Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 2154, and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Lugar substitute at the desk be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Foreign Relations Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 2655, and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H. Con. Res 524, which was received from the House.

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 the 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. 477, which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.J. Res. 110, which has been received from the House.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the assistant majority leader for his fine words. I certainly agree with those about Zell Miller. Democracies in general, America in particular, seem blessed that in times of turmoil, leaders do step forward and give us the guidance we need. During a time of war and economic challenge, America got such a leader in Zell Miller. It is not too much to say that he was the key, the very hinge upon which much of the fate of the agenda of the last several years swung. For the goals of President Bush, from homeland security to economic growth to the war on terrorism, Zell Miller has been the difference between victory and defeat, the gap between almost and barely. I think part of the willingness of Senator Miller to step forward, break ranks, and support President Bush came because he is a man of experience and judgment and integrity. He got to know President Bush. He looked into his heart, he examined his policies, and he believed him. He had a particular belief in this man at this point in history, based on his study of history, his writing, and his experience, and he was willing to step forward in an unusual degree and take a lot of grief for it, to stand up for what he believed was right. When President Bush proposed a tax cut to get the economy moving in 2001, and things were not going well, Zell Miller was the first Democrat to support that plan. He cosponsored the bill with Phil Gramm of Texas, a great Senator. When they teamed up I thought of that slogan in the Alabama football network. Bear Bryant would have a TV show every week to talk about the game. He promoted Coca-Cola from Georgia, I guess, and Golden Flake potato chips, and the slogan was: ``Great Pair Says the Bear.'' So when Zell Miller and Phil Gramm joined forces, it was indeed a great pair. When it came time to protect the homeland against terrorist attacks, it was Zell Miller who stood with the President in 2002 to make sure we had a Department that functioned more like the Pentagon than the post office in protecting the lives of American citizens. After 4 months and 11 votes and a national election, finally it took. We passed the Homeland Security bill that has succeeded in keeping us safe, since 9/11, at least--a feat not many would have predicted possible at the time. I would just say this: Senator Miller understood the importance of that issue. I believe he called three press conferences. He urged those who were blocking the Homeland Security bill for some sort of internal governmental union-type politics, not on the real merits--he warned them that this was bad. It was bad for America, and it was bad politically for those who blocked it. They didn't listen. I think they wished they had. Certainly, after the election they were quite willing to pass the bill they had been blocking before the election. When the economy slowed down due to the attacks and the corporate scandal, and it came time to accelerate the tax cuts in 2003, once again it was Zell Miller who made the economic incentive plan the law of the land. On the question of judges for America, Zell Miller had the classical view of the role of a judge consistent with his good friend, the wonderful Judge Griffin Bell, who was a court of appeals judge and also Attorney General of the United States under President Jimmy Carter. He follows that philosophy. As a matter of fact, he analyzed each nominee who came forward and I believe saw fit to support the nominees, consistently, that President Bush sent forward--not because of politics but because he believed those judges would follow the law, not make law. They would be constructionists, not activists. Oftentimes, on each one of these issues it came down to this one man making the difference, either taking the lead or casting the key vote on those issues. He taught us once again that nation, family, faith, heritage, and principle are more important than politics and party. In this he reaffirmed the belief that government for, of, and by the people can work. When he spoke, people listened. I will tell you why people listened. I asked him how he found time, how he did his speeches. He personally writes his speeches. It is not written by staff. It is not generated by some computer. It is not regurgitated from some document or some memorandum or some summary somewhere. It comes from his heart, his experience, his head, and his understanding of this great Republic of which we are blessed to be a part. That is why people listen to his speeches. Most of us recall his speech in New York at the convention, where he, in Trumanesque fashion, blasted those who play games with our national defense. They squalled and thought it was hell. He was just telling the truth, I suggest. It was clear, passionate, and powerful and helped change the course of the national debate. It changed the course of the national debate because it was true. What he said was important. It had to do with whether this Nation would have leadership committed to a strong America. He also had some very fine words right here on the floor of the Senate. On the Energy bill, he rose in ``defense of that great American workhorse,'' in his words, the pickup truck. He told a story of meeting a guy who was a PHD--that is a post hole digger--who said: If you really want to know when times are bad, take notice of the number of people having to sell their pickups. Look at the ads in the paper and the ``for sale'' signs in the yards. The more you see, the worse it is because pickups are the very symbol of the working man. As the pickup goes, so does the working man and the very heart of this country. He added: Pickups are as essential to the carpenter as his hammer; as essential to the painter as his paintbrush. So we must leave this American workhorse, the pickup truck, alone. Don't pick on the pickup. Then he shared with us a tune called ``Talking Pickup Truck Blues.'' He spared us the agony of singing it, but he did share one verse. Sure, an SUV is classy travel, but it ain't much good for hauling gravel, or hay or bovine feces. So please do not make my pickup truck an endangered species. That is not often heard on the floor of this Senate--words of eloquence that bring a smile to us all but more than that drives home a truth about real people who serve America day after day in pickup trucks. So this man knows America. Given all the good he has done in so little time--he has given so much to it--he leaves much too soon. He has done a great job for this Nation and for Georgia in replacing the departed Paul Coverdell who we all loved and admired. He has been a great leader and a great Senator, and the Senate will miss the presence of this old Marine sergeant. I can say without contradiction I believe that few Senators in the history of this Republic have in one short term contributed so much to the health and welfare of our Nation and made such a tremendous impact on it. It is because he put his Nation first; he stood for what we believe in. He was true to his raising. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise today in memory of Major General James L. Murray, U.S. Air Force (Ret.), and Aerospace Executive. Major General Murray was recently interred at Arlington National Cemetery. He served his country with honor and integrity, and should also be recognized for the numerous accomplishments of his half century career. Although I was saddened to learn of Major General Murray's death, I am proud to have personally known him. This man was a great American, a man who loved his country, and a man who always put his country first. During his USAF career he logged over 5,500 hours as a pilot in over 60 different types of aircraft. He then went on to participate in the development of the thermal de-icing system, led the design and development of the ejection seat escape system, and managed the development of the B-52. Major General Murray was very dedicated to serving his country, and he clearly demonstrated this dedication while in the Air Force. Upon retirement he was awarded the Distinguished Service Medal, the highest honor the military conveys in peacetime. Major General Murray continued to work toward strengthening our Nation after he retired. He led the way at Douglas Aircraft to develop the C-5 aircraft, which was a huge triumph of the time and it remains today a key part of our military's airlift capability. Major General Murray also demonstrated his extraordinary abilities while he was President and Chairman of Teledyne CAE, formerly Continental Aviation and Engineering. It was here that he led the work to produce the cruise missile engines for the U.S. military. The value of these incredibly capable precision weapons has been witnessed several times over the years, specifically in the first Gulf War. Major General Murray and his wife, Phyllis Jennings Murray, made beautiful Point Clear, AL, on the eastern shore of Mobile Bay, their home in 1985. She survives him together with their seven children, nine grandchildren, and one great-grandchild. His family can know that they have been beneficiaries of a remarkable legacy. Major General Murray led an extraordinarily productive life. All his powers and gifts, in the Air Force and in business, were given to strengthening the country he loved. There can be no doubt his life's work has made a tremendous contribution to a stronger America.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise to commemorate the recent death of one of Alabama's most remarkable men, Charles Woods of Dothan, AL. Mr. Woods, who was 83 years old, died October 17 in Dothan after an extended illness. Mr. Woods lived an extraordinary life. Orphaned until age 6, he worked hard and became a decorated World War II pilot who was severely burned in a plane crash in India as he and his crew were on their way to China over the Himalayan Mountains. Mr. Woods was riding as check pilot in a C-109 supply aircraft when the accident occurred. The plane crashed off the end of the runway, and Captain Woods was able to open the window on his side of the cockpit and stumble away from the flaming aircraft. The training pilot and two other crew members perished. That crash left Mr. Woods scarred but not beaten. His powerful drive to survive his burns was the same drive that made him a highly successful businessman. After the war, Mr. Woods established successful real estate and media businesses that included the launching of Dothan's first television station, WTVY-TV. Still, he had a deep interest in politics and ran a number of high profile races that did not lead to victory but captured the attention of the people of Alabama and certainly his opponents. I well remember as a teenager watching his dramatic story produced as part of his first campaign for Governor. It was a powerful piece. I believe this early ``infomercial'' was a breakthrough in political campaigning and now, with the advent of cable television, has become more common. He ran a strong race for the U.S. Senate in 1996 and his surge in the polls got the attention of all of us in that Republican primary. After I got in the runoff, I was very pleased that he chose to immediately endorse my candidacy. He was gracious and affirming. I valued that highly because everyone knew that Charles Woods was a courageous and independent minded person whose goal was to improve the lives of all Alabamians. His endorsement gave my campaign a real boost. Since that time, I had the opportunity to talk with him on a number of occasions, to appreciate his insight and decisiveness, and to become friends. He spoke to me of his faith on more than one occasion. Mr. Woods' 10 children, 17 grandchildren and one great grandchild have received a tremendous legacy. Charles Woods was truly a giant of a man who overcame tremendous adversity to achieve extraordinary things. His was an American story of almost unbelievable achievement.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask if the Senator from Colorado will give me 2 to 3 minutes. I want to say a couple of things.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I will be pleased--2 minutes will be sufficient to me.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I was present when Dr. Harvey came before the Armed Services Committee for the nomination hearing on his appointment as Secretary of the Army. As the hearing went along, I became more and more impressed with this extraordinary man. This is not the time to debate somebody's differing opinions about how General Franks and others should have handled the war in Iraq. They did a dadgum good job of it, as far as I am concerned, in achieving the victory over there and in Afghanistan also. There will always be people to second-guess it. But Dr. Harvey has extraordinary experience of remarkable breadth. He has his B.S. from Notre Dame and Ph.D. from the University of Pennsylvania in metallurgy and materials science. He has been CEO of some of the country's largest corporations. He has been a COO of two high-tech startup companies in recent years. He is high-tech oriented. He is management oriented. He will bring those skills to the Department of Defense. As he goes through it, he will be able to help us decide how big the Army should be and how the transformation should go forward to help us transform our great Army, which is doing magnificent work this very moment in a hostile environment in Iraq. He will help us make it better. I am convinced of that. He is not a uniform man himself, nor should he be. He will bring his talents to bear to that subject. I am excited by his nomination. I believe he will do an outstanding job. I thank Senator Warner for his leadership and I yield the remainder of my time to Senator Allard and Senator Inhofe.

Mr. SESSIONS. I also have a 4 o'clock commitment I will need to be in.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. It would show a decline from probably 4.5 percent to 3 percent growth.

Mr. SESSIONS. It would show the first three quarters of this year would average higher than the last 20 years of growth in America.

Mr. SESSIONS. I found that in my office a few moments ago. The first quarter was 4.5 percent.

Mr. SESSIONS. I am pleased to try to answer a question. I know how knowledgeable the Senator is in these areas.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I want to share a few thoughts about the status of the economy. As we finish up this session, everybody has a lot of different views, and we are in a political season. I think it is good to talk about it and discuss the issue and see what the facts are, and let the American people make up their own mind about what the circumstances are that face our country. One thing that I think is important for all of us to remember is that without economic growth we will not create jobs. When we are in an economic situation in which we do not have growth, then we are not going to have jobs created. We may not lose those jobs immediately, but as growth lags, the number of jobs will fall as well. As growth goes up, jobs will be created. Jobs, as the economists say, tend to lag behind growth, but they follow growth. When economic growth is declining, the number of available jobs will decline. When economic growth is going up, the number of available jobs also will be going up. Growth in the American economy is affected by many different things. The economy can be affected by world events, or by the strength of the economy in other nations. Generally, we are not threatened by strong economies in other parts of the world. Our economy does better when other economies are doing well, and when other economies are doing poorly, our economy tends to be dragged down. The American economy is also impacted by business factors, by psychological factors, and by governmental factors that impact jobs and growth. If the President could snap his fingers and make everything happen right, we would never have any problems. But we know the President cannot do such a thing. We know we need to be careful about placing blame and credit. I would like to show this chart. These are the years beginning in 1995 going into 2003. We had good years through the 1990s. The chart shows these undisputed facts. Former President Bush suffered an economic slowdown in the second year or so of his administration and it resulted in the phrase: It's the economy, stupid. But the truth is, the nation's economy began to rebound significantly before former President Bush's term was finished. In fact, during his last year in office, he got little or no credit for the rebounding economy because he had been tagged by his political opponents for causing an economic slowdown earlier. The fact is that this characterization was inaccurate, and that there was pretty solid economic growth during this time. President Clinton, I submit, inherited a growing economy from former President Bush. That is just a matter of fact. And it grew well through the 1990s. We had low quarters and good quarters, but overall the economy showed strength during this period. In President Clinton's last year in office, however, things began to sour. By the time he had left office, the Nasdaq, the high tech stock market, had lost one half of its value. During the third quarter, of President Clinton's last year in office, the economy experienced negative growth, though there was growth in the fourth quarter of his last year in office. But the first quarter that President Bush inherited, in which the dynamics in the economy were already set, and upon which he cannot be fairly said to have influenced, the economy suffered further negative growth. The second quarter that President Bush inherited also experienced negative growth. The third quarter was 9/11, with its negative impact on the economy. That is what President Bush faced when he took office. Yes, we had some great years in the 1990s, but he inherited an economy that was in trouble, and I submit that fact is not disputable. He had to make some choices. Are we going to take the liberal idea, the big Government, the tax-and-spend idea that we were going to get out of an economic slowdown, a recession, by increasing taxes and by increasing the size of Government, or are we going to place our faith and hope in the ingenuity, the creativity, the work capability, of the American people? President Bush placed his faith in the American people. He fought for, and we battled on the floor of this Congress and passed, a substantial tax cut that was designed to revive the economy, which was in trouble and was costing people jobs, making people worried. The stock market had gone down. It was a nervous time for all of us. We remember that. President Bush led. And look what happened. As the chart shows, in the wake of his actions the economy starts coming back. When we had the second tax cut that took place in 2003, in June, the middle of the year 2003--and this chart only goes through 2003--we ended up with 8 percent growth during the third quarter of that year. Eight percent growth in that quarter is the highest growth rate we have seen in 20 years. The fourth quarter was also about 4 percent. The first quarter of this year was 4.5 percent growth. The next quarter was 3 percent growth. So we have been blessed to see that this recession is one of the shortest recessions in history. It is something for which we ought to be thankful.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. All right. Madam President, I will just say this: The economy was sinking when President Bush took office from President Clinton. And a sinking economy inevitably means you are going to have job losses, and that is what occurred. The President has turned this economy around. We have seen some robust growth in the last year. And we have created 2 million new jobs, as the Senator well knows, and we can debate that round and round forever. I think the glass is at least half full. I guess the Senator is seeing it half empty.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 4306, which is at the desk.

Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I am going to speak about the stem cell research issue, which I think is important. I don't have an answer to it fully. I so much admire Christopher Reeve, whose death we have noted today. His commitment to dealing with the terrible problem of spinal cord injury was a passion of his. We believe that stem cell research may well result in improvement, and hopefully even a cure for spinal injury. It is certainly something that I support. I know the President supports it. I think every Member of this body supports it. I want to share a few thoughts. Last night, Dr. Bill Frist, our majority leader, who, as the Senate knows, is one of America's great doctors--he was a heart and lung transplant surgeon at the Vanderbilt University Medical School, and he is a highly trained and skilled physician. He discussed these issues last night and I entered into a little dialog with him on the floor of the Senate. But in light of some of the comments that have been made today, I think it is appropriate that we at least get some perspective on this issue and try to get back to a rational discussion about it. There are different types of stem cells. The one that causes some concern is the embryonic stem cell. If it is not destroyed and allowed to develop, it will become a human being. That embryo has within it its genetic makeup, the markers that will determine whether that person is tall or short, red hair or brunette, whatever the color of eyes and every other characteristic of that unique human being in that cell. It is a stunning, remarkable, marvelous miracle of life. When we destroy that which is on the way to being a fully developed human person, I don't think anyone can say such destruction does not raise at least some moral and ethical dilemmas. Doesn't it raise some question about how we should be able to proceed in dealing with it? I make that point first. It is not a matter of insignificance, the concerns raised here, when we deal with an embryo that, if allowed to develop, would be a human person. Senator Frist laid it out well last night. He quoted Senator Kerry in the debate as criticizing President Bush for imposing a ``sweeping ban'' on stem cell research. We had Senators this afternoon say President Bush's policy would ``close the door'' on stem cell research. Senator Frist said as a physician, putting on his physician robes, he said that this is a cruel thing to say to patients who are ill and dying, and it is just not true. Senator Kerry knows it is not true. His comments are an attempt to make something out of nothing and to misrepresent the position of the President and this Congress on this issue. It is not true that the President wants to stop stem cell research. Let me say where we are, as I understand it. People can agree or disagree with the policies. I agree with the policies. First, there are what we call adult stem cells. These come from bone marrow and other parts of the human anatomy. President Bush has increased substantially the funding for adult stem cell research. We have made some medical progress in various diseases, including diabetes, using adult stem cell research. We are spending more money than we have ever spent on it, and we all support that. Private research is also ongoing on adult stem cell research. Then there are the embryonic stem cell research issues that raise these moral and ethical questions. I don't claim to have the answer to all the concerns. I remember the 100th Psalm that says, Without our aid he did us make. Or the Declaration of Independence says, We are created equal. If you believe we are created beings and that there is a sacredness to life, anybody ought to have at least some concern about this question of creating a human being in the making and then destroying that to carry out research matters. It is a matter that deserves serious moral and ethical discussion. I don't think we respect life very much if we lightly move into this area without any limitations. There are stem cell lines that have already been created from embryos that have been killed and destroyed, in effect, in their capability of becoming human, and those cell lines continue to produce today. There are 26 or more lines producing on a regular basis--embryonic stem cells--and Federal funding is allowed for that. Those that we have already done--and the President considered it carefully and thoughtfully, saying, well, we cannot go back and reverse that--let's go ahead and allow the research to go forward in that area. In addition, I note there are no bans whatever on stem cell research. The question has simply been whether we will take Federal tax money and spend it on embryonic stem cell research. That has been the discussion on how we are going to do it. President Bush said we will do it for the existing lines but we will not take taxpayers' money and destroy life to do an experiment. Universities, private labs, and hospitals, can all freely conduct scientific research on embryonic stem cells. It is not against the law. It is not prohibited. It is simply that we are not going to have the taxpayers--many people have strong feelings about this life issue--to take that money and fund it. It is appropriate to recognize this ethical issue and to show this small bit of respect for this marvelous, unique, sacred bit of life that is the beginning of a human person. I don't think we ought to be spending taxpayer money on it. Dr. Frist explained last night only adult stem cell research today has shown progress in medical research. The embryonic stem cells have not. Senator Sam Brownback has talked about this. He said scientists are finding that the embryonic stem cell tends to be volatile and not as capable of being utilized in a therapeutic way as adult stem cells. Regardless of how it may turn out in the future, that appears to be the state of the science today. So we are putting the tax money into the areas that not only do not raise ethical questions but have the most proven success in making therapeutic breakthroughs. We are not slamming the door or closing the door on stem cell research. We do not have, as Senator Kerry falsely stated in the debate, a sweeping ban on stem cell research. That is not true. He ought not to have said that. He knows better. He is trying to scare people. It is a cruel thing for people out there with illnesses today who think there is a ban and that they cannot be helped with research from stem cells. There is unprecedented research in the stem cell area. We are going to continue that. I don't know the answers. I am not a physician or scientist. Is there nothing we won't prohibit in the name of science or research? I am familiar, from my home State of Alabama, with the research done on syphilis that left people infected so they could study them, and compare them to people who were treated for syphilis. We now know that was wrong. We, in this country, have believed by a substantial majority that cloning human beings is not right and should not be done. We certainly have all seen the rejections of Nazi Germany's abuses of science. As a society and a nation, there ought to be some limit on what we can allow or should allow. People should be able to talk about it and wrestle with it and Congress ought to act on it. If there is serious doubt about one phase of scientific research, maybe it is perfectly appropriate that taxpayers not be required to fund that because when the Government funds it, there is a governmental and societal affirmation that this is a good and healthy way to operate. We should work on these issues very carefully. I close with these thoughts. In the history of the world, no nation has invested so much in its effort to cure disease as this Nation. I have been pleased and proud of this Congress since I have been here 7, 8 years now, that we promised several years ago to double the funding for the National Institutes of Health. We have met that goal. We have had tremendous increases in spending for the National Institutes of Health which is where our research money goes. For the most part, we allow physicians and scientific experts to say how that money is spent, what diseases have the best chance of being cured, what experiments going on out there have the greatest opportunity for breakthrough. We don't try to micromanage that. In general, that is good and I support that. There are things we as a society can speak about. We are not denying people hope. It would be terribly wrong to suggest what is going on as a policy in our Congress and in our Government is denying people hope that medical breakthroughs can occur from stem cells. We are going to continue unprecedented Federal spending. We will continue unprecedented private spending on stem cells. We will spend Federal money on embryonic stem cells and Federal money on adult stem cells. Who knows, some of those may result in great breakthroughs that will help prolong the life and health of millions of American people and not just in America but the whole world. This Nation, through our investment in scientific research, has lifted and improved the lives of people all over the world. It is something that we can take pride in as a people. It is something for which I am proud. I want to continue to see it developed. As we go forward, as we continue to debate these ethical and moral matters, as we continue to see the improvements in science and learn more from science, we may adjust and be able to come up with different ideas as we go forward on stem cell research. Who knows what we will learn as time goes forward. Based on what I understand today, I see no reason in science, I see no reason in ethics--that requires that we blindly go in and destroy life for scientific experimentation when there is no clear indication that experimentation will result in health benefits to American people. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.