Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, in his absence, I want to share some thoughts I have about Judge Dennis Shedd, who has been nominated for the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Shedd is a superb nominee. He served 12 years on the Federal bench as a Federal district trial judge, hearing some 5,000 cases. He was rated by the American Bar Association, which goes around and interviews fellow judges, State court judges, and lawyers on both sides of cases. They get their opinions about how the judge has performed and they issue an independent rating. We conservatives have sometimes complained about their ratings, saying they tend to be more favorable to more liberal-type judges. But in this case, they rated Judge Shedd the highest possible rating, well- qualified. They have about a 15-member committee that actually votes on all the paperwork that has been put together, and the ABA investigation is quite a deal. Frankly, I believe it is very valuable to this process. I always have. I was talking recently to Senator-elect Lindsey Graham from South Carolina, who will be replacing Senator Thurmond. We were talking about Dennis Shedd. Lindsey has been a practicing attorney for many years and had been in court a lot. What he said to me was exactly the way I feel about these things. He said: You know, when a person has been on the bench 12 years, everybody knows whether they are any good or not. In a State like South Carolina, there are not that many Federal judges. Lawyers go into their courts all the time. The fact is, after a few years, everybody knows whether they are any good or not. These lawyers support Judge Shedd. The American Bar Association has supported Judge Shedd. I have looked at some of the complaints that have been made about his record. I find them not only wrong, but in fact he should have been commended for the rulings he has made. I would like to share a few thoughts on that. One is that he has served the Judicial Conference of the United States during his tenure, 12 years as a Federal judge, serving on the Judicial Branch Committee and the Subcommittee on Judicial Independence. It is a mark of respect for a trial judge in the United States to be chosen to serve on key committees of the Judicial Conference. Most judges are not on these committees. From 1978 through 1988, he served on the Senate Judiciary Committee staff in this body. He is known by many of the Senators. He served as chief counsel and staff director for the Senate Judiciary Committee for Senator Strom Thurmond. According to the Almanac of Federal Judiciary, the attorneys rate judges and make comments about judges. You go before a judge and want to know something about them. Lawyers have books on them. This is what they say about him. They say he has outstanding legal skills and excellent judicial temperament. A few comments from South Carolinians were included: ``You are not going to find a better judge on the bench or one who works harder.'' ``He is the best Federal judge we have,'' said one attorney. ``He gets an A all around,'' said another. ``It is a great experience trying cases before him,'' said an attorney. I like that. I tried a lot of cases and some cases you go to trial before a judge and it is miserable. A good judge can make the practice of law a pleasure. ``He is bright in business,'' said another. Everyone knows that is true. Plaintiff lawyers who seem to be stirring this opposition up have commended him for being evenhanded. ``He has always been fair.'' Another plaintiffs lawyer says: ``I have no complaints about him. He is nothing if not fair.'' Judge Shedd will bring experience to the bench, having tried 4,000 to 5,000 cases as a district judge. That will be more trial experience than any of the other Federal judges on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Trial experience is the crucible for training an appellate judge. Some can do well without it. As a practicing lawyer trying cases in Federal court full time as a U.S. attorney, and in private practice, as an assistant U.S. attorney, I understand Federal judges. I respect Federal judges. I know they learn from that trial bench. That will help them better when they read a written record to see if a judge made a mistake or not. Trial experience is helpful. They say this is some sort of a circuit that is too conservative. I don't believe this circuit is at all that way. I note the last five judges appointed to the Fourth Circuit have been Democrats. Some people have forgotten what President Bush did. Judge Gregory, who had been nominated for the circuit and who was not confirmed by this Senate before President Clinton left office was renominated. President Bush, in extending his hand of bipartisanship, reached out and took this African-American jurist and renominated him to the court as an act of bipartisanship. Judge Gregory was a Democrat, a Clinton nominee, and had not been confirmed. President Bush, shortly after he took office, renominated him. Of course, he was confirmed just like that. The other judges who were nominated at the same time have not moved so well. But there are 11 cases that Judge Shedd has ruled on that have been reviewed by Judge Gregory. He has affirmed all 11 of them. It is unfair to suggest this is somehow a radical judge who is out of step. One case, Crosby v. South Carolina Department of Health, has been raised, that somehow he made a bad decision on that case. I don't think he did. But regardless of that, people could have a different opinion. That was one of the cases that went to Judge Gregory, President Clinton's nominee. Many members of the Democratic Party were most aggrieved he had not been confirmed by the time President Clinton left office. Judge Gregory agreed with Judge Shedd. He affirmed Judge Shedd's opinion. That is just typical. Do 5,000 cases and somebody will find something with which to disagree. But, as Lindsey Graham said: Judges have reputations. And to me that means a lot. And this judge, through this career and background, has a good reputation of capability, experience, honesty, and a superb demeanor, making it a pleasure to practice before him. I just want to say this. I attended the hearings in which Judge Shedd testified, and he was there as long as they wanted him to testify. They submitted all these questions to him, demanding that he explain everything he has ever done. And I heard the complaints, and I read the complaints. I am just going to tell you: They do not hold up. He was criticized for doing the right thing. He didn't do wrong things. He was written up in those reports put out by special interest advocacy groups, the ones Senator Hatch calls the usual suspects, and they have abused him and twisted his rulings. I am going to go through a few of them, and we are going to talk about them. It ought to be an embarrassment for any group to have submitted the smear sheets they submitted when allegation after allegation just gets knocked down. But how does it work around here? Unfortunately these attack groups file these sheets, and they make these allegations, and the press picks them up. By the time somebody gets the case and reads it and shows it is not true, they don't get nearly as much attention. The allegations get the attention first. It is really sad. I have watched this for many years. This is an absolute pattern. Judge Shedd has a very low reversal rate by the court of appeals for the thousands of cases he has handled. But I will tell you one thing: If these advocacy groups, these usual suspects, if their smear sheets were brought out in the light of day and they were graded on them, they would get a big fat F. It would come back off that court of appeals like a rubber ball off that wall. I am amazed that someone we know, who has such a sound record, who has served as a staffer in this Senate, has been put in the kind of grinder he has. Not one of the allegations, once you look at them in the slightest way, would serve as the basis for rejecting this superior judge. One of the things they said--and it was repeated earlier on the floor today--was that the judge acted sua sponte to throw out cases against plaintiffs. Oh, this is awful, they say. Sua sponte meaning he acts on his own motion, meaning without anybody having filed a motion. And this means he is anti-plaintiff. Have these people never been to court? They don't know what happens? You can tell one thing, I submit. They scoured his record. If they are digging up this kind of stuff, they have looked at everything he has ever done. So if they found anything of real substance, we would have heard about it. Let's look at these sua sponte rulings that are supposed to be so bad and represent a view that he is hostile to plaintiffs. One of them is Coker v. Wal-Mart. In that case, the defendant removed the case--Wal-Mart has the right, within certain rules and procedures, to remove the case to Federal court from State court. Judge Shedd, sua sponte, questioned whether the removal was appropriate as it appeared the motion for removal had been filed outside the 30-day time limitation established by 28 U.S.C. 1446(b). There was a time limitation. If you are sued in State court and you want to remove it out of State court, you have a time limitation to do so. Doubting whether he had the authority to remand the case sua sponte, Judge Shedd stated he would permit the defendant to file a brief addressing whether removal was timely and whether the court had the authority to remain. He had a duty to raise the issue of removal because it was jurisdictional. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. The general courts of jurisdiction are our State courts. Federal courts have limited jurisdiction. So a good judge, the first thing he does is looks at a case that comes before him and he wants to know whether or not it even ought to be in Federal court, and that is all he was saying. He is saying: I looked at the case here, counsel, and it looks like it is outside the 30 days. Send me a brief on why I ought not to remand it back to State court. You waited too long to bring it to Federal court. All he asked for was a brief on the law. So that is what Federal judges are supposed to do. Here is another one. Gilmore v. Ford is a product liability case. Judge Shedd sanctioned the plaintiff for failure to prosecute the case by dismissing the case. He dismissed the case for failure to prosecute. He evaluated that decision and tested it by each of the factors established by the Fourth Circuit in Ballard v. Carson, a 1989 case. Indeed, the plaintiff failed to respond to this motion to dismiss and for failure to prosecute, after earlier failing to respond to the defendant's motion to compel discovery. You are not entitled to go to court and file lawsuits and continue lawsuits if you don't abide by the rules of the court. If you don't answer discovery, and if the judge sends you a warning that, I am going to dismiss the case and we are going to have a hearing, and you fail to respond--and the plaintiff doesn't even respond to that motion--the judge did the right thing, which was, remove the case from the court. That is not something he did wrong, it is something he did right. Here is another one: Lowery v. Seamless Sensations. The defendant raised the defense that the plaintiff failed to file a timely charge of discrimination with the EEOC--this is a defendant being sued over a discrimination charge--and he defended, saying the plaintiff did not file as required by law with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Federal agency that is supposed to deal with that; and he failed to file a timely lawsuit and the jurisdictional prerequisites to any Federal court action since that defense called into question the court's subject matter jurisdiction. The court has no authority and jurisdiction over the case if the plaintiff hadn't filed his claim and had a hearing before the EEOC. So the judge expedited consideration of those offenses as it would have served no purpose to proceed to the merits of a case in which there is no jurisdiction. So you have to figure that out first. If the court does not have jurisdiction, it should not consider the case. To expedite consideration of the issues, he ordered the defendant to file a motion to dismiss based on the defenses and that the motion be filed with the judge. Ultimately, the defendant was granted summary judgment on the grounds that the plaintiff could not establish a prima facie case. So it appears the motion to dismiss was not eventually granted. But the case failed on other motions. Let me just say this. I am a lawyer. I love to practice law. I believe in the rule of law. I believe in the right of people to go to court and to litigate. But there is a growing concern in this country about the expense and delay and time extensions of litigation. It is costing large amounts of money. Lawyers--maybe a half dozen of them-- are charging $200 an hour fiddling around with a case. One of the good government reforms that virtually every judge I know of who amounts to anything has bought into it. If the case fails on jurisdiction or has some other defect, it ought to be promptly ruled on and ended. We ought not to have six months of depositions and expenses when the case never had a basis to go to trial, anyway. So that is what Judge Shedd was doing here. He was simply carrying out good government and a good legal basis. If you do not meet the standard for jurisdiction, you don't go to Federal court, and the clients don't expend thousands and thousands of dollars eaten up by lawyers and end up later with the case being thrown out when it should have been thrown out to begin with. In McCarter v. RHNB, an age and sex discrimination case, Judge Shedd initially granted summary judgment--this has been complained of right here on the floor today--on the grounds that the plaintiff was unable to provide any evidence of age and sex discrimination. Following the entry of that judgment, the plaintiff filed a motion to alter or amend that judgment since it was based on grounds not raised, it was asserted, in the defendant's motion. The judge reconsidered it. Judge Shedd reconsidered his order, agreed with the plaintiff, and reinstated the motion. He wrote: Although the Court believes that the defendant's motion for summary judgment and supporting memorandum may be fairly read as raising the issue upon which the motion was granted, the Court will nevertheless give the plaintiff the benefit of the doubt and grant the motion to alter or to amend and deny defendant's motion for summary judgment. So he says right there that he was going to give the plaintiff the benefit of the doubt and allow the case to continue. That is what a good judge does. He rules. If somebody shows he has made a mistake, or it is doubtful, he may reconsider his ruling. That, to me, shows again good behavior, that he is thoughtful; that if someone raises something he didn't fully understand, he will reconsider his decision and go forward. In Shults v. Denny's Restaurant, a disabilities and slander case, Judge Shedd sua sponte considered summary judgment, and ordered the plaintiff to file a memorandum in opposition to the court's motion for summary judgment. This action by Judge Shedd was again based on jurisdictional defenses raised in the defendant's answer. The allegation was that the plaintiff had failed to file within the 2-year statute of limitations, and he had failed to exhaust administrative equal opportunity commission review procedures. In the order requesting the plaintiff to file a memorandum, Judge Shedd wrote that: . . . although the express language of Rule 56 provides only for the parties to move for summary judgment, Federal district judges possess the inherent power to raise sua sponte an issue for possible resolution by summary judgment. He cited appropriate authority of the United States Supreme Court in Celotex Corporation v. Catrett. That is absolutely the law of America. If a judge spots something that goes to the very nature of the jurisdiction, he can assert a summary judgment motion and ask the plaintiff to respond. This is really not adversarial. Some people in this country think that judges decide cases on the length of their foot; that they decide cases on how they feel that day; or they look at the plaintiff and they look at the defendant, they don't like Celotex, but they like the plaintiff, and so they rule for them. That is not what happens in America. We have rules, and judges follow the rules. They get the case to the jury, and the jury decides it, or the lawyers settle. I would point out that he acted within the law, and he raised those two fundamental questions. They were simple but very important. Had the 2-year statute of limitations been violated? If it had, the case cannot be brought. Had they failed to seek the EEOC review required by the procedures? If so, the case could not be brought. The sooner that is determined, the better off everybody is going to be. Simmons v. Coastal Contractors was a discrimination and retaliation- in-employment case in which both parties were pro se. Both parties, the plaintiff and defendant, were representing themselves; that is, both had fools for clients, as they say. Judge Shedd sua sponte brought the parties before the court. Traditionally you would not do this, perhaps. But he knew he had two nonlawyers. He ordered the plaintiff to cure specific deficiencies in his complaint or face dismissal. The decision really was an attempt to aid the plaintiff in properly drafting his complaint and should not be viewed as anti-plaintiff, given the pro se nature of both parties. Basically he said, Plaintiff, you cannot recover. If you recover on this complaint, the court of appeals will throw it out. You have to amend your complaint and file it in the right fashion. I think that is an advantage to the plaintiff. That was helping the plaintiff. Yet, these groups--these attack organizations argue that Judge Shedd in his rulings show hostility to the plaintiffs before him. That is one of the examples they cite. Smith v. Beck was a section 1983 gender discrimination case in which several women alleged discrimination when they were not admitted without male escorts to a nightclub featuring nude female dancers. Judge Shedd sua sponte questioned whether the plaintiffs' allegations sufficed to establish the defendant's private club's actions were under color of State law. It is a complex legal question. He raised that on his own. He says if it is not under color of State law, this is a private club, and you can't recover. So the question dealt with whether or not merely operating an establishment that has a liquor license does or does not transform the club into a State action. After consideration of the brief, he concluded that merely holding a liquor license does not make it a State action when they said you couldn't have in the strip club women coming in without male escorts. We do have some interesting cases in Federal court, as you can well see. I think that was a correct ruling, and apparently was not appealed and not reversed. Should he have allowed that case to go on? Should he allow depositions to be taken for months? Should he allow expenses to be run up? Insurance companies pay, people say. Well, you know, there is nothing wrong with that. The insurance company is going to pay the lawyer. Who pays the insurance companies? We pay the insurance companies. It is a cost of doing business in America. There is no free lunch and there is no free legal work in America. Somebody pays. In Tessman v. Island Ford-Lincoln-Mercury, Inc., this Title VII action, Judge Shedd sua sponte challenged the court's subject matter jurisdiction given the plaintiff's apparent failure to allege she had first presented her claim to the EEOC and received a right-to-sue letter. The way this works, as I understand it, if you have a complaint about discrimination in the workforce, you have to go and file your complaint with the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission. When you do that, they evaluate it, and you can settle it at that stage. Businesses, recognizing they made a mistake or many times the complaint is shown to be worthless, and it is settled right there, and it ends right there. But if the complaint is valid, and if the business or defendant does not respond to the satisfaction of the plaintiff, the plaintiff can ask the EEOC to give them a right-to-sue letter. That allows them to get their attorney to sue the defendant and take it to Federal court, to make a Federal case out of it. So the judge ordered the case dismissed unless the plaintiff could show cause why that action should not be taken. I think that is what a judge should do. That is the way he ought to rule. When you have 5,000 cases, and you go through these, I am not aware that any of them have been reversed on appeal. And I think it is the right thing. On the right of a judge to issue sua sponte actions, this is the law of the United States. This is a Supreme Court case, the authoritative decision on the matter issued in 1986. The Supreme Court said: [D]istrict courts are widely acknowledged to possess the power to enter summary judgment sua sponte, so long as the losing party was on notice that she had to come forward with all of her evidence. In each of these cases, the judge told the other party that was in trouble their complaint was being questioned for jurisdiction matters, that they had an opportunity to file a brief, and any other evidence as to why the case ought not to be dismissed. And that is the right way to handle it. The ninth circuit--this California circuit that strikes down the Pledge of Allegiance--has declared: District courts unquestionably have the power [to grant summary judgment sua sponte]. That was in 1995. The fourth circuit, of which District Court Judge Shedd is a part, ruled: It is a fundamental precept that federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, constrained to exercise only the authority conferred by Article III of the Constitution and affirmatively granted by federal statute. Many Federal judges forget that, but that is the law of this country. Federal courts have limited jurisdiction, and they are empowered by the Constitution and Federal statutes to do certain things, and only those things. Continuing to quote the court: A primary incident of that precept is our duty to inquire, sue sponte, whether a valid basis for jurisdiction exists, and to dismiss the action if no such ground appears. The fourth circuit further said: We have long held that receipt of, or at least entitlement to, a right-to-sue letter is a jurisdictional prerequisite that must be alleged in a plaintiff's complaint. Thus, where neither the complaint nor the amended complaint alleges that the plaintiff has complied with these prerequisites, the plaintiff has not properly invoked the court's jurisdiction under Title VII. So in each of the cases I have cited, and those that have been complained of by these scurrilous attack groups, Judge Shedd acted sua sponte, but he provided proper notice and an opportunity to the plaintiff to respond, as the law requires. None of these cases were reversed on appeal. Trust me, had they been in error, it would have been taken up and been reversed. I think this court is a great circuit. Several years ago, we had hearings to address the caseloads of the federal courts. Senator Grassley as chairman of the Courts Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, of which I am a member, called the hearings. He had the chief judge of the fourth circuit appear and talk about his caseload. They have one of the highest caseloads in America. Actually, not one of the highest, I think their caseload, per circuit, based on the cases per circuit for judges, was the highest in America. They had worked extremely hard, and they had a good procedure for managing their cases. It was really a good example for the rest of the courts around the country. So I think this allegation--that this circuit is out of line--is something not healthy about the fourth circuit. It is just wrong. It is a great circuit, doing superb work, and the taxpayers are benefitting from it greatly. There have been suggestions, although not anything of substance really, but allegations that somehow Judge Shedd is a white Southern male, and he is insensitive on the matters of race. Those are serious matters. I think if somebody had something to say about that, they would come forward, and we would see it, and we would know about it. But vague allegations of that kind are not good. We ought to take very seriously any thought that someone would have acted without a commitment to equal justice. That would be wrong, and they ought not be on the Federal bench if they do not treat people equally. I would like to say, his record shows just the opposite. One of the things that Judge Shedd did as a district judge--and district judges play a significant role in the hiring of United States magistrates, who make about $1,000 less than they do per year. They do not have quite the lifetime appointment, but it is a good appointment. And magistrate judge positions are becoming highly sought after. A lot of good applications are made. There are a lot of superb lawyers who are acting as United States magistrate judges in America. He led the effort in his district to recruit an African American magistrate for that district, Margaret Seymour. She did a fine job as that magistrate. Later on, President Clinton, a Democratic President, appointed her to the Federal bench in that district. Margaret Seymour is now a sitting Federal district judge. One of the main reasons that occurred is because, years before, Judge Shedd had gone out and sought her, and worked to have her selected as that United States Federal magistrate. He has worked actively to seek out minority and female candidates for other magistrate judge positions, and has directed the selection commission in South Carolina to consider diversity in selecting candidates for those positions. In addition, he has recommended an African American female to serve as chief of the Pretrial Services Division in that district. Pretrial Services handles all the arrest matters involving defendants who are arrested: whether or not they should be allowed bail, whether they are on drugs, whether they ought to be locked up, how they ought to be treated, supervising them pretrial if they are released on bail. They do a lot of work. It is a pretty big deal. For the State of South Carolina, with one district, that is a big appointment. I just point those things out. His critics didn't raise those issues. Judge Shedd has bipartisan support from both his home State Senators. Of course, Senator Thurmond admires Judge Shedd immensely. He has observed his career for many years. He has observed with great pleasure Judge Shedd's success on the bench. And he is extremely proud, as he nears 100 years of age, about to complete the longest term any Senator has ever served in this body, that his former chief counsel, when he was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is now in a position to be elevated to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. That is not too much to ask, I submit. It is the kind of thing we ought not to deny unless there is a real basis to do so. He has both the support of Senator Thurmond and Senator Fritz Hollings from South Carolina. Before coming to this body, Senator Hollings was a real lawyer, a real litigator, a plaintiff's lawyer, a former national president of the American Trial Lawyers Association. He gives no quarter in protecting the rights of plaintiffs on this floor. When somebody complained one time about the plaintiffs trial lawyers getting so much money in these tobacco cases, he said they did so much good, as far as he was concerned, they could have more. He supports Judge Shedd. He and his friends in the Trial Lawyers Association--and I am sure he shares confidences with them--have agreed that this is a good nomination. I don't understand where we are with this problem. Judge Shedd has been completely forthcoming with the Senate Judiciary Committee's requests, many of them, for information. Earlier this year Judge Shedd sent nearly 1,000 unpublished opinions for review immediately after Chairman Leahy requested them. They wanted to plow through all his cases, the unpublished opinions, thinking they might find a nugget there. Apparently they haven't because they haven't raised any of them. We would be hearing about it. They would be blown up in charts. He continued to provide additional unpublished opinions as well as other information the committee has requested regarding his rulings, opinions, and judicial record generally. He has been absolutely forthcoming. Finally, I will just repeat, how do you know about all this? You hear these things and some person says this and some person says that, and what do you believe? The Democrats have tenaciously adhered to the view that the ABA rating is the gold standard, Democrats on our committee. They really insisted on that and placed the ABA review at the center of our confirmation process. Of course, it is an unofficial thing. It is nothing in the official process, but they have asserted it as the gold standard for determining whether or not a judge should be confirmed. This gold standard review process has been conducted by the American Bar Association. Their team of lawyers and investigators have talked to all the people down there who have practiced before his court. They talked to civil rights groups. They talked to plaintiffs lawyers. They talked to defense lawyers. They talked to the community and fellow judges. They have come back with the highest possible rating they give--well qualified--for Judge Shedd. He absolutely is well qualified for this office. He ought to be confirmed. It was a real disappointment to me to see a number of Senators in committee suggest that they might not be for him or were not for him, even though we never had an official roll call vote. I don't see where they are coming from. This is a man we know. This is a man with a record of integrity, judgment, good demeanor, experienced now to a large degree, the kind of capabilities that make for a great judge. He is going to be a great judge on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. I am proud to support him. I believe the complaints against him are baseless and that he should be confirmed. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Republican leader for those comments about Duke Short. I likewise want to say something about him and didn't know that he intended to make those remarks. Duke has been a friend of mine for 20 years. I have admired him greatly. He is the kind of person who comes along and reaffirms your faith in basic democracy, basic decency of the human race. After 30 years of service in the Senate as a senior staff member, he will be leaving. Our Nation--and particularly the State of South Carolina--owes Duke Short a great debt of gratitude for his many years of distinguished and able public service in the Senate. As my colleagues well know, he served for many years as chief of staff to our legendary Strom Thurmond, who retires next month at the age of 100, after more than 47 years of service in this Chamber. Over the years he has worked with Senator Thurmond Duke has earned a reputation as someone who always conducted himself with the utmost integrity and honesty. Given great authority--perhaps more than almost any other staff member in the Senate--he always dedicated himself to the highest principles of public service and demonstrated an uncompromising devotion to his mentor and boss, Strom Thurmond. There is, among the world's cynics, a belief that the longer men and women remain in positions of public trust, the more they fall victim to the vagaries of power and influence. Duke Short stands as a wonderful exception to that rule, an example of truly unselfish public service, whether as a Federal agent or in the Army, a man who dedicated his life to things bigger than himself and found, in turn, enormous satisfaction in the giving. In his years in the Senate--at least the ones I have been privileged to witness--Duke Short has earned more than just satisfaction from a job well done. He has earned, I believe, the respect, admiration, and friendship of every Senator in this body. In so many ways, he was one of us--a Member of the Senate family who never forgot that the only real power in politics is that which we hold from the public, and his only reason for service was to serve his Senator. Duke came to the U.S. Senate in 1974 as a senior committee investigator. It was the beginning of a long and extraordinary partnership between him and Senator Thurmond. When Strom became chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1980, Duke was appointed chief investigator and, in that capacity, he oversaw and coordinated the confirmation of Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Associate Justices O'Connor, Scalia, Souter, Kennedy, and Thomas. He became the Senator's chief of staff nearly a decade ago and has served in that capacity ever since. All of us came to rely on Duke's judgment, his unerring sense of fair play and, of course, his uncanny ability to always represent the wishes of his boss, Senator Thurmond. Prior to coming to the Senate, Duke served the Nation in other important ways. He was a member of the Army's prestigious 82nd Airborne Division and a respected U.S. Treasury Department agent. His contributions to law enforcement are legend within South Carolina and throughout the Nation. He has been a recipient of numerous national, regional, and State awards from law enforcement associations, and he was presented in 1990 with the State of South Carolina's highest civilian award, the Order of Palmetto. When Senator Thurmond was chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Duke served as a close adviser on a wide range of issues from preparedness to nuclear arms control. Once again, he earned the respect of the Nation's highest officers and service chiefs, in addition to Cabinet members and the national security staffs of several Presidents. Duke Short is one of those rare staff members whose expertise and judgment are called upon in a variety of settings. Through it all, he also demonstrated more than just a vast technical knowledge of different issues; he impressed us all with his deep and abiding love of and respect for the institutions of the Senate, as well as the vital importance of the legislative oversight process. In all these arenas, Duke Short distinguished himself as an individual of rare humility. Working closely with Presidents, Cabinet members, Senators, Justices of the Supreme Court, and even foreign leaders, Duke's style always managed to disarm, to respectfully inform and, taking a page out of Strom Thurmond's book, to politely and diplomatically move situations to where the people of South Carolina benefited most. Finally, Duke is fortunate in one other area. He is married to an exceptional lady, Dee, who is truly the apple of his eye and one of the great inspirations of his life. Duke and Dee Short have always managed to light up any social and business event they attended. Mr. President, the Senate will miss Duke Short's leadership, but individually I believe each of us will miss our friend, Duke Short. In an era of increasing rancor and incivility in public life, Duke Short's easygoing manner, his lighthearted humor and unswerving loyalty to country and friends will be sorely missed. On behalf of a grateful Senate, thank you, Duke, for your good work and good will. May God continue to bless you and your fine family.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I will take a couple more minutes. I thank Chairman Levin for his courtesy as always. But we are at a point where this Nation will have the need from time to time to utilize force around the world to protect our just and legitimate national interests. We don't need to do that recklessly, or arrogantly, or without careful thought. But at times we will be able to help defend our just national interests and at the same time promote peace and prosperity in the world. That is a high calling. I think it is falling to us at this time in history. I am pleased that we are not only strengthening our defense budget, but that we are strengthening it intelligently. We are strengthening it with technology. We are training our personnel. We are keeping our good men and women longer, so they can become even more proficient in operating our ships, our command centers, our missiles, and so forth. I am also pleased that we did maintain the President's request for funding for national missile defense. That is a key ingredient in our Nation's defense in the decades to come. We made that commitment in this bill also. I feel good about it. Again, I would like to thank Senator Levin for his leadership, the staff for their work, and Senator Warner for his leadership and support. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. I join with Senator Levin in his high compliments of Senators Cleland and Carnahan. Both have served this committee exceedingly well. Bob Smith is a true American patriot. He loves his country. He served in the Navy. He was a history teacher. He came down here with a ``Mr. Smith Comes to Washington'' view of the highest possible values he could bring to bear. He loved the Defense Department. He gave it extraordinary interest. He was a top leader in national missile defense and high technology defense. He was a leader on the Strategic Subcommittee and chaired it for a number of years. He was a champion for lost POWs. No Senator in this body spent more time and effort fighting to make sure every single prisoner of war of the United States was recovered or we knew about. He led on the Mike Speicher case, the missing pilot in Iraq. Tim Hutchinson came in with me. I love Tim and watched him lead in this body year after year. He was a tremendous contributor to the Armed Services Committee. He chaired the Personnel Subcommittee. In that subcommittee, he fought hard to improve the pay, benefits, and living conditions of our men and women in uniform. He also fought successfully to break down the barriers where some of our colleges would not let military recruiters come on campus to recruit. He led a tough battle to change some of those laws. He was a leader, as was Senator Smith, in the concurrent receipt battle to make sure our veterans who have been injured and disabled received better compensation. I thank Senator Levin for mentioning these Senators at this time. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to make a few remarks about Senators Smith and Hutchinson.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I was going to add that Senator Thurmond, at the age of 99 and soon to be 100, was at the Republican Conference luncheon today. And here it is, a quarter to 6, and he just left the floor a few minutes ago. He has been fully engaged all day today. He is a true American. I remember my first foreign trip with him to China. They respect age in China. So we were well respected. We went out to a Chinese Army military base. They asked him to review the troops. I was standing there--this Senator from rural Alabama--watching the famous Strom Thurmond troop in front of a group of Chinese Communist troops. Afterwards, I told him, ``I never thought I would ever see that, Strom.'' I never thought I would have been there. He is a remarkable man, a thorough expert in military affairs, and an absolute patriot. I thank Senator Levin for recognizing his service to our country.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, how much time is allotted on this side?

Mr. SESSIONS. I yield myself 10 minutes.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I am very pleased with this defense bill. I congratulate Chairman Levin. He is a master leader in the Senate. His skill at managing complex matters is very well known. He works with all members of the committee, Republican and Democrat. We are able to reach agreements that sometimes would not be reached, and I believe he has guided us in a good way. I also appreciate the leadership of the ranking Republican, Senator John Warner, a man who has given his life to the defense of this country, served it ably in so many different capacities, and all the members of the committee and all the staff. Particularly, I note Archie Galloway on my staff who has worked tirelessly on this effort, a retired colonel infantry combat veteran who does a great job for me. Money will not tell us everything, but we have the largest increase in spending on this defense bill in over 10 years, nearly a $50 billion increase. That is very healthy in light of the significant declines our Defense Department has suffered since the Gulf War in 1991. After the Berlin wall fell and after the Gulf War, we went into a significant reduction in our spending, virtually 40-percent reduction in personnel, and cuts in many different areas. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, some reductions were appropriate. Most experts would say today we went too far, that we forgot we needed to transform our military, and we forgot to meet the new challenges and to utilize the new equipment and technologies available to make our soldiers more effective, less at risk, able to target enemy troops and not hit enemy civilians, as has happened in previous wars. I am afraid we did not invest enough in the last decade in these efforts. Within the last several years we moved aggressively forward. When I came on the committee our defense budget was under $300 billion. This year it will hit $393 billion, I believe, nearly $50 billion more than just last year. This allows us to continue to provide quality pay raises and personnel benefits for our men and women in uniform. These efforts have strengthened their ability to make a career of the armed services. Moreover, we authorized incentive income pay of up to $1,500 per month to keep key personnel in key positions, the kind of thing we need to do to maintain the most proficient military in the world. I have been a critic of our spending habits, thinking we have cut our defense too much. To the American people, let me say we need not underestimate the strength and capability of today's military. Ours is clearly the greatest military in the history of the world. We are much more technologically oriented and as a result, we need personnel who serve longer, who have trained with the newest equipment, who constantly train with our best aircraft, weapons, night vision equipment, and communication systems--all the things that allow them to place the maximum possible threat and force on the enemy, while protecting the lives of our own soldiers and innocent civilians as much as possible. We have done a tremendous job. They are exceptional military men and women. There is no Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine unit in the world that can compete with ours. They are the best there is, perhaps the best that have ever been. We should be very proud of them. It allows the President, in times like this, to talk plainly to the United Nations and talk firmly to the Taliban in Afghanistan. It allows the President to speak directly to Saddam Hussein, and Saddam Hussein knows and the Nations around the world know his are not idle threats. We have the capability to carry out any commitments we make in terms of military force. I am pleased with where we are. We are making great progress. I mentioned a few things that are important in this budget. Progress was made on concurrent receipt. In over 100 years we have not had additional benefits, other than tax advantages, for disabled veterans. This bill takes a big step forward with the ``Purple Heart Plus'' compromise and will be the first step we have made in that direction. I am pleased with this first step. This will be the fourth year in a row we have had a significant pay raise, a 4.1 percent across-the-board hike and higher for other pay grades. I am pleased with that. We have $10.4 billion for new military construction for facilities and housing for our personnel, many of which are below standard. Frankly, we can do a better job, in my view, of providing quality housing. I visited military houses and found out what they cost. They spend almost as much on them as private housing in the suburbs in Alabama and other places that seem to cost less or no more. We need to improve the quality of our construction as we go forward in the future. We added $900 million to the Navy shipbuilding accounts. I was the ranking Republican on the Ship Seapower Subcommittee, serving with Senator Ted Kennedy, the Chairman. We were pleased in the end that our Navy did not take hits. At one point, it looked like that might occur. We are pleased that the shipbuilding account finally came in with a healthy number. This allows us to move forward for such things as refueling and nuclear submarine, refueling and developing nuclear submarines, providing additional advanced procurement for the CVN next generation of aircraft carrier, providing additional payments for prior incurred shipbuilding costs that we had obligated for the DDG-51 class destroyer, and LPD-17 class amphibious ships. We made some real progress there. We need to continue this transformation. At one point or another, we may disagree with Secretary Rumsfeld's views regarding one weapons systems or another weapons system. But I think few of us can honestly disagree and ought to do nothing other than support his firm and clear determination--supported by the President of the United States--to transform our military to move us from a cold war configuration to a configuration that helped us meet the challenges we had in 1991 with Iraq, as we have had in Kosovo, as we have had in Afghanistan, and as we might have in the future in Iraq. We need to transform our military forces to do that. We sometimes accuse the military of being stubborn, and slow to change. I would say that is true of our institution, the Congress. It is also true of the military. But our military is the most transformable, the most committed to change, and the most committed to the introduction of new technology of any military in the history of the world. I am, all in all, very pleased with the leadership in our military today and their commitment to bring on board as soon as possible new ways of conducting warfare that protect our people, that put threat on the enemy, and that protect innocent civilians. I think we are doing well. I am very pleased with that. The President has made clear that this Nation--the strongest military power in the world--is the single power capable of protecting its own forces and that of its allies in the most difficult areas of the world. How much more difficult could you find it to protect American forces than in Afghanistan? He is committed to doing that. Sometimes we may wish it were not so. But my own personal view is that there will be continual challenges around the world and that the wise and proper surgical application of military power can save lives, promote peace, and promote economic prosperity around the world. Indeed, this Nation has the opportunity to help lead the world out of what could be a disintegrating chaos of independent states--many of them rogue nations--and into a more stable environment, and promote peace and prosperity for everybody in the world.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I will conclude by saying this budget moves us in that direction.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I join my colleagues today to commemorate September 11, 2002, and the Special Joint Session of Congress held in New York City. Americans are a generous people, with both our time and our money. We are a people committed to our religious beliefs. We are a people who place great value on education and the individual. We seek opportunity at every turn for our children, and we strive to take care of those who are elderly, infirm, and less fortunate. We are also a people who take great pride in the protections we collectively offer one another through a common defense. We wear most humbly the mantle of ``Super Power.'' Last September 11, our collective vulnerability in securing the borders of our nation was made known to all. In those initial chaotic hours, we watched the opening battle of what is now called the ``War on Terror.'' Like many states, Alabama lost sons and daughters that day. Indeed, five Alabamians died in the Pentagon. Families were broken and great symbols of our might and entrepreneurial achievement made waste. We felt, and I believe we still feel, a collective pain in our hearts that will never heal. But the world has witnessed the development of a new resolve among Americans. A resolve too quiet for too long. In the past year, we have taken a long and hard look at our defense posture. We have found great problems that must be fixed. We have found strength. We have committed our uniform services to battle, and we must give our President tools and the authority to get the job done. Nearly a year has elapsed. Our emotions still run high. America is demanding much from itself and its governmental leaders. The creation of the Department of Homeland Security has resulted in a vigorous and healthy debate and a strong interest in making our homeland safer and improving our intelligence gathering capabilities. Fundamentally, the homeland defense debate is about change. Specifically, it is about protection of American citizens. I am proud of this country and how we have reacted. Everything has not been perfect, but great progress has been made. Noted columnist Mr. Charles Krauthammer recently wrote, ``National character does not change in a day. September 11 did not alter the American character, it merely revealed it.'' I could not agree more. The American character displayed ``courage, resolve, resourcefulness and above all resilience'' Krauthammer wrote and I agree. We are a great power and indeed a super power. We are a nation that believes in freedom and progress and are forgiving and slow to anger, but when aroused we have proven once again we can be a terrible force. Our President is leading us with strength and resolve. Homeland defense is but a part--an important part--of that resolve. Foreign policy initiatives, social policy changes and prosecution of the War on Terror are other aspects as well. Of the latter, winning is no simple matter. Patience, superior planning, and the support of the military are all required to complete the tasks which lie ahead. The nation has met the challenge this year. Now we must work hard as the memories of the horror of September 11 fade, to finish the job of making our homeland safe and ensuring that our magnificent military continues to expand its capabilities and world leadership. We must not sleep.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I would like to join my colleague, Senator Brownback, in paying tribute to the life of Paul and Sheila Wellstone. It is also so important for us to remember the staff and others who were on that airplane. We have people in this country who serve every one of us, and their lives were given in service of their country also. Paul was a unique individual, no doubt about it, a man who made us smile even when we were in debate against him. He was a happy warrior. I think that is a good description of him. All of this points out, as the Scripture says, that life is but a vapor. We are only here a short time. We might as well pour ourselves into it and fight for what we believe. Else, what is life all about? He did that. He poured himself into his job, poured himself into his view of the world and life in general and fought for that. His political agenda was an expanded government. He wanted to help people in need. He was passionate about that. He wanted to help people. To a large degree, I suppose the disagreement I had with him was that he believed that government was the way to make that happen, but the goal was good. I know Paul liked me, and I loved him. He was an individual who was very special. I feel real sad about this entire event, as do all of us in this Senate. I remember his vote against the Iraq resolution, which was something I felt very strongly in favor of. He was the only Member of this body who was up for reelection who had to answer to the voters on that issue. He did not see it the way I saw it, and he did not tack to the wind. He voted against that resolution and went back home and answered to people of Minnesota. He told them why he did it, and either they agreed with him or they forgave him. He was able to cast what many thought was an unpopular vote and not suffer the apparent political consequences. I believe Paul was a special person. He set a good example for all of us to realize that life is short. We are only given this opportunity to serve in the greatest deliberative body of the greatest country in the history of the world for what we have to assume is a very short time. We might think constantly that therefore we should use this office for the people's good, and if we do that, we will have honored his name, honored the commitment he made to public service, and honored the people of the United States. I will miss Paul. He was a man of great strength and character. This body will be poorer for his absence. Our thoughts and prayers go out to his family and friends. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce The Employee Pension Bankruptcy Protection Act of 2002. Today, when a company declares bankruptcy, it is often the employees and retirees who suffer. They suffer because they often loose their hard earned pensions and retirement benefits during the bankruptcy process. This is simply not right. When Americans loose the pensions and benefits that they have worked a lifetime to earn, it is the responsibility of the members of this body to take notice and to act to protect them. The bill I introduce today does one very simple thing it gives employees and retirees the right to request that they be represented before the bankruptcy court, the same kind of representation that protects the rights of others that are owed money by the corporation. Under this bill, a representative of the employees and retirees can appear and be heard if it is likely that the employee benefit pension plan of the bankrupt corporation will be terminated or substantially underfunded and if it is possible that the beneficiaries of the plan will be adversely affected. By allowing employees and retirees to be represented before the bankruptcy court, we will ensure that the bankruptcy court hears from the people who entrusted their retirement savings to their employer. Employees and retirees will be able to argue to the court that any division of assets or bankruptcy plan must be fair to the pensioners. The needs of the corporation's employees and retirees should be heard BEFORE the assets of a bankrupt corporation are split up among creditors and lost forever. They deserve to have their day in court. It has only recently been brought to my attention that under current law, employees and retirees are not represented before the bankruptcy court as creditors. Legally, the pension fund is the ``creditor'' of the corporation, not the employees and retirees. Thus, the pension interests of employees and retirees are represented in the bankruptcy process by a trustee of the pension, if one exists, or by the PBGC, if it takes over the pension fund. Because PBGC, under its governing statutes, can not guarantee the full benefits of the pension plan, but can only guarantee the statutory amount, significant portions of hard earned pensions can remain unpaid when a company goes bankrupt. While the PBGC is often able to pay most of the pension benefits when a company goes bankrupt, in certain cases the statutory limit can be much lower than the pension payment the employee or retiree was promised by the corporation. Employees and retirees deserve more than this. They deserve the additional representation before the bankruptcy court that this bill provides if their hard earned pensions and retiree benefits are to be adequately protected. I would like to thank Mr. John Nichols of Gadsden, AL, and his son, Phil for bringing this to my attention. The ordeal faced by Mr. Nichols, is a prime example of why employees and retirees need more representation before the bankruptcy court. Mr. Nichols spent his entire career at a steel plant in Gadsden. He began working for Republic Steel in 1956 and stayed with the company through two ownership changes and a buyout by LTV Steel. When LTV bought out Mr. Nichols employers, LTV Steel took over the monthly pension payments guaranteed to the former employees and retirees of Republic Steel, including Mr. Nichols. Soon after the takeover, however, LTV filed for bankruptcy, claiming that it could no longer make pension payments to Republic Steel's former employees. PBGC, the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation stepped in to help LTV make a small part of the pension payments, but LTV eventually stopped making payments at all. Because all the payments LTV had been making were not guaranteed by the PBGC, the long awaited pension payments earned by Mr. Nichols and by Republic Steel's other loyal employees were severely reduced. Mr. Nichols' pension payments went from $2,225.00 to $675.00--only 30 percent of what he had been promised. A third of this payment now covers Mr. Nichols' health insurance premium that he can no longer purchase through LTV, leaving him with only 20 percent of his promised pension each month. PBGC could only pay the retirees the amount their statute allowed, and no one had the responsibility of going to the bankruptcy court and telling them what was happening to the retirees of Republic Steel. PBGC itself recognized that the claims of the pensioners against LTV, ``are among the many claims that will probably never be paid, except perhaps in cents on the dollar'' and stated that PBGC's claim against LTV for the pension plan underfunding was perhaps ``[t]he largest of these claims [that will go unpaid].'' During LTV's bankruptcy case, various creditors were represented before the bankruptcy court, but not the employees and retirees. Thus, when the assets of LTV were divided among its creditors, employees and the retirees were not at the table. If the employees and retirees had had an opportunity to make their case before the bankruptcy judge, the result could have been different. The Employee Pension Bankruptcy Protection Act of 2002 seeks to make sure that what happened to the retirees of Republic Steel will never happen again, employees and retirees will never be deprived of their pensions without having their day in court. While a company may still be able to discharge its obligation to pay pensioners in bankruptcy, this bill at least takes the first modest step to protect pensioners by providing them the opportunity to be part of the bankruptcy bargaining process. Before the bankruptcy court sells assets or adopts a plan of reorganization, the employees and retirees will be heard. After all, it is their money. This is only fair. I strongly urge my colleagues in the Senate to support this bill and to work with me to further ensure that employees and retirees of corporations are fairly treated and protected under the United States Bankruptcy Code. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce The Employee Pension Bankruptcy Protection Act of 2002. Today, when a company declares bankruptcy, it is often the employees and retirees who suffer. They suffer because they often loose their hard earned pensions and retirement benefits during the bankruptcy process. This is simply not right. When Americans loose the pensions and benefits that they have worked a lifetime to earn, it is the responsibility of the members of this body to take notice and to act to protect them. The bill I introduce today does one very simple thing it gives employees and retirees the right to request that they be represented before the bankruptcy court, the same kind of representation that protects the rights of others that are owed money by the corporation. Under this bill, a representative of the employees and retirees can appear and be heard if it is likely that the employee benefit pension plan of the bankrupt corporation will be terminated or substantially underfunded and if it is possible that the beneficiaries of the plan will be adversely affected. By allowing employees and retirees to be represented before the bankruptcy court, we will ensure that the bankruptcy court hears from the people who entrusted their retirement savings to their employer. Employees and retirees will be able to argue to the court that any division of assets or bankruptcy plan must be fair to the pensioners. The needs of the corporation's employees and retirees should be heard BEFORE the assets of a bankrupt corporation are split up among creditors and lost forever. They deserve to have their day in court. It has only recently been brought to my attention that under current law, employees and retirees are not represented before the bankruptcy court as creditors. Legally, the pension fund is the ``creditor'' of the corporation, not the employees and retirees. Thus, the pension interests of employees and retirees are represented in the bankruptcy process by a trustee of the pension, if one exists, or by the PBGC, if it takes over the pension fund. Because PBGC, under its governing statutes, can not guarantee the full benefits of the pension plan, but can only guarantee the statutory amount, significant portions of hard earned pensions can remain unpaid when a company goes bankrupt. While the PBGC is often able to pay most of the pension benefits when a company goes bankrupt, in certain cases the statutory limit can be much lower than the pension payment the employee or retiree was promised by the corporation. Employees and retirees deserve more than this. They deserve the additional representation before the bankruptcy court that this bill provides if their hard earned pensions and retiree benefits are to be adequately protected. I would like to thank Mr. John Nichols of Gadsden, AL, and his son, Phil for bringing this to my attention. The ordeal faced by Mr. Nichols, is a prime example of why employees and retirees need more representation before the bankruptcy court. Mr. Nichols spent his entire career at a steel plant in Gadsden. He began working for Republic Steel in 1956 and stayed with the company through two ownership changes and a buyout by LTV Steel. When LTV bought out Mr. Nichols employers, LTV Steel took over the monthly pension payments guaranteed to the former employees and retirees of Republic Steel, including Mr. Nichols. Soon after the takeover, however, LTV filed for bankruptcy, claiming that it could no longer make pension payments to Republic Steel's former employees. PBGC, the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation stepped in to help LTV make a small part of the pension payments, but LTV eventually stopped making payments at all. Because all the payments LTV had been making were not guaranteed by the PBGC, the long awaited pension payments earned by Mr. Nichols and by Republic Steel's other loyal employees were severely reduced. Mr. Nichols' pension payments went from $2,225.00 to $675.00--only 30 percent of what he had been promised. A third of this payment now covers Mr. Nichols' health insurance premium that he can no longer purchase through LTV, leaving him with only 20 percent of his promised pension each month. PBGC could only pay the retirees the amount their statute allowed, and no one had the responsibility of going to the bankruptcy court and telling them what was happening to the retirees of Republic Steel. PBGC itself recognized that the claims of the pensioners against LTV, ``are among the many claims that will probably never be paid, except perhaps in cents on the dollar'' and stated that PBGC's claim against LTV for the pension plan underfunding was perhaps ``[t]he largest of these claims [that will go unpaid].'' During LTV's bankruptcy case, various creditors were represented before the bankruptcy court, but not the employees and retirees. Thus, when the assets of LTV were divided among its creditors, employees and the retirees were not at the table. If the employees and retirees had had an opportunity to make their case before the bankruptcy judge, the result could have been different. The Employee Pension Bankruptcy Protection Act of 2002 seeks to make sure that what happened to the retirees of Republic Steel will never happen again, employees and retirees will never be deprived of their pensions without having their day in court. While a company may still be able to discharge its obligation to pay pensioners in bankruptcy, this bill at least takes the first modest step to protect pensioners by providing them the opportunity to be part of the bankruptcy bargaining process. Before the bankruptcy court sells assets or adopts a plan of reorganization, the employees and retirees will be heard. After all, it is their money. This is only fair. I strongly urge my colleagues in the Senate to support this bill and to work with me to further ensure that employees and retirees of corporations are fairly treated and protected under the United States Bankruptcy Code. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Chair, and I thank the leadership for the work they have put into this bill. I thank Senator McCain. It is great to see Senator John Warner here. He helped write the 1991 gulf war resolution and led its successful vote in this body, which served the body exceedingly well. That was a courageous act that he led at that time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, any contemplation of the use of military force is a very serious matter and calls for the Congress, the peoples' representatives, to be engaged and to discuss and debate the issue. I do not believe the Lord is pleased when his children fight--and according to my faith, all people are creatures of one Lord and precious in his sight. In my view the resort to war can never be considered something to glory in but must be viewed as an act that is taken as a result of human failure, and where after serious consideration, it is concluded that alternatives are worse. When the status quo presents more dangers than the war the most just, the most logical, the most moral thing is to fight. I wish it were not so but my experience and my best judgement tells me this is the way we live in this transitory world. I truly respect the pacifist--it is a position with a long and honored tradition in my faith--but whether it is by judgement or lack of faith, I do not go there. To have a just war one must reasonably believe the ultimate goal of the violence will be to produce a good result--a better condition than existed before. And while as leaders of the people of the United States we must focus primarily on the just national security interests of our country, we, as enlightened, moral and decent people, ought to ask ourselves, whether our actions will ultimately benefit the world and even our adversary. Will the future for all be better or not? Further, we should consider our national heritage of promoting peace, freedom and prosperity. War obviously destroys peace, but if the result can be to create a safer and more peaceful world, war can be an instrument of peace. Afghanistan has had two decades of war. Our strong military action to totally defeat the Taliban government has given that brutalized country its best chance for peace, freedom and prosperity in generations. We cannot guarantee it, but great optimism exists for a positive future that could never have been possible under the oppressive, hateful, bigoted Taliban. The practitioners of the art of ``realpolitic'' may sneer at the concept of free countries in the Arab world, but I am proud of the results of our military action in Afghanistan, not only because it represented just retribution for their support of attacks on the United States but also because we have left that oppressed country better than we found it. We liberated the people of Afghanistan from the most brutal circumstances. Can anyone forget the scenes of men beating women on the streets for the most insignificant or imagined acts? No, I am proud of our wise and brilliant use of force. I also remember such actions played a positive role in our nation's founding. Indeed, one can go down to Yorktown, as I did recently, and visit the site of the final American victory over the British. As one considers that climactic victory, after years of war and many defeats inflicted by the skilled British military, one learns that our victory would not have been possible but for the intervention of the large French fleet at Yorktown, and that fleet's victory over the British in a major battle. With no ability to retreat or resupply, the cornered General Cornwallis had no choice but to surrender. This French action aided our liberation immensely and have served as a bond of loyalty between our nations even to this day. If the French were justified in the use of military force to help liberate us, may not our use of force in years to come be seen by the world and the people of Iraq in the same positive way. Can such a positive result be guaranteed? Of course not, but I and many others believe the chances for any improved Iraq's government are greater than some think. Still, we must clearly remember that we cannot guarantee any nation, so liberated, future success. There are limits on our power, our reach and our resources. I am very pleased that under the leadership of President Bush and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, we have only a few more soldiers in Afghanistan than we have in Kosovo. The fate of Afghanistan will be up to their people ultimately. We can help, and we have, but their final fate will be in their hands--as it should be. It is also important to consider that the threats to the United States do not come from free and prosperous states but failing ones. They fail because of flawed governments. Thus, I say the President is right to reject a half century of valueless, cynical, diplomatic wordplay, words that sound good but are totally disconnected from reality, and to establish a new foreign policy based on our venerable heritage of honest and direct discussion of issues and values. I am somewhat puzzled that those who have long advocated our taking steps to aid poor countries in the world do not recognize the possibilities for good that can come from a change in government. It seems there is still a strong strain of ``blame America first'' about. Many had rather complain about our imperfections, real or imagined, than to see the possibilities for a better world. I strongly believe that America is a force for good in the world. The London based ``Economist'' magazine has recently produced a special insert for that magazine called ``Present at the Creation: A Survey of America's World Role''. It concludes that a strong America is good for the world and notes that America's national interest, ``offers the clearest match there is to a world interest. The desire for unimpeded trade, the rule of law, safety and security, the protection of property and the free movement of property and capital match world needs, not just American ones.'' We are a good, decent and, yes, powerful world leader. I am proud of our history of being, time after time, on the right side of world issues and am very pleased we have a President that understands the new world we are in and who has the courage worthy of the great people he leads. It is important to point out that if force cannot be avoided, our action will not be against the people of Iraq or the nation of Iraq, but it will be against the brutal, illegal, Saddam Hussein regime. It is a regime that has caused more destruction than any existing in the world today. The people of Iraq will be the greatest beneficiaries of our victory. At this moment, pursuant to U.N. resolutions, our forces are attempting to enforce an embargo against Iraq. It has been only partially successful and it is leaking more and more. The Arab world complains, with much truth, that the embargo only hurts the people, the children of Iraq. Saddam Hussein continues to build places and weapons of mass destruction while his people suffer. It has been eleven years. How long must the United States continue to carry this burden to enforce a policy that is not significantly hurting the regime but hurts innocent civilians? How can we justify this morally? There are certainly dangers in military action. While we can hope and believe that if war commences it will go well and that our people will be viewed as liberators and that many Iraqi forces will not fight but defect to our side. We cannot know that. While I am certain we will prevail, I cannot know for certain how tough this war will be. We must recognize there are dangers. The American people understand there are risks and so do all of us. One thing is sure, our magnificent military will work tirelessly to prevail in this conflict with the lowest possible number of personnel killed or injured. But, we know the risks are great and losses could be great. While our forces will work to minimize civilian casualties and to solicit Iraqi military units to defect, such is not certain. There could be civilian losses. As to the risk of an attack on Israel, cited by many, we should ask what Israel has to say about it. They are clear. It is a decision that is left to the United States. If you must act, do so. Israel is prepared to take the risk. Well, that's the big picture as I see it. Our motive is good, our goals positive and realistic, and our leaders honest, careful, principled and have the courage to act on those beliefs. Some jaded politicos sneer and say that this is just politics, but I know it is not. I know the vision that President Bush has to protect his people and improve the world. His courage has already placed him at personal risk. These people, after all, have tried to assassinate one former President of the United States. In addition, in acting on his beliefs, he is laying it all on the line. He has told us repeatedly he would not look to polls to decide what actions he should take as our leader. President Bush is acting honorably and with integrity. He is informing the American people, consulting with Congress, conferring with world leaders and trying to work with the U.N. apparatus. He has altered his tactics to win support from others, but his goal has not changed. Ultimately, if his views are proven false, and all the predicted disasters come true then he will surely pay the price at the ballot box. But, I don't think so. Neither do most of those in this body. I think he is correct and though the road may be difficult and dangerous, I am confident his Iraq policies will succeed as have his policies in Afghanistan. I truly believe that peace, freedom, security and prosperity will be enhanced not reduced as a result of our actions. It is important to recognize that while this resolution could lead to war, it also offers the best chance we have to avoid war and to achieve security. The distinguished Democratic Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee has objected to the President's statement that he has not decided to go to war while he asks for a resolution to allow war. But, this is not contradictory. This Congress knows the score. We know Saddam Hussein's deceitful manipulations, his lies, his violence against the Iraqi people and their neighbors, and the constant attacks against our aircraft, even firing on them with missiles this last week. We know he only allowed inspectors into Iraq in 1991 to save his regime. He did it out of fear. I agree with former President Clinton's National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, who said at an Armed Services hearing, that he thinks it is unlikely that Saddam will ever accept ``unfettered'' inspections. A strong resolution is essential so that Saddam Hussein knows there will not be another Congressional session to meet and discuss these same issues again. He must know without the slightest doubt, that the man he is dealing with, President George W. Bush, has full and complete authority, as commander-in-chief, to use our armed forces to protect our security and to remove him from power, if need be, if he does not comply and disarm. Who knows, in that case maybe he will relent. Nothing clears the mind so well as the absence of alternatives. Maybe he would choose to abdicate and allow a new government to be formed. Maybe parts of his army would defect, or parts of his country would revolt. Indeed, the ``Washington Times'', running an article from the ``London Daily Telegraph'' reports yesterday that Members of Saddam Hussein's inner circle are defecting to the opposition or making discreet offers for peace in the hope of being spared retribution if the Bagdad dictator is toppled, according to Iraqi exiles. One defector came from the Iraqi security services, which form the regime's nerve center. Kurdish groups say: They have received secret approaches from military commanders offering to turn their weapons on Saddam when the war begins. Columnist Morton Kondracke wrote today that there are many possibilities for a regime change without a war. He notes Idi Amin took exile. As the pressure mounts, as the circle tightens, these are among possibilities for achieving our goals short of a full scale conflict. Yes, it is quite true that the President has requested our authorization to use force, but he still hopes he will not have to use it. For us to not grant him that authority would be only to allow the President to continue negotiations but require him to come back to Congress another time (while we are in recess perhaps) for an authorization to use force. To state that position is to expose its fatal flaw. Such an action would eliminate any chance for a real agreement. Saddam Hussein will know what we have done. He will know that the President cannot until Congress meets again. He will know that the fateful moment has not come, and that he can continue to delay and maneuver. Clearly, we must authorize the use of force if the President finds it necessary. Otherwise this whole process is a charade. I am confident a majority in this body understand this fundamental concept, or else, the strong vote that is coming would not occur. Some say, we are acting unilaterally, ``upsetting'' the little nations. But, it was not the United States that invaded Iran resulting in a prolonged and brutal war costing over one million lives. It was not the United States that invaded Kuwait, precipitating an international effort, overwhelmingly led by America, to roll back Saddam's conquest. It was not the United States that has systematically violated 16 U.N. resolutions--resolutions Saddam Hussein agreed to in order to save his regime. The unilateralist is Saddam Hussein. The United States, on the other hand, has worked assiduously with our allies, Arab nations, other nations and the United Nations to develop a policy that will end the menace presented by Saddam Hussein. Only the ``blame America first crowd'' would make such an argument. Indeed, we have been patient many times over these eleven years. So patient, so docile, that it has encouraged Saddam Hussein to miscalculation. Amazingly, several Senators have objected to the resolution because they believe we must have the full support of the United Nations. This is suggested in several ways. They argue, ``Why now?'' Why not let the United Nations vote first. Why not have the Congress ``come in behind a U. N. resolution?'' This argument is dangerous and counter-productive to our goals. Unless, of course, one's real goal is simply to wish the whole matter to go away and to not bring it to a head. First, a U.N. Resolution is very hard to obtain. The primary problem is that any resolution can be vetoed by any one of the permanent security council members, which includes China, Russia and France. These countries may demand concessions in exchange for their votes. They may just refuse. No reason is required. Secondly, this is our military. Funded, built and staffed by Americans. The American people did not sacrifice to create the greatest military in history to allow China, Russia or even France to have a veto over its use. It is no wonder that these nations would like, through the mechanism of the United Nations, to seize control over our military and to use it as they will. The wonder is why we are even discussing it seriously. Of course, we want to solicit the United Nation's support and aid. After all, Saddam Hussein is in violation of sixteen U.N. Resolutions. Why is the U.N. not anxious to act to bring him into compliance? Former Secretary of Defense James Schlessinger said recently in an Armed Services hearing that, This is a test of whether the United Nations--in the face of perennial defiance by Saddam Hussein of its resolutions, and indeed by his own promises--will, like the League of Nations a century ago, turn out to be an institution given only to talk. The President has frankly and courageously framed the question to the U.N. He has stated plainly that Saddam Hussein is in violation of sixteen U.N. Resolutions and is a danger to the region and the world. He has made it clear that it is his duty to protect the American people from this threat and that he intends to do so. But, he expressed support for the U.N. programs and urged the U.N. to take action, to be a relevant player in this crisis. He urged the U.N. not to sit on the sidelines. He made it clear that no change was unacceptable. Since then he has worked steadfastly to win the necessary support in the U.N. and the Security Council. He has humored, maneuvered, pleaded and, I am sure ``promised'' to gain support. Maybe the U.N. will arouse itself and take action. Nothing could do more for its credibility. But there are limits. This Congress must not crawfish or we will thereby tell Russia or France that they have a veto over our actions. It will encourage their resistance. If Russia knows Congress has allowed them to decide the issue, their power is even greater--it is absolute. Now, if members of this body oppose bringing the Iraq matter to a head and oppose any use of military force then let them come out and say so. It is wrong, however, and harmful to America to take an indirect approach that gives the appearance of support but which would undermine the execution of our policy. Yes, it would be very desirable to have U.N. support to deal with the Iraq problem. But, the best way to get it is to let them know we will act even if they don't. I agree with former Secretary of Defense James Schlessinger that while the doctrine of prevention is sound and historical and has been applied in tougher cases than this, it is not necessary here. Schlessinger rightly says that, In an ongoing conflict, the issue of pre-emption is close to meaningless. The truth is, we have been at war with Iraq since 1991. In essence, Saddam Hussein sued for peace to save his regime. The world in effect said we will end hostilities, but you must give up your weapons of mass destruction and agree to full inspections to prove that you have. Since then, we fly missions every day to enforce the northern and southern no-fly zones. Iraq fires surface-to-air missiles at our planes almost daily and we bomb in response regularly. Iraq has shot down three of our predator, unmanned aircraft, in recent months. We defend the Kurds. We keep forces in Kuwait and in the region to deter another attack by Iraq. The war has never ended. In 1988, the Congress voted for the ``Iraq Liberation Act''. We declared it U.S. policy to effect a regime change in Iraq and authorized the President to carry out that policy. In fact, it gave five million dollars to Iraqi resistance forces and called for trying Iraqi leaders for war crimes. Those who are reluctant to use force have focused on concerns about the idea of using pre-emptive force to protect our security. They have forgotten the war has never ended, that our aircraft pilots are being fired at daily. It is undisputed that our actions are taken as part of a U.N. program to protect the world from Saddam Hussein's aggression. Thus, we have every basis to use force to enforce the agreements Saddam Hussein made and to react to the hostile fire he brings to bear against us. My fear is that the President is being forced to deal with the tendency to move to the lowest common denominator that always results from U.N. negotiations, and will not be able to obtain the clarity we need from any resolution approved by the Security Council. So far, he has been courageous and effective. Let us stand with him so we can enhance the chances of a good resolution, not undermine his efforts with a lack of support. Regardless, it must continue to be clear that no one nation or group of nations will be allowed to block our duty to defend our people. Especially when we are dealing with a regime that violates U.N. resolutions and continually directs hostile fire at U.S. forces. This is an important time for America. We have a duty to protect our nation and our deployed forces from attack. We have the ability to do so. Our superb military personnel stand ready to put themselves at risk to promote our just national interests. We are fully justified in acting under the venerable doctrine of preventing an attack upon ourselves. When there is a smoking gun or a mushroom cloud it is too late. For those who have anxiety about the pre-emption doctrine, and I do not in this case, I urge them to remember that we have been in an actual state of military hostilities with Iraq almost since 1991. He shoots at our pilots and aircraft regularly. He has violated, in 16 ways, the conditions that he agreed to save his evil regime. Let's not waiver, let's not delay, let's not go wobbly. Let us produce a strong vote for this strong resolution. Then the situation will become clear. We will say to Saddam Hussein, once and for all, you will disarm or, like the Taliban, you will fall. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Johnny Michael Spann Patriot Trusts Act. Members of the United States military, CIA personnel, FBI personnel, and other Federal employees defend the freedom and security of our Nation each day, often at high risk to their own safety, and sometimes at the cost of their own lives. This bill will help facilitate the flow of private charitable money to the widows and orphans of our American servicemen, CIA officers, FBI agents, and other Federal employees who give their lives in the War on Terrorism. In the days following the terrorist attacks of September 11, we passed the Victims Compensation Fund of 2001 to provide compensation to the victims of those attacks. The September 11 Fund only covers those who were injured or killed on September 11 as a result of the September 11 attacks. It is estimated that the September 11 Fund will provide the families of the September 11 victims with an average of $1.85 million each. The September 11 Fund, however, does not cover military or government personnel who have been killed while fighting against terrorists in the new War on Terrorism after September 11, 2001. For example, it does not cover Alabama native Johnny Michael Spann and his family. CIA officer Johnny Michael Spann was the first American to give his life for his country in the War on Terrorism launched by President George W. Bush following the September 11 terrorist attacks. Because individuals like Mr. Spann are not included in the fund, their beneficiaries will receive far less than the $1.85 million that the beneficiaries of the September 11 fund will receive. Instead, family members of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines killed in action while fighting terrorists will receive only relatively minor benefits currently $6,000 plus a small monthly payment. If the military man or women had purchased life insurance, the most the family can hope to receive is $250,000. CIA and FBI benefits are somewhat better, but still do not approach the $1.85 million mark. Now is the time to remedy this inequity and to meet the responsibility of taking care of the families of the military and government personnel who give their lives defending us from terrorism. So today, I offer this bill to narrow the gap in the current compensation system. This bill will facilitate and encourage private charitable giving for the benefit of spouses and dependents of military, CIA, FBI, and other Federal employees killed in the line of duty while combating terrorism. The bill will use no government monies and will not affect the September 11 Fund. Instead, the bill will allow private monies to fill in the gap. If a Section 501(c)(3) charity meets the requirements of the bill, it can designate itself as a ``Johnny Michael Spann Patriot Trust.'' The requirements are: 1. Beneficiaries--The trust must benefit government employees or contractors whose death occur in the line of duty and arise out of terrorist attacks, military operations, intelligence operations, law enforcement operations, or accidents connected with activities occurring after September 11, 2001, and related to domestic or foreign efforts to curb international terrorism, including the Authorization for Use of Military Force that we passed last year. 2. Tax Rules--The trust must qualify under existing tax rules for charitable trusts or private foundations. Thus, contributions to the fund will be tax deductible. 3. Distrubutions--The trust must distribute at least eighty-five percent of funds collected to beneficiaries. Thus, administrative expenses can be no more than fifteen percent, after the initial organizing expenses are made. 4. Audit--If contributions to the trust exceed $1 million, it must be audited by an independent certified public accountant. 5. McCain-Feingold--The trust must comply with the existing exemption in the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law for charities. Once a trust meets the requirements, it will be entitled to two key benefits. First, the Secretary of Defense will be authorized to contact the Patriot Trusts on behalf of surviving spouses, thus eliminating the indignity widows often face when they are forced to go to a charity and ask for money. Second, the bill will ensure that federally elected officials can raise money for Patriot Trusts without any problem under the McCain- Feingold campaign finance law. This encouragement of Senators and Congressmen to raise money for the families of slain military, CIA, or FBI personnel should help build real resources to help families with real needs. Overall, this bill will help private charities provide a level playing field for those who give their lives for our freedom and security. It will address the current inequity between those who died in their office and those who died on the battle field defending America, and it will seek a fair and patriotic way for charities to recognize those who died defending their country against terrorism. Who among us can look into the eyes of the widow of a soldier who lost his life fighting for his country and say, ``Sorry, you only get $6,000, but the widow of the securities broker in New York gets almost $2 Million.'' This bill takes a modest step toward ensuring fair and equitable treatment to all of those making the ultimate sacrifice, giving their lives to protect the United States and her citizens against terrorists around the world. It is our moral duty and obligation to assist these service members and federal employees who are giving their lives in service to our country. Helping charities fill the gap is the least that we can do. I would urge all of my colleagues to support this bill as a way to show our Armed Forces and other employees that they are deserving of fair and equitable treatment. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Johnny Michael Spann Patriot Trusts Act. Members of the United States military, CIA personnel, FBI personnel, and other Federal employees defend the freedom and security of our Nation each day, often at high risk to their own safety, and sometimes at the cost of their own lives. This bill will help facilitate the flow of private charitable money to the widows and orphans of our American servicemen, CIA officers, FBI agents, and other Federal employees who give their lives in the War on Terrorism. In the days following the terrorist attacks of September 11, we passed the Victims Compensation Fund of 2001 to provide compensation to the victims of those attacks. The September 11 Fund only covers those who were injured or killed on September 11 as a result of the September 11 attacks. It is estimated that the September 11 Fund will provide the families of the September 11 victims with an average of $1.85 million each. The September 11 Fund, however, does not cover military or government personnel who have been killed while fighting against terrorists in the new War on Terrorism after September 11, 2001. For example, it does not cover Alabama native Johnny Michael Spann and his family. CIA officer Johnny Michael Spann was the first American to give his life for his country in the War on Terrorism launched by President George W. Bush following the September 11 terrorist attacks. Because individuals like Mr. Spann are not included in the fund, their beneficiaries will receive far less than the $1.85 million that the beneficiaries of the September 11 fund will receive. Instead, family members of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines killed in action while fighting terrorists will receive only relatively minor benefits currently $6,000 plus a small monthly payment. If the military man or women had purchased life insurance, the most the family can hope to receive is $250,000. CIA and FBI benefits are somewhat better, but still do not approach the $1.85 million mark. Now is the time to remedy this inequity and to meet the responsibility of taking care of the families of the military and government personnel who give their lives defending us from terrorism. So today, I offer this bill to narrow the gap in the current compensation system. This bill will facilitate and encourage private charitable giving for the benefit of spouses and dependents of military, CIA, FBI, and other Federal employees killed in the line of duty while combating terrorism. The bill will use no government monies and will not affect the September 11 Fund. Instead, the bill will allow private monies to fill in the gap. If a Section 501(c)(3) charity meets the requirements of the bill, it can designate itself as a ``Johnny Michael Spann Patriot Trust.'' The requirements are: 1. Beneficiaries--The trust must benefit government employees or contractors whose death occur in the line of duty and arise out of terrorist attacks, military operations, intelligence operations, law enforcement operations, or accidents connected with activities occurring after September 11, 2001, and related to domestic or foreign efforts to curb international terrorism, including the Authorization for Use of Military Force that we passed last year. 2. Tax Rules--The trust must qualify under existing tax rules for charitable trusts or private foundations. Thus, contributions to the fund will be tax deductible. 3. Distrubutions--The trust must distribute at least eighty-five percent of funds collected to beneficiaries. Thus, administrative expenses can be no more than fifteen percent, after the initial organizing expenses are made. 4. Audit--If contributions to the trust exceed $1 million, it must be audited by an independent certified public accountant. 5. McCain-Feingold--The trust must comply with the existing exemption in the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law for charities. Once a trust meets the requirements, it will be entitled to two key benefits. First, the Secretary of Defense will be authorized to contact the Patriot Trusts on behalf of surviving spouses, thus eliminating the indignity widows often face when they are forced to go to a charity and ask for money. Second, the bill will ensure that federally elected officials can raise money for Patriot Trusts without any problem under the McCain- Feingold campaign finance law. This encouragement of Senators and Congressmen to raise money for the families of slain military, CIA, or FBI personnel should help build real resources to help families with real needs. Overall, this bill will help private charities provide a level playing field for those who give their lives for our freedom and security. It will address the current inequity between those who died in their office and those who died on the battle field defending America, and it will seek a fair and patriotic way for charities to recognize those who died defending their country against terrorism. Who among us can look into the eyes of the widow of a soldier who lost his life fighting for his country and say, ``Sorry, you only get $6,000, but the widow of the securities broker in New York gets almost $2 Million.'' This bill takes a modest step toward ensuring fair and equitable treatment to all of those making the ultimate sacrifice, giving their lives to protect the United States and her citizens against terrorists around the world. It is our moral duty and obligation to assist these service members and federal employees who are giving their lives in service to our country. Helping charities fill the gap is the least that we can do. I would urge all of my colleagues to support this bill as a way to show our Armed Forces and other employees that they are deserving of fair and equitable treatment. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we are considering the conference report on the Department of Justice Authorization Act. I would like to highlight a few matters in that bill that I believe are important to justice in America. I serve on the Senate Judiciary Committee and have wrestled with a number of these issues, both as a Federal prosecutor and as a member of the committee. I think there are some good things in the bill, and I would like to make a few points that I think are important. One thing I know the chairman is interested in and has been a leader in supporting is the Coverdell forensic science legislation, named for former Senator Coverdell of Georgia, who is now deceased. I know that Senator Miller, the Acting President pro tempore, has been instrumental and helpful in making this bill a reality. The reason it is important is this. Throughout our entire criminal justice system, it is my view that delay is hurting justice in America. Cases take far longer than necessary to reach a conclusion, and justice delayed is justice denied. When a criminal is caught in a significant drug case, dealing drugs or some other offense, and time goes by, month after month after month, and that person is released on bail, back in the community amongst maybe his friends and criminal element and others who are looking to see if anything is going to happen to the person who got caught burglarizing an automobile or home or selling drugs, and a year or more goes by and nothing happens--that is a problem. It undermines respect for law. It undermines the integrity of the criminal justice system. It is not right. We had in my State recently the worst murder in the history of Alabama. No one can think of a more serious one. Six people were murdered. The individual who murdered those people had been out on bail and was out on bail at that time because the chemical analysis on the drugs he had sold had not yet come back from the State laboratory. As a professional prosecutor for most of my life, nearly 15 years, I would say to you that on a regular basis in courts all over America, a delay in getting fingerprints, ballistics, drug analysis, and DNA is slowing down justice. It is allowing criminals to stay free. It is allowing people to remain under a cloud who might be found innocent when an analysis comes back. It is not a good situation. We need to highlight that, and the Coverdell bill provides States support for State laboratories to encourage them to get caught up and stay where they ought to be. In my view, if it takes no more than a few hours to do a laboratory analysis on a powder to find out if it is cocaine, why can't we get it back in a matter of days? I think our goal in America should not be weeks, it should not be months, but it should be days when these reports come back. It does not take more time, and it does not really cost more money to have a chemical analysis done today rather than waiting 6 months to do that chemical analysis. So I would just say that is important. I am glad we strengthened that bill with some amendments in this language. There are appropriations of some $35 million in the appropriations bill that will go along with this. We are moving in the right direction. In my view, the single greatest bottleneck in the criminal justice system today is the forensic capability. We are far too far behind on that. When you consider all the people we are hiring in police, law enforcement, judges, jails, sheriffs, deputies and all those, the very few we have on forensic work that is slowing down all of their work is a weakness in the system that I think ought to be fixed. This bill does something else that I think is important. The Boys and Girls Clubs in America are proven to be some of the finest agencies anywhere for the delivery of services, hope, and encouragement to young people in poor areas of our country. They have done tremendous work. I have visited centers in Huntsville, Mobile, and other places. I have talked with their leadership and studied their programs. It is a tremendous program. We are providing, through this bill, greater help to them. They are managing personnel and managing the money that they get efficiently, to get the greatest possible benefit for young people in communities all across America. I am glad we are doing that. The bill provides for additional moneys for drug courts. The first drug court began in Miami. Judge Goldstein and a couple of other judges developed a concept where many people involved with the criminal justice system, both with drug charges and other criminal charges could get help with the root of the problem, their serious drug habits. They believed that if those individuals were carefully monitored under the supervision of a judge who could order them to jail if they did not cooperate, improved behavior could occur, the drug use could be prevented or reduced, treatment could be carried out effectively, and our crime rates would go down. The numbers seem to bear that out. In fact, they cited exceedingly positive numbers in the early 1980s. I was a prosecutor as U.S. attorney in Mobile, AL. I remember participating in bringing Judge Goldstein up to our community to talk about it. As a result of his presentation, our community established a drug court which has been led most ably for many years by Judge Mike McMaken, a State judge there in Mobile County. I believe it works. I also think we have not fully studied drug courts to understand how they work and how they can be made to work better, what are the most effective parts of the drug court process, and what should we emphasize and what should we deemphasize. I had hearings on this very subject when I chaired the courts subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee early last year. This bill does require that the General Accounting Office conduct a very rigorous, scientific study of the drug courts to find out what works and what doesn't and to see if we can't do a better job of intervening in lives going bad. The way it works is simply this: An individual is arrested for a minor crime. Usually, it is the first offense. It could be drugs, or it could be another crime. Hopefully, when they are arrested, they are tested for drugs in that system because that is an important thing, in my view. You need to know what is driving that criminal behavior. Every defendant in America arrested for any offense should be immediately drug tested, in my view. A lot of them have a history of drug problems. Immediate testing would let us know that this individual, arrested for whatever crime, if it is their first offense, has a drug problem. The way the drug court works is that the judge says they will not send them to jail, and in some cases even allow them to have their conviction set aside only if, over a period of months, they conduct themselves under the most rigorous scrutiny in a way that eliminates drug use or criminal activity. The defendant would voluntarily sign up for the drug court procedure. They are drug tested on a weekly basis--maybe three times a week at first. They report regularly to the probation officer. And on a weekly basis they report personally to the judge. If they come in drug positive, he may put them in jail for the weekend. If he believes it is hopeless and that they are not going to succeed in the program, he will send them to jail and kick them out of the drug court program. But we believe there is some success being found with this program. It is spreading all over America. More and more cities are doing it. When you have a tough judge, a good probation officer, and intense drug testing with the availability of drug treatment, it is quite often possible that lives can be turned around as a result of this intervention. It is a tough love type of program which does have the possibility of being successful. I am glad we are expanding that. I support that. I have been at the very beginning of this kind of program. But I don't think we know enough about it yet and what the key parts of it are, or what the program should contain or maybe what should not be a part of any drug court program. So the study should help us in that regard. We have a lot of challenges in America in our Federal court system. Federal judges are needed in certain districts. Our population has grown. Certain types of criminal activities have grown. We, obviously, at various points in time, have districts with surging caseloads that need relief in terms of the number of Federal judges we have. I am not one who believes we ought to just exponentially expand the Federal court system. I propose that we take one-half of what the Administrative Office of Courts requested--50-some-odd Federal judges-- and that we approve 24 Federal judges based on a strict caseload basis in the districts where judgeships are most needed, and where those cases are based on a weighing of caseload factors--not just on cases but weighted for how big and how difficult the cases are. We know, for example, that southern California has not had any relief for some time. It has been seeing a surge in caseload based on such things as immigration as well as other crimes that go into Federal court. They are larger numbers when you are on a border like that. This will provide 20 new judges--a number of them temporary. But the net result will be assistance to some critical districts in America, such as the western district of Texas, or the southern district of California. I think we are moving in the right direction there. I am also pleased that a bill that Senator Dianne Feinstein and I offered--the James Guelff and Chris McCurley Body Armor Act--was made a part of this legislation. This bill dealt with the situation in which violent criminals today are oftentimes better armed and better protected than the police. It is estimated that 25 percent of police do not have body armor available to them. But criminals can go out and buy body armor. It is a crime, for example, for a criminal to have weapons. A felon who possesses a gun is in violation of Federal and most State legal systems. But, it is not today a crime for a felon to be wearing body armor, or to wear body armor during the course of a crime. James Guelff was murdered as a result of a confrontation with an individual wearing body armor. Chris McCurley, a deputy sheriff in Alabama, was out to arrest a criminal. He entered the residence of that defendant and was killed in a shootout. It was discovered that the defendant--the criminal--premeditatedly and calculatedly waited for him while wearing body armor, prepared himself for a shootout, and killed him on that scene. This bill is named for James Guelff and Chris McCurley. It would add intense punishment to criminals who use body armor in the course of their criminal activity. It has the support of the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Association of Police Organizations, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, and many other national police groups. I think, all in all, there are good things in this legislation. I wish we could have done more. I support it, and look forward to voting favorably on it. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Employee Pension Bankruptcy Protection Act of 2002. Today, when a company declares bankruptcy, it is often the employees and retirees who suffer. They suffer because they often lose their hard earned pensions and retirement benefits during the bankruptcy process. This is simply not right. When Americans lose the pensions and benefits that they have worked a lifetime to earn, it is the responsibility of the members of this body to act to protect them. Under current law, the pension fund is technically the ``creditor'' of the corporation, not the employees and retirees. Thus, in court, employees and retirees of a bankrupt corporation have their interests in their pensions represented by the pension plan trustee. If the pension fund itself is threatened with insolvency, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, PBGC, can step in. While PBGC often covers most of the pension obligation, the statutory limits can sometimes leave a significant amount of pension benefits unpaid. If employees and retirees are not satisfied with how the pension plan trustee or PGGC is representing their interests, current law provides no relief. There is no day in court for the people who earned the pensions in the first place. This problem has only recently been brought to my attention by Mr. John Nichols of Gadsden, AL, and his son, Phil, an attorney in Birmingham. The orderal faced by Mr. Nichols is a prime example of why employees and retirees need more representation before the bankruptcy court. Mr. Nichols spent his entire career at a steel plant in Gadsden. He began working for Republic Steel in 1956 and stayed with the operation through a buyout by LTV Steel and two subsequent ownership changes. When LTV bought out Mr. Nichols' employer, LTV Steel took over the monthly pension payments guaranteed to the former employees and retirees of Republic Steel, including Mr. Nichols. Soon after the takeover, however, LTV filed for bankruptcy, claiming that it could no longer make pension payments to Republic Steel's former employees. PBGC, initially stepped in to help make a small part of the pension payments, but LTV eventually stopped making payments at all. Because all the payments LTV had been making were not guaranteed by the PBGC, the long awaited pension payments earned by Mr. Nichols and by Republic Steel's other loyal employees were severely reduced. Mr. Nichols' pension payments went from approximately $2,225 per month to approximately $675 per month--only 30 percent of what he had been promised. A third of this payment now covers Mr. Nichols' health insurance premium that he can no longer purchase through LTV, leaving him with only 20 percent of his promised pension each month. Because PBGC could only pay the retirees the amount the statute allowed, and because no one had the responsibility of telling bankruptcy court what was happening to the retirees of Republic Steel, large portions of hard earned pensions were lost. PBGC itself recognized that the claims of the pensioners against LTV, ``are among the many claims that will probably never be paid, except perhaps in cents on the dollar'' and stated that PBGC's claims against LTV for the pension plan underfunding were perhaps ``[t]he largest of these claims [that will go upaid].'' During LTV's bankruptcy case, various creditors were represented before the bankruptcy court, but not the employees and retirees. Thus, when the assets of LTV were divided among its creditors, employees and the retirees were not at the table. If the employees and retirees had had an opportunity to make their case before the bankruptcy judge, the result could have been different for Mr. Nichols and for the other employees of Republic Steel. The bill I introduce today does one very simple thing, it gives employees and retirees the right to be heard before the bankruptcy court with respect to their pensions. Under this bill, a representative of the employee and retirees can appear and be heard if it is likely that the employee benefit pension plan of the bankrupt corporation will be terminated or substantially underfunded and if it is possible that the beneficiaries of the plan will be adversely affected. By allowing employees and retirees to be hard before the bankruptcy court, we will ensure that the bankruptcy court hears from the people who earned the pensions before it disposes of the assets that could pay those pensions. Employees and retirees will be able to argue to the court that any division of assets or bankruptcy plan must be fair to the pensioners. The needs of the corporation's employees and retirees should be heard before the assets of a bankrupt corporation are split up among creditors and gone forever. They deserve to have their day in court. The Employee Pension Bankruptcy Protection Act of 2002 seeks to make sure that what happened to the retirees of Republic Steel in Gadsden, Alabama, will never happen again. By passing this legislation we can ensure that employees and retirees will never be deprived of their pensions without having their day in court. While a company may still be able to discharge its obligation to pay pensioners in bankruptcy, this bill at least takes the first modest step to protection pensions by providing them the opportunity to be part of the bankruptcy bargaining process. Before the bankruptcy court sells assets or adopts a plan of reorganization, the employees and retirees will be heard with respect to their pensions. This is only fair. I strongly urge my colleagues in the Senate to support this bill and to work with me to further ensure that employees and retirees of corporations are fairly treated and protected under the United States Bankruptcy Code.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Employee Pension Bankruptcy Protection Act of 2002. Today, when a company declares bankruptcy, it is often the employees and retirees who suffer. They suffer because they often lose their hard earned pensions and retirement benefits during the bankruptcy process. This is simply not right. When Americans lose the pensions and benefits that they have worked a lifetime to earn, it is the responsibility of the members of this body to act to protect them. Under current law, the pension fund is technically the ``creditor'' of the corporation, not the employees and retirees. Thus, in court, employees and retirees of a bankrupt corporation have their interests in their pensions represented by the pension plan trustee. If the pension fund itself is threatened with insolvency, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, PBGC, can step in. While PBGC often covers most of the pension obligation, the statutory limits can sometimes leave a significant amount of pension benefits unpaid. If employees and retirees are not satisfied with how the pension plan trustee or PGGC is representing their interests, current law provides no relief. There is no day in court for the people who earned the pensions in the first place. This problem has only recently been brought to my attention by Mr. John Nichols of Gadsden, AL, and his son, Phil, an attorney in Birmingham. The orderal faced by Mr. Nichols is a prime example of why employees and retirees need more representation before the bankruptcy court. Mr. Nichols spent his entire career at a steel plant in Gadsden. He began working for Republic Steel in 1956 and stayed with the operation through a buyout by LTV Steel and two subsequent ownership changes. When LTV bought out Mr. Nichols' employer, LTV Steel took over the monthly pension payments guaranteed to the former employees and retirees of Republic Steel, including Mr. Nichols. Soon after the takeover, however, LTV filed for bankruptcy, claiming that it could no longer make pension payments to Republic Steel's former employees. PBGC, initially stepped in to help make a small part of the pension payments, but LTV eventually stopped making payments at all. Because all the payments LTV had been making were not guaranteed by the PBGC, the long awaited pension payments earned by Mr. Nichols and by Republic Steel's other loyal employees were severely reduced. Mr. Nichols' pension payments went from approximately $2,225 per month to approximately $675 per month--only 30 percent of what he had been promised. A third of this payment now covers Mr. Nichols' health insurance premium that he can no longer purchase through LTV, leaving him with only 20 percent of his promised pension each month. Because PBGC could only pay the retirees the amount the statute allowed, and because no one had the responsibility of telling bankruptcy court what was happening to the retirees of Republic Steel, large portions of hard earned pensions were lost. PBGC itself recognized that the claims of the pensioners against LTV, ``are among the many claims that will probably never be paid, except perhaps in cents on the dollar'' and stated that PBGC's claims against LTV for the pension plan underfunding were perhaps ``[t]he largest of these claims [that will go upaid].'' During LTV's bankruptcy case, various creditors were represented before the bankruptcy court, but not the employees and retirees. Thus, when the assets of LTV were divided among its creditors, employees and the retirees were not at the table. If the employees and retirees had had an opportunity to make their case before the bankruptcy judge, the result could have been different for Mr. Nichols and for the other employees of Republic Steel. The bill I introduce today does one very simple thing, it gives employees and retirees the right to be heard before the bankruptcy court with respect to their pensions. Under this bill, a representative of the employee and retirees can appear and be heard if it is likely that the employee benefit pension plan of the bankrupt corporation will be terminated or substantially underfunded and if it is possible that the beneficiaries of the plan will be adversely affected. By allowing employees and retirees to be hard before the bankruptcy court, we will ensure that the bankruptcy court hears from the people who earned the pensions before it disposes of the assets that could pay those pensions. Employees and retirees will be able to argue to the court that any division of assets or bankruptcy plan must be fair to the pensioners. The needs of the corporation's employees and retirees should be heard before the assets of a bankrupt corporation are split up among creditors and gone forever. They deserve to have their day in court. The Employee Pension Bankruptcy Protection Act of 2002 seeks to make sure that what happened to the retirees of Republic Steel in Gadsden, Alabama, will never happen again. By passing this legislation we can ensure that employees and retirees will never be deprived of their pensions without having their day in court. While a company may still be able to discharge its obligation to pay pensioners in bankruptcy, this bill at least takes the first modest step to protection pensions by providing them the opportunity to be part of the bankruptcy bargaining process. Before the bankruptcy court sells assets or adopts a plan of reorganization, the employees and retirees will be heard with respect to their pensions. This is only fair. I strongly urge my colleagues in the Senate to support this bill and to work with me to further ensure that employees and retirees of corporations are fairly treated and protected under the United States Bankruptcy Code.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, as I indicated earlier, Senator Helms is a great Senator because he came to the Senate with beliefs and principles. He has personal integrity and a strong work ethic. He mastered the rules of the Senate, and fundamentally his greatness came from the fact he had the courage to act on those convictions and see them through, even in the face of criticism. He stood for traditional American values, for faith, for institutions important to our country, such as the Boy Scouts. I was an Eagle Scout, and I appreciate so much his leadership for them. He ran for the Senate because of his beliefs and concerns about America. That is what made him choose to offer himself. He believed America was a great bastion of freedom. He defended her without apology. He was not a part of the ``blame America'' crowd. He would never go to a foreign country which had demonstrated a history of bad behavior throughout the world and blamed America. He would stand and say, for all our faults, America has stood for right in the world, and we ought to be proud of what we do. He understood the history of America, its uniqueness as a Nation of freedom. He understood the importance of the United States to the world as a whole, and he clearly saw, throughout his tenure, godless communism was incompatible with the faith and freedom that made America great. So he stood against it, without apology. He had the great joy, I am sure, when his good friend Ronald Reagan was President, to see the collapse of the Soviet Union, the fall of the evil empire, and see freedom begin to spread around the world. What a wonderful feeling it must have been for this patriot, who stood so long for strong national defense, who stood so long for the values of America, and contrasted them with the totalitarian governments in the communist world. And it was a battle. It was a long struggle. There were good times and bad times. People who stood with firmness, like Senator Helms, were often attacked most aggressively in the liberal media, but he put his beliefs and his love for America first. He was prepared to take the heat, and I believe history will record he stood on the right side of that issue with consistency, integrity, and courage, and played a major role in the victory of freedom over communism. Senator Helms understood the necessity of American leadership in the world. He understood our unique history. He therefore defended our sovereignty. He defended the ability of the United States to stand alone, if need be, as he had to do at various times politically, to defend the interests we have. He was willing to work with the United Nations, NATO, and other groups, but he was not prepared to cede our sovereignty to that group. Some time ago, I made the reference to the treaties and agreements so many would like to have us sign. They are much like, in my mind, the scene of Gulliver in the land of Lilliputians, being tied down by hundreds and hundreds of strings. Pretty soon the giant is not able to act and defend himself. We do not need to allow ourselves, through a rush to agreements and multilateral organizations, to be tied down from our freedom. He provided a critical check against these trends through some difficult times, and I think he sees today the world is better off for it. As a matter of fact, with regard to the U.N., he was exceedingly critical of the waste, fraud, and even corruption in the United Nations. He knew there was a problem; so did almost everyone sophisticated in the world today. They knew money was being wasted and spent unwisely. They knew there was corruption in programs and within the institution itself. Senator Helms simply said, and was unmovable on the view, until there were reforms in the United Nations, he would oppose American back payments, and he got that. Oddly, this Senator, who was not emotionally invested in the United Nations, probably has played as big a role as anyone in making that organization a better institution today. He had bipartisan support for that position before it was over. He helped form the steering committee of the Republican caucus in the Senate, beginning as a small group of conservatives and has grown now to over 49 members of the Republican caucus. Of Members of that steering committee I am honored to be a vice chairman and one of the leaders of it. Senator Gramm is here today and served as chairman. Senator Helms served as a chairman in the early days, 1981 to 1985. Now that institution does have a great voice in the affairs of this Senate. He is a great church man, a Baptist deacon, a Sunday school teacher. He graduated from the Wake Forest University, a superb Baptist school, with a superb Baptist heritage. He is a man of faith and belief for which he never apologized. There is in the tradition of the Baptist Church a tremendous belief in the sanctity of individual human beings, a sense of democracy that is unique. Senator Helms says that every individual human being had the same creator and the same value in the overall scheme of life. He is a man of graciousness. He is a southern gentleman and kind and wonderful to his friends. But he was strong and courageous and firm when he believed his principles called for that. He could be unmovable, but he was also kind. He told the story to me of his friendship with former Senator Jim Allen from Alabama. Like Senator Helms, he was an independent man who knew the rules of the Senate and had the courage to utilize and fight for these values and use those rules effectively. He told the story about coming to Alabama for Jim Allen's funeral. They got off the airplane. Senator Allen was extraordinarily well respected in the State, loved throughout the State. He recalled to me seeing a sign that said ``a giant has fallen,'' and tears came to his eyes as he told that story to me. That shows the extent of his affection for his fellow Senators, his deep feelings of companionship. At the same time, our Senator Helms has been a giant for American values, for American principles, and for this country. I have been honored to know him. I have been honored to know his wonderful wife, Dot, as has my wife, who so much admires her. We give them our best wishes in their future endeavors. We wish them health and vitality and many years of service and enjoyment with their family and friends. They have been served with great distinction. Senator Helms has been a giant in this body. It has been an honor to serve with him. I yield the floor.