Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I wish to share a few thoughts on some of the discussion we had earlier today. My colleagues shared some ideas about whether we are funding OSHA sufficiently, that sort of thing. The spending per business from OSHA is different from spending per union. OSHA has many businesses they serve, and so they go out to each one and make their visits and do their inspections and assess penalties. But unions serve many businesses, and one inspector would come there and spend some time and would cover their relationship with quite a number of businesses. All workplaces are not unionized so I don't think that was a fair comparison. Also, the Department of Labor just reported that the indictment and conviction numbers continue to go up. They now have 798 convictions and 834 indictments. It seems every day they are out there making good progress, where they have the capability to do so, against fraud and corruption. With regard to the full-time equivalent, the number of employees, in recent years we have seen an increase in the number of employees--that is true--but the truth is those increases have been modest. For example, in 1990, there were over 400 OLMS employees. Now that number dropped down below 300. Mostly during the period of the Clinton administration there was a sharp dropoff. Now it is back up to 331, but that is well below the amount it used to be. I don't think there is anything that can be said except that Secretary Chao has begun to restore that office a bit, tried to get it on a stronger basis, have it do a better job of enforcing the law. She needs that. One can only interpret this budget cut--the only budget cut within this whole line item of appropriations to her enforcement agency, the agency that requires the unions to publish their expenditures, the enforcement agency that actually does audits--as an indication of something rather serious, especially when the audits are uncovering extraordinary amounts of problems. That is what we have. We have a situation in which we have had so little oversight that there is abuse of union members' money going on on a regular basis. That money is too often being abused. Not by everybody; overwhelmingly, the average union leader is honest and decent. The locals are run by good people elected by their members. But long-term tenures, lack of controls, no audits puts people in a position where their good discipline fails. I have seen it in churches. People in church have access to large amounts of money. Nobody is monitoring it, and they take it, sometimes large amounts. So we need to understand that oversight, auditing, and financial disclosure is not punishment. It is not demeaning. It is serving the rank-and-file union members. It is serving their interests so they can know their leadership is functioning honestly and with integrity, and they can know what they are spending their money on. It may be an honest expenditure, but a union member might look at it and say: They paid too much for this copy machine because that is his brother-in-law. They might want to complain about that. Isn't that the way we want it to happen? That is what the whole system is about. It is disappointing to me to see that we have a cut in this agency, of all agencies. I am disappointed in that. I know Secretary Chao would be concerned that people thought that somehow in doing these few audits--and we are so slow in what we are doing and doing so few it would take 33 years to audit all existing unions. But to suggest they were spending so much money on that, and they weren't protecting workers. There is actually some good news there. For example, since fiscal year 2001, the fatality rate among Hispanic workers has fallen by over 18 percent. Since 2002, the injury and illness incident rate has fallen from 5.3 per 100 workers to 4.6 per 100 workers, a drop of more than 13 percent in the injury and illness incident rate, which is a substantial improvement. With regard to the number of resources, from 1992 to 2002, there were budget cuts and the FTEs dropped 34 percent. That is the number of workers during basically the period in which President Clinton was in office. The audits of unions, the local unions dropped by two-thirds in that decade. That is all we are saying. Secretary Chao has a statutory responsibility to do audits, a statutory and compelling responsibility to insist on these reports being filed on time. They are required by a law that was passed in 1959. Thirty-six percent of the unions are not submitting those reports on time so their members cannot access where their money is going. We had almost a million people in the last year access the Web site where these reports are required to be filed to see where the money is being spent. This is union members accessing these Web sites so they can find out where the money they are contributing to the local union is being spent. What is wrong with that? Why would we want to cut this agency when we still are not where we need to be? We are auditing only a very small fraction of the unions, and a substantial number, over a third, are failing to report as required by law--not a law I am asking us to pass, not a law that is part of this amendment--a law that was passed by then-Senator John F. Kennedy in 1959. So I believe this is a good government issue. It is the right thing to do. It will not hurt unions. It will strengthen unions. It will make people feel better about their membership. It may be some bosses do not want to have to disclose where they spend their money, and they may be contacting Senators and telling them: Don't give in. Fight. Don't let them go back and make us do these audits. Don't do it. Cut their budget. Stop Elaine Chao from doing what she is required by law to do. Don't give her the money. Maybe that is what is happening. I do not know. I hope not. I think we ought to keep this going. We ought to at least have this modest increase which is a little more than the inflation rate--a net $3 million increase on a $47 million budget from last year. That modest increase will allow her to keep the momentum, to keep these delinquency rates going down, moving in the right direction, with financial disclosure, sunshine. That is going to help eliminate fraud in itself. Then she will be able to also do a certain number of other audits. Maybe we can see not an increase in convictions, but we might see a decrease, if we know there is more accountability. Again, there were 796 criminal convictions over the last 6 years, with court-ordered restitution of $101 million. Whose money is that? Whose money was being ordered to be paid back? It is union members' money--working Americans who have trusted their leaders. Maybe in the union hall there are 10 officers and leaders and only one of them found themselves in a position to steal. I am not saying we have this wholesale problem. What I am saying is there is a very real problem. There is no doubt about it. We are finding far too many criminal cases for each audit that is done. As a result, it takes up time by the investigators. It takes up time by the auditors. It results oftentimes in a loss of money that no matter what the judge orders to be restored--no matter how much restitution they order--it may not actually ever be paid back if they do not have it. That is a true fact. So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Once again, some of you may be concerned that the offset was to take money from the ILO, I believe it is, the U.N.-affiliated international labor group that is supposed to help labor conditions around the world. They certainly have high and good goals. I am not sure they have been very effective. But this money for my amendment is not coming from there anymore. I know a lot of people want to see that budget increased. So this offset will be an offset from administrative expenses of Labor and HHS and Education. It will be a small impact on their overall budget. I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Wyoming. I yield to the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, this amendment is similar to the one I introduced yesterday, except it provides a different offset to pay for the needed additional funds for the Office of Labor-Management Standards in the 2008 Labor-HHS budget. This is a program that I believe is critically important. It is a program that has been very successful. It has resulted in over 700 prosecutions in the last several years and restitution to union members and union locals in the amount of about $101 million. This is an important program. It is a working program. It represents the only required audits, the only required reporting and disclosure for unions in the country. The Securities and Exchange Commission does that for corporations and other institutions that are required to be audited. Other than this program, there is no real integrity to protect union members from fraud and corruption and theft. I will mention in a moment some extraordinary thefts that have occurred from union members, why this is important, and I will express my personal and deep belief that one reason we have as much broad corruption in unions is because we are not auditing them. We are not doing it. Even with the current level of funding, we are way behind and it would take, at this rate, 33 years to do a basic audit of all the unions around the country. That is not acceptable. People are not being watched. They feel like they are free and temptation and money is coming before them. Obviously, people are succumbing to that temptation. More rigorous enforcement and audits are needed. The Office of Labor-Management Standards is a group that is required to enforce the statutory provision that mandates that unions provide, each year, public disclosure of how they spend their money. It was a bill offered and passed in 1959 by former Senator and former President, John F. Kennedy. It was an important reform. During the Clinton years, sadly, this reporting requirement was almost totally abandoned and, under Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao, in recent years she has worked hard and those reporting numbers are up. But 36 percent still don't report. There is not even a way, with our staffing level, that she can insist on that. So 36 percent are not reporting properly. The members don't know where their money is being used. That is the fundamental question. The committee mark doesn't even flat fund the Department; it cuts its funding by $2 million. Every other enforcement agency is given an increase, but this one is cut. I think our members ought to ask themselves, do we need to be listening to certain union leaders who don't want disclosure, or do we need to be listening to union members whose funds and dues are being misappropriated? If we do regular audits, they will be more effective, and I am convinced we will see a dropoff in this kind of problem. It is the right thing to do. My proposal is to add $5 million, $2 million of which would get us back to last year's budget only, and a $3 million cost of living on top of that, so they can continue an aggressive effort to ensure integrity. I have Senator Enzi with me, the ranking member of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, and Senator Alexander, who are both interested in speaking on this. I will yield to Senator Enzi at this time. I believe I have 30 minutes; is that right?

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I wish to take a few moments now and call up my amendment. I wish to make some comments about amendment No. 3324. It is an important amendment that deals with an issue that is too often overlooked, and I will share my thoughts about it. The amendment will restore funding to the Office of Labor and Management Standards at the Department of Labor by increasing funding at OLMS by $5 million. There is an important principle involved here. Union members should have the same protection of their moneys that stockholders have in businesses. In many ways, they deserve better protection than stockholders. The Office of Labor and Management Standards is to union transparency and integrity what the SEC, the Securities and Exchange Commission, is to corporate accountability. Yet for fiscal year 2008, the Senate appropriations bill that is now before the Senate funded the SEC at $905 million. That is $12 million above the fiscal year 2007 level and at the requested level of the President's budget. The Office of Labor and Management Standards is the only Federal agency created to protect rank-and-file union members. It enforces the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, which requires financial disclosure by labor unions and union officers. It requires disclosure, that is all it does. This office audits, in addition, union books to detect embezzlement and other thefts of union members' dues and ensures fair elections of union officers. The mission of the OLMS, referred to on this chart, is to provide union financial transparency; that is, it would require the officers to tell their members how they are spending their money. That is all it does. It does not tell them what they must spend it on. It requires that they give a fair report of the money they obtain from their members. It has as its mission to protect union financial integrity. As I will point out, we have had quite a problem with that issue over the years. It will safeguard union democracy. That is fair elections in unions. All those points are important issues. Anyone close to this issue for the last 50 years knows we have had constant problems in this area. This is popular with the union members and is the right thing for us to do. This office has been funded at $47.8 million, and it has shown big results. It is a small agency that is showing big results, and I will talk about that point. From 2001 to 2007, OLMS investigations have resulted in 796 convictions--that is since 2001--and have resulted in court-ordered restitutions to unions and to union members of $101 million. Those are pretty good results. I am going to explain in a moment how they are vastly underfunded already. We need more. I will go into that issue in a moment. Since 2001, OLMS has recovered, as I noted, $101 million. I doubt that is all that was stolen. No doubt it is not all that was stolen. This is what was actually ordered and recovered in restitution. I would say that, by any standard, $101 million is a lot of money. Since 2001, the work by OLMS has resulted in convictions and restitution, so we are talking about an agency that is working on behalf of the American worker, ensuring the American worker knows how the union dues they have contributed are being spent. When it is clear their money is being abused, OLMS works to fairly return the money to them; this is a good program and an important program. Embezzlement is not something the American people support. We as a Congress are focusing on transparency in a lot of different areas, and it is embarrassing that our colleagues have decided to cut funding in the one office in the whole Federal Government, the only one, that is required to carry out this job with regard to our unions. Let me show this chart. As a Federal prosecutor myself for a number of years, I have to say I am impressed with these numbers. Since 2001, 95 percent of indictments that have been produced as a result of OLMS investigations have resulted in convictions. That is a pretty good success rate. So it is clear they are not picking on people who have made honest mistakes or where honest errors are occurring and people are doing what they are supposed to do as union leaders. In fact, they have offices strategically placed around the country. Every union in the country has OLMS employees who live within driving distances of their offices. They are ready to help the union leaders figure out how to complete any required forms and disclosures. They are prepared to assist in any problems that arise in union elections. They are a resource and were not created as a punishing tool for unions. We are not, as a part of this amendment, and those who support this amendment, out to kick labor unions around. We are trying to make sure they comply with the law and ensure that the rank-and-file members have someone watching out for them and their money. It is clear from these statistics that there is still a need for oversight, sunlight, and transparency. That is clear. We have a problem out there and it still exists. It is painfully clear we need to be monitoring union officials who are taking bribes--and some have been convicted of that--who are involved in racketeering and stealing hard-earned money from working Americans. Since 2001, OLMS has been able to audit only 3,275 of the 26,000 unions on record. They are supposed to be auditing these unions, but, in fact, since 2001, they have only been able to audit 12\1/2\ percent of the unions on record. I have to tell you, if you do more audits, you are going to have less criminal activity. It is when people know they are not being watched, know they are not likely to be audited, that they take chances and make mistakes and get themselves in trouble and cost their union members a lot of money. OLMS, in the year 2000, only did 204 audits out of well over 20,000 unions. That is the equivalent of a union being audited once every 133 years. Last year, OLMS did 736 audits, which translates into an audit every 33 years. So we are doing better, but we are still a long way from a regular audit program. Now, with the $2 million reduction in funding--and you have a cost- of-living increase with salaries and electricity and all those kinds of things that tend to go up--if you have taken a flat net reduction of $2 million in funding, there will be approximately 350 fewer audits each year. That is about half. Shouldn't we be seeking more audits, considering that from the 3,267 audits that were completed between 2000 and 2007 there came 827 indictments and 796 convictions? I think so. I think this is a good investment for our country. Now, in the very few reports OLMS audited, evidence was found in many of them that warranted other action. In my home State of Alabama, 41 audits were completed, and from that came 20 convictions; that is, almost half the audits resulted in some conviction. Here in the District of Columbia, 30 audits were completed, resulting in 27 convictions. One of those was the Washington Teachers Union. Let me give that example. On October 23 of last year, in the U.S. District Court, Cheryl Martin, the daughter of a former Washington Teachers Union executive assistant to the president, Gwendolyn Hemphill, was sentenced to a probationary sentence--which she should be most thankful for, it appears to me--for her role in an embezzlement scheme which defrauded the union of $4.6 million. Right here, just last October. She pled guilty to conspiracy to laundering money and for assisting her husband Michael Martin in laundering more than $500,000 in Washington Teachers Union members' funds, most of which were funneled back to Hemphill and the then WTU president, Barbara Bullock. Well, that is quite a lot--$4.6 million stolen from only about 5,000 union members. That is about $1,000 a member. This isn't chickenfeed, it is real money. I have heard stories of how some of those very same teachers who lost their money through union embezzlement are the same ones buying pencils, books, and supplies for their students out of their own pockets. So despite what some might say, convicting people who steal from unions and seeking restitution is not anti-union activity; it is pro-union activity. There are many cases such as this that need transparency to come to light. Since 2001, the administration, President Bush, and Secretary Chao have worked hard to reach consensus on how best to work with the unions to get voluntary compliance on disclosure forms that the law requires them to make. But, still, many unions are not reporting as they are required to do. This chart shows, unfortunately, that the compliance rate for unions is only 64 percent, with 36 percent failing to comply. That is an unacceptable number. If this were the Securities and Exchange Commission, we would not accept the fact that our stockholders and employees are placed at risk because those entities, those corporations, are not being monitored. If it were the Federal Election Commission and we didn't submit our financial disclosures on time, people would be very critical. Somebody would probably ask that we step down from our offices as we would be committing a violation of the law. However, we don't seem to be as willing to protect our workers and the money they pay in to their unions. The way this works here, we have public access when these forms are reported, the ones that do, and you can call or go to the Department of Labor in person or get online information at www.unionreports.gov and review these reports. Now, union members care about this. It is most valuable information to union members--those people in the town who know the community, they know the company, they know the union, they know their coworkers, the stewards, the union reps, the employees. By law they are required to have this information to see what is being done with the money. Union members want to know how their dues are being spent, and it is clear they are looking to see how their money is spent. Between May of 2006 and May of 2007, in the past year, there were 767,000 hits on the OLMS Web site, an average of over 2,000 a day. People are looking to see how their bosses are spending their money. According to a 2004 Zogby poll, 71 percent of union members want disclosure. They want to know how their funds are being spent. The foundations of this transparency were established in the 1950s when the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 was passed. Transparency and sunlight--full disclosure of financial gains and losses. These are the tenets that Senator Kennedy, John Kennedy, former President Kennedy, and the McClellan Commission report, set in place 50 years ago to protect union members, our hard-working Americans, from corruption, bribery, coercion, or maybe worse. The data shows the actions OLMS is taking in pursuing corruption are spot on. They are doing what they should be doing; they just don't have enough resources now to do it. They certainly don't need a cut in their budget. When President Bush took office and Secretary Elaine Chao was appointed to be the Secretary of Labor--and she has done a fantastic job, in my opinion--they quickly learned that most union members didn't even know they had rights or what agency would enforce those rights if they were abused. Now there are posters placed at every union workplace stating clearly the rights and duties of unions and employees. The funding increase proposed in this amendment, which I will be offering, I believe is warranted as OLMS is showing substantive results that are benefitting rank-and-file members, and providing valuable resources to union leaders as so many of them work to uphold the law, but they need assistance in doing that correctly. In fact, the Department of Labor has gone to great lengths to ensure that labor union officials have all the help they need and that the reporting requirements are reasonable. To make the rules fair, you must sometimes work out problems you have and decrease the burden. Over the years, the Secretary has consulted with labor leaders, has made the forms easier to understand, has worked closely with the AFL-CIO and other unions to create exceptions, exemptions, and to simplify reporting requirements where possible. But you have to know where the money is being spent ultimately. DOL last year added examples and further guidance to one of the forms that is required, the LM 30. OLMS has been funded below the requested level for the last several years. This is beginning to accumulate in a way that is hurting their ability to meet their needs. This is the level requested by the President to keep this agency on track, and we have been seeing a decline in funding. Last year, the budget was $47.753 million. This year, the committee bill cuts it by $2 million to $45.737 million. With all due respect, I think that is a bad decision. We have a lot of increases in this agency. It is a very important agency, but that is a major reduction when you see it has continued to fall behind what we projected their growth to be. This agency has seen difficult times. It does seem to be an issue that is political, I have to say. During the Clinton administration, OLMS was cut to only 260 employees. Understaffed, the division was purposefully and expressly prohibited from even carrying out the enforcement duties the law required. This administration has at least attempted to restore resources to OLMS so it can carry out its mission. Even so, the President's fiscal year 2008 staffing request for only 369 FTEs--that is full-time personnel--is still below the 1985 level, which was 463. Now, as you can see, the trend has turned away from providing even those resources, resulting in a more substantial cut. It indicates to me that if we maintain this level, this Congress is not interested in seeing that this agency, the only one in Government empowered and given the responsibility of enforcing integrity in unions, would be reduced in its ability to do so, to a precarious level indeed. In fact, OLMS was the only enforcement agency, the only one in the Labor Department, that received a budget cut during the congressional markup of that bill. It is the only one in this bill on the floor now, the only office at this agency, that got a cut. The Appropriations Committee increased the Department's overall budget by $937 million above what the President requested for the Department of Labor. The only cut in the Department's budget, which totals $10 billion, was an $2 million cut for OLMS. Senator John F. Kennedy was instrumental in passing this act in 1959 and the act says that a member: . . . must have access to union financial records and has the right to recover misappropriated union assets on behalf of a union when the union fails to do so. That is what the act called for. Senator Kennedy spoke on it aggressively. Then Senator Kennedy, later President Kennedy, said: The racketeers will not like it, the antilabor extremists around the country will not like it, but I am confident the American people, and the overwhelmingly honest rank and file union members, will benefit from this measure for many years to come. That was in 1959, almost 50 years ago. He said they will benefit from this law for many years to come, and I submit they have: 796 crooks have been convicted, $101 million in restitution has been received in the last 6 years. Senator Robert Byrd, a champion of union rights who, I have to tell you--isn't it something? is still a Member of this Senate--he was active in this debate. During that time, he got a letter from a member of the UMWA in West Virginia. They sent him a letter condemning his vote for it. Senator Byrd, who still retains great respect in the union membership--and leadership, too, for that matter--this is how he responded on the floor of the Senate: The bill which passed the Congress will not hurt honest unions, and it will give added protection to the rank-and- file members in the unions. Honest union leaders have nothing to fear from the legislation . . . the corruption and racketeering that have been revealed in the fields of both labor and management made it imperative that some kind of legislation be enacted. I applaud the efforts of OLMS to pursue those who are misusing their power over our hard-working union members, those who are using that money for their personal benefit, abusing their position by squandering the hard-earned dollars of working Americans. Let me mention this story about the United Transportation Union. I think it highlights what can happen when there is no consistent oversight. I have a photograph that was taken in the course of an investigation that shows a person handing over money in a corrupt transaction. What is happening here is that the money is being given by a designated UTU legal counsel named Victor Bieganowski. The person receiving the money was John Russell Rookard, 58, of Olalla, WA, a top special assistant to Byron Alfred Boyd. Mr. Boyd was president of the UTU at the time. This picture shows the handing over of the money. There was an undercover agent working there and they recorded the deal. In 2004, Boyd, the international president of UTU, the nation's largest railroad operating union, pleaded guilty to participating in a bribery scheme involving Houston lawyers. Union officials extorted bribes from the lawyers in exchange for access to union members who might have been injured so they could file lawsuits. As a March 12, 2004, Houston Chronicle article explains, Byron Alfred Boyd, Jr., 57, of Seattle, is the last of four officials of the United Transportation Union to plead guilty--he admitted that he did it--in a plan to extort bribes from the lawyers in exchange for access to injured union members. He admitted using the bribes obtained from the lawyers, extorted from lawyers, to gain control of the union. He used it for his political strength too. He persuaded former union president Charles Leonard Little, 69, to resign in exchange for $100,000 and a new pickup, so Boyd could assume the post. He wanted to be president of the union. He goes to the former President and offers him $100,000 and a new pickup to resign so he could be president. Mr. Little should have been a little bit more careful before he resigned because when he resigned he never got his money, but he was out of office. Little also pleaded guilty last year, as did the former union insurance director, Ralph John Dennis, 51. The man in this picture, John Russell Rookard, 58, of Olalla, WA, a top assistant to Boyd, also pleaded guilty. The indictment alleged that some union presidents determined which lawyers were to be included on the union's designated counsel list. That position was coveted and very valuable because he gave those lawyers easier access to get clients from union members who might have been injured. They would therefore be able to make a lot of money off lucrative personal injury lawsuits. At the time of the indictments, 56 lawyers were on the list, including 6 in Texas. Unfortunately, we have example after example of this kind of disregard for doing the right thing with the money of our hardworking Americans. On August 31, let me note, Judy A. Thurman, former treasurer of Federated Independent Texas Union Local 900, pled guilty in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas to embezzlement of union funds totaling $164,268.50. That is a lot of money. We also have election violations. Assisting labor unions when problems arise in elections is an OLMS responsibility. One union officer generated over 300 phony ballots using the union's computer. He marked the ballots for himself--who else, I suppose--placed them in false return envelopes and returned them to the union, where they were subsequently counted in the election. Those kinds of things are hard for an average union member to understand, ascertain or prove. An agency such as this, that knows how to investigate and prove these things, can make sure our elections in unions are legitimate. All of us in this Senate know we have to have good staff, and Liz Stillwell, with me, is very much that. So staff capacity at OLMS is an important reason I have introduced this amendment. In 1992, staffing at OLMS was around 392. During the Clinton administration, it was cut back to 260. Today it is back up to 315, which is a little better. As you can see from this chart, the cuts have hit the Department hard. As a result, they are still unable to audit more than 2 to 4 percent of the total unions each year. Only 12 percent of unions have ever been audited. Of those audited, there have been 796 convictions. It tells us something. Let me say this. I spent most of my professional career as a Federal prosecutor. I prosecuted labor cases. But let me say, if you don't want to have these convictions, if you don't want to have this kind of theft from union members, let me tell you how to stop it. Have regular audits. Once everybody knows the money is going to be accounted for, that somebody is going to be watching closely, they are not going to steal. It is when there are no controls that people feel they are out on their own in some town or city or wherever, and nobody is looking, there is lots of money coming through the headquarters there and they have an opportunity to get it and they think no one is going to know it--temptation takes over. It will happen to anybody, not just union members or business people; it could happen to anybody when that kind of money is lying around. It happens in churches. People steal from churches. They have an opportunity and nobody has an ability to watch and account for it. If we want to end this kind of thing and strengthen unions and create a better reputation and environment, we need to step up prosecutions and we will begin to see a major reduction in crime, fraud, and abuse. That is the way it is. Since 1959, when Senators Byrd and Kennedy and other leaders passed the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, these priorities that I mentioned have been the guiding standards of this agency. The standards are to promote union democracy, protect union members' funds, protect American workers and fight labor racketeering. This $2 million cut is not aimed at an anti-union agency. It is, I have to say, an act that appears political and it appears it is conceding and giving in to union leaders and forgetting the interests of union members. I know a lot of the union leadership have complained about this law. They don't want to have to file a reporting document. They don't want to have to put it in--36 percent of them are not getting it in on time or at all. But who are we representing? I say we ought to represent union members and 71 percent of them want this disclosure; over 700,000 last year checked their union leadership reports on the Web site to see how their money was being spent. What is wrong with that? When it was created by Senators Kennedy and Byrd and others, it was not to shut down unions, it was to shut down theft, waste, fraud, abuse, criminal activity. Of around 26,000 unions active today, only 2 to 4 percent have been audited each year since 2001; only 12 percent have been audited at all. A quarter of the unions audited, 25 percent, have been found to be in violation of the law; 75 have been correct, were not found in violation. But 25 percent were found in violation. If we did those audits more regularly, we would have fewer problems with compliance, we would have fewer criminal convictions, we would have less restitution to have to be paid as a result of theft and abuse of the money. This transparency will help us there. When you turn on the lights, you can actually see what is going on and take action to fix the wrongdoing. So I hope somehow we can work through this. I know the managers of this bill have done a tremendous job. They had thousands and thousands of people making suggestions on thousands and thousands of issues. Then, to have somebody such as me come in and tell them this is what I think you ought to do--one more time, I am sure our colleagues such as Senator Harkin and Specter get tired of everybody's complaining. But I think we ought to work on this. I think this reduction in funding cuts from an agency that is actually doing a good job. We ought to encourage that agency to do a better job and actually increase their funding more. So I am asking simply that $5 million be put back in, which would bring it a little bit above last year's appropriations for the agency so they can at least stay on track of inflation and everything to continue at the same level of auditing and investigating they are now doing. I wish we could do more. Frankly, I wish we would. This would be my suggestion. I continue to look forward to perhaps seeing if we could reach some sort of accord on this. I ask my colleagues to study it carefully. I urge them to vote in support of this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Leigh Ann Ross be given the privilege of the floor during consideration of the Labor-HHS bill.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, prior to my election to the U.S. Senate, I served Alabama as the attorney general. During that time I had many opportunities to work with the organization that assists attorneys general in their many dealings with the Congress, White House, and government agencies the National Association of Attorneys General, NAAG. NAAG was founded in 1907, `` To facilitate interaction among Attorneys General as peers and to facilitate the enhanced performance of Attorneys General and their staffs.'' They opened their Washington office in 1976, and Lynne Ross was their first full-time employee. Her extensive work with attorneys general has been immensely valuable. She had strategic skills, dedication and wit. She understood how things work in the DC political world and knew how to negotiate on the many issues that were of importance to attorneys general. NAAG has been as successful as it is in no small part due to her leadership. She is a non-lawyer with a great understanding of lawyers. During her years at NAAG, Lynne was also instrumental in the creation of an organization of former attorneys general--the Society of Attorneys General Emeritus, SAGE, of which I am a member, and she has always been a great resource for our members. I would like to take this opportunity to offer my appreciation to Lynne for her many years of dedicated service to NAAG. Her accomplishments are many. The organization and the Nation's attorneys general, both past and present, are stronger because of her hard work. Thank you, Lynne.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, it is unfortunate and sad, I think, that the Senate--and I would say the administration--has made a decision to prematurely draw down the National Guard presence at the southern border. That is an unwise event, and it signals uncertainty about our commitment to completing the lawful strategy we have for immigration at our border. It is not impossible for us to create a lawful system of immigration, but we have to do some things. We have allowed unlawfulness to continue for an extraordinary amount of time, to the extent that it is going to take us some effort now to reestablish a rule of law. But the whole world will be better off and everyone who wants to come to our country will be better off if they know what the rules are, how to apply, and have an understanding that their competitors who would like to come here are not going to be allowed to come illegally and then be rewarded by amnesty while they wait in line to come lawfully. So the amendment I have offered will fully fund Operation Jump Start at its original level--the 6,000 National Guard troops--through the end of fiscal year 2008. Currently, the Department of Defense has plans only to keep 3,000 at the border instead of the full 6,000 who were to be deployed through 2008. Furthermore, Operation Jump Start is actually now scheduled to end completely on July 1, 2008. So the increased funding provided for here--and I do believe it is an emergency and it is a legitimate emergency expenditure to create lawfulness at our border, which will protect the national security of the United States-- this increased funding will be needed to do these things: keep Operation Jump Start at the deployment level that has been so successful and keep Operation Jump Start running until this time next year. On May 15, 2006, President Bush announced Operation Jump Start, which was the employment of up to 6,000 National Guard members to the southern land border. According to Operation Jump Start Year 1 Review, its intent was to provide: An immediate means to enhance border enforcement operations while Border Patrol increased its own internal enforcement resources through hiring additional Border Patrol agents, mission support personnel, and procuring and applying new technology and infrastructure. It goes on to say: OJS is providing interim support as Border Patrol recruits, hires, and trains 6,000 additional Border Patrol agents by the end of calendar year 2008-- End of calendar year 2008; that is December of 2008. My amendment would simply carry the strength of the National Guard through September 30, 2008, the fiscal year. That is important because we are facing a rather substantial drawdown without this amendment. So deployments began on June 15, 2006, to give us a bit of a background. By August 2006, an average of 5,677 National Guard personnel were deployed. By June 2007--that is June of this year--an average of 5,759 were deployed. Since the beginning, on the border, the National Guard has supported the Department of Homeland Security by providing, among other things, the following skills: construction of tactical infrastructure; that is, fencing, roads, and lighting and those kinds of things that are really critical if we are serious about making sure people just don't walk across our border. You have to have those things. We made some progress in that regard, although, in truth, we should have made more. They are involved in fence repair, welding, and facility maintenance. Many of these are engineer Guard units with a lot of capabilities in this area. They provide vehicle and fleet maintenance. Many of these are transportation units that are skilled at fleet maintenance. Entry identification teams, surveillance and reconnaissance teams, law enforcement communication assistance, intelligence analysis--we have a lot of those capabilities in the National Guard. So I would say they are not being utilized on a daily basis to patrol the border and make arrests. We decided that would not be what they are deployed for. But they are really providing a lot of capability that frees up a limited number of Border Patrol agents to be the front-line troops, to go out and make the arrests and do the day-to-day work that has to be done. The success of the operation is undeniable. By early December of 2006, just 6 months after the deployment began, Robert Gilbert, the chief Border Patrol agent for the Border Patrol's El Paso sector, stated: Jointly, we are making a definite impact on the border. The professionalism and dedication and training the Guard units have brought to our mission and our fight, the way they have made it their mission and their fight, is more than we expected. That same month, the Chief of the National Guard Bureau, LTG Steve Blum, stated: I was here 2\1/2\ months ago and things that I didn't think would be possible in a year have already been accomplished. Infrastructure is up, fencing is up, roads are built, lighting is up, and apprehensions are down. Those aren't just words. The success of Operation Jump Start is tangible. According to the Year 1 Review: Force multiplication has allowed more Border Patrol agents to remain in the enforcement mode, not the support mode. The additional manpower has allowed DHS to return 563 agents to frontline positions. The result is referred to as ``badges back to the border.'' The Guard presence has added 337 miles of expanded border surveillance capabilities along the southwest border. Guard personnel provide 6,500 hours of camera monitoring. Somebody has to monitor the cameras. There is no doubt that an electronic fence, as some have said, is not a worthless idea. You can use cameras and electronic technology to enhance our capabilities at the border, but in the high-traffic areas, it is not a question of seeing people, it is a question of how you can detain them if they are coming illegally. So I think we made progress there with the help of the National Guard. Guard personnel have assisted in apprehending more than 10 percent of the aliens apprehended during the past year--a total of 84,878 apprehensions. Overall, apprehensions of illegal immigrants trying to cross the border are down by 25 percent. What most experts conclude that means is that an estimated 25 percent fewer illegal immigrants are attempting to cross. The Guard's presence is, in fact, having a deterrent effect. With the help of the National Guard, marijuana seizures are up 22 percent. The Guard was responsible for seizing 201,000 pounds of marijuana at the border. As a matter of fact, when we talk about security and the need to do something about openness and illegality at our border, we have to consider drugs to be a big part of that. Guard personnel have assisted in the seizure of 4,783 pounds of cocaine, 703 vehicles, and $60,000 in currency. So this is an important matter in the success we are having. The Guard presence has produced sizable gains in critically needed tactical infrastructure along the border. They have already repaired 428 miles of roads. You have to have roads if you are going to be effective in maintaining a border. And 16 miles of all-weather roads have been repaired and maintained. They have installed 58 miles of vehicle barriers. At least it prohibits people from driving into our country loaded with drugs or illegal items. They have constructed 18.2 miles of fencing, which is a disappointing number. After all that we funded in this Congress, which was 700 miles of fencing, we have only 18 miles completed. We voted for it. We talked about it. We go back home and tell our constituents we have done it. The President says we are doing it. The Secretary of Homeland Security says we are doing it. We have not accomplished much, but the Guard has played a role by using their engineering capability. Frankly, if they had been focused more on actual barriers, they probably would have accomplished more. The real reason is the way we planned this out has been very slow in development, in terms of building our fencing. In fact, we are informed that the fencing numbers are improving right now; that miles of fencing are appearing and coming much more rapidly on line than before. If you examine the situation closely, you will see there appears to be a move afoot to draw this out and end up with far less fencing than the Congress contemplated both with our authorization and appropriations bills. The Department of Homeland Security indicates that the Guard's presence will have an even greater impact on tactical infrastructure over the next year: The deployments will be focused on providing a greater residual value by raising the percentage of troops that are working on tactical infrastructure projects. This infrastructure will greatly enhance the ability of the men and women of the border patrol to access the border and be more effective in the enforcement efforts for many years to come. OK. What they are saying is they have projected in the coming months that the Guard is going to be even more effective because they will be providing a greater residual value by raising the percentage of troops working on infrastructure projects. Now, there are people who don't want infrastructure at the border, and they would like to bring the troops home, I suppose, before that happens. That would be a big mistake. The National Guard is helping the border to save lives. In the last year, they have rescued 91 people--illegal aliens--in the area who were in desperate trouble for lack of water or being lost. They rescued them. Now, this is what has happened. Despite the proven success of the program, the operation is scheduled to stop by next July. Troops are already being reduced. By the end of July, troops were down to 4,500; that is July of 2007. By the end of August of this year, troops were down to 3,500. So it dropped even more. Today, only 3,000 personnel are on Operation Jump Start orders, and, of those, only 2,300 are actually at the border. So already there has been a drawdown of more than half of the National Guard personnel, and not communicating that to the American people is leaving us in a difficult situation, I suggest. The National Guard was supposed to fill the gap until 6,000 new Border Patrol agents could be recruited, hired, trained, and stationed at the border. That goal has only been accomplished halfway. Only 3,000 new agents have joined the 1,000 who were on the border when President Bush announced Operation Jump Start. The National Guard is assisting in fence and other critical infrastructure construction. The Secure Fence Act that we passed mandated that the Department of Homeland Security construct more than 700 miles of new fencing. The administration's goal apparently is not to do that. Apparently it is to just complete 300 miles by the end of the whole next year, 2008. So with 2 years of authorization and funding, they will have only completed less than half of the fencing. To date, only 70 new miles have been constructed, for a total of 145 miles of fencing on the border. That is not the kind of signal we need to be sending. The reason that is important is because it has a psychological impact, as well as an actual apprehension impact. What about alien apprehensions? To date, alien apprehensions on the border are down 25 percent. While this is positive, because it indicates the attempts at crossings are likely down by 25 percent as well, the job is certainly not finished. The year before that, we arrested 1 million people at the border. Can you imagine that? One million people were arrested at the border. It is not an exaggeration to say that it is a wide-open, lawless area that needs attention from our Government. If we don't give it, we are breaking faith with the American people because we have said we are going to fix that, we are going to do something about it. We just haven't. I have to tell you there are some people who really don't care about it. They talk about it, but they don't care. We have some progress; 25 percent is a lot. It is not insignificant. But if we really got that fencing up and built, if we kept the National Guard down at the border, if we broaden the Border Patrol and motivate them to be as effective as they possibly could be, I absolutely believe--absolutely believe--we can reach a tipping point where the whole world begins to say the border of the United States is no longer wide open; that you can get in trouble going across there. Most people are getting caught. It is an entirely different place, so maybe we better not try it this time. Maybe somebody suggested we can do that, but that is not a good idea. But for the last 20 years-plus, it has been a well-known fact worldwide that you can just walk across our border, if you have very much initiative, and be successful at it. If they catch you, nothing ever happens. Now, I will conclude by noting that, according to the year review of Operation Jump Start: OJS is one of the many enforcement initiatives employed to expand enforcement capabilities to gain better operational control along the Southwest border. OJS, combined with other initiatives, such as Operation Streamline, Zero Tolerance, Arizona Border Control Initiative, and the Expedited Removal Program, has resulted in a cumulative, positive impact on current levels of border control. Good news. A positive impact. What it should do is give us encouragement. If we will just follow through, expand what we are doing, adjust to the changing tactics of those who want to enter illegally, and do it with will and determination and a positive attitude, we can make a difference. We can end this open border, end the illegality that has made the immigration system a mockery of law and an embarrassment to our people. Operation Jump Start is a proven success. It is a critical component of our strategy. Guardsmen are filling critical law enforcement roles. They are building fencing and infrastructure and interdicting narcotics and conducting surveillance and reconnaissance; and, by the way, a substantial majority of our cocaine and methamphetamines, for that matter, are coming into our country through Mexico. I talk to law enforcement officers in Alabama all the time. They say we used to get a lot out of Miami and south Florida. Now it is all coming across the Mexican border. So we have a law enforcement interest in this also. There is no reason Operation Jump Start should end this June. At a minimum, it should be extended until all 6,000 Border Patrol agents are on duty. The way we have been going, we authorize it and say we are going to add 6,000 Border Patrol agents, and they don't get added, if you want to know the truth. We have seen that happen time and time again. They said we were going to continue this Operation Jump Start and the National Guard, but we have already reduced our Guard personnel by more than half. That adds credibility problems with the American people. No wonder they are suspicious about what we are doing here. This amendment will provide the needed funding to keep Operation Jump Start at its original capacity, 6,000 Guard personnel, instead of what they have planned now. It makes no sense to the American people to say we found something that is effective, that is beginning to work to reduce the illegality we are facing, but we are stopping the program before the job is done. The border is not yet secure. It is too early to end this program. We need to step it up, and I think we will be in a position to have greater progress than anyone can imagine. Madam President, to sum up, the good news is we have made some progress, but we have not really begun to get to finishing up. If we get the fencing up and keep our Guard there full-time and get our new Border Patrol agents up and we move to ending the catch-and-release and adopt the Texas plan, where individuals are prosecuted for violating the laws by entering illegally--that has reduced border crossings in that area by 45 percent or more--and if we can do other things like that, this will work and we can make good progress. The problem is, I think some are not desirous of us being successful. Everything that tends to work seems to be delayed and slowed down and undermined. If we move forward, we can send a message to the world that our National Guard is there, our troops are there, the Border Patrol has been increased, we are building barriers, and you are not going to get in easily anymore, so you better wait in line and come here lawfully, and the whole country will be better off. This amendment will be a big part of doing that. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I ask that amendment be accepted by voice vote.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I wish to take a moment to say that my wife and I watched closely Ken Burns' production of ``The War'' or, as Katharine Phillips Singer from Mobile, called it, ``The Wah.'' Some of the people we know there have enjoyed and been so impressed with the remarks of Senator Inouye as he was interviewed about his experiences during World War II. His heroism and commitment to America was demonstrated in so many different ways in that program. He spoke so eloquently and so insightfully about the nature of war, the difficulty and brutality of war. I think not only did he affirm the courageousness of our soldiers, but he gives us cause to look for ways to avoid such events in the future. It is worth noting. Hopefully, that whole production will be seen around the country and more people will get a better picture of the enormity, the breadth, the commitment our Nation gave during that decisive period in our history. Senator Stevens also, of course, was a person who served courageously in that conflict. It is an honor for me today to be with these two fine patriots as we apparently move to final passage of this important legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Domenici, Dole, and Ensign be added as cosponsors.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 3192.

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

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I had the honor today to be at the retirement ceremony, a few hours ago, for the 16th Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the armed services of the United States, GEN Peter Pace, and the installation of the 17th Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, ADM Mike Mullen. The weather was beautiful, indeed, in your State of Virginia at Fort Myer, the brass shining in the Sun, the music was stirring, and the uniforms of the services in their bright collars gave appropriate recognition to the passing of the torch from a Chairman proven to a new Chairman challenged. It is always thus, I suppose. It was a thrill to see the commander of the Honor Guard one last time advance and say: ``General Pace, the Honor Guard of the United States is ready for your inspection.'' And General Pace did just that, it appeared with pleasure and satisfaction. That he is admired within the military cannot be denied. I understand last week they planned a surprise for him in the Pentagon. He was invited to come to a meeting for some business, it was suggested, and the halls filled with over 1,200 people who appeared and applauded him for 20 minutes. It was a true expression of the admiration and affection in which he is held throughout the military. Such support is not a surprise for anyone who knows that wonderful man. He made a number of remarks at his retirement or change of command. He expressed his admiration for President Bush's willingness to listen to his advice the entire time of his tenure. He made clear President Bush did listen, and he was a regular briefer of the President; and General Pace's admiration for the President for standing by his commitments when he sent military men and women in uniform into harm's way was quite personal and strong. In other words, General Pace is there. General Pace has been part of this process. General Pace has seen this Congress and this President authorize soldiers and send soldiers into harm's way. He felt a sense of appreciation for President Bush, I would say, for his willingness to not give lightly and to be totally supportive of those troops once they had been sent in harm's way. He said the No. 1 question he is asked when he goes about with military personnel: Does Congress still support us? I remember not too many months ago, a gentleman right out there caught me. His son was about to go to Iraq. He told me: Senator, make no mistake, those soldiers over there and in training to go over there are watching what you do like a hawk. Secretary Gates, President Bush, Admiral Mullen were exceedingly complimentary of General Pace. They discussed his bravery as a young lieutenant at the battle of Hue in Vietnam. They lost quite a number of officers. He was moved up as a second lieutenant to be in command of the company they would have to have led. There was a bitter battle and he lost a number of marines. He said he felt a debt to those marines, that he had spent 40 years of his career in the military attempting to pay off. Several people made reference to that. He called those marines he served with, who lost their lives there, by names at that retirement ceremony. He indicated he still did not believe he had paid that debt that he owed those people who had given their full measure to our Nation's defense. But other speakers said he had, and they were most complimentary of him. Recently, at a hearing, he was encouraged--let me say it that way--to retreat from a statement he had made that reflected his personal moral and faith beliefs; but he admirably, I suggest, declined to pander or to retreat from what he honestly believed, and he restated his personal values. That is the kind of man you want leading us, I suggest. Our Nation is in the debt, I think, of GEN Peter Pace. He has given tirelessly of himself to support the policies of our country and to make those policies successful. I say: Well done, good marine, well done. Mr. President, on a different subject, I want to take a few minutes to note that on Friday, September 21, the Missile Defense Agency had a highly successful missile defense intercept. A target vehicle was launched from Kodiak, AK. It went into space. The interceptor missile was launched at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. It was, indeed, a realistic test of this capability. According to Rick Lehner, the spokesman for the Missile Defense Agency, ``This was a very operationally realistic test.'' In those tests we want to determine whether our missile defense capability will actually succeed in knocking down an intercontinental missile. These two missiles were launched, the target vehicle on a track not unlike what we would see if, for example, the North Koreans launched an attack. We launched our defensive missile out of California. And they collided and destroyed one another over the Pacific, like we planned, a bullet to bullet. There were no explosives in the ``kill'' vehicle. Just speed, guided by computers and sophisticated guidance systems, allowed those two to collide and to destroy the incoming missile. The American people have a number of questions and misconceptions about missile defense. Some think we already have a complete missile defense system that can knock down incoming missiles. That is not so. Some think we do not have any capability, that this is a bunch of money being spent on programs that are never going to work. That is absolutely not so. We now have proven the technology. General Obering and his team at the Missile Defense Agency have continued to have success after success. We know we have the capability to knock down an incoming missile that threatens the people of the United States, who knows--with a nuclear weapon or biological or chemical munition contained within it. This is an important matter for the United States that the President can know. If he is negotiating with some extreme nation that threatens to attack us with a missile and tries to use that threat as leverage or bargaining power, he can say: We are not afraid of you. You send a missile off and we will knock it down. We are reaching that point in our capability. Intelligence tells us Iran also continues to build its systems and produces greater capability. I would say, we need a site in Europe. I hope we continue to work toward that. We need to maintain steady appropriations and authorizations in this Senate to make sure our missile system that we have committed so many years to, and so many dollars to, is now completed, since it has been proven to be a good investment from the beginning. I thank the Chair for giving me this opportunity and note I am excited about this test's success. I do believe it is important for all of us in Congress to note that and make sure about our funding--which I think this year is a bit tight. The President took some money down out of missile defense. The Congress has taken some more. But I believe we have enough funding to keep this program on track. I see my colleague, Senator Lieberman. I note there are few in the Senate who have studied the issue more or who have been engaged in it longer than he. I know he and Senator Thad Cochran offered the resolution, not long after I came to the Senate, to deploy a national missile defense system ``as soon as technologically feasible.'' That was the language, wasn't it, Senator Lieberman? Indeed, we are now deploying it. We are already deploying the system, and the American people took comfort last July 4, when the North Koreans launched missiles to demonstrate their power--they took comfort because of you and others, before I even came into the Senate--such as Senator Shelby, my colleague from Alabama--who were pioneers moving that forward. We can now take comfort that we do have ability. It means a lot for our people and for the safety of America. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would like 10 minutes.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I recognize the celebration of the 50th anniversary of the U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command, an organization that is headquartered in Huntsville, AL. On this day, October 3, 1957, the Army activated the Redstone Anti- Missile Missile Systems Office. With a staff of 5 military and 19 civilians, this organization set the foundation of the Army's space and missile defense programs. From these beginnings, they have become an international organization of more than 2,000 military and civilians devoted to providing around-the-clock space and missile defense research and development and operational capabilities. I wish to express my congratulations to the Army community in northern Alabama for their splendid record of achievement in space and missile defense and to ask my colleagues to join me in saluting them for their contributions to the security of our Nation and her warfighters. This organization and the U.S. Army have led the Nation in space and missile defense from the 1957 authorization to proceed with the Nike Zeus system to the deployed hit-to-kill national and theater missile defense systems today. Along the way, the Army's missile defense team has achieved a number of significant milestones: the first successful intercept of an intercontinental ballistic missile, ICBM, in 1962; the first deployed ballistic missile defense system in the United States in 1975: the first non-nuc1ear intercept of an ICBM in 1984; the first kinetic energy intercept of a tactical missile in 1987; and the first directed energy intercepts of rockets in flight in 1996. Their battletested products are currently deployed around the world defending our Nation, our service members, and our allies. In 1957, missile defense brought a new facet to the Army's exploration of space in the 1950s. As missions changed, it remained constant. In the 1970s, the Army returned to space exploration with a precedent setting tactical exploration program. From the 1970s through Operation Desert Storm, the first space war, space has become an integral element of the warfighter's life. Since then, this organization has become the focal point for Army Space. They provide research and development to expand the possibilities provided by space. They have established a brigade of space soldiers dedicated to space superiority and the application of space technology. And today, space soldiers and technologies continue to provide battlefield communications, satellite imagery and analysis, three-dimensional visualization, guidance information, precise early warning of threat missiles, and a host of other space-based capabilities tailored for the warfighter. Together with their Government and industry teammates, the future of space and missile defense rests in the hands of the men and women who work in this Army organization in Huntsville and Colorado Springs, as well as other locations throughout the world. Mr. President, I salute Huntsville, the surrounding area, and the hard-working men and women of this great region of our country. Most importantly, I wish to extend a warm and hearty congratulations to the U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command team for a job well done, and best wishes for its continued success during the next 50 years and beyond. Secure the high ground.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank my colleague Senator Shelby for recalling the remarkable facts of the life of Mayer Bubba Mitchell, one of Mobile's great citizens, a national leader, as well as a local leader, someone who has friends throughout the country and the world. It is remarkable, the extent of his reach and impact. He had a clear vision. He wanted his life to be a life that made the world a better place. He worked at that. He had a strong will to do that. Senator Shelby and I were talking about that this morning. It was remarkable. He had an ability to get things accomplished. To me, one of his most remarkable characteristics was the fact that he could have many different activities going on, but he always seemed to complete each one of them and get it done successfully. At a final AIPAC banquet he attended, realizing it would be his last--it was recalled at his funeral service Friday--he asked these questions about himself but really applying to others. I think it would apply to all of us in the Senate. Knowing that he would not be back, he asked: Have I done enough? Have I done my best? Have I made a difference? All of us ought to ask those questions more and would probably be better performers when we do. His wonderful partner Arlene is such a fabulous person, so well liked, a former Mobilian of the year. She is so gracious. His son Richard spoke so movingly at his memorial service. His son-in-law Jimmy Grodnick likewise, married to his wonderful daughter Joy, made remarks. His grandchildren read from the Talmud such wonderful passages that reflected his values. His brother Abe, who has been a partner in business and in so many of these activities, told me afterwards it wasn't over. He still had things he wanted to do and he would continue to work at them. I know that is exactly what Mayer would have liked. The business school I visited at the University of South Alabama is so well endowed by the Mitchell family. The athletics center, the Mitchell Center, is where his memorial service was held, the sports complex. And perhaps in the long term, the greatest financial investment he and his family made is in the Mitchell Cancer Center that will be a place for research as well as treatment of those who have suffered with cancer, because he felt so blessed, having been allowed to survive what many said at the time was a fatal disease. So many people came from all over the country to that service, it was really remarkable, including the Republican leader in the Senate, Mitch McConnell, who himself came down and was an honorary pallbearer. He was on a first-name basis with Presidents. Indeed, I am aware that President Bush called him twice in recent months. Foreign leaders, Senators, and Congressmen were on a first-name basis with him. His life is a testament to what can happen when a person focuses his life on making a positive difference in the world and living a good life. He accomplished those things. Probably outside of a public official, he was on a first-name basis with more Senators than maybe any other person in our country. There may be some others, but not many would know as many and be as well respected as he was over the years. I appreciate the opportunity to make these remarks. Not only did he serve on the board, chairman of the board of the University of South Alabama for 32 years, he gave hours and hours of his time and attention and ideas and ability to making that the great university it is. So he not only gave money, he gave of his time and of himself to make it the great university it is. Gordon Moulton, the president, certainly reflected that in his remarks. I thank the Chair and Senator Shelby for his excellent remarks and yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that MAJ John Muller, an Army fellow in my office, be granted the privilege of the floor for duration of consideration of H.R. 1585.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I object.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I just want to share a few thoughts with my colleagues on the pending amendment. This hate crimes legislation is constitutionally dubious and very unusual legislation in the history of how we do law enforcement in America. What I want to say to my colleague is that a murder in Utah, a murder in Massachusetts, a murder in Alabama is not a Federal crime unless certain other events occur, unless it is related to some other event. A robbery in any State is not a Federal crime per se. It has to be robbery of a Federal bank. It has to be robbery of an interstate shipment or something of that nature. But simple assaults, simple murders, no matter how grievous, are not Federal crimes. So the Supreme Court has been cautious about that and has raised questions about it. Now, with regard to our history of legislating in this area, we have made Federal civil rights laws applicable to assaults and murders of people in America on account of their race, and the Supreme Court has upheld that. One of the fundamental reasons for that is that in many areas of the country, for many years--truly not so today, I believe, but in the past, areas such as my area of the country, have not prosecuted those cases, and there was a historical record of a failure to effectively prosecute in racial assaults that affected people's fundamental civil liberties. So that has been upheld. But the legislation we are talking about today is about picking an area that people care about and are concerned about and feel deeply about, which is that people should not be assaulted or abused as a result of their sexual orientation, and now we want to create a Federal crime wherever in America such an assault or an illegal activity or murder against that person occurs. We want to make that a Federal crime. One of my colleagues said it is a backstop for the Federal Government. It is not a backstop. I was a Federal prosecutor. Federal law has priority. So this is a move in that direction. So the question is, what about the elderly? What about those who are sick and infirm? What about police officers, if they are murdered? Do we need the Federal Government to make that a crime also and be able to prosecute all of those murders throughout the country when we have never done that historically? It is a big deal from that perspective, and that is why it is constitutionally suspect. A State can pass such a law, I will admit. The Federal Government can pass such a law on Federal property, military bases, and the District of Columbia. But when the Federal Government reaches into a State that has no interstate nexus and creates a crime of this kind, I think it is, first, constitutionally questionable; secondly, not necessarily good policy because what other kinds of crimes motivated by what other kinds of malintent are we going to now make a Federal crime? So Senator Hatch has explicitly and openly and directly delineated the very aggressive prosecutions we are seeing in States for hate-type crimes against homosexuals, and he has shown how a number of them have gotten a death penalty, which this act does not provide for, but State laws do. We have no record to indicate there is a shortage or a lack of willingness to prosecute these cases, so I think, under those circumstances, we ought not to do it. I also would note it would be a tragic thing indeed if this Defense bill would be vetoed as a result of this extraneous piece of controversial legislation. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Yes.

Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent that I be added as a speaker at that point before Senator Nelson. But if Senator Lott wishes to speak, I will yield to him.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, any American I know should be, and is, vitally interested in what is happening in Iraq and what our policy should be. There is no doubt that good people can disagree about how we should handle this important and difficult situation. Nobody's patriotism should be questioned in this process. But I would urge that these disagreements that might be expressed be expressed in ways that minimize the negative impact on what may be, and will be the decided policy of the United States. In other words, we need to be sure that as we conduct this debate--we have a policy in this country, and we need to make sure that we execute it in a way that most likely will provide us a method of success. Let me recap the history of how we got here because I think it is important. By more than a three-fourths vote, 77 Senators in this body authorized the use of military force in Iraq. The initial invasion and removal of Saddam Hussein went well, surprisingly well--better than most would ever have expected. But the postinvasion situation has been much more difficult than expected. My personal view, for what it is worth--and it may not be worth much--is that we underestimated the difficulties of establishing a functioning democracy in an undeveloped nation that had deep sectarian divides, that had no history of law or democracy, and that had been traumatized by years of oppression in a war. So we can look back and say there are a lot of mistakes out there that have been made, but I think the real problem is we are facing a difficult job that is not going to be easy, and no one should underestimate the challenge. But we must honestly evaluate our current position and use this time in this Congress right now to decide what we are going to do. I know good people will disagree, but we will reach a decision before this debate is out. So we owe nothing less to those fabulous men and women who serve us in Iraq than to give this our best judgment, our hardest work, our most sincere consideration. There can be no doubt but that this is the correct time for a national evaluation. Remember how we got here. In May--May 24 of this year--in a bipartisan vote, we voted to clearly affirm the surge; 80 to 14 was what that vote was. We debated the question. We knew General Petraeus was there. The President asked that we fund 30,000 additional troops as part of this surge, and we decided to do so. We voted for it. This Congress said we will execute that surge. I remember Senator Reid and Speaker Pelosi meeting with the President and working on the deal, and we agreed to do the surge 80 to 14 on final vote. So it is really not President Bush's surge or General Petraeus's surge, it was and is America's surge, and our troops are carrying out America's policies. I hope our colleagues here won't be adopting the reasoning of MoveOn.Org instead of recognizing the responsibilities that we all have to those we have sent into harm's way. Now, no one in May was sure how things would work out. Things had not gone well in 2006 and in early 2007. All of us were worried about what was happening. Violence had increased, the uncertainty had increased, and I think Congress rightly was concerned. After debate, we decided to execute the surge operation which was more than just increased troops, and I will talk about that in a minute. We decided that, for the purpose of openness and accountability, as part of the funding of this war that we had appropriated, we wanted some reports. In fact, we asked for five separate reports. Those reports have been produced as required. A report was required on the status of 18 benchmarks submitted by July 15. A report was required for an independent commission of experts to report not later than September 1 analyzing the progress of the Iraqi security forces. That was the General Jones commission, former supreme allied commander in Europe, former commander of the United States Marine Corps, and 20 other experts compiled that report. A report from the GAO, the comptroller general, on whether the 18 benchmarks had been achieved by September 1; a followup on the benchmarks report submitted by September 15. Then public testimony was required from the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq and the commander of Multi-National Forces Iraq, General Petraeus, not later than September 15. We have had all of that in the Armed Services Committee, of which I am a member. We had Mr. Walker from GAO give the GAO report. We had General Jones and his commission give their report, and we had General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker give their reports. They testified before the House. They testified before other committees. We have had now a national discussion about this situation, and it is time for us to begin to make some decisions. So what I hope we will do is make a decision, and we will stick by it, and next week we would not have leaders in this body saying it is a failure before it ever gets started, as we have had in the past. Let me summarize the reports that came in briefly. The administration report on benchmarks, as well as a GAO report, shows that we had some progress on some matters but that there had been limited political progress in Iraq. I would note that the GAO report, which was valuable and I think not inaccurate but could be misinterpreted, was important. It did not, however, incorporate data from August and early September from Iraq. That data shows remarkable progress in those recent weeks, and it was not part of its report. So the progress on the military front that they reported was not as significant as the later reports would show. It only measured whether the goals of each one of the benchmarks were fully achieved. It didn't measure whether progress had been made. Ambassador Crocker, on the benchmarks, made some important comments. Those I would point out to my colleagues. One, he said, yes, an oil law had not been passed by the Iraqi Parliament. They couldn't get together on that. Sometimes we can't get together in this body and agree on things. So what happened is, they are indeed sharing oil revenue throughout the provinces in a fair and just way, although they have not yet been able to pass an overall oil law. So we are saying, according to benchmarks, they haven't met the benchmarks because the benchmarks said they must pass an oil law that would share their resources. But, in fact, they are sharing. He talked about a benchmark dealing with reconciliation with former members of the Baathist Party and the Saddam Hussein regime. He said, no, they had not been able to pass in the parliament the legislation that would effectuate, as we would like to see it, a reconciliation among the former Baathists and the current leadership in Iraq, but it was happening out there. He said in various different places throughout Iraq former members of Baathist activities are coming into the government, Sunnis who allied with al-Qaida are coming in and working with the American military, and at the grassroots level real progress is being made and reconciliation is occurring in a lot of different places in Iraq. Now, the Jones commission was a very valuable commission. General Jones is a very distinguished, 40-year veteran of the U.S. Marine Corps, former commandant. He served as supreme allied commander of Europe and commander of USOCOM. This bipartisan commission he headed was composed of 20 members representing senior military leaders, civilian officials, former chiefs of police, former DC Police Chief Charles Ramsey, former TRADOC Commander General John Abrams, and Mr. John Hamre, former Under Secretary of Defense in the Clinton administration, a respected voice on defense matters. Between them, the commissioners had more than 500 years of collective military experience and more than 150 years of police experience. The Commission reported strong progress within the Iraqi Army but much weaker progress among the national police--in fact, unacceptable activity within the police. They called for massive reform and restructuring of the Iraqi police forces. I asked General Jones and his colleagues in this fashion--I told him that before General Petraeus went to Iraq to take over the effort there, he told us he would define the challenge as being ``difficult, but not impossible.'' So I asked General Jones: What are our realistic prospects for a long-term situation in which there is some stability and a functioning government that is not threatening to the United States? This is what General Jones said: Senator, I think that General Petraeus's words were correct. I think it is a difficult situation that is multifaceted. It is about bringing about in Iraq not only safe and secure conditions, but a completely different method of government, jump-starting an economy, rule of law. The whole aspect of transition is just enormously complex. He added this: And regardless of how we got there, we are where we are. It is, strategically, enormously important not only nationally, but regionally and globally, for this to come out and be seen as a success. And our report, I think, not only unanimous but very hard-hitting in certain areas, intentionally makes the point that there are some good things happening and that we are all excited to see that. That is certainly encouraging, but there is more work that needs to be done. We wanted to be very specific about where we think that work should be done. It doesn't mean it can't be done. They call for a massive overhaul of the Iraqi police. He said it is difficult and it needs to be done. More progress needs to be made, but it is not impossible. So I followed up with that. I said: Did any of your commission members, or any significant number of them, conclude that this could not work, that this was a failed effort, or that we ought to just figure a way to get out of there regardless of the consequences? Here is General Jones's answer: I don't believe that there is a commissioner that feels that way. But let me just take a poll right now. He turned around and surveyed the Commissioners, and they all agreed with General Jones. Then General Petraeus and Ambassador Corker came before us last week to give their report, which detailed progress on a number of different levels. General Petraeus is one of our most distinguished officers in the Armed Forces. He graduated as an academically ``distinguished cadet'' from West Point. He was the General George C. Marshall Award winner as the top graduate of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, class of 1983. He also has a master's and a Ph.D. from Princeton, and he served as a professor at West Point. He is on his third tour in Iraq. I know a lot of people in this body think they have figured out how to deal with Iraq. He spent 2 full years there and now over a half a year again in Iraq dealing with these circumstances. He is a very capable person, as anyone can well see. Well, I have been to Iraq six times. On the first trip, I met General Petraeus. He commanded the 101st Airborne in Mosul. They were achieving some fine success and reconciliation. They were able to catch Saddam's sons, Uday and Qusay. He worked with Alabama engineering National Guard units impressively, in my opinion, to bring them on line in an effective way. I was impressed in my meeting with him. The next year, he came home, and then they asked him to go back to train the Iraqi Army. He went back and took charge of that operation and spent a year doing that in Iraq, meeting people in Baghdad and getting a real feel for that country. Then he came home. When he got home, he wrote the counterinsurgency manual for the U.S. Department of Defense, which details the principles and tactics that can work to defeat an insurgency. In fact, insurgencies can be defeated if you have a sustained and intelligent policy that is well led. So he wrote that manual, and President Bush met with him and decided to send him back a third time in January, and he asked him to lead this effort. He has been doing so with integrity, skill, and effectiveness. As a matter of fact, one commentator said even in the early months you could feel that there was a new atmosphere and a new strategic vision and new leadership. It was filtering down throughout the system. So to have a group like MoveOn.org suggest--not suggest but call him a traitor and a liar, that is despicable. I cannot imagine anybody who would not condemn such a statement. This is a patriot of the highest order. We have asked him to go into harm's way for the third time to serve the national interests of the United States, not serve President Bush--to serve this Congress, by a 80-to-14 vote in May. So I am telling you that we need to get serious. We sent him there by a unanimous vote, confirmed him to be commander, and we voted to fund the operation, fund the surge. That wasn't President Bush who put up the money; we put it up. We asked him to come back and give us a report on how well it is going. We asked an independent commission to give us another report. We asked the GAO to give us a report. We have gotten those reports, and it is now time for this Congress to make some decisions. It is just that serious. This is a very important matter for the United States. It is important for us. You tell me about the morale of the military. People say the morale of the military is not well. They are doing beyond anything I could expect. Reenlistments remain very high. I have to be amazed at that, and I know others are. We have a good reenlistment rate, and we are able to retain people and bring people into the military. They are going to Iraq and serving ably. As a matter of fact, in a moment, I will share a report from some of our Alabama people who came by to see me and what they had to say about their tour there. So we have done this, and we are now at a point where we have to make some decisions. I have been asked: Well, has the situation changed since General Petraeus has made his report? I think it has, mainly because of what he said, not how he said it. I asked him back in January at his confirmation hearing would he always be truthful with the Congress and the American people about the status of this war and would he tell us if he didn't think he could be successful. He said that he would. I asked him at this hearing: General Petraeus, when you came before us in January, before you went to Iraq, you had previously told me that no matter what happened, you would tell the Congress the truth. He told me that in private the night before. So the next morning, I asked him: Will you tell the truth to the American people? He committed that he would. So at this hearing last week, I asked him: Have you, to the best of your ability, told this Congress the truth about the situation in Iraq today? He said: I have, yes, sir. You can call him a liar if you want to. I don't. I believe he gave us the truth as he had the ability to give it to us. I asked him further: General Petraeus, in your opinion, is there a circumstance in which--in your opinion, is this effort in Iraq such that we cannot be successful, that we would be putting more effort in a losing cause if we continue it, or, in your opinion, do we have a realistic chance to be successful in this very important endeavor? He replied: Sir, I believe we have a realistic chance of achieving our objectives in Iraq. So we received the reports and the information. What did some of that information tell us? I cannot tell my colleagues or the American people that this will continue, but, remarkably, violence in Baghdad is down dramatically. Remember, it was the President and everybody who acknowledged that if the large capital city could not be stable and was sinking into violence, there is no way we could have a peaceful settlement in Iraq and reconciliation and make progress. We had to reduce violence in Iraq. The report General Petraeus gave us and the charts he produced showed that civilian deaths in Iraq, in Baghdad, were down 70 percent. In his report, he declared that civilian deaths throughout the nation of Iraq were down 55 percent. Now, that is really big. Remember, the surge didn't reach full strength until June or July. He has only had the full surge in place for a month or two. So this is really big.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I believe the Senator from Arizona is to be recognized next.