if we build a fence with a good response time from Border Patrol agents, it makes a big difference. Go to Yuma or El Passo to see what that means. The President needs to lead. What would we expect to happen? I have always believed the normal, natural thing is that the President would come to Congress and say: The borders are wide open. We have had 240,000 people arrested in the Tucson sector. This is unacceptable. I need A, B, C, and D, Congress. Give it to me. We will end this. He should be telling us what he needs--unless, of course, we have no real desire to end the illegality, which is the case. Why? Because of politics, apparently, and some promise that must have been made in the last campaign that, we are not going to do anything significant at the border until those people in Congress give us amnesty. That is what comprehensive immigration reform is, in the minds of the pro- immigration crowd. They say: We won't fix the border until you agree to give us amnesty. The American people have seen that before. It doesn't work. We did it in 1986. If we don't end the illegality and we grant amnesty, it sends a message to the world. And what message is that? If someone can get into the United States illegally, if they can burrow in a little bit and hold on, pretty soon they will get amnesty, too. They come in. They get work. Nobody complains if they are working. They hang on and hang on, and they get amnesty. This eviscerates the American legal system. It makes a mockery of the law. It sends a message to the world: Come on down. Come on into our country in violation of our laws. We will welcome you and eventually make you a citizen. And those of you who want to come lawfully, you have to fill out paperwork, and you have to wait. And if you have a relative to the right degree, you can get in. But if you graduated at the top of your high school class in Honduras and you learned English and you have a year of college, you don't have a relative or whatever, you have to wait in line, unless, of course, you come in and enter illegally. This is a dysfunctional legal system. We continue to see things develop that indicate to me that the views of the American people, which are sound and reasonable--they just want a lawful system of immigration; they are not against immigration; they are not against immigrants, but they are tired of this massive illegality--are not being listened to by the politicians. The politicians are saying things that are incorrect. President Obama said he cares about workplace enforcement. What happened right after he took office? Apparently a raid--planned maybe even before he took office--in the State of Washington at a company that had a large number of illegal workers occurred. What happened? The pro-illegal immigration crowd, La Raza, the activists, they were all up in arms. Basically, they said: You promised us you wouldn't do this, Mr. President. Wait a minute. I thought we had all the candidates saying we need to do better enforcement in the workplace. The jobs magnet does attract people into the country. But did they have a secret agreement somewhere? What happened? Secretary Napolitano said she was going to have an investigation and get to the bottom of it. Was she investigating the company that had hired people illegally? No. She was investigating the ICE agents who conducted the raid. Do my colleagues think that didn't send a message throughout the entire United States about this administration's policy of aggressive worksite enforcement--that was the policy of the United States at that point--that we are not going to do it in any effective way? That is indisputable. That is what happened. This kind of duplicity is going to come home to roost. The American people are not going to continue to put up with it. Members of Congress who voted against the McCain amendment to put 6,000 National Guard on the border to end this violence and illegality that is occurring and threatening the very viability of the State of Arizona are going to have to answer for their votes. This is what democracy is all about. This all leads me to an article from, I guess, yesterday, a report from Washington. This is what the news article says: U.S. National Guard troops being sent to the Mexican border will be used to stem the flow of guns and drugs across the frontier and not to enforce U.S. immigration laws, the State Department said Wednesday. Well, you know: You fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. So I thought the President was saying he was sending 1,200 troops to the border to help end illegality at the border. But, oh, no, they are not doing that. We want to be sure everybody understands, it is only going to be for guns and drugs. Who do they want to understand this? Do they want the American people to understand it? I do not think so. The next sentence in the article: The clarification came after the Mexican government urged Washington not to use the additional troops to go after illegal immigrants. Philip Crowley, the State Department spokesperson, the flack from the State Department, told reporters, ``It's not about immigration.'' He said, ``We have explained the president's announcement to the government of Mexico, and they fully understand the rationale behind it.'' Quoting the article further: Obama's announcement came less than a week after a state visit to Washington by Mexican President Felipe Calderon, who asked for greater U.S. backing for a . . . war on drug cartels. Well, who are we representing? Mr. Calderon and the Mexican Government or the American people? Is this another flimflam view? I am afraid it is. I can say it appears quite clearly it is, and it is not acceptable. So I think Congress is going to have to act. They did not want the fence. President Bush did not want the fence. But Congress, after the situation got so bad, appropriated the money and directed it be built, and it has had a great and positive benefit wherever the fence has been built. We know the history in San Diego when there was massive violence, massive illegality going on at the border. We know that occurred. We built the fence there and violence on both sides of the border went down. Economic growth on both sides of the border went up. Drugs and prostitution and other kinds of illegalities ended, and solid prosperity began to reoccur. You can not operate effectively in an area of violence and illegality and drugs. So the flow of guns is a Mexican complaint, that too many guns are being bought in the United States and taken to Mexico. I do not dispute that we should be effective in enforcing those laws. But I would suggest, having prosecuted more Federal gun violations than all other Members of this Senate put together, that the National Guard is not the kind of folks we need to prosecute guns going into Mexico. That should be done by ATF and the Border Patrol. So what does this say about the decision that the President said he is going to deploy 1,200 troops? I say it is just further proof it is not a serious commitment in any way. I do not know what they are going to be doing. I do not see how they can be helpful, and I am not being taken in by what appears to be a ruse. So they are not going to be used for immigration; they are going to be used for drugs and guns, which I think they will not be that particularly effective about. They are talking about guns going from the United States to Mexico. So those are the questions I have. What Congress needs to do, what the President needs to do, is to make a clear statement that illegality at our border will end. We will do what it takes to end it. It is within our power to do so. We made some progress already. We have about half as many arrests today along the whole border as we did just 6 or 7 years ago. It is because enforcement is much better than it was, and we are going to continue that. We are going to drive down dramatically this illegality, and we are going to effectively improve our immigration legal system so people can have some certainty about that and create a system that serves our national interest in the process. We are going to tell everybody in the world: Do not come to the border expecting to walk in. You are not going to be successful, and it will stop. It will go down dramatically. It already has in certain sectors. The word gets out. The word was out that the border was wide open and anybody could enter. When the word gets out that the border is closed, people will stop trying. So we will have a massive reduction in the attempts to enter, leaving fewer people for the Border Patrol to have to apprehend, and we will be having a spiral in the right way instead of the wrong way. So I think we are going to have more votes. I think people who cast a vote in opposition to Senator McCain's amendment, Senator Kyl's amendment, Senator Cornyn's amendment to take the steps that actually work to eliminate illegality at the border need to be answering to their constituents. I think it is time for Congress to step up. The President is not stepping up. Congress was able to make real progress a few years ago when we built the fence and did some other things that I worked very hard on. I believe we can make progress again. I think the American people have a way, eventually, of having their voices heard, and I think we are going to hear those voices more loudly, with more clarity, in the future. Somehow, some way, I believe the government is going to come around to affirm the legitimate demands of the American people. They have been right from the beginning. Their instincts, their character, should not be questioned. They simply want an effective immigration system, a lawful immigration system, and they believe it is an embarrassment and a disgrace to our country to have massive illegality going on, as it is today. I thank the Acting President pro tempore 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. President, I note that we faced a long discussion about a bill that was just passed out of the Armed Services Committee. I, unfortunately, felt compelled to oppose it, but I appreciate working with the Senator from Illinois as we discussed it. Amendment No. 4173 Mr. President, I am disappointed that we are going to vote on this emergency supplemental legislation, not having voted on the amendment I offered, along with Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri, my Democratic colleague. It received 59 votes a few weeks ago. It is designed to help contain our rapacious tendency to spend, spend, spend. We give the phrase ``a drunken sailor spending'' a bad name the way we are spending in this Congress. I had hoped we would get another vote on it. I am disappointed Senator Reid and the leadership on the Democratic side took action to see that a vote would not occur. I called it up very early in the process, and I am disappointed. The amendment would have made it more difficult to break the budget and allowed more scrutiny for us before we violate it. The emergency supplemental legislation that is before us violates the budget. Every penny of this is spending beyond the budget. It has items that are not what we think of as emergencies. If our military men and women have a health problem and there is a condition that requires us to take care of them, that takes extra money. We deal with these issues in the Armed Services Committee. But that is not an emergency. Those kinds of things happen all the time. We are allocating $13 billion for an Agent Orange compensation plan that, I have to say, appears to me to not be written very tightly. Anyone who basically served in Vietnam who has heart disease can apparently claim some benefit under it. I am not saying that is unjustified. It may be. What I will say is, it is not the kind of thing we should use emergency spending for when the country is going in a wrong direction. We will soon be voting on tax extenders. I want to send a warning out to my colleagues and to the people who are concerned about the state of the American economy. I will quote some comments that have been said recently. Keith Hennessey, who is former director of the National Economic Council, wrote this: House Democrats have modified their ``extenders'' bill and appear to be bringing it to the floor for a vote today. Monday's version would have increased the deficit by $134 billion over the next decade. Today's version would increase the deficit by $84 billion over the same timeframe. What hard choices did the leaders make to cut the net deficit impact by $50 billion? None. They simply extended the most expensive provisions for a shorter period of time. What did they do? There was a complaint they had $134 billion in increased debt, and they were dealing with some issues. They did not pay for them over a long enough time. They just reduced it. Mr. Hennessey goes on to say: The new bill extends the unemployment insurance and COBRA health insurance benefits through November 2010, rather than December of 2010 in Monday's version. They just reduced it one month to save a little money there and make the bill look a little better. Does anyone doubt we will be coming back to extend it further in the future? Then he goes on to say: The Medicare ``doctors' fix'' would extend through 2011, instead of through 2013 . . . Which means that after this year, our physicians will be back here complaining about the impending 21, 22 percent cut in their Medicare payments. They do not get paid enough now. We cannot cut our physicians 20 percent. They are going to quit practicing and stop doing Medicare work. What did they do when somebody said: You are increasing the debt too much? We will just pass the doctors fix through the end of this year and push it on to the next, instead of doing it through 2013 like they planned. He goes on to say: The Congressional Budget Office has to score the amendment as written, so these two provisions are scored as ``saving'' $50 billion relative to the Monday version. But just as it was unreasonable to assume that the increased Medicare spending for doctors would suddenly drop at the end of 2013, it is similarly foolhardy it will stop [in the future]. They are doing in this bill exactly what they did in the two health care bills that were rammed through in March--shifting some of the spending into future legislation to reduce the apparent cost of the current bill. Will it work again? Well, we are going to see. Mr. President, I would just make one more note. An editorial in today's New York Times titled ``Easy Money, Hard Truths'' by famous hedge fund manager David Einhorn, who lives and dies by Wall Street, moving money, keeping up with interest rates, lays out our budget problem very plainly in his column in the New York Times. Before this recession it appeared that absent action, the government's long-term commitments would become a problem in a few decades. I believe the government response to the recession-- And let me add, that is the extraordinary spending we have done in the last few months-- has created budgetary stress sufficient to bring about the crisis much sooner. Our generation--not our grandchildren's-- will have to deal with the consequences. He goes on to say: According to the Bank for International Settlements, the United States' structural deficit--the amount of our deficit adjusted for the economic cycle--has increased from 3.1 percent of gross domestic product in 2007 to 9.2 percent in 2010. This does not take into account the very large liabilities the government has taken on by socializing losses in the housing market. We have not seen the bills for bailing out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and even more so the Federal Housing Administration, which is issuing government- guaranteed loans to noncreditworthy borrowers on terms easier than anything offered during the housing bubble. Government accounting is done on a cash basis, so promises to pay in the future--whether Social Security benefits or loan guarantees-- do not count in the budget until the money goes out the door. He goes on to say: A good percentage of the structural increase in the deficit is because last year's ``stimulus'' was not stimulus in the traditional sense. Rather than a one-time injection of spending to replace a cyclical reduction in private demand, the vast majority of the stimulus has been a permanent increase in the base level of government spending--including spending on government jobs. He goes on to say: In 2008, according to the Cato Institute, the average Federal civilian salary with benefits was $119,982, compared with $59,909 for the average private sector worker; the disparity has grown enormously over the last decade. Inflation from our current high-spending culture is problematic as well. According to Einhorn: Government statistics are about the last place one should look for inflation, as they are designed to not show much. Over the last 35 years, government has changed the way it calculates inflation several times. According to the Web site Shadow Government Statistics, using the pre-1980 method, the Consumer Price Index would be over 9 percent, compared with about 2 percent in the official statistics today. He goes on to say this: At what level of government debt and future commitments does government default go from being unthinkable to inevitable, and how does our government think about that risk? I recently posed this question to one of the President's senior economic advisers. Mr. Einhorn asked him a very tough question: Is a government default on the horizon? Is it unthinkable or now is it on the way to being inevitable? And this is what Mr. Einhorn said the government adviser to President Obama said: He answered that the government is different from financial institutions because it can print money, and statistically the United States is not as bad off as some countries. For an investor, these promises do not inspire confidence. So he goes on to warn about the danger of a crisis where the Treasury seeks to get people to buy our Treasury bills, to buy our bonds, and this is what can happen. He said: In the face of deteriorating market confidence, a rating agency issues an untimely downgrade, setting off a rush of sales by existing bondholders. This has been the experience of many troubled corporations, where downgrades served as the coup de grace. The current upset in the European sovereign debt market is a prequel to what might happen here. That is today's warning in the New York Times, and we should take it very seriously. The bill before us is irresponsible. It spends too much, it creates too much debt, and we should not have done it. We did not have to do it. And the bill that is coming up, the tax extenders, is also irresponsible. It spends too much money. We do not have to do it, and we should not do it. The American people understand this completely. They tell me about it everywhere I go. Are we in denial in this body? Do we think it is just business as usual; that we can just continue to spend, spend, spend, borrow, borrow, borrow, and then presumably we will just print money and pay our debts, deflating our currency, eroding the value for the good and decent people of this country who have worked hard and saved all their lives? This is not good. The American people are right. No wonder our ratings with the public are so low. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, Americans cherish and respect their military. They support and celebrate those who wear the uniform and serve our Nation. When our Nation is at war, they understand that this obligation of support deepens. Indeed, just Friday, I got forwarded to me an e-mail from a mother whose son was being deployed to Iraq, and she said that the one thing critical to them was to feel they had the support of the American people. The American people understand that no matter what your ideology, no matter your view of the conflict we are engaged in, you have to support those whom we in Congress have deployed to execute policies that the President and the Congress have adopted. They didn't adopt the policies; we did. And when we send them, they deserve our support. The American people understand that it is not about politics but about the duty of citizenship--a duty to stand in solidarity with those in harm's way and those who defend our freedoms. I believe these sentiments--shared by Americans overwhelmingly--are important as we evaluate the conduct of President Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Elena Kagan. They will raise serious questions that really must be answered before we have a final vote. I think it is just as important for me to say that. Some people have suggested that the issue I am going to talk about is not significant. I think it is. I was involved in the debate of the Solomon amendment. I remember how it happened. Ms. Kagan, who became the dean of Harvard Law in 2003, kicked the military off Harvard's campus and out of its campus recruitment office. She gave the big law firms full access to recruit bright young associates but obstructed the access of the military as it tried to recruit bright young JAG officers to support and represent our soldiers as they were risking their lives for our country. It was an unjustifiable decision. But rather than acknowledge that Ms. Kagan had acted inappropriately, the Obama administration has instead done something that, to me, is odd: it has tried to defend this indefensible activity--distorting the clear facts in the process. We need to get that straight. As we begin to think about this nomination, we need to understand the facts. During a recent television interview, Vice President Biden actually said that Ms. Kagan was ``right'' to interfere with military recruitment. He then defended her conduct with the suggestion that she was somehow acting under a court order to keep the military people off campus. In reality--let's be correct--I misspoke--to keep the military from utilizing the normal recruitment offices available to every other law firm in America. In reality, the opposite situation is true. Ms. Kagan disregarded the law, really, in essence, in order to obstruct military recruitment during a time of war. In 1995, Congress passed the Solomon amendment, which required universities to give equal access to military recruiters if they wished to continue to receive taxpayer funding for their university programs. The passage of the Solomon amendment was a matter of a large national debate. I suspect most Americans have a vivid recollection of those discussions. It was well known that certain law schools, such as Harvard, were blocking the military from going to their recruitment offices and utilizing the resources like any other entity could do. Administrators at Harvard and other law schools had been restricting access of military recruiters to campuses for several years, citing as their reason their opposition to President Clinton's don't ask, don't tell policy about gays in the military. That was something on which Congress had voted. It is a matter of statutory law, and President Clinton had indicated his support in the way it would be enforced. It came to be fairly settled as a national policy in that regard. It was Congress's hope that the Solomon amendment would put an end to this obstruction. It basically said: You cannot deny our military the right to come on campus if they are following U.S. law, and still get Federal money. But Harvard persisted nonetheless. Finally, in 2002, I believe it was the Air Force that made an official complaint. The Department of Defense spoke up. It quoted the statute that had been passed in the U.S. Code, title 10. They quoted it to Harvard and said: If you continue to deny entrance of our military personnel to the recruiting centers, you get no more Federal money. At that point, the principle evaporated. This great principle on which they were standing, a little money dangled in front of them and they folded on this point. Dean Clark, Ms. Kagan's predecessor at Harvard, got the message, and he complied. The restrictions on the military recruitment were lifted. This means that when Ms. Kagan became dean of Harvard, the military had full, open, and equal access to campus facilities. That is the policy she inherited; that is the policy she deeply opposed; and that is the policy she set about to reverse. Ms. Kagan began her efforts to reverse the policy when she joined 53 of her academic colleagues in filing a brief to challenge the Solomon amendment. This case had been filed in another circuit, not Harvard's. If their efforts in this legal attack were successful, they would again obstruct the military's access on campus, and they could do so without losing Federal funds. That is what she wanted, no doubt about that. Initially, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, not her circuit, heard the case, and they issued a 2 to 1 decision that ordered the district court in New Jersey to issue a preliminary injunction suspending enforcement of the Solomon amendment in that district in New Jersey. The injunction was to take effect after a certain time period. I believe 50 days. But that injunction was never issued, even in that one district of New Jersey, because the Supreme Court of the United States undertook to hear the case, and the court of appeals, respecting the Supreme Court's view, eliminated their order staying the enforcement of the Solomon amendment. I note, even if the Third Circuit's ruling had not been stayed, it would have applied only to the Third Circuit, not to Harvard. Remember, the Solomon amendment was a duly enacted law passed by the Congress. Fully understanding all of this, as the trained and educated dean she was, Dean Kagan still used this ruling as a pretext to deny the enforceability of the Solomon amendment on the Harvard campus, again kicking the military out of the campus recruiting office. It did not apply. It was never made applicable and certainly not made applicable to the Harvard campus. But yet she used that as a pretext to carry out her desires about the don't ask, don't tell policy. But I am told: Don't worry about that, Jeff. They could still talk to veterans groups on campus. They were not barred from campus. They just could not use the center for recruiting, but they could still talk to people on campus, and it is not so important. Well, if it is not so important, why did Dean Kagan go to such great lengths to have the law overturned, even risking Harvard's financial support? It was important. Barred from institutional access, the military now had to work through a student group, the Harvard Law School Veterans Association. The veterans association, however, did not believe this was fair to them. They had courses to attend and school work to do. They wrote to their classmates about Dean Kagan's decision and explained they were unable to fill the role of the military recruiters that she had excluded. This is what they said: Given our tiny membership, meager budget, and lack of any office space, we possess neither the time nor the resources to routinely schedule campus rooms or advertise extensively for outside organizations, as is the norm for most recruiting events. But Dean Kagan still did not relent. Only when the military again threatened to cut off money to Harvard did she give in. This was the second time they had to make this threat. This statute says the Secretary of Defense shall notify them that they will no longer get Federal funds if they do not allow recruiters on campus. Ms. Kagan reversed Harvard's existing policy in order to obstruct the access of the military recruiters. She disregarded a congressional statute. Eventually, her view was rejected by the Supreme Court. So what happened when the Third Circuit case got to the Supreme Court? She filed a brief with a group of other academics attacking the Solomon amendment. What happened? By an 8-to-0 vote, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected her brief. According to Dean Kagan, actions she took against the military were motivated by her opposition to don't ask, don't tell. But somehow her fierce opposition was not enough to prevent her, I note parenthetically, from serving as a loyal aide to the man who created the policy, President Clinton. No, instead she directed her punishment to the military that had nothing to do with it. The soldiers, the recruiters who wanted to come on Harvard campus had nothing to do with establishing this don't ask, don't tell policy. It was Congress's law. It is statutory, and President Clinton endorsed it with his don't ask, don't tell enforcement strategy. It was the law of the land. It was not a policy dreamed up by some general somewhere. She knew that. Ms. Kagan's conduct may have been applauded by some in the progressive circles of academia, but I think the American people would be uneasy about it. They are not sympathetic to the actions she took against the brave men and women who defend the rights and freedoms of Ms. Kagan, of Harvard professors, and of all Americans. Dean Kagan has no judicial record to examine, and she has very little experience as a lawyer. One of the most prominent features of her legal experience and her tenure at Harvard is scarred by her open mistreatment of the military and her disregard for very clear law. I wish it were not so, but it is. This matter does raise questions of whether Dean Kagan would be able to serve all Americans as a responsible, impartial jurist or whether she would bring her ideological agenda to the bench and attempt to get around the Constitution and the laws of the United States to effectuate what she thinks might be a better policy. That is the question I think is legitimate to ask, as well as to ask, in a serious way: What were you thinking when you punished our men and women in uniform because you did not like what Congress and your President--President Clinton--did with regard to their policies on gays in the military? It is not a small matter. I believe this decision was clearly wrong. I believe it was not lawful. I believe it was not good policy. We will need to talk about that as we go forward and to hear a sincere explanation from the nominee. This is not something from which we cannot learn. It is not necessarily the decisive matter in this person's nomination. But it is not correct to say it is an insignificant matter. It is a significant matter, a very significant matter. And it is a matter of significance such that whoever comments about it, even if it is the Vice President of the United States, they should be accurate. They should not be inaccurate, as has happened repeatedly from my observation in the media, as well as my good friend, our former colleague, Senator Biden, who also served on the Judiciary Committee. It is time we get these facts straight. I also wish to express a concern about one more matter. During her time in the Clinton White House, 1995 to 1999, Dean Kagan, now Solicitor General Kagan, served in the White House Counsel's Office and later as Director of Domestic Policy Council in the White House. That is one of the few extensive public records she has. We need to obtain the documents relating to that service in advance of the hearings that now have been set for June 28. I think it is a rush to get ready for June 28, but I told Senator Leahy, our chairman, that he is the boss, and we will try to be ready by the 28th. But we both know it is important to have these documents in time to examine them before the committee hearing because so little other documents exist as to her record. All the documents that have been requested I believe the committee is entitled to see. Senator Leahy has joined with me. We worked together on this. It appears President Obama has decided not to assert any claims of Executive privilege that would block the production of any of these documents. We received a letter from the Clinton Library on Friday where these records are held indicating that they understand President Obama will not make any claims of privilege. The White House recognizes these documents are an important part of Ms. Kagan's record. In fact, after she was nominated, the White House sent a public letter to the National Archives asking for release of documents relating to her service in the Clinton White House. They included all of her e-mail documents in their request. But the White House request and media requests under FOIA are different from the committee request. So last week, Chairman Leahy and I sent a letter to the Clinton Library requesting these documents. I appreciate the leadership of Senator Leahy, who has been through so many of these confirmation matters--this is consistent with our history--and I appreciate his efforts on the letter and to get this information. But I would note there are important distinctions between the Obama White House's request and the committee's request. First, the restrictions that apply to run-of-the-mill Freedom of Information Act requests do not apply when the committee requests document. Second, under the Presidential Records Act, President Clinton would normally be able to block the release of certain documents for up to 12 years. But under the PRA, the committee's request overrides any attempt by President Clinton to block the release of these records. Faced with a committee request, the only basis for withholding documents is executive privilege, and President Obama has apparently decided not to do that. So the concern is that last week the director of the library was quoted in the Los Angeles Times as saying that it would be ``very difficult'' for them to comply by the June 28 hearing date. The director said, ``there are just too many things here,'' and that ``these are legal documents and they are presidential records, and they have to be read by an archivist and vetted for any legal restrictions. And they have to be read line by line.'' In the letter we received on Friday, the library indicated they will start delivering documents by June 4--3 weeks before the hearing--and then they will make additional deliveries on a rolling basis. They did not tell us by when they will provide all the documents. I know they have a hard job. Maybe they have to do all these things, but the fact is we have a deadline that has been set by Chairman Leahy to start the hearing on June 28, and we are not able to, in my view, conduct a good hearing if we don't have the documents. So I am trying to make clear to my colleagues that we are heading toward what could be a train wreck. I don't believe this committee can go forward without these documents in the request and have an accurate hearing. The public record of a nominee to such a lifetime position as Justice on the Supreme Court is of such importance that we cannot go forward without these documents. I hope we will get those in a timely fashion. If not, I think we will have no choice but to ask for a delay in the beginning of the hearings. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, Americans cherish and respect their military. They support and celebrate those who wear the uniform and serve our Nation. When our Nation is at war, they understand that this obligation of support deepens. Indeed, just Friday, I got forwarded to me an e-mail from a mother whose son was being deployed to Iraq, and she said that the one thing critical to them was to feel they had the support of the American people. The American people understand that no matter what your ideology, no matter your view of the conflict we are engaged in, you have to support those whom we in Congress have deployed to execute policies that the President and the Congress have adopted. They didn't adopt the policies; we did. And when we send them, they deserve our support. The American people understand that it is not about politics but about the duty of citizenship--a duty to stand in solidarity with those in harm's way and those who defend our freedoms. I believe these sentiments--shared by Americans overwhelmingly--are important as we evaluate the conduct of President Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Elena Kagan. They will raise serious questions that really must be answered before we have a final vote. I think it is just as important for me to say that. Some people have suggested that the issue I am going to talk about is not significant. I think it is. I was involved in the debate of the Solomon amendment. I remember how it happened. Ms. Kagan, who became the dean of Harvard Law in 2003, kicked the military off Harvard's campus and out of its campus recruitment office. She gave the big law firms full access to recruit bright young associates but obstructed the access of the military as it tried to recruit bright young JAG officers to support and represent our soldiers as they were risking their lives for our country. It was an unjustifiable decision. But rather than acknowledge that Ms. Kagan had acted inappropriately, the Obama administration has instead done something that, to me, is odd: it has tried to defend this indefensible activity--distorting the clear facts in the process. We need to get that straight. As we begin to think about this nomination, we need to understand the facts. During a recent television interview, Vice President Biden actually said that Ms. Kagan was ``right'' to interfere with military recruitment. He then defended her conduct with the suggestion that she was somehow acting under a court order to keep the military people off campus. In reality--let's be correct--I misspoke--to keep the military from utilizing the normal recruitment offices available to every other law firm in America. In reality, the opposite situation is true. Ms. Kagan disregarded the law, really, in essence, in order to obstruct military recruitment during a time of war. In 1995, Congress passed the Solomon amendment, which required universities to give equal access to military recruiters if they wished to continue to receive taxpayer funding for their university programs. The passage of the Solomon amendment was a matter of a large national debate. I suspect most Americans have a vivid recollection of those discussions. It was well known that certain law schools, such as Harvard, were blocking the military from going to their recruitment offices and utilizing the resources like any other entity could do. Administrators at Harvard and other law schools had been restricting access of military recruiters to campuses for several years, citing as their reason their opposition to President Clinton's don't ask, don't tell policy about gays in the military. That was something on which Congress had voted. It is a matter of statutory law, and President Clinton had indicated his support in the way it would be enforced. It came to be fairly settled as a national policy in that regard. It was Congress's hope that the Solomon amendment would put an end to this obstruction. It basically said: You cannot deny our military the right to come on campus if they are following U.S. law, and still get Federal money. But Harvard persisted nonetheless. Finally, in 2002, I believe it was the Air Force that made an official complaint. The Department of Defense spoke up. It quoted the statute that had been passed in the U.S. Code, title 10. They quoted it to Harvard and said: If you continue to deny entrance of our military personnel to the recruiting centers, you get no more Federal money. At that point, the principle evaporated. This great principle on which they were standing, a little money dangled in front of them and they folded on this point. Dean Clark, Ms. Kagan's predecessor at Harvard, got the message, and he complied. The restrictions on the military recruitment were lifted. This means that when Ms. Kagan became dean of Harvard, the military had full, open, and equal access to campus facilities. That is the policy she inherited; that is the policy she deeply opposed; and that is the policy she set about to reverse. Ms. Kagan began her efforts to reverse the policy when she joined 53 of her academic colleagues in filing a brief to challenge the Solomon amendment. This case had been filed in another circuit, not Harvard's. If their efforts in this legal attack were successful, they would again obstruct the military's access on campus, and they could do so without losing Federal funds. That is what she wanted, no doubt about that. Initially, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, not her circuit, heard the case, and they issued a 2 to 1 decision that ordered the district court in New Jersey to issue a preliminary injunction suspending enforcement of the Solomon amendment in that district in New Jersey. The injunction was to take effect after a certain time period. I believe 50 days. But that injunction was never issued, even in that one district of New Jersey, because the Supreme Court of the United States undertook to hear the case, and the court of appeals, respecting the Supreme Court's view, eliminated their order staying the enforcement of the Solomon amendment. I note, even if the Third Circuit's ruling had not been stayed, it would have applied only to the Third Circuit, not to Harvard. Remember, the Solomon amendment was a duly enacted law passed by the Congress. Fully understanding all of this, as the trained and educated dean she was, Dean Kagan still used this ruling as a pretext to deny the enforceability of the Solomon amendment on the Harvard campus, again kicking the military out of the campus recruiting office. It did not apply. It was never made applicable and certainly not made applicable to the Harvard campus. But yet she used that as a pretext to carry out her desires about the don't ask, don't tell policy. But I am told: Don't worry about that, Jeff. They could still talk to veterans groups on campus. They were not barred from campus. They just could not use the center for recruiting, but they could still talk to people on campus, and it is not so important. Well, if it is not so important, why did Dean Kagan go to such great lengths to have the law overturned, even risking Harvard's financial support? It was important. Barred from institutional access, the military now had to work through a student group, the Harvard Law School Veterans Association. The veterans association, however, did not believe this was fair to them. They had courses to attend and school work to do. They wrote to their classmates about Dean Kagan's decision and explained they were unable to fill the role of the military recruiters that she had excluded. This is what they said: Given our tiny membership, meager budget, and lack of any office space, we possess neither the time nor the resources to routinely schedule campus rooms or advertise extensively for outside organizations, as is the norm for most recruiting events. But Dean Kagan still did not relent. Only when the military again threatened to cut off money to Harvard did she give in. This was the second time they had to make this threat. This statute says the Secretary of Defense shall notify them that they will no longer get Federal funds if they do not allow recruiters on campus. Ms. Kagan reversed Harvard's existing policy in order to obstruct the access of the military recruiters. She disregarded a congressional statute. Eventually, her view was rejected by the Supreme Court. So what happened when the Third Circuit case got to the Supreme Court? She filed a brief with a group of other academics attacking the Solomon amendment. What happened? By an 8-to-0 vote, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected her brief. According to Dean Kagan, actions she took against the military were motivated by her opposition to don't ask, don't tell. But somehow her fierce opposition was not enough to prevent her, I note parenthetically, from serving as a loyal aide to the man who created the policy, President Clinton. No, instead she directed her punishment to the military that had nothing to do with it. The soldiers, the recruiters who wanted to come on Harvard campus had nothing to do with establishing this don't ask, don't tell policy. It was Congress's law. It is statutory, and President Clinton endorsed it with his don't ask, don't tell enforcement strategy. It was the law of the land. It was not a policy dreamed up by some general somewhere. She knew that. Ms. Kagan's conduct may have been applauded by some in the progressive circles of academia, but I think the American people would be uneasy about it. They are not sympathetic to the actions she took against the brave men and women who defend the rights and freedoms of Ms. Kagan, of Harvard professors, and of all Americans. Dean Kagan has no judicial record to examine, and she has very little experience as a lawyer. One of the most prominent features of her legal experience and her tenure at Harvard is scarred by her open mistreatment of the military and her disregard for very clear law. I wish it were not so, but it is. This matter does raise questions of whether Dean Kagan would be able to serve all Americans as a responsible, impartial jurist or whether she would bring her ideological agenda to the bench and attempt to get around the Constitution and the laws of the United States to effectuate what she thinks might be a better policy. That is the question I think is legitimate to ask, as well as to ask, in a serious way: What were you thinking when you punished our men and women in uniform because you did not like what Congress and your President--President Clinton--did with regard to their policies on gays in the military? It is not a small matter. I believe this decision was clearly wrong. I believe it was not lawful. I believe it was not good policy. We will need to talk about that as we go forward and to hear a sincere explanation from the nominee. This is not something from which we cannot learn. It is not necessarily the decisive matter in this person's nomination. But it is not correct to say it is an insignificant matter. It is a significant matter, a very significant matter. And it is a matter of significance such that whoever comments about it, even if it is the Vice President of the United States, they should be accurate. They should not be inaccurate, as has happened repeatedly from my observation in the media, as well as my good friend, our former colleague, Senator Biden, who also served on the Judiciary Committee. It is time we get these facts straight. I also wish to express a concern about one more matter. During her time in the Clinton White House, 1995 to 1999, Dean Kagan, now Solicitor General Kagan, served in the White House Counsel's Office and later as Director of Domestic Policy Council in the White House. That is one of the few extensive public records she has. We need to obtain the documents relating to that service in advance of the hearings that now have been set for June 28. I think it is a rush to get ready for June 28, but I told Senator Leahy, our chairman, that he is the boss, and we will try to be ready by the 28th. But we both know it is important to have these documents in time to examine them before the committee hearing because so little other documents exist as to her record. All the documents that have been requested I believe the committee is entitled to see. Senator Leahy has joined with me. We worked together on this. It appears President Obama has decided not to assert any claims of Executive privilege that would block the production of any of these documents. We received a letter from the Clinton Library on Friday where these records are held indicating that they understand President Obama will not make any claims of privilege. The White House recognizes these documents are an important part of Ms. Kagan's record. In fact, after she was nominated, the White House sent a public letter to the National Archives asking for release of documents relating to her service in the Clinton White House. They included all of her e-mail documents in their request. But the White House request and media requests under FOIA are different from the committee request. So last week, Chairman Leahy and I sent a letter to the Clinton Library requesting these documents. I appreciate the leadership of Senator Leahy, who has been through so many of these confirmation matters--this is consistent with our history--and I appreciate his efforts on the letter and to get this information. But I would note there are important distinctions between the Obama White House's request and the committee's request. First, the restrictions that apply to run-of-the-mill Freedom of Information Act requests do not apply when the committee requests document. Second, under the Presidential Records Act, President Clinton would normally be able to block the release of certain documents for up to 12 years. But under the PRA, the committee's request overrides any attempt by President Clinton to block the release of these records. Faced with a committee request, the only basis for withholding documents is executive privilege, and President Obama has apparently decided not to do that. So the concern is that last week the director of the library was quoted in the Los Angeles Times as saying that it would be ``very difficult'' for them to comply by the June 28 hearing date. The director said, ``there are just too many things here,'' and that ``these are legal documents and they are presidential records, and they have to be read by an archivist and vetted for any legal restrictions. And they have to be read line by line.'' In the letter we received on Friday, the library indicated they will start delivering documents by June 4--3 weeks before the hearing--and then they will make additional deliveries on a rolling basis. They did not tell us by when they will provide all the documents. I know they have a hard job. Maybe they have to do all these things, but the fact is we have a deadline that has been set by Chairman Leahy to start the hearing on June 28, and we are not able to, in my view, conduct a good hearing if we don't have the documents. So I am trying to make clear to my colleagues that we are heading toward what could be a train wreck. I don't believe this committee can go forward without these documents in the request and have an accurate hearing. The public record of a nominee to such a lifetime position as Justice on the Supreme Court is of such importance that we cannot go forward without these documents. I hope we will get those in a timely fashion. If not, I think we will have no choice but to ask for a delay in the beginning of the hearings. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, when our colleagues arrive, I will be pleased to yield the floor to them, but I will be offering, after 3 o'clock, along with Senator Claire McCaskill, my Democratic colleague from Missouri, an amendment we voted on before in the Senate. It is an amendment that would establish 3-year discretionary spending caps, limits on how much we can spend, how much debt we can run up. To violate those limits, it would take a two-thirds vote of the Senate and the House to pass. So this is a spending limitation amendment that will have some teeth to it. It will allow us to have in effect a budget because it looks like, even in light of the incredibly disastrous financial crisis we are in, we will not pass a budget this year. We need to do that. But the House has not even moved one. One has been moved out of committee on a straight party-line vote, but there are indications we may not move it in the Senate, and if the House does not move, we will not have a budget. What our amendment would do is help fill that gap. That is another reason for it. It would set spending limits for 3 years. The limits we would set are the limits President Obama submitted as spending limits last time. I recall, of my colleagues, 59 Senators voted for it, 1 short of moving through the Senate, a few weeks ago. I will talk about that at 3. I see my colleague is here, Senator Johanns. I will be pleased to yield the floor. We will talk about this amendment later.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, when our colleagues arrive, I will be pleased to yield the floor to them, but I will be offering, after 3 o'clock, along with Senator Claire McCaskill, my Democratic colleague from Missouri, an amendment we voted on before in the Senate. It is an amendment that would establish 3-year discretionary spending caps, limits on how much we can spend, how much debt we can run up. To violate those limits, it would take a two-thirds vote of the Senate and the House to pass. So this is a spending limitation amendment that will have some teeth to it. It will allow us to have in effect a budget because it looks like, even in light of the incredibly disastrous financial crisis we are in, we will not pass a budget this year. We need to do that. But the House has not even moved one. One has been moved out of committee on a straight party-line vote, but there are indications we may not move it in the Senate, and if the House does not move, we will not have a budget. What our amendment would do is help fill that gap. That is another reason for it. It would set spending limits for 3 years. The limits we would set are the limits President Obama submitted as spending limits last time. I recall, of my colleagues, 59 Senators voted for it, 1 short of moving through the Senate, a few weeks ago. I will talk about that at 3. I see my colleague is here, Senator Johanns. I will be pleased to yield the floor. We will talk about this amendment later.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I won't discuss any further the amendment I am going to call up. It was offered by Senator McCaskill and me 2 or 3 weeks ago. We reached as high as 59 votes for it, one short of passage. It is an amendment that would put a statutory limit on spending, making it more difficult to violate the limits we put by requiring a two-thirds vote to break that limit except in time of war and emergency. I ask at this time to call up amendment No. 4173.

Mr. SESSIONS. I now ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment.

Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Acting President pro tempore and yield the floor.