Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Two and a half minutes per side?

Mr. SESSIONS. I am pleased to yield to the Senator from South Carolina on his time.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I object. We have only had a few moments to consider this Mr. President. We did not know the request was going to be offered. I register an objection.

Mr. SESSIONS. I close by saying how proud I am of the troops and our defense capability. As one writer for the British magazine, The Economist, said, not only do Americans spend more money on defense than their European allies, they spend it more wisely. That is the reason they are so capable in matters of defense. He also added that if the Europeans were so afraid of the United States, why did they not spend more on defense? I will be speaking later on a few more issues such as the Airland Subcommittee agenda, which I chair. At this time, I express my appreciation to Senator John Warner, the chairman of our committee, for his superb leadership, his understanding of this country, his understanding of the defense needs of this country, and his willingness to work for it. I, likewise, express my appreciation to Senator Levin, the ranking member. He is as capable, intelligent, and articulate as any Member of this body. He understands these issues. Although we talk at times about having differences of opinion, overwhelmingly the matters that went through our committee went through with bipartisan support and unanimous support. I thank the Senator from Michigan for allowing me the extra time. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SESSIONS. A couple of minutes would be fine. I did not know I was on a time limit.

Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 2 minutes to wrap up.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and look forward to making some comments on the Defense bill. In previous years, I have been honored to work with Senator Kennedy on the Seapower Subcommittee when he was chairman, and when I was able to chair the subcommittee. I will admit, he remained on message. We are on the Defense bill and somehow we segued into unemployment benefits. I think we would do well to stay on this Defense bill. Briefly, Mr. President, we did talk about the nuclear posture of the United States. President Bush has proposed a reduction in nuclear weapons that is, in fact, reducing American nuclear weapons by one- half. That is a good direction. Oddly, we remain the only nuclear power in the world that does not have the capacity at this point to build another nuclear weapon. Other nations are either building nuclear weapons or have the capability and have not eliminated it. First of all it would be unwise, in my view, to freeze ourselves at a low number and never be able to increase it, which simply sets out a target that any nation in the world, if they could reach that number, would then be a nuclear power on parity with the United States. We do not need to do that. I think the President is wise to not renounce unequivocally that he would never use a nuclear weapon before it has been used on us, particularly when people have the ability to threaten us with biological and chemical weapons that could cause even more loss of life than a single nuclear weapon. We need to keep our poise here. The President is reducing nuclear weapons. He is not expanding our number of nuclear weapons. The Defense Department and the President have not allowed the politically correct crowd or other groups to pressure him into saying we would never use a weapon before it is used on us. I believe this is a very good Defense bill. I remember when I came to the Senate a little over 6 years ago, the defense budget was somewhere around $290 billion. In 1991, our defense budget was $329 billion. We went from $329 billion to $278 billion in the mid-nineties, a huge reduction. We edged up only slightly in the last few years of the last decade of the century. We were not where we needed to be. I remember when we passed a budget a few years ago that topped $329 billion, the first time we had exceeded the defense budget in the early 1990s. During that period, we did two dramatic things; We reduced personnel in the Department of Defense by 40 percent and delayed confronting the bow wave of unmet recapitalization needs for our ships, aging aircraft, and other equipment. We delayed doing that, as we paired down our budget after the fall of the wall. It probably went too far. Not probably, we did go too far. Had we maintained just a few percentage points more of spending, we could have carried on the recapitalization program that would have left us in a lot better position than we are today. One of President Clinton's Service Secretaries used that phrase, ``a bow wave of unmet needs,'' needs that we were pushing off, which we knew we had to address and we should have been addressing along the way but which is building in front of us. Now we have to address those needs, and I believe we are making progress. This bill authorizes an expenditure of $400.5 billion in defense spending. It is $17.9 billion more than last year. That is in real terms, adjusted terms, a 3.2 percent increase. It is not a huge increase, but it is a significant increase, and I think it has been planned for and being managed by the Defense Department pretty well. It includes some badly needed benefits for our service men and women. The family separation allowance is up. Incentive pay for places such as Korea are going to be up. Frankly, we did not do enough on Korea. It is a special case that is unfairly impacting the finances, the careers, and the lives of families when a person gets an assignment to Korea. We can do better, and we need to do better. I am continuing to look at that issue along with other Members such as Senator Dayton and others in this body. There is an increase in hostile fire pay. We increase the death benefit for all personnel. We double it to $12,000. We should, and I will be offering legislation to do a much better job of providing a death benefit for the soldiers who represent the United States of America in a hostile environment and who lose their lives in combat. We have seen those who were victims of terrorist attacks receive a million or more dollars in benefits. It is embarrassing how little the families of our soldiers who answer the call to go into harm's way, who put their lives at risk for our freedoms, get in benefits from the Federal Government. The situation is better as far as the money. We have demonstrated in the last conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan that our military has modernized itself and is capable of innovation and creatively utilizing advanced technologies to apply the maximum pressure on our enemy, minimizing the risk to our own forces and minimizing the risk to civilians and to the basic infrastructure of the enemy nations that we are facing. It is a tremendous achievement. I have pushed for transformation, and I think Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld is correct. We have to push and push to have the transformation we want in our Department of Defense. It will not occur if it is not being pushed from the top. With regard to the Army, for example, we have made some tremendous progress. Part of that progress is the quality of the leadership we have in the military today. Those who watched the briefings and saw the interviews of our men and women, the leaders in the military, saw the high education level, the technical expertise, and the leadership skill they have. Our military officers do not just have undergraduate degrees today. They have masters degrees in business, engineering, and technology. They have management specialties. They have Ph.D.s. They are the finest kind of leaders one would find in any business or any other competitive enterprise in the country. They do things such as study what happened previously. They call it ``lessons learned.'' That is a healthy thing in America. We are quick to study our mistakes, and we learn from those mistakes. I recall the book ``Black Hawk Down,'' the movie that was made about the Somalian conflict, the mistakes that were made and the courage that was shown. That report has been studied. That event has been studied over and over again. It has gotten down to the most junior possible officers in our entire military. They know that story. They know what happened. They know the good things and they know the bad things. Some might think that the author who wrote the book that was being critical--I did not really think so. I thought it was truthful and tried to be helpful. He has been invited to lecture our military forces time and again on his insights as an outsider into what happened to them. So we have an open and creative military. I believe that is the strength of it. One of our leaders said we do not want a war; we want to resist a war, we want to avoid it at all possible costs, but when it can no longer be avoided, we want to fight it with violence, we want to fight it effectively, and we do not want it to be a fair fight. We want our enemies to know beforehand we do not want it to be a fair fight. We want to bring that force that we have to bear to win the war decisively and quickly, for this is the best way to create a safe environment afterwards and to preserve the lives of our service men and women. So we are working on that. This is not easy. We utilize the incredible technology that America develops. We utilize the management skills that Americans possess, and they are utilized routinely in this country. It is not easy to develop highly effective technology and, more importantly, apply that technology effectively on the battlefield. We have to make sure our 19-year-old Privates understand the capabilities they are dealing with and be able to apply it, even though they may have been in the military a year or less even. It is a tremendous managerial task.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my legislative fellow, John Beaver, be granted the privilege of the floor for the remainder of the debate on the National Defense Authorization Act.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I ask that Senator Allen be made a cosponsor to that amendment.

Mr. SESSIONS. Pursuant to section 904(c) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the entire Budget Act, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SESSIONS. Under the agreed framework of this legislation, the tax reduction part of the growth package, those tax reductions will terminate in 2012. As an attempt to build the kind of growth package this Congress wanted to do, I believe a majority wants to do, we have added some tax increases. Those tax increases are permanent. In order not to affect the agreement and impact the budget in any way, I have proposed that those tax increases be terminated on 12-31-2015. It would have absolutely no budgetary impact in any way. So I believe we made an agreement to bring this package together. The tax growth package will terminate in 2012. So should the tax increases in 2015.

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 639.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the issue of health care transmissions of HIV/AIDS in Africa. I want to clarify some important provisions of the bill addressing the spread of HIV/AIDS and other infectious diseases in Africa and the developing world through the health care setting and more specifically the reuse of syringes and needles, in other words, injection devices. The reuse of syringes and needles is a well-documented practice in the developing world. Scientists from the WHO, Duke University and the Gates Children Vaccine Program report that the percentage of unsafe injections in sub-Saharan Africa vary from greater than 50 percent to as high as 90 percent in Burkina Faso. In some countries in the study, 60 percent of centers reused syringes/needles. The Safe Injection Global Network, SIGN, an organization affiliated with the World Health Organization, WHO, reports that, ``Transmission of bloodbourne pathogens, including hepatitis B virus, HBV, Hepatitis C virus, HCV, and acquired immunodeficiency virus, HIV, through unsafe injections has long been reported and causes a heavy burden of disease.'' A December, 2002 paper co-authored by physicians from WHO and CDC estimated that in the developing regions that were studied, almost 40 percent of injections were given with reused injection devices. The same study found that unsafe injection practices in developing countries in the year 2000 alone caused 22 million hepatitis B infections, 2 million Hepatitis C infections and resulted in the transmission of the HIV virus to 260,000 people. The cumulative number of people with HIV, Hep B and Hep C over the years is a significant number that cannot be ignored. In response to the overwhelming evidence of diseases spread through needle and syringe reuse, and the recognition of the effectiveness of needles with technology features that prevent reuse to stop the spread of disease, Section 306 of this bill includes legislative language ``promoting sterile injection practices and technologies.'' I want to make the point that sterile injection practices and technologies referred to in Section 306 include injection devices with reuse prevention features. Furthermore, it is my understanding that ``sterile injection practices and technologies'' referred to in Section 306 should include injection devices with reuse prevention features, especially since needles or syringes that can be reused are only guaranteed to be sterile during their use. This section should not be interpreted to support needle exchange programs. It is also my understanding that availability and use of reuse prevention injection devices will limit not only the spread of HIV/AIDS, but also have the additional benefit of reducing the incidence of Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C, and other infectious diseases such as the Ebola virus, through non-sterile and unsafe injection practices. This clarification is important to ensure that the Coordinator of the HIV/AIDS Program at the State Department understands the importance of providing injection devices with reuse prevention features to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS and other infectious diseases. Studies may vary as to exact percentage of infectious disease spread by various known causes. But all should agree that the use of sterile injection devices with reuse prevention features is one effective, economical, and immediately available step that can be taken to prevent one of the most significant causes of the spread of infectious diseases, especially among children who receive injections for immunization and other health care. It has been estimated that there are about 1.5 billion injections administered in Africa each year. Since some injection devices with reuse prevention features can be obtained for as little as approximately 5 cents each, the entire continent of Africa could be supplied with safe injection devices at a cost of less than $100 million dollars per year. Doing so could virtually eliminate the spread of HIV and other diseases in Africa from injection device re-use, in a manner that is cost-effective and with measurable results. During a March 27, 2003 hearing I chaired in the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee on the transmission of AIDS in Africa, David Gisselquist, PhD, testified that, ``From the 16 available large studies in Africa with sufficient data on injections, an average of 28 percent of HIV infections is associated with medical injections.'' In a December 2002 WHO report the authors list four studies with findings of 8 percent, 15 percent, 41 percent and 45 percent attributable to contaminated injections resulting in HIV infections, thus suggesting that the WHO 2.5 percent model was conservative. Even the WHO in its own report stated ``[i]n the year 2000, four decades after the widespread availability of single-use injection equipment and two decades into the HIV pandemic, contaminated injections account for close to a third of new HBV infections, 40 percent of new HCV infections and 5 percent of new HIV infections. These infections translate to a substantial preventable burden of acute hepatitis, AIDS, hepatocellular carcinoma and end-stage liver disease.'' Even if the proportion of cases from injections is much lower than that by heterosexual transmission, it is an important component of the problem and we must act quickly. If healthcare procedures account for a high percentage of the cases of HIV infections in Africa, then we must immediately and radically change our prevention procedures. Therefore, I plan to work with the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to request an independent group to examine the available studies on the number of HIV/AIDS cases that are caused by the unsafe re-use of needles. This study will help clarify and highlight the dangerous impact of needle re-use in the spread of HIV/ AIDS. I recommend that the independent organization draw a panel of experts from different public health organizations to compile this study and make available their findings in 90 days. I plan to request this study to help understand the true impact of health care transmission and especially unsafe needle re-use in the spread of HIV in Africa and to ensure that our policies reflect the best science about the causes of the HIV/AIDS epidemic in Africa and other parts of the developing world. I am glad this evening to join with my colleagues in support of the President's initiative to combat global HIV/AIDS and to deliver a bill prior to his departure for the G-8 summit in France which commences on June 1, 2003. The bill authorizes $15 billion over 5 years for HIV/AIDS programs and it is my desire that some of this money be used to eliminate the transmission of HIV/AIDS in the health care setting and especially by the re-use of injection devices.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the underlying bill provides too much money to the global fund. The administration requested $200 million next year for the global fund. This bill funds the global fund to the tune of $1 billion. Let me begin by saying I do not think we should be giving the global fund anything. They have not earned our trust. They have not proven they can do a better job of fighting AIDS than the President can do through direct assistance. Let me share an exchange I had with Sir Elton John at a hearing on the AIDS issue. Sessions. Thank you for that commitment. It has made a difference. I talked to a businessman who does a lot of work around the world, and he said that in developing nations, the absolute key is not to give the money too high up the ladder. If you are giving the money to the people doing the work, they will work wonderfully, and things will happen beautifully. If you give it too high up, it does not get to the people who do the work in an effective way. Many of you have foundations and are leading groups that are smaller, where you can be more effective. We are talking about, if we were to do what Ms. Thurman asked, tripling our contribution to $2.5 billion. Do you have any suggestions as to how we can make sure that that money actually reaches its greatest potential? Sir Elton John. I concur with you totally. What that money has to go toward is training people to build an infrastructure so that people can get the drugs they need in remote parts of countries, and it needs to run on a government level. But I know what you are saying. I do not know how you do that, because I am just a singer. This is something that the politicians have to make sure that when the money goes to governments, the money is spent in the right way. I have said before that we are a very small AIDS organization; we can control where everything goes, and we do. We know where every penny goes. But when you get to these vast sums of money that we are talking about there today, you are going to run into those kinds of problems, and I do not personally know myself how you solve them, but I do concur with you that that is a major problem. Sir Elton John's statement is relevant to the issue of whether to take massive amounts of money and give it to this global bureaucracy. The General Accounting Office recently completed an exhaustive study of the global fund. I strongly recommend that my colleagues read this report. Here are some of the findings. The Secretariat's office has 63 staff members who have an average salary of $174,603. This is the average. Compared to recipient countries' average annual salaries, or even to the U.S.'s average annual salary, no country even comes close. The average annual salary of the 73 recipient countries where such figures are known is $3,020, over $171,000 less than the average global fund salary. Even the average U.S. citizen only makes $36,300 a year. A job with the global fund would give a U.S. worker a potential $138,000 payraise. Americans work hard to pay their taxes. In times of economic trouble, they have to work even harder. We have a fiduciary duty to the taxpayers. We owe it to them to make sure these precious resource are used as wisely as possible, especially when we are deciding how to address a deadly epidemic. Disease specialists within the United Nations estimate that it would cost $1,400 to $4,200 a year per patient to treat HIV/AIDS effectively in sub-Saharan Africa with antiretroviral drugs. That means that by simply eliminating one average Secretariat employee's wages, between 42 and 125 AIDS patients could be helped to lead better lives. I want these funds in the hands of someone I can trust. Do I have concerns about giving money to the Federal bureaucracy? Of course. But this is a judgment call. Who do you trust most with these dollars, the global fund, or President Bush? I trust President Bush. I trust the United States of America. Our of $862 million in funds received, the global fund has only distributed $20 million to actual AIDS prevention grants. Meanwhile, they are spending exorbitant amounts on salary and bureaucracy. President Bush has a proven record. He gets results. I cannot say the same for the global fund. The Democratic Leader says he will offer an amendment to ``guarantee a robust American commitment to the Global Fund to fight AIDS.'' This statement implies three things-- 1. That America's current commitment to the global fund is not robust. Not true. 2. That the bill we are considering does not provide a robust commitment. Not true. 3. By voting for this amendment,you will guarantee a commitment to the global fund that is more robust than you would by voting against it. Not true. Let me take these one at a time. First, Is America's current commitment to the global fund robust? Absolutely. To date, we have contributed a total of $300 million out of a total $862 million, 32 percent. Our commitment next year is $350 million out of $832 million. The next highest nation is Italy at $100 million. Does the bill we are considering represent a robust commitment to the global fund? I submit that $1 billion is an overly robust commitment. The President stated that $200 million for the global fund is what is needed next year. This bill authorizes $1 billion. This bill is five times what the President requested. The bill is more than every nation's pledges combined. Last year, the total was $832 million. This bill provides $1 billion. I guess too much is never enough for the other side. Third, the majority leader is implying that by voting for this amendment, you will guarantee a commitment to the global fund that is more robust than you would by voting against it. The House is not going to spend more than $1 billion on the global fund. So you can vote to increase the funding, but that will just send the bill to conference where the funding will be reduced to the House amount, or preferably, lower. Here is the real point. The President has indicated his determination in having Congress send him a final bill before he departs for the June 1-3 G8 Summit in Evian, France. At the G8 Summit, the President intends to use this bill as a catalyst and leverage in requesting that the world's leading powers make combating global HIV/AIDS a significant element in their foreign assistance programs. If this amendment is adopted, the President will not have it for the G8 summit. He will not be able to use our $1 billion commitment to leverage other nations to make similarly generous commitments. The other G8 countries contributions are paltry compared to ours. The next highest country is Italy who contributed $100 million. The rest are half that amount. The Gates Foundation contributes more to the global fund than most G8 countries. If my colleagues want to maximize the global contribution to the global fund, they should vote against this amendment so we can get this bill signed into law and President Bush can have the strongest possible hand at this summit. In conclusion, there is a lot in this bill I do not like. There are provisions I would change. I think there is way too much money in this bill for the global fund. I have amendments I would like to offer. Some are pretty important. Some would be adopted overwhelmingly. But if it means we avoid a lengthy conference and allow the President to make the strongest possible case at the summit in June, I am willing to withhold. There will be other chances to improve this bill. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

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 when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 9:30 a.m., Thursday, May 8. I further ask consent 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 proceed to executive session and there then be 2 minutes of debate equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee prior to a vote on the adoption of the resolution of ratification to the NATO expansion treaty, as provided under the previous order. I further ask consent that following the vote, and notwithstanding rule XXII, the Senate then return to legislative session and resume the consideration of S. 14, the energy bill; provided further that at 12:15 p.m., on Thursday, the Senate proceed to the vote on invoking cloture on the nomination of Miguel Estrada; further, if cloture is not invoked, the Senate then proceed to the vote on invoking cloture on the nomination of Priscilla Owen. I further ask unanimous consent that if cloture is not invoked on the Owen nomination, then Senator DeWine be recognized in morning business to speak for up to 15 minutes, to be followed by Senator Daschle or his designee for up to 15 minutes in morning business. I further ask consent that following those statements, the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. 113, the FISA legislation, as under the order.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the death of United States District Judge Judge Richard W. Vollmer, Jr. was a great loss to our country, the American legal system, his friends, and especially his wonderful family. Judge Vollmer was born March 7, 1926, in St. Louis, MO, and moved to Mobile, AL, in 1941 where he attended McGill Institute. After graduation he enrolled in the U.S. Navy and served until 1946 in the South Pacific. He returned to Mobile where he graduated from Springhill College in 1949. He began attending the University of Alabama School of Law from 1950-52 aboard the aircraft carrier USS Saipan. He returned to the University of Alabama School of Law where he served as a member of the Board of Editors of the Alabama Law Review and graduated in 1953. He married Marilyn Jean Stikes in 1949 and they have five children and nine grandchildren. Two of his sons, Rick and Jim, are following in their father's footsteps as practicing lawyers in the Mobile area. After law school, Judge Vollmer worked several years for State Farm Insurance Company prior to joining the law firm of Pillans, Reams, Tappan, Wood and Roberts in 1956. He engaged in an active practice in State and Federal courts where he won the respect of his fellow lawyers and jurists before whom he appeared. He was a charter member of the American Board of Trial Advocates, serving as president of the Alabama Chapter in 1984-85, and was serving as president of the Mobile Bar Association at the time of his appointment to the Federal bench. In 1990, President George H.W. Bush nominated him to the district bench for the Southern District of Alabama, where he began his career on June 18, 1990, taking senior status on December 31, 2000. He had a strong work ethic and he demanded the same of the lawyers who appeared before him. He never failed to offer his assistance with a congested court docket during times when the Southern District of Alabama did not have its full complement of active judges. Even upon taking senior status, and with failing health, he was always available if the workload demanded it. Judge Vollmer was not just somebody who worked in the courthouse. Although he loved the law, he knew the love of family came before work, and was deeply concerned about the personal well-being of all the courthouse family with whom he worked, often going out of his way to inquire into their well-being. As U.S. District Judge William Steele has noted, he had a bright and warm presence with a quick smile and laugh. His positive spirit has made the U.S. Courthouse in Mobile a wonderful place to work. Widely esteemed as a jurist, respected by all who appeared before him, he brought to the bench a sincere quality of humility, love of the law, patience, personal integrity and genuine faith. As was said in the opening prayer at his investiture ceremony, ``Justice and justice alone shall be your aim.'' It can now be said with certitude that Judge Vollmer spent his career dispensing justice fairly and impartially. I had the honor of practicing before Judge Vollmer and to get a direct view of his noble character and humanity. He cared deeply for the unfortunate, was pained to see young people be sentenced to long jail terms though he did his duty. In addition, he was a generous affirmer and true mentor for many. I vividly remember him calling me into his office and encouraging me to consider a race for attorney general of Alabama. I knew his judgment and insight was good and that he had a valuable perspective. That advice meant a great deal to me. I respected his judgment and knew his comments were given with my interests in mind. Such human touches have meant much to many others. Judge Vollmer served in an exceptional court. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama has a great record of integrity, industry, legal skill and collegiality. He received an illustrious tradition and passed it on even brighter. Judge Vollmer died at his home in Mobile on March 20, 2003. He leaves a legacy of always seeking to do what is just and fair and right.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, since the original North Atlantic Treaty was signed in Washington in April 1949, the organization has expanded far beyond its original 12 members. The amendment to this treaty that I was proud to co-sponsor with my distinguished colleagues Senators Warner, Levin, and Roberts acknowledges that we have had recent difficulty with the consensus decision making methodology currently in force within NATO. Four more European nations later acceded to the Treaty between 1952 and 1982. In 1999, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland were welcomed and possibly tomorrow we will add Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia bringing the number to 26 members. The following description of this consensus requirement is taken from the NATO web site, and it says: In making their joint decision-making process dependent on consensus and common consent, the members of the Alliance safeguard the role of each country's individual experience and outlook while at the same time availing themselves of the machinery and procedures which allow them jointly to act rapidly and decisively if circumstances require them to do so. It stands to reason that with the addition of more members, that consensus will be increasingly difficult to achieve. Our amendment simply asks that the President do two things: to examine the consensus requirement so that we ensure that we preserve our sovereign right to act in our own national interest; and, examine a procedure by which we can take action against a member who fails to comply with the shared values upon which NATO was founded. Not everyone agrees with this request to have NATO address these two issues. I disagree. The strength of the NATO Alliance is based upon adaptiveness. Our recent experience with the UN, NATO and other formations clearly shows we must address the changes we perceive in alliances.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. 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, on behalf of the majority leader, and for the information of all Senators, tomorrow morning the Senate will immediately vote on the resolution of ratification to the NATO expansion treaty. Senators are asked to be in their seats for this historic vote. Following that vote, the Senate will resume consideration of the energy bill. At 12:15 tomorrow, the Senate will return to executive session for the votes on invoking cloture on the Estrada and Owen nominations. In addition, tomorrow afternoon, the Senate will consider and complete action on the FISA bill. Also, as previously announced, tomorrow the Senate will consider the nomination of John Roberts to be a circuit court judge for the DC Circuit. Therefore, Members should anticipate rollcall votes throughout the afternoon, with the first vote of the day occurring at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask for its second reading and object to my own request.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I understand that S. 1019 introduced today is at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask for its second reading and object to my own request.