Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Yes, reserving the right to object, we are going to vote at 2; is that correct? I did want 3 or 4 minutes to speak on this issue.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I want to commend Senator Kennedy for his leadership on the important issue of reducing prison rape. I have enjoyed working with him to craft and refine the legislation that we are introducing today, the Prison Rape Reduction Act of 2002. Though Senator Kennedy and I come from different backgrounds and have different political philosophies, we both agree that Congress should act to reduce prison rape. I would also like to thank Congressman Frank Wolf and Bobby Scott for their important leadership on this bill in the House of Representatives. Congressman Wolf is a recognized champion for human dignity across the globe and this legislation to reduce prison rape is consistent with his philosophy. Congressman Scott is very knowledgeable on criminal law issues. While he and I have agreed and disagreed on many issues over the years, we agree on the need to reduce prison rape. As a Federal prosecutor for 15 years and as Attorney General of Alabama, I sent many guilty criminals to prison where they belong. I believed that they should be treated fairly in court, and I treated them fairly. I also believe that they should be treated fairly in prison. Most prison wardens and sheriffs are outstanding public servants that do an excellent job of supervising inmates, and I commend my friends in the law enforcement community for their hard work in this area. However, knowingly subjecting a prisoner to rape is cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Some studies have estimated that over 10 percent of the inmates in certain prisons are subject to rape. I hope that this statistic is an exaggeration. Nonetheless, it is the duty of Government officials to ensure that criminals who are convicted and sentenced to prison serve the sentence imposed by the judge and rape is not a part of any lawful sentence. This bill responds to the problem of rape of prison inmates in three principal ways. First, the bill establishes a bipartisan National Commission that will study prison rape at the federal, state, and local levels. Within 2 years, the commission will publish the results of its study and make recommendations on how to reduce prison rape. Second, the bill directs the Attorney General to issue a rule for the reduction of prison rape in Federal prisons. To avoid a 20 percent reduction in certain Federal funds, each State will have to pass a statute that either adopts or rejects the standards for State prisons. This bill contains no unfunded mandate to order States how to deal with prison rape. It does, however, require that they address the issue. Third, the bill will require the Department of Justice to conduct statistical surveys on prison rape for Federal, State, and local prisons and jails. Further, the Department of Justice will select officials in charge of certain prisons with an incidence of prison rape exceeding the national average by 30 percent to come to Washington and testify to the Department about the prison rape problem in their institution. If they refuse to testify, the prison will lose 20 percent of certain Federal funds. In addition, the bill provides for $40 million in grants to States for prevention, investigation, and prosecution of prison rape. This will help the States to reduce repeat offenses by inmates. A broad and bipartisan array of organizations and individuals have added their support to this bill. The list includes: American Psychological Association; American Values; Biblical Witness Fellowship, UCC; Camp Fire USA; Center for Religious Freedom, Freedom House; Christian Rescue Committee; Citizens United for Rehabilitation of Errants--Virginia, Inc. (Virginia CURE); Disciple Renewal; Focus on the Family; Mary Ann Glendon, Learned Hand Professor of Law, Harvard Law School; Good News, UMC; Human Rights Watch; Human Rights and the Drug War; Institute on Religion and Democracy; Justice Policy Institute; Lutheran Office for Governmental Affairs; National Association for the Advancement of Colored People; National Association of Evangelicals; National Association of School Psychologists; National Center on Institutions and Alternatives; National Council for La Raza; National Network for Youth; National Mental Health Association; Marvin Olasky, Editor--World Magazine; Partnership for Responsible Drug Information; Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.); Prison Fellowship; Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism; Renew Network; Research and Policy Reform, Inc.; Salvation Army; The Sentencing Project; Southern Baptist Convention; Stop Prison Rape; Unitarian Universalists for Juvenile Justice; Volunteers of America; and Youth Law Center. I am especially proud of the evangelical Christian groups for their work in gathering support for the bill. They have worked tirelessly for ethics and compassion in government, and this legislation reflects those values. I would also like to thank Linda Chavez and Mike Horowitz for the ideas that started this legislative initiative. Well-conceived, carefully crafted ideas drive many legislative and political initiatives that become law after people work together to form a bipartisan, moral position. I also want to commend the hard work of Bill Pryor, the attorney general of Alabama, who will end up dealing with the effects of this legislation at the state level. Bill has worked with Prison Fellowship, has talked with Alabama prison officials, and has worked with me on this legislation. In addition to being an outstanding legal scholar and leader among all the States' attorneys general, Bill cares about people and demands fairness in how the State treats both victims and prisoners. I was very pleased that Attorney General Pryor joined us at the press conference to express his support of the bill. This bill will address prison rape, not through unfunded mandates and lawsuits, but through examining the problem and allowing sunshine to expose deficiencies that need to be addressed. This bill is a necessary step to reform and a bipartisan step toward justice.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I want to commend Senator Kennedy for his leadership on the important issue of reducing prison rape. I have enjoyed working with him to craft and refine the legislation that we are introducing today, the Prison Rape Reduction Act of 2002. Though Senator Kennedy and I come from different backgrounds and have different political philosophies, we both agree that Congress should act to reduce prison rape. I would also like to thank Congressman Frank Wolf and Bobby Scott for their important leadership on this bill in the House of Representatives. Congressman Wolf is a recognized champion for human dignity across the globe and this legislation to reduce prison rape is consistent with his philosophy. Congressman Scott is very knowledgeable on criminal law issues. While he and I have agreed and disagreed on many issues over the years, we agree on the need to reduce prison rape. As a Federal prosecutor for 15 years and as Attorney General of Alabama, I sent many guilty criminals to prison where they belong. I believed that they should be treated fairly in court, and I treated them fairly. I also believe that they should be treated fairly in prison. Most prison wardens and sheriffs are outstanding public servants that do an excellent job of supervising inmates, and I commend my friends in the law enforcement community for their hard work in this area. However, knowingly subjecting a prisoner to rape is cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Some studies have estimated that over 10 percent of the inmates in certain prisons are subject to rape. I hope that this statistic is an exaggeration. Nonetheless, it is the duty of Government officials to ensure that criminals who are convicted and sentenced to prison serve the sentence imposed by the judge and rape is not a part of any lawful sentence. This bill responds to the problem of rape of prison inmates in three principal ways. First, the bill establishes a bipartisan National Commission that will study prison rape at the federal, state, and local levels. Within 2 years, the commission will publish the results of its study and make recommendations on how to reduce prison rape. Second, the bill directs the Attorney General to issue a rule for the reduction of prison rape in Federal prisons. To avoid a 20 percent reduction in certain Federal funds, each State will have to pass a statute that either adopts or rejects the standards for State prisons. This bill contains no unfunded mandate to order States how to deal with prison rape. It does, however, require that they address the issue. Third, the bill will require the Department of Justice to conduct statistical surveys on prison rape for Federal, State, and local prisons and jails. Further, the Department of Justice will select officials in charge of certain prisons with an incidence of prison rape exceeding the national average by 30 percent to come to Washington and testify to the Department about the prison rape problem in their institution. If they refuse to testify, the prison will lose 20 percent of certain Federal funds. In addition, the bill provides for $40 million in grants to States for prevention, investigation, and prosecution of prison rape. This will help the States to reduce repeat offenses by inmates. A broad and bipartisan array of organizations and individuals have added their support to this bill. The list includes: American Psychological Association; American Values; Biblical Witness Fellowship, UCC; Camp Fire USA; Center for Religious Freedom, Freedom House; Christian Rescue Committee; Citizens United for Rehabilitation of Errants--Virginia, Inc. (Virginia CURE); Disciple Renewal; Focus on the Family; Mary Ann Glendon, Learned Hand Professor of Law, Harvard Law School; Good News, UMC; Human Rights Watch; Human Rights and the Drug War; Institute on Religion and Democracy; Justice Policy Institute; Lutheran Office for Governmental Affairs; National Association for the Advancement of Colored People; National Association of Evangelicals; National Association of School Psychologists; National Center on Institutions and Alternatives; National Council for La Raza; National Network for Youth; National Mental Health Association; Marvin Olasky, Editor--World Magazine; Partnership for Responsible Drug Information; Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.); Prison Fellowship; Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism; Renew Network; Research and Policy Reform, Inc.; Salvation Army; The Sentencing Project; Southern Baptist Convention; Stop Prison Rape; Unitarian Universalists for Juvenile Justice; Volunteers of America; and Youth Law Center. I am especially proud of the evangelical Christian groups for their work in gathering support for the bill. They have worked tirelessly for ethics and compassion in government, and this legislation reflects those values. I would also like to thank Linda Chavez and Mike Horowitz for the ideas that started this legislative initiative. Well-conceived, carefully crafted ideas drive many legislative and political initiatives that become law after people work together to form a bipartisan, moral position. I also want to commend the hard work of Bill Pryor, the attorney general of Alabama, who will end up dealing with the effects of this legislation at the state level. Bill has worked with Prison Fellowship, has talked with Alabama prison officials, and has worked with me on this legislation. In addition to being an outstanding legal scholar and leader among all the States' attorneys general, Bill cares about people and demands fairness in how the State treats both victims and prisoners. I was very pleased that Attorney General Pryor joined us at the press conference to express his support of the bill. This bill will address prison rape, not through unfunded mandates and lawsuits, but through examining the problem and allowing sunshine to expose deficiencies that need to be addressed. This bill is a necessary step to reform and a bipartisan step toward justice.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Ten minutes.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas for his leadership on this issue and for yielding me time. One of the issues we need to recognize as we talk about a budget--and we have the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee here--is we do not have a budget. One was proposed in the Budget Committee by the Democratic members. It was brought up, voted on, and got zero votes. The reason is that there is not sufficient discipline to make tough choices in this body, and the budget that was proposed had no political support, did not balance, and did not make sense. We are in trouble with spending. When the President proposes an $18 billion emergency spending bill and this Senate adds $14 billion more to it for special projects that I do not believe are necessary, and, in fact, I think the President's supplemental was generous, we are losing discipline on spending. The reason we had a surplus from 1994 to 1998 is we had almost no increase in spending in this body. We kept our spending flat on discretionary spending. It resulted in tremendous gains in balancing the budget. It is time for us to deal with this estate/death tax. In 2000, we voted to eliminate it. It phases out at the end of 10 years, in 2010. People do not like it. It is unfair. It disrupts the American economy. To have the Federal Government reach in at the time of death of a family member and take out 55 percent of what that family has accumulated is a confiscation. It is an absolute decimation of a family's life and savings. I had an individual tell me about their grandfather. Everybody was home for Christmas. It was just after Ronald Reagan had pushed through a modification of the estate tax. It would have saved his family a little money. The grandfather was there at Christmas. The cancer was taking its toll on him. Every day, he asked what day it was. She told me: My grandfather died at 10 a.m. on January 1. His last act was to do what he could to keep the taxman from taking away what he had earned and preserve it for his family. I think this is a big deal. It touches a lot of people. Some people say: Oh, it is huge revenue, we cannot afford it. It is only 1 percent of the total income into this Government at best. That is something we certainly can afford to eliminate. No tax causes more gyrations, more lawyers, more accountants, CPAs, appraisers, and strategists to try to beat this tax than does the death tax. In addition to that, the Federal Government spends more on trying to collect the tax than on any other tax. For the 1 percent we get, we are getting the heaviest cost on the economy, the heaviest cost on the Government to collect them. I think it is very unwise. It causes extraordinary stress on the elderly. Sit down, as I have done as a practicing lawyer, and talk with a family about the tough decisions they may have to make. Do they want to create a trust? Do they want to advance gift money to children to try to reduce the impact of this tax? This is forcing the elderly to make decisions they ought not have to make. It upsets them, makes them nervous, and causes them to make uneconomic decisions that reduce oftentimes the productivity and efficiencies of their corporations and businesses. It is, in my view, a huge nightmare to collect. Much of the dispute is in litigation over appraised values of properties. Many of these issues are just really a nightmare for the elderly. Let me share with my colleagues briefly what I think is the most pernicious part of this tax. My good friend's proposal to raise the exemption to $3 million really will not touch it. These are the growing, vibrant, midsize, local, home-based companies that are doing well. I know of a company that had 27 automobile parts stores. They built up from one. They had headquarters in Alabama. One of the members dies, and then what do they do? They meet, have a discussion, and the net result is that this locally owned company, competing with some of the biggest parts companies in America, sells out to Carquest. I have nothing against Carquest, but that is a national company, maybe even an international company in scope, moving millions and millions of dollars a year in parts. As a former parts person myself and a former equipment dealer, I have some empathy for them. I will just say this: Carquest, as a major national company, a broadly held stock company, never pays the death tax. It is never impacted by a death tax. But a closely held corporation is savaged by the death tax. It reminds me of a situation in which there are some trees growing up. There are some big trees and there are some little trees growing. They are trying to compete with the big trees to get more sunlight and develop and expand and compete with the big trees, and somebody comes along with the clippers and clips the tops off them, making it impossible for them to compete. If my colleagues want to know why in America today we see a collapse of local companies, why we see an unusual conglomeration of wealth in the big stock companies, the reason is they do not pay this tax. This is a tax that falls only on the small companies in a way that devastates them too often. I am concerned about that situation. I ask you: Do GM, GE, DaimlerChrysler, Toyota, or Mitsubishi pay a death tax? No, they do not. But I can take you back to the small bank in my hometown, the small manufacturing company, or the small chain of auto parts stores. I can tell you about a young man who told me that he and his father and brother owned four motels in Alabama. They would like to see their business expand. He explained to me that he, his brother, and his father were paying $5,000 a month for a life insurance policy on their father's life so they could pay the estate tax in case he died. Otherwise, they would have to take the money out of their company--and they had no money to take out of the company; they were pouring their money into the company--they would be forced to sell off maybe to a Holiday Inn, maybe to a Ramada, or some big company that does not pay the death tax. We need to quit nickel-and-diming this issue. We have voted to eliminate this despicable, unfair, abusive tax that eliminates and weakens competition in America. It brings in little revenue at extraordinary cost to the tax collector and to the American people who have to pay it. It is long overdue to get rid of it. Let's not back up now. Let's go forward. Let's not let those who want more money to spend, spend, spend, spend, and keep us from doing the right thing. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would like to make some remarks on the Colombia amendment.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I will be very brief. This is a very important matter. Colombia is a longtime ally of the United States. It is the second oldest democracy in the Western Hemisphere. Its former President, President Pastrana--a wonderful person--worked exceedingly hard to try to build a peace process that would work. After everything he tried, he could not make that occur. The new President has been elected. President Pastrana--before he left office--admitted that they had to fight to preserve their democracy. Democracies frequently have to do that. We have a $9.5 billion trading relationship with Colombia. It is an important ally, an important democracy. It is key to South America. We must do what we can to assist them as they now wage a life-and-death struggle to preserve their democracy and their economy. Mr. President, just 10 days ago the people of Colombia overwhelmingly expressed their desire to fight the scourges of terrorism and narcotics trafficking, that have killed tens of thousands of their countrymen over the past forty years, by electing Alvaro Uribe as their new President. President-elect Uribe has stated that he intends to double the size of the Colombian Army and the Colombian National Police and to call up thousands of reservists to fight the terrorists. This is exactly what the United States has been asking the Colombians to do for many years now. Included as part of this Supplemental request is proposed legislation that would remove the ``counter-narcotics only'' restriction on the use of helicopters and other military equipment and assistance that the United States provides to Colombia. The pending Amendment provides authority to the Department of Defense, as well as the Department of State, to provide assistance to the government of Colombia as they fight their war against terrorism. The Department of State has designated the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia--FARC--the National Liberation Army of Colombia--ELN--and the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia--AUC--as foreign terrorist organizations and has specifically identified the FARC as ``the most dangerous international terrorist group based in the Western Hemisphere.'' On March 18, 2002, Attorney General John Ashcroft announced the indictment of three leaders of FARC with conspiracy to import cocaine into the United States and to manufacture and distribute cocaine in Colombia with the intent of exporting it to the United States. To all of these actions I say ``Amen''. Transnational terrorism is a threat to freedom throughout the world. Many of these groups have been working together for years to share the lessons of terror and mayhem. They have searched for new sources of income and have become inextricably involved with transnational criminal syndicates who traffic in weapons and drugs and provide resources for extortion and money laundering. This is a global phenomenon and must be fought on a global scale. One country that has been fighting this war against terrorism for the past few decades is Colombia. Colombia is one of our closest Allies and we must come to her aid. They need our help in terms of intelligence sharing, equipment and training. Why should the United States help Colombia? The answer to this lies not only in the fact that it is the source for prodigious quantities of cocaine, heroin, and marijuana, but Colombia is the second oldest democracy in the Western Hemisphere, next to our great country. Colombia is a friend and ally of the United States who has been fighting for its very survival against a variety of threats, ranging from drug cartels, terrorist organizations and Marxist insurgents for over forty years. It is a nation of 40 million people and is a source of significant trade with the US. The United States is Colombia's principal trading partner with over $9.5 billion in annual trade between our two nations. When we help Colombia secure its own territory from the threat of overthrow from the Marxist narco-terrorists, we will also help stabilize the neighboring countries in the Andean region from spillover effects of the drug trade and insurgency. There are more acts of terrorism committed in Colombia every day than in all the other countries of the world combined. And make no mistake about it, the forces that are acting to overthrow the democratically elected government of Colombia are terrorists. While their organizations did have their genesis as a ``people's revolution'' with Marxist ties they are now no more than terrorists. General Fernando Tapias, Commander of the Colombian Armed Forces, stated recently that while the Army in the 1960s and 1970s used to find the writings of Marx and Lenin in the documents captured during raids on FARC hideouts now all they find are receipts and documentation of the smuggling of drugs, pre-cursor chemicals used to process cocaine and weapons shipments. The FARC, ELN and AUC get the vast majority of their funding from narcotics trafficking. All three of these groups also obtains large amounts of money from the terrorist tactics of kidnapping and extortion. FARC has extensive ties with international terrorist and criminal organizations. Right now there are three members of the Irish Republican Army in the custody of the government of Colombia after they were arrested for providing training to the FARC on bombmaking and other terrorist tactics. Colombian President Andres Pastrana was elected in 1998 on a platform that called for making peace with the Marxist guerrillas that have operated in his country since the 1960s. He has engaged in negotiations with the FARC and the ELN since before he took office. In fact, President Pastrana, in an act of good faith, gave total control of a piece of central Colombia the size of Switzerland, which was supposed to remain demilitarized, to the FARC as an enticement for continuing negotiations. In the four years since President Pastrana opened negotiations the FARC has continued to engage in narcotics trafficking and terrorist activities. In fact, in the past few months they have engaged in countless terrorist attacks throughout the country that have killed hundreds of people. The FARC is responsible for the kidnapping of Colombian presidential candidate Ingrid Betancourt, who they still hold hostage. They tortured and murdered Colombian Senator Martha Daniels who was attempting to negotiate the release of two kidnapping victims. And just a few months ago, they attempted to assassinate President-elect Alvaro Uribe with a car bomb that killed three civilian bystanders. In the face of these acts of terrorism, President Pastrana declared an end to peace negotiations and reclaimed the demilitarized zone that he ceded to the FARC. When the Colombian Armed Forces re- captured this territory they found that terrorists had been using the territory for all kinds of illegal activity. The Colombian Army found 27 new airstrips that were used for drug and weapons transports, numerous drug laboratories and storage areas for pre-cursor drug processing chemicals, several training bases for terrorist activities that were used by international terrorist organizations, and evidence that 14 new guerrilla units had been established and trained in this ``demilitarized'' zone. This was also the area where the FARC had landed several hijacked aircraft and drastically increased the production of coca. So it is now undoubtedly clear that the FARC is not interested in serious negotiations and does not want peace. They are only interested in maintaining and expanding their narcotics funded terrorist activities. The United States must do the right thing and support our friends and allies in Colombia. The government of Colombia has categorically stated that they do not want US troops to come and fight their war for them. They are willing and able to destroy this threat to their country and the world. I am glad that the Administration has made the decision to request the removal of the counter-narcotics restrictions on our aid to Colombia. Colombia is looking into the abyss and this threatens the entire Andean region. Congress needs to pass this legislation so that we can keep up the pressure on terrorists within our own hemisphere and across the globe. I thank the Senator from Florida for his leadership. I am pleased to join with him and stress this is an exceedingly important matter for us. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Scott Shepard of my staff be granted the privileges of the floor during the duration of this debate.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I rise today, along with my distinguished colleagues, Senator Shelby and Senator Hutchinson, to offer an amendment to the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill. I have come to the Senate floor many times in the last 5\1/2\ years to talk about this issue--the wage index--and I will continue to do so, and I will continue to offer my bill S. 1001, the Wage Index Fairness Act, as an amendment until we do something about it. I wanted to offer this amendment to the emergency supplemental bill because it is, in fact, an emergency. The wage index is causing hospitals in rural areas all over America to close their doors and to turn away patients. We cannot allow this to continue. The wage index is an injustice to rural communities that I believe has reached emergency levels. This terrible inequity within the Medicare wage index formula must be addressed in order to ensure access to care for Americans in need. This amendment, which is cosponsored by my colleague from Alabama, Senator Shelby, as well as my colleague from Arkansas, Senator Hutchinson, will establish a floor on area wage index adjustment factors used under the Medicare Prospective Payment System for inpatient and outpatient hospital services Over the past years, I have visited numerous hospitals, and at every one, hospital administrators and hospital staff have urged me to do something about the wage index. They have illustrated for me the amount of money they lose each year as a result of this unfair formula, as well as the struggles that result including fighting to keep their hospitals staffed and their doors open. Time after time fixing the wage index has been cited as the number one issue for Alabama's hospitals, and I have worked closely with the Alabama Hospital Association and its members to develop a plan to address the wage index problem. A complicated and mostly arbitrary formula, the wage index is part of the hospital Perspective Payment System, PPS, which was created in the early 1990s in an effort to cut Medicare spending. It established a base rate for Medicare reimbursement based on two components: labor and nonlabor related costs. While nonlabor related costs are similar nationwide, labor-related costs must be adjusted to account for the regional differences in wage costs. This adjustment is made according to a wage index. Rural areas such as Alabama and Arkansas have low wage costs; therefore, their Medicare reimbursement is much lower than in other parts of the country. Alabama actually has the lowest average wage index in the country, and Montgomery, Alabama's capital, has the lowest wage index in the State. In fact, the wage index for all Alabama's hospitals is between 0.74 and 0.89--well below the national average. The amendment I have introduced would establish a wage index ``floor'' for Medicare reimbursement to hospitals. By raising the minimum wage index to 0.925, we can help those hospitals that have been hit hardest by the unfairness of the wage index formula. Other legislative proposals may fix the wage index, but they also include additional funding for other portions of Medicare reimbursement policy. My bill addresses just the wage index and will help nearly half of the hospitals in the country. According to the American Hospital Association, this proposal will benefit 2153 hospitals across America. Illustrating what an important issue this is, my friend and colleague, Senator Hutchinson, has also filed an amendment on the wage index and base payment amount, is that not correct Senator?

Mr. SESSIONS. Alabama is having to compete with surrounding urban areas such as Atlanta, GA, for health care professionals. In order to recruit these highly qualified health care personnel, Alabama's hospitals must offer urban wages. This has become nothing short of a bidding war due to the national shortage of health care professionals, and nurses and health care technicians who are being offered high pay, living expenses and, in some cases, traveling expenses to leave Alabama and work in larger urban hospitals. Alabama hospitals must offer higher wages, but they are not fairly reimbursed by Medicare based on these higher costs. Their reimbursement continues to be adjusted by this capricious area wage index, which, as I have just illustrated, does not always reflect the actual labor costs. The annual impact of the wage index formula results in a reduction of Alabama hospital payments by between 5.5 and 6.5 percent each year or close to $46 million/year. Until we fix this problem, Alabama hospitals and hospitals all over the country will continue to lose millions every year. Already forced to make the most of limited resources and to continue to provide care for the State's uninsured, these hospitals will face tough decisions regarding health care services. They will continue to postpone important projects and the purchasing of much- needed equipment. In my home State, it is easy to see how arbitrary and unfair this formula is. In Mobile, AL, the prevailing wage index is 0.81. Just across the border on the Mississippi side in Pascagoula, less than an hour's drive away, the wage index is 0.88. On the other side of Alabama, in Pensacola, FL, also about an hour's drive from Mobile, the wage index is 0.89. There is no reason for the difference. The wages are not that different. But what it means, is that the hospitals in Mobile get less Medicare reimbursement than those in the other two areas. This formula is arbitrary and unfair. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, and the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, MedPAC, have recognized the problem, and they have even made recommendations to change the wage index. In addition to these recommendations, several pieces of legislation have been introduced in this Congress to address the wage index. Senator Grassley, ranking member on the Senate Finance Committee has been a champion of changing the wage index, in fact, he introduced legislation last year that I and several of my Senate colleagues cosponsored. I also appreciate the support we have received from Senators Specter and Harkin during last year's Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations debate. I thank them for their support and welcome their offer to help fix the wage index. Although many have recognized the problem with the wage index, nothing has been done to fix it. While I understand the upcoming cloture vote will make my amendment nongermane as well, I still feel compelled to offer this amendment to the bill to illustrate to my colleagues the true urgent need to fix the wage index. I hope that my colleagues will realize the urgency of this matter and will work with me to fix this inequity. I urge the Senate Finance Committee and my colleagues to join Senators Shelby and Hutchinson and myself in our efforts to fix the wage index formula and to help our hospitals continue to provide the high quality of care and the access to care Americans deserve. Does the Senator agree that there is broad bipartisan support for these changes?

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, today we highlight the recent observance of April 28 as Workers Memorial Day. Workers Memorial Day recognizes workers who have been killed or injured in the workplace over the past year. The first Workers Memorial Day was observed in 1989. April 28 was chosen because it is the anniversary of the Occupational Safety and Health Act and the day of a similar remembrance in Canada. Every year, many communities and businesses join together to recognize workers who have been killed or injured on the job. In honor of Workers Memorial Day, I want to relate a story about one person in Alabama that has truly made a difference in improving worker safety. Each year since 1995, the Fairhope, Alabama-based FIGHT Project, Families in Grief Hold Together, FIGHT, holds a memorial service on Workers Memorial Day for people who die in work-related accidents in south Alabama. The FIGHT Project is led by Mr. Ron Hayes. Mr. Hayes lost his 19-year-old son Patrick due to a workplace accident. Patrick was walking across a corn elevator filled with grain when he was pulled down into the grain and suffocated. Through his tireless efforts, Mr. Hayes, prompted the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA, to revise its standard for protecting almost 250,000 workers at 24,000 grain elevators and mills. Mr. Hayes not only spent considerable time trying to determine the cause of his son's accident, but quit his job to become an advocate of workplace safety. He organized the non-profit organization, the FIGHT Project, to provide guidance to families who have lost a loved one in a workplace accident. Mr. Hayes has since become a expert on work-related deaths, illnesses and injuries. Mr. Hayes has spent countless hours trying to ensure safe working environments for America's workers. He has also assisted hundreds of families who have lost love ones, including working closely with the families of the 13 Jim Walters miners who were killed in Brookwood, AL, last year. He has been an invaluable resource to me as I serve on the Health, Education, Labor, and pensions Committee, which oversees OSHA. Mr. Hayes was recently appointed by Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao as a member of the National Advisory Committee on Occupational Safety and Health, NACOSH. NACOSH was established under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 to advise the Secretaries of Labor and Health and Human Services on Occupational Safety and Health Programs and Policies. Mr. Hayes is working with OSHA and the rest of the Department of Labor to improve worker safety around that nation. According to OSHA, there are a disproportionately high number of work-related deaths suffered by non-English speaking workers. On Workers Memorial Day, Mr. John Henshaw, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, announced that the agency will soon begin to collect data on country of origin and English language capability for all workers involved in fatality or other serious accident investigations. The agency will also for the first time begin to collect site-specific information on construction projects where many immigrants and other workers die every year. The new data collection will enable OSHA to analyze language and country of origin information to determine what role language barriers and other risk factors play in fatalities and other workplace accidents. The agency will then use this data to take steps to improve safety for these workers. I want to point out that in commemoration of Worker Memorial Day, Mr. Henshaw also announced that, effective immediately, he will write personally to the families of workers killed on the job to express OSHA's sorrow for the loss. Working with Mr. Hayes over the last few years, I know how important it is to the victim's families that the Government is aware of the problem and working to do everything possible to prevent more workers from dying or being injured on the job. I would like to reiterate Mr. Hayes' recent statement about the importance of reducing the accident and injury rate to the point where this type of initiative is not needed at all. I believe Secretary Chao and Mr. Henshaw are committed to this goal and I stand ready to aid their efforts. We know that many businesses are working hard and successfully to improve worker safety. Some Alabama companies have recently been recognized by OSHA as achieving successful results in reducing injuries. Since 1982, OSHA has been recognizing American work sites that have exemplary safety records and show continued commitment to workplace safety and health. Sites meeting the Voluntary Protection Program standards typically experience injury and illness rates 53 percent below the industry average. Three sites in Alabama: ATOFINA Chemicals Inc. in Axis, AL; Occidental Chemical Corporation in Mobile, AL; and United Space Alliance, LLC Huntsville Operations in Huntsville, AL, were recognized by OSHA as Star sites for their achievements in worker safety. These successes were achieved with voluntary programs, teamwork and determination. Workers Memorial Day gives us the opportunity to remember the workers who have lost their lives and highlight these important worker safety issues. The more attention we give the subject and the more we work together the better chance we have to be successful in reducing and then eventually eliminating workplace injuries.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Is it the understanding of the Senator from Utah that the equivalent test described in this definition could include a test procedure, at the request of the manufacturer, that measures power from the rechargeable energy storage system using real world driving conditions?

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator. That conforms to my understanding as well.

Mr. SESSIONS. Is it also the understanding of the Senator from Utah that there are Federal Test Program (FTP) driving cycles already formulated by EPA that could provide comparable results to the 10 second pulse power test?

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, in the Finance Committee energy tax amendment that has now been included in the energy bill, the consumer tax credit available for the purchase of a new qualified light duty hybrid motor vehicle generally ranges from $250 to $3,500 depending upon the weight of the vehicle and the ``maximum available power'' from the vehicle's battery system. I note that in the proposed Sec. 30B(c)(2)(D)(iii)(I) the term ``maximum available power'' for a passenger automobile or light truck hybrid is defined as follows: For purposes of subparagraph (A)(i), the term ``maximum available power'' means the maximum power available from the rechargeable energy storage system, during a standard 10 second pulse power or equivalent test, divided by such maximum power and the SAE net power of the heat engine. Because this language originated in his bill, S. 760, I would like to engage the senior senator from Utah in a brief colloquy to make sure we have a common understanding of this definition. I note that the definition allows the use of either a ``standard 10 second pulse power test'' or an equivalent test. Is it the understanding of the Senator from Utah that this language authorizes a manufacturer to demonstrate the maximum available power of its rechargeable energy storage system by using either the standard 10 second pulse power test or some other test that will demonstrate the extent to which the rechargeable energy storage system is contributing to the overall power of the hybrid system?

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the office of United States Marshal is one of the great and historic law enforcement positions in America. This honor carries with it the responsibility of protecting the Federal judiciary, tracking down fugitives from justice, delivering defendants to trial, ensuring safety of witnesses, leading and coordinating with local law enforcement and, in general, helping the entire federal legal system work together harmoniously and effectively to fight crime. Because Marshals often come from State and local law enforcement to their federal position, their experience helps further communication among all criminal justice agencies. This is critical today in fighting crime. I was therefore extremely pleased William S. Taylor and that President Bush has chose him to be the U.S. Marshal for the Southern District of Alabama. He has all the qualities necessary to be a great success. First and foremost he is a good man. He loves his God, his family and his country. He has served each with distinction and fidelity. Bill is known for his honesty. He is always a gentleman, always courteous, always cooperative with the public and his superiors, but you may be sure he will not do things that he does not believe is right. On that point, he is rock solid. I came to know Bill and his superior reputation when he served as Police Chief of Jackson, AL, while I served as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama. During that time, we got to know each other well, working together on important criminal cases and even fishing together periodically. My mother, originally from Choctaw County, AL, later told me about his fine parents. Bill's father was a fine carpenter and brick mason respected throughout that area of the State. In 1994, I was elected to the office of Attorney General for Alabama and I prevailed upon Bill to join me as Alabama's Law Enforcement Coordinator. Bill was superb in that position and won the respect of law enforcement personnel all over the state. He understood their needs and problems and worked to help them. Law enforcement officers trusted him. In addition, I would call on him periodically to help us investigate difficult cases. He was a great asset as an investigator also. For more than a year, the chief of staff of my Senate office who was then the administrative officer of the Attorney General's office, Armand DeKeyser, State Trooper Mike Barnett, Bill and I roomed together in Montgomery while our families remained at home. I came to like and respect Bill even more during that time. His fidelity to the mission of the Attorney General's office and his high ideals were extraordinary. Indeed, Bill has a history of exceptional service. He was drafted into the Army right after his graduation from Choctaw County High School in Butler. After undergoing rigorous training he was sent directly to Vietnam where he served with distinction for one year. Bill was promoted quickly and ended his Army career with the rank of E-6. His unit was involved in extensive combat taking heavy casualties and Bill completed his tour of Vietnam having promoted to acting Platoon Sergeant. His superior performance in Vietnam was rewarded by a host of awards including the Bronze Star, the National Defense Service Medal with one bronze star, and the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross Unit Citation Badge. When his country called, Bill Taylor went without complaint and served with courage and distinction. After leaving active duty he joined the Army National Guard and continues to serve in the Army Guard with distinction, now having attained his rank of Chief Warrant Officer Two. Indeed, Vietnam turned out not to be his only war. As a Guardsman, he was called again to combat for 6 months service in Desert Shield/Desert Storm. A superb military record indeed. After Vietnam, Bill returned to his hometown of Butler and in 1969 was hired as a police officer. At that point, a fellow Choctaw Countian, Larry Linder, then a lieutenant with the Jackson, AL, Police Department lured him to the Jackson Police Department. There Bill found his calling. He served 2 years as a patrolman, two years as a lieutenant, 2 years as Assistant Chief and in 1975, commenced a sterling 20-year career as a police chief. Though very young, Bill did a superb job as chief, creating a highly respected police department in Jackson. He was selected for the prestigious national FBI Academy and undertook many educational programs. In fact, such was the excellence of his career, that in 1979 Chief William S. Taylor was named Citizen of the Year in Jackson and in 1980 he was selected as the Law Enforcement Officer of the Year for the state of Alabama. All this when he was hardly 30 years of age. Has any of this turned his head--made him ``too big for his britches''? The answer is no. He is the same today as when he first answered the call of his country to serve in Vietnam. He will lead the Marshal's office with fairness, professionalism, skill and integrity. President Bush is to be commended for this excellent nomination. One of his most valuable attributes is his knowledge of and respect for local law enforcement. This is a critical quality for a modern marshal. Working every day to enhance cooperation and coordination among all state and local law enforcement agencies, as well as the federal agencies is one of the most important duties of the office. His experience and the respect with which he is held will make him quite valuable in this regard. Bill is married to an exceptional lady in her own right, Catherine. They have been married for 32 years and have three sons Patrick, Bobby and Jonathan. The Senate acted wisely when it unanimously confirmed President Bush's nomination of William S. Taylor. The people of the United States will continue to benefit from his leadership.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the people of the great state of Alabama are going to benefit from the wisdom of President George W. Bush in appointing Jesse Seroyer as their United States Marshal. I came to know Jesse well when I was elected Attorney General of Alabama in 1994. My respect for him grew continuously. Jesse had one primary motivation--to do the right thing. He was proud of his work and wanted the Alabama Attorney General's office to be the best it could be. His focus was always on the right goal--investigating cases thoroughly, clearing the innocent and prosecuting the guilty. Jesse leads by example. He works hard, does the right thing and expects others to do the same. While he is cooperative and a team player, he will not participate in or condone wrongdoing. Jesse's career began with the Opelika police department in 1976. He worked vice and narcotics and worked with many different law enforcement agencies making cases all over Alabama. In 1987 he joined the Attorney General's office as chief investigator. During his time with the Attorney General's office Jesse has been invaluable in a host of important cases and activities. He has investigated white collar crime, corruption, voter fraud, and violent crime cases. In addition, he trained other investigators in his unit, conducted investigations of judges for the Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission, provided security and protection for the Attorney General and others, conducted all investigations under the Alabama Sports Agent Act, and assisted countless state, federal and local investigators in important investigations. In addition, he has helped develop and plan the investigative priorities of the Attorney General's office. Jesse also served as a certified instructor for Peace Officer Standard and Training program for Alabama. I, and Senator Richard Shelby, were pleased to recommend him to President Bush and I am certain that these qualities will make him a great Marshal. When I became Attorney General, the office faced a serious budget crisis. Indeed, it was a disaster. The office was forced to reduce its size by one-third and to completely reorganize to meet our challenges with less personnel. That is when I saw Jesse Seroyer rise to the challenge. He took on many challenges and extra duties. Most importantly, as the investigator with the most institutional knowledge, he was invaluable to me and others in the office. It was a difficult time and he was a tower of strength. Without his leadership and cooperation we could not have been successful. More than just a respected law officer, Jesse Seroyer is a man of faith and family. He married a very special lady, Novelette K. Ward, in 1973 not long after graduating from Opelika High School. Their marriage has produced two children, Steve and Jessica. His faith is central to his life. He and his wife are active members of Greater Peace Baptist Church where he serves as a Deacon. He also serves as a Director for Boy Scout Troop 373, Opelika, Ala., and is a member of the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives. Novelette is extremely talented in her own right. She is also a state employee with the State Department of Education. She is a woman of rich Christian faith. At Jesse's investiture, she blessed the large crowd beautifully singing ``America.'' It was a special way indeed for Jesse to start his new work. Jesse Seroyer loves his God, his family and his country. He is trained and ready for this new step in his career. I extend my special appreciation to President Bush for this nomination and to the Senate for its unanimous confirmation. He will serve superbly.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to address the importance of the Army's Stryker combat vehicle, what used to be called the Interim Armored Vehicle, being developed at Anniston Army Depot. The Stryker is a new generation family of highly transportable wheeled combat vehicles capable of rapidly deploying anywhere in the world. The Stryker vehicles roll onto a C-130 aircraft and roll off ready to fight anywhere and anytime including complex and urban warfare contingencies. They are lethal, survivable and will be engaged in the War on Terrorism in the months to come. If they were available today, Stryker vehicles would be deployed in the mountains of Afghanistan and ably assisting in the elimination of al-Qaida and other enemies of this country. They would be providing ground-based firepower and protection for our soldiers on the frontlines. The Stryker family embodies Army Transformation. It is the foundation of the Army's Interim Brigade Combat Teams that will be the spearhead of most conflicts envisioned in the next decade. The Army intends on procuring 2,131 Strykers and this Congress must do everything it can to ensure the Army is able to deliver on its promise to our soldiers. Let me tell you, we cannot get these vehicles in the soldiers' hands fast enough. As it is, the Army and the joint venture designing and developing the Stryker family have done an incredible job delivering the initial vehicles this past February less than a year after the start of work. I believe such a rapid delivery may be unprecedented in modern times for a military program of this scope. The Army and the Joint Venture are to be commended. In the fiscal year 2003 defense budget, the President has requested $812 million in procurement and $124 million in research and development for the Stryker vehicle. I hope this Congress will fully support this request and throw its support behind a program critical to our national security today and tomorrow. The Army recently named the vehicles Stryker in honor of two fallen enlisted soldiers who died 20 years apart but shared the same name. Both won the Medal of Honor. Specialist 4th Class Robert Stryker died in Vietnam when he threw himself onto a claymore mine as it detonated thus saving the lives of his comrades nearby. Stuart Stryker died in World War II when he led a platoon into an assault on Nazi headquarters near the end of the war. Though he was killed in the raid, three members of an American bombing crew were rescued from the building. We should not let those who serve this great Nation down. We must support ably and strongly the Stryker combat vehicle program.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, there are persons of great importance in the lives of each of us. Outside our families, it is often teachers that have played key roles in our lives. One teacher of mine, Dr. Gordon T. Chappell was such a person. He awakened in his students a great love of history. He taught the importance of rigorous thought, and helped us understand our heritage. On February 6, 2002, Dr. Chappell passed away. His death was a cause for sadness for the thousands who were his students at our alma mater, Huntingdon College. Although he had lived a rich, active and happy life, the recent years had not been easy. A year ago, Dr. Chappell was preceded in death by his beloved wife, Winn Chappell. The two of them lived in a modest home on the campus, and frequently invited students over for tea, discussion or work. Mrs. Chappell was a magnificent teacher in her own right, and was loved by her students as much as any teacher who ever served at Huntingdon. I took her British Literature course and it was a rich experience, indeed. There can be little doubt that I would not be in the Senate today but for the inspiration of Dr. Chappell. In those days, the mid '60s, all freshman students were required to take Western Civilization. Dr. Chappell, though head of the History Department, always taught one freshman class and he hand picked his students. I was by chance, or perhaps as a result of having a historical sounding name, selected for the challenge and adventure that was his class. It was taught in the basement of the oldest building on campus, Flowers Hall. Ever since that experience, I have deeply understood that a great teacher in a poor room is far to be preferred to a lesser teacher in a room with the best of everything. With his small moustache, he was constantly thought to be the very image of Clark Gable playing Rhett Butler. Dr. Chappell, first and foremost, knew his subject. Attaining his doctorate in history at Vanderbilt during some of that department's glory days, he was exceedingly well trained. Without, I am sure, one course in ``how to teach'', Dr. Chappell dominated his class, commanded respect, and imparted knowledge to students in an exceptional but not flamboyant way. This was primarily because he was prepared in subject matter and because he had great wisdom. He lectured, asked questions periodically, and insisted on attention and on timeliness. This was not a class that endeavored to teach self-esteem by being easy. His students developed self-esteem as a result of mastery of difficult subjects. In addition to the substantial textbook, each student was required to read an additional five significant books each semester. The good news was that book reports were not required. The bad news was that upon completion of the book, the student was required to get an appointment with Dr. Chappell, in his basement office, laden with books and memorabilia, to discuss the reading. Make no mistake, everyone knew he could tell instantly whether the student had read the book. He was held in such respect that no one made the appointment without trepidation. Many could not sleep for days in advance. It was a brilliant way for him to teach and to know his students. As a result of this exceptional teaching, I became a history major. Being a history major opened a broad world to me, a world that was exciting and inspiring. It allowed an already existing interest in government and politics to grow. Dr. Chappell's freshman class, his upper level courses, and his friendship and advice over the years have played an important role in my life and career. For thousands of his respectful students, his teaching was equally formative. Small liberal arts colleges, like Huntingdon, with an emphasis on classical learning, respect for faith and philosophy, liberal in concepts and disciplines, and with love of country and region, have shaped for the better the lives of millions. The death of Dr. Chappell not long after the death of Mrs. Chappell, drives that fact home to me in a forceful way. Their lives, committed to faith, humanity and learning bloomed like beautiful flowers and enriched the lives of many young people. As United Methodist minister, Dr. Charles C. Hays, Jr., a Huntingdon history major who was also a student and long time friend of Dr. Chappell, stated in his eulogy: He was an architect of the psyche who, through the medium of history, shaped and molded the lives of countless hundreds of students. Indeed he did. Though we have been sad, we should all remember that, at best, our lives are short--``like a vapor'', the scripture says. Dr. Chappell's life, along with his beloved partner, Winn, was rich, full and long. He spent it doing what he loved and wonderfully enriched the lives of all he touched. What more can one ask. He is survived by two exceptional children, Rick and Wendy. May God's comfort and blessing be with them at this sad time. Let us, out of this sadness, lift our heads and celebrate Dr. Chappell's beautiful life so well lived.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I certainly can.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, it is not as if I would not have a lot to say about this subject, having observed it closely for a number of years. Let me say one thing about the complaint --and this is very important--that President Clinton's nominees were not fairly treated: President Clinton had 377 judges confirmed. He had one judge voted down by the Senate--only one judge voted down. When he left office, there were 41 judges not yet confirmed who had been nominated. There were 41 left pending. When former President Bush left office in 1991, he had 54 judges pending and not confirmed. There were 54 when he left office. When President Clinton left office, he had only 41, and only one of his nominees had been voted down by this Senate. The reason he was treated fairly is because the chairman of the Judiciary Committee at that time, Orrin Hatch, treated his nominees fairly. He moved those nominees forward. I voted for 95-plus percent of them. There were many liberals in that group. Very few of the nominees were held up. There is a tradition here--the blue slip policy--that if a home State Senator objects to a nominee, they can hold him up. That is respected. The Democrats now come in and say this is a bad policy and they want to fix it. No, they want to give even more power. They are proposing regulations that would give a historic increase in the power of one Senator to block nominees. We have a situation in which we are now in a crisis. There are 100 vacancies in the Federal court. Seventeen of the Federal circuit court vacancies have been declared judicial emergencies by the Administrative Office of the Courts. Fifty percent of the seats on the Sixth Circuit, 8 out of 16, are vacant. Of the seven nominees, none have had a hearing. In January of 1998, when there were 82 Federal vacancies, the now chairman of the committee, Senator Leahy, stated: Any week in which the Senate does not confirm three judges, the Senate is failing to address the vacancy crisis. There were 82; there are 100 now. Since January of 2000, President Bush has only had 7 of 29 circuit court nominations he submitted confirmed. One of those confirmed was in the first batch he sent up, and an excellent group they were. There was a nomination of President Clinton that had not been confirmed, an African American. President Bush resubmitted his name in a historic effort to reach bipartisanship here in the Senate. He has been a fair President. He submitted judges of utmost quality. If we need to improve the process, we need to look no further than asking how Senator Hatch conducted the committee when he was chairman.

Mr. SESSIONS. About 2 minutes.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the sacrifice of two American patriots who will be interred tomorrow at Arlington National Cemetery. Second Lieutenant Maurice W. Harper, United States Army Air Corps, a native of Birmingham in the great State of Alabama, and Lieutenant Colonel Earle Aber, United States Army Air Corps, of Wisconsin, gave their lives in defense of this Nation and freedom on March 4, 1945 when the B-17G bomber they were flying was shot down while returning from a mission over Holland. Over half a century later, the crash site was located and 2nd Lt. Harper's remains, along with the remains of his pilot, Lieutenant Colonel Earle Aber, were recovered in September, 1999 and identified by the Army Central Identification Laboratory in Hawaii. Their aircraft was severely damaged after it was mistakenly hit by British anti- aircraft guns which were firing at retreating German bombers over the English coastline. Lt. Col. Aber ordered the crew to bail-out while he and 2nd Lt. Harper struggled at the controls of their damaged aircraft. Their selfless actions allowed the other nine members of their crew to bail-out from the aircraft and survive the mission. There was not enough time, however, for these two brave airmen to escape and they perished when the aircraft crashed into the River Stour near Ramsey, England. The remains of both of these fine young men, that could be identified, were returned to their families. Unfortunately, not all of the remains could be positively identified. The co-mingled remains of these two fine Americans, still together after 57 years, will be laid to rest together at Arlington National Cemetery on March 22, 2002. I would also like to take this time to thank the professionals at the Army's Central Identification Laboratory in Hawaii who continue their labors to identify the remains of our fallen sons and daughters and return them to their loved ones. These two fine gentlemen, members of the ``greatest generation,'' deserve the gratitude of this great Nation. I know the Members of the Senate will join me in honoring the sacrifices of these two brave men and expressing our deepest condolences and heartfelt thanks to their families as they lay their loved ones to rest tomorrow in the hallowed ground at Arlington.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, one of our colleagues earlier, in talking about the Pickering nomination, talked about the difficulty of making judgments. Of course, that is what they pay us to do. It is sometimes difficult. But what is really important for us to be sure of is that the judgment we make is our own, independent judgment, made with integrity, and not influenced by unfair charges or pressure from groups outside the Senate. I think a nominee is entitled to that. If charges are made against a nominee, we ought to hear about them. We ought to find out if they are correct. Maybe delay the vote and have another hearing, if that is what is required, so be it. But when the nominee can show that the charges against him in case after case after case after case are not justified charges, and there are perfectly good and sound reasons for the actions he has taken, that his words are being taken out of context, outside the normal bounds of any kind of fair criticism, when he can explain that in matter after matter after matter that the charges are untrue, I believe the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee ought to listen to that. Senators should not allow friends from the outside, who have an agenda and a commitment to defeating a nominee who they have picked as the person they want to go after, to control the situation and, in effect, cast a vote in these matters. That is what I am concerned about. Judge Pickering came before our committee. He was a superb witness. He testified with integrity, with skill, with understanding. He is a man I believe the committee related to well. I was very impressed with his testimony, his whole history as a lawyer and as a judge and as a human being. I thought, what a wonderful presentation he made. But it seemed not to have changed a single vote. When point A was knocked down, we would go to point B, and when that was knocked down, to point C. Finally, we ended up with the most weak excuses, weak reasons that I do not believe rise to the level, in any way, that would justify rejecting this fine man. He finished No. 1 in his law class at the University of Mississippi School of Law, an excellent school of law. He decided to go back home where his family were farmers, in the dairy business, in Laurel, MS. Some suggested he did a lot of things in the past, in the 1960s, of which he wasn't proud. They said over and over again, with great unctuousness: We don't think he's a racist. We are not saying he's a racist. But he is a southerner, you know, from Laurel. We have some complaints up here in Washington about him. What did his record look like? In the 1960s, things were not easy in Laurel, MS. Having grown up in the rural South, I know that. I know a lot of people made choices they are very greatly disappointed that they made, many years ago. A lot of us should have been more alert to fighting more aggressively for civil rights than we were. I was in high school in those years and I remember the debates that came about. I know how deeply the passions and feelings were running. In Laurel, there was a trial of a Klansman who was involved in a murder. Judge Pickering, in the 1960s, signed a warrant for his arrest in that murder. Another case involved a head of the Ku Klux Klan in that area. It was a tense case in a tough time. Something needed to be done to send a signal to that jury that good men and women, in Laurel, MS, knew that he ought to be convicted of the crimes he committed. Judge Pickering volunteered and testified as a character witness against that defendant, saying that he had a bad reputation for violence in the community. Nobody, I am sure, relished having to do that task at that time. Sure enough, the next election, he lost that election. And the Klan bragged that was the reason, that they got the man who went against them. That is his background. He has a superb legal mind. He finished at the top of his class at the University of Mississippi. A man, faced with difficult times, was on the right side of the issue. We had Charles Evers, the brother of Medgar Evers, the slain civil rights worker in Mississippi visit members of the Judiciary Committee. He came up here on Judge Pickering's behalf and spoke strongly and passionately for him. As did an African-American judge. As did others who came. By the way, I think 26 out of 26 living Presidents of the Mississippi Bar Association endorsed Judge Pickering. But this group came here. I asked them, each one of them: During the 1960s and into the 1970s, when civil rights was really a matter of some courage in the South, was Judge Pickering on the good guys' side or the bad guys' side? They all said he was on the right side. He was on the good guys' side. He took actions to reach out and to build harmony and he believed that is important. He, in fact, serves now as co-chairman--or did until recently--with former Governor Winter, a Democrat of Mississippi, on the Ole Miss Commission to Promote Racial Harmony. He was chosen to be co-chairman of that commission. Oh, but they say we didn't accuse him of being a racist. He is hostile to employment cases. So Senators Hatch and DeWine went through all the employment cases that he dealt with, delineated the two, I believe, that were reversed on matters unrelated to the merits, really, of employment cases. I also point out in the state of Mississippi, there are a group of lawyers who specialize in employment cases representing plaintiffs who sue to get their jobs back or for damages for mistreatment. The top plaintiffs' lawyer in Mississippi, who practiced before Judge Pickering many times, wrote an op-ed in the Mississippi paper. Not just a letter, he wrote an op-ed in the paper with his name on it, saying Judge Pickering should be confirmed; the plaintiffs' lawyer said that Judge Pickering is a fair man and that Judge Pickering treated employment cases fairly in court. Why would we want to even continue to talk about that issue after that matter is raised? But still people do. There were other complaints. They said he had asked lawyers to write letters on his behalf and that this somehow violated ethics. We had a professor who said this was ambiguous at best, and cited histories going back to Learned Hand, where judges got letters written on behalf of nominees. So I don't think that was the matter. They said he had them given to him. The Department of Justice asked him to collect the letters and have them sent up. The U.S. Department of Justice asked him to collect those letters and send them forward. It was during the time of the anthrax scare, when the mail was shut down. They wanted him to be sure to collect them all so they could be sent straight to the Department of Justice so they could be disseminated to those of us in the Senate who needed to know about it. I am, frankly, concerned for about the suggestion that there is an unfairness, or an excessive conservative bent on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Fifth Circuit is one of the great circuits in America. It has consistently had some of the great judges in America. I just had the honor to participate in the swearing in of Ginny Granade, the granddaughter of Judge Richard Reeves on the old Fifth Circuit to a Federal judgeship in my hometown of Mobile. She worked for me for 12 years when I was U.S. attorney there. She is one of the finest people I know. She has never been political in any way. She was confirmed and is now serving there. But the old Fifth Circuit and the Fifth Circuit today is a great circuit. It has a good record of being affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court. We have had some concerns about the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, I will admit. I have raised that issue on occasion. One year the Ninth Circuit had 27 out of 28 cases that went to the Supreme Court of the United States reversed. Year after year--one year it was 13 out of 15. The Ninth Circuit has the highest record of reversals of any circuit in America by far. The Fifth Circuit is nowhere close. I opposed, I will admit, two nominees to the Ninth Circuit. But they were confirmed. I would have to add, however, that my concerns have been a bit validated in that Judges Paez and Berzon, the two I did vote against, those two judges on separate occasions have eviscerated and declared unconstitutional the ``three strikes and you are out'' law in the State of California which the State supreme court, which is not a conservative court had previously upheld. I will just note that was discretion. Perhaps there was a legal basis for those reversals of the important California habitual offender law. Maybe the law needs to be changed by the legislature. But judges ought to be reluctant to be whacking out long-established State law of this kind. I am interested in studying those cases. At any rate, I believe we had a good process in the last 8 years of President Clinton. In 8 years, 1 judge was voted down--1 judge was voted down in 8 years--and 377 judges were confirmed. When President Clinton left office, there were only 41 judges nominated and pending unconfirmed. When former President Bush left office, on the other hand, in 1992, there were 54 judges nominated and unconfirmed. It is clear that at least 13 fewer judges were pending when Senator Hatch chaired the committee and the Republicans left office than when the Democrats controlled the Senate and President Bush left office--a very similar circumstance. I think it is impossible to say that President Clinton's judges were abused. With regard to the historic right of Senators to refuse to submit the blue slip, giving home State Senators, in effect, an ability to block nominees in their home States, that did slow down some of the nominees and keep them from being confirmed. Whether those Senators were right or not, I don't know. But it is a power we have always held. Let me say this: Do the Democrats in the Senate say this is an abuse of power and ought to be reduced, and it is something that ought not be allowed to go forward? No, they do not. They are now pushing to expand the power of the home State Senators beyond what we have had in the past to block nominees. I am very sad for the Pickering family, and the young Chip Pickering, the Congressman from Mississippi. He is one of the very finest Members of the House of Representatives. He loves his father. It was painful for me to see him have to sit through all of that today. But he is a strong young man. His father has a great record. He has served well. I am sure he too will bounce back from this. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. That is very generous. It has fallen particularly hard on the Alabama Department of Environmental Management whose budget is strapped at this time. Their financial problems have made a lot of news, frankly. Since this is a matter of national importance, I believe it is appropriate that Alabama, which is the State most adversely impacted at this time within the Eleventh Circuit where the court ruling applies, be given some compensation toward the cost of administering and reviewing these 300- plus proposals. I am pleased we were able to work out an agreement that $100,000 will be authorized for that purpose. I am pleased Senator Bingaman and Senator Inhofe, as I understand it, have agreed that if this continues to be a problem or if there is sound evidence that additional moneys are required to do this--more than the $100,000 that will be approved-- they will consider that in conference as we move forward with the bill. Methane is one of the cleanest of all burning fuels. Methane produces good energy and, at the same time, it is very clean energy. The fact that we can draw the cleanest of all burning fuels from land within the United States is a good thing that we should be promoting. This is the kind of energy production that should be promoted in the country. I am glad we are moving forward finally to get this settled so we can enhance the production of coalbed methane throughout the country. It will be a good step forward. In conclusion, this is a new source. Every Btu of energy we take from gas, or from gasoline and oil, that we purchase from outside our country is a drain on the wealth of this country. It generates economic activity in the country from which we purchase it. It does not generate economic activity in the United States. It is a net transfer of American wealth. That is why I believe this is not just an oil industry issue, this is not a big business issue, this is not simply an environmental or non-environmental issue. I believe we need to increase energy production in America because it is a matter of economic importance. It generates jobs and wealth in our country, not in Venezuela and the kind of government they have there, or Saudi Arabia, or Iraq. It creates wealth in the United States. It keeps our dollars here. It generates jobs here. To me, there is no more worthwhile energy production than one of the cleanest of all: Coalbed methane. I am pleased we are moving forward, even though it is going to take a little longer than I would like, to get this regulatory matter settled and to enhance this production. It will be good for America. I thank the Chair.