Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, 5 minutes would allow me to complete remarks I began earlier this morning when the majority leader and the Democratic leader appeared.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would like to speak on the energy production bill that is on the floor. Is that appropriate at this time?

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I think what the Senator from Kansas was asking is if I could sort of utilize his time for 5 minutes to complete my remarks and then go to the Senator from Washington.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I understand that. I know the Senator from Florida is a strong advocate of veterans. I am sure this represents an objection from the Democratic side somewhere else. I am urging my colleagues to look at this legislation. It is a time- sensitive matter because they have been sued. A Federal judge has ordered that, under California law, a $5,000 fine be imposed daily for failure to take this down, a symbol that has been up in the Mt. Soledad area for 54 years. Justice Kennedy of the U.S. Supreme Court has stayed that penalty to give us a chance to do something like this. I believe it is the right thing to do, and I want to share a few comments about it. In 1954, this 29-foot cross was erected by the Mt. Soledad Memorial Association to honor veterans of World War I, World War II, and the Korean war. It has stood on Mt. Soledad in San Diego, CA. The memorial now serves to honor American veterans of all wars, not just veterans of World War I, World War II, and Korea. Since 2000, the memorial association has added significant improvements to the property. The cross is surrounded by six granite walls. They are covered with over 1,600 plaques honoring individual veterans, with surrounding small pillars and brick pavers honoring veterans groups and supporters of the memorial, and community groups. A flagpole proudly flies the American flag. It is very important that we as a nation understand that we are free today and have the liberties we have because people have sacrificed. Our Nation is still able--although some apparently around the world may not be--to call on its people to sacrifice for a common national good, and all over America veterans groups and community action groups have created memorials since the beginning of the Republic to honor those who place their lives at risk for the liberty we are so happy to have today. It was not until 1989 that any person challenged the legality of this monument. At that time, Philip Paulson, a San Diego resident, sued the city, claiming that the cross display was unconstitutional and violated his civil rights. In 1991, a Federal judge agreed with him and prohibited the display of the cross on city property as a violation of the California Constitution, which guarantees the ``free exercise and enjoyment of religion without discrimination or preference.'' That is different from the language we have in the U.S. Constitution. So the city attempted to meet the court's demand and protect the integrity of the memorial by selling or donating the property to a private party. But Mr. Paulson challenged every potential transfer of the property to a private party, revealing that his true objection was not to the city's ownership of the display but to the cross itself--something he personally did not like. In 1992, 76 percent of the people of San Diego, CA, showed their support for keeping the cross at the Mount Soledad Veterans Memorial by voting to support ``Proposition F'' to authorize the city to transfer the property to a private nonprofit organization, so it would not implicate public matters. What is wrong with that? After Proposition F passed, the memorial association did successfully bid for the property. It chose to keep the cross up but also made $1 million worth of significant improvements to the memorial, including the granite walls, plaques, pavers, flagpole, and American flag. Even after the improvements were completed, Mr. Paulson was still challenging the sale. In 2002, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on the west coast-- considered the most activist circuit of all in the country and the most reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court--found that the method of the sale violated the ``no aid to religion clause'' of the California State constitution. They transferred it to a private, nonprofit, nonreligious organization, but they said this aided religion. I believe this is something on which we can all agree. I know the Senators from California, Senators Feinstein and Boxer, have indicated they believe this memorial should remain. I think we will be able to work through these difficulties and get this legislation passed. Mr. President, following up on the Mount Soledad Memorial legislation to deal with the court ruling that has imposed a $5,000 fine per day on the city of San Diego, a ruling stayed by Justice Kennedy on the U.S. Supreme Court, that ruling deals with the cross that was maintained by the Mt. Soledad Memorial Association on property originally owned by the city of San Diego. Some 35 years after it was placed there, someone objected, and the city sold the property to the memorial association, putting it in the hands of a nongovernmental, private entity. As a result of that action, a lawsuit was commenced anyway and still said it was improper, and the court reached a ruling that was sort of breathtaking and said they still couldn't do it. I would note that in 1992, 76 percent of the people in San Diego voted to support keeping the cross there, and voted in support of Proposition F to transfer the property to a private organization. But still they didn't stop, and we have continued to see the litigation go on and on. Some of it arises from the case law and the very strong constitutional provisions unique to California. In 2002, the Ninth Circuit had a ruling on it, and this is what they ruled: that the ``no aid to religion'' clause of the California Constitution prohibited California from transferring this property to a private association because any buyer who did not desire to keep the cross that was there would be required to pay for its removal, whereas an entity who wanted to buy and did not want to take the cross down would not have any expense; therefore, this aided religion. Now, that is the theory of it. I think that is not a sound analysis. The Ninth Circuit is the most activist circuit in the country and we continue to have problems with them. They are reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court more often than any other circuit. Some years they have been reversed more often than all of the other circuits combined. One year it was 26 out of 27 cases the Supreme Court considered, they reversed. So that is what causes this problem. A plan has been devised. Congressman Hunter, who represents San Diego, and Congressman Brian Bilbray, who represents the Mt. Soledad district, have worked hard to prepare legislation that would transfer it to the Federal Government, because this wouldn't be unconstitutional under Federal law. It passed in the House by an overwhelming vote of 349 to 74. We want to see that pass here. It has been called up and cleared on the Republican side of the aisle, and it is now being objected to by some on the Democratic side. So I would ask my colleagues on the Democratic side to work through this thing and see if we can get it passed. It would allow the veterans to be able to continue to have the memorial on Federal property that has been in place for 54 years. It does not establish a religion. On Federal property, it is consistent with the wishes of those veterans and their families for over a half a century. I would note we have Democratic support for this concept. I notice that in one of the news articles from the Copley News Service here, Senator Barbara Boxer, a California Senator, and one of the other Democratic Members, said: [T]he monument is a historic memorial to our veterans and should be allowed to stay. Senator Dianne Feinstein, the other Senator from California, has said: [B]ecause of the history and significance of this monument to so many veterans and San Diegans, it should be preserved. So the Congressmen there, the people of San Diego, and the Senators from California are in favor of this. It is as a result of this complex history and the obsession by the courts, it appears, to just eliminate any reference, any expression of religion whatsoever from the public square, even if it is not consistent with the U.S. Constitution, in my view. I believe this legislation is important and should be passed. We can make this happen. I ask my colleagues to review it. I will plan to come back and deal with it some more if we cannot get it cleared. We need to have a vote on it, if it cannot be cleared voluntarily. I hope we can avoid that. Mr. President, I note there are other Senators here wishing to speak. We are on the drilling offshore bill in the gulf, and that is a very important piece of legislation. I, again, note I have asked this morning that this be cleared. We have another objection. We will continue to persist with this until we get everybody's attention and maybe they can review it and see fit to clear it. I think they will. If not, I will be asking the leader to invoke cloture on the legislation. I further add, Senator McCain has also offered legislation similar to mine. It would do the same thing. But the bill we are asking clearance on is the bill that came from the House, H.R. 5683. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the leader, and I join with him in his excitement in seeing the health care technology bill move. I know how much work he has put into it as a member of the HELP Committee. I have watched that bill for some time, and it would be a tremendous thing. It will save lives and reduce errors. Errors mean people stay in hospitals longer and become disabled more, and many of them die. So reducing errors is a great thing and will help us maintain this fabulous health care system we have, and at the same time, not have costs go through the roof. So I am excited about that also. Mr. President, I asked the question earlier: What are people objecting to about this Energy bill? We went through the environmental concerns, and I pointed out that we have 4,000 wells which survived some vicious hurricanes, and we haven't had spills. The technology has increased incredibly well. There has not been a significant spill in 26 years, and that one was such that it did not reach the shores of the United States. The last spill that resulted at all from a well impacting the coastal areas was 37 years ago in California, and that ended the drilling off the coast. But we are so much better today. We have so many ways to avoid that, and it is just not happening. Also, we dealt with the allegation that this is all for big oil companies. That is exactly wrong. All of the oil companies will not bid on the lands in the gulf that will be allowed for production under this legislation. Most of them-- probably most of them--won't even bid on it. A number will and a number won't. Those who don't bid already have reserves somewhere else, and sizable increases in production of natural gas or oil from the Gulf of Mexico will drive down the value of their reserves. They probably don't even want the oil and gas produced out there, if they already have substantial reserves. That is a bogus argument, the kind that I hope is beyond the Senate. But I hear it is still echoing a bit. I think some maybe just hate fossil fuels, so they don't want us to have fossil fuels anymore in America. I would like to see us move to nuclear and do some other things, too. Why don't they object to us going down to Venezuela and paying hundreds of millions of dollars to Hugo Chavez for his oil that we bring over here or Saudi Arabia or Iran's oil or Middle Eastern oil in any number of areas or Russian oil and gas. We are not going to stop this. We are going to use oil and gas in America, so why don't we produce it on our lands and keep our money at home. I would just note that last year, in the balance of payments deficit that we have, the record balance of payments deficit, $200 billion of that deficit was our money we spent in other countries for oil and gas--$200 billion. That is a lot. A big part of our trade deficit is on this one resource. So why in the world wouldn't we want to keep that money at home to produce jobs here, to produce incomes to Americans who will pay taxes to the U.S. Government instead of having to go to these other countries. Oddly, I just have to note parenthetically that we have done something after many years of battling that is important. In the Energy bill we passed last year, we had some improvements in the law relating to nuclear power. Nuclear power can reduce our demands for natural gas significantly. There was a long battle over a number of years. Senator Domenici worked on it hard. We made those changes, we put them in the law, and at that time we had not a single preliminary request for building a nuclear power plant in this country. Since that Energy bill passed, there are now 18 out there--18 preliminary requests--to consider building a nuclear powerplant in America. We haven't built one in 30 years in this country. What I am saying to the American people who may be listening tonight, and to my colleagues, is that our job is not to help nuclear power companies. Our job is not to help oil companies. Our job is to try to provide safe and environmentally good energy sources to our people at the lowest possible rate. When the price of gasoline goes up substantially, people who are paying $150 a month for their gasoline now may be paying $225 a month. They may be paying $75 more each month out of their paycheck, money that they want to spend on their children, money they need to repair their vehicle, money they need to pay their rent. People are struggling. We need to be thinking of ways to reduce the cost of energy. Nuclear power is one of those ways. I have just had a recent meeting with the people at TVA, the Tennessee Valley Authority, created by Government agents, created by Franklin Roosevelt. They are producing nuclear power at about 1.2 cents a kilowatt hour--1.2 cents. Coal is about 1.8 cents. That is 50 percent more expensive. Nuclear power is 50 percent less expensive than coal. And natural gas that is being used quite a bit is about 6 cents--five times as much. So we need more nuclear power and we need to burn a lot less natural gas for electricity and we can burn less coal also because it is not a very clean fuel. We are doing better with coal, but it is still not nearly as clean as nuclear power. So I say there is a whole host of things we can do to meet the legitimate pleas of our constituents to do something about the high cost of energy. Natural gas heats a great many homes in America. It provides the energy for all kinds of industrial production. I visited a chemical plant recently. They are exceedingly concerned about the additional costs they have sustained simply as a result of the doubling of the price of natural gas. Trust me. If these wells are producing in the gulf, as will be authorized by this bill, it will significantly impact the price of natural gas in the United States. So that is the kind of approach we are trying to bring to bear on producing more at home. Then there is one other argument that people have complained about, and that is revenue sharing. They say that States should not get any of the money out of this. We have been trying to expand the gulf drilling for quite a number of years and had no success, really. It is time to get serious about it. I believe we can make a breakthrough this year. We got, now, both Senators from Florida to say they would support this bill. They studied it very carefully, as strongly as Florida is committed to environmental purity along their coast. I respect it, but I am telling you they are very committed to it. They want us to produce our oil and gas off our coast and put it in that pipeline that runs from Mobile, AL, to Tampa, FL. That is what we are doing right now. They built, in 2002, an oil and gas pipeline right off our coast, and shipped it over there. But they do not want oil drilling 150 miles from their coast. We are working this out now. We are giving them a guaranteed protection of 125 miles. The Governor, Jeb Bush, is on board now and Senators are on board so maybe we are making progress. I think we have more protection than is justified. But it will allow us, probably, to have as much territory available to drill in as we could drill in for the foreseeable future. So maybe that will be acceptable under all the circumstances. But they object to revenue sharing so States get a little part of it. One of our Senators, Mr. Bingaman from New Mexico, has complained about it. We should not have any revenue sharing. We had 4,000 wells out there, all these deep gulf wells, and the States don't get a dime out of it--not a dime. But a State like New Mexico that has a lot of oil and gas and a great deal of federally owned lands in those States, what do they get? They get 50 percent of that. This will be just a little over a third; 37 percent would be shared with the coastal States and would be earmarked for coastal funds--12 percent for the Land and Water Conservation Fund nationwide, and 50 percent to the Federal Government. These are moneys, new moneys coming into the Treasury of the United States that do not exist today. Until we get this approval and this moratorium lifted, we are not going to have any money. You know, until we reach accord here and lift this moratorium and allow the drilling to occur, we are not going to have any money. So it is not a taking from the Treasury of the United States. It is an increase to the Treasury of the United States, and we should see it in that fashion. The gulf coast has environmental problems of quite a large degree. We had severe hurricane damages on our coast. The whole area--whole areas in Louisiana are sinking, and we will have to spend large amounts of money to deal with that. So there are a lot of things that this money could be used for that benefit, not just the people of those States but all the many hundreds and thousands--millions, really--of visitors that come to the gulf coast areas every year. We will set up estuaries, wetlands, and things that will just make the area better. We would like to do that for the Nation and not just Alabama. I think the objections are not substantial. I believe it is time for us to complete this step. We are at record prices for oil. How do we get our oil? Sixty percent of it we obtain from foreign sources. So we pay this world price, transferring $200 billion in American wealth out of our country to those countries when we could keep it at home by producing large amounts off our gulf coast. Just to mention those amounts, they are quite huge. It is 1.3 billion barrels of oil that are projected to be in the Gulf of Mexico. That exceeds the proven reserves of Oklahoma and Wyoming combined, two of our largest oil-producing States. There are almost 6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, enough to heat and cool 6 million homes for 15 years, for example. These supplies are significant enough that they will impact prices. I can't say what the prices will be a few years from now when this oil and gas comes on line, but whatever it is, it will be less if this oil and gas is coming on line than if it is not. That will redound to the benefit of the American consumers that we represent--the ones who have sent us here and asked us to do something about energy prices. All of us have told them we are going to do something about it. This is one vote about which you can have no doubt. If you vote to produce oil and gas off the coast of America, you will help reduce the price of oil and gas in America. Not only that, you will keep at home billions of dollars that might otherwise be sent to foreign nations, some of which are hostile to us. It is the right thing to do. We need to follow through on it. I am optimistic more than I have been in quite a number of years. It is particularly thrilling to see Senator Martinez of Florida, who has worked so hard on this issue, and Senator Bill Nelson from Florida, who earlier today said he would support the Senate bill. So we are moving to make this a reality. It will be a positive step for this country. The only thing we have to fear is there will be some on the other side for what reason I can only imagine who will want to filibuster this legislation. Hopefully that won't happen. I hope not. We need to move it forward and pass it this year. I thank the Presiding Officer and I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order of speakers be as follows: Sessions, Menendez, Cochran, Landrieu, and Alexander.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I believe I had asked for 15 minutes. I will try to do it in 10. I ask that I be notified at the end of 10 minutes. Mr. President, I travel my State, and I know that Senator Shelby, who spoke earlier, travels Alabama, also. We meet with people and talk with people. I see people back in my hometown in church and in other places, and I get asked about energy prices all the time. People are concerned about it. I have studied some of the economic numbers in this country, and I am a bit troubled. I think it is a valid concern for our Nation that, while the country is doing well economically and unemployment is down, middle and lower income workers' salaries have not increased as much as we would like them to. In fact, the higher income salaried workers, wage and hour workers, are doing better percentage-wise than the lower income workers. That means the cost of energy impacts them significantly. They ask me to do something about it. I talk about what I have been trying to do since I came to the Senate 10 years ago, which includes voting and working to try to open up the ANWR region, where large reserves exist, and to support nuclear power and clean coal. I have been a supporter of ethanol, and I am hopeful that we will see ethanol, biodiesel and matters of that kind really advance as an option for America. I have to tell you that the most certain and direct thing we can do is to increase domestic production of oil and gas in this country. That is what we are about to act on now. This legislation is a concrete, direct way that will make a difference in the price of oil and gas in our country. One of my colleagues mentioned that some people like to use this phrase: Big oil companies. I want to make one thing clear: the reason we should open up production in the Gulf of Mexico is not to help big oil companies. We should open it up if, and only if, it is good for the American consumer and the American economy. In fact, I am confident that many of the big oil companies will have no interest in producing oil and gas from the Gulf of Mexico. They may be sitting on large reserves of oil and gas right now, and they may be very happy with $75 a barrel. Why should they want a competitor to go out and produce more in some other area if it might reduce the value of the oil and gas reserves that they possess? It is a myth and a falsehood that this has anything to do with oil and gas companies. What it has to do with is increasing the supply of natural gas and increasing the supply of oil for American consumers, keeping our wealth at home. One thing is obvious to us: We very much depend on natural gas. Eighteen percent of U.S. electricity comes from natural gas--18 percent--is generated from natural gas. Nuclear power provides 20 percent of our electricity. Nuclear power is the only source of clean, reliable, and affordable electricity. Nineteen applications for nuclear powerplants have been issued since we passed the Energy bill last year. Nineteen applications for new nuclear powerplants have been issued since we passed the Energy bill last year. It will make a big difference, but I have to tell you, I don't expect 18 percent of electricity that comes from natural gas to be reduced any time in the future. Oil prices are at high levels. On July 14, 2006, the price of crude oil closed around $77 a barrel. Many Wall Street analysts say it may hit $80 if this Mideast crisis continues. By comparison, the price of crude oil 2 years ago was $35 a barrel. That has been an increase of 100-plus percent. High energy prices, for all practical purposes, result in a tax on the American consumer. And to whom do we pay that tax? We pay it to foreign nations. Many of those nations are hostile to us diplomatically and politically. They are not our greatest friends. In fact, somebody has written an article stating that the more oil wealth a country has, the less friendly that country becomes. Mr. Bernanke, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, in April of this year said: Rising energy prices pose risk to both economic activity and inflation. On June 15, he said: The steep increases in energy prices over the past several years have had significant consequences for households, businesses, and economic policy. One article I saw recently estimated that higher energy costs have knocked down our growth in GDP by 1 percent this year. The average price of gasoline has now hit $3.02. It is up from $2.28 a year ago. This hurts families. It hurts consumers. We know that. We hate to see that happen. We know there is a worldwide increase in demand for oil and gas. We know that China and India are growing. I was in South America recently. Almost every country I visited had been having a 5-percent or more increase in growth. That means they will use more oil and gas. I will tell you it makes a big difference to a working Alabamian, a working man or woman anywhere in this country, who now has to pay an additional $50 a month for gasoline and maybe some more for heating as a result of natural gas. Natural gas prices have risen dramatically. On July 14 of this year, natural gas in the United States was a little over $6.25 per million Btu's. Not too long ago it was $12. It has dropped about half, which is great news. But in Russia and Oman, for example, natural gas comes in at about $1.25 per million Btu. These higher costs do impact American businesses, particularly, as well as consumers. The vice president of Nucor Steel in Tuscaloosa, AL, said recently: The high price of natural gas significantly impacts our ability to remain competitive and have a productive manufacturing sector. Some of the natural gas spike in prices is the result of speculation, it is the result of a fear of shortage, a fear that is out there. We have seen that prices have gone up and down in natural gas. I would say this: Natural gas production in the Gulf of Mexico is at a point where we need to expand our areas of drilling. Natural gas wells produce for a good long time, but they dry up faster than oil wells do. And if we don't constantly replace them, then we have a problem. We have had a controversy in Alabama recently about LNG, liquefied natural gas. This is natural gas that may be produced in the Middle East. It is liquefied, frozen or brought to a point of liquid by reducing its temperature. It is brought to the United States. A plant is set up, probably offshore, to heat it up and put it into the American pipeline after we pay the foreign shipper, after we pay the people to produce it in the foreign country, after we pay the foreign country for this natural gas. That is what Alan Greenspan told us we will have to do more of, importing LNG. And we will be doing more of that if we're not careful. How silly it is to do that when right off our own shores we have huge reserves of natural gas. We could keep all that wealth at home in our Nation. We could produce that oil and gas so it goes right into our American pipelines without having to be liquefied. It would go right to the consumers around the country. Mr. President, 60 percent of our oil comes from foreign sources, including, 49 percent from OPEC nations in all, 14 percent from Saudi Arabia, and 12 percent from Venezuela--boy, they have been taking action recently to see if they can discomfort the United States--10.5 percent from Nigeria, and 6.4 percent from Iraq. We paid $200 billion last year for foreign oil and gas--$200 billion, wealth that Americans would rather see invested in our country, hiring Americans to produce oil and gas. They would pay taxes and be able to raise their families, have high wages and good retirement plans and good health care plans. A lot of people have wondered why these companies try to buy up our ports and are buying up American industries. Why are these foreign countries able to do it? One reason is, a number of them are oil- producing nations. These oil-producing nations have wealth they don't know what to do with. They want to invest it wherever they can, and the United States is a good, safe place. I think that is a factor. The transfer of our wealth to foreign nations, many of whom are not our friends or allies, impacts American jobs and American companies. With regard to where we get our natural gas, less than 20 percent of it is imported. Most of it is imported through pipelines from Canada or Mexico, but only 2.8 percent represents liquefied natural gas. That comes in from Algeria, Egypt, and Trinidad. So we are, in many ways, a self-contained natural gas community. If we have a real shortage, the price is going to go up. It means if you heat your home with natural gas--and many Americans do--or if your business depends on natural gas for operations--and many American businesses do, their costs are going to go up significantly. If we produce natural gas off our coast and put it directly in our pipelines, that will help in a dramatic way to contain the price of natural gas in America. Alan Greenspan recently said: Notable cost productions for both liquefication and transportation of LNG--Liquefied natural gas--and high gas prices projected in the American distant futures market have made us a potential very large importer. Access to world natural gas supplies will require a major expansion of LNG terminal import capacity. He has been warning about that for some time. That is what we are wrestling with in Alabama today: Do we want an LNG plant? We already produce a lot of oil and gas offshore that goes directly into our pipelines. People are comfortable with that. We have had no significant spills in our State. We are comfortable with that. But environmentalists and others are uneasy about this LNG terminal and whether we should go in that direction. So for every argument, from the environmental argument to the American economy, to reducing the cost, we would do better to use oil and gas offshore. Conservation, alternative fuels, and domestic production are all important things we need to work on. The Government has had moratoriums on producing from offshore areas. It is something I have been involved in since I have been in the Senate, almost 10 years. We have had debate after debate, vote after vote, but for a whole host of reasons, we have not been able to get around this moratorium. We have not been able to produce more oil and gas in the Gulf of Mexico because of it. The State of Alabama produces oil and gas in Mobile Bay. I live in Mobile. It is almost close enough to throw a rock at from Fort Morgan Peninsula and hit it. It is right off the coast. We have them in the gulf right off the coast. They produce a lot of oil and gas for this country. In fact, I will show this chart. It is sort of amusing to me. I used to complain about it back in 2002. We were building a pipeline then. I see Senator Cochran from Mississippi is now on the floor. He has seen all this before. We have been producing oil and gas up in Mississippi and Alabama for quite a number of years. In 2002, our good friends down in Florida, who want no drilling 125 miles or more offshore, objected to new natural gas exploration. But they were perfectly happy to build a pipeline to take our oil and gas down to Tampa, FL, so they can sit out on the dock and have their mint juleps and watch the sunset over the gulf before they go back in their big houses kept cool with air-conditioning run by natural gas. I understand their environmental concerns. But at some point, the producing States have to feel we have been taken here a little as chumps in this deal, getting not 1 cent from the 4,000 wells that exist in the gulf--4,000 wells. By the way, we have 4,000 wells in the gulf, and this most powerful storm, Katrina, came through so did several other powerful hurricanes last year. Mr. President, over 3,000 of those wells were in the direct paths of those hurricanes, and we never had any significant spill of oil in the gulf. It goes to show how good the technology is, how hard they have worked scientifically to make oil and gas production safer. I think that is why Florida is beginning to reevaluate this and are being more amenable to the idea. Senator Martinez has worked hard to try to protect Florida's interest as much as he can but allow some additional drilling there. I think we have gotten past that. So I would say to my colleagues I have been in the Senate for 10 years and we have been trying to open up additional reserves in the gulf, and we should do that. But we haven't been successful. It hasn't worked. We have tried and tried and tried some more. Now Chairman Domenici has worked his heart out, and Senator Landrieu, working on the Democratic side, has met him halfway, and they have worked and planned, and so many other Members of this body have worked on it. So we have a proposal now which I think will clear this Senate, will open up huge areas, 8 million acres of gulf for production that can produce, and, as we heard from other speakers, large amounts of oil and gas. It will be done in a way that is bipartisan and in a way that we all can be happy about. We can keep the oil and gas people busy for the period that the oil and gas moratorium on the other parts of the gulf remains in effect. So at that time we will see what happens. If there is a mess or if there is unhappiness--maybe nothing will change. Or, maybe at that point we can decide to open up more land in the gulf for production. Mr. President, I don't know what my time was.

Mr. SESSIONS. I have gone beyond the 10 minutes I was looking to speak--far too far. I will wrap up and say I thank each of the Members of this body who has worked hard to reach an accord that will have bipartisan support that should pass. Because this is important to the American consumer; it is important to the American economy; it is important to jobs in this country. It will reduce the transfer of American wealth to foreign nations where we are now sending it to buy the energy we must have. This is not a little matter; it is a huge matter. Every now and then we have an opportunity to truly do something about an issue that our constituents have raised with us. They have asked us to do something about rising energy prices. This plan will work. It will produce large amounts of oil and gas for our Nation and it will keep us producing energy for quite a number of years. This is what we should do to fulfill that obligation to our constituents. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I just ask that my and Senator Shelby's time slots be reversed.

Mr. SESSIONS. Fifteen minutes.

Mr. SESSIONS. He has another appointment, and I would be glad to yield to him and take the slot you originally had for Senator Shelby.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I am baffled that there would be any opposition to Jerome Holmes to be appointed a U.S. circuit court judge to the Tenth Circuit. I congratulate my colleague from Oklahoma for his leadership in promoting such a fabulous nominee. I believe that he would be just the kind of person we need on the bench. It's really, really baffling to hear any objection to him. I want to talk about his background and record, and we'll begin to have a better understanding of the demand for ideological purity on the part of Democratic and liberal Members of the Senate when it comes to judges. It is unbelievable that there would be objection a man who articulates a view consistent with the Supreme Court majority in the Adarand case, an African American himself, who believes in Martin Luther King, Jr.'s dream that people would be judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin. He is a fabulous nominee. I would just like to mention a few things about him. He was voted out of committee a few weeks ago, July 13, on a voice vote. If confirmed, he will be the first African American to serve on the Tenth Circuit. He has stellar academic credentials and legal credentials. He graduated from Wake Forest University--one of America's great universities--cum laude with honors in 1983. Then he attended Georgetown University Law Center, one of the Nation's great law schools. At Georgetown, he was editor-in-chief of the Georgetown Immigration Law Journal. That's a great honor, to be part of a law journal at any law school, much less a great law school such as Georgetown. It's very competitive and difficult to get in Georgetown. Recently, in 2000, he earned a master's of public administration from Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government. Between college and law school, he worked briefly as a social services assistant with the D.C. Department of Corrections, dealing with criminals and the problems they have. Following law school, he clerked for the Honorable Wayne Alley on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma and the Honorable William J. Holloway on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. In other words, he clerked for a trial court judge in the Tenth Circuit. By the way, it is a competitive process to be selected to be a clerk for a trial court judge. It takes a good law student to be selected for that. Everyone who applies is not selected. It is a very great honor. People compete for those few positions. He worked at the trial bench, where he participated at the right hand of a U.S. Federal judge trying cases and participating in the trial of cases. Following that, he went to the Tenth Circuit, the very court he is now nominated to. If it is difficult to be a law clerk for a Federal district trial judge, it is far more difficult to be selected as a law clerk for a court of appeals judge. They have a stack of applications. They look at all competitors from around the country, and they select the best. He was an honors graduate from Wake Forest and a top graduate at Georgetown and editor of the Law Review, and he clerked for a Federal judge. He clerked and help Judge Holloway write opinions on the Tenth Circuit--the very thing he will be doing if he is confirmed to this position, which I trust he will be. Following these clerkships, he spent 3 years in private practice as an associate with the well-regarded law firm of Steptoe & Johnson, one of the best law firms in America. They do not hire just anybody. In 1994, Mr. Holmes began a distinguished career as a Federal prosecutor, serving as an assistant U.S. attorney in the Western District of Oklahoma, the circuit area where he will be a circuit judge when confirmed. I have served as an assistant U.S. attorney and as a U.S. attorney supervising assistant U.S. attorneys for almost 15 years. That is a great, great position because the assistant U.S. attorneys prosecute cases full time in Federal court before Federal judges. They learn everything there is to know about criminal law, which will be an important part of his duties as a Federal circuit judge. It is very good experience. Assistant U.S. attorneys get experience practicing before Federal judges, being involved in writing appeals to Federal judges, and understanding how the Federal system works. He did that for quite a number of years. During that time, he prosecuted public corruption cases. Now that's a challenge. I have been there and done that. That is not easy. Politicians do not take lightly to being indicted. They do not appreciate it, and it is tough litigation. He prosecuted Federal criminal civil rights violations. Somehow, I guess they are saying this African American who has achieved so much is insensitive to civil rights because he does not agree with everything the left thinks about affirmative action or quotas. He was the U.S. attorney's office's antiterrorism coordinator, and he worked on the prosecution team that built the case against the perpetrators of the Oklahoma City bombing. That is a good background that shows a breadth of experience. Since 2005, he has been the director of the prominent Oklahoma law firm of Crowe & Dunlevy, where he focused on white-collar criminal defense and complex litigation--another good background for the Federal bench. Not only has he been a prosecutor, but he has defended criminal cases, giving him a perspective on both sides. I am a big fan of prosecutors, but I understand my colleagues on the other side of that debate, who defend cases, as I have on occasion, appreciate the fact that prosecutors have some defense work. He has had both. Also, he chaired the firm's diversity committee, the committee committed to making sure that his law firm, Crowe & Dunlevy, did the things necessary to be a diverse law firm. He has given back to the people of Oklahoma through taking leadership roles in a wide variety of important organizations. These include service as the director of the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation. That is an important committee outside the normal realm of what a lot of people do with their lives, volunteering and giving time to a group like that. He also has served as trustee of the Oklahoma City National Memorial Foundation, director of the Oklahoma Academy for State Goals, chairman of the City Rescue Mission, helping people in trouble, down and out, people who need a hand to lift them up. I guess on occasion they minister to those people who are hurting, they minister to their souls. I think it is something to be proud of. He also served as vice president of the Oklahoma Bar Association. He enjoys strong bipartisan support in Oklahoma. Gov. Brad Henry, a Democrat in Oklahoma, recently wrote that the nominee ``is a highly qualified candidate, a superb lawyer, with a reputation for fairness, ethics, and integrity.'' He summed up his letter by writing: In short, I do not think you could have a candidate more highly qualified and regarded than Jerome Holmes. That is the Democratic Governor of Oklahoma. Daniel Webber, a Democrat whom President Clinton made the U.S. attorney in Oklahoma, wrote: I have known Jerome Holmes for over ten years. . . . I believe his intellect, experience, and character make him an excellent choice for a position on the appellate court. The American Bar Association has unanimously found him qualified for the position. Why would we have an objection to someone who spent this many years of his life practicing in Federal court as an assistant U.S. attorney, who spent 3 years as a law clerk to Federal judges, practicing in one of the country's biggest law firms, and being not a partner--they use a different phrase there, something like a partner--with the Dunlevy law firm in Oklahoma, a firm with a great reputation in the State? What is it that causes the Senate to have a debate on this fine nominee? Again, I congratulate Senator Coburn for offering this kind of nominee. He has been willing to express his personal views on matters that some on the left do not like. I guess that is it. Let's just be frank about it. I suggest that what he said is consistent with the opinions of the U.S. Supreme Court. But even if he had a slightly different view than the Supreme Court, what is wrong with having him express that view? Why would anyone object to that? This is what he said about the University of Michigan affirmative action case that many felt--and at least four Supreme Court Justices felt--was essentially a quota system. What is affirmative action? Everyone has a different view. What I think we in America tend to agree is that affirmative action, affirmative outreach, affirmative efforts to bring minorities into institutions and give them a chance to succeed is all right, but setting up quotas by which people, by the color of their skin, are given preference over someone else, therefore enhancing their ability and their rights over the rights of someone else simply because of the color of their skin, violates the equal protection and due process clauses of the U.S. Constitution. So that is all that tension in there. I guess we come down to it in what I say, this is not a perfect analysis, but we say affirmative outreach is good; quotas are bad. I guess when you have a case such as University of Michigan, you ask, was this a quota or was it affirmative outreach? They had a big case on it. He had expressed some concern about that case. Remember, it was 5 to 4. It was not as if the Supreme Court had taken a case that they all felt one way about. So he wrote an op-ed, an article in the Daily Oklahoman. The title is ``A Step Closer to King's Dream.'' He started off this way: Perhaps the dream of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. will be realized: Children seeking educational opportunities no longer will be judged by the color of their skin. Is that something that is radical? I don't think so. We have Members of this Senate who believe that anybody who deviates the slightest millimeter, or centimeter beyond the ideological views of the left is somehow unqualified to be a Federal judge. From what I have seen, they tend to be more critical if that person happens to be an African American that criticizes leftist orthodoxy. So he wrote an article. It was, I thought, a very thoughtful article. There was nothing extreme about this. He said: There are other ways to get minority students on college campuses besides handing out benefits based solely on skin color--an accident of birth. I think that is a thoughtful statement--a matter of real importance. He then goes on to talk about what you can do to help minority students succeed and have a better chance to enter universities, noting: . . . a poverty-reduction approach that primarily focuses on implementing race-neutral macroeconomic and labor-market policies, even though its central goal is bettering the life chances of the truly disadvantaged black and brown urban poor. He goes on to say: Diversity proponents need to come up with race-neutral policies that have the desired effect of boosting the number of minority students. Politicians and educators in Florida, Texas and California have attempted to do just that by mandating that the top percentage of students (for example, the top 10 percent) at every public school in the state be guaranteed a place in a state university. So what he is saying is that is a race-neutral way to have a more diverse student body. But what is dangerous and violates the Constitution is to say that every law school or every university must accept so many people, each based on race, regardless of their qualifications for the position. He goes on to say that this high school proposal that Florida, Texas, and California have done is ``race neutral, yet their acknowledged goal is to increase the number of minority students on college campuses. Top students from predominantly minority schools will invariably be represented there.'' So, Mr. President, I would just say that I don't see anything extreme about those views. I don't believe my colleague from Oklahoma does. I see the Presiding Officer, a former justice on the Texas Supreme Court. I don't think he would believe those are extreme views. In fact, they are consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Adarand. I think they are consistent with the Supreme Court opinion in the University of Michigan cases, very consistent with those cases, and respectful and understanding, as an African American himself, that we have to be careful that we are not moving to a situation in which people receive benefits as a result of the color of their skin only, unless there is a showing of a prior history of discrimination, which can be shown in a number of cases. Unless you have that, you should not create a legal system in America that advances someone simply because of the color of their skin and, therefore, puts at a disadvantage someone because of the color of their skin. So he has made some thoughtful comments about it. I believe they are wise. I think he is correct. I am amazed that someone in this Senate would object to his confirmation based on these comments. But we apparently have that. I am sure we will have a good vote for Mr. Holmes tomorrow. I hope we will, and he will be confirmed. But it is rather odd to me that we have this objection, and he doesn't go straight through without any of this kind of debate. I thank the Chair and the Senators from Oklahoma, Mr. Coburn and Mr. Inhofe, for their commitment to this sterling nominee, a minority, with an outstanding record--went to Georgetown, clerked for the Tenth Circuit, clerked for a Federal district judge, an assistant U.S. attorney, worked for one of America's great law firms. He has every right to be rated qualified by the American Bar Association, as he was unanimously. He should be confirmed for this position. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak as in morning business.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I am glad the majority leader has called up and allowed us to consider the Child Custody Protection Act today. I was involved, in 1998, when then-Senator Spence Abraham, later Secretary of Energy Spence Abraham, offered this bill. We had a press conference and made a number of efforts to pass it and always had a good deal of support but, frankly, to my frustration and surprise, it never became law. It has, in every respect, strong support among the American people and in the Congress. I am pleased that Senator John Ensign of Nevada has taken up this piece of legislation. He has directed his considerable talents to pressing it forward. We now have it on the floor. We will soon have a vote on it. I believe it should pass. I expect it to pass. I think those who would object to it have a high burden to show what is unreasonable about the legislation that is before us today. The Child Custody Protection Act deals with an important subject. It deals with how young girls are being secretly taken across State lines for the purpose of abortion, without the consent of their parents or even the knowledge of their parents, in violation of the laws of the State in which they live. Forty-five States have enacted some sort of parental consent laws or parental notification law. By simply secreting a child across State lines, one can frustrate the State legislature's rules. It is, in fact, effectively subverting and defeating valid, constitutionally approved rights parents have with regard to being involved in the health care of their children, emotionally and physically. It is a very important issue, and I think it is one we need to continue to discuss. This bill does not in any way deal substantively with abortion or the right to abortion. It does not really expand additional restrictions on abortion. What it does, though, is to stop an abominable practice by which someone--usually an adult, often an adult male who has gotten a young girl pregnant without wanting the parents to know about it--takes them across a State line to some foreign jurisdiction to seek an abortion without the parents' involvement, an abortion that could not be performed in their home State without the approval of the parent. In fact, the abortion clinics in those States know that they must have a parent's consent. They seek that consent. If they don't have it, they don't perform the abortion--at least most of them don't. That is what the law is and that is what the situation is. But that is being subverted by moving them across the State line. I submit this is a commonsense proposal. It is consistent with Federal prohibitions on interstate transportation, in violation of law, and it is something we should act on now. It is past due, in fact. I submit the American people care about this issue. It is something that is important. And well they should because they love their daughters. They care about them. They will be involved with them medically, physically, and emotionally the rest of their lives. It won't be some abortion clinic in some distant State that will be involved with their emotional problems, their psychological problems, their physical problems, which arise from having had an abortion. The parents are the ones who care about their child and have the responsibility to raise her. As we all know, a child cannot be given an aspirin in a school without parental consent. I have heard recently that you can't even give them sunscreen, in some schools, without parental consent. So we have this kind of legal procedure for a child's medical protection, but we have a circumstance in which a valid parental consent for a very serious procedure such as an abortion can be conducted without parental consent if you go across State lines and avoid the existing State law in the home State. The Supreme Court, I hasten to add, has considered parental consent laws. They have considered a number of those cases. Parental consent laws have been enacted in many big States such as Pennsylvania and Texas. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld consent laws and said they are valid restrictions on abortion. This is not too much of a restriction or an undue burden. They also say that if somehow the parent is a problem--if there is a question of incest or child abuse or dysfunctional parents--there must be a judicial procedure which allows a judge to bypass the parental consent requirement of that State. So all the State laws in existence that require parents to be notified have a judicial bypass option. If a child does not believe they could tell their parents for whatever reason, they can go to a court and seek court approval without telling that parent, if there is a real basis for it. In fact, this legislation provides in unusual circumstances that judicial bypass would take place. It is responsible in that regard. The ability of parents to be involved in the health of their children is a fundamental parental right. It is being undermined today--and we ought to strengthen that right and that responsibility. In fact, one of the great threats to our Nation is legal undermining of parental rights and parental abdication of responsibility for their children and how they develop. We need to strengthen families, we need to strengthen the responsibility of parents, and we need to protect children. We need better involvement of parents with their children. Some say this is painful, if we required young people to tell their parents that they are pregnant. But I submit to you that out of that pain can come healing, can come good decisions, can come a change in behavior, a recognition that a child is in trouble and has problems, a recognition by parents, perhaps, that they need to be more involved and more engaged in their children's activities. How is that bad? How is it bad that a child would be required to engage with their parents once they get in this kind of serious trouble? We are talking about minor children, minor girls, often taken advantage of by much older men. I think it is the right thing to do. But regardless of that, regardless of how you feel about parental consent, it is State policy by State laws that have been passed in States throughout this Nation that parents should be informed, and in some cases have consent. These constitutional State laws are being undermined in a real way. I will talk about that in a minute and show you some points on it. But it is a very real problem. It is not imaginary. Let's look at some of the advertisements, fliers, and brochures that are being passed out around the country to promote interstate transportation of minor children to promote abortion. Here is one. Metropolitan Medical Associates is in New Jersey which does not have a parental consent law, but many States such as Pennsylvania and others nearby do. Here is the flier: We accept all insurance and credit cards. It goes on to say: All calls and appointments are confidential. Parental consent is not required. They passed this out in the region to people in surrounding States which do have to have parental consent. The word gets out that they can come and avoid that requirement. I think that is unhealthy. I think that is an attempt to undermine the laws of the States of this country. Here is another one, South Jersey Women's Center. It mentions all of their promotions, their abortion procedures. I will highlight this phrase: ``No 24-hour wait. . . .'' In some States, it is required that you wait 24 hours after being informed about the abortion procedures before you go forward. ``No 24- hour wait or parental consent required.'' That is in New Jersey. Again, there is promotion in the other States to come into that State to obtain an abortion that would otherwise be illegal in the minor's home State. Here is an advertisement in, I believe, a Pennsylvania phone book. Pennsylvania has a parental consent law. This one is from a clipping in Buffalo, NY. It is Planned Parenthood Women's Health Center. But they run an ad in the Pennsylvania phone book for a Buffalo, NY, abortion clinic. It says: ``No parental consent or waiting period.'' We have many of those. There are lots of those. I just show these ads to show that we are not talking about a rare or insignificant event. There is a studied policy to promote abortion in distant States where parental consent is not required to undermine existing law of the State where the child may have become pregnant. The attorney for the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy, Kathryn Kolbert, stated: There are thousands of minors who cross State lines for an abortion every year and who need assistance from adults to do that. We see several examples of abortion clinics which openly place advertisements in phone books and otherwise. I chair the Administrative Oversight and the Courts Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee, and I chaired a hearing in June a couple of years ago where we heard a number of stories that deal with this issue. One particularly moving story involved a young woman named Crystal Lane who exhibited a maturity beyond her years when she testified before the committee. When Crystal was just 13 years old, she was secretly transported across the State line by adults seeking to hide the fact of her pregnancy from her mother. Crystal was taken across State lines from Pennsylvania, a State which had a consent statute, to New York, a State which did not. Crystal testified that she suffered serious complications from this ``legal'' abortion that was botched and which resulted in ``the most terrifying time'' in her life. Crystal's mother, Mrs. Joyce Farley, testified that her daughter was taken out of State for an abortion by one Rosa Marie Hartford. Is this just a friend, Mrs. Hartford? Is this just a neighbor trying to take care of her? That is not really the pattern. Mrs. Hartford was actually the mother of a 19-year-old young man whose statutory rape of the then-12-year-old girl caused the pregnancy. In other words, the woman was trying to cover up the criminal activity of her son. The son later pleaded guilty to statutory rape. Thus, the clinics are openly encouraging evasion of State laws. The Child Custody Protection Act would shut those practices down. The question of parental notification and consent is an important one. The American people care about it. I would like to show a chart which shows the depth of the feeling of the American people on this issue, which has remained strong for a decade or more. Just last year, in a Fox NEWS Dynamics Opinion Poll, the question was: Do you think a female under age 18 should be required by State law to notify at least one parent or guardian before having an abortion? Seventy-eight percent said yes. Only 17 percent said no. How about this one, a Quinnipiac University poll of just last year: Do you favor or oppose requiring parental notification before a minor could get an abortion? Seventy-five percent say yes; eighteen percent say no. How about this one, a CNN-USA Today poll conducted by Gallop: Do you favor or oppose each of the following proposals? How about a law requiring women under 18 to get parental consent for any abortion? You see how they changed that language a little bit; you would affect the numbers a little bit. It did--73 to 24. But still three-fourths of the people say a parent should know and consent before their minor daughter can get an abortion. How about this one. This is the Wirthlin Worldwide poll from several years ago: Do you favor or oppose requiring one parent of a girl who is under the age of 18 years of age to be notified before an abortion is performed on the girl? Eighty-three percent to fifteen. Here is another one, the Los Angeles Times: Should girls under the age of 18 be required to get the consent of at least one parent before having an abortion? Eighty-two to twelve. Here is CBS News-New York Times: Would you favor or oppose requiring parental consent before a girl under the age of 18 could have an abortion? Seventy-eight to seventeen percent. That one was 1998, 8 years ago. The numbers have been strong. They haven't gone down. They remain so. Why? Because it is good policy. For Heaven's sake, shouldn't a parent know if their child is having this kind of medical procedure? I think so. Some may think that a 13- year-old should just be allowed to be taken away by some 29-year-old, some 40-year-old man to have an abortion to cover up his statutory rape. They may think that is good policy. I don't. But I would just say this: This law that we are considering today, the Child Custody Protection Act, really does not deal with that. It simply says that if a State of this United States passes a law, and someone takes a child across State lines to avoid that law, they would be implicated in a Federal violation. The Federal Government would simply be affirming and supporting the States that choose to have a parental consent law. It does not make any new law. It does not set any parental consent standard. It does not put any new constraints on abortion. It simply says that if you try to avoid the State law, the Federal Government will be of assistance. I think the statute is drafted in a good way. I was a Federal prosecutor for 15 years and very familiar with many of the questions that come up with regard to prosecuting Federal cases. We have had some recent federalism decisions by the Supreme Court. They basically raise concerns that we in Congress have become too careless in how we draft legislation by attempting to make criminal acts solely within a State that have no interstate connection. When I was a young prosecutor, some of the first cases I got to prosecute were automobile theft cases. But it is not automobile theft in Federal court, it is interstate transportation of a stolen motor vehicle. That is the crime--interstate transportation of that vehicle. If you just stole a car in Alabama, and you caught the person in Alabama, they never crossed a State line, it is not a Federal crime. It can only be prosecuted in Alabama. The Supreme Court raised some concerns about that. Theft from an interstate shipment is also a Federal crime. It is a Federal crime for people to steal from a railroad going through the community, if it is an interstate shipment. But if you steal from a farmer, and you don't get out of State with the produce, it is not a Federal crime. It is theft from interstate transportation of stolen property, ITSP. And that is a Federal offense. So that is how this statute is written. This statute does not say we are going to micromanage what goes on within a State. What we are saying is, if someone travels in interstate commerce--because the Constitution of the United States provides that this Congress, this Federal Government, has the authority to regulate interstate commerce--for the purpose of avoiding a State law to help a minor child get an abortion without the knowledge of their loving parents, who are raising the child and will have to raise them in the future, they are guilty a Federal offense. I think that is perfectly sound constitutionally and something we should do. It is past time we do it. I would urge my colleagues to consider this. If there is one circumstance in which we should be most concerned about abortion, it is that of the young lady I described who testified at our hearing. Crystal Lane was impregnated and having sex with an older man when she was 12 years of age, and had an abortion at 13 years of age, and her parent did not know about it. How did it happen? The young man's mother and young man got together and secreted her across State lines to have an abortion, so he would not be found out, so he would not be prosecuted for statutory rape. This was not done out of any interest in the child's welfare. That is a very real problem that should not continue. We have the ability to do something about it. I urge my colleagues to study this act and to make sure we stop those who would usurp State law, usurp parental rights, and damage children without the knowledge of their parents. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Friday, July 21, 2006, at 10 a.m. to hold a hearing on the US-UK Extradition Treaty.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise to voice my support for reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act of 1965. H.R. 9, the bill to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act, is an important piece of legislation. I wish to take a few moments to express my thoughts on the great progress prompted by the Voting Rights Act in my State, as well as to express a few concerns. My home State of Alabama--the site of the Selma to Montgomery voting rights march--had a grim history on voting rights. Before 1965, only 19 percent of African Americans in our State were registered to vote, and they were denied the right to vote through any number of tactics and strategies. Behind those tactics and strategies--the multiple ``tests and devices''--lay a ruthless decision to deny Black citizens the right to vote so that the majority of the White community could maintain political power. The results of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were some of the best things that ever happened to Alabama. Before the Voting Rights Act, Alabama had fewer than a dozen Black elected officials. As of 2001, the most recent figures available, Alabama had over 750 African-American office holders--second only to Mississippi. These elected officials include a U.S. Congressman, 8 State senators, 27 members of the State House of Representatives, 46 mayors, 80 members of county commissions, school board members, town council members and the like. Voter registration rates for Blacks and Whites in Alabama are now virtually identical. In fact, in the last Presidential election, according to the Census Bureau, a larger percentage of African Americans voted than Whites in the State of Alabama. Now, that was the goal of the act--to have this kind of progress occur. In fact, over the past 15 years, Alabama has not had a single court find the State guilty of violating the 15th amendment or the very broad protections afforded by section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The same cannot be said of Arkansas; Colorado; Hawaii; Ohio; Maryland; Massachusetts; Missouri; Montana; Nebraska; Wisconsin; Chicago, IL; Hempstead, NY; Los Angeles County, CA; or Dade County, FL--none of which are covered by section 5's preclearance requirement. The people of Alabama understand that these changes in our State are good, and they do not want to do anything that would suggest that there is any interest in moving away from the great right to vote. We want to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act. How we reauthorize the act is something that is worthy of discussion, however. The witnesses we have heard in the Judiciary Committee over the past couple of months have had many different ideas, and after hearing from them, I am concerned that we should have listened more carefully to some of their recommendations. My concerns stem, in part, from the extraordinary nature of some of the temporary provisions of the Voting Rights Act particularly the ``preclearance'' requirement of section 5. Section 5 requires Alabama and other covered jurisdictions to ``preclear'' any change in ``any voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting.'' The preclearance requirement applies to ``[a]ny change affecting voting, even though it appears to be minor or indirect.'' As a representative of the Department of Justice testified in the House of Representatives, ``There is no de minimis exception'' to the preclearance requirement. In 1966, the Supreme Court in South Carolina v. Katzenbach upheld section 5's preclearance requirement ``as a necessary and constitutional response to some States' `extraordinary stratagem[s] of contriving new rules of various kinds for the sole purpose of perpetuating voting discrimination in the face of adverse federal court decrees.' '' The Court ``acknowledged that suspension of new voting regulations pending preclearance was an extraordinary departure from the traditional course of relations between the States and the Federal Government,'' but ``held it constitutional as a permitted congressional response to the unremitting attempts by some state and local officials to frustrate their citizens' equal enjoyment of the right to vote.'' In other words, the preclearance requirement was an extraordinary response to an extraordinary problem--unrelenting efforts by some State and local officials to contrive new rules for voting and elections after each defeat in Federal court. During the reauthorization process, we have been presented relatively little present-day evidence of continued ``unremitting attempts by some state and local officials to frustrate their citizens' equal enjoyment of the right to vote'' as was the case in 1965--especially the kind of change-the-rules-after-losing tactics that prompted the section 5 preclearance requirement. According to Richard L. Hasen, William H. Hannon Distinguished Professor of Law at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles: ``In the most recent 1998 to 2002 period, DOJ objected to a meager 0.05 percent of preclearance requests. Updating these data, DOJ interposed just two objections nationwide overall in 2004, and one objection in 2005.'' These data suggest relatively isolated attempts to interfere with voting rights not widespread, ``extraordinary stratagem[s]'' to perpetuate discrimination in voting. To be sure, there have been examples of misconduct, such as the cancellation of the June 5, 2001, city council and mayoral elections in the town of Kilmichael, MS, and I do not want to minimize those violations in any way. Such misconduct did not appear to be common or widespread, however, and it could have been remedied through ordinary litigation under section 2 of the act and 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. In fact, a disturbing aspect of the Kilmichael incident is that the attorney general's objection to the cancellation of the election came on December 11, 2001 over 7 months after the election had been canceled. This was no doubt due in part to the town's failure to submit the change in a timely fashion, but it nonetheless appears that minority voters would have received justice more quickly through a lawsuit in Federal court, accompanied by a request for a preliminary injunction and/or a temporary restraining order. In light of the dearth of present-day preclearance objections or evidence of violations that, due to their nature or number, cannot be remedied through litigation, I am concerned that reauthorizing section 5's preclearance requirement for 25 years as proposed in H.R. 9 will not pass constitutional muster in the litigation that is certain to follow its enactment. In City of Boerne v. Flores, the Supreme Court held that when Congress enacts legislation to enforce constitutional guarantees, ``[t]here must be a congruence and proportionality between the injury to be prevented or remedied and the means adopted to that end.'' The Court cited the Voting Rights Act of 1965 as an example of appropriate congressional enforcement legislation that it had upheld. The Court observed, however, that ``[s]trong measures appropriate to address one harm may be an unwarranted response to another, lesser one.'' I am worried because, in extending section 5's preclearance requirement for another 25 years, H.R. 9 does little to acknowledge the tremendous progress made over the past 40 years in Alabama and other covered jurisdictions. Today is not 1965, and the situation with respect to voting rights in Alabama and other covered jurisdictions is dramatically different from 1965. I would have expected Congress to recognize this tremendous progress in covered jurisdictions by modernizing section 5 to reflect present-day progress and remaining problems. For example, Congress ought to update the coverage trigger in section 4(b) of the act. It is simply illogical--in 2006--to base coverage solely on registration and voter turnout data from the Presidential elections in 1964, 1968, 1972. What about the Presidential elections of 1996, 2000, and 2004? What about the 14 noncovered jurisdictions that Federal courts have found guilty of constitutional or section 2 violations in recent years? Those years and those jurisdictions could easily be added to the coverage formula in section 4(b), but H.R. 9 does not update the coverage formula to include them. Given the dearth of preclearance objections, it seems that some minor or de minimis voting changes ought to be removed from the preclearance requirement, as well. Congress also needs to make changes to improve the ``bailout'' process in section 4(a) of the act. According to the Department of Justice, out of 914 covered States and political subdivisions, only 11 covered jurisdictions, all in Virginia, have bailed out from coverage, and thus preclearance, under section 4(a). It is obvious that bailout is not working properly, but H.R. 9 does not correct that problem. For example, even if a town in Alabama has a perfect record on voting rights and meets every one of the requirements for bailout, it cannot seek bailout because section 4(a) only allows a ``political subdivision'' to bail out, and section 14(c)(2) defines ``political subdivision'' to mean ``any county or parish'' but not any city or town. That should be changed, but this bill does not address it. I also think we should have given serious consideration to Professor Hasen's ``proactive bailout'' proposal to improve the bailout process. I am also concerned that the Supreme Court will think that a 25-year reauthorization is simply too long to pass constitutional muster. In 1965, Congress only authorized the temporary provisions of the Voting Rights Act for 5 years. They have now been in effect for 41 years. I am worried that the Supreme Court will conclude that it is not ``congruent and proportional'' to require some States to preclear every single voting change, no matter how minor or insignificant, until the year 2031 based on data regarding voter turnout and registration from 1964-- 67 years earlier. Finally, I am concerned about H.R. 9's language adding new subsections (b), (c), and (d) to section 5 of the Voting Rights Act to alter the Supreme Court's decisions in Georgia v. Ashcroft and Reno v. Bossier Parish School Board, Bossier Parish II. In its decision in Bossier Parish II, in particular, the Court warned that the interpretation of section 5 rejected in that case ``would also exacerbate the `substantial' federalism costs that the preclearance procedure already exacts perhaps to the extent of raising concerns about Sec. 5's constitutionality.'' Altering these decisions adds to the risks taken in failing to modernize and modify the provisions of the Voting Rights Act to address the voting rights problems of the 21st century. It is particularly important therefore, that these new provisions be strictly interpreted. The ``ability . . . to elect their preferred candidates of choice'' language in new subsections 5(b) and 5(d) prevents the elimination of what the Supreme Court called ``majority-minority districts'' in Georgia v. Ashcroft, in exchange for the creation of what it called ``influence districts.'' Neither the language of new subsections 5(b) and 5(d) nor the ``any discriminatory purpose'' language of new subsection 5(c) requires the creation of or locks into place ``influence'' or ``coalitional'' districts, however. The concept of ``influence'' or ``coalitional'' districts is far too amorphous to impose as a requirement of Federal law. Imposing such new restrictions on the redistricting process would prove both unworkable and unconstitutional. I agree with the comments made earlier this afternoon by Senator McConnell, Senator Hatch, Senator Kyl, and Senator Cornyn. We must remember that we are reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act not creating a ``gerrymandering rights act.'' The bipartisan support for this bill indicates that both Republicans and Democrats do not expect or intend it to be interpreted to advantage one party or the other. Although the Voting Rights Act is now 40 years old, many of my constituents have vivid recollections of discrimination at the ballot box, and they have strong memories of the civil rights movement that led to the most historic changes that were encapsulated in the Voting Rights Act. These are wonderful people. They love America and are proud of the changes in Alabama and our Nation. They have a strong attachment to the Voting Rights Act. All Alabamians want to see the progress continue. In light of the wrongs that have occurred in the past and out of respect for those who placed their very lives at risk for change, I will vote in favor of H.R. 9.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we are going to proceed with construction over 2 years. Since we don't know what will happen next year, the Congress voted to build a fence, and we ought to fund the fence, in my opinion, when we promised to build it. But we could build it over 2 years and split the money each year, I suppose. It would ultimately slow down completion. It would probably take some time to get it constructed. I don't know whether my colleagues would agree to cut that price in half and do it over 2 years, and whether it would gain their support. If so, I would be prepared to accept that reduction in the amendment. Let me just say that we know what happened. Senator Gregg did his very best in the supplemental. Judd Gregg, chairman of our committee, is a fine Budget Committee chairman. He also chairs this Homeland Security Subcommittee. He was able to force into the supplemental additional money for border security which was not in the President's request. I salute him for that. But that is not getting us there. We are still talking about nickles and dimes. We are still talking about business as usual. Somehow we need to find this money. We spend over $800 billion a year in discretionary spending. We spend nearly $1.4 trillion a year in entitlement spending, entitlement increases--an increase of over $100 billion next year. So we can't find a couple of billion dollars to fulfill the commitment we made to the American people? We know how the system works around here. There is no one way that it works. There are many ways to skin a cat, as they say. We need a vote for this amendment. And that would send a signal to the Appropriations Committee and send a signal to the White House that this Senate is serious about fulfilling its commitments. Some way between now and then, some way they will find this money through whatever sources are appropriate to fund it. That is where we need to be. That is what we need to achieve. If we allow it to go through without any money for this fencing, we will rightly be accused of not being serious about the commitments we have made to the American people with regard to actually enforcing the laws of immigration in America, which many Americans already believe we are not serious about. They do not respect what we have done in the past, and they should not; we have failed. It is time for Congress to try to fix it and do better. In fact, we must do better. The Secretary of Homeland Security has told us this kind of barrier fencing is necessary for his success. Now, we build a bridge in immigration that goes about 8 feet across the 10-foot cavern, and we never quite close the loop. As a result, we never reach the tipping point where it becomes much more logical for someone who wants to come to America to come legally than illegally, so they continue to come illegally. They are rewarded for that. They get to the head of the line, and they get amnesty when they get here after a period of time. That is a bad signal. We need to stop that signal. By building more barrier fencing, by following up on the President's commitment to call out the National Guard, those activities send a signal to the world that our border is no longer open. Isn't that the message we want to send? We do not have an open border. We have a generous immigration system, far more generous that any nation I am aware of in the world. More generous than Canada, more generous than England, more generous than Mexico. We have a generous system. Don't let anyone put us down that we are somehow an anti-immigrant Nation. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are very generous, but we do need to have a system that is lawful. About a million people come into our country legally. About 750,000 or 800,000 come into the country illegally. Almost as many come illegally. That is not right. It cannot continue. This is not an extreme position to take. Let's build the fences that the Secretary of Homeland Security discussed. I don't know where the Senator would get the money for it and exactly how it would be worked, but I believe if we voted a strong vote to fund this fencing, somehow, some way, the leadership of the House and the Senate would get together and figure out a way to fund it appropriately. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I have a modification at the desk for the two amendments I have proposed. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to modify those two amendments, as we have proposed them.

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

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I often rise to speak about the issues being debated on the floor of the Senate, whether it be to share my thoughts on immigration, the war in Iraq, or the marriage amendment--as was the case this past week. I am honored to speak for the people of Alabama and to share their concerns with my colleagues in the Senate. Today I wish, not to debate, but for a moment reflect on the rich history of our Nation. I have heard it stated, on more than one occasion, that the length of a person's stay in Washington should be measured by the feeling they get standing on Constitution Avenue at dusk. As a public servant, I find it impossible to look at the Capitol, illuminated against the night sky, without reflecting on the history and sacrifice of our forefathers. I was reminded of this while reading a speech written by Morgan Harris, a sixth grader at Hampton Cove Middle School in Huntsville, AL. Morgan, tasked by his English and Social Studies teachers to write a speech about the flag, took the creative approach of writing from the flag's perspective. While there have been poems written from similar points of view, I found Morgan's speech to be a refreshing reminder of the history and importance of Old Glory. I share it with you today: Flag Speech (By Morgan Harris) I am the flag. I was originated on June 14, 1777. I was given 13 stripes alternating red and white with 13 white stars in a field of blue. I am the flag. My content was dictated, but my arrangement was not. Many made me appear in different ways. My stripes usually stayed the same, but my stars were often rearranged. For many years history has taught that Betsy Ross was my original maker. Though she made many flags, there is no proof that she made me first. In 1818 my design was set. The only change was to add a star for each new State. I was carried by soldiers into battle. I flew from the masts of great ships. For 47 years I had 48 stars. In 1959 and 1960 I was given two stars for the new States of Alaska and Hawaii. Today, I still have those same 50 stars and 13 stripes. I am the flag. To show respect and dignity for what I represent, rules have been written for my use and care. When I am displayed during the playing of the national anthem, men and women in uniform stand at attention and salute me. All others stand at attention with their right hand over their heart and men remove their hats. During the Pledge of Allegiance, everyone is to stand at attention with their right hand over their heart. I am usually flown in the outdoors from sunrise to sunset. However, I may be flown for 24 hours a day if lighted during darkness. I should not be left out in the rain or bad weather. I am flown at half-staff upon the death of great people to show respect to their memory. I am draped over the caskets of those who serve our country. No other flag is to fly about me. I am the American flag. I should never be allowed to touch the ground and should be stored and protected. I should never be displayed upside down, except as a sign of distress. I should always be carried aloft and free. I represent a living country and I am considered a living thing. Therefore, when I am worn as a pin I should be worn on the left near the heart. When I am no longer fitting for display, I am to be destroyed in a dignified manner, preferably by burning. The writer Henry Ward Beecher once said, ``The American flag has been a symbol of Liberty and men rejoiced in it.'' Mr. Beecher was stating how the flag represents our freedom in America and this is what I love most about the flag. When I see the flag flying high on a flag pole and hear ``The Star-Spangled Banner'' played, I think of the freedom we have as Americans. I think of the men and women who have died so that we may have this freedom. It makes me proud to be an American. The flag is our symbol of freedom.'' Mr. President, I am sure it will come as no surprise to you that Morgan's speech won first place out of 148 entries at his school. He has much to be proud of.