Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. The Senator has served in the House and the Senate and knows how conference committees work. Isn't it true that the majority of the Senate conferees would be appointed by the majority leader, and a majority of the House conferees would be appointed by the Speaker?

Mr. SESSIONS. Isn't it a tradition that normally conferees appointed by those leaders tend to follow their lead in how they vote in conference?

Mr. SESSIONS. The Senator had an amendment that was stripped out, as I did, dealing with the immigration issue. It seems to me odd that amendments receiving such high votes in both the House and the Senate would be stripped out of conference. Would you agree that is an odd thing to happen?

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I see my colleague, the assistant majority leader. I know we have been talking about improvement in the sentencing process for crack cocaine. I have offered legislation for almost a decade that would substantially improve the sentencing process in a way that I think is fair and constructive and allows us to deal with serious criminals like drug dealers. I believe it is pretty close to being a good policy. Senator Salazar, now a member of the Obama Cabinet, and Senator Mark Pryor, my Democratic colleague from Arkansas, Senator John Cornyn from Texas, and I, all four former attorneys general, offered that legislation. Senator Durbin has some ideas too. I look forward to working with him. I do think it is past time to act. I will not favor alterations that massively undercut the sentencing we have in place, but I definitely believe that the current system is not fair and that we are not able to defend the sentences that are required to be imposed under the law today. I am a strong believer in law enforcement and prosecution of those who violate our laws, particularly criminals who really do a lot of damage beyond just dealing drugs. They foster crime and form gangs. People who use cocaine tend to be violent. Even more, in some ways, people who use crack cocaine, as opposed to powder cocaine, tend to be paranoid and violent. It is not a good thing. We don't need to give up the progress that has been made, but at the same time we need to fix the sentencing. I oppose anything that represents a 50, 60, 70, or 80 percent reduction in penalties but a significant rebalancing of that would be justified.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, the American people are rightly very concerned about the reckless spending being conducted in Washington spending that has resulted in huge national deficits. People sometimes think that Republicans and Democrats are just bickering, but the truth is that we have never had deficits such as these in the history of our country--perhaps only during the peak of World War II, when we were in a life-and-death struggle with millions of men and women in combat from one end of the globe to the other. The fiscal year 2010 deficit is $1.4 trillion. It is predicted to average $1 trillion for the next decade, without relief in the outyears. People often ask me: When are we going to start paying it back? There is no plan to do so. There is not even any plan to reduce the size of the deficit. In years 8, 9, 10, we are talking about over $900 billion in annual deficits. Interest today on our total debt is $170 billion, will rise to $800 billion in 1 year and that is just the interest on the money we must borrow in order to carry these deficits that are not being reduced in the outyears. It is unthinkable. A lot of people think that the high deficit is due to costs from a health care reform bill. Health care reform will add to the deficit, but is not currently counted in the numbers I referenced because the Congressional Budget Office did its scoring before any health care bill was written. We don't have a final bill, so CBO couldn't score it accurately anyway. The public debt will go from $5 trillion to $11.7 trillion in 5 years and triple to $17 trillion in 10 years, tripling the national debt. The total debt from the founding of the American Republic will be tripled. That is a big deal. My colleague, Senator Durbin, and our Democratic colleagues have taken great pleasure in attacking President Bush. I was critical of President Bush's spending, but his average deficit was $250 billion, which was too much and big. However, this year's deficit is going to be $1.4 trillion. That is the deficit as of September 30, for this fiscal year. And we will carry an average deficit $900 billion annually in the coming years. You can blame the origins of the deficit on President Bush if you want to, but President Obama's budget for the next 10 years, scored by the Congressional Budget Office, continues to score deficits at $900 billion. Regardless, we are spending too much money. Republicans are guilty of it, and so are the Democrats. They promised to do better after they got elected this time, but I haven't seen any progress, frankly. The media has reported recently that the valuation of the Finance Committee's health care bill by the Congressional Budget Office was quite positive. They said--you may have heard the phrase--that it was deficit neutral. How did that happen? How can you add millions of people to the rolls of insured, and subsidize insurance for low-income people, all without having a cost? We need to examine that. The CBO says the Finance Committee bill would cost $829 billion over 10 years, but they say it is not going to increase the deficit. It will increase the number of people covered but not increase the deficit. The Washington Post wrote: The Finance Committee's bill is the only legislation on the table that meets Obama's objectives [. . .] all for less than $900 billion over 10 years, and without adding to the deficit. So that has been the spin. That has been the statement from the media. The President said in his September address to Congress that he would not sign a health care reform bill that adds one dime to the deficit. Senator Baucus, the Finance Committee chairman, said: Our balanced approach in the Finance Committee to health reform has paid off once again. He said the bill was ``a smart investment on the federal balance sheet.'' Would that it were so, but that is not an accurate statement. The American people know you cannot expand coverage for millions of the uninsured without incurring cost. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Money borrowed has to be repaid. If you make obligations to expand the federal government's role in our health care system, you must have the money to back it up. So how can the CBO make such a report? It is not because they are dishonest. It is because they scored the bill the Washington way, and the bill was written by Members of this body and staff who understand the Washington way. They write the bill in such a way to hide its true cost. Republicans have done this in the past, but we are reaching new levels of it today. Under the Baucus plan, true costs are hidden. The bill's requirements that all individuals have insurance does not fully phase in, for example, until 2014. However, new fees on insurers, medical device companies, drug manufacturers and cuts to hospitals and doctors take effect almost immediately. For example, hospitals will take cuts and see more patients beginning in 2010, but individuals are not required to have insurance coverage until 2014. If you are an insurance company, you will face increased taxes and new annual fees beginning in 2010, but again--individuals are not required to have insurance until 2014. Doctors' pay is kept stable in 2010, but under the Finance Committee legislation, doctors are expected to take a 25-percent pay cut beginning in 2011. Why have we been engaging in these budget gimmicks? Both parties have been guilty of doing this. Why don't we just make the difficult decisions? We have succeeded in balancing the budget in the past. But under the Sustainable Growth Rate formula as it applies today, our physicians the people that take care of us--would take a 25-percent cut in 2011. So, Congress fixes the formula, so to speak. We now call it the doctors' fix. We arrange for a short-term solution that keeps doctors' pay from being cut, but do not address the larger problem. If Congress were to fix the physician pay formula for 10 years, we would have about $300 billion more in costs to figure in to our budget as a deficit. The proposal that came out of the Finance Committee proposes to raise the doctors' fees for 1 year. It does not propose what is absolutely necessary: a 10-year fix for doctor pay. So, the Chairman acts as if an update to doctor pay will not happen in 2011 so that the bill does not have to reflect the true costs. And Congress will update doctor pay, as it has every year since 2002. The bottom line is this: the true costs of the Finance Committee bill will not begin until the new provisions are all phased in in 2014. The Senate Budget Committee estimates--and I am a member of the committee--show that the Finance Committee bill cost for 2014 to 2023 is actually $1.8 trillion. So although CBO says that it costs $829 billion from 2010 to 2019, if you look at numbers from 2014 to 2023, the cost is $1.8 trillion--twice as much--because the full benefits and expenses don't kick in until then that period. Budget gimmicks used to offset the bill are misleading. This is not an honest way to represent the bill's costs, and it is designed for political reasons. It is designed to make the score look better than it is and to hide the true cost of enacting this legislation. Let me use a chart.

Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent for 3 additional minutes.

Mr. SESSIONS. The Senate Finance Committee bill is paid for in a number of ways. Perhaps one of the most unjustified claims is that we are going to produce $404 billion in cuts to Medicare and Medicaid to fund an entirely new program. First, it is doubtful that Congress will actually vote to cut $400 billion from Medicaid and Medicare. However, CBO must assume we are going to cut it because that it included in the Finance Committee bill. CBO also assumed in their budget that we were going to raise a lot of tax money by being more efficient in tax collections last year, but those new collections did not materialize either. The IRS said they wouldn't get them, and they were right. Our number one priority, if we were to somehow make Medicaid and Medicare more efficient and more honest and more effective and more productive and save $300 billion, that money should stay in Medicare and Medicaid. Medicare is going broke. We know that to be true. Medicare experts and the trustees issued a dire warning that unless measures are taken to shore up the program, it will be insolvent by 2017. We have known that for a long time. These $400 billion in cuts is very unlikely to happen. The rest of these basically are new taxes. I do not have time to go into them now. But imagine this scenario: your family is running in a shortfall and you do not have enough money for your business and you have agreed that you would take on a Saturday job to make more income, would it be smart to buy a new car? You have a debt. You are trying to pay it down. You take on more taxes, take on another job to bring in more income, but, in the midst of that, you start a new spending program? That is exactly what the Finance Committee bill proposes. Instead of getting Medicare on a sound footing, this bill raises taxes to create a new program. Supporters act like we should be thankful because it is deficit neutral, they say. That is not accurate. I know it, and every Senator in this body ought to know it if they have been around here very long. I am sorry about where we are headed. This sort of scoring is the kind of flimflam financial management that has put us on the road to tripling the debt of the United States in 10 years. It is an abomination. Our children will be paying interest on our debts for the rest of their lives. Indeed, the interest on our national debt today is $170 billion. In 10 years, CBO says it will be $800 billion a year. Yet we spend only $100 billion a year on education, by contrast. So I say, somehow we have to slow down, make some difficult choices, and recognize that we do not have the money to do everything we would like to do. We do not have the money, and Congress must be more serious and more committed to improving Medicare, saving the program, and not going hog wild with new programs that we do not have the money to fund. I thank the Chair for allowing me to go over and I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I see my colleague, the assistant majority leader. I know we have been talking about improvement in the sentencing process for crack cocaine. I have offered legislation for almost a decade that would substantially improve the sentencing process in a way that I think is fair and constructive and allows us to deal with serious criminals like drug dealers. I believe it is pretty close to being a good policy. Senator Salazar, now a member of the Obama Cabinet, and Senator Mark Pryor, my Democratic colleague from Arkansas, Senator John Cornyn from Texas, and I, all four former attorneys general, offered that legislation. Senator Durbin has some ideas too. I look forward to working with him. I do think it is past time to act. I will not favor alterations that massively undercut the sentencing we have in place, but I definitely believe that the current system is not fair and that we are not able to defend the sentences that are required to be imposed under the law today. I am a strong believer in law enforcement and prosecution of those who violate our laws, particularly criminals who really do a lot of damage beyond just dealing drugs. They foster crime and form gangs. People who use cocaine tend to be violent. Even more, in some ways, people who use crack cocaine, as opposed to powder cocaine, tend to be paranoid and violent. It is not a good thing. We don't need to give up the progress that has been made, but at the same time we need to fix the sentencing. I oppose anything that represents a 50, 60, 70, or 80 percent reduction in penalties but a significant rebalancing of that would be justified.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I join in support of the Vitter amendment, which would preclude any funding in the CJS appropriations bill being used for the 2010 census, if the census does not include a citizenship question. Under current law, the census does not even ask the question about whether individuals in the United States are citizens or not. They ask people how many bathrooms and children they have, all kinds of things, but they don't ask a citizenship question. Congressional apportionment in the U.S. House of Representatives is based on that total population count, including people illegally in this country. I think representation in Congress should be based on the number of legal residents, and it should not be increased because persons here illegally, not eligible to vote, happen to be in that State. That is a matter I hear a lot about from my constituents. They ask how this is possible. They are shocked that is what might be happening. The truth is, it does happen. So I think Senator Vitter is raising a good question, and I believe his amendment is valid. Our next census will determine the reapportionment of the House of Representatives and Electoral College votes each State has. The 2010 census form lacks the simple question: Are you a citizen of the United States of America? How accurate can we in Congress expect to be about the composition of our population if we do not ask that question, especially when some estimate there may be as many as 12 million people illegally in the country? Indeed, I think that probably is an accurate figure, so it has an impact. Calculations using some of the interim census data estimates are pretty dramatic and point out the real impacts of this policy. Using the American Community Survey of the Census Bureau, their estimates for State population, including noncitizen and citizen populations, is instructive. The discrepancy in numbers for reapportionment using those different figures is significant. For example, States that might otherwise expect to gain or expect not to lose population, lose congressional seats, would do so if these numbers are counted. For example, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Louisiana--all of those would be expected to stay the same or gain. And if illegals are counted, they will either not gain or lose seats. So I think that is a pretty important issue. It is not something with which my State is directly involved. But having dealt with the immigration issue over some period of time, and trying to be informed about it, I hear a lot of people raising this fundamental question. I think it would be simple to fix constitutionally. We would simply say: Ask how many people are here legally and use that to be the basis of the apportionment of congressional seats, and not using people who are not here legally. It does not threaten people. It does not mean they will be arrested or anything like that or to be subject to deportation. It simply means when the numbers are all in, we will know how many U.S. residents exist in the various States, and from that number we will be able to apportion our House of Representatives and the Electoral College for the next Presidential election. I think that is the right thing to do. We need to get away from this other process and urge the support of the Vitter amendment. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have one additional moment.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would conclude by saying that I do believe this is an important issue; that the Department of Defense is not asking for this. It is a reaction to some specific event, I assume, that has not justified changing Federal law. Arbitration in itself can be better for employees than filing an expensive lawsuit in Federal court. I believe we ought to at least dig into the issue far more in depth than we have before we up and pass such legislation as this. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Mr. FRANKEN addressed the Chair.

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, first of all, with regard to this lawsuit, although it took some time, the court, the Fifth Circuit, has ruled that this matter is not arbitrable and this lady is entitled to a court trial because it goes outside normal employment matters. The Department of Defense let me know to oppose this amendment. There are a number of reasons: because it goes far beyond the issue raised by my colleague from Minnesota. It eliminates arbitration for any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act, any claim resulting from negligent hiring, negligent supervision or retention of an employee-- virtually any employment dispute that is now resolvable under arbitration, which the U.S. Supreme Court has said is good. Statistics show that employees get final judgment and actually win more cases under arbitration than they do going to the expense of a Federal court trial. I think we should listen to the Department of Defense and vote no on this amendment.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would like to speak about the Franken amendment if it is OK with the bill managers. The amendment would impose the will of Congress on private individuals and companies in a retroactive fashion, in validating employment contracts without due process of law. It is a political amendment, really at bottom, representing sort of a political attack directed at Halliburton, which is politically a matter of sensitivity. Notwithstanding, the Congress should not be involved in writing or rewriting private contracts. That is just not how we should handle matters in the Senate, certainly without a lot of thought and care, and without the support or at least the opinion of the Department of Defense. Senator Franken offered this amendment because he apparently does not like the fact there are arbitration agreements in employment contracts. I would suggest that is common all over America today. The Supreme Court of the United States has already resolved that arbitration agreements contained in employment contracts are not only valid but in most instances beneficial. In most instances, arbitration is considered to be beneficial. In fact, employees tend to win more arbitration disputes than they do lawsuits in court. So I think that is a matter we should consider. This is what Justice Kennedy on the Supreme Court wrote in Adams v. Circuit City: Arbitration agreements allow parties to avoid the cost of litigation, a benefit that may be of particular importance in employment litigation, which often involves smaller sums of money than disputes concerning commercial contracts. So I believe that instead of eliminating arbitration, we should probably be looking for ways to utilize mediation and arbitration more in these kinds of disputes. Indeed, in a recent JAMS article published in June of 2009, entitled ``Arbitrators Less Prone to Grant Dispositive Motions Than Courts,'' the author made the following points: [A]rbitrators are generally much more reluctant than courts to grant dispositive motions-- That is, to wipe out a lawsuit altogether-- whether they are motions to dismiss a complaint or arbitration demand, or motions for summary judgment. Indeed, the rules of most major arbitration providers are silent about whether an arbitrator may entertain dispositive motions. It goes on to say: While courts have held that arbitrators have the inherent power to grant dispositive motions, the lack of explicit rules on the issue reflects the hesitance that most arbitrators feel in granting dispositive motions without a fact hearing. It goes on to say: There are at least three institutional reasons, which also highlight some of the advantages of arbitration: The article says: First, while every litigant is entitled to appeal the grant of a dispositive motion in federal or state court, a final decision in arbitration is subject to far less review. Moreover, appellant court review of such a grant is de novo, with the allegations or evidence, as the case may be, read in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. In addition, to the extent that the trial court has interpreted the law, the reviewing court is free to interpret and apply the law differently. Basically, they are saying a person who has filed a complaint about their employment termination or agreement has a better shake of getting to court and having their matter heard than if they had filed a lawsuit because the strict rules of summary judgment often toss a lot of these lawsuits at an early stage. It goes on to say: The second difference between courts and arbitrators that explains why courts are more likely to grant motions to dismiss [an employee's lawsuit] is a differing level of concern about discovery. In the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Twombly, for instance, ``the Court placed heavy emphasis on the `sprawling, costly, and hugely time- consuming' discovery that would ensue in permitting a bare allegation of an antitrust conspiracy to survive a motion to dismiss, and expressed concern that such discovery'' will push cost-conscious defendants to settle even anemic cases. Discovery is much more limited in arbitrations and, thus, a denial of a motion to dismiss is less likely to result in such extensive discovery. Finally, some commentators and judges have noted that the pressure of the increasing caseload that federal and state courts have seen over the last two decades makes the courts more tempted to dispose of cases on a motion, instead of after a trial on the merits. . . . [arbitrators have] reacted in precisely the opposite way--by constricting, not expanding, the use of dispositive motions. In effect, allowing more cases to be fully heard. There is no doubt that contracts are a property right. We do not have any allegations that the contracts Senator Franken is trying to invalidate were imposed on employees or that fraud or coercion was involved in creating them. To invalidate these contracts would violate not only the due process rights of employers but the employees as well. Employees could, indeed, benefit from arbitration rather than having to go to Federal court. The Congress is in no position to determine whether an employee negotiated for additional compensation in exchange for signing an arbitration agreement----

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I wish to address the nomination of Thomas Perez to be Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice. That is an important position. It requires ability and experience and fairness. I think President Obama, as all Presidents, is entitled to some deference in selecting executive branch nominees such as this one. I have come to the conclusion after some contemplation that I am not able to support this nominee. I do not desire that his nomination be delayed unless there will be some additional matters that need to be looked at of which I am not now aware. So I am prepared to vote up or down. I know we have only one vote, and that is a question of cloture, whether to bring this nomination up for an up-or-down vote. I guess I am at a point where I don't feel comfortable voting either way on that if we don't have any other votes. I will wrestle with that decision. The Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice is charged with protecting the civil rights of all Americans. It is an important division. As such, it is critical that the division be free from partisanship and not be used as a tool to further an agenda of one group or another, one ideology or another. The President has chosen this nominee, someone who has a record of and a reputation for very strong political activity. That is not disqualifying, but it is a matter I am concerned about because I am concerned about this division. In reviewing Mr. Perez's past statements and his record, I am concerned whether he is capable of putting aside partisan beliefs and whether he is, therefore, suited to head the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. Over the past several months, news reports have raised concerns that decisionmaking at the Department and the Civil Rights Division in particular have been based on politics and not on protecting civil rights. I hate to say that, but real objections have been raised. In May, the Justice Department voluntarily dismissed a lawsuit that it had won against the New Black Panther Party. During the last election, two of that group's members had dressed in military-style uniforms and intimidated voters outside a Philadelphia voting place. A long-time civil rights activist who was there and who saw it, Bartle Bull, called it ``an outrageous affront to American democracy and the rights of voters to participate in an election without fear.'' On July 30, the Washington Times reported that a political appointee, Thomas Perrelli, the Associate Attorney General of the Department of Justice, and third in charge of that great Department, approved the decision to suddenly reverse course and drop the complaint. Many people have seen the video of that utterly unacceptable activity by the New Black Panther Party. Mr. Perrelli's decision to allow this voter intimidation to go unprosecuted stands in stark contrast to his statements made during the nomination process when he stated: I agree that both civil and criminal laws for governing the conduct of elections should be enforced. Of course, that is fundamental. In May, the Members of the House Judiciary Committee sought an explanation from the Department. They had taken a judgment in the case, senior career prosecutors had, against this group. The question was, apparently they began a discussion of giving it away, setting it aside--a judgment they had already taken. Eventually that is what the Department did, through some maneuvers that I do not think are consistent with the normal processes of the Department of Justice. They found one group within the Department whose responsibility did not include making these kinds of decisions, they made a decision that it was okay to set aside the judgment against them, a civil judgment, I think, that they had taken. It was not good. The House Judiciary Committee, our colleagues, demanded an explanation. The responses of the administration were vague and incomplete. In addition, the independent U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has demanded that the Justice Department explain the dismissal of that lawsuit, but the administration rebuffed the request, claiming that the Department decided to investigate the case internally through its Office of Professional Responsibility. The Department of Justice claims it cannot provide information to anyone on the outside until that internal investigation is complete. Based on the lack of document production and lack of answers from the Department of Justice, on September 30, the Civil Rights Commission Chairman, Gerald Reynolds, wrote to Attorney General Holder, repeating his request for information on previous voter intimidation investigations so the Commission could determine whether the Department's reversal of course in this case constituted a change in policy and what the implications of this would be. Chairman Reynolds also pointed out that: [M]any aspects of the Commission's inquiry have no connection with the matter, subject to the OPR jurisdiction . . . And that if the Department were nonresponsive, the Commission would be forced to propound interrogatories and interview requests directly on affected Justice Department personnel. So even the independent Commission on Civil Rights is concerned about this. If you care about voting rights, how did this happen that we dismiss a case when there is a video of one of the most blatant intimidations you can imagine at a polling place? Serious questions have arisen. Was the dismissal of the case a blatant partisan political move by the Department of Justice? Was this Black Panther group protected because they were on the right side of the election? If so, it implicates serious dangers for voter intimidation prosecutions in the future, I suggest. Before we vote to approve Mr. Perez as head of the Division of Civil Rights, the Senate needs to know how he will conduct the office. Unfortunately, this kind of issue is only one of the important issues he will be facing. In June, it became apparent that the Justice Department would work against commonsense measures by States to ensure that only citizens would be allowed to vote in elections. The Supreme Court has held that States can pass and enforce voter identification laws to protect the integrity of elections. Yet according to the Associated Press, the Civil Rights Division under Attorney General Holder has: . . . rejected Georgia's system of using Social Security numbers and driver's license data to check when prospective voters are citizens. Rather than working alongside the State of Georgia to ensure that only citizens are allowed to vote, which would be a good goal and role for the Department of Justice, the Department has worked to ensure that the system remains broken. As the Georgia Secretary of State has observed: The Department of Justice has thrown open the door for activist organizations such as ACORN to register noncitizens to vote in Georgia elections, and the State has no ability to verify an applicant's citizenship status or whether the individual even exists. The Department of Justice completely disregarded Georgia's obvious and direct interest in preventing noncitizens from voting. Clearly, politics took priority over common sense and good public policy. The Georgia Secretary of State said that. That is a serious charge. This is very troubling. There seems to be a view by some that the more people who vote, the better elections are; that voting in itself is a good thing and we should want more and more people to vote. Of course, we want all eligible people to vote. It seems to be implicit in this argument that it matters little if the people who vote are illegal or the votes cast are fraudulent votes. But I contend, I think without much dispute, it is as damaging to a fair election to allow someone to vote who is not eligible or someone to vote twice, fraudulently, or someone to vote for someone who did not show up on election day and slip into the ballot box and say: I am John Jones and vote for that person--that does as much damage to the integrity of elections as if an individual somehow were wrongfully denied the right to vote in the outcome of an election. I would be the first to acknowledge that in our past we have, and particularly in the South, had blatant examples, before the Voting Rights Act predominantly, when people were blatantly denied the right to vote. It was a stain on our election process and a stain on the integrity of that process. But this is a time we need to be working together to make sure every vote is honest and fair and not fraudulent. Another example of apparent politics at play in the Civil Rights Division occurred in Missouri, where the Department has quietly refused to continue an existing ongoing lawsuit that was brought under the National Voter Registration Act. That lawsuit was brought 4 years ago to enforce a provision that required States to clean up their registration lists to prevent voter fraud. According to commentator Hans von Spakovsky: When the suit was filed in 2005, one-third of the counties had more registered voters than voting-age residents. One county's list was 153 percent of the Census count. And the State had done virtually nothing to clean up its rolls. Fast forward to March. There remains no evidence that the voter registration rolls in most Missouri counties have been purged of their thousands of nonresidents and decedents. Registration numbers from the November elections show that there are still more than a dozen Missouri counties with more registered voters than voting-age residents. Yet rather than continuing the case to ensure that Missouri cleans up its voter registration rolls, the Department of Justice refused to pursue the case and dropped it, a distressing sign to me that it does not take the integrity of the voting process seriously--certainly not seriously enough. Is the Department of Justice committed to integrity in the process? Or just allowing anybody who wants to walk in and vote to vote? Of course, these decisions have been made by the Civil Rights Division before Mr. Perez has been confirmed, that is certainly true. He does not have any culpability in these actions. But it just raises concerns of mine about: Is he committed to fixing it? Will he correct these kinds of decisions? Is he committed to fairness, regardless of political impact in an election? There are important rules in voting. Those rules must be followed. Will he reinstate the case in Philadelphia where there was a clear indication of threats and intimidation against voters? Will he correct the course that the Civil Rights Division has taken in undermining commonsense voter identification laws? Will he reinstitute National Voter Registration Act lawsuits to ensure that States clean up their voter rolls to prevent voter fraud? The way this happens is you have a large number of names on a voter roll and a voting precinct and that creates a real danger, if you don't have identification, if you don't require the voter to produce any identification, the person walks in there and says: John Jones? I am John Jones. OK, you get to vote, and he votes. He goes to the next voting place, he knows somebody's name is on the list who is not allowed or not in the district or not going to vote that day, and he says: I am Ralph Smith and he signs and votes and goes in again and again and again and people have been known to travel all over multiple precincts casting votes in the names of persons not their own name. It is fraudulent. It demeans the integrity of the entire election process as much as if the person had wrongly been denied the right to vote. I am concerned where Mr. Perez will be in this. He has been pretty active politically. When he ran for the Montgomery, MD, county council he responded to a question asking ``What would you like the voters to know about you?'' Mr. Perez said: ``I am a progressive Democrat and always was and always will be.'' This is a free country and that is all right. I am just saying, in all fairness, that statement makes me a little nervous. As a councilman, Mr. Perez expressed disdain for Republicans, at one point, according to the report, giving ``a 5-minute speech about how some conservative Republicans do not care about the poor.'' In an April 3, 2005, Washington Post article, Mr. Perez was described as ``about as liberal as Democrats get.'' I am also concerned Mr. Perez will not be committed to fully enforcing our Nation's immigration laws, some I have worked hard on. We need to create a lawful system of immigration. We cannot continue in this lawless method as we are, and one of the first things you do to reduce illegal immigration is you stop rewarding people who violate our laws to come here. He previously served as the President of the Board of CASA de Maryland, an immigrant advocacy organization that has taken some extreme views and been criticized by a number of people in the media. CASA de Maryland issued a pamphlet instructing immigrants confronted by the police to remain silent. CASA also promotes day labor sites. This is where people, often without lawful status, come and seek work and opposes restrictions on illegal immigrants receiving drivers licenses. He was President of the Board. Mr. Perez, himself, has spoken in favor of measures that would assist illegal aliens in skirting U.S. immigration laws. For example, as a councilman in 2003, Mr. Perez supported matricula consular ID cards issued by Mexico and Guatemala as a valid form of identification for local residents who worked and used services, without having any U.S.- issued documents to prove their identity. Of course, after a good bit of examination and public discussion, those matricula cards were shown to be unreliable, and that is an unworkable way to determine the legal status of someone. But he was a defender of the matricula cards, which I think is troubling given the position he will be seeking to assume. He also supported a bill granting instate tuition rates to illegal immigrants in Maryland and stated: We have a legal obligation to make the same commitment to hundreds of immigrant high school students who have made Maryland their home. We don't have a legal obligation to give people who are illegally in the country tuition and certainly not cheaper instate tuition than our out-of-state tuition. Although Mr. Perez has taken many of these positions while acting in a political capacity--and there is a distinction between that political advocacy and being the head of the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division--I do think it is reasonable for us to be concerned about whether he will use the Department of Justice's resources to advance his ideas and an agenda that is not consistent with the highest ideals of civil rights. I don't believe establishing lawful rules of immigration or lawful rules for voting is unfair and contrary to civil rights. Indeed, they are a cornerstone. The law is civil rights in a true sense. So I am concerned, and we are going to be watching to ensure that the Civil Rights Division not be politicized. It must be above politics. It must work to protect the rights of all Americans regardless of their political party, their race, or background. Given the very political decisions apparently being made now in the Department of Justice, I think it takes someone committed to rising above this kind of activity and to right the ship. I have talked with him. I enjoyed that conversation. I certainly have no ill will toward Mr. Perez personally. But I have to say, I think it is important that we have honesty in voting, I think it is important that we have a legal system that works with regard to immigration, and at this point I am not convinced Mr. Perez has demonstrated he has the will to do those things, and that is what troubles me about the nomination. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I would like to discuss a matter that is unrelated to the pending nomination. I have been concerned about the competition for the Air Force's No. 1 acquisition priority, the KC-X replacement aerial refueling tanker. This competition was opened for a second time on September 25 with the release of the RFP to the two bidders. We know this has been a troubled acquisition program. People actually went to jail early on in the process for attempting to create a sole source lease agreement. That breach of the public trust caused the Senate and Congress to mandate that a full and open competition be held to replace the Air Force's aging tankers. Full and open competition language was included in the 2005 Defense Authorization Act explicitly to prevent one competitor from having an unfair advantage over the other. A troubling fact has come to my attention regarding the second round of tanker competition. The Air Force released Northrop Grumman's proposed pricing for the KC-X tanker to Boeing, the other competitor, at the end of the first competition, a competition that resulted in Northrop Grumman being declared the winner. I am told that such a release of pricing data was within acquisition regulations and that it is customary that the pricing data for the winning proposal, in this instance the Northrop Grumman proposal, be shared with the other competitors. The Department of Defense has stated that the Air Force did disclose the winner's pricing information to the losing competitor after last year's source selection. The Department of Defense further stated: . . . this disclosure was in accordance with regulation and more importantly that it created no competitive disadvantage because the data in question are inaccurate, outdated, and not germane to this source selection. That statement might sound reasonable if it were not your pricing data that had been given to your competitor, but it certainly flies in the face of even the simplest definition of fairness. Let's be clear. This round of the KC-X competition is based on the same capabilities development document, the CDD, as the last, and the winner of the last competition is going to be bidding using the same aircraft they won with last time. How is their pricing data not germane to this round of competition? If is it not relevant, why won't the Department give both competitors the same insight to each team's pricing from the last competition? Earlier this year we passed the Weapons System Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 and dedicated an entire section of that act to the need for fair competition. A basic tenet of effective competition is transparency to all bidders. In both versions of the 2010 authorization bills currently pending in this session, there is language that directs a fair and open competition, as has been true in previous years as we considered this acquisition project. It is a big one. It is important. It is the Air Force's No. 1 acquisition priority. I stand behind the Air Force in their recognition of the need to reestablish their credibility. It had been lost somewhat in the improprieties that turned up several years ago. But I am disheartened by the fact that they don't seem to understand this issue of not sharing the same pricing data between the two bidders undermines their credibility and fairness. The Air Force certainly can't take the Northrop team's pricing data back. It has already been given to Boeing. It is too late for that. There is a simple fix to this problem. Both competitors should have the pricing data from the last competition. That is the only practical way to level the playing field. It is the right way to go forward with replacing an aging tanker fleet, some of which are over 50 years old. By the time the new tankers are in place, some existing tankers will be 80 years old. Releasing this data is what a fair competition requires and what the Air Force should do. I understand that the bill managers have selected a certain number of amendments to consider and this amendment will not be selected for a vote. I have some amendments that have been selected. I understand the managers' constraints, but I believe the Air Force should consider this simple step toward fairness and should be committed to making sure one side does not have an unfair advantage over the other. I have talked with Senators Coburn and Vitter who have an interest in this nomination. They have agreed to vitiate the cloture vote and proceed to an up-or-down vote on the nominee.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would like to say how much I have enjoyed the clarity and integrity with which Senator Lieberman has stated the situation in which we find ourselves. It comes from great experience over a number of years, both on the technical matters of missile defense and on the geopolitical threats this Nation faces. I certainly value his opinion. I would share one thought with my colleagues. I hope my colleagues will understand this. What happened in this year's budget request was a major shift from a very long lead plan to develop a very robust missile defense system. We can disagree about some of the details of this or that. But let me give some examples of what has occurred: In this year's budget request, the President canceled the Kinetic Energy Interceptor, the KEI. It was a high-speed missile that would be less expensive and have great capability, particularly in the ascent-phase of an attack against the United States. The president's budget zeroed that out. We have been working on that for quite a number of years. They also are working toward and doing research on an MKV, a Multi Kill Vehicle, in which you can put on a single ground-based interceptor booster three or more kill vehicles, that could knock down multiple missiles or decoys. The budget zeroed that out. We had a plan we have been developing for a number of years to develop an airborne laser, have a laser on an airplane that can fly in an area where you may expect a launch to occur. It does not have to be very close but in the region. They catch a missile in the boost phase. The laser can hit it and knock it out of the sky. It is a remarkable capability. That has been debated, I will admit, but it has been funded for a number of years. It will be tested this year. The Defense Department expects that test to be successful. We did have enough money, or there was enough money in the bill to at least test it. But after that, zeroed out. No funding for ABL. So what about our ground-based interceptors and GMD system that we have been working on for 30-plus years, spent over $20 billion on, that was planned to implant 44 interceptors in Alaska--most of them in Alaska and some in California? That has been cut from 44 to 30. What about the plan to deploy 10 in Poland and Europe to give us redundancy and protect Europe? Zeroed out. So this is not just a little nibbling away in missile defense. This is an erroneous policy that makes me nervous. Because we have a system that is ready to go forward. We stop it. We promise we are going to have a new system out here 10 years from now. There's many a slip twixt the cup and the lip. I am not sure whether we will ever get that done waiting on some new system to come along. As Senator Lieberman noted, the administration requested $151 million to be obligated for a long-range missile defense system in Europe. They requested that that money be used for research and development and testing of this two-stage system. This amendment that Senator Lieberman and I have proposed would prohibit the diversion of that away from what the Obama administration initially requested and to require it to be spent on the two-stage GBI, including options for deployment in Europe and elsewhere. So why is it necessary? Well, the mark we are dealing with on the floor today cuts the $151 billion from the BMD test and targets program element, and, though the language itself does not expressly target this cut against testing for the two-stage GBI, the Missile Defense Agency understands this is what the Senate Appropriations Committee intends. Hence, they have submitted to us an appeal letter and asked us not to do it. MDA argues this cut will require cancellation of fiscal year 2010 testing activities related to two planned two-stage GBI flight and intercept tests. We have proven the technology of the three-stage interceptor. Therefore, it is simpler to have a two-stage one. We have to test it and develop it. Such a cancellation, as occurs in this bill, will also impact data collection applicable to the three-stage GBI requiring further testing in the future at additional costs. Reduced funding would increase, risk, and delay the proving out of the two-stage GBI avionics capabilities required for the European component and future three-stage avionics capabilities. Slowing the development and testing of the two-stage GBI is inconsistent with the administration's intent to continue such development as a hedge against developmental problems for the SM3 Block IIa and IIB, the ones that are intended in the distant future for Europe. So General Cartwright, our commander in Europe, has indicated, by 2015, this would be a potential threat against the United States. That is why we have offered this language. I believe it is the right thing to do, to keep this program at least ongoing and not to waste the effort we have expended so far and complete the testing of the GBI, which can also be used in the United States as part of a layered defense against incoming missiles also. In the appeal submitted to the committee from the Department of Defense, they note this language: Cancelling fiscal year 2010 activities for these tests would have a major impact on the test program and on data collection applicable to two-stage and three-stage ground- based interceptors and associated M&S. So they say it would have a major impact on the program and the administration has asked us to keep it. That is the purpose of this amendment. I was hoping we could reach some sort of accord that we could work on with the committee. I am not sure we have been able to do that at this stage. But the matter is important. I hate to have to come to the floor and offer this amendment. I like to respect our committees. It is important. However, the concerns Senator Lieberman and I have explained today are why we felt it necessary to do so.

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank Senator Lieberman. I have confidence in the chairman and the ranking member on that committee. Of course, it is not much different than what the mark is today. It is below what President Obama requested. I think he has unwisely cut too much already from Defense. So I am uneasy about it. But I am being a practical person, and knowing my colleagues would like to go home, Senator Lieberman, I think that is maybe something I would agree to. Perhaps you and I could talk briefly if we have a quorum call.

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I was concerned to learn on September 17 of the President's decision to forgo the deployment of 10 long-range, ground-based interceptors in Poland and a radar site in the Czech Republic which was designed for the defense of Europe and the United States against long-range Iranian ballistic missiles. Just a few days ago, the Iranians demonstrated their determination, even after they agreed to meet with the United States, to deploy such a system by launching their top mid-range missile. That is not long from, of course, a long-range missile. The Senate Armed Services Committee held a full committee hearing on the subject last week, and it did little to quell my initial concerns and has, in fact, added apprehension about the lack of specifics in the plan we are hearing will now be employed. More important, the geopolitical implications of reneging on prior U.S. commitments to key allies should not be underestimated. With respect to the so-called ``Phased Adaptive'' approach, President Obama would have us believe that ``this new approach will provide capabilities sooner, build on proven systems, and offer greater defenses against the threat of missile attack than the 2007 European Missile Defense Program.'' I will add, parenthetically that the Europeans did agree and NATO did agree to the deployment of ground-based interceptors in Poland and the radar in the Czech Republic. The reality is more complicated than the President indicates. I have to say, frankly, first, it is not clear this new approach will provide capabilities sooner. In fact, it does not appear to. Under the first phase of this new plan, which is essentially underway, the United States would defend our allies against short-range threats by providing ``SM-3 Block 1A capable warships when necessary for the protection of parts of Southern Europe.'' That would mean we would deploy an Aegis cruiser armed with SM-3 missiles. But this is no different from what the previous plan called for. To suggest that is some new plan is inaccurate. To be sure, even today, we have AEGIS ships with SM-3 missiles plying the waters of the Mediterranean, and Patriot units deployed in and around Europe for our defense against short-range missiles. In phase 2 of this new plan, which is, we are told, going to be completed by 2015, a more advanced version of the theater SM-3, the IB, would be deployed at sea and on land. Likewise, under the old plan, the IB missile would be deployed and fielded by 2015, though perhaps not on land. But it had been discussed. In fact, the last budget prepared by the previous administration called for an increase in the inventory of THAAD and SM-3 missiles to over 440 missiles in the European area by 2015, 2016. I have not seen any inventory projection for this new plan, but I would be surprised to learn their numbers are significantly greater than what was previously planned. In fact, the administration has not gotten off to a good start in this respect, as the fiscal year 2010 budget request includes no funding for a new SM-3 or THAAD purchases. This is the only budget year request we have been presented by the administration, and they are not requesting any new THAAD and any new SM-3 missiles. The administration's request funds previous purchases of missiles but requests not a single new interceptor that would be deployed. By 2018, in the third phase of the new plan--2018, over 8 years from now--a newly developed SM-3 block IIA missile would be added to the inventory to protect all of Europe against intermediate-range Iranian missiles-- the kind of intermediate range the Iranians just tested Monday. This is by 2018. Under the old plan, the plan we have been working on for quite a number of years, this SM-3 IIA capability was meant to complement the deployment of 10 ground-based interceptors in Poland, which would have provided protection for most of Europe and the United States against long-range Iranian missiles in the 2015 timeframe. In other words, these 10 interceptors would have been capable of protecting all of Europe and the United States. If a missile were launched from Iran aimed at hitting the United States, it would fly basically over Poland and Central Europe. As a result, this would be a prime place to deploy a defensive missile system. The ground-based interceptor that would have been used would have essentially been the same missile we currently have deployed in Alaska. Our Presiding Officer, Senator Begich, has been very engaged in that, and I know we both are concerned to see the number of interceptors planned for that site being reduced. The key difference in the missiles is that our interceptors in Alaska and California are three-stage missiles, while two-stage missiles would be used to fit our needs in Europe. Finally, the new plan would call for the development of IIB missiles by 2020, which would ``further augment the defense of the U.S. homeland from potential ICBM threats.'' That is what they are telling us would happen. But I have been around here a while, and we don't have this SM- 3 IIB missile even on the drawing board. They just conjured up this idea a few days ago--at least that is the first I have heard about it. So we have to build this new missile--not build on the one we have already emplaced in Alaska and are building now, but build a whole new missile. That will take 10 years. And who is to say the Congress will be faithful to this 10-year plan? I will tell you one thing: President Obama will not spend a dime of his money on it. This is in the distant future. That worries me because my experience is that plans like this don't always come to fruition. When you abandon a proven technology, that we are almost ready to deploy now, after some hope in the future, this makes me nervous. The two-stage GBI intended for Poland in the old plan would have been fielded by 2015, 5 years earlier than this vision of a IIB, if the ratification of all the agreements had occurred and we pushed for that. The 2015 date is important because Iran may have, by then, long-range missiles capable of reaching all of Europe and the United States. In March of this year, General Craddock, then-commander of U.S. European Command, testified before Congress, By 2015, Iran may also deploy an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of reaching all of Europe and parts of the United States. That was his testimony, given under oath. In May of this year, 2009, an unclassified intelligence report issued by the National Air and Space Intelligence Center stated: With sufficient foreign assistance, Iran could develop and test an ICBM capable of reaching the United States by 2015. In the final analysis, it is not clear that the new plan will field capabilities any sooner--and indeed it appears later than the previous plan--which may leave us with a gap in coverage in Europe for at least 5 years if we were to move forward with the plan to develop this missile. So forgive me if I am not buying into this. This plan sounds like an excuse for giving up on the European site for the GBI. The President also claims that his approach is based on proven technology--the assumption being, perhaps, that the previous plan was fraught with technological risk. Again, that claim is not correct. The administration argues that its approach to providing defense of Europe with SM-3 block IIA, and ultimately augmented with this IIB system in 2020, is based on proven technology of the currently deployed SM-3 IA missile. Well, that is just not accurate. The SM-3 that would be effective against an ICBM is much larger in diameter. It is an entirely new missile. Just because the SM-3 is performing very well for theater defense doesn't mean they can build an entirely new SM-3 and it is going to be as effective. I assume they could, and move forward with it, but it is not a sure thing. While I have confidence in the ability of the SM-3 missile to eventually evolve into an ICBM interceptor, I would note that the two- stage GBI intended for Poland is also based on proven technology of the three-stage GBI now deployed in Alaska and California, which, according to General Cartwright, has a 90-percent probability of intercepting a rogue missile--presumably coming in from North Korea. This is a great system. We have invested decades of effort in it, over 20 years. Thirty-plus years have gone into developing an antimissile system. We have finally got it so that we have a 90-percent chance of having one of these interceptors--knockdown, hit-to-kill technology--in space over the Pacific Ocean to obliterate an incoming missile. We have the radar system designed to pick up these missiles on launch, to track them, and to guide the missile into that kill system. It is certainly questionable to me whether the SM-3 block II variant, which requires new boosters and a new kill vehicle, is less technologically risky than a two-stage GBI, which is scheduled for flight testing in the coming years. Finally, the President contends that his approach would offer greater defense than the previous approach. Here he assumed the old approach included only 10 ground-based interceptors in Poland and that his new approach would provide more theater defense on land and on sea. I would just say that this bothers me because that has never been our plan. Our plan always has been to emplace ICBMs or theater missiles in Europe, as well as the 10 interceptors in Poland that would protect us from a rogue attack from a country like Iran, which seems determined to do this. So this is where we have been. And I am pleased to see my colleague, Senator Lieberman, who throughout his time in the Senate has maintained a superb understanding of national missile defense as part of his duties on the Senate Armed Services Committee. He is probably the most knowledgeable person in the Senate on that issue, and I think he shares some of my concerns. I thank the Senator for coming, and I would be pleased to join with him in an amendment that could improve our situation today. I will be glad to yield to my colleague. The only thing I see new in this plan is the abandonment of the Polish site, the ground-based interceptor, which indeed is capable of knocking down a missile from Iran. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I would be pleased to hear Senator Lieberman share some of his thoughts.

Mr. SESSIONS

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