Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak in morning business for 10 minutes.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 305. I believe it is already pending, having been offered by Senator McConnell.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask that this amendment be called up and made pending.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, it is critically important that we clarify the role of State and local law enforcement officers in the enforcement and apprehension of those who violate our immigration laws and that we expand the National Crime Information Center interest. It is critical that we have them participate because with expanded NCIC capability, which I am surprised is not already being done, they can be partners in Federal law enforcement efforts. It would be in compliance with what the 9/11 Commission and other reports have asked us to do. It is a loophole in the system today that needs to be fixed. The amendment I offer is a slimmed down version of the bill I offered in the last Congress, the Homeland Security Enforcement Enhancement Act. That was cosponsored by Senators Craig, Inhofe, and Isakson. The ideas contained in the amendment have also been supported by Senators Kyl and Cornyn. They included it in their immigration bill last Congress. Senators Ben Nelson and Coburn included those provisions in the Nelson-Sessions immigration enforcement bill in the last Congress. Additionally, my amendment is almost word for word the provision that the Senate Judiciary Committee included when it marked up the Senate immigration bill last year and the provision that the full Senate voted for when it passed S. 2611. The first section of the amendment reaffirms what I believe to be the existing inherent authority of State and local law enforcement to assist the Federal Government in enforcing the immigration laws of the United States during the normal course of carrying out their law enforcement duties. The amendment specifically states that the participation of State and local law enforcement personnel is not required, not mandated by this legislation. It is 100 percent voluntary. Section 2 of the amendment deals with the listing of immigration violators in the National Crime Information Center database. State and local officers need easily accessible roadside access to critical immigration information, just as they would do for citizens of the United States who violate our laws. Officers routinely, when they stop people on the road, run National Crime Information Center database checks when they pull over suspects, speeders, or people they are investigating for other crimes. The NCIC is their bread-and-butter database. Today the immigration violators file of the National Crime Information Center database contains information on deported felons, alien absconders, and wanted persons, aliens with outstanding criminal warrants. That is in the National Crime Information Center database. But my amendment would direct that the Department of Homeland Security work with the FBI to place additional information on certain immigration violators into the already existing immigration violators file. The four categories of immigration violators whose information would be entered are, one, aliens who have final orders of removal. That is someone who has been apprehended, gone through a hearing, and a judge has ordered finally that they be removed from the country for whatever violation; two, it would cover aliens under voluntary departure agreements who for one reason or another have signed an order that they would voluntarily deport themselves or leave the country; No. 3, it would cover aliens who are known to have overstayed their authorized period of stay, the visa overstays; and No. 4, it would cover aliens whose visas have been revoked. Sometimes people misbehave seriously. Twenty-seven percent of our Federal penitentiary bed spaces today are filled by noncitizens. For some reason in recent years we are seeing a substantial number of criminal aliens coming into the country. These are not bed spaces for immigration law violations, not people waiting to be deported. These are people who have been arrested, tried, or convicted of Federal criminal laws such as drug dealing and assaults or smuggling, things of that nature. When State and local police officers encounter individuals during their regular law enforcement duties, it is important that they know if the individual in front of them falls into one of these violator categories. Importantly, my amendment includes a new procedure for removal of erroneous information from NCIC. If there is something entered incorrectly, under the new procedures an alien may petition the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security or the head of NCIC to remove any erroneous information that may have been placed in that file to protect them from any unfair treatment. These are recommendations that should already be law, but they are recommendations made in the 9/11 Commission Report. We are all familiar with those recommendations, and they have been included in the Hart- Rudman report. On page 384 of the 9/11 Commission Report, the Commission says: Our investigations showed that two systemic weaknesses came together in our border system's inability to contribute to an effective defense against the 9/11 attacks: a lack of well- developed counterterrorism measures as a part of border security and an immigration system not able to deliver on its basic commitments, much less support counterterrorism. These weaknesses have been reduced but are far from being overcome. On page 390, the report says: There is a growing role for State and local law enforcement agencies. They need more training and work with Federal agencies so that they can cooperate more effectively with those Federal authorities in identifying terror suspects. In the fall of 2002, a year after the 9/11 attacks, the Council on Foreign Relations published the Hart- Rudman report entitled ``America Still Unprepared, America Still in Danger.'' That report found that one problem America still confronts is that 700,000 local and State police officials continue to operate in a virtual intelligence vacuum. The first recommendation of the Hart- Rudman report was to ``tap the eyes and ears of local and State law enforcement officers in preventing attacks.'' That is their first recommendation, to ``tap the eyes and ears of local and State law enforcement officers in preventing attacks.'' On page 19 the report specifically cited the burden of finding hundreds of thousands of illegal fugitive aliens living among the population of more than 8.5 million illegal aliens and suggested that the burden could and should be shared with the 700,000 local, county, and State law enforcement officers, if they could be brought out of the information void. So this amendment I am offering tightly targets 9/11 Commission and Hart-Rudman report recommendations that we look at the growing role for State and local law enforcement, that we move toward an immigration system that can ``deliver on its basic commitments'' as a way to fight terrorism, and that we ``tap the eyes and ears of local and State law enforcement officers'' in an effort to find the hundreds of thousands of fugitive aliens in the United States. Most Americans would probably be amazed that is not occurring today. In fact, a recent poll of 3 years ago was done on this very subject. It found that a large majority of Americans believe that State and local governments should be aiding the Federal Government in finding alien fugitives. That is pretty commonsensical. In fact, a Roper poll found that 85 percent of Americans agree and 65 percent strongly agree--those are powerful numbers--that Congress should pass a law requiring State and local governments and law enforcement agencies to apprehend and turn over to INS, now ICE, illegal immigrants with whom they come in contact. That is pretty strong data. It is important to note that those responses were collected in answer to questions about requiring State and local immigration enforcement action. So it is very likely that a poll on this subject, one about voluntary State and local assistance, would be even stronger. Let me tell my colleagues about the problem that started my interest in this area and prompted me to offer this amendment, as well as 3 years ago to push for a hearing, which was held on April 22, 2004, in the Judiciary Committee entitled ``State and Local Authority to Enforce Immigration Law, Evaluating a Unified Approach for Stopping Terrorists'' and for me to author a Law Review article in April of 2005, along with my chief counsel on Judiciary, Cindy Hayden, that was published in the Stanford Law and Policy Review, entitled ``The Growing Role for State and Local Law Enforcement in the Realm of Immigration Law.'' This is the reality. This is the problem we are dealing with. Police chiefs and sheriffs in Alabama have begun to tell me, as I have traveled the State and met with them frequently, and as I continue to do so, that they have been shut out of immigration enforcement and that they felt powerless to do anything about Alabama's growing illegal immigrant population. I heard the same story wherever I went: When we come across illegal aliens in our normal course of duty, we have given up calling the INS, because they tell us we have to have 15 or more illegals in custody or they will not even bother to come and pick them up. Even worse, Alabama police were routinely told that aliens could not be detained until INS could manage to send someone. They were told they just had to let them go. This is basically the policy all over America today, I kid you not. If a local officer in virtually any State in America stops someone for speeding or DUI and finds out they are here illegally, they basically take no steps to even contact INS because they only have 2,000 agents in the entire United States and they are not going to come out there and get them. In fact, for other legal reasons, they may have some doubt--although, frankly, not much--but there is some doubt about what their authority might be. Now, we have done some research into this and believe the legal authority of State and local officers to voluntarily act on violations of immigration law is pretty clear. If there is any doubt that State and local law enforcement officers have any authority--and if there is any, and there certainly is some today--Congress needs to remove that doubt, which is what this amendment will do. Basically, there is a split in the circuits. I will take just a moment to explain. The Tenth Circuit on more than one occasion concluded squarely that a ``state trooper has general investigatory authority to inquire into possible immigration violations.'' As the Tenth Circuit went on to say, there is a ``preexisting general authority of state or local police officers to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal law, including immigration laws.'' The Tenth Circuit went on to say, in 2001: [S]tate and local police officers [have] implicit authority within their respective jurisdictions ``to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal law, including immigration laws.'' Now, these Tenth Circuit cases made no distinction between criminal violations and visa overstays, which are not criminal in nature but civil. But the Ninth Circuit did. They concluded the civil violations of a visa overstay did not amount to an offense of law that the local law enforcement officer could arrest and detain for. It was in dictum, not part of the central holding of that case. But that one piece of dicta has created an impression throughout the country that has impacted lawyers and police departments and sheriffs' departments all over America. They are telling their officers: Well, it might be that the person you stop and is here illegally is a visa overstay and not someone who came across the border illegally, and if you arrest them and detain them, they might sue us, they might sue the city, they might sue the police department. So they have established policies based on this ambiguity that have effectively reduced the participation of local law enforcement officers to a dramatic degree in the enforcement of immigration laws. That is not appropriate. We can fix that. This amendment would fix that. The second problem the amendment deals with is the inadequate way we share information on immigration matters with State and local police. We have databases full of information on criminal aliens and aliens with final deportation orders, but that information is not directly available to the State and local police through their base system, the NCIC. Instead, officers are required to make a special second inquiry to the Law Enforcement Support Center, which is headquartered in Vermont, to see if the person they pulled over is an illegal alien wanted by DHS. Now, I have to tell you, they are not just carrying around in their pocket those phone numbers anyway. They do not know how to do it. They are not comfortable with it. It is not what they do every day. They are not doing it. Besides, if they do and find out the person is illegal, there is nothing much they can do but let them go anyway. So the ability of the bread-and-butter NCIC database to convey to local police who stop someone out on the highway information that this may be a wanted person, maybe even a terrorist, has been severely impacted or really is not effective in many different areas. I have complained about this for some time, and some progress has been made but not enough. To date, the Immigration Violators File of the NCIC contains about 200,000 entries, and only about 107,000 of the approximately 600,000 alien absconders are in the NCIC. I want you to hear that. Only about 100,000 of the 600,000 alien absconders have been entered into the NCIC. So what does that mean? That means if a local police officer somewhere stops a person who has been previously arrested for an immigration violation and that person has been released on bail, as often is the case, and ordered to return to court or to be deported-- and they frequently do not do so; they abscond; and there are 600,000 of those absconders out there, but only 107,000 of those records are in NCIC, so a local police officer is not likely to find a hit for the person before him--there will be a 1-in-5 chance of them getting that hit. That really needs to be fixed. For the life of me, I cannot see why more progress has not been made. We have been talking about this for 4 or 5 years in the Senate Judiciary Committee with the Department of Justice officials and ICE officials and FBI people who run the NCIC. At the very least, NCIC should contain four types of immigration information. The first group: aliens with final orders of removal. If someone has been ordered removed, they should not be in this country. They sometimes leave the country and come back into the country and you get a hit on that person. In other words, they have been ordered removed. Why are they back in the country? The second group that should be in there: aliens under voluntary departure agreements. Some agree to leave voluntarily and sign an agreement to that effect. They ought to be in there because they should not have stayed in the country or, if they left, they should not have returned. The third group: aliens who are known to have overstayed their authorized period of stay should be entered. The fourth group: aliens whose visas have been revoked, for heaven's sakes, ought to be in there. If somebody is here improperly--maybe they have been associated with some criminal enterprise; the ICE people have revoked their visa for some reason; it would have to be significant, usually, for that to occur--they ought to go in there because if they are stopped somewhere, they should be detained and turned over to ICE; otherwise, the system is not working. Let me tell my colleagues--I know how this system works--if someone had their visa revoked and had been ordered to be removed, trust me, the ICE agents do not go out and walk the streets of Philadelphia or Atlanta or Birmingham and look for them so they can deport them. They do not do it. They are not even close to having the ability to do that. Only the people for whom they have evidence who are extremely dangerous is that done. That is very few. The way most people are caught is just like everybody else in America who is caught who has absconded or run off on bail. They get caught by getting picked up by police on a traffic stop somewhere. The police officer runs their name and ID in NCIC and a hit comes back; there is a warrant for his arrest in Montgomery, AL, for armed robbery, and he locks him up. If you are an American citizen and you get a reckless driving ticket and you are ordered to appear in court at a given time and place and you do not appear in court, they issue a warrant for your arrest. Normally, the police officers do not go out and chase you down all over and find you to arrest you. Normally, they put it in the NCIC immediately on the assumption you will soon be stopped somewhere else along the way and they will get a hit on you and somebody will put you in jail because you have a warrant for flight out there or for jumping bail. But we do not do that for noncitizens. A citizen, that will happen to; a U.S. Senator, that will happen to but not somebody who is coming to the country illegally. We do not do the same thing when they jump bail on their charges. So there are a lot of stories we can tell. I will just summarize a number of them. It really caught the attention of the 9/11 Commission. For example, Mohamed Atta, who is believed to have piloted American Airlines Flight 11, which flew into the World Trade Center's North Tower, and played a leading role in more than 3,000 deaths that occurred that day, in July, just 2 months before the attacks, was stopped by police in Tamarac, FL, and was ticketed for having an invalid license. He ignored the ticket and a bench warrant was issued for his arrest. When he was stopped for speeding a few weeks later in a nearby town, the officer did not check, did not discover this warrant had been issued and let him go with only a warning. Now, OK, Atta had not yet become illegal. I believe at that time he still was on a legal status. However, it was about to expire. I doubt he would have returned to the immigration office to get it extended. He would soon have been here illegally as a visa overstay. He could well have been apprehended and identified before 9/11 had he done so. That is the example I am trying to make. It could very well have been decisive. Also Hani Hanjour was, just 1 month before 9/11, stopped by police in Arlington, VA, for driving 50 miles an hour in a 35-mile-per-hour zone. He was in a Chevy van with New Jersey plates. He produced a Florida driver's license. But he was the pilot of the American Airlines Flight 77 which crashed into the Pentagon. A third hijacker was stopped by State police just 2 days before September 11, also for speeding. Maryland State police stopped Ziad Jarrah on Interstate 95 for driving 90 miles an hour in a 60-mile-per- hour zone. Well, we are not talking about academic matters; we are talking about the fact that the alien database needs to be accessible to local police. It might as well, for all practical purposes, be locked up in some vault somewhere in secrecy, the way it is being done today. It is not available to the people out there who need it. The Hart-Rudman Commission raised that point, as did the 9/11 Commission. I have been told at hearings by the appropriate officials that the NCIC system can handle the additional data. It will not overburden the system. It will make this information readily and immediately available to a police officer. He or she may have stumbled onto a person such as Mohamed Atta on his way to commit a horrible, unspeakable act of terrorism against the people of the United States. That opportunity to make that arrest and to identify that criminal is most important. So that is the purpose of the amendment. I believe as people think about it we will see the need for it. I have tried to get this done in any number of different ways, but we have not quite gotten there yet. I think there is a majority in the Senate, probably on both sides of the aisle, who would support this when it is clearly raised. But as so often tends to happen, matters that actually work to a significant degree and will actually substantially increase the ability of our law enforcement system to be effective are the things that do not become law. It is almost like if it works, it will not pass. If you come up with something that sounds good but will not work, that will get passed. This needs to be done. In many ways, it will be a test of the Members of this body. Are we serious about enforcement of immigration laws? I think we are becoming that way. I believe there is a growing understanding that lawfulness needs to be returned to immigration. Without it, we are going to continue to have an erosion of public confidence in our system. We can do all of that. I ask that my colleagues consider this amendment. I hope we will be able to move it forward as part of this security legislation. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Craig, Inhofe, Isakson, and Coburn be made cosponsors of the amendment.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. SESSIONS. I would ask to be notified in 8 minutes.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I would like to take a personal moment to express my deepest gratitude and bid farewell to my senior defense policy analyst, Archie Galloway. For the past 10 years, Archie has dedicated his time, energy and skill to assisting me but more importantly to assisting America and the citizens of Alabama. He has been a friend and an asset to the Senate Armed Services Committee, and his performance stands as a tribute to the professionalism of our military community. Archie leaves us to join the private sector, but our Nation will continue to benefit from his many contributions for many years. I congratulate Arch on his bright future but with a heavy heart. His experience as a battle-tested Army officer, Ranger, and 101st Airborne Screaming Eagle, combined with his in-depth knowledge of the workings of Capitol Hill, cannot be matched. Upon joining my team, he quickly became a pillar in my office. His undeniable work ethic and his unwavering dedication to our country and to my State of Alabama were a great example to his fellow staffers. As my senior defense policy analyst, I have relied on Archie's experience and sound judgment. In the last 10 years, he has been instrumental in the passage of key legislation, such as the HEROES Act that Senator Lieberman and I cosponsored--I believe the Senator was here a moment ago--that doubled the death benefits provided to the families of those who lost a servicemember in combat. Alabama's success in the recent Base Realignment and Closure round reflected so much of his hard work. The footprints of his dedication to the needs of this Nation and to the State of Alabama are deep and permanent as he moves on to his next journey in life. I would be remiss if I did not mention the other half of the Galloway team. Archie's wife Carol is a tremendous contributor to his success. We will always be impressed by the strength of their partnership and the heart and soul they put into everything they do together. On behalf of myself, my staff, and the people of Alabama, the military community, the Senate Armed Services Committee, and the entire country, may I say thank you to Colonel Archie Galloway. During these 10 years, Archie has won the admiration and respect of everyone he has worked with. Many have sent their regards, so I thought I would quote a few. Charlie Able, former Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness and the former Armed Services Committee staff director had this to say: Archie is a professional soldier and a dedicated Senate staffer who cares deeply about soldiers and their families. It's equally important to recognize his wife Carol for her dedication and service. This partnership is truly their best asset. Les Brownlee, the former Senate Armed Services Committee staff director and Under Secretary of the Army had this to say: Archie wore the uniform of a soldier and brought all of that wonderful experience to the U.S. Senate, where it has been invaluable to Senator Sessions, the Army, and the Nation. Here are the words of General Cody, Vice Chief of Staff of the United States Army: Archie Galloway is a patriot in every sense of the word. His commitment to this Nation and the Army has not faltered through 40 years of service. In and out of uniform, Archie has dedicated his life to taking care of the soldiers that defend our freedoms. Although Arch will be missed, he can take great pride in knowing the indelible impact he has made will continue to save lives, strengthen our national security, and protect the liberties from which we all benefit. Thank you for your service Arch, Army Strong! Dick Walsh, senior member of the Armed Services Committee, writes on behalf of the Armed Services Committee and their team: There aren't many people working on Capitol Hill these days who have served in the Armed Forces, and among those, there are even fewer who--like Arch Galloway--served over 20 years on active duty, commanded troops, and achieved the rank of Colonel in the United States Army. We have been fortunate to have Arch working issues in support of Senator Sessions on behalf of soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines and working for the people of our country. Whether he learned it from his parents or whether he learned it in the Army, Archie brought the qualities of common sense, good judgment, commitment to duty, honor, and country, wisdom and an inherent understanding of how to get things done the right way in the U.S. Senate. Archie helped us all see each day that the Army is an institution we all have to listen to, support, and advocate for. Any outfit that keeps someone like Arch for a career and then hands him off to more public service is doing something right. No one was able to send a message of appreciation and thanks for support and a job well done with a plate of delicious cookies better than Archie Galloway, and we thank Carol Galloway for her contributions as Archie's G4 to committee morale. Archie like few others understands the ``force multiplier'' effect of baked goods. All part of being a great leader. The staff of the Senate Armed Services Committee relies greatly on the military legislative assistants who work for our Senators and those who have the kind of experience and qualities that Arch possesses represent a tremendous resource. They are full partners with the committee staff. We are sad to see Archie leave, and he will be missed, but we are very grateful for his friendship and service. Rob Soofer, the chief staffer for the minority side on the Strategic Forces Subcommittee says: Most legislative assistants view their primary responsibility as supporting the Senator's interests in the State. While Archie was indeed a forceful advocate for defense interests in Alabama, he never lost sight of the broader national security interests and the role Senator Sessions played as chairman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee. As the liaison between the committee staff and the Senator, he made sure the Senator was prepared to chair subcommittee hearings and address critical strategic force issues during the preparation and passage of the National Defense Authorization Act. John Little, now the chief of staff for Senator Martinez, a former staffer in my office, said this: I cannot say enough about Archie Galloway. It was my honor to work with him for 8 years. I have never worked with someone who is more honest, sincere and dedicated. As a native of Alabama, I know how much he has done for my State. America is truly stronger for his service to our Nation. I wish him and Carol much happiness and the best of luck as he embarks on his new professional career. I am very glad that I can call him my friend. Here are some comments from those with whom he has worked. Rick Dearborn, the Chief of Staff in my office, says: If James Brown was known as the hardest working man in show business, Arch Galloway should be known as the ``hardest working military legislative assistant on the Hill.'' The focus that Arch has placed on men and women in uniform over 10 years, particularly those who served in the State of Alabama, was a tribute to his country and the man who represents them. I know of no one who has worked harder, put in more hours, more thought and sweat than Archie Galloway on behalf of the men and women in uniform and in the name of national security. Major Shannon Sentell, former military fellow in my office, back now on active duty, said: Be it the soldier in the field, the constituent in need of assistance, or the numerous relationships he has on the Hill, Archie Galloway always gave 110 percent in making sure the welfare of those individuals and groups was taken care of. His untiring efforts and tenacious attitude made Arch the ``go-to'' man when a lot of heavy lifting was needed. On a personal note, I refer to him as my colleague, my mentor, but most of all, my friend. Thank you, Arch, for what you do on a daily basis. You have made an incredible difference in so many lives. You will be sorely missed. Meagan Myers, who now works under Colonel Galloway on my staff, said this: Though he would never admit it, Arch is my father figure in Washington, D.C. I have truly never learned so much about life from one individual. To call him my mentor would be an understatement at best. Although I will miss Arch in the office, I look forward to his success in the private sector. Watson Donald, who also worked under Archie Galloway and is now the military legislative assistant for Congressman Jo Bonner, said: Archie Galloway is one of the most dedicated, hard-working, loyal, intelligent people I know. His decade-long service to Alabama has been invaluable and I know our entire congressional delegation will miss his defense-related expertise. Having worked for him personally for 3 years, I am proud to have him not only as a professional mentor, but as a friend. Leroy Nix, who also worked under Arch and is now in law school said: I would simply like to express my gratitude to Colonel Galloway for his tireless commitment to excellence and the service of the people of Alabama and this Nation. Having worked with Arch in Senator Sessions' office for the better part of 3 years, I had the luxury of learning from him, not just the finer points of professionalism and personal development, but also those things that I feel will continue to influence the man I am and the man I strive to be. My only hope is that more people, young and old, could have such a fine teacher, mentor, and most importantly, friend. John Muller, current military fellow and major in the Army says: Archie is a true patriot and a great mentor. He shows you the way and gives you the freedom to work the issues, but he will not let you fail. Stephen Boyd--LA, Sessions staffer said: I've had the very good fortune to work about 10 feet from Arch Galloway, day in and day out, for several years now. It's given me a deep respect for all he has done behind the scenes for Senator Sessions and for the State of Alabama. When I came to Washington fresh from law school, I was long on eagerness but short on experience. It didn't take me long to realize that Arch Galloway, more than any other, knew exactly what he was doing in this town. I decided early on to use Arch's attitude, style, and work ethic as a model for my own, and I think that is one of the best decisions I have ever made. His guidance has never let me down. Mike Brumas, press secretary, Senator Sessions, said: the use of use of superlatives is all too common these days. But someone trying to describe Arch Galloway's 10-year tenure on Capitol Hill is forced to reach for the highest of accolades--best, brightest, consummate professional, hardest worker. Arch Galloway brought the can-do spirit of a distinguished military career to Senator Sessions's office, and we all benefited by his example. He will be hard to replace and is already missed. Madam President, I have had the opportunity to travel to Iraq on more than one occasion with Colonel Galloway. He is more than an employee in my office. He is a friend and a partner in service to our country. His career was exceptional in the Army on active duty. His service in my office has been exceptional. No one on the Hill, I think, is more respected than Archie Galloway for his hard work and professionalism. I am going to miss him. Our country is going to miss him. I don't do this often, but I think on very special occasions, those who serve this Senate exceedingly well deserve a few moments of mention. I think it is true for Archie Galloway. I think all of us appreciate our staff members. So many serve in so many superb ways, but I have to tell my colleagues, this one was special. I am really going to miss him. I wish he and Carol every success. He has been a partner, a friend, and a patriot in his service to America. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to Mary Burks, founder of the Alabama Conservancy, mother of the wilderness movement, and champion of the Sipsey Wilderness in the Bankhead National Forest. Last week, Mary Burks passed away in Birmingham, at the age of 86. Her passing is a loss, not just for Alabama or the conservation movement, but for every person who has ever explored and enjoyed Alabama's vast wilderness. She helped protect those natural areas, and, without her, our children might not be as able to enjoy them as they do today. Her lifelong struggle to protect and conserve sensitive lands provides a record of accomplishment that deserves both recognition and celebration. John Randolph, author of a book titled The Battle for Alabama Wilderness, described Mary Burks's passion for what she did. Randolph says, ``If one believes in fate, then surely Mary Burks was fated to become the mother of Alabama wilderness preservation. Passionate, tough, and resilient, a lover of all things wild and natural . . .'' Mary Burks did not simply sit and dream. She led a 6-year campaign in the early 1970s to designate the Sipsey Wilderness area in the Bankhead National Forest as wilderness. In doing so, she won the support of the entire Alabama congressional delegation. That is not always an easy thing to do. After the campaign, not only was the Sipsey Wilderness created, but the Eastern Wilderness Area System was established when President Gerald Ford signed the Eastern Wilderness Act. It is fair to assume that this success would not have been achieved without Mary Burks' tireless efforts. Today, Alabama is home to more than 41,000 acres of wilderness, including the Cheaha and Dugger Mountain Wilderness Areas. As you know, hundreds of thousands of acres have now been designated as wilderness in the Eastern United States. All of these accomplishments have roots in Mary Burks's original push to preserve wilderness in Alabama. Describing the importance of Mary's efforts and the organization that she founded, the Alabama Conservancy, Floyd Haskell, former U.S. Senator from Colorado, stated ``If not for the Alabama Conservancy, there would be no concept of Eastern Wilderness.'' There is a difference between thinking that things ought to be a certain way, and actually making them so. Too often we are quick to do the former, and slow to do the latter. But the protected resources in my home State and others are larger in size, great in quantity, and more secure in their protection because Mary Burks fought for them all her life. She left a lasting legacy in Alabama that will forever be felt by all who care about wilderness and natural places.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I was a Member of the Senate when we voted to authorize the use of force against Iraq. It was not just a rapid, quickly done deal, we talked about it for months. We talked about primarily the 16 or 17 resolutions that Saddam Hussein had failed to comply with that he agreed to with the United States and the United Nations; that he was setting about systematically to break out of the box of the embargo placed on him because he failed to comply with those resolutions. We were flying, if you remember, aircraft over Iraq on a regular basis, and they were shooting missiles at us, trying to bring down our aircraft. We were dropping bombs on them on a weekly basis. This was the context of the debate that we entered into. At the end, a great deal of emphasis was placed on the question of weapons of mass destruction by the President and others. But for most of us, I think it was a strategic American decision based on the fundamental questions: Were we going to give up? Were we going to let the embargo elapse? And would Saddam Hussein be able to continue to say--actually say with conviction and some honesty--that he had won the 1991 gulf war? He said he won the war. He never complied with the agreements that he entered into and, as a result, we entered this conflict. The initial invasion went far better than most of us believed possible, than many predicted--those who supported the war and those who did not. The aftermath has been much more troubling and difficult. I have been one of those who shared General Abizaid's view of let's keep the number of our troops as low as we can, let's push as hard as we can to train and bring on the Iraqi forces, and let's let their government be responsible for its own activities as soon as possible. But I have to be honest, it has been more difficult than most of us would have thought. We now have many soldiers there in dangerous circumstances. So I am concerned about that. I respect anybody who is concerned about that. I am not here to say I know you are wrong, that I know this is the only way and the only right policy, and I guarantee you it will be successful. I want to say that in the beginning. We have some difficult choices to make, and I respect people who don't agree. I am not able, however, to justify a resolution that appears to be designed to embarrass the President, appears to be contradictory to our Nation's policy, that would indicate to our adversaries and enemies that we are divided. I cannot see that as a positive step for us. I am inclined to agree with the view of General Petraeus. He finished at the top of his class at West Point. He was No. 1 in his class at the Command and General Staff College. He got his Ph.D. at Princeton. He was in Mosul, right after the initial invasion, commanding the 101st Airborne Division. He was a Ranger, a soldier, a fabulous leader. I saw him in operation when some of the Alabama National Guard members had felt they were not being fully utilized right after they got to Mosul. I told General Petraeus, and he said: Let's go over and meet them. He told them: You are part of our effort. I will be bringing you right away the Screaming Eagle patch and you are going to put it on and be one of ours. There won't be any difference in the Guard and Reserve. That was such an example of leadership, I thought. Later, he showed how they captured Uday and Qusay under his command. He showed how they formed the government. He had a Sunni, Shia, Christian, and a Kurd on the city council. He formed a court system. He was a fabulous leader and everybody recognized that. He finished his tour and came back. We realized that we needed to spend more effort and be more effective in training the Iraqi Army. So we sent him over there. We asked him to go back. He went back to specifically be in charge of training the Iraqi security forces. During that time, he got to know virtually every major Iraqi military leader. He knows them personally and he worked with them and with most of the Iraqi leadership. He said he didn't know Prime Minister Maliki, but he knows most of them. After some 15 months at that, well over 2 years in Iraq, he came back home and he was placed in charge of writing the doctrine for the U.S. Department of Defense on how to confront and defeat an insurgency operation, the so-called Counterinsurgency Manual. It is a real serious document. A lot of people don't know this, but there are ways--proven ways--to confront and defeat insurgency operations. In fact, one military historian recently pointed out that very few insurgency operations ultimately become successful. They can cause great distress for substantial periods of time, but they usually fail. There is a fairly significant number--70, 80, 90 percent--that fail, according to this report. So this manual that he painstakingly put together had incredible subtleties in it about how to handle various situations because every situation is different. What might be true in the Kurdish north may not be true in Bosra, the Shia south, or in the Sunni west. Every part of the Sunni and Shia and Kurdish areas are different themselves. Their tribes and their heritage and their religious sects are different. You have to handle them all differently. President Bush asked General Petraeus to help formulate a plan to be successful in Iraq. He committed to him five additional brigades, over 20,000 soldiers. That is a bitter pill to me. I was very pleased--and I spoke out when some were critical--and in favor of General Casey over a year ago saying he hoped to be able to bring troops home. He brought some home. He asked for more at different times. What happened? Well, violence began to pick up substantially in Baghdad. The Sunni and al- Qaida terrorists saw the country beginning to come together, and they decided to make a devilish decision, and that decision was to deliberately provoke a sectarian conflict. They began to attack the Shia in the marketplaces and they attacked their holy mosque at Samarra. They blew up that mosque and killed people. It began to work. Shia militias began to grow and strengthen and develop, feeling they were not being protected by the government. They began to kill Sunnis, and people would find bodies that had been killed execution style. It was a very grim thing to happen. It still is going on to a substantial degree. But I believe that this can be reversed. I cannot guarantee that, but I believe it can be reversed with the leadership of the United States, with increased effort on behalf of the Iraqi military and the country of Iraq, that they can begin to reverse this trend. I will just cite that recently General Conway testified at a hearing. He commanded the Marines in the western part of Fallujah and during some of the toughest fighting. Now commandant of the Marine Corps, he testified a few days ago. I told him about the visit Senators Levin, Warner, Pryor, and I made to Iraq last fall. The briefing that we had gotten by the Marines in the Ramadi area really concerned me. Some of the information they gave--and the Presiding Officer and I traveled over there, and I know he cares about these issues. That briefing was one of the more troubling things I had heard in visiting there five times, as I have. He pointed out how, in just a matter of weeks, that made a dramatic change; that 12 out of 16 tribal leaders in that area have gotten fed up with al-Qaida and their murdering ways, their parasitic ways, and their domination. And they have made agreements with the U.S. military. We are helping them create their own law enforcement entities, hiring their young people, and they are resisting al-Qaida. There has been a dramatic change in the toughest area, the Sunni area, the area where most of al-Qaida has been. So that is good. I say to my colleagues that can happen in Baghdad. Don't think that because things have been very difficult in the last year they cannot begin to get better. General Petraeus has stepped up. We are going to increase our forces. The Iraqis are going to increase their forces. I think the Iraqis know this may be their last chance to save this country as a decent and progressive country that treats people fairly and equally. I think they are beginning to wake up to that fact--I hope so. They are moving substantial numbers of troops in there. They are not as good as the American troops in many ways. They have a lot of difficulties. We know that. But they have taken more casualties than we have, and they continue to sign up. We have an opportunity, I believe, to make a difference. If this effort does not succeed and we do not begin to notice that more progress has been made, that the Iraqis do not meet certain benchmarks we have called on them to make, then we do need to review our policy. I have to say it. What we will do then, I am not sure. But we need to be smart about it. We don't need to be aberrational or spasmodic in how we face those challenges. What happened on the floor of the Senate is not something that I think has brought credit to this body. After approving General Petraeus to go to Iraq 94 to 0, after making clear we intend to fund the policy the President, as Commander in Chief, is executing, our soldiers are executing, and soldiers have been sent over there as part of this surge--some have already gotten there as part of this surge--it became a goal of the majority leader, Senator Reid, and the Democratic leadership, apparently, to vote on a resolution that disapproved it, that criticized the President, I guess to make happy some of the people out there who oppose this war so deeply, some with great passion and legitimate concerns and some with fevered brow who believe we are over there trying to steal Iraqi oil. But that crowd is out there. They want a resolution that is critical of the President and this policy. Our leader, the Republican leader, said: You can have that vote, that will be all right, let's have that vote, but Senator McCain has a different view. Senator McCain's view is we need to set some benchmarks for the Iraqis and we need to support the President. Senator Gregg said it is most important when troops are in harm's way, when they are placing their lives at risk for us, that we tell them we are going to support them financially. Oh, no, we can't vote on those amendments. We are only going to vote on the one we want. This resolution, by the way, should have come, by historical tradition and rules of the Senate, out of the Armed Services Committee, but it didn't come out of the Armed Services Committee. Why didn't it come out of the Armed Services Committee, of which I am a member? Because it doesn't have the votes. It wouldn't have passed out of the Armed Services Committee. So what Senator Reid did is, he filed it as a bill instead of a resolution. He filed it and, under rule XIV, brought it to the floor and determined that no other amendments could be accepted or even voted on, only his view should be voted on. And they carefully calculated, I am sure, to make sure they had over 50 votes, so they would be able to pass one resolution that was deemed an attack on the President and a rejection of the policy we are now funding and is being executed by our soldiers who are far more worthy, in my view, of maturity and respect than a Congress that gets itself tied up in this kind of mess. I think most of us on this side--even some Republicans and some Democrats who supported the resolution--have refused to vote for cloture to bring it up for a vote because they think Senator McCain's and Senator Gregg's resolutions deserve a vote too. Senator McCain said: I would just be satisfied if you vote on Gregg if you don't vote on mine. I would like to vote on both of them, and I am not afraid to vote on the Democratic resolution. I would vote on all three of them. I am not afraid to talk about this war or to talk about the resolutions. But somehow the media has adopted the Democrat's talking points and suggests Republicans don't want to debate and vote on the issue. That is not true. How many times do we have to say that? I don't think what I said is inaccurate. If it is, I would like to be corrected on the fundamental debate in which we find ourselves. But what I wish to say to my colleagues is we are, at this very moment, in reality, financially supporting the policy with which they disagree. Advice and suggestions from business, athletics, church, and families needs to be welcome, but naysaying after a decision is reached is nearly always destructive, in my opinion. People have to pull together once a decision is reached. We only have one Commander in Chief. We have the absolute power to shut off every dime going to Iraq and bring our troops home immediately. That is the constitutional power this Congress has. But while we are executing this effort in Iraq, we only have one Commander in Chief. And for the life of me, I can see no advantage to our Nation, to our foreign policy or to our soldiers in a resolution that disagrees with the President's plan, a plan to which we have our soldiers committing their lives this very moment. Congress should either support it or stop it. But, of course, we all know the awesome responsibility that voting for a precipitous withdrawal out of Iraq would entail because stopping the funding for Iraq is real, just like funding Iraq is real, just like voting for General Petraeus is real. It is not positioning, it is not an expression of concern or an effort to distance oneself from a war that over three-fourths of us in this Senate voted for but has now become very difficult. The President studied the Baker-Hamilton report, he met with his commanders in Iraq and in the United States, and he met with retired officers, elder statesmen. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace, started a bottom-up review of our Iraq policy in August. I called him about that time to raise some questions and urge that he do that. He said: Senator, I have started that already. After all of this evaluation and receipt of ideas for improvement, both public and private, our President, the one given the power to decide such issues in our system, made his call. He changed his policy. Perhaps he should have done it earlier. I think this kind of review would have been more appropriate earlier. The President has gone through a deliberative process, though, and made his decision, and I have decided the right response for me, as a Member of this Senate trying to serve the national interest, is to support that policy, at least for the immediate future, and to support those who will execute it--our military personnel. Others may disagree. An official expression of disagreement, though, about a policy we authorized and we are now funding and our soldiers are executing does not meet, I believe, high standards of responsibility to which a great Senate should adhere. Please remember also that what we do is not contained just in these Halls. I am not persuaded there can be any effect, other than a pernicious one, on those allies and other nations that are assisting us in our efforts. Nor do I see how the threat of an imminent withdrawal could cause the Iraqi Government and the leaders of the various sects and groups to be more willing to reach an accord than would be achieved if we continue assistance in restoring order, particularly in the nation's capital. I don't know. I don't think so myself. If it was so, I would be persuaded. If that would be the result of a rapid withdrawal, that they would all get together and reach an accord, then I would support it because I don't think we need to be an occupying force in Iraq. But this is not what our generals tell us. It is not what we have heard from the intelligence community. Some people said: I talked to a retired general; that is what he said. Maybe that is what he said. Maybe that retired general is right. The people we are hearing about are not saying this is any kind of panacea, to pull out, and there is going to be harmony and compromise reached all at once. In fact, many are saying the violence in Baghdad is so significant that if we allow it to continue to grow, it makes it harder for the warring factions to get together and reach an accord. Still, despite the difficulties, our experts in public and private conversations believe there is hope for stability with this new policy in Iraq, this new surge. They give that evaluation with full and realistic evaluations of all the challenges we face. The new Iraqi permanent Government has only been formed for 8 months, maybe 9 months now. That Government has only been up for 8 or 9 months. The forces of violence, oppression, and extremism have attacked it full force. They are determined to bring it down. But it still stands, and it has made new commitments to taking the necessary steps toward security and progress. This is a test for them, no doubt. Maybe they will fail. Maybe they would not meet the commitments they have made. But perhaps not. Perhaps this fragile Government and the Iraqi Army working in new and better ways with General Petraeus and our forces together can be successful, as our experts tell us is possible and realistic. I, thus, have concluded this Congress should fund this new strategy, not adopt a resolution that has any tendency whatsoever to lessen the chance of that strategy being successful. Finally, I do not see how a congressional resolution that disagrees with, or one that rejects the President's new policy will have any other effect than to reduce the morale of our soldiers. Right out here a couple of days ago, I talked with a group from Hartsville, AL. The man pulled me aside and said his son was an infantry officer at Fort Benning. He said: Senator, I want you to know one thing. When you make your decisions, don't think they don't know what is going on. He said: ``They are watching you like a hawk.'' We have a responsibility to them. Yes, we have a responsibility to say pull out if we have to pull out, if that is the thing to do--and I don't think it is yet; I think we have a chance for success. If that is our decision, so be it. But when we send them over there, they should be supported. They should have no doubt that we are going to be with them. We are waging a war against violent extremists who bomb markets, who behead people who disagree with them, who murder, who kill, who destroy teachers because they teach young girls how to read and write. So this is a complex effort. It is an important effort that to date has protected our homeland from further attack. We didn't choose this duty. It has fallen to us. By working together, I believe we can achieve more in Iraq than many people think. And I will say this, while we are being very serious about the challenges we face. I have had personal meetings with Secretary Gates, the new Secretary of Defense, and an extended meeting with GEN Peter Pace, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and I had a good long conversation with General Petraeus, the new commander in Iraq, and Admiral Fallon, who is going to be the Central Command, commander. I have asked them, and each one of them stated to me that they fully understand their responsibility to give us their best military advice, and if at any time this conflict in Iraq becomes untenable, if at any time they conclude that putting more soldiers into harm's way will not be successful and will not achieve the aims which we are seeking there, they will tell us. I asked Peter Pace that in an open hearing, and he said: ``Yes, sir, Senator, I understand that.'' Secretary Gates cut in and said: ``Senator, I fully understand that, and I feel like that is my number one responsibility.'' I asked General Petraeus that, and he said the same. And I asked him if he believed he could be successful. Remember, this is the man who spent over 2 years in Iraq. He is the best of the best. He has written a manual on how to confront and defeat an insurgency. His answer to whether he can be successful, in sum, was: ``Senator, I do, and I wouldn't be going over there if I didn't think I could be.'' I know people are worried about this conflict. I am worried about it. I talked to a widow yesterday, whose fabulous husband was killed in Iraq, and I don't take it lightly at all. But we are a nation that has been attacked and we have a responsibility to defend our just national interest, and our just national interest would be greatly served by a prosperous, free, democratic Iraq, where terrorists do not find haven and which is not subverted by hostile forces. We have a national interest in that, as well as a humanitarian interest. I think we need to give General Petraeus a chance. I think we may find that progress in Baghdad can occur, even when it is dark, as it did in Al Anbar Province a few months ago. I was feeling pretty discouraged about what was happening there, but great progress has been made in the last few weeks there. It is time for us to stick together. I don't think this resolution is good. If we are going to vote on it, we ought to vote on the Gregg resolution and we ought to vote on the McCain resolution. Because only together will that convey to the world, our allies, and our soldiers the real feelings and insights of this Congress. As I have said from the beginning, I don't favor any resolution. We have done what we have to do. We sent General Petraeus and we sent money to execute the policy. I don't know why we have to have a resolution at all. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I am pleased to have the opportunity to recognize the 100th Anniversary of the Bright Star Restaurant in Bessemer, AL. Since 1907, the Bright Star has been providing the citizens of our State and its visitors with delicious food and superior service. Today, this family-owned business, led by Jimmy and Nick Koikos, continues to build on this tradition. While America is famous for its chain restaurants, there remain many of the old ones which have atmosphere, friendship, and good food. They are a valuable part of our communities and unite us in many ways. The Bright Star is a classic. Known for fresh gulf seafood, quality steaks, and fresh vegetables, the Bright Star is certain to satisfy every palate. The restaurant's Greek style specialties are my personal favorites. In fact, I don't believe the broiled snapper, along with the Greek salad, can be topped. Although, admittedly, the daily meat and three-vegetable specials certainly give them a run for their money. Famous faces, like legendary coach Paul ``Bear'' Bryant and former Senator Howell Heflin, frequented the Bright Star. I am certain that virtually all of our congressional delegation have eaten there including my colleague, Senator Shelby, on many occasions. It is the place for good friends, good food, and even a small taste of politics. Today, you will still see Alabama coaches and fans filing through the dining room on their way to and from seeing the Crimson Tide play. Not so long ago, I brought John Ashcroft by for dinner. This was his first visit to Alabama after becoming the U.S. Attorney General, and I will never forget the wonderful reception Jimmy and the staff gave us. I wanted to show off the best of Birmingham, so dinner at this fine restaurant was a no-brainer. Jimmy gave us a mouth-watering overview of the menu, emphasizing as I had hoped that he would, the renown seafood dishes. Everything sounded delicious, however it turned out that the Attorney General was allergic to seafood and shellfish. I seem to recall he had a steak that he enjoyed, but he certainly missed out on those fresh gulf delicacies. Located just outside of Birmingham in the quaint downtown area of Bessemer, the Bright Star is easily accessible and certainly a destination attraction. Moreover, you can always expect a good crowd of folks dining there on any day of the week. Luckily, expansions to the building over the years, including ample banquet space, enable diners to be comfortably accommodated. I look forward to the lunch I have scheduled there for next week, and I highly recommend a visit to all.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Arizona for granting me this extra time. He is not required to do so. I think we have had a problem and a difference of opinion for some time. Senator McCain has been quite open that he is concerned about the troop levels in Iraq not being sufficient. History may well record he is right on that regard, but our policy was different. General Abizaid, the commander for that region, the Central Command, studied the area throughout his career. He was concerned about too many troops in Iraq from the beginning. General Casey came on after General Abizaid was CENTCOM commander and became the commander in Iraq. He was Vice Chief of Staff of the Army at that time, he was to be gone for 18 months. He ended up being away from his family for 30 months, 2\1/2\ years, and he executed the policy as best he could. He testified that in his view, he didn't want to ask for a single soldier more than he needed to do the job. I don't know what the tension is, but there was a constant tension between the need to have more soldiers and to not take over the entire effort in Iraq. General Abizaid and General Casey made their recommendations. We followed them. That experience in Iraq, in my view, can only make him better as Chief of Staff. He was Vice Chief of Staff, lead our forces for 30 months in Iraq, and now he will be Chief of Staff. He was born in an Army hospital. His father was killed in Vietnam. He served 37 years in the Army. His son is a member of the Army. He should not bear the brunt of a difference of opinion about how we should have conducted the effort in Iraq. He gave his absolute best effort to it. He could not help but have learned a lot in the process. He will be a fine Chief of Staff. Mr. President, my time is up. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, would it be acceptable that I be given 2 minutes to speak after Senator Warner?

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the excellent Senator from Texas for her work, and I believe she is doing it the right way. She is doing it by staying within our budget. This funding of BRAC was put in at $5.5 or $6 billion. It was within the budget. What has happened is that money was spent on other programs, and now it looks as though if we are to fund it, we are going to have to add it to the supplemental, which is extra spending and extra debt, more than we should have. I thank Senator Hutchison for her leadership.

Mr. SESSIONS. In other words, the only way to have a savings under the BRAC is to consolidate facilities and avoid waste. To go halfway with this project seems to me, clearly, will cause all kinds of backlogs and make it very difficult for our military people to plan. It could actually drive up costs significantly, could it not?

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank Senator Hutchison so much for her leadership on this important matter. While she is here, I wish to ask the Senator a few questions about the situation in which we find ourselves. I believe it was the year before last that we voted, after much anguish and concern and fear by local communities, to go forward with the BRAC, which is the Base Realignment and Closure Commission. Nobody was sure how that would come out and whether some of our bases would be closed. When the dust settled and the long process concluded, a number of bases were closed. At the same time, we are also closing facilities around the world and bringing back more of our troops that are deployed around the world. Isn't it true that the continuing resolution that is proposed would take 55 percent, or $3.1 billion, out of a little over $5 billion that was set aside to carry this forward? Isn't that correct?

Mr. SESSIONS. I agree. I don't think there is anyone here who is more committed to frugality and trying to manage our dollars well in this Senate. I certainly believe in that strongly. We knew upfront we were going to have to have some initial moneys to make these moves and consolidations to save money for years and years to come. This has the potential to eliminate the whole process, to eviscerate the process and actually run our costs up over the long run; wouldn't the Senator agree?

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I wish to share some thoughts about the situation we find ourselves in. I do feel some obligation to comment on the nature of the debate we are having, although I do not want to descend into partisanship. I would say that Senator Specter, I believe, is absolutely correct when he says the Republican Members of this body are not afraid to vote. They are prepared to vote on the Warner resolution. They are prepared to vote on the McCain resolution. They will vote on the Judd Gregg resolution. But the problem is the Democratic leadership only wants one vote, and that is a vote on their resolution. So we have had a vote. Less than 50 voted to go forward. So I do not see how we are at a point where it can be suggested the members of this side are afraid to have a vote. Why are they afraid to have two more votes, I would ask? I am not afraid to vote. I know how I would vote on those amendments. I am going to vote against the amendment that disapproves of the policies we are sending our troops to execute. And I am going to vote for the other amendments of McCain and Gregg--if I had the chance. That is a minimum. There may be others. Senator Specter indicated he would like to vote on something else. But in truth, as I have said before, I am not happy about this whole resolution process. We are not in the business of resolutions here. We are in the business of funding or not funding the policies of the United States of America. We have committed to funding the policy that is now being executed. We have confirmed the general who will execute that policy. Therefore, that is what we are about. That is the action we have taken. But, in general, let me say this one more thing because it touched my heart. Less than 30 minutes ago, right out here, I met an Alabamian whose son is at Fort Benning, a first lieutenant in the U.S. Army, an infantry officer. He thanked me for not going along with this negative resolution idea, and said: Senator, these soldiers are ``watching what you do like a hawk.'' Don't think what we do is just a gambit to embarrass the President. We face many difficult decisions, pressures. We wrestle with competing interests and emotions in this Senate. We have high hopes and dreams for America. We do not all agree, and we should not. Ours is, at its best, a democracy where robust and intelligent debate informs our decisions. It makes us better. And we should respect one another even while we disagree. But this is a big deal. Lives are at stake. But this is what democracy is about. I want to be sure that when I say I believe someone is making a mistake, I am not attacking their character. In the end, if a democracy cannot reach a decision on important issues, act decisively and execute those decisions, it will be weak and it will fall prey to the cruel, the despotic, and the strong. In order to avoid indecisiveness and weakness, there are some important common principles we must share. They are built, I believe, on love of country and a sincere belief in and admiration for this great Republic we serve. That is the unifying principle. An extended, dangerous, and costly war in Iraq is not what we had hoped would occur when over three-fourths of the Members of this body-- and I was here--voted to authorize the use of force against Saddam Hussein. Certainly, I had hoped and have always favored bringing troop levels down as soon as we can. The difficulties we face have caused, understandably, much unease and frustration in our country. Things have not been going well. That is a true fact. The circumstances are grave, and our efforts in Iraq could fail, as General Casey and his replacement, General Petraeus, have made clear, although, in truth, these professionals have also made it clear they believe we can and will succeed if we carry out the new policy that is now being projected in Iraq. A congress of a nation, constructed like ours, that aspires to be a great nation and a great congress must consider how it should respond to such difficult circumstances in this winter of our discontent. How, now, should we think about the tough challenges we face? First, I believe the results of a failure and a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq are grave and ominous. No one disputes that. Chaos and ethnic cleansing, death to those who put their lives on the line for freedom and democracy would likely result, and more. Bad things would occur. We have had testimony on that. So to even those few now here in this Senate who voted against the use of force, and to our newer Members of the Senate who are on record as being opposed to the policy, I say let's get together. Let's see how we can deal with the problems we now face so our Nation and its policies can be successful. Few decisions are totally right or totally wrong. Sometimes things go better than expected. Sometimes they do not go as well. The test of a healthy and strong nation is how it handles adversity. To those who oppose our efforts in Iraq, I would say that it would be a defensible position, I have to say, if you feel that strongly about it, to vote to cut off funds that would in effect force an immediate withdrawal. But, in truth, even when Senators truly believe our efforts in Iraq were a mistake, a mature patriotic assessment of the short and long-term consequences of such a withdrawal must be considered. Immediate withdrawal is not a good option. It is not a good option. That is obviously why so many of our Democratic colleagues who are not happy with this war have not proposed such a step. The one thing that is not acceptable is to take action--to take any action or concrete steps--to further the President's policy and then to vote for a resolution that makes it less likely to succeed. This is especially true when this Congress has committed our military personnel to this task, placing them in harm's way to execute the mission this Republic has given them. Our military personnel have placed their very lives, their every waking moment, on the line to achieve the mission that is assigned to them. They are doing that every day. I have been there five times. We have a moral responsibility to them that must not be lightly broken. That commitment also goes to those many allies who have supported us, our friends in the region, and the good and decent Iraqis who voted for and stood up for democracy and freedom. If this is a true concept--and I believe it is--then I urge, with respect and with deep sincerity, that my colleagues do not give their support to any resolution that is likely to make our praiseworthy goal of a free and stable Iraq more difficult to achieve. A resolution that is not binding but adversely impacts our efforts, with all due respect, is a vote that cannot be justified. Other than perceived personal political benefits, or ``making a statement,'' what benefit does such a vote provide our Nation's efforts? It has no impact. Negative resolutions, therefore, can only place our soldiers, whom we sent to execute this policy, at greater risk. It can only place them at greater risk and make their task harder. Those in harm's way deserve our total support, and the policies we have asked them to execute should also have our total support, until such time as we withdraw it. I urge my colleagues to think this through. Let's pull back from this precipice--not just from this vote but from votes in Congress that may come in the future. Let's reassert our time-honored tradition that ``politics stops at the water's edge,'' that politics must never place soldiers at unnecessary risk. Let us not go down the road of passing resolutions whose only purpose is to emote, to express doubt about our Nation's decided policy during a time of great challenge and risk. A Senate of a great nation doesn't use a toothless resolution to vent. What good does such a thing do? Surely, we all understand, as did our Founders, that there can only be one policy, one Commander in Chief, and one Congress. The Congress can cut off funds and stop it, if they are so strongly committed to do so. But we are not doing that. How have we slid into such a muddle? The answer is that politics seems to have taken over everything around here; it infects our very being, even during war. It is a dangerous trend. We are used to ``splitting the difference'' here. Compromise is the nature of the game, we are told, and indeed it is. You favor a $100 million program, perhaps, and I oppose it; and maybe we end up compromising on $50 million. The thing may have worked at $50 million, or it might have been a failure at $50 million. Who knows? But we compromise. But that is about money. This is about war, about the life and death of people, as fine as you can find in this country, who volunteered to serve us. Some may say it is not certain that negative resolutions will weaken the resolve of our friends and hurt the morale of our soldiers and embolden our enemies. Logic, however, says it will. Maybe you disagree. But how can it be otherwise? Logic says it will. General Petraeus said it well a few days ago. Negative resolutions will likely have negative consequences on our policy and place at greater risk the lives and health of our soldiers. What other purpose is there for this resolution, other than to somehow ratchet up the effort to force an abandonment of the policy we have funded and we are now executing. Indeed, the whole world will think such a resolution that expresses only ``feelings'' represents a weakening of American will, even while the actual policy we are funding is to increase our strength and commitment to the Iraq effort. Think about it. As their foundations, these negative resolutions can only be described as totally contradictory to our policy that we are at this moment executing. New troops are moving there right now. Some have already arrived in Iraq. Have you not heard that? For those unhappy and worried, I say let's get busy, all of us, and do a better job. Let's find out more about this difficult struggle that we are engaged in, find out more about Iraq, find out more about what our troops need, what their challenges are and what can and cannot be done. Let's meet with General Pace and General Casey and Secretary Gates; let's read the periodic reports that General Petraeus will be sending and spend more time keeping up with the situation on the ground in Iraq, rather than on polling numbers in our States. If we then reach a point of no return, when our honest and best judgment is that success is not possible, then we can join with those few who are prepared to cast votes to force an end to our deployment in Iraq. That is what we are supposed to do. Certainly, at this point, none can honestly say that we know what the outcome will be. I wish I could give full assurance of success, but I cannot. We do know this is a very difficult time. Al-Qaida is still active, despite heavy losses and an inability--we may thank the Lord-- to attack us again on our homeland, so far. The Iraqi Government has not been strong and decisive, and violence, especially in Baghdad, has steadily increased. The al-Qaida attack on the Samarra Mosque last February, designed to create sectarian violence in the country, succeeded in sparking a spate of sectarian killing and reprisals that continue today. Still, General Abizaid and General Casey, our former commander, and General Petraeus, our new commander, know the true situation there better than we do. General Abizaid has been there four years, I believe, and General Casey, 30 months. They have lived it. They have studied it. They sincerely believe and have publicly stated, under oath, that this surge of American troops, with a surge of Iraqi troops and the new tactics to be employed, can lead to the goals that we seek--a stable, peaceful, and prosperous Iraq. It can be successful. We should not be overly negative. Indeed, I asked this question of General Petraeus. A few days ago in his testimony, he said he would not take this job if he didn't believe he would succeed. General Petraeus commanded the 101st Airborne Division when they went into northern Iraq, in Mosul. He did a fabulous job. They jokingly called him the ``mayor of Mosul.'' We toured the area the projects he had worked to establish. He understands the need of walking the streets and talking with the Iraqi people and encouraging them to take over their country. He came home, and then they asked him to go back and train the Iraqi security forces and he agreed to do so. He left his family again and went back and spent a year in Iraq. I am sure he knows every top general by name in the Iraqi Army, or virtually all of them. He spent another year there doing that. Then he came back and he spent a year drafting and writing the Department of Defense counterinsurgency manual. It is 100 or more pages, a big document; it is a very important, complex, carefully worked out document that tells how to confront and defeat an insurgency operation. That is the plan we have asked him to go back with now. I believe we need to give General Petraeus a chance. We have lost over 3,000 lives in our Iraq effort. The losses, in my view, are less than expected during the initial assault on Baghdad in Iraq and far more than I expected in the aftermath. Much of this, I am sure, was the result of errors we made. Much arises from the inherent difficulties of the tasks that were underestimated. Of that, there can be no doubt. But no Government agency even comes close to our military in being brutally honest and doing after-action reports and self- evaluations. That is going on now and will continue for years. They are a magnificent force. I can only believe that if we truly support them, as a great Senate and a great Congress should when they are executing the policies we have directed them to execute, they will be successful. I further believe it is premature for us to withdraw. We owe it to those State Department officials, other Government agencies, NGOs, patriotic Iraqi civilians who voted for a new and better Iraq, to the Iraqi security forces who have taken more casualties than we have, to those international allies who have stood with us in Iraq and, most of all, to our military personnel who have given their heroic best to accomplish our Nation's just and decent goals in Iraq, to give this new policy and General Petraeus a chance. I think they can and will do it. But I do not doubt the difficulties and I do not doubt there is uncertainty. If, heaven forbid, our efforts do not prevail, it will be appropriate to completely rethink our commitment to Iraq. So why do we want to pass a resolution? Senator Reid says he wants to provide Senators a chance to show their disapproval of the President's policy. With respect, Senator Reid has--I know it is unwitting and unintentional--crossed the line there. It is clear that this resolution, which has no binding effect and is only a political document, is not necessary, does not help, and I totally oppose it. It is wrong, in my view. While our soldiers are courageously placing their lives on the line for us, and while there is no serious suggestion that we should cut off the funds for the surge the Commander in Chief has ordered and which the Baker-Hamilton group suggested might be necessary, a toothless resolution is the wrong thing to do. I am certainly glad it did not garner many votes. So can we, for a while at least, stand united in our good and worthy efforts to help the people of Iraq achieve a decent, peaceful and stable Government? Can't we do that? The challenge remains great. The costs are high. I say let's follow through, united, on this new strategy under our new general. I believe we can be successful. If the Iraqis fail to respond and if the new strategy is not effective, we will know soon enough. And an honest, professional, and realistic evaluation of what to do next will fall into our hands. We should complete that task effectively, giving our best effort and judgment to it. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Chair. I think that is relevant to the issue we are talking about: How to help people get more take-home pay for their labor. One of the reasons that is not happening to the degree we would like is the large flow of illegal labor. One of the problems we have is that enforcement in the workplace is not adequate. Most employers want to do the right thing, but a $250 fine is too low. We will be dealing with that again later on. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. SESSIONS. Dr. Coburn is such a thoughtful commentator on many issues, but he is an expert and has done a lot of work on the health care issue. I know he has some of his own ideas. But one of the ways you could help low-income workers would be to reduce the health care burden they pay in terms of health insurance. For example, the President's proposal of tax deductibility that he made in his State of the Union Address would be a rather sizable benefit to a lot of low- income workers, if it were passed, would it not?

Mr. SESSIONS. This is for health insurance deductibility.