Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank him for making that explicit point. It is sad that I feel I have to vote against the continuing resolution. But the Senator is so right. You have seen this for a number of years more than I. If we do not begin to push back against this process--and I think we could make a difference if we fight--it is going to continue. So I thank the Senator for his leadership and his insight and his commitment to reform in the great traditions of the Senate.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield?

Mr. SESSIONS. I think this is bad for America. It is a bipartisan bad thing. It was not good when Republicans were doing it, and it is not good now that the Democrats have carried it even further. This Congress is no longer serving in its traditional role of protecting and allowing the American people to see the issues before them, to be the saucer that allows the debating issues to be cooled and debated. I worry about it. There was a time when, if you look back at debates, according to a gentleman from Harvard who studied this, the debates focused on what was in the long-term interests of the country, and people debated that and they said: Well, if we give money to people who invested recklessly or people who are lazy and will not go to work, will we not encourage reckless investment, or when we encourage people to stay home and draw a check? I mean, they asked these kinds of questions and they discussed them because what we do here has certain importance. But it is too rare today. The legislative process, I have to say, is broken. The congressional budget and spending process is broken. The American people need to know what is happening and what is not happening here. So in the spirit to reach the finish line, I am going take a few moments to highlight some items that I see as an example of the broken nature of the process. There is no better scorecard for how a Congress operates than the tally of appropriations bills that are actually debated. There are 12 appropriations bills we must pass each year. Traditionally, each one is brought up and voted on, and each one of those bills should be passed before October 1. They fund certain parts of the Government. As of this minute, this day, on the eve of our adjournment, this year's legislative score on the 12 bills is zero, none, not one. This is the first time it has happened in my 12 years in the Senate, that Congress failed to pass a single stand-alone appropriations bill on time. Failure to move individual bills is more and more a common thing. Republicans and Democrats have both been guilty of this, but this year is the worst ever. The congressional budget and spending process is broken. Since 1980, only three times has Congress enacted all its appropriations bills, as they should, by the start of the fiscal year, October 1. Only three times in 28 years have we done our job on time. Mr. President, 138 continuing resolutions, however, have been needed to keep the Government running. The reason for this is that any Government agency cannot expend a dime that is not appropriated by Congress. If we don't appropriate money for the next fiscal year beginning October 1, they cannot pay payrolls. They cannot pay the light bill. They cannot do necessary things. The Antideficiency Act says it is a crime for them to spend money not appropriated by Congress, and it violates the Constitution. These stopgap measures, these continuing resolutions, have been used as a method to keep the Government open. We can't agree on the appropriations bills, so we just continue funding at the present level without any real review or priorities, and it avoids discussion and debate. The American people should know a continuing resolution represents, in truth: a failure of Congress to get its job done. Also, over the past 12 budget cycles, Congress has passed 10 big omnibus bills, averaging about seven or eight bills each. They are put in massive form, as we will see, hundreds of pages oftentimes, with just a few hours to debate and very limited ability to file amendments. They have been rammed through the Senate and the House in the last hours of a session. Now the masters of the universe say: If we bring this bill up, people might actually offer amendments, and they might ask us to change the Tax Code. Somebody might want to raise or lower the capital gains rate. We would have to vote on that. We would be put on record as having to vote. We don't want to go back home and have a voting record. We are going to see if we can't bring it up at the end of the session. Don't think this is by chance. This is by design, to bring it up at the end of a session so there is little time for debate and discussion. Nobody can deny that. We know that, those of us who have been here. This year we are going to have both. We will have an omnibus bill where some actual appropriations bills are put together, and then we will have a continuing resolution. We will vote on the Department of Defense bill representing $487 billion. That is a pretty good chunk of money, not $700 billion but a lot of money. We will not have amendments on that bill. I am not happy with some of the things that happened that moved some money around since it left the Armed Services Committee, of which I am a member. As a practical matter, there is no way, I am told, I can get a vote from this body to try to correct it. We either take the bill, as the group of people who put it together approved it, or not. Let me move along and share this thought with my colleagues. It is something we have to do. I offer this as a bipartisan solution that I believe would make a big difference. There is no single cure for what we are doing. It takes a determination by each of us that we want to do a better job of affirming and defending and validating the historical prerogatives and responsibilities of the Senate. Let me suggest that a biennial, 2-year budget process would be a tremendous step in the right direction. It is good Government reform. Biennial, 2-year budgeting has been supported by the last four Presidents, Democrats and Republicans. It has strong bipartisan support in this Congress. Some people know every time a bill passes--and they are skilled at it--they can stick something on it. They believe if the bill isn't passing but once every 2 years, they might have less opportunity to stick some special interest pork project on it. But whatever, we would be doing 2-year budgets, and a change from that would have benefits. By eliminating the budget decision to every other year, Congress would have considerably more time to spend passing critical legislation such as this bailout package, actually giving it thought. Two-year budgets would allow more time for considering things such as the energy crisis, for heaven's sake. That is critical. It would also allow much better oversight of existing wasteful programs that are not achieving what they are supposed to. Two-year budgeting would provide Federal agencies such as the Department of Defense more time to complete their core missions. They are over here all the time, every year, trying to work through congressional arguments and fusses over what DOD needs. Process does drive policy. The current budget process, the current appropriations process, is not working. It is an embarrassment to the heritage of the Senate. Two-year budgeting will not solve all our spending problems, but it would be a positive step. I believe this is a matter that would strengthen the Congress, our traditional role, improve the way we do business, and make our Government better. Putting together in a CR the appropriations bills points out the need for more oversight, more serious congressional action, including the fact that there is over $16 billion worth of earmarks in the bill that were not really brought forward in a way that somebody could pass them or reject them, based on whether they are legitimate. Senator DeMint mentioned some of those earlier today. I will mention one. The LIHEAP legislation eligibility was changed from 60 percent to 75 percent of a State's median income for one to be eligible. That means more people would be eligible to have the Government pay for their heating oil. It has been said that this program would be able to be accessed by people who have high electricity bills and heating bills, maybe in Arizona, Louisiana, and Alabama. But look at the $2.88 billion designated as emergency. Almost all of this is going to be earmarked in a way that it is going to go to the Northeast. So it is not fair, No. 1, and No. 2, I am not sure why people's gas bills are not going to be paid. Why are we picking on that? One more thing about that: I think it is particularly odd that Members of the Northeast who oppose consistently drilling off our shores, who consistently oppose natural gas pipelines, who oppose nuclear power oftentimes, they are now demanding that the U.S. taxpayers give them a subsidy so they can buy at below-market price dirty heating oil to heat their homes with. We hear we need to use more solar and geothermal and wind. Maybe we ought to give money for that if it is so wonderful. But this is an increase of a $2.8 billion emergency expenditure for LIHEAP. I think it is bad policy. In this crisis of time and overspending and deficits I don't believe another new $2.8 billion in emergency spending is good policy. I don't believe it is good for America. Sure, it is great if you have a check for your heating oil. You would say: Thank you, Uncle Sam. But somebody paid for that check. If not the taxpayers, our grandchildren. I would note, by the way, since we are already in deficit and this is emergency spending, every single dollar of that $2.8 billion increases the debt of the United States. There is no money to pay for it. There is lots of that kind of thing in there. I will not use the rest of my time to go through these kinds of matters, but I will note that the automobile bailout that I thought we had defeated with the second emergency supplemental is now back in the bill. It is going to pass, $7.5 billion to guarantee $25 billion in loans for automobile producers. We have to be careful about this. We have criticized the Europeans for subsidizing loans for their industries. Now we are in this hog wild. It is going to be a problem maybe in violation of the WTO agreements we have made. The heritage of the Senate is indeed a great one. We have been slipping in recent years away from full and open debate. I see the Republican whip is here, Senator Kyl. He remembers many of the 3-week debates on issues of importance in the day. That has gotten less and less frequent as time has gone by. More and more power is asserted by fewer and fewer Members to move huge pieces of legislation without debate. It is not good. I urge my colleagues to consider what we can do about it. This year the train is on the track. I assume it is going to be able to move forward and carry these bills through. That is what I am hearing. That is what I hear the votes are. But I do think we need to change this. We need to return to the great heritage of the Senate. If it means we have to stay here for a week and stay into the night so people can come in and engage on how to fix the energy crisis or how to create more liquidity in the markets or what to do about the fundamental problems this country faces--as USA Today said the other day, three things: We are an economy founded on excessive personal debt, excessive government debt, and a massive trade deficit. We can move around with a lot of things to try to help the financial markets not be bottlenecked. But I am really worried if we don't deal with those things such as energy independence, things of that nature, the economy is not likely to improve. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. We should make no mistake that this is a weakening of it. I would note the article in the Wall Street Journal quoted people around the world for seeing the irony in the United States bailing out companies while we have been advocating to them that when their companies get in trouble, their governments should not bail them out as a matter of principle. For those reasons, with due, great respect for my colleagues who see it differently, with full acknowledgment that this is an extremely tough decision and we do not know how the economy is going--and many do believe this step will help it--I will not be able to vote for it because I think it goes too far. I think it could have been more narrowly drawn and should have been. It is a precedent that will come back to haunt us in the future. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we are all wrestling with what is a real economic challenge and crisis for America. We have a situation where credit, even in good companies and with good individuals in States such as Alabama, is becoming more difficult to come by and it has the potential to slow down development and economic growth. So I do not deny that there is a real problem out there. The President of the United States and the Secretary of the Treasury at some point made a decision that strong action was needed, and since that point their rhetoric has changed from concern and separate and distinct actions to make the situation better, to basically a bold threat to Congress that this economy is in grave danger and that if we don't pass the bill they propose, things could get even worse. That is a powerful thing. When the President of the United States and the Secretary of the Treasury, who are very responsible individuals, make such a charge, all of us should take it seriously. And as I said, I am aware of the definite slowdown, particularly in housing, in my State, and I don't dismiss that. I will say that in recent days some of the comments made on television and other places, to me, are a bit alarmist. It seems once a decision has been made by the Wall Street crowd that this is the right thing to do, they use whatever excuse they can find or whatever argument they can make and propound that dramatically to ``force a recalcitrant Congress'' to do what they would like to have us do. Well, I have been around. I didn't just fall off the turnip truck. You can turn on the TV and see all of this and get a feel for it. So I think it is a matter of great seriousness, and I respect my colleagues who are working on it, some of whom have been selected, in some way or another, to represent us all; to go and meet with House Members, and I guess the administration officials and gurus, and they are going to tell us what all we need to do. And on the eve of the election, a big fat bill is going to be finally put together and we are going to be asked if we are for it or against it. I suspect it may well pass, because I think people would rather vote for something and go home. Maybe our Secretary can save us. Maybe the master of the universe that he is, he can figure out a way to take $700 billion, with very little control--he has always said what he wanted was ``maximum flexibility.'' What does that mean? It means freedom to do whatever he wants to do. Well, I understand now that at least somebody came up with the idea to have an independent group to have oversight over this, or at least have the ability to say no at some point. So that is better than where we were, I think. But I am troubled about this for a lot of reasons. I wish the administration had been more constrained, more targeted in their relief, seeking to provide relief in a way that has the minimal precedential value for some major incursion into the economy the next time we have problems in our economy. I am worried about that, and others are too. I also wish to take a moment to express my admiration for the senior Senator from Alabama, who in 2005 chaired the Banking Committee, and he pushed through, I think on a straight party-line vote--all the Republicans, I believe, voted for it--a bill that would have put strict controls and oversight over Fannie and Freddie. At that time, Alan Greenspan, who was the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, made a powerful statement saying that our financial markets were at risk if we didn't do something in 2005 about fixing the Freddie and Fannie problem. It was a strong statement. Going back and looking at it today, it was a cause for concern. So they were able to pass it out of committee, but there wasn't enough support on the floor to pass it. I was told recently that Freddie and Fannie, in one quarter, had more paid lobbyists than any other group in town, and they are supposed to be a quasi-government operation. But at any rate, they were able to block the reform. So we didn't do it, and now we are in a crisis. I know Senator Shelby has expressed his concern, as one who has been on top of this issue for some time, that this legislation is not a good way to handle it. He has made some suggestions. I wish they had given serious consideration to those. I think it would be a position better for our country. But the momentum is going forward, and I am not here to try to delay any votes. It is time for us to put up and shut up and cast our vote. I point out a letter written to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate. Two hundred or so economists question this plan. They make three points: First, they question its fairness. They consider it a ``subsidy to investors at taxpayers' expense. Investors who took risks to earn profits must also bear the losses. Not every business failure carries a systemic risk.'' No. 2, they question its ambiguity, noting: Neither the mission of the new agency nor its oversight are clear. I think that is still true. We made some progress but it is still true. They say purchases of opaque assets from troubled sellers must be on such terms that are ``crystal clear ahead of time and monitored carefully afterwards.'' But the most important point, at least to me as a Member of the Senate, which is supposed to be the thoughtful body, the institution that gives consideration of the long-term implications of what we do, the third part is particularly impactful to me and struck a nerve with me. The third paragraph expresses concern for its long-term effects. If the plan is enacted, its effects will be with us for a generation. For all their recent troubles, America's dynamic and innovative private capital markets have brought the nation unparalleled prosperity. Fundamentally weakening those markets in order to calm short-term disruptions is desperately shortsighted. They close their letter by saying: For these reasons we ask Congress not to rush, to hold appropriate hearings, to carefully consider the right course of action, and to wisely determine the future of the financial industry and the United States economy for the years to come. I just would say about those things, there are a lot of matters we can discuss. I argued in committee and on the floor in opposition to a plan that some of my Democratic colleagues offered some time ago, and then again recently, that would give a bankruptcy judge the right to rewrite the terms of a mortgage and, in fact, would allow a person who goes into bankruptcy to cram down what they owed on a mortgage, to rewrite it and reduce it, for example, from $150,000 to $100,000 based on the judge's evaluations, and just let them pay that amount. I remember arguing that when you do not honor contracts, very pernicious things tend to happen. So if a bank is going to loan you money and they think somebody might rewrite the contract and you would not have to pay it back, then they may decide they have to raise interest rates on everybody they loan to, to guard against that potential, or require an even bigger downpayment than they otherwise would require. I believe removing that provision was the right thing to do. But from a moral position, I think it is a good deal harder for a Senator or Member of this body who deals with that issue to say it is a dangerous precedent to allow a mortgage to be rewritten, but it is OK for a big business with a CEO, paid $100 million a year--they can have their contracts rewritten, they can get bailouts from the Government, they don't have to pay the consequences of adverse economic fortune that we say the individual has to pay. I would say no one should doubt that the American commitment to an allocation of wealth in a market economy will be eroded dramatically if this bill passes--I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.

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 know the country is focusing on and we are all concerned about the state of the economy and some of the proposals that are being raised to fix that, including the proposal from the Secretary of Treasury and the administration for a $700 billion expenditure. That is almost one-third of the entire governmental expenditure this year. It is more than the war in Iraq has cost, and it is an extraordinary thing. I do not know the answer. I am not a master of the universe. I have used the phrase sometimes: Masters of the Universe. Understand that if this legislation, as was proposed, were to become law, we would have one single master of the universe, almost, the Secretary of Treasury. I think this Congress has a responsibility here. I want to say that. I know now is not the time to go into a lot of detail, but I want to say this Congress has a responsibility, and we are not free to dust our hands and say: Mr. Secretary, you have all the power you want to buy and sell private corporations, to spend up to $700 billion, and we are all going to be happy about it. We think you can fix it, and we will go home and do our campaigning. I think we have a bigger responsibility than that. I wish to say--and I have great respect for Secretary Paulson, I do-- I would want to know more about the nature of the crisis we are facing. I know we have a serious crisis. I wish to know why we cannot slow down a little bit and think this thing through. That is the tradition of the Senate, the saucer that cools. But we are hearing: It is a crisis, and you politicians will mess it up. Go on and get out of the way and vote this thing out and we will take care of it. But that implicates the separation of powers to an extraordinary degree and may well be adverse in the long run. The proposal certainly was not greeted by Wall Street today as an indication of a solid fix. The market dropped again, and people apparently thought it would weaken the dollar and that is the reason oil prices increased. So this is a matter we need to think about. I urge my colleagues on the relevant committees and the leadership on the Republican side in the Senate and the Democratic side: Let's not be stampeded here. Let's ask good questions. I am one who is not adverse to taking action, appropriate action, but I think we need to not be stampeded. It is a bit hubris to think one person can fix it all and somehow that person can stand in the middle of all of the market forces and rebalance them. Do we believe in the market or not? One socialist is reported to have said when asked: What is socialism: It is the ability to control the commanding heights of the economy. Well, financial institutions are one commanding height of the economy. Who are we not giving control of that over to? I think in a fundamental sense, the goals I believe we should have would be first to protect the interests of the taxpayers before we spend in a manner of days an amount of money equal to and in excess of the war in Iraq--almost one-third of our annual expenditures. Let's protect the taxpayers. How do we do that? We need to find out more about the problems. We are told there are grave problems, problems, problems, and we have to act, act, act. Exactly what are those problems that require us to act so fast? Secondly, I think our action should be respectful of the marketplace, and let's try to do what would restore integrity in the marketplace. I don't think it is necessary that we need more regulation as much as we need better, more appropriate regulation. I would note that my colleague, Senator Shelby, the ranking Republican on the Banking Committee and former chairman, has fought for years to have more control over Freddie and Fannie and their activities, as the Wall Street Journal noted recently. I urge my colleagues: Let's take some time. We got into this in large part by some bad government policies and actions. I think we can all admit that. The government is going to have to take action. I recognize that. But I think it is important that when we act on a matter of this size and this importance, we take enough time to understand what is in it and do the right thing, not the political thing in this political season. I thank the Chair for the opportunity to share those thoughts. I know there are some fine Members of this Senate worried right now who are wrestling with these issues. I, for one, believe that maybe a little slower action, a little more thought, may turn out to be better in the long run than a panicky response. I thank the Chair and yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I note that we are talking about some sort of capture of unused visas in the past, which we calculate at about 550,000. Maybe it is 300,000. This is a major alteration of current law that has a certain number of family members, a large number, actually, who can come in every year. This would be a major expansion of that. Those are the kinds of things I think the Senate has gotten to the point we know we don't need to have a full debate on before we recess this year. Therefore, I consider that addition to the House bill that Senator Menendez wishes to see become law as a nonstarter and would have to object.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank Senator Menendez for his courtesy, and I think we have an opportunity to reach an agreement. On the House version there are some things he says he likes better than the bill we agreed on in our committee, which I think passed our committee unanimously here in the Senate, but I would be prepared to go forward with that. I urge my colleague from New Jersey to recognize the proposal he is making would add about 550,000 more people. It would allow that many more to enter the country on a legal basis. We have a million now who enter our country each year, and this would be a huge increase--I think a one-time increase--but it is a huge increase and it is not acceptable. We had sort of reached a stalemate last year when the American people rejected the comprehensive bill. They rang our phones off the hooks. The switchboard of the Senate shut down. There was a general recognition that we needed to do an enforcement system before we started granting amnesty and expanding immigration. That was, I think, a pretty national sentiment. Even Senator McCain, who proposed the legislation, stated that the American people, he understands now, expect us to create a lawful system before we start expanding the system we have and giving amnesty to those who violated the law. This is a big change from what the Senator has been proposing. I submit that the choice is simple. We will either go forward with the agreement that we reached in committee, without the changes Senator Menendez offers, or we will have to have a real debate. And that would be all right with me, but I don't think it is what our leadership desires at this point in time. So I say that I would be delighted to continue to discuss this with Senator Menendez, but I feel pretty firmly, I feel very firmly that although I could accept, I am confident, the House version that he has made some comments about, I cannot accept a major alteration of existing immigration policy because that is not the right way for us to go at this point. It is something I guess we are going to have to talk about next year. I see no alternative to ignoring it any longer than next year. It is time for this Senate to get busy and to create a system that ends the mockery that exists for our legal system today and creates a lawful system that will serve our national interest. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. I would be pleased to modify and ask unanimous consent that the Senator from New Jersey be recognized after my 5 minutes.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, reclaiming the floor under the regular order.

Mr. SESSIONS. I will be glad to share with the Senator my thoughts about it. The House did pass it 407 to 2, I believe. We are not expressing any pride of authorship. Will the Senator accept the bill as passed by the House? I think we can perhaps do that and we can reach an agreement. Just accept the bill passed by the House.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 5 minutes.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I will offer something at some point. There is not a Democrat here. I am not trying to pull a fast one on anybody. I understand there is an objection to the bipartisan agreement called the Legal Immigration Extension Act of 2008 by one, perhaps, Senator. I want to share some thoughts about that and how we got where we are today. There are four pieces of legislation that are expiring or are about to expire. After a good bit of work in the Senate Judiciary Committee, we reached an accord that we would not offer any changes in immigration law before we try to recess this year. A lot of us have some real firm views about some things that need to be done, but everybody has basically agreed not to push that. But it is important that a number of things get passed. The most important thing that needs to be passed-- and it would be unthinkable were it not to pass--would be the extension of the E-verify program. It is a voluntary Web-based system operated by the Department of Homeland Security, in partnership with the Social Security Administration. It allows participating employers to electronically verify the employment eligibility of people they would hire, to see if they are presenting a legitimate Social Security number. More than 84,000 employers voluntarily participate in E-verify and we would get--get this--a thousand new enrollments by employers each week. It is growing in popularity. Because it was a limited program, it is set to expire in November of this year. So the agreed-upon legislation would be to extend the program for 5 years. I note that this program, under the Kennedy-McCain bill, and the subsequent comprehensive bill that was offered on the floor, which was voted down, would have made E-verify mandatory on all employers. This does not do that. This just keeps it as it is. Presumably, we are going to have to have a real serious talk about what to do next year. Also in the package I just mentioned would be an extension of the ED-5 regional center program. This is a program that says if someone comes to America--and it has been in effect since 1990--and they are willing to invest $1 million in hiring at least 10 Americans, they would be able to get a visa. That program is set to expire, and we have agreed that it would continue for 5 years--not be permanent, but it would be extended for 5 years. It is an additional group of people on top of the 1 million or so we allow in the country every year. It is an additional group on top of that. Then there is Senator Conrad's 30 J-1 visa program. Senator Conrad, in 1994, passed a provision that would allow foreign medical graduates to waive the mandatory return to their foreign residence, and if they were going to practice in a State for 3 years before they return to their home country, they could stay here. Many States have found that to be an advantage. Again, that is on top of the others. I am a little bit concerned that every time we do one of these programs it is just on top. We are not choosing and prioritizing the people who would best flourish in America, but we are just adding on top. But I have agreed to go along with that and extend that program for 5 years. There is also the nonminister religious worker visa program. It was passed in 1990, and it allows up to 5,000 workers on top of the people who are already able to come here and be a part of America, and people believe that should be extended. I am prepared to agree to that as part of the package. So that would be what we would do there. Those were the pieces of legislation that Senator Leahy and, I think, the entire Judiciary Committee agreed that we should move forward on. Now, let me mention why the E-verify program is critical. I have to say to my colleagues that I cannot agree and this Congress and this Senate should not agree to an additional expansion of immigrants into this country as a price to continue the current law. If we are going to do that, then we need to have a full debate about immigration and a full debate about the numbers that should be admitted, and properly so, into our country, and what standards should be utilized. That is the situation we are facing. E-verify, as included in this bipartisan package, would not be changed in any way. It will remain the program it is today, but it expires on November 30 of this year. It was originally established in 1996, and it must not be allowed to expire. If this Congress allows E- verify to expire, then we will have made a statement to this Nation that the one system that is working today and could be expanded in the future to create a lawful system of immigration is being abandoned. It would rightly cause every American who has been hearing Members of the Senate and the House promising to do something about restoring the rule of law to immigration--they would know we were not serious at all. They would know this is one more flimflam that would be carried out. I feel very strongly about this issue. The total number of users in corporations today are 84,000, representing 438,985 hiring sites. It is being used quite a bit today in a voluntary fashion. So far in 2008, there have been over 5.8 million queries run through the system compared to a total of 3.2 million in fiscal year 2007. If you do not want the law enforced, that makes you nervous. Look, it has increased maybe 50 percent in 1 year. More and more people are using it. It is having some sort of impact in the country. If you want the lawlessness to continue, you don't want E-verify to be extended. The growth now continues at 1,000 new users and participants each week. More and more people are finding it to be a good system. It is voluntary. Companies are finding it works, and it is not burdensome. It helps deter the use of fraudulent documents. Businesses have a difficult time examining documents. They are not document examiners. They are concerned if they deny somebody without a good basis they may sue them. If they don't deny somebody, the Government might fuss at them. This is a way they can do a quick check to determine whether someone is in the country legally. Both in the 2006 and 2007 comprehensive immigration legislation, this proposal, as I said, would have been made mandatory. However, the legislation we are talking about today certainly is not that; it is only a temporary extension of the existing program. I want to make that clear. No system is perfect, but we have invested millions of dollars to improve this system. Many of the kinks have been worked out. The system, I think, could and should be enhanced substantially, and I would like to see it made better, but by all means it should not be killed. We must not let it expire. The employers are relying on it. We must not pull the rug out from under them and undermine the rule of law. To give a brief background on the E-verify system, the Immigration Reform Act of 1986 made it unlawful for employers to knowingly hire or employ aliens who are not eligible to work in the United States. It required employers to examine the identity and work eligibility documents of all new employees. Employers are required to participate in a paper-based employment eligibility verification system, commonly referred to as the I-9 system, in which they examine documents presented by the newly hired workers to verify identity and work eligibility and to complete and retain I-9 forms. Under the current law, if the documents provided by an employee reasonably appear on their face to be genuine, the employer has met his document review obligation. However, the easy availability of counterfeit documents and fake identification has made this a mockery of law. It is not working. In 1996, Congress authorized a basic pilot program to help employers verify the eligibility of their workers. Participants would verify a new hire's employment authorization through the Social Security Administration and, if necessary, through the Department of Homeland Security databases. The basic pilot of E-verify was authorized in five States until an expansion of the program was agreed to by Congress in 2003. Now all States and all employers can take advantage of this voluntary and free program. Let me give some facts on the statistics. There has been a lot of concern that the program does not work fairly. I dispute that most strongly. Mr. President, 94.5 percent of individuals whose numbers are checked are authorized to go to work. There is not a problem. It is done routinely within 3 seconds. One-half of 1 percent are final nonconfirmations. That is, they are identified as not being eligible to work right off the bat. So an employer should not hire them and could commit an offense if they do. Five percent come out of the computer check as tentative nonconfirmations. If a person has that happen to them, they have an opportunity to step forward and show that the computer is wrong and find out what the problem is and fix it. However, the facts are that the vast majority of people who are shown to be tentative nonconfirmations do not contest the matter. What that indicates is they know they are not legal, they know they are not entitled to go to work, and they don't contest it, which proves, I think, that the system is working. President Bush's Executive order requires contractors of the Federal Government to use the system. It is only right that the Government do business with companies that are not violating our immigration laws. We don't need to let somebody bid on a contract and submit a low bid because they are able to use low-cost illegal labor and defeat the bid of a legitimate American contractor who is using legitimate labor, paying insurance, paying retirement benefits, paying decent wages. I have had a personal example in the last few weeks in which a businessman told me his company has been losing bids to an out-of-State corporation. This corporation just appeared. He is convinced, and there is evidence apparently, that the corporation is using large numbers of illegal workers, and he cannot win any bids. He said: My people have been working for me for 10 and 15 years. I pay them good wages and good benefits. I want to keep them. I cannot compete. What are you going to do about it? This is one way. States are on board with the E-verify, and they are beginning to take a look at it. In fact, many of them are encouraging their businesses to use it. Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, and some others, have passed legislation requiring either explicitly or implicitly that certain employers within those States participate with E-verify. On Wednesday of this week, the Ninth Circuit, the most liberal circuit in the country and the most favorable circuit to----

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask for 1 additional minute.

Mr. SESSIONS. The Ninth Circuit upheld an employer law in Arizona that revokes a business license of employers caught knowingly hiring illegal immigrants. Businesses in that State do rely on the E-verify program. Killing this program would undermine their law. This is the right thing for us to do. It is not possible for us at this late date, in light of the agreement we have reached, to have Members of the Senate ask for an expansion, a dramatic expansion of a half a million people to come into our country as a price that must be paid to extend E-verify. That is my concern. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 875, S. 3257; that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, it is easy for us to fall into the trap and the habit of believing the United States and our friends around the world are immune from the aggressive actions of hostile nations. Since the Cold War has ended, I think we have come to think that conflicts between industrialized nations are an historic relic. I believe one writer who has since admitted he was in error wrote a book called ``The End of History.'' But we are not beyond history. We are not immune from the threats that have apparently always been out there in the world. And I wish it were not so, but I am afraid it is. I believe the world clearly remains a dangerous and unpredictable place. Significant and serious threats exist. North Korea and Iran, for example, seek nuclear capabilities despite all kinds of efforts by the rest of the world to convince them to the contrary. They continue to invest heavily in the development of long-range missiles that could cause us great harm. Russia's recent actions in Georgia remind us that country, which we once hoped was on a path to greater integration into the global world community, might again be seeking to restore old Soviet ideas of dominance throughout their neighbors and in Eastern Europe, all of which should serve as a motivation to move ahead with the necessary capabilities to defend ourselves and our allies from missile attack, in particular. If a government, by way of the skills, knowledge, and technical achievements of its citizens, has the ability to protect itself from a known threat, does it not have a moral obligation to do so? I remember once former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger saying: I never heard of a nation whose policy it is to keep itself vulnerable to attack. Why would we want to allow ourselves to remain vulnerable to a potential missile attack from North Korea or Iran? Well, we do not. We have been working for some time now to develop a defense system to block any such missile attack. Although it is highly technical and complex, we have made tremendous progress, and we now know we have a system that fundamentally works and we are continuing to advance it every year. We cannot do this alone, however. We have our friends in Europe. We asked them for assistance in developing a third site there. In fact, perhaps one of the threats we face would be from a missile launch from Iran. The Iranians are continually working on advanced missiles. I believe they are also openly moving forward to develop nuclear capabilities. If they were to launch such an attack against the United States, it would pass over Europe. So Europe would be an important site for us in protecting the United States. Indeed, the importance of recent decisions, therefore, taken by the Governments of Poland and the Czech Republic to base missile defense assets on their territory to protect our NATO allies and the United States against long-range ballistic missile threats is very important. The United States has been negotiating with the Czech Republic and Poland since early 2007 to base a missile-tracking radar and 10 long- range interceptors--just 10, but importantly 10--in those countries. I am pleased to note that those agreements were signed between the United States and the Government of the Czech Republic on July 8 of this year and with the Government of Poland on August 20 of this year. Ratification of these agreements by the allied parliaments in those counties is expected this fall. These deployments are intended to provide protection for the United States and most of Europe against long-range ballistic missiles such as those that might be launched by Iran. The strategic objective of extending missile defense protection to our allies is to enhance the ability of the alliance to more effectively deter aggression and counter the growing threat posed by Iran. These deployments would send a strong message to our allies and adversaries alike that the NATO alliance will not be intimidated or blackmailed by any missile threat. You have leaders of Europe, NATO, and the United States, and if some country threatens that they will launch a missile, and we have only 1 or 2--OK, maybe 10--but if we have the ability to knock those down, that alters the strategic threat capability significantly and allows the President of the United States or any European nation to say: We are prepared to defeat your missile attack. We will not be blackmailed. We will not alter our policies that we believe are in our national interests as a result of such threats. So the planned deployments in Poland and the Czech Republic are supported by the NATO alliance. Some of our Members have wanted that. They have said that they would feel better about going forward if the alliance itself spoke on this, and so we have obtained that now. The system to be deployed will be fully integrated into NATO's ongoing plans to provide defense against shorter range ballistic missile threats. The April 3, 2008, NATO Bucharest Summit Declaration notes: Ballistic missile proliferation poses an increasing threat to allies' forces, territories and populations. They went on to say: We therefore recognize the substantial contribution to the protection of allies from long-range ballistic missile to be provided by the planned deployment of European-based U.S. missile defense assets. In May, the Senate Armed Services Committee, of which I am a member and its bill is on the floor today, reported out of the committee, I am proud to say, a bill which authorizes fully the administration's $712 million request for the Polish and Czech missile defense sites. I am proud that our committee did that. It was the right thing. It is important now that the appropriators recognize the critical importance of following through with adequate funding for these sites. Events of the past month reinforce the decision by the Armed Services Committee to recommend full funding. Not only does Iran persist in defying international calls to end its nuclear program, Iran continues to test space launch vehicles and ballistic missiles of increasing range, while also conducting military exercises in the gulf with operational ballistic missiles. We should not take lightly the courageous action taken by the Governments of the Czech Republic and Poland to agree to establish a missile defense site on their territory, for by supporting the defense of NATO in this manner, and the defense of the United States, these countries have earned the ire of their big neighbor on the east, Russia. In an effort to exert pressure on our allies to not do this, in February of 2008 Prime Minister Putin of Russia stated that: If it is deployed, we will have to react appropriately. In that case, we will probably be forced to target some of our missiles at the objects threatening us. Let's take a moment to analyze that language. What threat is it to Russia, let me ask, that an independent, sovereign nation would agree to have a defensive missile system deployed on their territory--not a hostile missile system, not a nuclear weapon missile system, a missile system designed to protect their own country and other countries from a potential threat? What possible threat is that to Russia? Zero. Of course, we know Russia has hundreds and hundreds of nuclear-armed missiles. The 10 silos and missiles we would propose to place in Poland would have no ability whatsoever to resist a massive Russian attack, God forbid they would ever launch. So I would suggest something more is at stake here, and I think it is something that the Poles and the Czechs and the Georgians and the Ukrainians and the Estonians and the Latvians and the Lithuanians understand full well, and that is that Putin desires to reestablish hegemony over the former Soviet satellites. They think they have a right to tell Poland whether to undertake a military partnership with the United States. They have no right whatsoever to do so. Poland is glad to be rid of them. They are glad to be out from under the Soviet boot. They have no intention whatsoever of allowing themselves to fall back under their dominance. They have values that are close to our values. They want to be part of our heritage and the Western heritage. Just days after the Czech Republic signed the radar basing agreement with the United States, Russia reduced its oil shipments to the Czech Republic without providing any explanation. Boom. The oil shipments have since been restored, but threats continue. Despite increasingly bellicose threats by Russia to cut off energy supplies and to target Poland and the Czech Republic with military means, these allied Governments have maintained their freedom, their independence, their sovereignty, and their courage, and have stood fast with the United Sates and NATO. So the very least this Senate could do would be to recognize the importance of these decisions, to express our full and strong support for what these nations have done on behalf of themselves and the Atlantic alliance and affirm that with the support of legislation that would move forward with the third site. In closing, I would share with my colleagues the words of Mirek Topolanek, the Czech Prime Minister. The Czech Republic and Poland are such wonderful countries. They are so proud to be free and independent. They are some of our best allies in the world. The Prime Minister placed this issue in the proper context, when he stated: The moral challenge is clear and simple. If we are not willing to accept, in the interest of the defense of the Euro-Atlantic area, such a trifle as the elements of a missile defense system, then how shall we be able to face more difficult challenges that may come? Isn't that a great statement? That is the right context. I hope this part of the bill will remain intact. I am confident it will. I hope our appropriators will find the money necessary to move forward rapidly to complete the development of these systems. Indeed, our NATO allies and the United States are certain to face more difficult challenges in the days ahead, as Iran and other nations continue to develop weapons of mass destruction and the ballistic missile capability to deliver them. As the crisis in the Caucasus suggests, there may be even greater challenges ahead. By supporting the European missile defense initiative, we extend missile defense capabilities to our allies while bolstering the defense of the United States homeland. In so doing, we strengthen our partnership and our collective security. We send a strong message to potential adversaries that this alliance will take such actions as necessary to ensure its security against threats that may occur. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS

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

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we had an announcement yesterday by the Secretary of Defense on the procurement question for the tanker for the U.S. Air Force that is very disturbing and disappointing to me. Basically, the history of that was that the Secretary and the U.S. Air Force had evaluated the two competing bids and had selected the Northrop team's bid as the best aircraft and best buy for the country. The GAO, Government Accountability Office, reviewed that and said the Air Force had made errors. I did not think great errors, but they said there were errors and they ought to review the process. The Secretary of Defense said he, in effect, was disappointed those errors had occurred and he personally would take the process under the Department of Defense's jurisdiction and he would direct individuals to evaluate the two bids and to make a decision on what the best aircraft would be and the best buy for the American warfighter. Remember that the Air Force had declared that replacing the 50-, 60- year-old tanker fleet was their No. 1 priority in the entire U.S. Air Force. For those of us who know about the Air Force and know how much they like fighters and those kinds of aircraft, for them to say that was a significant thing. So we were proceeding along that path. Secretary Gates said he was going to do it fairly and objectively, and he would do his best to complete the process by the end of the year. So his announcement yesterday that they could not complete it at the end of the year, that there has been controversy about this, and that he would, therefore, put it off and cancel the bid process and let the next Congress and next President deal with it was a bad mistake. It was contrary to what he had said in the country needed to be done a few months ago. I think this is a matter he made a mistake on. I respect Secretary Gates. I was pleased when he stood up and said: We need this tanker. We need to get this done. We are going to get it done. I am personally going to be responsible to ensure it is done right and fair. Then, to walk away from that, and to leave the impression the reason that occurred was because of a political brouhaha going on, and Members of Congress fussing here and there and making comments was doubly disturbing. My view has always been the Department of Defense ought to pick the best aircraft, and I thought they had when they chose the plane they did. I will note the aircraft Northrop Grumman/EADS had offered was 16 years newer than the aircraft Boeing had submitted, it would have much more capabilities, and was a better aircraft. That is what it was, and that is how it was selected. The Northrop team submitted a very frugal bid, and even though it was an aircraft that had more capabilities, it was very competitive or lower on price. So I thought we were heading in the right direction. I will note for the record I was involved in this early on. When Senator McCain questioned a lease agreement that was entered into with the Boeing company, he felt something was not healthy there and he objected. It was going to release 60 of these aircraft. They had not been bid. It was a sole-source contract. It did not go through the Armed Services Committee. But it was actually done through the Appropriations Committee without the Armed Services Committee studying the issue or looking at it. After all that happened--and it is unfortunate people went to jail over it in the Air Force, and others--we ordered, the Congress did, that a bid process take place. There were two bidders. Only two entities could supply this kind of aircraft. The Air Force selected the one they thought was best. Some people did not like that, and we had a big fuss, and now we are at a position where we could literally be looking at a delay of 2 or 3 more years. It has already been delayed about 7 years. This is very disturbing and very concerning to me ultimately because the Air Force is going to be further delayed, substantially, in a new aircraft being chosen and put into the fleet. It can save money in the long run because it will be newer, require less upkeep and maintenance, carry more fuel, and it has more capability. It can do the work of three airplanes at once. I know Senator Warner and others on our committee, when this issue arose--Senator Levin and Senator McCain--felt that a bid was the right thing to do. We ordered that we pass legislation to do that. I am sorry the Defense Department seems to have given up and punted it. Many are estimating this could result in a delay of 3 years before the matter comes to a conclusion now.

Mr. SESSIONS. I could not agree more, I say to Senator Warner. I thank the Senator for his leadership at that time. Basically, it did point out, did it not, I ask Senator Warner, that the authorizing committee is a valuable committee and that those kinds of major programs should be taken through the committee of authorization? Would the Senator agree to that as a matter of historical perspective here in the Senate?

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, it is important that we commemorate today, the seventh anniversary of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. This Nation and the world should also remember that the first battle of the war against terror started in the skies over this country, and it was started not by the military but by an average group of American citizens who, by fate, found themselves on Flight 93, which had taken off from New Jersey, headed to San Francisco, CA. When they, as a group, figured out their plane had been taken over by terrorists who planned to use that plane and the passengers in it as a weapon of mass destruction against the Capitol of the United States, they did an extraordinary thing: This group of average citizens made a battle plan and executed that plan against America's enemies. This exceptional group of Americans knew they were risking and sacrificing their lives to stop an attack on America, which, in fact, was on the White House or this very building we are in today--this very building, the U.S. Capitol. The passengers of Flight 93 faced their enemies without hesitation and brought that plane to the ground in Shanksville, PA. That action was the opening battle in the war against terror. Today, people are gathering in New York City at Ground Zero, where the World Trade Towers once stood so proudly. People will gather here in the Nation's Capital. This morning, the President observed a moment of silence on the White House lawn and then joined those gathering at the Pentagon, at the site where Flight 77 crashed, to dedicate a memorial to those who died in that building--a building that symbolizes the American military, the greatest fighting force in the world. This remembrance is not just taking place in New York and in our Nation's Capital, it is taking place all across our Nation. Certainly, we are not alone in mourning the 2,975 people--citizens from more than 90 nations--who died in the terrorist attacks. So our allies and friends mourn with us. These attacks carried out on September 11 changed the way we view our world. Many Americans, for the first time, felt vulnerable. While it was not the first terrorist attack on America, it was the largest on our soil since Pearl Harbor. So it is critically important to note that this attack wasn't an isolated incident but a carefully planned operation that was part of al-Qaida's war on America. Bin Laden had already declared war on America publicly. It was, at its foundation, an attack based on a belief that America was corrupt, decadent, and lacked the courage or the will to vigorously defend its very existence. They were wrong. The attacks that led up to that day--I will just make a note of them--the attacks that led up to that event were: In 1983, there was an attack on the Marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, that killed 241 American servicemen. In 1985, the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked by terrorists, and a 70-year-old American passenger was murdered and thrown overboard in his wheelchair. In 1985, TWA Flight 847 was hijacked at Athens, and a U.S. Navy diver trying to rescue fellow passengers was murdered. In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed, leaving 270 dead. In 1993, al-Qaida operatives attacked the World Trade Center and bombed it, killing 6 people and injuring 1,042. In June of 1996, 19 American servicemembers were killed, with 372 wounded, in the Khobar Towers barracks attack in Saudi Arabia. In 1998, the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed, killing 223 and wounding thousands. On October 12, 2000, while a warship of the United States of America, the USS Cole, was harbored in the Yemeni port of Aden for a routine fuel stop, a small craft approached and detonated their payload, putting a 40-by-60-foot gash in the ship's port side, killing 17 American sailors. All of that occurred before the hijacking of those four planes on September 11, 2001. Since that day, while there have been attacks on England, Spain, and around the world, there have been no further successful attacks on the United States. Even though we are in an election campaign, it is important for us not to forget that the failure of al-Qaida to launch another attack on us is not due to the terrorist organization's relinquishing their objective, renouncing their goal of killing Americans and disrupting our lives and economy, but it is a testament to the vigilance of our law enforcement and military officials and President Bush's bold decision to stop sitting back, stop being on the defensive, and to treat these attacks for what they were--part of a war against the United States. He firmly declared that we should go after these terrorists and any who harbor them and utilize deadly force where necessary. This strategy has worked. No successful attacks have occurred since that time on our homeland. I don't think any of us would have felt that was likely the case, or would be the case, on September 11, 2001, even though I think all of us, as a nation, agreed it was time to move on the offensive. That is the best way to defend our great country. Since September 11, 2001, 19 attacks have been thwarted in various stages of preparation. This chart is difficult to read, but the red lines across it indicate some of the successful interventions and defeats of terrorist plans. I will just mention those. In December 2001, Richard Reid attempted to blow up an airplane headed to Miami from Paris, using explosives in his shoe. In May 2002, Jose Padilla, who was charged with conspiring with Islamic terrorist groups, planned to set off a dirty bomb in the United States. In September 2002, the Lackawanna Six from Buffalo, NY, were arrested and charged with conspiring with terrorist groups. In May 2003, Lyman Faris, a naturalized U.S. citizen from Kashmir living in Columbus, OH, was arrested for plotting the collapse of the Brooklyn Bridge. In June 2003, a Virginia jihad network, involving 11 men from Alexandria, was arrested for conspiring to support terrorists. In August 2004, members of a terrorist cell were arrested for plotting to attack financial institutions in the United States and other sites in England. In August 2004, two men were arrested for plotting to bomb a subway station near Madison Square Garden in New York. In August 2004, two leaders of an Albany, NY, mosque were charged with plotting to purchase a shoulder-fired grenade launcher to assassinate a Pakistani diplomat in New York. In June 2005, a California father-son terrorist team was charged with supporting terrorism. In August 2005, four men in Los Angeles were accused of conspiring to attack National Guard facilities in Los Angeles and other targets in the area. In December 2005, Michael C. Reynolds was arrested by the FBI and charged with being involved in a plot to blow up a Wyoming natural gas refinery. In February 2006, three men from Toledo, OH, were arrested and charged with providing material support to a terrorist organization. In April of 2006, Atlanta natives were accused of conspiring with terrorist organizations to attack targets in Washington, DC. In June of 2006, seven men were arrested in Miami and Atlanta and charged with plotting to blow up the Sears Tower in Chicago, as well as FBI offices and other buildings. In July 2006, 10 people were arrested after the FBI discovered a plot to attack underground transit tunnels in New York. In August of 2006, British authorities stopped a plot to load 10 commercial airliners with liquid explosives and attack sites in New York, Washington, and California. Fifteen men were charged. In March 2007, a senior operative for Osama bin Laden already in custody confesses to have planned September 11 attacks and said he also planned attacks on Los Angeles, Chicago, New York, and other sites. In May of 2007, six men were arrested and charged with plotting to attack soldiers at Fort Dix, NJ. In June of 2007, four men were charged with plotting to blow up jet fuel in a residential neighborhood near JFK Airport in New York. It is quite clear that it is imperative this Nation continue to be vigilant and keep these terrorist groups off balance, to keep our homeland and our allies secure. I believe as the years go by, history will view the efforts of the U.S. Government favorably in keeping its citizens safe after the attacks on September 11, 2001. President Bush made a bold decision. He took decisive action. A reorganized intelligence community that Senator Bond talked about was put in high gear and has dramatically improved our intelligence concerning terrorist groups. We were not where we should have been. We are still not, but we are dramatically improved. The FBI has dramatically changed its mode of operation from mere investigation after an attack to preventing further attacks. Unprecedented cooperation with and assistance from State and local law enforcement has raised our defensive capabilities and our intelligence-gathering networks manyfold. It is tremendous the improved relations we have with State and local law enforcement, and there are many more of those officers than there are Federal officers. For 7 years, we may thank the Lord and the hard work of so many that this Nation has remained free from terrorist attack. Will it continue? We may all pray that it will, but we know we remain at risk. We know for decades to come there will be some in this world who are willing to even give their lives to attack free nations around the world. We must remain vigilant. We must not forget what we have done wrong in the past, how we refused to recognize the reality of the threat, as the 9/11 Commission so clearly reported. But we must also not forget how going on the offensive, destroying the bases of operation of the radical Islamic networks, of attacking their military infrastructure, of attacking their soldiers, of capturing thousands and killing thousands of their operatives has made us safe and have put the terrorists on the defensive. Despite what some say, these efforts have gained worldwide support. The terrorists are losing support throughout the world. Al-Qaida made Iraq the central front against the United States and poured people into that country. But they made a bad decision to challenge the magnificent, courageous, and lethal U.S. military. Recent reports have declared that al-Qaida in Iraq has been decimated. There may still be some left, but the power of that network that 2 or 3 years ago existed has been decimated today, most experts say. So let's remember what we have done right. Also, we must keep these efforts up because it may well take decades before we will be victorious in this effort. If we remain firm, if this Nation continues to be smart, determined, and dedicated, their doom is sure. This group cannot defeat us. They may succeed with an attack here, they may succeed with an attack there, but if we have the will, if we have the courage, if we have the maturity, if we have the determination to remember those heroic people who started this war defending this very Capitol Building, who gave their lives in Pennsylvania for us--and we will honor their memory and honor the memory of those in New York City and honor the memory of those in the Pentagon and on the ship, the USS Cole--we will honor them by being firm, being faithful. We will be successful. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I am not aware of any.