Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Reserving the right to object, is this the TANF?

Mr. SESSIONS. I have no objection.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Homeland Security Enhancement Act of 2005. I am pleased to be joined by Senator Craig and Senator Inhofe, who cosponsored an earlier version of the bill in the 108th Congress, and who are original sponsors of this year's legislation. Our bill takes the lead in encouraging a culture of cooperation among all levels of immigration law enforcement--Federal, State, and local--it seeks to build an immigration law enforcement system that is inclusive of all law enforcement officers, has adequate detention bedspace, uses unified databases for information sharing from one level of law enforcement to another, and has adequate detention bedspace. These elements are a necessary foundation for any future comprehensive immigration reform and I am pleased that the need for this foundation was recently recognized by Senators Kyl and Cornyn in the release of the enforcement principles of the immigration bill they are currently drafting. Changes in substantive immigration law are surely needed, but unless an effective enforcement mechanism is included, the new rules will also collapse under a rising tide of illegality. More than 15 years of service as a U.S. Attorney in Alabama and then as Alabama's Attorney General--as well as my current role on the Immigration, Border Security, and Citizenship Subcommittee--have taught me that the involvement of State and local law enforcement will be a critical part of any new and successful immigration enforcement scheme. Establishing an effective partnership between the 700,000 State and local law enforcement officers who patrol our streets every day and the small number of Federal immigration officers will be a test of our Nation's will to establish an effective and enforceable legal scheme for immigration. I care very deeply about the ability of State and local law enforcement to voluntarily aid the federal government in the enforcement of immigration law. As a result, I also care very deeply about tearing down barriers to that voluntary assistance. The need for this voluntary assistance has only grown stronger over the last year and a half, since I first introduced this legislation in the Senate. Over the course of that time we have heard about the need to reform our immigration laws to create a system that is as enforceable as it is generous and workable. Creation of an enforceable immigration system will undoubtedly require increased manpower, streamlined information sharing, and bedspace to hold those we apprehend. This legislation targets all three of these essential enforcement components, and will go a long way toward fixing our broken immigration enforcement system--the system that is currently allowing people to remain in the U.S. for indefinite time periods, regardless of how they came here. Let me be clear, this bill is not about the commandeering of State and local police forces or about forcing them to dedicate resources toward immigration law enforcement when they have other priorities, it is simply about welcoming their assistance in the realm of immigration law enforcement if they choose to give it. We know that Americans strongly value our heritage as a Nation of immigrants. Americans openly welcome legal immigrants and new citizens with character, ability, decency, and a strong work ethic. However, it is also clear that Americans do not feel the same way about illegal immigration. The fact is that a large majority of Americans feel that State and local governments should be aiding the Federal Government in stopping illegal immigration. A RoperASW poll published in March of 2003 titled ``Americans Talk About Illegal Immigration'' found that 88 percent of Americans agree, and 68 percent ``strongly'' agree, that Congress should require state and local government agencies to notify the INS, now ICE, and their local law enforcement when they determine that a person is here illegally or has presented fraudulent documentation. Additionally, 85 percent of Americans agree, and 62 percent ``strongly'' agree that Congress should pass a law requiring State and local governments and law enforcement agencies, to apprehend and turn over to the INS illegal immigrants with whom they come in contact. Those numbers speak volumes about the desires of the American population. It is important to note that these responses were collected in response to questions about requiring State and local immigration enforcement action. It is very likely that a poll on this bill, a bill that is about voluntary State and local action, would yield even stronger support. America's strength is based on its commitment to the rule of law. Inscribed on the front of the Supreme Court Building just down the street are the words, ``Equal Justice Under Law.'' In the world of immigration laws, the current facade of enforcement that holds no real consequences for law breakers is both dangerous and irresponsible. If the only real consequence of coming to this country illegally is a social label, then our immigration laws are but a brightly painted sepulcher full of dead bones, for it is impossible to be a nation governed by the rule of law, if our laws have no real effect on the lives of the people they govern. Our illegal alien population was at a record high two years ago and the numbers continue to climb. The lack of immigration enforcement in our country's interior has resulted in 8-12 million illegal aliens living in the U.S. with another estimated 800,000 illegal aliens joining them every year--that is on top of the more than 1 million that legally immigrate each year. These numbers make it easy for criminal aliens and absconders to disappear inside our borders. Of the 8-10 million illegal aliens present today, the Department of Homeland Security has estimated that 450,000 are ``alien absconders''-- people that have been issued final deportation orders but have not shown up for their hearings. An estimated 40,000 absconders join that number every year. An estimated 86,000 of them are criminal illegal aliens--people convicted of crimes they committed in the U.S. who should have been deported, but have slipped through the cracks and are still here. The next number is perhaps the most concerning--3,000 of the ``alien absconders'' within our borders are from one of the countries that the State Department has designated to be a ``state sponsor of terrorism.'' The number of illegal aliens outweighs the number of federal agents whose job it is to find them within our borders by 5,000 to 1. The enforcement arm of the old INS, now called The Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, has just over 2,000 interior agents inside the borders. Leaving the job of interior immigration enforcement solely to them will guarantee failure. If each interior agent investigated, arrested, prosecuted and deported an illegal alien every day, it would take almost 14 years to deport the current illegal alien population. State and local police, a force 700,000 strong, are the eyes and ears of our communities. They are sworn to uphold the law. They police our streets and neighborhoods every day. Their role is absolutely critical to the success of our immigration system. For that critical role to be effective, a few very important things need to happen: 1. State and local law enforcement officers need clear authority to voluntarily act; 2. the NCIC Immigration Violators File needs to contain all critical immigration information so that officers have quick roadside access to critical immigration information; 3. Federal immigration officials have to take custody of illegal aliens apprehended by State officers, they can not continue to ignore State and local requests for assistance; 4. the Institutional Removal Program has to be expanded so that all criminal aliens are detained after their State sentences until deportation, instead of being released back into the community just to be searched for by Federal officials at a later date; and 5. critically needed Federal bed space has to be given to DHS so that the practice of ``catch and release'' can be ended and effective removal can begin. The Homeland Security Enhancement Act that Senator Craig, Senator Inhofe, and I are introducing today will do all of those things. Let me tell you about a few of the problems in immigration enforcement that started my interest in this area and prompted me to author this bill, to push for the hearing on April 22 of 2004 in the Senate Judiciary Committee titled ``State and Local Authority to Enforce Immigration Law: Evaluating a Unified Approach for Stopping Terrorists'', and to author a law review article in the April 2005 issue of the Stanford Law and Policy Review titled ``The Growing Role for State and Local Law Enforcement in the Real of Immigration Law.'' A few years ago, police chiefs and sheriffs in Alabama began to tell me that they had been shut out of the immigration enforcement system and that they felt powerless to do anything about Alabama's growing illegal immigrant population. As I went to town hall meetings and conferences with police, I heard the same story-- ``When we come across illegal aliens in our normal course of duty, we have given up calling because the INS tells us we have to have 15 or more illegal aliens in custody or they will not even come pick them up.'' Even worse, Alabama police were routinely told that the aliens could not be detained until the INS could manage to send someone. They were told they had to just let them go! They were being told this, even though I believed that the legal authority of State and local officers to voluntarily act on violations of immigration law was pretty clear. If there is any doubt that State and local officers have this authority, Congress needs to remove that doubt which is exactly what this bill will do. Only two U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal have expressly ruled on State and local law enforcement authority to make an arrest on an immigration law violation. In 1983, the Ninth Circuit, while not mentioning a preexisting general authority, held that nothing in Federal law precludes the police form enforcing the criminal provisions of the Immigration and Naturalization Act. Gonzales v. City of Peoria, 722 F.2d 468 (9th Cir. 1983). The Tenth Circuit has reviewed this question on several occasions, concluding squarely that a ``state trooper has general investigatory authority to inquire into possible immigration violations.'' United States v. Salinas-Calderon, 728 F.2d 1298, 1301 n.3 (10th Cir. 1984). As the Tenth Circuit has described it, there is a ``preexisting general authority of state or local police officers to investigate and make arrests for violations of Federal law, including immigration laws.'' United States v. Vasquez-Alvarez, 176 F.3d 1294, 1295 (10th Cir. 1999). Again, in 2001, the Tenth Circuit reiterated that ``state and local police officers [have] implicit authority within their respective jurisdictions 'to investigate and make arrests for violations of Federal law, including immigration laws.''' United States v. Santana- Garcia, 264 F.3d 1188, 1194 (citing United States v. Vasquez-Alvarez, 176 F.3d 1294, 1295). None of these Tenth Circuit holdings drew any distinction between criminal violations of the INA and civil provisions of the INA that render an alien deportable. It appears that the Ninth Circuit started the confusion regarding the distinction between civil and criminal violations in Gonzales v. City of Peoria by asserting in dicta that the civil provisions of the INA are a persuasive regulatory scheme, and therefore only the Federal Government has the power to enforce civil violations. See Gonzales v. City of Peoria, 722 F.2d 468 (9th Cir. 1983). This confusion was, to some extent, fostered by an erroneous 1996 opinion of the Office of Legal Counsel, OLC of the Department of Justice, the relevant part of which has since been withdrawn by OLC. Why was the Federal agency responsible for interior immigration enforcement telling my police chiefs in Alabama to let illegal aliens go free? To be fair, ICE still does not have the manpower or detention space to take custody and detain all illegal aliens. With less than 20,000 appropriated detention beds, ICE tells us over and over again that they do not have the bed space to detain all the illegal aliens that they apprehend; instead, they are forced to give first priority to detaining the worst of the worst individuals such as convicted felon aliens. It is shocking to me that even though we know that detention is a key element of effective removal, we do not even detain all illegal aliens that have been convicted of crimes for removal. Last February, in a report titled ``The Immigration and Naturalization Service's Removal of Aliens Issued Final Orders'' the Department of Justice Inspector General found that 87 percent of those not detained before removal never get deported. Even in high risk categories, the IG found that only fractions of non-detained violators are ever removed-- 35 percent of those with criminal records and 6 percent of those from ``state sponsors of terrorism.'' These percentages have not changed since 1996, when the last IG report issued on the ability to remove aliens found that 89 percent of aliens with final deportation orders that are not detained are never removed. Just this month, during a joint hearing of the Judiciary Committee Immigration and Terrorism Subcommittees titled ``The Southern Border in Crisis: Resources and Strategies to Improve National Security'' we learned that in some jurisdictions such--as Harlingen Texas--`` no show'' rates for immigration hearings are as high as 98 percent. Those numbers speak for themselves about our efficiency in the realm of immigration enforcement. The American people deserve better, they deserve to know that our laws will be enforced instead of ignored without consequence. But we can not lay all the blame on DHS--they can only detain illegal aliens that they have space to detain. We know that DHS is using all of the bed space that they have and that it is not enough they consistently tell us that they are releasing people that should be detained because there is no more room. The Homeland Security Enhancement Act would add critical bed space DHS needs to fulfill its mission of interior enforcement. The third problem that was brought to my attention and motivated my desire to introduce this bill, is the inadequate way we share immigration information with State and local police. We have databases full of information on criminal aliens and aliens with final deportation orders, but that information is not directly available to State and local police. They have to make a special second inquiry to the immigration center in Vermont just to see if an illegal alien is a wanted by DHS. The Hart Rhudman Report, ``America Still Unprepared--America Still In Danger,'' found that one problem America still confronts is ``700,000 local and State police officials continue to operate in a virtual intelligence vacuum, without access to terrorist watchlists.'' The first recommendation of the report was to ``tap the eyes and ears of local and State law enforcement officers in preventing attacks.'' On page 19, the report specifically cited the burden of finding hundreds of thousands of fugitive aliens living among the population of more than 8.5 million illegal aliens living in the U.S. and suggested that the burden could and should be shared with 700,000 local, county, and State law enforcement officers if they could be brought out of the information void. Without easy access to immigration database information, and with ICE unwilling to come and identify every suspected illegal alien, State and local police can not quickly and accurately identify who they have detained and who they will be releasing back into the community if they follow ICE's instruction to ``just let them go.'' State and local police are accustomed to checking for criminal information in the NCIC, National Crime Information Center, database, which is maintained by the FBI. They can, and routinely do, access the NCIC on the roadside when they pull over a car or stop a suspect. An NCIC check, which takes just minutes, includes information about individuals with outstanding warrants. Even fugitives that use false identification can be identified on the roadside through use of the NCIC when, as is often the case, a police officer has access to an instant fingerprint scanner in his car. Separate from the NCIC, ICE operates the Law Enforcement Support Center, which makes immigration information available to State and local police, but requires a second additional check after NCIC that most State and local police either don't know about or don't have the time to perform. The ability of the NCIC to convey immigration information to State and local police is not being fully utilized. To date, the Immigration Violators File of the NCIC contains just over 150,000 entries and only 39,000 of those are alien absconders. This file should be greatly and rapidly expanded. At the very least, the NCIC should contain information on all illegal aliens who have received final orders of departure, all illegal aliens who have signed voluntary departure agreements, and all aliens who have had their visas revoked. In truth, the NCIC should contain information on all violations of immigration law. If State and local police are not accessing the immigration information we have worked hard to make available, we must find a way to get the information to them, through systems they are used to using. Our bill will get information to them through the system they are already using--the NCIC. Our bill will ensure that when an NCIC roadside check is done on an individual pulled over for speeding, police will know immediately if the individual has already been ordered to leave the country, has signed a legal document promising to leave, has overstayed their visa, or has had their visa revoked. Understanding the value of getting immigration information to State and local police comes from understanding that they are the ones who will come into contact with the dangerous illegal aliens on a day-to- day basis. Three 9/11 hijackers were stopped by State and local police in the weeks proceeding 9/11. Hijacker Mohammad Atta, believed to have piloted American Airlines Flight 77 into the World Trade Center's north tower, was stopped twice by police in Florida. Hijacker Ziad S. Jarrah was stopped for speeding by Maryland State Police two days before 9/11. And, Hani Hanjour, who was on the flight that crashed into the Pentagon, was stopped for speeding by police in Arlington, Virginia. Local police can be our most powerful tool in the war against terrorism. The D.C. Snipers were caught because of the fingerprint collected by local police. John Lee Malvo was identified when the fingerprint collected from a magazine at the scene of the liquor store murder and robbery in Montgomery, Alabama matched with the fingerprints collected by INS agents in Washington State. Had both law enforcement entities not done their job by taking prints, it is possible that the identity of John Lee Malvo could have been a mystery for weeks longer. In New York a 42-year-old woman sitting on a park bench with her boyfriend was dragged away and gang-raped by five deportable illegal immigrants. Although 4 of the 5 had State criminal convictions and 2 had served jail time, the INS claims they were never told about them-- thus, they were not deported as the law requires. 56 illegal aliens were caught by State and local police, and convicted of molestation and child abuse, long before ICE's ``Operation Predator'' found them living in New York and Northern New Jersey long after they should have been deported. Of the 56 arrested, one had raped his 10-year-old niece; another had sexually assaulted a 6-year-old boy; one had raped his 7-year-old niece; and another had sexually assaulted a 2-year-old. The 9/11 hijacker cases, the D.C. sniper cases, and a multitude of criminal alien cases clearly illustrate that our State and local police are the front lines of combating alien crime. To leave them out of the enforcement system, as we do now, eliminates our most effective weapon against criminal and terrorist aliens. Many advocacy groups have vocally opposed the idea of State and local immigration law enforcement over the course of the last year. They would prefer that Congress not clarify this enforcement authority and that we leave State and local officers in the dark. Such groups contend that if immigration enforcement functions are performed by anyone other than Federal law enforcement officials, at least three negative consequences will ensue. First, they argue that State and local law enforcement entities will be handed an unfunded mandate and will be forced to enforce immigration law violations against their will and at their expense. Second, they argue that immigrant communities, and the victims and witnesses that live within them, will abandon their trust of, and cooperative partnership with, State and local law enforcement. And third, they argue that State and local law enforcement officers will abuse their inherent enforcement authority to engage in racial profiling, harassment, and discrimination. By making these claims, advocacy groups seek to maintain the ineffective status quo for enforcement by local officers and thwart the possibility of an effective enforcement partnership between the Federal Government and the States. The assertions of these advocacy groups are more myth than reality. The first assertion is that the Federal Government is trying to burden State and local governments with an unfunded mandate. Every police and sheriff's department across the country must make choices every day regarding their enforcement priorities and resources. Certainly, their legal authority and law enforcement goals are not served by being shut out of immigration law enforcement. It is a curious argument to say that local police are helped by being denied their lawful powers to voluntarily aid Federal immigration authorities. They should not be forced to ignore laws being broken in their presence and in their communities. The second myth that anti-local enforcement advocates would have policymakers believe is twofold: that a current cooperative partnership exists between local police and immigrant communities, and that immigration enforcement will cause immigrant victims and witnesses of crimes to abandon these cooperative partnerships. One advocacy group, the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey, argues: ``These combined measures will ensure that more immigrants will avoid contact with law enforcement, putting entire communities at risk. For instance, immigrant victims of crime will hesitate to report the crimes to the police if they fear adverse immigration consequences from their contact with the officials.'' Again, the argument fails because State and local police retain their independent power to make prosecution choices. They are not required to report illegal alien victims or witnesses to Federal authorities or to investigate crimes they do not want to investigate. To make sure that this is understood, the authors of this bill have agreed to add language clarifying that nothing in the bill requires State and local officers to report crime victims or witnesses to Federal immigration authorities. Perhaps the most egregious assertion made by opponents of effective enforcement is the allegation that State and local law enforcement officers will use their inherent enforcement authority as a license to engage in racial profiling, harassment, and discrimination. Specifically, the National Council of La Raza strongly opposes State and local law enforcement participation because it claims such involvement is ``likely to result in increased racial profiling, police misconduct, and civil rights violations.'' This argument is curious because it would effectively grant more protection to non-citizens here illegally than to citizens, who are subject to arrest by State and Federal law enforcement officers for violations of Federal law. It is curious logic to say that we trust our police to enforce laws against citizens but not against non-citizens here illegally. State and local police are trained to protect the civil rights of all types of suspects and defendants and they do so every day in this country. In Alabama, State troopers receive annual training on racial profiling. In New York, the NYC Police Department Operations Order #11 strictly prohibits racial profiling in law enforcement actions. If Alabama and New York are consistent in how they instruct and train their State and local police with regards to racial profiling, it is safe to assume that the rest of the Nation is as well. Under this bill, State and local police will have to respect the civil rights of illegal aliens the same way they respect the civil rights of all people against whom they enforce the law. State and local police will continue to be held responsible for violations of civil rights; this bill does not change that fact. The opposition will say that this bill is expensive; that it costs too much. It is always expensive to enforce the law. I do not think this bill is overly expensive. We have made it as cost affordable as we can by electing to use resources already available to us--facilities closed down under the Defense Base Closure Realignment Act of 1990 and law enforcement officers across America already out on our streets doing their jobs. Law enforcement is not an area where it pays to pinch pennies. In immigration enforcement, it costs us too much not to enforce the law. It is time that Congress take responsibility for providing DHS with the resources they need to do the job we have given them. When it comes to immigration enforcement in America, the rule of law is not prevailing. If we are serious about securing the homeland, we simply must get serious about immigration enforcement. It is time to talk about the big picture--time to be honest about what it will really take to fix our broken immigration system. In most cases, we don't need tougher immigration laws, we just need to utilize our existing resources and use some new resources to enforce the laws we already have. If State and local police are confused about their authority to enforce immigration laws, that authority needs to be clarified. This bill will do that. If State and local police cannot access immigration background information on individuals quickly enough, we should change that. This bill makes that information more accessible through expanding use of the NCIC. If DHS is not taking custody of illegal aliens being apprehended by State and local police, we need to make it possible for them to do so. This bill will address the practice of ``catching and releasing'' illegal aliens. If we do not have enough detention space to hold people that break the law, then we need more detention space. This bill gives DHS 50 percent more bedspace for immigration enforcement. If illegal aliens are being released back into the community after their prison sentences instead of being deported, we need to fix the system that releases them. This bill will extend the Institutional Removal Program to ensure that custody is transferred from the State prison to Federal officials at the end of the alien's prison sentence. Once again I would like to thank Senator Craig and Senator Inhofe for joining with me to introduce this legislation, and I would like to thank Congressman Norwood for introducing companion legislation in the House. It is imperative that we take critical steps toward regaining control of our borders and that we lay the enforcement foundation for necessary immigration reforms. This bill is a critical step in the right direction. I encourage my colleagues to study this bill and join us in working to pass the Homeland Security Enhancement Act of 2005. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I am pleased to.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we had a nice discussion and I thank the Chair for reminding us of that. Before I yield the floor, I have enjoyed discussing this with the Senators from Louisiana, Senator Landrieu and Senator Vitter. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. May I ask the Senator another question? It has been reported that Cuba is going to be drilling for oil and gas out in the Gulf of Mexico. I wonder if our colleague would prefer that Cuba would do this where, I assume, it would be less safe, with less management, and all the money go to them rather than to the United States? Is that a fact? Is Cuba considering participating in drilling for oil and gas off the coast of Mexico, off our coast?

Mr. SESSIONS. To Tampa, FL, to some of those people, I guess, who have the multimillion-dollar mansions on the coast, who want to use that natural gas to cool their hot houses. I remember when it first came up, this debate was ongoing, former Congressman ``Sonny'' Callahan, from Mobile, was in the House. I suggested that he put in an amendment that just blocked the pipeline. If they don't want to produce any oil and gas, why should they get it? And he did, almost perhaps as a bit of humor, but also to raise a serious point. People want to utilize this resource but they are opposing its production. But let me ask the Senator from Louisiana this question. Don't you think that some of the areas, such as California and others, that are so hostile to producing offshore, are ill-informed about the risk? It is almost as though it is this huge risk that their entire beaches are going to be threatened every day, but we have not had problems in our beaches. Have you in Louisiana?

Mr. SESSIONS. First, the Senator is exactly correct. This amendment is a very modest amendment. It has nothing to do with production of oil and gas. It is with frustration that our State has worked toward that goal and has not been able to receive any compensation, and many other States seem to be slamming the door on even considering that. I ask the Senator if there is not a difference in safety and environmental impact when we deal with natural gas as opposed to oil? And is it not true that much of the energy capacity in the Gulf of Mexico and probably off our other States, is natural gas? I know that is important. We have probably seen a tripling of natural gas prices. I know the Senator agrees that pipelines commence out of the gulf coastal areas--Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas--that move the natural gas all over the country, and those States, if the price keeps going up when they heat their houses, they heat their water, their industries utilize natural gas, those prices are going up, also, which threatens their economic competitiveness. It is not that our States have a particular benefit from having the production. It goes in the pipelines that move it all over the country.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I support the Landrieu/Vitter amendment. As a State that is a producer of oil and gas off its shore, I certainly believe we should have some slight, minor benefit from that effort, particularly in light of the fact that State after State just blithely announces they will not have any off their shore. I believe that a 2- percent part of the revenue that is going to the Federal Government to the States that bear the burden of this offshore production is not too much to ask. It is not a violation of the budget. The money is set aside that can be spent on this. It is a question of priority. I believe we should go forward with that. I wish to say how much I appreciate the remarks of Senator Allen. I believe he has analyzed our energy situation well. I would also join in my praise for Chairman Domenici for his work. He understands that nuclear and all other sources of power have to be increased to have us more energy independent. It is not just one step that we can take. Frankly, if one wants my opinion, and I believe it is correct, the area most overlooked, the area in which we can have the largest short-term surge of energy in our country that can be so important for our economy and jobs is offshore production of oil and gas, particularly natural gas. We had an amendment just yesterday that I joined with the Senators from California to support--it did not pass--to have more controls over the building of liquefied natural gas terminals in our States, to give the States some more ability to participate in that process. Why do we have liquefied natural gas terminals? We have not had them before. The reason is we are not producing enough natural gas in our country to supply our needs, and there are resources worldwide offshore that can be produced around countries such as Qatar in the Persian Gulf--some of whom have been friends, some of whom have not been friends of the United States--so they would have us produce it on those waters, to liquefy it at great expense, transport it around the world to some terminal in my hometown in Mobile, AL, and then put it in our pipelines. And where does the money go? Where does 100 percent of the royalty money go in that circumstance? It goes to the Saudi Arabias and the Qatars and Venezuela and those other countries, sucking out huge sums of money from our country, when we could keep all of that money in our national economy if we produced the existing supplies of natural gas that are off our shores. I go down to one of the prettiest beaches in America. It is becoming more and more recognized--Gulf Shores, AL. You can stand on those beaches and at night you can see the oil rigs out off the shore. We have not had a spill there. In fact, I had the numbers checked, and I understand there was one spill off Louisiana in 1970. None of that reached the shore. By the way, as all who have studied this know, natural gas is far less a threat to our environment, if there is a leak, than is oil. Oil is thicker and heavier and can pollute if there is a large amount spread on our shore. But we have not had any of that, and hundreds-- thousands--of wells have been drilled and produced in the Gulf of Mexico. According to the Energy Committee, 65 percent of all energy produced from oil and gas comes from the Gulf of Mexico. That is a tremendous amount right off our coast. So Texas and Louisiana and Mississippi and Alabama have participated in that. Yet under the law of the United States and the tax provisions of our country, you cannot receive any revenue from it. It is moving in interstate commerce. You can't tax a truck going through your State, under the Constitution. You can't tax fuel going through a pipeline. So you produce it, and it moves out. An LNG terminal, by the way, some have said, is an economic benefit to your community. It only has about 30 jobs, and it does have some safety risk, no doubt. Some say a lot. I don't know how much, but it has some safety risk. It has some tendency to diminish the value of property around it for sure. But you can't tax it because it is the interstate flow of a resource. So they want these States to continue to be serving the American economy with no compensation whatsoever. The 2-percent figure that has been proposed here is not at all unreasonable to me. I think that is a modest charge, in fact. Let me tell you the extent of the hypocrisy that goes on. My colleagues from Florida, the leaders in the State of Florida, have beautiful beaches such as we have. We border their beaches. They declare you cannot have a well if you have a beach in sight of it. Now they said you can't have an oil well so close--even outside of the sight of the beach. In fact, they are objecting to drilling oil wells 250 miles from the Florida beaches, as if this is somehow some religious event of cataclysmic proportions, if somebody were to drill an oil or gas well--mostly gas wells--out in the deep Gulf of Mexico. You know what. They are proposing right now, they desire and are moving forward with a plan to build a natural gas pipeline from my hometown of Mobile, AL, to Tampa, FL. They want to take the natural gas produced off the shores of Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, put it in a pipeline and move it to their State so they can have cheaper energy, and they don't want to have anything within 100 to 250 miles of their State. This is not correct. Mr. President, I know you are a skilled lawyer and a JAG Officer in the military, but I was a U.S. attorney and represented the U.S. Government. Let me tell you, under the law of the United States, Florida does not own the land 200 miles off its shore. I have to tell you, that is U.S. water. There is no doubt about it. For the Senator from Louisiana and I, our boundary line is just 3 miles. Everybody else in the country has 9 miles, but after 9 miles, it is Federal water. Yet we show deference to the States and want to work with the States and listen to what they have to say, but as a matter of law, they don't get to decide who drills in the waters of the United States of America. This country is at a point where we have to ask ourselves where we want this offshore oil and gas produced. Do we want to have it produced off Venezuela, in the lake down there, or in the Persian Gulf where all the money we have to pay for it goes to those countries, sucking it out of our economy or would we rather have it produced in this Nation, in the huge amounts that exist so our country can benefit from it? We have these crocodile tears by people who begrudge a little 2 percent that would go to our States that produce it, and they are not complaining one bit, I suppose, about an LNG terminal in Mobile, AL, designed to bring natural gas from halfway around the world, from some country that may be hostile to our national interests. It makes no sense whatsoever. It is time for us to have a lot bigger discussion about this matter. I see the Senator from Louisiana is here. I know her State has more offshore wells than any other. I know they have had probably more environmental degradation as a result of it. I don't see anything wrong with them being able to ask for some compensation. I have enjoyed working with her on this legislation.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. But creating a terminal may not be. I thank you.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I express my admiration for the Senator from New Mexico and his leadership on this bill. In his heart, he is right and fundamentally correct that this country needs to produce more energy. The State of Alabama has been very aggressive in supporting our Nation's need for energy. We have wells drilled right off our coast, far off our coast, and we believe that is good for this country. As a matter of fact, off our coast, beyond a 3-mile or 9-mile limit it is Federal waters and States don't have control over that. To bring an LNG terminal into a community can cause some real problems. I appreciate the leadership of Senator Domenici and Senator Bingaman in offering an alternative solution to this approval process. But I frankly don't think it is sufficient. We have to have some ability for the local governments to have real, meaningful objections raised for the safety of the people in the community. So that is what I am concerned about. At this time, the suggestions that are made in good faith, are not sufficient. There is no doubt that natural gas is important to our country. Higher demand is there every day. Our supplies will dwindle unless we bring on new sources. Liquefied natural gas can be brought into this country. It burns cleaner than most other fuels. If we can bring it in in large numbers, it will be good for America. But to say that a State or a Governor cannot participate fundamentally with some real power I think would be a dangerous step. That is why I must reluctantly oppose the current language and support Senator Feinstein's language. Also, our community of Mobile, my hometown, wrestled with an LNG terminal recently. They wanted to place it pretty close in and there was a great deal of concern expressed about safety. I frankly am not one capable of analyzing the scientific data that was raised in that regard. But I will say that serious concerns were raised and the Governor did participate. As a result, I think a new site and a new way of bringing that in would be established, if it is done at all. So I say my concern is that we have to have a more meaningful participation by the Governors. I thank the Senator for his good-faith response, but I must support this amendment, as I think it is the right step. I agree fundamentally that interstate transportation of product is a Federal Government issue----

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I heard a good deal of the remarks of the distinguished Senator from Arizona, Mr. Kyl, as he discussed the issues surrounding the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo and the actions of our military. I could not agree with him more. He is one of the Senate's finest lawyers. He is on the Judiciary Committee, where we just had hearings, and has been involved in these issues for some time. In fact, I serve with him on the Judiciary Committee and am also a Member of the Armed Services Committee. I would have to say to this body that our Congress has had a total of 29-plus hearings involving the handling of prisoners since the war on terrorism began. I think I have been at most of them. Most of them have been before the Armed Services Committee and Judiciary Committee. We have had a host of these hearings. We have had witnesses and complainants and issues brought up to us time and time again. Yesterday, at our hearing in Judiciary, I really reached a point where I just felt I had to speak out. It was in the morning before Senator Durbin made his remarks. But it was something I felt deeply, and it became more and more clear to me: that is, we in this Senate are creating an impression around the world that wholesale violations of human rights are occurring in our prisons, and this is absolutely not true. Members of our own Congress have suggested and even stated that it is the policy of our country to abuse and violate prisoners' rights. This is completely misstating the true facts that are occurring. Anyone who visits the Guantanamo prison--and I believe that some 60-odd Congressmen and Senators have been there, including my own visit to the temporary facility several years ago--would find a new $150-million prison right on the top of the island overlooking the water. It is a beautiful site where they built this prison. It is a shame really that a prison was built there, but it is part of the military base where it is located. These prisoners are being given tremendous medical care. They are being treated for their diseases, for the parasites with which many of them have become infested. They have been cared for effectively. They have gained weight. They are provided food at a financial cost substantially exceeding that of other prisoners in America and soldiers in the U.S. military. We have treated the Koran with respect and the highest esteem and tried to handle these prisoners in a way that is appropriate. I will say a couple of things. It is important we treat these prisoners humanely, because we have high ideals as Americans. There are thousands of prisoners and we have thousands of soldiers involved in this area. That someone would overstep their bounds is not something we would not expect. It happens in American prisons every day. Prison guards are fined, they are removed, they are fired, they are prosecuted for abuse. We do not like to admit that, but it happens. We take care of it in America. We do not allow this to continue. The facts are these detainees at Guantanamo are detainees who are being held consistent with the general principles of the Geneva Conventions but are not covered by that convention. As Senator Kyl noted, they are not lawful combatants, they are unlawful combatants. They are people who sneak into a country. They do not wear a uniform. They are not part of any state army. Their goal is to kill innocent civilians, men and women and children not involved in a war effort at all. The purpose of the Geneva Conventions is to help one army identify the members of the other army and to encourage those armies not to endanger civilians, but to focus their attention on their enemy and to deal with them. These prisoners are entirely different. They do not qualify for those conventions. But we provide them great protections, anyway. We have spent $109 million on the prison there at Guantanamo. We are going to spend another $50 million making it even better. I don't see that there is any basis to move those prisoners, to alter what we are doing there and to create a new prison. How would that make us any safer if that were to occur? Let me share this about the 500 or so prisoners who are there. In the course of this war on terrorism, our country has apprehended 10,000 detainees, individuals who have been captured. Each one has been screened carefully. As a result, some 750 have been identified for incarceration at Guantanamo, the worst of the worst. Since that time, we have continued to monitor them. Each one of them has had a full review. As that has occurred, another 200 have been released and we are down now to a little more than 500 at Guantanamo. I note of the 200 released, some 12 have already been rearrested as they go about their efforts to kill Americans and American soldiers. They have been rearrested, because they returned to battle. This clearly suggest that of those other 500 detainees remaining, many of those are dedicated totally to killing American citizens. They believe in what they are doing. They are sold on this effort. They are implacable in their goal and intentions and should not be confused with the normal prisoners of war where you have a soldier who was drafted into an army and they go out and get captured and they dutifully stay in their prison until the war is over. What do you do with prisoners of war or these kind of prisoners? Prisoners of war are held until the war is over. You do not turn them loose so they can then re-engage in killing your soldiers. That is the crisis. When will the war end? I am not sure. So we have people say, they have to all be released. You cannot hold them because this war might go on forever. Might, might, might. We are talking about now. It has not been going on that long. Most have only been held 1, 2, 3 years. This is not the time to be wholesale releasing these people. This battle is tough and hot right now. If you do not believe it, look at what is happening in Iraq and how many are killed by these attacks, surreptitious sneak attacks by roadside bombs in that country. This war is not over. It is ongoing. We are lucky and have been fortunate that because we were aggressive, we as a nation have not had another attack on our homeland since September 11. But we know they would like to do that. We know they are attacking places all over the globe. A number of Supreme Court decisions has impacted how these prisoners are to be held. The Department of Defense created, therefore, as a result of the court rulings what is called the combatant status review tribunal. Every prisoner in Guantanamo has been reviewed by the combatant status review tribunal. Annually, each prisoner there goes before the ARB, which is an annual review board, sort of like a parole board. If they can justify letting these prisoners go on that annual review, they let them go because the last thing we need is to be housing a bunch of prisoners that do not amount to a threat to our people. I will share this. I will not continue too long tonight. I want to share a few facts that are important. We are committed as a nation to high standards of duty in handling those we capture. Since this war has begun, there have been 10 major commissions and investigations empaneled to review allegations of misconduct. We have had commission after commission, review after review and, as I said, 29 plus congressional hearings. We have been alert to ensuring that prisoners are not abused in any systematic way and that those who violate the law are prosecuted for it. Let me carry on. There have been 1,700 interviews as a part of these investigations; 16,000 pages of documents delivered to Congress. Detention operation enhancements to improve our detention operations range from increased oversight to expanded training of the guards to improved facilities and new doctrines. When we have had a problem, we have dealt with it, we have confronted it, and we have improved the situation. Mr. President, 390-plus criminal investigations of American soldiers and Guards have been completed or are ongoing. More than 40 staff briefings have been given to the staff members of the Congress. People are being held accountable. They are really being held accountable. One general officer has been removed from command, received a general officer memorandum of reprimand. Thirty-five soldiers have been referred to trial by court-martial--35. Sixty-eight soldiers have received nonjudicial punishment, which is a career ender. Twenty-two memoranda of reprimand have been issued. Eighteen soldiers have been administratively separated from the Army. The Navy has had nine receive nonjudicial punishment. Fifteen marines have been convicted by court- martial. Seven received nonjudicial punishment, and four have been reprimanded. We know in Abu Ghraib there was this uproar. This story had been broken by the media, one Senator said yesterday at our hearing. But if you remember, it was the general who made the briefing every day to the news media who announced, days before the media had any report of these abuses in Abu Ghraib, he had reports of abuses in Abu Ghraib prison and investigations were being commenced. And they commenced immediately. People were removed from command immediately and no more abuses took place in that prison from that date onward. We know since then, because we have had hearings and newspaper articles and investigative reports on TV, that these people who violated the rights of those prisoners were tried and convicted and are being sent to jail for long periods of time. Although none were seriously physically injured, as I recall, they were humiliated and handled in a way unbecoming of an American soldier. Those soldiers have been disciplined severely for their errors, and rightly so. I think it is something we should be proud of. Do you remember the colonel whose soldiers were under attack? He needed information from an Iraqi, and to get it, he fired a gun near the Iraqi's head. He did not hurt him in any way. And this terrorist gave information that helped save soldiers' lives. And they cashiered him out of the Army because he was not allowed to use that kind of action. We had a marine officer--who after 9/11 gave up his stock brokerage job to go and serve his country--be prosecuted, it now appears falsely, by a lower ranking soldier who made complaints against him, a soldier he had referred for disciplinary action. After full review, they dismissed all charges. This record is clear. This Government, our Nation, does not tolerate abuse. We have taken strong actions to see that it is not allowed and does not continue. But we have a duty to protect the people of our Nation. These detainees, these terrorists, who are being held, these unlawful combatants present a risk to us. Some say, well, somehow we have made this all happen by being aggressive militarily. But I would remind my colleagues that for almost 20 years al-Qaida, and groups like that, have been attacking our embassies, our marines, our soldiers--our warships, the USS Cole-- around the globe. We had been in a constant state of combat with Saddam Hussein truthfully since the gulf war in 1991. Up until the actual commencement of these hostilities, we were flying missions to enforce the no-fly zone under the U.N. resolutions. He was firing missiles at our aircraft, and we were dropping bombs on him. This is a dangerous part of the globe. That is why the Congress, when President Clinton was President, passed a resolution setting the policy of this Government to effect a regime change in Iraq. So this is what it is all about. It is a dangerous world out there. I want to call on my colleagues, with the greatest sincerity, to be careful what we say. Do not be telling the media, the world, speaking out in ways that suggest it is a policy in the actions of our military routinely to abuse prisoners. If prisoners are unlawfully treated, the guards are prosecuted. And the people who did it are prosecuted. It is not our policy to abuse prisoners. It does not happen on a regular basis. We do not tolerate it. We will not tolerate it. We will comply with the law and treat people appropriately. But when Senators come in hearings and to this floor and make statements in the news media--and when the news media writes reports, as was done about the Koran, saying it was flushed down the toilet-- they had to retract that story, bad things happen. After the false Koran incident a riot occurred because people in the Middle East believed that was true. They believed what they read in our national news, that we were unfairly or disrespectfully treating the Koran. Whereas in Guantanamo, our guards use gloves. They hold the Koran with both hands, in every way try to treat it in a respectful manner and make sure that every prisoner there is provided a copy, if they desire. So this is bad when we create a climate in this body that falsely characterizes our people. Yes, we make mistakes. Yes, if we do, they need to be fixed, and people ought to be punished. And I have shown we are punishing them. But it is wrong and irresponsible, and it places our soldiers whom we have sent in harm's way at greater risk when we suggest to that entire region of the world that we do not respect the faith of Islamic peoples, that we do not treat respectfully the prisoners who we apprehend, and that we are irresponsible, maybe even carrying on activities that are so bad as to be compared with Hitler, Pol Pot, or the Soviet Union. Those irresponsible comments can cost soldiers' lives. We need to be careful about it. If someone has proof of an individual act that amounts to a crime, let's see them bring it forward. Let's have an investigation. If somebody deserves to be prosecuted, let's prosecute them. But if not, quit making these statements. I think we have had enough hearings. As far as I am concerned, 29-plus is enough. The military has demonstrated, with all clarity, that they are prepared and willing to honestly and aggressively prosecute wrongdoers. They are also committed to protecting our citizens. They have given their lives, many of them, in that effort. They volunteered to serve in our military. They are the finest military this world has ever known. In the heat of combat they have shown restraint. They have not used heavy weapons, and they have held back in order to be sure innocent civilians are not injured. They do everything they can on a daily basis to reach out to the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, to appeal to their hearts and minds, to encourage them on the road to building a new and better life for themselves and their families. They do the things that Americans have no idea of on a daily basis to try to reach out and reconcile and improve our relationship with the people in that area of the globe. It is positively damaging to that effort when Members of Congress make the kinds of statements that have been made, when news media outlets, great organs of information, make mistakes, twist, exaggerate, misrepresent things that have occurred. It is not right. We need to show more responsibility. We need to show more discipline. It is not justified. No matter how strongly one feels politically and wants to try to blame the President for all these things, it is not just being heard in this body, it is not just the American people who are hearing criticisms of the President. These comments are being heard throughout the globe. It is not helpful to our efforts to build a better and more peaceful world. I thank the Chair for the opportunity to say these words, late at night though it is. I believe we are at a point where our Congress needs to improve its behavior. We need to show more restraint. If we do so, this will allow our soldiers to have a better chance to succeed at the difficult mission they have and the one they are working at so ably and so courageously. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I yield back all remaining time on this side.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, 230 years ago on, June 14, 1775, our Founding Fathers formed the United States Army. The Continental Army emerged in the midst of a war for liberty and freedom. Today, America's Army, serving worldwide in a global war on terror, is once again deeply engaged in fighting tyranny and ensuring the light of liberty shines around the world. It too is transforming just as it did in 1775. The Nation stands united on the 230th birthday of the U.S. Army supporting our soldiers deployed around the globe. Each and every one a volunteer, who left behind the comforts of home to serve their fellow citizens and the Nation. Their courage, compassion, and selfless devotion to duty stand as clear examples to all of us and to nations the world over. The American soldier has always been the centerpiece of the Nation's defense. Today, the focus remains as it always has: every soldier is a link to those past heroes. Moreover, our modern warfighters remain the preeminent land combat force in the world. From Bunker Hill to New Orleans, from Gettysburg to the Marne, from North Africa and the beaches of Normandy to Inchon and the Ia Drang, from Desert Storm to Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom, the American soldier: brave, professional and determined has taken the field of battle in defense of those who hunger for freedom. In light of the new threats of this century, the U.S. Army is transforming itself once again to remain on the leading edge of warfighting technology and combat skill. The change from musket to rifle, from horse to motorized vehicle, from aircraft to missiles has in the past 230 years demonstrated the resolve of our Army and its leaders to adapt in the face of change. New units of action, enhanced global mobility, infusion of precision weapons, and the responsiveness found in Army UAVs along with real-time sharing of intelligence and information are the hallmarks of the U.S. Army today. What will never change is the courage, determination, and professionalism of the ultimate weapon in the Nation's arsenal: the American soldier. No tribute to our men and women in uniform, whether they are from Alabama or elsewhere, would be complete without mentioning their families. America salutes our military families and the silent burden they bear when their loved ones: husbands and wives, fathers and mothers or sons and daughters are called away to distant shores to defend this great Nation and our way of life. The love and support our soldier's families provide gives each soldier the comfort and respite from the danger and long hours spent away. As Americans, completing life's daily tasks, we should be ever mindful that the peace and freedom we enjoy in this great Nation were secured time and time again by the valor of countless soldiers serving around the globe over the past 230 years. From forward positions in Korea to the streets of Baghdad to the mountains of Afghanistan soldiers stand ready at their posts. They continue to guarantee the peace that has been handed down from generation to generation of Americans. We should be proud and humbled by the standards set and the sacrifices borne by these Americans. Happy 230th Birthday United States Army. May your successes be many and your burdens light. General Patton once said, ``Wars may be fought with weapons, but they are won by men. It is the spirit of men who follow and of the man who leads that gains the victory.'' So it was in Patton's time, so it is today. Ours is the greatest Army ever fielded because of the men and women who wear its uniform make it so.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 9, 2005, at 10 a.m. to mark up S. 582 ``The Little Rock Central High School Desegregation 50th Anniversary Commemorative Coin Act,'' and to vote on the nomination of Mr. Ben S. Bernanke, of New Jersey, to be a member of the Council of Economic Advisers; and Mr. Brian D. Montgomery, of Texas, to be assistant secretary of Housing/Federal Housing Commissioner, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 9, 2005 at 10:30 a.m. to hold a hearing on nominations.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 9, 2005 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a hearing on the Western Hemisphere.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 9, 2005 at 10 a.m. in SD-430.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I am very pleased the Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Gregg, is chairing this important committee. He has had a large number of years of intense interest in improving homeland security. I am not sure he is aware, but yesterday there was a hearing in the Judiciary Committee on the Joint Terrorism Subcommittee and the Immigration Subcommittee. It dealt with people coming into the country illegally, people who were other than Mexicans, on the Mexican border. The story, as described by a reporter in a newspaper article of early May, said that a group--for example, in this case 20 from Brazil--came across the border, looked for the Immigration Border Patrol people, and immediately went up to them and turned themselves in to them. They were taken into some form of custody, placed in some form of transportation, transported further into the country, and then released on their own recognizance. Of the 8,908 notices to appear that the immigration court in Harlington issued to non-Mexicans, 8,767 of them never showed up when they were supposed to come to court. First, I would note there are a lot of people other than our Mexican neighbors who are coming across that border. Second, there were some plans to expedite removal to these other countries, which is somewhat difficult. Maybe one-fifth of these are being handled in the more expedited and effective way. But I wanted to share that with the Senator. I ask if he thought the committee would be responsive to requests from the Administration to fund those expedited programs, because what we are doing now is not effective at all.

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator, also the Chair of the Budget Committee. He answered very well when he said we can't always fund the new things we want to do by pumping new money into them. Sometimes we need to ask ourselves if there is not some money being spent in a way that is less useful, and utilize that money where we have to utilize it. I am proud to serve with him on that Budget Committee.

Mr. SESSIONS. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I will state what Representative Alvin Holmes said. He is an African American. He starts off saying: Please accept this as my full support and endorsement of Alabama's Attorney General Bill Pryor to the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. I am a black member of the Alabama House of Representatives having serving for 28 years. During my service . . . I have led most of the fights for civil rights of blacks, women, lesbians and gays and other minorities. He lists seven different points where Attorney General Bill Pryor has stood up for minority rights and African-American rights in the State, including a mentor program where he for 3 years worked every week reading as a tutor to Black children. He goes on to note a number of points. He finally concludes this way: Finally, as one of the key civil rights leaders in Alabama who has participated in basically every major civil rights demonstration in America, who has been arrested for civil rights causes on many occasions, as one who was a field staff member of Dr. Martin Luther King's SCLC, as one who has been brutally beaten by vicious police officers for participating in civil rights marches and demonstrations, as one who has had crosses burned in his yard by the KKK . . . as one who has lived under constant threats day in and day out because of his [stands] . . . I request your swift confirmation of Bill Pryor to the 11th Circuit because of his constant efforts to help the causes of blacks in Alabama. Bill Pryor has the support of every Democratic official in the State, the top African-American leaders, the people of Alabama. They know him and respect him to an extraordinary degree. I am pleased to now yield the floor. I see the majority leader is here.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, it is a great honor for me to stand in this great Senate Chamber to share a few thoughts about my friend, one of the best lawyers I have ever known, now Judge Bill Pryor, serving on the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, to speak in favor of his confirmation. He is principled. He is highly intelligent. He is committed to doing the right thing. He has won the support, respect, friendship, and admiration of people on both sides of the aisle--African Americans, Whites, Democrats--throughout our State of Alabama. He has virtually unanimous support among those groups, and he has earned that by his principled approach to being attorney general, his love and respect for the law, his courageous commitment to doing the right thing. He has views about the law and public policy in America, and he expresses those, but he absolutely understands that there is a difference between advocacy and being on a bench and having to judge, that you are not then an advocate, you are a referee, you are a judge, a person who is supposed to fairly and objectively decide how the dispute should be settled. He understands that totally. That is true with most good lawyers in America, but I think he understands it more than even most good lawyers. Most good lawyers have been good advocates, and they have become good judges. Certainly we understand that. Criticism has been raised against him that is painful to me. I think much of it is a result of misinformation. For example, my colleague from Iowa, who is such a champion of the disabled, always is a champion of the interests of the disabled, suggested that Bill Pryor is not a believer in rights for the disabled because in a disabilities act that was passed by this Congress it allowed people to sue their employers for back pay, for injunction, and for damages if they were wronged by an employer. But the Congress never thought at that time what it meant if it involved a State. Three percent of the people in Alabama work for the State of Alabama. He understood, as a skilled constitutional lawyer, that the Congress would have then undertaken, if the law was to be interpreted so that damages could be rendered against the State, to wipe out the doctrine of sovereign immunity. That is a doctrine that prohibits States from being sued for money damages. He said, yes, the employee can get the job back, yes, the employee can receive back pay if they were discriminated in any way as a result of that disability, but they cannot, in a case against the State of Alabama or any State, get money damages because that violates the constitutional principle of sovereign immunity. He took that to the Supreme Court and won. Nobody in Alabama or anywhere else who knows anything about disabilities would think this represented an action by him to harm the disabled. It was simply to clarify this important principle as to what power the Congress has under these kinds of legislation to wipe out the traditional historic right of a State under sovereign immunity. That is how these issues become confused. That is what hurts me about this debate process. So often nominees are accused of things based on results or maybe outcome of any one given case, and they are said to be against poor people or against education or against the disabled. I will offer for the Record an editorial from the Mobile Press that totally analyzes the complaints and allegations that were raised by Senator Kennedy about fundraising for the Attorney Generals Association. It completely refutes those allegations. We had a full look at it. I think everybody who was involved in the Judiciary Committee and the staff people who made lots of phone calls found there was absolutely nothing to show any wrongdoing. How do we decide what a good person is or a good nominee is? I do not know. You may know them and respect them personally. You have seen their integrity and their courage in trying to do the right thing daily. What do others say who may have a different political philosophy? Let me read a letter from Alvin Holmes, a member of the State House of Alabama. I see the majority leader here. I will be willing to yield to him or take a couple minutes, if he allows me.