Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss our Nation's need to adopt a balanced budget amendment and to bring the Senate's attention to the Alabama Legislature's recent call for Congress to send such an amendment to the States for ratification. This is a thoughtful and well-reasoned resolution. Many other States have made similar resolutions. Our Nation is on the precipice of the most predictable fiscal disaster in our history and Congress has failed to act to remove the danger. U.S. gross Federal debt is now over $16.3 trillion; U.S. debt per person is over $53,000, higher than that of Greece; and for the fourth straight year, our Nation's deficit will exceed $1 trillion. The Federal Government cannot continue spending more than it takes in, and the people of Alabama clearly know that. The American people understand the necessity of living within one's means and balancing budgets. We see that as American families across the Nation are working to pay off their debt. In fact, American families have improved their balance sheets by reducing their outstanding credit card debt by 17 percent since 2008, over $150 billion. The people expect no less of their State governments. Forty- three of the 50 States, including my home State of Alabama, have balanced budget requirements. Unfortunately, as States and families across the Nation cut spending and balance budgets, the Federal Government continues to spend more and has increased its debt by more than $4 trillion since 2008. This spending course will at some point wreck our economy, just as it has wrecked that of Greece, Spain, and Italy. Now, more than ever, it is crucial that Congress adopt a balanced budget amendment and send it to the States for ratification. The surging debt crisis we face is so significant that we must have a balanced budget constitutional amendment. It has come close to passing before. When Senators and Congressmen have no alternative but to live within their means, like so many of our States, they will figure out a way to do it. But if Congress is not required by the Constitution to budget responsibly, then history has shown that Congress will not act responsibly. The people of Alabama understand these issues and the importance of balancing the budget. That is why the Alabama State Legislature has passed a resolution urging Congress to send a balanced budget amendment to the States for ratification. The people of Alabama are well aware of the dangers we face. Introduced by Senator Arthur Orr of Decatur, AL, with several of his colleagues in the legislature, this resolution acknowledges that ``the budget deficits of the United States of America are unsustainable and constitute substantial threat to the United States government.'' The resolution calls for Congress to pass a balanced budget amendment, and if the Congress fails to do so, then for Congress to call a constitutional convention to propose such an amendment. I applaud Senator Orr and his colleagues, Senators Scofield, Sanford, Holtzclaw, Williams, McGill, and Beason, for bringing attention to this issue and introducing this resolution. We will only see more grassroots movements like this to pass a balanced budget amendment if Washington continues to fail to meet the challenges of our time. It is not just my constituents in Alabama who are upset. Recent polling has shown that this Congress has one of the lowest approval ratings in history. The American people are becoming disillusioned and losing faith in their elected government as we fail to address the crises of our day. Indeed, we are not even working openly to deal with this great challenge. It is sad that Congress cannot even perform its basic business, as seen in the failure of the Senate to pass one regular appropriations bill this year or a budget in nearly 4 years. The Senate is supposed to be the world's great deliberative body. Unfortunately, the leader of this body and his majority party will not even propose a budget to the American people. When I came to the Senate in 1997, I voted for a balanced budget amendment that fell one vote short of the 67 it required for adoption. How much better off would we have been today, how much less debt would we have placed on our children and grandchildren had that amendment been passed? Last year, Republicans put forward a plan to cut, cap, and balance our Nation's budget which would have solved all our fiscal problems. But the Democrat majority would not let it pass. I applaud the members of the Alabama legislature for adopting and Governor Robert Bentley for signing this resolution. House Speaker Mike Hubbard and Senate Pro Tempore Del Marsh and their members have spoken clearly. This resolution exhibits leadership and wisdom not found here in Washington, DC. It is time we listen to the States and to our constituents and adopt a balanced budget amendment to the United States Constitution. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record this resolution adopted by the Alabama Legislature and signed by Governor Robert Bentley urging the United States Congress to submit a balanced budget amendment to the States or to call a convention to propose such an amendment to the United States Constitution.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that CDR Jeff Bennett be allowed permission to occupy the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Navy CDR Jeffrey A. Bennett II. Commander Bennett served as a military fellow in my office since December of last year. He brought to public service the same passion and honor he brought to military service. Commander Bennett is a 1992 US Naval Academy graduate who was nominated for the academy by the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Carl Levin, several years ago. He came to my office after a tour serving as captain of the USS Stockdale, an Arleigh Burke class guided missile destroyer. I know he was an excellent captain, indeed, I have personally observed Commander Bennett's abilities. I am very impressed. He has a good strategic grasp of America's challenges, while also mastering the details necessary to fully grasp military budget and financial issues, among other matters that we deal with. His command of defense authorization and appropriations legislation from both the House of Representatives and the Senate has been exceptional. He consistently puts in late nights and long weekends studying the details of legislation affecting programs that are vital to our national defense and the State of Alabama. More importantly, Jeff possesses excellent judgment. I have valued his judgment and insight on global issues as well as the more rigorous and detailed issues that come up in the Senate. I can say without hesitation, he has fulfilled the high reputation that the Navy Fellowship Program has earned in every way. He has been a tremendous resource to my office. He is a man of integrity, who puts his country first. He is committed to serving America in whatever role he is given. All the while, he carries out his duties with exceptional grace, collegiality, and positive spirit. I am exceedingly impressed with Jeff, both as a person, an officer, and a staff member. His time in my office has gone too quickly. We will miss the force of his fine mind, his hard work, and his positive approach to all challenges. The Navy most surely has an unusually talented and valuable officer in Commander Bennett. Commander Bennett has served my office with honor and distinction, truly personifying the qualities of a U.S. naval officer. I would be remiss if I did not thank his wonderful wife Heather and his children Grace and Jay. As is the case with all our military families, we know that Commander Bennett's service is one supported and shared by the whole family. He is, indeed, a great family man. I look forward to following his bright career and continuing service to God and country. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, President Obama made a statement within the last hour or so. He called on Congress to act to avoid the fiscal cliff. We know last night the House was unable to bring forward a bill that would deal with the fiscal cliff. Previously, they passed a bill that would have solved that problem and put us on the right path, but they did not pass another bill last night. The Senate has not acted. There has been a lot of criticism of the House, that the House failed to pass legislation last night. However, the Senate has passed no legislation. The President made a little speech this afternoon, and I take it as a serious statement. But previously he made a speech on his budget plan. It sounded good. It had a lot of things in it that sounded good. I believe Congressman Ryan, the budget chairman in the House, sent it to the Congressional Budget Office and asked that they score it. A score means they analyze how much taxes are going to be raised--exactly how much--how much spending is going to be increased or reduced, and then they lay out an analysis, called a score, of what that proposal actually will do. That is what how we are supposed to consider budgets here. So they sent the President's previous speech over to the Congressional Budget Office. The Congressional Budget Office said: You cannot score a speech. Sorry. Well, you cannot score a speech. We are about to come back in next week. Maybe they will try to finish Thursday, maybe go into Friday. But we do not need to have a serious matter involving more than $1 trillion of the U.S. taxpayer's money dropped on the Senate next Thursday without us being able to read it and analyze it and having it scored. We can't be expected to rubberstamp it like the old Soviet Politburo, the Duma, where leaders would put out the word to the members they would all vote just like that, 445 to 5 or something like that. And they called themselves a democracy. We do not need that in the Senate. We, each Senator, represent individual Americans, millions of them. They expect us to know what we are voting on. Secret meetings and secret talks between just the Speaker and the President is not a good process. I do not know what is going on in these talks. I am the ranking member of the Budget Committee. I am just one Member of Congress who has a role in this process. Many others have a lot bigger role than I have, but none of us know what is going on in these secret meetings. But each Senator has an equal vote. Each Senator has an equal responsibility to represent their constituents. So I am uneasy about this process. So I will just say this: Nobody should criticize the House of Representatives for not producing legislation last night until they have passed their own proposal. The Senate has had just as much time as the House to lay out a plan. Months ago the House laid out a 10-year budget plan that would put America on a sound financial course. Everybody can have different views on it, but it is a comprehensive plan that would start reducing our deficits and put us on a good long- term course. It has been complimented by people on both sides of the aisle. Meanwhile, the Senate has produced nothing. We have gone 3 years without a budget. We have not had a serious and broad debate about the financial challenges of America. Senator Conrad had a number of very important hearings with witnesses 2 years ago in the Budget Committee. We talked about the issues. No bill was brought forth in committee that was actually marked up. That was a decision made by the Democratic leadership. They decided not to bring forth a budget. It was calculated. They never brought one forward despite the fact the law requires one. The United States Code requires a budget be brought up by April 1. They decided not to do so and would take the criticism from people like me. They took their lumps and never brought a budget forward. Now for 3 years, they never produced a concurrent budget, but they have had great fun attacking Congressman Ryan in the House, who passed a budget, a comprehensive, historic budget that would change the debt course of America--never having produced anything. But we have had a number of speeches, a lot of speeches, a lot of outlines, a lot of proposals and schemes and plans, difficult to score, and never finally reaching fruition so that they could actually be considered by this body. So I guess what I would conclude with is to say I am glad the President discussed the budget problem in a little speech this afternoon. He has an entire Treasury Department. He has a Director at the Office and Management and Budget overseeing hundreds of budget experts. They have more than enough capability to produce detailed financial plans and make these plans public. He could make his detailed plan public today. Presumably, he would not have made a speech today if someone in the OMB or the White House or the Treasury Department had not approved the outline of his plan. At the very least, that outline ought to be placed in print for everyone to see. Senator Reid should bring it up on the floor. It should be sent to the Congressional Budget Office to be scored. It should be analyzed. They should do that long before the Senate meets next Thursday. It should have been done a month ago. I do find it odd--think about this--that the President has not laid out a plan since the election over a month ago. He won the election. He said certain things he wants to see in a plan, higher taxes and more spending. Indeed, he had some spending cuts. He said: My plan cuts spending. But he has failed to note and acknowledge that the plan, as reportedly laid out by Secretary of Treasury Geithner in closed meetings, had far more spending increases than spending cuts. So the President's proposal as laid out by Secretary Geithner, on net, increases spending. It increases spending, it does not reduce spending. It has some reductions of spending in it, but spending increases overwhelm the spending reductions. So it is not right, is it, for the President of the United States to say: I have a plan to cut spending. He has been meeting in secret with Boehner, so we have to base this on reports, but this is what it appears to do. I believe Senator Reid would serve the President well if he called him up and said: Let's get that fiscal cliff proposal over here and have your team meet with my staff, and we will publish it on Saturday. Congress can begin to look at it, and maybe we can beat this January 1 deadline and not go over the cliff. That would be my suggestion as to how we should proceed, and every Senator should have as much time as possible to study it. It should be made available to the House because they would ultimately also be called on to vote on it. Everyone should see it as soon as possible. That is the way government should be run. I have written an op-ed, printed in the Wall Street Journal and elsewhere, that says America would really be better off had we used the legitimate committee process of the Senate to address this problem. The President can advocate for his views, the Republicans can advocate for their views, and the Democratic Senators can advocate for their views. We would actually have votes, and some of them would be tough votes, but we can begin to see where we stand, where the votes are. If somebody wants to raise taxes and it gets voted down and somebody wants to cut taxes and it gets voted down--those votes happen over a period of time, and the numbers are all out there for everyone to see. At that point, it is much easier to tell your constituents: I have truly fought for the things I believe. Now, I think it is best for America that we reach a compromise. That would be better than this process by which the whole Senate sits while the Speaker of the House and the President of the United States meet to develop a plan that we are presumably expected to, like the old Communist Duma, ratify at the eleventh hour without time to actually study it, with no real input. That is how this government, this Senate, was meant to work. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would like to associate myself with the remarks of Senator Cornyn and Senator Hatch. Both of them have spoken eloquently and correctly about the absolutely unique and exceptional contributions Jon Kyl has made to America and to the U.S. Senate. There is no Senator I have admired more, no Senator I look to more to decide how to cast my vote, and I mean that absolutely as a fact. The words they have used I am not so eloquent as to say, but they do not overstate the value of my friend Jon Kyl. His statement that we just heard is a comprehensive analysis, overview of the current situation of this great Republic of which we are a part. He meant every word of it. One of the most remarkable things about it is that on every vote, every time an issue came up, those are the values he sought to advance. And sometimes you have to take a step back to gain two steps forward, but Senator Kyl always had a vision for what America should be. I believe it is the correct vision that we have inherited from our ancestors that has made this country so productive and so valuable. Everything he has done, every effort he has made has been to advance those good values--a great America, a decent America. And he has understood it. When he talks about free enterprise, he explains why that is preferable to other forms of distribution of wealth. Would you rather have politicians distribute the wealth in this country? He can articulate that in a way that emphasizes the moral power of it, the need to have peace in the world, but how do you have it? Do you get peace through weakness or do you have peace through strength? And are the nuclear issues necessary to our posture as a strong nation in the world that is resistant and deters attack? Yes, they are. He understands those issues. I serve on the Armed Services Committee. Jon does not, but he knows more about that issue than I do. And I have found his leadership so valuable because it is a thankless task. People do not want to talk about it, but he has talked about it. He knows it is important, even though no one would give him credit politically for being engaged in those issues. But it is important for America, and he is willing to commit himself to that. I will join with Senator Hatch and Senator Cornyn in my admiration for Jon's service on the Judiciary Committee. That is an important committee, and he has been a rock-solid member of it. Even though he has been in the leadership, so therefore he did not chair the committee--which he would have been one of the great chairmen we would have ever had of that committee--but he has moved the committee and brought forth issues and advocated principles that are consistent with the great American rule of law. Today we just got word that Robert Bork died. He had a classical view of how the Constitution should be interpreted and one I basically share for the most part. I think Jon has. He understands those issues. He is able to communicate the great richness of the American heritage of law to the common people in language people can understand, but he is also capable of reading the most complex legal document and being able to spot problems with it and advocate changes in law that are sophisticated in the most technical details. I guess I would have to say Senator Hatch is correct. This Senate, in my view, has never had a better lawyer than Jon Kyl. He has argued cases before the Supreme Court in his private practice days. Not many have been a part of that. So whether we are talking about the crime victims advocacy efforts he has made over a long period of time here, recognizing that the law should be in existence to advance and protect innocent people against the wrongdoers, and that we ought not to become so obsessed with defendants' rights that we do not remember the victims who deserve vindication and remuneration for the crimes that have been put upon them. There are other things I could say and other issues we have joined in, that we have fought on. On more than one occasion, Jon has felt something was important. Sometimes those issues were not very popular, but he believed they were important and would rally people. I have joined with him. We have had some good battles. We have won a few, frankly, several I never thought we were going to win. But somehow, with his legislative skill, his determination, his feisty spirit, we stayed in there and bad things did not occur, at least from my perspective, that may have occurred otherwise. It is a great pleasure to have served with Jon. I consider him--I know the grammar is not perfect--our most invaluable Senator. So we are going to be losing someone of great national importance. I know he will be active. He has got a fabulous wife, Caryll. They have been partners for so many years. I enjoy watching them and how they interact as a family. He has the values that reflect the highest qualities of American life. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I wish to express my sadness over the passing of Senator Dan Inouye. Dan Inouye came to this government, started his government service, at least, 60 years ago in the territorial legislature of Hawaii. He came to Congress when Hawaii became a State in 1959, to the Senate in 1963, and was second only, I guess, in service to Robert Byrd. He was a serious man, a solid man, a patriot, and one who always had a good spirit about how he conducted his affairs and how he related to other Members of the Senate, to his constituents, and to the American people. Dan had served in the most violent combat and was grievously wounded himself. He was part of the 442d Regimental Combat Team, a 4,000-man unit that served in brutal combat. They were replaced 3\1/2\ times in personnel to maintain their strength, with 14,000 having served in that combat team during the brutal combat in Italy. There were 9,500 who received Purple Hearts and 21 Medal of Honors, including Senator Inouye's Medal of Honor. It was a remarkable time and a remarkable commitment Dan Inouye demonstrated to the country he loved. I know we will talk about his record, and I may do that later myself, but I want to say what I think about Dan Inouye at his core. He shared with us a few weeks ago at the prayer breakfast--and we don't quote what people say at that meeting--his feelings about war and his participation in it. It was one of the most moving presentations I think any of us had heard, and it was so well received by the people there. The truth is, Senator Inouye did not like war. He hated war. He knew the destructive power of war and how people suffered as a result of it, and he voted against a number of resolutions that would commit the United States to military action. But at the same time, there was no doubt, based on his ranking and chairmanship of the Subcommittee on Defense of the Appropriations Committee over a period of years--decades--he was the person who always, at bottom, could be counted on to ensure this Nation was well defended; that we did not make mistakes. He and Senator Ted Stevens had a unique relationship. When something developed that was important for the Defense Department, and it involved a danger to our government or could do damage to the Department or they seriously needed something--and oftentimes in this government, we can't respond and we don't respond effectively--Dan Inouye and Ted Stevens would go in and it would be fixed. They understood that peace through strength was the best way to avoid war, and they felt a sense of great responsibility to ensure the Defense Department was not damaged on their watch. Their experience and their judgment was such they could tell the difference between whines and complaints and real danger to America's defense capability. I would say that Dan Inouye has established a record that places him among the finest Senators ever to serve here, one of the finest human beings to serve here, and I want to say, as a member of the Armed Services Committee, how much I appreciated his particular commitment to ensuring that America's defense capability remains second to none and his willingness to take the steps necessary to maintain our defense at the level we would want it to be. Mr. President, I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I first wish to congratulate my friend, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy, who has been honored to receive one of the Senate's highest honors, President pro tempore of the Senate. I congratulate him and join with him in expressing my sadness over the passing of Senator Dan Inouye.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, something special happened earlier today. An important principle is being established in the Senate, and that principle is that we will adhere to the budget agreement we made with the American people 16 months ago. In other words, we agreed, in at least certain accounts, to have a limit on spending. Spending will still increase every year over 10 years, but not as much as it would have increased. We agreed that we would abide by the limit and we would not spend more than that. We have had four consecutive bills brought to the floor of this Senate--cavalierly, I would suggest--directly in violation of the spending limits we agreed to just a little over a year ago. As a result, I or some other Member of the Senate made a budget point of order. That budget point of order said that the legislation before us violates the budget limits, it spends too much, and we object. Each time, our Democratic leadership moved to waive the budget point of order. To forget the budget. To spend above the budget. To not worry about the budget. Just spend the money because this is a good bill, they said. It has good proposals, and anybody who opposes it is against these good proposals. So we now have had four votes and for all four of those votes, the Senate has said: No, we are not going to waive the budget. We are going to live within the agreement of spending we reached just last year. There is no reason these bills couldn't have been brought in within the budget. There has been no reason they shouldn't be within the budget. Some were not over the budget spending by much, but we have to adhere to that principle. I have been very proud that Members of this Senate in sufficient numbers have said: No, we are going to honor the promise we made to the American people, and we are going to do that, and we are not going to bust the budget. So I think it is sending a message, and the message needs to be received. Initially, the spin in this body has been, Oh, Senator Sessions and his objectors don't want any good legislation to pass. They are just using the Budget Act to block it. But I think we are changing that now, and I think the American people are going to see what has happened. We have had seven votes on the budget. The last four have been successful in enforcing the budget. I think the American people are going to start asking, why are you, Senator, voting to waive the budget every single time? Didn't you agree to certain spending limits? Every time a bill came up, why did you vote to spend more than you agreed to spend, spend more than you told us you were going to spend? I think that is the message that ought to be coming out of here. I will go a little further. If somebody has to have legislation passed, don't blame the people who raised the budget point of order; blame yourself if you don't bring it to the floor in a way that does not violate the budget. That is important. I think that is being established now, and that is what I think we should expect of anyone who wants to move legislation in the U.S. Senate. If a Senator wants to get the vote and get the legislation passed, be sure they comply with the agreement we made. What agreement was that? Sixteen months ago, in August, the debt limit had been reached, and it was put off and delayed, and we got to the very last minute, and they reached this secret agreement--not publicly as it should have been, but we reached an agreement, and the agreement included at least some limits on spending. I didn't like the way it was done, but it did propose certain limits. It exempted 98 percent of Medicare spending from being cut. It exempted the food stamp program. Medicaid was totally exempted from any cuts. But many parts of the budget were controlled, had their spending levels controlled by the budget. As a result, the agreement was passed and the debt ceiling--the limit on the amount of money that can be borrowed by the U.S. Government--was raised by $2.1 trillion. We are now borrowing about 40 cents of every dollar we spend, and the Congress can limit, as the Constitution provides, how much the U.S. Government can borrow. We had just about reached that limit. Spending was going to have to drop 40 percent--right across the board, perhaps, unless the debt limit was raised. So we raised it so we could continue to borrow. But the promise was that over 10 years, the level of spending would be reduced by the same amount that we raised the debt limit. So we raised the debt limit by $2.1 trillion, and spending was promised to be reduced over the next 10 years by $2.1 trillion. Now we have already spent that $2.1 trillion. I hate to tell my colleagues but by January and February, this body is going to be right back here dealing with the question of hitting the debt limit again. This year, it looks as though we will have another deficit well over $1 trillion. In fact, the first 2 months of this calendar year were extraordinarily bad--almost $300 billion in debt in the first 2 months. If we continued at this rate, the deficit would be the largest ever in the history of the Republic. So something needs to be done about that. We made an agreement the last time we increased the debt limit. For us to go back on that, to not follow the budget agreement before the ink is dry on it--before barely a year is gone--to continue bringing up bills that violate that agreement, then the American people would have a right to have no confidence in us and to wonder what is going on: You promised us you were going to reduce the growth of spending, and as soon as the shoe starts getting a little tight or the belt starts squeezing, you cut and run, Senators. So far, at least in recent weeks, we have been doing rather well on this path of saying we will adhere to the budget agreement. I think on each one of the votes, we have had some Democratic support, but it is mostly Republicans that have held to the budget. Where are we today? We are talking about the fiscal cliff. The President campaigned around this country, and he said: I have a balanced plan, and that balanced plan is going to have so much in spending cuts and so much in tax increases, and it needs to be balanced. You Republicans have to have more tax increases. Our country needs to get itself on a sound financial path. And I have a deficit reduction plan. He ran a television advertisement in the last months of his campaign that said: I have a plan to pay down the debt. Earlier this year, his budget director came before the committee and would not disavow the claim that the President has a plan to pay down the debt. I would just say that is one of the greatest financial misrepresentations ever, that the President of the United States would tell the American people: Don't worry, elect me, I have a plan to pay down the debt. He has no such plan--nothing close to it. Under the score of the Congressional Budget Office, over the next 10 years, we will add $9 trillion in debt to the deficit of the United States. That is almost $1 trillion a year for 10 years in additional debt. It goes down some in the midyears, but in years 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, the deficits go up every year. That is not what I thought the President was talking about or, I think, the American people thought he was talking about when he said: I want a plan that will pay down the debt. I am going to raise taxes and we are going to pay down the debt and we will have spending cuts also. What is it we now know about his plan? This is the essence of it, as shown on this chart I have in the Chamber. This chart is an outline of the President's deficit reduction plan. This is what the President is proposing to do. He started off a few weeks ago at $1.6 trillion in new taxes. Now he is talking about $1.4 trillion, I understand. That is the latest iteration of the tax increases: $1,400 billion in tax increases. Where will that money go? Will it change the debt course of America? Will it put us on a sound path? Can we go home at night and say: Wow. I am glad they finally got their act together. Let's examine what they are proposing. They are proposing to spend above the BCA, Budget Control Act, limits I just talked about that we agreed to only 16 months ago. Those limits include the sequestration of $1.2 trillion in spending. Those limits are in law. The law would have to be changed to avoid these cuts. The President proposes to change the law and to eliminate $1,200 billion of those cuts--$1.2 trillion off the table--that is 60 percent of the cuts that were agreed to when we raised the debt ceiling by $2.1 trillion. It would wipe out 60 percent of it just like that. That is new spending above the law in effect today, busting the limits I just mentioned. Busting the limits that we have been successfully enforcing. In addition to that, he has no funds to pay for the doc fix, also known as the sustainable growth rate for doctor payments. If we do not fix the sustainable growth rate, physicians will have a 25 percent or so cut in their reimbursement rates for doing Medicare work. For many of them, it is half the work they do. Such a reduction could not be tolerated, so it has to be fixed and the President knows that. It costs about $400 billion to fix it but the President provides no money for that. That cost must be added to the spending in his plan. The Social Security contribution holiday, or payroll holiday, is another is more spending he doesn't include, that has to be accounted for. If we do not pay as much into Social Security as we would otherwise, then the U.S. Treasury has to borrow that money and put it into the Social Security trust fund. People get more money in their paycheck but less money goes into Social Security. That is another $110 billion in spending in the President's plan. The Administration wants to spend $50 billion more on transportation and $30 billion more on an unemployment insurance extension. Overall that totals $1,790 billion in new spending in the President's plan. Do they have any reductions in spending? Yes. They are talking about $400 billion in mandatory spending reductions. Most of that, apparently, will be reducing--maybe $300 billion of it--payments to providers in Medicare and Medicaid--providers: that is your doctor and your hospital--cut them some more. They were already cut deeply when the President's health care law passed. Whether that will ever stick, I have my doubts. But let's assume it does stick. That would mean the President's plan results in $1,390 billion in higher spending--$1.39 trillion. Remember he wants new higher taxes of $1,400 billion. Recall, under the current path, under the current spending limits in the Budget Control Act, we are increasing the debt by $9 trillion over the next ten years. Under the President's plan, whereby he raises taxes $1.4 trillion and raises spending $1.39 trillion, we would add to the debt $8.99 trillion. What does it mean? It means we are going to have a major tax increase and virtually the same amount of new spending--no net cut in spending but a major new increase in spending of $1.39 trillion. That is a fact, and it is a very troubling fact. I would add one more thing. I see my colleague is here. I believe the President of the United States should not lull the American people into believing that he has a plan that is going to pay down our debt or get us on a sound financial course. He has two goals, it seems to me: raise taxes and raise spending. That is exactly what this plan does. It has no reform of Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid or food stamps--the largest and fastest growing entitlement programs we have--no plans to fix any of that. He refuses to talk about that, saying anybody who talks about that just does not like old people and does not care about America. We need some leadership. We need some honesty. We need a President of the United States who will look the American people in the eye and explain to them we are living beyond our means. We do not have the money to continue to borrow 40 cents of every $1 we spend. We cannot continue on this path, as expert after expert has warned us. I will just say, I am proud that, again, today this Senate--at least a good, solid minority--stood firm--and said: No, we are not going to waive the budget. We are going to stand by the limits on spending that were part of the Budget Control Act. But I am not pleased how this whole process is going right now with Speaker Boehner and the President. It looks like it is not likely to lead to any changes in our debt course. Even after raising taxes $1.4 trillion, if the President had his way, we will still be on basically the same debt course. How can we allow this opportunity to get away from us? We are going to raise taxes big time yet not use any of it, in effect, to pay down debt. The question is, will we reduce the annual deficits that will average almost $1 trillion a year for the next 10 years and get worse in the outer years? We have to deal with that. There is no escape from that. There is no way we can get around it. Any mature person who loves this country knows we have to confront it. It cannot just be done by raising taxes. We are going to have to reduce spending in this country. Cutting spending is not going to hammer the economy. We do not have to throw people in the streets, but we need a sustained effort to reduce the growth in spending in this country. If we just do that, we would surprise ourselves that we could get on a sound course before too many years. I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the way we arrived at this point is the Congressional Budget Office, our chosen authority on budget matters, has concluded that the legislation violates the budget, and they submitted analysis to that effect that has been provided to the chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Conrad, an honorable chairman of the committee. He and his staff have examined it, and they concluded that it does. They have advised the Parliamentarian. Senator Toomey has now raised the budget point of order, and based on the report from the chairman of the Budget Committee, the Parliamentarian will rule that this legislation spends more than we agreed to spend under the Budget Control Act limitations and will therefore sustain it. The people who are promoting the legislation will seek to waive the budget, ignore the fact that it violates our spending limits, and pass the bill anyway. I think that is bad. We have had a series of these votes. It is time for the people who advance legislation in the body to be careful, and when they submit legislation that it stays within the budget. When they block this legislation, it violates it. In August a year ago, Congress agreed to certain spending limitations. It was not enough in my view, but there were some noticeable limitations. We would still spend more every year but limit the growth. Regardless, it was limited. There was a limit on how much we could spend. Whether it is up or down, it limited it, and this would be in violation of it. I wish we could get to a point of where the legislation was fixed before it got to the floor and was in compliance with the budget. I say to my colleagues, as ranking Republican on the Budget Committee, we can get the score. CBO will give us the score. There is plenty of opportunity to have this information before the vote and before the bill comes before the floor. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, that was very good debate. I would share the concern of Senator Johanns. I remember we backed off this dangerous trend of changing the rules when we fixed the filibuster politically in this political institution. We need to figure out a way to solve this problem. I would say, without any doubt in my own mind, the real reason we have had to filibuster is because the majority leader, to a degree unprecedented in history, is controlling and blocking the ability of the minority party to even have amendments on bills. That goes against the great heritage of the Senate and cannot be accepted. That is why we are having this problem. I wanted to share a few thoughts this morning about the food stamp program and some of the developments that have been going on. America is a generous and compassionate Nation. We do not want and will not have people hungry in our country. We want to be able to be supportive to people in need. But every program must meet basic standards of efficiency and productivity and wisdom and management. This program is resisting that. It is the fastest growing major program in the government. In the year 2000 we spent $20 billion on food stamps nationwide. Last year it was $80 billion. It has gone up fourfold in 10 years. That is a dramatic increase. It is increasing every year and virtually every month. The most recent report in September had one of the largest increases in the program's history--another 600,000 added to the rolls, totaling now 47.7 million. One out of every six Americans is receiving food stamps. Oddly, when we attempted to confront our debt and our spending, we had huge reductions for the Defense Department. Some other departments took big cuts. The food stamp program was set aside. President Obama and the Democratic leaders said: We will not even talk about it. No less money, no savings, no review of food stamps. It cannot be changed. It should be left alone. Well, that is not a good plan. As the ranking member on the Budget Committee, I have begun to look at the program to see how it is we have had such great increases. The agriculture establishment says every single dollar that is spent is needed for hungry people. I offered an amendment that would have reduced spending over 10 years from $800 billion total to $789 billion, reducing spending by $11 billion based on closing a loophole, a categorical eligibility gimmick that should not be there, allowing people to receive benefits who did not qualify for them. It was said: Oh, you want people to be hungry. It was voted down. I thought it was a very modest, reasonable change. By the way, agriculture spending in our government is different than a lot of people--Mr. President, what is the status of our time?

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I have another 6 minutes.

Mr. SESSIONS. That is where we are, I think, in terms of spending on the program and the need to examine it and see how it works. The establishment says every dollar is needed, not a dime can be reduced. I certainly agree that no one should be hungry in America. But we must know that the SNAP program, the food stamp program as it is commonly known, is not the only benefit that people have. Indeed, an average family without income in America today would receive as much as $25,000 in total benefits per year from the government if they did not have an income. They get things such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, they get SSI, housing allowance, free health care through Medicaid. They get food stamps and other benefits totaling at least $25,000. By the way, if you took all of the means-tested welfare-type programs that are in existence in America today, there are over 80. If you divide it up by the number of households who fall below the poverty line in America, it would be $60,000 per household--$30 per hour, on average, for a 40-hour work week. That is how much it would amount to. The median income in America is less than that. The median income-- and they pay taxes on that--is maybe $25 an hour. This would be over $30 an hour based on if we were just to divide up our welfare programs. So to say we should not examine those programs and ask ourselves can we do better is a mistake. The question I would ask is, can we improve it? Can we help more people move from dependence to independence? Is the program functioning as we would like it to function? I have been asking questions of the Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack. He provided some information that was very troubling to me. I have submitted additional information to him. Now we are not getting any more answers. They have just shut the door. The Secretary basically said: Well, you are a Member of the Senate. You are asking too many questions. I am not giving you any more information. You raise concerns when I give you information. You point out problems. I do not like that. You are not getting any more. I would note in some of our first inquires in the examination of their program, we found they are on a determined effort to expand the number of people who get on welfare or food stamps even if they do not want to be on food stamps. One of the things that is interesting is they gave a person in western North Carolina, one of the agricultural people, an award for overcoming ``mountain pride.'' Basically what they said was this lady should be given an award because when people in the mountains who are independent and believe they can take care of themselves, thank you--without the Federal Government--she overcame that. They have a brochure telling people what to say when people say, I do not need food stamps, to get them to sign up for food stamps. I have to say, and I am not happy about it. So now the Secretary has failed to comply with oversight requests from the Senate Budget Committee. Secretary Vilsack has missed the October deadline that we asked him to meet by nearly 2 months. My staff has been provided no update despite repeated requests, and apparently no letter is being drafted from the Department in response to our request. Just stiff you guys. Well, last I heard he worked for the American people. So do I. And one of my jobs is to make sure the American people's money is well spent. I am asking him about how he is spending our money, and he does not want to respond. My letter asked questions about two main issues: First, the USDA's acknowledged relationship with Mexico to place foreign nationals almost immediately on food stamps. One of the questions I asked was simply how the U.S. Department of Agriculture interprets the Federal law. Well, we make Federal law, we pass laws. I would like to know how they are enforcing them and what standards they are using. Federal law says those likely to be reliant on welfare cannot be admitted to the United States. If they want to come to the United States, and they meet the qualifications, they get to come. But they have to show they are not going to be dependent on the government for their food, aid, and health and everything when they come. We have lots of people who want to come to America. Most of those people probably can come and sustain themselves. Why would we be admitting those who can't, who are going to immediately go on the government assistance programs? But this law is effectively not being enforced. Senators Grassley, Hatch, and Roberts are ranking members on key committees, and I sent a letter.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 3 minutes.

Mr. SESSIONS. So another question I asked was concerning the Department's goal to place more people on food stamps. Here is part of the question from the letter: According to USDA, ``only 72 percent of those eligible for SNAP benefits participated,'' adding, ``their communities lose out on the benefits provided by new SNAP dollars flowing into local economies.'' If USDA's enrollment goals were reached, we asked, how many people would be receiving food stamps today? We have gone up dramatically; how many more would be of benefit? I would simply ask that question. I will ask him again on the Senate floor. How many millions more people would be on the Food Stamp Program if 100 percent of those qualified had enrolled? In 2011 USDA gave a recruitment award, as I mentioned, for overcoming ``mountain pride.'' They produced a pamphlet instructing their recruiters on how to ``overcome the word `no.' '' The USDA claims the chief obstacle to recruitment is a ``sense the benefits aren't needed.'' That is an obstacle. USDA asserts that ``everyone wins when eligible people take advantage of benefits to which they are entitled,'' claiming that ``each $5 in new SNAP benefits generates almost twice that amount in economic activity for the community.'' Well, I guess we just ought to do it another fourfold. That would really make America prosperous. USDA produced a Spanish-language ad in which the main character is pressured into accepting food stamps. This is what is on the video: The lady said, ``I don't need anyone's help. My husband earns enough to take care of us.'' Her friend mocks her and replies--this is the Department of Agriculture pitch--``When are you going to learn?'' Eventually, she gives in to her friends who are pressuring her and agrees to enroll. Is this the right approach for America? We need to work, to help people with pride, help people to assume their own independence, to be successful, take care of their own families and move them from dependence to independence. That ought to be the fundamental goal of our system. It was the goal in the reform of 1996 in the welfare reform that worked very well. More people prospered, fewer people are in poverty, and more people are taking care of themselves. It really was a success. We have been drifting back away from that. What I sense is when you ask questions about it, you are treated as someone who doesn't care about people who are hungry, who do need our help. We want to help. All we are asking is, Can't we do it better? Can't we look back to the principles of independence, individual responsibility, and individual pride that Americans have and nurture that and use that as a way to help reduce dependence in this country? So those are the things I wanted to share. I would just say this: The Secretary of Agriculture has the responsibility to answer.

Mr. SESSIONS. I don't want to get in a fight with it, but, if necessary, I will use what ability I have in the Senate to insist that we get responses. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I will associate my remarks with Senator Graham and say how much I have appreciated working with Jim DeMint. He is courageous, determined, and principled. He has a vision for America, and he has advocated for it every single day. He stood, sometimes alone, to advocate for those views. He is smart, he is intelligent, and he is good. It has been my pleasure to work with him and actually to support him. I have consistently felt his values and views were beneficial to America, and we can all disagree sometimes about how to accomplish them, but we can't just go along all the time. Sometimes we have to rock the boat, and he was willing to do that. I so much have enjoyed working with him. The Fiscal Cliff I wished to share a few thoughts, as ranking Member on the Budget Committee, concerning the proposal that the President has made through Secretary Geithner toward fixing the fiscal cliff that has been talked about so much. I just want to say, sadly, that the facts disprove what they have alleged their plan would do. We have looked at the numbers. There is no real mystery about this. There are gimmicks and manipulations in the way they have expressed what they intend to accomplish that I think are beyond the pale and the American people need to know it is not accurate. This would not be possible if we had the plan on the floor so it could be voted on in the light of day. But we all know what the plan is, the scheme is, the strategy is. It is to meet in secret and then plop down on the floor of the Senate, at the last hour, some sort of coerced agreement that all Senators--like lemmings--are supposed to vote for. We are supposed to expect that the American people will believe the agreement is what the President says it is, but that is not, in reality, what is occurring. Secretary Geithner met with Senate and House Members last week to present a proposal, and the President made a number of claims. He says the proposal Secretary Geithner made will fix our debt. He said his proposal will make our debt ``stable and sustainable.'' Both of those claims are untrue. He also claimed his proposal contains $2 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases--not so. Secretary Geithner has been around a while. He knows these numbers aren't accurate. It is disappointing to me to see him come in with so much bluster. In an interview yesterday he said: We are going to go off the cliff unless Republicans agree to what we demand, and we can't have a debt ceiling anymore. To have to debate that causes controversy. We don't want a debt ceiling anymore. Those were basically, as I heard him hubristically suggest, nonnegotiable positions. The plan called for $1.6 trillion in new taxes, twice what the President asked for in the campaign. He asked for $800 billion during the campaign. Now he wants $1.6 trillion in new taxes. So far, even with $1.6 trillion in new taxes, there is more than $1 trillion in spending increases. Far from fixing our debt, our debt will grow over the next 10 years by nearly $9 trillion. That is almost $1 trillion a year, on average. It goes up in the last number of years. So we remain on an unsustainable course with our debt continuing to surge out of control. We are projected, based on our debt now, to have our interest payment on the money we borrowed exceed the defense budget in just 7 years. These are facts. Spending under that plan would increase $1 trillion above the levels agreed to in the Budget Control Act, as signed into law. We agreed to the Budget Control Act 16 months ago, in August 2011, and we raised the debt ceiling and agreed to reduce spending. We raised the debt ceiling $2.1 trillion and agreed to reduce spending $2.1 trillion. The President's plan would take out over $1.1 trillion of those spending limitations that are in current law. I repeat, spending will increase more than $1 trillion above the already projected growth in spending. Our spending is growing. It is not decreasing. It is already projected to grow, but the President's proposal is to have it grow even faster than the law currently calls for. I don't believe the numbers I have presented can be disputed. They can spend, and they can say things and mix up baselines and confuse the American people, but the plan he has outlined does just what I described. It is not much different from the budget the President submitted this last February. As a matter of fact, it is very similar to it. What did that budget do? It increased taxes by $1.8 trillion, and it increased spending by about $1.4 trillion. So this is the kind of path we are being asked to take. I don't think the American people would agree to that. There are other increases in spending other than the elimination of the $1.2 trillion sequester cuts that were agreed to last year. For instance, more than $170 billion has been in new spending, arises from more stimulus spending and as an unpaid for increase in Medicare reimbursements, the doc fix, that is going to be due and will cost $394 billion. That is almost $400 billion that is not currently funded--and will have to be funded--that they have ignored, they have left it out of the budget, which makes it look $400 billion better than it is. We have to count that money. Together, that is almost $1.8 trillion in new spending. But the only cuts that the White House offers are $600 billion in mandatory spending reductions, basically cutting the providers of Medicare, it appears to us. In other words, the doctors and the hospitals that already took a cut to fund ObamaCare will now be asked to take another $600 billion in cuts. They tell the seniors: Don't worry. We are not cutting your Medicare. We are just going to cut providers. But at some point, we have to understand these reductions to providers can damage their ability to provide care. A hospital has to stay open. Doctors have to make a living. A lot of them are considering retiring early because it is so difficult to operate under the Federal programs. The bottom line is that the proposal that is out there calls for a huge tax increase, $1.8 trillion they are now saying. And this money is being gobbled up with new spending. I try to be precise and operate from a known spending baseline; specifically, the Budget Control Act baseline we agreed to 16 months ago. The President's plan clearly contemplates this. The $1.2 trillion in sequester cuts would be eliminated. That is more than half the cuts we agreed to last year. They would be eliminated. There would be one reduction. The Medicare reimbursement cuts of $600 billion would reduce spending. That would still mean that net spending has gone up $600 billion. The doc fix, as I just mentioned, is another $400 billion, so it adds $1 trillion. There is about $200 billion in stimulus spending that is over $1 trillion, and we have an $800 billion tax increase. If the President got that, which is what he originally asked for, then we would end up with more debt than if we didn't have the $800 billion tax increase. If he gets $1.6 trillion in new taxes--which will not happen, in my opinion--but if he were to get that, it would reduce the debt two- thirds of that amount, plus maybe three-fourths would be used to fund new spending and only one-fourth to deal with our current challenges. I would ask the American people, when they read what Congress was considering--and we have heard the President advocate more taxes--did they not assume that money would be used to reduce the deficit we have so we may put our country on a sound financial path? Or did they at least not assume it could be used to save Social Security, which is already drawing money from the General Treasury, so we have enough money to pay recipients? Or did they not think that maybe the money was going to be used to strengthen Medicare and keep that program on track so it will not go into bankruptcy? Is any of that accomplished by the President's proposal? No. He proposes no fix to Social Security, no fix to Medicare, and no real reduction in debt. In fact, if we end up with $1.6 trillion in tax increases over 10 years, we can expect the deficit to go up about $8.6 trillion instead of $9 trillion. That would be the only impact on the debt because most of the new money would be used for new spending. So I am worried about this. I don't think the leader of our Nation, the one person elected by people all over the country, should be laying out a program to the American people that does not honestly deal with the debt threat we face, and does not honestly explain to the American people how we are on an unsustainable course, as every expert has said, and does not honestly talk with the American people about why Medicare is in trouble, why Social Security is in trouble, and what we need to do to fix them. Our President will not even talk about that, and when somebody talks about it in a serious way, they get attacked by the White House. This new budget doesn't do anything about those issues. So I think this is not good leadership. I know Senator McConnell and Speaker Boehner have pleaded with the President to talk about these long-term, systemic problems. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and interest on the debt are together almost 60 percent of what we spend in this country, and they are growing at three times the rate of inflation. This is unsustainable. This is what Erskine Bowles, the man the President chose to head his debt commission, has warned us about. In fact, the House proposal indicated they would accept an $800 billion tax increase as a good-faith attempt to reach out to the President, based on what Mr. Bowles had proposed. They basically call it the Erskine Bowles plan. That is what he suggested, how the tax rates wouldn't go up, but the deductions would be eliminated. You would have a simpler, more flat tax system. You would bring in $800 billion more in revenue, and they would use this revenue to help reduce our deficit. That is the kind of plan that is serious. But the President has hammered the House plan. Secretary Geithner says it is unacceptable. But it is the Erskine Bowles plan. That is what it was, and it was a serious, good-faith attempt to reach out and deal with this crisis. I don't believe we need tax increases--any--but if we do, we have to ask ourselves, Where are we going to apply them? What are we going to do with them that puts the country on a sound path for the future so our children are not having ever larger amounts of debt accruing every month, every year that goes by? Again, if the President's plan was accepted and the $1.6 trillion in new taxes were imposed, which I don't believe will happen, we would have virtually no reduction in the total debt accruing over 10 years. That does not change the debt course of America. It does not deal with the danger that exists. The spending path we are on is in the red zone. The tachometer spending needle is over in the red zone. Mr. Bowles told us at our Budget Committee hearing 2 years ago that we are facing the most predictable debt crisis in our country's history. He said we have to get off this unsustainable path. So the House has basically taken his suggestions and worked with them. I understand that earlier today there was a discussion about raising the debt ceiling. The Constitution clearly gives Congress the power to regulate the debt of America, and we have to pass legislation to raise the amount--the ceiling or the limit--on how much we can borrow. We are at $16 trillion-plus now, and we are about to reach the debt limit again early next year. The President doesn't want to have to deal with that again because last time we came up against the debt ceiling-- August a year ago--the President had to reduce spending. It is the only time we have actually done anything. We reduced spending by $2.1 trillion out of what was projected to be $47 trillion in total spending. So August a year ago, the country was on track to spend $47 trillion over the next 10 years. Once the agreement was reached and $2.1 trillion was saved, we were on a course to spend $45 trillion instead of $47 trillion. Now, America is not going to sink into the ocean if we reduce spending that much. It is still an increase--a very substantial increase. Debt would have accrued over the next decade. Instead of $11 trillion, it would have been $9 trillion. So we go from $16 trillion, to $25 trillion, to $26 trillion in new debt to the country. That is all that limit did. I believed it did not go nearly far enough, and that was a concern of mine, but the agreement was at least a step. The President's plan eliminates the sequester and does not pay for it with cuts elsewhere. So it actually increases spending because it backs off the agreement we reached just last year. Madam President, I believe the American people have a right to be unhappy with us. And it absolutely is not true that if we take the current law baseline, the President's proposal cuts spending $2.50 for every $1 of tax increase. In fact, there is no spending reduction, really. There are only spending increases. No net reductions properly accounted for occur in the plan Secretary Geithner laid out, and that is true with the President's budget too. The budget the President submitted last year is very similar to this current proposal. It increases spending, it doesn't reduce spending. So we need to know that we are being asked to permanently raise tax rates in America and permanently use that money on new spending programs, leaving Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the Defense Department on the same dangerous course they are on today. I think we can do better. I hope the American people will look at these numbers, maybe call the White House, call their Members of Congress, and say: Look, if you have to raise taxes--and I think most Americans don't think we need to--be sure you use this money wisely. Don't start new programs when we are going broke now. Don't start new programs when we don't have money to fund Social Security, don't have money to fund Medicare, don't have money to fund Medicaid. Don't start new spending programs when we don't have the money to take care of the ones we have. Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask that I be notified after 7 minutes. Mr. President, when the Senate gives its advice and consent to a treaty, it becomes the ``supreme law of the land'' on par with Federal statutes. This is Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution. It is in our Constitution. That is why we must take great care in ratifying treaties and doing so only if it advances U.S. interests at home or abroad. The overwhelming majority of constituent comments my office has received have been in opposition to the convention--approximately 1,000 letters in opposition; 40 letters or so in support. Moreover, I, along with 36 other Senators, joined a letter to the Senate leadership requesting that no treaties be brought to the floor during the lameduck session. A treaty is a powerful document, equal to or above statutory law. Historically, treaties are to regulate the relationship between sovereign nations. They do things like settle border disputes and create trade relations between those two nations. While treaties on occasion have blurred the line between international relations, the line, the principle still remains fundamentally intact. This Nation has never ratified a treaty of which the entire focus is to empower an international agency--here, the United Nations, an organization that truly is proving to be dysfunctional and often hostile to the most legitimate interests of the United States--to monitor the internal policies of the United States. This is particularly curious in that the United States has the world's best record on disability issues. Se we are told, let's ratify the treaty because we already meet, at least today, all the requirements of the treaty. This will set an example. In truth, we have already set an example. We lead the world. This treaty, however, has misdirected the focus of the United States and the world community away from nations who do little or nothing for the disabled and to direct blame first on this Nation. Of course, the United States has a most magnificent system of law. It is the foundation of our liberty, our prosperity, and our happiness. Thus, if we were to ratify this treaty, we can be sure that international hypocrites will soon demand that the United States do this or that. All the while, their countries will have been in full violation of virtually every provision of the treaty. Many other mischievous actions will certainly arise to bedevil our country, and we will have hypocritical meddlers complicating our internal disability efforts, as well as our internal social and health policies. I do not think this is necessary. Now, I agree that the United States and the world can do more to advance the cause of the disabled. I truly do. I recently visited the very fine Alabama School for the Deaf and Blind. I personally saw how inexpensive computers can transform the daily lives of the disabled. Deaf and blind can move from being disconnected to connected, from unemployed to highly productive. It was such a moving and positive experience to see what can be done today with the technology this world has. When one visits our magnificent military hospital at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, one can see the devices that are used there on a regular basis to make the lives of those who have been injured better. The whole world will benefit if more of this technology is made available. The right way to advance assistance for the disabled worldwide is to be active internationally, to be on the front lines promoting these good techniques and policies, and to use more of our existing foreign aid for this purpose rather than wasting it, as we too often do, on corrupt governments that take it and do little for their people. I believe the State Department should strengthen its outreach in this important area. I have even drafted a law that would require them to establish such a department within their agency. As we spend billions yearly on aid, surely we can be more effective in ensuring that the equipment, devices and treatments that are life transfiguring are given more emphasis by our government. We ought to raise the level of priority we give to the disabled. Yes, I acknowledge that such expenditures are not purely a part of our Nation's national security policy, but America has always responded to the call to be a force for good in the world. I just left a meeting 15 minutes ago with United Methodists from the North Alabama Conference who have a project to fight AIDS, HIV, and malaria in Africa. This is part of the American heritage, and we do this every day, and it should be done.

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Presiding Officer. This is our heritage, a heritage that has proven to be a blessing to the world. We do not want to walk away from that. Another part of our heritage is the rule of law--that clear and strong understanding of the unique quality of national sovereignty. We are honest people. We are productive people. We are lawful people. We know that we will be able to be more prosperous and thus able to help others if we protect our economy from reckless, dangerous spending and the authority of our legal system from erosion. Thus, I conclude this treaty is unnecessary and, in fact, dangerous for our Nation. So let's do more for the disabled worldwide. I will be supportive of that. But let's do it without enmeshing our Nation into another binding international organization that will cause more grief than benefit. I will conclude with one more thing. I am coming to the view that we as a nation need to be more legally aware of the dangers of signing agreements with foreign nations that regulate internal affairs, even if we are not giving away direct powers over the United States. I do not see that is necessary. I think that is a bad step. I am opposed to that. I think that in the long run, we will have difficulties. I thank the Presiding Officer, yield the floor, and reserve the remainder of our time for my colleagues who I know want to speak on this matter.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3009, as modified, and ask for its consideration.

Mr. SESSIONS. I believe it is at the desk.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3009 and ask for its consideration.