Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank Senator Leahy. I yield to the Senator from Arizona.

Mr. SESSIONS. One of the big issues we have before us, as we consider President Bush's nominees, is: Are we looking to have people on the bench to further our political agenda, or are we just looking for a neutral arbiter, someone who can evaluate the cases between litigants and make a fair and just rendering of an opinion on it? That is what it is all about. One of the things that was raised in complaint about Miguel Estrada was he would not answer all their questions about his views on cases and lawsuits, and so forth. They said he would not produce his internal memoranda when he was a part of the Solicitor General's Office of the Department of Justice. Every living former Solicitor General of the United States, Republican and Democrat, to my knowledge, has written that he ought not to do that. Lawyers ought to be encouraged to write to their clients, the Department of Justice superiors, and give their opinions. Let me add one thing about that issue. The memoranda that he wrote were not to John Mitchell. The memoranda that he wrote were for Janet Reno and the Clinton Department of Justice. He was in the Solicitor General's Office during that time. And he was evaluated and given the highest possible evaluation by the Clinton Department of Justice attorneys. One of them specifically noted in that evaluation that he followed the procedures and policies of the Clinton Department of Justice. So I do not see how it can be suspected that he was writing right-wing extremist memoranda within that Department of Justice while having the kind of respect and high evaluations that he had. So I believe that is important. There is a real reason that judicial nominees--and I know the Presiding Officer is a lawyer and understands these issues--why someone thrown into a hearing ought to be reluctant to answer questions about complex cases when we have a hearing on the confirmation of a nominee to the Federal courts of the United States. If they are confirmed, they will be given important cases on which to rule. I hope and I pray they will spend many hours reading the briefs of the parties, reading personally the major cases in the country that deal with that issue, and they give it sincere thought and prayerful consideration before they render a verdict. That is what we want. To throw somebody in a hearing and to start asking them how they are going to rule on this matter or that matter is improper. And asking them that would bind them, if they got in. In other words, let's say that they said: Well, I favor this, Mr. Senator; I hope that makes you happy; and I agree with you. And then they become a judge, and they get a stack of briefs, and they start reading the opinions, and they come back out with the belief that that is wrong. What have they done then? No. The history of our confirmation process and the strong opinion of the American Bar Association, an independent arbiter in these matters, is that they should not be lured into expressing opinions on cases that are likely to come before them on the bench. That is so fundamental and so sound a principle that I cannot imagine anyone would suggest it be changed. Lloyd Cutler, White House Counsel to Presidents Clinton and Carter, wrote this: Candidates should decline to reply when efforts are made to find out how they would decide a particular case. That was his testimony in our hearing as we discussed these issues in the Judiciary Committee. That certainly is correct to me. I believe that is sound policy, whether we have a Republican President or a Democratic President. I do not recall that Senator Hatch ever insisted a judge tell him how he was going to rule. My good friend Senator Leahy, he likes to talk about the Federalist Society and Senator Hatch making a speech at the Federalist Society. They take no position over any of these legal issues. They are a forum for debate. Most of the members, perhaps, believe in a restrained judiciary, but they have a lot of different ideas and vigorous debate, and they publish articles that disagree with one another. But we confirmed a host of Federal judges under President Clinton who were members of the American Civil Liberties Union. You may say: Well, you know the American Civil Liberties Union. They do some good work. I don't think we should just vote against them for that reason. And we didn't. We confirmed almost all of them. As a matter of fact, I am not sure any of them who were members did not get confirmed. Look at the Web site of the ACLU. It takes positions on issues. The ACLU believes there should be total separation of church and State. I am sure they agree with the proposal that we ought to take ``under God'' out of the Pledge of Allegiance. They believe in the legalization of drugs. They believe pornography laws should not be on the books and are unconstitutional. They believe even that child pornography laws are unconstitutional. That is a stated position. Out of deference to President Clinton's nominees and his power and prerogative of appointment, we confirmed a bunch of them who were members of the ACLU, one of whom was a litigation committee chairman for the ACLU. Others had been State directors of the ACLU. What did we do? We asked them in the hearing: Do you personally support all those views? They would usually say they didn't. We would say: Well, whether you agree or not on drug legalization, let me ask you this: If we pass a law that says drugs are illegal, will you enforce it? Will you take your office as judge and use it to undermine the established law of the land? And they would all say: We will enforce the law. That is how they came to be confirmed. I hope and trust to this day they are complying with that. Our system would not work were it otherwise. I reiterate my growing admiration for Miguel Estrada's capabilities. He came here as a teenager, was an honors graduate, the highest possible honors at Columbia College. He went to Harvard Law School where he finished at the top of his class and was chosen editor of the Harvard Law Review. For a graduating law senior from a law school to be editor of the Law Review is one of the highest, probably the highest, honor that can be received. He was chosen that by his fellow members. He didn't clerk for a Second Circuit Court of Appeals judge. They say he doesn't have judicial experience. He sat at the right hand of a Federal circuit judge, doing the kind of work he will be doing as a judge today, for 2 years. Not only that, he was such an astoundingly qualified and capable young lawyer, he was chosen to be a law clerk for Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court of the United States. Anybody who knows anything about the legal profession knows being chosen as a law clerk by a Supreme Court judge is a great honor, something very few people ever get the opportunity to do. It is considered a matter of great significance. Of course, Justice Kennedy is considered one of the swing justices on the Supreme Court, not one my colleagues like to talk about as an extreme conservative. That is who he clerked for, and remains close to Justice Kennedy to this day. He is admired by him. Then he went to the Department of Justice to the Solicitor General's office. The Solicitor General's office is the law firm for the United States before the Supreme Court. It is within the Department of Justice. They prepare the arguments before the Supreme Court, the appellate courts. Of course, that is what Miguel Estrada will be considered for, an appellate court judge, not a trial judge, but an appellate court judge. He did a remarkable job there, receiving the highest possible evaluations by the Department of Justice. After that, he went into practice with one of the premier law firms in the world in Washington, DC, and was evaluated by the American Bar Association. The American Bar Association takes its evaluation seriously. They do an independent background check. They make the nominee submit a list of their most significant cases. They have to give the names and addresses of the judge who tried the case, names and addresses of the opposing counsel, and maybe even cocounsel, and to summarize the case. When that is done, the ABA interviews them. They don't interview just their friends. They interview the lawyers on the other side of the cases. They want to know, was this person a fair litigator; did he understand the law; were his arguments coherent; did he have integrity; did you respect him in the course of this litigation. Out of that evaluation, the American Bar Association unanimously voted he was well qualified for the court of appeals, and ``well qualified'' is the highest evaluation given. We are proud of his achievements. President Bush has nominated an extraordinary judge. As I study more about Miguel Estrada and see more of his record, the more confident I am he will be not just a good justice but a great one. I believe that strongly. I see Senator Kyl is here. We have been going back and forth, so if you were able to allow him to speak at this time, that would be good.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I will say, I was down here to speak on the Estrada nomination. I think the individuals who oppose him say they want to talk about it. I would like to hear what they have to say. This morning there is nobody down from the other side, the opposition, to speak against him. I don't know what they could say if they came. So it is frustrating to me. I know the Senator has some issues she cares about deeply and wants to talk. I suppose that is appropriate at this time, although in reality I think we ought to be engaged in a debate about this nomination and why it should be held up, why he does not qualify for the bench, and why there is something wrong with an individual who was given the highest possible rating, unanimously, by the American Bar Association. Having said that, I withdraw my objection to the unanimous consent request.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I assume we are on the business of the Estrada nomination.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, that is the pending business before the Senate today. It is a matter of importance. The Court of Appeals of the United States are important judicial offices. We need good people for those offices. There is no doubt in my mind that Miguel Estrada is one of the finest nominees we have seen in years. He has an impeccable record, with extreme capability, and wonderful integrity. He had a great demeanor in the committee when he testified. So I am very impressed with him. It is very disturbing to me that we would have a blockage, an obstruction being carried on here by the members of the Democratic Party. They stalled him in committee. They failed to give him and several other superb President Bush nominees to the court of appeals a hearing at all--over 600 days. It would have been 2 years in May since they were nominated, and there was not a hearing even held. So when the majority switched, Senator Hatch had hearings on Mr. Estrada. I thought he testified just superbly, with such a winning manner. He is a low-key person, but he has a brilliant mind. He analyzed the questions carefully, and gave responsible answers time and again in a way that few could disagree with, in my view. If we are going to slow down the work of the Senate, if we are going to stop what we are doing to talk about a nominee for the court of appeals, I would like to hear people step up to the plate and talk about that nominee. Let's see what the problems are. I haven't seen them. We have had two speakers today from the other side who talked about asbestos and hydrogen automobiles, not the subject at hand. We have agreed to that. I don't know how long we ought to agree to that. Maybe we should just say, if you want to slow down the Senate, then so be it. We will just talk about that day after day. I am concerned about that. I did misspeak in saying that Estrada didn't have a nomination hearing under the Democratic majority. He did get a hearing late in the process. Three of the nominees we had last week who were nominated with him in May 2 years ago got their first hearing just last week. He was not part of that group. Mr. Estrada came to this country at 17. He went to Columbia College where he graduated with honors magna cum laude. Then he went on to Harvard Law School. He grew up in Honduras. His mother came here. She could not speak English. He has done exceedingly well. He is a tremendous American success story. He is a great American, the kind of person we all respect because of his merit, his humility, his strength of character, his hard work, and his intellect. After going to the Harvard Law School, which many consider the most prestigious law school in the world, he not only finished at the top of his class, he was chosen to be editor of the Harvard Law Review. The editor of the Harvard Law Review or any law review at a good law school is considered to be one of the most outstanding honors a graduate can have. It is probably more significant in the minds of many people than who had the highest grade point average, who finished No. 1 in the class. Being editor of the law review is something you are chosen for by your classmates and the faculty. It is a great honor. It requires exceptional academic excellence. He finished magna cum laude at Harvard. It also requires leadership skills and analysis, the kind of skills that most people think make a good lawyer. He was successful in that. After doing that, he was an assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York. I was an assistant U.S. attorney in my prior life, and a U.S. attorney. But those in the Southern District of New York, rightly or wrongly, considers themselves to be the premier U.S. attorney's office in the country. They hire only the highest achieving assistant U.S. attorneys. They are very proud of that. Just being chosen at that office is a great honor. I would suspect there are more than 100 applicants for every vacancy they have. It is an office that handles complex matters. Some of the biggest financial and international matters often get handled in the Southern District of New York. While he was there, he became active in and chairman of the appellate litigation section. That means he wrote briefs that would be presented to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York. The Second Circuit is considered one of the great circuits in America. So he was chosen to represent the United States in the attorney's office, to write their appellate briefs before one of the great circuit courts. One reason he was chosen for that is that Miguel Estrada, after graduating from Harvard, clerked for a U.S. Court of Appeals judge for the Second Circuit there in New York and had a good record. After having clerked for the Second Circuit, he was chosen to be a clerk for the U.S. Supreme Court, Justice Anthony Kennedy. For lawyers graduating from Harvard, or from any law school in America, being chosen to be a law clerk for a Justice on the Supreme Court is an exceedingly great honor. It is sought by thousands and thousands, and very few are selected. He was selected because of his excellent record, his background, and expertise. It is a great compliment to him that he was chosen to clerk for Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is considered to be a swing Justice on the Court. After that, he went to the U.S. attorney's office, where they prosecute criminal cases and work on the appeals that arise from those kind of cases and other matters relating to U.S. litigation in court. That is what they do there. He did a good job there. Then he was chosen to come to the Solicitor General's Office of the U.S. Department of Justice. Inside the Department of Justice, one of the oldest Cabinet positions in our Government, one of the founding Cabinet positions, there is the Litigation Division. Inside the appellate litigation section is the Solicitor General's Office. The Solicitor General has often been referred to as the Government's lawyer. The position of Solicitor General has been called one of the finest lawyer jobs in the world, because the Solicitor General and his team get to appear before the Supreme Court and represent the United States. I used to be thrilled when I could stand in a courtroom in the Southern District of Alabama and say: I represent the United States of America. The United States is ready, Your Honor. That was a great honor for me. To be able to do that in the highest court in the land and represent the United States before the Supreme Court is a premier honor for any lawyer. Miguel Estrada was chosen for that. He served over 5 years in that capacity. During that time, overwhelmingly, he served in the Clinton Department of Justice. During that time, every single year while he served in the Department of Justice, he got the highest possible evaluation that the Department of Justice evaluators give--year after year. They said he was cooperative, a leader; he inspired other lawyers to do their best. They said he followed the policies of the Department of Justice, not someone running off doing independent things and nutty things. He was a solid, committed attorney to the Solicitor General's Office, to the ideals of the Solicitor General's Office. He was commended in his evaluations for following the policies of that office. That is quite an achievement. He left there and joined the prestigious law firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, one of the great law firms in the world, no doubt. He has been highly successful there, and the President has now nominated him for the court of appeals. He has, in the course of his career, argued 15 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. You could count on both hands probably the number of practicing lawyers today who have ever argued 15 cases before the Supreme Court. That is a reflection of the confidence that clients and his law firm had in him. This isn't politics. When you have a big case before the Supreme Court of the United States and you have to have somebody there arguing that case, you don't want second rate, you want the best person you can get. The Supreme Court hears less than 100 cases per year. They select only a very few. Whenever your case is chosen for the Supreme Court, there is no doubt about it, the clients start looking around for superior appellate lawyers to represent their interests in a case that may set national policy for generations to come. We still cite many of those Supreme Court cases time and again to indicate the importance of them and how much they impact our daily lives. So he was chosen 15 times to appear before the Supreme Court. I think that is a tremendous testament to his merit, his capability. I will tell you something else. You don't hotdog before the Supreme Court of the United States. You have to know what you are talking about. You have to be disciplined and you must understand the rulings of the Supreme Court, how they impact the case at hand, and you have to argue to the Justices within the realm of their existing philosophy and the existing status of the case law as to why you think your client should prevail or why the opponent should not prevail. That is a great compliment to him. Now, for some time, our Democratic colleagues have complained we did not give enough prominence to the opinions of the American Bar Association. They evaluate judges. They are not any official body. The American Bar Association is just an institution out there that does legal matters and represents lawyers as a group. They evaluate these judges. So they want to do it and they do it. They have every right to do it. I, frankly, value their opinions. I have always thought they were good. Some have felt they were biased a bit to the left. The positions the ABA takes at conferences consistently are liberal positions, which irritates a lot of lawyers and conservatives in the country. They have felt the ABA could not be trusted to evaluate judges objectively. In fact, I have noted some tendency to be less favorable to conservative judges than to liberal judges, but I feel their contributions are valuable--I always have--and I continue to believe they are valuable. So that was a complaint from our friends on the other side of the aisle, that we ought to listen to them more. The ABA has reviewed Miguel Estrada's nomination. They have conducted a thorough review of it. They give several different kinds of ratings. They give ratings of nonqualified, unqualified, qualified, and a well- qualified rating. Very few people get the well-qualified rating. This is what it requires to get it, according to the ABA manual: To merit a rating of well qualified, the nominee must be at the top of the legal profession in his or her legal community . . . The ``top'' of the profession . . . . . . have outstanding legal ability, breadth of experience, the highest reputation for integrity, and either have demonstrated or exhibited the capacity for judicial temperament. That is what is required for a person to get the well-qualified rating. They have 15 of so lawyers study and talk to judges and to the lawyers in the firm with the person, and they talk to lawyers on the other side of cases from the nominee; they make the nominee list the top 10 or so cases they have handled, and they talk to the lawyers and judges to see how well they performed in handling those cases, and so forth. When all of that was done, Miguel Estrada was unanimously voted well qualified, which is the highest possible rating for the court of appeals. In fact, he is one of the finest young lawyers in America today, a man of extraordinary capabilities, and I think a man who would be perfect for the court of appeals. He will be handling cases in a number of different aspects. These will be the kinds of matters he has spent his life handling, because the kinds of cases they have here in DC are cases he has worked with both as an Assistant U.S. Attorney when he represented the United States of America, and at the Solicitor General's office, and also the kind of appellate cases he has had in private practice before the Supreme Court. I am proud of him. I have observed no complaint that in any way damages his qualities and capabilities. Miguel Estrada has support across the aisle from Democrats and Republicans. He is the kind of person who ought to move forward. I remain utterly baffled about why such a fine nominee would be given the kind of grief he has gotten so far, and to be held up the way he has been held up, and how people say they are going to fight it for weeks, perhaps. I hope that is not so. I hope we don't have a filibuster. At the time the Republicans had the majority in the Senate, and when President Clinton was nominating judges, we never had a filibuster. During that time, we confirmed 377 of President Clinton's nominees and voted only one down. Not one nominee was ever blocked in committee, and in less than 2 years we have had two nominees blocked in the committee already, when the Democrats had the majority. Regardless of that, this nominee ought to move forward. He is the kind of person we need on the bench. We should celebrate the fact that an individual of his quality, with his potential to create high income in one of the finest law firms in the country, right here in one of the most prestigious practices in the country, is willing to give that up for public service because he loves his country and the principles of our country. I think he is the kind of person we need on the bench, and I think it is time for us to give him a vote. I am sure we will and, when we do, I believe he will be confirmed. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I assume the Senator will be speaking on a subject other than the Estrada nomination?

Mr. SESSIONS. Will the Senator yield? There is some statement in there that sounds odd to me. They criticize Mr. Sutton for persuading the Supreme Court, like it is something bad. And I make a note that the Supreme Court ruled with him and agreed with his position. I know the Senator is so knowledgeable about these issues. I just ask, Is there something wrong, is it disqualifying for an attorney to prevail on the Supreme Court?

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 6, 2003, at 9:30 a.m., to hold a hearing on the foreign affairs budget. Witness: The Honorable Colin L. Powell, Secretary, Department of State, Washington, DC.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a markup on Thursday, February 6, 2003, at 11:30 a.m., in Dirksen Room 226. (Tentative) Agenda I. Nominations Deborah Cook to be U.S. Court of Appeals Judge for the Sixth Circuit; John Roberts to be U.S. Court of Appeals Judge for the D.C. Circuit; Jeffrey Sutton to be U.S. Court of Appeals Judge for the Sixth Circuit; John Adams to be U.S. District Court Judge for the Northern District of Ohio; Robert Junell to be U.S. District Court Judge for the Western District of Texas; and S. James Otero to be U.S. District Court Judge for the Central District of California. II. Bills S. 253, A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to exempt qualified current and former law enforcement officers from State laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed handguns. [Campbell/Leahy/Hatch/ Grassley/DeWine/Kyl/Sessions/Craig/Cornyn/Graham/Feinstein/Schumer] S. 113, A bill to exclude United States persons from the definition of ``foreign power'' under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 relating to international terrorism. [Kyl/Hatch/DeWine/Schumer/ Chambliss] III. Resolutions S. , National Inventor's Day [Hatch/Leahy]

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to an outstanding citizen of the great State of Alabama, Miss Scarlotte Deupree. Scarlotte may be a young woman, but her accomplishments are numerous and exceptional. Her most recent achievement was receiving the very distinguished honor of being First Runner Up to Miss America for 2003. This honor bears important functions, including representing and advocating good American values, which is a fundamental part of the Miss America Pageant. These young women choose platforms, or issues, important to our society and use their stature to help raise awareness and bring positive changes to these areas. Before entering the Miss America Pageant, Scarlotte knew that her platform would be adult literacy, an issue she has worked with for many years. Scarlotte has devoted a great amount of her time to helping others and raising the public's awareness of adult literacy. Included in Scarlotte's work are her efforts in forming the Sylacauga Adult Literacy Council, her coordination of the first Women in Literacy Summit, as well as her work with the Literacy Council of Central Alabama, ALERT, Habitat for Humanity, and the Ronald McDonald House. In addition, Ms. Deupree helped spearhead the Literacy Awareness Week for the cities of Homewood and Athens, AL. For her great work, Ms. Deupree has been honored by the Daily Points of Light Foundation with the Daily Point of Light No. 660 Award. She also received the Distinguished Partner Award by the Literacy Council of Central Alabama, the Miss Alabama Community Service Award, 1999 and 2002, Miss America State Community Service Award, 2002, the U.S. Presidential Service Gold Award, 1999 and 2002, and she was voted ``Most Ambitious'' by her student peers at Samford University. Scarlotte also has a great record of accomplishment in other areas, including education. She completed high school at the top of her class at Sylacauga High School, where she was a member of the National Honor Society, student council, Mu Alpha Theta Math Honor Society, Political Awareness Club, and the B.B. Comer Library Teen Advisory Board. She went on to study English and journalism at Samford University, one of the Nation's best liberal arts colleges. There she was a member of the Sigma Tau Delta English Honor Fraternity, Samford University Honor's Program, Freshman Forum, Alpha Delta Pi Social Sorority, and volunteered as a Step Sing Consultant. In addition, she worked in my Senate office as an intern in the winter of 2000, a very busy time for our political system and country. She produced excellent work, received high marks from my staff, and contributed greatly to my office during her stay. I was very impressed with her. She is an example of the great work our Nation's young people do. I am very proud of her and I know she will continue to give leadership to the critical area of adult literacy and that she will be a leader in whatever career she chooses. I applaud her tireless efforts on behalf of all Alabamians and would like to take this opportunity to thank her for all that she has contributed to her community, the State of Alabama and our Nation. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me today in recognizing Scarlotte Deupree for her outstanding achievements and wish her well as she continues to work to improve literacy.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I want to take a few moments today to make some remarks in appreciation for the Alabama Congressional delegation's most senior staff member, Mr. Clay Swanzy. Originally from Greensboro, AL, one of Alabama's most charming towns, Clay retired in November after 31 years of service to the U.S. Congress. Mr. Swanzy has served on the congressional staff of three different distinguished Alabama congressmen: former Congressmen Jack Edwards of Mobile and Bill Dickinson of Montgomery, and most recently Congressman Terry Everett of Enterprise. He was known on the staff of each congressman for his hard work, dedication to duty, and loyalty. In 1971, former Congressman Jack Edwards hired Clay away from his position as a political reporter for the Mobile Press Register to become his press secretary in Washington. Clay remained with Congressman Edwards until Congressman Bill Dickinson of Montgomery offered him a position as his chief of staff. In 1993, when Congressman Dickinson retired, Clay remained in Washington as the chief of staff for Dickinson's successor, Congressman Terry Everett. After managing Congressman Everett's office for 10 years, Clay decided to retire from public service in Washington and return to Alabama. Clay always enjoyed working behind the scenes, outside the glare of the political spotlights. His departure is a loss for the Second Congressional District and the State of Alabama. All who knew and worked with him will miss him. On more than one occasion I have sought and received good advice from Clay. During his years of service he has learned much. He never panics, and always thinks clearly and with compassion for those involved. He is a strong leader, but one who leads by wisdom, thoughtfulness, insight and grace rather than threats or bluster. The people of Alabama have benefited greatly from his leadership. I, as well as many other government officials, have benefited greatly from his service. Clay has always been a leader among Alabama's delegation staff. They have valued his judgment, insight, and experience. We will certainly miss Clay, but he has earned his retirement. As proof that his long tenure in Washington has not turned his head, I am pleased to note that he has chosen to make his retirement home, back in Alabama, in beautiful Baldwin County. Clay, we thank you for your friendship and service and wish you Godspeed.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period for morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, for the information of Senators, three back-to-back rollcall votes will commence at 11 a.m. tomorrow in relation to the pending amendments to the appropriations bill. The first vote will be on the Feingold amendment No. 200 dealing with military training. The second vote will be on the Mikulski amendment No. 61 on public-private competition. The third vote will be on the Murray amendment No. 39 regarding community action programs, CAP. The managers of the bill will continue to work with the Members in an effort to reach short time agreements on any remaining amendments so that the Senate can complete action on the bill at a reasonable time tomorrow. Additional votes will occur throughout the day on Thursday. I thank the Members for their attention.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Washington for her comments. I had the pleasure a little over a year ago to travel to five different rural health clinics in Alabama, many of these in areas where minority citizens live, and was very pleased to have the chief Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services, Claude Allen, to do that, an African-American himself, the chief deputy to Tommy Thompson. My understanding is the administration does support rural health clinics; in fact, it has plans to expand them. Properly done, it would be the right way to go. I will be looking at the Senator's amendment and reviewing that as we go forward. I think the general policy and the general direction of this administration will be to expand those clinics rather than to reduce them.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we are waiting for the assistant Democratic leader, and while Senator Murray is here, I will add further on that subject that we visited rural health clinics in Alabama. They do a lot of work. Somehow we have created a system of health care where it is not easy for physicians and health care professionals to choose to live in rural areas, and it has taken Government programs to meet the crisis need. I wish we could figure out a way to incentivize it so a person who might like to live in a small town could practice medicine there and make a decent living and have a nice life. Somehow we have not done that effectively. That is the reason we have felt the need to create these clinics with Government support. Textile Transshipments

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I understand there are two more amendments to be called up by Senators Mikulski and Murray. For each I believe we have 20 minutes to speak on behalf of those amendments. I see Senator Mikulski. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. Yes.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I yield back time in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I yield back the time on this side.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 10 a.m. Thursday, January 23. I further ask that following the prayer and the pledge, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and there then be a period of morning business until 10:45 a.m., with the time equally divided, and Senators be permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each. Further, I ask that at 10:45 a.m., the Senate resume consideration of H.J. Res. 2, the appropriations bill. I further ask consent that at 11 a.m., the Senate proceed to a series of votes in relation to the pending amendments as under the previous order. Finally, I ask consent that there be 2 minutes equally divided for debate prior to each of the stacked votes.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Democratic whip and I note that it has gone well. We have covered a lot of territory. People have had the opportunity to present amendments and speak on them and have votes on their amendments. But we have a lot out there, and a lot of work is being done. It would be much to the pleasure of the people on this side if we were able to complete this tomorrow. A lot of effort has gone into the last several days. Senator Stevens is as committed to doing everything he can on this side to work with the leadership on the other side of the aisle to bring this matter to a conclusion tomorrow, with everybody having a fair opportunity to speak and vote as they choose.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise to express my admiration for Governor Ridge. I have over the weeks and months observed him in his leadership role. I believe he has performed exceptionally well. This Nation was attacked on September 11. We remember that vividly. We also remember the Nation's determination to do a better job of protecting our homeland. The President looked all over the country. He picked somebody to lead the effort to bring together State and local and Federal agencies in a way that would enhance dramatically our ability to be safe from terrorist attack. It was not talk he wanted; he wanted leadership, he wanted action. So, he created the Office of Homeland Security in the White House right next to him. He chose to head that critical agency someone he knew, someone he had grown to respect as a fellow Governor who had a record of achievement and excellence and professionalism. He chose a man who understood State agencies as well as Federal agencies. He chose a man who served in the U.S. Congress and who had served in the military, winning combat medals for his actions in Vietnam. He chose the kind of person we needed at that time. It was a thankless task. Many said it could not be done. Many said we would not be able to prevent further attacks. Anybody taking that job had to know that they were taking great personal risk because anything that did happen would be their fault. They would have to answer for it. I am so impressed with Governor Ridge. He took charge aggressively. He changed the way this Government did business. He took control of the situation by meeting with the heads of the Government agencies. I used to be a Federal prosecutor for 15 years. I worked with the FBI and the DEA and Customs and the Coast Guard and all those Federal agencies--ATF, Secret Service, all of them. They act at times like foreign nations. They produce memoranda of understanding that are like treaties. It is difficult to make a move. They have their own agendas. They are charged by Congress to do A and B and C, and they are not interested in doing D. Maybe they should. Tom Ridge took charge and dealt with the leadership of those agencies. Barriers were broken down to an unprecedented degree. Despite obvious results that we wish had been achieved but were not able to be accomplished, tremendous things were accomplished under the President's unequivocal leadership and the efficiency and leadership of Governor Ridge. I am proud of Tom and excited to have him take on that job. Now that we have moved to the Department of Homeland Security with 170,000 people, I want to say this--I have shared this thought with him; I think he comprehends it--this Congress is not moving blocks and departments and governmental entities all cobbled together into some giant agency and just expecting it to be better than it was before. The very fact they are now one agency with one mission, should on balance clearly make the Department more efficient in our fight against terror. They have individual institutional biases and tendencies that may not be perfectly compatible with this new agency. It is going to take strong leadership. We don't need excessive administration. I expect and believe and am excited about the potential for Governor Ridge to use the force of his will, to use the mandate this Congress has given him, to use the confidence and support the President has in him to make sure those agencies realize, when they come together, that it is now a new organization, and we expect the greatest efficiency possible. We expect the mission we have assigned to this agency will be the No. 1 guiding factor to make America safe, and we want them not to focus on bureaucracies and special interests and labor rules, but focus on making this country safe. I believe Governor Ridge understands that mission, and he is going to work with the employees to reach a higher degree of productivity than we have ever had. I thank Senator Collins for her leadership. She is a master of this subject and has worked so hard at it. I will not say anymore. I am excited about the potential of this agency. We would like to see, frankly, this agency set a new standard for governmental efficiency and productivity. There is an opportunity here to do better. I believe we can. I am excited, and I will be supporting Governor Ridge. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, for some years now I have been active in the debate over the Individuals with Disabilities Act. It is a program that has provided tremendous benefit to thousands of families. Children get extraordinary care with the most severe disabilities in our public schools. At one hearing in the Education Committee, the superintendent from a school system in Vermont stated that 20 percent of his budget goes to IDEA. We have a serious problem with discipline. I have offered amendments and this Senate has passed amendments to deal with that discipline, the weaknesses in the IDEA act allowing a child whose misbehavior is unconnected in any way to the disability that they may have to be treated quite differently from the other kids in the schools, making teachers and principals extremely upset and frustrated, knowing they have a dual standard of behavior in their school systems. I suggest to anybody that they talk to principals and teachers and superintendents who run school systems. They will tell you this act needs to be reformed. It is, in fact, a Federal mandate. It is a requirement on State systems mandated by the Federal Government. It is time for us to do our share of fixing the funding of it. I don't disagree with that. We need to get that 40 percent, as Senator Dodd indicated, paid. We need to honor that commitment when they started this Federal regulation. But we also need to reform the law. It has resulted in extraordinary lawsuits, bizarre results in the classroom and a trend of teachers leaving the system. A poll in Washington State indicated that 50 percent of special education teachers expected not to be in the profession in 5 years. We don't get reform here very often. We need to couch the huge increase that is due to this program as part of a reform of IDEA. It is up for reauthorization this year. We are talking about it, working on it. I hope we can bring some real reform to the program. But we agree as a Congress on a $750 billion budget limit. We agreed on that, and it is easier to cast those political votes--one more vote in favor of one more spending program outside the budget agreement that we had--just spend, spend, spend. Then we wonder why we didn't stick to our agreed limit, why we have deficits. The education budget went up significantly this year--about 10 percent. It has been going up significantly in the last 3 years. We are spending a large amount of money, and more each year, on education at a level probably three or four times the inflation rate. So, to the contrary, we are spending money on education. I think Senator Gregg's amendment is precisely correct. His amendment says let's put the money in the area of education the Federal Government dominates, the area that in effect the Federal Government has taken over--the regulations that direct schoolteachers and principals and superintendents and board members to run their schools in certain ways. Dealing with disabilities is a Federal regulation. We ought to at least meet the 40-percent promise we made in 1975. So I think the perfect solution to this, as Senator Gregg said, is let's take the overall education budget, which has large increases throughout that system--let's take that $1.5 billion from those other programs that have received increases, shift it to the IDEA program, and give them a bigger boost than we have. I really believe that is the right thing to do. Mr. President, is my time up?

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.