Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Five minutes.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. All right. So you want the full 15 minutes?

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, how much time remains on this side?

Mr. SESSIONS. It is all right with me. I know Senator Chambliss wanted to speak also.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, does the Senator from Nevada want 15 minutes right now?

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Well, I want to make a comment or two unless the debate is basically finished, in which case I have an amendment that will hopefully come up a little later that covers some of these same issues. I have some observations that I would like to share about this particular amendment. I would not be able to support it, and I wish to explain why, but if the Senator is ready to move along, I am willing to yield the floor and move along.

Mr. SESSIONS. I would like to speak on this subject.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I share Chairman Warner's view.

Mr. SESSIONS. I will try to keep it to 2 minutes. I share the concerns of the Senator from Virginia, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee. I note there is nothing inherently wrong with using trained, skilled, and capable contractors. If there is a problem, it may be that we did not supervise contractors well and maybe did not select them well. To prohibit the utilization of contractors to do interrogations in life-and-death situations is a mistake. We may need the very best interrogator in the United States of America to interrogate someone who has the ability to give information that could save thousands of lives in this country. To say that we have to use the military personnel I believe is clearly wrong. A young MP who is just out of training school should not be, in my view, as good an interrogator as a retired MP who worked in the detective division of the New York Police Department or a retired CIA agent or retired military person who did interrogations for years and had experience and maybe even knows the language. We cannot have everyone in the military perfectly trained to do all these things and speak every language in the world and do these interrogations. This would be a terrible deal. We should not agree to this. We should not limit the military from using contract employees. If we need to control them better and do a better job of supervising it, I would support that. I don't want to use any more time. I know others want to speak. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. I will just make a few brief comments, if that is appropriate.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 381, introduced earlier today by Senator Nelson of Florida.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, tomorrow the Senate will resume the Defense authorization bill. Under the previous order, when we resume consideration of the bill tomorrow morning, the Bond-Harkin energy employee amendment will be the pending business. It is the hope of the bill managers that we can adopt the amendment without a rollcall vote. For the remainder of the day, we will continue the consideration of amendments to the bill. There is another amendment that I will offer related to death benefits, and there are several missile defense amendments we hope to consider early in the day. Senators should expect rollcall votes throughout the day as the Senate continues to make progress on the bill. As a reminder, a cloture motion was filed on the Defense bill. In addition, there will be additional votes on judicial nominations during Thursday's session as well. Mr. President, I will just add, on the death benefits bill, legislation I have offered, that it is important, in my view, we examine the extent of death benefits to men and women who serve our country in combat. Frankly, it is not where it should be. This bill would increase those benefits. It will be done in a way that will not engender a budget point of order. But I think we can make some progress with that tomorrow, and I hope Senators will be alert to this issue. I think, frankly, we are not where we should be in generosity toward those who give their lives for their country.

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, in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that the Injunction of Secrecy be removed from the following treaty transmitted to the Senate on June 16, 2004, by the President of the United States: Agreement with Canada on Pacific Hake/Whiting (Treaty Document 108-24). I further ask that the treaty be considered as having been read the first time; that it be referred, with accompanying papers, to the Committee on Foreign Relations and ordered to be printed; and that the President's message be printed in the Record.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Georgia for his excellent works. Once again, he has shown he is one of the most eloquent Members of this body, if not the most eloquent. We are going to miss him. He still has a lot to do between now and the end of this session, but he has certainly done yeoman's service here. His tribute to those soldiers who were there on that special day many years ago is valuable to us all. Mr. President, I had the opportunity to accompany former Senator Phil Gramm to Pointe du Hoc in Normandy a few years ago. Tears were in his eyes when he showed us exactly where the Texans went up the hill at Pointe du Hoc. It was an incredible achievement.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, Bill Frist, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, June 17. 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 for their use later in the day, and the Senate then resume consideration of Calendar No. 503, S. 2400, the Department of Defense authorization bill; provided further, that Senator Bond be recognized in order to call up the Bond-Harkin amendment.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, for decades, civilian employees of the United States working overseas were shielded from prosecution for criminal acts that were committed abroad. These persons were outside the scope of military justice, and they were beyond the jurisdiction of Federal courts in the United States, and also our State courts. Often, foreign countries, when incapable of investigating and prosecuting the cases, or they didn't have adequate laws, or they were not even criminal offenses in the foreign country, did not prosecute. Maybe the foreign country had no interest in prosecuting a fraud against the United States. In 1999, one of my constituents approached me with a terrible story of how two innocent children were molested while living overseas with their father, who was an Army service person. Because the perpetrator of the crime did the act overseas, he was beyond the scope of jurisdiction in the United States. Moreover, German law didn't cover this, so the person was completely unprosecutable at that time. After hearing this story, I began to work on and introduce the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, which was signed into law eventually in the year 2000. It provided U.S. Federal courts with jurisdiction over civilian employees, contractors, and subcontractors affiliated with the Department of Defense who commit crimes, and would have subjected that person to at least 1 year of prison had the offense occurred in the United States. We worked with the Department of Defense, the Department of Justice, and the Department of State and produced legislation which I think was very helpful. Now, in the war on terrorism, the Department of Justice is finding this statute very helpful. In fact, the contractors involved in the Abu Ghraib prison would probably not be prosecutable had we not passed this law some time ago. But as we have looked at it, we understand there are some gaps that still exist. Senator Schumer raised this issue in the Judiciary Committee, and I began to work on dealing with those loopholes. This act will deal with what our previous act dealt with--those who were directly related to the Department of Defense, either contractors or civilian employees. But the abuses in Abu Ghraib involved private contractors who may not have in every instance been directly associated with the Department of Defense, and as such, perhaps those people--or some of them at least--might not be prosecutable under this statute. So it highlighted our need to clarify and expand the coverage of the act. I offer an amendment today, and I am pleased that Chairman Warner and Ranking Member Levin have agreed to it. I believe it has been cleared on both sides and accepted by the managers. This amendment would give the Justice Department authority to prosecute civilian contractors employed not only by the Department of Defense but by any Federal agency that is supporting the American military mission overseas. The number of private contractors working in Iraq is about 10 times as great as it was in the Persian Gulf conflict. Private contractors are necessary to rebuilding a healthy Iraq. Yet we cannot allow them to escape justice for crimes they may commit overseas. I am not sure right now the Iraqi government has the ability or the interest in prosecuting a contractor who may have defrauded the United States. It clearly remains true that if they are to be prosecuted, it needs to be done here. Our mission overseas is an honorable endeavor. It should not be tainted by illegal acts by any, particularly a few, who embarrass our country. Recent events have brought to light the need to ensure that those acting improperly are held accountable in a court of law. This amendment clarifies existing precedent and leaves no doubt whether wrongdoers can be brought to justice. This includes physical acts against personnel by contractors. It also includes frauds that could be committed against the Department of Defense such as overcharging. Fraudulent activities of any kind could be prosecuted under this act. I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from New York, who, having suffered the blows of terrorism firsthand, has taken an interest in these matters for some time now. I am delighted to work with the Senator on this legislation.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized for 5 minutes and be notified at the conclusion of the 5 minutes, and the senior Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer, be recognized.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I speak on behalf of a judicial nominee for the Northern District of Alabama, Virginia E. Hawkins. I join with Senator Richard Shelby of my State in moving her nomination forward with great enthusiasm. She is a woman of impeccable academic credentials, high in integrity, great legal experience and skill. She will do a great job on the Federal bench. She has a strong academic background. She graduated from the University of Alabama in 1974 as an undergraduate. She attended Agnes Scott College before that. Then she attended the University of Virginia Law School in 1977. She began her career as an associate attorney at the law firm of Lange, Simpson, Robinson & Sommerville in Birmingham, AL. That is one of the great law firms in the State. The fact she was hired there in itself is a good commendation of what they thought were good legal skills and good judgment. She certainly would not have been selected at that firm had they not thought so at the time. She had at that firm a broad civil practice, including appellate matters, tax and estate planning, business dispute resolution, and planning in labor disputes. These things come up in Federal court, also. She left the firm after 2 years to join the law firm of Taft, Stettinius & Hollister in Washington, DC, where she established the firm's intellectual property practice and handled complicated trademark matters. It is a fine law firm in Washington for her to be part of. In 1991, however, she and her husband decided to return to her home of Anniston, AL, and to form the firm of Campbell & Hopkins where she is currently a partner. Over the past 12 years she developed a broad civil practice, including litigation, tax and estate planning and administration, business dispute resolution, and planning intellectual property cases. Simply stated, Virginia Hopkins has a number of career, academic, and professional achievements. Her experience will be an asset to the bench of the Northern District of Alabama. I know her children now are at the age of graduating from high school. She felt the need to come back to her roots to raise those children in the right way. Now she is so excited about the opportunity to serve her country and her Nation and the rule of law as a Federal judge. It is exciting to talk to her. It makes me pleased every time I do, to see how excited she is about this opportunity. I believe she is going to do a terrific job. I know Senator Shelby agrees with that. In fact, he propounded her nomination from the beginning. I know he believes in every way she will be a superb Federal judge. I am glad to see the senior Senator from Alabama in the Senate today, a distinguished lawyer in his own right. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the Defense bill we are working on today is critically important for our Nation. We need to complete that bill. It is important for us not to be distracted from it by bringing up amendments about which people feel strongly and which may be important, but are unrelated to defense and not germane to the issue before us. I am glad we are able to at least proceed fairly promptly to a vote on this issue so that we can get back to the purpose with which we are dealing. We have soldiers in the field who are at risk this very moment. They need to know we are moving forward on business that relates to them, that deals with the issues that threaten their lives, and we need to make sure that we have every possible activity and report in this authorization bill to help them do their jobs better. I wanted to say that at the beginning. Sometimes these things happen, and we can offer amendments, but we do not need to do too much of this, in my view. I raise two points about this so-called hate crimes amendment, and the reason that I will be voting against it. Different people can have different ideas and different values about how we should deal with this issue. First, there is no legitimacy for any attack on any person because of their sexual orientation in America today. That is unacceptable behavior. It has always been unacceptable. We need to crack down on it aggressively. In fact, I believe States are doing so, as they do with all other crimes that occur throughout our country. I was a Federal prosecutor for 15 years and dealt with the distinctions between Federal and State law on a regular basis. Most people may not realize that if someone robs a gas station, or someone shoots your daughter on her way home from school, or someone commits a rape, those are not Federal crimes. They are not prosecuted in Federal court. They cannot be prosecuted in Federal court under normal circumstances. They have always been given over to the States for prosecution. That is very important. We have developed and expanded over the years the reach of Federal law, and in some instances that is quite good, I believe--but in some instances it is very much in dispute. In fact, liberals and conservatives say Federal law is reaching over and prosecuting and taking over cases. There are always some State offenses that are prosecuted in Federal court. Regardless of the debate, what we have decided to do in the past is each case should be evaluated on its own. I will make a couple of points. With regard to this hate crimes legislation, Senator Hatch, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, proposed what I thought was a good piece of legislation some time ago. That legislation said we would conduct a study, in effect, to see what the need of this legislation is. I have to tell you, Mr. President, if you want to prosecute somebody for assaulting, shooting, or harming another person, it is easier to prosecute that case if you do not have to prove what was in the mind of the person who did it. That is an additional element of a crime, one not easily proven. I know the Presiding Officer is a lawyer and skilled in these matters. It is an additional element to the crime that must be proven. If we were to create such a hate crime, we would basically be taking on an offense that would be a fundamental State crime--an assault, a murder, or assault with intent to kill. You would be transforming that kind of crime into a Federal offense, and not only would you have to prove all the underlying elements that would be true in a State trial, but you would also have to prove that the person did it for a reason of hate, but not just any hate. If you dislike U.S. Senators and you beat up one--there may be a Federal law that protects a Senator, I don't know. If there is a State legislator and someone goes and beats them up because they hate them, because of the way they voted, all right, that can be taken care of in State court. But what would make it a Federal offense? Well, if a person hated him, but they hated him for a particular reason--they hated him because of sexual orientation--that is why this becomes now a Federal offense rather than a State offense. One can make arguments that this is all right to do. We did that with the issue of race in America, and there was a very real reason for it. As a southerner myself, I am sorry to say that in fact and in reality there were areas in this country where crimes against African Americans were prosecuted either not at all or not adequately; there was not proper punishment being imposed in those cases and people were denied civil rights. At certain periods of time in our Nation's history, feelings were so strong that cases could not be effectively prosecuted. That was clear. That was established. That was a fact, unfortunately. So the Federal Government said those kinds of crimes involving race could be prosecuted in Federal court under the civil rights statute even though there may be an underlying State offense. That is how those came into effect. Now we are being asked to go one step further. I think maybe we ought not do that. Senator Hatch's study would have analyzed the question of whether offenses involving assaults on gays are being adequately prosecuted in America. If they are being adequately prosecuted--and most States would have tougher laws. Most States have death penalty laws. This bill does not provide the death penalty for the murder of somebody under a hate crime. So are those being adequately prosecuted? We know in a case in Colorado that a person committed murder because of the victim's sexual orientation, apparently, and was given the death penalty in State court. One offense occurred in my home State of Alabama, and he was tried and given life without parole. So I am not aware of those offenses being inadequately prosecuted. That is what I am saying. In addition, there is this troubling concept of what is in one's mind. If the Social Security office turned a person down for their disability and they did not get a disability paycheck and they spent weeks churning it in their heart and soul and their hatred built and built and they finally went down to the Social Security office and shot everybody, well, that would not meet the definition of hate crime under this statute. It might be a Federal offense because it is the Federal Social Security agency, but if it had been a local State official it would not be a Federal crime. There would be no Federal jurisdiction. So we are being asked to take that extra step into creating a new offense in Federal law based on the question of what is in somebody's mind when they commit the crime. Classical American jurisprudence has been simple and direct. I know as a student in law school I learned about these things and as a former prosecutor I have been thinking a lot about it lately. I think sometimes even we who have been former prosecutors get overly aggressive about passing statutes to deal with every wrong that comes up. Let's take the burglary statute that is in effect in almost every State in America today. It makes it a State crime to break and enter into a dwelling with the intent to commit a felony. Some of them are first degree, such as when the crime involves an occupied dwelling at night and those are the elements of their crime. That is what we have done for 200-plus years in America and England. It did not say why a person broke into somebody's house or even what kind of felony someone may be intending to commit. It could be rape; it could be robbery; it could be theft. So that is the clarity with which our law has traditionally operated. Now we are saying if someone assaults and kills this person because they were mad at him over a girlfriend and hated him for it, that is not a Federal offense, but if a person is angry because of someone else's sexual orientation, that could be a Federal offense. Maybe that is justified and some would find it justified, but I think before we continue down this road of moving into the psychological motivations for a specific act of committing a crime, we ought to ask ourselves: is it the kind of problem we know is not being effectively prosecuted and handled in America today, is not being prosecuted and sentenced effectively based on the act that was committed, so that now we need to figure out the motive behind the act and make it a Federal crime? That is what we need to be thinking about. I do believe Senator Hatch's legislation that he offered some time ago I think it even passed this body once, although it did not become law--said let us do a study of that and analyze where we are so we can deal with it. Well, terrorists hate us for various reasons. People hate our Government. Some of them hate police officers. Would it be a Federal crime to commit murder against a police officer? Not to my knowledge. It would not be a crime to do that if someone hates the police officer or hates the jailer who locks up a person in compliance with the law of the land. The jailer could be murdered and that would not be a Federal offense. This should not be seen as any kind of referendum on how we think about the treatment of people with various sexual orientations. This is a great, free country. It is a country that allows behavior people may agree with or not agree with. In my view, it is just as much a crime to injure or harm anyone whether it is as a result of their sexual orientation or any other behavior they may be participating in. Maybe someone does not like them because they are out there complaining about George Bush or complaining about John Kerry and they hate them for that. That would not be a Federal crime if action is taken against them. I do not know that we need to take this step today. In fact, I think we should not. It is something that deserves careful consideration and is not to be thrown onto the Defense bill as we are moving forward at this date. Let's think it through. Let's do a study, as Chairman Hatch has suggested. Let's see if there is a real problem out there. If there is a problem of failure to enforce the law, then I would say this could be justified. We have done it before with regard to civil rights actions. Maybe it would be appropriate to do it now. Frankly, I do not see that today. I think it is a reach in terms of need and creates the danger of criminalizing thought processes rather than actions. 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 ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.