Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I have visited 30 or more schools in my State in the last 3 years. I have talked to teachers and principals on a regular basis, and they express their frustration to me on this subject. As Senator Mikulski indicated, she is hearing that and other Senators around the country have said the same thing to me. One experienced special education teacher told me: Jeff, the problem is, we are here working on rules and regulations, lawsuits, and that sort of thing, and we have completely forgotten what is in the best interest of the child. We need to reform this act. We need to get more money for it and improve what we are doing so that we help children more than based on the money we now have. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I had the great honor of being elected by the people of Alabama to a second term this year. I traveled hard all over the State. I travel to every county every year in my State. I was out this past year talking with the American people and listening to what they had to say. I have a sense of what they are concerned about, what they want to see done, what they thought their vote meant. They were, I believe, tired of politics as usual, political logjams, obstructionism. They wanted us to move forward, work together, and put the interest of the United States and the people first. They think we focus too much on parties and political interests. Certainly, sometimes what may appear to individuals as a petty political party dispute really has significant policy impact for the country and the world, but the truth is that many times that is not so. Many times, the American people are correct that politics interferes and overcomes our responsibility to serve the people of the United States. Sometimes the debates we have here are indeed ``insider baseball,'' as some would say. It reveals personal pique, pride, and sometimes plain obstructionism. After the election, when the majority changed in the Senate, just ordinary people would grab my arm as I went about and they would say to me--and I have told others this, and they have said it in almost these same words--Jeff, maybe you can get something done now. I think the message of this election was the American people wanted us to get the work done. I believe that strongly. I was a Federal prosecutor for a number of years. I know the Presiding Officer has been a lawyer for a number of years. I remember the story--it has different versions--about a jury that had been out a couple of days. The judge was getting a little worried about them. He asked them how they were doing, and they reported: Fine, Your Honor, we just elected a foreman. How much time do we have to piddle around with organizing resolutions? The situation with which we are struggling today is critical. We must pass an organizing resolution for this Senate. It is important because nothing much is going to happen in this body until we do. New Senators cannot even be assigned to committees until this organizing resolution is adopted. We can do better. The Senate has been in session over a week. We still have not adopted the organizing resolution. The new majority leader, Senator Bill Frist from Tennessee, has a reputation of working across the aisle, of being able to bring together people with different views, and he is a good and nice person. He desires a bipartisan resolution that is fair to everyone, but I think it would be a mistake for Members of this body to believe that because he desires to be fair and he desires to reach across the aisle, he is just vulnerable to being pushed around; that they can insist no changes occur in their vision of how this body ought to be organized, and they will just sit back and refuse to let the business of the Senate go forward until that happens. I believe that is wrong. The majority leader is going to be open, but he will not capitulate and change the historic procedures that have guided the Senate over the years. Frankly, there is a reason on the financial end of this organizing resolution for the majority party to have additional resources. That reason is the majority has to chair the committees, and the chairman has to move the agenda of the committee. Not only does the chairman have to chair the committee, but each committee has subcommittees. Armed Services, of which I am a member, and Judiciary, of which I am a member, have four, five, six subcommittees, and each one of those subcommittees the last 2 years has been chaired by Democratic chairmen, as well as the chairman of the committee being Democratic. Now those subcommittees will be chaired by Republicans who have the burden of moving the legislation forward and moving an agenda forward. It is historic that the chairmen and the majority on the committees have had a higher degree of financial support than the minority. There is a lot of work for us to do. This last Congress, which I suggest raised obstructionism to a high art form, was a failure by any objective analysis. It is little wonder its failure led to a change in the majority in this body. For example, for the first time in nearly 30 years, we did not pass a budget. This was a signal failure that symbolized the ``my way or no way'' attitude of the past Congress leadership. We failed to pass a prescription drug plan. Why? Because the Democratic leadership insisted on a bill that would spend twice what we had budgeted the year before. We had budgeted $300 billion for a prescription drug plan. But, oh, no, it had to be twice that. Some suggested that had to do with politics. Some suggested there was a concern on behalf of the leadership--and I hope this is not true--that if a bill passed, the President would get credit and the Republicans would get credit, and they did not want them to get credit. I hope that is not true. I do know I was prepared to vote for a bill that even exceeded that $300 billion which would have created a prescription drug plan that had tripartisan support, but it never went forward to be passed. Then there was the homeland security issue, really an amazing issue. The President of the United States, in response to an attack on the homeland of the United States and after careful evaluation, concluded we needed to reorganize our Government to get those departments and agencies that function to protect our homeland security together in one agency so they could work together in an effective way to be more efficient and more productive in protecting our homeland. It was a big deal. He proposed that resolution, and what happened? Some of our Government union friends--and I used to be a Government employee; I know and respect many of those members--wanted to use the homeland security bill as leverage to maneuver into the law provisions providing benefits to their workers that were not even in current law. When, in fact, we were trying to create an agency that was more like a military agency--with a higher degree of responsiveness required than the normal agencies--no, they wanted to make sure there were even greater protections than existed at the time for workers. The President said: What I need is flexibility, please, Senate. His bill passed the House. He said to the Senate: Please give me some flexibility; I have to move people; I have to be able to protect and defend the homeland of America. Don't tie this up by politics of special interest. He urged us not to do so. We debated and debated, and it was obstructed week after week, and then we took his case to the American people on election day, and the American people spoke. They said: We are tired of obstructionism. We want a bill. We want homeland security, and we want it now. A few weeks ago in December when we were in a lame-duck session, the homeland security bill passed quickly, and the leadership on the other side of the aisle capitulated to the changes the President wanted. It was a complete victory for the President because the American people spoke on that issue. Another one of the more amazing failures of this past Congress was our utter inability to pass the appropriations bills. This Government cannot function; no Government agency can spend a dime that has not been appropriated by the Congress. So each year we have a burden to do our jobs before the beginning of the fiscal year in October and pass appropriations bills. We work on that every year. Sometimes we do pass them on time, and sometimes we are a few weeks late and have to do a continuing resolution, but we normally get the appropriations bills done. Not this year. By October 1, we had not done our job. By the time we recessed and by the time the Senate reconvened in a lame-duck session in December, we still had not passed 11 of the 13 appropriations bills necessary to organize this Government. And they still have not been passed. We need to be moving on those bills now. In fact, what we really need to be doing right now is preparing for the 2004 fiscal year that will begin in October. That is what we should be doing. But what are we doing? We are still working on those appropriations bills that did not pass last year. It is a historic failure because of the obstructive tactics that occurred in this Chamber. We should have done better. There is no excuse for that failure. But I really overstate the matter. We are not formally working on that now in any significant way because we do not even have committees. We do not have committees because the other side thinks just like they did with homeland security; that going forward and moving the agenda is so important they can demand and extract from Senator Frist concessions they would not otherwise get under these circumstances. I do not believe that is healthy. I hope Senator Frist will reach across the aisle and do what he can to accommodate legitimate concerns, but I do not think he should be pushed beyond what he thinks is right. I do not think he should be shoved around where he concedes things that are not part of the historic traditions of this Senate.

Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I do not know if they have mules in South Carolina. I suspect they still do. I conclude by these remarks: It is said that one way to get the attention of a mule is a 2 by 4 across the head. We had an election this past year, and I believe a critical part of that election dealt with the question of obstructionism in the Senate. The 2 by 4 has been delivered. I was proud to be sworn in, as I know the present occupant of the Chair was proud to be sworn in as the successor to Senator Strom Thurmond from South Carolina. There were 35 Senators sworn in. Twenty-two of them were Republicans. That is a pretty good 2 by 4 against those who believe obstructionism is the proper tactic. Some on the other side think their lack of success in this election was not due to obstructionism. They think their lack of success was they were too cooperative, and they are being encouraged to fight even harder this time. If that is so, we are in for a long, difficult year, and that is why I am troubled by this extraordinary delay. It has gone on day after day, everybody thinking day after day it will be settled. It has not been settled yet. So are we going to now start a year of partisanship and obstructionism on every issue? I hope not. I believe we need to settle this matter now, and I want to be clear and say I think Senator Frist is doing everything possible to be fair and to work out this difficulty, and that once that is done we will move forward and we will have a successful Senate term. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I strongly disagree with the characterization of the President's stimulus package as stated by the Senator from Illinois. He is a great advocate and eloquent spokesman for his values and views, but I don't agree with that analysis. The problem we are dealing with today is that it does little good to be talking about stimulus packages, war, or other matters when we can't get the Senate organized. He challenged some of the statements I made and I want to talk about that a little bit. First, it is indisputable that the last Congress was marked by obstructionism and failure. We produced no budget for the first time in the history of the Budget Act, almost 30 years. No budget was passed. We were not under a budget. It is a historic failure of monumental proportions. Mr. President, 11 of the 13 appropriations bills that should have been passed by October 1 of last year remain unpassed. This Government cannot operate, cannot spend money not authorized by Congress. So we are at this moment unable to even take serious steps toward passing these appropriations bills from last year when the Senator's leadership was in control because we can't get the Senate organized. Homeland security was held up interminably, over nothing more than labor issues, driven by the other side. After the election, the President got exactly what he wanted. The other side capitulated on that because they were not sound objections. They never were. And the American people didn't appreciate it, and they knew it, and the bill passed. There were a lot of bills that failed last year that should have passed had we met each other halfway. Let me tell you how that year started. This is important. Two years ago the Senate was 50-50. That changed when the distinguished Senator Jeffords made a decision to change last year. But when it began, it was 50-50. The Republicans had an effective majority because the President of the Senate was Vice President of the United States, Dick Cheney, and he would have broken the tie on these matters. In an effort to work in a bipartisan way, Trent Lott agreed to something never before agreed to. He agreed to basically a divided Senate financing and an organization that was historically favorable to the Democrats, because we were at a 50-50 deal, and he wanted to work in a bipartisan way the last 2 years, in the last Congress. That was a big step, to not fight but to reach an accord. Some criticized him for that but he did that. In the course of that agreement, somebody said: Well, what happens if the majority changes in this year? We don't know that is going to happen, but over every 2-year period often things change that you do not expect. So the agreement was reached that if the majority changed and the Democrats achieved a majority and got 51 Senators, then the funding would remain the same for the Republicans so we would not have disruption in the middle of that Congress. That was the agreement reached. When Senator Jeffords made his change--and he remained as an Independent but he organized with the Democrats and they had 50 Democrats and 1 Independent to organize and elect Senator Daschle the majority leader--then the funding continued as we had agreed months before when the original resolution was agreed to. That is what happened. That is how it is that it came out that the funding ended last year the way it did. It was not as if the Democrats made a great concession. In fact, Trent Lott made the concession. As part of that agreement that they worked out, they worked out how it would continue throughout that Congress, and that is what happened. Now we are here in a situation in which every committee is chaired by Republicans, every subcommittee is chaired by Republicans, and we are back into the normal historical deal where you have a majority in the Senate--whether it is 51, 52, 53, or 54--and the majority needs funding. The majority needs other capabilities to operate the Senate so we can pass our appropriations bills; so we can pass a budget; so we can move legislation that needs to be moved. So it is just not right to say this plan that Senator Frist is working on to return to the historic way that we have organized this Senate throughout our lifetimes, and perhaps even more, is somehow unfair and not legitimate. It is the way we organized and the way we ought to organize this time. So I hope we do not start this Congress with this kind of spat. I know Senator Frist has, for days now, been working to reach an accord with which people can be familiar. I think there are some who think if they keep shoving it, the crisis in our agenda is so important that Senator Frist will just give in. I think he will be cooperative and reach out, but there is a limit as to how far he can and should go. I know he is not going to capitulate and give in to an unhistorical way to divide the leadership in this Senate and to accept a resolution of organization that is not consistent with our traditions and the needs, frankly, of this body. I hope this will be worked out. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. Seven minutes.

Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent for 7 minutes afterwards.

Mr. SESSIONS. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I believe we are in morning business with Senators allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I express my appreciation to Senators Kyl and McCain for the introduction of the legislation to cause us to confront the unacceptable behavior of North Korea. That is a situation that is dangerous. It is a situation that has gotten out of hand, for a number of reasons; one of which is, over the years, through bad behavior, North Korea has obtained what they consider to be benefits as a result of misbehaving, violating world standards. As a result of that, I think they have been encouraged, in a way, to continue that misbehavior. So we need to change that cycle. I have not studied the legislation completely, but it strikes me as a good step in sending a message that this Congress and this country will not continue to reward bad behavior. This time last year--maybe just about this time--I was in Korea, and I went just across the DMZ, as you can do, in that building that splits the boundary line, and actually had a few minutes in North Korea. It is a remarkable situation in so many ways. South Korea is one of the most booming economies in the world. Buildings are going up everywhere. Interstates with cloverleafs are all around Seoul. We flew all over the country in helicopters, visiting our military bases and air bases. And you could see it so clearly. There are traffic jams. People are well dressed. They are healthy. They are industrious. They are highly educated and doing very well. In fact, while I was there I had an opportunity to meet with a number of Korean business leaders and to ask them to invest $1 billion in the creation of a world class automobile plant in Alabama. They were considering several locations in the United States. They chose to take the wealth they have created--through a free market, a free country, with technology and science and education--and expand their capacity to produce world class automobiles. And Hyundai expects to be one of the top five automobile manufacturers in the world in the next several years. Just north of that DMZ, less than--what?--50 miles from Seoul, Korea, is the North Korean countryside. The people of North Korea are suffering the most terrible privations. Starvation is all about. This country is unable to feed its own people. But what do they do well? They have a good military, which they spend millions and millions of dollars on. They have a State police system that oppresses the people to a degree that is almost unsurpassed in the world's history. I asked one of the American officials at the Embassy: Why don't we do more to send in Radio-Free-Europe-type messages to the people? Let's send in a ``Radio-Free North Korea,'' as Senator Kyl proposes in this legislation. And he said: Well, it's much more difficult than you think. For example, the TV sets the people can obtain, have only three channels, and all of those channels are full-time government channels. Thus, one can't send in a television message. And they asserted there are similar problems even with radios in North Korea. This is a nation that has suffered the most oppression of almost any nation I can name. Their oppression is as systematic and as deliberate as one can imagine. And the results are so stark, so dramatic. Many people have seen the famous and stunning photograph of the Korean peninsula at night. In it, you can see the DMZ. You can also see south of the demilitarized zone into South Korea. There are lights everywhere in South Korea. You can see into China and there are lights everywhere, but North Korea is just dark, without electricity, without lights, for the people. How long does this continue? What plan do we have to try to change this situation? The President has expressed concern about it. From the world leaders and the Europeans and others who like to be engaged in these issues, do I hear sufficient outrage as to the moral unacceptability of what is occurring in this country? If there is any decency, if there is any concern for fellow human beings anywhere in the world, we ought to be outraged by what is happening to the good people of North Korea who have little if any chance to free themselves from this oppression. They say we have to send aid and food and other things or else the country might implode. We know people are dying now. We know the population of North Korea is shrinking. We know the population of North Korea has fallen to probably half that of the population in South Korea and just in the last 20 years. How much worse could an implosion be? What should we think and how should we analyze this situation? I will have more to say about it, but any humane, forward-looking foreign policy ought to consider what we can do to change the fundamental nature of the Government in North Korea. It is oppressing its people to an extraordinary degree. Through threats and bluster, we have been allowing North Korea to obtain benefits pursuant to agreements. Now they have admitted before the entire world, flat out, that the benefits they have been receiving pursuant to the agreement with the United States and the Clinton administration were built on a lie, that they were, in fact, in violation of the very agreement they signed. The Economist magazine had an interesting piece recently that said, yes, agreements are good in the world. Multilateral agreements are good. Bilateral agreements are good. Peace agreements are good. But they said this: What happens when the country doesn't abide by it? What happens when they say they are going to do something and just don't do it? If there are no consequences for their failure to comply with solemn agreements that they have made, presumably for the good of the region and the world and their own nation, then what is going to occur here? Are we not creating a circumstance where a country may conclude that they may, indeed, gain by a lie, gain by cheating, gain by threatening and destabilizing and selling weapons around the world? We need to reexamine our policy. We need to understand that this is not a normal regime in North Korea. This is an abnormal regime of the worst kind. It is hurting its own people more than anything else. It is threatening the stability of that region and the world. Something needs to be done about it. We cannot continue to ignore it. One thing we cannot do, we cannot expect to sign an agreement with them and expect it to be honored because their history is not to honor agreements. I support the legislation. We need to do something such as this and move it forward. We need to strengthen our relationship with South Korea. They have so much to offer to the world. We need to do what we can to change that regime in North Korea that is so unhealthy, a regime that is doing so much damage and threatening the stability and safety and security of the world. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I want to share with you my admiration for Bob Smith. I think it was Phil Gramm who repeated recently what he said not long after Paul Coverdell's death: If you love somebody, you ought to tell them you love them. Sometimes you are too late. I love Bob Smith. I so respect what he stands for. He stood for the future. He has been an historian. He knows the past. He has called on our military to transform itself, to meet the new challenges in the world. He has understood, with great clarity, that we do need control in space. That was a remarkable address that all of us ought to take to heart about the future this Nation has in space. I remember at one of our Armed Services Committee hearings, Secretary Rumsfeld was up for confirmation and was asked, critically: Well, you don't mean we are going to have war in space, do you, Mr. Rumsfeld? Without hesitation he said: We have had war on the ground, we have had war on the water, we have had war in the air--and, yes, we are going to have war in space, and we need to be prepared to win it. One of the great technological advances we have is the ability to control space. That enables us to control the battlefield. Senator Smith has absolutely been the strongest advocate in this Senate, and probably maybe in the House, for the vision that we have to prepare ourselves to be able to maintain domination in space. He did it for one reason--because he cares about our men and women in uniform. He wants them to be able to prevail on the battlefield. He does not want them to be subject to attacks controlled by enemy space power; to have our men and women in uniform suffer. Everything he has done in the committee has been so focused on strengthening and bettering the lives of our men and women in uniform. He mentioned the POWs. He has absolutely been the strongest advocate in the Senate, consistently--in committee, when no public and no press is there--always pushing for the families and the lives of our prisoners of war. I think it has been a remarkable commitment in that one area in which I have seen him lead. I was on the EPW Committee when Senator Smith wrote the brownfields legislation. It was good legislation and we should have passed it. I was naive and I was stunned that we couldn't get that passed. I guess it was the trial lawyers because it eliminated all the money we are spending on lawsuits and focused it on cleaning up instead of litigation. The litigation lobby ended up blocking the bill. I know it must have been a great frustration to Senator Smith who worked so hard on a bill that would have been tremendously beneficial to the environment. My perspective here is this: There has not been a Senator who has more purity of purpose, more fidelity of commitment to the values that make America great. He loves this country. As an historian himself, he understands this country and its greatness. He has felt an obligation, while in this body, to do everything he can to further and strengthen the country that he believes in so greatly. He has never been part of the ``blame America first'' crowd. He has believed in the validity of the American dream and the positive impact of America on the world. He was here during the collapse of the Soviet Union, the fall of the wall, and I will tell you one thing: Bob Smith was on the side of freedom every step of the way. He recognized the ``evil empire'' was evil. He did not appreciate it. He valued our values, and he fought for them. I know that must have been a special time for him and the man he admired so much, Ronald Reagan. He stood for the elimination of partial-birth abortion, a most horrible procedure. When he first raised that here in this body, people were offended that he would talk about such things. But as the years went by, the vote grew and people began to realize just how right he was, and just how horrible that procedure was. We had, virtually--we had a substantial majority vote the last time we voted on it, not quite making it law, but we had a big step in that direction. That was a courageous thing. Even the AMA has come around to agreement with Senator Smith, the American Medical Association. So it is a pleasure for me to be here today to share a few words about a man with whom I have worked closely, who I have admired, who has the courage to stand for his convictions--but always in the way of a gentleman, always not acting in a way that would offend, but standing for what he believes in and for America. Senator Smith, we appreciate your service, and God bless you.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I think Senator Dorgan has left and will be returning. He was going to ask unanimous consent that he speak after I do. I believe he made a decision not to do that at this time.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President. I wish to bring to the attention of my colleagues the Civitas International Civic Education Exchange Program, a cooperative project of civic education organizations in the United States and other nations. The goal of the project is to exchange ideas, experiences, and curricular programs to further the development of civic competence and responsibility among youth in emerging and established democracies. The program is administered by the Center for Civic Education and funded by the U.S. Department of Education under the Education for Democracy Act approved by the United States Congress. Recently may office was pleased to meet with a delegation of educators participating in the Civitas exchange program from Ukraine who have spent time in Alabama working on a curriculum for teaching Ukrainian history and civic education. The Ukraine delegation is partnered with the Alabama Center for Law and Civic Education in Birmingham, which has an outstanding reputation for delivering high quality civic education programs under the leadership of Executive Director Jan Cowin and Associate Director Wade Black. The American leaders of the delegation included two other Alabama natives, Louis Smith, Professor, School of Education, University of Western Alabama and his wife Carole Smith, visiting lecturer, Mississippi State University. I wish to commend all four of these Alabama educators for their excellent work in promoting educational excellence in our state. The Ukraine delegates include Larysa Seredyak, Teacher of History and Civics in Lviv; Anatoliy Kovtonyuk, Teacher of History, Law, and Philosophy in Zhytomyr; Volodymyr Gorbatenko, Professor, Koretskyi State and Law Institute of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine and Professor of Politology and Sociology in Kyiv; Grygoriy Freyman, Assistant Professor, World History, Luhansk Pedagogical University and Teacher of History and Law in Luhansk; and Nataliya Yuikhymovych, Translator and Interpreter in Lviv. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article in the Montgomery Advertiser about a recent visit by this distinguished Ukrainian delegation to a class of sixth graders at Dalraida Elementary School. It demonstrates how our teachers and students can benefit from these international programs through joint educational projects. Above all, it shows how we can work cooperatively with other nations to promote fundamental democratic principles, understanding and values among our youth.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I rise to pay tribute to a great American and friend, Senator Jesse Helms. I speak with mixed emotions. I am happy to see that after a long and distinguished career, he will have more time with his wife Dot, his beloved wife of 60 years, as well as enjoying time with his children and grandchildren, but I know a man of this nature and capacity is impossible to replace. In the words of the Weekly Standard, Executive Editor Fred Barnes wrote not too long ago: His unflinching devotion to conservative principles has made him a powerful figure. He is oblivious to the buzz, the chatter, the gossip of the press and polls and the permanent establishment. He is totally inner directed. He cares little for details or process, but when someone clashes with his conservative views, he steps up no matter how unpopular that makes him. He wins some, he loses some, but he is always a player who can be reckoned with even when he is acting alone. I remember one such occasion when Senator Helms was acting alone in his outspoken criticism of the United Nations. He refused to approve payment of U.N. dues until their lavish, bloated, and unwieldy bureaucracy--actually corrupt bureaucracy--was reformed. It went on for some time. They said he wanted to destroy the United Nations, and he said he wanted reform. As chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, he was able to hold that legislation up, and he stayed firm. The mainstream media and activists chastised him. They tried to mock him, but he knew there were great problems at the U.N., and he would not give in until it was improved. It should be told that in the end, the United Nations gave in. Reforms that will make the United Nations a better, more honest, effective, and viable organization were passed, and the money was released. I do not want to attempt to catalog Senator Helms' accomplishments. His record speaks well to that. It is quite clear others have spoken of them in the last few days. People on both sides of the aisle have talked about his remarkable service in this Senate. It does seem to me that he has an unusual tenacity, an unusual commitment to principle. Even when it might appear that he loses, sometimes he wins. For example, even though he was unable to block the Chemical Weapons Convention, which he did oppose, he did win 28 of the 33 concessions or amendments or changes in that treaty that he had asked for, making it a much better treaty in the end. Senator Helms' career, of course, should not be focused entirely on foreign policy, although he was a leader in that area. As an Eagle Scout myself, I really appreciated him standing up for the Boy Scouts. He was quite eloquent in these issues that came up several years ago. In the article I mentioned earlier by Fred Barnes, it concludes by asking if Jesse Helms can be replaced. Barnes' conclusion is similar to mine: That is a task that is ``probably more than we can hope for.'' I have tried to think about what makes him special, and here are a few thoughts of mine. Others may disagree. Maybe this Senator would disagree, but I believe his leaving this body is a significant event, and perhaps we should think about what has made him unique in his service. First, I believe Senator Helms is a provincial patriot. He really admired Margaret Thatcher. I have heard him talk about her. It was remarked that Margaret Thatcher was a provincial, that she was a daughter of a shop owner, and she had inculcated in her youth all the classical values of England. That is what we have in Jesse Helms. He has never been a part of the urbane crowd, the radical sheik crowd. He knows it, and they know it. It galled them that he could not be intimidated by an editorial in the New York Times or the Washington Post or some such event. He is a man of faith, a Baptist. He comes from the soil of North Carolina, and he is proud of it. He prefers the affection and commendation of those in his province over those in the great salons where the masters of the universe operate. In fact, he respects the people of his beloved State and deeply shares their values. That is what he fought for every day. The cynical, rootless left, the politically correct, those without principles, those who do not believe in truth, those who do not comprehend the greatness of America were not for him. Indeed, he saw them as the problem. And, at their core, these folks understood that, too. They knew his disagreement with their actions was deep and honest. Try as they might, it would not go away. I think some may have hated him for it, but Jesse Helms did not hate. He absolutely does not hate. He only wants to do the right thing for America because he values America over politics and because he is courageous in his stand for principle, and he often would not be moved. The left never understood it. Some thought he hated them, but he does not. He loved them. He loves America. He wants a better life for all Americans. The truth is that Senator Helms is the most kind and considerate person. His soft-spoken ways are known by all. His modesty and unassuming manner are plain for all to see. His wonderful wife Dot shares those same qualities and is loved by all who know her. He is a true Christian gentleman in the southern style--courtly, gracious, quick of wit, and firm in friendships. He is a most remarkable person, exceedingly intelligent, well read. No one here can turn a phrase better than Jesse Helms. When he has been wrong or slow to understand, he has admitted it. His conversion to advocacy for a much stronger role of the United States in the fight against AIDS in Africa is a very recent example. He even apologized for being slow to understand the moral significance of that tragedy in Africa. Finally, the career of Senator Helms cannot be discussed without remarking on the critical role he played in enabling the focus of democracy, free enterprise, and faith to triumph over the godless totalitarian forces of communism. He was a constant cold warrior. He saw the evil in the ``evil empire,'' and his drive to overcome it never slackened. He was relentless, even when undergoing attacks from the so- called opinion leaders of America. It certainly was not those opinion leaders and pundits who won the cold war. They blew hot and cold-- mostly cold--on U.S. policies. But the people in the provinces knew. They knew there could be no compromise with freedom and communism, and fortunately those people had a strong, able, and true voice in Jesse Helms. He stayed the course. The Soviet Union collapsed. There were many close calls in that struggle and many highlights in the battle of the cold war. One of those critical moments came when Senator Helms came to believe in Ronald Reagan and his view of the role of the United States in this struggle. Jesse worked hard, at a critical point in Reagan's campaign, to produce a great victory in North Carolina that gave him the nomination and went on to allow him to be President. I have heard him speak about that moment. Together, they persevered. The ``evil empire'' collapsed, and the victory was won. That was a partnership of no small note. It was a partnership of historic importance. Senator Helms, we appreciate you. You played a critical role in the struggle for freedom. We thank you for your courage and consistency. American freedom is in your debt, and we are obliged for your service. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise today to express my congratulations to Dr. Leon Y. Sadler, III, originally of Camden, AL, now of Tuscaloosa, Alabama, for his receipt of the Outstanding Commitment to Teaching Award given by the University of Alabama. Dr. Sadler comes from a well respected Wilcox County family who for generations have provided the area with leadership. His grandfather, Mr. ``Duck'' Sadler was a superb businessman, and farmer. Indeed, my father purchased his International Harvester dealership from him in the late 1950s. Dr. Sadler's father was a brilliant lawyer who did superb legal work for over a half century, operating from his modest office in Camden. Dr. Sadler's brother, Tom, graduated one year ahead of me at Wilcox County High School, obtained his engineering degree from Massachusetts of Technology and, likewise, excelled in engineering. Leon earned a B.S. in Engineering from Georgia Institute of Technology, and his master's degree and Ph.D. at the University of Alabama. He joined the Department of Chemical Engineering at the University of Alabama in 1978 after working for Olin Chemical Corporation and the United States Bureau of Mines. His publications are numerous and his research has led to his being rewarded three patents. He is also the recipient of numerous awards including Reichold-Shumaker Professorship of Chemical Engineering; Department of Engineering 140th Anniversary Outstanding Fellow Award; Rau Beta Pi Outstanding College of Engineering Faculty Award and Alabama Society of Professional Engineers State of Alabama Engineering Educator of the Year for 2001, to name a few. His excellence as a teacher of chemical engineering is best enunciated by one of his students who said about Leon: Not only does he use his great technical skills to educate his students to be better suited for industry, but he also employs his personal skills to illustrate to students how to be better suited for the ``real world.'' He never fails to provide students with the means to learn, as well as the tools to succeed in a competitive field. I knew Leon as a student in the public schools of Wilcox County. He graduated several years ahead of me. While a terrific student, Leon was also a good basketball player. On one occasion, he undertook to coach a group of us who attended the Methodist Youth Fellowship in a basketball league. In fact, we had an ecumenical Methodist Youth Fellowship, with Presbyterians and other church members attending. We thought he was a wonderful coach and that we would be a successful team. Unfortunately, he had chosen by far the shortest team in the league and though we learned much about the game, a winning season we did not have. Leon married his high school classmate, Dana McNeil, a wonderful and sparkling person who maintained a successful career in real estate. She has been his loving partner throughout their marriage of many years. They have two wonderful sons, Leon IV and Cobb. In recent years, I had the chance to reestablish a close relationship with Leon and Dana. Spending time with them has been a most pleasant experience. He and Dana have had me stay with them in their fine home in Tuscaloosa and treated me with genuine hospitality. I have cherished those visits and our talks about friends and family and our roots. In this highly mobile world, it is important that we stay close to our friends and to our heritage. Everyone has such a great love and affection for Leon. Though brilliant and dedicated, he never lost his humility and humanity. People love him and love being with him. His friends are many and very, very loyal--just as he is to them. Leon is now suffering an erosion of his physical abilities as the result of the progression of Lou Gehrig's disease. I visited him, Dana and Jim Wilburn recently and enjoyed it greatly. Among other things, we talked of my re-election effort which was just a few weeks off. Leon, now unable to speak, with a smile on his face, wrote on his small erasable board the words, ``You're going to win.'' That was an encouraging comment and, as it turned out, he was correct. Leon Y. Sadler, III has achieved excellence in a rigorous and demanding specialty, Assistant Professor of Chemical Engineering. He has been a blessing to his fellow man. He has remembered his roots and friends from Wilcox County. He loves his wife and family and is proud of all their accomplishments. To an unusual degree, he loves America, understands her greatness, keeps up with current affairs, and does all he can to keep her on the right path. Teachers are important people. In addition to their professional excellence, teachers help young people learn how to live--in the words of his student, ``. . . how to be better suited for the `real world' ''. Indeed. I extend my congratulations to Dr. Sadler for this important teaching award, presented by one of the great universities in the world, the University of Alabama. The presentation of the award on September 18, 2002, brought credit on both Dr. Sadler and the University.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a great American, a fellow Senator, a fellow conservative, and friend--Senator Jesse Helms. I speak today with mixed emotions. I am happy to see that after a long and distinguished career he will have more time to spend with his beloved wife of 60 years, Dot . . . as well as enjoying time with his children and grandchildren. But I also know that this kind of man is impossible to replace. In the words of The Weekly Standard executive editor Fred Barnes: Helms is an ideologue, and his unflinching devotion to conservative principles has made him a powerful figure. He's oblivious to the buzz, the chatter, and gossip of the press, polls and the permanent establishment. He's totally inner directed. He cares little for details or process. But when something clashes with his conservative views . . . he steps up, no matter how unpopular that makes him. He wins some, loses some, but is always a player to be reckoned with, even when he's acting alone. I recall one such occasion where Senator Helms acted alone in his outspoken criticism of the United Nations. He refused to approve payment of U.N. dues until this lavish, bloated, and unwieldy bureaucracy was reformed. He was highly criticized by almost every member of the mainstream media, chastised by activists, and mocked by others. He knew there were great problems at the United Nations and would not give until it was improved and it should be told that, in the end, the United Nations gave in. Reforms that will make the United Nations a better, more honest and viable organization, were passed. It seems to be one of the seldom mentioned side notes of Senator Helms' career in public service he often wins even when he seems to have lost. For instance, even though he was unable to block the Chemical Weapons Convention, he did win 28 of the 33 concessions he sought. Senator Helms' legislative career will not only be remembered as that of a foreign policy figure though. I, for one, as an Eagle Scout, will always remember his fights to defend the independence of the Boy Scouts. Some of the best insight into Jesse Helms as a person comes from his domestic policy stands. One of the most telling stories of the real personality of Jesse Helms and one of the most moving as well was shared by Senator Nickles. In the midst of a debate on a 5-cent-per- gallon Federal gas tax hike, in which they were vastly outnumbered, they were seeking guidance. Senator Helms suggested that they pray together, and he called the Reverend Billy Graham and asked that he pray with them for guidance. That to me speaks volumes as to what truly guides Senator Helms as a person. He was not using his faith for a photo op, a quick sound-bite, a political tag line, or other earthly gains. This was simply a man who instinctively turns to the God for guidance. In the article I mentioned earlier, Fred Barnes concludes by asking if Jesse Helms can be replaced. His conclusion is similar to mine. That is a task that is ``probably more than can be hoped for''. A person as unique as Jesse Helms does not come along often. His presence will truly be missed both on and off the Senate Floor. Senator Helms is a provincial patriot. He has never been a part of the urbane crowd, the radical chic crowd. He knows it and they know it. It galled them that he could not be intimidated by an editorial in the New York Times or some such organization. He is a man of faith, a Baptist. He comes from the soil of North Carolina and is proud of it. He prefers the affection and commendation of those in his province over those in the great salons where the ``masters of the universe'' operate. In fact, he respects the people of his beloved state and deeply shares their values. That's what he fought for every day. The cynical, rootless left, the politically correct, those without principles, those who do not comprehend the greatness of America, were not for him. Indeed, he saw them as the problem. And, at their core, these folks understood. They knew his disagreement with their actions was deep and honest. Try as they might, his opposition would not go away. Many hated him because of it. But, Jesse Helms does not hate. He absolutely does not. He only wants to do the right thing for America. Because he values America over politics, and because he is courageous in his stand for principle, he often could not be moved. The left has never understood this. Some thought he hated them personally. He does not. He loves them and he wants a better life for all Americans. The truth is that Senator Jesse Helms is a most kind and considerate person. His soft spoken ways are known by all. His modesty and an assuming manner are plain for all to see. His wonderful wife, Dot, shares those same qualities and is loved by all who know her. He is a true Christian gentleman in the Southern style. Courtly, gracious, quick of wit and firm in friendships, he is a most remarkable person. Widely read, highly literate and a master of the language, few could turn a phrase better than Jesse. When he has been wrong or slow to understand, he has admitted it. His conversion to advocacy for a much stronger fight against AIDS in Africa is a very recent example. Finally, the career of Senator Helms cannot be discussed without remarking on the critical role he played in enabling the focus of democracy, free enterprise, and faith to triumph over the godless, totalitarian forces of communism. He was a constant cold warrior. He saw the evil in the evil empire, and his drive to overcome it never slacked. He was relentless, even when undergoing attacks from the so- called opinion leaders of America. It certainly was not those opinion leaders and pundits who won the war. They blew hot and cold mostly cold on American policies. But the people in the provinces knew, they knew there could be no compromise with communism, and fortunately those people had a strong, able and true voice in Jesse Helms. He stayed the course, the Soviet Union collapsed. There were many close calls and many highlights in that Cold War. One of those critical moments came when Senator Helms came to believe in Ronald Reagan's view of the role of the United States in this struggle. Jesse worked hard and produced a great victory in North Carolina that gave him the Republican nomination. Together they persevered and the evil empire collapsed and the victory was won. Senator Helms, you played a critical role in this struggle for freedom and you deserve great credit for your courage and constancy. America and freedom are in your debt. We are much obliged for your service. Fred Thompson

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a great American, a fellow Senator, a fellow conservative, and friend--Senator Jesse Helms. I speak today with mixed emotions. I am happy to see that after a long and distinguished career he will have more time to spend with his beloved wife of 60 years, Dot . . . as well as enjoying time with his children and grandchildren. But I also know that this kind of man is impossible to replace. In the words of The Weekly Standard executive editor Fred Barnes: Helms is an ideologue, and his unflinching devotion to conservative principles has made him a powerful figure. He's oblivious to the buzz, the chatter, and gossip of the press, polls and the permanent establishment. He's totally inner directed. He cares little for details or process. But when something clashes with his conservative views . . . he steps up, no matter how unpopular that makes him. He wins some, loses some, but is always a player to be reckoned with, even when he's acting alone. I recall one such occasion where Senator Helms acted alone in his outspoken criticism of the United Nations. He refused to approve payment of U.N. dues until this lavish, bloated, and unwieldy bureaucracy was reformed. He was highly criticized by almost every member of the mainstream media, chastised by activists, and mocked by others. He knew there were great problems at the United Nations and would not give until it was improved and it should be told that, in the end, the United Nations gave in. Reforms that will make the United Nations a better, more honest and viable organization, were passed. It seems to be one of the seldom mentioned side notes of Senator Helms' career in public service he often wins even when he seems to have lost. For instance, even though he was unable to block the Chemical Weapons Convention, he did win 28 of the 33 concessions he sought. Senator Helms' legislative career will not only be remembered as that of a foreign policy figure though. I, for one, as an Eagle Scout, will always remember his fights to defend the independence of the Boy Scouts. Some of the best insight into Jesse Helms as a person comes from his domestic policy stands. One of the most telling stories of the real personality of Jesse Helms and one of the most moving as well was shared by Senator Nickles. In the midst of a debate on a 5-cent-per- gallon Federal gas tax hike, in which they were vastly outnumbered, they were seeking guidance. Senator Helms suggested that they pray together, and he called the Reverend Billy Graham and asked that he pray with them for guidance. That to me speaks volumes as to what truly guides Senator Helms as a person. He was not using his faith for a photo op, a quick sound-bite, a political tag line, or other earthly gains. This was simply a man who instinctively turns to the God for guidance. In the article I mentioned earlier, Fred Barnes concludes by asking if Jesse Helms can be replaced. His conclusion is similar to mine. That is a task that is ``probably more than can be hoped for''. A person as unique as Jesse Helms does not come along often. His presence will truly be missed both on and off the Senate Floor. Senator Helms is a provincial patriot. He has never been a part of the urbane crowd, the radical chic crowd. He knows it and they know it. It galled them that he could not be intimidated by an editorial in the New York Times or some such organization. He is a man of faith, a Baptist. He comes from the soil of North Carolina and is proud of it. He prefers the affection and commendation of those in his province over those in the great salons where the ``masters of the universe'' operate. In fact, he respects the people of his beloved state and deeply shares their values. That's what he fought for every day. The cynical, rootless left, the politically correct, those without principles, those who do not comprehend the greatness of America, were not for him. Indeed, he saw them as the problem. And, at their core, these folks understood. They knew his disagreement with their actions was deep and honest. Try as they might, his opposition would not go away. Many hated him because of it. But, Jesse Helms does not hate. He absolutely does not. He only wants to do the right thing for America. Because he values America over politics, and because he is courageous in his stand for principle, he often could not be moved. The left has never understood this. Some thought he hated them personally. He does not. He loves them and he wants a better life for all Americans. The truth is that Senator Jesse Helms is a most kind and considerate person. His soft spoken ways are known by all. His modesty and an assuming manner are plain for all to see. His wonderful wife, Dot, shares those same qualities and is loved by all who know her. He is a true Christian gentleman in the Southern style. Courtly, gracious, quick of wit and firm in friendships, he is a most remarkable person. Widely read, highly literate and a master of the language, few could turn a phrase better than Jesse. When he has been wrong or slow to understand, he has admitted it. His conversion to advocacy for a much stronger fight against AIDS in Africa is a very recent example. Finally, the career of Senator Helms cannot be discussed without remarking on the critical role he played in enabling the focus of democracy, free enterprise, and faith to triumph over the godless, totalitarian forces of communism. He was a constant cold warrior. He saw the evil in the evil empire, and his drive to overcome it never slacked. He was relentless, even when undergoing attacks from the so- called opinion leaders of America. It certainly was not those opinion leaders and pundits who won the war. They blew hot and cold mostly cold on American policies. But the people in the provinces knew, they knew there could be no compromise with communism, and fortunately those people had a strong, able and true voice in Jesse Helms. He stayed the course, the Soviet Union collapsed. There were many close calls and many highlights in that Cold War. One of those critical moments came when Senator Helms came to believe in Ronald Reagan's view of the role of the United States in this struggle. Jesse worked hard and produced a great victory in North Carolina that gave him the Republican nomination. Together they persevered and the evil empire collapsed and the victory was won. Senator Helms, you played a critical role in this struggle for freedom and you deserve great credit for your courage and constancy. America and freedom are in your debt. We are much obliged for your service. Fred Thompson

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, Mary Jane Crump Brannon graduated from Huntingdon College in 1937 with majors in biology and English, and a minor in French. She received her Master of Arts degree from the University of Alabama in 1938 in Parasitology. She did further graduate work at the University of Chicago and the University of Illinois. She completed her Ph.D. in Parasitology at Tulane University in 1943. She was the mother of seven children, and taught biology at her alma mater for forty years. She began teaching at Huntingdon in 1956, and taught full-time until 1986, and part-time for ten more years. During much of this time and during the time I was a student at Huntingdon, she was head of the Biology Department. After her retirement she ran an Elderhostel program for Huntingdon College and the Alabama Shakespeare Festival. Those are the facts about Dr. Brannon and her career, but they do not begin to hint at the many lives she touched while teaching at Huntingdon. She was a great teacher, brilliant scientist, and incredibly committed to the betterment of her students. Every student who studied advanced biology at Huntingdon during those 40 years knew Dr. Brannon, and she knew them and took an interest in them. They overlooked her difficulty with names--``Please answer question number seven Joe-Charlie-Sally-whatever your name is, child..''--because they knew she cared about them, and because she really wanted them to learn biology. She was very demanding of her students, but none were afraid of her; they knew she would do her best to teach them. Pre-med students all looked to her for advice in getting into medical school. One student wanted to go to Tulane Medical School, but could not afford it. Dr. Brannon and the Chairman of the Tulane Admissions Committee were friends, and she called him. After their conversation Tulane offered that student a full tuition scholarship. Scholarships to medical school were even rarer then than they are now! It would be difficult to count the number of students she helped get into graduate or professional school, but in 1983 she had taught 56 Doctors of Medicine or Osteopathy, seven dentists, and dozens of biologists. In 1983 alone, eleven Huntingdon graduates were admitted to medical school, out of a graduating class of less than 200! Many of these owed their acceptance into medical, dental, or graduate school to her advice, or to having her ``pull strings'' with directors of admission. Huntingdon's 89% acceptance rate to medical school was in large part due to her teaching and leadership. Dr. Brannon followed the lives of her former students closely, and every year she contacted them in person or by mail. They all looked forward to the ``Biology Christmas Letter'' to find out what their college friends were doing currently. She served as a hub for information about classmates and the college. Dr. Brannon, by her loyalty to Huntingdon College caused her students to recognize the uniqueness of the school, and to be loyal also. When I attended Huntingdon College, everyone knew there was no more talented, hardworking or loyal student than those in the biology department. They were a special group. They reflected her values. Students went to Dr. Brannon with their personal problems, too. One student, who now has a Ph.D. in chemistry, tells of going to Dr. Brannon for advice about her boyfriend, who had proposed. ``I remember seeking her advice, which was practical, insightful, and blunt, when a guy asked me to marry him my last year at Huntingdon. She told me if I were going to get a Ph.D., that particular guy would not be a good match intellectually, etc. She told me there would be plenty of guys who would want to marry me later on after I received my Ph.D. She encouraged me to get my education first, which was a bold statement from a teacher to a female student in the 1970s.'' She was always arranging field trips for her students to take--trips to research labs, to the medical and dental schools, or to wilderness areas of Alabama. She planned and coordinated an annual trip to Panama City, Florida, right after the end of the school year so that students could gather biological specimens. It was also so they could have a little fun, but she was their chaperone, and nobody dared misbehave! She always gave a nighttime lecture and demonstration on bioluminescence, showing us the ``things in the Gulf that glow in the dark.'' Every semester, for every class that she taught, Dr. Brannon invited the entire class over to her home for dinner. She did this for more than 30 years, each semester. It was a personal way of telling us that she cared about us and wanted to share her home and talents with us. She was a superb teacher. She taught students about biology, but perhaps more importantly she taught them about living and loving. Because of the real interest she had in each student, she was a powerful influence for good in each one's life. Teachers are very important people. Many have touched my life in significant ways. Those special teachers who have a real passion for truth and excellence, and who care deeply about their subjects and their students are the ones who change lives--and change them for the better. Dr. Mary Jane Brannon was one of those. She saw the world clearly, spoke quickly and frankly (when one speaks the truth there is less need to hesitate), and strongly desired that her students live lives dedicated to excellence. Those who studied under her could not be unaffected. Indeed, she inspired students who were not her students. She was more than a teacher, she was a force for learning and right living. Her former students remember her with gratitude, admiration and love.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, Mary Jane Crump Brannon graduated from Huntingdon College in 1937 with majors in biology and English, and a minor in French. She received her Master of Arts degree from the University of Alabama in 1938 in Parasitology. She did further graduate work at the University of Chicago and the University of Illinois. She completed her Ph.D. in Parasitology at Tulane University in 1943. She was the mother of seven children, and taught biology at her alma mater for forty years. She began teaching at Huntingdon in 1956, and taught full-time until 1986, and part-time for ten more years. During much of this time and during the time I was a student at Huntingdon, she was head of the Biology Department. After her retirement she ran an Elderhostel program for Huntingdon College and the Alabama Shakespeare Festival. Those are the facts about Dr. Brannon and her career, but they do not begin to hint at the many lives she touched while teaching at Huntingdon. She was a great teacher, brilliant scientist, and incredibly committed to the betterment of her students. Every student who studied advanced biology at Huntingdon during those 40 years knew Dr. Brannon, and she knew them and took an interest in them. They overlooked her difficulty with names--``Please answer question number seven Joe-Charlie-Sally-whatever your name is, child..''--because they knew she cared about them, and because she really wanted them to learn biology. She was very demanding of her students, but none were afraid of her; they knew she would do her best to teach them. Pre-med students all looked to her for advice in getting into medical school. One student wanted to go to Tulane Medical School, but could not afford it. Dr. Brannon and the Chairman of the Tulane Admissions Committee were friends, and she called him. After their conversation Tulane offered that student a full tuition scholarship. Scholarships to medical school were even rarer then than they are now! It would be difficult to count the number of students she helped get into graduate or professional school, but in 1983 she had taught 56 Doctors of Medicine or Osteopathy, seven dentists, and dozens of biologists. In 1983 alone, eleven Huntingdon graduates were admitted to medical school, out of a graduating class of less than 200! Many of these owed their acceptance into medical, dental, or graduate school to her advice, or to having her ``pull strings'' with directors of admission. Huntingdon's 89% acceptance rate to medical school was in large part due to her teaching and leadership. Dr. Brannon followed the lives of her former students closely, and every year she contacted them in person or by mail. They all looked forward to the ``Biology Christmas Letter'' to find out what their college friends were doing currently. She served as a hub for information about classmates and the college. Dr. Brannon, by her loyalty to Huntingdon College caused her students to recognize the uniqueness of the school, and to be loyal also. When I attended Huntingdon College, everyone knew there was no more talented, hardworking or loyal student than those in the biology department. They were a special group. They reflected her values. Students went to Dr. Brannon with their personal problems, too. One student, who now has a Ph.D. in chemistry, tells of going to Dr. Brannon for advice about her boyfriend, who had proposed. ``I remember seeking her advice, which was practical, insightful, and blunt, when a guy asked me to marry him my last year at Huntingdon. She told me if I were going to get a Ph.D., that particular guy would not be a good match intellectually, etc. She told me there would be plenty of guys who would want to marry me later on after I received my Ph.D. She encouraged me to get my education first, which was a bold statement from a teacher to a female student in the 1970s.'' She was always arranging field trips for her students to take--trips to research labs, to the medical and dental schools, or to wilderness areas of Alabama. She planned and coordinated an annual trip to Panama City, Florida, right after the end of the school year so that students could gather biological specimens. It was also so they could have a little fun, but she was their chaperone, and nobody dared misbehave! She always gave a nighttime lecture and demonstration on bioluminescence, showing us the ``things in the Gulf that glow in the dark.'' Every semester, for every class that she taught, Dr. Brannon invited the entire class over to her home for dinner. She did this for more than 30 years, each semester. It was a personal way of telling us that she cared about us and wanted to share her home and talents with us. She was a superb teacher. She taught students about biology, but perhaps more importantly she taught them about living and loving. Because of the real interest she had in each student, she was a powerful influence for good in each one's life. Teachers are very important people. Many have touched my life in significant ways. Those special teachers who have a real passion for truth and excellence, and who care deeply about their subjects and their students are the ones who change lives--and change them for the better. Dr. Mary Jane Brannon was one of those. She saw the world clearly, spoke quickly and frankly (when one speaks the truth there is less need to hesitate), and strongly desired that her students live lives dedicated to excellence. Those who studied under her could not be unaffected. Indeed, she inspired students who were not her students. She was more than a teacher, she was a force for learning and right living. Her former students remember her with gratitude, admiration and love.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for his remarks about the remarkable Phil Gramm. And I would like to attempt to make some comments upon his leaving us. My abilities are inadequate because he is, indeed, a very special American and human being. Don has delineated a number of his historic achievements: with the budget, with health care, with homeland security, and so many others. But there are a lot of qualities about Phil that are important. He has told us often, particularly after the untimely death of Paul Coverdell, that we should tell those we love that we love them, that we ought not to wait. I don't know if I have said that directly to him, but I love Phil Gramm. I have loved him virtually since I have come to this body. He has consistently been, to me, the most principled, interesting, and courageous battler for America I have ever seen. I have said on many occasions, recognizing the poor grammar, that Phil Gramm is our ``most invaluable Senator.'' By that I mean he is the one this body could least do without. I truly believe that. This body will be diminished by his leaving. He has been a force--a force--for the best of American values. First and foremost, Phil Gramm has been a champion for freedom. He has never doubted, as have many of his former colleagues in the academy, the validity of the American dream. He has studied history, traveled widely, and read much. His experience and learning have only confirmed his belief in the American ideal of democracy, freedom, and free enterprise. He knows it works. He knows this has been the system that has made America the envy of the world. As a patriot, and in possession of this important truth, he has given his total effort to preserving and extending our brilliant heritage. From the time he gets up until the time he goes to bed, he fights for these great values of America. He has done so with more purity of purpose and depth of understanding than any I have known. Yes, he can compromise, and he does on occasion, but his compromises are always focused on whether or not the deal is best for America. Will it further freedom? That tends to be his test. First and foremost, Phil Gramm fully comprehends the greatness and uniqueness of America. And his life has been directed with incredible fidelity toward its preservation and enhancement. I recall one of the great trips I have taken in the Senate. It was CODEL Gramm to Europe. Phil insisted we stop at Normandy and examine that scene of carnage and courage. On another occasion, we visited the Flanders Cemetery, and Phil read us the great poem: ``On Flanders Fields.'' We could not leave, he said, until we laid a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. We also carefully examined the battlefield at Point du Hoc on the Normandy coast. Phil showed us, with great pride, where the brave Texans scaled and took that great fortified height at Point du Hoc, a key moment in the D-Day victory. Phil Gramm, with great clarity, has seen his battles for freedom in this Congress--absent, of course, the physical danger of war--in the same way. He sees his role as a soldier for freedom, and that he has been. Indeed, he has been a glorious warrior for freedom. Our heritage of liberty has always been endangered by hostile outside enemies, ignorance, corruption, and political whims of the moment within. Phil Gramm has stood in the breach and, in the same vein as his beloved Texans at Normandy, he has carried the battle to the enemies of freedom. Time and again, he has staked it all--put his career and his reputation on the line--for those ideals. He has been blessed with a great partner in his glorious struggle to enhance the American dream--Wendy Gramm. Everyone who knows Wendy loves her. And so does Phil. They are an unlikely pair: the loud Phil and the small, brilliant, and soft-spoken Wendy. Surely, it could only have been a match made in Heaven. Wendy's balance, her integrity, and her vision for America, which she so deeply shares with Phil, make them one of America's great couples. Thirdly, we cannot discuss his career without considering his effectiveness in advocacy. With an economist's ability to see the big picture, Phil has an unsurpassed ability to demolish small minded proposals. His skill in debate is legendary. I have not seen his equal in my tenure in this body. No one gets to the core of the matter better or can put the complex in layman's terms more effectively than Phil Gramm--no one. Some are good at spin, but Phil Gramm does not spin. He analyzes. He distills arguments, and he puts them to the test of rigorous thought. He reduces them to their simplest form and then demonstrates with his powerful mind and verbal skill how such proposals either further or constrict the American way. Phil, though quite frank and blunt, could get away with comments few others could. Many of our colleagues have quoted from Phil some of his remarkable comments. He made a very important speech on economic relations between the United Kingdom and the United States when we were in Europe. He expressed concern about the UK's move toward Europe. He recognized our historic relationships between our countries, and he urged them to join NAFTA. The speech made headlines all over Europe. It was a magnificent address. He knew it was important when he delivered it. He delivered it entirely without notes. I was very proud of him. During the course of it, he noted the objections made by certain Europeans to American beef, much of which comes from Texas, of course, because of their fear of growth hormones. As an aside, he noted: Maybe you need to eat more of our beef. It could keep you from giving up your sovereignty. His ability to demolish the conceit of the left that government can provide Americans more and better goods and services than the private sector is also unsurpassed. His advocacy for free trade is unsurpassed. Phil believes in the concept of truth. He respects truth, and he battles to always appeal to objective truth. Thus he is not a spinmeister. He is a Texas straight shooter. He will challenge an opponent's flawed core principles even when it may not be politically correct to do so. He will not just dance around the issue. He goes right to the heart of the matter, with integrity and courage. A few are taken aback by his directness, but most respect his honesty even if they disagree. And he has never allowed debate to ruin friendships. Still, Phil Gramm does not take the future of America lightly. It is not just a matter of debate with him. It is not a matter of polls. He works to prevail on issues important to this country's future. This is not an intellectual exercise. It is in a different way as important to him as our victories in the past have been on the battlefield. His constant goal has been to make America better. Perhaps you think I overstate the case, but I don't think so. I think he is a special, glorious warrior for the American way of life. And why should I not say here what I have said privately; that is, that a true recording of history will list him as one of the half dozen great Senators of the past century. This warrior for freedom will not cease when he leaves this body. Who knows, he may do more good from the outside than from the inside. What we do know, however, is that while he was here, his contributions to America and to liberty were truly magnificent. I have been honored to know Phil Gramm and to have been his friend. I will miss him. This Senate will miss him. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I will now take the opportunity to pay tribute to the senior Senator from South Carolina, the Honorable Strom Thurmond. The accomplishments of this man in his nearly 100 years of life, are truly amazing. All of his continuous years of public service to our country illustrate that Senator Thurmond's life has put the service of his country first. Born on December 5, 1902, in Edgefield, SC, he graduated from Clemson College, now Clemson University, in 1923. He studied law under his father. For 8 years, he served as the town attorney, and he also served as a South Carolina State senator. A true patriot, he joined the U.S. Army Reserve as a second lieutenant in 1924. He landed in Normandy on D-Day with the 82nd Airborne Division during World War II. He had been a judge. He was in his forties. They did not really want him to join the Army at the time the war broke out. He insisted that he be allowed to do so and walked away, as some would say, old enough to know better. But he ended up in Great Britain preparing for Normandy and the invasion with the 82nd, and he again volunteered. He volunteered to be on the glider force that would fly in behind enemy lines at the time of the D-Day invasion. He got into one of those gliders. They are pulled off by bombers, and let go. Hopefully the plane lands safely. He was asked one time: How was the landing, Strom? He said: All I can say is I didn't have to open the door; you could walk out the side. None of these landings were safe. It was a highly dangerous mission. He volunteered in his midforties to do that. He stayed until the end of the war. I asked him if he stayed to the end. He said yes, until Germany surrendered in combat and he was put on a train heading toward the Pacific when Japan surrendered. He earned 18 decorations, medals, and awards, including the Legion of Merit with oak leaf cluster, Bronze Star for Valor, and the Purple Heart, among others. His political career flourished when he was elected Governor. In 1948, he decided to run for President of the United States as a States rights candidate. He carried four States and received 39 electoral votes, the largest independent electoral vote in U.S. history. However, the most memorable moment, I guess, came when he was elected to the Senate in 1954 as a write-in candidate. In the Senate, the highest office ever to be elected by a write-in, I understand, in the Senate, Strom Thurmond served on several committees. He has been a fixture on the Armed Services Committee on which I serve and where he has with constancy of purpose fought for a strong America and for our veterans. He served as chairman of this committee from 1995 to January of 1999 and was bestowed the great honor of being named chairman emeritus in 1999. Serving with Senator Thurmond on this committee was a great learning experience. I am convinced his combat experience provided him with an excellent background to understand the intricacies of our military and the need of this Nation to be strong and avoid war but to win it, if necessary. He has helped lead our effort in this Nation to victory in the cold war, to defeat and challenge head-on godless, totalitarian communism, a force incompatible with American values. He never faltered. He stayed the course throughout the entire cold war. He celebrated its victory. He never was among those souls who waned, who blamed America first, who always thought America was at fault and causing the problems in the world. His career was marked by determination, surely based on personal experience with war, to never have our soldiers outgunned in war. This was a magnificent service to our country, of historical importance, and in which he played a key role. Additionally, I have had the pleasure to serve with Senator Thurmond on the Judiciary Committee where he has been a member since 1967. He served as chairman from 1981 to 1987 and chairman of the Subcommittee on Constitution, Federalism, and Property Rights from January to June of 2001. Coming from a lineage of law study and being a former judge, Senator Thurmond has cherished his role on this committee and continues to work to promote the rule of law and assure quality judges are appointed to Federal courts. He has been a champion of the rule of law on the Judiciary Committee for 35 years. Yes, he has changed many of his views over the years. He came to see segregation was wrong, that it hurt African Americans, whites, and it hurt America. Still, his classical view that the law is sacred, that it must be followed, never wavered. His leadership in passing the Federal sentencing guidelines was perhaps the greatest change in criminal law in the entire last century. It was enacted to equalize sentencing--those who commit the same crime serve the same time--and it abolished parole. He was a tower of strength in the battle to bring back respect for law enforcement, to provide rights to crime victims, and to crack down on criminals. As a former prosecutor, I am convinced the great battles he led in the 1980s--sentencing guidelines, abolishing parole, allowing for the denial of bail in certain circumstances--were historic steps that stimulated the strong efforts by State law enforcement to break the back of the surging crime rates of the sixties and seventies and resulted in substantial reduction in crime. Longer prison sentences for repeat and dangerous criminals have saved thousands of innocent lives. People have not been murdered because dangerous criminals have been apprehended and locked up. No man gave more steadfast leadership to this change than Strom Thurmond. Indeed, he appointed the first chairman of the Sentencing Guideline Commission who did a remarkable job, or at least he sought the appointment of Judge Wilkins from South Carolina. One of the great memories I have of spending time with Senator Thurmond was when he asked me, a new Senator, to accompany him on a trip to China in 1997. On this trip, we had some time to climb the Great Wall of China. Senator Thurmond was the oldest person ever to climb the Great Wall unassisted, and it was quite a climb. His ability to put situations in perspective is illustrated by the fact that upon reaching the top of the wall, he said: This is a big wall. Let's go. Up early to exercise, dining late often, as we did on the trip, he did not flag, leaving the rest of us in his wake. Though he is nearing the century mark, his determination to fulfill his service is remarkable. Just this past week, we had the elections of the Republican leadership. Senator Thurmond was there at 9 a.m. for the elections. Then we had our lunch with the Republican Policy Committee while last-minute issues were discussed, and he attended that. That afternoon, the Defense authorization bill was up for debate and passage. He was one of the few Senators to be in the Chamber, and only at 15 minutes till 6, when he was sure no votes would be held that night--which he asked me to confirm was accurate--did he leave. It was a long, hard day. That is typical of his commitment to service. His fierce commitment to America and the Senate is legendary. During his service from 1994 to 2000 as President pro tempore of the Senate, he was consistently on time every morning to open the Senate, conduct the Pledge of Allegiance, and introduce the Chaplain for invocation. He knew the importance of his office, and he did not fail in that responsibility. It has been a monumental career, a life almost larger than life. Strom Thurmond has set a high standard for duty, service, and country. It has been my honor to know and serve with him. He is a true southerner, a true American, and a true patriot. Strom Thurmond will be forever remembered as a man who for a century was a vigorous proponent of strong national defense, a sound legal system composed of judges who follow, not make, law, and justice for victims of crime, and stiff punishment for wrongdoers. One of his most enduring qualities, a quality that undoubtedly is a factor in his longevity, is his positive view of life, his optimism, his cheerfulness, and positive leadership which still are remarkable and continue to this day. I am sure there have been times when he did not feel well, but his hearty greetings never changed. I have enjoyed hearing him call to me and say: How's the king of Alabama doing today? Having watched his leadership for 6 years now in the Senate, I am convinced his positive leadership and character are major factors in his success. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for his kind remarks about Senator Tim Hutchinson. He was one of my closest friends. He and Randi are fine people. We served together on the Armed Services Committee and the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. I saw him perform day after day with fidelity to the principles that he campaigned on when he came to the Senate. He fought for what he believed in. He was one of the most able advocates in the Chamber. I do not think you could name on the fingers of your hand any Senator who could compete with him insofar as advocating positions on the floor. He stood for the great values of America. While on the Armed Services Committee, I remember one battle he got into as Personnel Subcommittee chairman. He made great progress in regard to the problem of the great educational institutions in America, colleges and high schools, that barred military recruiters from coming on campus to recruit personnel for a career in the military. It is unthinkable to me that that would occur, but it happens in this country. Indeed, the very liberties we have that provide for education and allow people to debate and disagree are protected by our military, and it denied them the right to come on campus to seek people to serve, which is really unbelievable. He fought that battle and reached an agreement eventually that essentially achieved the end of that unconscionable procedure. He also presided on that subcommittee during consideration of a consistent series of pay raises for our men and women in the military. We have now gotten to the point where we are seeing our military get paid a far more decent wage than they were a few years ago. On the HELP Committee, he was a prime advocate for the President's No Child Left Behind bill. He and I sponsored legislation called Dollars to the Classroom. We intended to put as much money to those teachers where learning occurs to try to enhance those magical moments when a teacher and a child come together and learning occurs. That was our vision, that is what we fought for, and No Child Left Behind had a lot of that in it. As Senator Nickles said, Senator Hutchinson fought for and was a great advocate during the battle over the Patients' Bill of Rights. He was a very responsible and articulate spokesman on some complex issues on which Senator Nickles led us as we carried on that debate. I do appreciate him remembering and commenting on the extraordinary contributions of Tim Hutchinson. We are going to miss him. I will miss him personally. His leadership will be missed. I know he will have a great future in front of him. Tribute to Senator Frank Murkowski Mr. President, it is a sad day to think Frank and Nancy Murkowski will not be with us. I admire them so much. We have had the occasion, my wife Mary and I, to spend time with them. I have come to respect him. I was in Alaska not too many years ago and passed his home in Fairbanks and talked to some of his neighbors, all of whom had such a high opinion of him. He was a champion for energy. He understood that energy is good, not bad. He understood we need a great capacity, at the lowest possible cost, so American citizens can carry on their travel, heat and cool their homes at the lowest possible cost. Keeping energy costs down is important. He knew and warned us repeatedly that we were becoming too dependent on Middle East oil and energy and we needed to enhance our domestic production. He convinced me and almost the majority of this Senate that Alaska and the ANWR reserve could produce large amounts of oil with no threat to the environment, touching only the smallest portion of that vast reserve. I admired him for that and I supported him. He also supported one of the programs that I believe was extremely environmentally friendly, the bill we call the CARA Act, which would allow revenue from offshore oil and gas wells in the Gulf and wherever they would drill to be plowed back into environmental programs in our country. It would provide a constant and guaranteed source of funds for environmental benefit. It was a good and forward-looking bill, far more historic, with greater potential for environmental benefits than a lot of people understood--although it did certainly have broad support in the environmental community. It has been a pleasure to serve with Frank. I have been impressed with his steadfastness, his constancy of purpose, his understanding that your message has to be repeated to break through the sound barrier in the country. I admire him and respect him very much. We will be missing him. I look forward to having the opportunity to visit Frank and Nancy as often as possible when they come back to the capital city here as Governor of Alaska. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize a member of my judiciary staff, my chief counsel on Judiciary, Ed Haden. Ed will be leaving the Senate at the end of this session, returning to private practice at the outstanding Alabama law firm of Balch & Bingham in Birmingham, AL, where he will work in that firm's appellate litigation department. I will say this: My loss and the Senate's loss will be a great gain to Balch & Bingham. Before joining the Senate, Ed had a distinguished legal career, having served as a staff attorney on the Alabama Supreme Court and as a law clerk for the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. He came to the Judiciary Committee in 1999, first serving as counsel to Senator Orrin Hatch on the nominations and constitutional law unit. In 2000, he became my chief counsel for the Subcommittee on Youth Violence and is currently chief counsel for the Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts. Ed's work ethic is beyond reproach. From the moment he joined my staff, his legal analysis has been unmatched and his commitment to the rule of law unwavering. His attention to detail and his ability to be thorough but brief at the same time has helped me enormously. I know I can trust his judgment, and I thank him for dutifully managing our staff and our issues since the day he arrived on our team. During his tenure on the committee, Ed has proven what I knew when I hired him, that he would always carry himself in a professional manner, and even though he might not agree with those on the other side of the aisle, he could work with them and gain their respect. Ed is truly a man of utmost character. Senator Schumer, chairman of the Administrative Oversight and the Courts Subcommittee, commented at a recent executive committee meeting that: [Ed] . . . represents the best of what we are about. He is bright and diligent and honorable. His word is his bond. . . . [Ed] has done a great job, with great distinction. He is really an admirable lesson of what public service is all about. This is one time I could not agree with Senator Schumer more. Ed is a man of honor and integrity. His intellect is unmatched. Most importantly, his commitment to fairness and getting the job done distinguishes him. He has certainly provided extraordinary assistance to me, but I believe he has enriched the entire debate on the Senate Judiciary Committee. He is indeed an extraordinary worker with a prodigious capacity to produce high-quality work, almost unbelievably so. He works long hours and is committed to producing the absolutely most accurate answer for any question we are debating. Ed has not only been a great manager of the complex issues that have passed through our committee, he also has been a good manager of the people I hired to work on the committee. His ability to lead is without question, and the respect he has garnered during his service has been expressed by those who worked closely with him. Makan Delrahim, chief counsel to Senator Hatch, comments: Ed is a close friend and an indispensable colleague. I worked with Ed when he first came to Washington and began his career as Nominations Counsel on Sen. Hatch's Judiciary staff. Our friendship has continued as he moved to serve Senator Sessions. Ed's intellect and integrity are second to none. The committee will miss him. Rita Lari Jochum, chief counsel to Senator Grassley, comments: Ed Haden is an excellent lawyer and a great American. He will be sorely missed by the Judiciary Committee. Stephen Higgins, chief counsel to Senator Kyl, comments: Ed Haden was an invaluable asset to the Judiciary Committee. He is a superb lawyer and has both a tremendous respect for the Constitution and a great love for this Republic. We will all miss him. Scott Frick, chief counsel to Senator Thurmond, comments: Ed Haden possesses a unique combination of intelligence, work ethic, and the ability to communicate his ideas clearly. These qualities have served Senator Sessions and the State of Alabama well. And in addition, he is a truly nice guy. When I first joined the Judiciary Committee staff, Ed selflessly offered his time and advice, and I remain appreciative of his willingness to lend a hand. John Abegg, Judiciary counsel to Senator McConnell, comments: Ed Haden has been an invaluable asset to the United States Senate and to its Judiciary Committee. His intellect, resourcefulness, and work ethic are recognized and respected by both sides of the aisle, as is his always courteous and modest demeanor. Ed is the embodiment of the principle that one can disagree with others, even passionately so, about the most important of matters without being personally disagreeable. He is a credit to the country, his state, and his family. Sean Woo, counsel to Senator Brownback, comments: In many ways and especially in matters dealing with judicial nominations, Ed Haden was the conscience of the Republican judiciary staff. His commitment, enthusiasm and intellect--applied with the Southern charm of an Alabamian-- will be sorely missed. Mr. President, Ed has given me and his country an extraordinary effort, and I am grateful for that, as well as his loyalty and dedication, always having my best interest in mind and not his own, never seeking credit for his great work, doing what was best for this country and Alabama. Ed is an exceedingly hard worker, a man of integrity and ability, who has dedicated himself to reaching a just result on every issue assigned to him, ranging from bankruptcy, where he was extraordinarily engaged in a most complex bit of legislation, to judicial nominations. I could not have been successful without his leadership and assistance. Ed's greatest strength, I believe, is that he has a remarkably developed and rich set of core principles that guide him in his daily work. He does not go in for flash or show, but for substance. He, to a remarkable degree, understands the glory and uniqueness of the American Government. He loves America. He works constantly to enrich her and strengthen her--especially the rule of law, which has been the foundation of this country's strength. Ed Haden is more than just an outstanding chief counsel, he is a great friend and a great American. I thank him for his service to me, to the people of Alabama, and to the people of the United States. He typifies what we so often see and too little hear about in this body-- the great work of our staffs. They give us loyalty into the night, preparing work for us so we can shine the next day before the TV cameras. I think Ed is the epitome of excellence in staff, the kind of person I have valued greatly and will miss greatly. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

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