Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, it is a great honor for me to be a Member of this body at this point in history and to be able to have the privilege of making a few comments on the life and career of Ronald Reagan. My words are inadequate to the task. Many have spoken more eloquently than I. Many have written beautifully about his life and the meaning of his Presidency. I will just say that I do remember being personally inspired by him. As a young high school student, I came to believe Barry Goldwater would be a good President. I believed that from the values he was articulating. I did what I could. I put a bumper sticker on my daddy's pickup truck. Although he had never been involved in politics in any way, he allowed me to do that. Of course, things did not go well in that election. Things were going poorly. But on the eve of that election, the Nation and many of the people who shared those basic values about classical America, what we as a nation represent--limited government, individual responsibility, personal freedom, a strong national defense--were electrified by a speech by Ronald Reagan. I think they call it ``Rendezvous With Destiny.'' Some just call it ``The Speech.'' I remember it to this day. After the Goldwater campaign ended--and it certainly was a major defeat for him--Ronald Reagan sort of inherited the flame of classical American values and made them the basis of his personal beliefs and his campaign for the Presidency. I was also later honored to be President Reagan's U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Alabama. It was a Presidential appointment, confirmed by the Senate. I was a U.S. attorney, and I served in that job as one of his lieutenants in the war on crime for the entire two terms of his Presidency, and, indeed, for 4 more years under former President Bush. That was a great honor for me. As we talk about what President Reagan accomplished, I do want to take a moment to talk about crime and drugs. Crime and drugs had been surging for 20 years when President Reagan took office. The elites in this country actually believed that prison was noneffective, that it did not work, that it was counterproductive, that you should not put people in prison, that we ought to ask how they committed the crime, what the root causes of criminal behavior were, and what we could do to help the criminal. We lost sight of the victim. We lost sight of accountability. We lost sight of righting wrong. And it resulted in crime rates that doubled and tripled in the 20 years prior to President Reagan taking office. Drug use had surged during the 1960s and 1970s. By the time President Reagan took office, one-half of high school seniors in America admitted to having used an illegal drug in their life. That is a stunning number. That is according to a University of Michigan study. Nancy Reagan began her ``Just Say No'' program. President Reagan passed mandatory sentencing policies. He eliminated parole and passed through the Congress the Federal Sentencing Guidelines that eliminated parole, had guaranteed sentences for incarceration, with many substantial sentences for serious violations of the law. I believe the sentencing guidelines were probably the biggest change in law enforcement in the history of this country since its founding. The result was that drug use went down. It went down every year President Reagan was President. For 12 years it declined steadfastly. We now have less than half of high school seniors who say they have used an illegal drug in their life. The crime rate began to fall. We are still seeing declines in crime. That is because we went back to the fundamental precepts of crime and punishment, and how you do it. Some people are just dangerous. They need to be incarcerated. They need to be removed from society for the protection of society. States picked up on this. Most crimes are prosecuted in the States, but that leadership of the bully pulpit by the President led to State reforms and crackdowns and improved capacity in prisons to deal with repeat offenders. It has been a key element in the reduction of crime and why Americans are safer today than they were in 1980. It is something that I think we have not heard much about in the discussion of the accomplishments of President Reagan. I was also honored to have been his nominee for a Federal judgeship. It turned into a very unpleasant experience for me and my nomination did not clear the Senate Judiciary Committee, of which I am now a member and on which I am honored to serve. But he stood steadfastly for me. The fact he believed in my ability to be a Federal judge was something I cherish. And I cherish the letter he wrote me when I asked that my name be withdrawn from that appointment. It is something I will always cherish. It was personal and meaningful to me. Ronald Reagan had a deep and fully formed philosophy about America and American ideals when he came to office at age 69. This is something that did not come to him lightly. It was over a lifetime of evaluation. Even in the face of the most fierce opposition, he never wavered in those beliefs. Indeed, his very life seemed to embody the highest and best of American values. His very life, the way he carried himself, embodied American values. His courage to remain true to the highest of these ideals was his greatest strength, I believe. His goal was to free the greatness of individual Americans, assured that their goodness and industry would lift the Nation and inspire the world to freedom and progress. He believed in the individual American citizen. He believed that government should allow their creativity and industry to flourish, and as they flourished, and as they worked hard, and as they were creative, the world and America would benefit from it. His courage to be true to those ideals, I believe, was his secret strength. He understood that intuitively, and he remained true to it. He called us, in his very special way, to the natural optimistic spirit of America. His record of achievement was extraordinary. He led us with courage and steadfastness to defeat the evil empire. He cut our taxes. He called on us to renew our spiritual, moral, and family values. He said criminals should be punished. He not only communicated these values with words, but his actions and policies and life were dedicated to that. As a result of his constancy and courage to fight for these values, a serious period of pessimism abounding in our land at that time ended. The Soviet Union collapsed. The economy began its 20 years of remarkable growth. Matters of faith, morality, and family were lifted up. The crime rate fell, and drug use fell. The success of the Reagan Presidency was stunning in its scope, and it could not have come at a better time for the country. Like President Washington, President Reagan's life was given over to the country. He loved his country and he was selfless in his commitment to it. His selflessness and the purity of his principles inspired those who worked for him. I remember--and I will close; I know there are others who would like to speak--but I do remember how, as a U.S. attorney, we did not need to be told in detail what the President wanted. We heard his philosophy. We heard his campaign. We knew he wanted us to be more productive. We knew he wanted us to take charge of our governmental office and make it work for the people and produce as high an output as it could possibly achieve. We also knew he expected us to crack down on criminals and crime. I think that was good leadership because all the departments of the Government understood where Reagan came from, what administration they were a part of. They did not have to be instructed in detail on how to accomplish the goals of his administration. That was one of his great strengths. The impact of it was incalculable in many ways around the world. I will just close with this story. In 1993, several years after President Reagan left office, I had the opportunity to go with a church group to Russia. It was a Methodist group. We went and stayed in a town 5 hours from Moscow, about 40,000 people, many of whom had not seen Americans before. We had a very nice time there. I stayed for a number of days with a Russian family. The first day we got there, the Russian host's daughter was to be baptized. Father Gannati was the Russian orthodox priest. He came and he did a nice service, and it took some time. Then we had dinner after the baptism. Father Gannati explained that just 2 years before, he was not able to wear his robes in public. The state caused him to be moved from town to town every year so that he could not build bonds and roots in a given community. He could not meet the governmental leaders. They would not meet with him because they were atheists and they would not meet with believers. So it was a very interesting time. He described how since then he could wear his robe, the mayor had him down to meet with him the day before this event, and that he was able to stay and rebuild the church there that had been damaged ever since the Russian revolution had occurred. At the conclusion of those remarks, our host jumped up and said: I propose a toast to Ronald Reagan, who allowed us to believe in God again. Right in the center of the evil empire, the impact Ronald Reagan had to change the nature of the world in which we lived was felt in a very real way. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that John Kennedy of my staff be granted floor privileges.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I want to follow up on Senator Domenici's comments and those of Senator Burns about the growth we have in the economy. This was a great announcement today about the 248,000 new jobs created last month. The month before that, we created 288,000 jobs, and the month before that, 315,000 new jobs. This is some of greatest growth we have had in many years. The third quarter of last year was over 8-percent growth. People started to dismiss the economic growth. Where are jobs? All the experts told us that jobs follow growth. They don't come in the same week in which there is growth. We have had tremendous growth over the last four quarters. Actually, certainly the last three quarters represent the highest growth in 20 years. That 8-percent growth was the highest growth in 20 years, and this job expansion today is something we have to celebrate. It is the kind of thing that gives us confidence in America. We did it not by not raising taxes, creating bureaucracies, make-work programs and governmental deals; we did it by allowing the American people to have more of their own money so they could invest in their communities. I know the Senator from North Carolina traveled her State as I traveled my State the last recess, and every city mayor I talked to said his sales taxes were up. Those are real numbers, aren't they? When a town's sale taxes are up--little and big towns--that means something good is happening out there. People are able to have more money to buy and spend and create growth in the economy. Manufacturing jobs are up--something I know the Senator from North Carolina worries about as I do in Alabama. We see growth in manufacturing jobs for the first time in a long time. Those are good things that are happening. If we stay the course, if we invest in the American people to allow freedom, productivity, innovation, and the dream of profit and progress to occur and continue to occur, I believe we will continue to have good growth in America. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SESSIONS. These Iraqis have a special perspective on the Abu Ghraib prison. It was there that they each had their right hand amputated by the Saddam Hussein regime. Their crime? Doing business with American dollars. Those were atrocities. That was life in Abu Ghraib before the liberation in Iraq, substantially different than under the American Army, even allowing for the physical abuse and psychological abuse we have seen in the photographs recently. There were several hours of videotapes that were discovered and found of other atrocities that came to my attention. This was discovered in the seizure of records and documents in Iraq by the American soldiers. People's hands, fingers, tongues, heads being cut off, as well as people being pushed off buildings--all on videotape. These were not low-level rogues. These were not isolated instances. It was systematic torture by a regime that used torture, mutilation, and murder as a means to a political end. The videotapes were made, in fact, at Saddam Hussein's request and direction so he could be certain his brutal orders were carried out. In fact, that is what dictators such as Saddam Hussein do. If you have seen some of the films of the history of Saddam Hussein's regime, you know he used random terror, random violence, death and destruction and mutilation as a tool to instill fear throughout the populace and help strengthen his hold on that country and to make sure nobody would cross him. America can never make these Iraqi men whole, but the sacrifice of our troops has made them free and has given each one of them a new life and a new hope. Thanks to the good will of doctors and businesses that donated money and services, they have been fitted with prosthetic hands. As I greeted each one of them in the Mansfield Room Wednesday, they proudly extended their newly restored right hands. I have shaken many important hands during my political life, but never was I more honored to shake a hand of one than these men. Sunday is June 6, the 60th anniversary of D-Day. I would like to read a prayer that President Roosevelt delivered after the invasion. As I read it, I ask my colleagues to reflect on our mission and our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. President Roosevelt said: Almighty God, our sons, pride of our Nation, this day have set upon a mighty endeavor; a struggle to preserve our republic, our religion, and our civilization, and to set free a suffering humanity . . . They fight to end conquest . . . They fight to liberate . . . They yearn but for the end of battle, for their return to the haven of home. Success may not come with rushing speed, but we shall return again and again; and we know by Thy grace and the righteousness of our cause, our sons will triumph. Just as we did 60 years ago, our President and our people today pray for our brave soldiers in Iraq. They are serving superbly. They are serving with professionalism. They are serving with restraint and poise and discipline under very difficult circumstances. They are out in crowds every day. Most people are friendly. You never know when someone out there may not be. Sometimes there are protests and people are shouting and raising guns in the air and chanting or even throwing rocks. We have seen them on television show discipline and poise and restraint and allow this spasm of anger to vent itself because, in the long run, that is probably going to be healthy as the Iraqis go through this painful transition from oppression to a decent government. So we pray for their return home. We celebrate the magnificence of their service and the triumphs of their cause. Our cause is just. Our resolve must be firm. Our troops are brave and courageous. Some things have changed in 60 years. We have the ability to win a war much faster with less risk to our troops but still at great risk, and much less risk to innocent civilians. Medical technology allows us to heal wounded soldiers faster and provide help to amputees. The Internet allows photographs of misconduct to reach the public with lightning speed. But some things remain the same. Mothers and wives of soldiers worry just as much. The pain felt by the families of a lost soldier hurts just as much. Those who live under tyranny, fear, with a thirst for liberty and a desire for peace, are just as grateful to those who bring them peace, liberty, and freedom. We pray for the Iraqi people that their suffering be ended, that they be liberated from tyranny. Shortly before I met with the seven Iraqis who had their hands cut off as punishment by Saddam Hussein, I was meeting a group of schoolchildren from Alabama. I told them I was going to be meeting with these Iraqis, and the schoolteacher called me aside, a young teacher who was with the group. He said: Just tell them--this was so sincere-- just tell these people we care about them. We want nothing but them to have a good government, and we wish them the best in the future. He said: Tell them that is not Washington talking. That is the people of America. That is what we want. I shared that with them because I thought it was a meaningful expression of American love and affection for the good and decent people of Iraq who suffered so long. So we pray for the Iraqi people. We pray that their suffering will be ended, that their liberation will continue, that tyranny will not return, and that economic progress and scientific advancement and education will flourish in their country. D-Day brought about the last days of Nazi tyranny. As we liberated the country and the world was horrified to see the images of brutality, torture and murder that were brought to light in the prison camps, the world will forever remember what occurred there. We have a permanent record of those horrible events at the Holocaust Museum. They remind us to be vigilant forever against tyrants, wherever they be. I urge my colleagues to meet with these seven Iraqis, to view the videotapes that showed what happened in those days under Saddam Hussein. This was Abu Ghraib prison not long ago. As we look at the unfortunate actions at Abu Ghraib, as our military proceeds to investigate and take actions about our failures there, I urge my colleagues to reflect on the liberation of Abu Ghraib and to gather some perspective. Nothing we can say makes what happened in Abu Ghraib by our soldiers right. It was wrong. It cannot be justified. Our Nation was humiliated, and it occurred under our watch. But to put it in perspective, we must reflect on who we are as a people, what is our purpose. Our Government investigated the images of abuse with the intent to prosecute those who committed criminal acts. Saddam Hussein investigated the images of mutilation to ensure that his torture was carried out. American soldiers have shed their own blood to bring freedom to the Iraqi people and security to America and the world. Saddam Hussein spilled the blood of others to maintain his rein of terror and to expand his dictatorship. America wants peace, democracy, and freedom for the people of Iraq and Afghanistan. The terrorists want to destroy America and the values we hold dear. President Bush, Secretary Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, Secretary Powell, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, our troops, this very day are working to secure our Nation, to secure Iraq, and to establish a framework for an Iraqi government where state-sponsored torture, mutilation, murder, and terrorism can be a painful memory of the past. And the American people understand it. They understand what we are trying to do, that we only want the best for Iraq. They want our Government to succeed. But this is an election year and we have had some comments that, frankly, are wrong and need to be talked about. I have waited. I have not responded aggressively. But the senior Senator from Massachusetts, summarizing his take on the Abu Ghraib abuses and photographs that came out, said: Shamefully, we now learn that Saddam's torture chambers reopened under new management: U.S. management. That is not correct, Mr. President. That is absolutely wrong. It has undermined and is an attack on our soldiers who serve in Iraq. It makes their job more difficult, it puts them at greater risk, and it provides ammunition for those in Iraq who are frustrated and want to oppose American efforts there. It was not good and it was wrong and should not have been said. You watch Saddam's torture videos and try to explain to the American people how the actions of President Bush or Secretary Rumsfeld or General Myers or General Abizaid or General Sanchez equate with this kind of activity. No, sir, that is not correct. It is wrong. Saddam persecuted the people in prison. We are prosecuting people who violated the law of the United States concerning how to handle prisoners. Within days of the report being made public, a single young soldier brought forth this information. Within a day, a criminal investigation was ongoing. Within a week, a public statement was made that abuses had occurred and an investigation was ongoing. A formal investigation by a two-star general was commenced. And we are making every effort to find out what happened, who did it, and punish those who did it. Some have already been court-martialed and sentenced to prison, and others will be. That is what the American people do. When I was with the seven Iraqis who had their hands cut off by Saddam Hussein in his prison, one of the reporters asked one of them about these abuses. He said, well, President Bush--that is not his policy; it was Saddam Hussein's policy. The American people are punishing those who did wrong. They were not punished under Saddam Hussein. They were encouraged. I think we need to talk about this. Former Vice President Gore, in a recent speech at New York University, said: How dare they subject us to such dishonor and disgrace. How dare they drag the good name of the United States of America through the mud of Saddam Hussein's torture prison. That is the kind of broad-based condemnation of the American soldiers who, at this moment--because three-fourths plus of this body sent them to Iraq to carry out an American policy to strike down terrorism and create a new government there--are putting their lives at risk for us because we sent them there. They ought not to be condemned in this fashion by the former Vice President of the United States of America. I don't know what has gotten into his head. It is wrong. Last night, I was at Walter Reed and I met great soldiers. Time and again, they told me they want to go back. Some of them have lost limbs. Some are in serious condition. Some are coming along nicely and, in fact, are going back to Iraq. These are the best of America. They love this country, and they love the rule of law. They care about doing the right thing, and they want to see our policies succeed--the policies we sent them to carry out. We sent them. We owe them support and help and affirmation. We don't need political second-guessing by armchair quarterbacks. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an article be printed in the Record.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I was moved last night to be with those supersoldiers and have dinner with them and talk with them and their families. They are so fine and so indicative of the strengths and values of America. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, on behalf of the managers, I have a set of amendments to the Defense bill that have been cleared by both managers. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the amendments be considered and agreed to and the motions to reconsider laid upon the table.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Nevada. He is a thoughtful and excellent speaker on issues important to the country. I do not agree with him that the big problem we have in education today is the No Child Left Behind Act. My home county of Mobile is a large school system. What the Federal goal of No Child Left Behind set to accomplish was to encourage systems to confront schools that are failing; that we, in fact, have schools in America today that are not functioning well. As a matter of fact, they are failing. Some are failing utterly. Who is the person who loses? Is it the wealthy American who, if their children are sent to a failing public school, do they leave them there? No, they do not leave them there. They move to another part of town, or perhaps they put them in a private school they believe is better. That happens all over America. What about our low-income people who are sent by law to a school in Nevada or any other State and that school is failing by objective standards and those children are not learning and they are not gaining the kind of education critical to their success later in life? In most aspects of the No Child Left Behind bill that passed--and I was on the Education Committee when we marked it up. Senator Kennedy was there with other Democrats, and I believe it passed unanimously out of committee and moved forward in a bipartisan way to the Senate. If there is something wrong with it, I am willing to look at it and fix it. Frankly, I would like to have accountability and virtually no controls, objective evaluation of how children are doing, and allow the school system to function as it will. If we love these children, if we care about children deeply, and they are in a school that is failing, don't we want to help them? What happened to the superintendent in my hometown? He realized they had schools that were not functioning well. They created a bonus to encourage outstanding teachers to go to those poor school systems to raise that level up because he cared about them. He did not want to ignore it and did not want to go along with some idea that self-esteem is the only thing that counts. If a child cannot read, how can they have self-esteem as they move forward? We have to confront that early and move in that direction. No Child Left Behind basically requires the school system to have tests to make sure children are progressing. If they are not progressing, we want to act to help them. If the whole school is not progressing, students in the whole school are not progressing in a rational way. They ought to be held to account and improvement ought to be made. We simply cannot and will not continue to shuffle children through a system when they are not learning. That is what it is all about. If we care about children, we want them to have the best. If we care about children, we want to inquire as to whether or not their school is functioning and whether or not they are learning. I feel strongly about this. I have talked to superintendents and teachers throughout my State. My wife taught a number of years. I taught 1 year. I don't think teachers are sufficiently appreciated. A lot of the problems are Federal regulations. One of them is IDEA, the Disabilities Act Program. We can do better with those. We are working, and I have been working, as a lead sponsor to give more flexibility and respect to the teachers and principals--many of them with master's degrees in special education--to help those children in the best way and remove them from Federal court and State court and lawsuits. I note under President Bush's leadership, we have had greater increases in education since he has been President in funding from the Federal Government than we have throughout the entire time that President Clinton was President. There has been increased funding on the Federal side, but we do not want the Federal Government to be the prime sponsors of education in America. It is a local school deal that we care about. Iraq I want to share a few thoughts about the war in Iraq. It is an important matter for the entire world. It is a defining moment for us as we confront terrorism and instability and violence in the world. How can we make this world better? I had the honor Wednesday of hosting seven Iraqi citizens at the meeting of the Senate Steering Committee which I chair. These were courageous men who wanted to personally thank the Senate and the American people for liberating their nation. They urged us to stay the course in Iraq. I ask unanimous consent that the article in the Washington Post about these seven men be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, before the Senator leaves, I thank him for his excellent comments. He served so ably as chairman of the Senate Budget Committee. He has been a Member of this Senate 31 years and has seen a lot of things occur. I guess my question to the Senator is this: For some reason, the media or whatever, created an image--and some of the speeches on this floor nurtured that image--that President Bush created this economic slowdown that occurred. But as I remember, and I ask the Senator is it not correct, the third quarter of President Clinton's last year in office was negative growth, and the first quarter--and the President didn't take office until mid-January when he got sworn in--the first quarter of the year he inherited was negative growth. Then we had the September 11 attack. So a number of things that came together were not his fault. Is that fair to say?

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

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the distinguished Senator from New Mexico. His wisdom should not be lost on this body. It is very valuable, and we thank him for that. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam 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. On Monday, following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of the Department of Defense authorization bill. Again, it is the leader's hope that we could set the pending amendment aside so other Senators could offer their amendments. We will debate the Defense bill throughout the afternoon on Monday. As announced earlier, there will be no rollcall votes on Monday. The next vote will occur on Tuesday morning prior to the weekly party luncheons. That vote will be in relation to the Kennedy earth-penetrator amendment. I also remind Senators that under an agreement reached yesterday, all first-degree amendments to the Defense bill must be filed at the desk by no later than 5 p.m. on Monday. This agreement will allow us to move the bill forward, and it is the leader's intention to complete action on the bill next week. Therefore, Senators should expect a busy week, with rollcall votes throughout.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 1:30 p.m., on Monday, June 7. I further ask consent that following the prayer and the 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 begin a period of morning business until 2:30 p.m., with the time equally divided between the two leaders or their designees; provided that at 2:30 p.m. the Senate resume consideration of Calendar No. 503, S. 2400, the Department of Defense authorization bill.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I understand there is a bill at the desk that is due for a second reading.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to further proceeding.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 4478, the SBA reauthorization bill, 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 ask unanimous consent that there be a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, this morning the Senate will resume consideration of the Department of Defense authorization bill. It is the leader's hope that we would be able to temporarily set aside the pending amendment so that other Senators can offer and debate their amendments. Senators are encouraged to come to the floor to speak on the merits of the bill. There will be no rollcall votes today. The next rollcall vote will be in relation to the Kennedy bunker- buster amendment and that vote will occur Tuesday of next week prior to the policy luncheons. I remind all Senators that under an agreement reached yesterday, all first-degree amendments to the Defense bill must be filed at the desk no later than 5 p.m. on Monday. It is the leader's intention to complete action on this bill next week. Senators should expect a busy week next week as we move toward completion of the Defense authorization bill. I see Senator Daschle is in the Chamber and yield any time that he would consume.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the distinguished Democratic leader for his excellent remarks. They are timely, and I would join in them. The pages have added so much to the Senate's ability to function. We appreciate them. I know Adam Lathan from Alabama has been a big help to me, and each Senator has had pages who have helped tremendously. I think it appropriate we express our appreciation at this time for their superb service. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I join with the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Warner, in his concern over this TRICARE amendment for our Guard and Reserve. I had 10 years in the Army Reserve. My chief of staff is a retired lieutenant colonel. We have discussed these issues a lot--what we can do to help our Guard and Reserve. But a $14 billion expenditure over 10 years for this one project is not the best way to spend $14 billion to help the Guard and Reserve. I have met with top generals in command of our Guard and Reserve. As a member of the Armed Services Committee, and as a person who cares about improving the quality of life of our superb Guard and Reserve members, I care about it deeply. I want to make their lives better. I want to make serving through retirement and beyond minimum retirement time attractive for them. I want their lives to be happy and as fulfilling as possible. We need to reward them financially in every way we possibly can. To take $14 billion and in effect have it spent for a lot of people who already have good health care insurance is not a smart way to do it. It is not the right way. I have asked the leadership of the Guard and Reserve and the Department of Defense to help us develop a package of bills that will be beneficial to a broad-based number of our Guard and Reserve. They do terrific work. When I was in the 1184th in Mobile, our drills and work got tougher and tougher every single year. More was demanded. That is why they are so excellent in performance today. I really believe in what they do. The skill level is higher than it has ever been. The training is better than it has ever been. They are better equipped than they have ever been. They are performing better in difficult situations than we have ever seen before, and I am proud of them, but this is not the best way to go about this. I know there is a concern about this issue. I believe we can address it. I believe the chairman has come up with a way we can address this issue. That is what we need to do. Let's listen to that. Let's not commit the funds for this one particular problem for 20 percent of the Guard and Reserve, those who do not have insurance today, and drain this large sum of money we could use in another fashion. I thank the chairman for his leadership, and I give my support for the $25 billion supplemental. I believe it is the right thing to do. It will allow our Defense Department to proceed. It will make sure our equipment that has been damaged in the course of this is repaired and maintained. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I was going to suggest for the lobbyists, it is time to bring that to an end. As some wise person told me in Alabama, they exist to blame the politicians if they close the base, and to claim credit if it is not closed.

Mr. SESSIONS. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, it has been a great pleasure for me to work with Senator Warner, the chairman of this committee, and Senator Levin, the ranking member. This BRAC issue has been one we have debated for quite a number of years, and one to which all Members have given serious consideration. Like a lot of Senators, we have military bases in my State. Year after year, month after month, we had the top military officers in the country telling members we needed to be able to spend our money more effectively; that they should be allowed to reconfigure our base structure; that it could save money and make this Nation stronger. I became convinced that was true. And that is why--in December of 2001 we had that vote--I voted for this idea. I led a delegation last month to Europe. We visited 12 installations in Europe. We talked with GEN Jimmy Jones, the Supreme Allied Commander of Europe, and heard from him about his vision for major drawdowns of our force strength in Europe, consolidation of bases. We could reduce that number by two-thirds. A huge number needs to be reduced and consolidated in Europe. We can bring home, in my view, both infantry divisions and probably other troops, too. Troops from the Pacific can be brought home and maintained in the United States so we can keep expeditionary bases around the world. That is part of what they are planning this very moment. It will not be long, and we will hear their report. I think it will be bold. I don't think it will be a little-bitty deal. I think they will recommend substantial alterations of past policy. We do not have the threats in Germany that we had when the Soviet Union existed. It is not there. We can be much lighter in Europe, and we can be much more effective in our deployment of forces, keeping much larger numbers of people in the United States. I don't see a conflict between allowing this to happen at the same time. In fact, General Jones said to us in our conversation, he envisioned it happening at the same time. In other words, we would reconfigure American bases while we were drawing down the foreign bases, and we would make our decisions about where they will go as we restructure and transform existing defense basing structure in the United States. That is the right way to go. I have been checking in my State, and some other Senators have heard from their States. People are ready to get this over with. It has been out there for several years. The communities have worked on their bases. They have developed plans and arguments and ideas to demonstrate to the Department of Defense why they have an enduring installation. That has been good and healthy and they are prepared to do it. To delay again is not wise. We voted this down before. I have the greatest respect for the Senator from Mississippi, my neighboring State, but this is the right thing to do. I take no pleasure in it, but it is not like in the mid-1990s when we were reducing the number of personnel in the military by 40 percent and reducing equipment and capabilities at the same time. We are still increasing our Defense Department. What General Schoomaker envisions is a young person enlisting in the Army. They can stay at a major enduring base for 7 years without having to move his or her family around. They can be promoted and be trained. Units can remain with their integrity and their training capability for much longer periods of time than we have today. Fewer, more properly configured bases can help strengthen the Nation's defense. That is why I have concluded it is right for America. It is the right way to strengthen our national defense. Do not let anyone say this BRAC process in some way weakens defense. I would never vote for it if I thought that was so. In fact, all the uniform commanders say this will help make us a stronger America. I thank Chairman Warner for his leadership and courage in this matter. He certainly has bases in his State, as I do. But we believe it is the right procedure, after having heard the testimony in the Armed Services Committee. I yield the floor.