Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would like to engage the Senator from Indiana in a brief colloquy to clarify a language provision of this legislation regarding the Brilliant Antitank, or BAT Munition in development for the U.S. Army. There have been some in DOD that have questioned whether the intent of Congress is to cancel the basic BAT procurement program for future years. I maintain this is not our intent. The BAT program is a key component of the Army's long-range fire support against threatening armored forces, but has experienced some developmental difficulties in recent months. It is clear to all of us that in fiscal year 1998, BAT is not ready for full-scale production and the committee's action eliminates the funds for production and applies them to much-needed further development. This is a move which is supported by the U.S. Army and in no way indicates a change in their requirements. Would the Senator say that my understanding is correct?

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator from South Carolina for his leadership as chairman of the Judiciary Committee and his comments earlier this afternoon. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. I do.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the position of Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights is important to our Nation. The most important reason is what it signals about the direction the President plans to take on key civil rights issues of the day. In my opinion, this Nation is moving in the right direction on civil rights. We have gone through a turbulent period where legal segregation has now been ended, and we are now ending a period during which the courts have used racial preferences and remedies to cure certain aspects of past discrimination. While this procedure can be defended perhaps in the short run, particularly when it is directly attached to a specific prior discriminatory act, such a policy cannot be a part of a permanent legal and political system. Our Supreme Court, which has led the drive to eliminate legal discrimination on a variety of fronts, is wisely taking a long-term view of the impact of racial preferences in America. After thoughtfully considering our future, the Supreme Court, in the Adarand case and in rejecting just this week the idea that California's civil rights initiative is unconstitutional and in other cases has clearly stated that this Nation must not establish a governmental system which attempts to allocate goods, services and wealth of this Nation on the basis of one's race, on the basis of the color of their skin. The result will be contrary to the equal protection clause of the great 14th amendment to our Constitution, and contrary to our goal of a unified America in which people are judged on the contents of their character and not on the color of their skin. Mr. President, with regard to the nomination of Bill Lann Lee of California to be Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, I want to say with confidence that he is a skilled and able attorney, an honest man, a man who appears to have integrity and the kind of characteristics that make for a good attorney. His entire career has been spent in skilled advocacy in the civil rights arena. He is a Columbia Law School graduate who could have practiced on Wall Street but chose public interest law instead, and he should be commended for that. Sadly, however, I must join the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Orrin Hatch, and the former chairman of that committee, Senator Thurmond, who is here tonight and just made an excellent series of comments on this issue, to announce my opposition to Mr. Lee. Simply put, Bill Lee, like President Clinton, is outside the mainstream of American civil rights law, the very laws he would be charged with enforcing. While the American people and the Federal judiciary have steadily moved toward a color-blind ideal, Bill Lee has clung to a policy of racial preferences and spoils. Bill Lann Lee strongly advocates racial and gender preferences which are, in effect, virtually quotas in virtually every area of our society, including college admissions, congressional voting districts and employment. I believe a nation that draws voting districts on the basis of race, that uses race as a factor in college admissions and hiring and promotion decisions is, in fact, destined to have unnecessary racial strife and hostility and it does not bind us together as a nation. In my opinion, it would be unwise for the Senate to confirm Mr. Lee as Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. The Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights is one of the most important law enforcement positions in the Federal Government. If confirmed, Mr. Lee would have a powerful arsenal of more than 250 lawyers at his disposal. After our hearings that I participated in and participated in his questioning, and after review of his record, I have concluded that Mr. Lee will continue to push for lawsuits, consent decrees and other legal actions that are outside the mainstream of current American legal thought. He sets the civil rights policy for the United States, and since his views are not in accord with the people, the Congress and the courts, he should not be confirmed in that position. Let me give you several examples. Last fall, the people of California, after full debate, passed proposition 209, California's civil rights initiative, which simply prohibits the State from discriminating against or granting preferences to anyone on the basis of race or gender. The very day after--he opposed that referendum--he lost that issue at the ballot box, Mr. Lee and his organization, the legal defense fund, filed suit arguing that proposition 209 was unconstitutional. This is a curious, even bizarre argument, because proposition 209 mirrors the language of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, one of the great civil rights acts that changed race relations in America. It also mirrors the 14th amendment. Even the ninth circuit, the most liberal circuit in America, unanimously rejected Mr. Lee's position. Moreover, on request for a rehearing, the full ninth circuit voted to deny a rehearing en banc. But even the most liberal circuit--it is considered the most liberal circuit in the country--rejected Mr. Lee's argument that proposition 209, passed by the people of California to eliminate racial preferences, was unconstitutional. This is what the court said: As a matter of conventional equal protection analysis -- That is the 14th amendment, the equal protection clause they are referring to---- As a matter of conventional equal protection analysis, there is simply no doubt that Proposition 209 is constitutional . . . After all, the goal of the Fourteenth Amendment to which this Nation continues to aspire, is a political system in which race no longer matters. The Fourteenth Amendment, lest we lose sight of the forest for the trees, does not require what it barely permits. That means that the 14th amendment certainly does not require quotas and preferences and it certainly, if anything, will only permit them if they meet the strict test of scrutiny. A lawsuit against proposition 209 is another example of those who, when they lose their issue at the ballot box, have taken to the habit of going to Federal courts to ask the courts to overrule the will of the people through the elected representatives or through the initiative process. At his confirmation hearing, Lee again stated his odd argument that proposition 209 is unconstitutional. As Senator Hatch said, this is not an itty-bitty issue whether or not proposition 209 is constitutional. This initiative was a good initiative, carefully drawn, fully considered by the people of California. And Mr. Lee continues to assert to this day that it is violative of the Constitution of the United States. This is not fair to California, and we should not subject this Nation to those kinds of views. Not surprising, just this week the Supreme Court of the United States rejected his position on proposition 209 when it denied certiorari. It refused to review the ruling of the California court, the ninth circuit court, and held the ninth circuit opinion intact. It is important to note, I think, for the Members of this body, that this is the position of President Clinton. He adheres to the same view about proposition 209 being unconstitutional. And his Justice Department joined the ACLU and Bill Lee's legal defense fund and filed an appeal arguing that 209 was unconstitutional. In effect, the President of the United States is asking the unelected judiciary to overrule the well-debated and well-considered initiative of the people of California. So I think it is important for this body, as we consider this nomination, to consider what kind of message we are sending when we either confirm or reject Mr. Lee. I think we need to send a message that this body stands with the people and the courts and not this strained view of proposition 209. There are a couple of other examples that I think point out the position of Mr. Lee on racial preferences that indicate that he would not be a fit nominee for this position. In recent years, the Supreme Court, in the Croson decision and the Adarand decision clearly held that racial preferences are unconstitutional. The Supreme Court now subjects all Government racial preferences to what is called strict judicial scrutiny. As you know, it is very difficult, Mr. President, for a government program to withstand strict scrutiny. At his confirmation hearing however, Mr. Lee badly mischaracterized the spirit of these cases. He stated that the Croson and Adarand decisions stand for the proposition that ``affirmative action programs are appropriate if they are conducted in a limited and measured way.'' This is not the position that the Supreme Court stated in Adarand. It greatly undermines that important decision. And it would be unwise for this body to confirm a nominee who would not faithfully follow the Adarand decision. As Senator Hatch, who chaired the committee, said so eloquently yesterday on the Senate floor, Bill Lee's description of Adarand purposely misses the mark of the Court's fundamental holding that such programs are presumptively unconstitutional. Moreover, Bill Lann Lee testified in his confirmation hearings that he was opposed personally to the holding in Adarand. I asked him what his personal view was. He said he personally opposed that ruling. Senator John Ashcroft asked Mr. Lee whether the set-aside program at issue in Adarand is unconstitutional, where a set-aside was given to a contractor simply because of their race or sex. In response, Mr. Lee noted that the Supreme Court in Adarand had remanded the case to the district court, which promptly, by the way, ruled the program unconstitutional. And in so doing, the district court stated: I find it difficult to envisage a race-based classification that is narrowly tailored. But despite the district court's strong holding, Lee, like the Clinton Department of Justice, continues to state and continues to believe that ``this program is sufficiently narrowly tailored to satisfy the strict scrutiny test.'' Mr. Lee simply refuses to accept the fact that strict scrutiny is an exceedingly difficult and high standard for a government agent to meet before it can establish racial preferences, that is, before it can give preferences to somebody for no other reason than their race. Under Mr. Lee's interpretation, all of the approximately 160 Federal racial preference programs that now exist would continue to be constitutional, although most scholars would say that under the Adarand decision, many of them, if not most of them, would fail to meet constitutional muster. So, Mr. Lee's interpretation of Croson and Adarand would make these seminal decisions virtually irrelevant. Almost any program could survive his definition of the strict scrutiny standard. Mr. President, America needs an Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights who will honestly, soberly, and accurately read and apply the law--even when he disagrees with it. Unfortunately, as his confirmation hearing and followup answers indicate, he has been unable to shed his role as an activist, a partisan civil rights litigator. If confirmed, Lee would support the constitutionality of racial preferences and use his team of some 250 lawyers to further an agenda that is not in keeping with the current state of American law. Let me talk about another example that is important for us to consider. Forced busing. Mr. Lee sued extensively over the years on issues involving busing. And once, for example, in Brown versus Califano, in 1980, a Supreme Court case, Lee challenged the constitutionality of a congressionally passed statute, passed by this Senate and the House, that prohibited the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare from requiring States to bus children for racial purposes. Of course, under the statute, States could adopt forced busing if they wanted, and the Federal courts could still order busing. The statute merely prohibited the Department of HEW from forcing States to bus children on its own motion. In his brief challenging that law, Mr. Lee stated that the congressional amendments ``demonstrate discriminatory intent to interfere with desegregation.'' Of course, that is an unfounded and unfair charge to make. Many people--I know Senator Byrd, on the other side of the aisle, had led the fight for that statute. He was not trying to undue and return to segregation. He simply was concerned, as millions of Americans have been, that the experiment with busing was not working. And he did not want the Department of Education, on its own, requiring it, and since, as years have gone by, it has been well-recognized that the experiment with busing has not achieved the goals that were intended, and is, in essence, for all practical purposes, a failure. Parents of all races oppose mandatory busing, and the law in Brown versus Califano reflected this. Again, the Federal courts rejected Lee's argument and upheld the statute. But that is just another example of where Mr. Lee has sued to implement a political agenda that he lost during the democratic process. That is, he lost it in the hearts and minds of the people and through their elected representatives. And he, therefore, sought to have the courts overturn that. In another forced busing case, Mr. Lee wrote the following in his brief. This is what he wrote: The term ``forced busing'' is a misnomer. School districts do not force children to ride a bus, but only to arrive on time at their assigned schools. I think many people feel that that is the kind of comment that shows arrogance and insensitivity to those who are concerned about children who have no way to go to school but by bus, to be told, ``Well, you don't have to ride a bus. You just have to show up at a certain school on time.'' In conclusion, Mr. President, America is at a crossroads in the civil rights debate. The American people believe overwhelmingly that government services and benefits should be administered in a color- blind fashion. As a nation we have made tremendous progress toward racial harmony, and though our work to eradicate racism is not finished and much bias and prejudice still exists in our land that we should not tolerate and should seek to eliminate, we should be proud of the great progress that has been made in the past 30 years. Mr. President, it gives me no pleasure to announce this vote against Mr. Lee. He is an admirable person, a fine lawyer. Please make no mistake, my opposition to him is in no way an attack on his integrity and character. However, his positions, particularly his tendency to file lawsuits to promote his agenda and his misreading of Supreme Court precedents, simply make him the wrong person at the wrong time to be the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Numerous scientists, including several who have testified on this issue before the Environment and Public Works Committee, have stated that the size, shape, or chemical composition of the PM that is causing the alleged adverse health effects is unknown. There are various theories-- sulfates, acids, transmetals, ultrafines--regarding the potential bad actor. During testimony before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, we learned that the EPA based its setting of the new particulate matter standard on inconclusive scientific data. In one EPA study, which attempted to show a relationship between levels of particulate matter and mortality and morbidity in Birmingham, AL, the author of the study admitted that if humidity was considered in the model, the effects of particulate matter on morbidity and mortality was statistically insignificant. Billions will need to be spent by individuals, industry, and State and local governments to meet compliance with the administration's PM2.5 standard. Unless the problem is clearly identified before control programs are implemented, there is no assurance that there will be any health benefits resulting from the new standards. In fact, the new standards themselves may bring adverse health effects as an unintended consequence caused by a lower standard of living. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that your bill addresses the lack of scientific evidence to justify the newly promulgated air quality standards. Science on this matter needs to be completed in order to obtain a clearer understanding if there is a problem and then what needs to be done to address the problem. This measure will begin the process of a strong scientific overview. I support the immediate direction for scientific research.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. With regard to that, I was, I could say, a victim. That is the way I saw it with that very type of ad late in the campaign asking people to call Jeff Sessions and say you are opposed to A, B, C, or D--to things he had done while in office. I think we can take two approaches to it. It fundamentally troubles me that the League of Conservation Voters do not feel free to run an ad and say vote against this guy just like the people who ran ads against me. Why shouldn't we just let them do it? They should have to put their name on it and say who is funding it.

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

Mr. SESSIONS. I think we have to consider the problem of trying to contain free speech in America. I really am troubled by it. I was a victim of it. I got angry at the time. Now I wonder why I should feel obliged to tell those trial lawyers and plaintiff lawyers who opposed some of my filed suits that they can't run an ad and say my ideas are wrong and I shouldn't be elected. As a matter of fact, I am troubled by that.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I join with the Senator from Wyoming in his remarks. Last year, I served as attorney general for the State of Alabama and dealt with this precise issue. There is a considerable amount of litigation going on in the country resulting and culminating from the Seminole Indian case that was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court last year. The basic problem is that under Federal gambling law, there appears to be some confusion as to whether the Secretary of the Interior can intervene in the negotiating process between States and Indian tribes with regard to the kinds of gambling that would be allowed in the State. For example, in Alabama, we have one particular Indian tribe that has three distinct parcels of land, as I recall, in various parts of Alabama. If the Secretary of the Interior were to allow the tribe to have casino gambling at any one site, they would also be able to have a casino at the other two places within Alabama. That result has been resisted very steadfastly because three major gambling casinos would, in fact, let the wall down. Casino gambling would spread throughout the State, and it would not make any difference what the people of Alabama felt about gambling or casinos in general as the casinos would be built without ever having put the matter before the people of Alabama for consideration. This is a very important national issue. It is a very important issue for those who believe gambling should not be spread and for those who believe that the growth of gambling should only occur when the people have voted on it. Allowing the Secretary of the Interior to unilaterally sanction tribal gambling is a way to get around popular elections that would allow local people and local officials to decide whether to allow or disallow gambling. So it has a real serious effect. The gambling industry has suggested repeatedly that they think if a State does not go along with their desire to have casinos on the reservations, then they could approach the Secretary of the Interior and get his permission. In fact, they have said that in Alabama for some time. As attorney general, my office researched the law governing this issue, and I came to the conclusion that the Secretary of the Interior did not have the ability to sanction tribal gambling in this manner. In fact, I wrote him a letter in June of last year which explained the legal arguments which appear to preclude him from exerting such authority. But the possibility that the Secretary does retain such authority has remained a matter of discussion among those involved in the question of the spread of gambling in America, and there are progambling forces that have suggested that the Secretary of the Interior does have that power. This amendment, I think, would simply clarify the legislative intent Congress had when it passed the Gambling Act a number of years ago. This amendment would not allow the Secretary of the Interior to override the popular will of the people in the States where tribal gambling is at issue. I think it is very good policy. I salute the Senator from Wyoming. I think he is right on point. If the Secretary of the Interior were to be inclined to attempt to assert authority in this area, we need to stop it. And if he doesn't intend to intervene and if he does not intend to assert such power, he should not be offended by this legislation because I think it merely reflects the will of this Congress. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. Mr. BROWNBACK addressed the Chair.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I am honored to have the opportunity to join Senator Hutchinson from Arkansas in support of this bill which I believe certainly answers all the objections of those who are concerned that somehow we would be cutting support for arts in America. It answers the concerns of those who believe that the National Endowment for the Arts, as shown by its own inspector general's office, has mismanaged itself, has not managed the taxpayers' money--money taken from working citizens all over America--who have entrusted it to their Government in hopes that Members of this body will appropriate it wisely and effectively to further national goals. Our bill says, all right, we can fund arts, but we want to do it a different way. We are tired of trusting that inside group, the elite corps, that has been distributing moneys, in my opinion, unfairly, for quite a number of years. It is quite an interesting fact that six cities in this Nation receive one-third of the moneys from the entire National Endowment for the Arts. This chart will reflect that and give some appreciation for this fact. The big cities, the wealthiest cities in the world, really, are the ones receiving the most money. That is because the distribution of that money is being decided by a group in Washington that is not connected to the arts communities in places all over America--whether it is Indiana, Kansas, Ohio, Alabama or Arkansas. They are not connected with those communities. So they tend to further the people they are dealing with. It has been going in drastically unfair proportions to cities that are wealthier than any cities in the world. We think that is a major factor that we ought to think about today. New York City itself received more money than 29 different States, including my State of Alabama. Madam President, 75 percent of the money, as Senator Hutchinson has pointed out, 75 percent of these moneys have gone in what may be considered a political direction. Seventy-five percent has gone to the districts of Democratic Congressmen. That, I think, should concern people, because a majority of the citizens of this country have elected their representatives to be Republicans. It is not fair that the money be distributed just to the Democrats. They made very, very poor funding decisions. They funded programs that are arcane, bureaucratic, bizarre, and often just plain silly, and not supporting funding for programs that are worthy and needy. In my hometown of Mobile, AL, we have an opera that celebrated its fiftieth anniversary a few years ago. A group of citizens who love the music and fine arts came together and formed that organization. It received a paltry $4,000 from the National Endowment for the Arts, whereas, as Senator Ashcroft so eloquently talked about yesterday, this organization gave $1,500 to a poem consisting of one word--L-I-G-H-G-H- T. I don't know what it says or what language it is but they spent that much, and we only got $4,000 for an opera that does outstanding work in our community. The opera in Mobile performs works that I think anyone can support, ``La Boheme,'' and ``Pirates of Penzance,'' one of my favorites, just last year. In ``Pirates'' I recall the great phrase, he is the very model of a modern major general, he knows all things, agricultural, chemical and mineral, but he didn't know how to fight a war. That was a good lesson. Arts do teach us. We learn from those kind of things. I am not against art. I think we can do a better job of supporting. I am willing to support arts funding. This bill represents a huge infusion of money into the arts community all over America in virtually every State. Look at this: Alabama goes from $750,000 to $1.6 million, a $900,000 increase; Alaska shows a $50,000 increase; Arizona, a $600,000 increase; Arkansas, a $770,000 increase; California, a $1 million increase; Colorado, a $97,000 increase; Connecticut, a $127,000 increase; Delaware, a $152,000 increase; Washington, DC, $1.8 million reduction. Washington, DC, has money already funded for the National Gallery of Art, the Kennedy Center, and many other activities in this community by this body. Madam President, I say that art is valuable. Good art does uplift. All of us who care about a greater America should support the arts. We should support fine arts. But just as good art uplifts, poor art can demean and undermine the qualities of a great Nation. Too often, this organization has supported art that is not healthy, ``art from the gutter,'' as has been said. Just this past year, as was demonstrated on ``Dateline'' with Jane Pauley this summer, a special on the National Endowment for the Arts showed explicit homosexual activities on the screen using a $31,000 grant by the National Endowment for the Arts. One of the reasons they say they want to remain in existence is because they helped set the standard, they are the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval. What kind of approval is that, for this Government to fund obscene and pornographic material with taxpayers' money, against and contrary to the basic and deepest decent views of the average citizen in our Nation? Madam President, 45 States will get more. Our orchestras in virtually every State will get more. Our museums will get more. Our theaters will get more. Our folk art will have more opportunities for additional funding. I submit this proposal answers all of the objections of the critics who say that we should continue to fund arts. It continues to fund arts at a greater degree than we have done before and eliminates the mismanagement that we have seen in Washington. This is a good bill. I urge all my colleagues to support it. It is time to bring to an end an agency that has abused its power, who for year after year after year has come before this body and promised to do better but does not do so. It is time to bring that agency to an end and take the taxpayers' money and spend it wisely in real support of real art all over America. Madam President, that concludes my remarks. I note that Senator Jesse Helms, who voted to end all funding for the National Endowment for the Arts, also has expressed a wish to join in as a cosponsor to this amendment. I think that should be noted for the Record. I yield the floor. Mr. DODD addressed the Chair.

Mr. SESSIONS. I say to the eloquent Senator from Connecticut, to talk about retreating from the arts, this is not the appropriate argument here. We are talking about spending more money directly for the arts. As he was talking, I did a quick look at how the State of Connecticut would fair under a block grant program, and they would go from $1,265,000 to $1,392,000, actually increase $128,000 in real moneys they can use for arts in the State of Connecticut. But I would also add, Connecticut is one of the wealthiest States, I think perhaps the wealthiest State in America. It is a State with a great tradition of arts, but I notice they received 28 grants last year totaling $1,059,000--28 grants, $1,059,000. Under our plan they would receive more money than that. But let me tell you, I represent the people of the State of Alabama, and I have had three groups representing orchestras in my State in my office. I know of the great Shakespeare theater in Montgomery. I am aware of the opera and museums in Mobile. We have a great history of arts, too, but we received only 11--not 28. We received 11 grants at only $540,000, even though we have more people in the State of Alabama paying taxes to this country than they do in the State of Connecticut. One of the real problems with this program is it has not allocated the money fairly. How can I support a program that takes money from taxpayers in Alabama to support the wealthiest States in art endeavors when we have art endeavors we are striving every day to enhance and improve? Bureaucracies have never created art. Nothing of beauty has come out of a committee. It takes the intelligence and genius of individual citizens to do it. So I say it is the wrong approach to think that we can send money to Washington, DC, and that they can somehow decide how to nourish art. That is not the way it is going to happen. Let us put that money out into the States, to the arts councils of the States, and let them look at how they can contribute the money to those budding artists who need money, to those orchestras that need just that extra amount to keep their doors open, to assist those communities that are working hard to raise money to preserve folk art. That is what we ought to be doing. I do not think there is any doubt about it. This is as clear a vote as I have ever seen in this Senate. The choice is clear. Do we send money to Washington to allow them to mismanage it and a bureaucracy to use almost 20 percent or do we send this money out to the arts councils around this Nation so they can use it to improve the operas and orchestras and museums of our States throughout our Nation? That is what we ought to do. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I understand one of the grants that was reported yesterday went to Philipps Academy, one of the most exclusive private prep schools, I think, in America. That is what I understood the reference to be. Do you think there are schools, public schools, throughout Arkansas and Alabama and other States in this Nation that would also likewise be able to make a claim for this money? And are any of those receiving any moneys from the National Endowment for the Arts in Arkansas and Alabama? In Alabama no private or public schools are receiving money as happened in the Northeast.

Mr. SESSIONS. Let me ask the Senator this, and this is something I think we failed to think enough about, Mr. President. This money that is being spent in our States, the decision of where and how to spend that money primarily is being decided by a group of people in Washington. Under this procedure not only will 45 States have more money--correct me if I am wrong--45 States will have more money, but they will also have more control and be able to make the decisions that they feel would be the best use of that money; is that correct?

Mr. SESSIONS. Whitney funding almost matched the entire funding of the State of Alabama. It is a concern. We have one of the finest Shakespeare festivals in the world. As a matter of fact, the Shakespeare theater in Montgomery is well renowned, and people have contributed very heavily of themselves. The former Postmaster General Winton Blount had gone beyond the call of duty in helping create this facility. We only got $15,000 for that premier, world-class facility that is supported substantially by the gifts of local residents. Let me ask you, if the money came to the State, would they be able if they so chose to give more money to the Shakespeare theater in Montgomery? Would they be able to do that?

Mr. SESSIONS. If the Senator from Arkansas has a minute, I would like to ask a question or two about this subject. I certainly support him in his effort. I believe it was Senator Helms yesterday who talked about substantial grants being given to Harvard University, which has an endowment of over $6 billion, I believe, and Yale University. Does the Senator know if those figures are correct? Are there universities, let me ask, in Arkansas who could use funding from the National Endowment for the Arts equally as those great universities?

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I agree with that and I support this bill wholeheartedly. I had an outstanding conversation with the three leaders and directors of three orchestras in Alabama. They are concerned about funding. They need the little funding that we do get. It helps them. They do not want to lose that. I can understand that. I asked them if we could come up with a way that will leave the bureaucracy and put more money in your hand, with more freedom to spend it as you wish, would you support that? And they said, yes, of course they would. I know some people believe and have committed themselves to supporting the National Endowment for the Arts, but the truth is it is not performing in a good and healthy way, it is not doing a good job of putting money to the arts, it is not invigorating the arts and providing leadership for an enhancement of the good and beautiful and fine in America. Too often, it is, in fact, participating in a degradation of the quality of art in America. What we need to do is make sure it is done right. I believe the people at the Alabama Arts Council, the arts councils in the other States around this country, if given the opportunity, would spend that money wisely. They would be much less likely to give it to the arcane, the pornographic, the bizarre, and the just plain silly that is so often happening today. It is just not acceptable. It is time for this body to follow through. It is time for this body, after years of begging and pleading with the National Endowment for the Arts to do a better job to manage their money better, to put an end to it and make sure that what we do actually supports the arts in an effective way. That is why I support this amendment. I am so proud of the Senator from Arkansas for his outstanding work on it, the Senator from Michigan, Senator Abraham, and the Senator from Wyoming, Senator Enzi, for their outstanding teamwork in putting this proposal together, which is a win-win situation for all America. It puts more money in the arts, and it will eliminate waste, bureaucracy, and silly funding projects. I think it is a good bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to join with my good friend from Arkansas, Senator Hutchinson in cosponsoring what I think is an outstanding amendment to the fiscal year 1998 Interior Department appropriations bill, an amendment which will do more for the arts in America than we have ever done before. Simply put, the Hutchinson/Sessions amendment will produce more diversity and quality in the arts. We need and I strongly support a healthy arts community in America. It is important and it is valuable. Madam President, I attended a liberal arts college. I believe in having quality arts to lift and improve the lives of American citizens. I think we ought to strengthen it. I encourage and salute those who contribute selflessly to the symphonies and museums and all sorts of artistic activities in their communities. This is what helps make us the great culture and Nation that we are. I want to make sure that people understand that our goal in passing this amendment is one and one goal only, to eliminate the Washington waste, bureaucracy and mismanagement while continuing to support in a very real way the arts in this country. Madam President, I oppose the systematic elitism in funding for the arts. I oppose funding of the arcane, the pornographic, the bizarre and just plain silly. I oppose funding to the politically correct crowd and I oppose the partisan funding, as the Senator from Arkansas has so eloquently pointed out. So many of these funds go for partisan reasons. We can do better with our funding process, and we have far too much money going in directions that are not healthy for America. I know everybody has a different opinion of art. There is a piece of art work in my hometown of Mobile, AL, a metal structure that is now rusted that a distinguished artist in town was recently commenting about. Someone said, ``Well, they wanted something that would attract people's attention.'' And he said, ``Well, you can hang a dead horse in the square and that will attract people's attention but it won't be art.'' Now, I know there is difference of opinion as to what art is and what we should do about it, but I feel very strongly that we can do better in managing our moneys. I am very familiar with the situation of the museum in Mobile, which wanted and sought a grant to receive funding to do art work in the foyer of their auditorium. They got the money, but they were told by the NEA that the artist had to be from New York, and by a NEA preselected artist, and she chose some art work on a burlap type of material. It stayed up for a few years and has now been removed and is currently being stored in the basement of the museum. But again, I suppose that expenditure was counted as an expenditure to Alabama when in fact it was really an expenditure to New York. So I submit to the Members of this body that we can be for the arts, but we must make sure that the moneys we spend are spent wisely on the arts. As to the National Endowment for the Arts, I say it has had its chance. Year after year after year they have come before this body, and they have faced strong criticism and questions about their mismanagement and poor funding decisions and still nothing has changed. Madam President, I submit that we can do more and that we can do better with this money. The sad fact is that the National Endowment for the Arts is captive of an artistic elitism complicated by an insider cronyism and political favoritism undermined by mismanagement and wholly without a vision to make a difference for arts in America. In fact, we have learned, as we have studied the numbers, that only 15 percent of the grants, in fiscal year 1997, by the NEA went to new groups; 85 percent of the grants are just the re-funding of the same old art programs which the NEA has funded before. The Hutchinson-Sessions amendment does more for the arts. It takes the Senate appropriations figure, $1,060,000, which has already been propounded in the bill before us today and it eliminates the Washington bureaucracy and sends all the money down to the people. It expands the money to all the regions and States in this country. I would like to show you a chart that indicates the mission statement of the NEA. The mission statement clearly states: To foster the excellence, diversity and vitality of the arts in the United States, and to broaden public access to the arts. Madam President, when you have only six cities receiving one-third of the national expenditures, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York, and Washington, DC, we are not broadening public access to the arts. And when we have one city, New York City, in fiscal year 1997 receiving more money than a total of 29 other States, including my home State of Alabama, something is wrong. The National Endowment for the Arts is not administering these grants fairly, wisely, or effectively. Madam President, these are not just my figures or some Republican agenda. NBC's ``Dateline'' with Jane Pauley on July 17, 1997, exposed these very figures. They pointed out just how disproportionate the funding is. They pointed out that the NEA provided a $31,000 grant for a film called ``Watermelon Woman'' which involved sexually explicit homosexual activities, which was paid for entirely by the American taxpayer. People say, Well, you don't believe in the first amendment, Jeff. You don't respect freedom of the arts. I respect the freedom of the arts. I respect the first amendment. I am an attorney, and I believe very deeply in the first amendment, but I must say I don't think the hard-working taxpayers of Alabama, who are getting drastically shortchanged in this funding process, ought to be required to fund things that simply offend their sense of decency and their standards of ethics and faith. It is just not the kind of thing we ought to do, and we have every right as representatives of the people to come before this body and demand that governmental agencies adhere to proper standards and spend their money wisely and effectively. And when they do not, we have every right to abolish those agencies and shift that money in a way which will improve the livelihood of the people. NBC's ``Dateline'' talked about the Whitney Museum in New York, which has a $30 million endowment, receiving a $400,000 NEA grant last year. That is nearly as much money as the entire State of Alabama received last year from the National Endowment for the Arts, and I am also offended by Chairman Jane Alexander's suggestion that artistic endeavors only appear in certain select areas of the country. The distinguished Senator from Montana, Senator Baucus, discussed the Shakespeare in the Park festival in his home State of Montana. I would just point out to the Senator, that under this amendment, as we propose it, the State of Montana would receive a $165,000 increase in funding. If Alabama only had 8 or 10 projects approved by the NEA--Montana with less people probably has about the same number--that would be $16,000 additional for each grant recipient in the State of Montana under our amendment. State after State after State shows benefits and funding increased under our proposal. Over 12 or more States receive twice as much funding. States like Michigan, Alabama, Florida, Indiana receive twice as much funding under the Hutchinson-Sessions amendment as under the present NEA formula for distributing grants. This is an outrage, I submit, in the that way we have allowed for this funding formula to continue. Madam President, our amendment will eliminate unnecessary bureaucratic spending. It eliminates the arcane, pornographic, bizarre, and just plain silly projects that are being funded by the National Endowment for the Arts. It ends the political favoritism that is being uncovered, which clearly shows that we are not spending the money in an effective way. So this, I submit to the Members of this body, is a very important vote. We have the opportunity today without any increase in taxes, to provide a historic infusion of funds to local artists in every State across this country. It is critical that we send the money to the States where they can wisely and effectively spend it. Madam President, if the money is sent directly to my home State of Alabama, the Alabama Shakespeare Festival in Montgomery, one of the finest facilities in the world--a facility which Sir Anthony Hopkins referred to as the finest Shakespeare facility he has ever performed at--would receive more than the $15,000 they received last year from the National Endowment for the Arts. Madam President, I feel very strongly about this amendment. I salute my colleague from Arkansas, Mr. Hutchinson, for the hard work he has put into it, and I am honored to be an original cosponsor of it. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. As under the previous order, on Monday, the Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 2107, the Interior appropriations bill, as announced. No rollcall votes will occur during Monday's session. Any votes ordered on amendments to H.R. 2107 will be set aside, to occur at a time to be determined by the majority leader. It is our hope that the Senate will conclude debate on the Interior bill by Tuesday. Therefore, Members are encouraged to contact the managers of the bill to schedule floor action on any possible amendments. As Members are aware, this is the next-to-last appropriations bill remaining for Senate consideration; the last being the District of Columbia appropriations. Therefore, Members' cooperation is appreciated in the scheduling of floor action as we attempt to conclude action on both the Interior appropriations bill and the District of Columbia appropriations bill next week. As a reminder to all Members, there will be no rollcall votes on Monday, and the next rollcall vote will be a cloture vote on the substitute amendment to S. 830, the FDA reform bill, which will occur on Tuesday at 10 a.m., under rule XXII. All first-degree amendments to S. 830 must be filed by 1 p.m. on Monday. I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that the Record remain open until 3 p.m. for the introduction of legislation and statements.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 12 noon on Monday, September 15; in addition, on Monday, following the prayer, the Senate immediately resume consideration of H.R. 2107, the Interior appropriations bill.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. The Senator from Kentucky has it correct. The fees we are talking about in this case would be the largest fees in the history of the world.

Mr. SESSIONS. The Senator is correct.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, precisely on the question he raised, this amendment that I have presented, that has been passed by a large vote, without objection that I heard, maybe a few--says that it would only include States involved in the national tobacco settlement agreement. My view is, if Minnesota wants to opt out of this deal, maybe they ought to be treated separately. But for the 49 other States who are in it, who have asked for this review and legislation by Congress, I think it is absolutely critical that we deal with attorney's fees. I repeat, I have sought on multiple occasions, and other Senators have, to find out what the agreements are that they have with these attorneys. They are hiding those agreements. They have been very secret about it. It's a secret agreement between plaintiffs' attorneys representing the States and the tobacco industry. And only today has the Senator from Minnesota indicated that they have a 20-percent contingency fee. That means that whatever recovery Minnesota has of all these billions that we are looking for and hope that we can recover, of all those billions, 20 percent of it will go to attorneys. They talk about a lot of records and documents. I have been involved in litigation. People always talk about records. But you have paralegals, you have clerks, you have statisticians to go through those documents. They don't have to be read by every attorney involved in the case. So I would say what really exacerbates this problem and makes it so critical is the fact that the tobacco companies, early on, agreed to this settlement. Therefore, a lot of attorneys general entered into contracts, maybe thinking it would be prolonged litigation and these fees might be justified, but now they find out that the money is already on the table and we have to work out an agreement to collect it. Attorneys do not have to justify these huge billion-dollar fees we are hearing talked about. These are reasonable fees, $250 an hour, $5 million per State in attorney's fees. That is reasonable and fair. I think generous, in fact. I believe that this body needs to send a message, for those people who think they can execute secret side agreements at the expense of the people they are supposed to be representing to divert $14 billion, $40 billion, $60 billion, $100 billion from health care for children and families and tobacco victims--taking that money and putting it in their pockets is not a good way for this Government to be run. I feel very strongly about this. Unfortunately, the Senator from Minnesota chose not to limit his amendment to the situation in Minnesota but to apply it throughout the Nation, which in effect preserves the prerogative of the plaintiff lawyers to make themselves rich off of this settlement. Therefore I must oppose it.