Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. We have not done that before, yes.

Mr. SESSIONS. I believe so, yes, consistent with the language in the recent Supreme Court opinions--recent opinions--and perhaps it even goes further than what the Supreme Court requires.

Mr. SESSIONS. Yes.

Mr. SESSIONS. That is done every day, yes, with judicial oversight.

Mr. SESSIONS. Absolutely it is. And just for the fact of my amendment, it does not require people to be held. It only gives the government the authority to do so if they deem it appropriate for the defense of America.

Mr. SESSIONS. Yes. It is extraordinarily disappointing, actually, and against projections of many of those advocating for early release.

Mr. SESSIONS. They certainly have.

Mr. SESSIONS. Yes.

Mr. SESSIONS. So well said. I agree.

Mr. SESSIONS. That is correct.

Mr. SESSIONS. That is certainly true.

Mr. SESSIONS. That is the law as I understand it.

Mr. SESSIONS. That is correct.

Mr. SESSIONS. I certainly agree with the Senator that an American citizen can join in a war against the United States.

Mr. SESSIONS. That is correct.

Mr. SESSIONS. Absolutely. Someone may not be willing to talk today, but as time goes by they might be willing to completely change and be forthcoming.

Mr. SESSIONS. That is certainly true.

Mr. SESSIONS. Absolutely.

Mr. SESSIONS. Absolutely. That would undermine one of the functions of the U.S. military in dealing with enemies of the state.

Mr. SESSIONS. There is no doubt. No war has ever been lawyered to the degree this has.

Mr. SESSIONS. They do, and to a large degree that is different from any other war in our history.

Mr. SESSIONS. Absolutely.

Mr. SESSIONS. Yes.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, with regard to the question of citizenship, I would just say to my colleague that this in no way deals with that. Whatever the courts, whatever the bill and other laws say about citizenship will apply here. It does not change that status at all. I do believe the legislation is clearly consistent with the statements and testimony of President Obama; Attorney General Eric Holder; Jeh Johnson, counsel of the Secretary of Defense; Secretary of State Clinton, and others. I urge acceptance of my amendment and yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I have been working for some time to wrestle with this question of the right number of military forces we need in Europe. It is an issue that has given me some pause. I thought we had an agreement several years ago to make some noticeable changes in that force structure. Some changes have indeed been made and others were in the works and they apparently have been put on hold and altered. So I just wished to share some thoughts about it. I thank Senator Levin and Senator McCain for working with me to develop an amendment to this bill that helps call attention to this problem with the Department of Defense. We have had a long and historic relationship with Europe and our European allies. They remain the best allies we have in the world. We have large numbers of troops still in Europe. But there are not nearly as many as there have been in the past. But the numbers are still extraordinary. We have, at this time, 80,000 U.S. troops in Europe, and I do not believe military threats justify that large a troop presence. Our historic even larger number was based on the Soviet threat, the Fulda Gap, the weakness of our European allies after World War II and their lack of strength and the bond that NATO meant. We stuck together and transformed the entire North Atlantic region in a positive way. A book called ``Paradise and Power'' has been written about where we are today. It is a pretty significant book, frankly. The essence of it is that the Europeans are in a paradise protected by American power, and they do not feel any need to substantially burden themselves with national defense because the United States is there. We have a nuclear presence, we have 80,000 troops, and we have the fabulously trained, highly skilled military with the lift capability of moving to a troubled and dangerous spot at any time. I do think it is fair to say they have become a bit complacent. As part of a CODEL I led in 2004, we visited Europe, because the United States was going through a BRAC, a reduction of U.S. basing, and we did not have the same type policy with regard to international bases. We visited--Senator Chambliss and Senator Enzi and I--bases in Europe, particularly bases we felt would be enduring, such as Rota, Spain, Sigonella and Vicenza and other bases--and Ramstein in Germany. But there are others, lots of others. So part of the NATO commitment is that each nation in Europe would invest and spend 2 percent of their GDP on defense. We have been 4 percent--sometimes over that recently-- in recent years. So our NATO members, however, are falling below that. Germany, the strongest economy in Europe, is at 1.2 percent of GDP on defense, and they spend a large portion of that on short-term, less than 1 year, military training of young people in Germany. The fact is, a 9-month trainee is not someone in the modern world we can send into combat. They are just not sufficiently trained. Many military experts believe this is a waste of money. So even the money they are spending, in many ways, is not effectively and wisely spent to create the kind of modern military they have to have to be successful in a serious manner. We do, though, believe Europe is not facing the kind of threats we had. I think it is appropriate for us to talk to our European allies and say we want to proceed with a drawdown, where possible. This Nation is borrowing 40 cents of every $1 we spend. The Defense Department, under the sequester that will occur as a result of the failure of the committee of 12 to reach an agreement, will be facing dramatic cuts in spending, over $1 trillion based on President Obama's projected budget over 10 years. We need to look for every reasonable savings we can. The Defense Department is taking too heavy a cut in my opinion, far more than any other department of government. However, we cannot sustain that. I do not support that large a cut, but it will be reducing spending by a significant amount. So I believe we should think about our foreign deployments. The National Defense Authorization Act represents a vision for defense spending. We are now down from $548 billion spent on the Defense Department last year, $527 billion this year, an actual reduction in noninflation dollars of over $20 billion. As a matter of fact, the Budget Control Act agreement calls for a reduction of total spending in the discretionary account this year of $7 billion; whereas, the Defense Department is taking $20 billion. Other departments therefore are receiving increases to get the net 7 that is claimed. Unfortunately, that is not an accurate number because we do not achieve even the $7 billion promised. Since 2004, the Defense Department had a plan to transfer two of its four highly trained combat brigades in Europe back to the United States as part of the larger post-world war realignment. However, in April of this year, the Department of Defense announced it would maintain three combat brigades and not bring the fourth one home until 2015. I have asked the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dempsey, at the Armed Services hearing, and I asked Admiral Stavridis, our European EUCOM commander, and they had no good explanation for why we are altering the plan that has been in place. So my amendment has been agreed to on both sides and would require three things from the Department of Defense: No. 1, assessment of the April 2011 decision to station three Army brigade combat teams in Europe; No. 2, an analysis of the fiscal and strategic costs and benefits of reducing the number of forward-based military personnel in Europe to that recommended by the 2004 Global Posture Review; and, No. 3, to describe the methodology used by the Defense Department to estimate the current and future cost of U.S. force posture in Europe. So is Europe more threatened today than before? I do not think so. The United States has a tougher financial condition today than before? Yes. I believe we need to look at this carefully. I thank Senator McCain and Senator Levin for working with me to recommend an amendment they believe is consistent with the goals I am seeking without micromanaging the Department of Defense. I thank the Chair. I am pleased this amendment will be considered, and perhaps we can make some progress to analyzing more properly the deployment of forces in Europe. Finally, I would say there is no doubt in my mind that the economy of the United States is benefited if a brigade is housed in the United States, and the costs of support and family are in the United States strengthening our economy rather than transferring the wealth of our Nation to a foreign area. I hope we will consider that as we deal with this issue. I yield the floor.