Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 106 submitted earlier today.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution and preamble-be agreed to en bloc, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record, without intervening action or debate.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas for his leadership on this issue and for his remarks, which I share. We have a problem with immigration and law enforcement and national security. Some of these are just security and some of these involve economic and social policy that impact the immigration question. I believe we can do better. We need to give serious thought and consideration that we can do much better. We have people who want to come here. They want to do so in the right way. They will be assets to our Nation. We ought to identify those people and try to accommodate as many as possible, consistent with our own national interest. The Senator from Texas mentioned what is happening in enforcement today. It is a nightmare. There was an article this morning in the Washington Times about 13 illegals stopped by the local police officers. They were released on bail. They are asked to show up for a hearing on their deportation. The statistics show, as the Senator just said, as much as 80 percent of those people do not show up. They become absconders. It makes a mockery of the system in many ways. I have some ideas about this issue. I have some beliefs that local law enforcement has been confused in what their authority is. We ought to encourage them to be helpful in this area instead of discouraging, as the current laws today are. I have done legal research on that particular question, but this is a Defense supplemental bill to fund our soldiers in the field in combat. It is not the time to debate comprehensively one of the most complex and sensitive subjects this country has to deal with. That is fundamental. The Sensenbrenner language offered early on on the intelligence bill was not accepted. He was given a promise he could move it on the first vehicle that came out of the House. This is more a national security issue, by far, than an immigration bill. It is simply a tool to create a system by which we can readily identify those who are not here legally. It is my observation, having been around this Senate now for some years, that you can propose and do a lot of things on immigration. Unless you come up with something that works, that has the actual potential to be an impediment to illegal entry into our country, that is when we start hearing an objection. It seems those proposals never pass. I am prepared not to offer anything on this bill. I am prepared not to debate on this bill. My opinion is, the Sensenbrenner language is fine. I am all for it. But we are at this point looking at the potential of a flood of amendments dealing with immigration on a bill that ought to be funding our soldiers. The distinguished Senator from Mississippi who chairs the Appropriations Committee must be looking in wonder at a bill that is supposed to be funding our troops that has now become a massive debate on this issue of immigration. It is unfortunate. Senator Feinstein and Senator Cornyn have agreed on an amendment that makes sense. It is something I can live with. I believe it would move us forward. The legislation being proposed, such as AgJOBS, is not good to begin with, and I would probably oppose it, but more than that it is not the time to deal with it. We are just not ready. It is not appropriate. I urge our colleagues to support this, and not only support it but to vote down the amendments that deal with immigration so we can get this bill done. We will have to deal with immigration. It is a critical national issue. It is important to our country. We are a nation of immigrants. We do not want to stop people from coming here. We do have needs in many areas and sectors of our economy. I am not sure the Republic is going to fall if we do not have enough custodial helpers in some resort somewhere. I am not sure the Republic is going to fall if there is not somebody to turn the bedspreads down at night and put a little piece of chocolate on the pillow. In fact, we have a lot of American citizens who do that work dutifully every day. If they were paid $2 or $3 more an hour, maybe they would do it; maybe there would be more American citizens prepared to do that work. We grow cotton in my home State of Alabama. If we bring twice as much cotton into the United States as was brought in the year before, will we not drive down the price of cotton, or any other commodity? We need to be of the understanding that unlimited immigration to meet every possible need some business person says is critical is not the right policy for our country just because they say it is critical. They have an interest. They want cheap labor. We are now talking about matters that go beyond this supplemental. I am proud of our soldiers. I have been to Iraq and Afghanistan three times. They are performing exceedingly well. We have a responsibility to support them. This legislation does that. It is our responsibility to move it forward, get it to them, remove this uncertainty, make sure the Defense Department has what they need to support our troops because we are holding their feet to the fire. If they are not doing what the Defense Department ought to be doing, we are going to be on them, and we need to give them the resources so we can legitimately complain if our soldiers are not being adequately supported. We will make a mistake if we get off that purpose and move toward a full-fledged debate on immigration. I support the Cornyn-Feinstein amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I am very troubled that on this Defense supplemental bill, designed to provide the resources necessary for our soldiers in the field to defend themselves and execute the policy of the United States of America against a hostile force, we are now moving into a prolonged and contentious debate over one of the issues that all of us must admit is critically divisive and contentious and important in our country; and that is, the immigration question. As we all know, the 9/11 Commission made several recommendations involving security issues affecting this country, particularly in identification and better control over those who would come into our country, particularly those trying to come in illegally. That was debated in the intelligence bill. Then an agreement was reached. The House decided to put in that REAL ID language, designed to be consistent with the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission for security purposes--not an immigration bill, security bill language, their version of it. This Senate has not put any such language in the bill at this time. I will say this. That is one thing. I, as a prosecutor, and somebody who has served on the Judiciary Committee--and we have wrestled with this for some time--have come to the very firm conclusion that the Sensenbrenner language is important for our security. We need to do something like this. We have waited too long, I believe. That is my view. But now on this floor I am advised we are going to have the Mikulski immigration bill offered, and then we are going to have the Craig- Kennedy AgJOBS bill, which is a bill breathtaking in its scope, an absolute legislative approval of amnesty in an incredible scope, and absolutely contrary to the very generous but liberal position President Bush has taken with regard to immigration. That is going to be run through on this Defense supplemental, and we are going to have to vote on it. The committees have not studied it. We have not looked at all the alternatives that might be considered or other legislation that I am interested in, such as legislation that would empower our local law enforcement to be better participants in this entire activity. All of that will be swept away, and we will come through with a bill where we give a million-plus people, who are here in our country illegally--they would be granted temporary resident status, by proving that they worked at least 100 hours illegally. And then, if they worked 2,060 hours during a period of 6 years, they then are adjusted to legal permanent residents, what most people call green card holders, a status that is a guaranteed track or pass to citizenship, and they can bring their families with them. This bill will take 1 million people, and it will put them on a guaranteed track to citizenship, people who have come here illegally. Now, what about the people who have followed these H-1B, H-2B visa programs who have worked here legally? Can they get advantage of this track? Do they get put on a process by which they become citizens? No. It is only the people who are here illegally. This is a bad principle. It is a matter of very serious import for law. I was a Federal prosecutor for 15 years. It hurts me to see the indifference by which our Nation has handled our legal system regarding immigration. Should we allow more people to come here under legitimate conditions? Absolutely. I am for that, legally. I am prepared to discuss that. But I am not for a plan that guarantees amnesty for people who have come here illegally and not providing the benefits to those who may be talented, maybe have the skills we need right now, those who do not have connections to criminal or terrorist groups. We ought to be working on that angle of it. I am a team player and I want to see things done right, in this Senate. I want to see our leadership succeed. I want to see good policy executed. But we are not going to take this issue lightly. I suggest that it would be an abdication of our responsibility as Senators if we allow this to be rammed through, attached to a bill, without the American people knowing what we are doing. They need to know this. It is going to take some time for them to learn what is being considered here. Senators need to learn what is in this bill. They don't know yet. This AgJOBS bill had 60-something cosponsors last year. Now I understand it is down to 45. Why? People are reading this thing. It is bad law, bad policy. You tell me--this will be the second time we have passed an amnesty bill, if AgJOBS were to become law. Passing another amnesty bill would do nothing more than send the signal to those around the world who would like to come to the United States that the best way to become a citizen is to come in illegally and hang on; they will never do anything to you, and eventually there will be another amnesty out there? That is why we are concerned about it. Yes, there are hardship cases. Yes, we want to be fair to everybody. We want to be more than fair. We want to be generous. But we have to be careful if we have any respect for law. Sometimes people think in this body--maybe they have never had to deal with it as I have--that laws don't have much import. They do. They are important. They make statements. A society that cannot set rules and enforce those rules is not a healthy society. If you would like to know why America is the greatest, most productive, most free country in the history of the world, it is our commitment to the rule of law. This process is undermining respect for law in a way that I have not seen before, maybe since Prohibition. I think we can improve immigration law. We can be generous with people and try to help them and their families and create something. But it is going to take a good while. It is going to take some hard work. I for one am not going quietly on this bill. We are going to take time. We are going to have debate. We are going to delay this important defense supplemental bill now to go off on this tangent. But I hope and pray that somehow our leadership and those who are interested in these issues can find a way to put this off for now. Let this bill get passed. Let's talk about this issue as part of a comprehensive debate. If we did that, we would be serving our constituents a lot better than what we are doing today. If we go forward and we ram this through without the kind of hearings, debate, taking testimony, studying data, do all that kinds of stuff, our constituents are not going to be happy with us. As a matter of fact, I think they are going to rightly be upset with us. It is a tactic that should not be done on a matter of this importance. I wanted to make that comment. I know at some point we will be moving forward with the bill. Hopefully the leadership can work with those who are interested in these issues and create a mechanism at some point in the future where it can be fully debated. I am not prepared to allow such a tremendously significant piece of legislation as the AgJOBS bill to go through without a full debate. Every minute that is available to this Senate to debate it should be put on it. The American people need to know what is happening on the floor of the Senate right now. Maybe when we have a vote, we will have the right outcome. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 1134 and that the Senate proceed to its consideration.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, there is a substitute amendment at the desk. I ask that the amendment be considered and agreed to; the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; the bill, as amended, be read a third time, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record, without intervening action or debate.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I want to share some comments about a matter which I became aware of recently. I think it is rather dramatic, and it is a matter which this Senate should deal with. The United Nations is planning to renovate the United Nations Headquarters Building in New York. The New York Sun reports that they are projecting to spend $1.2 billion to renovate that building. That is a lot of money! But, frankly, I don't know what it takes to build a building in New York, and neither do most folks. But there are some people who do and we'll look to their opinions later. It is a 30-story building. We own the real estate. It was modern once, when it was built in 1953, and people thought it was avant garde at the time. I have never been impressed with it, but it is an imposing structure. The fact that we need to renovate that building may not be disputable. It probably does need it, although it was renovated pretty substantially in the 1970's. Equivalent in today's dollars, over $150 million was spent on it. The current plan is for the United States to loan the money at a 5.5 percent interest, a somewhat realistic interest rate, whereas the U.N. is holding out on accepting the offer. They probably would like a loan at no cost. The GAO reported that was Annan's initial desire. The United Nations, as we know, is notoriously wasteful in the spending of its money. I wish that it weren't so, but it is a plain fact. Their cost controls have never been good. The Oil-For-Food Program that has been discussed so much lately is the biggest boondoggle--fraud, really--in the history of the world. This U.N. program is out of control. Waste of money under any circumstances is not acceptable. The United States, of course, pays about 20 percent of U.N. dues. We are the largest dues-paying member of the United Nations. I believe we pay a total of 22 percent of those dues. But regardless of that, UN dues are funds that have been sent to the United Nations by nations all over the world, and that money ought to be spent for good things with good purposes, purposes consistent with the ideals and principles on which the United Nations was founded--feeding the poor, improved medical care around the world, aid for research and treatment, river blindness, and peacekeeping missions. We don't have enough money to handle all the missions we need to do in the world, and the U.N. ought to do more. They do economic development, infrastructure improvements, and democracy building, but there is never enough money to do all of those things we should. Surely, with all the potential beneficial projects in the world, there is no room to waste money on a project, much less a project that would build offices for bureaucrats. Let me share this story with you, which is pretty shocking to me. The $1.2 billion loan the United Nations wants is to renovate a building. Some member of the United Nations, a delegate, apparently, from Europe, had read in the newspaper in New York that Mr. Donald Trump, the premier real estate developer in New York, the largest in New York by far, who has his own television show now--had just completed the Trump World Tower--not a 30-story building like the United Nations, but a 90- story building, for a mere $350 million, less than one-third of that cost. So the European United Nations delegate was curious about the $1.2 billion they were spending on the United Nations. He knew he didn't know what the real estate costs are in New York. So, he called Mr. Trump and they discussed it. Mr. Trump told him that building he built for $350 million was the top of the line. It has the highest quality of anything you would need in it. They discussed the matter, and an arrangement was made for Mr. Trump to meet Kofi Annan, Secretary-General, to discuss the concerns. The European delegate was somewhat taken back at Trump's reaction because he just didn't know how much it would cost. He had originally thought Mr. Trump's figures that were printed in the paper were in error. So according to Mr. Trump, who I talked to personally this morning, they go meet with Mr. Annan, who had asked some staff member to be there, and Mr. Trump is very outraged about this staffer. When the European asked how these numbers could happen, Mr. Trump said the only way would be because of incompetence, or fraud. That is how strongly he felt about this price tag because he pointed out to me that renovation costs much less than building an entirely new building. So he has a meeting with Mr. Annan, and they have some discussion. And Mr. Trump says these figures can't be acceptable. He told me in my conversation this morning, he said: You can quote me. You can say what I am saying. It has already been reported in the newspapers. He said they don't know. The person who had been working on this project for 4 years couldn't answer basic questions about what was involved in renovating a major building. He was not capable nor competent to do the job. He was further concerned. He went and worked on it, and talked about it, and eventually made an offer. He said he would manage the refurbishment, the renovation, of the United Nations Building, and he would not charge personally for his fee in managing it. He would bring it in at $500 billion, less than half of what they were expecting to spend, and it would be better. He told me: I know something about refurbishment and renovations. I do a lot of that, also. I know how to do that. Yet he never received a response from the United Nations, which raised very serious concerns in his mind about what was going on there. Let me further note some comments in the New York Sun article of February 4 of this year dealing with this subject. It starts off quoting Mr. Trump in this fashion: ``The United Nations is a mess, and they're spending hundreds of millions of dollars unnecessarily on this project.'' And several other Manhattan real estate experts agreed, saying that the space should cost a fraction of what is being projected on a square foot basis. In addition to this, by the way, after refurbishing their existing building, there are plans to construct a 35-story, 900,000-square-foot swing space over Robert Moses Park, plus a 100,000-square-foot esplanade park, which the United Nations Development Corporation says will be built into the East River. That has an additional price tag of $650 million. But that is a separate issue because they are having some additional problems with that, I understand, at this point. An executive managing director at the commercial real- estate firm Julien J. Studley Inc., Woody Heller, said a thorough renovation of an office building would probably cost between $85 and $160 per square foot. I am still reading from that newspaper article. Also from there, an executive vice president at Newmark, Scott Panzer, said renovation prices could range between $120 and $200 per square foot. From the article: Mr. Panzer, who works with many corporations to redevelop their buildings for future efficiency and energy cost savings, put a price of $70 to $100 per square foot on infrastructure upgrades. Those would include heating; ventilation; air conditioning; replacing the central plant; fenestration (specifically, switching from single-pane to thermal-pane windows); upgrading elevator switch gears, mechanicals, and vertical transportation; improving air quality, and making security upgrades. On top of that amount, another $50 to $100 per square foot would take care of the inside office improvements. Fifty dollars is a lot of money to renovate a room. Remember, this is renovation, not building. You can probably build a building in Alabama for $100 a square foot. The chairman of the global brokerage at commercial real- estate firm CB Richard Ellis, Stephen Siegel, said high-end commercial renovation usually runs from $50 to $100 per square foot. For a renovation that does not include new furniture . . . [and this plan does not] but does provide for improved heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning equipment, as well as work on the building exterior, the cost would be closer to the $100 end of the range, Mr. Siegel said. Even accounting generously for upgrades that might be peculiar to the U.N., Mr. Siegel added he would set $250 per square foot as the absolute maximum. Some in the industry have estimated, however, that the dimensions of the U.N. headquarters building and total square footage in need of refurbishment is probably actually less than 1.1 million square feet ,less than what they are saying, because it has been suggested that they were counting the parking deck in the renovation and other parts of the building that are not occupied. If you take out the parking deck and these other areas, you get a different figure than the 2.5 million they give you. Using the U.N. figures, the capital master plan yields a square foot cost of $452.71 for the renovation per square foot. That is breathtaking and completely out of common sense. It is almost twice what Mr. Siegel said would be the absolute maximum. But that is not all. If you go back and take out the parking deck and some of these other areas of the building that would not normally be considered when you think of the square foot of renovation, let me tell you what the figure comes to, and hold on to your hat: $1,100 per square foot. According to Mr. Trump, this is three, four, maybe five times the cost of this renovation, making this the most expensive renovation in history. Mr. Siegel said the $1.2 billion cost estimate was ``outrageous.'' This is a professional real estate man in New York City. He said the cost of renovation would be nearly as much as the price of putting up a new building, including the cost of land, and he would set the cost of the land at $500 per square foot, but that is already paid for in this case. This is a big deal. A GAO report has looked at it. It assumes that our Government will pay 22 percent of the $1.2 billion loan principal. In other words, because we pay about that much percentage in our dues to the U.N., we will pay 22 percent of the $1.2 billion paying the principal back. The American taxpayers have a real interest in this. There are some negotiations now. The administration is saying, you ought to pay some interest. We want to be paid 5.5 percent. We will loan you the money, but we want to be paid 5.5 interest. The U.N. is holding out to accept our loan, perhaps Mr. Annan is holding out for a loan with zero-interest. We would like the U.N. to have good quarters. We would like them to renovate if that is the right thing to do. However, the United Nations has a responsibility not only to the United States, the largest contributor, but to every single country that contributes to that organization. Many of them are not wealthy. Many of them contribute significantly to the U.N. They have a responsibility to use that money wisely. I am very concerned in light of the oil-for-food scandal and other problems we have seen at the U.N. that we are heading down the road to an incredibly wasteful adventure in New York. The U.S. Government ought to do everything it can not only to protect our own treasury, but to protect the U.N. Secretary, to make sure this boondoggle does not go forward. At some point legislation by this Congress needs to be passed to allow, encourage, or require our leadership to demand strict accounting of what is being spent, to demand that any construction or renovation be done in a cost-effective way, to make sure there is no fraud, there is no corruption, no kickbacks, and no abuses whatsoever in building this building, and that every dollar of the U.N. is spent wisely and carefully. Those are my concerns. I thank the New York Sun for making a point in this article. I thank Mr. Trump for his willingness to speak publicly. He is pretty frank about it. Obviously, he is very concerned. He felt this was not being handled in a wise way. He saw a disaster on the horizon, and he was willing to speak out about it. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I, too, believe in free trade, but I share Senator Schumer's thoughts and Senator Graham's ideas. A great nation such as China needs to understand it has moved to a different level, that it sells an incredible amount of products to the United States of America, and what they do with the value of their currency impacts that trade. What they have done is not sound policy. Because I believe in free trade, I believe it is not even going to be good for China. It is certainly not good for the United States today. I do not want to be involved in telling a nation what their currency ought to be. I know the Senator from New York and the Senator from South Carolina do not believe they should, but this is reality. We are not talking about theory. We moved beyond theory. It is jobs. It is trade. It is a deficit trade that we have with China to an extraordinary degree that continues to grow. So I thank the Senators for their efforts, and I would be pleased to support their amendment.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I wonder if I might be recognized after the distinguished chairman, Chairman Lugar.

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending amendments be set aside in order to offer three amendments en bloc.

Mr. SESSIONS. I call up amendments numbered 290, 291, and 317.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President I rise today to honor a distinguished American and patriot the Honorable Peter B. Teets, former Acting Secretary of the Air Force and Under Secretary of the Air Force. Secretary Teets left government service on March 25, 2005 to join his family in Colorado. He did so after four years of selfless devotion to his country serving in what I would characterize as four of the most important jobs within the Department of Defense--as the senior official in the Department of the Air Force responsible for nearly 700,000 military, civilians, and family members with budget authority exceeding $110 billion dollars. Simultaneously, Mr. Teets also served as the Department of Defense Executive Agent for Space and as the Director of the National Reconnaissance Office. In this later special capacity he was responsible for the acquisition and operation of all space-based reconnaissance and intelligence systems. I think you would agree Mr. President, Pete Teets was an extraordinary public servant possessing uncompromising standards, superior managerial skills and a keen analytical mind wherein he was able to exact the most from the military service he represented and the programs he supervised. His quest for perfection across the board will long be remembered both within and outside the Department. Prior to joining the Department of Defense, Pete Teets worked in industry for nearly four decades serving first as a Martin Maretta flight control engineer and ending that service as the President and Chief Operating Officer, Lockheed Martin Corporation. His resume is replete with ever increasing positions of responsibility spanning the period 1963 to 2001, when he was nominated to serve President Bush as our Under Secretary of the Air Force and Director of the National Reconnaissance Office, two demanding tasks particularly during this time of transformation within the Department of Defense, coupled with the challenges associated with emerging space requirements and system development. Throughout his tenure, the members of the Senate Armed Services Committee have found Pete Teets to be one of the most thoughtful and insightful DOD officials we have come to know. His ability to reduce complex system assessments into meaningful constructs were, on more than one occasion, immensely helpful to every committee member. His private counsel and immense personal interaction were directly responsible for solving major program problems for which our country is most grateful. Our Nation deserves no less than the full measure of devotion from the men and women it nominates to our highest positions of authority. Peter Teets fulfilled every expectation the Congress and the nation placed upon him. He did so with a combination of grace and dignity, superb organizational and managerial skill, and with that rare coupling of professionalism and confidence that his Air Force and our Department of Defense would not accept anything short of excellence in accomplishing every assigned mission and task. I truly hope this is not the last time the nation will call upon Peter Teets and his family to serve this grateful Nation. Indeed, Pete has earned the right to return home and focus on the one thing all of us yearn to do--spend time and focus on family. His many friends in the Senate wish him and his family all the best in the days ahead. We bid Pete a fond farewell and heartfelt thanks for a magnificent job as our Acting Air Force Secretary and as our Under Secretary of the Air Force. We are a better people and stronger Nation today because Pete Teets gave and accomplished so much. We will indeed miss America's ``Mr. Military Space'' and wish him God's everlasting blessings.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, today, for me, marks the culmination of 8 long years of hard work, and I am glad we have finally reached this point, where we will not only pass this bill, but the House will do so as well and the President will sign it into law. I believe that we have eliminated some abuses with this bill. I wish we could have accomplished more, but we could not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Let me say to my colleagues, that there are some issues like homestead and asset trusts that will come back, and I look forward to working on those, but make not mistake about it, this is a good bill and I am excited to see it pass. The policy questions we have been addressing are these: (1) whether bankruptcy is a necessary and permitted way to recover from overburdening debt; and (2) when is bankruptcy being abused and used as an escape valve for individuals capable of repaying some, if not all, of their debt. The goal of this bill has never been to create additional burdens for those who have over-extended themselves for one reason or another, but to help them achieve financial responsibility after bankruptcy, so that they can avoid similar setbacks in the future. It is clear to me that when you have statements from debtors that they are using bankruptcy to ``[take] advantage of one of the opportunities the Government offers,'' that the responsibility for slowing down the 1.6 millions consumer bankruptcy filings per year lies with Congress. As we approached this bill, our goal was not to punish those who legitimately need the fresh start that bankruptcy offers. However, our goal was to disallow people from filing bankruptcy simply for the sake of taking advantage of a financial opportunity provided by the government. People who can afford to pay all or a part of their debts over a limited period of time should not get off Scot free. Let me just for a moment, talk about the concept of bankruptcy. The term derived from the medieval Italian phrase ``broken bench.'' Merchants would sell their wares in the marketplace from benches. If the merchant ever reached a point where he could not pay his debts, his creditors would seize all of his wares and divide it among themselves. They did not stop with the seizing of wares, however. The creditors would break the merchants' bench, to bankrupt the merchant from reopening. Our goal under this legislation was not and we did not ``break the bench.'' Instead of trying to prevent merchants or individuals from having a second opportunity, we accomplished just the opposite. People who need a fresh start under this bill will get one. The people who can pay some of their debts back will have to do that. Let me just highlight a few of the benefits in this bill. First, S. 256 requires that individuals receive credit counseling prior to filing for bankruptcy. This counseling will help an individual decide if bankruptcy is the appropriate mechanism to remove debt and will help the individual understand what filing bankruptcy actually means. In many instances, the deceptive and fraudulent advertising practices of bankruptcy mills lure consumers into bankruptcy unnecessarily. Debtors should know that there are many ways to get back on their feet financially--such as entering into voluntary repayment arrangements. To curb the practice of preying upon debtors, S. 256 establishes the Debtor's Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights requires that debt relief organizations disclose the nature of the services they offer, explain the alternatives to filing bankruptcy, disclose the rights and obligations of debtors who file for bankruptcy, and explain the consequences of filing for bankruptcy. Second, S. 256 establishes a means test to help determine whether people are capable of paying back a meaningful portion of their debts. This test might help the debtor avoid a Chapter 7 filing, where creditors will liquidate the individuals assets and where the debtor will have a very hard time getting creditors to extend credit to them in the future. If a debtor files under Chapter 13 and learns how to manage money under a structured repayment plan that requires some discipline, the debtor learns financial responsibility and should be able to avoid future financial turmoil. Chapter 13 bankruptcies allow debtors to keep their assets and pay back a portion of their debts over a 5 year period. In exchange, the remaining portions of their debt are discharged and the debtor gets a fresh start. Third, S. 256 creates new protections for consumers, especially in the area of credit cards. We require credit card companies to disclose the dangers of making only a minimum payment and we prohibit deceptive practices like advertising low introductory rates--rates used to bait and switch the credit card holder. We also require that a toll-free number be provided to consumers, where they can obtain information on how long it will take to payoff their credit card balances. The consumer benefits of this bill are enormous. Instead of breaking the bench, this bill promotes financial responsibility. The bill vastly improves the current situation in bankruptcy for certain categories of individuals. For example, it provides special benefits to women and children, through child support and alimony, and provides parents the ability to deduct expenses such as school tuition. Make no mistake about it, while the bill provides some increased protection for unsecured creditors, it provides more protection for consumers. Logically, there is absolutely no reason to oppose it. Mr. President, over time, many people have worked on this bill, and I would just like to take a moment to express my appreciation for their work. First, it has been an honor to work closely with Senators Grassley and Hatch to make this legislation a reality. I appreciate both of them so much and I believe they both have done yeomen's work on this bill. I thank Senator Frist for making this bill one of his top priorities and I appreciate the leadership of Senator McConnell. I think it is appropriate that we take just a moment to express appreciation to some people who gave extraordinary effort to make this successful conclusion. First, I note that in my office it has taken three chief counsels to get through this bill. I appreciate the hard work of Kristi Lee, my first Chief Counsel and currently a magistrate judge in the Southern District of Alabama. She did an outstanding job on this bill during the first years that this legislation was in the Senate. I also appreciate the work of my former Chief Counsel Ed Haden, who is currently doing appellate litigation at one of Alabama's outstanding law firms, Balch and Bingham. While I also appreciate the work of my current Chief Counsel, William Smith, and legislative counsels Amy Blankenship and Wendy Fleming for their efforts in this endeavor, my Deputy Chief Counsel Cindy Hayden has really given an extraordinary effort on this bill. These fine staffers have worked night and day for two weeks to guide this bill to passage. William Smith has given every ounce of his strength to successful passage. He deserves particular praise. Additionally, I appreciate the work of Lloyd Peeples, a former counsel of mine who has clerked for a bankruptcy judge and now serves as an AUSA in the Northern District of Alabama. He provided invaluable assistance on this bill. Sean Costello, a former counsel of mine who now works for the Office of Justice Programs at the Department of Justice, provided outstanding work to help make this bill a reality. Brad Harris, a former counsel of mine who now works for the Burr and Forman firm in Birmingham, never failed in working long hours and providing key assistance in seeing this bill through. And finally, Brent Herrin, my former counsel who worked hard on cram down and other issues, did outstanding work. Brent practices tax law for the Deloitte Touche firm in Atlanta. For eight years, these lawyers have all worked on this legislation. I know they are happy to see it come to a conclusion. I am too. In the past I have thanked the former staffers from other offices that have worked on this bill, I will not name them individually today, save John McMickle who served Senator Grassley and played a major role in helping to craft this bill. John believes in the underlying principles in this bill and I appreciate his work. I also want to thank Rita Lari Jochum, Senator Grassley's current Chief Counsel. I have seen very few staffers with her drive and dedication and she is to be commended for her efforts on this bill. Her good demeanor has been a source of calm in the storm. I appreciate the work Perry Barber, Brendan Dunn, Kevin O'Scannlain, and Bruce Artim of Senator Hatch's staff, and the work of Harold Kim, Ivy Johnson, Tim Strachman, Mike O'Neill, Hannibal Kemmerer and Ryan Triplette of Senator Specter's staff. I must also thank Dave Schiappa, Allen Hicks, Eric Ueland, Sharon Soderstrom, John Abegg, Kyle Simmons, Malloy McDaniel and Brian Lewis from the Leadership staffs of Senators Frist and McConnell, all who have provided tremendous assistance along the way in shaping this bill into its final form. Mr. President, I also want to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner and his staff for their remarkable work in getting this bill done. Phil Kilko and Susan Jensen did outstanding work on this bill. I thank the senior Senator from Alabama, Senator Shelby, for his work on this bill. He guarded his banking jurisdiction like a roaring lion. This is a great day, Mr. President. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, will the Senator restate her request?

Mr. SESSIONS. I object at this time, but I would check with our colleagues, and if that is acceptable--I could check that, but I would object at this time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Will the Senator restate her unanimous consent? There was noise on the floor, and I just did not hear it.

Mr. SESSIONS. I sought recognition.

Mr. SESSIONS. Would the Senator propound her unanimous consent request again?

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. SESSIONS. I think that is my understanding of it.

Mr. SESSIONS. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator from New York. As someone who has worked hard on this bankruptcy legislation for the 8 years I have been in the Senate, I have learned a political lesson that no matter how much bipartisan support a bill has, how much momentum it has, how needed it is, things can go awry. In the last passage of this bill, Senator Schumer offered, and aggressively argued, for the amendment that we are debating today. The leadership on this side of the aisle said, OK, we will accept it. I realized that it was problematic for a number of reasons. I opposed the amendment, but it passed, and without a whole lot of objection, I suppose, from this side. The truth is it then became the single factor in the House's rejection of the bankruptcy bill, a bill that passed this body by a vote of 83 to 15. It was really a remarkable sort of event. Let me just say a few things about the bankruptcy procedure. It has long been a fundamental principle of bankruptcy that while a bankrupt individual may bankrupt against their lawful debts, wipe them all out, and pay none of those debts, it has always been the law that a bankrupt may not discharge, may not wipe out, erase the debts that they incur as a result of intentional or willful misconduct. If a debtor lists debts that arise from an intentional wrong against someone, the trustee in bankruptcy or a creditor or any of the creditors can object to that discharge, and they would note that it should not be wiped out, it should not be discharged, because it is a debt that arises from a willful, wrongful act. The court then considers that and determines whether or not the debt should be wiped out and whether or not it was a debt that arose from a nondischargeable reason like willfulness. Senator Schumer's amendment says that willful violators of abortion clinic protest prohibitions, and really a lot of other protestors, it appears to me--maybe unions, civil rights, environmental, I think he has said that they are covered here--he says that if willful violators of abortion clinics and these others included in his bill are sued and a judgment is rendered against this protestor under Federal law, then automatically those judgments are not subject to discharge; the court does not review it; they remain a debt of the protestor for their life, and they can be pursued by collection attempts for as long as that debt exists, and it can be for some time. What we do know is this: Abortion clinic protestors have been sued for misbehavior at abortion clinics under the FACE Act. Some of these people have been relentless in their actions and have acted repeatedly in violation of law, and they have been sued. Judgments have been rendered against them. Most of them do not violate the law. As the Senator has said, the archbishop prays the rosary and conducts lawful acts, demonstrating his concern over the taking of what I consider to be life by the abortion act, and this is a free country and they are allowed to do that. But there are certain things that one cannot do in that protest, and a number of people in the past, a lot more than is currently happening, frankly, violated those prohibitions of the FACE Act. They have been sued and judgments have been rendered against them. We also know that some of those protestors who had judgments rendered against them went to bankruptcy court and sought to wipe out their debts and not pay these debts for their protests, to discharge them from bankruptcy. Finally, we know that under the current law, and under the law that is in the bankruptcy bill that is moving forward today, it has not changed on this point. That law prohibits the discharge of debts arising from willful acts. In every single case that the courts have considered petitions for discharge, in these abortion FACE Act violation cases, the bankruptcy court has refused to discharge the debt. They say, no, it was a willful act and you cannot discharge it; you still owe it. And the abortion clinic plaintiff or doctors or whoever is victimized can continue to pursue collection wherever they go. They can file garnishments against people's wages, file judgments against their property and pursue them aggressively and steadfastly to collect that debt. That is what the law has said every single time, and there is not much dispute about that. I do not think the Senator from New York would dispute that. By his amendment, the Senator from New York, because of his concern over these very few cases, frankly, but he is concerned about it and has raised the issue a number of times, has managed, as a result of his successful passing of that amendment on this Senate floor 2 years ago, to cause the bankruptcy bill and all of its important parts to actually die and not become law because the House refused to accept it. Because of his concern, I know he has offered this again. What he would want to say, and what his amendment says, I think fairly stated, is that a protestor and not just abortion clinics but any number of protestors who are sued under Federal law, and a judgment is rendered against them, Senator Schumer would want to make that judgment automatically not dischargeable, automatically without review by the court or any examination of the facts of the situation, to say it should not be discharged and will remain a permanent debt of the protestor. I know the Senator said we all voted for this and there was some sort of agreement. I really do not think there was an agreement about this. As I recall, it came up in the Judiciary Committee. Chairman Hatch was trying to move the bill forward, as he frequently does, and allowed it to become accepted by a voice vote without any big to-do. It came up to the floor and was debated again, and a decision was made that we would just allow it to pass. It was not that big a deal as people saw it at the time. I opposed it. I did not feel good about targeting these kinds of cases. I thought that the current law was acceptable and we should not go in this direction, but it passed and I voted for final passage of the overall bankruptcy bill. So I think that is why the Senator says I and others voted for it. A lot of people voted for the bill on final passage that may not have voted for the amendment on the floor. Regardless of that, the question is, now what should we do? I would just note that there are a number of reasons why I think this should not be a part of the bill. First, as I have noted, these protestors have lost every single case in which they have sought to discharge debts arising from judgments under the FACE Act. The current bankruptcy law and this bill will say flatly that such debts are not dischargeable if the injury is the result of a willful, malicious act, as these violations for the most part are. So, first, it is not necessary, and I would again note that the bill covers more than just abortion protestors. There could be any number of protestors. I think about the situation where maybe somebody from Alabama goes up to the southern district of New York and gets sued up there and a big judgment is rendered against them for taking a position unpopular in New York or maybe, as has happened in the past, people from New York have come down to Alabama and have been involved in protests and could have judgments rendered against them in local courts. So the Senator would say that under no circumstances, when that judgment were to appear on a discharge petition in bankruptcy court, would the court have any authority to look behind it. This Federal bankruptcy judge would have no authority to look behind this judgment to see if it was willful or intentional as the current law and the law has always been in bankruptcy, to my recollection, pretty much from the history of bankruptcy law. He would not look behind it and he would decide automatically it is a judgment not dischargeable. I am not sure that is good policy. I am not sure we want to do that. As a matter of fact, I do not think it is. I think the current law works. We should not do this. The Schumer amendment is bad policy. I disagree with it. I do not think it is the biggest deal in the entire world, but I think under the legal system and the principles of this bill, we would be better off allowing the bankruptcy court to consider these debts and examine them to make sure they meet the standards of discharge. There is a big practical reason. This bill has passed the Senate four times by an overwhelming vote. One time I think it was 97 to 1. It has been marked up in the Senate Judiciary Committee four times, and it has not been lightly considered on the floor of the Senate. It has been the subject of hours and hours and days of debate. We are already into the second week on this bill. After all the debate and all the hoopla we have had, and so many other issues, we continue to pound away at this legislation for reasons that I am unable to fathom. But we are moving forward. I believe we will pass it again. What is the practical reason? The House of Representatives rejected this bill the last time for the sole reason of the Schumer amendment. It is unbelievable. As much as we had in this bill, all the pages of this legislation, one little amendment killed this legislation, an amendment that I believe is bad policy, certainly not necessary, and I submit could result in killing this legislation again if we move it forward. So let's not do it. Let's not do this. Let's not go beyond the bill that we have now, that came out of the Judiciary Committee with a bipartisan vote, an overwhelming vote out of the Judiciary Committee to come to the floor without the Schumer amendment in it. Let's not add this amendment and jeopardize the passage of the bill. Let's not add this amendment and perhaps take a step, I submit with all seriousness, that could curtail protests and freedom of expression in America. Sure the protesters have lost every time. I believe they should have lost every time under the law. But there may be some times, under some of these provisions of Federal law, that could result in judgments that legitimate protesters were simply standing up under hostile circumstances in a hostile jurisdiction for what they truly believe in, and then the bankruptcy judge has no ability whatsoever to prohibit this judgment from sticking against them perhaps for the rest of their lives. I don't know. I don't think the law is failing in this regard, and I do not think the law is being abused in this regard. I think it is being handled well. We do not need this amendment for the reasons I stated, and for other reasons, frankly, that I will not state at this time. I urge the rejection of the Schumer amendment and note with pleasure that Senator Hatch, the former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, now a senior Republican member of it who has worked on this legislation since the beginning, is on the Senate floor. I am pleased to yield to him.