Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I was reluctant to cast my vote against this bill which has a lot of good things in it, and it is not as bad as some bills that have come through, but I want to share some of my concerns and thoughts tonight. We have had charges for sometime that we have used accounting gimmicks to get around the budget caps or limits in the bill. This bill's gimmicks are not as bad as we have had in some years, but there are some here, and I think we ought to talk about them. Our budget for the year was $821.919 billion for the discretionary account. In order to comply with the budget resolution, this omnibus bill relies on roughly $1.6 billion in practices that many of us have described as gimmicks. And there is an additional $400 million in spending that was designated as an emergency which is not subject to the budget limitations. So it is basically $2 billion over what the budget limit should be, unpaid for and funded by freezing the debt in reality. How did we get there? An $821 billion budget was the discretionary spending. The Senate insisted on $4 billion more in additional spending above the budget resolution. While insisting that spending remain within the overall limit, the administration sought funding for certain Presidential priorities at higher levels than provided either by the House or the Senate. As a result, the omnibus bill pays for this additional spending, I am pleased to say, with an across-the-board cut, across all the accounts, of .8 percent, less than 1 percent, but it did pay for most of that. It reduces the accounts in all bills and helps reduce the amount of debt that would be incurred by this spending bill. While we would prefer to live within our budget, this across-the-board cut is better than increased debt. However, rather than paying for all of the increases with this across-the-board cut, which we could have done by perhaps having a 1- percent reduction across the board, the bill includes a series of at least four accounting maneuvers. First, the omnibus bill includes an accounting shift regarding public housing authorities, PHAs. Currently, the Federal Government subsidizes the operating costs of PHAs. However, the PHAs are on different fiscal years and normally get their full annual allocation at the beginning of their fiscal year, October 1. The omnibus bill will include language requiring all PHAs to convert to a calendar year budget, resulting in $1 billion in savings for 2005. No cuts, nothing but a maneuvering of the calendar year budget and that would save $1 billion. But it is not a saving, is it? The effect of the provision is to defer costs into the future to allow for additional spending now and spending that will likely be assumed into the baseline of our spending, and the baseline of spending is very important. I will take a moment to discuss why baseline is so important. When we increase annual spending by $2 billion, that is a significant hit to the taxpayer. It does not sound like a lot out of a $821 billion budget. We have had worse years, I will admit, but still a significant hit. Next year, when we begin the budget and appropriations season, that $2 billion will be assumed into the baseline, meaning to fund all the programs at the previous year's level, we will need to spend another $2 billion. Second, the bill rescinds roughly $300 million in defense appropriations. It took $300 million from defense, raising the concern for some that defense spending may be reduced in priority and we ought not to take anything from defense we cannot fully justify, and I do not think we need to in this time of war take anything from defense. In addition, it is unclear such a rescission will result in true savings. For instance, the fiscal year 2004 omnibus included a similar $1.8 billion rescission of defense and unused emergency spending from post-9/11 to help meet last year's budget resolution. That $1.8 billion was later restored in the Department of Defense conference report and it was labeled an emergency. So what happened? It is pretty clear, is it not? What happened was that last year we used this reduction of defense by $1.8 billion and later we declared it an emergency, which means it is not subject to the budget limitations of the budget, and we funded it by increasing the debt. In other words, we went around the budget limits, the budget caps, we agreed to. Third, the bill relies on new data suggesting that receipts have increased in the Crime Victims Fund by $283 million. However, CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, does not publish an updated economic outlook until January and thus to have access to such funds it would be necessary to direct CBO to assume such revenues in its scorekeeping. The committee has left the directed scorekeeping provision out of the text due in part to past objections by some conservatives to such provisions, and thus when a CBO score is finally produced, it will probably result in the omnibus exceeding the budget resolution. Finally, the omnibus will also include an extra $300 million for the Low-Income Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP, another $300 million beyond the regular appropriations, because of high energy prices. This will be designated as an emergency and it will not be counted against the budget resolution, even though past LIHEAP contingencies have been paid for within the budget parameters. So LIHEAP has been declared an emergency. I do not think we need to be in a position of saying that simply an increase in the energy prices justifies a $300 million increase in spending straight to the debt and violating our budget. In addition, the bill provides an additional $100 million in emergency designations, $7 million for the Postal Service, and $93 million for Sudan. If we measure our spending by maintaining the same rate of increase, we will not only have to spend the $2 billion next year, but we can assume more than $2 billion on top just to maintain the rate of increased baseline. So a $2 billion increase this year becomes a $4 billion increase next year, or at least an increase in the debt. And this is the way it works: We go over the budget this year by $2 billion. Then next year, we have to have a budget that funds that same $2 billion, and if our habits continue the same and our appropriators cannot stay within the $821 billion or whatever our budget number is next year, and it will be somewhat higher, then we will have another $2 billion or maybe more through additional gimmicks next year, because I do not think we have ever done an appropriations bill since I have been in the Senate that has been truly honest, without some gimmicks. Now, I figured this out. If we did it just $2 billion--and, remember, often we have done worse than this bill and had more than $2 billion in gimmicks--then the next year there is another $2 billion plus the $2 billion we raised up this year, and so it is $4 billion up, and the next year it is $6 billion up, and next year it is $8 billion. Add those to the amounts that have been tapped and hit the country with deficit spending, in over 10 years I calculate it would be $132 billion. So this $2 billion a year is not a one-time deal. It tends to become part of the baseline of Federal spending, and as a result of that it grows exponentially over time. That is how we get out of control. Now, the way we reached a surplus in our budget account and eliminated the deficit throughout the 1990s fundamentally was good control of spending--not perfect but pretty good. Remember, this Congress shut down the whole Government for a while, trying to contain and cut spending. At any rate, over a period of time we did a pretty good job of controlling spending. This year's budget is good on discretionary spending. It is less than a 1-percent increase. I am proud of the Senate for doing that. I am proud of President Bush for supporting it. It was the right decision. We have done a pretty good job of staying with that. But I want to point out that just this $2 billion excess can make a large difference in the total over a period of years. If we would remain true to the limits we all agreed to in our budget, the $821 billion, and we stayed flat at that, it would make a big difference over time, a lot more than people think. If we had not had this offset, which I salute our appropriators and the leadership in this Senate for taking a .8-percent reduction across the board to fund most of this, we would have been in lot worse shape. We got so close. My concern is, why not go all the way? Why not be true to the budget we agreed to, the budget limits we had? If we had done that, I think we could be more proud of our work today. I conclude by expressing my concern about the budget and the need to stay absolutely true to it. If we will, it will make a huge difference over a period of years in our goal to substantially reduce the deficits that are facing our country. Again, I want to say how much I appreciate the leadership of Senator Frist, Assistant Majority Leader McConnell, and Senator Stevens for the work they have done on this bill. It is a very difficult job. We do not need to be doing this every year. My best judgment is that we absolutely need to do a budget that is good for 2 years. We do not need to be doing this every year. We could work more carefully on it, more responsibly, and end up with a spending level we can agree to and not have two opportunities to break it--there would only be one opportunity to break it--and I believe we can make real progress in maintaining fiscal integrity in our Government by doing so. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise to commemorate the life of a noted conservative journalist, media critic, and a leading authority on media bias, Reed Irvine. Reed Irvine passed on November 16, 2004, and is known as the man who founded the organization Accuracy in Media. He leaves a legacy of fighting a left-leaning media and was a long-time critic of the big three networks at a time when only three network nightly news shows dominated the distribution of information to the public. Reed Irvine was born in Salt Lake City, UT, the son of William J. and Edna May Irvine. He graduated from the University of Utah at the age of 19 in 1942, having been elected to Phi Beta Kappa. He enlisted in the Navy and was selected to take a crash program in the Japanese language, emerging as an interpreter-translator with a commission in the U.S. Marine Corps. He participated in the campaign of Saipan, Tinian, Okinawa as an intelligence officer with the 2nd Marine Division, and served in the occupation of Japan from 1945 to 1948. After the war, Mr. Irvine was an economist, Fulbright scholar and former Federal Reserve official. He joined the Federal Reserve Board in 1951 as an economist in the Far East Section of the Division of International Finance. Mr. Irvine wrote extensively about the free market and advocated sound monetary and fiscal policy. He founded Accuracy in Media in 1969 and its sister organization, Accuracy in Academia, in 1985. Mr. Irvine pioneered the concept of a citizens' media watchdog organization that criticized the errors and omissions of the mainstream press, buying ads to publicize serious errors and buying stock in media companies to enable Accuracy in Media representatives to attend their annual meetings to discuss its complaints with the chairman. Irvine was tenacious in his quest for the full truth in media. Mr. Irvine is survived by his wife of 56 years, Kay Araki Irvine, his son and three grandchildren. Reed Irvine will be remembered as being at the forefront of the conservative movement's attack on media bias and has left us four books that study the bias of the media. In 1969, when Reed Irvine began his crusade, most Americans trusted the mainstream media. Americans received the biased news coverage and believed it. Today, the liberal bias in media, Hollywood, and academia is widely accepted as a fact of life. Some day, I hope that the mainstream media will lose its leftwing bias. I hope for the day when academia will focus all its attention on scholarship and leave the liberal indoctrination for the pundits. But, I do not expect those days to come very soon. However, thanks in large part to the life's work of Reed Irvine and the movement he helped launch, Americans have now accepted media bias as a fact of life. The American Society of Newspapers published a study in 1999 that showed 78 percent of Americans believe there is a bias in the media. I believe this understanding by the American public promotes a more informed democracy. People watch the news with a critical eye. Students question their professors. Americans are seeking out talk radio, alternative media. The Internet is flourishing. Thanks to dedicated watchdogs such as Reed Irvine, the American people now see through the bias in the media. Dan Rather's ludicrous reporting on President Bush's National Guard service was debunked in no time on the Internet and talk radio. A liberal bias that was once lamented by conservatives and ignored by the public has now become a running joke among conservatives and an accepted fact in the minds of Americans. People, who once powerlessly accepted the news however they could get it, are now voting with their remote controls. When President Bush delivered his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention this year, 7.3 million people saw it on Fox. Meanwhile, 5.9 million watched on NBC, 5.1 million on ABC, 5 million on CBS, 2.7 million on CNN and 1.7 million on MSNBC, according to Nielsen Media Research. Fox also beat the broadcast networks throughout the rest of the Republican Convention coverage--this, despite the fact that ABC, CBS, and NBC are available in about 110 million homes, while Fox is carried in about 85 million. Reed Irvine's message has been received, and the people are fighting back. News is now reported in countless ways, 24 hours a day, and the American people are deciding for themselves what it all means. For this new coverage we can thank the Fox News channel, and the countless talk show hosts, magazines, Internet sites, and organizations. However, I think the most important gift that has been given to our country is the critical eye of the American public. A voting public that watches the news with a critical eye is one that cannot be easily manipulated. A college student who asks his professor tough questions will end up better educated and ready for the world. For this wonderful gift, we owe a special thanks to Reed Irvine.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the United States Air Force Airman of the Year for 2004, Senior Airman Nicholas P. Semonelle from Enterprise, Alabama. Senior Airman Semonelle's recognition stems from his unique act of courage and bravery. On January 18, 2003, Senior Airman Semonelle was faced with a dangerous situation. Senior Airman Semonelle observed smoke from a nearby house that had caught fire and immediately called 911. Upon learning from a 14-year-old babysitter that three children were trapped inside, Semonelle immediately broke through a window and entered the burning structure to try to find the children. Despite the smoke and heat, Senior Airman Semonelle searched room to room locating a 7-year-old boy and evacuating him from the building. Without hesitation and regard for his own personal safety, he again risked his life to go back inside the home, now ablaze and filled with smoke, to locate and carry out a second child, a 3-year-old girl. Senior Airman Semonelle began a third rescue attempt of an 18-month-old baby girl still trapped in the now engulfed structure. Despite repeated attempts, the little girl could not be found. Emergency rescue personnel arrived to find the structure engulfed in flames, and were unable to locate the third child who did not survive. Senior Airman Semonelle, his brother- in-law who had helped with the rescues, and the two lucky children eventually collapsed on the ground in front of the house, exhausted and coughing from smoke inhalation. Senior Airman Semonelle's quick action to enter the burning home and rescue those inside resulted in saving the lives of two children. His disregard for his own personal safety to save others is an act of bravery that warrants our gratitude. I commend this 1996 Elba High School graduate for his service to our country and for his bravery. He continues to distinguish himself, serving our country overseas in his assignment to the United States Air Force 435th Logistics Readiness Squadron at Ramstein Air Base, Germany. He is truly deserving of the recognition that the United States Air Force and the United Services Organization have bestowed on him as Airman of the Year.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent that the joint resolution be read the third time and passed, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statement related to the joint resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I will note that is a significant piece of legislation that just passed. I serve on that committee. We spent several years working on it. We have improved some of the discipline problems. We have reduced some of the paperwork. I believe maybe there is more we can still do, but that is a big deal for hundreds of thousands of teachers and students all over our country.

Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the conference report to accompany H.R. 1350, the IDEA bill, that the conference report be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements be printed in the Record.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 478, introduced earlier today.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, Don Nickles has been truly one of our great Senators for almost a quarter of a century. I join with the remarks of others who came before me, and particularly Mitch McConnell's belief that Don Nickles is one of the best of all times in this body. He rode into Washington at the age of 30, determined to fight for a heartland vision of America with all his strength and energy. As he leaves here, still a young man, limping a little bit from that New York marathon he just ran a few days ago, every one of us can say he was true to those ideals and extraordinarily effective in advocating them. This Senate and this Nation is losing a tremendous champion. We are losing one of our most valuable Members. Don was a small businessman who had seen personally the oppression of mindless regulation and taxes and rules that make creating a business and creating jobs difficult and frustrating. He knows taxes stifle growth and human creativity and taxes mean a transfer of power and wealth from the people who have earned it by the fruit of their labor, sending it to Washington for governmental politicians to dispense. He knows government spends too much and too wastefully. And he knows as a true man of faith that ultimately it is the families, the hearts, and the faith of America in which our strength resides. Those values he holds and he holds them very strongly. For those values he has worked ably and courageously to his last day in the Senate. As his service here comes to an end, he can know that in each of these areas where he has committed himself, to a remarkable degree our country has made real progress. We have. He can and should take great pride in knowing he was a key player in effecting the historic transformation of this country from an era of big government to an era in which even President Clinton would say: Big government is over. The battle hasn't totally ended. The roaches will come back. No doubt we will have to continue to spray. But tremendous progress has been made. Don's critical role in this historic reversal of the liberal big government vision as the answer to all our problems can be seen, in part, by examining the key positions he has held. He chaired the Budget Committee, the Republican Policy Committee, the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the Republican Platform Committee for the Republican National Convention, and he held a critical position of assistant Republican leader, the second person in charge here in the Senate. During his career he has been involved in many key battles. One of the most crucial was the lead he took in opposing the Clinton administration one-size-fits-all health care plan in 1993. He offered a countervision of consumer choice and for Americans he won that battle by blocking what I think to be ill-advised legislation. I know he took great pride when Congress passed the Medicare prescription drug bill last year that included his vision for medical savings accounts and for more competition in the health care industry. I didn't agree with everything in that bill, but the good parts he and I battled for are going to be important for years to come in health care in America. Two years later, in 1995, he secured passage of the Congressional Accountability Act, which made Congress abide by the same health and safety standards that employers around America did. That was an important psychological victory for those who suffered under Government regulation, that those of us who write the regulations have to abide by them, too. In 1995 he authored the bill for families to receive $500 per child tax credit. Now it is $1,000 per child tax credit. When I campaigned in 1996, it was one of the primary emphases of my campaign. I strongly believed, and believe to this day, that nothing has been done to strengthen families more than allowing the working families trying to raise children today to have an extra $1,000 in their pockets to take care of their children and their families. Don Nickles was the one who drove that home. In 1998, the International Religious Freedom Act that he referred to in his remarks became law. He has been a champion of religious freedom and rights. He worked to establish this commission to develop appropriate responses to violations of religious liberty worldwide. Since the bill's passage, the commission has issued four annual reports on religious freedom and persecution around the world. This act will become more and more important as the years go by, as we are now seeing a rise in religious intolerance and persecution around the world. Now we have an authoritative source so the world can know how serious this problem is, and that knowledge can help us lead to positive change. The next year, the Senate passed the Patients' Bill of Rights legislation. Throughout 1998, Senator Nickles chaired a task force of Republican Senators, on which I served, working to better understand and respond to the concerns about managed health plans. His group wrote and introduced the Patients' Bill of Rights-Plus, a responsible alternative to the plan that would have dramatically increased health care costs. It was a terrific battle. Don called us together daily to prepare on how to carry out the debate. The opposition said a massive intervention into the American private insurance market by the Federal Government was necessary, and anybody who dared oppose this huge Federal mandate would just be run over by them. But Don proposed legislation that targeted the real abuses, with minimum cost increases and limited Federal regulation. His bill would have, in fact, impacted the cost of premiums only a fraction of what was proposed by the opposition. It may now seem a small matter. At the time of that debate it was a central issue before the Congress for months, and pressure from the liberal news media to pass an expansive bill was great. There could be no doubt that his personal leadership on behalf of individual citizens and small businesses was a key factor in the successful effort to avoid a fundamental takeover of private insurance in America. In 2003, he became chairman of the Budget Committee, and I had the honor of serving as a member. During his chairmanship he made great strides to protect the fiscal sanity of our country. He led the Budget Committee during the time of war when our homeland was attacked and when we had a serious economic slowdown. He faced a surging national debt, and it was a time of heated partisanship in an evenly divided Senate. I was doubtful that anything could be accomplished because of the partisan atmosphere, and I told Don of my doubts. I said: I am not sure we can produce a budget. He understood the difficulty he was facing but was convinced that a responsible budget was essential for America. He set to work with his usual skill and determination and commitment to principle and courtesy. He knew his budget depended on many. There was, indeed, much political posturing on all sides as all maneuvered to promote their interests. But Don never wavered. He was confident, funny, gracious, and determined. The result was a very responsible 2004 budget with good spending limitations and caps. Wisely, he managed to make sure there would be a cap for fiscal year 2005, which we are in now, in case the budget would have failed this year. Without doubt, this was a good plan. It was critical that the Senate at that time pass a budget in a time of national insecurity and great deficits. It impacted positively, I believe, the economic situation of our country. We didn't produce a fiscal year 2005 budget, although Don gave it his all. I have never seen him work so hard. He tried everything that could be done to achieve a budget for this year. That effort failed, but his fiscal year 2004 cap still made sure that we could maintain spending control. I could say more, but I will just close with the remarks that were shared by Phil Gramm as I talked about Don one time. I said something good about him. And Phil Gramm, an astute observer and great Senator, shook his head and said: I am always amazed that this machine shop operator from Oklahoma is so consistently right on every issue that comes up. I agree. He has been consistently right for every year he has been here. He has been the leader in the values that the American people share. He has played a critical role in the development of a new vision for government in America. He has produced regulations; he reduced taxes; he has empowered people around the globe. It has been an honor and a pleasure for me to call him a friend and serve with him. I admire him greatly. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I want to share a few remarks about our friend and colleague Peter Fitzgerald. It has been a real honor for me to serve with him. We have had quite different backgrounds. Peter grew up in suburban Chicago and attended very fine parochial schools. He attended Dartmouth College where he graduated cum laude with highest distinction majoring in Latin and Greek. He got his law degree from the University of Michigan and came from a very prominent family there. He is a wonderful person, a person I got to know, although our backgrounds are different, I having grown up in south Alabama, the son of a country store owner, going barefoot and swimming in the creeks. We enjoyed talking with one another. He liked Bear Bryant, and we talked about a number of things. One thing he shared with me on a number of occasions is his belief that there should be in government, in the business of the United States and the State governments, integrity. He talked with me about his recommendation to President Bush about a U.S. attorney appointment in Chicago. He wrestled with it and talked with me over a period of weeks about the fact he believed that even if he chose any of the very fine candidates who had been discussed in Chicago, he would be choosing somebody from that area that people would think was not the best, was not independent, that they might be influenced by someone. He had a growing feeling that he should choose someone from outside the area. It is an usual thing to do, but that is what he did. He searched the country over and chose U.S. Attorney Fitzgerald, a nonrelative, I believe, who tried some of the biggest terrorist cases in New York. That is who he recommended and that is who he put there. Why? Because he wanted the best prosecutor with the best background, with the most integrity, and total independence to do the right thing there. That indicated to me just how serious he was about this issue. When he ran for the Senate, he was in the banking business, an attorney in the banking business. He promised he would not involve himself and would recuse himself from decisions dealing with banking. People said that was not necessary. Others did not do that. He said he thought it was the appropriate thing to do, and he adhered to that the entire time he was here, recusing himself on a number of such issues. He chose the higher standard, the road less traveled. He did not like fraud, corruption, and abuse. As a member of the Consumer Affairs Subcommittee of the Commerce Committee, he took a key role in the investigation of Enron and the abuses that occurred there. He was a constant and strong opponent of no-bid contracts. He saw a lot of those in Illinois. He did not like it, and he spoke out against it in a very strong way. Particularly, there was a matter involving Springfield and a major construction contract. He feared the good old boys, those with influence and inside word, would be the beneficiaries of those contracts rather than the taxpayers. He thought it should be bid on a professional basis, and he battled very hard for that. He did not like and does not like cronyism, and he spoke out against it. His commercial banking experience led him to study the behavior of the stock markets and brokerage firms in the Federal thrift plan, which he admired greatly, saying it was the most efficient and best plan for investors that he was aware of because the fees and costs were so low. He, therefore, was a champion of integrity and full disclosure of fees in the brokerage business and spoke out aggressively in favor of that. Why did he say that? Because he thought insiders were taking too big a piece of the pie and if that money, instead of being paid out in fees, sometimes never seen by the investors, had been reinvested in the stocks or mutual funds, that the investor would have ended up with a lot more money over a lifetime, and he had charts to show it. He spoke out against that special interest group because he believed it was the right thing to do. He believed in representing the consumers, and those are the people who make America go. He has a wonderful wife Nina who attended Smith College, the London School of Economics, and Harvard Law School. They have one son, Jake. He has chosen to spend more time with them. We can certainly understand his decision to do that. I also thank him for his service to the people of the United States. He did so in this single term with integrity, courage, decency, and a great spirit of cooperativeness. I have enjoyed serving with him, as did all of us in this body, and I wish him Godspeed. I yield the floor. THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, tomorrow the Senate will reconvene to consider the Omnibus appropriations conference report. It is expected that the conference report will be filed tonight and that the House will begin consideration of that measure Saturday morning. We will then return to business at 11 a.m. with the hope that the conference report will be available shortly thereafter. In addition, the Senate will consider the intelligence reform conference report if that is available. Senators should expect votes tomorrow, and we will notify Members as to when the first vote is expected.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that the Foreign Relations Committee be discharged from further consideration of the two lists of nominations that are at the desk, and that the nominations be placed on the calendar.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, Dr. Bill Frist, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 11 a.m. on Saturday, November 20. I further ask that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved, and there then be a period for the transaction of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank Senator Dodd for his comments. My relationship and experience with Tom Daschle was a man who was a straight shooter. Every time I asked him something, I got a legitimate answer. If he committed to do something to help me, he did it. He was a gentleman at all times. We never had a harsh word. We may disagree--and we did disagree over policies, we all did--and debated and argued and fussed, as we do in this Senate, but there is something special about this body. Senator Dodd, a son of a Senator himself, has deep connections and many years here and understands it better than most. It is important that we recognize the humanity, the skill, the dedication of each Member of the body, whether we agree politically, whether we are in the same party, and we recognize that. Senator Dodd, thank you for the comments. It means a lot to the body, as does your leadership. Don Nickles

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 476, introduced earlier today by Senator Alexander.

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that H.J. Res. 111, which is at the desk, be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Leahy amendment at the desk be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read the third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Mr. Leahy.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 2873, and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Dorgan amendment be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.