Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. The Senator is exactly correct. I certainly agree, as a Federal prosecutor--and I prosecuted some physicians and other professionals in the medical business for bad behavior, but the odd thing about the way our tort system works, people think the doctor who gets sued is being punished, but really the doctor has insurance which he is required to have in order to practice in a hospital--virtually everybody has to have some, no matter how much it costs--and they do not end up being punished. Every physician in the community is punished, are they not? Is that not an odd thing that we are dealing with in current law?

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would like to take this moment to pay tribute to Art Stephenson, former Director of NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center. Mr. Stephenson joined Marshall in 1998, and has overseen the Center's work on critical NASA initiatives such as development of new reusable launch vehicles, Space Shuttle propulsion, advanced space transportation systems, research in microgravity, and science payload operations aboard the International Space Station, as well as the launch and continuing successful operation of the Chandra X-ray Observatory. Under his guidance the National Space Science Technology Center, a NASA partnership with local universities conducting cutting- edge propulsion research, was established and ground was broken for the critical Propulsion Research Laboratory. For his exceptional contributions to the space program and the nation, Art Stephenson has been recognized with the NASA Outstanding Leadership Medal, the NASA Group Achievement Award, and the NASA Exceptional Achievement Medal. In 2001, he was awarded an honorary doctorate by The University of Alabama System and was selected by the American Society for Engineering Management as the 2001 Engineering Manager of the Year. In 2002, he received the Career Achievement Award from the University of Redland, CA. Most recently, he was selected as the 2003 Martin Luther King Jr. Unity Award recipient by the Huntsville, AL, chapter of Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Inc. He also received the 2003 Community Service Award from Oakwood College in Huntsville, AL. The multiple honors and awards Art received are an indication of his devotion to our country and his dedication to NASA. Without question, Art Stephenson is a man of honor and ability, and I would like to add my thanks to those provided by so many others. His work has been given to the success of the NASA programs and he has done so without ever seeking personal gain or glory. I have been extraordinarily impressed with his integrity and commitment to service. The State of Alabama, NASA, and the nation are immensely proud of Art's service. He will be missed by his colleagues at Marshall Space Flight Center and those at NASA Headquarters. Our Nation owes a great deal to the Stephenson family. Art's vision pushed us all toward the ultimate goal of space exploration. His vision and that goal are both worth noting today, and I am pleased to bring them to the attention of the Senate.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I wish to take a few minutes at this time to express my sympathy to the family of Senator Strom Thurmond, one of America's most dynamic leaders in this past century, a man who lived through extraordinary change in his life, a man whose commitment to his country was unwavering. I had the opportunity in 1997 to travel with him to China. He was 94, I believe, at that time. His vigor and his strength were extraordinarily impressive to me and all of us who traveled with him. He wanted to see The Wall. He wanted to meet the people of China. He would tell them: America and China are friends. We want to be better friends. He made very perceptive and appropriate remarks. Then we met Jiang Zemin at his resort in the month of their vacation time and Strom made an extraordinary speech that reflected so well America and had so comprehensive an understanding of the relationships of our countries. That just struck me particularly. We went out to a Chinese army base. He trooped the line of a group of Chinese troops. I remember saying to him afterwards that I never thought I would be in Communist China, seeing Strom Thurmond, the great cold warrior, troop the line of a group of Chinese troops. But he was extraordinary in that way. I had comeup to this Senate in the mid-1980s as a nominee and it wasn't a very pleasant experience. I will never forget and will always appreciate his courtesy and support for me at that time and enjoyed responding a little bit to that when I was able to come back to this Senate and he was leader on the Senate Judiciary Committee, chairman of the Armed Services Committee. It was just a pleasure to work with him. He lived through a complete change in the South. He reflected the change that went on in our region of the country. I think he did it in a positive and especially important way. His leadership in moving from the days of segregation to a new era of relations between the races was very important and positive throughout the South. He served his country in an almost unprecedented way. He was 40 years old when World War II began. He was an elected judge in his home State and he was an army reservist. He insisted that he be allowed to be on active duty and they allowed him to do so. I understand at first it wasn't going to happen. He ended up in England when they were planning for the Normandy invasion. A number of people were called upon to fly gliders in during that invasion at the time. He volunteered to fly on a glider, one of the most dangerous missions there could be. The planes would pull up these gliders and get them going and just let them go and they would have to find a place to land down behind enemy lines--extraordinarily high risk. Many were killed on landing. Many were killed in combat, many were separated, many were injured. That is the kind of man Strom Thurmond was. I asked him one time: Strom, did you stay in until Germany surrendered? He said: Oh, yes, we stayed until Germany surrendered and we were on a train coming back when they declared the war on Japan was over. We were being sent to the East. He was prepared to go there. As long as this country was in combat he wanted to be there, committing his life, his every effort to the defense of this Republic. He did so in the Senate and he did so in uniform and as a leader in South Carolina. He was beloved in his State, respected to an awesome degree. He won his Senate race on a write-in vote with a substantial majority, the only Member, I believe, in the history of this Senate ever to be elected on a write-in vote. That shows the power and the energy and the vigor and the leadership of this man. I have appreciated his friendship. I know his family is hurting at this time and my sympathies are extended to them. I know the great members of his staff, Duke Short and the whole team that worked with him for so many years, are hurting today and our sympathies go out to them as well as to the family. Mr. President, I know you served with Senator Thurmond so many years. The two of you together have conducted a remarkable effort to maintain our military strength and leadership in the world. He was certainly committed to that. There are many other things I could say. I will not at this time. I just express my sympathy to his family, his friends, the people of South Carolina, and those around this great country who will mourn his passing. I thank the President and yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. I will be honored to. Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, included in the Medicare prescription drug reform bill in section 605 is a Medicaid reform of welfare benefits for noncitizens, reversing a policy adopted by this Senate in 1996 by a vote of 74 to 24. Section 605 is a very substantial change in our current policy. It will cost, according to CBO estimates, $500 million over just 3 years. It is not to be taken lightly. Frankly, we haven't had debate on it. I have offered an amendment that would strike the existing language in section 605, along with a sense of the Senate that this matter go back to the Finance Committee for hearings this fall, the time when the Finance Committee plans to be addressing Medicaid welfare reform. That is what this is. This is Medicaid welfare reform, not Medicare senior citizens reform. This is clearly unconnected to the purpose of the bill. It was slipped in as some sort of compromise. We ought not to allow that to happen, to erode a very important part of the 1996 Welfare Reform Act. The administration, which is very favorable to matters that would help immigrants in this country, opposes this change. They say it should be done, if at all, as part of the welfare reform of this fall. That is why our sense of the Senate calls on the Finance Committee to reevaluate it as part of their requirement this fall on reform welfare. Millions of people come to this country legally. They come here with sponsors. Those sponsors say they will pay for the medical welfare needs of those people they sponsor. That is by affidavit and it should be honored, not undercut.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I was asking unanimous consent that I be allowed to call up an amendment for 30 seconds and set it aside before the Senator from New Jersey commences his remarks.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be set aside for consideration at the appropriate time.

Mr. SESSIONS. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. Reserving the right to object, is the Senator going to speak? I could not hear.

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be set aside so that I may speak on my amendment No. 1011.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the bill we are moving forward today is a prescription drug bill, a Medicare reform bill. It is not a welfare reform bill. Unfortunately, through the process, as it often happens when legislation moves through this body, the Finance Committee, without having hearings, faced an amendment that came up and it became a part of the bill that is on the Senate floor today. It would provide benefits not to American citizens but to non-citizens. It would amend the law that was passed some time ago prohibiting such actions. So I have sent to the desk an amendment which would strike section 605 of the bill, the section that allows Medicaid and State health insurance program coverage to be given to noncitizens, and insert a sense of the Senate that this section should be referred back to the Finance Committee. In 1996, with a vote of 74 to 24, this body made a principled, purposeful decision during reform of welfare in this country, that non- citizens should not access Federal programs such as TANF and Medicaid for the first 5 years they are in the United States. That is because these costs are supposed to be incurred by the sponsors of those people who come into the United States. That is why we make the sponsor of an immigrant who comes into the United States lawfully sign an affidavit that they will be responsible for that person's health care benefit. Of those Senators who are still in service in this body, 45 voted for it. That is quite a significant number. Section 605 would lift the 5-year ban for pregnant women, and children, from fiscal year 2005 through fiscal year 2007. In other words, we would allow pregnant women and children who have sponsors in the United States to access the welfare system of America to pay for their health care, contrary to the fully debated and wisely established rule in 1996 not to do that. The President is concerned about that. The administration is opposed to this change. They note that the administration has proposed substantial new flexibility on the part of Medicaid and SCHIP reform, and coverage for legal immigrants should be examined as part of this context. So we will be examining Medicaid, the SCHIP program, and Medicare reform later this year. That is the time we should be discussing changing our current policy as to what benefits are available to noncitizens, not slipping it through as part of this important bill. This is not a decision that we should change, not a policy that ought to be altered, without some significant study and debate. We are amending the welfare reform bill as part of a prescription drug bill. This is a major policy shift. It ought not to be added in this fashion. This bill is for America's senior citizens, not for non-citizens. If we want to make such important changes in funding eligibility and criteria for these programs, we ought to be ready to have a full and open debate on welfare policy. That is the kind of debate we had in 1996. I think some good decisions were made then that helped this country tremendously. It helped poor families move from welfare to work and did a lot of things for children in this country. The Finance Committee, which added section 605, should have hearings and go about it as part of the welfare reform bill. I feel strongly about that. Before 1996, the cost of welfare for immigrants had skyrocketed in America to $8 billion a year. That was in 1996. Harvard economist George Borjas found that immigrant households were 50 percent more likely to use Federal welfare programs than were citizen households. So this was the untenable position and situation in 1996, and that is what was ended by the legislation then. In 1996, Congress dealt specifically with the issue of welfare and immigration. In an overwhelming manner they passed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 which was signed by President Clinton and became law. The 1996 welfare and immigration reforms significantly restricted participation of new immigrants in Federal means-tested poverty programs and dramatically curtailed the access of permanent resident aliens to Federal welfare programs. That was exactly our goal. The 1996 reform strengthened the welfare system and made more funds available for citizens in need. In passing this law in 1996, this Senate specifically stated certain national policy concerns related to welfare and immigration that should not be changed haphazardly. They said self-sufficiency has been a basic principle of United States immigration law since this country's earliest immigration status. Self-sufficiency is a key part of our whole concept of immigration. It continues to be the immigration policy of the United States that: (A) Aliens within the Nation's borders not depend on public resources to meet their needs, but rather rely on their own capabilities and the resources of their families, their sponsors, and private organizations, and the availability of public benefits not constitute an incentive for immigration to the United States. Despite the principle of self-sufficiency, aliens have been applying for and receiving public benefits from Federal, State, and local governments at increasing rates. It is a compelling government interest to enact new rules for eligibility and sponsorship agreements in order to assure that aliens be self-reliant in accordance with national immigration policy. It is a compelling government interest to remove the incentive for illegal immigration provided by the availability of public benefits. That is what we are talking about. That sums it up. That was a thoughtful policy and change made in 1996. We ought not to have it slip through here on this important bill today without full hearings and discussion. Section 605, which now in this bill, would repeal the general prohibition of nonqualified aliens being eligible for any Federal public benefits, as it applies to protect women and children, even though ample exceptions for certain public benefits are already provided, such as emergency medical assistance. That is available now. Short-term disaster relief. Immunization, housing, and communities development assistance, and any assistance specified by the Attorney General. Section 605 waives the 5-year waiting period before immigrants are allowed to receive Federal benefits, thus creating a huge incentive for the benefited class of citizens to rush the borders for instant care. A person who has the possibility of coming to this country, has considered it and decided not to, if their child has a health problem, would not they, therefore, be incentivized to try to come across this border, knowing they could apply for and have public benefit of the United States? And we would like to do that. Do we do that for the entire world? It is just not possible. It is not good public policy. A nation has to have policy that is rational and defensible. A wide range of Federal programs are exempted from this requirement, including emergency Medicaid, certain immunizations, short-term disaster relief, school lunch programs, the WIC program, foster care, adoptive assistance, and Head Start. Those are available now. Section 605 will dissolve the financial accountability requirement of the sponsor. If section 605 passes, sponsors will no longer be held responsible to the Government for the cost of the Federal means-tested benefits to the aliens they sponsor. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, coupled with the 1996 welfare reform law, purposefully altered the obligations of persons whose sponsored immigrants arrived or are adjusting status in the United States. In 1996, as part of the immigration reform, we required that affidavit of support be rewritten as a legally binding contract, enforceable against the sponsor through the time the sponsor immigrant becomes a citizen or has contributed to Social Security for 10 years. Affidavits of support are intended to implement the provisions of the INA that excludes aliens who appear ``likely at any time to become a public charge.'' No nation accepts people into their country who are likely to be a public charge of the country. A nation accepts people who are going to be contributors and will benefit that society. This is consistent with the recommendation of the Commission on Immigration Reform. In a report to Congress the commission stated sponsors of immigrants should be held financially responsible for the immigrants they bring into this country. Under the INA code a sponsor is defined as a person who is a citizen, national or lawfully admitted, of the United States, 18 years of age, lives in the United States and demonstrates the means to financially maintain a sponsorship. They can petition the Federal Government through an affidavit of support for the admittance of an individual residing outside the United States. In other words, a sponsor has to be a person who has the means to financially maintain a sponsorship. If they cannot sign that affidavit honestly, then the person should not be admitted into the country. The sponsor requirement allows for the admission of any person into the United States who is unable to take care of himself or herself without becoming a charge to the taxpayers by assuring, via affidavit, that the sponsor will financially support the person. An affidavit for support may not be accepted unless the sponsor agrees to, one, provide financial support to maintain the sponsored alien; two, be legally bound to the Federal Government of any entity that provides any means-tested public benefit which includes Medicaid; and three, submit to the jurisdiction of any Federal court. If a sponsored alien received any means-tested public benefits, the entity which provided such benefits can request to be reimbursed by the sponsor, and if reimbursement is not satisfied, then the sponsor will face civil penalty. Under this proposed legislation, the sponsors of these new immigrants would be absolved from their liability under the program. Aliens will no longer be supported and maintained by their sponsors and would become a charge on the public once again, a problem we sought to and did remedy in 1996. As we finish here tonight, we have a lot of important matters involved in this legislation, involving a lot of money. CBO estimates that this provision would cost half a billion over three years. It spends that money by changing what I think to be a good policy by creating a bad policy, a policy that will incentivize people to come to the United States for free health care when they may not otherwise wish to come or may not otherwise benefit from coming here. We really have not had the kind of debate, as a comprehensive review of welfare, that should be made a part of that. The Finance Committee will be considering welfare reform. It will be considering these issues in the months to come. They have a lot on their plate. This amendment simply says let's not rush this through now. Let's not move it through on this important bill that is going to move through Congress. Let's send it back to the Finance Committee. Let's encourage them to give thoughtful and serious concern to it. Let's have them come forward with a program that would justify us changing this important rule, established in 1996. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1011.

Mr. SESSIONS. Reserving the right to object, I just want to call up an amendment and set it aside. Will the Senator agree we can do that?

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I wish to express my deep appreciation to Senator Domenici. He, more than any other person in this body, understands what role nuclear power must play in America and in the world if we are to maintain a clean environment and a healthy energy source. In nations that have readily available electricity in the world, compared to those that do not, the lifespan is twice as long. This is a matter of extreme importance. We are trying to simultaneously increase our power sources in America and improve the cleanliness of our air and protect our environment. The only way that can be done is with nuclear power. I feel very strongly about this. It is important for America's economy. Alan Greenspan testified at the Joint Economic Committee last week and raised again the crisis that we are facing in natural gas. Natural gas is a source for all new electric plants in America today. We are driving up this tremendous demand on natural gas. If we drive up the cost for natural gas, as we certainly will at the rate we are going, homeowners are going to pay so much more for their heating. Businesses that use natural gas are going to have to pay twice as much. We can meet that demand without any air pollution by expanding nuclear power. There are 29 nuclear plants being built around the world. France gets 80 percent of its power from nuclear power. Nearly 50 percent of Japan's power comes from nuclear power. We have not built a nuclear plant in America in 20 years. It is time for that to change. Twenty percent of our electricity comes from nuclear power producing no adverse environmental impacts to the atmosphere. I would like to read what we save for the atmosphere by having nuclear power. A recent study showed that nuclear energy has prevented the release of 219 million tons of sulfur dioxide, 98 million tons of nitrogen oxide polluted in the atmosphere, and prevented the emission into the air of 2 billion tons of carbon dioxide. That is considered by some to be a global-warming gas. We can stop that. We may have offset the effects of carbon dioxide already by producing 20 percent of our energy with nuclear power. We have to include a provision like this in the bill. Last year, I introduced a bill that would provide a tax credit, similar to that for renewable energy, for the production of nuclear energy. The tax credit would have cost only one-fifth the amount of tax credits that other forms of clean energy receive, and it would have encouraged the production of a steady, reliable source of energy. The provision in this bill likewise encourages nuclear energy, and I support it. I reject the notion that there would be a high rate of default on these loans. I have studied nuclear energy and I have visited plants. These loans are needed to provide the nuclear industry a small incentive to take a big step towards constructing a plant. We need to go to conference with it. If we do, I would be willing to work with Senators who oppose this. But I think we have to have something in this bill that will allow us to encourage nuclear power. Not to do so would be a failure of incredible proportions. I thank the chairman. I feel very strongly about it. I thank Senator Domenici again for his historic leadership that can lead us into a new way to produce large sources of energy without pollution costs to the environment. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I do not think the Senator, who is a great colleague, would dispute the fact that language resulted in the failure of that bill. People care about this issue. It is a big deal to people. It is a personal and emotional issue that I don't think needs to be pressed at this point. Our military physicians and nurses are not happy with it. It would require us to utilize military hospitals as facilities to carry out abortions. It would make our hospitals a part of the abortion process. It would utilize Federal property and resources to that degree. It covers not just foreign hospitals but every hospital in America. Yes, it is legal--clearly legal--that a woman can have an abortion and can use her own money to that effect, but we have sort of reached an understanding and compromise in the Congress that it is legal but because of respect for people with differing views, we just will not use taxpayers' money to fund it. There is just sort of a truce, in a way, that has been reached. I think it is probably something we just have to live with at the present time. I don't see any need to pressure or embarrass doctors and nurses who do not feel comfortable doing this. We know this. There was a survey done of the Army, Navy, and Air Force obstetricians; 44 of them were surveyed. All but one said they adamantly opposed doing abortions. One later said that physician was opposed to abortions. Some of these were women physicians. Nurses are not comfortable with it. I don't believe we ought to be requiring military hospitals to go out and hire other physicians to come in on Government taxpayer funded property to conduct these procedures. It is just not necessary. President Bush has made clear he opposes using taxpayers' money to fund abortions. Passage of this amendment would threaten that. I believe women are playing an increasingly valuable role in our military. I spent over 10 years as a reservist and served with many fine women officers. The unit I was a part of in Mobile, AL, is now in Kuwait commanded by a woman officer. I can't tell you how proud I am of them. I am not hearing from the women I know in the military that this is something they are demanding, frankly. I don't think the American people are. I will just point out some numbers that deal with this subject. If anybody cares, a January 2003 poll of ABC News/Washington Post--not conservative groups--showed that only 23 percent were for abortion to be legal in all cases. That is less than a fourth. The same poll found, when asked this question, should we make abortion harder to get, 42 percent said yes; easier to get an abortion, 15 percent said yes. So 42 percent thought it ought to be harder to get an abortion and 15 percent thought it should be easier. In January of 2003, a CBS News/New York Times poll asked this question: should abortion be generally available, 39 percent; stricter limits, 38 percent; not permitted, 22 percent. Sixty percent favored either stricter limits or not permitted. A CNN Gallup poll in 2003 asked, should parental consent be required for an abortion? Yes, 73 percent. Regardless of how we personally feel about this issue, it ought not to be on this bill. It is not what we need to be debating now. We need to be focused on our men and women in harm's way, providing them with the necessary funding and resources and equipment needed to do their job. We don't need to jeopardize this bill in conference or subject it to a possible Presidential veto as a result of this amendment. I thank Senator Brownback for his leadership and yield back such time as I may have.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Murray amendment. We worked hard on this bill. I serve on the Armed Services Committee. We are still in a state of conflict in Iraq. We have hostilities and dangers around the world. We made a commitment, as a Senate, to move forward, to move this Defense bill early this year, not wait until the last minute, to do our work properly. This bill is endangered now by a highly controversial amendment, which I oppose, and which I think a majority in this body will oppose. It could affect adversely our ability to conduct a harmonious conference with the House of Representatives. It could even result in a veto by the President of the United States. I know there is a strong abortion agenda still out here, even though the polling numbers continue to show erosion for that position. This side of the aisle--Senator Brownback and others who care about the issue--has not injected abortion into the Defense debate, but it has been raised by the pro-abortion agenda groups. I think that is not healthy. I wish it had not happened. I know there has been a debate over whether or not it is even relevant, but the Parliamentarian had ruled that it is, so we will have this vote today. I will just note, as an example of the reality of the problem, we had a bankruptcy bill that I worked on in the Judiciary Committee--and others did--for several years. We voted on it on the floor of this body and got 87 votes for it. Yet it died in committee because a pro- abortion amendment had been placed on it. The conference committee could not break the deal, and eventually the entire bill failed.

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

Mr. SESSIONS. I yield for 1 minute, if he would use Senator Murray's time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Yes.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, this is an issue we have considered in the Armed Services Committee, of which I am a member. I note it passed on a vote of 15 to 10 with bipartisan support. I hear the opponents to this amendment using words such as ``these matters should not even been contemplated.'' ``We should not even think about a new type of nuclear weapon that may be less dangerous, have less collateral damage than the ones we already have. That is not where the United States should be.'' I note for my colleagues, the cold war approach to life has changed. We are in a new world environment. We need to be thoughtful about how we go forward. We should not shut off any study, any evaluation, of nuclear weapons in what we might need in the future, what would be better, what could create peace in a more effective way than the current armament system we have. They say if we do anything, if we study, if we go out and do any research, if we even think about what other nations might be doing, we can no longer encourage countries not to proliferate their weapons. I don't think so. What is happening now? They say Pakistan, they talk about India, Korea, Iran, and other countries that are, in fact, working on nuclear weapons. They are doing that now, are they not? Aren't they doing that right now, this very minute? The fact we have not done any research or development or built any weapons in over a decade, I suppose, how has that had any impact on what they decide to do? These countries make decisions on what they think might be in their best interest. We have to work with them and encourage them not to do certain things. If a lot of countries around this world--a lot of them are our Allies like Japan--if they felt we did not have an adequate military capability or option or weapon system that would allow us to effectively defend their interests, they may decide they have to have nuclear weapons, too. The United States has a peacekeeping role in the world. It is a high calling. It requires us to be very thoughtful. We cannot exercise blind fear about the world we are in and the technology that is out there and what is going to happen. A lot of people may not know, of all the nuclear powers in the world, this country is the only one incapable at this moment of building a new weapon. We do not have the capability at this point to build new weapons. Despite that, the President has called for a reduction in our nuclear stockpile by one half or more. We are in an unprecedented reduction in the nuclear capability of this country, removing thousands of weapons from our inventories. However, we do not need to stick our head in the sand. We do not need to assume other countries are not out there studying nuclear weapons and will study nuclear weapons whether we study nuclear weapons. That is silly. That has no logical basis. Think about it. Whether we have a laboratory somewhere that is studying nuclear weapons, this is going to determine whether Kim Jong Il decides to build new weapons? Whether Iran or China decides to build more weapons? No sir, not at all. That makes no sense whatever. We have had smaller weapons in the past. They have been removed from stockpiles. I don't think that destabilized the world during that period. They say, well, even though we are reducing our stocks by half, even though we have no weapons program, even though we are not doing nuclear testing, it is our fault. We are somehow destabilizing the world. We are causing Kim Jong Il to create weapons. I don't think it is our fault. I am not part of the ``blame America first'' crowd. Anyone wants to go to the DMZ up there and look into that depraved country of North Korea, stand in that wonderful, free, progressive country of South Korea, and see what he has done to the people of North Korea and has no moral rejection of him and his would-be empire, his regime, and has no sense of compassion for the people he oppresses, and now we are going to blame ourselves for his misbehavior? And we are sending him food to feed his own people because he cannot raise the food to do so? I don't think so. I believe this country has a moral responsibility to lead in this world and we will not be an effective leader if we don't maintain leadership in all forms of weaponry--yes, including nuclear weaponry. It is just that simple. I hope we do not have to develop any new systems, but I don't see anything wrong with doing some research. We might learn what others are doing out there, too, and that might be important to our national defense. We are the premier nuclear power in the world--premier power in general and the premier nuclear power in the world. If we ever got to the point where we had some smaller weapons, why would that make the world more dangerous than the big ones we have, let me ask you? I think that is not where we need to be heading. We need to be rational about where we are. Nuclear power remains a part of our arsenal. A growing number of nations around the world, as they have been from time to time since nuclear power became available, are studying ways to develop their own nuclear power. They say we can't use it against al-Qaida. Maybe we can, maybe we can't. Probably we would not use a nuclear weapon against a group like al-Qaida. But who would have thought we would have been at this level of conflict in Afghanistan or Kosovo or Bosnia 15 years ago? Who knows what the future may bring? A great nation, a great Congress, who has a responsibility to protect and defend this Constitution and this Nation, should be thinking ahead to make sure we have the capability, as time goes by, to deal with any threat that faces us. To do otherwise would be irresponsible. Let's be clear about this. This amendment we passed 15 to 10 in committee does not authorize building small weapons. It does not authorize testing weapons. It talks about study and research. If any step further than that has to be taken, this Congress would explicitly have to approve it. Then we can hear these debates about whether or not we want to go forward, depending on what the state of the world is at that time. I used to be a Federal prosecutor. As I understand the law, it would be a crime to utilize the language in this bill to build one of these weapons or to test one of these weapons because it would not be authorized in law. You cannot use money appropriated by Congress for things not authorized. This language does not authorize testing. It does not authorize building of a nuclear weapon. We have also to be concerned in this age of increasing knowledge about nuclear power, with the increasing ability through technology and other capabilities to transmit that knowledge around the world. We ought to be aware that others could step forward and make breakthroughs in nuclear power that could in many ways undermine the leadership we have in the world today. We do not need to have other nations studying nuclear power, nuclear weaponry, and us not. Think about this. We have cut our power down substantially. We are cutting down the number of our weapons very substantially--half or more than half. We absolutely cannot make a commitment that we will never do anything else in the future. That would simply set out a marker that would be the goal any nation could seek to attain and then they would be on equal power with the United States of America militarily, in terms of nuclear weapons. We should not do that. We need to make it clear to the entire world we care about peace, we care about world harmony, but we will not allow our Nation to be vulnerable to attack because our Nation--I can say it with confidence-- our Nation stands for peace, prosperity, trade, and freedom in this world. That is what we stand for. A lot of nations don't. If somebody in this body is not capable of making that value judgment, then I think they need to go back and study their history a little bit. So we can stand for right in this dangerous world; we simply have to be militarily strong. Americans expect us to be thinking about it and going forward. President Bush supports this amendment that passed with bipartisan support in the committee. Secretary of State Powell supports this amendment, as do Admiral Ellis and General Jumper, two of our key military people who deal with these issues. I simply think it would be irrational to prohibit research that could inform future decisions as to whether such weapons would enhance the national security of our country. It would not prejudice our Congress to decide these questions in the future. Let us not fear greater knowledge that would inform our future decisions. Let's make sure this Nation does not have its head in the sand. Let's make sure our Nation is alert to what our capabilities are, what our enemies' capabilities are, and to the need for change if that need arises. I think that is the right approach. I think that is why the Armed Services Committee sent this amendment to the floor as part of this bill. I thank Senator Warner for his leadership. He has led us in this way, in a careful way. There is nothing extreme about this amendment. It is the right step at this time. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I served as a reservist for over 10 years. Some of my best friends are reservists. My Army Reserve partner is now my chief of staff. I have a lot of good friends in the Army Reserve and National Guard. They have a lot of needs. There is much we can do for them. I have not specifically been hearing in my State this insurance question, although I can list half a dozen other items reservists have told me that are important to them. I do not think we have had the kind of serious study about what should be our priority in helping reservists be more willing to serve. They are doing a tremendous job at this point in time. We have had 400 special forces National Guardsmen from my State in Iraq and Afghanistan; several have been wounded. They are critical to our Nation. But we have not thought this through. We do not have the $2 billion to $3 billion to spend on this program at this time. I do not believe the conferees can take that much out of existing active-duty accounts to pay for this. At this point, it is unwise. What we need to do is continue to study this matter. I chair that subcommittee, and we can talk about it and come back with priorities that benefit all reservists in a fair and equitable way and fund those expenditures. I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from South Dakota.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I understand we are in 5 minutes debate on each side and then there will be a vote on this amendment.