Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, budgets are defining things. They tell the country what direction we would like to go, where we intend to take the country, what kind of policies on taxing and spending we have. There are not many ways to hide it. There are ways to attempt to hide it, but when one looks at budgets carefully and studies them, they can begin to see what the priorities are of the majority party, the party that has an obligation to present a budget, as the Republicans did for a number of years and now the Democrats do. It reveals something about their priorities, their direction, where they want to go.

I believe this Nation is a nation conceived in liberty. We believe in entrepreneurship. We believe in freedom. We believe in a smaller government and a more vibrant private sector. That is not like many of our European allies. They are high-tax, high-regulation, high-welfare states. We have many of those qualities and characteristics but not nearly so much as they. We made a conscious decision. That is not our heritage. That is not the way we go. I am proud to say our Nation has had a far greater growth rate consistently over the years than the Europeans. Our unemployment rate is well below the Europeans. They continue to struggle. They have government unions striking all the time. They are trying to make the government fix everything for them.

When the government does everything, then everything that is important is decided by a bunch of politicians. We are not capable of running this economy. We are not capable of running an automobile business, running a farm or any other kind of business. That is not what we are capable of doing. We let the private sector do those things and let them compete and let them see who can produce the best widget at the lowest price with the least defects. That is our heritage. I resist the idea that we can continue to increase regulations, increase taxes, increase spending and make the Government bigger and bigger and bigger and the individual smaller and smaller and smaller. Because when we take from one to give to the Government for the benefit of another, we diminish the freedom of the first. We strengthen the Government, and we diminish the moral autonomy of the person who received the benefit. This is a matter of deep importance philosophically for us. We ought to think it through at the beginning.

Where are we today? When President Bush took office--there is no need to rehash everything--the Nasdaq stock bubble had already burst. When he took office, the Nasdaq had lost half its value. When he took office, the last month of the calendar year, this country had negative growth in GDP. The first quarter President Bush inherited a negative growth GDP. He inherited from his predecessor an economy in serious trouble. There is no doubt about that. On top of that, we had 9/11, 9 months later. So the entire Nation was in a state of shock. He had to make some major decisions. Was he going to start a tax-and-spend jobs program to try to jump start the economy?

He made a commitment consistent with our American heritage to reduce taxes and to allow the private sector to recapture itself, restabilize itself and grow. It has worked to an extraordinary degree. It is something of which we should be proud. We have cut taxes and now revenue is beginning to surge.

We had the 2003 tax cuts, the 2001 tax cuts. In 2004, when the economy began to hit its stride, we had an increase in revenue to the Treasury of 5.5 percent. That is a pretty good number. But the next year, 2005, it hit a 14.6-percent increase in revenue. Then the next year it was almost 12 percent, 11.6. This year they are projecting, based on the first few months of the year, a 9.3-percent increase in revenue. What I am talking about is not statistics. It is not some survey. I am talking about actual dollars going into the Federal till.

Is anybody paying taxes if they are not making money? Are they voluntarily sending more money to Washington than they ought to send? No, they are not doing that. The economy is doing well. People are making money. They are working more. They are getting higher wages. They are doing more overtime. Corporations are making profits instead of having losses. They are paying taxes. When someone sells stock or an item, it has appreciated in value, and he pays capital gains on it. Those are the things that are working because we have the economy moving.

I believe President Bush made a historic, tough decision. We passed that first tax cut in this body by a tie vote. We had to bring in the Vice President to break the tie. That side over there that now has the majority opposed it with every strength in their being. The same was true with the next one in 2003.

I will offer a critical amendment on taxes as this debate goes along. I wish to continue the general trend of my remarks and the dangers that I fear are exhibited here. When we pass a budget, we pretend to pass a 5-year budget. We pass one every year. So what does that mean? If you pass a budget every year and every year you pass a new 5-year budget, it means the only budget year that counts is the one you pass that year. Our colleagues think that spending as a percentage of the gross domestic product might go down in future years. I hope it would. It should, based on the strength of our economy. What about the budget that counts? What about the budget that counts, the one that we are enacting as a part of this process for 2008?

I will show my colleagues what this budget does in terms of spending. In terms of spending, it is going up, actual spending over the last decade. This budget for 2008 before us today, and which we are being asked to ratify, has the highest percentage of GDP being captured by the Federal Government, by the Federal tax gendarmes of anything we have had in a decade. This budget, the one we are passing, the one that counts, ups it. There is no doubt about it. We can talk about future years, and we hope they will be better.

How much time remains?

I will close with one more point. A number of years ago, I understood this when the Republicans did what I considered a budget gimmick of several billion dollars. I began to count up how that added up. This year this budget has about $18 billion in spending over the President's budget, 2 billion of which is a gimmick. I believe it is going to amount to advance funding and will be spent. I believe, without dispute, it is $18 billion over the President's budget. Somebody

might say: This is a large economy. What is $18 billion? That is what I used to hear. I made up a chart that I call ``Every Billion Counts.'' A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon it is real money. Look at this chart.

They say: Well, we only jumped the President by $18 billion. This is in the discretionary accounts. This is the discretionary budget. They jump it just $18 billion in 2008. But what happens to that $18 billion? It goes into the baseline of our Government spending.

It goes into the baseline of our Government spending. So next year, if you try to remove that $18 billion, you know what they will say. They will descend on us in the halls, they will descend on us in this body and say: You are slashing the budget. You are cutting the budget. You can never cut the budget. So it goes into the baseline.

Let's say we just continue at that rate. Let's say next year, they just do another $18 billion. It is not $18 billion going to the debt to our children and grandchildren for them to carry throughout their lifetime; it is $36 billion because you have already got an $18 billion increase from the previous year and then have $18 billion on top of that. The next year, it is $36 billion plus $18 billion, which is $54 billion. The next year, it is $54 billion plus $18 billion, which is $72 billion. If you carry it out 10 years, it is $180 billion extra that year. Then, if you add all that up, what do you come up with? An increase in spending, on that pattern alone, of $986 billion. That, I would say to my colleagues, is the kind of indifference to a billion here and a billion there that gets us surging in our spending.

Finally, in our Budget Committee hearing, I asked the committee staff what the Consumer Price Index is, what the inflation rate is. They told us it is a little over 2 percent. Well, what do we know? We know this budget is going to increase spending in the non-defense discretionary account over 6 percent--three times the cost of living.

They say: Well, a big part of this surge in spending is the war. But we have had a war for the last 4 years, and spending has not gone up a whole lot this year as compared to the last couple years in terms of the war. But what we do know is the non-defense discretionary spending in a time of war ought to be at least contained somewhat. Shouldn't we at least try to keep it to the cost of living? Yet we are going to come in with a budget about three times that amount, maybe more than three times the cost of living in terms of a percentage increase in non- defense spending.

So those are some concerns I have. I believe we are on the road to taxing and spending. I think this budget demonstrates where our colleagues are heading in the Senate. I am going to resist it because we are moving to a point where we will not be able to--Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak 1 additional minute.

Mr. President, I will talk more later, but perhaps the most important thing about this budget--with the points of order that are set in it and the fact that it is increasing spending rather than reducing spending--it is going to block the extension of extremely popular tax reductions that have been in place for a number of years. Then the taxes will go up on families. It will go up for children. For children, the tax credit will go down from $1,000 to $500. The capital gains rate--which actually raises revenues when it is cut--will go up. Other taxes will go back up, such as for dividend income.

That is not the right direction for America. This is not our heritage. We need to contain the growth of spending and not go back to higher taxes.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I wish to take this opportunity to discuss the matter I alluded to earlier that is a very real concern of mine, which is that the budget that is before us sets us on a direction we should not go. It is a major policy document. It states to the whole Nation how our Democratic colleagues, who now have the majority in the body and who passed this budget out of committee by a single vote majority or a party-line vote, as budgets have been over the last several years--that is not particularly unusual because there is a very real difference in how we approach taxing and spending in America between the parties that are represented in this body. It has been great to see Senator Conrad and Senator Gregg work on these issues. They have done a great job of representing their principal points of view and they have shared their own ideas and battled it out with respect and collegiality. They are very capable leaders of our Budget Committee.

Amendment No. 466

I wish to talk about this subject, and I call up an amendment to S. Con. Res. 21 at this time, and I send it to the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, our colleagues tell us this budget does not

raise taxes, and in a sense that is a legitimate position for them to take, but in reality, I suggest it is not. I would note the budget we have before us now assumes--assumes, see--$916 billion in additional revenue over the next 5 years. Where do you get $916 billion? It is about a half a trillion more than the President assumed. What could generate $916 billion in additional revenue except a tax increase?

The revenue levels in this budget mirror those numbers prepared by the Congressional Budget Office as part of its budget baseline. The Congressional Budget Office's baseline assumes that President Bush's tax cuts will expire as scheduled under current law, resulting in $916 billion in tax increases. Why does CBO assume they will expire and will not be extended as we have for nearly a decade? Well, that is what accountants do. There is nothing in the law that requires them to be extended, so CBO makes an accounting decision that they assume they will not be extended. The lower rates will not be extended. That means the rates will immediately jump up in a series of important taxes that affect the middle class in America.

But Members of the Senate don't have to assume that. In fact, we ought to assume they are extended, because they are working. They are producing more revenue, economic growth, low unemployment. Alabama's unemployment, my home State, hit 3.3 percent last fall. Isn't that fabulous? We had the lowest drop in unemployment rate on a percentage basis of any State in the Nation in the last several years.

Simply put, the Democratic budget is raising taxes by $916 billion by deciding not to extend the existing tax cuts. Tax rates will then go up and they will receive more money. The $916 billion in tax increases would become the largest tax increase ever, dwarfing President Clinton's record $241 billion tax increase in 1993. But our colleagues don't want to admit that today. They didn't want to admit that in committee when we voted on it last week. They want to have it both ways, if you want to know the truth. They want to spend and not take credit for raising taxes. So now the Democrats say their budget includes a reserve fund that would somehow allow for extensions of existing tax credits without increases in taxes. But this reserve fund is a mere vapor. It is without any substance. It has no funding in it that would allow for tax cuts--it does not allow for the extension of these tax cuts that are in place now and have been in place for years. They would not be acceptable under this reserve fund because they would increase the deficit, of course. That is what CBO will say.

It does not contain any money to pay for the extension. In fact, the Joint Committee on Taxation scores all tax legislation statically, which I disagree with, but that is what they do. It nearly always overestimates the amount of lost revenue whenever you cut taxes, rather than scoring the cost to the Treasury dynamically, which would recognize that many tax cuts actually increase growth and taxable activity, and thus increase Federal revenue. Good tax reductions will seldom fully pay for the full cost they incur in the short run, but usually they do help the economy do better than otherwise would be the case, and bring in more revenues. So it is not a full dollar-for-dollar cost like CBO scores. Thus, spending would have to be reduced substantially to allow under some pay-go idea any tax relief, including even extending the existing tax rates.

Let me ask: When did our colleagues ever execute any spending reductions? They have talked about it. They attacked President Bush mercilessly for spending, spending, spending, they said. President Bush was a reckless spender. He caused all this great deficit. He inherited an economy sinking into recession. He inherited a war and a 9/11 attack. He had to work from those facts and work out of those facts. So they have attacked him mercilessly for his tax reduction policies, which I noted a little earlier increased revenues significantly in recent years.

But I will say this: Under the plan of this budget, under the points of order, one cannot continue those tax reductions without reducing spending the amount that CBO says they cost the Treasury. Now, how are we going to do that? In fact, I will ask, when have our Democratic colleagues ever proposed reducing spending? Look at this budget that is presented this year. It contains virtually no spending cuts, $18 billion in discretionary spending increases, and not one dime saved in the entitlement program. No reform whatsoever in the massive entitlements which now make up over 60 percent of spending in this Government.

Our colleagues are not facing up to that. Thus, I would say to my colleagues with confidence that the plan is clear, their tactics are chosen, and they will say they are not for raising taxes today by this budget. They say this budget does not raise taxes. But I say clearly that is only half true; not much true at all. Because this budget assumes--``assumes'' $916 billion in new revenue, new tax revenue. It assumes we are going to receive $916 billion in new revenue, and where can we figure that? Well, those are the numbers that come from CBO's estimate, that is the Congressional Budget Office which estimates these things--that is what CBO estimates will occur if the existing tax rates are not extended, but allowed to jump back up again to a higher rate.

Second, they have created four new budget points of order against extending the current tax rates. This means that extending low tax rates will require not 50 votes but 60 votes, a supermajority to do that. As I noted when we passed these tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, the votes were razor thin. Now that we have a Democratic majority--not only that, now they have changed the vote total necessary to extend these tax cuts to 60. How are we going to get 60 votes? Well, under these tactics and under the budget points of order fine print contained in the budget, these lower tax rates that are in existence today cannot be extended without ``paying for'' them. How do you pay for them? By cutting spending by the amount CBO scores the loss in revenue. This means reducing spending. The thought that our Democratic majority plans to reduce spending, even though they talked about it this fall in the campaign like they had an intention to do so, the thought that they would have plans to actually contain waste and fraud and reduce spending is really to step through the looking glass, I have to tell you.

How can I say that? Oh, you are just being critical, Sessions. You are just being critical. Let's look at the budget to see what it says. The budget completely ignores President Bush's request to terminate or reduce funding for 141 programs that would save $12 billion in 2008 alone. It doesn't touch any of those programs.

Here is the Chief Executive of the Government of the United States. He recognizes that some of the programs simply don't work well. Out of the 1,000 in existence, he recommended a modest 141 be substantially reduced or terminated. It would save $12 billion in 1 year. Over 5 years, that is $60 billion. What do we see in this budget? Nothing. Zero.

What about the entitlement programs? We are now at $1.5 trillion, $1.6 trillion in entitlements, which is about $900-some-odd billion in discretionary spending. The biggest amount of the budget now is in entitlement, or mandatory spending. We all know that. Did our colleagues propose any steps to contain the growth at over 6 percent a year automatically of mandatory entitlement spending? No. Zero. No cuts in that. No reductions.

Well, there was a little reduction, but they used that to go around and spend it on some other entitlement program. So the net was no reduction in the growth of entitlements, not one step toward making the entitlement programs more solid.

What else? We have to keep this between us all. It is a little bit of a secret. But let me tell you what the budget does. It doesn't cut spending. This budget increases spending by $18 billion in the discretionary account above what President Bush asked for, the man who was being accused by Democratic candidates last year of being a reckless spender. It increases spending.

So you tell me, colleagues, what we are dealing with. I would suggest that elections have consequences; that despite protestations of frugality and criticisms of Bush spending, our Democratic friends have produced a budget that will result in a $916 billion tax increase and $986 billion spending increase, just as I pointed out, with the

$18 billion spending increase over President Bush's proposals, as I mentioned earlier. It adds up over a period of time, goes into the baseline, and surges spending. That is why you have to have restraint and show toughness and responsibility. I will just say that the leopard has not changed its spots.

When we look at it, as a budget, what does it do to our sustained effort to keep our economy vibrant, keep our taxes low, and the growth going and reducing unemployment? I submit that what we have done in the budget is that we have loosed forces that inevitably will put us at a point in time down the road, 1, 2, 3 years, when these tax extensions can't even be carried out. When they can't be extended anymore, these lower tax rates are going to have to go up because we are not going to have a cut in spending. My colleagues are not going to cut spending. They are going to increase spending. They are not going to cut spending.

How are we going to pay for these tax cuts? How can we pay to extend the existing rates? They are going to continue spending. What is going to happen is the tax man is going to get deeper and deeper into the pockets of working American citizens. It includes the marriage penalty, it includes the dividend tax, the capital gains tax, and the child tax credit, and others. So that is the big deal we are dealing with.

I started thinking about this, and I decided what this is, in my own little mind. The way I figure it out, here is the Budget Committee, our Democratic Budget Committee. They passed a budget. The budget, in my mind, amounts to a torpedo heading toward our vibrant, free economy. Our Democratic colleagues say: We haven't sunk the ship. We haven't hit the ship. But the torpedo has already been loosed. It is going to hit the ship because that is what the budget does.

Anyway, I just tell you that the mechanism is at work, and I don't know how we can stop it if we pass this budget. I do have a solution to it, however, and I will talk about that in just a minute.

This is not an academic debate. We are talking about real dollars for real Americans if these tax cuts expire, the lower rates that we have today, and they go back up. The lowest income families in America who pay taxes, those earning less than $15,000 per year, whose tax rates are covered by this temporary extension, will see their tax rates increase 33 percent. I think the $1,000 current per-child tax credit is one of the best things this Congress ever did, and I campaigned on it in 1994. The $500-per-child credit worked so good and was so popular that we added another $500 per child as part of the budget reconciliation process. That is coming to an end. It needs to be extended. So it is going to drop from $1,000 to $500.

The standard deduction for married couples will be cut by $1,700 per year. That is $140 a month for a family. 45 million working families with two children, if those tax reductions are not extended, will pay $3,000 more in taxes per year, which is equivalent to a 5-percent pay cut. And 15 million seniors will see their taxes increase. This is reality, and I am not going to go quietly on it. We need to fight this with all the strength that we have.

The four new points of order that are in this budget make it almost impossible to extend the existing tax cuts, and they are the trouble here. We need to confront those. I have offered an amendment that will deal with it, and I called it up on the floor just a minute ago, but let me mention the four points of order that are included in this budget that make it dead certain, if we continue with those points of order, that we are not going to be able to maintain the current tax rates and that we will see a substantial tax increase on all Americans.

The so-called pay-go rule, which states in part that the Senate cannot consider any revenue legislation that would increase the on- budget deficit in the current fiscal or budget year, the five fiscal years following the current fiscal year, or the 5 years after that-- that is the pay-go rule. Basically, it means you either have to raise taxes to pay for tax extensions or you have to cut spending, and we are not likely to do the latter.

No. 2, a point of order against any legislation that increases long- term deficits.

Well, Joint Tax has already scored these tax reductions as costing the Treasury money. Even though money to the Treasury is going up after we reduce taxes, they scored it as costing the Treasury. Therefore, that point of order would be sustained.

What does a point of order mean? It means that you can object to extending one of these tax cuts, and it would not take a 50-vote majority to extend the tax cut, or 51. It would take 60, a supermajority, because we create a point of order that allows for a larger vote to be required.

No. 3, there is the so-called save-Social-Security-first point of order. This point of order prevents any new tax relief or extension of existing tax relief that would worsen the budget deficit until the President has submitted and the Congress has enacted a bill that would ensure the long-term solvency of Social Security.

The President tried to do that a couple of years ago. He received not a single vote of support in this body. They wouldn't even discuss it. They said it was dead on arrival. Senator Gregg asked that we have in this budget some plans to begin to reform our entitlement programs, including Social Security. What did our colleagues do in the budget? Zero. Now they are going to say: You can't extend your tax cuts, you can't extend the current lower rates of taxes until you fix Social Security. Not only that, it says until the President has submitted, and the Congress has enacted, a bill to fix Social Security.

I certainly think we should do that, but I have to tell you, in my view, I think that is unlikely to occur no matter who is President, no matter how this Congress is made up. We need to do it, and I support it, and I am disappointed we haven't taken any steps whatsoever in this budget to get there.

Finally, there is a point of order against any reconciliation action that would increase the deficit. Reconciliation has been the mechanism that Republicans have used to provide tax relief to the American people. That is how we got it through, by a 50-vote majority, as part of the budget reconciliation process. These were narrow votes. We barely got 51 votes. Under this proposal, under this budget, it is going to require 60 votes.

So if this budget goes through, the four points of order will practically guarantee that all of President Bush's tax cuts will expire. Out the window will go the marriage penalty relief, this penalty that we impose on people who marry--how dumb is that, to tax marriage? That is not a smart thing for the Nation to do. We eliminated most of that, but that will go out the window if we can't extend that tax reduction, along with the $1,000-per-child tax credit, the adoption tax credit, and the estate tax repeal, along with the capital gains reduction.

When we cut capital gains taxes, we didn't lose $5 billion in revenue as CBO said; revenues went up $133 billion.

It also will eliminate the dividend tax deduction. So the 10-percent tax bracket will disappear and marginal rates will increase.

So each of these points of order require 60 votes, and it means that we are facing a problem of a serious nature. We will be drifting more toward the social European model of higher taxes, higher spending, and higher regulation. I do not believe that is what the American people want.

I know there is an idea that through better enforcement against tax fraud we can make up some of this money and that we will increase tax revenue by $100 billion. I wish that could be done. I will support reasonable steps and fair steps to enhance enforcement of our tax laws. But I have to tell you, I met last week with a group of county commissioners from my State, and their No. 1 complaint was that there is some sort of Federal law that has been passed to make them withhold taxes when they pay anybody they deal with so we can close some loophole. And they contend, I don't know how correctly, but they contend it costs more to effectuate the Government's plan than it saves the Government in taxes.

The IRS Commissioner, however, testified before Congress that only $35 billion could be expected to be saved through enhanced enforcement over 5 years.

I am a former Federal prosecutor, a U.S. attorney. I prosecuted a number of

tax fraud cases. I try to pay my taxes. I do the best I can, and I tell you, I think most Americans do. When somebody cheats, they need to be chased down and they need to be prosecuted. It is not right for a rich person to cheat on his taxes while the average Joe is working hard and paying his taxes. So I support that. I am just telling you, there is not a pot of gold out there, as much as we would like to believe there is.

Our colleagues, in writing their budget, just assumed we would get it. They made their budget balance by assuming that we would bring in $100 billion out of tax enforcement. It begins to look like smoke and mirrors, really. The Commissioner says $35 billion is the most we can get. Senator Grassley, former chairman of the Finance Committee, says we can't get that much money. It is not as easy as people say.

To prevent the largest tax increase in history from occurring, just from not having our existing tax rates extended, I am offering an amendment today that would not only exclude any extension of the expiring tax relief from those four new budget points of order but any budget point of order that would threaten that. If my amendment is agreed to, it would therefore take 50 votes to extend the President's current tax breaks that we have passed here in the body and not 60. If we do not do that, the tax collector is going to be jumping back into your pocket. He is going to be taking a lot bigger chunk out of what you make every week. We have to look at the realities of it.

I would say once again, the way this budget is constructed, based on the increased spending our Democratic colleagues propose, we have through this budget loosed a torpedo. How long it takes to hit the ship I don't know--1, 2, 3 years--but it is on the way and it is going to get there and it is inevitable. The bullet has already been launched.

I thank my colleagues on the Budget Committee who worked hard-- Senator Conrad and Senator Judd Gregg. They are both extremely capable. These arguments I am making deal a great deal with philosophy and direction, how we see our Government, how big we want it to be, how much we want it to take from the private sector and the wealth that great private sector generates--how much of it we want it to take. I am very troubled that we are headed down the wrong road, that we are going to increase taxes on middle America, on corporate America, and the net result will be this surging economy may be damaged and, in the long run, we may not receive any tax revenue at all.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield briefly for a question?

I don't think I made it clear, and I think maybe the Senator misspoke because I may have earlier. This eliminating the point of order would only be eliminating points of order that are related-- that could be raised against existing tax relief. Not any new tax cuts. These points of order--I did not seek to change it in that regard.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Kyl for his work and thoughtfulness on this subject. A situation that has always caused enemies is when judges--the judicial branch--appoint officials of the executive branch. In particular, a judge is supposed to be a neutral arbiter for the contest going on before him. If he appoints the coach or the quarterback of one of the teams it seems as though he may not be facilitating a fair trial. It creates a perception that I believe is not healthy. Some judges have actually refused to appoint a U.S. attorney. They didn't think they should be taking sides in lawsuits that would come before them or stating to the world that they were, in effect, choosing and validating the integrity and their support for one of the advocates who appears before them.

That is pretty basic to our system. But we have had a different procedure for appointing interim attorneys for many years. It has been discussed over time as being unwise, but nothing ever happened until the PATRIOT Act reauthorization. Then, when we finally changed the procedure for interim appointments, I think we didn't do it well. We fixed the problem but left a big loophole that does need to be worked on. On balance, the Kyl amendment is preferable to going back to the old system, and I support it.

I also note there has been a lot of talk about politics and the Department of Justice. I served as a U.S. attorney for 12 years. I served as an assistant U.S. attorney for 2\1/2\ years. I came to know and love and respect that office. It is a very great and important office. To be able to go into a court of the United States of America and to stand before that jury and that judge and all the parties who are there and the court says: Is the United States ready? And you say: The United States is ready, Your Honor--to speak for the United States of America, to represent the United States of America in court is a high honor and a tremendous responsibility.

My impression, my entire experience was that when faced with difficult choices, if I called the people in Washington and sought their advice or help or insight into how to handle a difficult matter, they were very respectful of my decisionmaking process.

They would provide support and advice, and they usually deferred to the decision of the prosecutor.

They have strict regulations that require cases to be reviewed at various levels in the Department before an indictment can be returned because the U.S. attorney is not a free agent. They are not entitled to indict anyone they choose without any review within the Department of Justice, any oversight at all. A lot of us thought sometimes there was too much of that, but it was mainly a bureaucratic headache you had to go through with some cases.

The U.S. attorney is appointed by the President. Presidents who take office routinely replace U.S. attorneys who were there and appoint people they believe are able and who will execute their approaches, their policies of law enforcement and litigation. That is what a Presidential election entails.

When we elect a President, we understand they are going to appoint U.S. attorneys who will be responsible for their effort, and if they refuse to prosecute immigration cases, for whatever reason they might decide, and the United States public knows about this, what recourse do they have? They can vote against the President if he appoints somebody who won't enforce the law, gun prosecutions, or any other kind of prosecutions. That is an accountability of sorts. But to have a judge who has a lifetime appointment make these appointments and who has no accountability to the public is not healthy. I believe it undermines accountability.

I guess I had the occasion to be fired. They have been talking about a lot of people being fired. When President Bush took over from President Reagan--I had been appointed a U.S. attorney by President Reagan--even though I had been a Republican and was supported by a Republican President, he wanted everybody to resign so he could replace all the U.S. attorneys. This was a perfectly logical decision for him to have made.

As a matter of fact, I remember it being discussed, although not acted on, at the midterm of President Reagan's Administration whether U.S. attorneys should be asked to resign after 4 years and bring in new blood. They chose not to do that.

When President Bush took office, many U.S. attorneys did not stay on. Over a period of weeks and months, they submitted their resignations, and he appointed new U.S. attorneys, many excellent U.S. attorneys. I asked that I be allowed to stay on, and after some time, they said: You can stay on. So I stayed for 12 years. There were a handful of U.S. attorneys who stayed during that period--I mean literally half a dozen or fewer who stayed 12 years.

I say that to say these appointments are appointments of the President. The U.S. attorneys have to be responsible, if Presidential elections mean anything at all, in executing the policies the President sets forth with regard to criminal cases or civil cases, for that matter. That is what he does.

We have this sense in which an appointment of a U.S. attorney is both political and nonpolitical. Let me tell my colleagues how it works. This is very important. Most U.S. attorneys are recommended to the President or known to the President to have certain abilities. People make recommendations. If it is a Republican President, they tend to appoint Republican U.S. attorneys. If it is a Democratic President, they tend to appoint Democratic U.S. attorneys. Local Congressmen and Senators--particularly Senators, since we are in the confirmation process--make these recommendations to the President. He listens to them and gives great weight to the recommendations.

So most of the people who are appointed have some sort of political heritage or background, but when you take that oath, when a person becomes a U.S. attorney and they are asked to evaluate the merits of an existing case before them as to whether a person should be charged, as to what kind of plea bargain should be entered into in the course of a prosecution, they should follow the law, they should follow their personal integrity and do the right thing regardless of any politics, regardless of whether that defendant or the person involved in a civil lawsuit is a Republican, a Democrat, rich or poor, whatever. They have taken an oath to enforce the laws fairly against everyone. I took it seriously. It was an important oath to me. I don't think I have ever done anything of which I am more proud than serving as a U.S. attorney. I believe I fulfilled that oath as God gave me the ability to do so, and I made some tough calls. I handled cases against people I knew-- friends. I felt it was my duty, and I did my duty as best I could. I am convinced that most U.S. attorneys do the same.

The appointment process has a political component, as everyone in this body knows, because I submit to my colleagues and to anyone who is listening, there has not been a U.S. attorney appointed who doesn't have some sort of Senate recommendation to it. In fact, they have to get our approval to move the nomination through the Senate. That is a political process. So some of these e-mails which are being talked about I think are not so unusual at that level, where they are talking about appointments. Are we appointing people who are loyal to President Clinton or are we appointing people who are loyal to the administration of President Bush, who wants his administration to succeed and wants his priorities to succeed? That is how appointments are made. But once you take that position, nobody in the Department of Justice, for corrupt or ill intent, should ever try to influence a legitimate, proper decision of a grand jury or a U.S. attorney with any improper motive because of politics. That is a tradition which most of the public may not know but is deeply understood throughout the Department of Justice.

Years ago, assistant U.S. attorneys would resign when Presidents were not reelected. The whole office would resign. As a matter of fact, when I came on in 1980, several offices still had that tradition, and in several offices, when the new U.S. attorney walked in, there was nobody there. They thought that was the right thing to do--to turn it over and let the new President and new U.S. attorney hire whom he or she wanted to run the office.

That has ended, I think correctly. Now in every U.S. Attorney's Office, there is a deep cadre of experienced career prosecutors. The U.S. Attorney's Office is much larger today. They have grown in size, and they have a deep cadre of professional assistants, many of whom are appointed by different political parties of different Presidents, different Attorneys General, and selected by different U.S. attorneys.

Everybody, if they are doing their job correctly--and I am convinced that most do, overwhelmingly they do--they make decisions on cases based on the merits. If someone in the office tries to upset that or if some U.S. attorney tries to squash or cover up a case that should be prosecuted or a U.S. attorney tries to prosecute someone and there is not a legitimate basis for it, there are Federal agents involved in these prosecutions, assistant U.S. attorneys, people talk about these things, and it comes to the surface. Really, it is very difficult for anybody to not do what is right. I am not saying it can't be done, but I am just emphasizing that U.S. attorneys have a responsibility to do what is right. Their assistants are raised in that concept, they are trained in that concept, and if some political shenanigans are attempted, those assistants will usually push back and can appeal to the Department of Justice in Washington or state their claims. That is just the way it is.

What about this deal of President Bush firing 8 of U.S. attorneys? Let me say it this way: The President was in midterm. He had been reelected. Apparently, there was a discussion as to whether U.S. attorneys should be kept or replaced. Somebody said: Why don't we replace them all? He said: No, that is not a good idea. We ought to evaluate them and see which ones we want to keep and which ones we want to replace. There is nothing wrong with that. In fact, in my view, Presidents and Attorneys General have a greater responsibility than they have exercised to ensure that U.S. attorneys are carrying out aggressively the policies they set forth. It is mainly a question of policy.

They made that decision. They battled it down and came out with eight U.S. attorneys whom they wanted to replace out of 93 U.S. attorneys. That is not a holocaust of U.S. attorneys.

When I was U.S. attorney and President Clinton was elected President, he sent out a notice that everybody would resign almost immediately. In the past,

President Carter, President Reagan, and President Bush gave people 6 months or more notice to get their affairs in order and trundle on off in a nice fashion, give you an opportunity to find another job. But President Clinton sent out a notice immediately: You are out of there. It caused an uproar, and then they backed off and said: OK, take your time; we respect you more than that. We will let you take some time before you are out of here, but you are out of here. I have seen that twice. I saw it when President Bush took over from President Reagan and when President Clinton took over from President Bush.

I wish to talk about this question of how you fill a vacancy in the U.S. Department of Justice, a U.S. attorney position. I always thought it odd that the court makes that appointment under certain circumstances. Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, in a Judiciary Committee hearing on February 6, said:

Allowing the district court to appoint U.S. attorneys would

deprive the Attorney General of the authority to appoint his

chief law enforcement officials in the field when a vacancy

occurs, assigning it instead to another branch of

Government. The President is elected to do this. He is the

chief law enforcement officer. He sets the prosecutorial

policy, not the courts.

McNulty further testified:

Some district courts recognize the conflicts inherent in

the appointment of an interim United States attorney who

would then have matters before that court--not to mention the

oddity of one branch of government appointing the officers of

another branch of government--and they have simply refused to

exercise the appointment authority.

Some judges felt so strongly that this is an unhealthy way of doing business, that they should appoint the prosecutor who is going to be appearing before them trying to convict somebody, yet they are supposed to be a neutral arbiter of the facts and the law, that they wouldn't make the appointment.

McNulty pointed out:

Other district courts ignored the inherent conflict and

sought to appoint as interim United States attorneys wholly

unacceptable candidates who lacked the required clearances or

appropriate qualifications.

You have to have a secret clearance to be a U.S. attorney. This is very serious business, who gets appointed U.S. attorney in these matters. Let's say there was a U.S. attorney who had a meeting with the judge--and I have had these judges who like to tell you what the policy should be. They like to tell you, you are prosecuting too many drug cases; you are prosecuting too many gun cases. We are the judges; we think you, prosecutor, you work for us, basically you are prosecuting too many immigration cases. You need to do other kinds of things more fitting for the Federal Court, Mr. Prosecutor.

Well, who is the prosecutor working for? Is he working for that judge or is he working, in effect, to set forth the policy of the person duly elected President of the United States and thereby empowered to appoint him and thereby to set those policies? So you have to tell the judge, you know, I like you, Judge, and I appreciate all that. I know you, but that is not our policy. We believe we should prosecute gun cases. We think there is too much violence in America, and drugs and gangs are out there killing people and doing all these things, and our policy is to prosecute drug cases.

What about immigration cases? Nobody else will prosecute an immigration case. One U.S. attorney had a lax record because she did not prosecute those cases to the level of other similar districts and was criticized for it by a lot of people. Let's say there was a vacancy, and under S. 214 the Senate majority now refused to confirm a Bush appointment to that district and the judge appoints somebody who agrees with him who wouldn't prosecute immigration cases or gun cases or drug cases, and they could be in there permanently.

This idea that the Executive Branch, or President, can abuse the system is as true and possible as the idea that a judge can abuse the system. If the President does it, at least we in this Congress have a vote, and the American people have a right to vote on a President. So there is accountability at least in this system that is not in the Judicial branch of government.

Paul McNulty, the Deputy Attorney General, said this:

The Department of Justice is aware of no other agency where

Federal judges, members of a separate branch of government,

appoint the interim staff of an agency.

I would ask my colleagues here to name one where the Federal judges fill a vacancy somewhere in the Government. In addition to the constitutional separation of powers that is of concern with this approach, McNulty says:

At a minimum, it gives rise to an appearance of potential

conflict that undermines the performance or perceived

performance of both the executive and judicial branches.

Tough cases come up before courts and they are litigated before judges with great intensity. There is a lawyer for the defendant and there is a lawyer for the Government, the prosecutor, and imagine now that the judge has appointed the prosecutor. It creates some unease, I submit, and it is not a little bitty matter.

I am talking about a matter that will linger for 100 years. I am not talking about the immediate media flack we are having now, that we are digging into and seeing whether everybody can figure out exactly what happened, and get a complete story of how the eight U.S. attorneys were asked to move on. We will get into that. That will all happen. I don't know exactly what happened there, but I am saying that, as a matter of policy, the appointments of executive branch officers should be maintained, so far as possible, by the executive branch.

I will say one more thing. I do support the Kyl amendment. I think that is a principled approach. I think the PATRIOT Act language we passed was not carefully thought through and did leave a loophole that could allow the President to avoid confirmation process, and I think that is not healthy. I believe the Kyl amendment, consistent with the separation of powers, will confront and deal with that problem. I will say this, regardless of how my colleagues might vote on that, I do believe we ought to consider an amendment I have offered.

Amendment No. 460

Mr. President, I call up my amendment at this time.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, if the Kyl amendment is not approved, my amendment would require interim U.S. attorney appointments made by a district court have appropriate and proper background checks. That is, whoever the judge appoints would have background checks and security clearances in order to maintain efficient operation of the office during this transition period.

The Feinstein bill that reverts to the previous process does not allow for that to happen, and we do know that in the past judges have nominated candidates who have serious difficulties. In 1987, an interim U.S. attorney for the Southern District of West Virginia, who was not a Department of Justice employee, did not have a background investigation, and was appointed by a district judge, started demanding to find out everything that was going on in the files related to a prosecution of prominent public officials. The First Assistant U.S. attorney there, a career

person, was taken aback by this. The judge appointed interim U.S. Attorney didn't have security clearance to see the files, yet he had been appointed by the judge. So they had to remove the files from the office. Not everybody can go in and see an investigatory file or see grand jury transcripts. Those are, by law, available only to law enforcement officers who meet certain security clearances.

There was another example where the chief district judge in South Dakota told the Department of Justice he wanted to appoint an individual who did not have any Federal prosecutorial experience, had not undergone a background check, and did not have the necessary security clearances. The Department of Justice strongly objected. It goes against the policy of the Department of Justice and the efficiency and effectiveness of the nominee. The Department of Justice appointed a different candidate, under an existing law, and the Federal judge executed the oath of office for this appointee and copies of the Attorney General's order were sent out to the district court. Ten days later, the Department of Justice received a fax indicating that the chief district judge had decided to appoint the earlier unacceptable candidate as U.S. attorney. They had two of them appointed. So I think we can fix that problem. That turned out to be an unpleasant mess, if you want to know the truth, and we can do better about that.

I see Senator Kennedy is here, so I won't go on at length about this, except to say if we go back to the previous system that had been in effect for many years, it has been effective but we will face the same serious problems I just mentioned. Also, as a matter of principle, it is inconsistent with the responsibilities we give to the President of the United States to appoint these officers and to give it to a separate branch of Government that is not given the constitutional authority to make those appointments. But I think we can fix it. We can do better. We can fix this.

I think the Kyl amendment represents the appropriate principled approach to it. However, if the Kyl amendment does not succeed, I would suggest my amendment, which makes for a limited modification to Senator Feinstein's amendment by ensuring that only qualified people be named, people who meet the requirements, people who have a security clearance as part of the executive branch of the Government, who may be picked by a judge, whoever they choose, but they at least would be qualified through security clearances and professional background to be a U.S. attorney. Maybe that would be a compromise that would help eliminate some of the practical difficulties, even if it does not eliminate the philosophical difficulties of having appointments made by a different branch of Government.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak in morning business for 10 minutes.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Grassley for his remarks and would share his concerns that we have to be intellectually honest about the numbers with which we are dealing. We are not going to be able to have the kind of revenue collection enhancement that some have suggested is possible. I wish it were so. I pay my taxes. Most people pay their taxes. It is

not right for people to cheat on their taxes. It cheats all of us when that occurs. From experience, we know that we can't get that big of an enhancement, at least that is what the experts tell us. We cannot get the enhancement from collections that some have suggested that we can. They will use monies projected to be collected--that is, they will say we are going to collect a lot more to justify spending--and then when the revenue doesn't come in, all we have done is increase the debt.

So that is a problem and I am pleased Senator Grassley has raised it and we might as well deal with it openly.

(The remarks of Mr. Sessions pertaining to the introduction of S. 863 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today the Emergency and Disaster Assistance Fraud Penalty Enhancement Act of 2007. The bill creates a specific crime of fraud in connection with major disasters or emergency benefits and increases the penalties currently available for such acts. I am happy my good friends and colleagues, Senators Landrieu, Vitter, Cornyn, and Grassley have joined me in this important effort. I commend them for their leadership on this issue and look forward to working with them to pass this important piece of legislation.

As a former Federal prosecutor myself for 12 years on the gulf coast of Alabama, and one who has been involved in prosecuting fraud in the aftermath of hurricanes, I can tell you that it goes on, unfortunately, and there are some weaknesses in our laws that we can fix.

The ideas in my bill have received strong congressional support. In fact, the House of Representatives passed this same bill last Congress, H.R. 4356. Last March, the House Judiciary Committee approved the Emergency and Disaster Assistance Fraud Penalty Enhancement Act because both Democrats and Republicans wanted to move as quickly as possible against disaster assistance fraud. The committee submitted a report expressing its favor for the bill and recommended it be passed without amendment.

Last June, the Department of Justice sent a letter to members of the Senate Judiciary Committee in strong support of the bill, noting that it would ``provide important prosecutorial tools in the government's efforts to combat fraud associated with natural disasters and other emergencies.''

The goal of my bill is to protect the real victims of disasters such as Hurricane Katrina by specifically making it a crime, under the existing fraud chapter of title 18, USC chapter 47, to fraudulently obtain emergency disaster funds.

After an emergency or disaster, such as the recent tornadoes that devastated the city of Enterprise in my home State, we should do everything we can to make sure 100 percent of the relief funds gets into the hands of real victims. Taxpayers should not sustain a financial loss at the hands of scam artists, and these wrongdoers should not profit from exploiting the victims of horrific events. Common sense requires that those who deceive the government and obtain emergency disaster funds by fraud be subject to criminal punishment.

I want to share some thoughts about the scope of the problem. Hurricane Katrina produced one of the most extraordinary displays of loss, pain, and suffering, and of scams and schemes that we have ever seen. The scope of the fraud and the audacity of the schemers was astonishing.

One of the most heinous examples is a woman who tried to collect Federal benefits by claiming she watched her two daughters drown in the rising New Orleans waters. In truth, she did not even have children and she was living in Illinois at the time of the hurricane. Her outrageous claims are an affront to the many people who actually did lose loved ones in that terrible storm.

Another example of blatant and widespread fraud after Katrina include, in Texas, a hotel owner who submitted bills for phantom victims who never stayed at his hotel. Across the gulf coast, roughly 1,100 prison inmates collected more than $10 million in rental and disaster relief assistance by claiming they were displaced by the storm. People in jail were being sent checks.

You say: How can that happen? Well, they are trying to get money out to people in a hurry. I think they could do a better job, frankly. I think FEMA could do a better job in analyzing these claims. But the truth is, in the rush to make sure that people who have lost everything have money to find a room to stay in so they are not out on the streets, it does require them to take more risk than normally would be the case. People who take advantage of that to defraud the taxpayers and to rip off the system ought to go to jail for it.

In California, a couple posed as Red Cross workers and fraudulently obtained donations, saying they were working for the Red Cross. Also, in California, 75 workers at a Red Cross call center were charged in a scheme to steal hundreds of thousands of dollars from the Red Cross. One individual received 26 Federal disaster relief payments by using 13 different Social Security numbers. In my home State of Alabama, FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, paid $2,748 to an individual who listed a P.O. box as his damaged property.

As of January 3, the Hurricane Katrina Fraud Task Force has charged 525 individuals in 445 indictments brought in 35 judicial districts around the country. These numbers continue to grow every day. The Justice Department is aggressively prosecuting these

crooks, but they have asked us for this additional tool. They have asked us to pass this legislation so that the Federal statute adequately addresses and deters fraud in connection with emergency disaster assistance.

The fact is, some people think in a disaster they can run in and make any kind of bogus claim they desire--that money will be given to them and people will be too busy to check. And if they do, nothing is ever going to happen to them. We need to completely reverse that mentality. We need to create a mindset on the part of everybody that these disaster relief funds are sacred; that they are for the benefit of people who have suffered loss, and only people who have suffered loss should gain benefit of it. We need to make it clear that those who steal that money are going to be prosecuted more vigorously and punished more severely than somebody who commits some other kind of crime because I think it is worse to steal from the generosity of the American people who intended to help those in need.

The total price tag for the fraud committed after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita is not yet known, but the Government Accountability Office investigators have testified that it will, at the very least, be in the billions of dollars. I am not talking about millions. This is the GAO saying it will be, at the very least, in the billions of dollars.

Now I have seen people, I have been down to Bayou La Batre and Coden and areas in my home area of Alabama who were devastated by this storm, and it is heartbreaking to see people who have lost everything. The day after the storm, my wife and I were there. The Salvation Army showed up and it was the only group there providing meals. There was a long line, and we walked down the line and just talked to the people about what had happened to them. Repeatedly, we were told:

Senator, all I have is what is on my back.

Now we want to help people like that, but we don't want to help people who are somewhere unaffected in Illinois or somewhere in jail claiming they deserve displaced housing money.

So it is an insult to the victims of these natural disasters and an insult to the ultimate victim in this fraud, the American taxpayer. Natural disasters and emergency situations often create an opportunity for unscrupulous individuals to take advantage of both the immediate victims of the disaster or emergency, as well as those who offer financial and other assistance to the victims. The American people are extremely generous in responding to disasters, but they should not be expected to tolerate the fraud of those who deceitfully exploit their generosity.

In addition to creating a new Federal crime that specifically prohibits fraud in connection with any emergency or disaster benefit-- including Federal assistance or private charitable contributions--my bill would also update the current mail and wire fraud statutes found in chapter 63 of title 18--title 18 sections 1341, 1343. Those are the bread-and-butter criminal statutes for most frauds. My bill, though, changes the Federal mail and wire fraud statutes by adding emergency or disaster benefits fraud to the 30-year maximum penalties that are currently reserved for cases involving fraud against banks or financial institutions.

My bill is timely. Just this month we have seen tornadoes that killed at least 20 people in the Southeast and Midwest and damaged or destroyed hundreds of homes from Minnesota to the gulf coast. I recently toured many of the areas hit by the storms, and I was shocked by the devastation. The loss of eight Alabama schoolchildren at Enterprise High School was especially heartbreaking.

I had the opportunity to be with President Bush on the second day I was there. He came down and met with the families of those eight young people who were killed. He spent almost an hour with them--almost 10 minutes a person. It was a moving experience to be a part of that. I talked with each one of those families and felt the pain and loss they suffered.

Of course, money is not an answer to their pain. But I would say this: People do want to help. If people take advantage and steal from those who want to help families like that, who are in pain and loss, it is a despicable crime, to me.

The President has declared Enterprise and several other Alabama localities Federal disaster areas, including Millers Ferry, AL, in my home county, where one individual was killed. I knew him and his family, and saw the people there who I knew who suffered a total loss of their homes, caused by this incredibly powerful tornado. Being declared a disaster area means victims will be eligible to receive Federal financial aid. It is my responsibility to make sure the money goes to the right people and is not scammed off by criminals posing as victims.

I know my colleagues share my deep sympathy for the families who lost loved ones and suffered injuries last week, but it is simply not enough to have sympathy. We must ensure the full resources of the Federal Government are quickly deployed to the affected States, and we must ensure these resources are protected and distributed only to real victims, not individuals seeking to take advantage of the disaster.

It is disheartening that there was so much fraud associated with the relief following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, but it is not surprising. I have been there in the aftermath of hurricanes as a prosecutor. I have seen such fraud and abuse firsthand.

Our resources are not unlimited, and it is critical that we ensure that every relief dollar goes to legitimate victims. It is important we give prosecutors the tools they need to protect legitimate victims and to protect American taxpayers.

By passing this legislation, the Senate will send a strong signal that exploiting the kindness of the American people in times of crisis is a serious crime that will be treated with appropriate severity. We will not tolerate criminals stealing from the pockets of disaster victims. A vote for this bill is a vote to ensure that victims and the generous members of the American public are not preyed upon by criminals attempting to profit from these disasters and emergencies.

I think it is a reasonable piece of legislation. We worked hard, on a bipartisan basis, with members of the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Department of Justice. Senator Leahy has indicated he will bring the bill up in the Judiciary Committee this week. We are looking forward to an analysis of it.

We will be glad to listen to any suggestions for improvements that may be made, and I think it is a piece of legislation we should move forward with.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today the Emergency and Disaster Assistance Fraud Penalty Enhancement Act of 2007. The bill creates a specific crime of fraud in connection with major disasters or emergency benefits and increases the penalties currently available for such acts. I am happy my good friends and colleagues, Senators Landrieu, Vitter, Cornyn, and Grassley have joined me in this important effort. I commend them for their leadership on this issue and look forward to working with them to pass this important piece of legislation.

As a former Federal prosecutor myself for 12 years on the gulf coast of Alabama, and one who has been involved in prosecuting fraud in the aftermath of hurricanes, I can tell you that it goes on, unfortunately, and there are some weaknesses in our laws that we can fix.

The ideas in my bill have received strong congressional support. In fact, the House of Representatives passed this same bill last Congress, H.R. 4356. Last March, the House Judiciary Committee approved the Emergency and Disaster Assistance Fraud Penalty Enhancement Act because both Democrats and Republicans wanted to move as quickly as possible against disaster assistance fraud. The committee submitted a report expressing its favor for the bill and recommended it be passed without amendment.

Last June, the Department of Justice sent a letter to members of the Senate Judiciary Committee in strong support of the bill, noting that it would ``provide important prosecutorial tools in the government's efforts to combat fraud associated with natural disasters and other emergencies.''

The goal of my bill is to protect the real victims of disasters such as Hurricane Katrina by specifically making it a crime, under the existing fraud chapter of title 18, USC chapter 47, to fraudulently obtain emergency disaster funds.

After an emergency or disaster, such as the recent tornadoes that devastated the city of Enterprise in my home State, we should do everything we can to make sure 100 percent of the relief funds gets into the hands of real victims. Taxpayers should not sustain a financial loss at the hands of scam artists, and these wrongdoers should not profit from exploiting the victims of horrific events. Common sense requires that those who deceive the government and obtain emergency disaster funds by fraud be subject to criminal punishment.

I want to share some thoughts about the scope of the problem. Hurricane Katrina produced one of the most extraordinary displays of loss, pain, and suffering, and of scams and schemes that we have ever seen. The scope of the fraud and the audacity of the schemers was astonishing.

One of the most heinous examples is a woman who tried to collect Federal benefits by claiming she watched her two daughters drown in the rising New Orleans waters. In truth, she did not even have children and she was living in Illinois at the time of the hurricane. Her outrageous claims are an affront to the many people who actually did lose loved ones in that terrible storm.

Another example of blatant and widespread fraud after Katrina include, in Texas, a hotel owner who submitted bills for phantom victims who never stayed at his hotel. Across the gulf coast, roughly 1,100 prison inmates collected more than $10 million in rental and disaster relief assistance by claiming they were displaced by the storm. People in jail were being sent checks.

You say: How can that happen? Well, they are trying to get money out to people in a hurry. I think they could do a better job, frankly. I think FEMA could do a better job in analyzing these claims. But the truth is, in the rush to make sure that people who have lost everything have money to find a room to stay in so they are not out on the streets, it does require them to take more risk than normally would be the case. People who take advantage of that to defraud the taxpayers and to rip off the system ought to go to jail for it.

In California, a couple posed as Red Cross workers and fraudulently obtained donations, saying they were working for the Red Cross. Also, in California, 75 workers at a Red Cross call center were charged in a scheme to steal hundreds of thousands of dollars from the Red Cross. One individual received 26 Federal disaster relief payments by using 13 different Social Security numbers. In my home State of Alabama, FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, paid $2,748 to an individual who listed a P.O. box as his damaged property.

As of January 3, the Hurricane Katrina Fraud Task Force has charged 525 individuals in 445 indictments brought in 35 judicial districts around the country. These numbers continue to grow every day. The Justice Department is aggressively prosecuting these

crooks, but they have asked us for this additional tool. They have asked us to pass this legislation so that the Federal statute adequately addresses and deters fraud in connection with emergency disaster assistance.

The fact is, some people think in a disaster they can run in and make any kind of bogus claim they desire--that money will be given to them and people will be too busy to check. And if they do, nothing is ever going to happen to them. We need to completely reverse that mentality. We need to create a mindset on the part of everybody that these disaster relief funds are sacred; that they are for the benefit of people who have suffered loss, and only people who have suffered loss should gain benefit of it. We need to make it clear that those who steal that money are going to be prosecuted more vigorously and punished more severely than somebody who commits some other kind of crime because I think it is worse to steal from the generosity of the American people who intended to help those in need.

The total price tag for the fraud committed after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita is not yet known, but the Government Accountability Office investigators have testified that it will, at the very least, be in the billions of dollars. I am not talking about millions. This is the GAO saying it will be, at the very least, in the billions of dollars.

Now I have seen people, I have been down to Bayou La Batre and Coden and areas in my home area of Alabama who were devastated by this storm, and it is heartbreaking to see people who have lost everything. The day after the storm, my wife and I were there. The Salvation Army showed up and it was the only group there providing meals. There was a long line, and we walked down the line and just talked to the people about what had happened to them. Repeatedly, we were told:

Senator, all I have is what is on my back.

Now we want to help people like that, but we don't want to help people who are somewhere unaffected in Illinois or somewhere in jail claiming they deserve displaced housing money.

So it is an insult to the victims of these natural disasters and an insult to the ultimate victim in this fraud, the American taxpayer. Natural disasters and emergency situations often create an opportunity for unscrupulous individuals to take advantage of both the immediate victims of the disaster or emergency, as well as those who offer financial and other assistance to the victims. The American people are extremely generous in responding to disasters, but they should not be expected to tolerate the fraud of those who deceitfully exploit their generosity.

In addition to creating a new Federal crime that specifically prohibits fraud in connection with any emergency or disaster benefit-- including Federal assistance or private charitable contributions--my bill would also update the current mail and wire fraud statutes found in chapter 63 of title 18--title 18 sections 1341, 1343. Those are the bread-and-butter criminal statutes for most frauds. My bill, though, changes the Federal mail and wire fraud statutes by adding emergency or disaster benefits fraud to the 30-year maximum penalties that are currently reserved for cases involving fraud against banks or financial institutions.

My bill is timely. Just this month we have seen tornadoes that killed at least 20 people in the Southeast and Midwest and damaged or destroyed hundreds of homes from Minnesota to the gulf coast. I recently toured many of the areas hit by the storms, and I was shocked by the devastation. The loss of eight Alabama schoolchildren at Enterprise High School was especially heartbreaking.

I had the opportunity to be with President Bush on the second day I was there. He came down and met with the families of those eight young people who were killed. He spent almost an hour with them--almost 10 minutes a person. It was a moving experience to be a part of that. I talked with each one of those families and felt the pain and loss they suffered.

Of course, money is not an answer to their pain. But I would say this: People do want to help. If people take advantage and steal from those who want to help families like that, who are in pain and loss, it is a despicable crime, to me.

The President has declared Enterprise and several other Alabama localities Federal disaster areas, including Millers Ferry, AL, in my home county, where one individual was killed. I knew him and his family, and saw the people there who I knew who suffered a total loss of their homes, caused by this incredibly powerful tornado. Being declared a disaster area means victims will be eligible to receive Federal financial aid. It is my responsibility to make sure the money goes to the right people and is not scammed off by criminals posing as victims.

I know my colleagues share my deep sympathy for the families who lost loved ones and suffered injuries last week, but it is simply not enough to have sympathy. We must ensure the full resources of the Federal Government are quickly deployed to the affected States, and we must ensure these resources are protected and distributed only to real victims, not individuals seeking to take advantage of the disaster.

It is disheartening that there was so much fraud associated with the relief following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, but it is not surprising. I have been there in the aftermath of hurricanes as a prosecutor. I have seen such fraud and abuse firsthand.

Our resources are not unlimited, and it is critical that we ensure that every relief dollar goes to legitimate victims. It is important we give prosecutors the tools they need to protect legitimate victims and to protect American taxpayers.

By passing this legislation, the Senate will send a strong signal that exploiting the kindness of the American people in times of crisis is a serious crime that will be treated with appropriate severity. We will not tolerate criminals stealing from the pockets of disaster victims. A vote for this bill is a vote to ensure that victims and the generous members of the American public are not preyed upon by criminals attempting to profit from these disasters and emergencies.

I think it is a reasonable piece of legislation. We worked hard, on a bipartisan basis, with members of the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Department of Justice. Senator Leahy has indicated he will bring the bill up in the Judiciary Committee this week. We are looking forward to an analysis of it.

We will be glad to listen to any suggestions for improvements that may be made, and I think it is a piece of legislation we should move forward with.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 305. I believe it is already pending, having been offered by Senator McConnell.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Craig, Inhofe, Isakson, and Coburn be made cosponsors of the amendment.

Mr. President, it is critically important that we clarify the role of State and local law enforcement officers in the enforcement and apprehension of those who violate our immigration laws and that we expand the National Crime Information Center interest. It is critical that we have them participate because with expanded NCIC capability, which I am surprised is not already being done, they can be partners in Federal law enforcement efforts.

It would be in compliance with what the 9/11 Commission and other reports have asked us to do. It is a loophole in the system today that needs to be fixed.

The amendment I offer is a slimmed down version of the bill I offered in the last Congress, the Homeland Security Enforcement Enhancement Act. That was cosponsored by Senators Craig, Inhofe, and Isakson. The ideas contained in the amendment have also been supported by Senators Kyl and Cornyn. They included it in their immigration bill last Congress. Senators Ben Nelson and Coburn included those provisions in the Nelson-Sessions immigration enforcement bill in the last Congress.

Additionally, my amendment is almost word for word the provision that the Senate Judiciary Committee included when it marked up the Senate immigration bill last year and the provision that the full Senate voted for when it passed S. 2611.

The first section of the amendment reaffirms what I believe to be the existing inherent authority of State and local law enforcement to assist the Federal Government in enforcing the immigration laws of the United States during the normal course of carrying out their law enforcement duties. The amendment specifically states that the participation of State and local law enforcement personnel is not required, not mandated by this legislation. It is 100 percent voluntary.

Section 2 of the amendment deals with the listing of immigration violators in the National Crime Information Center database. State and local officers need easily accessible roadside access to critical immigration information, just as they would do for citizens of the United States who violate our laws. Officers routinely, when they stop people on the road, run National Crime Information Center database checks when they pull over suspects, speeders, or people they are investigating for other crimes. The NCIC is their bread-and-butter database. Today the immigration violators file of the National Crime Information Center database contains information on deported felons, alien absconders, and wanted persons, aliens with outstanding criminal warrants. That is in the National Crime Information Center database. But my amendment would direct that the Department of Homeland Security work with the FBI to place additional information on certain immigration violators into the already existing immigration violators file.

The four categories of immigration violators whose information would be entered are, one, aliens who have final orders of removal. That is someone who has been apprehended, gone through a hearing, and a judge has ordered finally that they be removed from the country for whatever violation; two, it would cover aliens under voluntary departure agreements who for one reason or another have signed an order that they would voluntarily deport themselves or leave the country; No. 3, it would cover aliens who are known to have overstayed their authorized period of stay, the visa overstays; and No. 4, it would cover aliens whose visas have been revoked. Sometimes people misbehave seriously. Twenty-seven percent of our Federal penitentiary bed spaces today are filled by noncitizens.

For some reason in recent years we are seeing a substantial number of

criminal aliens coming into the country. These are not bed spaces for immigration law violations, not people waiting to be deported. These are people who have been arrested, tried, or convicted of Federal criminal laws such as drug dealing and assaults or smuggling, things of that nature.

When State and local police officers encounter individuals during their regular law enforcement duties, it is important that they know if the individual in front of them falls into one of these violator categories. Importantly, my amendment includes a new procedure for removal of erroneous information from NCIC. If there is something entered incorrectly, under the new procedures an alien may petition the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security or the head of NCIC to remove any erroneous information that may have been placed in that file to protect them from any unfair treatment.

These are recommendations that should already be law, but they are recommendations made in the 9/11 Commission Report. We are all familiar with those recommendations, and they have been included in the Hart- Rudman report.

On page 384 of the 9/11 Commission Report, the Commission says:

Our investigations showed that two systemic weaknesses came

together in our border system's inability to contribute to an

effective defense against the 9/11 attacks: a lack of well-

developed counterterrorism measures as a part of border

security and an immigration system not able to deliver on its

basic commitments, much less support counterterrorism. These

weaknesses have been reduced but are far from being overcome.

On page 390, the report says:

There is a growing role for State and local law enforcement

agencies. They need more training and work with Federal

agencies so that they can cooperate more effectively with

those Federal authorities in identifying terror suspects.

In the fall of 2002, a year after the 9/11 attacks, the Council on Foreign Relations published the Hart- Rudman report entitled ``America Still Unprepared, America Still in Danger.'' That report found that one problem America still confronts is that 700,000 local and State police officials continue to operate in a virtual intelligence vacuum. The first recommendation of the Hart- Rudman report was to ``tap the eyes and ears of local and State law enforcement officers in preventing attacks.'' That is their first recommendation, to ``tap the eyes and ears of local and State law enforcement officers in preventing attacks.''

On page 19 the report specifically cited the burden of finding hundreds of thousands of illegal fugitive aliens living among the population of more than 8.5 million illegal aliens and suggested that the burden could and should be shared with the 700,000 local, county, and State law enforcement officers, if they could be brought out of the information void.

So this amendment I am offering tightly targets 9/11 Commission and Hart-Rudman report recommendations that we look at the growing role for State and local law enforcement, that we move toward an immigration system that can ``deliver on its basic commitments'' as a way to fight terrorism, and that we ``tap the eyes and ears of local and State law enforcement officers'' in an effort to find the hundreds of thousands of fugitive aliens in the United States.

Most Americans would probably be amazed that is not occurring today. In fact, a recent poll of 3 years ago was done on this very subject. It found that a large majority of Americans believe that State and local governments should be aiding the Federal Government in finding alien fugitives. That is pretty commonsensical. In fact, a Roper poll found that 85 percent of Americans agree and 65 percent strongly agree--those are powerful numbers--that Congress should pass a law requiring State and local governments and law enforcement agencies to apprehend and turn over to INS, now ICE, illegal immigrants with whom they come in contact. That is pretty strong data.

It is important to note that those responses were collected in answer to questions about requiring State and local immigration enforcement action. So it is very likely that a poll on this subject, one about voluntary State and local assistance, would be even stronger.

Let me tell my colleagues about the problem that started my interest in this area and prompted me to offer this amendment, as well as 3 years ago to push for a hearing, which was held on April 22, 2004, in the Judiciary Committee entitled ``State and Local Authority to Enforce Immigration Law, Evaluating a Unified Approach for Stopping Terrorists'' and for me to author a Law Review article in April of 2005, along with my chief counsel on Judiciary, Cindy Hayden, that was published in the Stanford Law and Policy Review, entitled ``The Growing Role for State and Local Law Enforcement in the Realm of Immigration Law.''

This is the reality. This is the problem we are dealing with. Police chiefs and sheriffs in Alabama have begun to tell me, as I have traveled the State and met with them frequently, and as I continue to do so, that they have been shut out of immigration enforcement and that they felt powerless to do anything about Alabama's growing illegal immigrant population. I heard the same story wherever I went:

When we come across illegal aliens in our normal course of

duty, we have given up calling the INS, because they tell us

we have to have 15 or more illegals in custody or they will

not even bother to come and pick them up.

Even worse, Alabama police were routinely told that aliens could not be detained until INS could manage to send someone. They were told they just had to let them go. This is basically the policy all over America today, I kid you not. If a local officer in virtually any State in America stops someone for speeding or DUI and finds out they are here illegally, they basically take no steps to even contact INS because they only have 2,000 agents in the entire United States and they are not going to come out there and get them. In fact, for other legal reasons, they may have some doubt--although, frankly, not much--but there is some doubt about what their authority might be.

Now, we have done some research into this and believe the legal authority of State and local officers to voluntarily act on violations of immigration law is pretty clear. If there is any doubt that State and local law enforcement officers have any authority--and if there is any, and there certainly is some today--Congress needs to remove that doubt, which is what this amendment will do.

Basically, there is a split in the circuits. I will take just a moment to explain. The Tenth Circuit on more than one occasion concluded squarely that a ``state trooper has general investigatory authority to inquire into possible immigration violations.'' As the Tenth Circuit went on to say, there is a ``preexisting general authority of state or local police officers to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal law, including immigration laws.''

The Tenth Circuit went on to say, in 2001:

[S]tate and local police officers [have] implicit authority

within their respective jurisdictions ``to investigate and

make arrests for violations of federal law, including

immigration laws.''

Now, these Tenth Circuit cases made no distinction between criminal violations and visa overstays, which are not criminal in nature but civil. But the Ninth Circuit did. They concluded the civil violations of a visa overstay did not amount to an offense of law that the local law enforcement officer could arrest and detain for. It was in dictum, not part of the central holding of that case. But that one piece of dicta has created an impression throughout the country that has impacted lawyers and police departments and sheriffs' departments all over America.

They are telling their officers: Well, it might be that the person you stop and is here illegally is a visa overstay and not someone who came across the border illegally, and if you arrest them and detain them, they might sue us, they might sue the city, they might sue the police department. So they have established policies based on this ambiguity that have effectively reduced the participation of local law enforcement officers to a dramatic degree in the enforcement of immigration laws. That is not appropriate. We can fix that. This amendment would fix that.

The second problem the amendment deals with is the inadequate way we share information on immigration matters with State and local police. We have databases full of information on

criminal aliens and aliens with final deportation orders, but that information is not directly available to the State and local police through their base system, the NCIC. Instead, officers are required to make a special second inquiry to the Law Enforcement Support Center, which is headquartered in Vermont, to see if the person they pulled over is an illegal alien wanted by DHS.

Now, I have to tell you, they are not just carrying around in their pocket those phone numbers anyway. They do not know how to do it. They are not comfortable with it. It is not what they do every day. They are not doing it. Besides, if they do and find out the person is illegal, there is nothing much they can do but let them go anyway. So the ability of the bread-and-butter NCIC database to convey to local police who stop someone out on the highway information that this may be a wanted person, maybe even a terrorist, has been severely impacted or really is not effective in many different areas.

I have complained about this for some time, and some progress has been made but not enough. To date, the Immigration Violators File of the NCIC contains about 200,000 entries, and only about 107,000 of the approximately 600,000 alien absconders are in the NCIC. I want you to hear that. Only about 100,000 of the 600,000 alien absconders have been entered into the NCIC.

So what does that mean? That means if a local police officer somewhere stops a person who has been previously arrested for an immigration violation and that person has been released on bail, as often is the case, and ordered to return to court or to be deported-- and they frequently do not do so; they abscond; and there are 600,000 of those absconders out there, but only 107,000 of those records are in NCIC, so a local police officer is not likely to find a hit for the person before him--there will be a 1-in-5 chance of them getting that hit.

That really needs to be fixed. For the life of me, I cannot see why more progress has not been made. We have been talking about this for 4 or 5 years in the Senate Judiciary Committee with the Department of Justice officials and ICE officials and FBI people who run the NCIC.

At the very least, NCIC should contain four types of immigration information.

The first group: aliens with final orders of removal. If someone has been ordered removed, they should not be in this country. They sometimes leave the country and come back into the country and you get a hit on that person. In other words, they have been ordered removed. Why are they back in the country?

The second group that should be in there: aliens under voluntary departure agreements. Some agree to leave voluntarily and sign an agreement to that effect. They ought to be in there because they should not have stayed in the country or, if they left, they should not have returned.

The third group: aliens who are known to have overstayed their authorized period of stay should be entered.

The fourth group: aliens whose visas have been revoked, for heaven's sakes, ought to be in there.

If somebody is here improperly--maybe they have been associated with some criminal enterprise; the ICE people have revoked their visa for some reason; it would have to be significant, usually, for that to occur--they ought to go in there because if they are stopped somewhere, they should be detained and turned over to ICE; otherwise, the system is not working.

Let me tell my colleagues--I know how this system works--if someone had their visa revoked and had been ordered to be removed, trust me, the ICE agents do not go out and walk the streets of Philadelphia or Atlanta or Birmingham and look for them so they can deport them. They do not do it. They are not even close to having the ability to do that. Only the people for whom they have evidence who are extremely dangerous is that done. That is very few. The way most people are caught is just like everybody else in America who is caught who has absconded or run off on bail. They get caught by getting picked up by police on a traffic stop somewhere. The police officer runs their name and ID in NCIC and a hit comes back; there is a warrant for his arrest in Montgomery, AL, for armed robbery, and he locks him up.

If you are an American citizen and you get a reckless driving ticket and you are ordered to appear in court at a given time and place and you do not appear in court, they issue a warrant for your arrest. Normally, the police officers do not go out and chase you down all over and find you to arrest you. Normally, they put it in the NCIC immediately on the assumption you will soon be stopped somewhere else along the way and they will get a hit on you and somebody will put you in jail because you have a warrant for flight out there or for jumping bail. But we do not do that for noncitizens. A citizen, that will happen to; a U.S. Senator, that will happen to but not somebody who is coming to the country illegally. We do not do the same thing when they jump bail on their charges.

So there are a lot of stories we can tell. I will just summarize a number of them. It really caught the attention of the 9/11 Commission. For example, Mohamed Atta, who is believed to have piloted American Airlines Flight 11, which flew into the World Trade Center's North Tower, and played a leading role in more than 3,000 deaths that occurred that day, in July, just 2 months before the attacks, was stopped by police in Tamarac, FL, and was ticketed for having an invalid license. He ignored the ticket and a bench warrant was issued for his arrest. When he was stopped for speeding a few weeks later in a nearby town, the officer did not check, did not discover this warrant had been issued and let him go with only a warning.

Now, OK, Atta had not yet become illegal. I believe at that time he still was on a legal status. However, it was about to expire. I doubt he would have returned to the immigration office to get it extended. He would soon have been here illegally as a visa overstay. He could well have been apprehended and identified before 9/11 had he done so.

That is the example I am trying to make. It could very well have been decisive.

Also Hani Hanjour was, just 1 month before 9/11, stopped by police in Arlington, VA, for driving 50 miles an hour in a 35-mile-per-hour zone. He was in a Chevy van with New Jersey plates. He produced a Florida driver's license. But he was the pilot of the American Airlines Flight 77 which crashed into the Pentagon.

A third hijacker was stopped by State police just 2 days before September 11, also for speeding. Maryland State police stopped Ziad Jarrah on Interstate 95 for driving 90 miles an hour in a 60-mile-per- hour zone.

Well, we are not talking about academic matters; we are talking about the fact that the alien database needs to be accessible to local police. It might as well, for all practical purposes, be locked up in some vault somewhere in secrecy, the way it is being done today. It is not available to the people out there who need it.

The Hart-Rudman Commission raised that point, as did the 9/11 Commission. I have been told at hearings by the appropriate officials that the NCIC system can handle the additional data. It will not overburden the system. It will make this information readily and immediately available to a police officer. He or she may have stumbled onto a person such as Mohamed Atta on his way to commit a horrible, unspeakable act of terrorism against the people of the United States. That opportunity to make that arrest and to identify that criminal is most important.

So that is the purpose of the amendment. I believe as people think about it we will see the need for it. I have tried to get this done in any number of different ways, but we have not quite gotten there yet. I think there is a majority in the Senate, probably on both sides of the aisle, who would support this when it is clearly raised. But as so often tends to happen, matters that actually work to a significant degree and will actually substantially increase the ability of our law enforcement system to be effective are the things that do not become law. It is almost like if it works, it will not pass. If you come up with something that sounds good but will not work, that will get passed.

This needs to be done. In many ways, it will be a test of the Members of this body.

Are we serious about enforcement of immigration laws? I think we are becoming that way. I believe there is a growing understanding that lawfulness needs to be returned to immigration. Without it, we are going to continue to have an erosion of public confidence in our system. We can do all of that. I ask that my colleagues consider this amendment. I hope we will be able to move it forward as part of this security legislation.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. President, I ask that this amendment be called up and made pending.

Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

I would ask to be notified in 8 minutes.

Madam President, I would like to take a personal moment to express my deepest gratitude and bid farewell to my senior defense policy analyst, Archie Galloway.

For the past 10 years, Archie has dedicated his time, energy and skill to assisting me but more importantly to assisting America and the citizens of Alabama. He has been a friend and an asset to the Senate Armed Services Committee, and his performance stands as a tribute to the professionalism of our military community. Archie leaves us to join the private sector, but our Nation will continue to benefit from his many contributions for many years.

I congratulate Arch on his bright future but with a heavy heart. His experience as a battle-tested Army officer, Ranger, and 101st Airborne Screaming

Eagle, combined with his in-depth knowledge of the workings of Capitol Hill, cannot be matched. Upon joining my team, he quickly became a pillar in my office. His undeniable work ethic and his unwavering dedication to our country and to my State of Alabama were a great example to his fellow staffers.

As my senior defense policy analyst, I have relied on Archie's experience and sound judgment. In the last 10 years, he has been instrumental in the passage of key legislation, such as the HEROES Act that Senator Lieberman and I cosponsored--I believe the Senator was here a moment ago--that doubled the death benefits provided to the families of those who lost a servicemember in combat. Alabama's success in the recent Base Realignment and Closure round reflected so much of his hard work. The footprints of his dedication to the needs of this Nation and to the State of Alabama are deep and permanent as he moves on to his next journey in life.

I would be remiss if I did not mention the other half of the Galloway team. Archie's wife Carol is a tremendous contributor to his success. We will always be impressed by the strength of their partnership and the heart and soul they put into everything they do together.

On behalf of myself, my staff, and the people of Alabama, the military community, the Senate Armed Services Committee, and the entire country, may I say thank you to Colonel Archie Galloway.

During these 10 years, Archie has won the admiration and respect of everyone he has worked with. Many have sent their regards, so I thought I would quote a few.

Charlie Able, former Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness and the former Armed Services Committee staff director had this to say:

Archie is a professional soldier and a dedicated Senate

staffer who cares deeply about soldiers and their families.

It's equally important to recognize his wife Carol for her

dedication and service. This partnership is truly their best

asset.

Les Brownlee, the former Senate Armed Services Committee staff director and Under Secretary of the Army had this to say:

Archie wore the uniform of a soldier and brought all of

that wonderful experience to the U.S. Senate, where it has

been invaluable to Senator Sessions, the Army, and the

Nation.

Here are the words of General Cody, Vice Chief of Staff of the United States Army:

Archie Galloway is a patriot in every sense of the word.

His commitment to this Nation and the Army has not faltered

through 40 years of service. In and out of uniform, Archie

has dedicated his life to taking care of the soldiers that

defend our freedoms. Although Arch will be missed, he can

take great pride in knowing the indelible impact he has made

will continue to save lives, strengthen our national

security, and protect the liberties from which we all

benefit. Thank you for your service Arch, Army Strong!

Dick Walsh, senior member of the Armed Services Committee, writes on behalf of the Armed Services Committee and their team:

There aren't many people working on Capitol Hill these days

who have served in the Armed Forces, and among those, there

are even fewer who--like Arch Galloway--served over 20 years

on active duty, commanded troops, and achieved the rank of

Colonel in the United States Army. We have been fortunate to

have Arch working issues in support of Senator Sessions on

behalf of soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines and working

for the people of our country. Whether he learned it from his

parents or whether he learned it in the Army, Archie brought

the qualities of common sense, good judgment, commitment to

duty, honor, and country, wisdom and an inherent

understanding of how to get things done the right way in the

U.S. Senate. Archie helped us all see each day that the Army

is an institution we all have to listen to, support, and

advocate for. Any outfit that keeps someone like Arch for a

career and then hands him off to more public service is doing

something right. No one was able to send a message of

appreciation and thanks for support and a job well done with

a plate of delicious cookies better than Archie Galloway, and

we thank Carol Galloway for her contributions as Archie's G4

to committee morale. Archie like few others understands the

``force multiplier'' effect of baked goods. All part of being

a great leader. The staff of the Senate Armed Services

Committee relies greatly on the military legislative

assistants who work for our Senators and those who have the

kind of experience and qualities that Arch possesses

represent a tremendous resource. They are full partners with

the committee staff. We are sad to see Archie leave, and he

will be missed, but we are very grateful for his friendship

and service.

Rob Soofer, the chief staffer for the minority side on the Strategic Forces Subcommittee says:

Most legislative assistants view their primary

responsibility as supporting the Senator's interests in

the State. While Archie was indeed a forceful advocate for

defense interests in Alabama, he never lost sight of the

broader national security interests and the role Senator

Sessions played as chairman of the Strategic Forces

Subcommittee. As the liaison between the committee staff

and the Senator, he made sure the Senator was prepared to

chair subcommittee hearings and address critical strategic

force issues during the preparation and passage of the

National Defense Authorization Act.

John Little, now the chief of staff for Senator Martinez, a former staffer in my office, said this:

I cannot say enough about Archie Galloway. It was my honor

to work with him for 8 years. I have never worked with

someone who is more honest, sincere and dedicated. As a

native of Alabama, I know how much he has done for my State.

America is truly stronger for his service to our Nation. I

wish him and Carol much happiness and the best of luck as he

embarks on his new professional career. I am very glad that I

can call him my friend.

Here are some comments from those with whom he has worked. Rick Dearborn, the Chief of Staff in my office, says:

If James Brown was known as the hardest working man in show

business, Arch Galloway should be known as the ``hardest

working military legislative assistant on the Hill.'' The

focus that Arch has placed on men and women in uniform over

10 years, particularly those who served in the State of

Alabama, was a tribute to his country and the man who

represents them. I know of no one who has worked harder, put

in more hours, more thought and sweat than Archie Galloway on

behalf of the men and women in uniform and in the name of

national security.

Major Shannon Sentell, former military fellow in my office, back now on active duty, said:

Be it the soldier in the field, the constituent in need of

assistance, or the numerous relationships he has on the Hill,

Archie Galloway always gave 110 percent in making sure the

welfare of those individuals and groups was taken care of.

His untiring efforts and tenacious attitude made Arch the

``go-to'' man when a lot of heavy lifting was needed. On a

personal note, I refer to him as my colleague, my mentor, but

most of all, my friend. Thank you, Arch, for what you do on a

daily basis. You have made an incredible difference in so

many lives. You will be sorely missed.

Meagan Myers, who now works under Colonel Galloway on my staff, said this:

Though he would never admit it, Arch is my father figure in

Washington, D.C. I have truly never learned so much about

life from one individual. To call him my mentor would be an

understatement at best. Although I will miss Arch in the

office, I look forward to his success in the private sector.

Watson Donald, who also worked under Archie Galloway and is now the military legislative assistant for Congressman Jo Bonner, said:

Archie Galloway is one of the most dedicated, hard-working,

loyal, intelligent people I know. His decade-long service to

Alabama has been invaluable and I know our entire

congressional delegation will miss his defense-related

expertise. Having worked for him personally for 3 years, I am

proud to have him not only as a professional mentor, but as a

friend.

Leroy Nix, who also worked under Arch and is now in law school said:

I would simply like to express my gratitude to Colonel

Galloway for his tireless commitment to excellence and the

service of the people of Alabama and this Nation. Having

worked with Arch in Senator Sessions' office for the better

part of 3 years, I had the luxury of learning from him, not

just the finer points of professionalism and personal

development, but also those things that I feel will continue

to influence the man I am and the man I strive to be. My only

hope is that more people, young and old, could have such a

fine teacher, mentor, and most importantly, friend.

John Muller, current military fellow and major in the Army says:

Archie is a true patriot and a great mentor. He shows you

the way and gives you the freedom to work the issues, but he

will not let you fail.

Stephen Boyd--LA, Sessions staffer said:

I've had the very good fortune to work about 10 feet from

Arch Galloway, day in and day out, for several years now.

It's given me a deep respect for all he has done behind the

scenes for Senator Sessions and for the State of Alabama.

When I came to Washington fresh from law school, I was long

on eagerness but short on experience. It didn't take

me long to realize that Arch Galloway, more than any other,

knew exactly what he was doing in this town. I decided early

on to use Arch's attitude, style, and work ethic as a model

for my own, and I think that is one of the best decisions I

have ever made. His guidance has never let me down.

Mike Brumas, press secretary, Senator Sessions, said:

the use of use of superlatives is all too common these

days. But someone trying to describe Arch Galloway's 10-year

tenure on Capitol Hill is forced to reach for the highest of

accolades--best, brightest, consummate professional, hardest

worker. Arch Galloway brought the can-do spirit of a

distinguished military career to Senator Sessions's office,

and we all benefited by his example. He will be hard to

replace and is already missed.

Madam President, I have had the opportunity to travel to Iraq on more than one occasion with Colonel Galloway. He is more than an employee in my office. He is a friend and a partner in service to our country. His career was exceptional in the Army on active duty. His service in my office has been exceptional. No one on the Hill, I think, is more respected than Archie Galloway for his hard work and professionalism. I am going to miss him. Our country is going to miss him.

I don't do this often, but I think on very special occasions, those who serve this Senate exceedingly well deserve a few moments of mention. I think it is true for Archie Galloway. I think all of us appreciate our staff members. So many serve in so many superb ways, but I have to tell my colleagues, this one was special. I am really going to miss him. I wish he and Carol every success. He has been a partner, a friend, and a patriot in his service to America.

I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I pay tribute to Mary Burks, founder of the Alabama Conservancy, mother of the wilderness movement, and champion of the Sipsey Wilderness in the Bankhead National Forest.

Last week, Mary Burks passed away in Birmingham, at the age of 86.

Her passing is a loss, not just for Alabama or the conservation movement, but for every person who has ever explored and enjoyed Alabama's vast wilderness. She helped protect those natural areas, and, without her, our children might not be as able to enjoy them as they do today.

Her lifelong struggle to protect and conserve sensitive lands provides a record of accomplishment that deserves both recognition and celebration.

John Randolph, author of a book titled The Battle for Alabama Wilderness, described Mary Burks's passion for what she did. Randolph says, ``If one believes in fate, then surely Mary Burks was fated to become the mother of Alabama wilderness preservation. Passionate, tough, and resilient, a lover of all things wild and natural . . .''

Mary Burks did not simply sit and dream. She led a 6-year campaign in the early 1970s to designate the Sipsey Wilderness area in the Bankhead National Forest as wilderness. In doing so, she won the support of the entire Alabama congressional delegation.

That is not always an easy thing to do.

After the campaign, not only was the Sipsey Wilderness created, but the Eastern Wilderness Area System was established when President Gerald Ford signed the Eastern Wilderness Act. It is fair to assume that this success would not have been achieved without Mary Burks' tireless efforts.

Today, Alabama is home to more than 41,000 acres of wilderness, including the Cheaha and Dugger Mountain Wilderness Areas. As you know, hundreds of thousands of acres have now been designated as wilderness in the Eastern United States.

All of these accomplishments have roots in Mary Burks's original push to preserve wilderness in Alabama.

Describing the importance of Mary's efforts and the organization that she founded, the Alabama Conservancy, Floyd Haskell, former U.S. Senator from Colorado, stated ``If not for the Alabama Conservancy, there would be no concept of Eastern Wilderness.''

There is a difference between thinking that things ought to be a certain way, and actually making them so. Too often we are quick to do the former, and slow to do the latter. But the protected resources in my home State and others are larger in size, great in quantity, and more secure in their protection because Mary Burks fought for them all her life. She left a lasting legacy in Alabama that will forever be felt by all who care about wilderness and natural places.

Mr. President, I was a Member of the Senate when we voted to authorize the use of force against Iraq. It was not just a rapid, quickly done deal, we talked about it for months. We talked about primarily the 16 or 17 resolutions that Saddam Hussein had failed to comply with that he agreed to with the United States and the United Nations; that he was setting about systematically to break out of the box of the embargo placed on him because he failed to comply with those resolutions.

We were flying, if you remember, aircraft over Iraq on a regular basis, and they were shooting missiles at us, trying to bring down our aircraft. We were dropping bombs on them on a weekly basis. This was the context of the debate that we entered into.

At the end, a great deal of emphasis was placed on the question of weapons of mass destruction by the President and others. But for most of us, I think it was a strategic American decision based on the fundamental questions: Were we going to give up? Were we going to let the embargo elapse? And would Saddam Hussein be able to continue to say--actually say with conviction and some honesty--that he had won the 1991 gulf war? He said he won the war. He never complied with the agreements that he entered into and, as a result, we entered this conflict.

The initial invasion went far better than most of us believed possible, than many predicted--those who supported the war and those who did not. The aftermath has been much more troubling and difficult. I have been one of those who shared General Abizaid's view of let's keep the number of our troops as low as we can, let's push as hard as we can to train and bring on the Iraqi forces, and let's let their government be responsible for its own activities as soon as possible. But I have to be honest, it has been more difficult than most of us would have thought. We now have many soldiers there in dangerous circumstances. So I am concerned about that. I respect anybody who is concerned about that.

I am not here to say I know you are wrong, that I know this is the only way and the only right policy, and I guarantee you it will be successful. I want to say that in the beginning. We have some difficult choices to make, and I respect people who don't agree.

I am not able, however, to justify a resolution that appears to be designed to embarrass the President, appears to be contradictory to our Nation's policy, that would indicate to our adversaries and enemies that we are divided. I cannot see that as a positive step for us. I am inclined to agree with the view of General Petraeus. He finished at the top of his class at West Point. He was No. 1 in his class at the Command and General Staff College. He got his Ph.D. at Princeton. He was in Mosul, right after the initial invasion, commanding the 101st Airborne Division. He was a Ranger, a soldier, a fabulous leader. I saw him in operation when some of the Alabama National Guard members had felt they were not being fully utilized right after they got to Mosul. I told General Petraeus, and he said:

Let's go over and meet them.

He told them:

You are part of our effort. I will be bringing you right

away the Screaming Eagle patch and you are going to put it on

and be one of ours. There won't be any difference in the

Guard and Reserve.

That was such an example of leadership, I thought. Later, he showed how they captured Uday and Qusay under his command. He showed how they formed the government. He had a Sunni, Shia, Christian, and a Kurd on the city council. He formed a court system. He was a fabulous leader and everybody recognized that. He finished his tour and came back.

We realized that we needed to spend more effort and be more effective in training the Iraqi Army. So we sent him over there. We asked him to go back. He went back to specifically be in charge of training the Iraqi security forces. During that time, he got to know virtually every major Iraqi military leader. He knows them personally and he worked with them and with most of the Iraqi leadership. He said he didn't know Prime Minister Maliki, but he knows most of them.

After some 15 months at that, well over 2 years in Iraq, he came back home and he was placed in charge of writing the doctrine for the U.S. Department of Defense on how to confront and defeat an insurgency operation, the so-called Counterinsurgency Manual. It is a real serious document. A lot of people don't know this, but there are ways--proven ways--to confront and defeat insurgency operations. In fact, one military historian recently pointed out that very few insurgency operations ultimately become successful. They can cause great distress for substantial periods of time, but they usually fail. There is a fairly significant number--70, 80, 90 percent--that fail, according to this report. So this manual that he painstakingly put together had incredible subtleties in it about how to handle various situations because every situation is different. What might be true in the Kurdish north may not be true in Bosra, the Shia south, or in the Sunni west. Every part of the Sunni and Shia and Kurdish areas are different themselves. Their tribes and their heritage and their religious sects are different. You have to handle them all differently.

President Bush asked General Petraeus to help formulate a plan to be successful in Iraq. He committed to him five additional brigades, over 20,000 soldiers. That is a bitter pill to me. I was very pleased--and I spoke out when some were critical--and in favor of General Casey over a year ago saying he hoped to be able to bring troops home. He brought some home. He asked for more at different times. What happened? Well, violence began to pick up substantially in Baghdad. The Sunni and al- Qaida terrorists saw the country beginning to come together, and they decided to make a devilish decision, and that decision was to deliberately provoke a sectarian conflict. They began to attack the Shia in the marketplaces and they attacked their holy mosque at Samarra. They blew up that mosque and killed people. It began to work. Shia militias began to grow and strengthen and develop, feeling they were not being protected by the government. They began to kill Sunnis, and people would find bodies that had been killed execution style. It was a very grim thing to happen. It still is going on to a substantial degree.

But I believe that this can be reversed. I cannot guarantee that, but I believe it can be reversed with the leadership of the United States, with increased effort on behalf of the Iraqi military and the country of Iraq, that they can begin to reverse this trend. I will just cite that recently General Conway testified at a hearing. He commanded the Marines in the western part of Fallujah and during some of the toughest fighting. Now commandant of

the Marine Corps, he testified a few days ago. I told him about the visit Senators Levin, Warner, Pryor, and I made to Iraq last fall. The briefing that we had gotten by the Marines in the Ramadi area really concerned me. Some of the information they gave--and the Presiding Officer and I traveled over there, and I know he cares about these issues. That briefing was one of the more troubling things I had heard in visiting there five times, as I have. He pointed out how, in just a matter of weeks, that made a dramatic change; that 12 out of 16 tribal leaders in that area have gotten fed up with al-Qaida and their murdering ways, their parasitic ways, and their domination. And they have made agreements with the U.S. military. We are helping them create their own law enforcement entities, hiring their young people, and they are resisting al-Qaida. There has been a dramatic change in the toughest area, the Sunni area, the area where most of al-Qaida has been. So that is good.

I say to my colleagues that can happen in Baghdad. Don't think that because things have been very difficult in the last year they cannot begin to get better. General Petraeus has stepped up. We are going to increase our forces. The Iraqis are going to increase their forces. I think the Iraqis know this may be their last chance to save this country as a decent and progressive country that treats people fairly and equally. I think they are beginning to wake up to that fact--I hope so. They are moving substantial numbers of troops in there. They are not as good as the American troops in many ways. They have a lot of difficulties. We know that. But they have taken more casualties than we have, and they continue to sign up. We have an opportunity, I believe, to make a difference.

If this effort does not succeed and we do not begin to notice that more progress has been made, that the Iraqis do not meet certain benchmarks we have called on them to make, then we do need to review our policy. I have to say it. What we will do then, I am not sure. But we need to be smart about it. We don't need to be aberrational or spasmodic in how we face those challenges.

What happened on the floor of the Senate is not something that I think has brought credit to this body. After approving General Petraeus to go to Iraq 94 to 0, after making clear we intend to fund the policy the President, as Commander in Chief, is executing, our soldiers are executing, and soldiers have been sent over there as part of this surge--some have already gotten there as part of this surge--it became a goal of the majority leader, Senator Reid, and the Democratic leadership, apparently, to vote on a resolution that disapproved it, that criticized the President, I guess to make happy some of the people out there who oppose this war so deeply, some with great passion and legitimate concerns and some with fevered brow who believe we are over there trying to steal Iraqi oil. But that crowd is out there. They want a resolution that is critical of the President and this policy.

Our leader, the Republican leader, said: You can have that vote, that will be all right, let's have that vote, but Senator McCain has a different view. Senator McCain's view is we need to set some benchmarks for the Iraqis and we need to support the President. Senator Gregg said it is most important when troops are in harm's way, when they are placing their lives at risk for us, that we tell them we are going to support them financially. Oh, no, we can't vote on those amendments. We are only going to vote on the one we want.

This resolution, by the way, should have come, by historical tradition and rules of the Senate, out of the Armed Services Committee, but it didn't come out of the Armed Services Committee. Why didn't it come out of the Armed Services Committee, of which I am a member? Because it doesn't have the votes. It wouldn't have passed out of the Armed Services Committee. So what Senator Reid did is, he filed it as a bill instead of a resolution. He filed it and, under rule XIV, brought it to the floor and determined that no other amendments could be accepted or even voted on, only his view should be voted on. And they carefully calculated, I am sure, to make sure they had over 50 votes, so they would be able to pass one resolution that was deemed an attack on the President and a rejection of the policy we are now funding and is being executed by our soldiers who are far more worthy, in my view, of maturity and respect than a Congress that gets itself tied up in this kind of mess.

I think most of us on this side--even some Republicans and some Democrats who supported the resolution--have refused to vote for cloture to bring it up for a vote because they think Senator McCain's and Senator Gregg's resolutions deserve a vote too. Senator McCain said: I would just be satisfied if you vote on Gregg if you don't vote on mine.

I would like to vote on both of them, and I am not afraid to vote on the Democratic resolution. I would vote on all three of them. I am not afraid to talk about this war or to talk about the resolutions. But somehow the media has adopted the Democrat's talking points and suggests Republicans don't want to debate and vote on the issue. That is not true. How many times do we have to say that? I don't think what I said is inaccurate. If it is, I would like to be corrected on the fundamental debate in which we find ourselves.

But what I wish to say to my colleagues is we are, at this very moment, in reality, financially supporting the policy with which they disagree. Advice and suggestions from business, athletics, church, and families needs to be welcome, but naysaying after a decision is reached is nearly always destructive, in my opinion. People have to pull together once a decision is reached. We only have one Commander in Chief. We have the absolute power to shut off every dime going to Iraq and bring our troops home immediately. That is the constitutional power this Congress has. But while we are executing this effort in Iraq, we only have one Commander in Chief. And for the life of me, I can see no advantage to our Nation, to our foreign policy or to our soldiers in a resolution that disagrees with the President's plan, a plan to which we have our soldiers committing their lives this very moment.

Congress should either support it or stop it. But, of course, we all know the awesome responsibility that voting for a precipitous withdrawal out of Iraq would entail because stopping the funding for Iraq is real, just like funding Iraq is real, just like voting for General Petraeus is real. It is not positioning, it is not an expression of concern or an effort to distance oneself from a war that over three-fourths of us in this Senate voted for but has now become very difficult.

The President studied the Baker-Hamilton report, he met with his commanders in Iraq and in the United States, and he met with retired officers, elder statesmen. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace, started a bottom-up review of our Iraq policy in August. I called him about that time to raise some questions and urge that he do that. He said: Senator, I have started that already. After all of this evaluation and receipt of ideas for improvement, both public and private, our President, the one given the power to decide such issues in our system, made his call. He changed his policy. Perhaps he should have done it earlier. I think this kind of review would have been more appropriate earlier.

The President has gone through a deliberative process, though, and made his decision, and I have decided the right response for me, as a Member of this Senate trying to serve the national interest, is to support that policy, at least for the immediate future, and to support those who will execute it--our military personnel.

Others may disagree. An official expression of disagreement, though, about a policy we authorized and we are now funding and our soldiers are executing does not meet, I believe, high standards of responsibility to which a great Senate should adhere. Please remember also that what we do is not contained just in these Halls. I am not persuaded there can be any effect, other than a pernicious one, on those allies and other nations that are assisting us in our efforts. Nor do I see how the threat of an imminent withdrawal could cause the Iraqi Government and the leaders of the various sects and groups to be more willing to reach an accord than would be achieved if we continue assistance in restoring

order, particularly in the nation's capital. I don't know. I don't think so myself. If it was so, I would be persuaded. If that would be the result of a rapid withdrawal, that they would all get together and reach an accord, then I would support it because I don't think we need to be an occupying force in Iraq. But this is not what our generals tell us. It is not what we have heard from the intelligence community.

Some people said: I talked to a retired general; that is what he said. Maybe that is what he said. Maybe that retired general is right. The people we are hearing about are not saying this is any kind of panacea, to pull out, and there is going to be harmony and compromise reached all at once.

In fact, many are saying the violence in Baghdad is so significant that if we allow it to continue to grow, it makes it harder for the warring factions to get together and reach an accord.

Still, despite the difficulties, our experts in public and private conversations believe there is hope for stability with this new policy in Iraq, this new surge. They give that evaluation with full and realistic evaluations of all the challenges we face. The new Iraqi permanent Government has only been formed for 8 months, maybe 9 months now. That Government has only been up for 8 or 9 months. The forces of violence, oppression, and extremism have attacked it full force. They are determined to bring it down. But it still stands, and it has made new commitments to taking the necessary steps toward security and progress.

This is a test for them, no doubt. Maybe they will fail. Maybe they would not meet the commitments they have made. But perhaps not. Perhaps this fragile Government and the Iraqi Army working in new and better ways with General Petraeus and our forces together can be successful, as our experts tell us is possible and realistic.

I, thus, have concluded this Congress should fund this new strategy, not adopt a resolution that has any tendency whatsoever to lessen the chance of that strategy being successful.

Finally, I do not see how a congressional resolution that disagrees with, or one that rejects the President's new policy will have any other effect than to reduce the morale of our soldiers.

Right out here a couple of days ago, I talked with a group from Hartsville, AL. The man pulled me aside and said his son was an infantry officer at Fort Benning. He said: Senator, I want you to know one thing. When you make your decisions, don't think they don't know what is going on. He said: ``They are watching you like a hawk.''

We have a responsibility to them. Yes, we have a responsibility to say pull out if we have to pull out, if that is the thing to do--and I don't think it is yet; I think we have a chance for success. If that is our decision, so be it. But when we send them over there, they should be supported. They should have no doubt that we are going to be with them.

We are waging a war against violent extremists who bomb markets, who behead people who disagree with them, who murder, who kill, who destroy teachers because they teach young girls how to read and write. So this is a complex effort. It is an important effort that to date has protected our homeland from further attack.

We didn't choose this duty. It has fallen to us. By working together, I believe we can achieve more in Iraq than many people think.

And I will say this, while we are being very serious about the challenges we face. I have had personal meetings with Secretary Gates, the new Secretary of Defense, and an extended meeting with GEN Peter Pace, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and I had a good long conversation with General Petraeus, the new commander in Iraq, and Admiral Fallon, who is going to be the Central Command, commander. I have asked them, and each one of them stated to me that they fully understand their responsibility to give us their best military advice, and if at any time this conflict in Iraq becomes untenable, if at any time they conclude that putting more soldiers into harm's way will not be successful and will not achieve the aims which we are seeking there, they will tell us.

I asked Peter Pace that in an open hearing, and he said: ``Yes, sir, Senator, I understand that.'' Secretary Gates cut in and said: ``Senator, I fully understand that, and I feel like that is my number one responsibility.'' I asked General Petraeus that, and he said the same. And I asked him if he believed he could be successful. Remember, this is the man who spent over 2 years in Iraq. He is the best of the best. He has written a manual on how to confront and defeat an insurgency. His answer to whether he can be successful, in sum, was: ``Senator, I do, and I wouldn't be going over there if I didn't think I could be.''

I know people are worried about this conflict. I am worried about it. I talked to a widow yesterday, whose fabulous husband was killed in Iraq, and I don't take it lightly at all. But we are a nation that has been attacked and we have a responsibility to defend our just national interest, and our just national interest would be greatly served by a prosperous, free, democratic Iraq, where terrorists do not find haven and which is not subverted by hostile forces. We have a national interest in that, as well as a humanitarian interest.

I think we need to give General Petraeus a chance. I think we may find that progress in Baghdad can occur, even when it is dark, as it did in Al Anbar Province a few months ago. I was feeling pretty discouraged about what was happening there, but great progress has been made in the last few weeks there. It is time for us to stick together.

I don't think this resolution is good. If we are going to vote on it, we ought to vote on the Gregg resolution and we ought to vote on the McCain resolution. Because only together will that convey to the world, our allies, and our soldiers the real feelings and insights of this Congress. As I have said from the beginning, I don't favor any resolution. We have done what we have to do. We sent General Petraeus and we sent money to execute the policy. I don't know why we have to have a resolution at all.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I am pleased to have the opportunity to recognize the 100th Anniversary of the Bright Star Restaurant in Bessemer, AL. Since 1907, the Bright Star has been providing the citizens of our State and its visitors with delicious food and superior service. Today, this family-owned business, led by Jimmy and Nick Koikos, continues to build on this tradition. While America is famous for its chain restaurants, there remain many of the old ones which have atmosphere, friendship, and good food. They are a valuable part of our communities and unite us in many ways. The Bright Star is a classic.

Known for fresh gulf seafood, quality steaks, and fresh vegetables, the Bright Star is certain to satisfy every palate. The restaurant's Greek style specialties are my personal favorites. In fact, I don't believe the broiled snapper, along with the Greek salad, can be topped. Although, admittedly, the daily meat and three-vegetable specials certainly give them a run for their money.

Famous faces, like legendary coach Paul ``Bear'' Bryant and former Senator Howell Heflin, frequented the Bright Star. I am certain that virtually all of our congressional delegation have eaten there including my colleague, Senator Shelby, on many occasions. It is the place for good friends, good food, and even a small taste of politics. Today, you will still see Alabama coaches and fans filing through the dining room on their way to and from seeing the Crimson Tide play.

Not so long ago, I brought John Ashcroft by for dinner. This was his first visit to Alabama after becoming the U.S. Attorney General, and I will never forget the wonderful reception Jimmy and the staff gave us. I wanted to show off the best of Birmingham, so dinner at this fine restaurant was a no-brainer. Jimmy gave us a mouth-watering overview of the menu, emphasizing as I had hoped that he would, the renown seafood dishes. Everything sounded delicious, however it turned out that the Attorney General was allergic to seafood and shellfish. I seem to recall he had a steak that he enjoyed, but he certainly missed out on those fresh gulf delicacies.

Located just outside of Birmingham in the quaint downtown area of Bessemer, the Bright Star is easily accessible and certainly a destination attraction. Moreover, you can always expect a good crowd of folks dining there on any day of the week. Luckily, expansions to the building over the years, including ample banquet space, enable diners to be comfortably accommodated. I look forward to the lunch I have scheduled there for next week, and I highly recommend a visit to all.

Mr. President, would it be acceptable that I be given 2 minutes to speak after Senator Warner?

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Arizona for granting me this extra time. He is not required to do so.

I think we have had a problem and a difference of opinion for some time. Senator McCain has been quite open that he is concerned about the troop levels in Iraq not being sufficient. History may well record he is right on that regard, but our policy was different.

General Abizaid, the commander for that region, the Central Command, studied the area throughout his career. He was concerned about too many troops in Iraq from the beginning. General Casey came on after General Abizaid was CENTCOM commander and became the commander in Iraq. He was Vice Chief of Staff of the Army at that time, he was to be gone for 18 months. He ended up being away from his family for 30 months, 2\1/2\ years, and he executed the policy as best he could.

He testified that in his view, he didn't want to ask for a single soldier more than he needed to do the job. I don't know what the tension is, but there was a constant tension between the need to have more soldiers and to not take over the entire effort in Iraq.

General Abizaid and General Casey made their recommendations. We followed them. That experience in Iraq, in my view, can only make him better as Chief of Staff.

He was Vice Chief of Staff, lead our forces for 30 months in Iraq, and now he will be Chief of Staff. He was born in an Army hospital. His father was killed in Vietnam. He served 37 years in the Army. His son is a member of the Army.

He should not bear the brunt of a difference of opinion about how we should have conducted the effort in Iraq. He gave his absolute best effort to it. He could not help but have learned a lot in the process. He will be a fine Chief of Staff.

Mr. President, my time is up. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Hutchison so much for her leadership on this important matter. While she is here, I wish to ask the Senator a few questions about the situation in which we find ourselves.

I believe it was the year before last that we voted, after much anguish and concern and fear by local communities, to go forward with the BRAC, which is the Base Realignment and Closure Commission. Nobody was sure how that would come out and whether some of our bases would be closed. When the dust settled and the long process concluded, a number of bases were closed. At the same time, we are also closing facilities around the world and bringing back more of our troops that are deployed around the world. Isn't it true that the continuing resolution that is proposed would take 55 percent, or $3.1 billion, out of a little over $5 billion that was set aside to carry this forward? Isn't that correct?

In other words, the only way to have a savings under the BRAC is to consolidate facilities and avoid waste. To go halfway with this

project seems to me, clearly, will cause all kinds of backlogs and make it very difficult for our military people to plan. It could actually drive up costs significantly, could it not?

I agree. I don't think there is anyone here who is more committed to frugality and trying to manage our dollars well in this Senate. I certainly believe in that strongly. We knew upfront we were going to have to have some initial moneys to make these moves and consolidations to save money for years and years to come.

This has the potential to eliminate the whole process, to eviscerate the process and actually run our costs up over the long run; wouldn't the Senator agree?

Mr. President, I thank the excellent Senator from Texas for her work, and I believe she is doing it the right way. She is doing it by staying within our budget.

This funding of BRAC was put in at $5.5 or $6 billion. It was within the budget. What has happened is that money was spent on other programs, and now it looks as though if we are to fund it, we are going to have to add it to the supplemental, which is extra spending and extra debt, more than we should have.

I thank Senator Hutchison for her leadership.

Mr. President, I wish to share some thoughts about the situation we find ourselves in. I do feel some obligation to comment on the nature of the debate we are having, although I do not want to descend into partisanship.

I would say that Senator Specter, I believe, is absolutely correct when he says the Republican Members of this body are not afraid to vote. They are prepared to vote on the Warner resolution. They are prepared to vote on the McCain resolution. They will vote on the Judd Gregg resolution. But the problem is the Democratic leadership only wants one vote, and that is a vote on their resolution. So we have had a vote. Less than 50 voted to go forward. So I do not see how we are at a point where it can be suggested the members of this side are afraid to have a vote.

Why are they afraid to have two more votes, I would ask? I am not afraid to vote. I know how I would vote on those amendments. I am going to vote against the amendment that disapproves of the policies we are sending our troops to execute. And I am going to vote for the other amendments of McCain and Gregg--if I had the chance. That is a minimum. There may be others. Senator Specter indicated he would like to vote on something else.

But in truth, as I have said before, I am not happy about this whole resolution process. We are not in the business of resolutions here. We are in the business of funding or not funding the policies of the United States of America. We have committed to funding the policy that is now being executed. We have confirmed the general who will execute that policy. Therefore, that is what we are about. That is the action we have taken.

But, in general, let me say this one more thing because it touched my heart. Less than 30 minutes ago, right out here, I met an Alabamian whose son is at Fort Benning, a first lieutenant in the U.S. Army, an infantry officer. He thanked me for not going along with this negative resolution idea, and said: Senator, these soldiers are ``watching what you do like a hawk.''

Don't think what we do is just a gambit to embarrass the President. We face many difficult decisions, pressures. We wrestle with competing interests and emotions in this Senate. We have high hopes and dreams for America. We do not all agree, and we should not. Ours is, at its best, a democracy where robust and intelligent debate informs our decisions. It makes us better. And we should respect one another even while we disagree. But this is a big deal. Lives are at stake. But this is what democracy is about. I want to be sure that when I say I believe someone is making a mistake, I am not attacking their character.

In the end, if a democracy cannot reach a decision on important issues, act decisively and execute those decisions, it will be weak and it will fall prey to the cruel, the despotic, and the strong. In order to avoid indecisiveness and weakness, there are some important common principles we must share. They are built, I believe, on love of country and a sincere belief in and admiration for this great Republic we serve. That is the unifying principle.

An extended, dangerous, and costly war in Iraq is not what we had hoped would occur when over three-fourths of the Members of this body-- and I was here--voted to authorize the use of force against Saddam Hussein. Certainly, I had hoped and have always favored bringing troop levels down as soon as we can. The difficulties we face have caused, understandably, much unease and frustration in our country. Things have not been going well. That is a true fact. The circumstances are grave, and our efforts in Iraq could fail, as General Casey and his replacement, General Petraeus, have made clear, although, in truth, these professionals have also made it clear they believe we can and will succeed if we carry out the new policy that is now being projected in Iraq.

A congress of a nation, constructed like ours, that aspires to be a great nation and a great congress must consider how it should respond to such difficult circumstances in this winter of our discontent. How, now, should we think about the tough challenges we face?

First, I believe the results of a failure and a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq are grave and ominous. No one disputes that. Chaos and ethnic cleansing, death to those who put their lives on the line for freedom and democracy would likely result, and more. Bad things would occur. We have had testimony on that.

So to even those few now here in this Senate who voted against the use of force, and to our newer Members of the Senate who are on record as being opposed to the policy, I say let's get together. Let's see how we can deal with the problems we now face so our Nation and its policies can be successful.

Few decisions are totally right or totally wrong. Sometimes things go better than expected. Sometimes they do not go as well. The test of a healthy and strong nation is how it handles adversity.

To those who oppose our efforts in Iraq, I would say that it would be a defensible position, I have to say, if you feel that strongly about it, to vote to cut off funds that would in effect force an immediate withdrawal. But, in truth, even when Senators truly believe our efforts in Iraq were a mistake, a mature patriotic assessment of the short and long-term consequences of such a withdrawal must be considered.

Immediate withdrawal is not a good option. It is not a good option. That is obviously why so many of our Democratic colleagues who are not happy with this war have not proposed such a step.

The one thing that is not acceptable is to take action--to take any action or concrete steps--to further the President's policy and then to vote for a resolution that makes it less likely to succeed. This is especially true when this Congress has committed our military personnel to this task, placing them in harm's way to execute the mission this Republic has given them.

Our military personnel have placed their very lives, their every waking moment, on the line to achieve the mission that is assigned to them. They are doing that every day. I have been there five times. We have a moral responsibility to them that must not be lightly broken.

That commitment also goes to those many allies who have supported us, our friends in the region, and the good and decent Iraqis who voted for and stood up for democracy and freedom.

If this is a true concept--and I believe it is--then I urge, with respect and with deep sincerity, that my colleagues do not give their support to any resolution that is likely to make our praiseworthy goal of a free and stable Iraq more difficult to achieve.

A resolution that is not binding but adversely impacts our efforts, with all due respect, is a vote that cannot be justified. Other than perceived personal political benefits, or ``making a statement,'' what benefit does such a vote provide our Nation's efforts? It has no impact. Negative resolutions, therefore, can only place our soldiers, whom we sent to execute this policy, at greater risk. It can only place them at

greater risk and make their task harder. Those in harm's way deserve our total support, and the policies we have asked them to execute should also have our total support, until such time as we withdraw it.

I urge my colleagues to think this through. Let's pull back from this precipice--not just from this vote but from votes in Congress that may come in the future. Let's reassert our time-honored tradition that ``politics stops at the water's edge,'' that politics must never place soldiers at unnecessary risk. Let us not go down the road of passing resolutions whose only purpose is to emote, to express doubt about our Nation's decided policy during a time of great challenge and risk.

A Senate of a great nation doesn't use a toothless resolution to vent. What good does such a thing do? Surely, we all understand, as did our Founders, that there can only be one policy, one Commander in Chief, and one Congress. The Congress can cut off funds and stop it, if they are so strongly committed to do so. But we are not doing that.

How have we slid into such a muddle? The answer is that politics seems to have taken over everything around here; it infects our very being, even during war. It is a dangerous trend. We are used to ``splitting the difference'' here. Compromise is the nature of the game, we are told, and indeed it is. You favor a $100 million program, perhaps, and I oppose it; and maybe we end up compromising on $50 million. The thing may have worked at $50 million, or it might have been a failure at $50 million. Who knows? But we compromise. But that is about money. This is about war, about the life and death of people, as fine as you can find in this country, who volunteered to serve us.

Some may say it is not certain that negative resolutions will weaken the resolve of our friends and hurt the morale of our soldiers and embolden our enemies. Logic, however, says it will. Maybe you disagree. But how can it be otherwise? Logic says it will. General Petraeus said it well a few days ago. Negative resolutions will likely have negative consequences on our policy and place at greater risk the lives and health of our soldiers. What other purpose is there for this resolution, other than to somehow ratchet up the effort to force an abandonment of the policy we have funded and we are now executing.

Indeed, the whole world will think such a resolution that expresses only ``feelings'' represents a weakening of American will, even while the actual policy we are funding is to increase our strength and commitment to the Iraq effort. Think about it. As their foundations, these negative resolutions can only be described as totally contradictory to our policy that we are at this moment executing. New troops are moving there right now. Some have already arrived in Iraq. Have you not heard that?

For those unhappy and worried, I say let's get busy, all of us, and do a better job. Let's find out more about this difficult struggle that we are engaged in, find out more about Iraq, find out more about what our troops need, what their challenges are and what can and cannot be done. Let's meet with General Pace and General Casey and Secretary Gates; let's read the periodic reports that General Petraeus will be sending and spend more time keeping up with the situation on the ground in Iraq, rather than on polling numbers in our States. If we then reach a point of no return, when our honest and best judgment is that success is not possible, then we can join with those few who are prepared to cast votes to force an end to our deployment in Iraq. That is what we are supposed to do.

Certainly, at this point, none can honestly say that we know what the outcome will be. I wish I could give full assurance of success, but I cannot. We do know this is a very difficult time. Al-Qaida is still active, despite heavy losses and an inability--we may thank the Lord-- to attack us again on our homeland, so far. The Iraqi Government has not been strong and decisive, and violence, especially in Baghdad, has steadily increased. The al-Qaida attack on the Samarra Mosque last February, designed to create sectarian violence in the country, succeeded in sparking a spate of sectarian killing and reprisals that continue today.

Still, General Abizaid and General Casey, our former commander, and General Petraeus, our new commander, know the true situation there better than we do. General Abizaid has been there four years, I believe, and General Casey, 30 months. They have lived it. They have studied it. They sincerely believe and have publicly stated, under oath, that this surge of American troops, with a surge of Iraqi troops and the new tactics to be employed, can lead to the goals that we seek--a stable, peaceful, and prosperous Iraq. It can be successful. We should not be overly negative. Indeed, I asked this question of General Petraeus. A few days ago in his testimony, he said he would not take this job if he didn't believe he would succeed. General Petraeus commanded the 101st Airborne Division when they went into northern Iraq, in Mosul. He did a fabulous job. They jokingly called him the ``mayor of Mosul.'' We toured the area the projects he had worked to establish. He understands the need of walking the streets and talking with the Iraqi people and encouraging them to take over their country. He came home, and then they asked him to go back and train the Iraqi security forces and he agreed to do so. He left his family again and went back and spent a year in Iraq. I am sure he knows every top general by name in the Iraqi Army, or virtually all of them. He spent another year there doing that. Then he came back and he spent a year drafting and writing the Department of Defense counterinsurgency manual. It is 100 or more pages, a big document; it is a very important, complex, carefully worked out document that tells how to confront and defeat an insurgency operation. That is the plan we have asked him to go back with now. I believe we need to give General Petraeus a chance.

We have lost over 3,000 lives in our Iraq effort. The losses, in my view, are less than expected during the initial assault on Baghdad in Iraq and far more than I expected in the aftermath. Much of this, I am sure, was the result of errors we made. Much arises from the inherent difficulties of the tasks that were underestimated. Of that, there can be no doubt. But no Government agency even comes close to our military in being brutally honest and doing after-action reports and self- evaluations. That is going on now and will continue for years. They are a magnificent force. I can only believe that if we truly support them, as a great Senate and a great Congress should when they are executing the policies we have directed them to execute, they will be successful. I further believe it is premature for us to withdraw. We owe it to those State Department officials, other Government agencies, NGOs, patriotic Iraqi civilians who voted for a new and better Iraq, to the Iraqi security forces who have taken more casualties than we have, to those international allies who have stood with us in Iraq and, most of all, to our military personnel who have given their heroic best to accomplish our Nation's just and decent goals in Iraq, to give this new policy and General Petraeus a chance. I think they can and will do it. But I do not doubt the difficulties and I do not doubt there is uncertainty.

If, heaven forbid, our efforts do not prevail, it will be appropriate to completely rethink our commitment to Iraq. So why do we want to pass a resolution? Senator Reid says he wants to provide Senators a chance to show their disapproval of the President's policy. With respect, Senator Reid has--I know it is unwitting and unintentional--crossed the line there. It is clear that this resolution, which has no binding effect and is only a political document, is not necessary, does not help, and I totally oppose it. It is wrong, in my view.

While our soldiers are courageously placing their lives on the line for us, and while there is no serious suggestion that we should cut off the funds for the surge the Commander in Chief has ordered and which the Baker-Hamilton group suggested might be necessary, a toothless resolution is the wrong thing to do. I am certainly glad it did not garner many votes.

So can we, for a while at least, stand united in our good and worthy efforts to help the people of Iraq achieve a decent, peaceful and stable Government? Can't we do that? The challenge remains great. The costs are high. I say

let's follow through, united, on this new strategy under our new general. I believe we can be successful. If the Iraqis fail to respond and if the new strategy is not effective, we will know soon enough. And an honest, professional, and realistic evaluation of what to do next will fall into our hands. We should complete that task effectively, giving our best effort and judgment to it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the Chair and I thank Senator Cornyn and Senator Kyl for their remarks. I share with Senator Kyl his concern over the resolution that we will be apparently addressing later this week or next week. He quoted an NBC News report in which soldiers in Iraq in harm's way said that, in their view, you can't support the soldiers without supporting the policy we sent them on, and that is a troubling thing.

Today I talked to a businessman from Alabama--quite a fine, upstanding leader in the community. His son is in Iraq right now. They already heard about the Senate Foreign Relations Committee resolution. It was very troubling to them. They didn't know how to read it, according to him, or what it meant to them. I talked to a lady not long ago, within the last week, and she told me her son was in his second tour there, and he believed in what he was doing. He was proud to serve, but he didn't know what we were doing here. He said he: ``Didn't want to be the last soldier to die if we weren't going to follow through on a policy that we have set here.''

So we are in a difficult time, and we need to remember those things as we set about our policy. I don't know all of the answers. I don't disrespect people who would disagree with me on this. I know there are a lot of people with a lot of different ideas about what to do in Iraq. But my observation is and my thought is that we, as a Congress, ought to affirm the policies we are asking our soldiers to execute. They say we are not asking them, but the President is, and the President speaks for us, until Congress withdraws that power by reducing his funding. The President executes the policies as Commander in Chief. So it is a big deal and we need to be careful about what we do and I am disappointed we will be dealing with those resolutions.

Mr. President, I remember during the immigration debate last fall, last summer and spring, Senator Kennedy and I were on the floor one night, and I talked about how I believe the large amount of immigration we are seeing today, much of it illegal, was adversely affecting the wages of American workers. Senator Kennedy didn't object to that, but he stood up and in response basically said: Well, we are going to offer a minimum wage bill, and that is going to take care of it. If anyone heard Senator Lamar Alexander's speech on Friday--and not many people did; it was after the vote had been cast--but he went into some detail and with great care explained how the minimum wage is not reaching poor working people in this country in the ways most people think it is but that most people making minimum wage are part of a household whose income exceeds $40,000 a year, I believe was the figure he cited, and there are a number of studies on that. The point being that usually it is a transition period for young people or others--maybe they are part time and that kind of thing.

I am not saying people would not like an increase in the minimum wage, but the working poor, the people who are every day out giving their best to try to raise their families and who need to have a higher income, people who have been out there for years and working, they are already above $7 an hour, for the most part. If they show up on time and are reliable and give an honest day's work, as almost all of them do, then they are going to be above $7 an hour now. Do you follow me? So this is not the panacea we are concerned about. What we want and what we care about, fellow citizens and Members of the Senate, is having better wages for working Americans, having all the people be able to go out and get a better wage they can take home and take care of their families with. That includes how much taxes are taken out, how much insurance is taken out.

President Bush has a great proposal that is going to help a lot of people. I assure my colleagues a lot of people will feel a substantial benefit from this health care tax credit plan he has proposed. That is a way to help working people, a real significant way.

Senator Alexander mentioned the earned-income tax credit, and he went into some detail about it. Economists and experts are quite clear: The earned-income tax credit more appropriately benefits working Americans than a minimum wage at much less cost. We spend $40 billion a year on the earned-income tax credit. That is what the credit amounts to in terms of benefits to working Americans. Their wages are lower, and, at certain levels, they don't qualify for other benefits. And as a result, they do qualify for the earned-income tax credit. So I would like to talk about that.

I offered an amendment that would have required the earned-income tax credit to be paid on individual's paychecks, when they get their paycheck each payday. That is correct, in my view, as a matter of policy. It is a complex thing. Some are concerned about the mechanics of it. So I offered another amendment that was accepted by the Democratic leadership and the Republican leadership that required the Department of the Treasury to review what would happen and how it could be done if we allowed people to get their earned-income tax credit on their weekly or biweekly paycheck. It can be done now. In fact, a little less than 2 percent of the people get their earned-income tax credit, or at least a portion of it, on their check each week.

So we would like to talk about that because as we debate the minimum wage, the real debate is how to help working Americans, middle-class Americans, lower income Americans get more legitimate pay for the work they do.

Now, that is what we are all about; not some fetish with having an increase in the minimum wage, particularly when it is not going to be as effective in meeting the needs of the working poor, as is being sold to this Congress and the American people.

In 2004, more than 22 million Americans--get this--more than 22 million Americans claimed the earned-income tax credit, putting $40.7 billion into the pockets of the working poor. This is a very large program. It is a very large shift of resources to the working poor. The amount of the credit for each recipient depends on several factors, such as the worker's income and the number of dependent children they claim.

Nonetheless, a low-income worker with one child will be eligible to claim up to $2,853 for tax year 2007, while a worker with two or more children could receive $4,718 on a 2,200-hour work year. The average earned-income tax credit for a beneficiary with a qualifying child was $1,728 in 2004. That is almost $1 an hour on average.

Many have criticized the earned-income tax credit over the years, saying it is another welfare handout and it has far too much fraud in it. Some numbers have shown fraud as high as over 30 percent, but the tax credit is here to stay. I don't see any real movement to eliminate it. Why don't we see if we can make it work better?

The idea is to reward work. It is a benefit of the Government, an earned tax credit, earned by working. That was the purpose of the earned-income tax credit from the beginning, to encourage welfare recipients and others who were not in the workforce to decide that it was beneficial for them to work. Some of this came from Milton Friedman, the great free market economist who recently died, calling for a negative income tax. That is sort of what inspired this.

All is not perfect. The earned-income tax credit has provided real money for low-income Americans working hard to pull their family out of poverty. As Senator Alexander demonstrated in some detail, remarkably and ably, it gets to the working poor far better than an increase in the minimum wage.

An important feature added to the earned-income tax credit occurred in 1978, a few years after the law was passed. That allows the credit recipients to receive the benefit on their paychecks rather than as a one-time lump sum tax refund. Now, you work all year. Most people have no idea if they are earning any earned-income tax credit. They are not receiving extra money for their work. And next year, they file for a tax refund and get a big check, disconnecting, in their minds, the receipt of that check with the work they did the year before. Therefore, it ceases to be the kind of incentive to work we want it to be.

Receiving an advanced payment under the law is simple. Workers believing they will be eligible can fill out

a form or W-5 with their employer, and once completed workers will receive part of their EITC benefit on their paycheck based on the amount they are expected to receive over the year based on their income. So despite a number of campaigns by the IRS to increase the number that sign up for this advance payment, only a few do, less than 2 percent. The majority, unaware they can receive the credit in advance, receive it in the form of a tax refund in the spring of the next year.

Recipients earn the tax credit by working throughout the year. Yet they do not receive the benefit until months after when they file their tax returns. For most workers who receive the EITC as a lump sum at the end of the year, they never make that connection between the increased work and the increased paycheck, as they simply receive a fat check.

How can it encourage work if there is no correlation for most recipients between the work they do and the money they receive?

An amendment, which the Senate has already accepted, challenges the Secretary of the Treasury, the Department of the Treasury, to get us a report on how we can do this effectively. It is important. It will ensure the taxpayers who are giving this benefit to working Americans get the second part of the benefit that the taxpayers intended them to receive.

The first part, of course, is helping the working poor have more money for their families. We want to help them. The second benefit we want to occur is for the overall economy and health of America to encourage people to work, to make work more rewarding. If you are making $7 an hour and you get $1 an hour pay raise as a result of the earned-income tax credit, you have received a substantial increase, well over 10 percent increase in your take home pay, especially since there are no taxes taken out of that part that has accrued as a result of the earned-income tax credit.

That encourages work. That makes work more attractive. That helps meet the needs of America today. That is what this is about. A worker who is making $6 an hour would be making closer to $7. Workers making $8 would be making closer to $9. It adds up to real money as the years go by.

We can do a much better job of utilizing the existing program without any cost beyond what we are already expending, but in a way that gets money to people when they need it, right then on their paycheck. They may have a tire blow out and they need a new tire. The transmission may have broken in their car. A child may need to go on a trip at school. They need the money as they earn it so they can apply it in a sound way to their family's budgetary needs instead of one big fat check sometime in the spring of the next year. That is a suggestion I have for improving the quality of life for American workers.

Another sense-of-the-Senate amendment I offered, that was accepted, we voted on 98 to 0, was to call on Congress to state that it is a sense of the Senate that we should do a better job in Congress of establishing a uniform savings plan for Americans. We in the Government have a wonderful plan called the thrift plan. It allows every Federal worker, in any department or agency, to put money in the thrift plan and the Federal Government would match up to 5 percent of their contributions.

Many young people starting to work for the Government today, if they contribute 5 percent each paycheck, with the Government matching it, will retire with $1 million in the bank--trust me on that--with the power of compound interest. It is an exciting program.

Many private companies have similar programs, 401(k)-type programs, but many don't. Half of the workers in America today work for a company that does not have such a retirement plan. A chunk of those, even if they do, don't take advantage of it. This is particularly concerning to me because I have learned from Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao that the average American has nine jobs by the time they are 35. What does that say to the practical men and women of the Senate? It says they are bouncing around a lot. They may go to a company that has a plan and they may invest in it a little bit, then they go to a company that doesn't. Or they go to a company that says they have to work for 6 months or a year before they can participate in their plan, or they decide not to put into that plan. Or, if they put in some money and they change jobs and the account is $500, $2,000, $1,500--we have statistics that show that over 40 percent of them cash in those accounts paying the penalties--they think it is not enough money to worry about.

Whereas, if they set aside a small amount of money from the day they start working at age 18, or out of college, every day, every paycheck, a small amount of money set aside as is done by most of the thrift account savers, they could retire with hundreds of thousands in the bank, which would allow for an annuity, if they purchased it at age 65, to pay someone $2,000 a month for the rest of their life, easy. Those things are realistically possible.

It is a great tragedy, it is a tremendous national tragedy, that in a time where we have relatively low unemployment--in my State it is not much over 3 percent, maybe 3.6 percent in Alabama--and most people are working, the wages have gone up, although not as much as we would like, but our wages are beginning to edge back up, that most Americans are not saving. They could be setting aside even a small amount that would transform their retirement years from retirement years that depend solely on Social Security, the retirement years can be supplemented by a substantial flow of money.

Finally, I talk about another subject, our general concern that wages have not kept up in America. I share that concern. I have heard the economists make the argument--many in the business community are people I respect--make the argument that wages tend to lag behind. Gross domestic production growth goes up for a while and wages do not go up, but they catch up, and there is some truth to that. I don't deny that.

But if you look at the numbers and how middle-class and lower income workers are getting along today, you cannot be pleased with what is occurring, particularly in certain areas and certain fields. It is from that perspective I say, as part of this debate over minimum wage which we are told is designed to help people have more money to take home, to take care of their families, and if you think this is not the right way to do it, you don't love families and you don't want to help poor people; that is not correct.

I hope to be able to vote for this minimum wage bill. I voted for several to increase the minimum wage. I am just saying the minimum wage has been demonstrated by analysis, by top-flight econometric firms, that it does not reach the poor people in a way that most people think it does. It oftentimes helps young people who are children of some corporate executive who may be working.

Our motivation, and I think it is universal in the Senate, through the legislation moving through the Senate now, is designed to improve the take-home pay of Americans so they can more ably benefit from the great American dream and take care of their families effectively.

Significant economic evidence indicates the presence of large amounts of illegal labor in low-skilled job sectors is depressing the wages of American workers. That is an important statement if it is true, right? If that is true, isn't that important? First of all, we are a nation of laws. We think the laws ought to be enforced.

Overwhelmingly the American people agree with that. But if it also is depressing the wages of working Americans, that is a double concern, particularly as we are asking ourselves in this debate: How can we help low-wage workers do better? I will talk about that. We have to talk about this.

Harvard economist George Borjas, who testified before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, and Lawrence Katz, also of Harvard, estimate that the influx of low-skilled, low-wage immigration into our country from 1980 to 2000 has resulted in a 3- percent decrease in wages for the average American worker--that is all workers--and has cut wages to native-born high school dropouts--those who have not obtained a high school degree; unfortunately, we have quite a number of those in our country--who make up the poorest 10 percent of our workforce, by some 8 percent. Eight percent, if you figure that

out on a yearly basis, amounts to $1,200 a year. That is $100 a month.

Now, for some people in America today, $100 a month is not a lot. But if you are making near the minimum wage, $100 a month is a lot of money.

Alan Tonelson, a research fellow at the U.S. Business and Industry Council Educational Foundation, says:

[T]he most important statistics available show conclusively

that, far from easing shortages--

Shortages of labor--

illegal immigrants are adding to labor gluts in America.

Specifically, wages in sectors highly dependent on illegals,

when adjusted for inflation, are either stagnant or have

actually fallen.

Now, he is referring to Labor Department data and information from the Pew Hispanic Center. For example, he cites data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics that indicates the following: inflation- adjusted wages for the broad Food and Services and Drinking Establishments category--they have a category for that: the broad Food and Services and Drinking Establishments category; and they monitor the wages for it--between the years 2000 to 2005 fell 1.65 percent.

The Pew Hispanic Center estimates that illegal immigrants comprise 17 percent of food preparation workers, 20 percent of cooks, and 23 percent of dishwashers, about a fifth of those workers; three-fifths, four-fifths being legal native citizens. But contrary to what we have been told, that you cannot get workers at the wages they are paying, and paying fair wages, it looks as though the wages have fallen, which is a matter of interest.

Inflation-adjusted wages for the food manufacturing industry--the Pew Hispanic Center estimates that illegal immigrants comprise 14 percent of that workforce--fell 2.4 percent between 2000 and 2005.

Inflation-adjusted wages for hotel workers--the Pew Hispanic Center estimates illegal immigrants make up 10 percent of that workforce--fell 1 percent from 2000 to 2005.

Inflation-adjusted wages in the construction industry--Pew estimates that illegal immigrants make up 12 percent of the workforce there--fell 1.59 percent between 2000 and 2005.

Inflation-adjusted wages in the animal processing and slaughtering subcategory--and Pew estimates that illegal immigrants comprise 27 percent of that workforce, the highest percentage--fell 1.41 percent between 2000 and 2005.

So if these numbers are correct--and they come from the objective BLS and are supposed to be accurate, and we rely on them for our business around here--something is amiss if people say they cannot get workers, yet they are getting the work done, and they are paying less in 2005 than they were in 2000.

Now, you tell me.

Others studying the same issue have found similar trends. According to a recent City Journal article by Steven Malanga, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute:

. . . low-wage immigration has produced such a labor surplus

that many of these workers are willing to take jobs without

benefits and with salaries far below industry norms. . . .

Well, let me go on. Day laborers--these are people who gather at certain known locations within areas, and they hang out until somebody comes out and hires them--who work in construction in urban areas ``like New York and Los Angeles . . . sell their labor by the hour or the day, for $7 to $11 an hour . . . far below what full time construction workers earn.''

You see, we want Americans to be able to have a job that has some permanency to it, that pays a decent wage, that has retirement benefits, and has health care benefits. But our workers who might be interested in construction--and more are than most people think--are having to compete against people who will work by the day for $7 and $11 an hour and do not demand any benefits.

Robert Samuelson, a contributing editor of Newsweek, has written a column for the Washington Post since 1977. In his column last spring he summed up the impact of illegal immigration on the unskilled American worker this way:

Poor immigrant workers hurt the wages of unskilled

Americans. The only question is how much. Studies suggest a

range ``from negligible to an earnings reduction of almost 10

percent,'' according to the [Congressional Budget Office].

That is a lot: 10 percent. Five percent is a lot.

To put this impact into a larger perspective, one might ask how much native workers have lost as a whole due to competition with low-skilled immigrant laborers. Although only a few studies have ever looked at this issue, a 2002 National Bureau of Economic Research paper written by Columbia University economics professors Donald R. Davis and David E. Weinstein is on point.

Using complex methodology, they aggregated the total loss to the U.S. native workers and found that the magnitude of losses for U.S. native workers equates roughly to $72 billion a year, or .8 percent of GDP. Now, I don't know if that figure is correct, but the earned income tax credit is just $40 billion a year, and they say it amounts to $72 billion a year. The economics professors at Columbia University also said immigration is as costly to the United States as all trade protections.

When wages are suppressed, people drop out of the workforce. In addition to the evidence that low-skilled American workers--and particularly African-American workers--are suffering wage suppression due to the competition they face from illegal alien labor, we also know competition is causing some Americans to drop out of the labor force.

Steven Camorota, last spring, of the Center for Immigration Studies, analyzed the steady decline in the share of less-educated adult natives in the workforce between March 2000 and March 2005.

Prior to Hurricane Katrina, there were 4 million unemployed natives-- those looking for jobs who were unable to find them--with high school degrees or less in the workforce. An additional 19 million natives with high school degrees or less existed but were not actively looking for jobs.

Between 2000 and 2005, the number of adult immigrants--legal land illegal--with only a high school degree or less in the labor force increased by 1.6 million.

During the same time period, unemployment among high school graduates and less educated native Americans increased by nearly 1 million--so unemployment among our high school graduates or high school dropouts increased by nearly 1 million--and an additional 1.5 million left the workforce altogether.

Although jobs grew in the United States from 2000 to 2005, natives only benefited from 9 percent of the total net job increase. That is an important factor. Although jobs grew in the U.S. from 2000 to 2005, natives only benefited from 9 percent of that total. The number of adult natives holding a job grew by only 303,000, while the number of adult immigrants holding a job increased by 2.9 million. So it is 303,000 compared to 2.9 million among high school graduates or high school dropouts.

Steven Malanga, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, recently explained:

[M]any of the unskilled, uneducated workers now journeying

here labor . . . in shrinking industries, where they force

out native workers, and many others work in industries where

the availability of cheap workers has led businesses to

suspend investment in new technologies that would make them

less labor-intensive. . . . [T]he unemployment rate among

native-born ``unskilled workers is high--about 30 percent.''

The unemployment rate among native-born, unskilled workers is about 30 percent, I repeat.

To me, those numbers do indicate a significant problem. It is a problem we need to talk about as we talk about how to help working Americans get a better wage.

Mr. President, I will note a few more points before I wrap up.

Professor Richard Freeman--the Herbert S. Ascherman Professor of Economics at Harvard--testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee. I participated in that hearing last spring. He said:

If you're a poor Mexican, your income in the U.S. will be

six to eight times what it is in Mexico.

Robert Samuelson explained in a March 2006 column in the Washington Post:

They're drawn here by wage differences, not labor

``shortages.''

American workers, I think it is fair to say, cannot compete with the wage gap between their country and other countries. I was in South America last May with Senator Specter. We visited Peru, and we saw a poll that had just been published in Nicaragua while we were there that said 60 percent of the people in Nicaragua would come to the United States if they could. I mentioned that to the State Department team there in Peru, and they told me that a poll in Peru had recently shown, just about this time last year, that 70 percent of the people in Peru would come to the United States if they could.

So I guess what I am saying to my colleagues is, we need an immigration policy that allows immigration and that is consistent with our historic values as a nation that welcomes immigrants, but the numbers and the skill sets that they bring ought to be such that they do not depress wages of our lower income people because we cannot accept everybody in the world who would like to come here. It is not physically possible to any degree that we could accept that.

We have a lottery section that does not have any requirements of skills in it. You apply to it if you want to come to America. It allows for 50,000 to be drawn out of a hat each year. And those who are drawn get to come to America on a random basis. We had 5 million people, according to Professor Borjas at Harvard, who applied for those 50,000 slots. I do not blame people who want to come here. I am not demeaning them. Most of them are good and decent people who want to get ahead. But we have such a higher wage base that we could attract people from all over the world in virtually unlimited numbers, and it does have the impact, if allowed to be too great and too concentrated in certain industries, to pull down American wages.

While we are thinking about how to increase the wages of American workers, we need to think about that. That is all I am saying. And we are going to talk about that if we talk about immigration this year, as I expect we will. We can have immigration, but it needs to be done right.

How do we level the playing field? Let's consider the advice given by Dr. Barry Chiswick. He is the head of the Department of Economics at the University of Illinois in Chicago. He testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee last spring, stating:

[T]he large increase in low-skilled immigration . . . has

had the effect of decreasing the wages and employment

opportunities of low-skilled workers who are currently

residing in the United States.

He goes on to say:

Over the past two decades . . . The real earnings of low

skilled workers have either stagnated or decreased somewhat.

[W]e . . . need to . . . provide greater assistance to low-

skilled Americans in their quest for better jobs and higher

wages. [O]ne of the best ways we can help them in this regard

is by reducing the very substantial competition that they are

facing from this very large and uncontrolled low-skilled

immigration that is the result of both our legal immigration

system and the absence of enforcement of immigration law.

That is pretty much indisputable. I haven't heard a professor who would dispute that yet, or anybody who can seriously object to those numbers.

Professor Harry Holzer, associate dean and professor of public policy at Georgetown University, a great university here, also testified at that same hearing. He believes American workers do want jobs currently being held by illegal laborers.

I don't agree with this idea that these are jobs Americans want to take. Americans are not interested in a job that is only going to last for 3 months, that pays the minimum wage and has no health care and no retirement benefits. I will say that. And neither do we want them to take those jobs.

Professor Holzer believes that absent illegal immigrant competition, employers would raise wages and improve working conditions to attract the American worker:

I believe that when immigrants are illegal, they do more to

undercut the wages of native-born workers, because the

playing field isn't level and employers don't have to pay

them market wages.

. . . [T]here are jobs in industries like construction

that I think are more appealing to native-born workers, and

many native-born low-income men might be interested in more

of those jobs. . . . Absent the immigrants, the employer

might need to raise those wages and improve those conditions

of work to entice native-born workers into those jobs.

That is true. That is all I am saying. As we discuss the minimum wage--and I am confident somehow we will work our way through this, but there are some amendments and votes that need to be taken--it should be done only as part of a serious evaluation of what is happening to the wages of low-skilled workers and middle-class workers. If we do that and think it through, we will see we ought to reform the earned income tax credit so people can receive that benefit while they work. We will conclude we ought to create a savings program every American worker can put money into throughout their working career, from the first paycheck they get until the day of their retirement. It would transform the retirement years of those people. We have that in our capability.

As we craft an immigration policy, we cannot craft that policy in such a way that it only benefits corporate profits. It must be done in a way that considers the impact that is occurring on our own low- skilled workers. If we do a good lawful system of immigration that is in harmony with our history of immigration in America but at the same time provides protection to the least of our American workers, we will have done something worthwhile.

Unfortunately, I have to say the bill that passed the Senate last year would have been a disaster. It would have increased legal immigration in this country, skewed mostly to low-skilled workers, by almost three times the current rate. How can that have done anything other than hurt our workers?

Those are some thoughts. I appreciate the opportunity of sharing them.

I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and that amendment No. 147, which I have offered, which deals with increased fines for employers who hire illegal immigrants, be called up. That fine currently is $250. I think that is too low. I ask that that be called up.

I thank the Chair.

I think that is relevant to the issue we are talking about: How to help people get more take-home pay for their labor. One of the reasons that is not happening to the degree we would like is the large flow of illegal labor. One of the problems we have is that enforcement in the workplace is not adequate. Most employers want to do the right thing, but a $250 fine is too low. We will be dealing with that again later on.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Dr. Coburn is such a thoughtful commentator on many issues, but he is an expert and has done a lot of work on the health care issue. I know he has some of his own ideas. But one of the ways you could help low-income workers would be to reduce the health care burden they pay in terms of health insurance. For example, the President's proposal of tax deductibility that he made in his State of the Union Address would be a rather sizable benefit to a lot of low- income workers, if it were passed, would it not?

This is for health insurance deductibility.

Madam President, I wanted to say I am interested in the earned income tax credit, immigration, and in savings. The Senator has mentioned health care. All of those are ways, apart from mandating a salary or minimum wage increase, to help workers. The bill the President proposed would not go as far as Senator Coburn would like to see--and I am impressed with his analysis--but it would, in fact, provide a good benefit for working Americans.