Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I believe that under the UC I am to be recognized next. I understand other matters are to come before the body soon. I want to say how much I admire Senator Helms. He is and has been a great Senator. He came here with beliefs and concerns about America and he stood up for them. He also came here with courage and convictions. He stood for those throughout his career. He has shown us all what one man can do when he stands up for his beliefs. He is a man I admire, as so many others do. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I wish to speak a few minutes on the Department of Justice conference report that is before the Senate. The Department of Justice is one of the great Departments of our Government. It is one of the oldest, one of the original Departments. I served in that Department for 15 years. It was the greatest honor for me. I believe it has worked, and I believe, all in all, this bill is a healthy bill. I am pleased to support it. It came out of the Judiciary Committee on which I serve, and we talked about many of the issues. Hopefully, when the dust settles, the bill we pass will strengthen justice in America. I am pleased with that. There is one provision that came out of this conference committee, however, with which I am not pleased. It was not in the Senate bill; it was not in the House bill. It was placed in the conference report without having been passed by either body, which is against the tradition of the Senate and the House. This should not be done. It is normally not done. That provision deals with automobile dealers and arbitration clauses they have with automobile manufacturers. The truth is, most automobile dealers today are pretty sizable entities. They have lawyers. They negotiate these contracts when they have an agreement with a big company. It requires arbitration apparently in most of these contracts. They reject it. They want to alter this right of contract and eliminate it. I objected to it in committee. I believe the question of binding arbitration is one that requires a good deal of thought. I believe pretty strongly that if we are going to change arbitration law in America to exempt people from binding arbitration, I am not sure the first place we should start is between automobile dealers and automobile manufacturers. That seems to me to be an odd place to start. There was not a lot of thought put into it. There are disputes and arguments between the dealers and the manufacturers, and the dealers believe they will have a better chance in court, if they can try the case at home, in a lawsuit, probably throwing some claims in that lawsuit. They want to do it that way. Apparently, most of our colleagues agreed; an overwhelming number of people supported the amendment. It is now included in the bill. I say that because I earlier introduced an arbitration bill that focuses on improving arbitration across the board. It was a broad bill and had a lot of positive changes in it. I will be introducing today another, even more comprehensive, bill to deal with arbitration. I will not go into all the details of it, but I call this bill the Arbitration Fairness Act of 2002, and it will continue the changes we offered in the 106th Congress when I introduced the consumer and employee arbitration bill of rights. This will be a broader procedure. It will deal with the question of Federal arbitration. Congress enacted the Federal Arbitration Act in 1925. It has served us well for three-quarters of a century. Under the act, if parties agree to a contract affecting interstate commerce that contains a clause requiring arbitration, the clause will be enforceable in court. That is the fundamental issue with which we have been dealing. My State has had a lot of debate about arbitration. It is healthy to look at what we did 75 years ago. We found there are legitimate complaints about arbitration. Our act, a bill of rights of protections for people who are involved in arbitration, I think will take us a step in the right direction. It will maintain cost-benefits of arbitration. Many times it is quite cost-effective to arbitrate, but there are instances in which arbitration costs more and is more of a headache than perhaps going to small claims court or other courts. There have been some concerns that the arbitrators under these agreements are not independent and the corporation or the larger entity has too much power in selecting who might arbitrate. The bill provides the following rights: No. 1: Notice. Under the bill, an arbitration clause, if it is to be enforceable, would have to have a heading in large, bold print that states whether arbitration is binding or optional and identify a source that the parties may contact for more information and state that a consumer could opt out and go to small claims court. In other words, when you have an arbitration, you have to pay the arbitrators. Both parties have to go. Many States have effective small claims courts where you file a $25 fee and an independent judge will hear the case. Sometimes that is better. This would allow an opt-out for a person who is involved in an arbitration matter if they choose and if they qualify for the small claims court. That probably is healthy. It would eliminate a lot of the complaints we have heard about over a small item, say a television or sofa or refrigerator, that could cost more to arbitrate than the merchandise is worth. This would at least give that option, so a party could opt out if it chose. No. 2: The independent selection of arbitrators. The bill would grant all parties the right to have potential arbitrators disclose relevant information concerning their business ties and employment. All parties to the arbitration would have an equal voice in selecting a neutral arbitrator. This ensures that the large company that sold a consumer product will not select the arbitrator itself because the consumer with a grievance will have the right to nominate potential arbitrators, too. As a result, the final arbitrator selected will have to have the explicit approval of both parties to the dispute. This means the arbitrator will be a neutral party with no allegiance to either party. There are some instances when that has not been the case. We deal with choice of law. We make clear that parties can be represented by counsel at their own expense. It guarantees that all parties will have a fair hearing in a forum that is reasonably convenient to the consumer or employee to prevent a large company, for example, from requiring a consumer or an employee or small business owner to travel across the country to arbitrate a claim. The bill grants to all parties the right to conduct discovery and present evidence; to have cross-examination; that there should be a tape recording or a stenographer to make a record of the hearing, and that there would be a timely resolution. That is important. One of the reasons we choose arbitration is for timely resolution. There have been complaints that these have not been timely and in fact have been just as long, in some instances longer, as going to court. Under the bill, the defendant must file an answer within 30 days of the filing of a complaint. The arbitrator has 90 days to hold a hearing and must render a decision within 30 days after the hearing. That would be the maximum time that would be allowed. It would require a written decision. As to expenses, it grants all parties the right to have an arbitrator provide for reimbursement of arbitration fees in the interest of justice; the reduction, deferral, or waiver of arbitration fees in cases of extreme hardship; and also the small claims opt-out. This is a Department of Justice bill that I believe has some good things in it. It has 20 new Federal judges, pretty much selected on a need all across America. Some States are really in crisis, such as California and they need some additional district judges. We need several in Alabama. It has that in there. It has a body armor bill that Senator Feinstein and I worked on that says if you deal with such a violent criminal who is involved in a serious crime, who wears body armor while they are committing that crime, then the judge is authorized to give a more substantial penalty where that occurs and make it a separate offense for wearing body armor during the commission of a felony. We had an instance in my State, and Senator Feinstein in California, in which a criminal actually wore body armor and killed a law enforcement officer, thereby gaining an advantage in weaponry by being so protected. There are some other provisions in the bill that are good. We strengthen the Coverdell Act that deals with forensic laboratories. In my view, as a prosecutor for many years, perhaps the greatest single bottleneck in justice today is a delay that so often occurs in obtaining scientific analysis of evidence. A prosecutor cannot go forward with a case involving cocaine, white powder, until some chemist reports that it is actually cocaine. Most prosecutors probably will not take it to a grand jury until they have that chemical report. If there are fingerprints, an analysis is needed. If there is a weapon involved, the ballistics need to be examined. If there are DNA issues, DNA is needed. If there has been a rape, the DNA analysis and blood samples are needed. Those are procedures that are being delayed. In my State, we saw delays of as much as a year or more in actually receiving the scientific analysis. On a routine basis, that is happening around America. It is important we assist in that. The bill we named after former Senator Paul Coverdell--who was such a wonderful Member of this body, a bill he worked on before his death--would help strengthen that. I believe we are moving in the right direction, and I would like to see the Federal Government take a stronger lead in encouraging the States to move forward on forensic capabilities. We spend huge amounts of money on prisons. We spend huge amounts of money on probation officers. We spend huge amounts of money on sheriffs' deputies, police officers, prosecutors, judges, and juries, but we are spending only a pittance on getting our scientific evidence produced in an honest and effective way. As a result, justice is being delayed. And justice delayed is justice denied. Recently, in Alabama, we had probably the most horrendous crime ever. A man killed six members of one family. The newspaper reported he was out on bail pending trial. The prosecutor said they were waiting on the chemical analysis of the drugs he had been arrested with. Had that come in promptly, had he been indicted, gone to trial, and been in jail, six people would probably be alive today. That is occurring around America today. Make no mistake about it, it is something we need to do to improve. It is primarily a State function, but this Government does a lot to encourage and help States do better, and we really ought to step it up in this area. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to an outstanding citizen of the great State of Alabama, Mrs. Annie Loritts. Mrs. Loritts will celebrate her 100th birthday on December 15, 2002. Over the past 100 years Mrs. Loritts has displayed a dedication to her family, her friends, her students, and her community. As a young woman in Lincolnton, North Carolina, in the 1920's, she pursued a teaching certificate from the Livingstone Normal Teachers School and taught under the supervision of her father, for a year. She then married Emory Loritts and went on to become very active in her community. Mrs. Loritts was involved with the Arts Council of Lincoln County, the Lincoln County Library, and the Seniors Center. However, Mrs. Loritts still had a desire to work with the young people of Lincoln County and returned to college to earn her Bachelor of Science and Masters of Science. She went on to teach in Lincoln County Schools for the next fifty years and was instrumental in shaping the minds and lives of thousands of American citizens. Mrs. Loritts, who now resides in Huntsville, AL, is an example of the dedicated professionals that teach our young people every day. Her commitment to improving the lives of children and producing solid citizens should serve as an example to each of us. I applaud her tireless efforts on the behalf of others and would like to take this opportunity to thank her for all that she has contributed to her community and the impact she has made on the lives of others. I ask my colleagues to join me today in recognizing Mrs. Annie Loritts for her outstanding achievements and in wishing her a happy upcoming birthday.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, it has come to my attention that Technical Sergeant Caesar Kellum has been recognized as one of 12 Outstanding Airmen of the Year by the United States Air Force. Technical Sergeant Kellum is the noncommissioned officer in charge of the Airspace Division, Southeast Air Defense Sector, SEADS, Florida Air National Guard FLANG, Tyndall AFB, FL. Caesar has excelled as a member of the United States Air Force. For example, he maintained a 100 percent academic average on all written evaluations; unprecedented in his unit's history. Out of 36 weapons directors, he is the only one to earn an ``exceptionally qualified'' rating on back-to-back evaluations. Additionally, he is a key member of an evaluation team to assess operations control center's readiness to help detect and identify 800,000 aircraft annually. In addition to his excellent work with the U.S. Air Force, TSgt Kellum has exhibited a great deal of involvement within the local community. He orchestrated the sector's participation in the American Cancer Society's Annual Relay for Life event and served as team captain for the Millennium Cure Walkers. He raised $5,061,56 for the American Cancer Society, exceeding the goal by 237 percent. As a result of his performance, he was awarded the highly coveted ``Team Spirit'' award, which is extended to the team with the best overall effort and attitude. Caesar Kellum was raised in Athens, AL and, after graduating from West Limestone High School in Salem, AL, enlisted in the United States Air Force in August of 1990. Since arriving at Tyndall AFB, FL, Technical Sergeant Kellum has completed all the requirements and received his associate of science degree in Instructor of Technology from the Community College of the Air Force. Currently, he is in his junior year at the American Military University working on a bachelor of science degree in Management. SGT Kellum's military decorations include the Air Force Commendation Medal with two oak leaf clusters, Air Force Achievement Medal, Combat Readiness Medal, Air Force Outstanding Unit Award, Organizational Excellence Award, Humanitarian Service Medal, National Defense Ribbon, Good Conduct Medal, and the Air Force Professional Military Education Graduate Ribbon. TSgt Caesar Kellum deserves the thanks and praise of the nation that he continues to faithfully serve. I know the Members of the Senate will join me in wishing him and his wife Tiffiney Ann, also in the USAF, all the best in the years ahead. Well done, TSgt Kellum. You have made Alabama and America Proud. I had the pleasure recently to visit with Caesar and Tiffney. They are the very model of a couple that have given their lives to excellence in public service. I was inspired just talking to them.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I object. There are individuals on this side who have an objection. I object.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the achievements of John Stallworth on the occasion of his recent induction into the Pro Football Hall of Fame on August 4, 2002. Mr. Stallworth was born on July 15, 1952 in Tuscaloosa, AL. At the age of 5 he was told by doctors that he had polio, later found to be a mis-diagnosis. Mr. Stallworth overcame that hurdle to excel at a number of sports. In high school, he served as captain of his school's football team and went on to play his college ball at Alabama A&M located in Normal, Alabama just outside of Huntsville. While at Alabama A&M, Mr. Stallworth was an All-Southern Intercollegiate Athletic Conference receiver in 1972 and 1973 and became the Bulldogs' all-time leading receiver. He was also the first Alabama A&M player to be selected to participate in the Senior Bowl, college football's premiere all-star game in Mobile. He was selected by the NFL Pittsburgh Steelers in the fourth round of the 1974 NFL draft, the 82nd player taken that year. I think a few teams around the league kicked themselves later for passing him up when they saw what he could do on the football field. After spending his first year as an understudy, he became a starter in his second season and held that job with the Steelers for the rest of his 14 year, 165- game career. The 6-2, 191 pound receiver teamed first with Lynn Swann and later with Louis Lipps to give the Steelers unusually potent pass- receiving tandems. Stallworth caught 537 passes for 8,723 yards and 63 touchdowns, all Steelers team records. Stallworth won four Super Bowl championships playing in Super Bowls IX, X, XIII, and XIV. He played in six AFC championship games and had 12 touchdowns and 17 consecutive postseason games with at least one reception. Stallworth, who scored the winning touchdown on a 73-yard reception in Super Bowl XIV, holds Super Bowl records for career average per catch--24.4 yards--and single game average, 40.33 yards, in Super Bowl XIV. He was an All-Pro in 1979 and played in four Pro-Bowls. He was voted MVP by his teammates twice: in 1979 and 1984. Terry Bradshaw and Jack Lambert are the only other players who have received that honor two times. Stallworth was named to the Steelers' All-Time Team in 1982 and the Alabama Sports Hall of Fame in 1989. Never known for excessive celebration or as one who sought individual attention, Hall of Fame Coach Chuck Noll said of Stallworth: John is a very special person. He is very much a team man and you need that to be successful. Following his Hall of Fame football career, Mr. Stallworth returned to Huntsville, Alabama completed his MBA from Alabama A&M. Since then, he has achieved great success in the field of business. He is Cofounder, President, and Chief Executive Officer of Madison Research Corporation in Huntsville, Alabama. Under Mr. Stallworth's leadership, the Madison Research Corporation has emerged as one of the premier technology companies in the State of Alabama with 2001 revenues of over $60 million and a current staff of over 650 people. Some of his company's clients include: the Department of Defense, all the military services, the Department of Energy, NASA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, and a number of Fortune 500 companies. As a result of Mr. Stallworth's leadership, Washington Technology Magazine ranked Madison Research Company #11 of the nation's top 25 small, minority-owned technology companies. The company also received the 1998 Better Business Bureau of North Alabama's Torch Award for market ethics. This award was presented in recognition of Madison Research's commitment to ethics in business. Mr. Stallworth also received the 1997 Region IV Minority Small Business Person of the Year Award, presented by the Small Business Administration. Mr. Stallworth's dedication did not end with football or business. He has given of himself to the city of Huntsville and the people of Alabama and they recently recognized his accomplishments with ``John Stallworth Day in Huntsville''. At the celebration Mel Blount, himself a Hall of Famer, spoke of Stallworth: John Stallworth exemplifies what a true professional is all about, not just in football but in the business world and in life. Mr. Stallworth has served on a number of boards including the United Way, the Museum of Aviation, the Madison County Chamber of Commerce, the U.S. Space Camp, Harris Home for Underprivileged Children, and Alabama A&M University. He has been active with the Huntsville Boys and Girls Club, the United Negro College Fund, the Children's Advocacy Center, the Rotary Club of Huntsville, the Alzheimer's Association of Greater Huntsville, and Big Brothers/Big Sisters of North Alabama to name a few. He is also chairman of the Board of Directors of the John L. Stallworth Scholarship Foundation which helps to promote the education of our youth. I have had the opportunity to get to know John Stallworth over the years and I can say that I am proud to call him my friend. He has served on my technology advisory committee and has been an asset to my work here in the Senate. He has never hesitated to provide me with expert counsel on important issues that have come before the Senate. It is very satisfying for me to see how he has overcome adversity in his life to achieve greatness as a professional and as a human being. His accomplishments on and off the field have inspired thousands of our young people to strive for excellence and I applaud his efforts. The People of the State of Alabama are proud to call him our native son. I am proud to recognize the accomplishments of a great American and Alabamian, John Stallworth.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Is the Senator aware that after September 11 the Customs Service signed a cooperative agreement with several foreign ports because we are concerned about ports being used to ship weapons of mass destruction here, and the best way to do it is to identify that as a foreign port before it gets here--that they signed a cooperative agreement allowing our inspectors to preinspect cargo abroad before it sailed here. The Customs Service wanted to send its best agents to these ports because these are sensitive foreign assignments, and the National Treasury Employees Union objected, saying that internal union rules should determine who should be sent on these assignments, not the Customs Service managers.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question on that point?

Mr. SESSIONS. If the Senator will yield, in reference to Senator Bennett's comments, merging these agencies is a difficult task. They come with different backgrounds and legal prerogatives and cultures that they have had. As a U.S. attorney, I represented every Federal agency in my district, which would include the Corps of Engineers, the Coast Guard, Treasury, Customs, the INS, the DEA, the FBI--every agency that was there. They all have a little bit different rules. If we are going to form a new agency, we ought not diminish the President's power because it is going to be difficult enough as it is to bring this thing together in a coherent whole. I believe the Senator is making a good point. I have listened to the debate that has gone on for some time. It seems to me quite clear the amendments that have been offered--the objections that have been made to your bipartisan bill, the Gramm-Miller bipartisan bill--have been designed to diminish the Executive's ability to coordinate quickly that new critical agency for our defense. I thank the Senator for his leadership on it. I think it is important. The President should not allow his office and the office of future Presidents to have an even more difficult time than we already have with personnel. For example, I have had many agency heads come to me and ask me about criminal activity by Federal employees. And I would say: Why don't you just fire them? They would say: You don't know how hard it is. We have a criminal case. Please prosecute this case; otherwise, we will be years removing this person. It is amazing sometimes for the public to learn how difficult it is to manage in a Federal agency. It is far more difficult than private agencies. In the end, it hurts good employees of which there are so many of them out there. It keeps them from being promoted, and it undermines the ability of the agency to be effective. I thank the Senator for his courageous leadership. (Mrs. CLINTON assumed the chair.)

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I served in the Federal Government bureaucracy for about 15 years as a Federal attorney and as a U.S. attorney. Trust me, Federal employees, as Senator Bennett said, have tremendous rights. I was rather shocked, in connection with some of the things Senator Gramm has been saying, to read some recent developments. After September 11, is the Senator aware that the Customs Service wanted to require its inspectors--management--at 301 ports of entry to wear radiation detection pagers to help detect attempts to import nuclear and radiological materials across our borders, and that the National Treasury Employees Union--members of which are some of my good friends--objected saying that wearing the pagers should be voluntary and fought to invoke collective bargaining on the issue, which would have taken at least a year to resolve?

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I had something I had to take care of, and I thank the Senator, but I will be glad to stay a few more minutes.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from West Virginia for his courtesy and his thoughtfulness. I just ask that he consider, in evaluating his decision, the difficulties it provides for the United States if we cannot get a vote of support. If we are not for it, let's say so. If we do not believe and we are not going to fund--which is our ultimate power, to cut off funds--let's say so, and we get on with something else. I strongly believe we should proceed. Senator Warner, who was chairman of the Armed Services Committee or ranking member on the Armed Services Committee, said there were nine hearings last time before the gulf war, with a period of intense debate. The Senator is correct, we ought to have hearings and we ought to have debate. It is just a question of, as soon as we get that and people feel ready, the sooner we get started and the sooner we complete it, I think the Nation will be better off. I respect the views of the Senator and the concerns. As the Senator knows, under our Constitution we have elections all the time, one following the other. There is never a time that someone does not have an election in mind, unfortunately.

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from West Virginia. The Senator is so eloquent in defending the prerogatives of this Senate, and I thank him for that. We do not need to rush into this. I am of the belief--and I ask the Senator if he would consider the possibility that he would be willing to support the commencement of debate and a vote, if we could do so, before we recess because we may be into January before we return, and I think it could complicate matters. If I was inarticulate, I apologize, but my request would be that we consider the policies, not the President. It is not a personal thing; the Senator from West Virginia is correct. Let us consider those policies so the world would know whether we are going to support that or not. I know the former Vice Presidential nominee for the Democratic Party, Senator Lieberman, is supporting these policies, and I think there is a majority here. I think the Senator from West Virginia may well agree at some point, after he has had full time to digest and consider it, but I do believe and hope that the Senator would consider allowing us to have a vigorous debate and a vote as soon as we possibly could.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from West Virginia. I appreciate his leadership in the Senate, his concern for our constitutional order, and his serious historical understanding of the separation of powers. We might not always agree on where those separations are, but I certainly respect his dedication to preserving those separations.

Mr. SESSIONS. I would like to make a statement. I had hoped to speak for 10 or 15 minutes. I understand we have a problem. I have been here since before noon. I know the Senator had his time reserved, as he has every right to do. I was hoping I would have a few moments to talk about the important developments with regard to the President's position on the United Nations and Iraq. I believe it is important to make some remarks today.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I believe it is important today to talk about the remarks President Bush made at the United Nations. I believe he has made a courageous call on the United Nations to defend its credibility in its dealings with Iraq by ensuring that Iraq does not continue to update its weapons of mass destruction and does not continue to violate with impunity the 16 U.N. resolutions of which he is in violation. I think those remarks were a true example of world leadership. President Bush spoke as one who knows right from wrong, who has honest convictions, and he has the courage to express and to act on them. In direct words, he detailed the incontrovertible case that Saddam Hussein deliberately used his promises at the time of his defeat in the Gulf War as a considered strategy to cause the allies to stop their hostilities before removing him from power, which has proven to be a trick. Since then, his actions have clearly confirmed his deception and have shown his insincerity, his duplicity, and his complete rejection of the U.N. resolutions--his rejections, indeed, of the United Nations itself and of the United States and the nations that joined together to defeat him in 1991. He rejects them. He does not respect them and his promises made to them. Those agreements, he has said he will follow, but he has never intended to follow them because he doesn't give them respect or credibility. The ``Economist'' magazine of London said it is well and good to talk about multilateralism, but it asked, ``what happens when people agree to things and do not do them?'' That brings up a problem, particularly when their failure to do so deals with matters that threaten the peace of the world. I don't think anyone can deny that Saddam Hussein's consistent policy has been to defeat, obstruct, and get around the agreements he has made. Some tell us that the world--the international community--is all against us. They say we are acting unilaterally. Some leaders around the world have indeed said that. But the truth is that President Bush is consulting regularly with world leaders. His speech to the U.N. struck the right balance. And progress is being made in obtaining support around the world--with not enough help, I am afraid, from this Congress. But who would ever deny that Saddam Hussein is a unilateralist? With whom did he consult before he invaded Kuwait in 1991? With whom did he consult before he utilized poison gas to kill thousands of his own citizens, the Kurds, in the 1990s? Who did he consult with, what other nation did he consult with, when he plotted to assassinate the former President of the United States of America? Who has he consulted with, as he deals to construct, develop, and produce weapons of mass destruction? So I would like, Mr. President, to just make a few comments here to bring us some perspective that I think is very important at this time on the kind of support we have around the world. First of all, I think one of the clearest-headed nations--a nation that consistently gets it right around the world on matters of foreign policy--the United Kingdom, is in total support of the United States. Indeed, it was reported in the paper today that they were moving troops into the Middle East, and prepared to use them, if necessary, with us. So the Foreign Minister of the U.K., commenting on President Bush's speech to the U.N. said it was ``tough and effective'', and the speech received quite good remarks from the British leadership. The Belgian Foreign Minister, heretofore a critic of the United States action, Louis Michel, said, after the speech: ``Now we have to press Iraq.'' He added, if the U.N. ``doesn't deliver, it will be uncomfortable for some European countries not to support the United States.'' That was in today's Washington Times. Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of the U.N., who has criticized the United States recently, also ``urged Council members yesterday to take action or lose legitimacy.'' Even France, which has been pretty outspoken against the United States actions, accusing the United States of unilateral activities, has said: ``We don't have sympathy for the Iraq regime.'' And their Foreign Minister further added that ``he defies the authority of the Security Council, raises the threat of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and, therefore, jeopardize the stability of the region.'' The Danish Prime Minister's views were remarkable. A few days ago, on September 11, in an op-ed piece here in the Washington Times, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the Danish Prime Minister, said, in a strong statement of affection and support for the United States wrote: Our common values, shared destiny and visions have been further fortified by the horrors of September 11. On the first anniversary of that somber date, Danes will think back with sympathy and sorrow on the victims of the terrorist attacks against the United States and their bereaved families. One year later, our solidarity with America is undiminished. September 11 was a defining moment calling for determined action in defense of humanity and fundamental freedoms. Acting can entail dangers but the dangers of inaction are far, far greater. In the face of today's new threat, the only way to pursue peace is to pursue those who threaten it. He goes on to add: America and Denmark see eye-to-eye on the real challenges facing us today. In the fight against terrorism, Denmark was, is and will be fully behind the United States. Our best soldiers have been in Afghanistan on the ground and in the mountains, fighting alongside U.S. special operations forces. The danger is far from over and the international community must not waver now. So said the Prime Minister of Denmark. Representatives of the Romanian Government have been in town recently, and they have expressed strong support for the United States position in Iraq. Norway, the Norwegian Foreign Minister, after the speech by President Bush, made these comments: ``We are challenged to live up to our responsibilities.'' And then he said something that I think is true for most of the world leaders: ``I guess we'll have to choose among a lot of bad options, really.'' Nobody wants to choose. Nobody wants to have a war. We wish it were not so. But we have bad options here. And the President is confronting us with the truth, the history of violations by Saddam Hussein. He is forcing world leaders. He is forcing the U.S. Congress. And, frankly, as I have gone back and studied the history of Saddam Hussein, and the violations are more explicit, more repeated, more deliberate than I had remembered actually. So I think that is where we are today. And one reason it is appropriate for the United States to be most aggressive in leading this effort is that we are the ones--the United States military--that is overwhelmingly enforcing, as best we can, the resolutions of the United Nations in Iraq today. Many people do not realize that our planes are enforcing a no-fly zone over Iraq today. They fly every day. They are attacked on a regular basis. And we respond and retaliate on a regular basis, attacking Iraq. And they have surface-to-air missiles that they utilize against our aircraft. So far they have not been able to knock down one of our aircraft. I say to the Presiding Officer, I know that is a matter of concern to you as a member of the Armed Services Committee. But it is a real matter of significance that we are carrying this burden. How long do they want us to carry it? The Economist magazine, in an article on this entire matter, voting in their editorial for war, said that the ``box is leaking,'' our ability to contain him cannot continue. And who did they suggest are suffering most? The people of Iraq, the children of Iraq, because of this diabolical leader that they have. So, yes, we have to take action. We cannot continue to delay. We have troops there in the region that are specifically there to make sure he does not expand again as he did when he attacked Iran. And that war cost 1 million lives in Saddam's failed attempt to defeat Iran and take that territory from Iran; in addition to the gulf war. He moved, after the gulf war, 80,000 troops down on the Kuwait border, causing us to have to respond out of fear he might once again attack Kuwait. We have Patriot batteries in Saudi Arabia designed to shoot down Saddam's Scud missiles. I visited a Patriot battery with my legislative assistant, LTC Archie Galloway. And we visited the Alabama National Guard unit that mans a Patriot battery on duty to shoot down Iraqi Scud missiles, if need be at our expense, this very day. So that is not a problem that has been on the front burner of most of the nations of the world. They are not deeply involved in these matters. They are not paying that cost every day, as we are. They are not confronting the reality of Saddam Hussein's duplicity. But the President is leading us to understand. So I think it is now important for this Congress to speak. Are we with the President or are we against him? We don't need to be rushed, but we need to get busy in discussing this issue. It is not a new issue. Most of the evidence is there for the world to see, and has been there for many, many years. So we need to make clear whether we will support the President or not. And if we do not, what are we saying? Are we undermining Secretary of State Colin Powell's ability to negotiate with foreign nations? Are we encouraging the Socialist left in Europe to believe that if they object and fight and complain that they can ultimately prevail, and the United States will fail to act? Are we encouraging radical groups in moderate Arab nations to put more and more pressure on the Arab leaders of those countries who might at least privately be sympathetic to our efforts, by failing to support clearly the President of the United States? I believe we will act to support the President. I believe this Congress will move. We need to do it before we recess. If we do not, it will be unhealthy for our country. Am I confident we will vote in support of the President and his proposals and give him authority to take the action necessary to preserve and protect our security interests? Yes, I am. Let me tell you why. There are several important factors. In 1998, this Senate detailed, as I indicated on the floor of the Senate earlier in the week, a list of direct violations of United Nations resolutions by Saddam Hussein. On August 14, 1998, the President of the United States, President Clinton, signed Public Law 105-235 which declared that: The Government of Iraq is in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations. It urged the President to ``take appropriate action in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations.''

Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent for 1 more minute.

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator from West Virginia for his courtesy. It is time for this Congress to relook at our record of involvement with Iraq and study it, to take new testimony, have new hearings, and to stand up, and put up or shut up. We need to be with the President or not with the President. I am convinced this Congress will be with the President. We do not need to undermine his ability to be effective in policies that we support by delaying our support for them. I urge this Senate to move expeditiously, to not wait on the U.N., which is not elected by the people of the United States to decide this issue but to decide ourselves that we support the President's policies; make that clear, give him the authority he needs to be effective in protecting the United States and this world from a savage and dangerous criminal, Saddam Hussein. I thank the Senator from West Virginia and yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise today to submit, along with Senator Reid and 36 of our colleagues from both sides of the aisle, a resolution to designate September 2002 as National Prostate Cancer Awareness Month. As a prostate cancer survivor myself, I understand the importance of public awareness and early detection, and I hope that by designating this month as National Prostate Cancer Awareness Month, we can help save lives. Since the tragic events on September 11, 2001, Americans have continued to honor their heroes of that day with respect, gratitude and, too often, the memory of lives lost. The ``first responders'' protected our safety and well-being, not only in New York and Washington, but also in cities and towns across the country, where police, fire, emergency service, National Guard and the military have been laden with banners and bouquets of thanks, recognition and remembrance. September is also ``Prostate Cancer Awareness Month'', PCAM, a time to remember those who have perished from the disease and to celebrate those who are surviving, and a time to work together to accelerate a cure. Along with The National Prostate Cancer Coalition, NPCC, I look forward to raising awareness in September with commemorations of ``911'' joining the NPCC's special campaign, ``Protecting Our Protectors'' which encourages men in law enforcement, fire service, and current and former servicemen to get screened for prostate cancer. This resolution is an effort to help increase awareness and educate American men and their families about prostate cancer and early detection, as well as emphasize the need for more prostate cancer research. It will designate September 2002 as National Prostate Cancer Awareness Month. Together, Senator Reid and I ask for your support and encourage all of our colleagues to join us in raising awareness. With your help, prostate cancer can be preventable, controllable, and curable. Today prostate cancer remains the most commonly diagnosed nonskin cancer in America. According to estimates by the American Cancer Society and the National Cancer Institute, NCI, more than 189,000 American men will learn that they have the disease during 2002. Nearly 30,000 American men will lose their lives to prostate cancer this year, making it the second most common cause of cancer death among men. These statistics translate into devastating realities for men and families across this country. This disease will affect one in six men in the United States during his lifetime. More than 25 percent of those battling this disease are under the age of 65, prime years of productivity for families and for this nation. The number of Americans impacted by cancer, and prostate cancer, is also expected to grow. If unchecked during the next decade, cancer incidence and mortality rates could increase by 25 percent-30 percent. In too many cases, prostate cancer remains undetected until advanced stages of the disease, when conventional therapies no longer work. This makes it critical that all American families understand the risks of prostate cancer and take measures to ensure early detection. If a man has one close relative with prostate cancer, his risk of the disease is double that of the average male. With two close relatives, his risk is fivefold. Should he have three close relatives with prostate cancer, his likelihood of a prostate cancer diagnosis is nearly 97 percent. African American families are at particular risk. African American men have the highest incidence and mortality rates in the world. According to the National Prostate Cancer Coalition, we must raise public awareness about the impact of prostate cancer and emphasize early detection with the PSA, prostate specific antigen, blood test and DRE, digital rectal examination. Over the last five years prostate cancer mortalities have decreased by 27 percent. This shows that, with the right investment in education and research, we are already saving lives.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator from California for her eloquent remarks. It is time for a memory indeed. Tomorrow I will be going to the Pentagon for a memorial service, as will many other Senators, to memorialize that terrible day on September 11, when we lost the people at the Pentagon. Five of those lost at the Pentagon happened to be from the State of Alabama, but the State has lost 10 or more personnel since this war on terrorism began. It has touched the entire country. Some of our finest people, innocent of any wrongdoing, innocent of any involvement in what might be considered to be oppression or disagreements with the terrorists who did these acts, paid the price. Historically, the civilized world has rejected these acts. But there is afoot today terrorist groups and terrorist cells throughout the country. A significant number of people would believe they have a right to use terrorism and weapons of mass destruction to kill and maim people who have done nothing in their lives to wrong them. I believe we have to confront that. The President has been talking about Iraq and the problem it presents. It is a real problem. It is a problem that will not go away. We could wish it would go away, but it will not go away. The reason is they have been in such continual violation of the agreements they made with regard to not participating in weapons of mass destruction. We are in a critical time right now. I think the President has done the right thing, to say he wants Congress to participate in a debate and to give him a resolution of support of his action with regard to Iraq. I believe that is a good step. I think it is good, not because it is absolutely clear to me that it is required--I know Senator Dayton is a member of the Armed Services Committee and has been through a lot of these hearings--but we are at this point with regard to Iraq because we held back. We did not complete the job. We did not continue to move into Baghdad and capture or kill Saddam Hussein and completely take that country in 1991 during the gulf war--Desert Storm. We didn't do that. We said OK, and the U.N. sort of stepped in, and they wrote up this agreement, and Saddam Hussein agreed to many different things. He agreed to reject weapons of mass destruction, chemical and biological weapons, and not only did he agree not to do those things, he agreed U.N. inspectors could be sent there to actually go into his country and examine anything that looked unusual, he would not attempt to stop that, and we could send inspectors to prove he was not participating in weapons of mass destruction--chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. But what has happened? The history is very sad. It is a circumstance that is particularly frustrating. We wish we did not have to direct our attention to it, but we do. It is not going away. He has broken virtually every one of the promises he made, and I suspect, from what I read, the President is going to talk about that at the U.N. Let me say this about the United Nations. The United Nations is a noble organization, with noble goals, that deserves respect. Remember in the Declaration of Independence, they, the fathers of the American Revolution, used the phrase ``a decent respect for the opinions of mankind'' to require them to set forth the reasons for separation, the reasons for revolution. So I think the President should explain to the world--and the U.N. is a great forum to do that--precisely why he believes we should act now. I suspect what he is going to talk a lot about is resolutions that Saddam Hussein agreed to and that were put forth by the U.N. and were U.N. resolutions that have been violated. Resolution after resolution, for a decade or more, they have been in violation. He will raise that tomorrow--or Thursday, as he should. The gravity of the problem is clear. Saddam Hussein's violations are matters of life and death. I wish it were not so. I wish it were just some disagreement over tariffs, or maybe oil prices, or something like that. But what we are talking about is that Saddam Hussein has, with determination and consistency for many years before the gulf war--11, 12 years ago, and since--persisted to develop weapons that he has used in this world. So it is a matter of life and death. They demonstrate not just technical infringements on their agreements but they constitute a deliberate and determined program to develop weapons of mass destruction that he himself can use if he desires, or he can in secret provide to stateless terrorists so they can use these weapons on law-abiding American citizens and people of the world. So there is a real danger here. Some say: What new evidence do you have to go forward? What new evidence do we have? Apparently, from some of the things you read in the papers--and I will not make reference to anything that is confidential--there have been indications that there is new evidence to indicate continued progress toward achieving dangerous weapons. We know, for example--we were shocked to find, at the time of the gulf war when we were victorious and did the inspection of the nuclear facilities, that Saddam Hussein had--that they were within 6 months of being able to produce a nuclear bomb when the United States successfully defeated Iraq in that war--6 months. The experts did not think that at the time, but the inspection of the country afterwards found that. So I would say first of all, as Secretary Rumsfeld said: Oftentimes we know what we don't know. We know some things that indicate that he has continued steadfastly to improve chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. We know that. But precisely how far he has gone we cannot say. But we know what his goal is. It has not changed. So I would say that is important for us to remember. These things should not come as a surprise to any serious observer of the scene. We have been dealing with this man and his deliberate plans to obtain weapons of mass destruction for quite a number of years, and virtually daily since the gulf war. The fact is, he had no intention of complying with the world's demands to stop. He will not stop. Will a single person in this Congress, will a single person, come forth and say that they believe he will even unequivocally promise to stop? Which I doubt he will--but he might. But more important, will he actually stop production of these weapons? I challenge this body and the House of Representatives, and I will ask that question. Is there anyone here who thinks he sincerely will stop his activities to build weapons of mass destruction? I do not think anyone would. Why? Is it just anger we are involved in here? Are we just angry over his bellicose statements about the United States? Are we just angry over his attempt to assassinate the President of the United States? Is it just anger over the fact that he gave $25,000 rewards to families of suicide bombers in Israel or other places, people who would murder innocent civilians, that cause us to say we don't trust him? No. It is not anger--although we have a right to be indignant over what he does. But we must not act solely out of anger. I used to try criminal cases as a Federal prosecutor. Many times, the evidence from credible, honest witnesses would be contradicted solely by the words of the defendant. He would say: I didn't do it. I used to do a little deal sometimes and talk to the jury. I said: Just because somebody says they won't do it doesn't mean they will not. I can say: I don't have a pencil in my hand, and if I do, I am not going to drop it. And I didn't drop it. I didn't drop the pencil. Does that change the fact that I had a pencil and I dropped it? I think not. This man is not credible. What we have to do when we deal with a man of this kind is look at his acts. Can they be just short-term acts? That is important, but long-term acts are even more important. I think a decision that is to be made by a great nation, a nation that desires to protect its citizens and has the protection and security of its citizens in this country and around the world as its highest priority, that nation has to be serious. We cannot deal in wishful thinking. We cannot do so. People say to me, basically: Can't we get along? Why do you want to talk about war? Why do we have to wrestle with these issues? Isn't it possible that Saddam Hussein has seen the light and will change? I think people are not saying that. I don't think people are saying it. But in their hearts they are hoping that. Sometimes I think the same way. Isn't it just possible that this will change? But let us consider the matter rationally and reasonably. What are the facts? What is the evidence? Is there a case here? When solely evaluated, I submit there is overwhelming evidence that the facts present a demonstration that Saddam Hussein is manipulating the world, acting to keep them at bay while he steadfastly pursues his plan for weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of the agreement that saved his monstrous regime 11 years ago. There are many ways to detail the charges against this most vicious dictator with the possible exception of North Korea, the most brutal dictator in the world today, and one who has been more active to export his violence than any other nation in the world today. At this time, I think we should talk about the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. This Congress voted on it. It passed the House of Representatives almost unanimously. There were maybe 30 ``no'' votes. It passed in this body unanimously by consent. This is what we found in 1998 at a time when Saddam Hussein ejected the inspectors that he agreed to have come into his country. We did nothing about it. This is what the findings say: The Congress makes the following findings. On September 22nd, 1980, Iraq invaded Iran, starting an 8- year war in which Iraq employed chemical weapons against Iranian troops, and ballistic missiles against Iranian cities. This country is not Iraq. It is not a backward country. It has a government of laws, longstanding. It has for that region of the world an educated population. They are capable of doing so much better than they are today. Unfortunately, the people of Iraq are suffering more than anyone else as a result of Saddam Hussein's bad leadership. It goes on in paragraph 2: In February of 1988, Iraq forcibly relocated Kurdish civilians---- These are citizens of Iraq---- from their home villages in the Anfal campaign, killing an estimated 50,000 to 180,000 Kurds---- Fifty-thousand to 100,000 of his own civilians in 1988 after he lost the war, after he signed an agreement not to use weapons of mass destruction, and after he agreed to inspections---- On March 16th, 1988, Iraq used chemical weapons against the Iraqi Kurdish civilian opponents in the town of Halabja killing an estimated 5,000 Kurds---- Causing numerous birth defects that affect the town to this day. How long has it been since a nation in the world used chemical weapons against anyone, much less their own citizens, killing 5,000 Kurds? It is a despicable act by a despicable man who is not worthy to be a part of civilized nations, I submit. On August 2nd, 1990, Iraq invaded and began a 7-month occupation of Kuwait. This is a sovereign, independent nation on its border that happened to have substantial oil reserves that Saddam Hussein wanted. So on August 2, 1990, he invaded and began a 7-month occupation killing and committing numerous abuses against Kuwaiti citizens and setting Kuwaiti oilfields ablaze in his retreat. Do you remember that? Just out of perversion and pure meanness, he set the oilwells on fire, polluting the atmosphere, putting at risk thousands of lives, and causing tremendous expense to bring those fires under control. In fact, they were brought under control better than we had any right to expect. At first, people expected it would take much longer than the long period it ultimately took. No. 5--this is our findings, the Congress: Hostilities in Operation Desert Storm ended on February 28th, 1991, and Iraq subsequently accepted the cease-fire conditions in the United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 on April 3, 1991, requiring Iraq, among other things, to disclose and fully permit the dismantlement of his weapons of mass destruction program, and submit to long-term monitoring and verification of such a dismantlement. That was the basic condition of it. We said: OK. Mr. Saddam Hussein, we will not continue this war. We have ousted you from Kuwait where you had no right to be, but you have to agree to dismantle your weapons of mass destruction. OK. He agreed to that. That was the U.N.-brokered deal. Paragraph 6: In April of 1993, Iraq orchestrated a failed plot to assassinate former President George Bush during his April 14 through 16, 1993, visit to Kuwait. What a despicable act. I submit to you as a Member of the Senate of any party that when a head of a foreign nation deliberately sets about to assassinate the leader or former leader of any great nation, that is something that should not be lightly dealt with. Frankly, I think we dealt with it too lightly at the time. We did take some action but not enough. This man attempted to kill, assassinate the President, former President of the United States of America while he was visiting Kuwait, a country that former President Bush had led the liberation of and freed from this oppressive regime. So it continues. That was in April of 1993: In October of 1994, Iraq moved 80,000 troops to areas near the border of Kuwait posing an imminent threat of renewed invasion of or attack against Kuwait. This is a man who wants us to get along with him and says, If you want complete destruction of my Government, I will behave and end weapons, and I will get along with my neighbors. And here he is moving 80,000 troops down on the border towards Kuwait where he does not station them normally. It just shows the aggressive hostilities of which he is capable. On August 31 of 1996, paragraph 8: In the findings of the U.S. Congress, Iraq oppressed many of its opponents by helping one Kurdish faction capture the seat of a Kurdish regional government. Since March of 1996, Iraq has systematically sought to deny weapons inspectors from the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq--UNSCOM--access to key facilities and documents, has on several occasions endangered the safe operation of UNSCOM's helicopters transporting UNSCOM personnel in Iraq, and has persisted in a pattern of deception and concealment regarding the history of its weapons of mass destruction program---- And persisted in a pattern of deception and concealment regarding the history of his weapons of mass destruction programs---- The U.S. Congress, U.S. Senate unanimously found: On August 5 of 1998, Iraq ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM, and subsequently threatened to end long-term monitoring activities by the International Atomic Energy Agency and UNSCOM. The International Atomic Energy Agency is monitoring Iraq's nuclear bomb capability. Paragraph 11: On August 14, 1998, President Clinton signed Public Law 105-235 which declared that ``the Government of Iraq is in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations'' and urged the President ``to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations.'' No. 12: On May 1, 1998, President Clinton signed Public Law 105- 174, which made $5,000,000 available for assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition for such activities as organization, training, communication and dissemination of information, developing and implementing agreements among opposition groups, compiling information to support the indictment of Iraqi officials for war crimes, and for related purposes. It goes on to say: Sense Of The Congress Regarding United States Policy Toward Iraq. In Section 3, this is what we found as a Congress: It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime. I repeat that. That is so important. We voted unanimously in this Senate that: It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime. I suppose we have tried to do so in many different ways. The problem is, we have not been very successful. Iraq continues to make a mockery of its agreements and continues to build and develop weapons of mass destruction. So the President is, I am sure, from newspaper reports, going to talk about that to the United Nations. I am so glad that he is because we have to think about an important subject. Mr. President, you are aware that the Economist magazine, a London publication, in England, which is seriously reviewed around the world-- and people give its opinions great weight--has expressed a view that there is no alternative but to war in this circumstance. A couple months ago, they had an insert on the role of American foreign policy in the world, and they talked about this tension between multilateralism and unilateral action by the President, or can the United States act alone or with a few allies? They raised this question. Multilateralists say we ought to reach agreements, and those agreements ought to be for the purpose of making our world safer. And they can work in that regard. The question the Economist posed is: What if the people who sign them do not abide by them? What if the people who have signed them deliberately, deceitfully operate in violation of those agreements, thereby threatening the safety and security of the rest of the world? Does the world just sit by and do nothing? Is that a credible response? Do you think that is what was on President Bush's mind when he said, in recent words--and I think I can quote him directly--``the credibility of the world is at stake''? Yes, it is one thing to have resolutions. It is one thing to say we are going to have agreements so we can go away and wash our hands and say the matter is solved and the danger is over. That may be OK if it is a trade issue or some such event as that. But if it is a matter of life and death, dealing with a country that is capable of and has proven in the past it will use weapons of mass destruction against enemies in its own country and outside their country, if that is so, then we have a big problem. So I think the President is determined to confront this issue and that the status quo in Iraq is not sufficient. We need to go back and remember what has already occurred. And that is where we are. They say: Well, you have to have a unanimous vote. The United Nations has to support this action. I think a decent respect for the United Nations calls on the President to go there and state his case. I think it is important for the President to explain it to good and decent leaders all over the world, and seek their support wherever he can get it. But as a member of the Armed Services Committee, I can tell you, we do not have to have the support of any one nation to defeat Iraq. I hope we can do it promptly. One thing I do believe is, he does not have popular support in his country and many of the people will be delighted to see him go. And I think it is not as if we are attacking a country that has loyal and decent people willing to die for their country. There may be some, but it is not nearly that many because this man is a brutal dictator. But the President is required to state his case around the world. That is important. I hope he does not feel compelled to describe, in any detailed way, precisely how he might conduct a war, if a war becomes necessary. Maybe it will not be. I hope it will not be. But from my reading of this history, both before Desert Storm and after, of Saddam Hussein's absolutely steadfast determination to frustrate the world and do what he wants to do, I do not believe he is going to change. So I think we are going to be confronted with that situation sooner or later. The question is, shouldn't we have the support of the United Nations? The problem there is this: A United Nations resolution requires a Security Council vote, a unanimous vote of the Security Council. The American people have spent a lot of money building up the greatest military force in the history of the world. We will spend, next year, $370 or so billion on a national defense system for this country. And on the United Nations Security Council there are countries such as France and Germany and England, and also China and Russia. So what are we going to do? Are we going to say that the Chinese or the Russians, or any other member of the Security Council, for any reason they choose, has the right to say: No, Mr. President, we don't agree. You can't use force against Iraq. You can't use force to liberate Kuwait. You can't use force against Panama, as President Bush did. You can't act against Kosovo because we say no? That is not something that a great nation, the preeminent world power--let's say it frankly--can allow. The preeminent world power--a good and decent nation, whose actions are not for self gain but to vindicate legitimate rights and interests--cannot allow its power to be curtailed by the vote of one nation in the U.N. Security Council. So the President cannot say: I am going to defer this matter to the U.N. That would be absolutely wrong. It would be unwise. And the American people would not support that. It is our military. We did it to protect our just national interests--not our unjust national interests, but our just, legitimate national interests. I believe the President understands that distinction. I hope that we, as Americans, think that through because some tend to believe we have to have a vote of the U.N. before we can act to defend our national security interests around the world, and that is not correct. Very few would agree with that. We are in a time of remembrance as we move toward September 11. We will be at the Pentagon tomorrow. Others will be in New York. Others will be in Pennsylvania. Others will have memorials in their communities and towns, as I will be visiting one in Birmingham, hosted by the religious community, to commemorate this sad occasion of September 11. The President told us we were going to have to return to our fundamental beliefs, we were going to have to be courageous, and if we stepped out and took on these people, and we chased them to their lairs and went after them, we could make the world safer. I believe the world is safer today. I believe it is an unacceptable policy to allow any nation to harbor terrorists, to allow any nation to allow their territory to be used as a training base or where they can build their weapons and plot their diabolical actions. We cannot allow that to happen. It is against the policy of the United States and this Congress, I believe. We are in a time that all of us need to study how we got to where we are, being quite serious about this entire circumstance. I am coming to the conclusion that it is very unlikely, based on the consistent, long- term history of Saddam Hussein, that we can reach any kind of agreement with him. As the Economist magazine said, for 11 years we have been trying to contain him in a box. The box is leaking. Who has suffered most? The people and children of Iraq. They are the ones who have been suffering for these 12 years. It is difficult for us to defend to the Arab world this kind of oppression that falls mainly on the innocent. They said, concluding their very serious editorial: Painful as it is, our vote is for war. I hope we don't come to that, but I am afraid that is where we are heading. It is a subject we have to talk about. I believe that debate will now commence. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we had a very sad day today. The Senate Judiciary Committee, on a party-line, partisan vote of 10 to 9, voted down the nomination of Priscilla Owen, a justice on the Texas Supreme Court, for a position on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Having practiced many years in Federal court, 15 years full-time as a Federal prosecutor, I care about the Federal courts. I want it to be the very best it can be. I believe deeply in the rule of law in America. I believe it is a tradition we have to cherish and turn over to our children and our grandchildren, so that it has the same strength, moral coherence, and integrity that it has always had. In fact, most of the nations around the world today that are struggling so badly--the Third World nations--are not struggling because their people will not work or because they do not have resources. Too often, it is generally because there is no legal system that can operate where people can make loans and expect them to be repaid, or where they can own property and not have it stolen from them. So the legal system is exceedingly important. What happened this morning--and it was particularly tragic-- represents a culmination of a decision, apparently reached a year or so ago, when President Bush was elected, and three liberal activist professors--Laurence Tribe, Cass Sunstein, and Marcia Greenberger--met with the Democratic Conference to discuss judicial nominations. And they asserted that President Bush had won by only a small margin and, therefore, he did not have the same authority that other Presidents had to nominate judges, forgetting, of course, that the total vote percentage received by President Clinton, I believe, was only about 44 percent. President Bush got a larger percentage of the American vote than Clinton did. But at any rate, these professors set about to deliberately alter the confirmation ground rules. In fact, a newspaper--I believe the New York Times--reported that they had met to discuss changing the ground rules on the nominations of Federal judges. And it was a real serious thing. So, well, that is politics. You hear those kinds of things. You wouldn't think that the decisions we have used since the founding of this Republic, certainly in the last 60 years of anybody's recognition here of the normal way things are done, would be changed significantly, but I am afraid we may be wrong. We may be seeing significant change. I am hopeful that is not the case. Maybe we can turn it around. Maybe it is not too late. But today's vote was very disturbing because we had one of the finest nominees ever to come before this Senate, a nominee that clearly had the votes to pass on the floor of the Senate but was voted down in committee, blocked from coming to the floor of the Senate so we could have a full airing and a full vote. We had some hearings in the Judiciary Committee and subcommittees on how to change the ground rules. Some liberals, including law professors alleged in one of the hearings that one out of every four Supreme Court nominees during the first 100 years of this country were voted down because of ideology. We have checked that in detail and researched those allegations, and that is just not true. They suggested that the burden should lie on the nominee to prove him or herself worthy. We demonstrated that history did not support that position. They asserted that the Supreme Court of the United States is a right-wing Court and that ideology drives what they do, undermining respect for the law. I reject that characterization of the Supreme Court. They said that the ABA ratings need to be given consideration, except in this case the nominee got a unanimously well-qualified rating, the highest possible rating of the ABA. They said that we don't want to have a judge that would vote to overrule Roe v. Wade. We can't have a right-wing activist. And they asserted that ideology or politics is a basis for rejecting a nominee. We had hearings on that. Lloyd Cutler, who served as counsel for two different Democratic Presidents, flatly rejected that in the hearing, made a strong statement saying this would politicize the courts. So did Griffin Bell, former Attorney General under President Jimmy Carter. They rejected this ideological approach to the judiciary, something we have never done in this Senate's history. One thing we noticed, all of these arguments don't meet the test of logic or history or facts except one, and that was the one chosen--raw political power to vote down a nominee of extraordinary capability submitted by President Bush. We have not seen that before. We had at one of the hearings a Democratic justice, former justice retired from the Supreme Court of Texas. He was here to support Justice Owen from Texas. He said to me after the hearing: At least for some of these nominees there was a basis to vote against them, but they have no basis to oppose Owen. They put out nothing on her. That is a fact. Nothing was said that would undermine her ability, even if you were highly suspect of a nominee. To me, there were just no facts there. She conducted her life not politically but professionally, as a lawyer, with integrity and outstanding ability. They said that in the first 100 years so many Supreme Court Justices were voted down on ideology. That is an absolutely untrue statement. In fact, only a few were rejected for political reasons, and sometimes those battles were pretty tough in the days of the founding of this country. We do know that they didn't even have hearings on most of them. They say that the burden should be on the nominee. Well, if history is to serve as a guide, we would do well to think about what we have done here. During the first 130 years of our country's history, the Senate did not even ask a nominee to come before the Senate for a hearing. The first nominee to even appear before the Senate before confirmation was Justice Harlan Fisk Stone, in 1925. Nominees did not appear regularly before the Judiciary Committee until John Marshall Harlan in 1955. Occasionally the committees asked a few nominees questions in writing, but there wasn't the kind of examinations we have today. So it would be difficult for anyone to argue that historically we have put the burden on the nominee to prove their worthiness. What we have always done is that the President submits people. The Senators from that home State have to approve that nominee. If they don't approve, the nominee almost universally is not confirmed. But if the home State Senators approve, it comes up before the committee, and the committee looks to see if they are extreme, if they have good integrity, if they have basic legal skills, that they have a proven record of capability and respect within the bar that would make them worthy of the position of a lifetime appointment on the bench. The Senate is not a rubber stamp. It should not vote for every nominee, just because the President submitted that nominee. But we ought to have a basis within that traditional realm of evaluation of a nominee to vote one down. That was lacking here today. As Senator Orrin Hatch said: Her testimony was perhaps the finest testimony ever received in his time as chairman and ranking Republican on that committee. Those are the facts about our history. My Democrat colleagues assert somehow that the Supreme Court of the United States is a right-wing Court and that we need a balance. We need to make sure that moderate or liberal nominees get put on for every moderate or conservative or liberal that was on there, some sort of balancing out, some sort of moderate deal. That is not the way we have done nominations. The President submits nominees. We evaluate them and see if they are worthy. I will just ask: What is moderation? What does that mean? Does that mean you enforce half the law? You analyze it halfway? You don't make anybody mad with your ruling? You try to carve your ruling so it satisfies everybody? If the statute of limitations is run and the person wants $10,000, do you give them $5,000? Is that justice? Is that moderation? I don't think so. This Supreme Court has faced some tough decisions. It protected the burning of an American flag and said that the act of burning a flag is free speech. The act of burning a tangible object is covered by the first amendment protection of free speech. I don't think that is good, in my personal view. But you had people such as Justice Scalia, supposedly a conservative, voting for that with others. I think it was a bad decision. But they ruled on that, this so-called right-wing Court. They banned voluntary school prayer at high school football games. Former Judge Griffin Bell of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, actually originally from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and Attorney General of the United States under President Carter, once said--perhaps in jest; perhaps not--nobody ought to serve on the Supreme Court, on the Federal bench, that doesn't believe in prayer at football games. I don't think that is a good opinion. I don't believe a voluntary prayer at a football game violates the establishment clause of the first amendment, but that is what the Supreme Court has ruled, and many other cases along that line. They stopped the police from using heat sensors to search for marijuana-growing equipment in houses. That was pretty much considered a liberal opinion. They struck down a law that bans virtual child pornography, which I was disappointed to see since, as a prosecutor, I know how difficult that is going to make it for prosecutors to be successful. And they reaffirmed and expanded abortion rights to include substantial protections for partial-birth abortion, this so-called right wing Supreme Court. That is a bogus argument also. (Mr. DAYTON assumed the Chair.)

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to proceed as in morning business.