Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Well, is it not true, Senator Grassley, based on your experience, that it is standard procedure to hold nominees over until their background checks have been completed?

Mr. SESSIONS. I think the Senator is correct. He has been a long-time senior member of the Judiciary Committee who is active in that entire process. In fact, Senator Reid, now the majority leader, made a similar statement in March of 2000 and those statements are more accurate descriptions of the history of the Thurmond rule over the past 25 years. Isn't it also true that the majority asserts the purported Thurmond rule originated in the summer of 1980 when Senator Thurmond was the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee?

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, to my colleague from Iowa, I asked earlier of Senator Specter regarding his statement that Chairman Leahy was saying he was going to enforce a Thurmond rule and that nobody would be moved henceforth--no nominee--unless both he and the ranking member and the majority leader and the Republican leader each approved. So I ask Senator Grassley how he feels about that statement.

Mr. SESSIONS. In fact, wasn't one of those circuit nominees ACLU general counsel--the American Civil Liberties Union general counsel, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who was later confirmed to the DC Circuit on June 18, 1980?

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I see the distinguished ranking member of the Judiciary Committee is here and has been so experienced in these matters and been through the wars and battles over nominations for some time. And we have had a good bit of that, but we have also, in the end, had a pretty decent understanding of the responsibilities the committee has to honor the President's nominations and give them an up-or-down vote and not just shut down the process. I guess my question would be, I say to Senator Specter, Senator Leahy's statement at the Judiciary June 12 executive business meeting-- he announced he was invoking the so-called Thurmond Rule, and he said: ``We are now way past the time of a Thurmond rule named after Senator Thurmond when he was in the minority, and I'm trying to respect that. We are still putting judges through. But I must note this point; further judges will be moved only by a consent of the two leaders of the Senate and the two leaders of this committee,'' which, of course, says fundamentally that unless Senator Leahy and Senator Reid approve of a nominee, from this point on, it is not moving forward. I know you conducted an open hearing and discussion of that. I ask the Senator basically how he feels about the definition of the ``Thurmond Rule'' and what it really means and whether we are doing something that is unprecedented here.

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator. I wish to talk a little bit about Robert Conrad. I was a U.S. Attorney, Federal prosecutor for 12 years, and an assistant U.S. attorney for 2\1/2\ years. It was a great job, a wonderful opportunity to serve the public. I remember not too long after I came here, President Clinton was embroiled in quite a number of scandals and allegations were made. Janet Reno was then the Attorney General of the United States, and she decided to appoint a counsel to conduct an investigation of allegations against President Clinton, as I recall. I don't remember what the substance of the complaints were at that time. There were a lot of them on different things. She looked all over the United States of America to pick a top prosecutor, somebody who had credibility, and judgment she could trust to undertake this difficult thing that the entire Nation was watching, and do you know who she selected? She selected Mr. Conrad of North Carolina. He was then an assistant U.S. attorney and he undertook this challenge. He investigated at some length, and all I recall about it was that he did not choose to indict anyone. I remember he testified before our committee and he was such a straight shooter. He was so mature in his responses to the questions. He was a relatively young person, but an experienced attorney in the Department of Justice. He did a good job. He was asked a lot of tough questions because people were concerned about those issues. He handled them well. So I have a vivid memory of that. Janet Reno said her respect for him continued to grow throughout his service in that capacity, in that most difficult challenge that she asked him to undertake. Later, he was confirmed to be a Federal judge in North Carolina and has served there and has moved up. Now he is the chief presiding district judge in the State of North Carolina. President Bush, of a different party than Janet Reno, chose him and nominated him to be a judge on the Court of Appeals, one step below the U.S. Supreme Court, an important and prestigious position, and that went forward. Now, 365 days have gone by and he has not even had a hearing. Let me interject and say those of us on the conservative side have felt many times that the American Bar Association tends to favor liberal judges, but I value its opinion. I always have. I think it is an important opinion because they talk to lawyers throughout the community and judges throughout the community. There are about 15 members on this committee. Then the judges come together and review all of the reports and interviews from the most prominent lawyers in the community, fellow judges, and State judges. They say: What kind of person is he? Does he have good judgment? Has he handled his docket well? Is he a man of integrity and ability? Does he understand complex rules of law? Those are the kinds of things they talk about. They do an evaluation. Most nominees are not rated ``well qualified,'' and usually there is a good bit of dispute within the communities about what kinds of recommendations should occur. That committee met and discussed it, and they unanimously rated him ``well qualified,'' which is the highest rating the American Bar Association can give to a nominee for judicial office. He served ably as an assistant U.S. attorney. He handled one of the most important cases in the entire Nation as an assistant U.S. attorney. The Democratic Attorney General looked over the entire United States and reached out and picked him to handle a case involving the President of the United States of America, and she had nothing but high compliments for his performance. The ABA has evaluated him. He was confirmed previously as a district judge, became the presiding district judge for that area, and has now been nominated to be a Federal circuit judge. He has been denied even a hearing, even though he got a unanimous ``well qualified.'' A lot of people think this is just politics. But I hope the American people understand that it is not just politics. This Nation has as its bedrock foundation for our prosperity and our liberty a belief in the rule of law. It is something we inherited even before we became a nation. Those of us on this side believe a Federal judge should not be an activist. A Federal judge should not be attempting to carry out some personal agenda. A Federal judge should be a neutral umpire to decide cases in a neutral and fair way. The policy decisions should be made by the State legislatures or the Federal Congress or the President of the United States. I feel as though we need to understand that there is a clear difference between the kind of judges our Democratic colleagues tend to favor for the bench and those President Bush has been nominating. They think Judge Conrad is not activist enough. They think he won't promote their agenda, which they are not oftentimes able to win with at the ballot box. His nomination has been blocked. I don't appreciate that. He is a fabulous nominee who is highly respected by Democratic Members. We had a wonderful hearing where a whole roomful of people came from North Carolina to testify on his behalf, to plead with the Senate to give this man an up-or-down vote. No, they invoke the Thurmond rule-- and that is not an accurate invocation of the Thurmond rule--as an excuse to block him. There are already four vacancies on the Fourth Circuit, including from Virginia, down to the Carolinas. He is one of them. I think the man deserves an up-or-down vote. He deserves to be confirmed. We will not have better nominees than Judge Conrad. He has proven himself on the bench and as a Federal prosecutor, both times in Federal court, where he will now be called upon to serve. I have to tell you, I will add one more thing on why I think he is special. Judge Conrad was a point guard on the Clemson University basketball team in the Atlantic Coast Conference. You have to make decisions in that job. He was an outstanding academic All-American. I think the man is fabulous, and he ought to be confirmed. I am upset that he has not been. I say the same for Mr. Matthews, also nominated to fill one of those four vacancies on the Fourth Circuit, and Mr. Keisler, who was rated unanimously ``well qualified'' for the DC Circuit. They have been waiting hundreds of days, and it is not right. They ought to be confirmed. I thank the chair and yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank my colleague from Iowa. He has been a stalwart, capable member of this committee for many years. He is known for plain speaking and honest talk. I think that is what we have had here. It is a shame we are looking at an unprecedented circumstance. I note we are put in a position where I think it is difficult to respond, other than to go to the American people, because what Senator Leahy has done is state that the Thurmond rule is something that it is not and indicate that further judges will be moved only by consent of the two leaders of the Senate and the two leaders of the committee. He made that statement very recently. So it looks as though we are at a point where the normal procedures of moving judges have been abrogated and that it is unlikely additional nominees will be confirmed. I have a few more comments, but my senior colleague Senator Grassley is here, and I am glad to yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. Well, Senator Grassley, I know, is aware of that, but wasn't Mr. Breyer nominated by President Carter on November 13, 1980, after President Carter had lost the election to President Ronald Reagan? And didn't the Senate Democrats, who had just lost control of the Senate, hold a swift confirmation vote on Breyer during that lame duck session on December 9, 1980?

Mr. SESSIONS. That is what he said. In addition, between June 1 and September 1 of 1980, President Carter's last year in office, didn't the Senate confirm four circuit court nominees and 15 district court nominees?

Mr. SESSIONS. No, it doesn't. In fact, the record shows that on September 29, 1980, in a floor statement, Senator DeConcini, a Democratic member of the committee, commended Senator Thurmond for: demonstrating leadership on the Committee on the Judiciary, a willingness to take case-by-case appointments, obviously from a different administration than he might prefer, but willing to proceed with the advancement of these appointments, because the need of the judiciary does come before party preference.

Mr. SESSIONS. Well, I think that is, in fact, true. The Senate confirmed 10 of the 13 nominees, and Senator Thurmond stated at an executive business meeting that the committee did not report favorably on the other three because: ``The minority had some questions of substance that would have to be discussed.'' The committee did not hold another executive business meeting that year, so the other three nominees were not considered again.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I know we are moving to the bill that deals with speculation, which is designed to bring down the price of gasoline. I think there is a bubble out there of some kind in the price of gasoline, at least I hope so. If that is so, I think we could see that bubble burst or some of the steam come out of it. I think it is something we ought to encourage. Some of my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle, justifiably, are concerned that we are trying to pass a law that will end the right to contract, end the right to protect yourself from rising costs, and those kinds of things. I, frankly, am not that worried about it. I think there is a danger we could overregulate the futures market. I do not think, historically, we have ever attempted to do that in any fundamental sense. It is pretty clear, if we do not have a futures market here, one will exist in some other place in the world, as they already do today. So I guess I would say, if you can come up with a good bill that does not do any real damage, that it might help reduce speculation, I would be inclined to consider it and give it a fair shake. But I do not believe that is the problem we have today. I believe people are speculating and driving up prices from that speculation, if it is occurring--and it probably is to some small degree--because there is a shortage of the amount of oil on the world market, that the demand is greater than supply. When the price of oil on the world market was $20 a barrel--that was not too long ago--$40 a barrel, if the speculators were so powerful, why didn't they drive it up then? What happened, according to most experts, is we are consuming about 87 billion barrels of oil a year, and we are producing about 86 billion. Supply is inelastic and demand is inelastic. So when the price goes up, people do not stop using it much. We are beginning to see about a 3-percent reduction in the American use of gasoline, after a doubling of the price. So most people would like to use less, but between their work and their family and their just needs, they have to use automobiles in this country, and they are not able to go out and sell their pickup truck or their SUV and buy some hybrid automobile this week. It would be nice, but people cannot afford to give away those things they have invested large amounts of money in. We have done the calculations on it, and I have concluded that based on 24,000 miles traveled by a typical two-car American family per year, the increase in gasoline prices, in 1 year, means that family is paying approximately $105 more per month--per month--than they were just 1 year ago for the same number of gallons of gasoline. This is after your taxes are paid, after your retirement contributions are made, after your insurance is paid, after your house payment is paid. After that, there is not that much aftertax money for the average American. They have to watch how they spend it. To have, out of the blue, in 1 year, another $105 a month out of that paycheck is something that is a real hit to them. I believe it is impacting families significantly, individuals significantly, and it is hurting our economy also. There is no doubt about it, to my way of thinking. There are some things we can do. I wish to be frank with my colleagues. I have been disappointed in the Democratic proposals. Some weeks ago, when we first started talking about energy, the proposals that came forth had three basic criteria--three principles. The first one had to do with taxing oil companies. Now, I am not saying we should never tax oil companies any more than they are being paid. But if our problem is a shortage of oil--and I believe fundamentally that is the situation--to tax the people who produce it is not a way to get more of it. What you tax, you get less. What you subsidize, you get more. So that certainly is not a long-term solution to the crisis we are facing today. Another proposal that was in the package at that time was that we would sue OPEC, we would sue the oil-producing nations that collaborate together and decide they are going to constrict the world supply of oil, therefore creating shortages, therefore driving up the price of oil, and allowing them to make even more money per gallon than they were making before. They are doing that. They are absolutely meeting to control the production of oil, with a goal to drive up the price of oil and gas on the American consumer. In one sense, as I have said for several years, when OPEC meets, they meet to decide how much to tax the American consumer. We need a systemic, long-term strategy to confront that problem politically and any other way we can do it because it is not right what has been happening. So production in Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Russia, and even Mexico is down. They do not have much incentive to increase their production because the price has gone from $40 a barrel on the world market to $140 a barrel--now dropping maybe 10 percent in the last few days. Thank goodness we are beginning to see a little better trend. But who knows whether it will be permanent. So by reducing their production, shortages have been created, and that has spiked the prices. I am very unhappy about that. But I am a former U.S. attorney, Federal prosecutor, as the Presiding Officer is, and I am not aware of how it is possible for the United States of America to file a lawsuit against a sovereign nation to try to order them, I guess--what court is going to do this--to order them to produce more of the oil that is in their ground, if they do not want to produce it. I do not think we are going to be successful on that. I think that is just talk. That is just ``flapdoodle.'' That is not going to work. But I tell you, it might be possible, frankly, let me say, that if we had to have a lawsuit of that kind, we would probably have a better chance of having it filed against the Congress. Maybe Senator Reid would accept service because this Congress is keeping America from producing our own oil and gas offshore, onshore, in Alaska, and other places. We have systematically passed laws and regulations that have prohibited the production of our own resources. Yet we are going to complain about some other country that does not produce? I think that is rather silly. I think the speculation matter--and I am open minded. I do not have an automatic rejection of a speculating bill. I would support, certainly, more investigators to see if there is fraud going on out there, and I suspect in some places there is. But, fundamentally, I am convinced from my study that the problem we are having is we are using more and more. China is using more and more. India is using more and more oil and gas. I visited South America a couple years ago as a part of a congressional delegation. All those countries are growing at 6, 7, 8, 9 percent a year. They are using more and more oil and gas. So the world supply is not growing. In some of the biggest countries it is declining. As a result, we have a shortage here, and we need to develop some ideas to go forward. We passed CAFE standards, on a bipartisan basis, that I think was a good piece of legislation. Several years before that was attempted-- maybe 6 or so years ago--it was attempted, and some of us voted against it. I think perhaps a good case can be made that was a bad vote. Things were going along well at the time. The price of oil and gas was not too high, and we did not want to tell our consumers they had to have smaller automobiles and have more expensive automobiles that got better gas mileage. But after the prices went up last year, a lot of us saw we had a crisis facing the country, and we have now passed a lot higher standards, which I think will help us, and we would have probably done better had we passed those standards some years before. Likewise, I would note it was pretty clear, at that same time period, we were coming to a point where oil was going to become more valuable, we were going to have a crisis in the future, and many of us spoke--and I have spoken many times on this floor--about the need to produce from those great reserves in Alaska, the need to produce oil and gas off my coast of Alabama. Off the gulf coast, it is being produced safely. People go fishing around the oil rigs. Large amounts of oil and gas are coming out of those wells. But huge portions of our gulf and both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts are totally blocked from producing. We have hundreds of wells in the Gulf of Mexico, some of them way out there, that are producing large amounts. They have been so much better today in knowing how to prevent spills, and we have almost no spills occurring in the last 20 or 30 years. So we need to do more of that. We have had vote after vote after vote and people have blocked it. So I say people who have been blocking more production need to do like some of us who were not supportive of the higher efficiency standard mandates on automobiles, to begin to rethink their position. I think that is happening. I do believe a lot of Members of this body are concerned about this increase in prices. They know it is hurting American citizens. They know it is taking money out of their pocketbooks. They know it is going to many of these rich Gulf States that have so much money they don't know what to do with it. They are building skyscrapers and five-star hotels and golf courses in the desert and all kinds of incredible things with our money. Seven hundred billion dollars a year is going abroad to purchase the 60 percent of the oil we import to use in our automobiles. Over half of the oil and gas in our automobiles is imported. This is not good. This is impacting our economy negatively. All things being equal, which would you rather? Have us produce oil off our coast and keep all that money at home-- Alabama gets to share a little bit of the resources. This is what happens in the gulf today: The States that approve deep gulf production get 37\1/2\ percent. We passed this 2 years ago, 3 years ago, in this Congress. Twelve-and-a-half percent goes to the Land and Water Conservation Fund, a prime environmental fund of the U.S. Government, and 50 percent goes to the U.S. Treasury. Now, some of us have read--and I think most Americans have seen with some positive feeling--that Brazil has identified what appears to be very large reserves off the coast of Brazil. We are so happy. We are happy they are in the Atlantic. We want them to produce, because that will bring on more supplies and can help bring down the price of oil, but we have our own right off our shores. Why would we prefer to send our money to Brazil by the billions and tens of billions, hundreds of billions of dollars to purchase oil when we can be keeping it all at home, helping this economy? I have to tell you, it is not in good shape. This drain of wealth to buy foreign oil is a negative factor in this economy today and it is hurting us in ways a lot of people don't fully realize. If you are now paying, on top of your house note that you stretched yourself to be able to pay when you bought that house as a young person and now you have to pay another $105 for gasoline--and, in fact, according to the Cato Institute, electric bills have doubled in 5 years because of primarily increased energy costs--is that not a factor why a lot of people are not able to pay their mortgages? Well, I think it is. However, there are some who are so determined to fight fossil fuels that even though they are not able to stop the importing of oil into America that we burn in our automobiles, they have been successful in blocking America from producing its own. We do it cleaner and safer and protect the environment to a far greater degree than I would think any country in the world, except maybe the people in Europe who are doing it in the North Sea, which is a rougher, more dangerous area to produce oil than off our gulf. I ask: How have we gotten ourselves in this predicament? When the great party--the great Democratic Party which has the majority in the Senate and a majority in the House of Representatives--is called upon to respond to a national crisis where the price of oil is surging and American pocketbooks are being drained every month, they propose the only bill we have now on the floor, which is a bill that is going to deal with speculation. I don't think that is good enough. I think it is not the fundamental values of most of our colleagues--Democratic or Republican. I am prepared to look very hard with all of my colleagues in a bipartisan way to consider how we can produce more than just fossil fuels, more than oil and gas and coal and those things. Let's look at the biofuels. Let's look at solar. Let's look at wind. Wind is coming around. Wind is becoming more feasible today than we have seen it. The Government has a big subsidy in wind and that has encouraged the wind people to produce lots and lots of energy, but it is not the most reliable source of energy. Electricity, that is what it produces-- electricity, not oil for our gasoline, for our car engines. I am prepared to consider other things. Why have we created a system in America in which 97 percent of our automobiles burn gasoline, whereas in Europe 50 percent of the cars are diesel? We have new clean diesel technology today. Diesel engines get 35 to 40 percent better gas mileage than our gasoline engines. Can you imagine that, 35 to 40 percent better gas mileage. It is actually better. According to Popular Mechanics, it gets better gas mileage than a hybrid engine. Why don't we go back to more diesel energy and work in that way? I am seeing in my home State several facilities that are coming on line that I believe will soon prove we can take waste wood product and convert it to a liquid fuel that we can burn in our automobiles. Ethanol--or biodiesel, which is even better fuel than ethanol--and we can do it well below the world price of gasoline. I have my fingers crossed. I believe that is going to happen. I have been looking at that closely and I have supported the efforts that will promote that. About 5 percent of the fuel we utilize in automobiles is ethanol, which comes primarily from corn. The next step is to use wood, particularly waste wood products that are left in the woods after sawn logs are cut. Wood is taken out of cities that you have to pay to landfill and it becomes a waste product. Paper, automobile tires, all of this can be converted to fuel and maybe we can get that up to 10, 12, 15 percent of our supply on biofuels. We are also excited about the possibility of plug-in hybrid automobiles. These are automobiles that have a hybrid engine, but you plug them in at night, you charge your battery from 11 p.m. to 5 a.m. when the grid has a low demand on it, charge your battery, and be able to drive back and forth to work. The goal is 40 miles without ever using a drop of gasoline, all electricity coming out of the grid. It is clean, more cleanly produced, more friendly to the environment, and reduces our dependence on foreign oil because our electricity is all American produced. Finally, let me not ignore what I believe has perhaps the greatest potential for America and the world environmentally and economically, and that is nuclear power. We have 104 nuclear powerplants in America today. They produce about 20 percent of all electricity. Not a single American in the 40 years we have been producing electric power has died as a result of a nuclear accident--not one. It has continued to be more and more efficient. In fact, right now the cost is as low as any source of energy we have. I say to my colleagues, we are getting to a point now where the lines between electricity and automobile transportation are being blurred. Energy is energy. We will be able to transform electricity into a power source to turn the wheels of our vehicles and that will be a tremendous advance. If that electricity is produced at a very cost-effective rate by nuclear power that emits not one bit of CO2 into the atmosphere, that emits no pollutants into the atmosphere--you only have this small amount of nuclear waste that I believe should be reprocessed. Senator Domenici and I have offered legislation to do that, but the amount of waste that is now being produced is still very small in size. Every bit of it in the United States can be placed on one football field and not too many feet deep. It is not a problem that can't be solved, and it doesn't blow up. You have to reprocess it or put it away from people so it doesn't damage anyone or the environment. I think we are heading in the right direction. I believe our Nation is getting its feet on the ground. I think the American people know-- they know, they are not going to be fooled; they have no misconceptions--the way to contain the growth in the price of energy is to reduce our demand by conservation and increase our supply, and it will help our economy dramatically if the increase in supply is American energy, not imported energy. Those ought to be our goals. We can do that. We can reduce CO2. We can use more biofuels. We can use more clean nuclear power. As a result, this economy can continue to function and be the envy of the world. I note it should never, ever be a policy of our country to drive up the price of energy. Low-cost energy is a wonderful event for the world. It is one of the great things about this Nation. We have had relatively low-cost energy for many years. I was flabbergasted when one of the Presidential candidates, Senator Obama, said he wasn't worried so much that the price was going up, it just went up faster than people liked. That is not what I think is good policy. Our policy should be to take the steps now. Even if they take 5, 10, or 20 years to come to a reality, that will help ensure this surge in price does not continue; that we can maintain our American independence so we are not held hostage by foreign powers, this unprecedented transfer of wealth will end, and we can fight pollution and continue to clean up our environment. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I thank Senator Biden for his commitment and Senator Lugar's commitment to this. I know it is quite sincere, and I know this reauthorization will, indeed, save lives. I will note I have a New York Times article from 2004 about 428 Libyan children who were infected with HIV by Bulgarian nurses who were reusing needles. So during our discussion before, we learned there were quite a number of children infected with HIV whose mothers were not infected with HIV, and it indicated they got it from some other source. It was believed that medical transmissions were a part of that. So I believe we can make a difference. One of the things this legislation calls for is that whenever a circumstance such as this is discovered, that an investigation be undertaken to find out how it occurred so a stop can be put to the tragedy of someone going to a physician--a doctor--or a clinic to get a shot for an infection or a virus or an antibiotic and they come home with a deadly disease. We can do better with that, and I hope we will. I will note also how proud I have been of Dr. Michael Saag at the Center for AIDS Research at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, a part of the infectious disease program. They have operated programs throughout the world, including Zambia, under a program headed by Dr. Jeff Stringer. I also wish to thank Senator Tom Coburn. Sometimes people complain that Dr. Tom Coburn holds up bills and doesn't always let them pass by unanimous consent--with no debate, no ability to offer amendments. He felt this bill needed to be improved. I met with a group from Africa who urged us to oppose the legislation as originally written for a few reasons, primarily because it removed the requirement that a significant percentage of the money from the bill be spent on medical treatment. They said, in fact, we should oppose the bill, even though they would, in many ways, benefit. We had a grandmother come whose daughter died from AIDS and she had her granddaughter with her and the granddaughter was infected with HIV. So it was an emotional moment. I wish to say that as a result of Senator Coburn's objections to the bill and the willingness of the sponsors and leaders of the bill to listen to Dr. Coburn's complaints and concerns, considerable changes were made that I think made this bill better. I do feel better about that. I wish to say I am pleased that occurred. So, again, I am going to support the amendment of Senator DeMint which would reduce the funding to a level above that which President Bush originally asked for, to the level the Congressional Budget Office has said is all we can spend. I am going to remember--I will not forget--what Sir Elton John said: That it is a responsibility that he felt to everybody who contributed to his program to see that every penny is spent wisely. There is no way this huge increase in spending can effectively occur with this legislation. There is no way it can be passed down through governmental agencies and bureaucracies and be wisely spent. I hope some of the amendments and ideas to ensure integrity in the process will become part of the law. So I thank the Chair for the opportunity to speak on this. I do believe it will have a positive impact in the world. I do believe the United States should lead, and we are able to lead, but I have to tell my colleagues that we are in a position financially where we can't do everything we would like. We wanted to help the veterans. We wanted to stimulate the economy. We wanted to support housing. We wanted to support a worldwide program to fight disease, as this bill does, but there comes a point in time when we have to ask ourselves: Where are we going to get the money? I am telling my colleagues, the deficit this year will be more than twice what it was last year. A lot of this spending we approved this year is not going to come out of the budget until next year. Unless the economy dramatically improves, we will probably see less tax revenue next year than this year. Much of this AIDS money would not come out until next year to be spent. So I am worried about that. I think we ought to be responsible. I don't think we have been sufficiently frugal in managing this program and in ensuring that every single penny does what we want it to do and that we are building up the funding at a rate we are sure can be done safely and effectively and protect the taxpayers' money. So for that reason, I intend to support the amendment of Senator DeMint and some of the other amendments that call for rigorous monitoring to ensure that the money is spent wisely. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I thank Senator DeMint for causing us to confront a very difficult truth; and that is, that we do not have unlimited money. We do have to manage it well. I, frankly, have been uneasy as to the way this process developed. I supported the previous $15 billion AIDS bill for Africa that was the largest expenditure to fight a disease in the history of the world. I remember thinking the President's plan to double it was a bold, big step, and I hoped to be able to support that. I certainly favored an increase in what we were spending on this program because I think it has made some positive difference. Then I was shocked that out of the blue they added another $20 billion to it. So a 5-year program spending $15 billion on this disease has all of a sudden been converted into a 5-year program that will spend $50 billion. It is very difficult to spend that kind of money wisely in undeveloped countries. In fact, as the Senator noted, the Congressional Budget Office--our independent analysis branch of the Congress--has concluded we cannot spend that much. They say all we can spend is $35 billion. He has an amendment to bring this bill down to that amount, and I intend to support it. I think that is a very generous increase. I will note that the G8 nations that are supposed to be participating with us in this--the nations we are supposed to be leading and, in fact, are dramatically leading in this effort worldwide based on the amount of money we have put forth, and with the leadership President Bush has given--those G8 nations recently met and committed to spending $60 billion in the next five years on this project. Obviously, most of it is, of course, the money we are spending. So I do not know that we have the kind of followers that leaders ought to have. We need to stay on those other nations around the world and insist they participate in a generous way. But I have to tell you, it is not easy to spend this money wisely. Five years ago, when we were talking about this bill, Sir Elton John testified before our committee. He has an AIDS program in Africa, and he works hard at it. They raised a few million dollars. They spend a few million dollars a year. I cannot remember the number. I asked him about that at the committee hearing. I said: Sir, we are talking about $15 billion. What do you think about that? Is that something we can spend wisely? I am sure you try to use your money wisely. What advice do you have? This is what this man, who has committed much of his life and effort fighting AIDS in Africa, responded: I concur with you totally. . . . This is just something that the politicians have to make sure that when the [AIDS] money goes to governments-- That is governments throughout Africa primarily-- the money is spent in the right way. . . . We are a very small AIDS organization; we can control where everything goes, and we do. We know where every penny goes. But when you get to these vast sums of money that we are talking about here today-- He was talking about $15 billion, not $50 billion-- you are going to run into those kinds of problems, and I do not personally know myself how you solve them, but I do concur with you that that is a major problem. Well, that is obvious to us. So we have not had any kind of intensive effort to ensure this money will be spent wisely. It went to the Foreign Relations Committee, and they popped it out with the full funding--$20 billion more than the President originally asked for, and he is the world leader on this, and the money is just passed along. I say to my colleagues, we ought to be more responsible. I shared with a group of Senators the other day--yesterday, in fact-- these figures, following up on Senator DeMint's comments. In this year, this is what this Congress has done: We have voted for a $150 billion stimulus package--every penny of that in emergency appropriations, going straight to the debt. We expanded the GI bill by $60 billion. Everybody wanted to help the soldiers have more education. How could we say no to that? Senator McCain raised a concern that was very legitimate. They attacked him as not caring about veterans. Basically, thank goodness, most of what he asked for got fixed in that bill because it was contrary to what the Defense Department believed was good, and Senator McCain helped us improve that bill. We passed a $180 billion war supplemental. We spent about $18 billion on a Medicare fix. We now are doing a $50 billion AIDS bill. We are going to have a $15 billion to $18 billion housing bill. Revenue to the U.S. Treasury, because of the economic slowdown, is going down. So that is a difficulty we face. Last year, after 3 consecutive years of reducing the $400 billion deficit--it fell to $177 billion, and we were feeling pretty good. But now our expenditures are surging, and our revenue is going to be down as a result of the declining taxes because people are not making as much money, they are not making as much overtime, they are not going to get the bonuses they got in the past, which they may well have paid 35 percent on to the U.S. Treasury. The Wall Street Journal said the deficit this year, instead of $177 billion, would be $500 billion. So I am telling you, we have to be responsible here. Every single billion has to be watched with care, and I wanted to mention it. I thank Senator Biden and Senator Lugar for their support on an amendment I have offered on this bill. It follows up on an amendment I offered 5 years ago to deal with the concern of how many people are being infected with AIDS as a result of medical treatment--either through blood transfusions or reusing needles in medical settings. We had an estimate 5 years ago that 300,000 people a year were being infected as a result of medical transmissions. It is hard to believe the testimony to that effect. So we came up with a program that required needles that could not be reused, and checking the blood supply before transfusions. I was pleased to see that in the USAID's report on their Web site a few days ago, they have calculated that the efforts to improve the safety of immunizations, made possible through the legislation Senator McConnell and others accepted which I proposed--and it went in that bill--have saved as many as 300,000 lives. But Dr. Gisselquist, a researcher from Pennsylvania, who raised that issue originally, and some others who supported this concern, believe there are other things that need to be done, and I have offered some additional legislation this time. I thank Senator Biden--I know he cares about it--for accepting this legislation.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Georgia. That was such a good summary of where we are, and we do need to put aside partisanship. We do need to acknowledge that a lot of things have changed and those changes require this Government to make some decisions that can help us deal with the crisis we are facing. I am not a negative person. I believe we will work our way through this. But I am going to say some things that are honest and discouraging and worrisome about where we are today as a nation. The surging price for energy is a crisis that is moving our economy into a recession, and it is absolutely savaging the family budget. Record prices that we are facing today have a real impact on small businesses and family budgets across my State. My home county was rated the No. 1 county in America for the percentage of money spent on oil and gas, because it is a rural area, a poorer area, and people drive a long way to work. A larger percentage of their wealth is spent on buying fuel than any other county in America. So it is personal to me. The average price of regular unleaded gasoline climbed to $4.10 a gallon as of yesterday. One year ago it was $2.84, and 2 years ago, it was $2.62. As a result, the typical American family with two automobiles driving an average of 24,000 miles a year is paying approximately $1,260 more per year for the same amount of fuel, according to the Energy Information Agency. That amounts to $105 a month of disposable after tax, after house payment, after retirement, after Social Security, after insurance, the little after tax money that people take care of their families on, $105 more a month coming out of that to pay for the increase in gasoline over the past year. I hear we are now going to soon be having a LIHEAP bill which would be a bill, I suppose, as it usually is, to increase funding for people who have to buy heating oil and heating in the winter. The Government will subsidize that energy for those people, give them more money so they can buy more of the product. That is the policy we are having from our Democratic leadership. Has anybody thought maybe we should encourage people to use solar energy or geothermal or wind to heat their homes? We know the reason why that is not being suggested. That is, it is not ready yet in mass production. In many areas of the country, it is not feasible. Solar energy is four times as expensive as nonsolar energy. That is why people can't afford the current rates. They certainly can't pay four times as much. I say that to ask, what are we going to do now? That is the question. What is ready to help us deal with this crisis now? Last week the Energy Information Administration and the Cambridge Research Associates reported that the price of natural gas surged to more than $12 per million Btus. That is up from $8.94 in February. That is a one-third increase in a few months in natural gas prices. Of course, this represents an enormous economic hit to the American family, businesses that have to be competitive in the world marketplace, and the economy. Congress cannot go home until we take some action that addresses these issues. According to T. Boone Pickens--you may have seen his ads, an old oil man now into the wind business and favors utilization of natural gas for automobiles, which I think has real possibilities; it is much cleaner than gasoline--we are on track to spend this year $700 billion in American wealth overseas to purchase 60 percent of the oil we utilize in this country. This represents one of the greatest threats to our economy we have ever faced. When the price of oil goes up, the stock market goes down. That is almost a daily occurrence. This is because virtually every industry is affected by high oil prices. In addition, this export of our national wealth decreases the value of the dollar. When the dollar falls, the balance of trade deficit increases, which is increasing steadily, which further erodes the economy. Companies forced to spend more to purchase the same amount of energy a year or so ago are not able now to expand their businesses and create new jobs. In addition, electricity is going up; 20 percent of our electricity is generated by natural gas. Those prices have been surging. According to the Cato Institute, the price of residential electricity has doubled over the past 5 years, from an average of $5.43 per kilowatt hour in 2003 to $10.31 per kilowatt hour this year. A key factor is the cost of natural gas and other sources of energy. High energy costs also drive energy-intensive businesses overseas where prices are lower. If we had passed this cap-and-trade bill that, fortunately, was blocked and pulled down after it failed to gain the necessary support, it would have driven up electric bills by as much as $100 a month for families and driven up the price of gasoline by another $1.50 per gallon according to the EPA. Let me give an example. According to Dow Chemical Company, for every $1 increase in natural gas prices, that adds $3.7 billion in cost to the chemical industry. This will lead chemical companies to outsource their operations overseas where their feedstocks, their energy, their natural gas is cheaper. From 2003 to 2005 alone, rising natural gas prices have forced Dow to shift its production overseas, leaving the company to close 27 facilities and eliminate approximately 15 percent of its workforce. Let me read you the latest from a Forbes magazine article on Dow and what they have done to adjust to this surge in energy prices that are some of the highest in the world, and there are a lot of lower priced areas for natural gas around the world. They are shifting their commodity lower margin business ``into joint ventures with partners in emerging markets like the Middle East, China, Russia, and Brazil. Dow contributes the technical know-how for producing plastics and chemicals, while its partners provide low-cost feedstocks''--basically natural gas--``and access to new markets. Dow ends up with lower capital expenditures and less risk.'' Well, that is jobs. That is American jobs that are going abroad, directly as a result of an increase in natural gas prices. So I was very pleased that yesterday President Bush took an important step to address this initiative by lifting the moratorium on oil and gas exploration in the Outer Continental Shelf. With this action, the President has removed an important obstacle to reducing our dependence on foreign sources of oil, and particularly natural gas, because there is a great deal of natural gas offshore. While the eastern Gulf of Mexico would remain off limits to exploration until 2022, this decision could potentially allow access to significant oil and natural gas reserves right here at home at a time when global supply is struggling to keep up with demand. In 2005, this Congress directed the Department of the Interior to study the oil and gas reserves in the OCS. The study found that 8.5 billion barrels of oil and 29.3 trillion cubic feet of natural gas are currently known to exist off our Nation's shores. In addition, the study estimated that approximately 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas also exists in these waters. Now, we utilize 7 billion barrels of oil a year, and approximately 4 billion of that is imported. Eighty-six billion barrels of oil lie offshore, and we have a lot of reserves onshore. If we produce that, how many years is that? Four into eighty-six? Mr. President, 25 years, 20 years of zero imports if we were to do this. So the American Petroleum Institute reports that producing all our domestic reserves we have will provide enough oil to power 60 million cars for 60 years and enough natural gas to heat 60 million homes for 160 years. Yet these estimates are based on old data. Exploration for oil and gas reserves in the Outer Continental Shelf has not occurred since the early 1980s. Technological advances have made it possible to explore for reserves in areas previously ignored due to scientific limitations. The scientific advancement also reduces the number of dry holes. They can tell better what the prospects are when you drill a well and not drill as many dry holes. When deepwater wells cost over $1 billion, better technology is important. By acting now to increase supply, we can be sure to reduce the price of crude oil and natural gas. This is the most reliable way to end the largest wealth transfer in history, keeping our money here at home in our economy, creating jobs here, creating taxpayers here, and improving our economy. Let me add, parenthetically, I am not for a carbon economy. I want us to move beyond a carbon economy. But I would wish to say that 10, 15, 30 years from now we are still going to be dependent on fossil fuels. We do not have the option right now. So I see the production of more fossil fuels at home not only as keeping American wealth at home but as a bridge to a new energy world in which we have wind and solar and biofuels, especially cellulosic ethanol that I am seeing in my home State of Alabama from wood products--I believe that has real potential--geothermal, clean coal, and nuclear power with plug-in hybrid automobiles where you plug in your car at night using clean nuclear power, with no CO2 emitted, and run your car back and forth to work, never using a drop of oil. All those things are in the works and will happen, but it does not mean we should not be productive at home. So even with the President's decision yesterday, Congress must still take action to remove the congressional moratorium on oil and gas exploration in 85 percent of the Outer Continental Shelf. Every day Congress refuses to act is another day Americans are forced to pay higher prices at the pump. I urge the majority leader to bring legislation to the floor that we can work on, in a bipartisan way, to lift this ban so the Senate can pass good legislation before the August recess and bring relief to the taxpayer. I cannot imagine we would fail to do that. There are a lot of things we can do right now that will not impact the environment in any negative way but will produce more energy at home and help our economy create jobs and wealth at home. I believe we can do this, and I am hopeful that will occur. Mr. President, I see my colleague from Texas, Senator Cornyn, in the Chamber. I am pleased to yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I wish to take a few moments to talk about the Air Force's KC-X tanker competition. There was a House hearing on that matter this week, and a number of our colleagues have spoken on it. I have discussed it on the floor a couple of times. As you will remember, that contract was awarded to the Northrop/EADS team back in February, after a competition that the Air Force adjudicated. That team--the Northrop/EADS team--plans to build a new tanker, which our military desperately needs, in my hometown of Mobile, AL. It is important to the people of Alabama, and they are watching it very closely. However, Boeing objected to the decision. They protested. They cited 100 concerns with the Air Force's award--more than 100. The Government Accountability Office, whose duty is to review such complaints, did so and concluded that out of the 100-plus complaints, only eight elements of the protest had merit. So it was then up to the Department of Defense, after the GAO report was issued, to decide how it would address GAO's concerns. That is the way the system works, and every bidder has that opportunity. The DOD was not legally bound to accept or acknowledge these criticisms. They legally could have gone forward with the process and affirmed their own decision and gone forward with it. However, Secretary Gates considered the matter carefully. He announced that in order to ensure this selection process is totally fair, transparent, and beyond reproach, that the Secretary would order a ``limited recompetition'' of the contract. This new competition will be personally overseen, he said, by the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, Mr. John Young, and Mr. Young will be advised by a completely new Source Selection Advisory Committee. Secretary Gates announced he will amend the original solicitation and allow both Boeing and Northrop Grumman to submit revised bids. The amended contract will address each of the eight complaints that were upheld by GAO. Wisely, I think, it ignored the extraneous issues that some have raised over the past few months, such as WTO disputes or industrial base matters. So let me repeat, each of the concerns raised by the GAO would be addressed, but political considerations here in Washington, the Secretary said, will not affect this process. So as the Secretary said in his press conference yesterday: Industry, the Congress and the American people all must have confidence in the integrity of this acquisitions process. I believe the revised process will result in the best tanker for the Air Force at the best price for the American taxpayer. I think that is what Congress asked of him, and that is what he has committed to do. The GAO affirmed the Secretary's decision yesterday in testimony before the House Armed Services Committee. Daniel Gordon, the Deputy General Counsel for the GAO--I think he headed the team or supervised the team at GAO--said that, based on the Department of Defense press conference earlier this week, ``it certainly sounded to me like Secretary Gates was acting in good faith to implement the recommendations'' made by the GAO. This expedited process, it is hoped, can lead to a new source selection soon. There are some additional points I wish to make to respond to those who say the GAO's decision suggests a preference for one aircraft--for the Boeing aircraft. In other words, some have contended that their decision indicated that GAO was suggesting that a wrong decision was made. Others have suggested that this report should, therefore, invite the Congress to somehow take over this competition, which I submit would be unprecedented and unwise since we are not aircraft engineers, we are not pilots, we are not responsible for managing these aircraft, nor are we capable of making the final decision about which aircraft is the best. So I would make these points: No. 1, the GAO did not say Boeing should have won the competition at all, nor did it say the award should now be sole-sourced to Boeing or any other contractor. GAO said clearly when they released their decision: Our decision should not be read to reflect a view as to the merits of the firm's respective aircraft. Judgments about which offeror will most successfully meet the governmental needs largely is reserved for the procuring agencies, subject only to such statutory and regulatory requirements as full and open competition and fairness to potential offerors. This point was reinforced yesterday in testimony before the House Armed Services Committee by Mr. Daniel Gordon, who is the deputy general counsel for the GAO: We found serious errors in the procurement process that could have affected the outcome of, again, what was a close competition. But our legal decision does not say anything about the merits of the Boeing's or Northrop's proposed tankers. Point 2: When it comes to capability, the Northrop Grumman plane is still the superior choice for our warfighters, I would submit, based on the analysis, and I would make these points--ultimately, that would have to be decided by the professionals, not this Senator. I would just make these points as a push-back to some of the comments my colleagues have raised. First, I would note that the A330, the Northrop aircraft frame, is a more modern airframe than the Boeing 767. The first 767 flew in 1982. The A330 was first built in 1998, some 16 years later. It is a much more modern airframe. No. 2: I would note that no one disputes that the A330 can carry and offload more fuel, the primary job of a refueling tanker. The Air Force judged that one Northrop plane could do more refueling more efficiently than one Boeing plane, and the GAO upheld that finding. The GAO did criticize the Air Force for giving Northrop ``extra credit'' for their superior refueling capability. However, they noted that this extra credit was not in keeping with--in a legal sense--the language of the original request for proposal. They did not say the Air Force shouldn't place a premium on refueling capability. Mr. Gordon of GAO said yesterday: There was an objective. Northrop exceeded it by quite a bit and Northrop got all the extra credit. We have no opinion, we have no view on whether it was a good idea. Well, I would suggest that giving a refueling tanker credit for its refueling capability would seem like a good idea to me, if the Air Force wants the best aircraft for their men and women in uniform. Further, I would note that in addition to carrying more fuel, the GAO also agreed with the Air Force and their finding that the larger boom envelope of the Northrop KC-45 would make it easier and safer for pilots to refuel. In addition, because the A330 is a more capable refueler than the 767, the Air Force predicts they will ultimately have to buy 22 fewer aircraft if they go with the Northrop team. At today's prices, the sticker price of 22 aircraft is $4.3 billion. That is without factoring in manning those aircraft and maintaining them over the years. The GAO acknowledged in their report and in their testimony yesterday that the A330 can carry more cargo, more personnel, and conduct more aeromedical evaluations. They said: We see no basis to conclude that the Air Force's evaluation that Northrop Grumman's aircraft was more advantageous in the airlift area is unreasonable. The GAO further found no fault with the Air Force's conclusion that the Boeing proposal was more risky in certain areas and that their past performance on--by the Boeing team--on similar contracts was ``marginal.'' So what did the GAO ultimately say about the Air Force's decision? They certainly said the decision was flawed from a procedural perspective, but they also said the Air Force picked a plane that could carry and offload more fuel more efficiently and in a more desirable way for pilots. The main fuselage compartment of the aircraft is not where the fuel is stored. It is in the wings. So these aircraft have a tremendous capability of helping airlift personnel and equipment to a distant battlefield. They found that the plane's secondary mission--airlift-- could be accomplished more effectively by the Northrop aircraft. Finally, the GAO agreed that the Northrop plane was lower risk and that Boeing had marginal past performance. Point 3: We need to maintain a fair and competitive process. The fact that we chose to compete this contract--that Congress ordered a competition for this aircraft--directed it rather than sole-sourcing it to Boeing or any other company, as some would have preferred, has been hugely beneficial to our military and to our taxpayer. Boeing's preferred sole-source leasing plan or scheme that got through this Congress, or this Senate, would have had us leasing 100 767s for $23.5 billion. So we would lease them for $23.5 billion, or $235 million a copy. Now, thanks to this very competitive and aggressively conducted bid competition, thanks to fair and transparent procedures, the military is going to own 179 superior aircraft for $35 billion, or $195 million a copy. That is a win for the taxpayers and a win for the military. As Secretary Young said yesterday in his testimony before the House Armed Services Committee: I see no benefit, in my experience across the acquisition enterprise, setting this aside. Sole sources limit our flexibility in negotiating prices. We achieve the best value through a competitive source selection of a single source who has bid in a competitive environment and offered us hopefully an excellent deal. So these words should induce caution in those of my colleagues and some of our Senators who have introduced legislation that would, in effect, sole-source this contract to Boeing. The result would be inferior planes for our military and clearly inflated costs for the taxpayers. As important as the principle that we should have a competitive process for defense contracts is the principle that the military ultimately--and not the Congress--should be in charge of making meritorious, objective, and fair decisions on who should be the winner of a contract. As Secretary Young said yesterday in his testimony: Grounded in the warfighter's requirements and the pursuit of the best value for the taxpayer, the Defense Department is the only organization that can fairly and knowledgeably conduct this competition . . . Isn't that true? . . . The Defense Department does not care which tanker wins the competition. The Defense Department's sole objective is to get the required capability for the men and women who serve this Nation at the best price for the taxpayer. I certainly think that is correct. I certainly think that is correct. I will conclude by saying, after the collapse and quite a bit of embarrassment and actual criminal prosecutions of the sole-source lease plan that occurred--and we are all aware of how that occurred--Congress required a competition. By definition, a competition assumes that there will be bidders, and there are only two potential bidders in the world for this kind of aircraft. And if you are going to have a competition, it needs to be fair. Both bids should be objectively evaluated on the merits of the product they have offered. If that is so, I think the American taxpayer will be the winner in the end. I will just say to my colleagues, I have advice. I believe the Northrop team presented the best aircraft, but I don't know. I am not an expert. So I would urge my colleagues to resist any political pressures that might be brought to bear or interests that they may have in infecting this process with politics. Let's let them make the best decision. That is what I have said from the beginning, and that is what I have said throughout this process. That is what I believe is the only right position we can take. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Job Training

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I will conclude by saying that nuclear power produces no emissions into the air. We need to expand it. We are at 20 percent now in our Nation. We have not built a plant in 30 years. France has 80 percent. We could plug in our cars at night, charge those batteries with clean nuclear electricity, and run back and forth to work. That is within our grasp right now. Those are the kinds of things we need to be talking about: expanding wind, expanding biofuels, expanding the production of our existing resources, keeping American wealth at home, ending this incredible transfer of wealth. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for talking about the energy situation and the price of gasoline. I have traveled my State hard. I know Senator Enzi knows his State like the back of his hand. He goes to every place in it repeatedly and talks to average people. They are hurting. Look at the numbers. In 1 year, over the last year, the average family drives 24,000 miles a year. The average family is paying $105 a month more for gasoline for their automobiles than the previous year. You go back over, since 2003, it is $217. That is a new expense they never had before, and 60 percent of that money is sent abroad to purchase oil that we utilize because 60 percent of our fuel comes from abroad. It totals $500 to $700 billion in a wealth transfer each year now. It is unbelievable. T. Boone Pickens said it is the greatest wealth transfer in the history of the world and it is adversely affecting our economy, not just the fact that the family has less money now to take care of other needs. It has to go to gasoline so people can commute to work, in large part, I would submit, by the failure of this Congress to act. I have been speaking on these issues ever since I came here. I have been pointing out the need for increased production consistently. We produce off my coast in Alabama substantial amounts, but 85 percent of our offshore production is now blocked. We need to do this. We are talking about $105 more a month out of the family budget, so they can't purchase items with this money. It is rippling through the economy. It is not a ripple; it really is a tsunami. Let me point out some of the things in recent magazines and recent newspaper articles. Here from the New York Times yesterday: High fuel costs lead AirTran to cut 480 jobs. AirTran announced it would eliminate 480 pilot and flight attendants' jobs, joining a growing list of airlines that have cut their workforces in the face of high fuel prices. The cost of jet fuel has risen 92 percent this year, which is almost double in 1 year. Here is the New York Times of July 8: Markets decline even as oil pulls back a little bit. The price dropped just a little. Wall Street, which has been hurtling stocks lower for the past few weeks, remains fearful that consumers are trimming their spending to pay for gasoline. With consumer spending accounting for more than two-thirds of [U.S.] economic activity, a pullback would create big ripples. Boy, I tell you, they are reducing spending; $105 less a month they have now to spend on other items because they are having to spend on it gasoline. Here is the Wall Street Journal the day before yesterday: Stock Drop Spooks Currency Investors: Oil Prices Still Key. . . . Janet Yellen [Federal Reserve Bank member], who made surprisingly worrisome comments about inflation. ``The continuing rise in oil and commodities has certainly raised the inflation risk.'' It is just every day. Does anybody not understand this? I have to tell you, I have to say, and I have spoken about this several times, I am utterly disappointed in my Democratic colleagues for having no plan whatsoever to deal with this problem. It is just not a plan. I am willing to discuss how we can work together. I am not wedded to every single issue, I would say. I am willing to consider anything that will work. But I will tell you that the Democratic leader made a speech down here, and they offered a policy that proposes these things: Tax the oil companies; that would make us feel better. It might even be a good policy to raise revenue, perhaps. But it is not going to increase oil production to tax the people who do it. When you tax something, you get less of it. People cannot pass a law to repeal the law of supply and demand. You tax it, you will get less of it. No. 2, they want to prosecute, pass a law to empower the FTC to prosecute stations for price gouging. We already have a law that allows the FTC to do that. They say the gas stations are not prosecuting. They want to go prosecuting after speculators. Speculators are able to operate and be successful. I don't defend them. They are out to make a buck any way they can. They are able to do that because we have a demand for oil that is greater than supply. I think it is 86 million barrels of oil demand a day at this point and 85 supply. So they are able to maneuver in that thing and play this game and make themselves some extra money. But if we got the supply up and our demand down, they wouldn't be able to do this. They couldn't do it when we had $10-a- barrel oil a decade or so ago. They want to sue OPEC. OPEC, what do they do? OPEC meets to decide the amount of oil they want to produce essentially, and that creates the shortages that are driving up the price. Eighty percent-plus of the oil in the world today is not held by oil companies. It is held by nation states, many of them hostile to the United States. OPEC meets to set the price by controlling the supply. They are reducing and not producing the oil that they could if this was a real free market. They are manipulating the market. OPEC meets to decide how much they are going to tax the consumers of the world and, in particular, how much they are going to tax us. I have to tell you, it is a dramatic thing that is happening. I am told that it costs less than $10 a barrel to produce oil from the sands of Saudi Arabia. Yet they are selling it for $140 a barrel. This is the kind of wealth transfer that is damaging our economy. It is hurting this Nation. It is something we have to confront with real policies that will work, and there are some. I happened to catch Jack Welch, former CEO of GE, on one of the morning talk shows not long ago. They were dealing with this question of Senator Obama and many of our colleagues here who say: Don't drill in Alaska; it might take 10 years. It wouldn't take quite that long, but they say 10 years. You shouldn't drill off the coast; that will take 10 years. Really, drilling off the coast, you begin to get production. They drill off my coast in Alabama right now, but there are other areas with lots of reserves. It would take 3 years, 5 years to get production. This is what Mr. Welch said. He said: It is amazing to me that a person who aspires to be the President of the United States would say he is not going to take a policy today that won't have an impact for 5 years. Think about it. He went on to say: A President should be thinking 5, 15, 30 years down the road. We need to be doing the things that serve our long-term national interest. Just because it would take some time to have this go forward, we should not delay taking action. The matter is pretty serious. A Wall Street Journal article by Gerald Seib, executive editor, notes that there are three problems with the high prices of oil. One is that, of course, it impacts the family budget. The second is that the high prices weaken our Nation's economic independence because we owe so much money for it. Thirdly, the money is enriching countries, many of which are hostile to the United States. So I think we are at a point in time when we need to get together, Republicans and Democrats, and recognize that we face a problem that challenges our family budgets, that we have, in effect, taxed the American people, or allowed them to be taxed, by over $100 more a month in 1 year alone, that we can make a difference and bring those prices down--certainly stop the continuing increase. But we have to do something. There are things we can do. I will say, as a person who has been able, a few times, to go fishing on the gulf coast, we go out and fish under oil rigs because that is a good place to fish, and it is clean and there is no oil out on the water. They are very careful about that. We have approximately 51 billion barrels or more of recoverable reserves in the Gulf of Mexico. That is a lot. We use, as a nation, 5 billion barrels a year, and 3 billion of that is imported. If you replaced that 3 billion, that would be 17 years right there just from offshore production in the Gulf of Mexico. We have 85 percent of our reserves still blocked. We have had production that is still being effective off the coast of California before that was blocked. None has been expanded since, in decades, and none, really, off the Atlantic coast. But there are reserves out there. States such as Virginia are talking about maybe that would be a good way to produce additional oil and serve the national interest. We have the opportunity to produce oil from shale. There are 1.8 trillion barrels of oil in shale rock. Perhaps 800 billion of that is recoverable, experts tell us. We are using 5 billion a year, so that is 100 years or more from shale rock. I am told they can produce that at less than the current world price, keeping wealth at home, producing our energy at home, not sending that abroad. I will tell you, one of the greatest potential breakthroughs that could help us with global warming emissions and other areas is hybrid automobiles, particularly a plug-in hybrid. I strongly believe we should--my time is up. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have 1 additional moment.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I agree. I note he has a Ph.D. from Princeton in international relations. He has taught that. So you are right. He has the combat experience as well as the geopolitical expertise.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank Senator Warner. I would share a few thoughts. You might ask why is it that generals throughout our history, particularly successful generals, have been as popular as they have been? I think it is because they are called upon to lead our soldiers in a life-and-death struggle. And at given times in history, some people's talents and gifts and understanding of the nature of the combat are such that they can bring us to success with the least possible cost and the least number of lives lost. I believe--not that other generals are not as good or as decent people--but at certain times certain people have those capabilities. In General Petraeus we are fortunate to have one of our finest commanders. We are particularly fortunate that his gifts and graces and talents are such that they are perfectly suited to the type of combat in which we have been involved. He was a commander of the 101st Airborne. He is a warrior. He knows the nature of combat. He is a sensitive and decent person, but he understands the nature of combat and the importance of victory. He knows how to impose a cost on an enemy and minimize the losses to the American side. I think we are lucky to have him. He finished at the top of his class at West Point, one of their outstanding graduates. He was No. 1 in his class at the Army's Command and General Staff College. He has a Ph.D. from Princeton University in international relations. He has taught that subject as well. When I first met him he was in Iraq. The 101st had taken Mosul in the north. He had a superb grasp of the situation. He was reaching out to reconcile the disparate groups. He introduced me to the town council. One member was a Kurd and one was a Christian and one was a Sunni and one was a Shia. It was an effort that he understood was important: to reconcile the differences there. After his departure, things did not go as well as when he was there. The second time I met him in Iraq was when he was in charge of training the local Iraqi police and military. President Bush had asked him to go back and do that important task. It was a critically important task, the President believed, and General Petraeus was one of the most talented people we had, so he was asked to go back. He worked in that capacity for a year. He came home and then wrote the counterinsurgency manual for the Department of Defense. This thick manual is a doctrinal statement on how to confront and defeat an insurgency, a very important skill at this time in history. The ink was hardly dry on that document when President Bush and the Secretary of Defense asked him to go back to Iraq and command our forces. So in February of 2007 we confirmed him by an overwhelming vote to go back and lead our forces in Iraq. During that time the surge was debated, and the Congress overwhelmingly, in a bipartisan way, confirmed General Petraeus to go to Iraq. And later in May we voted to fund that surge. The phrase often used was: to give General Petraeus a chance. We wanted to give him a chance to employ new tactics a and more classic counterinsurgency doctrine, in which he was an expert. As a man who had already spent 2 years in Iraq, he was already closely attuned to all of the difficulties in that country. He went back and had extraordinary success. General Odierno has also been there all along, and played an instrumental role in the U.S. military's success. I had the opportunity to visit with him twice in Iraq, an extremely important man. In the Weekly Standard, Frederick Kagan and Kimberly Kagan, very astute observers of the scene in Iraq, referred to General Odierno, as: ``The Patton of Counterinsurgency.'' They said: With a sequence of brilliant offenses, Raymond Odierno adopted the Petraeus Doctrine into a successful operational art. So we are lucky to have a good team here. The Kagans refer to generals coming in pairs. They noted: Eisenhower and Patton, Grant and Sherman, Napoleon and Davout, Marlborough and Eugene, Caesar and Labienus. Well, I do not know why he did not mention Lee and Jackson in that group. But generals do often come in pairs, and this pair is unique. Now General Petraeus will be moving up to command the Central Command. Of course his most critical areas are Iraq and Afghanistan. General Odierno will be replacing General Petraeus, and I believe we could not have a better circumstance from a command point of view. I could not be happier with the team we have there. I will note that this May, under their leadership, we saw the fewest U.S. deaths of any month since the war began, and July is currently on pace to see even fewer. Remarkable progress has happened. We should confirm these people and be most thankful that we have them as leaders.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I missed the final vote on the FISA final passage that occurred earlier this afternoon. Had I been present for the vote, I would have voted in favor of the bill. This position is consistent with all my previous votes on the matter, and with my considered judgment that this legislation is critical to protecting our country from future terrorist attacks. Madam President, I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I object for a number of Senators who have not been a part of this negotiation and have some concerns.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Reserving the right to object. Would the Senator amend the unanimous consent request, that this legislation be the first order of business following disposition of the FISA legislation and that the first amendment in order be a McConnell amendment, which is the text of S. 3202, the Gas Price Reduction Act?

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I object on behalf of the leaders on this side.