Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I think it is important, in light of Senator Hatch's remarks and some of the criticisms we have heard of his leadership in the Judiciary Committee a few days ago, that we recall a little history here on how we have handled judicial nominations in the past and why we are having problems today. The criticism of Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch is simply unfair. He has stood foursquare for fairness, for constitutionality in the process, and for good public policy as we go about confirmations. That has been his record. When he chaired or was ranking member of the Judiciary Committee during the 8 years of President Clinton's administration, 377 Clinton nominees were confirmed to the bench. Only one nominee was voted down. No nominee was voted down in his committee. No nominee was filibustered in his committee. When President Clinton left office, there were 41 judicial nominees who had not yet been confirmed by this Senate. That is a very good record compared to the situation when former President Bush left office. The Democrats controlled the Senate at that time, and 61 of former President Bush's judicial nominees were left unconfirmed. Those numbers are indisputable. I know the distinguished Presiding Officer, Senator Warner from Virginia, remembers the complaints in the Republican Conference that Senator Hatch had been too generous to President Clinton's nominees. Several Republican colleagues fussed at Senator Hatch, and Members were saying, ``you are moving too many,'' or, ``we need to block them,'' or, ``let's consider a filibuster,'' or, ``let's change the blue slip rules on circuit nominees,'' which would give individual Senators more power than they historically had to block Clinton nominees. There was a conference set aside for the very purpose of resolving these issues. It was quite a battle. We discussed it for some time. Senator Hatch spoke passionately about the process, about what he thought the policy should be, about what he thought the law was, and about what he thought the Constitution required. We finally voted, and we voted not to filibuster and not to enhance the blue slip rule, thereby continuing the historic policies of this Senate. It was a very seriously contested matter. Senator Hatch argued passionately for his view, and at the time no one was sure how the vote would come out. But his arguments won the day. It is worth considering some other history about the confirmation process. In the entire history of the American Republic, it is indisputable that we have never had a filibuster of a circuit or a district judge. This tactic was used for the first time 2 years ago by the Democrats. They held a retreat not long after the 2000 election. The New York Times reported that a group of liberal professors met with the Democratic Senators, and they called on the Democrats to change the ground rules about confirmations, to ratchet up the partisanship. They had been complaining for 8 years that President Clinton's nominees weren't getting treated fairly. Overwhelmingly, I suggest, they were in error in those complaints. But in any case, instead of saying ``we are going to act better now that we are in charge''--they were in charge of the Senate for a little less than 2 years--the Democrats decided to change the ground rules and make it even more difficult for President Bush's nominees to be confirmed. So let me tell you what they did. President Bush announced his first group of judicial nominations in May 2001. He nominated 11 superbly qualified lawyers. As a gesture of good faith, he included 2 Democrats among these 11 nominees. One, an African-American, had previously been nominated by President Clinton. These were men and women of extraordinary accomplishment, with high ratings by the American Bar Association, and with tremendous backgrounds. For almost 2 years, only the two Democrats were moved promptly. Virtually all of the remaining nine of the eleven original nominees remained unconfirmed by 2002. They were not even voted out of committee. They were blocked in committee. The Democrats appeared to change the burden of proof--now, the judicial nominee seemed to bear the burden of proving that he or she was worthy of the judicial service. The chairman of the Courts Subcommittee then said that this would change the basic ground rules for confirmation. The Democrats also insisted on changes in the blue slip policy. The blue slip policy allows home State Senators certain powers to object to the confirmation of Presidential nominees. The Democrats wanted to enhance that blue slip policy in order to block President Bush's nominees. They complained about it when President Clinton was in office and said it was wrong to use it as Republicans were properly doing. But when President Bush sent up nominees, they wanted to enhance the power of an individual Senator to block the President's nominees. And then, of course, the Democrats started filibustering. They have already filibustered Priscilla Owen and Miguel Estrada. Both of those extraordinarily qualified nominees languish on the floor today. Both were given a unanimous well-qualified rating by the American Bar Association--a man and a woman of extraordinary achievement, great legal experience, superb legal ability, and unquestioned integrity. Yet the Democrats chose to filibuster each--the first filibusters in the history of this country for a circuit judge nominee. Now, we have begun to see slowdowns in committee. The Democrats effectively have begun to try to filibuster in committee. They misinterpreted Rule IV of the Judiciary Committee rules, saying the chairman could not call a matter up for a vote unless at least one member of the Democratic minority agreed. That rule was put in to make sure that a chairman had to bring a matter up for a vote, whether the chairman wanted to do so or not, when there were ten overall votes in favor, including at least 1 member of the other party. This rule is a limit on the power of the chairman. It did not stand for the novel proposition that, if the Democrats stuck together, no Republican nominee could be brought up for a vote. To say that rule IV should be interpreted the way the Democrats on the committee are now complaining would mean the chairman couldn't bring any matter up for a vote without minority support--that a minority in committee could block any nomination moving out of committee. This interpretation is a recipe for disaster: a chairman has to be able to get a matter up for a vote, or the committee cannot do business. Senator Hatch interpreted the rule as he is empowered to do. The majority of the committee, not to mention two parliamentarians, supported him on that. We should not and are not going to have filibusters in the Judiciary Committee that keep judges from even having a vote in the Judiciary Committee. I just want to say to my fellow colleagues that it is not correct that Chairman Hatch is acting unfairly. Chairman Hatch has acted with principle in this matter. He brought Clinton nominees to the floor, and he moved them forward, even when some of us objected. Even when Senator Hatch himself may have objected on the merits, those nominees got votes. Take, for example, the Richard Paez nomination, which I opposed. Several people had holds on that nomination. Some wanted to see if we could work with President Clinton to get some more mainstream nominees for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. We were hoping to negotiate with him on that, as we tried to do with other things. Finally, the Republican Majority Leader, Trent Lott, said: It is time for this man to have an up-and-down vote. File for cloture. He filed for cloture, and I supported cloture. Orrin Hatch supported cloture. Trent Lott supported cloture. When Paez was voted on, I am pretty confident that Trent Lott voted against him, just as I voted against him. Several dozen votes were cast against him. I note parenthetically that now-Judge Paez was part of a panel of the Ninth Circuit that overturned the ``three strikes'' law in California. That panel was overruled by the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this year. Judge Paez was also part of the panel that declared the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional because it had the words ``under God'' in it. Notwithstanding indications of such judicial activism during his confirmation hearing and process, Judge Paez was confirmed. He got his up-or-down vote. The Republican leadership moved the nomination forward. That is all we are asking of the Democratic leader, Tom Daschle, with respect to Miguel Estrada and Priscilla Owen. Instead, it looks like we may be heading toward more filibusters. I certainly hope not. Of the many reasons why we shouldn't have a filibuster, an important one is the Article I of the Constitution. It says the Senate shall advise and consent on treaties by a two-thirds vote, and simply ``shall advise and consent'' on nominations. Historically, we have understood that provision to mean--and I think there is no doubt the Founders understood that to mean--that a treaty confirmation requires a two-thirds vote, but confirmation of a judicial nomination requires only a simple majority vote. That is why we have never had a filibuster. People on both sides of the aisle have understood it to be wrong. They have understood it to be in violation of the Constitution. As Senator Hatch has said, the complaint suggesting there was a filibuster on the Fortas nomination is not really correct. They had debate for several days. Apparently, when the votes were counted, it was clear that considering those who were absent, there were enough votes to defeat the nomination, and the nomination was withdrawn. So there has never really been a filibuster of a judicial nominee in the Senate until now, when our Democratic colleagues have decided to change the ground rules on confirmation. They have said so and done so openly, and seem to be little concerned that the Constitution may be violated in the process. Mr. President, these nominees are entitled to an up-and-down vote. If a Member does not like them, he or she can vote against them. But it is time to move these nominees. How can they defend voting against nominees of the quality of Priscilla Owen or Miguel Estrada? How can they justify opposing a man of such integrity, ability, patriotism, and courage as Attorney General Bill Pryor, a man of faith and integrity? These are questions that should be answered on the floor. Let us discuss these nominees' records here. And then, let us just vote. That is what the Constitution and Senate tradition demand of us. I think the American people are getting engaged, and they are telling us ``we are tired of obstructionism,'' ``we are tired of delays,'' and ``we believe these nominees deserve an up-and-down vote.'' I could not agree more. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, it is with a tremendous amount of pride that I take to the floor today to discuss the accomplishments of one of Alabama's native sons, 2LT Martin Bailey Pierce. This remarkable young man has achieved a truly auspicious honor: he has been named the valedictorian of West Point's class of 2003. In both word and deed, this is a young man who truly has lived up to the Army's challenge to ``be all that you can be.'' When the selection committee I have established to review potential service academy nominations forwarded Martin Pierce's name to me, I knew that he had the potential to be a fine selection. After all, he had been the 1999 valedictorian at UMS-Wright, formerly known as University Military School, which is a prestigious school in Mobile, AL. Additionally, he had the full support of his two loving parents, Bailey and Susann, who had obviously instilled a sense of duty, honor and commitment in their son. There was little doubt in my mind that the traits 2LT Pierce had exhibited up to that point in time would serve him well at West Point. However, the same could be said of most of the 846 cadets who graduated alongside Martin in the class of 2003. The service academy's attract a special kind of applicant, and those that are accepted tend to be individuals of great capabilities. Therefore when someone achieves the kind of academic success that 2LT Pierce has, there is a special satisfaction that he has done so while placed among the best and brightest. I would like to take a few moments to place Mr. Pierce's West Point record in perspective. He become valedictorian by posting a GPA of 4.086 in the field of electrical/chemical engineering, and he was a dean's list member throughout his time at the academy. He also was one of only 144 recipients of the Gold Star and Wreath. This honor required Martin to achieve distinguished cadet status and to also become a Superintendent's Individual Award winner. In order to qualify for the God Star, Martin had to not only maintain a GPA of 3.67 or greater, but he also had to excel in West Point's academic, military and physical programs. And excel in these programs he did. In addition to his exceptional work in the classroom, 2LT Pierce was a 4 year member of the Army's Black Knights football team, where he lettered as an outside linebacker. HIs accomplishments on the field and in the classroom also led him to be recognized nationally when he was awarded the Home Depot Scholar Athlete Award during the December 7, 2002 telecast of the Army/ Navy game. If these achievements, weren't enough, Martin saved his best for last. On June 1, 2LT Pierce married the former Michelle Ann Czyz in a ceremony in West Point, NY. Who knows? Perhaps this union foreshadows another valedictorian in a future West Point class. And so 2LT Martin Bailey Pierce has left a mark upon the U.S. Military Academy as indelible as the mark the service academy has left on him. In doing so, he has come to exemplify the West Point's mission ``to educate, train, and inspire the Corps of Cadets so that each graduate is a commissioned leader of character committed to the values of Duty, Honor, Country; professional growth throughout a career as an officer in the United States Army; and a lifetime of selfless service to the nation.'' I am proud he is an Alabamian, and proud to know that he will continue and add to our State's remarkable record of producing outstanding cadets and soldiers. I congratulate 2LT Pierce for his accomplishments, and look forward to what I am sure will be a career that will make all members of the long gray line proud.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. If the Senator from West Virginia would like to make additional remarks, I would suggest that Senator McCain had quick remarks he would like to make and I will be glad to have him go ahead of me. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise today to give tribute to Mr. Colin MacGuire, affectionately known by all as ``Big C.'' Standing at 4-foot-7-inches, Mr. MacGuire is a small man in stature, but a large man in character, integrity, and heart. ``Big C'' is an avid and faithful Alabama fan and is even touted by some as one the South's biggest Bama fans. ``Big C's'' love for the Crimson Tide began at an early age, when he received four College Football Digest books. He immediately began memorizing the Tide's scores, stats, and other historical information and has continued to this day. It is this deep knowledge and love for his team, that led ``Big C'' to author ``Crimson Tide: 1,015 Questions and Answers.'' After graduating from Fort Dale Academy in 1976, Mr. MacGuire took the advice of his father and enrolled in Marion Military Institute, but after only one year, he transferred to the University of Alabama. While at the University, he was the manager for the wrestling team in the fall of 1977, and in the spring of 1978, he began managing the Crimson Tide football team. During this time, Colin had the wonderful opportunity to work for the legendary Coach Paul ``Bear'' Bryant, as well as, to run the sidelines while the Tide won back-to-back National Championships on the field. Mr. MacGuire graduated from the University of Alabama in the spring of 1980 with a bachelor's degree in communications, but his hear has never left Tuscaloosa. ``Big C'' continues this commitment to the Tide as both a fan and alumnus. He has never met a stranger and continues to spread his kindness and infectious laugh to his community. I suppose all that is left to say to Mr. Colin ``Big C'' MacGuire is, ``Hey, big man, Roll Tide.''

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Chairman.

Mr. SESSIONS. As the Chairman and Ranking Member are aware, for the last 7 years, since 1997, the Department of Defense has sponsored a unique biomedical research effort called the Neurotoxin Exposure Treatment Research Program or NETRP. This program conducts medical research that has wide applications in protecting and treating our soldiers, as well as advancing medical research that can lead to a cure for Parkinson's disease, which afflicts more than one million Americans. The program addresses the protection of American soldiers from a wide range of exposures including chemical warfare agents, potential toxins in military uniforms and jet fuel, and radiation from radar and communications systems. Findings from this military research then have broad application to those diagnosed with Parkinson's and other neurodegenerative disorders. This year's House of Representatives DOD Appropriations bill includes an increase in NETRP funding from the 2003 level of $21.25 million to $31 million--a solid investment in protecting our soldiers that can have the added benefit of saving or vastly improving the lives of millions of Americans. Will the Chairman consider accepting the House proposal in conference?

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, it is my privilege today to recognize Renee Hammond of Dora, AL. On May 10, 2003, Mrs. Hammond was vacationing in Florida to recuperate from eye surgery. As she was walking on the beach with friends, she noticed some commotion near the water's edge. Two teenage girls had gotten caught in a strong undertow. A man from a nearby condominium ran into the water and quickly pulled one of the girls to safety. However, a policeman, who had gone in the water first, barely made it to shore with the younger of the two girls. Mrs. Hammond, with the help of another woman, pulled the young girl onto the beach and began to perform rescue breathing. After only a few moments, the girl was gasping for air, coughing up water, and eventually breathing some on her own. Mrs. Hammond persisted in helping the girl by gently patting her on the back as she continued coughing up water. Eventually the paramedics arrived on the scene and took over. Mrs. Hammond maintained her compassionate, helpful manner as she checked on the others involved in the incident, including the policeman that had rescued the girl. As her husband stood amazed and impressed by her natural ability to give care, Mrs. Hammond proved humble, commending the paramedics for a job well done. Renee Hammond is a shining example of a nurse and a citizen, serving not only in her work environment, but also in a sudden time of need to help save the life of a stranger. As a nurse in Walker County, AL, she is a heroine everyday in the lives of those she helps. As a self- sacrificing, brave woman, Mrs. Hammond is a heroine to that young girl from the beach and to the rest of us. Her example serves us as citizens, encouraging us to be honorable, to do the right thing, and to put the needs of others before our own. Renee is the wife of J.R. Hammond, a mine worker, who is also a remarkable man. He has been a tremendous advocate for the American ``working man.'' Mr. President and members of the Senate, please join me in recognizing Renee Hammond as a heroine among us.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, this amendment would strike the $100 million for AmeriCorps that is contained in the emergency supplemental portion of this bill. The President did not request these funds. The administration does not support this appropriation as part of an emergency supplemental. These funds are not offset. In fact, every single penny that will be spent of this $100 million will go directly to the debt of the American people. It will increase the debt entirely, because we are in a deficit situation and emergency spending by definition is above our budget, and even our budget takes us into debt. This is not an emergency. It is just one more typical bureaucratic failure in a governmental program that caused them to run short, and now they want the taxpayers to run up the debt to pay for the shortfall. I think it is just not the right thing to do. It is suggested that we have to have this money now. But if you read the language in the legislation, it says the funds are to remain available until September 30, 2004. That means this could come up in the regular appropriations bill for VA-HUD, and they could put it within the budget and fund it through next year, fiscal year 2004. That is really what should occur, if they want to spend extra money to bail out the mismanagement of the AmeriCorps program which all Senators-- even those who support this bill--are critical of and are trying to do something about. In addition, it says the educational awards will remain available until expended. That means they could be spent over a period of years. Why are we bringing it forward on this emergency supplemental bill? It is because it does not count against the budget allocation the appropriations subcommittee has for all of the programs within their venue. If they have to come up with extra money for appropriations under the current law and under the budget, that means they may have to be tight across the board and find the money somewhere else, or maybe they will have to reduce what AmeriCorps would like to have. Those are tough decisions. But that is what we get paid to do every day around here. By allowing them to tack this on top of the bill and add directly to the debt of the American people relieves the pressure that was caused by the mismanagement under these circumstances. I note the chairman of the House VA-HUD Committee--a Peace Corps volunteer himself, and a strong supporter of the AmeriCorps program, Congressman Jim Walsh of New York--is very strongly opposed to this even though he supported AmeriCorps from the beginning. He issued a news release and full statement dealing with this issue. He makes a number of very important points--from a man who really cares about this program and doing the right thing. For example, he said: My opposition to the Senate's supplemental AmeriCorps appropriations proposal comes down to an issue of accountability. We shouldn't reward an agency that violates Federal law and mismanages taxpayer dollars by providing additional funding until clear and consistent reforms have been enacted. Should these requested funds be appropriated, I have little faith that the existing operation could get the funding out of Washington to local community grantees effectively or equitably by the end of fiscal year on September 30. He goes on to make other points. I urge my colleagues to read this news release before they commit on how they intend to vote. The emergency bill has disaster relief, space shuttle, wildfires, and AmeriCorps. I would add that Citizens Against Government Waste has written in opposition to this legislation. They urge it to be defeated. I note they intend to score this legislation, as do other groups that care about mismanagement, including Citizens Against Government Waste, the National Taxpayers Union, Americans for Tax Reform, and others. It is an important vote. We ought not to go around the budget we passed--and I served as a member of the committee--and tack on $100 million for a bureaucratic snafu and running that $100 million directly against the debt of the American people in violation of the Budget Act. I yield the floor and reserve my remaining time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Cornyn of Texas be added as a cosponsor of this amendment.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I note that in a few minutes the Senate will begin a series of three rollcall votes. With the completion of these three votes, the Senate will have passed two appropriations bills. The first of these votes will be on the Sessions AmeriCorps amendment. Following that vote, the Senate will vote on passage of H.R. 2657, the legislative branch appropriations bill, which will immediately be followed by a vote on passage of H.R. 2559, the military construction appropriations bill. The second and third votes in this series will be 10-minute votes. Therefore, Senators are encouraged to remain in the Chamber until all three votes have been completed. The majority leader will have more to say on the schedule following these votes.

Mr. SESSIONS. I yield such time as is remaining to the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise today as we remember the Honorable Senator from South Carolina, Strom Thurmond. The accomplishments of this man in his 100 years of life were truly amazing. All that he did for his State and our Nation make all Americans proud. He was a vigorous, positive person who unrelentingly worked for a better America. Senator Thurmond was born on December 5, 1902 in Edgefield, SC. He received his undergraduate degree from then Clemson College, now Clemson University, in 1923. He studied law under his father, Judge William Thurmond and, in 1930, was admitted to the South Carolina Bar. For 8 years, from 1930 to 1938, he served as the Edgefield Town and County attorney, and during that time, from 1933 to 1938, he served as South Carolina State Senator, representing Edgefield County. A true patriot, Senator Thurmond joined the U.S. Army Reserve as a 2nd lieutenant in 1924. He landed in Normandy on D-Day with the 82nd Airborne Division during World War II. For his military service, he earned 18 decorations, medals, and awards, including the Legion of Merit with Oak Leaf Cluster, Bronze Star for Valor, and the Purple Heart, among others. His political ambitions flourished when, in 1947, Senator Thurmond was elected Governor of South Carolina. In 1948, he decided to run for President of the United States as the States Rights Democratic candidate. He carried 4 States and received 39 electoral votes, the third largest independent electoral vote in U.S. history. However, the most memorable moment for Senator Thurmond came in 1954, when he was elected to the United States Senate as a write-in candidate! To be elected to any position as a write-in candidate, much less to the United States Senate, is a true testament to one's political prowess. He was the first person to ever be elected to a major office in the United States by this method. Senator Thurmond served on many committees during his service to America in the Senate. The duty and patriotism he displayed is a fine indication of all that he devoted to our Nation's military. It is quite fitting that Senator Thurmond served on the Senate Armed Services Committee and used his role to help enhance our military in every way possible. He served as chairman of this committee from January of 1995 to January of 1999 and was bestowed the great honor of being named chairman emeritus in 1999. The time I spent with Senator Thurmond on this committee was a wonderful learning experience for me and the Senate Armed Services Committee will miss Senator Thurmond. His military service provided him with an excellent background to understand the intricacies of our military and, without question, helped in his decision making ability for the betterment of America. Additionally, I had the pleasure of serving with Senator Thurmond on the Judiciary Committee, where he was a member from 1967 until his retirement. He served as chairman of this committee from 1981 to 1987 and served as chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Constitution, Federalism, and Property Rights from January to June of 2001. With a background as a judge and lawyer, Senator Thurmond cherished his role on this committee and always sought to ensure fairness on many issues, including that of appointing qualified judges to our Federal benches. I particularly remember his strong support for me when I was an unsuccessful judicial nominee in 1986. Senator Thurmond was a supporter, friend, and advisor. To list the numerous honors and awards Senator Thurmond received would take hours. However, I would like to point out some of the accolades I find truly incredible. In addition to his undergraduate degree from Clemson College, he also holds 34 honorary degrees. In 1994, he was inducted into the U.S. Army Rangers Hall of Fame. In 1997, he was awarded the Department of Defense Medal for Distinguished Public Service. In 1998, he was awarded the Spirit of Hope award, named after Bob Hope, by the United Service Organizations. Last year, he was awarded the Washington Times Foundation American Century Award. His life covered a time of monumental change in the South. His movement from a champion of racial segregation to one who promoted equal rights reflected the change that occurred throughout the region. His personal actions helped lead others to reject the impermissible policies of the past. One of the great memories I have of spending time with Senator Thurmond is the time he asked me to accompany him on a trip to China in 1997, as I began my term as Senator. On this trip, we had some time to climb the Great Wall of China. As is custom, an assistant is typically assigned to older individuals as they make their journey along the wall. Senator Thurmond declined any help and, at the time, was the oldest person to ever climb the wall unassisted. The Senator's ability to put things in perspective is illustrated by the fact that when, upon reaching the top of the wall, stated ``This is a big wall. Let's go.'' As the leader of our delegation and President pro tempore of the Senate at age 97, he handled every occasion superbly. He was particularly elegant when we met with Chinese Premier Jiang Zemin. I remember he concluded his remarks with the words ``China and the United States are friends. We want to be better friends.'' It is almost impossible to travel anywhere in South Carolina and not find Senator Strom Thurmond's name on a street, building, lake, highway, or monument. All that he did for South Carolina and for our Nation is a true testament to the caliber of man that he was. The lives he touched and the people he has positively affected are numerous. I know that his service to our Nation is sorely missed. You simply cannot put a value on the role he played as a true public servant. Senator Thurmond will be missed by many, many individuals in Congress, in South Carolina, and in America. A true southerner, a true American, and a true patriot, Senator Strom Thurmond will forever be remembered as a man whose beliefs, ideals, and character remained unparalleled for an entire century.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the amendment I have offered will remove the $100 million that is contained in the emergency supplemental section. I think it is wrong to include it in the emergency supplemental appropriations bill. It apparently is not an emergency, and I wish to talk about that a little bit. It is certainly not good public policy for us to do this. There are people in this Congress who support AmeriCorps and there are those who oppose it. My concern at this point deals with how this money has been added and whether or not it should be properly added. The emergency supplemental that has been made part of the legislation moving forward tonight involves the expenditure of Federal money outside the budget we approved. I serve on the Budget Committee. We worked hard to develop a budget of which we felt proud and on which we could agree. Frankly, with the deficits we are facing, I thought the budget was a little higher than I would have liked to see but it had a modest growth across the board in all areas. We agreed on it, and it passed in this Senate. We understand that legitimate emergencies occur during the year. We understand that when those emergencies occur, it is appropriate for Congress to appropriate emergency funding for them. This emergency funding agreement has some valuable items in it. We have a number of emergencies today but there has been a tendency--and I would say it is not a good tendency--to add to the emergency supplemental general items of appropriation that people would like to see be passed and be paid for. I remember talking with a senior member of the House of Representatives. We wanted to get a bill passed that would help Alabama. I talked to him about how we might do this. He said: Jeff, we need to look for a supplemental. I said: Well, good. He said: Do you know why? I said: No. He said: The reason you want a supplemental is it does not count against the deficit. Well, I thought that was kind of amusing. I said: What do you mean it does not count against the deficit? It is money we spend. He said: I do not know. It is just money that does not get counted against the deficit. What he really meant was it does not count against the budget. If you spend something extra, under a normal appropriations bill and you exceed the budget, or you should stay within your budget, the appropriators try to do so and if they spend money on one item they have to save money on something else. They have more requests than they can fund so they take the money and they reduce it to fund what they want. Some things do not get funded. One great way to get something done that one wants done in their district, that they believe in, that is easy to do, that requires no offsets, no competing against any other appropriations, is to tack it on to an emergency supplemental. Of course, it does add to the deficit. It adds to our debt. It increases our debt. It is real money and it is a real expenditure. It just circumvents the budget process and the integrity of the budget process. Frankly, a lot of these supplementals ought to be offset anyway. We could find $1.9 billion to offset these emergencies we are funding. I know we did not. We do not have to. This is the kind of emergency bill that we normally face and we normally pass without offsetting. So that is the circumstance we are in. I would like to go into that a little bit further. I want to say this before we get into the details of this amendment: Tomorrow is cost of government day. Cost of government day is a day in the calendar year when Americans have paid their share of Federal, State, local tax, and regulatory burdens. This year cost of government day is 4\1/2\ days later than last year. This means that from the beginning of this year, Americans have been working for the Government and will not stop working for the Government to pay their taxes until tomorrow. That is a big deal. One of the best ways we have to maintain some control over spending is the budget process. This supplemental is outside the budget process. So I am concerned about it. So $100 million, that makes us work just a little bit longer this year than we would have otherwise. By passing this amendment, we work a little less for the Government this year than would otherwise be the case. I will go a little further. The AmeriCorps appropriation does not belong in title III to an emergency bill. Let me say why. Look at the bill itself. Here are the legitimate emergency fundings that are in this bill: $1.55 billion for disaster relief and emergency assistance for fires and those kinds of events. That is important. That is a legitimate emergency, I think. At least historically we have considered it so. There is $50 million to cover expenses for responding to the Space Shuttle Columbia accident. NASA has incurred some substantial costs as a result of that. This will not fully reimburse them for that but it will be a help. There is $289 million for wildlife fire suppression and emergency rehabilitation activities. So I can understand those. Those are legitimate designations. While I would like to see us have offsets for that within the budget, that is not going to happen. However, during the markup of this supplemental, without any real debate the committee agreed to an amendment to provide $100 million in emergency supplemental funds for AmeriCorps not requested by the President. The President requested emergency funding for these other items. His budget people reviewed them carefully. The funds and numbers they asked for were subject to some scrutiny there. So in this emergency category, we have disaster relief, space shuttle accident, wildfires, and AmeriCorps. I do not think it belongs on this list. I see the value in AmeriCorps but I have been concerned about it for some time as not being a well run agency. I have not led a fight against it on the Senate floor but I have had some serious concerns. They have been shared by a very knowledgeable person who cares about AmeriCorps and who cares about helping people in need. I want to read from a press release from Congressman Jim Walsh, who is chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on VA/HUD and Independent Agencies with oversight over AmeriCorps, the national service program. This is a committee where this ought to be dealt with. It ought to be dealt with in our appropriations bill from our committee that deals with these very agencies. I want my colleagues to listen to the extraordinary comments that Congressman Walsh makes. Frankly, when I raised my objection to this addition to the emergency bill, it was based primarily on the process concerns and my generalized concern about the efficiency of AmeriCorps. I did not realize AmeriCorps had misbehaved as badly as it has. This is what Congressman Walsh said: I have been a strong and consistent supporter of the AmeriCorps program throughout my tenure in the United States Congress. Hundreds of volunteers have accomplished some amazing things in communities across my home State of New York. As a returned Peace Corps volunteer-- He is talking about himself-- I recognize and appreciate the value of this service program for local communities, program participants and our Nation at large. In fact, I was a supporter of its mission and opportunity the day the program was signed into law by President Clinton, and remain a steadfast supporter today. Now I would like to share the concerns of this strong supporter. He says this: However, AmeriCorps has been sadly plagued by poor management and weak financial oversight by program managers in Washington since its inception. Repeatedly, AmeriCorps administrators have overestimated capacity and underestimated available resources. This Congress has repeatedly instructed AmeriCorps to reform its management and to improve its accounting procedures, all the while working to live up to the commitments to its current participants. Most recently, just two months ago this Congress appropriated an additional $64 million in supplemental funding to close another budget gap, this time to cover agency overspending of funds clearly designated to cover existing volunteers' educational stipends. So he says just 2 months ago we appropriated another $64 million to cover overspending by this program. Why do we need extra money? Because they overspent. They mismanaged and they came back 2 months ago and got $64 million. That is not enough. They want another $100 million. Quoting Congressman Walsh, this supporter of AmeriCorps: In the fiscal year 2003 bill-- That is the bill we are operating under this year-- Congress provided necessary funding to cover the enrollment of 50,000 volunteers nationwide. Federal law set that as the enrollment limit, and AmeriCorps administrators agreed to it. In response, those same administrators went out and contracted with grantees and local agencies for 70,000 volunteers without the money or the authorization to do so. I am just quoting Congressman Walsh. He goes on to say: My opposition to the Senate's supplemental AmeriCorps appropriation proposal comes down to an issue of accountability. We shouldn't reward an agency that violates federal law and mismanages taxpayer dollars by providing additional funding until clear and consistent reforms have been enacted. Should these requested funds be appropriated, I have little faith that the existing operation could get the funding out of Washington to local community grantees effectively or equitably by the end of this fiscal year on September 30th. The positive impact AmeriCorps volunteer programs have across the country makes this a difficult decisions to make, but I truly believe that this action is necessary if true reform is to occur and the agency's long-term stability secured. At the same time, I look forward to constructing an FY '04 appropriations bill that adequately meets the growing role AmeriCorps volunteers have been asked to play by increasing ranks and expanding opportunities should agency leaders be able to demonstrate their commitment to improving management practices, reforming financial operations, and strengthening grant procedures. So we are being asked to tack on to an emergency bill an AmeriCorps supplemental of $100 million in addition to the $64 million in supplemental funding added to close another budget gap earlier this year, and we still do not have reform and an understanding that we are going to fix the out-of-control agency. This is an important matter. I note that Mr. Thomas Schatz, the president of Citizens Against Government Waste, has written. He strongly supports this amendment. He notes that: . . . striking anomaly about AmeriCorps is that it is not a volunteer program at all. Rather, it recruits college-age students for paid positions and then uses taxpayer dollars to subsidize the organizations that hire these recruits. Those hired by AmeriCorps participants cost taxpayers a bundle. An August 1995 GAO audit of 93 AmeriCorps grantees found that programs operated by nonprofit, state, and local agencies received about $25,800 in cash and in-kind contributions per participant. I don't know whether the program is worth it in the long run or whether it can be affirmed in the long run, but what I would say is that it is unlikely the money can be gotten out before the next fiscal year. Why not have the money go through the normal legislative process and be in next year's budget? It is really for scholarships for these people who work; they promise to give them scholarships in the future. They won't be drawing the scholarships down for 2 years more. I don't think we have to do it this year. The situation with their management is worse than I thought. It should not be on this emergency bill. If we are going to get serious about spending, this is the kind of thing on which we all ought to be agreed. This is the kind of thing to which we have to say no. If we have to give more to AmeriCorps, let's do it in the appropriations account where we have a budget cap and it will compete against other items in that cap. If it merits additional funding, so be it. If it does not merit it, so be it. Let us not tack it on to the debt. This will be paid for in no other way but by increased debt. I don't think we ought to do it. I feel strongly about it. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator for her comments. I will have to depart.

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the distinguished chairman for his courtesies, as always.

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank my colleague. The Senator from Maryland is one of our exemplary Members. She manages details and watches things better than most. I am glad she made some strong efforts to reform this program. I have two concerns about it. My original comments, when I saw the supplemental on this bill, went to the fact I did not think it should be on this bill. I did not realize the program had really gotten as far off course as it has, and been mismanaged as badly as the Senator just has stated. So it seems to me what we are doing is, by having this on the emergency supplemental, as the subcommittee in charge of oversight over the program that admits it has been out of control, that subcommittee will be able to get extra money to finance that mismanagement without it coming out of its appropriated, allocated amount by shifting it purely to debt, which is what the supplemental is going to be funded by, additional debt. I think it would be better frugal management if we could put it on next year's bill that you probably are already beginning to work on. That would be accountable under the budget. I am delighted the Senator is working on accountability. I know there is no Senator here who has a deeper commitment to integrity in the process than the Senator from Maryland.

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to make some remarks. I thank Senator Stevens for his courtesy in allowing me to have this time. I ask that the pending business be set aside, and that the amendment I previously filed, No. 1202, be called up for debate.

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Will the majority leader yield for a question? I don't know where we are on what is being propounded before I got here, but I am concerned about the supplemental; some of the items that have been made part of that I do not think qualify--in my judgment, at least--as emergency. Will we have opportunities with any proposal being floated here that would eliminate the opportunity to have votes on that matter?

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I wish to add my comments to the confirmation of Susan Braden. I happen to know her. She represented a business in the steel industry in Alabama that was in trouble. We tried to save it for the State. She worked so hard with the union members and with the company. I came to be extraordinarily impressed with her dedication, her legal skill, her love of law, and her integrity. I think she will do an excellent job in this important position. I wanted to add my comments that we need more people like Susan Braden in the courts of America. I think she will do a super job. I am very proud of her on this special day. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I say to Dr. Ensign, we appreciate his leadership on this matter and know that he is a professional himself, and he is familiar with these liability issues. The Senator talked about two doctors in Nevada being responsible for $14 million of the $22 million in punitive damages. I guess what I want to ask the Senator is that in this way we operate with punitive damages, is not the real truth that when two doctors get hit with big verdicts that the premiums from all the innocent doctors in Nevada go up? It is not just the bad doctor who pays--it is supposed to punish him--but the insurance company pays it, does it not, and then they pay for that by raising the premiums on everybody else?

Mr. SESSIONS. Will the Senator from Nevada yield for a question?

Mr. SESSIONS. I will share my thoughts. I believe this bill is a good way to go about at the present time dealing with what is a health care crisis in America--the surging costs of insurance and liability. I wish we were not in the Senate having to deal with it. I have some great friends in the tort business, good lawyers, and they have learned over the years how to utilize the system to maximize verdicts and maximize recoveries. They have been successful. Things have gotten out of sync. They need to be brought into sync. We can do it a number of different ways. We can do it State by State. The truth is over half of the medical care in hospitals in America today, and a very large percentage of what doctors do every day, is paid for by the Federal Government in Medicaid. It is our tax money. We are paying it. Part of the need they have for higher pay and higher reimbursement rates is because of the malpractice insurance they must pay. Caps on damages have worked. Last week I was in the small town of Russellville in Alabama where I practiced law for a year or so. It is pretty far off the beaten path. A bright young doctor gave me a couple of ideas about reforming medical care unrelated to this issue. He told me he had come from California. His premiums in Alabama were substantially higher, and growing each year, than his colleagues he left in California. He did not expect that. We have little or no caps. We have some caps in Alabama, but not the kind in California. I talked to a physician friend of mine, a wonderful person I go to church with, Dr. Conrad Pierce, former president of the OB/GYN Association. And he talked about the $100,000 liability premiums that OBs pay. He said, Jeff, you can get by in a city if you are delivering a couple hundred babies a year, but if you deliver 50 or 100 babies, this is $1,000 per delivery. It represents your health care premium. That is a big deal.

Mr. SESSIONS. That is the result we are dealing with. All kinds of factors are occurring that are impacting adversely health care as a result of the premiums. As my friend pointed out, in some rural areas you only deliver 50 or 60. It is not precisely how many babies delivered by a doctor that determines the premiums paid. You pay a basic premium if you deliver any at all. So the low numbers drive out physicians in rural areas who do not deliver that many babies. It is a big deal. We have seen medical malpractice insurance jump by 81 percent over the past 2 years alone. It has driven people out of business. The Physicians Insurance Association of America shows a fourfold increase from the period of 1991 to 2002 in the percentage of jury awards that exceed $1 million. We have a fourfold increase in the percentage of jury awards that exceed $1 million. Some say the reason these premiums have gone up is because insurance reserves are not producing the returns they used to produce. I don't think it is disputed that we have a substantial increase in the large verdicts around the country. That does drive the market. In West Virginia, Charleston Area Medical Center lost its Level I Trauma Center status, leaving West Virginia University Ruby Memorial Hospital as the only Level I Trauma Center in the State. The inability of this facility to find neurosurgeons and orthopedists created a situation in which critically injured patients had to be medevac'ed out of the State. Open the newspaper and you will read of similar crises in Pennsylvania, Nevada, Mississippi, and other areas. Rural areas are hit hardest by the increasing costs. This places additional burdens on those who can least afford it. In my home State, I was in the town of Atmore, not too far from where I grew up. The Atmore Community Hospital was forced to close its obstetrics unit because it could not afford the 282 percent increase in malpractice insurance from $23,000 to $88,000. When you deliver a limited number of children, $88,000 is a substantial cost against you. Now expectant mothers must travel either to the hospital in Brewton, 30 miles away, or to Mobile or Pensacola, FL, an hour away, eliminating availability of health care. Another rising crisis in my State has been brought to my attention involving the nursing home industry. It was a stunning statistic. At the request of the American Health Care Association, Aon Risk Consultants conducted an actuarial analysis that found there was a substantial increase in premiums, an extraordinary increase from 1995 to 2002 for nursing homes, meaning that the cost for settling and defending malpractice claims increased from $320 a bed in a nursing home to $4,410 per bed, over a tenfold increase in the insurance premiums paid. This was first brought to my attention by an individual I know in my hometown of Mobile who shared those numbers with me. It is consistent with his personal experience. I was shocked. We are looking at $4,000 per-bed cost annually for liability insurance per nursing home bed. That is very significant. I hope as we go forward we can move beyond obstruction and a filibuster to be able to offer amendments, if people think they can make it better, that we can do things that would be realistic and effective. I think we can do that. This bill has a good core right now. I intend to support it and I intend to vote for it and I intend to vote to move it up for debate. The odd thing about malpractice in America today and the lawsuits that get filed are, as I suggested to my able friend from Nevada, Senator Ensign, we think we are punishing doctors who make a mistake and we sue them for punitive damages. This historically was not a big part of litigation in America, but in the last 20 or 30 years punitive damages have become a staple in litigation. If a doctor makes a mistake, they sue him for the mistake, they sue him for the compensation, damages, pain and suffering of the patient, and they invariably add it was done recklessly, wantonly, or without due regard of care and that he is, therefore, responsible for punitive damages. Those punitive damages are added on to it as a punishment to that doctor. But already the doctor in the basic recovery is above the deductible he had on his insurance policy. He has already paid that out of his pocket. So whether it is $1 million or $10 million or $500,000 in punitive damages, that is paid for by the insurance system that we set up. And who pays into that insurance system? All the doctors in the community. I absolutely agree with Senator Ensign that we need tighter controls on physicians by the medical associations, just as I believe--and have believed for a long time--we need tighter controls by the legal professional community, of which I have been a part. We do not do enough there. But, regardless of that, you are still going to have negligence. You are still going to have these kinds of recoveries. If not capped, they continue to shift the payment from the person who did wrong to the innocent doctors and physicians out there who will all see their premiums increase substantially. I have visited hospitals in my State on a regular basis. I visited probably 30 hospitals in the last 3 or 4 years. I ask them about how their liability insurance premiums are doing. They tell me they tripled in the last several years, invariably--more than double consistently, they tell me, over the last 3 or 4 years. Each one is somewhat different but the premiums have gone up at an extraordinary rate. I think this Congress, faced with a demand for improving health care and health care delivery to more people, and at the same time trying to do so with contained cost, ought to look at one aspect of the medical system that produces little or no benefit and that is the amount of money paid out through this system. Yes, I do believe that lawsuits make some physicians more careful. I do think it has led to the altering of practices for better health care. I do not believe all lawsuits are bad. I do not believe all recoveries are bad. I think it is good sometimes if physicians get hit and popped and sent a message. I think the embarrassment of the lawsuit itself has a substantial impact on this physician and other physicians in the community. But whether the recovery is $500,000 in punitive damages, $250,000 or $2 million is not the point. That physician is not really going to be paying it. The other physicians in the community will be paying it. I think we will get the same impact in terms of improving health care if we allow lawsuits to go forward but we don't allow them to turn into jackpot justice where one patient, one victim, one injured patient who sues gets $10 million and another one gets $500,000 or zero for virtually the same circumstance. Too often that has happened. This is not a systematic way we are dealing with malpractice in America. And who is paying for it? John Q. Citizen, the Federal Government, in terms of Medicare and Medicaid moneys we send out. I think we can do better. I think this bill is a step in the right direction. My friend from Illinois is a skilled lawyer. There is no doubt in my mind his remarks on this bill will represent the best comments that can be made in opposition to it. But overall I think it is a net plus. It is the right step to take. We are going to need to do something about these costs. I do not believe the benefits in improved health care are anything like the costs that are being incurred by physicians. They do not consider the amount of care being denied American citizens as a result of physicians choosing another course. Finally, I read in the newspaper about Dr. Sumpter Blackman from Camden, AL, a small town I grew up in of not much more than 1,000 people with a small hospital with about 20-some-odd beds. Dr. Blackman is the main physician there. It was reported that he may have to give up his practice; that he could not get insurance. One of the companies had changed and he was not able to get other insurance. The rates were extraordinarily high. He was wondering whether or not he should stay in the business. I could say to the Members of this Senate, with no doubt, if you took a poll of the people in Camden, AL, and the environs and asked who was the most important person in that community to them, Dr. Sumpter Blackman would win that hands down. He was my mother's physician. He takes care of people there. He knows them. He is an excellent physician. He is talking about retiring early as a result of lawsuits. I think this has gone beyond just talk and debate and big insurance companies and rich companies and poor victims and doctors. I think it is a health care issue. We cannot afford to lose people such as Dr. Sumpter Blackman from the medical profession. He has saved the lives of thousands in his long career there in Camden, AL, and there are a lot more like him. They are thinking maybe this business just isn't worth it; I put aside some money and maybe I will just go off somewhere and do something else and not have to worry about this and worry about getting insurance. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. If the Senator will yield, I think we do agree we need to work to improve our legal system to make it the best we possibly can. How do we do that? Sometimes we disagree but I respect the Senator from Illinois and his skill.