Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I want to share some general thoughts about workers in America, the salaries they get paid, the money they take home, and some of the problems relative to that. I will not be offering any amendments at this point. I think there are some others who will be down in a little bit who are scheduled to be on the floor at this time but have not arrived. I will note I would like to have a vote on an amendment I have offered, which is an amendment that will say that if an employer hires a person illegally in the country, contrary to the law, the fine will no longer be as little as $250 but will be raised to a fine sufficient to deter that business from carrying on that activity: $5,000 and up. But I want to take a moment now to share some thoughts of a very serious nature about what we are dealing with. This bill that is on the floor today would raise the minimum wage from $5.15 an hour to $7.25 an hour. I am uneasy with Government dictating a contract between two private persons. But I have supported minimum wage increases on a number of occasions, and I think we will see one pass this time in some fashion. I hope it will be passed in a manner that I will be able to support final passage. But I share the concern of a lot of people who support this legislation; and that concern is, the incomes and the salaries of lower wage workers have not kept up with the salaries of higher income workers. I know the free marketeers argue that later on wages will increase for low-income workers, but I am not satisfied with that argument. The economy is doing very well. Bonuses and salaries for top- wage people have surged. We have not seen sufficient increases in salaries for lower income workers. I am going to share some numbers with this body that I believe will put a finger on the real problem. It is not that George Bush does not want people to have salaries. George Bush and Members of this Senate have supported policies that, without their knowledge, perhaps, are having an adverse impact on wages. Maybe there are a lot of reasons we are having an adverse impact on wages, but I am going to talk about one. We can be certain that illegal immigration is suppressing workers' wages. Significant economic evidence indicates the presence of large amounts of illegal labor in low-skilled job sectors--that is low-income workers--is depressing the wages of American workers. Harvard economists George Borjas and Lawrence Katz--Professor Borjas has written a fabulous book on immigration, ``Heaven's Door.'' I am sure my friend Senator Kennedy knows of Harvard. He needs to introduce himself to Professor Borjas, I would suggest. Harvard economists George Borjas and Lawrence Katz estimate that the influx of low-skilled, low-wage immigration from 1980 to 2000 has resulted in a 3-percent decrease in wages for the average American worker--not just low-income workers. The average American worker has seen a 3-percent decline in his wages, and it has cut wages for native-born high school dropouts--those are the people most often being paid near minimum wage; the poorest 10 percent of the workforce--by 8 percent. That is a lot. The 3 percent amounts to, assuming they made $10 an hour, $12 a week or $600 a year. For the poorer worker, the 8 percent amounts to more than $1,200 a year in income. Now, that is $100 a month extra money they could be paid, but they are not being paid because of the large influx of illegal workers or immigrant workers into the country. According to Alan Tonelson, another expert, a research fellow at the U.S. Business and Industry Council Educational Foundation--this is his quote-- [T]he most important statistics available show conclusively that, far from easing shortages, illegal immigrants are adding to labor gluts in America. Specifically, wages in sectors highly dependent on illegals, when adjusted for inflation, are either stagnant or have actually fallen. Wages have gone down, not even gone up a little bit. They have gone down. Think about it. Tonelson is referring to Labor Department data and information from the Pew Hispanic Center that--Mr. Tonelson says--``provide compelling evidence illegal immigrants have been used deliberately to force down wages.'' For example, he cites data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics for the following information. Madam President, I see Senator Salazar is here. And, as I indicated, I say to Senator Salazar, I will yield. I will wrap up briefly and yield to you because I know you were previously approved to speak next. As I was saying, for example, Tonelson cites data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics for the following information: Inflation- adjusted wages for the broad food and services and drinking establishments category--that is the Labor Department category--between the years 2000 and 2005 fell 1.65 percent. Pew estimates that illegal immigrants comprise 17 percent of food preparation workers, 20 percent of cooks, and 23 percent of dishwashers. So they say: Well, you cannot get people to work and be cooks and dishwashers in restaurants. You cannot get them. Well, if they were paid a little better wage, maybe they could get them. Instead of cutting wages from 2000 to 2005, maybe some people would be willing to work. He goes on to note: Inflation-adjusted wages for the food manufacturing industry--the Pew Hispanic Center estimates that illegal immigrants comprise 14 percent of that workforce--fell 2.24 percent from 2000 to 2005. He also goes on to note: Inflation-adjusted wages for hotel workers-- the Pew Hispanic Center estimates that illegal immigrants make up 10 percent of that workforce--fell 1 percent from 2000 to 2005. So, Madam President, I will wrap up at this point but will talk about it some more later. We need to create a lawful immigration system that does allow workers to come to our country, but the number and skill sets they bring ought to be such that they do not aversely impact to a significant degree the wages of American citizens. How more basic can it be than that, see? I am afraid we need to confront that. So my amendment is just one important step I will ask for a vote on that will allow workers to come legally, but if they come illegally, the employers who hire them can be punished to a degree more commensurate with the seriousness of the offense. Madam President, I thank the Chair. I see my good friend from Colorado, former attorney general. We worked together on a number of issues. I will be proud to yield to him at this time.

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, it is important as we think about low- and middle-income, middle-class workers in America today, to think about how they are getting along and whether they are saving adequately. Savings is a part of any person's financial security. It makes a difference between how a person thinks about his life, how he or she thinks about her job, and how they can live in the latter years. Most Americans today depend upon Social Security to finance their retirement as Social Security provides 73 percent of the retirement income of the typical household. That is not enough money for the average American to live on adequately. The truth is, they can have so much more so easily. I would like to talk about that today. To live the comfortable life that Americans deserve after 40-plus years of work, most need to supplement their Social Security income with additional savings, either through an employer-sponsored plan or their own savings plan. Yet despite this need, most Americans are not putting aside money for their future. Statistic after statistic tragically shows this. The personal savings rate in the United States, as this chart demonstrates, is at its lowest ebb since the Great Depression. It is a matter of national importance, as the Chairman of the Reserve Board and others have discussed. Look at this chart. It shows, since 1946, our savings rate has fallen steadily; in 2006, it is below zero. We are spending our savings now more than we are saving. It is a very troubling matter. We have to do something about it. After having averaged better than 7 percent throughout most of the post-World War II period, the personal savings rate dipped into negative territory by 2005 for the first time since 1933. This trend continued last year as the personal savings rate remained in negative territory for the first three quarters of 2006, with the fourth quarter numbers not yet reported. These statistics indicate that the average American household has been spending more during the last 2 years by either drawing down past savings or selling assets or borrowing. An alarming number of Americans also lack any financial resources beyond personal income. According to a Federal Reserve 2004 survey of consumer finances, 17 percent of all households have zero or a negative net worth, while 30 percent have a net worth of less than $10,000. This is especially a problem for African-American households, as they are more than twice as likely to have zero or a negative net worth. Perhaps most troubling, as this next chart demonstrates, almost half of the 152 million Americans who worked in 2004, 71.5 million employees, worked for an employer that did not sponsor a retirement plan of any kind. Another 17 million did not participate in the plan their employer offered. That means over 58 percent of working Americans in 2004 were not participating in an employer-sponsored retirement plan. Higher income people take care of their plans, but the average working American tends to focus his savings through his business and employer. In particular, younger workers are much less likely to participate in their employer's 401(k) plan, as only about one-third of workers age 21 to 30 participate in any retirement plan at work. Even if a worker is participating in an employer-sponsored retirement plan, he or she is unlikely to be saving sufficiently for the future. The average American worker holds nine jobs by the time they are 35, meaning that he or she often leaves the job before their retirement benefits become vested. In fact, frequently they cash it out. I had the opportunity to be on an airplane recently with a young man, 37, with two kids. He is beginning to work for the Federal Government. He is going to be saving through the thrift plan. I asked him what he had done before about savings. I told him the average person had nine jobs. He said: I had nine jobs. And when asked about savings, he said: I cashed in my plans. I just had a few hundred dollars in this one and a few hundred in that one. It didn't make sense to hold on to them. I cashed them in and paid my penalties. So at 35 with two kids, he has missed those first 10 or 15 or 20 years of work that he could have been saving and having the power of compound interest at work. About 45 percent of the participants in employer-sponsored retirement plans cashed out when they changed jobs in 2004. A lot of plans don't offer savings until you have worked with the company 6 months or a year; some, 2 years. As this next chart shows, if we considered business and Government savings, we find that the United States has the lowest national savings rate of any of the group of 20 industrial nations. Whereas Japan's savings rate was 10.8 percent in 2003, Germany's was 5.4 percent, and India's was 15.4 percent, the United States had a net national savings rate of 1.6 percent in 2003. This is a World Bank chart. We can see we have the lowest rate on the chart. That is significant, not only for individuals, most importantly for individual working Americans, but also for our economy because economists tell us that this is a major detriment to our economy. In fact, all but two of the nations listed on the chart I just showed have a net national savings rate of more than twice that of the United States, if not more than 10 times our savings rate. The lack of personal savings is a particular problem in my State of Alabama. An A.G. Edwards study rated Alabama the Nation's 46th lowest savings State. This lack of personal savings is a national tragedy, as few Americans are putting money aside to ensure their financial security upon retirement, during a time where we have growth and relative prosperity in our Nation. I will repeat that. Think about the tragedy that is occurring when people are not setting aside even a small percentage of their salary, when if they do, they could retire with hundreds of thousands of dollars in a savings account at age 65. This is very realistic. It is very possible. I will talk about it a little bit more in a minute. But as anybody knows who has studied the compound interest factor, the earlier you save, the more important it is. So it is a special tragedy when we see this lack of savings. For example, according to an analysis by Fidelity Investments, if one is 25 years old and has 40 years until retirement, every additional dollar a person saves would be worth $8.14 at retirement, adjusted for inflation. So a dollar saved, if you are 25, is worth $8.14 at retirement. Increasing savings also allows Americans to achieve greater control and choice over their lives. According to the Center for Social Development, the presence of savings is even associated with improved health and psychological well-being. The benefits of increasing our Nation's personal savings rate go beyond the financial security of individual families. By increasing household savings, we will be providing the investment capital our Nation needs to ensure long-term economic growth and create more and better jobs. Increasing savings will allow the United States to depend less on foreign capital. America's current account deficit, the amount of domestic investment financed by borrowing from abroad, hit a record high of over 6 percent of GDP in 2005. Foreign capital can sustain our economy in the short run, but I don't know if we can depend on that in the long run. Moreover, we, as a country, benefit from the interest and dividends our assets generate when we own them. So what can we do to increase personal savings for retirement? I will soon be introducing a bill to help solve our savings problem by creating a national savings system that would give every American the opportunity to retire a half-millionaire. Not a chicken in every pot, not a car in every garage, we desire that every American be able to retire with half a million dollars in the bank. That is possible, realistic, so easily within our grasp if we set forth the right plans today. Under the plan I will be introducing, individual savings accounts, or PLUS Accounts--for Portable, Lifelong, Universal Savings accounts-- would be created for every working American. One percent of every paycheck earned would be deposited automatically, pretax, into individual PLUS Accounts, along with a 1-percent match from every employer, and invested in a new system like our Federal thrift system, a new 401(k)-type system. Under this plan, a savings account would be established for every American at birth, endowing these accounts with $1,000. This is a proposal which the British are already doing. The UK has a plan similar to this plan. They are very excited about how well it is working. Savings among families in Britain has gone up 40 percent since they started this plan. It has educated people to the power of savings and compound interest. Senators, such as Mr. Schumer, Mr. Santorum, and others, have previously offered legislation of this kind. So these funds contributed to PLUS Accounts would be the legal property of each account holder, but they could not be spent until age 65. Any funds remaining when an individual died would be passed on as they chose to their spouse, children, grandchildren, or any one of the holder's choosing, including a favorite charity. Account assets would be protected from creditors and would not be considered in determining eligibility for any federally funded benefits or in calculating estate tax liability. Finally, my plan would simply serve as a supplement to Social Security, not altering the Social Security system in any way. I supported the President's idea of changes in Social Security. I thought it made sense. We did not have the votes to do that in this Congress. So I say, let's do it on top of Social Security. I believe this can work. If we begin PLUS Accounts at birth and require a portion of every paycheck to be invested, the first check you get, the first job you go to work at, the average American citizen could retire with a rather sizable nest egg. For example, given a reasonable rate of return, someone who makes $46,000 a year--the median household income in 2005--and only contributes 1 percent of each paycheck would retire with almost $300,000 in the bank. Think about that. You put in 1 percent, your employer puts in 1 percent. You have a $1,000 deposit at birth. With no more money put in there other than what you pay out, you would retire with $300,000 in your account. What a remarkable and great country this is. At age 65, this account could be converted to an annuity that would pay the recipient $2,100 per month for life, which is probably more than they will get from Social Security. If the same individual were to contribute 3 percent, if they would just contribute 3 percent of their paycheck over the course of their working life, they could expect to retire with half a million dollars in their account--enough to purchase an annuity that pays over $3,700 per month for life, if they chose, or they could simply live off the income of it and have assets for their children or the charity they chose. This is if the company, the employer, only puts in 1 percent. But many employers today offer more than that. I have to say, I was talking with Senator Corker from Tennessee, a successful businessman, about this issue. He said: I believe in savings. We have a savings plan in my company that our people all sign up for. I said: Tell me about it. He said: We put in 10 percent, if they will put in 5 percent. Think about that. That is what Senator Corker does. A lot of businesses would do this. A lot of businesses would put in more. Many already are, but many businesses would step up to the plate and put in more than 1 percent. But if the employee put in 3 percent and the employer put in 1, at age 65, it would be worth half a million dollars, if you are operating at median income. That is remarkable. Thus, I would say that if we care about working Americans, if we really want to do something historic, I believe we have an opportunity, a bipartisan opportunity to establish a savings program for Americans. That program should be modeled, in my view, although I am open to other suggestions, on the Federal thrift plan that our employees admire so much and they value so much, you couldn't take it from them with a crowbar. The Federal employees like it. They pay Social Security, and they get a thrift plan where the Government puts in 5 percent if they put in 5 percent. And they can put in more than that. Many of these young people working today who work a career in the Government are going to retire with a very sizable nest egg, something they own, an asset they have earned themselves from their work, and they will be able to retire comfortably, whereas otherwise they may be dependent on Social Security. It is a national tragedy that we are not educating our children to save. It is a national tragedy that our savings rate has fallen below zero. I believe we can do better. I am offering this sense-of-the- Senate resolution to have the Senate think about it, to affirm its commitment to increasing savings. As we go forward in the weeks to come, we could be talking about the various proposals that are out there to actually make this happen. I see Senator Kennedy is off the floor. As I understand, we will set the vote on this resolution for an appropriate time. Hopefully, we will have strong support from my colleagues. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank Senator Kennedy and Senator Enzi for their courtesy as we discuss some of the issues I have raised by my amendments. What is the pending business?

Mr. SESSIONS. I call for the regular order with respect to Senate amendment 106 and send a modification to the desk.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, there are many public servants who hold office and it is not possible to make mention of the milestones in their lives; however, with Otha Lee Biggs, probate judge of Monroe County, AL, I must make an exception. His remarkable tenure is truly notable. Judge Biggs served 36 years as probate judge and as chairman of the Monroe County Commission. He has been dual-hatted, as they say. During that time, he has been a tireless proponent of economic growth for the county and constantly worked for more and better jobs for his people. Everyone knows Judge Biggs and he knows everyone. He knows his constituents, their children, parents, cousins, and neighbors. Even knowing those who get along and those who don't. He knows how to get things done. And his word is good. That is to say, he is a master politician in the finest sense of that word. It is a real treat to hear him tell how he worked to get the Alabama River Pulp Mill to locate in Monroe County in 1978. Make no mistake, that event has been hugely important to the county ever since. He is a friend of Monroe County's best known citizen, Nelle Harper Lee, the author of ``To Kill A Mockingbird,'' the most widely read book of the 20th century in the schools of America. He was a visionary behind the production of the play based on the book. A historian, a conservationist, a fabulous storyteller, and a man of family and tradition, Judge Biggs is one of a kind. We will not see his like again. He is held, to a most unusual degree, in the highest esteem and affection by the people he has served. They have given him their trust, and he has been worthy of it. His has been a remarkable period of leadership, Constant and faithful he has been, and the people love him for it. Rich and poor, Black and White, he has served them all. He has put them and his county first. Governors, Senators, and Congressmen have been his friend. I have been honored to be his friend, too. When I pass through Monroeville on the way to visit my homeplace in Hybart, on the northern edge of the county, I always try to stop in for a visit with the Judge. It is a special treat to peer over that pile of papers on his desk, some yellow with age, in his small modest office and to catch up on the news, to hear a good story, to take a peek at his pictures, and to learn about the important issues facing the county, our State and our Nation. For, first of all, Judge Biggs is a patriot. He loves his country and loves it truly and understands its exceptional nature. Thus, his insight is always valuable. Now, as everyone knows, Judge Biggs is frugal. If he ran the Federal Government, the budget would be balanced--that is for sure. His style is clearly demonstrated at the ceremony at which his successor, Judge Greg Norris, was installed. At the conclusion, Judge Biggs said ``I have one bit of advice. Replace the carpet in your office. It's been there 44 years.'' The retirement reception for Judge Biggs, hosted by the Alabama Power Company and Alabama River Pulp Company on January 11, 2007, was a remarkable event. I am truly disappointed to have missed that wonderful time. Though my duties here kept me away, I was there in spirit and in admiration for one of Alabama's most important leaders, Judge Otha Lee Biggs. Well done, good and faithful servant, well done.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I yield to the Senator from Maryland to discuss this order of business. I wish to discuss that a little bit.

Mr. SESSIONS. How long does the Senator expect to be?

Mr. SESSIONS. That is fine from my perspective.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, is there an order of business?

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I would like to share a few thoughts in the form of an overview of our wage situation in the United States and to discuss some things that I think we can do to improve that situation. I would agree that wages are too low for middle-class and lower income workers. They have not kept pace with business profits or with CEO salaries, for example. They have fallen behind. They have fallen behind the profits and bonuses and things of that nature. I believe it is a serious problem. I know the experts tell us--and there is some truth to the fact--that salary increases tend to lag behind business growth and profits. As the profits go up, the first year the bonuses and the salaries don't keep up with it, but they argue that as time goes by, they do make a rise, and we should, therefore, remember that. There is some historical truth to that argument, there is no doubt about it. But, frankly, it doesn't satisfy me at this point of the issue. It is particularly so to me because the unemployment in our country has been falling and is still so low. I think it is 4.5 percent nationally. It was recently 3.2 percent in my home State of Alabama-- the lowest we have ever had. I am excited about that. Why aren't wages, then, for our lower skilled people, our poorer people, our young people, our minority workers--why aren't those wages beginning to increase in a noticeable way? Why aren't they keeping pace, and what can we do about it? Senator Kennedy's theory and his argument is pretty clear and simple, as his normally are--and direct. He argues that we should have the Government fix it. Just have the Government set the wage. That is an easy answer. Have wage and price controls. Well, at least wage controls. Set it. Just have the Government order this, dictate it, and we will just make it go that way. I will admit that we have had minimum wage laws for quite some time, and although in pure theory they are outside the free market agenda that I usually follow, I have voted for minimum wage increases a number of times. That is just a part of the way we do things here, and the way we have done them for quite a number of years. I would hope maybe to vote for this bill. But let's talk about it more seriously. What we want is higher wages for all Americans. I think a better approach to achieving that in the long run is to examine our policies to see why market forces are not driving up wages. What is the problem? Are there some political, governmental structures at work that are causing wages not to increase sufficiently? There is one issue that is suppressing wages that I am absolutely confident is unfair, and I believe undisputed and undeniable. No, it is not that some free market purists don't want wages to go up. That is not my problem. I think the problem is this: The problem is an excessive flow of low-skilled immigrant workers into our country in such large numbers that it has stultified and eliminated the growth that would have occurred for low-skilled American workers. I wish that weren't so, but I believe the numbers are quite clear on it. In any number of different ways we can see that this has occurred. So I will be offering an amendment as part of this bill, one that deals with workplace enforcement and what we can do to make the workplace such that American workers are not competing with low- skilled, illegal immigrants in the workforce. We are receiving 1 million immigrants legally in our country today and more than half that many coming in illegally every year. So the competition American workers face from illegal laborers is a serious problem that affects their wages. If you bring in a huge amount of wheat, you bring a huge amount of cotton, you bring in a huge amount of corn, you can expect those prices to fall. If you bring in exceedingly large amounts of low-skilled labor, you can expect the wages of low-skilled Americans to follow. I don't know where our free marketeers are on that, but I can tell you that is a fact. It is working against the interests of American workers. Professor Borjas at Harvard, who has written perhaps the most authoritative book on immigration--himself an immigrant--has concluded that he believes the wages of the lowest-skilled American workers, high school dropouts, have been impacted negatively by 8 percent as a result of our current immigration policies. I will share with our colleagues an article from the Wall Street Journal, this journal of free market economics, which I venerate and respect so much. I will not go into the detail today, but I will share briefly the gist of that front-page article from the last week or 10 days. The article featured a chicken plant in Georgia. A large number of those workers were found to be illegal. They lost their jobs. According to the Wall Street Journal, the businesses got together and started running ads in the paper offering better than a $1-an-hour increase over the wages they had been paid. They offered transportation from nearby towns for people who would take the jobs. They said people could live onsite in dormitories and work there. What does that say? That was $1 an hour-plus per worker wage increase without governmental intervention. In fact, it was governmental action to enforce the established laws of our country with regard to immigration. I suggest ending illegal immigration, creating workplace enforcement that actually works, limiting the number of people who come to our country illegally, emphasizing higher skilled workers. Frankly, if it is impacting adversely our low-skilled workers' salaries, maybe we are bringing in too many low-skilled workers. Education is a factor for immigration, whether a person would speak English and basically follow the Canadian model of a system which focuses on what is in Canada's best interests. Likewise, we should do that in the United States. We should also consider what the Labor Department says is needed in our country. I have another proposal that I will shock my colleagues with. We could give the average low-to-middle income worker, a family man or woman, almost a $1-an-hour raise without any increase in taxes. How would we do that? In the way we administer the earned-income tax credit. The earned-income tax credit was passed many years ago. President Nixon was involved in it, Milton Friedman supported it. It was supposed to be an incentive to Americans to work and not be on welfare; to go out and work and to give benefits to people who were working as opposed to people who were not working. It made a lot of sense. It was supposed to incentivize work. I am not sure how well it works. It has been criticized. But it has no possibility of achieving its primary goal, which was to incentivize work, the way it is presently being administered. The way it is administered now, a worker who falls in the category of earned-income tax credit, files his income tax return next April, May or March, whenever he gets his papers together, and gets an average of a $1,700 tax credit from the U.S. Treasury. I submit that worker does not understand or have any real comprehension of the fact that the tax credit incentivizes work. It is not connected to his work. We ought to reconnect the earned-income tax credit to the workplace. The way we do that is the way it is now authorized under law--it can be done this way, but it is not being done this way--and that is to put it on the paycheck. And $1,700 per year is a $1-an-hour increase in the take-home pay of low-wage workers in America. They could take that money home every week with their paycheck, they could appreciate their jobs much better and they could be more prideful of that paycheck they take home and have more incentive to continue to work. To me, that is something we should have done a long time ago. I have talked about it for quite a number years. We have not made a serious advancement toward accomplishing it. Some think it could cause more fraud, but I don't think it would. Some think it would cause more people to take advantage of the earned income tax credit because some people probably don't ask for it on the tax returns, but I don't think that is particularly a noble thing to say, that a person who is entitled to it, you hope they don't apply and get it because it would cost the Treasury some dollars. We would be better off to put that in the paycheck. I would like to see us do that. We need to move in that direction. Finally, one of the great tragedies we are facing as a nation is that we are not saving enough. We need to do a better job of increasing savings in America. I prepared legislation, creating Plus Accounts, that would be a lifetime universal savings plan for every American worker, similar to the Federal Thrift Savings Plan for Federal employees. On top of Social Security--not taking money from Social Security but on top of it as an individual plan--an account that individual Americans would own. It would be within their grasp. Half of the American workers work at a company that does not have a savings plan. Of the half that do, 17 million choose not to participate. One more startling statistic, very startling in light of today's volatile labor market. By the age of 35, the average American worker has held nine jobs. I sat by a gentleman on the plane yesterday. He was 37. He now has a job with the U.S. Civil Service. He is so happy about signing up for the Thrift Plan. I asked him about his previous savings. He had two children, 37 years old. He said, I didn't save much. He had had nine jobs himself. A lot of companies do not have a savings plan. For those that do, maybe you have to work 2 years or a year before you can participate. If you did participate and you change jobs, maybe it is only $500; maybe it is $1,000 or $1,500. And when you change jobs, they cash it in and pay the penalty, figuring it will not amount to much. But if every American at every paycheck could know that a small percentage of that money was going into an account with their name on it, they would be subject to the magical powers of compound interest and that at age 65 they could have a very substantial nest egg to supplement their Social Security, they would feel better about their work. My plan would say you are given a number at birth. The Government would open the account with a deposit at birth for every child. And every job a person takes, the employee would put in 1 percent, the employer would put in 1 percent at a low-fee managed fund that would allow for conservative investments. If you put in $1,000 at birth, if you went to work and your employer put in 1 percent and you put in 3 percent at median income in America, $46,000 a year for a family, that person would retire with half a million in the bank. We have to create a system so it is easy for working Americans, low-income people who are changing jobs regularly, who find themselves with two or three kids at age 35 with nothing saved. That is an American tragedy when they could, literally, easily retire with half a million in their own name, in their own account. These are some things we ought to talk about. Yes, I look forward to a bill that Senator Enzi approves--if he approves it, I probably will. If he approves this bill, I will vote for it. But fundamentally we have more to do for low-income workers in America who are not keeping pace, in my view, at the rate we would like to see. We should create an immigration system that does not subject them to floods of imports. Let's create a savings system they can be proud of and adjust our earned-income tax credit so they can get a $1-an-hour pay raise. If we do some of those things, we will be touching a lot of people in a very special way. I ask unanimous consent for the purposes of offering my amendments, the pending amendment be set aside and I be allowed to offer three amendments, en bloc.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague Senator Feinstein for her hard work on document security issues. She currently serves as the Chair of the Judiciary Committee's Terrorism Subcommittee, Senator Kyl is Ranking Member, and I am looking forward to working with her on the document security that issues I am sure our subcommittee will address this Congress. This year will mark the 3rd year Senator Feinstein and I have worked together on legislation aimed at making it easier to prosecute people trying to enter the U.S. with fraudulent documents. One of the most dangerous document security issues we face is how to keep passports and visas out of the hands of the people we don't want to have them. As a 2004 U.S. News and World Report article rightly stated, ``When it comes to terrorists' most valuable weapons, passports and visas probably rank higher than bullets and bombs.'' A 2004 study done by the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General titled ``A Review of the Use of Stolen Passports From Visa Waiver Countries to Enter the United States,'' found that ``[there are] over 10 million lost or stolen passports that might be in circulation.'' As background for the report, the Forensics Documents Laboratory informed the Office of the Inspector General that ``criminals consider a passport'' from a Visa Waiver Country ``a very valuable commodity.'' To keep out terrorists and others we do not want to allow into the United States, we must be able to identify and effectively prosecute people who lie or give us fraudulent information to obtain a U.S. visa or a passport. Additionally, we must be able to identify and effectively prosecute people trying to enter the U.S. with a passport or visa that belongs to someone else. Perhaps most importantly, we must effectively prosecute those possessing multiple passports and visas they intend to distribute to others. We must be able to take these ``career'' document traffickers, those caught with more than 10 fraudulent passports or visas, off the streets. Under current law, violators are not being prosecuted effectively because there is no statute that specifically makes trafficking in multiple (10 or more) documents its own crime. This bill will add that new crime--punishable by 20 years in jail--to the passport and visa fraud sections of the criminal code. In addition to creating a new crime to penalize trafficking in 10 or more fraudulent immigration documents, 20 year maximum sentence, Title I of the bill simplifies the language of several of the current passport fraud provisions of the criminal code and changes the maximum penalties for these offenses from 10 years for the first offense and 15 years for subsequent offenses, to simply 15 years for each offense. The bill also includes a new protection for immigrants. Anyone who engages in a scheme to defraud them in connection with matters under Federal immigration law, or who pretends to be an immigration lawyer, will be charged under a new crime that carries a maximum penalty of 15 years. Although this provision is not strictly related to passport fraud, it will protect immigrants from sham attorneys and legal ``experts'' who cheat them out of their money by pretending to offer them immigration benefits or legitimate documents. Many of the bill's provisions simply clean up sections of the criminal code. For example--one section modifies the alternative sentencing penalties to make sure the penalties for severe passport fraud offenses (such as those used to facilitate a drug trafficking crime or an act of international terrorism) are consistent throughout the code. Other provisions codify common law principles needed for effective prosecution of document fraud offenses. For example--one section makes needed clarifications on venue. Currently, false statements or documents are often included in the application which is mailed from one location but processed in another location. This section makes clear that the offense is perpetrated both at the location of the mailing and at the location of the adjudication. If the application containing false statements is prepared overseas, this section clarifies that the offense is still punishable in the United States. In March of 2004, Mark Zuckerman, Assistant U.S. Attorney for New Hampshire, testified before the United States Sentencing Commission. New Hampshire's National Passport Center processed 2 million of the 7 million passports issued in 2003. The National Passport Center also receives nearly all of the applications for passport renewals filed with the State Department. New Hampshire conducted a passport fraud initiative in its U.S. Attorney's Office as part of its anti-terrorism effort. Zuckerman's testimony provides some insight into the problems that arose during the initiative. Though the passport applications were processed in New Hampshire, cases of passport fraud resulting from those applications were not being handled in New Hampshire. Typically, they were sent back to the district from which they were mailed. Once returned, they were often declined for prosecution by their local U.S. Attorney's office. One of the reasons frequently given by the regional U.S. Attorney's Offices for declining passport fraud cases was: ``The sentencing guidelines do not treat passport fraud as a serious offense for which a period of incarceration is likely.'' I would reiterate what Mr. Zuckerman so astutely pointed out in his testimony. Under the current Criminal Code, the most common forms of passport fraud--unless they constitute terrorism or drug trafficking-- are just class C felonies. When the defendant has no criminal history, the court is simply required to incarcerate the defendant for 0-6 months. This is the lowest and least consequential sentencing range that can be assigned to any felony under the U.S. Code. (page 5 of Zuckerman's testimony) The 9/11 Commission also recognized the lack of routine prosecutions for passport fraud offenses. Page 386 of their report noted: Fraudulent travel documents, for instance, are usually returned to travelers who are denied entry without further examination for terrorist trademarks, investigation into their source, or legal process. Importantly, the bill we are introducing today directs the Sentencing Commission to reevaluate the current low sentencing guidelines for passport and visa fraud offenses to reflect the potential seriousness of these crimes and the changes made by our bill. Additionally, we will require the Sentencing Commission to report back to the Congress on the rationale behind their decision to change (or not change) the sentencing guidelines as a result of this direction. Majority Leader Harry Reid has repeatedly stated that one of the items at the top of the Democratic agenda early this Congress is the implementation of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. In addition to their comments on the lack of prosecutions, the 9/11 Commission had a lot more say about the use of fraudulent and altered passports and visas in the Commission of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. ``[W]e endeavor to dispel the myth that their [the hijackers'] entry into the United States was `clean and legal'. It was not. . . . two [hijackers] carried passports manipulated in a fraudulent manner. It is likely that several more hijackers carried passports with similar fraudulent manipulation. Two hijackers lied on their visa applications'' Preface, 9/11 Commission staff report. ``To avoid detection of their activities and objectives while engaging in travel that necessitates using a passport, terrorists devote extensive resources to acquiring and manipulating passports, entry and exits stamps, and visas. The al Qaeda terrorist organization was no exception. High-level members of Al Qaeda were expert document forgers . . .'' Page 1. 9/11 Commission staff report. ``Travel history, however, is still recorded in passports with entry- exit stamps called cachets, which al Qaeda has trained its operatives to forge and use to conceal their terrorist activities''. Page 403, 9/ 11 Commission report. ``[C]ertain al Qaeda members were charged with organizing passport collection schemes to keep the pipelines of fraudulent documents flowing.'' Page 186., ibid ``For terrorists, travel documents are as important as weapons. They must travel clandestinely to meet, train, plan, case targets, and gain access to attack . . . In their travels, terrorists use evasive measures, such as altered and counterfeit passports and visas . . .'' Page 384. ibid. I hope that Senator Reid plans to include the Feinstein/Sessions Passport and Visa Fraud Bill in his 9/11 Commission Recommendations Implementation Package.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague Senator Feinstein for her hard work on document security issues. She currently serves as the Chair of the Judiciary Committee's Terrorism Subcommittee, Senator Kyl is Ranking Member, and I am looking forward to working with her on the document security that issues I am sure our subcommittee will address this Congress. This year will mark the 3rd year Senator Feinstein and I have worked together on legislation aimed at making it easier to prosecute people trying to enter the U.S. with fraudulent documents. One of the most dangerous document security issues we face is how to keep passports and visas out of the hands of the people we don't want to have them. As a 2004 U.S. News and World Report article rightly stated, ``When it comes to terrorists' most valuable weapons, passports and visas probably rank higher than bullets and bombs.'' A 2004 study done by the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General titled ``A Review of the Use of Stolen Passports From Visa Waiver Countries to Enter the United States,'' found that ``[there are] over 10 million lost or stolen passports that might be in circulation.'' As background for the report, the Forensics Documents Laboratory informed the Office of the Inspector General that ``criminals consider a passport'' from a Visa Waiver Country ``a very valuable commodity.'' To keep out terrorists and others we do not want to allow into the United States, we must be able to identify and effectively prosecute people who lie or give us fraudulent information to obtain a U.S. visa or a passport. Additionally, we must be able to identify and effectively prosecute people trying to enter the U.S. with a passport or visa that belongs to someone else. Perhaps most importantly, we must effectively prosecute those possessing multiple passports and visas they intend to distribute to others. We must be able to take these ``career'' document traffickers, those caught with more than 10 fraudulent passports or visas, off the streets. Under current law, violators are not being prosecuted effectively because there is no statute that specifically makes trafficking in multiple (10 or more) documents its own crime. This bill will add that new crime--punishable by 20 years in jail--to the passport and visa fraud sections of the criminal code. In addition to creating a new crime to penalize trafficking in 10 or more fraudulent immigration documents, 20 year maximum sentence, Title I of the bill simplifies the language of several of the current passport fraud provisions of the criminal code and changes the maximum penalties for these offenses from 10 years for the first offense and 15 years for subsequent offenses, to simply 15 years for each offense. The bill also includes a new protection for immigrants. Anyone who engages in a scheme to defraud them in connection with matters under Federal immigration law, or who pretends to be an immigration lawyer, will be charged under a new crime that carries a maximum penalty of 15 years. Although this provision is not strictly related to passport fraud, it will protect immigrants from sham attorneys and legal ``experts'' who cheat them out of their money by pretending to offer them immigration benefits or legitimate documents. Many of the bill's provisions simply clean up sections of the criminal code. For example--one section modifies the alternative sentencing penalties to make sure the penalties for severe passport fraud offenses (such as those used to facilitate a drug trafficking crime or an act of international terrorism) are consistent throughout the code. Other provisions codify common law principles needed for effective prosecution of document fraud offenses. For example--one section makes needed clarifications on venue. Currently, false statements or documents are often included in the application which is mailed from one location but processed in another location. This section makes clear that the offense is perpetrated both at the location of the mailing and at the location of the adjudication. If the application containing false statements is prepared overseas, this section clarifies that the offense is still punishable in the United States. In March of 2004, Mark Zuckerman, Assistant U.S. Attorney for New Hampshire, testified before the United States Sentencing Commission. New Hampshire's National Passport Center processed 2 million of the 7 million passports issued in 2003. The National Passport Center also receives nearly all of the applications for passport renewals filed with the State Department. New Hampshire conducted a passport fraud initiative in its U.S. Attorney's Office as part of its anti-terrorism effort. Zuckerman's testimony provides some insight into the problems that arose during the initiative. Though the passport applications were processed in New Hampshire, cases of passport fraud resulting from those applications were not being handled in New Hampshire. Typically, they were sent back to the district from which they were mailed. Once returned, they were often declined for prosecution by their local U.S. Attorney's office. One of the reasons frequently given by the regional U.S. Attorney's Offices for declining passport fraud cases was: ``The sentencing guidelines do not treat passport fraud as a serious offense for which a period of incarceration is likely.'' I would reiterate what Mr. Zuckerman so astutely pointed out in his testimony. Under the current Criminal Code, the most common forms of passport fraud--unless they constitute terrorism or drug trafficking-- are just class C felonies. When the defendant has no criminal history, the court is simply required to incarcerate the defendant for 0-6 months. This is the lowest and least consequential sentencing range that can be assigned to any felony under the U.S. Code. (page 5 of Zuckerman's testimony) The 9/11 Commission also recognized the lack of routine prosecutions for passport fraud offenses. Page 386 of their report noted: Fraudulent travel documents, for instance, are usually returned to travelers who are denied entry without further examination for terrorist trademarks, investigation into their source, or legal process. Importantly, the bill we are introducing today directs the Sentencing Commission to reevaluate the current low sentencing guidelines for passport and visa fraud offenses to reflect the potential seriousness of these crimes and the changes made by our bill. Additionally, we will require the Sentencing Commission to report back to the Congress on the rationale behind their decision to change (or not change) the sentencing guidelines as a result of this direction. Majority Leader Harry Reid has repeatedly stated that one of the items at the top of the Democratic agenda early this Congress is the implementation of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. In addition to their comments on the lack of prosecutions, the 9/11 Commission had a lot more say about the use of fraudulent and altered passports and visas in the Commission of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. ``[W]e endeavor to dispel the myth that their [the hijackers'] entry into the United States was `clean and legal'. It was not. . . . two [hijackers] carried passports manipulated in a fraudulent manner. It is likely that several more hijackers carried passports with similar fraudulent manipulation. Two hijackers lied on their visa applications'' Preface, 9/11 Commission staff report. ``To avoid detection of their activities and objectives while engaging in travel that necessitates using a passport, terrorists devote extensive resources to acquiring and manipulating passports, entry and exits stamps, and visas. The al Qaeda terrorist organization was no exception. High-level members of Al Qaeda were expert document forgers . . .'' Page 1. 9/11 Commission staff report. ``Travel history, however, is still recorded in passports with entry- exit stamps called cachets, which al Qaeda has trained its operatives to forge and use to conceal their terrorist activities''. Page 403, 9/ 11 Commission report. ``[C]ertain al Qaeda members were charged with organizing passport collection schemes to keep the pipelines of fraudulent documents flowing.'' Page 186., ibid ``For terrorists, travel documents are as important as weapons. They must travel clandestinely to meet, train, plan, case targets, and gain access to attack . . . In their travels, terrorists use evasive measures, such as altered and counterfeit passports and visas . . .'' Page 384. ibid. I hope that Senator Reid plans to include the Feinstein/Sessions Passport and Visa Fraud Bill in his 9/11 Commission Recommendations Implementation Package.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Once again we are at the end of a Congress. It is late at night. The result is a vote tonight on legislation that people refer to simply as the ``tax extender'' bill. Much of it doesn't have anything to do with tax credits. The Haiti Free Trade Agreement is in this bill. The Vietnam Free Trade Agreement is in this bill. I have very real concerns about both of these provisions. They are important issues. They deserve careful study. These trade agreements deserve a hearing and thoughtful debate on the Senate floor. From what I know of these measures, I don't support them. Instead of treating these important provisions in the manner they deserve, we are forced to take a yes or no vote on the whole package. That means you have to take the good with the bad. We wonder why politics has such a bad name, and I would suggest we are looking at the reason right here tonight. We have worked to make sure that some of our concerns regarding these measures are addressed and believe they will be. Based on the assurances that we have received, I am going to vote in favor of this measure. The good of the bill is so important it outweighs the bad. I thank my fellow Senators who have worked hard to achieve some assurances that could lead to important improvements to the Haiti trade provisions. Clearly, the better approach would have been to bring these trade agreements up separately, allowing for full debate. treatment of sioux city, iowa buildings

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would like to say a few words about the pending passage of the Native American Methamphetamine Enforcement and Treatment Act of 2006. Section 2 of the act authorizes Indian tribes to receive grants under section 2996(a) of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act in order to address the scourge of methamphetamine. I strongly support aiding Indian tribes in their efforts to combat the methamphetamine epidemic in Indian country. Members of the steering committee, which I chair, expressed concern about one part of the original bill--a concern that I am pleased to announce will be addressed by the substitute amendment. Part of the bill authorizes tribes to receive grants, under 42 U.S.C. 3793cc(a)(3)(A), to ``investigate, arrest and prosecute individuals violating laws related to the use, manufacture, or sale of methamphetamine.'' The problem was that the bill originally appeared to authorize any tribe, without limitation, to receive these grants-- grants that can only be used for law enforcement activities. Permitting these grants to all tribes would not have been appropriate, since many tribes--indeed, perhaps a majority of the officially recognized tribes in this country--do not have any criminal jurisdiction. Many officially recognized tribes, for example, were only recognized long after their States were admitted to the Union or only received land from the Federal government long after that land had become part of a State and State jurisdiction had attached to it. Although these tribes may receive Federal services, their recognition or receipt of land did not divest the State of its jurisdiction or bring into being a new government within the State. Nearly half of the recognized tribes in the United States, for example, are in the State of Alaska, and were first recognized in the early 1990s. Obviously, the Federal Government did not create over 200 new governments in Alaska by this action. Tribes such as these do not exercise any governmental powers and, consequently, do not have the authority to arrest, prosecute, or punish individuals. In several other States, although tribes were preserved as separate jurisdictions when their surrounding States entered the Union, and they enjoyed criminal law enforcement powers for many years thereafter, those tribes were later divested of criminal jurisdiction by Public Law 280. That law transferred criminal jurisdiction from tribes to State and local governments in the several States identified in that law or that later opted into its provisions. Again, because tribes in Public Law 280 States no longer have criminal jurisdiction, they cannot arrest, prosecute, or punish individuals for crimes. Arguably, the Justice Department would have been aware of these issues and would have only awarded grants to tribes that exercise criminal jurisdiction. These issues, however, are more in the expertise of the Department of the Interior than the Justice Department, and there have been reports that some law enforcement grants were inappropriately awarded to nongovernmental tribes in the 1990s. The language added by new paragraph 2(a)(4) of the act serves as a reminder to the Justice Department to first verify that a tribe exercises law enforcement powers before awarding a grant to the tribe under paragraph 3793cc(3)(A). When a tribe applies for such a grant, the Department must first determine whether the tribe exercise law enforcement powers. It must ask, was the tribe preserved as a separate jurisdiction when its surrounding State was admitted to the Union, and is the tribe subject to Public Law 280? Only if the answer to the first question is yes and the second is no is the tribe eligible to receive grants under paragraph 3793cc(3)(A). (At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Feinstein and cosponsor the Preserving Crime Victims' Restitution Act of 2006. When a criminal defendant pleads guilty or is found guilty by a jury of his peers but dies before sentencing or while his case is on appeal, the defendant's victims should not sustain a financial loss and the defendant's estate should not profit from his crimes. The judicially created doctrine of abatement provides, however, ``that the death of a criminal defendant pending an appeal of his or her case abates, ab initio, the entire criminal proceeding.'' In its most extreme form, the scope of the doctrine can be breathtaking. As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held in United States v. Parsons: [T]he appeal does not just disappear, and the case is not merely dismissed. Instead, everything associated with the case is extinguished, leaving the defendant ``as if he had never been indicted or convicted.'' Common sense requires that punishments like imprisonment or probationary supervision terminate once a defendant dies. But when a criminal conviction involves remedial measures such as restitution to the victims of the crime or implicates civil forfeiture of property connected with the crime, we shouldn't pretend that nothing ever happened. A convicted defendant's death while his case is pending may cheat the hangman, and it may cheat the jailer--but it shouldn't cheat the victims. Taking a criminal case to trial and obtaining a conviction can involve thousands of hours of work and a huge commitment of resources. In the recent conviction of Ken Lay, for example, the trial took nearly 4 months and cost the taxpayers millions of dollars. When a criminal conviction involves financial restitution to the victims of the crime or when the conviction could be used in a later civil law suit, those effects of the conviction should not be erased by the death of the defendant. It is wrong to force the victims or the government to start over from scratch. The Preserving Crime Victims' Restitution Act addresses the unnecessary and unfair effects of the abatement doctrine. It preserves restitution and the potential use of a criminal conviction. in later civil proceedings such as civil forfeiture, while protecting a defendant's rights. If a defendant dies after pleading guilty or being found guilty by a jury, restitution and the use of the conviction in civil proceedings will be permitted. In such cases, the bill allows the defendant's estate to step into his shoes and continue to defend the conviction. The estate can appear on behalf of the defendant at sentencing, and it can file post-trial motions. The estate can also appeal the conviction. This assures that the integrity of the criminal and appellate process is preserved and that there is an adequate opportunity to challenge the validity of a conviction and ensure that justice has been done. Basically, under this bill, the criminal and appellate process move forward with respect to restitution and use of a conviction in later civil proceedings just as though the defendant were still alive. Ultimately, the Preserving Crime Victims' Restitution Act is about fairness. It is fair to victims--who too often get overlooked in the criminal process. It is fair to the Government--which may have committed enormous time and resources to obtaining a conviction. And it is fair to the defendant's estate--which should be allowed to represent the defendant's interests and contest the Government's case but should not be allowed to profit from crime simply because a defendant dies. I hope we can move quickly to pass the Preserving Crime Victims' Restitution Act of 2006, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to Mr. Stan Minkinow of Huntsville, AL. Mr. Minkinow is an American patriot whose life epitomizes the American dream. He immigrated to this country under the Lodge Act, which provided a pathway for eastern European refugees to earn American citizenship through honorable service in the U.S. military. Today we see the result of that legislation in Mr. Minkinow and his lifetime of service to this Nation and a family legacy of selfless service. Mr. Minkinow was born in Lodz, Poland, in 1932. Mr. Minkinow and his family hid from the Gestapo until betrayed and forced to the Warsaw Ghetto. Mr. Minkinow and his parents survived the severe deprivations of ghetto life and accomplished a daring escape. The family survived the war, only to confront postwar life under the harsh control of a Soviet-controlled authoritarian regime. Mr. Minkinow's journey to U.S. citizenship began in a German village in 1951 where he saw a U.S. Army recruiting film at a train station. Ready for adventure, he enlisted in the U.S. Army, where he became a member of the elite, newly created Special Forces training at Fort Bragg, NC. After marrying Doris, a local girl, the Army sent Sergeant Minkinow back to Germany where he became an American Cold Warrior serving on the frontlines. He served with the 10th Special Forces Group in Bad Tolz from 1955 to 1958. Ambition and achievement are hallmarks of so many of our immigrant population and Mr. Kinkinow is no exception. He completed Officer Candidate School and was commissioned as a second lieutenant in the Infantry. After a tour in Korea, he completed Army flight school at Fort Rucker, AL, and became an Army aviator. Mr. Minkinow settled his family in Enterprise, AL, while he twice fought for his country in Vietnam. Cited by the Army for valor in combat and service, Mr. Minkinow possesses numerous medals, including the Distinguished Flying Cross, Bronze Star, and the Air Medal. After completing a distinguished 27-year Army career, Mr. Minkinow retired to Huntsville, AL, where he has become a prominent local businessman known for his generosity for local causes and charities. Mr. Minkinow frequently shares his Holocaust experiences with children at local schools, and gave a presentation on his childhood wartime experiences to a class at the National Defense University in Washington, DC. Stan and Doris have three adult children in whom they instilled a profound pride of citizenship and an urgent calling to serve the Nation. All three children have served in the Armed Forces. Their oldest daughter and her husband together served for over 28 years in the Army. Their son is a graduate of the Air Force Academy and retired as a lieutenant colonel from the Alabama Air National Guard. Their youngest daughter and her husband will soon retire from the Army as colonels in the Judge Advocate General's Corps with a combined service of 46 years. I applaud Mr. Minkinow and his fellow veterans for their steadfast devotion to this Nation and his many years of service. From a child, wide-eyed with fright in the streets of Nazi ghettos, to his brave escape from the Soviet fist and subsequent faithful service as a soldier and later as a businessman, Mr. Minkinow epitomizes how this great country is made even greater by such talented immigrants. We are a stronger country today because of men like Stan and the contributions of his family. I am pleased, to bring this example of Alabama patriotism to the Nation's attention as we continue to celebrate those who have served, our veterans, who have assured our freedom and prosperity.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. The Senator has asked that this body, through the adoption of this resolution, endorse a piece of legislation that everybody is not prepared to endorse. We would be prepared to endorse the concepts contained in the resolution. And I think that has been communicated to you. I do not see how you could expect--unless you expect unanimous support for the piece of legislation as written--that you could ask everybody to accept it. I think you are overreaching, Senator Durbin, in all due respect. And could we work on that? I would be glad to talk to you about it.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I understand what the problem is on this resolution. All of us loved Paul Wellstone. What an advocate he was. What a believer he was. But in this legislation, as I understand this resolution, it calls explicitly for the endorsement of those who support the resolution of a mental health piece of legislation that is not universally accepted. Some people, I understand, have suggested we use a different, a general affirmation of the goal of that legislation, and that we could all support. But I think it is a bit much to ask, on a resolution, without any study, that this Senate take a position on a specific piece of legislation. I think that is where we were on it. Everybody who knew Paul Wellstone loved Paul Wellstone. I am sorry and think almost, I have to say, it is a little bit unfair and not collegial to push the legislation or the resolution as worded in a way that makes any of us feel that we would not be acceptable to a resolution to honor Paul Wellstone. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. SESSIONS. Well, I am prepared to--

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, there is an objection on this side.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I object.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise to compliment the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Armed Services Committee for their work in bringing forth the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2007 through conference. This Act supports our Armed Forces during this critical period in our Nation's history. In particular, I would like to note the House and Senate conferees full support for the administration's missile defense activities. The conference report before us fully funds the President's request for missile defense activities--reflecting strong confidence in and support for the current program. The recommendations of the conferees with respect to missile defense follow very closely the actions taken in the national Defense authorization bill for fiscal year 2007--as passed by the full Senate earlier this year. Notably, the conference report reflects the consensus view of the Senate and House that the Department of Defense must accord a priority to those near-term missile defense capabilities that are now beginning to provide a measure of protection for the American people, our deployed forces, and our friends and allies. The need to emphasize near-term missile defense capabilities was brought home to many of us by the fourth of July ballistic missile launches by North Korea, where six missiles of short-, medium-, and long-range were tested. Similarly, I just returned from the Ballistic Defense Annual Conference in London where over 900 delegates from over 20 nations discussed near and long term missile requirements in Asia and Europe. Among the key issues was the 3rd site requirement in Europe--a site designed to protect the United States and our NATO allies; a site which will provide an additional mix of options, both military and diplomatic to us and our NATO partners as the specter of missile blackmail increases. On Independence Day, for the first time ever, Americans witnessed their country activate a missile defense system to protect our homeland against long-range ballistic missiles. This was certainly an epiphany for some and a wake up call for friends and foes alike. Missile defense has thus become part of the diplomatic and military tool set available to our President and other senior policymakers. Some critics of missile defense questioned whether the ground-based midcourse defense system would be able to intercept a long-range ballistic missile fired by North Korea. Lieutenant General Obering, Director of the Missile Defense Agency, expressed confidence that the ground-based midcourse defense, GMD, system would be able to address a limited threat posed by North Korea. He said that while the entire system had not undergone the full comprehensive testing regime he has planned, General Obering flatly stated he believed the system would, if need be, work to knock down a North Korean missile. The successful intercept test of a long-range ballistic missile on September 1 confirms General Obering's assessment that the current GMD system has the capability, though not fully developed and tested, to defend America. Both of these recent tests--the North Korean launches of July and our GMD test earlier this month--confirm, more broadly, the wisdom of the decision by President Bush in 2002 to begin deployment of an initial set of missile defense capabilities. In less than 2 years, we have laid the infrastructure in Fort Greely, Alaska, and elsewhere so that this country at last is ready to defend itself against long-range ballistic missiles fired against our homeland. The successful intercept of a long-range ballistic missile target on September 1 was the most operationally realistic test for the ground- based midcourse defense system conducted to date. It included an operationally configured interceptor, an operational radar, and operational crews. Critics continue to highlight reports of earlier unsuccessful missile defense testing, but the truth is that since 2001, we have had 23 successful hit-to-kill intercepts against all ranges of ballistic missiles, from the shortrange to the longrange. In the past 90 days alone, we have conducted four successful engagements of short-, medium-, and long-range ballistic missile targets--using Aegis BMD, THAAD, PAC-3, and GMD. I will submit for the Record a letter from the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics Kenneth J. Kreig to Congressman Ike Skelton on September 19, 2006, which discusses ground-based midcourse defense system testing. I think the letter is illustrative of the points I made here regarding our efforts to bring a robust missile defense system on line. While more testing is necessary and planned to ensure confidence in the effectiveness of the defenses we field, we should take comfort in the knowledge that we have demonstrated fully that we can engage ballistic missile targets of all ranges. Some editorial writers also like to remind us that the budget request for missile defense is close to $10 billion per year. While this is indeed a significant sum, we should bear in mind that this funding figure reflects research, development and fielding not for a single missile defense system, but for a number of missile defense capabilities based on land, on ships, on aircraft, and in space. These include Patriot PAC-3, terminal high altitude area defense system, THAAD, ship-based Aegis BMD, the ground-based midcourse defense system, the airborne laser, the kinetic energy interceptor, and a host of sensors and the command and control links necessary to tie all these elements together. In conclusion, I thank the conferees for fully supporting the administration's missile defense program and note the consensus within Congress to get on with the fielding of missile defense capabilities that are now demonstrating testing success and providing a measure of protection for our homeland and deployed forces. This is a consensus that stretches back at least as far as the National Missile Defense Act of 1999, when Congress stated that: it is the policy of the U.S. to deploy as soon as is technologically possible an effective National Missile Defense system capable of defending the territory of the United States against limited ballistic missile attack. . . . Those of us who supported this legislation--indeed all of us in Congress--should be gratified to see how far we come in such a short time. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter to which I referred be printed in the Record.

Mr. SESSIONS

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