Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Yes.

Mr. SESSIONS. I do think that is appropriate.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Yes. And I remember you telling the leader of Iraq at that time that they were being challenged and they had to step up and assume responsibility.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator for his comments and his leadership. It has been a privilege to be a part of this debate. I listened to this debate that has gone on tonight, this discussion between he and the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, who is most eloquent. But I would just say to Senator Warner that your remarks tonight are worthy of the valor and the courage and the fidelity of the troops we have sent forth into harm's way, and I am honored to serve with you on the Armed Services Committee. Mr. President, looking at the resolution that Senator Kerry has proposed, I would just make a couple of summary comments. No. 1, he has a date in which the vast majority of our troops, virtually all combat forces, under this amendment would be out by next summer, whether or not that is the right thing militarily. At the same time, he proposes that we have some sort of regional conference, and that this regional conference would meet somewhere while we are pulling out troops. And it is going to meet and decide what is going to happen in Iraq. I would just say that is not the way the world works. Does anybody here think if we get a group of nations in that region to gather somewhere and meet and talk about Iraq, while we pull out troops, and violence escalates, that they are just going to pass a resolution, and somehow these terrorists, these Baathists are going to stop their fighting? Does anybody think that? I wish it were so. Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could just get the nations in that region to go off somewhere and have a conference in Rome or London or Paris and have a vote about Iraq and the war would all end and there would be peace and we could just take our soldiers out and these other nations who are concerned about it, and if things get bad in that country of Iraq, they are just going to send their troops in and fix it? We really have to be more clear in our thinking about these issues. That is not going to happen. That is fantasy land, let me say, with all seriousness. I wish we could do that. Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could. Would it were so, they would just step up, the other nations in the region, and take over and fix this problem for us. And wouldn't it be nice if we could just have some sort of conference in Iraq and bring in the hostile parties and sit them down at a table and just reach an agreement? Wouldn't it be nice if we could do that? I wish it were so. I wish the enemy we faced was not the kind of enemy that when their new top leader captures two American soldiers, he personally brags about brutalizing them as he kills them. Wouldn't it be nice if the enemy we faced were more principled than that? Wouldn't it be better? But I am afraid the reality is different. I am afraid the reality is that we are facing a radical terrorist enemy that knows it can't win a war conventionally, knows it can't win a vote of the people so therefore they have settled upon an asymmetric method of warfare to utilize whatever destructive capacity they can generate, even the suicide of women and children to carry out their diabolical ends, and they are going to continue that. Mr. President, it is the kind of threat that we are just going to have to face, and we are going to have to strengthen this Iraqi Government. I heard it said that we can never be involved in a civil war. Well, we were there and we talked about whether there was a civil war, and I think those of us who understand in terms of the United States of America what a civil war is, that is not a civil war in Iraq. But there is a high level of violence, a higher level of violence than we cannot accept and the Iraqi people cannot accept. We know that. It is not quite the same thing as a civil war. But that conflict can be brought under control. I believe we are on the verge of bringing it under control, but it will not be easy. Some say we haven't done anything like this before. Well, how about Bosnia? Wasn't that a brutal sectarian war that we had to send forces into? What about Kosovo? Wasn't that basically a civil war that we sent our troops into? It hasn't been settled perfectly today, but both of those countries are having some stability. They don't have strong governments, frankly. I have been somewhat disappointed in how Kosovo's Government has come together, but at least it is a peaceful country and operating in a fairly decent way. So to say that we can't help make a difference when there is sectarian violence by the utilization of American forces, I think, is wrong. We have done it before, and we can do it again. I would say to my colleague, the Senator from Massachusetts, he has just had a litany of criticisms of the conduct of this war. I wonder what he would have said were he in the Senate during the Civil War. With all the problems and the years that went by, and General Lee with smaller forces defeated repeatedly the larger forces, what would the Senator from Massachusetts be saying about that? Would he be saying: We need to pull back our troops? And what about World War II and all of the problems we had, and World War I for example? Senator Warner just gave me on the trip I referred to recently a book about World War I, and I just completed it. We lost 18,000 people killed in 1 day at the Battle of Meuse, Argonne, in World War I--18,000 in 1 day. I have talked to Alabama families who lost children in Iraq. We have lost 2,500 in Iraq in the time that we have been there, and that is a grim number. Every one of those losses represents the best kind of people this country can produce, and my heart breaks for those families. But the cost of freedom has always been high, and our interests in fighting a war on terrorism is high, and we have to be smart about it. We have to be careful about it. We have to have a debate in this country, and that is all right. But I would say again that I was very proud of this Senate when we voted a few days ago on the original Kerry amendment to have the troops out by the end of this year, and it was voted down 93 to 6. Presumably, he may have accumulated some more votes now for moving the date to 6 months later, but I suspect he will not have a whole lot of votes for that because it is just not good policy. We have a country that has only really formed on a permanent basis in the last few weeks. The Prime Minister was elected just a couple of months ago. His last Cabinet members were just recently selected. They were voted on by the Parliament, elected by the people. Millions of Iraqis have gone out and voted three times now. So this Government, the real Government, not a transitional or interim government, but the real Government, fully elected by the people, has only been in office a few weeks. And the enemy knows that if this Government is successful, their message of violence and hatred, extremism, oppression of women, they know those visions, those ideas they have that they want to impose on the people will be lost, and they don't want that to happen. And they are doing everything they possibly can to win the war in Iraq. The Iraqi Army and the Iraqi police are taking far more casualties now than the Americans are. They are out front in many provinces in Iraq. They are conducting military operations on a regular basis by themselves. Sometimes we go together; sometimes we have embedded Americans with the Iraqi forces. They are stepping up. But they are not ready yet. Their military is not there yet. It is not as fully equipped and it is not as fully trained. They don't have the confidence and the chain of command, their logistics are not where we would like them to be compared to a modern American Army. And they can be vulnerable to these kinds of terrorist attacks by which small groups of the military can be overrun or attacked and it can destabilize that country right now. So I think the best course is to listen to our military leaders as we decide how and whether to conduct our military operations there. I remember being with GEN John Abizaid, commander for CENTCOM, the combatant commander for this region of the world. He has been involved in this closely. He speaks Arabic. He grew up for a number of years in the Middle East. He understands this area. He has been a student of it. He is a brilliant general. He told me on an airplane back when people were saying: We need to send in more troops--he said: No, we don't need--in his opinion--he said: We don't need to send in more troops. We need to train up the Iraqi forces so we can reduce our presence. I say that to you, Mr. President, because I want the American people to know that the combatant commander, the one who is giving the advice to President Bush, does not believe in excessively maintaining forces in Iraq. He understands that it would be better if we could reduce them. But he also understands the challenges that exist in Iraq today. That is why his recommendation is that we not have a resolution like this. And General Casey likewise, it is his recommendation that we not have a resolution like this. I thought about the idea that somehow we can have, as one Senator said, an accelerated redeployment, or really a date for withdrawal, under Senator Kerry's amendment. Will this pullout, cut-and-run mentality, help us and help the Iraqis defeat al-Qaida? Really? If we pull out right now, will that help the Iraqis defeat the al-Qaida forces? Will it help reduce sectarian violence? I wish it were so. I wish we could pull right out and they would all be nice and we wouldn't have any more fighting. Would it help reduce the criminality in the country? Would it help strengthen and provide confidence to those members of the new Iraqi Government? Or would it increase their nervousness, would it increase their insecurity, at a time when we need to get that government off to a good start and, as Senator Warner said, send their roots into the soil for stability? Would it help establish the police force if we just pulled out? A lot of Iraqis are signing up every day to be policemen. They have become targets of the terrorists on a regular basis. But I think they are provided confidence and comfort to know the American military is there to support them. Right now I do not believe there is enough strength in the Iraqi military, in the context of the Iraqi people, to survive a precipitous withdrawal. I think it could destabilize them. Maybe not, but I think there is a real likelihood of it. I just would say we ought to think carefully about what our generals have told us. The amendment submitted by Senator Kerry, I think, goes too far. I do not believe a conference, a meeting in any capital city anywhere in the world is going to settle the conflict in Iraq. I do not believe pulling our troops out is going to reduce the threats in Iraq. I believe what we have to do is do what General Abizaid and General Casey have told us; let's maintain our presence, let's draw it down as rapidly as we can, but let's do it consistent with the raising up of a legitimate military and police force in that country. And let's do what we can to strengthen and create credibility in the Iraqi Government. You should never tell your enemy what your plan is. You should never give him a guaranteed plan of withdrawal or any other plan that you are going to execute, particularly when you are dealing with an asymmetric enemy like these terrorists. Clausewitz warned of this type of war planning and making your intentions known. He said this ``the essence of the defense''--think what these terrorists are about. They are defending their dream of a terrorist-dominated state. Clausewitz says: The essence of the defense is waiting: waiting until the attacker clarifies his own intentions; waiting until the balance of forces shifts; waiting for any improvement in the defender's situation, whether from the culminating process described above, from outside intervention, from mobilization of his own resources, or from some chance development. Time is almost always on the side of the defender. Our Nation is on the offensive in the war against terror and we have been blessed that, since 9/11, we have not had another attack on our homeland. Who would have thought that possible? Certainly people were afraid to get on an airplane for weeks afterwards. They wouldn't go to shopping malls. We have been blessed to have gone this far without another attack. The terrorists are using every desperate act they can to break the will of the Iraqis and our U.S. forces and our U.S. political system. This would undercut the foundation of our military efforts. So victory must be tied to results and victory is what we must have--not an amendment calling for redeployment measured in days or hours. President Bush has established a strategy for a victory in Iraq that is condition-based, not based on arbitrarily selected dates. Why not December 31? Why not April 1? Why not July 4? It is not a way to make a strategy in a military situation. The President's strategy focuses, rather, on the accomplishment of specific objectives. President Bush has said: Victory will come when the terrorists and the Saddamists can no longer threaten Iraq's democracy, when the Iraq security forces can provide for the safety of their own citizens, and when Iraq is not a safe haven for terrorists to plot new attacks on our Nation. The President knows Iraq must stand up and do its part. In his most recent visit to Iraq the President urged the Iraqis to ``seize the moment and we, the United States, will help them succeed. When America gives a commitment, America keeps its word.'' He said: If the United States of America leaves before this Iraqi government can defend itself and sustain itself and govern itself, it will be a major blow to the war on terror. I certainly would agree with that, as Senator Warner has so eloquently stated. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld explained why a time-phased plan for redeployment is wrong. He said: Once you start doing that, then you are stuck with a number and a date and it just doesn't do any good. The decision to withdraw is based [must be based] on conditions on the ground. Some supporting this amendment and others who are calling for this exit strategy of time-phased withdrawals stake their claim on past experiences in other conflicts. This global war on terror is different. The enemy here has not surrendered. He does not wear a uniform. He is not sequestered in a country bounded by borders. He has not signed a peace accord and he has not given up his arms. He, unlike Vietnam, is sworn to attack this country if he is successful and emboldened and gets his hands on the wealth of the Iraqi oil. Will our country be safe? Will they stay in Iraq and not continue to attack us, as they have, if the terrorists take over their country? He fights in an asymmetric fashion unlike any we fought before, and we cannot put our people and our allies at risk by shirking our responsibilities in any way that will undermine the opportunity that we have to have a victory and a stable government in Iraq. Our generals on the ground understand this and have offered their perspectives on what impact this type of time-phased redeployment would have on the Iraqi situation. I know we have had people here who have served. Senator Warner has served in World War II and Korea. Senator Kerry served in Vietnam. But what about General Abizaid, Commander of the U.S. Central Command? He has given his life to the service of the military and in that region of the world. He has overall responsibility for Operation Iraqi Freedom, and he recently spoke to Prime Minister Maliki and said: The Iraqi people don't want to go back to the 6th century. The Afghanis don't want to live under the rule they experienced under the Taliban. They don't want bin Laden to win. There is clear preference expressed by the people in both Iraq and Afghanistan to vote. The fact that they voted is their way of reaching out to the future. General Abizaid warns of leaving the region without proper conditions on the ground with respect to the terrorists in that all they, the terrorists. He says: All they do is destroy and kill and try to grab headlines. They believe by doing that they can gain time and eventually the coalition will leave. And when we leave there will be states vulnerable to their ideology. General George Casey--he is the commander of all our forces in Iraq-- recently said this: I think as long as the Iraqi security forces continue to progress and as long as this national unity government continues to operate that way and move the country forward, I think we are going to be able to see continued gradual reductions of coalition forces over the coming months and into the next year. That is his prediction. Somehow I have the vision of, out in the country, the dogs we used to have. You would get in the car and drive down the road and the dog would chase after the car, thinking somehow, I guess, that it made the car run off, that the car was afraid of it. I think sometimes some in this body are afraid we are actually going to be able to draw down troops in the next year or so. They think if they can just pass a resolution mandating it, then they can claim credit for it. General Casey's comments do mention the force reduction, but he ties the reduction to the status of the development of the Iraqi security forces and the national unity government's success. This amendment, the Kerry amendment, calls on the President to begin a deployment, beginning in 2006, in stark contrast to the best judgment of the most senior United States commanders in Iraq. Who should we listen to? General Abizaid and General Casey, I submit. U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, whom we met in Iraq a few weeks ago, said the formation of the government, with crucial involvement from Saddam's once dominant fellow Sunnis is a great sign of progress. He states: I believe that with the political changes taking place--the emphasis on unity and reconciliation, with effective ministers . . . that conditions are likely to move in the right direction that would allow adjustment in terms of the size, composition and mission of our forces. In closing, I would like to highlight the recent comments by the man entrusted with advising Prime Minister Maliki on the national security of the new Iraqi democracy and what his items are concerning a time- phased reduction in U.S. forces. Mowaffak al-Rubaie, the recently approved Iraq minister for national security, expressed his concerns in the Washington Post. I believe it was today or yesterday. He stated: There has been much talk about a withdrawal of U.S. and coalition troops from Iraq, but no defined timeline has yet been set. There is, however, an unofficial roadmap to foreign troop reductions that will eventually lead to total withdrawal of U.S. troops. This roadmap is based, not just on a series of dates but, more important, on the achievement of a set of objectives for restoring security in Iraq. I want to conclude by saying how proud I am of our military. I was pleased that the original Kerry amendment was voted down 93 to 6. I think by moving that date forward 6 months, the vote is not going to change very much. I know Senator Levin has offered an amendment. I will just say this about it. I serve with Senator Levin on the Armed Services Committee. I am sure he is trying to reach some sort of compromise, some sort of unifying amendment for the Democratic side. I am really sort of disappointed at it, because I don't think, if adopted, it will serve any purpose and could cause much mischief and be misinterpreted. I urge my colleagues to vote against both amendments, and I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I have one more question I want to ask my colleague. I remember--I personally have a vivid recollection of being in a meeting, our delegation was, just a few months ago in Baghdad, with the Sunni leader. Do you remember the insecurity he felt about whether our Nation would remain in Iraq? He made a commitment to join with this Government, and some of his Sunni people didn't agree with that. He realized that a precipitous withdrawal which he had heard something about in the media could jeopardize the ability of that country to hold together, and maybe even jeopardize his own life because he had stepped up and invested himself in trying to create a good and decent democratic government. Do you remember that discussion?

Mr. SESSIONS. It is not as if they haven't been told that. And they assured us at that time that they understood that, and they felt that responsibility deeply. Is that the impression you got?

Mr. SESSIONS. Before this permanent government was in place, and I remember you and Senator Levin, along with Senator Salazar and others-- --

Mr. SESSIONS. I remember when we were there just a few months ago.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, before the chairman leaves, I want to tell him how much I appreciated his analysis and summary of where we are. He noted that we may have had as many as a million or more people at one time or another investing their very lives in a successful operation of this country, and we have just gotten a government up and they have just elected a Defense Minister a few weeks ago and an Interior Minister. Based on the long chairmanship and leadership of the Senator from Virginia in the Senate and as former Secretary of the Navy, let me ask the Senator again: Does he think that we would be creating grave risks that are not necessary by a precipitous withdrawal at this time?

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I say to the chairman, 20 to 30 minutes.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I do have some remarks, and I would deliver those after the others have finished their time tonight if it is not too late, and I would just share a few thoughts at this time. We have been given a great heritage in our country. We have been given a Nation that is the greatest Nation in the world at this time. We have the finest military the world has ever known. We have a great democracy where we have full and vigorous debate. I was here when we debated the question of whether or not to issue that ultimatum to Saddam Hussein, and we knew then if he didn't accept it, if he didn't allow the inspectors in and if he didn't renounce weapons of mass destruction, we would be going to war, and that was the vote and we knew it and everybody discussed it. It went on for months. People say it was quick. It went on for months. I will tell you what I said about why we went. I looked back at my remarks. It was not based on primarily weapons of mass destruction. We were dealing with Iraq for years. We had a war with them in 1991, and we defeated them and sent their Army going back to Baghdad. In effect, Saddam Hussein sued for peace and he made a series of promises to keep us from following and destroying his Army completely and invading his country and removing him from power, and he made those commitments, and he did not follow them. There were a number of U.N. resolutions that he was in violation of. He rejected the international community, and an embargo had been placed on Iraq. The United States was attempting to enforce that embargo. Saddam Hussein was consistently working to get around that embargo. We were flying in no-fly zones and enforcing no-fly zones over Iraq. He was shooting at our airplanes on a daily basis, almost. We were dropping bombs on Saddam Hussein on a regular basis, dropping bombs from our aircraft. So the question was, as The Economist magazine said, are we going to quit our efforts, are we going to issue an ultimatum and be prepared to go to war if they do not? Their editorial said, the London-based Economist magazine said, our vote is for war. That was that London journal's opinion. That is the way I felt about it. Iraq was a rogue nation that had tremendous amounts of oil, it had a dictator prepared to use weapons of mass destruction, use weapons of mass destruction against his own people, and he was determined to break the embargo, determined to be able to sell his oil on the world market, not for his own people's good but to build up his military power, just like he did when he invaded Kuwait, and be the preeminent Nebakanezer of the Middle East. That was his goal. It remained his goal. It probably still is as long as he takes a breath. So we gave him that ultimatum, and with the support of large numbers of nations in the world--I believe some 60 supported us, including nations like the United Kingdom and Australia and others--he refused to comply and we commenced our military action. This Nation made a decision to remove him from power and we voted on it as a Senate, and we sent our soldiers in harm's way. We did not do that lightly. No great Nation which expects to be respected will send its soldiers into harm's way with a half-hearted commitment to them. When I talk to those soldiers, as I did recently at the 231st birthday of the United States Army over at the Jefferson Memorial, and I talked to those soldiers and we were discussing these kinds of deadlines and policies and directives to set forth plans as to how the war should be conducted, one of them said to me, Senator, let me tell you what we want. We want to win. And I have talked to families who lost loved ones in Iraq, and they tell me every time--it is amazing--my son was doing what he believed in, what he wanted to do. I submit we owe them the responsibility to be faithful to them and not to dishonor their sacrifice by cutting and running when it is not time to do so. I believe that very, very sincerely. So I would just say to my colleagues, I can see how we have differences of opinion, and I understand that. I remember the debate and I remember the vote I cast and I knew it was very serious. No Nation that desires its own self-respect or the respect of other nations can be flippant about those kinds of matters. When you make a commitment, you stay the course. Iraq has formed a new government completely now. They have a parliament. They have elected all their ministers. They have their interior and defense ministers in place. They are determined to continue to grow and strengthen their Army and their security forces. I believe they still need American help to get over that hump and be successful. We should not disregard the advice of our military leaders and set an artificial date, not connected to military and political reality in Iraq, for leaving Iraq. I think that would be the very wrong thing to do. And nothing could be more corrosive to our self-confidence as a Nation or to our own military than to prematurely give up on the opportunity we have to create a good and stable government in Iraq. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. I would note we wrestled before Y2K as to how many high-skilled foreign workers the U.S. needed to let in for that period--you and I both discussed that in the Judiciary Committee and whether it would adversely impact the wages of high-skilled American workers. I would say that the current rate of immigration, legal and illegal--and I believe there is a growing consensus that supports this view--has depressed the wages of low- skilled American workers. I would ask the Senator if he would dispute the fact that the immigration bill he introduced would have greatly increased the number of immigrants into the country and wouldn't that have further adversely impacted the wages of low-skilled American workers?

Mr. SESSIONS. I yield the floor, Mr. President.

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Chair. He goes on to say: Facing greater labor costs, some would find ways to minimize costs. But he goes on to ask this question, and let me quote Professor Samuelson: What is wrong with higher wages for the poorest workers? From 1994 to 2004, the wages of high school dropouts rose only 2.3 percent after inflation, compared with 11.9 percent for college graduates. The number of native high school dropouts with jobs declined by 1.3 million from 2000 to 2005. Some lost jobs to immigrants. Unemployment remains high for some groups; 9.3 percent for African Americans. I know that is true in my State. Although we have a great unemployment rate in Alabama--under 4 percent--we still have a far too high rate among the African-American community. And 12.7 percent for white teenagers, he notes. He says this: Poor immigrant workers hurt the wages of unskilled Americans; the only question is how much. One estimate, he said, was 10 percent. We discussed these issues in the Judiciary Committee. We had one hearing on it. We had a number of professors, including Professor Freeman, the Ascherman Professor of Economics at Harvard. He said these things about the jobs and wages of American workers: One of the concerns when immigrants come in is they may take jobs from some Americans and drive down the wages of some Americans and obviously, if there are a large number of immigrants coming in, if they are coming in at a bad economic time, that is very likely to happen. Professor Chiswick, University of Illinois at Chicago said the following: The large increase in low-skilled immigration has had the effect of decreasing the wages and employment opportunities of low-skilled workers who are currently resident in the United States. He said this: Over the past two decades, the real earnings of high- skilled workers has risen substantially. The real earnings of low-skilled workers have either stagnated or decreased. These economists are telling us what other people will not. We are being told by the business community that there is this incredible shortage out there--they can't find workers so they have to have foreign workers--but now we know the earnings of low-skilled workers have stagnated and decreased. Why? If a business wants to find more workers, they will usually increase wages, not decrease them. He goes on to say--my time is about up, but I have quite a number of others. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I didn't expect to hear the Democratic leader talk about the immigration bill this morning and his and Senator Kennedy's desire to rush it through the House of Representatives, calling for action now. It is a very bad bill, and it impacts directly the issues we are talking about today--wages for working Americans. I am going to talk about that issue and ask our colleagues to give serious thought to the matters I will raise. With regard to our colleagues who claim they are concerned about poverty among American workers, I ask those Members--Senator Reid and Senator Kennedy--who proposed the immigration bill and tried to rush it through this Senate without any amendments to consider some of the concerns of their own allies, economists and professors, who believe that if passed, it would damage the wages of American workers. I agree that we have a troubling condition in our country. People have referred to it often as the wage gap, that higher income people seem to be doing well, but there has been a lag in performance among lower income workers. That has caused quite a bit of concern. I am not sure exactly what the economic numbers show on that, but repeatedly, we have been told often from our Democratic colleagues--but not so much lately--that there is a growing gap in income. Why is this occurring? I wish to share some thoughts about it because I believe it is important. Let me mention this: I don't want the American worker to have a $7.25-an-hour job; I want them to have a $15-an-hour job, a $30-an-hour job. That is what we want in an economy that is growing and prosperous. We want a full-employment economy where people can choose jobs that fulfill their highest aspirations and pay them a good wage, with good retirement and good health care, and we are creating a growing economy that nurtures that. But for some reason, the wages in some job markets have not kept up as well as they should. I will read from a number of experts on this matter and ask my colleagues to think about it, not what I say but what the experts say. I am looking at a Washington Post article from Jonathan Weisman, March 31, dealing with this precise issue of minimum wage and immigration. It is titled ``Immigration Divides Allies, Guest Worker Plan Sets Democratic Supports Against Organized Labor.'' It starts off saying this: A growing body of economic research contends that the recent surge of foreign workers has depressed wages for low- skilled workers, especially for high school dropouts, and has even begun displacing native-born workers. Then the article quotes Professor George Borjas, an economist at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government. He has written a definitive book on immigration, ``Heaven's Door.'' He says: What immigration really does is redistribute wealth away from workers toward employers. I did mention my good friend Senator Kennedy. Senator Kennedy has been a champion for civil rights, and a champion for helping us fight poverty, and he cares about this issue very deeply. He sincerely does. But I suggest he is not always perfectly correct on how to fix it. We can have a legitimate debate about how to improve the wages of working Americans, and that is what we need to be talking about. The article says: Kennedy, the Senate's liberal lion and an unflagging ally of organized labor, says the [immigration] legislation he co- wrote would help all low-wage workers by applying minimum- wage laws and other . . . protections. The AFL-CIO disagrees. According to John Sweeney, the AFL-CIO President: Guest-worker programs cast [American] workers into a perennial second-class status and unfairly put their fates into their employers' hands, creating a situation ripe for exploitation. . . . He goes on: ``They encourage employers to turn good jobs into temporary jobs at reduced wages and diminished working conditions and contribute to the growing class of workers laboring in poverty.'' That was Mr. Sweeney. Mr. Weisman, the staff writer for the Washington Post, then quotes Professor Borjas: But some of those macroeconomic gains have come at the expense of low-wage workers, especially the 10 percent of the labor force that dropped out of high school. In recent years, competition from low-skilled immigrant workers has reduced the wages of high school dropouts by as much as 8 percent, Borjas said. How about another professor, Andrew Sum, director of Northeastern University's Center for Labor Market Studies. The article says quotes him: Looking at annual earnings, the percentage losses are in the double digits, said Andrew Sum, director of Northeastern University's Center for Labor Market Studies, because jobs that once provided year-round employment are increasingly becoming temporary. A Northeastern University study found that nearly 86 percent---- Listen to this, I say to my colleagues, this is important for us. A Northeastern study found that nearly 86 percent of all newly employed workers hired from 2000 to 2005 were immigrants. For men, the statistics were more stark. In that time, the labor market for men rose by 2.66 million while 2.77 million foreign-born men found work. Listen to that: The Northeastern study found that foreign-born workers filled all of the new jobs created for men between 2000 and 2005, plus some other jobs. In other words, Sum said, immigrants have begun replacing native-born male workers. In the immigration bill floor debate, if we not forced the Democratic side to allow us to have some amendments and reduce some of the incredible increases in immigration under the bill as presented, it would have been shocking what the immigration bill would have done to the jobs and wages of American workers. Even after successful amendments that cut the numbers of low-skilled workers allowed to come in the future, the Senate bill will still, over 20 years, virtually triple the number of people coming into our country legally, not counting those who will continue to come illegally. That will undoubtedly impact our economy. That is why the House of Representatives needs to examine this bill very carefully before we go to conference. How about this one? Professor Sum is quoted again in the Post article: ``Young guys are being displaced by immigrants,'' he said. ``Some of my good liberal friends take issue, but if you're a young worker under 25, poorly educated, probably African American, the higher the share of new immigrants in your community, the worse your employment prospects are becoming.'' How about Carol Swain, a law professor and political scientist at Vanderbilt University? She is also quoted in the Post article: ``What they're doing is increasing the pool of people eligible to compete for the very limited resources that are available for the people at the bottom. . . .The obligation of the nation should be for the people who have been here for decades.'' How about the famous economics professor Robert Samuelson? He wrote an article in May in the Washington Post titled ``Still Dodging Immigration's Truths.'' He quotes approvingly from the testimony before our Judiciary Committee of Barry Chiswick, University of Illinois, an immigration scholar, most respected, who said the presence of immigrants in the labor market: Increases competition for low-skilled jobs, reducing the earnings of low-skilled native-born workers. Because of their low earnings, low-skilled immigrants also tend to pay less in taxes than they receive in public benefits. . . . Hardly anyone is discussing these issues candidly. We can be a lawful society and a welcoming society simultaneously [as President Bush has said] but we cannot be a welcoming society for limitless numbers . . . without seriously compromising our own future. Part of the future he is talking about, is the future of the American worker. Samuelson goes on to say, and I quote the line from Professor Samuelson's article: ``Competition among them [low-skilled workers] depresses wages.'' He is talking about the additional flow of illegal immigrants into our country, or legal immigrants, for that matter. Increasing competition for the American worker by increasing the number of immigrant workers available in the labor market will depress the wages for the American worker. In another article, Professor Samuelson, says this. He notes that illegal immigrants already here represent only about 4.9 percent of the labor force, and in no major occupation are immigrants a majority. They are 36 percent of insulation workers, 28 percent of drywall installers, and 20 percent of cooks who are drawn here by wage differences, not labor shortages. He writes about how most new illegal immigrants get work by accepting wages below the prevailing rates. What would happen, he asks, if new, illegal immigration stopped and wasn't replaced by guest workers? Well, some employers would raise wages to attract U.S. workers.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask that I be notified when I have consumed 12 minutes.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would like to make some remarks today about Alabama's State champion and national finalist in the ``We the People'' competition. Vestavia Hills High School placed fourth in the national We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution national finals, held in Washington, DC. This impressive competition, headed by the Center for Civic Education, engaged young people in the fundamental ideals and values of American constitutional government. Members of this remarkable team from Vestavia Hills included Grace Anthony, Georgiy Bolshinskiy, Barrett Bowdre, Courtney Bragg, Jeannette Dooley, Daniel Driscoll, Claire Foster, Sarah Graffeo, Lauren Howard, Sarah McKibben, Patrick Mulligan, John Nicholson, Tiffany Parrish, Hanna Perry, John Phillips, Joseph Siegelman, Mary Kendal Spires, William Edward Stevenson, Emily Unnasch, Amy Watson, Ryan Woodford, and Ansley Zarra. I congratulate Amy Maddox, the teacher who led this fine team. Teachers shape the future, and I appreciate Ms. Maddox's investment in these students. As a former educator and the father of three children, I have a great admiration for educators, and I am grateful that educators like Ms. Maddox are making a difference. I thank U.S. District Judge Karon Bowdre for her involvement and support of the Vestavia Hills High School team. Judge Bowdre is a person of great intellectual and academic ability who understands and reveres our Constitution. I am very proud that she has given of her talents to this worthy project. I thank Janice Cowin, the executive director of the Alabama Center for Law and Civic Education. I applaud the efforts of students, teachers, and community leaders who made this accomplishment possible. Vestavia Hills High School is an exceptional school and has represented Alabama well. I encourage these students to continue pursuing a deep understanding of the Constitution and our Government. It is important that we raise up quality leaders who will serve our country in years to come.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 518 submitted earlier today.

Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I certainly respect the Senator's thoughts about that. I must follow up a little bit. First, what happened at Nuremberg happened after the war was over.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I appreciate the eloquent remarks of my colleague and his sharing of insight into Nuremberg and a number of thoughts that he shared with us about the rule of law, which I think is very important. I note that at Nuremberg they tried and executed quite a number of people who conducted their war unfairly, in an unlawful way and went beyond being prisoners of war. They were, in fact, tried for crimes that they had committed. I also say to my colleague with great sincerity that we are respecting the rule of law. These individuals that are caught and held at Guantanamo, some may qualify as a prisoner of war, many do not. They are what I have called--others used enemy combatants--unlawful combatants because they were carrying out combat in an unlawful way. They did not carry arms openly. They did not wear a uniform. They moved surreptitiously. They killed randomly women, children--actions that deny them the status of a lawful combatant and a prisoner of war. They are then held, if nothing else, certainly with legal protection because the Geneva Conventions cover people who are lawful combatants, who wage war for legitimate nations in a legitimate way.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I have been to Guantanamo twice, and I have seen the work of our military personnel, the good morale they have under difficult conditions, their determination to provide every decent and right request and treatment to the prisoners who are there. I have seen areas where they are detained, the religious freedom that they give them, including a Koran and prayer rugs and things that they have requested, the exercise that they obtain. It is, I believe, in all respects a very fine prison that treats people in a decent way. But as the Senator from South Carolina noted, these individuals are prisoners of war, and prisoners of war are not given trials. In the history of the United States of America, we do not give prisoners of war trials. They are detained until the conflict is over. What about those who have gone beyond just being a combatant against the United States but have become an unlawful combatant, violating all the rules of warfare and are therefore apprehended and detained? Should they be given more rights than a properly uniformed and properly lawful combatant is given who is detained by an enemy? I think not. I would suggest these are matters that are within the parameters of the U.S. military to handle. They have no desire to maintain a single prisoner any longer than they have to. They have released several hundred already, and 15 of those have been rearrested on the battlefield where they are presumably attempting to fight the United States of America and our soldiers and our allies around the world. So I would say to my colleagues, these are not academic questions. They are matters of real life and death and must be carefully thought through. Under the circumstances we are now dealing with regarding prisoners in Guantanamo, we don't need to micro-manage the military. I would agree with Senator Bingaman that his amendment at first glance says that they must be charged with a crime, filed in an appropriate Federal district court of the United States or a military tribunal or an international criminal tribunal or repatriated to the country of origin or some other country. That is a mandate. The amendment goes on to say: But with respect to those who are not so charged, the Department of Defense must submit a report saying why they haven't been charged and when they will be handled in this matter. So I think in conflict, as Senator Graham has detailed, it goes to the historic manner by which any nation, and in particular the United States, handles prisoners of war. Again, I have seen the conduct at Guantanamo. I think it is an appropriate facility considering the danger that these individuals pose. It is an appropriate location. It makes it very difficult for them to break free and kill other people. The Department of Defense actually is continuing to improve it. They give the prisoners first- rate meals, first-rate medical care. Until the three suicides we saw recently, not a single prisoner had died in Guantanamo of any kind of causes, natural or otherwise. So I believe this amendment is not necessary. I think it would have the effect of restricting the power of the executive branch to carry out this war on terrorism and manage the military's treatment of prisoners. The Department of Defense wants to get rid of them. They have tried to repatriate numbers of them. But some of them are just dangerous and must be detained. I would ask, how would a prosecutor prove a case? Some would say we will just give them a trial. What if they were captured in the mountains of Afghanistan and maybe the soldier who captured them was later killed, or maybe he was reassigned to Korea or some other place? It is not so easy to have trials of prisoners of war, and that is why it has never been done and why I think the amendment, which is carefully drafted and attempts to avoid some of the worst criticisms that might be made of it, is, nevertheless, a step too far, and I believe we should reject it. I just want to point out a number of things that are important about how careful our military is, unlike what happens when American military prisoners are captured, apparently, as we saw today, the horror of being captured, tortured and killed by the al-Qaida forces in Iraq, who are just brutal in their treatment of American prisoners. We give the prisoners at Guantanamo a combatant status review tribunal--a tribunal consisting of three people, the Department of Defense Combatant Status Review Tribunal process pursuant to a Supreme Court plurality opinion in Hamdi. Hamdi dealt with due process for American citizens. The process created was applied to all foreign nationals detained at Guantanamo and went beyond the process referred to by the Supreme Court of the United States. It went beyond that. The Combatant Status Review Tribunal provides a venue for detainees to personally challenge their status as enemy combatants. They were given that opportunity. As of January 22, 2005, the Department of Defense had completed 558 CSRTs. Of the 558 hearings that were conducted, the enemy combatant status of 520 detainees was confirmed, and 38 detainees were found to be no longer meeting the criteria to be designated as enemy combatants. The Administrative Review Board is another process the Department of Defense has implemented. This administrative review process makes an annual assessment of whether there is continued reason to believe that the enemy combatant poses a threat to the United States or its allies, or whether there are factors bearing upon the need or the continued detention, including the enemy combatant's intelligence value, in the global war on terror. That is what this board does every year for every prisoner. Based on this assessment, the Administrative Review Board can recommend that individuals should be released or should be transferred with conditions or should continue to be detained. Allowing detained enemy fighters to be heard and potentially released or transferred while hostilities are ongoing, as they are this very minute in Iraq and Afghanistan, is a historic and unprecedented step. We have never done that before in war. The first year, the Administrative Review Board resulted in 330 continue-to-detain decisions, 119 transfer decisions, and 14 release decisions. So these are not rubber stamps. The Department of Defense is attempting to move people out, to transfer them, or release the people they can justify releasing. But remember, 15 of those former prisoners at Guantanamo, who have been released, have later been detained and captured on the battlefield seeking to fight America. The second year of the Administrative Review Board process, in this annual process, resulted thus far in 12 continue-to-detain decisions, 6 transfer decisions, and no release decisions. That is as of June 20 of this year. So the Department of Defense has created a system that goes beyond what this Nation has ever utilized in time of war to deal with an attempt to release persons who have been captured as prisoners of war fighting the United States of America. They didn't do that for German prisoners. They didn't do it for Japanese prisoners. They didn't do it for North Korean prisoners. They didn't do it for Vietnamese prisoners. These are unprecedented steps. I think it is more than is required, but it is a generous step for the United States to take, and I certainly support that. Mr. President, as of May of 2006, 287 detainees have departed Guantanamo, 192 have been released, 95 have been transferred to other governments, including Albania, Afghanistan, Australia, Bahrain, Belgium, Denmark, France, Great Britain, Kuwait, Morocco, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Sweden, and Uganda. We would like to release them all, if we could. But the President of the United States took an oath to protect the people of the United States from attack by enemies. If he releases prisoners who we believe will have any reasonable basis to continue to attempt to kill American citizens or American soldiers, he is derelict in his duty. This is not some game he is playing. This is not some academic process that the generals who are supervising this are involved in or the Administrative Review Board members or the Combatant Status Review Tribunals are dealing with. They can't make a mistake. If they make a mistake, somebody could die. I know the operations at Guantanamo have raised complaints from some of our allies, specifically a complaint from one British official. I am so proud of the support the British government and population has shown to the United States, but I have to tell you, I don't know what the man expected us to do. Did he want us to release all 500 of them? Is that what he would want? Is that what the other people on our editorial boards like to write about? We should just release them? Well, maybe Great Britain would like to take them. Maybe the United Kingdom would like to take them and house them in their jails. Would they really? Would they release them? Would they want to release them on their subways or on their buses or on their trains in London? Three prisoners just committed suicide last week at Guantanamo, and amazingly, we had newspapers in this great Nation that purport to be wise and thoughtful pandering to those seeking to close Guantanamo by suggesting that they are somehow killing themselves because they are depressed. One of these was an active member of the Taliban forces who fought against the United States. One was a recognized leader in al-Qaida-- they are from Yemen and Saudi Arabia and other places. I believe two were from Saudi Arabia and one was from Yemen. Do we want to release prisoners like these? They hanged themselves. I suggest, with all sincerity, that these three prisoners did not commit suicide together, the same day, because they got depressed over mistreatment. Most of them have gained weight and have been well treated, well fed, and given superb medical care. That is not why they committed suicide. They committed suicide as a continuation of their commitment to jihad and to prepare to commit suicide to further jihad. If they had a bomb with which they could have blown themselves up and others, Americans or other people, they would have done that. They absolutely would have done that. But because they were in our custody and couldn't get hold of a bomb and wrap it around their body and kill men, women and children on buses or trains or something like that. The only thing they could do was kill themselves in hopes they would have editorials around the world, editorials in New York City and Washington, DC, have Senators and Congressmen on the floor of the House and the Senate saying how badly we are treating these prisoners of war, these unlawful combatants, and suggesting they all ought to be turned loose and how this is America's fault. The fact that these three prisoners, clearly terrorists, committed suicide the same day is absolute proof that they were threats to innocent people and to the United States of America. It is proof that they had that threat capability. If they had been released, do you think they would have just gone nicely back home to work a job in Yemen or work on a pipeline in Saudi Arabia? No, they are committed jihadists. They are terrorists. That is why they were in Guantanamo. I am glad they hadn't been released like some of the others and I am glad that those like them are still being detained there. They are not entitled to trial. I don't know what we will do with Guantanamo. The President said he would like to close it. I guess it would make some people happy around the world. Maybe they would get off his back. But somebody has to do something with them. I will tell you one thing, we can't release them all. Do we release them any better if they are brought back to the United States? Do we release them any better if we take them over to London or Madrid? I submit not. We have them in a safe place. They are being well taken care of. We have invested a lot of the taxpayers' money in making that facility at Guantanamo a good facility, a safe facility. I don't know why we would want to move them, other than just to make people feel better and stop fussing. But we are going to continue to apprehend people. When we went out after the bombing of Zarqawi and did these raids in 17 different spots and they arrested quite a number of people, what are they going to do with them? Turn them loose? When I was in Iraq recently, I heard about two brothers who were known bomb makers. Can you imagine someone a greater target of the United States military than a skilled bomb maker who is making bombs that kill American soldiers on a regular basis? They caught them and they thought they had enough proof. But the military decided they didn't. Or the court or somebody did, and they turned them loose. I am telling you, those military personnel and the civilians that worked with them to help build that case and to identify these bombers were really heartbroken. It was very painful for them to have to release somebody whom they believed had been responsible for killing innocent civilians in Iraq and American soldiers. But we didn't have enough proof, apparently, and we let them go. We don't need to keep pushing the military, pushing that you have to have proof beyond a reasonable doubt like you have to before you can lock up an American citizen--let's not put that kind of burden on our military. I think this Guantanamo matter is greatly overblown. We fail to realize just how dangerous some of the prisoners are. Hopefully, we can sift through them and find some more who are not dangerous and they can be released. Hopefully, we can send them back to foreign countries. But you know, when you send them back to a foreign country, things don't always work out right. You turn around and 6 months later, 2 years later, they are released. Or sometimes we have Members of the Senate who have made speeches and complained because, if we send them back to their home countries, the home countries realize they are terrorists, maybe even applied those tactics against their country, and they mistreat them. Now we are blamed for some treatment by a foreign government where we sent these prisoners. We were aggressive in interviewing prisoners at the outset of opening Guantanamo. We had a very good briefing last time I was there where the people said they really reduced the intensity of interrogations. In the weeks and days following September 11 when we thought and had every reason to believe that there were cells probably operating all over this country, the military and our intelligence people were aggressive in asking questions of them and pursuing interrogations. They did not torture them. I do not believe there has been a single allegation that has been substantiated of any torture at Guantanamo. But people took it farther and said the military was too harsh with these prisoners. So for a whole lot of reasons we don't pursue those tactics as strongly today. The standards are very lax in that regard--or strong in the sense that prisoners are not stressed and not abused in any way as they are being interrogated. In fact, just the opposite is the case. Occasionally, it is odd, after time goes by, somebody begins to talk. Some people never talk. I appreciate the interest of my colleagues in wanting to run the cleanest prison system we possibly can, to comply with the highest ideals of the United States. I believe if they went there and examined what was going on they would conclude, with me, that the prisoners are being treated well, that they are being given every help and dietary and religious values that they need. We should continue to do that. Sometime in the future we will have to wrestle with how we are going to handle them and maybe we can continue to repatriate them to the countries of origin. Maybe some actually ought to be tried and executed. Others simply need to be detained until the war is over. That is just the way it is, and that is the way it has always been. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 517 which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that John Rowe, a legislative intern in Senator Grassley's office, have floor privileges from now until the Senate adjourns at the end of the week.