Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Kennedy amendment that would exclude labor class actions from the scope of S. 5. At the outset, I have serious problems with any of the carve-out amendments to S. 5. These amendments are part of an effort by opponents of the bill to mischaracterize S. 5 as anticonsumer and to make it appear that some of these carve-outs and exceptions are necessary to prevent injustice. But, Mr. President, S. 5 is a good deal across the board. It is going to improve class actions for consumers, for workers, for our economy, and for businesses. Why should American workers be denied its benefits? Why would people who have a labor dispute not want to have that dispute settled in a Federal court under these superior procedures? S. 5 will keep most labor cases in State court, anyway. The act includes two exceptions--the home State exception, and the local controversy exception--that are intended to keep most local class actions in State court. That means if local residents sue a local employer, the case will probably stay in State court, anyway. Second, any labor class actions that will be removable to Federal court under the bill would still be governed by State law. This is not unusual. It is done all the time in Federal court. Nothing in the act changes substantive law in any way. It does not strip any worker of any right to seek redress for a labor violation. It creates no new defense for corporate defendants in time-shaving cases or otherwise. In short, workers who bring State labor claims after the Act passes--and I expect that it will--will have the exact same rights they have now. Third, Federal courts have frequently certified overtime class actions. Some critics have said they are worried about Federal courts refusing to certify employee claims, but that is not true. A recent study by the Federal Judicial Center found that class actions generally ``are almost equally likely to be certified'' in State and Federal court. Certification, of course, is when a Federal court agrees that a class action should be tried as a class action. A lawyer can't go in and declare, I am representing a whole class of people, without some finding that there is a class that has been similarly wronged, or there is a similar litigation issue at stake. A review of these decisions in Federal court found numerous examples of Federal judges certifying wage-labor class actions. For example, a Federal court in New York recently certified a State labor law class action on behalf of employees of a chain of natural food stores, many of whom were immigrants, who claimed they were not properly compensated for their overtime claims. The Federal judge accepted that case. A Federal court in New York also certified a class of delivery persons and dispatchers at a drugstore chain who alleged they were not paid the minimum wage or overtime in violation of New York law. That was already accepted under current law, and it certainly would not change under this. We made some efforts to improve the overtime laws in the Federal rules with regard to it. I have personally, as a private practitioner, represented two clients in wage cases involving overtime. The reason those cases were litigated is because the laws are not clear about what overtime is and what it is not. Nor is the law clear as to who is entitled to overtime and who is not. That needs to be clarified, and I salute the President for his attempt to do so. That is a parenthetical comment. In a multidistrict litigation proceeding in the Federal court in Oregon, a Federal court certified seven State law classes brought by claims representatives against an insurance company, alleging they were improperly classified as exempt. In a case in Federal court in Illinois, the judge certified a class of employees who said their employer violated State law by failing to pay them for time spent loading trucks and driving to sites. So the judge certified a class of employees who were making a claim in Federal court for violation of State labor laws. Judges will try that case based on whether it violated State law. In a case in Washington State, the district court certified a class of meat processing plant employees who accused their employer of failing to pay them for work at the beginning and end of each day when they were on meal breaks. This is a constant source of litigation in these types of cases. I would suggest that the argument that Federal courts will not certify class actions in wage and hour cases is not correct. Finally, Mr. President, contrary to what has been suggested today, Federal courts have a long record of protecting workers in employment class actions. Congress has passed strong laws, such as title VII, that were specifically crafted to give workers access to Federal courts so they could bring employment discrimination cases in a fair forum. We have always believed Federal court is a fair, objective forum for people who have been discriminated against, whether they claim employment rights or civil rights. As a result, Federal courts already have jurisdiction over most employment discrimination and pension claims, and their record is in sharp contrast to courts such as in Madison County, IL, and Jefferson County, TX. Which courts system oversaw the Home Depot gender discrimination case settlement that paid class members about $65 million? Which courts oversaw the $192 million Coca-Cola race discrimination settlement in which each class member was guaranteed a recovery of at least $38,000? The answer to both is these were Federal court cases, not magnet State courts that to often look out for lawyers instead of consumers. In sum, the only class of workers that will be negatively affected by S. 5 is the trial lawyers who will no longer be able to bring major nationwide class actions in their favorite county court. For everyone else, S. 5 is a win-win proposition that will put an end to class action abuse while protecting consumers who seek to bring legitimate class actions. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and those other carve- out amendments that are being introduced. Senator Kennedy has also added to his amendment, the employer-worker rights cases, the civil rights carve-out. I would like to make a few points about the civil rights cases. The amendment, as I understand it, would exclude from the reach of this bill all class actions involving civil rights--all of them. It should be defeated for several reasons. First, an amendment that would affirmatively exclude civil rights cases from Federal jurisdiction would be contrary to a long tradition of encouraging the availability of our Federal courts to address civil rights claims. Indeed, we have on the books several statutes that are intended to ensure that Federal civil rights cases can be heard in Federal courts. It has long been recognized that Federal courts, by virtue of their independence from political pressure, provide a more objective, hospitable forum for civil rights cases than State courts. One statute that permits removal to Federal court for a broad range of civil rights actions is 28 U.S.C. 1443. A second statute, 28 U.S.C. 1343, provides broad Federal jurisdiction over a whole host of civil rights claims. For example, any action ``for injury to person or property or because of the deprivation of any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States,'' any action ``to recover damages or to secure equitable or other relief under any Act of Congress providing for the protection of civil rights.'' Indeed, that section provides original Federal jurisdiction over any action ``to redress the deprivation, under color of any State law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution of the United States or by any Act of Congress providing for equal rights of citizens.'' Would this amendment take those from State court? I do not think that is healthy, and I do not think that is what we should do. Second, contrary to the sponsor's assertion, the bill will not discourage people from bringing class actions by prohibiting settlements that provide named plaintiffs full relief for their claims. The answer to this contention is simple: There is no such provision in the bill. Indeed, the bill does not contain any provisions that will change claimants' substantive rights to recovery in any respect. The ``consumer bill of rights'' provisions of the bill used to include a section that prohibited the payment of excessive ``bounties'' to class representatives. The rationale for that provision was to protect the class members. However, because of concern from the civil rights community about that provision being potentially misused, we have deleted that provision from the bill. Finally, contrary to the position of the amendment's proponents, the bill will not impose new, burdensome and unnecessary requirements on civil rights litigants and the federal courts. The provision of the bill requiring that certain public officials be notified about proposed settlements will not delay the approval of settlements. The period allowed for commentary from public officials is consistent with the time that it normally takes to get settlement notices to class members and conduct the ``fairness hearing'' process to obtain judicial approval of a proposed settlement. The whole purpose of this additional requirement is to ensure that proposed settlements are fully scrutinized to protect the interests of the unnamed class members. This bill protects the rights of civil rights plaintiffs. It should not be amended.

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

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Chair. I urge the amendment be defeated. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, Senator Feinstein has offered an amendment to S. 5, the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, to address the opponents' claim that Federal courts routinely deny certification of multistate or nationwide classes that involve different State laws. Under this amendment, that would change the underlying bill we are considering here. Federal courts would be required to certify class actions, even if the claims were brought under State law. The amendment further provides that courts faced with nationwide classes involving different State laws should either create subclasses to account for variations in State law or, if such subclasses are impractical, to attempt to apply the proper State law to the class members claims only to the extent doing so is practical. The proposal would toss State laws and procedural fairness out of the window for the sake of allowing a nationwide class action. It would reverse nearly 70 years of established Supreme Court case law that requires Federal courts to apply the proper State law when they hear claims between citizens of different States. It would reverse numerous decisions about State supreme courts rejecting the application of one State's law to class action claims that arise in 50 States, and it would seriously undermine the ability of plaintiffs and defendants alike to have a fair trial. Most importantly, it would have the perverse effect of perpetuating the very magnet court abuses that the legislation seeks to end. Here is why the latest choice-of-law amendment should be rejected. First, the premise of the amendment is false. Federal courts do not have a hard and fast rule against certifying multistate class actions. Rather, both Federal and State courts--except for certain magnet jurisdictions--conduct a careful inquiry before certifying a class to ensure that common legal issues predominate, as required by the Federal rules governing class actions. The reason for this requirement is self-evident. The whole point of a class action is to resolve a large number of similar claims at the same time. If the differences among the class members' legal claims are too great, a class trial will not be fair or practical. In some circumstances, Federal courts have found that the law of different States was sufficiently similar that a class action could go forward. In other cases, they have found the differences were too great to have a fair class action trial. If the laws under which the liability is founded are significantly different, you can't try them in the same trial. If they are not that much different, you can make it work. The proposed amendment would take away the discretion of Federal judges to make these important decisions as they always have. Proponents of the amendment conveniently ignore the fact that Federal law on this issue is quite consistent with the approach taken by numerous State supreme courts, which have refused to certify cases where the differences in State law would make it impossible to have a fair or manageable trial. In fact, the proposed amendment would reverse decisions by the Supreme Court of California, Texas, New York, and numerous other States that have rejected nationwide classes in such circumstances as these. Second, Federal courts already use subclassing where appropriate. Subclassing basically means dividing a class into a couple of smaller classes where claims may be more similar to one another. In rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the nearly 40-year rule governing class actions explicitly gives courts the option of using subclasses to account for variations in the class as long as the trial would still be manageable and fair. For example, if a case involved State laws that can be easily divided into three or four groups, subclassing would be appropriate if the trial would otherwise be manageable. At the same time, if subclassing were used in every situation that involved different State laws, in some cases there would be so many subclasses it would be impossible to have a manageable or fair trial. Under the current law, Federal judges have the discretion to decide when subclassing makes sense. That approach is working. Why change it? If it ``ain't'' broke, don't fix it. We have not had serious problems, and it is better to allow the discretion with the judge than for us to try to anticipate and put in hard law requirements involving complexities in the future we cannot anticipate fully today. Third, the amendment would hurt consumers by subverting State laws. The proposed amendment suggests that if subclassing will not work, the court should simply respect State laws ``to the extent practicable.'' What does that mean? How does the court partially carry out State law? Judges are responsible for carrying out the law, not for carrying out the law to the extent practicable. It would be a dangerous empowerment and an erosion of our classical commitment to following law. By suggesting that Federal courts should ignore variations in State laws when respecting State law is impractical, this provision would perpetuate the very problem the class action bill is trying to fix. For example, in the notorious Avery v. State Farm case, a county judge in Illinois applied Illinois law to claims that arose throughout the country, ruling that insurers could not use aftermarket parts in making auto accident repairs even though several States had passed laws encouraging, even requiring the use of these more economic parts to keep down the cost of insurance premiums. The approach taken by the Avery judge and condoned by the proposed amendment actually hurts consumers by denying them the protection of their State's laws. Some State legislatures have adopted particularly strong laws in certain areas because their citizens have expressed strong feelings about these issues; for example, privacy or consumer fraud. Under this amendment, the citizens of such States would not be entitled to the protection of their State's laws in nationwide class actions. Instead, their claims would be subject to some compromise law created by the judge in order to carry out a class action. These are some thoughts I share about this legislation. We do have a need for class action reform. The legislation before the Senate is sound. We know if we stay firm, if we do not willy-nilly amend this bill, if we keep it clean and send it forward to the House, they will approve it, we will make this law, and for once pass a serious tort reform legislation that will improve justice in America and reduce costs. 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, it is always a pleasure for me to hear Senator Hatch discuss legal issues. He has had great experience with them over the years, in the long time he has served on the Judiciary Committee and as a lawyer in his own right. I think he summed up the situation we are in and I thank him for doing so. Actually, I believe that those who are seeking class action reform have been very generous in reaching out to people who had some doubts to try to gain their votes in support, to make sure no one is hurt in any unfair way through the passing of this legislation. We are now at a point where the time has come for us to pass class action reform. I do not believe, and have never believed, we should be in the business of eliminating class actions. They are not a bad thing in themselves. Class actions, in fact, serve an important purpose. In many instances, they are the only viable form of relief, where an individual has claims that are so small it would not be economically feasible for an attorney to take an individual's case; but maybe thousands of people have been unfairly treated in the same manner and an attorney can bring one case and everybody can be compensated and the system can work very effectively. That is the whole theory behind class actions. It has always been a good process under certain circumstances, but we have always known it could also be abused. For the most part, I think Federal courts have done a good job handling those cases. Many State courts have done a good job of handling those cases, but is now a pattern by which some attorneys have learned to pick and choose States, even counties, where there may be only one judge, and they know how that judge thinks about these cases, and they file the class action lawsuit there. The fact is that most nationwide class actions can be filed anyplace in America--it makes sense that lawyers, therefore, chose to find the most favorable forum they can find in the entire United States. That is selective choice of forum. There are other problems that arise with class actions, problems which have been around for a long time. We have come to understand them and we need to do something about it. We can do something about it. It is the right thing to do. It will improve our system of justice. The Class Action Fairness Act does not close doors to class action plaintiffs; rather it opens doors to fairness in this entire process. I agree with those who have said that the bill does not go far enough. I think there are going to be many opportunities for clever attorneys to draft complaints and conduct their litigation in a way that would avoid being covered by this act, when in fact they ought to be covered by this act. Senator Cornyn has made a number of those suggestions, and I have made some of those suggestions. But the perfect, as they say, can be the enemy of the good. An agreement has been reached that people feel comfortable with. I have been prepared not to offer a lot of amendments so we can get this bill to final passage and quick approval and end the years and years and years of debate on this matter that we know we ought to deal with. As you look about and review what you hear and see who is making comments on it, some of the things your read on the issue appeal to you. Let me tell you about a Washington Post editorial I read a few years ago that summed it up the class action issue quite well. Politically, the Washington Post is a Democratic paper, a liberal newspaper. But their editorial writers made some very important points that I agree with. They said this: Congress' first priority in the world of civil lawsuits should be to change the rules of class actions. In other words, of all of the problems we have in litigation, the one this Congress ought to deal with first is class action lawsuits. When working properly, class actions are an important component of the American legal system, one that allows efficient court consideration of numerous identical claims against the same defendant. In practice, no component of the legal system is more prone to abuse. Their analysis is that there is no component of the American legal system more prone to abuse than class actions. For unlike normal lawyers who are retained by people who actually feel wronged, class counsel, having alleged that a product deficiency caused some small monetary damage to some discernible group of people, largely appoint themselves. In other words, a lot of people have difficulties, and the class action lawyer may discover what he thinks is a wrong. Then he appoints himself to be the righter of that wrong. Then he goes out and identifies a class. He does not talk to the individual clients, as lawyers do in a normal situation; he appoints himself to take on these cases. The clients may not even be dissatisfied with the goods and services they bought. They may not be unhappy at all. But unless they opt out of a class whose existence they may be unaware, they become plaintiffs anyway. I heard a Senator recently say he was involved in a class action, and the person who was being sued was a friend, and he did not even know he was involved. Continuing to quote: Class actions present almost infinite venue shopping. Infinite venue shopping, that is what I was saying. We have had lawsuits filed in Alabama. We have seen identical lawsuits filed in Mississippi. We have seen them filed in Madison County, IL. Why? Because a plaintiff in a large action that involves people throughout the United States under current law can choose their place to file the lawsuit. When they get an appeal, it goes to the State of Illinois, Mississippi, or Alabama's appellate courts, their supreme court, for final review. That is a legitimate concern and a matter that impacts people throughout the United States. National class actions can be filed just about anywhere, and they are disproportionately brought in a handful of State courts whose judges get elected with lawyers' money. This is the Washington Post I am quoting. It is the same thing Senator Hatch indicated earlier. It is the reality, unfortunately. These judges effectively become regulators of the products and services produced elsewhere-- Not even in their county or State-- and sold throughout the Nation. And when cases are settled, the clients get token payments while the lawyers get enormous fees. I am continuing to quote from the Washington Post: This is not justice. It is an extortion racket that only Congress can fix. That is, unfortunately, the sad truth too often. Some years later now, Senator Frist has made this Class Action Fairness Act his first civil lawsuit priority. I know there are some who see this bill as a moving train and they would like to add this or that provision as a caboose to that train, but I hope we will exercise restraint and pass a clean bill without amendments. I know some have legitimate concerns and others want to put on poison pills. They want to adopt amendments that will cause so much controversy that it can end up killing the entire bill. In my view, anything that does not make this bill stronger is a poison pill. We do not need to, and must not, weaken this bill in any way. I have seen very few amendments that are being offered that will make it stronger. I believe in America's legal system. The Senator from Florida, the Presiding Officer, believes in our legal system. He believes in the right of people to sue in court and have redress for all and has given a lot of his professional life to that cause. But for the most part, we do have outstanding judges on Federal and State benches. They manage their dockets well and rule justly. There are some problems, however, that Congress must resolve. The class action problem is certainly one of them. To the extent possible, I believe that the courts have reached a limit on what they can do through judicial interpretations to resolve the issue. There was a time when ``drive-by'' class action certifications were par for the course, and class actions were certified without notice being given to the defendant even. Those times, have been eliminated for the most part by judicial ruling, in part, I believe, because of the Supreme Court decision in the Amchem case where the Court made clear that even in conditional certifications, rigorous analysis is required to certify a class and must be conducted. This ruling had far-reaching implications and limited the ability of plaintiff lawyers and the defendant companies to engage in collusion to the detriment of whom? The class. Don't you think in these odd cases where the lawyer does not even know the members of the class he represents that ethical concerns are implicated? The situation simply is this: You sue a big company, you allege lots of problems, you talk with their lawyers, and a wink and a nod occurs and you say: We will give coupons to the people I am alleging to be victims, but you have to compensate me as a lawyer for all this time I have spent in it; how about $10 million? The defendants go back and say: If we pay the lawyer $10 million and we pay the coupons to these people--most of them will never use them-- this will get us out of the lawsuit. Yes, it is too much money to pay the lawyer, but we will get it over with. Let's do it. Who is looking out for the class members, the people in whose name the lawsuit was brought? The answer is no one. These problems, unfortunately, are not currently subject to being settled by the courts or handled by the courts. I believe this legislation will take a strong step toward fixing that kind of problem. There are some who will argue that reform is not needed and this legislation is even unfair. Let me ask this: Is it fair to be a member of a lawsuit of which you are unaware and do not even know you are a party to it? Is it fair to receive a coupon settlement that basically requires you to do business with a company that presumably cheated you in the first place? Is it fair to lose money even though you prevail in the underlying lawsuit? And there have been instances--cases such as the infamous Bank of Boston case--where plaintiffs, not even knowing they are a member of the lawsuit, have had their bank accounts debited to pay for their portion of the attorney's fees--sometimes their portion of the attorney's fees is much more than the small coupon or monetary amount they received as part of the settlement. That is simply not right. These questions of fairness represent the current status of many class action lawsuits. In my view, there is nothing fair about the answers we just mentioned. When we approved modifications to rule 23 not too long ago, one of the primary goals was to ``assure adequate representation of class members who have not participated in shaping the settlement.'' After all, if the settlement is going to bind the class member, it would seem they should not only be adequately represented, but they would be aware of the terms of that settlement and the compromises that were involved in making the settlement. We can achieve fairness and several other logical goals such as that with this Class Action Fairness Act. That class actions are beneficial is not in doubt. They serve to the benefit of America by limiting the number of times you have to try the same issues in separate places, in differ courts with different judges. They serve the interests of consistency and finality by avoiding inconsistent outcomes in separate trials where the cases revolve around identical claims. They are to serve the interests of the class members, however, but that is, in fact, not the outcome of too many of these cases and therefore we need to reform this system. So what we would strive to do with this legislation is to make the plaintiffs the real beneficiaries of such a lawsuit. It will provide protections to class members, such as limiting the ability to award coupon settlements and preventing class members from being harmed twice, once by the defendant company, and the second time by class action settlement. I believe we can make some great progress with this legislation if we keep it clean. I hope we can exercise restraint and that we can do just that. Some have said Federal Government has no business with these lawsuits. As a person who does believe that States have constitutional rights and they have presumptions that cause us in Congress to be reluctant to violate either explicit constitutional requirements or to violate maybe presumptions or indications or contemplations of the Constitution, I am extremely cautious about expanding federal jurisdiction in Constitutionally questionable ways. But I do not believe this bill expands federal jurisdiction in any way that is Constitutionally questionable. I would like to read what the Constitution says about diversity and where a case of this kind should be tried. Article III, section 2 of the Constitution, talks about the power of Federal courts and what their jurisdiction is. This is the power given to Federal courts by the U.S. Constitution at the beginning of our Republic. It states: ``The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution''--disputes of the Constitution--``the Laws of the United States . . .''--involving laws that we passed explicitly in Congress to Controversies to which the United States shall be a party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States . . .'' So our Founding Fathers thought seriously about this and stated in the Constitution that if there is a lawsuit filed between people from different States, there needs to be a neutral forum in which to try the case. If there is a person from Alabama and a person from Massachusetts suing one another, the person from Massachusetts might not feel comfortable being tried in Alabama, and the person from Alabama might not feel comfortable being tried in Massachusetts. That is what they put it in there for. The home State plaintiff would always want to choose a more favorable forum. Perhaps he would choose his own State, would he not? That is what our Founding Fathers were concerned about. In football, we call it ``home cooking.'' The Founders sought to prevent ``home cooking'' of lawsuits by putting Federal jurisdictional rules into the Constitution for these kinds of cases. Cases involving citizens of different States were intended from the beginning to be tried in Federal court where judges are not elected but serve lifetime appointments and are answerable to the U.S. Supreme Court, not to any one State court. That is the theory and it is important. There are counties in Alabama where I personally know all the judges. I go to church with some of them. So if I am going to sue somebody, I am likely to choose a place where I would have the man who is in my church supper club try my case. Well, maybe they will strike him for cause, but what about his brother, who could also be a judge? My friend who is a judge might say to his brother: Jeff is a good boy, make sure you give him a fair trial. Whether we like it or not, these kinds of things are reality, and that is what the Founders had in mind when they wrote the Constitution. That is why when there is a group of plaintiffs being represented by a lawyer that may not even know their names, this lawyer is going to look around and try to file the case where he thinks he can have the best chance of success. As a matter of fact, I do not even dispute him or her making that choice. That is what lawyers are paid to do, to find the best place to file the lawsuit. That is taught in law school. They ask, well, where do you want to file a lawsuit? Well, I think it would be better to file in Federal court. Then one is taught to study the case and justify filing it in Federal court. Or maybe a lawyer thinks it is better for his client to file it in State court. Lawyers are taught they should file the case where it is best for their client. I do not blame the lawyers. They are using the law as we have now configured it. I say it is our responsibility to look at the judicial system. If we love it and care about it, respect it, and want it to be better, we will continue to look at the legal system, and if the legal system has a problem, it is our duty to examine how to fix it. We have spent years now determining how to fix class action problems. We have a bipartisan coalition in this Senate that has come together and is prepared to support this legislation. I say let us do it. Let us observe how the system is working. From that observation, we can realize that it can be made better. Let us step up to the plate and fix it. I thank the Chair and the Senator from Utah. It is a pleasure to work with him, Senator Grassley, and Senator Specter, who have all worked so hard on this legislation.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Nevada for his fine comments about Judge Gonzales. We have gotten to know Judge Gonzales over the years. He is a good and decent man, a fine lawyer who respects the rule of law, who is proud to be an American. He wants to see our country strong and free. He led the effort in the fight against terrorism. He did the things we wanted him to do. He has a background that excites our pride. We are pleased to see how much he has achieved. He went to Harvard and was hired by one of America's great law firms. He served the Governor of Texas, was a judge in Texas--and all of his credential are wonderful. We know he is a good, decent, honorable, and honest man. If you listen to the comments made here today, by some Democrats, about him, you would not recognize the man we know. It is not right. What has been done here is wrong. If you have a disagreement with the policy of the President of the United States, OK, we will talk about it and we will see what the differences are. But it is not right to demean and mischaracterize the nature of Judge Gonzales. I feel strongly about that. I served in the Department of Justice for 15 years. I would like to share a few thoughts to give us some perspective about the role Judge Gonzales has played. Judge Gonzales was legal counsel to the President. He was the President's lawyer. Of course, everyone who is a lawyer--I am a lawyer and a good number in this body are lawyers--knows that lawyers protect the legal prerogatives of their clients. You do not want to in memorandum and public statements make statements that constrict the ultimate power of the institution of the Presidency of the United States. That is a fundamental thing. That is what you have to do. That is what you are there for. When 9/11 happened and we were taken aback by the viciousness of the attacks, we were worried, rightly, that throughout this country there would be terrorist cells continuing to plot as they were perhaps in Arizona, or in other places, as we have learned. We wanted to be sure we were defending this country well. We had to make some decisions. We went after al-Qaida in Afghanistan. A lot of legal questions arose. I serve on the Judiciary Committee. We had hearing after hearing regarding these issues. Let me tell you what I think Judge Gonzales did not do. Not I think; I know he did not do. He did not approve of torture. He has always steadfastly opposed it. His position has consistently been that we comply with the laws of the United States and our treaty obligations. I will talk about that in a minute. But that was not his call at that point in time. He did not privately tell the President, or call up the Secretary of Defense, or call the guard at Abu Ghraib and say torture these prisoners. He sought a formal legal opinion concerning the powers and responsibilities of the President of the United States as a lawyer for the President. He made that request of the Office of Legal Counsel, a senatorial-confirmed position of the U.S. Department of Justice, a position that is given the responsibility to opine on matters of this kind. They are not to set policy. They are not to say what torture is other than what the law says. They do not express their own views. But he asked them what the legal responsibilities and powers of the President were. They researched the law. They sent back a memo. That is the memo being complained of, a memo not written by Judge Gonzales, a memo written by the Office of Legal Counsel of the U.S. Department of Justice and their staff that worked on it at some great length. We have had complaints about it. Judge Gonzales later on said: There have been complaints about this memorandum. You need to redo it. He suggested that, I guess, on behalf of the President, and they rewrote it. They constricted the issues they discussed. They didn't speculate on what the ultimate powers of the President might be. They did that less in the second memorandum than they did in the first. That is how this came about. It was their opinion, not his. They say he circulated it. Well, do you want him to circulate his personal views? Do you want him to circulate some politician's views? Or do you want him to circulate the duly drafted opinion of the Office of Legal Counsel of the U.S. Department of Justice which researched our history, the treaties, the Constitution, and the court cases of the United States? We need to get our mind in the right perspective and remember the circumstances we are operating under. I will repeat, Judge Gonzales has never supported torture. We have Members who have said Judge Gonzales advised the President of the United States that torture was acceptable. That is false, inaccurate, and wrong. Anyone who said that ought to apologize for it. Do we have no sense of responsibility in what we say? Are we irresponsible, that we can attack this fine man, a son of immigrants who worked his way up through the entire legal system to be now nominated to that great office of Attorney General of the United States? He deserves a fair shake. He has not been getting it. They say he abandoned the rule of law. He did not do that. He sought a legal opinion from the duly constituted Office of Legal Counsel which is supposed to render those opinions. He disseminated those opinions and now they blame him for it. It is not the right thing to do. As President Bush said on more than one occasion, but on the eve of the G- 8 summit in June of last year: The authorization I issued was that anything we did would conform with United States law and would be consistent with international treaty obligations. That has been the position. In a letter to Senator Leahy, Assistant Attorney General Will Moschella in the legislative affairs division of the Justice Department rejected categorically ``any suggestion that the Department of Justice has participated in developing policies that would permit unlawful conduct.'' In a special piece submitted to USA Today, Judge Gonzales, in his capacity then as White House Counsel, stated ``in all aspects of our Nation's war on terror, including the conflict in Iraq, it is the policy of the United States to comply with the governing laws and treaty obligations.'' I will talk more about that because it is important legally to understand what has been occurring. We as a nation do not approve of torture. We reject it. We prosecute and discipline those who are participating in it or carry it out and we have been committed to that as a country. We ought to ask ourselves, has this Congress stated any position on terrorism? What did they say? I remember not too many months ago when Attorney General John Ashcroft was before the Judiciary Committee. They were bombarding him with the allegations that he was responsible for Abu Ghraib, he was responsible for any misbehavior throughout our entire command, and that he had approved torture, and they quoted things they said he approved. In frustration, Attorney General Ashcroft, looking at his former colleagues, said ``Well, the problem I have with you, Senator, is, it is not my definition of torture that counts. It's the one you enacted into law.'' Do you know we have a law that defines torture and sets forth what it amounts to and how it should be defined? It is that definition that was made a part of the OLC, Office of Legal Counsel memorandum, and it is that memorandum and that language our colleagues across the aisle are complaining about, and some of them were here when that statute passed and they voted for it. Let's take a look at that. This statute, part of the United States Code, says: Torture means an act specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering upon another person. Severe mental pain or suffering means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering. The threat of imminent death or the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality. These words were used--and I know the Presiding Officer is a skilled JAG officer from South Carolina--those were the words discussed in the OLC memorandum. They used those kinds of words. The same kind of words passed by a number of Democrat Members in this body. The authors of the OLC memo simply discussed the meaning of these words passed by the Congress. Now some are arguing that because of this memo we approve these horrible things. I suppose a person could misinterpret deliberately some of that and carry out things that are not legitimate. I suppose some of these things would be legitimate. We said they were when we passed the statute, or at least we did not prohibit them when we passed the statute. Who defines torture? The Office of Legal Counsel? Judge Gonzales? The President of the United States? Or the U.S. Congress? We have enacted a definition of torture, the one I just read. It might offend some people, but as it is, that is the definition of torture, I submit, and I don't see how it can be disputed. We did have activities that occurred. This memorandum fundamentally was advice to the President on what his ultimate powers were. But the President's orders, the policies of the U.S. military, were much more constrained than possibly would have been allowed under this statutory definition. Not that the President ultimately did not have that power. But we have not utilized that power or approved it. In fact, we have disciplined people who have not followed those rules and regulations. First, it is always going to be the President's fault, during an election year. Then it was Secretary Rumsfeld, and then Condoleezza Rice. At some point they decided to quit blaming Secretary of State Rice during her confirmation proceedings and start blaming it all on Judge Gonzales. So now we have been through the President, the Secretary of State, National Security Adviser, the Secretary of Defense, and now we are down on Judge Gonzales. It is all his fault. Now he cannot be confirmed because somebody at Abu Ghraib violated policy. They have been tried. Some have already been convicted. They have been removed from office. We had the situation--do you remember it?--when a full colonel in the Army, in the heat of battle, concerned for the safety of his troops, fired a gun near the head of an Iraqi terrorist to induce him to give information that would protect the lives of his soldiers. And we drummed him out of the service for it long before a lot of this happened. Remember, it was the military that brought forth the abuses at Abu Ghraib. They recognized that some had violated the laws of the United States and that those activities should not be allowed. They have disciplined people systematically since. They are continuing to do so. If anybody higher up is implicated, these lower guys are going to tell about it. They are going to pursue that, I have absolute confidence. And we will pursue that. But I think it is unhealthy for our country, dangerous to our troops, undermining of our mission to suggest that it was the policy of the U.S. Government to do this. How can that help us gain respect in the world when Senators in this body allege that the President's own counsel is approving what went on in Abu Ghraib, that his policies legitimized what was going on in Abu Ghraib? I do not believe that is true. It is not true. We should not be saying it. We had a big enough, bad enough problem in Abu Ghraib. It was an embarrassment to us. We were painfully hurt by it. And it should not have occurred. But I will say, with confidence, that Judge Gonzales does not bear the blame for that. Discipline in war is hard to maintain. I mentioned the example of how a highly decorated colonel was removed from the service for his failure of discipline, even in a tough time. I remember back in the Pacific, in those island campaigns, neither side took prisoners. It was a battle to the death. We are facing an enemy unlike enemies we have faced before. They are a ferocious, suicidal, murderous, sneaky bunch that for most of them, hopefully not all, but for most of them they simply have to be defeated, they have to be captured, they have to be killed, they have to be restrained because they will not stop. If we are successful in doing that, I believe the glory that some of these terrorists have attained will be diminished, and it will be seen that they represent a small, backward, insular, violent mentality, not conducive to progress, peace, and democracy in the Middle East or anyplace else in the world. I think we are going to make progress on that. We need to hold our standards high. I certainly agree with that. But war is a difficult thing. People do make mistakes. We have abuses in the Federal prison systems and in State prison systems. Senator Kennedy and I offered legislation to prohibit sexual abuse in prisons by guards and prisoners, and to investigate it, to identify it, and stop it. But we know we have abuses in our prisons, and we need attention from the top and discipline from the top. I will note a recent article about Abu Ghraib. Soldiers were interviewed in a Washington Post article, and they all said this was unacceptable behavior; it should have never occurred. It is clear that the soldiers who are there today fully understand their responsibilities to treat these people humanely, and that they will do so. I want to mention one more thing about some of the details of this issue. First, I think it is indisputable that al-Qaida and such terrorists who are about and loose in the world today do not qualify under the Geneva Conventions. They simply are not covered by it because they are not the kind of lawful combatants the Geneva Conventions protect. Now, the President says we are going to treat them humanely in any case, and we are going to treat them fairly. In many instances he says we are going to provide them the protections of the Geneva Conventions even though they are not entitled to them. For example, it is the position of the White House that no detainee should be subjected to sleep deprivation. Now, I think under the torture statutes, sleep deprivation, at least to some degree, would not qualify as a severe kind of pain or the psychological impairments that were referred to in the statute Congress passed defining torture. But the President said that we would not deprive them of sleep anyway. Nor should they be deprived of food and water during any period of interrogation. Soldiers and interrogators were even prohibited from the act of pointing a finger at the chest of a detainee. That was declared an unacceptable technique by Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld 2 years ago, January 15, 2003. Well, we have gone a pretty good ways in trying to ensure that our behavior is good. We have prosecuted people at Abu Ghraib. We have disciplined a lot of people in Iraq and Afghanistan who have exceeded their authority. In the course of furthering our intense war against terrorism, we have tried to maintain control over our decency and our morality. I do not think Members of this body should be suggesting that we do not or that it is our policy to violate international law or the rights under our own statutes concerning torture and other rules. I heard it pointed out we all have things that do not work out right in our lives. We do things we thought were right at the time and justified them, and they maybe turn out to be wrong. Nobody who ever comes before this body for confirmation is perfect. I know my colleague, Senator Durbin, has stated that Judge Gonzales is no Robert Kennedy. And they are different people in different times. Robert Kennedy was appointed Attorney General by his brother. How much closer can you be than that? But we now know from many of the histories that have been written that on a number of occasions Robert Kennedy, as Attorney General, clearly violated the legal and constitutional rights of people he was investigating for criminal activities. I do not think that is disputed. Well, let me tell you, what would have happened if that had been true of Judge Gonzales? How far would he get along in this process? He would not get to first base. I would say this: Judge Gonzales was at the right hand of the President of the United States when we were deliberately attacked by an al-Qaida organization that had announced they were at war with the United States, that they were authorized and empowered, and it was legitimate for them to attack and murder civilians of the United States. We needed to respond to that. We did not need the legitimate power of the President to be constrained by some politically correct memorandum, a memorandum that he requested from the Department of Justice, which was written by them and which represented a statement of policy of the United States with regard to the powers of the Presidency and those in the military. I think, all in all--there have been bumps in the road--but, all in all, our Government, from the President throughout the executive branch, including the military, has done its best to fight this vicious, despicable, violent enemy, an enemy that does not meet the standards of a lawful combatant but is clearly, in fact, unlawful combatants not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions. We have treated them humanely, with a number of exceptions for which discipline has been applied. And we have striven in every way possible to tighten up since the beginning of this war our discipline with regard to our soldiers and our policies to make sure we have the least possible errors that would occur in this process of fighting this war on terrorism. I believe that deeply. Soldiers have placed their lives at risk. They have placed the lives of their associates and comrades at risk, adhering to the highest ideals of American values of life. They have not pulled triggers, subjecting themselves to risk, because they were not sure. They have held back and shown restraint time and time again. That has not been sufficiently appreciated. We have spent almost all of our time having Members of the Congress attack and blame the whole Government for failures in these hostilities of a few. I believe Judge Gonzales is not the person to blame for all this. I do not believe the Counsel to the President is responsible for Abu Ghraib. He is not responsible for an opinion written by an independent agency of the Government, legally empowered and directed by this Congress to write it. He is a good man, a decent man, a man we have seen up close and personal for quite a number of years. I find in him the highest standards of Americanism and decency. He is a superb lawyer. He has had a ringside seat on how the Justice Department works without being a part of it. It will allow him to move into it with a fresh look and be able to do good things. I believe strongly he should be confirmed. I am disappointed in the nature of the attacks put on him. I believe they have been unfair and do not do justice to his character and the effectiveness of his service. It is a pleasure to speak on behalf of this fine American. He will make a great Attorney General. I look forward to his confirmation and all of us working with him. 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. President, we have had a lot of complaints on the floor about one of America's most decent, fine public servants, Judge Gonzales, who served as Counsel to the President of the United States. It has been really painful to hear what has been said. I, just for the record, would like to take a few minutes to respond to some of these allegations that are not fair, represent distortions, and really misrepresent him and attack his character unfairly. Senator Kennedy, for example, says that Judge Gonzales was at the ``epicenter'' of a torture policy. As I have indicated earlier, Judge Gonzales has repeatedly and consistently opposed torture. He has said it is not proper and not justified and has publicly stated that we, as a nation, are committed to the rule of law, to following our treaty obligations, and the statutory requirements that deal with torture. The President, of course, has said the same. There is no policy of torture in the United States. We have a statute that deals with that and prohibits it. It defines what torture is and what it is not. Sometimes that has been the problem. Congress's definition has been ignored. Things that are not included in our definition have been said to be torture. Indeed, some of the people who complained about the memorandums written by the Department of Justice officials actually voted for the statute that defined torture; and that memorandum quoted extensively from it and was framed by that American statute. Senator Stabenow has contended that Judge Gonzales has a reckless disregard for human rights--this decent man, who has seen discrimination in his life--that he has a reckless disregard for human rights and has twisted the law to allow torture. The truth is, Judge Gonzales has stated that every detainee should be treated humanely. In the only memorandum Judge Gonzales ever wrote, he provided prisoner-of-war status to Iraqi soldiers captured in Iraq, allowing them the additional protections of a prisoner of war under the Geneva Conventions, even though they do not qualify. The soldiers caught and captured right after the conclusion of hostilities, wearing a uniform, operating in units, they qualify as prisoners of war. But these people who are sneaking around, not in uniform, placing bombs against civilian people, against Iraqi citizens, against American soldiers, they do not meet the definition of the Geneva Conventions. Therefore, they really are not entitled legally to those protections. But Judge Gonzales has said, and the President has agreed, that they will be given those protections. Senator Feinstein says Judge Gonzales did not answer the committee's questions properly, her questions. He really did answer them. I think the truth is that the Senator was unsatisfied with his answers because they were, she said, not independent of the President. Let me ask, isn't it most likely the fact that Judge Gonzales and the President agreed on these positions? This issue has been taken to the American people in the President's reelection campaign. All these issues were debated and the American people affirmed his leadership and his guidance in the war on terrorism. To say there is not enough distance between the President's lawyer and the President is really an odd statement to make. Of course, the lawyer and the President are together, I am sure not only legally and professionally together on these issues, but they share deep values together. Senator Mikulski claims that Judge Gonzales was not cooperative in the nomination of judges to the Maryland bench. The truth is, Maryland Senators have played a role in obstructing the judge's nominees. They have argued that one nominee, a lawyer born in Maryland and educated in Maryland, was not a Marylander and could not be confirmed. I think it was driven by their disagreement with his conservative judicial philosophy, but they objected on that basis, and there was a big disagreement on it. But that is not Judge Gonzales's decision to make. Ultimately, that is the decision of the President. One Senator complained about his support for Claude Allen for the court of appeals, an African-American judicial nominee of excellent reputation, and I don't think that is fair. He simply supported Claude Allen, a judge that I supported and a majority of this Senate supports but has been blocked through dilatory tactics from the other side. But that is not a basis to vote against him for Attorney General. Senator Schumer complained that Judge Gonzales refused to answer his question on the so-called nuclear option, which is a political issue, a legislative branch issue of this Congress to deal with. It is a matter that involves rules in the Senate, how they are changed, and that kind of debate. This issue has nothing to do with running the Department of Justice. It is not any role for Judge Gonzales, a lawyer for the President of the United States, to start opining on what he thinks about Senate rules. Senator Schumer is leading filibuster after filibuster of the President's nominees in an unprecedented use of the filibuster systematically against judicial nominees, something that has not happened in the history of this Republic. But for these filibusters, the nuclear question would not exist. These complaints have been unfair. They have oftentimes relied on information taken out of context, information that is misleading. The truth is, Judge Gonzales is a sound lawyer, a decent man who believes in the rule of law. He believes in following the law. He will be a terrific Attorney General. He has been nominated by the President. I believe he will be confirmed. I am excited for him and his good, fine family. It is going to be a special day for them. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I believe it is important that we discuss more carefully what our responsibilities are as a nation under the Geneva Conventions. We have had a lot of things said here, smeared over, slopped over, vague allegations of misconduct on behalf of this President and our country. Our soldiers are out fighting for us. We need to understand what it is. They have alleged repeatedly that all this is in violation of the Geneva Conventions, all this amounts to torture. I previously have gone into some depth about what the congressional act was that prohibited torture and how this Congress defined torture and what it meant. It does not mean someone can't be deprived of some sleep or have an interrogator raise his voice during questioning. That is not torture. I would make clear this basic fact--it is so basic we often don't think about it--this group al-Qaida has declared war on the United States. Not only have they declared it in a traditional lawful manner of nation states that they have done over the years, at least quasi- lawful; they have done it as a group of unlawful combatants, and they have done it in a way that is not justified under the Geneva Conventions or international law of any kind, shape, or form. When our soldiers go out and they are engaging al-Qaida, they don't give them a trial. They don't read them their Miranda rights. They don't sit down and see what they can do to ask them if they would change their heart. They shoot them. We are at war with them. They are a hostile enemy, and we do that. When you capture a hostile enemy who a few moments before, you could have killed lawfully as a soldier of the United States executing the policy of the United States against a person who has declared war against you and has publicly stated they are justified in killing innocent American civilians, men, women and children, if you can do that, if you capture them, they don't then become entitled to every right that an American citizen has when he is tried in the U.S. district court for tax evasion or bank robbery or drug dealing. It is not the same. Everybody knows that, if they have given any thought to war and treaties over the years. What is a controlling authority with regard to international agreements? It is the Geneva Convention. There have been a series of them. They have been amended over the years. The most pertinent one in this area is the Third Geneva Convention. This is in addition to the original Convention. It provides strict requirements--four, to be exact--that must be fulfilled by an individual should he seek the protections afforded by the treaty. In other words, everybody is not entitled to protection under the treaty. You have to do certain things, and you have to be what we have come to refer to as a lawful combatant. What are those requirements? He must be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates. He should have a chain of command. He cannot be a single murdering bomber and claim he is a lawful combatant, having no authority in a chain of command and not acting on orders from some lawful entity. No. 2: He must, the exact words are, have a ``fixed, distinctive sign recognizable at a distance.'' What does that mean? It means you wear a uniform, basically. That is what it has always meant traditionally. So if you catch somebody in your country sneaking around not in uniform, they are spies, and they are hung. That is what happened historically. The Geneva Convention never changed that fundamentally. Carrying arms openly--the treaty considers that lawful combatants, such as a member of the U.S. Army, will carry their arms openly. They will have a distinctive uniform, and they will carry their arms openly, evidence of the fact that they are soldiers. This is important for a lot of reasons. One reason is that the people who are fighting against our soldiers are supposed to direct their fire at soldiers, not innocent civilians. So if they are wearing a uniform and carrying their arms openly, they know the target at which they are firing. The whole goal of the Geneva Conventions is to eliminate the loss of life of innocent people and to minimize loss of life in general and minimize the horror of war as much as possible. If they are to be considered as one who has the protections of the Geneva Conventions, they must be conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. Sneaking around, hijacking airplanes, flying them into buildings, putting explosive devices under vehicles, throwing them at people in line to vote--those actions are not consistent with the laws and customs of war, for Heaven's sake. So there is no doubt whatsoever in my view that al-Qaida and the terrorist groups who do not wear uniforms, who go around bombing innocent people, are not acting according to the rules of war, who do not wear a uniform, who are not carrying their arms openly--they do not qualify for the protections of the Geneva Conventions. No counsel to the President, no counsel in the U.S. Department of Justice should render an opinion that says otherwise. The President can say: We are going to give the protections, anyway, which he has done, and we are going to treat the people in Iraq according--I think he said we will treat them according to the Geneva Conventions. I do not think we said that explicitly with regard to Afghanistan and al-Qaida, but these Iraqi guys who sneak around and bomb are not much different to me. We have provided more protections, I would say with absolute certainty, than international law or U.S. statutes provide. Al-Qaida is not a nation state. It has not signed the treaties of the Geneva Convention. Members of al-Qaida have no uniforms or distinctive signs. Al-Qaida has declared war on us, however, and they are quite capable through their sneaky, devious, murderous activities of sneaking into our country and killing Americans right now. If they are able to do so, they will. One reason they have not been able to do so is because we have been hunting them down with the finest military the world has ever known, that is using discipline, humanity, and the proper execution of violence against these people. That is just the way it is. We have gone after them. We have put them on the run. If they could have attacked us in our election, if they could have attacked us any time since 9/11, I submit they would have. We have had an Attorney General, John Ashcroft, who utilized the powers and laws provided to this country and our leadership to go after them. These people are entitled to certain rights, but not the same rights that exist for an American citizen. They represent a different kind of threat. They are unlawful combatants. They are an unlawful enemy which rejects and despises law. They reject our Constitution. They reject democracy. They see it as a threat. They want to rule their people according to their narrow definition of law. They want to oppress women. They do not want progress. They do not want freedom. They do not want the things the whole world needs. And those societies and that kind of mentality are what cause wars, not democracies. I feel strongly about this. It is important for us to be clear: We as a nation do not support, justify, or condone torture. We are disciplining people who have done so. We are putting people in jail who have done so. Guardsmen who came out of our communities, went to Iraq, worked midnight to 6 a.m., were away from home, lost their discipline and conducted themselves in ways that brought disrepute on the United States and violated our rules and standards of the military are being tried and convicted and put in jail, as they should be. It is sad we see that happen, and I know we will continue to punish those who violate our standards. As a result of those prosecutions and those actions, our military will show even greater discipline. I see the Senator from Idaho in the Chamber. I am sure he wishes to speak. I want to yield to him because I respect his insight on these matters. I will say, I am disappointed--deeply disappointed--in the unfair attacks that have been placed on Judge Gonzales. He is being blamed for every single thing about which people have complaints in the war against terrorism. They are saying he is responsible for everything that may have gone wrong, some of which was wrong, some of which probably was not wrong, but is being characterized as wrong. It is not right. He was counsel to the President. He did his duty. He sought the opinion from the proper people to give legal opinions on terrorism and war, and he conducted himself consistent with those principles. He steadfastly and continuously has condemned torture. He should be confirmed. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I am very pleased to be standing here today with my colleague and friend, Senator Joe Lieberman. We serve on the Armed Services Committee together. Much has been said in recent years about a lack of bipartisanship in the Senate, but there is an issue before us today that I believe all Members agree on, and certainly Senator Lieberman and I do. We need to be sure that we care adequately and generously for the brave men and women who have lost a loved one who served this country in combat. We have offered together the HEROES Act. We introduced it Monday as S. 77, along with 20 other cosponsors. This is an overdue and critical piece of legislation that contemplates the moral obligation we in the Senate owe to our Armed Forces. I am pleased Majority Leader Bill Frist has made this legislation a part of his package of priorities for the year and that Senator John Warner, who chairs the Armed Services Committee, said he will give us a prompt hearing on the issue. I also note that Senator DeWine and Senator George Allen of Virginia have also offered legislation relative to this issue. No amount of money, of course, can ever replace the loss a family feels when their husband, wife, son, or daughter dies defending our country, carrying out the policies of this Government as they are directed by the Congress and the President of the United States. But this is a wealthy Nation, and we can and must do more to ensure that all those who fall in defense of the United States know without a doubt that their loved ones will be well taken care of--generously taken care of. Earlier this month, on a trip to Iraq, I flew from Baghdad to Kuwait aboard a C-130 about 9:30 at night. It was a very somber trip because traveling with us were two flag-draped coffins, the remains of soldiers who had given their lives for their country. They are doing this too often. They are doing this true to the mission we ask of them and to the fellowship and the spirit and the courage of the units with which they serve. As those coffins were removed from the aircraft--and I saw all the service people who were at the airport that night spontaneously come out to be there to show their respect--it reminded me, once again, that this legislation is important. This grateful Nation needs to be generous to those who have served. The families are not coming to us. They are not asking and demanding more money and more benefits. They have always borne the cost and hardship of military service silently, proudly, and steadfastly. However, those of us with the power to enact change must ensure that we are adequately meeting our responsibilities as a people to those families who serve us. The HEROES Act will do that, and it should move through this Congress as expeditiously as possible to final passage. I am also pleased to announce this legislation has resonated with various organizations that work to ensure the best services and benefits for our veterans. They have read the HEROES Act and decided that this is the right thing to do for our Armed Forces. As of this afternoon, the 380,000 members of the Military Officers Association of America, the 2.4 million members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, and the 2.8 million members strong of the American Legion and the National Military Families Association have all voiced their unqualified support for this legislation. I am proud to have their backing, and I ask unanimous consent that their letters be printed in the Record.

Mr. SESSIONS. I would like a few minutes to finish up if the Senator will yield.

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank Senator Talent for his courtesy which is well- known in this body. Mr. President, Senator Lieberman is correct. The families I talk to so often say to me about their son or daughter or spouse who lost their life that they loved their work, they were doing what they wanted to do, they believed in what they were doing, and that gives them comfort. I have heard that over and over again. It is very similar to what the Senator heard today. I know the Senator's call was very comforting to the family because I know the Senator has the sensitivity and judgment to reach out to them in the proper way. It is not an easy thing to do, for sure. I have, indeed, valued the Senator's partnership on the Airland Subcommittee. We have never had a harsh word nor even a serious disagreement. It does show that those of us who are from different parties love America, we want to see our military using the money wisely and doing the right things with it. It has been a pleasure for me to work with the Senator from Connecticut. I have learned so much from him. I will not go over the benefits of the program, which Senator Lieberman has already mentioned. I think that this legislation is a step in the right direction. I would note that it is retroactive to the beginning of the war in Afghanistan. I would also note that the Defense Department has studied this legislation. I asked them to do that last year as part of our Defense bill. They support it. It will have an initial cost estimated at $459 million, and it should drop to half of that in the future and hopefully much less than that. I think these costs are clearly justified. Our service members are assigned all over the globe in dangerous parts of the world. As an editorial in the San Diego Union Tribune said: The costs are beside the point. This is a case in which lawmakers have a moral obligation to do the right thing, regardless of cost. I think this legislation is the right thing. I do believe we have great support so far and I look forward to seeing it become law. I also thank the Chair for his cosponsorship of this legislation. I thank Senator Talent for his courtesy, and I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank them for their service to the Nation over the years, for their concern for our men and women in uniform, and for their support of this legislation. The loss of a family member in combat is, indeed, a terrible tragedy for the survivors. I have had the responsibility to call numerous families in Alabama since the war on terrorism began and talk to family members and attend funerals and wakes for those who have been lost. So many things occur to these families all at once. In the midst of their grieving, plans must be made for funerals, transportation of loved ones, and families must bear all the expenses and arrangements. To the survivors, it will feel like everything in the world has come to a shattering standstill. Indeed, there may be requirements that a family move, relocate, or either sell or purchase a house. There are great numbers of expenses that can occur for them at that time. The enhanced benefit package we have offered will ensure that our military families do not have to worry about these day-to-day realities as they are having to go through the painful exercise of burying a loved one. Senator Lieberman is here. He has cosponsored and worked with us on this legislation. I note that it raises the $12,000 death benefit to $100,000. It raises the Servicemen's Group Life Insurance from $250,000 to $400,000. Those increases will keep these payments up to date with current reality and be an expression of national support for those families. It is an honor to work with Senator Lieberman on the committee on a lot of different issues. We thank him for his leadership in the Senate and for his support of our men and women in uniform. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise and express my strong support for Condoleezza Rice for confirmation as Secretary of State of the United States of America. She is a native of my home state of Alabama and grew up in a very difficult time in our State. I remember vividly and was touched by the 16th Street Baptist Church bombing in Birmingham that occurred during her youth. Her family later moved to Colorado, I believe, where she grew up. She is a pianist and a talented person in so many ways. I think few would dispute her talent, her incredible background and personal history, and the many accomplishments that she has achieved through the years. In the course of doing so, she has won the confidence of the President of the United States, George W. Bush. He has relied on her foreign policy expertise for quite a number of years. He believes she is the right person to serve this country today as Secretary of State. She is a perfect fit in this role and I strongly support her confirmation. Condoleezza Rice served as provost at Stanford University. She worked in the National Security Council of former President Bush. She has served our current President Bush as National Security Advisor for 4 years. That is an excellent background for the job; that, along with her studies in international relations and history, particularly the Soviet Union. I remember early on we had a problem with national missile defense and the test ban treaty that would have required us to either not implement a national missile defense system or would have required us to manipulate it as some sort of test program in a way that was not very practical. She suggested we ought to avail ourselves of the privileges the treaty gave us to give notice and step out of the agreement with Russia. It had been signed with the Soviet Union in an entirely different global setting. At this point, we were dealing with Russia, which was friendly in many ways. Many on the other side of the aisle-- very much the same ones criticizing her today--were saying that this was just awful. They claimed that it would destabilize relations between Russia and the United States. I remember seeing Dr. Rice being questioned about that, meeting with Senators and discussing it. She listened carefully to the comments others had and then articulated her own considered thoughts with crystal clarity. She was inclined to believe we ought to get out of that treaty. She and the President eventually made the decision to do so. They did so in a way of which Russia was accepting. It caused no problems. I remember vividly the warnings from the liberal Members of this body that withdrawing from that treaty, and thus allowing us to build a legitimate national missile defense, was somehow going to cause permanent damage to the relationship between Russia and the United States. She concluded that this was not true. In fact, it was not true. She helped execute that action that allows us now to have missiles in place that are capable of knocking down incoming weapons that could wreak havoc, nuclear or otherwise, on the people of the United States. It is one of many memories I have that demonstrate her capabilities and skill. Partly, I suspect, as a result of her growing up in an area where, sadly, everyone was not treated equally, when people were discriminated against quite significantly and were treated as second-class citizens, she has a deep and abiding respect for liberty. She has a deep and abiding respect for the legal system of this country. She believes we ought to promote liberty, promote equality and promote progress in the world. It is a responsibility this Nation has and that she must champion as she serves as Secretary of State. I have no doubt that she is equal to the task. Absolutely we have to be careful. Absolutely there are limits to what we can do as a nation to help other nations. We simply are not able, and it would not be wise, even, to attempt to fix all of the problems of every nation around the world. I want a Secretary of State who understands America, who understands the values and ideals of this country, and who has values and ideals herself, to serve as Secretary of State. I want a Secretary of State who looks forward to seizing opportunities whenever they may appear-- and we do not know when they will during the course of her service-- where she can promote liberty, freedom, progress and peace throughout the world. When you find liberty and freedom in countries, they usually don't fight. It is my impression we have few, if any, examples of war-- certainly not in recent memory--that have occurred between two democratic states. Democratic states somehow are used to working out difficulties within their own country and somehow they are normally able to work out difficulties between an opposing state if they are a democracy. It is only when you come up against dictators, these people who are used to always doing it their way, who have an obsession with expansionism and oppression of their own people and their own self- interest, those are the ones who are difficult to deal with. Condoleezza Rice understands that. She is a student of history and international relations. She can help our President make those tough choices. When do we step up to the plate? When do we not step up to the plate? How can we be most effective? When should we negotiate? When should we seek the assistance of other nations to negotiate? When should we involve ourselves directly? When, Heaven forbid, should we have go to war? This is the kind of expertise she brings to the table. Her personal history and her experience as the National Security Advisor to the President is just the kind of background we need. The State Department is composed of some of the finest people I have had the privilege of knowing. They work extremely hard. They are extraordinarily educated and steeped in the countries they have as their responsibility. They provide a tremendous resource to our Nation. People forget as they serve around the world--and I have visited them as I have traveled--that they are at risk just for bearing the American flag and being a representative of this Nation, because they are in dangerous places in our world. They do a great job every day. Sometimes a great organization such as that, that creates and forms itself over many years, develops an inertia, an inability to change, to see new ideas and new ways of proceeding. Having someone at the helm such as Condoleezza Rice who has been involved in the National Security Council, she will be perfectly respectful of those fine people who serve in the State Department. She will also have the ability to lift that agency, to transform it into a more nimble and more responsive agency that can help promote American ideals aggressively throughout the world. I am very proud of her. I am proud that she is from Alabama. I am proud that President Bush has chosen to nominate her. I am confident she will be a terrific Secretary of State and very confident she will be confirmed. I am sorry that some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle--I guess in response to complaints from those among the hard left who are never happy when America commits itself around the world and stands up for its values--have chosen to hold up this nominee. I thought she was moving along rather quickly and that we would have already confirmed her by now. But there are those who want to use this opportunity to express their views, many of which are not helpful to our soldiers who are out in the field executing the policies we voted on in this body by an overwhelming vote--more than three-fourths. We sent them there. Members of this Senate voted overwhelmingly to do so. It is not appropriate to delay Dr. Rice's nomination in order to reopen the debate on our nation's actions in Iraq, particularly when there is no likelihood she will be voted down. Some of the comments made to her have not been of the most respectful and appropriate kind. Her integrity--perhaps inadvertently, but in reality--was questioned. I certainly believe she should have every right to push back and defend herself under those circumstances. I am always happy to allow my colleagues to have their say, but it has taken longer than it should. We need to move this nomination forward. We need a Secretary of State in place. She will be an outstanding Secretary of State. I look forward to seeing her confirmed, hopefully no later than tomorrow. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes to discuss legislation that I offer today along with Senator Lieberman and I believe 15 other cosponsors called the HEROES Act of 2005, the Honoring Every Requirement of Exemplary Service Act, that will increase substantially the death benefits provided to the families of our service personnel who lose their lives in service to their country. I see Senator Allen. I know he deeply cares about this issue. We are working together on this same idea. Fundamentally, this bill would raise the basic death benefit from $12,420 to $100,000. It will raise the servicemen's group life insurance payment from $250,000 to $400,000. Senator Lieberman and I, all of us in this body believe we need to make sure that our servicemen's families are well taken care of if something were to happen to them. I am very pleased that Senator Frist on Friday made this part of his leadership package and that Senator John Warner, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, promised quick action in the committee on the subject. And I am very pleased that the Defense Department has worked with us in helping to craft this legislation, actually supports it and the funding it will require. I asked last year about it when our defense bill moved. When no consensus was reached as that bill was moving, we put in the legislation a requirement that the DOD work with the Congress to develop a plan to improve death benefits, and they have done so. It is the right thing to do. Just last Monday, I was in Iraq. I had the ability to travel throughout that country, and we flew back from Baghdad to Kuwait about 9 or 10 that night. On the C-130 in which we flew back, in the bay of that great aircraft were two flag-draped coffins of American service personnel who had given their life to their country. There should be no doubt in any soldier's mind that if something happens to them while in service to their country, their family will be well taken care of. The American people want that. I believe the people in this Congress will support that. This legislation needs to be passed promptly. I am proud that Senator Warner and Senator Frist have indicated they would accelerate it and do what they can to see that it does become law. I look forward to working with Senator Lieberman and my fellow Senators to move this bill to final passage. I see the chairman of Armed Services, Senator Warner. I express my appreciation to him for his commitment to do what he can to move this bill forward promptly. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, today I take the opportunity to note the impending retirement of James W. Evatt from The Boeing Company and congratulate him for his 4 decades of service to our country. In all the debates over defense programs we often forget the human dimensions of these issues. It is all too easy to think of programs by their names and forget that real people work hard every day to make a difference in the defense of our country. Jim Evatt has been one these people for the past 40 years, first during 22 years of service in the Air Force and then these last 18 years with Boeing. To day that the emergence of our Nation has been a remarkable success, one we can be so proud of, is due in no small measure to the fact that we can claim remarkable people like Jim Evatt among our most devoted citizens. Jim was born in Norman, OK, less than 6 months before the United States entered World War II. Jim attended the University of Oklahoma for a year before deciding that the Air Force Academy was the right place to be. After graduation he served with distinction in the Air Force in Viet Nam, first flying B-52 missions and then flying the O-2 aircraft as a forward air controller. He held positions in a variety of assignments as a pilot in both the Strategic and Tactical Air Commands. Jim was part of the B-1 Joint Test Force, was the special assistant for the B-1B program to the deputy chief of staff for research, development, and acquisition, and from 1983-1985 commanded the 2nd Bombardment Wing, the Strategic Air Command's largest operational unit. In his last Government assignment he held the dual positions of Director of Special Programs for the deputy chief of staff for research, development, and acquisition and Director of Low Observable Technology for the Defense Department. Our Nation owes Jim Evatt a debt of gratitude just for his Air Force service, from his combat assignments in Viet Nam to his intimate involvement in the development of stealth technology. When Jim retired from the Air Force he went right to work at Boeing, intent upon continuing to contribute to our Nation's defense. He has held numerous positions over his 18 years at Boeing, to include President of the Information and Communication Systems Groups; Executive Vice President of the Defense and Space Group; Vice President of Marketing and Strategic Analysis; Director of Strategic Analysis and Advanced Development; Program Manager for the Grumman/Boeing/Lockheed AX fighter aircraft team for the Military Airplanes Division; Director of Advanced Product Development; and Director of Preliminary Design. Jim Evatt's contributions to our Nation's defense over the last 5 years are particularly noteworthy, during which time he has been indispensable to the progress of America's missile defense program. Jim became the program manager of the Groundbased Midcourse Defense program, or GMD as it is now known, shortly after Integrated Flight Test-5 ended in a failure. First he led Boeing's examination of that failure, and then was rewarded with the opportunity to lead GMD's industry team. In combination with Major General Bill Nance, now retired, Jim focused the GMD program on those activities which were necessary to evolve the program from what was essentially a demonstration to a deployed system. That they did this during a period of time in which the executive branch was focused more on preserving the ABM Treaty as the so-called ``cornerstone of strategic stability'' than it was on protecting America, Americans, and American interests from the threat of missile attack is truly remarkable and something for which future generations will be grateful. In the year prior to fielding ground-based interceptions at Ft. Greely, AK, Jim again assumed direct responsibility for industry's conduct of the GMD program. I am confident that our Nation's deployment of interceptors is due in no small measure to the leadership and dedication of Jim Evatt. I could go on at some length, but to do that would only embarrass this humble, God-fearing patriot. We sometimes wonder how our Nation came to be so great, where we find Americans so willing to put their country before themselves. The answer is that we find these people in places like Norman, OK, where service to our country is an honor beyond all others and its own reward. I offer my gratitude and congratulations to Jim for all he has done in 40 years of service to our Nation, and wish him and his wife Tammy my very best wishes in their well-deserved retirement.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Jesse L. Poor, Deputy to the Commander, Anniston Army Depot, United States Army Tank-Automotive and Armaments Command upon his retirement from Anniston Army Depot and a life of service to the Nation. Born in Crestview, FL, Mr. Poor earned an associate of applied science degree in personnel management and supervision from Gadsden State College, a bachelor of arts degree in history and human resource management from the University of Alabama, and he is also a graduate of the Harvard University Program for Senior Executive Fellows. The work that Jesse Poor did during his tenure at the Anniston Army Depot has been exemplary. His dedication is evidenced by the number of awards he has received in recognition of his outstanding work and service to the men and women of the U.S. Army. Under Jesse's leadership, the Anniston Army Depot's revenue more than tripled and the direct labor hour execution more than doubled, all in a recent 3-year span. Jesse has been a catalyst in business development and partnering efforts that have established Anniston Army Depot as a leader within DOD in such efforts. In November 2000, he was instrumental in partnering efforts between Anniston Army Depot and General Dynamics for the production of the Army's Stryker vehicle to support brigade combat teams. As a result of his efforts, the partnership developed production capabilities and began actual production within a few months at Anniston with the first Stryker produced in March 2002. The result was fielding the vehicle on time in spite of a nearly 1-year delay to the contract award due to protests from other bidders. As of November 2004, 625 Strykers have been produced. Jesse L. Poor is to be commended for his exemplary achievements and service to the Nation. Jesse's steady, calm, and visionary presence has fostered the successful melding of the 5,600 civilians, military and contractor members of Anniston Army Depot into a cohesive force supporting the Army's readiness. His vast expertise in depot maintenance, focus on production and efficiency, coupled with high quality standards, set the stage for an improved financial posture. Jesse's commitment to the goals and ideals of the Army is without equal and reflects great credit upon himself, the U.S. Army Materiel Command and the U.S. Army. I wish Jesse and his family the best now and into the future.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a great American, Armand DeKeyser, my chief of staff for 8 years, who is going out into the commercial world. This is a big event for me. It is painful, indeed, to lose one with whom I have been so closely associated for so long. I have known him and worked with him for more than 25 years. We met as we served together for nearly 10 years in the U.S. Army Reserve in Mobile, AL, the 1184th Transportation Terminal Unit. We went to annual training together and became good friends. Armand and his wife Beverly had returned to Mobile after he completed his Active-Duty service with the U.S. Army in Germany. He first, after he returned, worked in the seafood business, Star Fish and Oyster Company, that had been in his family for over 80 years. After another business experience, I hired him as a law enforcement coordinator when I became U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Alabama. Perhaps his most important contribution there was his leadership for the Weed and Seed Program that revitalized the Martin Luther King neighborhood in Mobile, AL. He helped get the citizens of the community together and drew up a plan for a neighborhood redevelopment program. The city, the county, and the Federal Government all worked together. He did a superb job. It was a great success. Today that neighborhood is an entirely different community than it was in the early 1990s. I later told him, when they put you in the ground, this is one achievement you know made the world better. In 1994, I was elected attorney general of Alabama, and the office was in the midst of a funding crisis--and I mean crisis; I do not mean a 1, 2, or 3-percent shortfall. Spending was on track to exceed the funds available to the office by $5 million, and the budget was a $10 million budget. I chose Armand to be our administrative officer, and his performance was superb. Automobiles were sold, all of them--virtually all of them. Offsite offices were closed. Nonmerit system employees were let go. One-third of the office, virtually all nonmerit employees, had to be terminated--one-third of the Office of the Attorney General. The workload had to be completely reorganized as a result, and Armand's work during that time was nothing short of heroic. Then in 1996, I was elected to the Senate, and I asked him to serve as my chief of staff. What a great decision that was. He and Beverly agreed to come to Washington--after he and I lived together and shared an apartment together here for a while, a three-story walkup--to take on the task of helping this new and inexperienced Senator get started. He worked harder and longer during his 8 years than any other employee on our staff. He knows people all over our State, and they like and trust him. He managed so ably we were able to return to the U.S. Treasury each year a substantial portion of the funds given to our office by the Senate. Most of all, he helped me and others on our staff achieve our best. He subordinated himself to serve the office with fidelity, diligence, and integrity. Chief of staff is not an easy job, but his gifts and graces were a perfect fit. Whether he was encouraging young staffers, dealing with Governors, generals, administration officials, or the many constituents who call on us for help, he performed superbly. His military service, including Active Duty and the Army Reserve, was a very valuable asset in his service to me. In fact, the 1184th, after I got out of it, was activated, and he spent almost a year in Kuwait as part of Desert Storm. He retired after 28 years of service with the military at the rank of lieutenant colonel. The key to Armand's success and his value to our office, I believe, was his deep commitment to an America where the right thing is done and where there is an efficient and lawful process for doing the people's work. He never forgot that the money we spend here has been extracted from some decent American who would otherwise find good use for it. Armand believes we must be good stewards of that money, and that programs and spending are only worthwhile if they produce a valuable return. He feels passionately about this, and our shared values in this regard made us a good team, I think. He has been a superb public servant, and by thousands of individual acts of accountability, frugality, and integrity--mostly unnoticed by the press or anyone else particularly--he has saved the dutiful taxpayers of America tens of millions of dollars. When he came to Washington, I told him that because of my poor abilities, I needed to have the best staff we could put together. As a result of his leadership, I believe we created and have maintained a magnificent team, without whose help I could not have been successful. In addition to his wife Beverly, whom I admire so much and with whom he attended Murphy High School in Mobile, where my daughter attended, and Auburn University, he has two fine sons: Phillip, a graduate of Georgia Tech and now a consulting engineer, and David, who commenced as a student at Boston College. He is and has every right to be extremely proud of them. He and Beverly have opened their lives and home to my staff throughout the years. Serving as a ``home away from home'' for many Alabamians in the area and staff people, Armand's house has been the site of holiday and office gatherings on numerous occasions. Over the years, his ability to make the staff feel more like a family has earned him the friendship and affection of many. Many of our staff, as well as their parents, appreciate that. I and all our team truly appreciate the open-door policy he has had with staff and recognize all the work he has done to keep things running smoothly in the office. He has served extraordinarily well and faithfully, and it is now appropriate and just that Armand undertake new opportunities. While I am sad to see him leave, I know he is about to embark on a great new career as executive director of the Government Relations Group at Kilpatrick Stockton, LLP, one of America's finest law firms. I am confident he will meet the challenge of the new job with the same professionalism and dedication he has shown for the past 8 years as my chief of staff. His years of public service may be over for now, but his commitment to the Nation and the principles on which it was founded will never waiver. I wish him all the best. I close with one final remark close to Armand's Auburn heart: War eagle.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I wish to remember the life of one of Alabama's finest First Ladies, Helen Chambers Hunt, the wife of former Gov. Guy Hunt. Miss Helen, as she was known, was a gracious and caring woman, who carried out her duties as First Lady with charm and compassion, and she will be greatly missed by all who knew and loved her. I was honored to get to personally know this wonderful lady. Governor Hunt told me once of a lady who had seen Mrs. Hunt walk across the stage. The lady said to him, ``I can tell she is a fine lady and you must be a fine person too.'' It was true. Her very countenance and carriage projected an aura of faith, compassion and humility. The Governor was so very proud of her and so were the people of Alabama. In all her gifts and graces she represented the highest of Alabama values. Miss Helen grew up in the Birdsong community in Cullman County. She met Guy Hunt, the future Governor of Alabama, during high school, when they started dating. They met at church and their first date was to a drive-in movie. They were married in 1950, when Helen was only 16 years old and Guy was 17. The Hunts were blessed with four wonderful children--Pam, Sherrie, Keith and Lynn. Miss Helen enjoyed cooking and sewing and also spending time with her husband at their Holly Pond home. She stood with him through two terms as Cullman County Probate Judge as well as his tenure as Governor from 1987-1993. Although she did not seek the spotlight, as First Lady she embraced a campaign to reduce littering along Alabama highways that resulted in the creation of the highly successful Adopt-a-Mile Program. She also was a wonderful hostess at the Governor's Mansion, organizing numerous dinners, barbeques, and other social events. The Retirement Systems of Alabama recognized Miss Helen's service by naming a daycare center in Montgomery the RSA Helen Hunt Learning Center. She also devoted a great deal of her time to helping disabled children--a passion that grew from the fact that Pam, the Hunt's eldest daughter, was a special-needs child. Not only was Helen Hunt the wife of a Baptist minister, but she was a devoted Christian and her life was a witness to her faith. She will be remembered by all the people of Alabama who loved her dearly as a warm and gracious First Lady, and a devoted and loving wife.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I wish today to give tribute to the North American Baptist Mission for the great leadership and assistance they provided the citizens of Alabama in their time of need following Hurricane Ivan. Their selfless devotion of time, energy, and skills played an integral role in helping Alabamians recover from such a tragic event. Much of Alabama suffered as a result of Hurricane Ivan. It was a major hurricane that did tremendous damage to homes and properties, timber, and agriculture throughout the State. I was shocked by the devastation that was left in the wake of the storm. I was, however, encouraged by the resilient nature of the citizens in Alabama during such a difficult time. I remain continually thankful for the thousands of volunteers and, in particular, the North American Baptist Mission, that came to Alabama lending helping hands in our time of need. Concerned for Alabama, the North American Baptist Mission alerted its churches to the extreme destruction caused by Hurricane Ivan, and Baptist churches across the Nation responded. Volunteers from 14 different States ventured into the most devastated counties in Alabama: Baldwin, Butler, Conecuh, Covington, Clarke, Escambia, Mobile, and Washington Counties. The Baptist volunteers assisted Alabamians in putting their homes and lives back together. The Baptist groups set up 16 feeding sites that served 559,000 meals in Alabama. Specifically, in Butler County, 45 North Carolina Baptist Men volunteers served 17,586 meals. I had the opportunity and privilege of seeing this particular outreach mission, and I was thoroughly impressed with the volunteers attitudes and selfless acts. In addition to serving meals, clean up crews removed yard debris from 1,750 homes and businesses throughout the eight counties in Alabama, and in some locations the Baptist groups were able to set up portable showers and washer/dryer connections, providing 1,118 people with laundry assistance. These men and women, working from motor homes and in the heat, reflected the best in selfless service. Many were retired and some have served the Lord for many years, yet they were full of energy and vitality. They served, they encouraged, and they helped. The spirit of Jesus was indeed alive and strong in Greenville. I realize that there were numerous organizations, charities, churches, and individuals that came to Alabama's aid in our time of need. Additionally, I realize that what I witnessed in Greenville was multiplied all across the State, and I would like to take this opportunity to thank all of the good Samaritans who sacrificed their time, energy, and resources to help Alabamians on their road to recovery. Particularly, I would like to say thank you to the North American Baptist Mission volunteers I met in Greenville for their selfless devotion of time and energy.