Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I now ask for its second reading and, in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to my own request.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I understand there is a bill at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank Chairman Warner. I chair the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces of the Armed Services Committee. This matter is under our subcommittee's oversight area. I have great respect for Senator Allard, who is proposing the amendment. He chaired the same subcommittee. He is very much loyal to his workers in Colorado. He is very much determined they get everything that he can get them, and I think maybe a little more than they would be entitled to under a fair reading of the statute and the contract that is involved. Therefore, with the greatest respect to Senator Allard and others who may be supporting this amendment, I would oppose it. It reaches into a relationship between the contractor employees who are performing the cleanup at Rocky Flats and their employer, who is a company called Kaiser Hill. Kaiser Hill won the contract with the Department of Energy to perform cleanup work, and this deals with their relationship with their employees, not Government employees but employees for Kaiser Hill. How would it amend those terms of that agreement between Kaiser Hill and its private employees? The amendment directs the U.S. Secretary of Energy to instruct Kaiser Hill to grant retirement and health benefits to employees that those employees would have earned if the cleanup had taken longer than it actually did. So that is why, of course, the Department of Energy opposes it. They have looked at this very carefully. They have indicated they would be open to some sort of discussion about what might be done. I have also indicated that to those who support this amendment but have not heard back from them. So I believe the amendment as drafted is overreaching, and the Department of Energy objects to it. It is just not good policy for our Government. The cleanup did not take as long as some people projected, but everyone knew the cleanup was going to be accelerated and would end. It was not a limitless timeframe. Rocky Flats is not there anymore. It has been cleaned up. There is empty space. The workers have all been disbursed and gone to other jobs. I would just note that many Government contracts complete early or they do not run as long as anticipated. So we cannot start down the road of altering the benefits of contract workers when something happens good for the Government because the matter proceeded along and was able to be completed sooner than expected, although it was accelerated and everybody knew it was going to complete and complete sooner than many had projected. One of the things that every employee has, and this is important to note, every employee has been given a 1-year acceleration of the time and grade they get credit for, the time in service. The collective bargaining that went on as this contract moved forward, and everybody knew the contract would be completed early, they had a collective bargaining process, and they met with the steelworkers and others and they agreed that they would take a $4,200 basic payment because they were completing the work sooner, as an incentive or a thank-you for good work done. That was done, and they received that. So, again, this amendment would alter the freely entered-into agreement between these workers and Kaiser Hill concerning the early completion. Now, most of the Kaiser Hill employees were covered under the collective bargaining agreements which anticipated there would be staggered layoffs as the completion of the cleanup neared. Union workers negotiated substantial benefits such as lump-sum incentive payments in addition to providing for early and regular retirement benefits and an extra year in service. The Senate has recently conducted its debate on budget reconciliation. There has been a lot of debate and consideration about the fiscal situation in which this country finds itself. There was a debate about hard choices that we face as a Nation so we do not burden our children or grandchildren with financial obligations that, in retrospect, we cannot afford. If we were a private company, I ask my colleagues, would we say we could tell our stockholders that we paid more than we were supposed to pay for a cleanup? I think we are concerned about this mainly because we feel as governmental representatives, sometimes we ought to go further and do more. I know my colleague Senator Allard strongly believes we ought to do more and be generous. I do join him in commending the workers at Rocky Flats for what has been achieved. The cleanup is done and workers have moved on to other jobs and other employers. I cannot support, however, taking this unprecedented step--at least unprecedented to my knowledge--that is embodied in this amendment. It is contrary to good, sound fiscal policy, good governmental policy. It is noble to want a job to be recognized and people to be paid fairly for it. But military bases close around the country all the time. Awards for contracts for aircraft and ships get terminated. Sometimes they complete them sooner than expected. People do not expect to be paid forever. Agreements were reached, as I said, to make sure people would be generously compensated as a result of this early closing. I urge my colleagues, as difficult as they may find it, to vote ``no'' on this amendment. I think it would be the right thing for the country.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I believe we have a very fine Armed Services Committee. I have now been honored to serve on that committee for a number of years. With regard to this year's authorization bill, we have had 35 hearings in the committee or subcommittee. We have undertaken to deal with complex issues facing our military. The chairman and our committee have responded repeatedly to the requests of Democratic Senators to conduct a plethora of hearings dealing with any problems they can find, such as prisoner issues and that kind of thing. We have also conducted those in the Judiciary Committee, in the Intelligence Committee, in the House committees also. We have done quite a lot, frankly, as we have gone forward. I think it is time for us to give the highest priority, however, to assisting our men and women in uniform, men and women we have sent in harm's way to execute the policy of the United States of America--a policy that was adopted by the House of Representatives, a policy that was adopted by more than a three-fourths vote of this body. A majority of both parties voted to adopt these policies to execute force, to remove Saddam Hussein unless he complied with the U.N. resolutions, and to otherwise carry out our roles and responsibilities. We have done that, but we need to focus on how to help those soldiers we have sent be successful in creating a good and stable and democratic government in Iraq. It is important for us, it is important for the world, and, most of all, it is important for the people there who have suffered the greatest oppression for so many years. I think our committees have served well. I think we have worked at these issues well. We have now prepared a bill, a legislation piece, that will empower our military to be able to do their job better. I could not be more pleased than to serve under Chairman Warner and his leadership in the committee. He works collegially with all members of the Senate in our committee to move legislation along effectively. He has worked hard to get this bill where it is today. Without strong leadership, frankly, I am not sure we would be here today. We have passed the Defense appropriations bill, but we have not passed the Defense authorization bill. It would be unfortunate if we were not able to do so this year. Hopefully, if our colleagues will cooperate, if they have an amendment and bring it down and present it, they will be able to have all the amendments that have been promised, and we can get something done. We certainly do not need to delay or drag these matters out. I think this issue of our involvement in Iraq needs to be recalled a bit--how we came to vote. They say--some do--there were lies that led us into this war. But all of us talked about this possible conflict for months--months. We knew it was coming. The President talked about it. We talked about it openly on the floor. In fact, in the 1990s, when President Clinton was President, we voted and established a policy for the United States of America. That policy was that we would effect a regime change in Iraq. And up until these hostilities occurred--for years--American and British planes, enforcing the no-fly zones to keep Saddam Hussein from oppressing the Kurds and the Shiites, flew missions over Iraq, and were fired upon, sometimes on a daily if not weekly basis. We dropped bombs and missiles on them in retaliation, regularly, for years. In fact, we were in a state of hostility because Saddam Hussein had failed to comply with the agreements he made with the United Nations in 1991 when he was kicked out of Kuwait after he had invaded his neighbor--a peaceful, decent member of the world community. He attacked them to seize their oil and to increase his power. We had to create a world coalition to give him a demand to remove himself from Kuwait. He refused to do so, and GEN Norman Schwarzkopf led the coalition forces that defeated his army and removed him from Kuwait. He made agreements so we would not continue marching on to Baghdad to get our hands around his neck. He made these commitments to the U.N. and agreements were reached. He did not comply with them. He was in violation of 16 different resolutions of the United Nations. So all that was there. Also, 9/11 had occurred. And we knew he was violating the Oil-for-Food Program--a program that was set up to allow him to sell oil, which was being embargoed because of his violation of the rules and regulations of the U.N., and it allowed him to do that if the money would be utilized to take care of food and medicines for the people of Iraq because we wanted to help them. I have been to Iraq three times. I know the chairman has been there numerous times. You can see the palaces he built with that money that was supposed to feed his people. We know he was reconstituting his military. He declared he had been the victor in that war, not the loser. It was clear he was reconstituting his military power because he desired and had not given up his fantasy ambition to dominate the Middle East. These were the forces that were at work. These were strategic realities that occurred at that time. The Economist magazine wrote an editorial not long before we voted, and it talked about how the embargo was failing, how, in fact, the embargo was really hurting the people of Iraq more than it was hurting Saddam Hussein, but that it was falling apart; that Saddam Hussein had a systematic plan to break the embargo, and nations, such as France and others, were working behind the scenes to undermine the effect of that embargo, and that if we did not do something pretty soon, he would be unleashed again. They said the question simply is, Do we turn him loose or do we go to war? Our vote is to go to war, said the London-based Economist magazine. So those are the decisions we were dealing with. Every intelligence agency in the world concluded that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. I am not aware of any that did not believe he had some. Certainly, that is what the President of the United States was told. Certainly, that is what the Members of the Senate were told. But the more troubling, deeper, strategic imperative, to deal with Saddam Hussein, was what galvanized the attention of the President and, I think, of the Senate. When I looked at my remarks from the time I had discussed my decision to support a war in Iraq, I hardly mentioned weapons of mass destruction. It was this idea--that Saddam Hussein had not been faithful to his agreements, that he was determined to get out of those agreements, that he was determined to reconstitute his military, that he could be a threat to the region and that he could easily, and we thought he did, have weapons of mass destruction that he would use. We know he used a weapon of mass destruction, poison gas, against his own people, the Kurds. We know he used it. So it would have been unthinkable to think he had none at the time. Whatever happened to it, I don't know. We made a commitment in this Nation to remove Saddam Hussein, and that has been done. We have had two elections in Iraq toward establishing a democratic government. For that, I am most proud and hopeful that this new election in December, which will create a new permanent government, will help further to demonstrate the confidence the Iraqi people have in that government and make attacks upon it even more difficult to sustain and defend. I ask my colleagues to remember this one thing--it is still a dangerous place there. Our soldiers are there because we sent them. We asked them to go there to execute the policy we in the Senate voted for. We ought not do things and say things out of political anger or partisanship that are exaggerated, unfair to the President or our troops and how they conduct themselves, that puts their lives more at risk and makes their job more difficult. I am pleased that this authorization bill came out of Chairman Warner's committee unanimously with a bipartisan vote. As we go forward with it, we will improve the quality of our military, their effectiveness, and help execute more effectively the policies we have established. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the chairman. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to speak for up to 5 minutes in morning business.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I would like to make some general comments about our Defense bill and where we are, so I ask the chairman whether that should be in morning business?

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. With permission from Senator Warner, I would like to speak on the issue of this commission and express some comments on that.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be notified at 5 minutes.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I say to my colleague, maybe there is something that can be worked out. I look forward to continuing discussions. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I say this: This was anticipated. Compensation for early termination was negotiated and agreed upon. And at whatever date you choose, some will be out of it, and some will be in it. So I note this: In the Deficit Reduction Act we just completed yesterday, we had a lot of talk about the fiscal situation in which this country finds itself. There was debate about the hard choices we face as a nation so we do not burden our children and grandchildren with obligations that, in retrospect, were not wise. I respect my colleague from Colorado as much as I respect any Senator in the Senate. I commend the workers at Rocky Flats for what has been achieved. I am proud of that. But I believe, as we face this amendment as written, the concerns of the Department of Energy are legitimate, principled concerns. They are not skinflinty concerns, mean-spirited concerns, but a genuine concern that this is not a road we need to go down. What if we agree to build so many aircraft and we cut that number in half? We do that every day. The number of ships, contracts are terminated based on the terms of those contracts, and closure penalties are paid, and we go on. We do not need to have the politicians come in and redo those. So I respect my colleague from Colorado. As written, I am of the belief the Department of Energy's concerns are justified; therefore, I must reject and ask my colleagues to not support this amendment. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank Senator Allard for his leadership in the Senate, his superb leadership on the Committee on Armed Services. We miss him. But he is also on the very important Committee on Appropriations. I am sure he had a painful decision to make, but I am sure it is a decision in which his constituents will join in his decision to leave us and go to Committee on Appropriations. The Senator knows this issue because he dealt with it for so many years. In particular, he used to chair the subcommittee that I now chair that deals with the issue. He has been committed to dealing with and promptly and effectively eliminating the difficulties at Rocky Flats. Our country is in his debt and the debt of those people who have helped make the cleanup possible. Therefore, the Senator knows why I am most reluctant to oppose his amendment as written, but I must do so. I share a few thoughts about it. The amendment reaches into a relationship between contract employees for the Government who were performing environmental cleanup and their employer, which was a private contractor, Kaiser Hill. Kaiser Hill won this contract with the Department of Energy to perform the cleanup work. They hired people under certain terms and agreements in a negotiated contract with their employees. They were hired under that basis. So, in effect, the Government is undertaking now to modify, amend, alter, and fund additional moneys that relate to that contract between the contractor and the employees. It directs the Secretary of Energy to instruct Kaiser Hill to grant retirement and health benefits to employees which those employees would have earned if the cleanup had taken longer than it actually did. The cleanup of Rocky Flats did not take as long as some predicted, but everyone knew this was a contract that would end promptly or at least at a certain date in the future. It came in quicker, for which everyone is delighted. But there was no doubt people knew it was not a permanent, lifetime contract. So Rocky Flats is no more. Our country is the better for it. If you go to the site, you will see, as Senator Allard has shown, an empty space on that Colorado plateau. The workers for the most part have dispersed and gone on to other jobs. Many Government contracts complete early or do not run as long as originally anticipated. That is a fact. We cannot start down the road of altering the benefits of contractor workers when this happens, particularly when we have a contract that we know is not going to be for an extended period of time. Also, I would call to the attention of all our Members that the Government and the contractor were not unaware of this problem, and they advanced 1 full year of credit toward retirement and health care benefits for every employee who was terminated. They also realized at some point that the contract was going to be terminated early. So union negotiations took place, and an agreement was reached. It was agreed that,based on the termination date, additional funds would be paid to compensate the employees. As I understand it, $4,200 turned out to be the bonus, the incentive package, payment that they received as a result of completing the contract early. In other words, it gave them cash money they could use as a benefit or money they could utilize to transition to another employer. The Department of Energy is very concerned that this amendment alters the bargain struck between Kaiser Hill and its employees. Most of the Kaiser Hill employees were covered under collective bargaining agreements, and staggered layoffs were anticipated as the cleanup neared. I would like to offer, Mr. President, for the Record, and do offer for the Record, a summary of the benefits that were made available to the employees as a result of the anticipated early termination of this contract. I ask unanimous consent that summary be printed in the Record.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I see Senator Reed is here. I will make a few comments on Senator Allard's amendment if that is all right. I ask the unanimous consent be modified to the extent that I be allowed to speak for a few minutes now and that Senator Reed then be recognized immediately thereafter.

Mr. SESSIONS. I will quote one paragraph. We never experienced the confusion that Capt. Fishback and his soldiers evidently experienced. Our directives were clear and our approach to treating detainees was consistent: I never saw a U.S. soldier physically mistreat an Iraqi. I saw professional treatment of detainees from top to bottom, and I was proud to be a part of this great combat team. That is what is going on. That is the reality, in my view, of what is going on in Iraq. We have subjected ourselves and our soldiers to great risk because we demanded restraint on their part, and for the most part they have given us that. There have been problems. We know that. But we are not allowing them to continue. We are stopping them and prosecuting people if they have violated the law, as they should be prosecuted. So I am concerned that what we do today sends a message to the world that Members of this body and members of the leadership of the U.S. Government believe that our military is out of control and that we need some sort of commission to get them in control. That is not accurate in my view. We don't need another commission. We have had at least six, eight or nine major reports, and we have had, of course, over 20 hearings in the House and Senate. I have been a part of more of them than I would have wished. I honestly and truly believe we need to watch our rhetoric and not demean the fine men and women who are serving us because we sent them there in harm's way, and they are serving us with fidelity to duty and the highest degree of professionalism, giving their lives to help the Iraqi people to have a better life. That is our goal. That is what we need to keep at. I hope we will remember that as we debate these subjects. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 I am a sergeant in the Arkansas Army National Guard, and I was in Iraq from April 2004 to March 2005. My job was that of fire-team leader, responsible for three soldiers. We patrolled the streets of Baghdad daily, conducted raids, manned checkpoints, and cleared houses and other buildings. During our stay in Iraq, we detained dozens of Iraqis. So I was somewhat astounded at Capt. Ian Fishback's letter to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) about what he saw and observed in Iraq concerning beatings, broken bones and other improper treatment of prisoners [op-ed, Sept. 28]. His experience and observations are inconsistent with mine. Our unit was attached to the 1st Cavalry Division. We worked with active-duty soldiers, and when I moved to a forward operating base known as Headhunter, I worked every day with the 1st Cavalry, which I found to be a professional organization. We never experienced the confusion that Capt. Fishback and his soldiers evidently experienced. Our directives were clear and our approach to treating detainees was consistent: I never saw a U.S. soldier physically mistreat an Iraqi. I saw professional treatment of detainees from the top to the bottom, and I was proud to be part of this great combat team. I do not challenge Capt. Fishback or his observations. But I saw U.S. soldiers, both active-duty and National Guard, conduct themselves professionally on a daily basis.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SESSIONS. My 5 minutes is up? Mr. President, I will conclude--I may like to talk about this later on--with a letter from a sergeant from the Arkansas National Guard who was in Iraq from April 2004 to March of 2005. He said: My job was that of fire-team leader, responsible for three soldiers. We patrolled the streets of Baghdad daily [not a safe place to be] conducted raids, manned checkpoints, and cleared houses and other buildings. During our stay we detained dozens of Iraqis. So I was somewhat astounded at Capt. Ian Fishback's letter. . . . He said he saw beatings, broken bones and other improper treatment of prisoners. That is inconsistent with my observations--of mine. I will offer this for the Record.

Mr. SESSIONS. The Levin-Reed commission suggestion.

Mr. SESSIONS. I ask to be notified in 5 minutes, and I will definitely try to keep my time within that.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, my problem with this matter is that we have created, through our complaints--and some of it has been political, frankly--and debates beginning back during the past election, a determination to embarrass President Bush or undermine, maybe, even his policies by some; to call for the resignation of the Secretary of Defense. And all of these matters were taken out of context and blown up and distorted in a way that I think was unfortunate. Yes, we have had problems with abuse of prisoners. We really have. But not nearly as many as would be suggested. Senator Levin said it seems like it is every week. It has been talked about every week. Somebody comes up and repeats something that occurs, and then they repeat it again like it is new. So we are keeping alive a perception that our military is not performing according to the high standards that it sets for itself with regard to prisoner abuse. I do not believe that is so. I have been there. I have talked to the troops. But it is a tough war and a tough enemy. It is not great duty. We know what happened in Abu Ghraib, and I would point out the general there, within 1 day or 2 days--1 day of hearing of the Abu Ghraib problem--commenced an investigation, and 3 days later announced to the world that we were conducting an investigation of abuse and did so publicly to the TV, long before any photographs were ever released because the military, the Army, did not approve of what went on there. They have had an investigation. It was suggested that the higher ups were responsible for this; interrogation tactics and procedures were not clear, and that is why all this happened. I would just ask our colleagues to remember that when the evidence came out during the prosecution of those individuals, the conviction of them, and their being sentenced to jail, I point out it was never suggested that was part of an interrogation technique. These people were not being interrogated. Most of them were not even members of al- Qaida. A lot of them are street thugs that had been arrested for normal criminal behavior. They didn't have any intelligence to give us about the enemy we were facing over there. So all this that has been suggested, that we are completely out of control and somehow the Department of Justice memorandums about what is the maximum ability of a U.S. office to conduct investigation, somehow that affected that. Remember Mr. Sivitz, a private, I believe, or a corporal or sergeant, who pled guilty and was convicted and sentenced to jail? He said our leaders didn't know what we were doing. If they had known what we were doing, it would have been hell to pay. Do you remember the incident of the African-American colonel who had a sterling career who, in a fire fight, pulled out a gun and fired a bullet near the head of an individual he had captured to frighten him to get information he thought might help him save his troops? They cashiered him out of the Army. We had case after case of people being disciplined. Over 200 have been. So this myth has been created that people didn't know what was going on and were not properly instructed. We had hearings. I am on Judiciary, and I am on Armed Services in the Senate. We have House Judiciary and Armed Services and we have Senate Intelligence and we have Senate and House Intelligence. We have had over 26 hearings on this issue, more than any other. We ought to spend some time trying to figure out how to win this war rather than going back and suggesting to the whole world, by hearing after hearing, after report after report after commission, that we are out of control, mistreating prisoners, when it is not so. Our soldiers are consistently abiding by the Geneva Conventions as they have been instructed, and they do their duty every day. The Field Manual applies to men and women in the military, and they know that. That has been reaffirmed to them with clarity, that that controls the treatment of the prisoners in Iraq.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I oppose this amendment that would eliminate $50 million in long lead funding for missiles 31 to 40 of the ground-based interceptor, a key component of the missile defense system protecting the United States against limited long-range ballistic missile attack. Senators Levin and Reed have argued these funds would be better spent on the Department of Defense Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, but it is already fully funded at $415 million. I don't believe they have spent all of their previous appropriations, and we are being asked to make a choice between these two issues. In addition to authorizing the requested $415 million for the Department of Defense Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, the bill provides $1.6 billion for the Department of Energy nonproliferation programs. We have a lot of money being spent in these issues. These accounts are fully funded. They were not reduced. They do not need additional funding, especially not by taking money from our ballistic missile defense system. While CTR is fully funded, it is important, please, to note that the Department of Defense, in its last-minute preparations of the 2006 budget, bit the bullet. They had some tough decisions to make, and they made a decision that I regretted but one I guess I would acknowledge and yield to, to make significant cuts in our missile defense program. This year's request represents a $1 billion reduction, while the Missile Defense Agency has programmed a $5 billion overall reduction in years 2006 through 2011. So the Department of Defense did not reduce the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program and fully funded it, but they did make cuts in missile defense of a significant amount. The $50 million identified as an offset for this amendment specifically targets the long-lead funding for ground-based interceptor missiles 31 through 40 and associated silo construction. These missiles are scheduled for manufacture in 2007, in the 2007 timeframe, for deployment in 2009 and 2010 to actually be deployed. Eliminating these funds would delay fielding this important defensive capability even while our intelligence and military officials tell us there is a near- term threat. Additionally, the amendment would cause a break in the GBI ground-based interceptor production line that would cost some $270 million to restart, according to General Obering. I want to make that clear. This is the problem we are dealing with. We have cut that budget significantly. We have tightened up the missile defense budget. We have reduced it $1 billion a year, $5 billion in 5 years, but if we cut it any more, as this amendment suggests, we will break the production line that is ongoing today because if a manufacturer can't keep his employees producing at least a minimum number of missiles, then the assembly line breaks, and under the contracts and other ramifications, General Obering has estimated that it would cost some $270 million to restart that line. The sponsors of this amendment argue that these missiles have not been sufficiently proven through operational testing, and they point to recent test difficulties as evidence that further procurement of GBIs is unwise at this time. While I believe the GMD system requires additional testing--we are going to have additional testing, we must have additional testing--I would argue that the Missile Defense Agency has conducted sufficient ground and flight intercept testing over the past 5 years to provide the confidence necessary to acquire the basic ground-based interceptors on the current schedule. I would point out that in fiscal year 2004, the annual report to Congress by the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation notes that ``the test bed architecture is now in place and should have some limited capability to defend against a threat missile from North Korea.'' The independent review team, established by the Missile Defense Agency to investigate the test problems, found that recent test problems are attributable to quality control factors rather than the basic technology necessary to hit a missile with a missile. In fact, it has been proven. For example, between 2001 and 2002, MDA conducted four out of five successful intercept tests using a GBI prototype, while in 2003 and 2004, MDA conducted three successful test flights with the GBI booster. According to the director of MDA, it is unlikely we will discover something in our testing in the next year or 2 that would require any major redesign of the system. With respect to the threat that we face, General Cartwright, the commander of the U.S. Strategic Command, has testified before the Armed Services Committee that ``we have a realistic threat. We have an imperative.'' The Director of Central Intelligence has testified that the North Korean Taepo Dong 2 missile is capable of reaching the United States with a nuclear warhead and that North Korea could resume flight testing at any time. The Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency confirmed this assessment as recently as April 28 in a hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, and he has testified separately that Iran will have the capability to develop an intercontinental missile by 2015. In closing, I ask for your support for the continuing production of the GBIs through missile No. 40 by defeating this amendment. The GBI production line has been stretched to the limit by slowing production to some 8 to 10 missiles a year, the result of Congressional actions last year. Moreover, General Obering recently announced plans to divert another four operational GBIs. Denying additional funding for additional missiles will break the assembly line. Mr. President, I would oppose this amendment. I respect my colleagues but feel that we should not break the assembly line at the time. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank Senator Byrd for offering the amendment. There is a legitimate national interest in deciding how many of these visas should be allowed, and in deciding how much the numbers should be increased, if any. The matter came up before the Judiciary Committee, of which I am a member, within the last 2 weeks, the week before last. There was a good deal of discussion and disagreement and my amendment, almost identical to the amendment Senator Byrd is offering today, did not fully come out of committee. The Judiciary Committee is not a committee that is in any way backward looking and is not a committee that has no interest in having a fair immigration policy, but we had very strong disagreements within our committee regarding whether increases in H-1B visas and other permanent work visas were justified. Senator Byrd is correct in raising the matter now and objecting and offering this amendment to fix it--what came out of the Judiciary Committee. The current bill language will increase the H-1B visa cap by over 30,000 a year and increase the number of permanent employment- based immigrants, not temporary, by 90,000 a year. Additionally, the current bill language allows all family members of the workers to immigrate to the U.S. and exempts family members from being subjected to the cap. They are currently allowed to immigrate, but are subjected to the annual cap. These changes compose a huge, important policy statement. These extra visas will indeed increase revenue, because an additional fee will be charged for each of these additional visas, but this is not just a budget decision. Now let's be frank. We are in a national discussion about immigration. We need to be honest with ourselves. We need to do the right thing. We need to be compassionate. We also need to consider what is just, fair, and reasonable for our national interests. Any nation that aspires to be a great nation has every right, indeed it has a responsibility, to determine how many people come into their country and under what circumstances. We are into the process of debating how our immigration system should be reformed. One of my first, biggest, and most important concerns is the timing of this policy change we might as well do this kind of thing as part of our overall immigration reform debate. We are going to continue it this year and probably in the beginning of next year we will be full-fledged into this discussion. To ram this language through as part of the Budget Reconciliation Act is unfortunate, and I do not think it is appropriate. That is why I support Senator Byrd's amendment. What we come out with after we fully hear all of these issues discussed, how many the numbers would be, I do not know, but what the American people are concerned about is all we ever pass is something to increase the legal visa numbers, or to forgive people who have violated the law or that kind of thing. That is what we pass and pass and pass, and they are wondering and have been asking firmly and repeatedly in polling numbers and when we go home to townhall meetings and talk to our people, in the phone calls and letters we get, they are simply asking, why do we not have immigration laws that are enforced? Why do we not create a legal immigration system that actually works? Once that is done, they say, then you can talk to me, Mr. Senator, about how many more people ought to be allowed in every year. Let us get this thing under control. So I think we are getting ahead of ourselves. I am not at all certain that these numbers are necessary. In fact, I do not think they are at this point. Just because somebody might be hired does not mean that this country fully and totally needs them in the coming year as a source of labor for our country. Our Nation has been enriched by immigrants, talented, hard-working immigrants. For the most part, that is exactly what we are talking about. I do not dispute that we need to be discussing this issue. I do not dispute that we may need to raise that number that we have today to a higher number. I believe, though, the appropriate way to do it is after hearings, after discussion, as part of the overall fix and at the same time we can tell the American people not only have we been more generous to talented people who want to come and work but we have created a system that keeps those who cheat, go around the law, undermine the law, to stop that from occurring. I believe that would be the appropriate, responsible approach to deal with it. I therefore will support the Byrd amendment.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his courtesy. I know we had the opportunity a few moments earlier to discuss Rosa Parks as we viewed her casket. It was indeed just a few hours ago, right down this hall, that Rosa Parks' body lay in honor in the Capitol Rotunda, the site where our Nation pays its highest respects to our most noteworthy citizens. She was the first woman ever to be so honored. How is it possible that a seamstress born in Tuskegee, AL, who had never held elective office or any high political or military position, be so highly recognized? Just 6 years ago, she was awarded the Congressional Gold Medal, which I was pleased to be a sponsor of in this Senate. She was also awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom. It is a story I would suggest that only divine providence could write. The theological concept is well known: His power and authority being made manifest by lifting persons of apparent low estate to great heights. Certainly, the life of Rosa Parks produced an advancement of freedom, equality, and progress. These accomplishments rose from her steadfast courage and strength that she found from above. As a result, she fulfilled her calling, and she met her challenge on that afternoon when she came home weary from work, with dignity and integrity. I was not yet 10 years old when these events happened in Montgomery, AL, 85 miles north of my home in rural Alabama. We did not even have a television set that year. We got one a few years later. I have a recollection of the events, the boycott of 382 days, and some understanding and recollection of the momentous court decisions that resulted. Make no mistake, the races in the South in the 1950s were, for the most part, openly and legally separate. That is the way it was. Although the mantra was ``separate but equal,'' the reality was separate and unequal.

Mr. SESSIONS. I will be pleased to yield.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I have some remarks about Rosa Parks and the events of the day. I see the Senator from North Dakota. I do not know what his timeframe is, but I am to preside and relieve the chair at 3.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the Senate is prepared to ratify two important treaties, the Inter-American Convention Against Terrorism, and the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime. As a former prosecutor, I believe these treaties will provide important tools in our war against terrorism and organized crime. However, as chairman of the Senate Steering Committee, and as a United States Senator, it is my job to carefully review all legislation and treaties to ensure that they are consistent with our Constitution and in the best interest of the United States. In reviewing these treaties, there were two matters I felt needed further clarification. First, the issue of extradition. I believe it is important that if we are going to enter into an extradition arrangement, it strengthen our hand with respect to nations, such as Mexico, who have refused to extradite violent criminals to the United States for prosecution. It serves no purpose to enter into treaties with no teeth. Second, the International Criminal Court: The position of the United States has been firm in opposition to any expanded powers of the International Criminal Court. These treaties were silent on the ICC. They did not explicitly permit the ICC from exercising jurisdiction over matters, nor do they prohibit it from doing so. Were I not absolutely certain that these treaties would provide no mechanism for an overzealous ICC prosecutor to assert new jurisdiction, these treaties would not be ratified today. However, based on an exchange of correspondence with the United States Department of Justice, I am satisfied that there is absolutely no way the ICC may assert any new jurisdiction based upon these treaties. I received this letter by fax within the last few minutes, and it is on this basis that I am permitting these treaties to proceed. I am confident that these treaties are in the interest of the United States, and this correspondence will serve as legislative history with respect to the concerns I just addressed. I ask unanimous consent that the above-referenced letters be printed in the Record.