Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I understand the Senator from Illinois would like to speak on this subject. First, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Voinovich be added as a cosponsor to S. 1751, the Class Action Fairness Act.

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senators for their comments. I fail, but I attempt to take my faith seriously. I respect followers of the Islamic faith who take their faith seriously, who study the scriptures and act in accordance therewith. We may disagree, but we respect one another. That is the way I was raised as an American, to respect one another's faith. I think respect for one another's faith makes me somewhat sympathetic to General Boykin, who goes to a church and shares some of his insights and beliefs. But then again he is an officer of the United States and has a position in a time of conflict, in a sensitive period, and maybe at one point apparently he may have worn the uniform while he made those remarks. I think it is appropriate for us to take some time out and look at this. I thank the chairman for that. Madam President, we are now to undertake and begin debate on the motion to proceed to the Class Action Fairness bill, S. 1751. Unfortunately, we are seeing a trend in which there are more and more pieces of legislation that deserve an up-or-down vote being subjected to a filibuster and 60-vote procedural hurdles. That is unfortunate. We should proceed with this legislation and discuss it and not be obstructive about going forward with it. The Class Action Fairness Act represents modest reform. It is a restrained bill that will address a number of very serious problems with the current status of class action lawsuits such as the plaintiff receiving coupons while trial lawyers pocket millions of dollars in fees. This body has a duty to address problems with the legal system. It is something we are required to do and should not have to overcome 60-vote hurdles. I am disappointed we may have to overcome another filibuster as we move forward. Obstructionism is always available, but I don't believe there is strong opposition to this bill. There is bipartisan support. If we let the debate go forward and people honestly consider whether it ought to be law or not, we would be willing to accept an up-or-down vote. That is a concern I express. The distinguished Senator from Delaware is here. He is very thoughtful on these matters. I know he would like to speak for approximately 15 minutes. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. Would 5 minutes be sufficient? I am pleased to yield to the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. SESSIONS. I think it would be good for all of us to think a bit about the subject and what would be appropriate to ask of an officer in a church proceeding and whether uniforms make a difference and those kinds of things. I was going to speak about the class action reform. Did the Senator from Illinois have some comments?

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I want to express my appreciation for the thoughtfulness of Senator Warner. He has served his country for many years as a marine, a naval officer, as a Secretary of the Navy, and now the Senate chairman of the Armed Services Committee. I know he takes this issue very seriously. I do believe this officer should be entitled to a hearing, have an inspector general look at these very delicate matters. When we talk about people's personal religious beliefs as to whether one theology is valid and another one is not, we wouldn't expect a person of the Islamic faith to ratify the Christian faith or other faiths to say they validate the faith of someone else. That is just the way we see things, as we deal with matters of personal faith. But I think it is a delicate matter, particularly when a person is in uniform. I think going forward with a look at this and some thoughtful analysis as to what would be the right procedure would be appropriate. I thank our chairman of the Armed Services Committee for his comments.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, today I recognize the life and career of one of Alabama's musical legends, the great jazz singer Lil Greenwood. Lil Greenwood is a living legend. She was born on November 18, 1923, as the youngest daughter of the late Maggie and Reverend Sylvester George, Sr. It was at her father's side, at the age of 3, that she began to sing in the church that he served. A native of Prichard, AL she grew up in Mobile County and graduated from Alabama State College. Her talents were evident to all those who knew her. In fact, it was the encouragement and support she received from the Mobile County Schools Music Supervisor that fanned the flame of ambition within her, and it was a generous gift of bus fare from a former principal that allowed her to head to Oakland, CA to follow her dream. It was in California that Lil Greenwood was to be ``discovered.'' During a performance at the famed Purple Onion in San Francisco, she was heard by no less than the legendary Duke Ellington. Needless to say, the Duke was suitably impressed. After hearing her sing, he commented that ``the girl has a voice that's a mixture of Marian Anderson, Ella Fitzgerald, Dinah Washington, and Mahalia Jackson.'' These women were the embodiments of jazz and blues singing, and it is inconceivable that a greater compliment could have been paid. Recently, my home State of Alabama passed a proclamation honoring Ms. Greenwood for her personal and professional accomplishments. In honor of her upcoming 80th birthday, I would like to take this opportunity to read that proclamation into the Congressional Record. The Proclamation reads as follows: Whereas, born Lillian George on November 18, 1923, a native of Prichard, Alabama in Mobile county and affectionately and professionally known as Lil Greenwood; and Whereas, Lil received her grade-school education in Mobile County and graduated from Alabama state college; and Whereas, she made her master-level vocal recording as early as 1950 and on such recording labels as Modern, Federal, Tangerine, and Columbia Records and also backed Ray Charles on Paramount Records; and Whereas, Lil Greenwood was the featured vocalist with The Duke Ellington Orchestra and co-authored with Duke Ellington and Billy Strayhorn. She has performed in many places around the world, including the Far East and Europe. She has also performed at many famous spots stateside including, The Blue Note in Chicago, the Apollo in New York and in the San Francisco Bay-Area and Oakland; and Whereas, she has appeared on numerous television shows including ``The Tonight Show'', with Johnny Carson, ``Good Times,'' ``The Jeffersons,'' ``The Flip Wilson Show,'' and ``Grady'' and on stage she has portrayed major characters in such musicals as ``Hello Dolly,'' ``My People,'' ``Buffalo Chips,'' ``Wedding Band,'' ``Back Alley Tales'' and ``Dark Symphony''; and Whereas, Lil Greenwood returned home and remains an active and revered jazz singer in Alabama and has been inducted into the Gulf Coast Ethnic and Heritage Jazz Festival Hall of Fame: Now, therefore, I, Bob Riley, Governor of the State of Alabama, do hereby proclaim July 28, 2003, as Lil Greenwood Day in the State of Alabama and encourage the citizens of Alabama to show their support. As is obvious by the proclamation issued by the Governor of Alabama, Lil Greenwood has lived a life where her gifts have brought and still continue to bring joy to a great many people. It is only appropriate that we take the occasion of her upcoming birthday to recognize her for her contributions.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Chair and will just conclude by saying I believe the amendment should not be adopted. We ought to make this a grant. Let's go forward, stabilize this country, and bring our soldiers home. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens, and appreciate his leadership in this matter. He has been in this body a long time. He has served his country in the military, and I think he sized up this matter quite correctly. We are at war. I was at the Walter Reed Hospital a couple of weeks ago, meeting soldiers who served in Iraq. They have been wounded, some seriously. Most who I met were getting better. They were great in spirit and were most impressive young people. We are in a war. We have an $87 billion request, and $67 billion of that is going to be to fund our military at $4 billion a month. Twenty billion dollars is what has been set aside for infrastructure. My goal, and I believe the goal of this country, is to stabilize Iraq, create a healthy environment as best we can, and to continue to draw down our troops in a rapid way; get out and come home. The $20 billion gives us the best chance to do that. That means we need money for police. When I visited Iraq in August, I went to observe the police training. I wanted to do that because I was a Federal prosecutor for a number of years and I wanted to see how they were doing. They are doing very well. They are being targeted now because they are doing so well. We need money to get electricity. Electricity needs to be on in Baghdad. When we get the electricity on, that country is going to be better off. It is going to be more stable and there is going to be less violence. That is what the infrastructure money does. I do not see how this President can ask other countries to not try to collect on debts they have to the Saddam Hussein regime if he is asking that the money we put in for this infrastructure be classified as a debt. I just do not believe that is good policy for him. I think it is going to complicate matters in many different ways. Secretary of State Colin Powell indicated those ways to us recently. The entire administration, the Vice President, those who dealt with this issue so closely, are passionately of the belief it would be a colossal error for us to try to put a mortgage on Iraq in order to get paid back for half, I guess, now of the money we are providing to improve the infrastructure in that country. It does not make good sense to me. I think the right thing to do is for us to step forward as we are doing, be bold and courageous, complete this job, improve the infrastructure, establish a police force that has ability and integrity, a security force that can protect areas of the country that are at risk, and bring on an Iraqi Army. I visited the training camps for the Iraqi Army. We have the potential to do even more than we are doing, in bringing on those troops even more rapidly than we are doing. If we spend that money for that purpose, I believe this country can be in a position to continue to draw down our troops. We had 250,000 troops at the peak of this effort. We are now down to 138,000. I see no reason that number cannot continue to go down. Whole areas of the country are doing very well. We have to be pleased with what has happened in Mosul in the north, where the 101st and General Petraus have done so well; Kirkuk in the south. Basra is doing exceedingly well. We have seen reports recently of the economic vitality on the streets of the country. I believe it is just a big mistake for us to try to now come in and worry about whether this ought to be a loan. I don't take a back seat to anybody in this Senate on trying to preserve the taxpayers' money. In fact, most of the people I hear who want to make this a loan and are so worried about collecting this money back have not been counted on a lot of tough votes on spending when we have had some real challenges here, to contain the growth in spending. So it is painful to me to think about $67 billion, $87 billion to be spent there. But we made a commitment. This Senate voted over three- fourths to support this effort. We had no doubt when we entered this effort that it was going to be costly. In fact, we have to be pleased the war went better than we could ever have expected it to go. It went faster.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I have given a lot of thought to this, and I believe that we should not pass the Reed amendment at this time. I have spoken with General Schoomaker, Chief of Staff of the Army on this subject. He says: Give me time to study what we need, to study transformation, to review our MOS structure, and then I will make a recommendation. General Abizaid also clearly says that we do not need more troops in Iraq. We are beginning to reduce our troop presence in Iraq. We are presently at 138,000 down from 250,000. CBO has said increasing our end-strength is not an answer to current stress. It will take 2 years to get the troops proposed in this amendment trained and fielded. I urge us not to go forward with this amendment.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Friday, October 3, 2003, at 9:30 a.m., in closed session, to receive a briefing on the interim report on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, at the request of other Senators, I object.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be permitted to speak for up to 15 minutes in morning business.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I will discuss this morning a very important issue of legal reform that is needed in the United States. I have been a practicing lawyer for most of my adult life and have litigated in quite a number of different forums. I believe in the legal system. It is critical for America's vitality. There is no doubt in my mind the strength of this American democracy, the power of our economy, our ability to maintain freedom and progress is directly dependent on the superb legal system of which we are a part. We have a magnificent number of lawyers around this country. Some have been criticized, and rightly so, but for the most part they are good, aggressive attorneys utilizing the laws that are available. This Congress passes laws involving litigation in America. It is incumbent upon us as the years and centuries go by to periodically review what is happening in our courts. We ask ourselves, are the results that are occurring effective? Are they furthering our national policy, correcting wrongs, punishing wrongdoers, generating compensation for those who suffer losses in a fair and objective way? Anyone who knows much about the system today knows there are some problems. Lawyers are utilizing principles of law that enhance the problem. There are court decisions that allow them to go further than they have before. As a result, everyone is paying huge amounts of money for insurance. Americans buy a homeowner's policy with an umbrella in case someone sues them. Americans in business review their insurance and liability policies on a regular basis, frequently calling insurance companies and asking for more coverage, more protection. Without even asking for more coverage and more protection, the rates are going up all over America. One matter we need to talk about and act on is class action lawsuits. A bill to reform class action lawsuits has been considered for a number of years in this body. It was considered in the Senate Judiciary Committee of which I am a member. After several years of discussion we voted it out this year by a 12-7 vote, a bipartisan vote. Several Democrats and all Republicans voted for it. It is a bill that is responsible. It is restrained. It will do the job in many of the cases where abuses are occurring. It is the right thing to do. It can help balance the scales a bit in litigation. It will help fulfill the responsibility of this Congress to monitor how our laws are working in the real world. As a result, we can fix the problems out there. What is a class action? A class action is a litigation filed by a plaintiff's attorney on behalf of not just one alleged wrong person, but on a class or a group. The lawyer files the case in a court against a defendant, or maybe more than one defendant, on behalf of a large group of plaintiffs who he alleges suffered similar losses and therefore the case should be tried in one forum, a verdict rendered, and each plaintiff then told what they ought to get as compensation for the losses they have incurred. A class action is good. Some people have been so upset about class action abuses they think we ought to throw the baby out with the bath water. That is not true. A good class action is good for everyone. For example, if a national company made a defective product and shipped it all over America and they were negligent in doing so, they ought to be responsible for the damages that product has caused in America. For every person, maybe hundreds of thousands, even millions to file a lawsuit in every circuit court in America makes no sense. We have a vehicle by which it can be brought in a single court, and it can go forward from that point. Where can you file? You can file, amazingly, in almost any venue in America. The plaintiff can search this country over to select the single most favorable forum for his lawsuit and the single most favorable district in America. That is a lot to choose from. That is one of the problems we have with class actions. There are a number of other problems. Lawyers are alert to this. Some specialize in this kind of litigation. They identify something they think is wrong. Maybe no victim has even complained about it. They identify the victim and talk them into filing the lawsuit. They pay little attention to the plaintiff they name as the lead plaintiff in a lawsuit. I know of one case in Alabama where the defendant died, and was dead for quite some time, and the lawsuit just went right on as if nothing had ever happened. There was not even a named plaintiff living as the central plaintiff in the lawsuit. But that points out to me that the case becomes, after a period of time, driven by the plaintiff's lawyer and driven by the interests of the defendant. And if it is filed in a smaller rural circuit court, the judge could be overwhelmed with a huge amount of litigation and want it off his docket. So really the abuse occurs like this: The plaintiff is in a situation where each victim is only entitled to a little bit of money. I will talk about some of those cases in a little bit as to what kind of verdicts get rendered. So they get a little bit for 200,000 plaintiffs, and then they get their fee--multimillion-dollar fees. The judge is happy because this case could have gone on for years and clogged up his busy circuit court docket in rural Illinois or Alabama or Texas. He is glad to have it gone. The defendant wants the case gone. The defendant has no responsibility to the individual plaintiffs in the class. The defendant wants the case gone. So what does he do? He will agree to pay the attorneys very high fees and the plaintiffs themselves small amounts of compensation to get rid of the case. And it goes off the docket which is completely wiped clean. So there are some problems that are out there, and it is not healthy. We have had a string of those cases that have occurred around the country that have not been becoming of the legal system. The lawyers' primary interest should be to their clients. Courts should have a primary interest in seeing that justice is done. Defendants ought to pay for what they are required to pay and the losses that have occurred. But defendants ought not to be intimidated or coerced or extorted really by the threat of a major lawsuit going on for years in which their company is abused and abused in court for some minor wrong they are willing to pay to correct and willing to compensate the victims for. So they are in court, and they are willing to pay. They want to fix it, but, no, no, that is not enough. They want punitive damages and more litigation time. And just to get rid of it, defendants agree to pay, and they agree to compensate. Oftentimes--and there are quite a number of cases that show this--the lawyers are the ones who really get the compensation, and not the victims. In many of the cases, the liability is very dubious, but the companies feel obliged to pay something to get out of the lawsuit, anyway. The damages are very speculative. Sometimes damages have never even really been proven. I want to mention one more thing about the venue. Let's assume a major automobile company designed an automobile--and they have had cases of this kind--and the seatbelt is defective, and maybe it poses a risk or maybe, when you put it on, it bruises your hand and causes a blister or otherwise is designed in a way that is not as fine as it should have been designed. Let's say someone wants to file a lawsuit against one of the major manufacturers in Detroit. They do not have to file that lawsuit in Detroit. They can go all over America and find somebody who was damaged by that seatbelt. And there will be that kind of vehicle in every county in America, no doubt about it. They can go to counties in which there is only one sitting circuit judge who they happen to know who perhaps is favorable to plaintiffs' cases. They can pick the county in America they think has the most favorable jury for these kinds of cases, and they can then file their suit there and begin this kind of action we have seen here. Not only can they do that, they do that. There is a county, I believe in southern Illinois, where routinely cases of this kind are chosen to be filed out of the whole United States because they believe it is favorable. The same has been true-- ``60 Minutes,'' I believe, or one of the shows on television has shown this to have occurred in Mississippi. They named the county and interviewed the people there, and they talked about the verdicts that are rendered there. And it is not healthy. They have done it in Alabama, my home State. We passed some tort reform, and Alabama laws have improved, but there are still cases being filed there and in other States. They choose the most favorable forum. This is not what our Founders had in mind. Let me read from the Constitution, the part of the Constitution that is relevant to this issue. It is article III, section 2, dealing with the courts. It talks about the power of the Federal courts and what their jurisdiction is. It says: The judicial Power [of the United States] shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, . . . And it goes on to say: to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States; . . . Now our Founding Fathers had thought about this issue, and the issue is: If you have a lawsuit filed between a person from Alabama and a defendant from Massachusetts, maybe at the time of the founding of our country and even to this very day, the person in Massachusetts might not be comfortable having his case tried in Alabama or vice versa. So they say: What do you do if you have a lawsuit between two States? The home-State plaintiff, for example, can choose the forum. He can have a friendly court. Maybe he knows all the jurors on the jury in the jury box. Maybe the judge goes to church with him. Maybe they are best friends and play golf together. And he is going to sue a fellow way off there, who has a lot of money, and he will just have a little friendly help for his local constituents. That is what the Founding Fathers thought about. In football we call it home cooking, or in baseball, if you get adverse opinions by the umpire against a visiting team. So it is home cooking. They prevented that. They put it in the Constitution. They would go to Federal court where judges are not elected judges but they are lifetime-appointed judges. Any appeal from their ruling goes to the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, DC. Why? Because that would be a more objective, fair forum. Now, good and clever plaintiff lawyers have learned if they sue General Motors or Ford or Chrysler, who are headquartered maybe in Detroit, on behalf of an Alabama or an Illinois citizen--then that case is going to be in Federal court, right? That is what the Constitution says--but, no, they will also add the local Ford dealership in Illinois or Alabama or Mississippi or Colorado, wherever they file the lawsuit that they choose is the best place. They will name one defendant, at least, who is in that same State, and it breaks diversity under case law, and the case gets tried in the local State. So the principle there is important. In a case involving a class action, in which you are involving hundreds of thousands of plaintiffs all over America in every State in America, and the prime defendant, the central, responsible defendant is an out-of-State corporation, our Founding Fathers, I have no doubt, believed that should be in Federal court. So I say to my friends who are concerned about federalizing litigation--and they believe States ought to be able to set their own rules for litigation--I really, truly say to you, this is not one of those cases in which the Federal Government is taking over things they should not take over. The Constitution contemplated those kinds of cases would be in Federal court, where you have a lifetime-appointed Federal judge, whose appeal will be to a court of appeals of a whole region, and whose final appeal will be to the United States Supreme Court, the Court that sits over the entire country. So that is why I think we have had so much success in gaining support for this reform. I believe we can do that. And for a whole lot of reasons, under the Federal laws we are able to pass, and under the leadership or jurisdiction of a Federal judge, we will have far fewer bad verdicts. We will reduce the ability of the plaintiff to choose the most favorable forum in the whole United States in which to file a lawsuit. Let me mention to you some of the cases. There are a lot of them that have been out there that caused difficulties and have caused an uproar and a concern. The Toshiba case, Shaw versus Toshiba Information Systems, was a class action filed in Texas complaining of an entirely theoretical defect in the floppy disk controllers of Toshiba laptops. They are sold all over America. Why did they choose a county in Texas to file a lawsuit? They were able to do that in a State court, even though the asserted defect had never resulted in injury to any user of the defendant's product. Not a single one of the customers had ever reported a problem due to this defect. Facing a potential liability of $10 billion, what the plaintiffs claimed, Toshiba felt they needed to settle the claim, and they did. This was the result: The class members received between $200 and $400. In cash? No; $200 and $400 off any future purchases they may make from Toshiba. They received no compensation. The two named plaintiffs in the lawsuit, individuals who bought this Toshiba laptop, received $25,000 each. And the attorneys, what did they receive? One hundred forty-seven point five million dollars. Tell me that is legitimate. Not so. Here is one with Blockbuster. A class action suit was filed in Texas--another Texas case--which alleged Blockbuster had unfairly charged for overdue movie rentals. They had overcharged people when they were late turning in their video rentals. They were faced with 23 lawsuits in 13 other jurisdictions around the country. This was a class action lawsuit. They decided they better settle the case. In the settlement, the trial lawyers received $9.25 million in fees and expenses. The individual plaintiffs who were alleged to have been wronged received two free movie rentals and $1 off coupons for future movie rentals. They got nothing, no money paid out of pocket directly of the $9.25 million. I suspect some of those plaintiffs didn't even know they were being named as a plaintiff in the case. They got a $1 coupon, threw it in the trash can, just like you throw them in the trash can that come out of your newspaper. You don't have time to fool with them. Here is one with Sony Pictures. Typical of how these things can develop. In advertising for their films, Sony wrongfully created a fictional film reviewer. This fictional film reviewer fabricated some quotes. Despite Sony's numerous apologies and offer to pay $350,000 to settle the inquiry by a State attorney, a class action was filed. Sony was willing to pay. They knew they had messed up. They were willing to pay. That is so often the case in these matters. The lawyers then went out and found two moviegoers to head the class of plaintiffs. They claimed they were jousted into seeing ``A Knight's Tale,'' the movie, by ads quoting this fictional reviewer calling the films lead actor the year's hottest new star. It was all bogus, which most of us know those ads are bogus anyway. The attorney originally sought refunds on the ticket prices but later demanded $4.5 million to settle the case. There is a host of other cases. I could go on. Aetna, a Federal judge awarded $24 million in attorney's fees out of an $82 million settlement in a class action against Aetna. There was one against Golf Digest, Cell Phones. The Bank of Boston case, which involved my State of Alabama, was pretty egregious also. A class action was filed by a Chicago attorney against the Bank of Boston, and they decided to file it in Mobile County, AL. That is odd, is it not? The case alleged that the bank did not promptly post interest to real estate escrow accounts. The settlement limited the maximum recovery for the class members to $9. After the State approved the settlement, the bank disbursed more than $8 million to the class action attorney in legal fees, and credited most of the accounts of the victims with paltry sums. The legal fees, equal to 5.3 percent of the balance in each account, were debited to those accounts. So the attorney's legal fees were taken out of the bank accounts of the class victims. A lot of these people did not even know a class action had been filed, let alone that they owed an attorney a fee for the $9 in recovery he had received for them. What is even worse is that for a number of accounts, the debit to their account exceeded the credit they obtained in the settlement, meaning that the attorney's fees that came out of their account exceeded the $9 benefit they had received from the class action settlement. For example, Dexter Kamowitz of Maine, who did not initiate the lawsuit against the Bank of Boston and probably knew little about it, received a credit of $2.19 under the class action settlement. At the same time the class action attorney debited his account for $91.33 for legal fees, producing a net loss of $89.14. Such results, as might be expected, produced outrage from class members in other States around the country. Judge Frank Easterbrook, Circuit Judge of the Seventh Circuit, asked this question: What right does Alabama have to instruct financial institutions headquartered in Florida to debit the account of citizens in Maine and other States? That is a good question. How can a circuit court in Alabama order a bank headquartered in Florida to debit the account of a victim in Maine? That is bizarre. That is the kind of thing we are dealing with. This bill has received great scrutiny. It is not going to end class actions. It is going to end the abuses of class actions. It will take only the biggest, clearly interstate cases of class actions. It will allow them to be tried before a more neutral forum of a Federal court. It will provide some controls in the way these cases are handled, the way attorney's fees are set. It will control the abuses of coupon-type settlements. It will do a lot of things that are very healthy and proper and appropriate and overdue. That is what we need to do in this matter. Class actions will continue. They can continue in State court, if it is primarily a State class. They can continue in Federal court, if it is primarily a Federal class. That is the right thing for us to do. We need to bring it up in the Senate before this session is over. If we do that, we will have served our constituents well. We will have monitored the legal system that we set up, control, and regulate by the laws we pass. We will have responded to abuses and created a system that is fair and more just for the plaintiffs, the defendants, and the particular plan. I thank the Chair, and yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I want to share a few thoughts. I will probably talk about it next week on the supplemental for our activities in Iraq. I congratulate and will be forthright in my support for the military men and women who are serving so extraordinarily well and Ambassador Bremer for his leadership in an effort to create a new government in Iraq where the people can live and progress and have the benefits of progress that have been denied them for so long. I am exceedingly pleased with what they are doing. They are operating at risk, particularly in certain areas of Iraq--at less risk in other areas. Progress continues to be made throughout the country. I am proud of that. I was a Federal prosecutor and attorney general of Alabama. I served in law enforcement for over 15 years. I went to Iraq in August and asked specifically to visit the Iraqi police training center, which I was allowed to do. From the beginning of this effort, it was clear to me that the key to a prosperous and healthy and stable and peaceful Iraq is the bringing on of a capable police force. It is not as easy as you would think. The Iraqi police were functionaries under Saddam Hussein. He had a tough secret police that did the heavy, vicious work, and he had other police who were poorly trained, and many of them not functioning at the level at which we would expect police in the United States to function. So it is not an easy thing. Originally the plan was to bring on a smaller police force. I urged them to go to a larger police force, and they certainly are doing that. We now have 35,000 police up and operating in Iraq. These are Iraqis. The goal is going to be to double, or more, that number. We also have plans to bring on an Iraqi Army, which is exactly the right thing. Our numbers were smaller but now we are looking to have a 40,000-person army. We could go more. I would have thought at first glance that we would have a larger army. But the truth is, Iraq is not subject and not expecting and we should not worry too much about an invasion of Iraq. What we have in Iraq is a suppression of pure and simple crime--criminals, thugs, gang members, and that sort of thing. We have the remnants of a Baathist regime that is attempting to sabotage a new and free government in the hopes they can at some point in the future recapture control of Iraq. Then we have Islamic extremists, not out of the heart of Islam but this extremist element that is slipping into the country and participating. So this is quite a different thing than what normally an army would confront. These comments are relevant because a large part of the supplemental that the President has asked for has been for the training of police and security forces. The administration, Ambassador Bremer also plans to bring on a substantial number of security forces. Those would protect sites such as the oil companies or the electricity or the water companies that may be subject to sabotage and may require a different kind of training; maybe less training. I point out these officers are being paid less than $100 per month. And I suppose for the most part they pay their own food, rent, and that kind of thing. But in salary alone, we could hire 20 Iraqi police officers for the cost of one American soldier there on salary, not counting the support group that has to keep that soldier there, not counting the food they have or the retirement benefits or any of those things. So we can probably do 30 or 40, maybe 50 Iraqi soldiers for the cost of 1 American soldier. The price, as I understand the salaries for the soldiers and police, are not a lot different, and run, generally, under $100 a month. This is the right way to go. I had the opportunity when I visited in Iraq in August to go to the base, the operating base of a military police unit from my home State of Alabama. They were first rate. Over half of them were police officers in the State, patrolling State Troopers and sheriff's deputies and others. They have real-world experience. They told me they were patrolling with Iraqi police officers on a daily basis. They go to the Iraqi police station, they buddy up, and go out and patrol in that fashion. That is precisely what we need to see more of. There are a lot of reasons for that. Our soldiers, the mere presence of them, sends a clear message that we will not allow any organized group to assume control or domination over any area of Iraq. Really, they are not good police officers because they can't speak the language. They may be some of the best police officers in Alabama or anyplace in the country, and they may have been trained going through the FBI Academy. But if you can't speak the language, you really can't be as effective as you would like to be. What they are effective at is encouraging and strengthening the local Iraqi police officers. They are good at training them, showing them how to keep records and how to maintain intelligence. They can provide integrity, courage, and a sense of consciousness that we are going to be with those Iraqi police officers who stand for a new Iraq, who put on that uniform, and who go out on patrols in neighborhoods where people know them and their families. If they will show that courage and step out there and do the job, they can be successful and create a country that would be quite different than they have had before. I know that can happen. I am really convinced that can happen. I am pleased that this supplemental has a good deal of money for that. Some Members complain, well, we don't mind helping our American soldiers over there, but we don't want to spend our money on infrastructure or police training. By the way, the infrastructure money includes training for police and soldiers and for deployment of police and soldiers. I think that is wrong. What we know is this: We know we are spending almost $4 billion a month to sustain our military forces there at some risk. There is no doubt about it. We have lost 90 soldiers since May 1. I suppose it has been 120 days since that time. It is very disturbing. I went by Walter Reed the weekend before last. I talked to soldiers who lost limbs, who had been injured and are rehabilitating. Their spirit was terrific. But it does not cause you to lose appreciation. It causes you to increase appreciation for them. I know the Senator from Texas has lost soldiers from Texas. We have lost 10 soldiers from my home State of Alabama since this war began. I have had the burden of calling families to express my personal sympathy and the sympathy on behalf of our country for their service. What do we do here? People say let us support our troops. Let us make sure they have the money, but we want to attack this extra money. It is $60 billion of this $87 billion for soldiers and maintaining our military presence. It is $20 billion for reconstruction, which includes bringing on a military and a police force. I am going to tell you frankly what my view is. I believe we need to help this country create a new country, one that provides opportunities for all Iraqis to succeed. Dr. Chalabi was the president last month of the council. They rotate. He was here this past week. I note that some have criticized Dr. Chalabi here and there. But he has been very effective as a leader over there, it appears to me. He is outspoken and brilliant. He went to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He majored in mathematics. He went to the University of Chicago and got his Ph.D. in mathematics. He was dean of the American University School in Beirut, Lebanon. He spent 4 years living with the Kurds in northern Iraq as he helped to participate in the effort to overthrow the evil regime of Saddam Hussein. He was sharing his vision of how they have already passed laws to allow economic progress to occur. They have already passed rules that would break down the racial traditions. He said they had a law. Saddam Hussein went back to determine racial ancestries to the fifth generation and completely wiped them out. People are going to be given a chance no matter what background or religion or ethnic group they are from to progress. It is exciting to hear people who have been there talk about it. The key to it is going to be the police. One Senator said, well, they are not very good. Senator Kennedy said they are not effective. I asked our MPs in August about Baghdad. Baghdad is a tough area. Some of the areas are very peaceful, and things going along much better than some of the areas in Baghdad. There are tough areas. They said: We like these police officers. They are working with us. We patrol with them on a daily basis. One young soldier told me, with no brass around: We bonded with them. That is an important concept. At Walter Reed the week before last, one of the soldiers who was injured was an MP. He is a good-looking young man. I asked him some questions. I asked him about local police, did he work with them. Yes. I asked: How good were they? What he said to me really kind of shocked me. He said: That is exactly what President Bush asked me when he came by here. The President was at Walter Reed and visited with him and asked him that question. How are the local police doing? He said: Yes, they are not ready to take over the country right now. But he said they are good. There are some good ones. He talked about when they went on patrol. One of the Iraqi policeman was at the rear of the patrol. They took fire. He returned fire in an effective and courageous way. He was impressed with him. He said that he showed discipline and courage under stress. He was impressed. I also had the opportunity to meet the chief of police in Baghdad. He is a very impressive man; a two-star general under Saddam Hussein who made negative comments about Saddam Hussein which resulted in him being put in jail for 2 years. When asked by Secretary Wolfowitz at one point why he spoke out against Saddam Hussein, he said he really didn't speak out. He was talking to his closest friend, questioning him, and it leaked back to Saddam Hussein and he goes to jail. That is the kind of life under which they lived. This man is courageous. Some say the police don't have gumption. But he goes out personally on raids. They are doing raids every night seizing weapons and arresting dangerous individuals. Two weeks before I got there, leading a raid late one night, the chief of police--you will not see that much in America cities--was out on a raid and was shot in the leg and wounded. He came back to work sooner than he was supposed to according to the doctors because he wanted to be there. He wanted to show his commitment and wanted to get the work done for Iraq. Subsequent to my return, there was a bomb attempt to kill him. There is a tough, dangerous group out there. How do you get them? We are not going to get them with rolling tanks down the street. We are not going to get them with armored vehicles on the streets with Americans who really become targets. We are going to get them by utilizing intelligence from individuals. We are going to utilize individual police officers who are Iraqi citizens, who believe in a new Iraq, who are willing to step up and be counted, and who can change that country forever. It is an exciting thing out there. I particularly wanted to share my thoughts today. I do not agree with the comments of the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts who suggested that the police in Iraq are not effective and can't do the job. No, we shouldn't walk away from that. We shouldn't leave them out there exposed. If we stay to back them up, we will be able to draw down our soldiers. And the sooner we can draw down our soldiers, the better we are going to be. That local police force can be the key to stabilizing the country so that a new government can be formed--a free, independent constitutional government that provides legal protection for all. I think we can be successful. We have made a commitment as a country. We voted in this body 77 to 12 to undertake this activity. We were told that all kinds of bad things would happen. Some have happened. We lost some soldiers. But we lost fewer than most people were predicting. We didn't have the house-to-house fighting in Baghdad. We didn't have the thousands of casualties that many predicted. We didn't have a humanitarian disaster. We did not have a lot of things that were predicted. But the looting that took place exceeded anything I imagined. We found out the infrastructure in Iraq was far more damaged, having had far less updating and improvement in 20 or 30 years of his warring than most people imagined. It will take more money than we thought. So we get electricity turned on in that country and have it reliable for the first time ever, we get the water on, a healthy water system, a police force, and a continuing strengthening of that government. We will have a new government and we will have been successful in eliminating a major threat to this world and eliminating one of the most despicable evil leaders this world has seen. I will put him in the top 10 at any time. Any person who sees the graves of people killed by him knows that is true. You see the pleasure the people have of seeing him gone. It is overwhelming. A European poll not too long ago said 87 percent of the Iraqi people did not want the United States to leave right now. We will be able to help them do something special, create a better life for that area of the world, and in the long run that will be a magnificent advantage to us. We do not want to take over their oil or their land or dictate religious faith. We simply want them to progress, to be successful, to create a good government so their people will be able to live in peace and harmony. That is our goal. It is a great goal and worthy of the United States. This supplemental is critical. I am a frugal Member of this body. I am proud of the Watchdog of the Treasury Awards I get. I watch closely how we spend money. But right now, let's do the right thing. Step up the effort to create a stable Iraq, step up the timetable of bringing our troops home, and help step up the time the people of Iraq can have a decent government. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize a group of students in my home State of Alabama. In July, students from Adamsville Elementary in Adamsville, AL, traveled to San Francisco to present a portfolio at the seventh annual We the People: Project Citizen National Showcase. Middle school classes from 43 States submitted portfolios on issues ranging from drugs in schools to recycling. In each portfolio, students identified a problem, evaluated alternative solutions, proposed a class policy, and developed an action plan to implement their proposed policy. Portfolios were evaluated by State legislators, legislative staff, and educators from across the country. Scoring criteria for the portfolios included persuasiveness, practicality, coordination, and reflection. Portfolios were evaluated based on four levels of achievement: superior, exceptional, outstanding, and honorable mention. The title of the Adamsville Elementary Project Citizen portfolio was ``Making a Difference in Blackwell Park.'' The class chose to focus on Blackwell Park, a city park a few blocks from the school. The park is in bad shape and has deteriorated over the years. While there are funds in the city budget for the park, they have often been diverted to other park complexes. The class proposed a policy that would divide all the money in the city budget equally among the city's parks. I am proud to say that the Adamsville students placed in the Exceptional Achievement Level. I would like to pay special tribute to the teacher of the class, Selena Florence. The students of the Adamsville Elementary Project Citizen class are: J.D. Barnes, Zaiere Brigman, Zach Burford, Brittany Chandler, Dakota DeLuca, Sheldon Dumas, Demetrius Eutsey, Jessica Garrett, Tiffany Hayes, Josh Hughes, Braylen Jones, Chris Jones, Joshua Langford, Lauren Leblanc, Shelby Manning, Amanda McDuff, Justin Motley, Shalani Offord, Nicole Sanders, Austin Shadix, Brandon Shipp, Rayna Warren, and Chatney Williams. The achievements of these students are proof that the civic education initiative we approved in this chamber is paying dividends. Project Citizen, which is part of the civic education initiative of the No Child Left Behind legislation, is giving students the lifelong skills they need to be effective, engaged, and informed citizens. I commend the Center for Civic Education and the National Conference of State Legislatures for their leadership in sponsoring this excellent service learning-type program. I also would like to commend Wade Black, the state coordinator from the Alabama Center for Law & Civic Education for his work in administering the program in my State.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Ohio for his leadership and hard work on this issue and the Senator from Louisiana who, I know, has also worked hard. Education is a very important thing in this country. The title of the original education program proposed by President Bush, No Child Left Behind, is a powerful phrase. As the Senator from Ohio explained, this nation does not need to allow children to fall behind. We need to know what is going on. We need to find out how they are doing. President Bush has proposed, and this Congress has passed, larger increases in funding for education in the last three years than we saw in the previous eight. We have had a tremendous increase in education funding from the Federal Government, but the problem was, and the challenge and the important impact of No Child Left Behind is, that we are not just going to put money into systems that are not operating effectively and efficiently; systems that are allowing children to fall behind. Parents wake up, and their child is in the ninth or tenth grade and cannot do basic reading or basic math. They drop out of school, become a discipline problem, and the child's life is not what it ought to be. They will not reach the full potential that they ought to reach. My wife taught four years, and I taught one year in public schools. We care about education. Good friends of mine, as well as people we associate with, are full-time teachers and we try to keep up with education. We were active, particularly my wife, in our children's education. We talked about how things were going at the school. We wanted to know. My two daughters graduated from a large inner-city high school, racially fifty-fifty, in Mobile, Alabama. They have done very well. They loved that high school, and it was very important to them. They are still loyal to Murphy High School. This is a defining issue. That is why it has received so much attention. The Senator from Ohio is exactly correct, there are a lot of good things in this bill other than just the scholarship portion. However, it is a big deal. What we are saying is that we care about children more than we care about bureaucracies, laws and regulations that do not work. We are saying that what life gives in the form of education to children is important. Make no mistake about it, this is about power. A middle-income child or a poor-income child in this city is in a certain school district. They cannot do anything with that. Maybe their parents bought a house there 10 years ago. Maybe they can't afford to sell it. Maybe the price has gone down. Or whatever--they are in that district. Then they are assigned to a certain school. If that school does not perform, what happens? They go to the school board, and they say sorry, that is your district. The parent says: I don't like this school. It doesn't make any difference. Doesn't make any difference to us. You don't like this school? By law you must go to this school. They are sent there by order of the State or the city or the school system, and they have no choice in the matter. Some schools in this very District, and some schools all over the country, are not working. Some of them are not safe. Some of them are not effective or efficient. Some of them are not producing the quality of education they could produce. The children who are sent to those schools are sentenced to a situation that makes it far more difficult for them to achieve success in their educational life than they would any other way. It is a big deal. What happens when Senators and Congressmen are in that situation? They just decide to move out to the Maryland or Virginia suburbs and buy a $300,000 or $500,000 house and they put their kids in a school they like. Vice President Gore sent his kids over to St. Albans. That probably costs as much or more than the University of Alabama for a year. That is what they do because they can do those things. But what happens to average Americans who cannot do that? They are stuck where the State sends them. Dr. Paige, our Secretary of Education, himself a teacher of education and a former superintendent of the Houston school system, reformed that school system dramatically. Do you know what he said about it? He said: When I was there and we were losing students to private schools, my view was I cared about the kids. If they could get a better education in a private school, so be it. I hope they can go there. It doesn't hurt me. My job is to make this system work so they can be educated here. He said: With the money we have from the Government and advantages we have, there is no way we ought not to be able to compete with the private school system. He said we lost kids, but he took firm control of discipline. He took firm control of the mismanagement. He took firm control by testing, and he made sure test scores were going up. He said in 5 years we were gaining kids back from private schools. They were happy to be in our school system. Not that it was a huge number one way or the other, but people did choose in that fashion. But the average working American does not have those choices. It is just not financially possible for them. The wealthy can do it but not the poor. They are stuck. So this is what it is all about. You have the Mayor of this city, the leader of the school board of this city, and they care about children, too. They love the children; they want to see them succeed. When they have concluded that this program would help the children, why are we so upset about it? Why are we so determined and frustrated about it? Why do we get frustrated about it? I ask that question. I think there is a resistance to change here. It has been said that they have totally eliminated religion from public schools. But within the establishment of the public schools, I would say that is not true, really. There is at least some religion left. There is one law that goes beyond logic to the point I would say of religion, and that is: Thou shalt not spend one dollar on schools that doesn't go through a system that the American Education Association doesn't have something to do with. It is our money, they think. It has to be spent on our schools. Not one dime can be allowed to be spent by a child who might want to have an alternative or choice in their education. Frankly, I think we do not need to be that uptight about it. The way this thing came up, we talked about it in the Senate and there was an effort in the No Child Left Behind bill to allow all the States to have scholarship programs. That did not go into the bill. It just was a fight we were not prepared to make at the time. There was not agreement or consensus on it. But this is not a State. It is the Federal District of Columbia. It is part of the Federal Government. It is an area that we do not have a separation of Federal and State governments, where there is not a State's rights question about these matters. It is a matter within our jurisdiction, No. 1. No. 2, the Mayor and the school board president want it. They asked us for it. The people want it. They have children lined up to get into this program. I love educators, and I love and appreciate education. I believe the public schools do a terrific job for the most part in America. I have been pleased with the public schools my children have attended. But if they were not getting a good education there, one that was sufficient, I would have done what I could to make sure they got a good education. I think most Americans would. But for the poor, they don't have that option. They can't send their children to St. Albans. They can't send their kids to some other school if they are not happy, and I think we need to deal with that. I salute the chairman, Senator DeWine. I suggest the Feinstein amendment does many of the things that Senator Landrieu wants to do. I could support that, and I am comfortable with the Feinstein amendment. But if we are going to come up with an amendment that makes it so difficult for the schools in this area who have agreed to take children at a discount of 40 percent or more from the cost that is being expended for education in the District, that they will not accept them or it creates a bureaucracy--which is one of the things that makes it more difficult for public schools to perform well--if we are going to do that, I am not for it. I know Senator DeWine will be wrestling with that and listening to the Senators and their suggestions. But I would note we have a reality and that is there are two bodies, a House and a Senate. The House of Representatives deserves equal sway in these matters. That shouldn't change just because a few Senators believe something is important--I believe a lot of things are important and I have not been able to have them come out exactly as I want. I think the Feinstein amendment does what Senator Landrieu wants. We have not seen the exact wording of Senator Landrieu's amendment, so I guess we will have to look at it to know. This body needs to act in the best interests of the schoolchildren of the District of Columbia. We have a Mayor elected to take care of them. We have a school board president who loves our children and wants them to succeed. They have said this program is the way to do it. This is what we need to improve their chances at a better life. I believe it is, too. I see no danger in going forward with it. If the program turns out to be a failure, so be it. We will end it. I don't know that it will. Frankly, I think it is more likely to be a success than not. I am glad the Senator from Ohio is leading this effort, and I look forward to working with him. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I express my appreciation for the comments of the distinguished Senator from Mississippi, Mr. Lott. He has been in this body a long time. He has wrestled with a lot of difficult issues. He knows that a lot of times, one just has to lead. They have to stand up and be counted and do the right thing. Once a nation commits itself, a Congress commits itself, there is no way we can turn around and waffle around next week based on some polling data or some comment from France or the U.N. That is not the way great nations behave. I am proud of the United States of America. We have stood up. We have been counted. We have been on the side of right in the world. When should look at the wars and decimation that has occurred in Afghanistan. I was there a few weeks ago and they are rebuilding houses, using the same procedure of straw, mud, and brick covered with a mud stucco, that they have used for 2,000 years. They are building everywhere in Afghanistan after 20 years of oppression, war, and destruction, to a degree that few nations in the world have ever seen. These are good and decent people, but Afghanistan was used as a base from which to attack the people of the United States of America. The Government of Afghanistan would not renounce that, would not say they were going to stop it, so the United States of America led. We have changed that Government. Anybody who has seen President Karzai, as I had the opportunity to do--and we have seen him on television--knows that he is a man of vision, talent, and decency. He loves the people of Afghanistan. He wants to see them succeed and do better. The same is true of Iraq. I was there also, and I saw the oppression, the total devastation of a country that had every opportunity to be so much better. The people should have had a better life than they did, but Saddam Hussein took his people into war after war. He developed weapons of mass destruction. His megalomania led him to believe that he could be the next Nebuchadnezzar and take over the Middle East, then rule the world. Do not think his goals did not include developing the most dangerous weapons the world has ever known. He was prepared to do that, and he did that. When he would not renounce these weapons or demonstrate that he did not have those weapons, so we moved against him and his sinister aims. We have liberated that country. There have been a lot of complaints, and we debated this on the Senate floor many times. Those who complain have expressed concerns of all kinds. They said there were going to be problems in the Arab streets, the Arab nations would all turn against us, there would be street-to-street fighting in Iraq, we would lose thousands of soldiers, it would take months and months to succeed, the weapons of mass destruction would be used against our troops, we would bog down, there would be a humanitarian disaster, there would be starvation and refugees everywhere by the millions, and we did not have enough troops to win the battle. All of those things and more were raised. We talked about them. We debated them, and everybody had their say. We had open hearings and closed hearings. We read, we talked, we debated for months on end. There was not any secret about it. It was not any plan hatched in Texas. It was a plan voted on and debated in this body. We voted 77 to 23 to commit the United States of America to this action. Our military performed better than anybody could ever have imagined. Decisively and swiftly they defeated the Iraqi army, ousted them from power completely, put Saddam Hussein on the run, put an end to his evil sons, and have set about to establish a good government there. I was in Mosul and was introduced to the city council. They have an Arab, a Turk, a Christian, and others on that council. They were men of ability and wisdom. We talked. They love the city of Mosul and the country of Iraq, and they want an open, free society where people with whatever beliefs can be able to function. They want to renounce and turn away from the past of Saddam Hussein. That is true all over this country, but it is difficult. It has proven to be a challenge for us, no doubt about it, to completely have peace and order in that large country. I am pleased when I go and see soldiers from my State of Alabama, many of them National Guardsmen--I had dinner with them and talked with them. They believe they are making a difference in this area of the Middle East, where there has been so much disorder, so much oppression, so much killing, particularly in Iraq. Millions have died as a result of Saddam Hussein's wars and oppression at home. One can go there and see the graves. With the energy and dedication of these fine soldiers, I think we are going to be successful. I am glad President Bush went to the United Nations. It is an organization that deserves our respect. It is entitled to courtesy, and President Bush has given it that. The Christian Science Monitor today said President Bush went to the U.N. yesterday with a message of both reconciliation and resolve, and that is exactly what he ought to do. Reconciliation, we want to talk to them and deal with their concerns, but we are resolved. What then is our difficulty with the U.N.? I will share a couple of thoughts. The first is, the U.N. is incapable of taking decisive action. It has not done so in Iraq. It has never done so in its history. Why? Well, the Security Council requires unanimity in order to act. Russia is on the Security Council, as well as France, Germany, and others. Some rotate on each year or two, and they serve a period of time. The idea that they can get a unanimous vote is almost impossible. So decisive action is not possible. It has never happened, and it is not going to happen with the U.N. But President Bush did get a resolution that Secretary Colin Powell worked so hard on, which in my view--authorized us to take military action. Then they said they wanted another resolution, and we sought that. Then France flipped on us, and Germany said no. France even lobbied other countries around the world and blocked a further vote. What were our options then? Do we just stop and not defend our legitimate national interests? Do we not carry out the foreign policy we believe is in our interests? Should we make it our policy to cede the decisionmaking authority the American people have vested in us, our elected President, our elected Congress, to some world body that has proven incapable of decisive action? I don't think so. I believe we are on the right track in with the U.N. The President is showing respect to this group, but we are not going to allow the decision making power of our country to be shifted to the U.N. We are not going to turn over our military that the American people have supported, funded, and created, the finest military the world has ever known--we are not going to turn it over to them. In Kosovo, that is basically what we did. The NATO nations met to deploy our Air Force. We did that, and they kind of liked that. Maybe they think that is what the world is going to be like from now on, but it is not. We have a responsibility to lead. As Tony Blair asked the question: Why America? Why now? He said: My answer to you is that it is your destiny, it is your time. Who else can do it? I believe in the values of this country. I trust our wisdom. I trust our good judgment. I believe in what we are doing, and I believe it is good for not only America but the world. I don't apologize for that, and I don't believe some socialist leftover Marxist veto in the U.N. should stop us from doing what is necessary for the world. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I am delighted that David Proctor is moving forward, as I believe three other nominees are from New York. David Proctor was an outstanding student in his undergraduate studies at Carson Newman College. He served on the Law Review at the University of Tennessee. He was at the top of his class in law school. He clerked for Judge Emory Widener on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. He was a member of one of Alabama's largest and most prestigious law firms, Sirotte & Permutt. And then he formed his own firm: Lehr, Middlebrooks, Price & Proctor. He is a lawyer's lawyer, a practitioner who is in court on a regular basis, a man of great integrity and ability. I believe he is going to be a terrific Federal judge. He wants more than anything to give his life to serving the law. I think he will do that. It is a great honor for me to support his nomination.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I add my congratulations to Grampa Enzi and Diana. There is no Member of this body who exemplifies family values more than those two. There is no Senator who has greater affection in this body. Trey has a great family to join. My wife Mary and I are so excited for you. She called me early this morning to report the news. We express our congratulations to the Senator from Wyoming.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield 1 minute, please?

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, on behalf of the manager, I ask unanimous consent that the previous agreement be modified so that following the second Durbin amendment, Senator Ensign be recognized to offer an amendment regarding afterschool; further, that there be 10 minutes equally divided for debate. I further ask unanimous consent that following the last amendment on the previous list, Senator Landrieu be recognized to offer an amendment relative to mosquitos; again with 10 minutes equally divided in the usual form. Finally, I ask unanimous consent that the remaining provisions of the agreement be applicable to the Ensign and Landrieu amendments.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, in part of this bill was language that requires the CDC to develop a plan to deal with the medical transmission of AIDS in Africa. The science is coming in clearer and clearer that a substantial portion of the infections in Africa result from transmissions from blood transfusions or the reuse of needles for injections. In fact, we believe the World Health Organization numbers say that 10 percent are caused by it. That means as many as 300,000 infections in Africa are, in fact, a death sentence caused by unsafe medical practices. We need to end that. We can end that. We have had two hearings I have conducted. It is a moral crisis. It should not be allowed to continue. Our medical agencies, including Health and Human Services, CDC, and particularly WHO, have been slow to respond. My remarks go into great detail about the science behind this. It has raised the concern of human rights groups as well as health groups. We will continue to proceed. We will be discussing in more depth the need for focus. By WHO's own number, they can virtually eliminate this problem for less than $100 million a year. We will be spending $3 billion a year when the AIDS program in Africa is rolling. We can fund this. We can eliminate this and 300,000 people a year being infected would be stopped. There are even studies that show 670,000 Africans in South Africa from the age of 2 to 14 are now infected by HIV, much of that from unsafe health practices. It is a dilemma for us. We have to act quickly and not delay. As this Congress takes up the task of funding a landmark global effort to combat HIV/AIDS, it is imperative that lawmakers consider an aspect of this crisis that has consistently not received the prominence it deserves. I would like to thank Senator Specter for his help in bringing this issue to light during our consideration of appropriations for the Departments of Labor and HHS. While we are all aware of many excellent programs that seek to treat this virus or prevent its transmission, it is widely unrecognized that, even by conservative estimates, each day 1,000 Africans who go to hospitals, clinics, or local doctors seeking treatment come away infected with a deadly disease. They contract this virus through unsafe injections given with needles and syringes that are often reused again and again, or through contaminated transfusions with blood that is never screened for HIV, hepatitis B, hepatitis C, or other potentially deadly diseases. In March of this year, the Washington Times reported that Dr. David Gisselquist and his colleague John Potterat had published an article in the International Journal of STD & AIDS, a publication of the British Royal Society of Medicine, that presented evidence that the reuse of needles and syringes has played a major role in the African HIV/AIDS epidemic. This article challenged the conventional wisdom in the international public health community that heterosexual contact is the primary route of transmission for HIV in Africa and that medical transmission of the disease did not require its foremost attention. Dr. Gisselquist pointed to a number of pieces of evidence supporting his conclusion that medical exposures account for a large proportion of HIV transmission. Dr. Gisselquist conducted an extensive review of refereed journal articles on the epidemiology of the African HIV epidemic. A careful analysis of the data behind these studies enabled him to identify the following trends: Multiple studies found HIV-infected children whose mothers test negative for the virus. Many of these children are far too young to have contracted HIV through sexual practices or drug use, leaving their infections unexplained by conventional assumptions about the spread of this disease. It was found, however, that these children bearing the HIV virus had, on average, received nearly twice as many injections of vaccines and medicines than their uninfected peers, leading researchers to conclude that there was a strong correlation between the number of injections a child received and that child's chances of contracting HIV. International groups involved in large-scale vaccination campaigns have long realized that injection safety is an indispensable element of their work. This realization followed events such as the tremendous epidemic of hepatitis C in Egypt following a nationwide effort to vaccinate against schistosomiasis. This is still thought to represent ``the world's largest iatrogenic transmission event,'' contributing to an appalling 18 percent prevalence of the deadly hepatitis C virus in the Egyptian population. Since the recognition that unsafe injections pose an unacceptable risk in vaccination campaigns, international efforts now almost universally include adequate injection safety training and supplies. These limited efforts are commendable but more needs to be done. To understand the proportion of the problem that remains to be addressed, one must note the distinction between injections given for vaccinations and therapeutic injections, or injections given for the purpose of treating infections or other disease processes. It has been estimated that worldwide, therapeutic injections outnumber vaccinations by about nine to one, totaling approximately 12 billion injections administered each year in the developing world, including the African nations of the global AIDS initiative. Despite this fact, and the demonstrated risks associated with unsafe injections, leaders in the field of HIV prevention have warned that ``little attention has been paid to the systematic correction of widespread unsafe practices resulting in disease transmission through therapeutic injections.'' There are so many tragic aspects of this problem: Hard-working frontline doctors and nurses inadvertently contribute to the spread of the very diseases they are struggling to treat; The health care system in developing nations frequently does not provide either necessary education in proper injection practices or, for those providers who are striving to follow model practices, the relatively inexpensive supplies necessary to succeed; Citizens come to trusted institutions for medical treatment for themselves, or for their children, and are unknowingly infected. Ironically, these people do not, based on present AIDS prevention education, have any reason to view themselves as high-risk. They have not engaged in unsafe sex or intravenous drug use--they have merely acted responsibly and gone to the doctor. Subsequently, these victims go home and, again unknowingly, pass HIV or other deadly diseases to their own families--husbands to wives, wives to husbands, mothers to children. In this manner, this ``hidden'' source of disease transmission continues to fuel the epidemic, capitalizing on a large blind spot in the current HIV prevention orthodoxy. At the outset of the AIDS epidemic in the United States, both the U.S. Government and the public declared that the blood supply must be rendered absolutely safe. The Federal Government and the public health community moved rapidly to ensure that every singe unit of blood donated in this country is tested for the HIV virus. It is estimated that 25 percent of blood donated in Africa is never tested for HIV and that up to 80 percent is never tested for hepatitis. It is estimated by the respected group, Safe Blood for Africa, that as a consequence of this breakdown, approximately 15 percent of the sub-Saharan African blood supply is infected with HIV and 20 percent with hepatitis. The World Health Organization estimates that up to 10 percent of new HIV cases in Africa may be due to contaminated blood transfusions. Once again, it is clear that transfusions of contaminated blood result in yet another ``hidden'' source of disease transmission fueling this epidemic. Seventy percent of the recipients of these high-risk transfusions are women and children, making blood safety a crucial component of our larger effort to fight HIV/AIDS in mothers and children. This figure is linked to the high incidence in Africa of malaria, which frequently causes severe anemia, particularly in children, and of severe postpartum bleeding. It is important to recognize, too, that even in the treatment of anemia related to these common conditions, best medical practices would dictate that many of these transfusions are unnecessary. This is just one more example of the potential to decrease the risk to people of deadly infection, as well as the considerable cost of these unnecessary transfusions through educating providers on simple guidelines for transfusion. This administration, and our respected majority leader, Dr. Bill Frist, have declared that ending the mother-to-child transmission of HIV is of the utmost importance in the overall global AIDS initiative. One of the most startling facts about the healthcare transmission of HIV in Africa is the fact that injection safety and blood safety have been specifically singled out by researchers as the most cost-effective means of preventing the spread of HIV. A study published by the WHO in 1999 suggested that addressing the problem of unsafe injections might well result in actual savings for the governments and organizations financing the fight against AIDS. These savings would be generated both by a reduction in the number of unnecessary injections, which, amazingly, may account for a majority of therapeutic injections actually given in the developing world, and by avoiding the tremendous financial drain associated with the averted infections. In testimony before the HELP committee at a hearing I chaired in July, one of the leading WHO researchers confirmed both his own conclusion that ending unsafe injection practices would be eminently cost-effective and his projection that blood safety efforts would prove to be similarly so. As noted previously, the World Health Organization's Department of Blood Safety and Clinical Technology has, working with a variety of groups, produced a strong body of research on both injection safety and blood safety in Africa. At my urging, the Department of Health and Human Services has undertaken the task of reviewing all of the available data to better define the true magnitude of health care transmission through unsafe injections. At this very moment, the Research Triangle Institute, the private clinical research organization awarded the contract for this study, is working toward this goal. The results of this study will be reviewed by an independent panel of experts in the field, and I am pleased to note that we do anxiously await the results of this analysis, which is due to be completed next month. My eagerness to see action on this problem is fueled by evidence that there have been some real successes on the ground in Africa, in some of the poorest nations in the world: In Burkina Faso, where in 1995 it was estimated that injection equipment was reused at rates ranging from 20 percent in urban areas to an appalling 90 percent in rural regions, the answer was supply. When adequate disposable injection equipment was available through community pharmacies, the rate of reuse dropped 92 percent within 5 years. At the HELP committee hearing I chaired on July 31, it was very encouraging to hear the testimony of Dr. John Ssemakula a physician from Uganda, who was able to describe the great strides his country has made in cleaning up injection practices. Dr. Ssemakula was also able to convey the plea of the dedicated men and women on the frontlines of health care in Uganda--that they be provided with the equipment they need to provide safe injections. These are intelligent, well-educated, well-intentioned people and they simply want enough syringes to provide their patients with safe care. I have been pleased, over the past several months, to have had the opportunity to express my concerns to Randall Tobias, the incoming Global AIDS Coordinator at the State Department, and to Dr. Joe O'Neill, director of the White House Office of National AIDS policy and the new deputy coordinator and chief medical officer in the office of the coordinator. I hope that these gentlemen came away with a good understanding of the crucial importance of addressing the healthcare transmission of HIV, and I look forward to continuing to work with the administration and other key parties to the global AIDS effort. One of the greatest disappointments I have encountered in my effort to draw attention and resources to this problem has been the response of the leadership of the World Health Organization. That being said, groups within the World Health Organization continue to do commendable work in the area of healthcare transmission, including Department of Blood Safety and Clinical Technology, which has made progress in the area of blood safety and, within this department, the Safe Injection Global Network, which is a pioneer in the field of injection safety. The disconnect between the good work being done by committed people within this organization and the determined resistance of leadership to even acknowledging that this is a substantial problem is really appalling. The World Health Organization and a number of other major public health entities responded to Dr. Gisselquist's conclusions not as an invitation to reassess their data, but instead mounted a defensive response that consisted of an unyielding insistence on their own, admittedly conservative figures and a campaign to discredit Dr. Gisselquist. At the very World Health Organization conference where its own researchers were presenting evidence that healthcare transmission is a more substantial problem that prior WHO numbers would suggest, the leadership insisted on releasing a public statement that the organization stands by its own previous numbers--even in light of its own latest research suggesting otherwise. At the HELP Committee hearing I chaired on this subject in July, Holly Burkhalter of Physicians for Human Rights joined a host of respected witnesses in testifying that the healthcare transmission of HIV is a problem that must be addressed within the Global AIDS initiative. Ms. Burkhalter and her colleague Dr. Eric Friedman subsequently authored an opinion piece that was run in the Washington Post following the hearing that eloquently reiterated this point. It was shocking to once again open the paper to find that the World Health Organization again declined to lead on the issue of healthcare transmission, an area in which its own researchers are pioneers. Instead, they opted for a competing opinion piece minimizing the problem and opposing the devotion of any additional resources. As things stand at present, there is still no comprehensive USAID or administration plan to address the healthcare transmission of HIV. I have not been made aware of any plan to address injection safety at all, outside the context of vaccination programs. Through appropriations directed to USAID, the Global Fund, and the Department of Health and Human Services, the United States Congress represents the single greatest source of funding for the international effort to combat HIV/AIDS. In this capacity, the Congress must require that these funds are accompanied by a moral commitment to apply resources wisely. It is clear that doing so requires promptly acknowledging and addressing the issue of the healthcare transmission of HIV. The CDC, through its Global AIDS Program and a variety of other efforts at home and abroad, has accumulated important experience in the prevention of the healthcare transmission of HIV. This agency provided leadership in ensuring the safety of the U.S. blood supply during the early days of the HIV epidemic here, contributing to the development of one of the world's finest and safest blood banking systems. The CDC continues to provide expertise and support of a multitude of international efforts to promote blood safety. In the area of injection safety, the CDC has strongly backed efforts to ensure that every injection given in U.S. hospitals and clinics is a safe injection. Overseas, the agency has supported groups such as the WHO's Safe Injection Global Network, which has conducted important research on safe injection practices in the developing world and also works to disseminate information essential to the implementation of successful injection safety programs. At a time when the United States is launching an unprecedented campaign against HIV/AIDS in Africa and the Caribbean, the CDC is thus uniquely positioned to provide the administration and Congress with important guidance in launching the most effective effort possible to end the healthcare transmission of HIV. While there are a multitude of programs, many of them CDC-supported, addressing various aspects of the healthcare transmission problem, there has been an ongoing failure to launch a coordinated effort to intervene to change conditions on the ground in the African region. A hallmark of the President's Global AIDS plan has been a commitment to effective coordination and application of resources. This commitment must be extended to ensuring that we put an end, right now, to the appalling daily toll taken by unsafe injections and contaminated blood transfusions in Africa. The CDC must again take the lead in moving quickly and energetically to outline a plan to comprehensively address injection safety and blood safety in the African nations included in the Global AIDS initiative. This plan must reflect our intent to intervene in this problem immediately. It must include an assessment of the status of the health care system and existing programs in these countries, but it must also move beyond this initial assessment stage to outline the supply and logistical requirements that we will need to understand to move forward with real, on-the-ground interventions. Experts in the field of injection safety suggest that an effective injection safety program must address not only the provision and distribution of safe injection equipment, preferably nonreusuable autodisable syringes, but also national-level planning, the education of providers and the public in the appropriate and safe use of injections, and an appropriate program for waste disposal. Similarly, a strong blood safety program must not only provide rapid access to accurate test kits, but also staff training, quality assurance, and a national-level program to ensure an effective system of donor selection, blood screening, and appropriate utilization of blood products. Thankfully, these things have all been done before. Moreover, they have been done before by the Centers for Disease Control. It is time that past lessons be applied to the problem before us today, that of the healthcare transmission of HIV. While we may eagerly anticipate the CDC's contribution, in the form of a strong plan, to be submitted to Congress within 90 days, the interim must not be marked by inaction. This issue will be before us again soon, when the Senate considers the Foreign Operations appropriations bill, which includes the bulk of the administration's requested appropriations to fund the global AIDS initiative. I intend to ensure that at that time, the issue of the healthcare transmission of HIV in Africa is not neglected within the greater war on HIV/AIDS. We have reached an important historical point in the global AIDS epidemic, a point at which the world's leaders have stepped forward to acknowledge the scope of the problem, and its tragedy. I would like to offer the caution that this tragedy becomes a travesty when the leaders in the global effort are offered clear evidence that intervention is needed, yet continue to allow death sentences to be handed to 1,000 men, women, and children every day through their inaction.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 2 minutes.