Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I appreciate the work of our leadership in this Senate working together to produce legislation that each day, since this tragedy occurred, we have been virtually unanimous on. I want to keep that unanimity going. I express my appreciation to Senators Daschle, Lott, Nickles, Reid, and the others who have worked on this legislation. I know there is a belief that there is a critical time period, and apparently there is, an insurance problem of monumental proportions that needs to be dealt with promptly. However, I do believe, as Senator Fitzgerald from Illinois has said, we are rushing this matter, that this bill is not a perfect bill. It is far from a perfect bill. Maybe it is approximately correct, but we do not know all of that yet. I am not happy with how fast this is moving and how much money we are dealing with. I want to support our leadership. I know they have hammered it out. I know they have made some progress. I know they have made some agreements. I know Senator Nickles has worked hard to bring as much accountability as he could in the time he had to make this a reality. So I salute them for it, but I am not convinced we are doing it the right way. I was pleased to see trial lawyers say they would do work for free, but I am not sure that, in the way we have crafted the bill, a client still does not need a lawyer that is loyal to them and that is paid by them. I would like to see us create a way to compensate people simply by who they are. If they are the widow of a person who has lost his life, they can make a claim and certify that and get their payment without any fees needing to be paid. Maybe we could do that in this kind of mass tort. We have not had time to think that through. I know this bill is probably moving on to passage tonight. I am troubled by it. We are going to need to do some work on it in the future, and I expect we will be coming back and revisiting this. I think that should be made clear. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak as in morning business.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I ask for 2 minutes.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we have for the most part today been dealing with the Defense authorization bill. As a member of the Armed Services Committee, it is something we wrestled with for some time. We realize how tight our budget is, and I thought it would be important for those Americans who care about those things, that remnant out there, that we give them some perspective as to where we are, what this authorization bill would mean, and how it would affect our Armed Forces. In the early 1990s, our defense budget was as high as $326 billion, as I recall, well over $300 billion. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, President Bush commenced a decline in that budget. He had projected it out over a certain number of years and then it began to flatten out at a fairly substantial rate over $300 billion. What happened was, in our glee over the collapse of the Soviet Union, we allowed that budget to continue downward. We reached as low as $286 billion, I believe, in the mid-1990s, $20 billion more or less than former President Bush had proposed, and as a result we reduced our personnel very rapidly. We had problems in a number of areas funding our budget, and as a result, the military began to suffer. In particular, what suffered was our plans to recapitalize defense in America. I am talking about ships and planes and equipment that is pretty expensive. We paid the electric bills. We trained our men and women in uniform. We paid their salaries. We did the things we needed to do, but as one naval officer said, we created a bow wave out in front of the ship of increased capitalization needs. So we have been doing that for some years. Gradually, we made a few increases since I have been in the Senate in the last 3 years, an increase in our defense budget, but it has not been much. President Bush ran on the promise that he would do more for defense. He said, ``Help is on the way.'' We remember that phrase. We do indeed, this year, have a Defense appropriations bill that shows the largest increase in probably well over a decade. I know the President pro tempore is so familiar with these numbers, there is no need for me to recall them for him. We made some progress, and as I read this budget, this authorization bill, we will take defense spending from $296 billion last year to $328. If you count the supplemental of $6 billion, we have a $35 billion increase in defense, which amounts to a little over around 10 percent of the budget. I thought we would have more impact, but I have not seen it. It strikes me that presumably the money has gone to do the things we need to do. We promised and committed to higher pay and better medical care, as we promised our men and women in uniform. They received that, and they are pleased with it. Retention and recruitment and morale is up, for which we can certainly celebrate, but it has left us not nearly as much as we had hoped we would have to begin to do better about capitalization. For example, it was not too many years ago we were looking for a 600- ship Navy. We are now down to around 315 ships. We have ships going out of service every year because of age and lack of serviceability, and the number of ships coming on are less. So at the present rate, we can expect our fleet to fall well below 300. Maybe that is wise. I doubt it. I think we are getting a bit thin. I say that simply to say the money is not there in this budget to build ships at the rate it needs to. I served as the ranking member on the Sea Power Subcommittee and dealt with those numbers, along with Senator Kennedy, and we did the best we could with the moneys we had to allocate, but we are not where we need to be in shipbuilding. So now we find ourselves in a war against terrorism. I think it is causing us to reevaluate what we have done with defense. As a percentage of our total gross domestic product, our spending on defense is at a low level, certainly since the midpart of the last century. We are at a low level in spending as a percentage of the gross domestic product. I think we can do better. Right now, in short order, we will receive the QDR, the Quadrennial Defense Review, report. That should help us plan for the future. I hope it will be a bold and aggressive call for reform and change and innovation. I think it will have some of that in it, but I am not sure it will go as far as we would like it to go. We will be looking at that. Then the Secretary of Defense is also completing his review, and he will analyze the situation and will make a recommendation to us for a reformation of our military, a transformation of our military, so it is more capable of dealing with conflicts of the kind we are discussing this very night, the television commentators are discussing: Are we ready to fight that kind of war? I believe we need to be sure we are. I do not think it will cost us an amount of money that we cannot afford. I am not sure we are where we need to be with regard to transformation to go from a military that was capable and required to defend on the plains of Europe against massive attacks by tanks and infantry and troops from the Soviet Union to a world that is much more complex, much more diverse, requiring more speed, more maneuver, more mobility to transport troops around the country. I salute Senator Levin and Senator John Warner, the ranking Republican on the committee, for working together to reach an accord at this critical time in our country that I can support at this time, and that was not easy. We had some differences of opinion, and when the bill came out of committee on a partisan vote, 13-12, we were distressed about that. In the days that have gone by since and after this terrorist attack, I think we all realized it was necessary we should reach an agreement on how to proceed. I believe that was done. I can support this bill as I understand it today, and we will probably vote next Tuesday. We will have made a step in the right direction. Our challenge, of course, with $20 billion more in defense, is to confront terrorism around the world. Our distinguished President pro tempore is a student of Roman history, the best in this Senate, probably one of the best in the United States. I thought I would share tonight a little bit of Roman history, Appian's Roman history; as someone referred to me, what the Romans did about terrorists. This is the situation they faced: Pirates were developing throughout the Mediterranean. It became unsafe for Roman ships to sail. According to Appian, in a very short time these pirates increased in number to tens of thousands. They dominated now not only the eastern waters but the whole Mediterranean to the Pillars of Hercules. They now even vanquished some of the Roman generals in naval engagements, and among others the praetor of Sicily on the Sicilian coast itself. No sea could be navigated in safety, and land remained untilled for want of commercial intercourse. The city of Rome felt this evil most keenly, her subjects being distressed and herself suffering grievously from hunger by reason of her own populousness. But it appeared to her to be a great and difficult task to destroy so large a force of seafaring men scattered everywither on land and sea, with no fixed possession to encumber their flight, sallying out from no particular country or any known places, having no property or anything to call their own, but only what they might chance to light upon. Thus, the unexampled nature of this war, which was subject to no laws and had nothing tangible or visible about it, caused perplexity and fear. When the Romans could no longer endure the damage or the disgrace they made Gnaeus Pompey, who was then their man of greatest reputation, commander by law for 3 years, with absolute power over the whole sea within the Pillars of Hercules, and of the land of a distance of 400 stades from the coast to coast. They sent letters to all kings, rulers, peoples and cities, they should aid Pompey in all ways. They gave him the power to raise troops and to collect money from the provinces, and they furnished a large Army from their own muster-roll, and all the ships they had, and money to the amount of 6,000 Attic talents-- Perhaps the President would know how much that was; apparently it was a lot-- So great and difficult did they consider the task of overcoming such great forces, dispersed over so wide a sea, hiding easily in so many nooks, retreating quickly and darting out again unexpectedly. Never did any man before Pompey set forth with so great authority conferred upon him by the Romans. He had an Army of 120,000 foot and 4,000 horse, and 270 ships. Pompey, like a king of kings, should move to and fro and stationed his people where he thought best. He developed a brilliant scheme to deploy his forces. And he astonished all by the rapidity of his movement, the magnitude of his preparations, and his formidable reputation, so that the pirates, who had expected to attack him first, or at least to show that the task he had undertaken against him was no easy one, became straightway alarmed, abandoned their assaults upon the towns they were besieging, and fled to their accustomed peaks and inlets. Thus the sea was cleared by Pompey forthwith without a fight, and the pirates were everywhere subdued at their several locations. According to Appian's history, whereas it was expected to take 3 years to win this war because they were so united, so determined, and so committed, within a matter of days the war was won, 10,000 of the pirates were killed and the rest surrendered. I don't know and don't expect we can accomplish this much in dealing with our modern-day terrorist pirates, but I like the way they set about to do it. They recognized their nation was threatened and jeopardized, and when the disgrace could be stood no more, they took action to defend their just interest, and did so with a commitment that was total and complete, and they set about it and were successful far more quickly than people thought possible. I don't know if this will occur more quickly than we think possible, but I know one thing: If we commit ourselves to it, just as the Romans, we can succeed. And even though these people move about and seem to have no place they call their own, and are difficult to locate, they can be located, they can be pressured, they can be attacked, and can be defeated. I hope and pray we will succeed in that. I am honored to be a Member of this Senate--not the Roman Senate but this Senate. It is a great Senate, as the Presiding Officer is wont to remind us--the greatest since the Roman Senate. I believe, united as we are today, we can succeed in eliminating these modern-day terrorists who threaten our world, our prosperity, and our liberty. I am honored to have the opportunity to speak tonight, and I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, in the midst of the disaster we saw in New York, we had a number of images all of us will remember. One that will stick in my mind was as one of those great buildings was collapsing and the smoke and the dust and debris were barreling down the streets and people were running away, one of those people who was running was a fireman. As he got to a certain point, he slowed down, took off his hat and threw it as hard as he possibly could. That courageous professional at that moment knew hundreds, perhaps thousands, were dying in that building and he could not save them, that many of his friends and brother firemen had been there at the scene closer than he, inside the building, and that they would not make it out. It was a very poignant scene for me, and having been involved in some of these issues on the Judiciary Committee and as a Member of the Senate, I think it is important for each one of us to remember that in any terrorist attack, any really serious national disaster we have in this country, it will not be the Federal Government that is first on the scene. It will be our police officers and firemen, hundreds of whom we lost in New York City, doing what they were paid to do--respond to the scene, to give aid to those in distress, at the risk of their lives. Certainly the Biblical reference that ``Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends,'' applies to those people. We as a nation know we have problems with terrorism. We as a nation have heard people talk for days on television that we could be facing a chemical or biological attack or even a nuclear attack. We need to ask ourselves, and we have been asking ourselves in this Senate for some time, and I have been actively involved in this, how are we training those first responders who are there to react to that event. Each event is different. This event is different from a biological attack, a chemical poison gas attack would be different from a biological attack, and a nuclear attack would be different. And who knows what else could be conjured up in the minds of these diabolical people. It is important for this Nation to fulfill our obligation to those people we will be sending out to respond to these events, that they have the very best in equipment and the very best knowledge and training on how to handle each and every one of these events, each being different from the other. We have begun to make progress on that. I congratulate Senator Byrd, Senator Judd Gregg who chairs the relevant subcommittee, Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama, a member of the Appropriations Committee, and others who have over the past few years taken steps to establish programs to train those first responders, those firemen, those policemen, those emergency medical technicians. I am particularly interested in the Center for Domestic Preparedness at Anniston, AL, a center developed around 1997, 1998, where they are training 5,000 first responders from all over the country. That center is in the old Fort McClellan, the military base that was a chemical training school for the U.S. Army that had a cadre of people with expertise in chemical and biological issues, and it had live agent training forces for them. They had the barracks from the closed military base, places to stay, exercise rooms, and classrooms available. It was the perfect location to establish this center. It has done well. Just a few weeks before this tragedy occurred, I was very pleased to see we had a major increase in funding for that center, taking us now to $30 million for the year. Of the total of the perhaps $20 billion we spend on terrorism, maybe more in this country, it is very small. But that will allow us, if it becomes final law this year--and I hope it will, particularly after this tragic event--to train, instead of 5,000 first responders a year, 10,000 first responders a year. They will be able to deploy them around this country. In fact, many have already been trained. We have received great references from the people who have completed the training. The chiefs of police and firemen who sent their members to the school have bragged about the training they received. Indeed, New York has sent a lot of people there; 146 of New York police and firefighters have been trained as first responders and 226 in the Washington, DC, metro area have been so trained. We are making progress. I believe it is the right thing to do. At a time like this, we don't need to overreact. We don't need to do things that are not appropriate. But we need to coalesce all the information we have been gathering for a number of years that relates to the kind of attacks this Nation may face, take that information and make decisions about how to be better prepared. One of the most critical things we can say is every first responder, every firemen, every policemen, every emergency medical technician in the country needs to have been given by his or her Federal Government the best information we can give them when they are asked to put their lives on the line and respond to an attack. We have equipment and we need to make sure we can use the equipment to determine if it is a biological agent or chemical agent that may be distressing people in a certain area of town. We need to know that before we go in there. This is a matter about which I feel strongly. It is appropriate, as so many have, to pay the highest tribute to those people, particularly in New York City, who are at great risk of their lives, and many of whom lost their lives, responded to the care and protection of American citizens. We give great tribute to them. We also must give them the tools, the information, the training and equipment so they can be even better at protecting our citizens' lives and even better at protecting their own lives. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Chair. Our Nation will, I am confident, fulfill its role as the greatest nation in the world, defend its people and its territory, and bring justice to those who have damaged us. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I am honored to have the opportunity to say a few words today after the most terrible tragedy that we suffered yesterday. It was a dastardly attack on our Nation that has occasioned the greatest loss of life domestically I suppose in our Nation's history--men, women, and children, police, firemen, soldiers, and all of the families and friends will be with us on this Earth no more. Our hearts go out to those who suffered pain and injury. Our hearts go out to the families and friends who are grieving tonight. All over America, this great Nation hurts. My own church, just for example, the Ashland Place United Methodist Church, had a time of prayer yesterday for our families, our Nation, and its leaders. That is happening all over this country. As President Bush said, prayer is an important factor in providing this Nation strength. We must ask ourselves: Now what can we do? What are our possibilities? I believe we can do a better job of preventing these events. Our techniques work for some time, but after a period of time people learn how to get around them. We can improve that. We can do a very good job of identifying the people who commit these crimes. Second, in almost every single terrorist act that has involved the United States, this Nation has been able to identify the people who were behind it. Third, we can take steps at which we have not been so successful; that is, taking action against the people who perpetrate these horrible acts. We have been, to some degree I think, handicapped by seeing these events in terms of our criminal justice system. As a Federal prosecutor, I know about the difficulties that have to be overcome to prosecute a person and convict them beyond a reasonable doubt. You don't have that burden when you are in war. We are in war today, or at least much closer to war than we are to a criminal justice case. Thinking in terms of war will give us more freedom, once we identify who the people are, to act effectively against them. Locating them, however, is a difficult problem. We can identify them, but where are they at a given time? I believe it was Branch Rickey who said: Luck is merely the residue of design. As a prosecutor, I know in investigating cases you have to have some luck, but you won't have luck if you are not out there working. You will not have the break in the case that identifies where these people are until and unless you are out there shaking that tree, doing everything possible throughout this world to identify where they are. Then you make your luck. So that is what we have to do with regard to locating these people. And make no mistake, I am absolutely confident that, if we remain steadfast and determined, we will locate these people. Then we have to develop a plan to apprehend or destroy them. We have to trace them back to their lairs and make sure they are no longer capable of inflicting this kind of death and destruction on this Nation or the world. The Romans, a number of years ago, in the Mithridatic wars faced this problem. The pirates had grown in strength. They were all over the Mediterranean. There were tens of thousands of them. Shipping was threatened very seriously. They had to face a decision; and they made that decision. According to ``Appian's Roman History'' this is what happened: When the Romans could no longer endure the damage and disgrace they made Gnaeus Pompey, who was then their man of greatest reputation, commander by law for three years, with absolute power over the whole sea within the Pillars of Hercules, and of the land for a distance of 400 stades from the coast. They sent letters to all kings, rulers, peoples and cities, that they should aid Pompey in all ways. They gave him power to raise troops and to collect money from the provinces. . . . And they raised an army. And they developed a plan. They set about to execute that plan, and it was a brilliant plan. They killed 10,000 of the pirates, and the rest surrendered. It was the end, and it broke the back of this kind of activity. We have a similar time today. We simply have to be determined. We have to remember the friends that have been lost. And I, too, as Senator Gramm, remember, with so much sadness, Barbara Olson, such a wonderful, vivacious person who loved life and gave herself to it. It is just a tragedy that she will not be with us, one who worked in this Senate as a staffer. So all of us have those whom we have lost. In conclusion, every single person, every group, every organization, every nation must know that if they perpetrate an attack on the United States, or they support those who attack the United States, they will pay a cost far more than their gain. Those individuals and groups must be hounded to their lairs and destroyed. We simply cannot tolerate this kind of activity in the future. Only in this way can we ensure that the lives lost yesterday will be given their full meaning. And only in this way can we prevent further attacks on this Nation. Because to fail to act effectively we will everywhere encourage more groups to attack this great Nation. And a great nation never encourages attacks upon itself but discourages attacks upon itself.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise today to encourage my colleagues to expedite the nomination of John Walters to be Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, ONDCP. We continue to be faced with a major drug problem in America. Drugs are easily available and kids are using them. While I believe that we must address the supply of drugs coming into this country, I believe that true achievement can only come from within our Nation. We must decrease the demand for drugs in America before our efforts to stop the flow of drugs can gain any measure of success. The real challenge is developing a multifaceted approach to move us down the road to substantial reduction in drug use. According to the University of Michigan, ``Monitoring the Future'' survey, that has tested students for 20 years, for 12 years under the Reagan and Bush administrations, drug use went down every single year. (University of Michigan, ``Monitoring the Future Study,'' 1999.) This was done through a commitment to energizing our Nation as a whole against this threat. Parents, educators, law enforcement officials, business and community leaders, and the media were all enlisted to create a climate of intolerance. As a Federal prosecutor in Mobile, AL, during these years, I am proud to say that I participated in this effort. Unfortunately, when the Clinton-Gore administration took office, things began to change. When President Clinton appeared on MTV and joked about whether or not he inhaled marijuana by saying ``Maybe I wish I had,'' he began to erode the leadership by example that is the crucial first step in the war against drugs. When President Clinton nominated people who did not carry out a tough drug policy this further weakened the message to our children and to drug criminals regarding the importance of the war on drugs. After taking office, the Clinton-Gore Administration all but eliminated the Drug Czar's office, slashing the number of employees from 146 to 25. It is not a surprise that the same University of Michigan study that showed the gains we made during the Reagan-Bush years, showed that drug use had steadily risen among our youth during the Clinton-Gore years. According to the Monitoring the Future Study, since 1992: overall drug use among 10th graders increased 55 percent. Marijuana and hashish use among 10th graders increased 91 percent; heroin use among 10th graders increased 92 percent; cocaine use among 10th graders increased 133 percent. Except for a slight decline in 2000, drug use generally increased during the Clinton-Gore administration. If we are going to make real progress in combating drug use in America, we must return to the key concepts of leadership by example, tough law enforcement initiatives, and community involvement. We must also ensure that Federal Government programs that are meant to combat drug use really do work. There are those in this body who have advocated spending hundreds of millions of dollars on increased drug treatment. Treatment is very valuable, but don't we get more for our money if we prevent individuals from using and becoming addicted to drugs in the first place. President Bush has made a commitment to reducing drug abuse in America. In order to achieve this goal he has nominated a strong candidate in Mr. Walters. I believe that Mr. Walters will provide the strong leadership we so desperately need. President Bush's approach will focus on reducing the demand for drugs through effective education, prevention, treatment, and law enforcement. President Bush has nominated Mr. Walters for this position because he is an experienced leader in reducing the demand for and supply of drugs. John Walters was indeed a major catalyst for the successes achieved during the Reagan-Bush years. Indeed during his tenure as Assistant to our Drug Czar, Bill Bennett, America saw a marked and dramatic reduction in drug use. The war on drugs was not a failure, it was one success after another. Some members of the press have focused on Mr. Walters experience in interdiction and law enforcement, but he actually started in public service at the Department of Education, specializing in drug abuse prevention, including writing and taking a lead on the ``Schools Without Drugs'' prevention and education program. Mr. Walters went on to serve as the ONDCP chief of staff in the first Bush administration and later was confirmed by the Senate as deputy director. We achieved some of our greatest victories under his watch. It is obvious he has the qualifications and experience for the job. William Bennett, the former director of ONDCP and Mr. Walters former boss while he was at the agency, has said ``John is the best person for the job. He is one of the three or four most knowledgeable people about the issue and he has a deep passion about the job of stopping illegal drugs.'' Now more than ever we need strong leadership. The Director of ONDCP coordinates all Federal anti-drug efforts, but it is also important that the Director work more effectively to support State and local efforts. President Bush's plan stresses this aspect. Let me give you an example of the crisis we face. Last year a study was released by the National Center for Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University. According to the study, adolescents in small- town and rural America are much more likely than their peers in urban areas to have used drugs. The study reports that 8th-graders in rural areas are 104 percent likelier than those in big cities to use amphetamines, including methamphetamines, and 50 percent likelier to use cocaine. Law enforcement officials in Alabama have come to me with major concerns about increased drug use and trafficking in the rural parts of the South, particularly an alarming rise in Methamphetamine use and production. We must take steps to reverse this alarming trend. We need solid leadership at the Office of National Drug Control Policy to address this issue. One area were Mr. Walters can have a major impact on this problem is in regards to the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area or HIDTA program. The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 authorized the Director of ONDCP to designate areas within the United States which exhibit serious drug trafficking problems and harmfully impact other areas of the country as High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas. The HIDTA program provides additional Federal funds to those areas to help eliminate or reduce drug trafficking and its harmful consequences. The program enhances and coordinates drug control efforts among local, State, and Federal law enforcement agencies. The House and Senate Appropriations Committees have passed increases for the HIDTA program in both versions of the Treasury Postal Appropriations bills. Much of these funds will be left to the discretion of the director of ONDCP. We need immediate, strong, and competent leadership at ONDCP to ensure that issues like this are properly addressed. The funding must flow to the areas with the most need, where law enforcement can make a real difference. Mr. Walters has the knowledge and expertise to make these types of important decisions. Mr. Walters can also provide strong leadership in our overall Federal efforts. Our Federal campaign against drugs is spread over a number of agencies, including the Justice, Treasury, and Defense Departments. We need strong leadership to ensure that these efforts are coordinated. I have become concerned in recent months that perhaps some of these agencies efforts have become repetitive. I have requested that the GAO study these efforts to ensure that is not happening. Mr. Walters has the expertise to take a close look at all our efforts to ensure that our dollars are being sent wisely. I believe we can make a real difference in the problems with drugs in America. Under President Bush and Mr. Walters leadership, I know we can send a clear message to our youth that drugs use is dangerous and just plain wrong. We can also send a clear message to drug dealers, that there activities will not be tolerated. I urge my colleagues to move toward confirmation of John Walters nomination. This is not an area where we can afford to delay.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I served on the subcommittee on oversight effort on the FBI and the Department of Justice. I thought if the American people had seen that, they would have known that he was committed to getting to the truth, as he is always, and that there was, indeed, vigorous oversight at least with regard to those aspects of the FBI and the Department of Justice. Nobody is perfect. Everybody makes mistakes. But it is our duty to ask tough questions and insist on excellence. I am a big fan of the FBI, but they are not perfect. I am a big fan of the Department of Justice, but they are not perfect. Senator Grassley and Senator Specter have been tough on them and demanded excellence, and I respect that. I think it is very healthy. I believe that Bob Meuller, who I knew at the Department of Justice for many years, is a professional's professional, who is a tough leader with the kinds of insight into the FBI's strengths and weaknesses that would allow him to have a unique opportunity to make a positive change.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, we do a lot of things here that are controversial and get headlines. But oftentimes we do things that are bipartisan, that are complex and technical. Working together, we accomplish things that are good for the country. The legislation I have introduced tonight, along with Senator Jeff Bingaman from New Mexico, is that kind of legislation. It is supported by 27 different farm and veterinary medicine groups. It is called the Minor Use and Minor Species Animal Health Act. It deals with a problem that, unfortunately, goes largely unnoticed, except by those who are directly affected. Livestock and food animal producers, pet owners, zoo and wildlife biologists, and animals themselves face a severe shortage of approved animal drugs for use in minor species. Minor species include thousands of animal species, including all fish, birds, and sheep. By definition, minor species are any animals other than the major species, which are cattle, horses, chickens, turkeys, dogs, and cats. A similar shortage of drugs and medicines for major animal species exists for diseases that occur infrequently or which occur in limited geographical areas. Due to the lack of availability for these minor use drugs, millions of animals go untreated or treatment is delayed. Without access to these necessary minor use drugs, farmers and ranchers also suffer. An unhealthy animal that is left untreated can spread disease throughout an entire herd. For example, sheep ranchers lost nearly $45 million worth of livestock in 1999 alone. The sheep industry estimates if it had access to effective and necessary drugs to treat diseases, growers' reproduction costs for their animals would be cut by up to 15 percent. In addition, feedlot deaths would be reduced by 1 to 2 percent, adding approximately $8 million of revenue to the industry. Alabama's catfish industry ranks second in the Nation. Though it is not the State's only aquacultural commodity, catfish is by far its largest. Indeed, catfish make up 68 percent of the Nation's aquacultural industry. That industry generates enormous opportunities in the poorest part of Alabama, and it is necessary that it be a strong industry. The catfish industry estimates its losses at $60 million per year attributable to diseases for which drugs are not available. Indeed, it is not uncommon for a catfish producer to lose half his stock to disease. The U.S. aquacultural industry overall, including food fish and ornamental fish, produces and raises over 800 different species. Unfortunately, this industry has only five drugs approved for use in treating aquacultural diseases. This results in economic hardship. The problem is simply this: A drug company must go through a long research program to develop a drug. Then the company has to seek approval for the drug. The company simply is financially unable to do so because there are not many animals for which the product will be used. It makes it difficult for them to do the investment. I, along with Senators Bingaman, Allard, and Collins, resolve to improve this situation by introducing the Minor Use and Minor Species Animal Health Act. The legislation will allow animal drug manufacturers the opportunity to develop and obtain approval for minor use drugs which are vitally needed by a wide variety of animal industries. Our legislation incorporates the major proposals of the Food and Drug Administration's Center for Veterinary Medicine to increase the availability of drugs for minor animal species and rare diseases in all animals. The act creates incentives for animal drug manufacturers to invest in product development and obtain FDA approval. The legislation creates a program very similar to the human orphan drug program that has dramatically increased the availability of drugs to treat rare human diseases over the past 20 years. The Minor Use and Minor Species Animal Health Act will not alter, however, the FDA drug approval responsibilities that ensure the safety of animal drugs to the public. The FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine currently evaluates new animal products prior to approval and use. This rigorous testing and review process provides consumers with the confidence that animal drugs are safe for animals and consumers of products derived from treated animals. Current FDA requirements include guidelines to prevent harmful residues and evaluations to examine the potential for the selection of resistant pathogens. Any food animal medicine or drug considered for approval under this bill would be subject to the same assessments. The Minor Use and Minor Species Animal Health Act is supported by 25 organizations, including the American Farm Bureau Federation, the Animal Health Institute, the American Veterinary Medical Association, and the National Aquaculture Association. This is vital, important legislation. The act will reduce the economic risks and hardships which fall upon ranchers and farmers as a result of livestock diseases. It will benefit pets and their owners and benefit various endangered species and aquatic animals. It will promote the health of all animal species while protecting human health as well, and will alleviate unnecessary animal suffering. This is commonsense legislation which would benefit millions of American pet owners, farmers, and ranchers. I believe it represents a consensus effort on which we worked hard. Mary Alice Tyson, on my staff, and other staff members have worked hard on it. I believe it is an act that will gain universal support in the Senate, will be a step forward, and something good we can do to help animals and the producers of animals in America.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I yield my 1 hour postcloture debate to the Republican leader.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his comments. We have made some progress. There were some objections last week and some concerns about not moving. The Democratic leadership moved 50 or more. But we still have 150, and we are coming up on the August recess. That is all we are saying.

Mr. SESSIONS. If we don't get moving now, we are not going to be able to finish by August with many confirmed. That will get us even further behind. We are going to have a flood of nominations that haven't even come in yet. I am frustrated, as a former U.S. attorney, that no U.S. attorney nominees have even been made. I guess the President deserves blame for that. Maybe the FBI is working the other nominees and can't get the backgrounds on them, or whatever. The Senator from Nevada said perhaps they are terrified that they will nominate somebody who will have a black mark on their record and the administration will be embarrassed. But I think all we are asking is let's give an intensity of interest to it. Let's give it our best shot before we recess in August to make sure that the backgrounds have been done on every one of these nominees so they are ready to go forward. The committees have to have some hearings. I know they are busy. We have been having hearings in the Judiciary on the FBI and DEA nominees, but we haven't had but three judges come out of Judiciary in 7 months, and none have been confirmed. We have to speed up a little bit. That is what we are asking. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity just to say a few words. I thank Senator Reid for his leadership and effort to move the legislation that has been moving forward pretty well so far. I think this side has certainly been cooperative. We have not had anything like the 100-plus amendments that we had when this side was trying to move bills last year. We have been very cooperative. There is a real concern that this administration, as it gets itself into office facing all kinds of challenges, needs to get its people on board as soon as possible. We are now entering the seventh month of President Bush's administration. Maybe 15 percent of his term has been used up, and we now have 150 nominees who have not been confirmed. Maybe there will be some objections to some and they will need some scrutiny, but most of them are nominations which, if called up and are voted upon on the floor, are going to pass virtually unanimously. These are good men and women who have left their jobs and careers. They are committed to public service for a period of time. We need to give them an up-or-down vote. I think we need to set a higher standard than we have done before. I do not object to a Senator who has a concern over a nominee to raise that concern, to highlight the problem, to ask questions, even delay a nominee. But when we have a nominee nobody objects to--and this is true of the overwhelming majority of the 150 or so--we believe they ought to be moving forward promptly. That is why we are at loggerheads a little bit here. There are some strong feelings that we need a good, firm commitment we will move these nominations before we leave in August for a month away because then we will come back with all kinds of things and it will be September with appropriations bills and there will be other issues and it will be harder than ever to get up nominations. Even more of them will be in the system by then, having been submitted by the President. It is going to be a big problem if we do not move promptly. I think this is a reasonable request. I know Senator Reid, Senator Daschle and others, have indicated they will make some progress, but we are not confident we have made a strong enough determination and commitment at this point in time to ensure those nominees move forward. I hope maybe this cloture motion can be vitiated and we will be able to reach accord and move forward, but I just want to say for the record that the matter is very serious. We have probably taken too long to move nominations as we go forward. I think the ones that have little or no objection certainly ought to be moved forward.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to an outstanding representative of Alabama State, Larry G. Hornsby, CRNA, BSN. Mr. Hornsby will soon complete his year as national president of the American Association of Nurse Anesthetists, AANA. I am very pleased that one of Alabama's own was tapped as the 2000-2001 president of this prestigious national organization. The AANA is the professional organization that represents more than 28,000 practicing Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists, CRNAs. Founded in 1931, the AANA is the professional association representing CRNAs nationwide. As you may know, CRNAs administer more than 65 percent of the anesthetics given to patients each year in the United States. CRNAs provide anesthesia for all types of surgical cases and are the sole anesthesia provider in \2/3\ of all rural hospitals, affording these medical facilities obstetrical, surgical and trauma stabilization capabilities. They work in every setting in which anesthesia is delivered including hospital surgical suites and obstetrical delivery rooms, ambulatory surgical centers, and the offices of dentists, podiatrists, and the plastic surgeons. Larry received his nurse anesthesia education at the University of Alabama, Birmingham, where he also earned his bachelor's of science and nursing degrees. He is currently president of Anesthesia Professionals, Inc., in Montgomery, AL, and Anesthesia Resources Management, Inc., in Birmingham, AL. Mr. Hornsby has held various leadership positions in the AANA as regional director, vice president, and president-elect before becoming the national president of AANA in 2000. Also, Larry has served terms as president and vice president for the Alabama Association of Nurse Anesthetists, and has chaired the Government Relations and the Educational District Six committees. In addition to his service to the AANA, Mr. Hornsby sits on the Alabama Board of Nursing Advisory Council to the Nursing Practice/ Discipline Committee and was a representative to the State of Alabama Commission on Nursing. Adding to his professional accomplishments, Mr. Hornsby has become a nationally recognized speaker on anesthesia- related topics over the years. Even with his time commitments to the AANA and in his profession as a CRNA, Larry still manages time for his second passion, to fish for bass in the rivers of Alabama. As a bassmaster, Mr. Hornsby was president of the Capital City Bassmasters in Montgomery, AL between 1987-1997. I ask my colleagues to join me today in recognizing Mr. Larry G. Hornsby, CRNA, BSN, for his notable career and outstanding achievements.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I appreciate the opportunity to make some remarks about our bankruptcy bill that is now back before the Senate again. It is a bill that has been fought over, debated, improved, refined, changed and, I think, gained greater and greater support as we have proceeded. I know there are some people who remain very emotionally in objection to it, but when analyzed carefully and the provisions in it examined, there is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that this bill is a major step forward for bankruptcy procedure in America. Let me say what bankruptcy is and what it is not and what the bill is about. Bankruptcy occurs when an individual in America may be being sued and they can't pay their debt. The bill collectors are calling and their income just won't pay their debts. So they can go and file in a Federal bankruptcy court for relief under the bankruptcy laws. They can file under chapter 13, which says to the court, basically, I believe I can pay my debt back, but I can't live and be sued, have creditors calling me at home and that sort of thing. I will take a portion of my money. I will send it off to the bankruptcy court. You pay all my creditors in an orderly fashion, make sure they get paid, but keep them from suing me, harassing me, and bothering me, and then I will be able to recover and get back on my feet. That occurs a lot. In some States it is very small. In some States only 5 percent of the individuals file under chapter 13. Other States, it is much higher. In my State of Alabama, where chapter 13 originated, the number is almost 50 percent of the filers--I believe it is 50 percent--in some parts of the districts that file under chapter 13. They find it has great advantages. They are able to keep their automobile, for example. They are able to keep their home, keep more of their goods and services. It allows them to stretch out payments, to reduce the interest rates. Normally, the interest rates drop down to zero or whatever, and then they pay it off on a regular basis. It stops the harassment that comes when people legitimately are trying to collect the money the individual owes to them. That is a good system. Too few people utilize chapter 13. It has some good advantages for themselves, not just for the people they are paying off. It has real advantages for them. The other process which is more widely used is to file under chapter 7. You are in debt. You go down to the bankruptcy court and it wipes out all your debts. The debts are wiped out. Then the person is able to start afresh and not owe anybody. That is the common thing. It is the traditional great American value. It is referred to in the Constitution that the United States shall establish uniform laws for bankruptcy. It has always been thought of as something we would do in the Federal Government. Bankruptcy laws are handled in Federal courts, and, therefore, to improve them, unlike most collection cases, unlike most criminal cases that are in State courts, these are in a separate Federal court. It is important, since the last 1978 bill that passed, that Congress study what has been happening with bankruptcy and see what we can do to improve it. That is what has occurred here. It is not unexpected that people who are dealing in bankruptcy every day and see how the system works would be people who would have some concerns about it and be able to make suggestions about how to improve it. First and foremost, it ought to be a high value of America that those who incur debt should pay it back if they can. We do not need to get to a point in this society when people can borrow money from someone, promising to pay them back, and just not do so for light or insignificant reasons. Let me mention the bankruptcy filing issue. We have had a tremendous number of filings. In 1980, 2 years after the new bankruptcy act passed, there were just 287,000 bankruptcy filings. By 1999, 19 years later, the bankruptcy filings had jumped to 1.3 million a year, a 347- percent increase. How did that happen? There are a lot of reasons for it. I suggest that a major factor for it is when you turn on your television at night on a cable station, or pick up your shoppers guide, there are advertisements and there are even billboards with lawyers saying: If you have got debt problems, call me and we will wipe them out. People call them. The lawyers don't get paid unless they take you to court and file for bankruptcy. So there is an incentive there to do that. I want to mention something. In this 1998-99 period, we were in a very strong economy. Yet we reached the highest point of filings in history. This chart is a little bit out of date. It shows a drop in 1999. Around 2000, it has gone back up. But the numbers are much higher--maybe 3, 4 times what they were 20 years ago. We know we have a problem. Everybody knows that. I believe we can do something good for America. Let me say this: After all the debate, we had a number of votes on this matter and had strong support each time. It is bizarre to me--and I came here in 1997--how hard it is to get a piece of legislation passed. The procedural posture of this bill is interesting. In 1998, the House passed a bankruptcy bill, and all of these are fundamentally similar to what we have today. It passed in the House 306-118. It passed the Senate 97-1. In 1999, it came back, and I think we recessed or something and we never got it to the President to have him sign it into law. In 1999, it passed 313-108. In 2000, it passed the Senate 83-14. In the House, in 2000, it passed by a voice vote. It passed in the Senate 70-28 in 2000. In the year 2001, we came back again and the House passed it 306-108, and the Senate passed it 83-15. It still hasn't become law. How did this happen? At any rate, we are now moving to a point where we are going to make this happen. We have discussed and debated these issues, and we are excited now that we can perhaps see an end to this and have some real reform. Let me mention one thing the bill does, which I think is significant. The bill provides that before you can go into bankruptcy court, you must at least inquire with a credit counseling agency, if there is one available in the community. The bankruptcy judge can certify if there is not one and would excuse this requirement. But most communities-- virtually all of them--have a credit counseling agency. That agency is a voluntary group you can go to and discuss with them your debt situation and whether or not you have a chance to work your way out of it. They are very good with families. They bring in the mother, father, and sometimes the children, and they sit around the table and they discuss what is going on in the family's budget. They call up this washing machine company that you have a debt with, or the bank, or the credit card company, and they say: We are a credit counseling company and we are licensed. This family is in trouble financially. If you will reduce the required payments, reduce your interest, we will commit to you to work with them and see that you get paid so much a month, and in a year, 2 years, 3 years, we will have you paid off. They may even ask them to reduce the amount owed. They may owe you $5,000 and there is no way they can pay that. They might say: They are thinking about bankruptcy. If you will agree to reduce your debt to $3,000, I believe they will pay you all of that. Sometimes these people do that. Sometimes they work out a budget and they teach the family how to get out of debt and get on their feet and start their lives again. That is a very good thing. My friends in the bankruptcy bar don't do that. When people go to them in response to their ads on television, they go in and talk to them and they say: You have enough debt; we ought to file chapter 7 and wipe this debt out. So the debt is wiped out, but nothing has been done to deal with the problem in that family that may have caused the debt to begin with. Sometimes there is a gambling addiction, a drug or alcohol problem, and sometimes there are illnesses and problems that maybe this credit counseling agency can help them get help for. Our bill says before you can file for bankruptcy, you have to at least talk to a credit counseling agency and see if they might have a plan for the debtor that might be better than simply filing bankruptcy. I think a lot of people would choose that option. I don't know how many. It may be 2 percent or it may be 10 percent. But if they know about that option, they will find it will be something good for them to do. We should consider that. Now, my friend from Minnesota is very aggressive about this bill. He is emotional about this bill. He says two different things. He says, well, only 3 percent of the people will qualify for this thing, so the bill should not pass. Then he says that everybody is going to have their bankruptcy protections eliminated and it is a harsh bill. Let's talk about the core matter within the bill. The core part of the bill says if you make above median income in America--which is around $45,000 for a family of four--and you are able to pay back a certain percentage of the debt that you owe, you ought not to go into chapter 7 and wipe out all those debts. You ought to be required to go into chapter 13 and pay back the portion of those debts that you can-- but under the court's protection, so nobody can sue you for debts and you can't receive phone calls and you are protected from harassment, but you pay the debt back. It is our view that if you can pay some of your debt, you should do that. I think that is just and fair. I don't think the Federal bankruptcy law was ever conceived to create a situation in which a person can simply, routinely go in and file and wipe out all their debts, even though they can pay them back. We have story after story of doctors and lawyers making $100,000-plus per year going in and wiping out all their debts and keeping right on with the salary they were making. I don't believe that is justice. I don't believe that is right. I believe we have a right and a responsibility to say if you can pay back some of that debt, you should do that. How many people will be covered by that? I don't know. Maybe 10 percent, or less probably. But 90 percent of the people, because they will be making below median income, will be able to file in bankruptcy just like they do today with very little change. So this catches only what I would say are the abuses. Senator Wellstone said it is 3 percent. Maybe it is only 3 percent who make above median income. If so, only they will be affected. Even then, if your debts are large enough, you will be able to stay in chapter 7 and wipe them out if the court finds you can't pay them. But if you are making $150,000 and you owe your neighbors and the bank and the hospital a total of $150,000, most people would try to work and pay those debts down in some fashion. But why should a person making that kind of income just wipe them all out? This would say you would go to the court and you have to submit a plan. The court will put you into chapter 13, and the court may say you ought to be able to pay half of those bills, and you will pay them out on a monthly basis over 3, 4, 5 years, and nobody can sue you, nobody can call you at night and harass you. They will take care of the payment of the debt. You simply have to set aside a certain amount of your money. You can't throw it all away and wipe out debts that you owe. It is true that a lot of people go into bankruptcy because of medical debt, hospital debt, and things of that nature. They didn't have insurance and they owe a lot of money for debts. Well, hospitals are not evil people. They are good institutions. Presumably, they supplied a need that they gave somebody health care and treatment and an operation and surgery, and whatever they needed, or fixed their legs that were broken, or whatever. So are we to say just because it is a hospital debt and you have the money to pay them and you make above median income, that we should never pay a hospital debt? What kind of thinking is that? We have this growing mentality in America today. It is--I do not know how to describe it, but it reflects a rejection of enforcement of contracts and laws and plain meaning of words. We have this deal where one has an obligation to pay if one can--I think people should pay--but if you are not able to and you make below median income, you will be able to wipe out all the debts just as in current law today. A lot of complaints have been made that families will be impacted and that this will be damaging to them. It has been said that the bill is incredibly harsh; that debtors file for bankruptcy for survival, and many do, and that this bill will stop all of that. I do not think that is correct. It was said this bill will eviscerate a major safety net in this economy for middle America. Let me tell you who benefits from this. Women and children benefit from this. Under the bankruptcy bill, deadbeat dads with above-median income and a moderate ability to repay debts will be required to enter chapter 13, just as I noted, supervised by a bankruptcy judge for 5 years. The deadbeat dads must pay all past due alimony and child support before the bankruptcy judge will confirm the 5-year plan. This Federal judge will make sure that alimony and child support are paid and paid first, ahead of the debts. Under current Federal law in bankruptcy--and if we reject this bill, we will stay under current law--under current Federal law, child support and alimony payments rank seventh in the list of priority debts to be paid off in a bankruptcy proceeding. Incidentally, attorney's fees are now No. 1. This bankruptcy reform bill, on the other hand, reorganizes the priorities in a way that makes sense. Women and children come out to be No. 1 every time. This new priority list elevates child support and alimony payments to the top priority ensuring that those payments are made before any others, even above attorney's fees. That is a historic step forward for women and children in America. Why anyone who claims to want to benefit children to further child support payments would want to kill this bill is beyond me. It provides an automatic stay which is a trick some debtors have been using to get out of paying child support payments after they file for bankruptcy. In bankruptcy, they are given an automatic stay. That means the child support collection agencies that were trying to sue them for child support have to stop their lawsuit when a bankruptcy is filed. That is one of the principles of bankruptcy. Once a bankrupt files, every litigation against that bankrupt is stayed and is brought into the bankruptcy court, not the State courts unconsolidated, so the bankrupt can get his life together and not be sued in every county and State where he owes money. It is a good thing, but that stay can be abused when it comes to child support. This legislation ends that practice by exempting child support and alimony support obligations from the automatic stay. They have to continue to pay and the lawyer or the State child support agency that is seeking to collect child support on behalf of a mother and children will be able to continue their efforts to collect the money, even though the deadbeat dad has filed for bankruptcy. What about past due alimony and child support? The bill requires that a parent filing for bankruptcy must fulfill both their current and past due child support and alimony obligations before a judge can confirm a bankruptcy plan. They will ensure that the custodial parent gets effective and timely assistance from child support collection agencies by requesting the bankruptcy trustee and administrator to notify the parent and the State child support collection agency whenever a debtor owing child support or alimony files for bankruptcy. This notice will provide vital timely information to the custodial parent so that he or she can request help from the State child support enforcement agency if they desire. What does all this mean? Jonathon Burris, of the California Family Support Council, put it in an open letter to Congress: The provisions included in this bill are ``a veritable wish list of provisions which substantially enhances our efforts to enforce support debts when a debtor has other creditors who are also seeking participation in the distribution of the assets of a debtor's bankrupt estate.'' In addition, Philip Strauss of the district attorney's Family Support Bureau--and most district attorneys around the country have as one of their obligations collecting child support on behalf of indigent spouses and children--wrote to the Judiciary Committee to express his unqualified support for the bill. He notes that he has been in the business of collecting child support for 27 years. He knows what he is talking about. Mr. Strauss notes that the National Child Support Enforcement Association, the National District Attorneys Association, and the Western Interstate Child Support Enforcement Council support his views and support this bill. I think that should put to rest any allegation that somehow we are abusing children in this legislation, that somehow it is harsh and not actually beneficial to them. When a parent who is not paying child support and makes above-median income is forced into chapter 13 for 5 years, they are under a Federal judge's watch and order that entire time. During that 5 years, they have to send their money for child support or they can be held in contempt of court by the bankruptcy judge or have their bankruptcy benefits all thrown out. That to me is a benefit for families and children that is little understood. There has been a lot of talk about credit cards. Remember, our bill focuses on how to process bankruptcy cases in bankruptcy courts. What kinds of notices that go on credit cards, how they declare their interest, what kinds of rules should cover them is a banking matter that is covered by an entirely different committee of this Congress, the Banking Committee. The chairman of the Banking Committee has agreed to allow some provisions to be put in this bill, but he asserts his prerogative and the Banking Committee's prerogative, and has done so, to handle any major reform of credit card laws. That is not what we are about in this legislation. This is bankruptcy court reform. It is not to reform all problems of credit in America, although we have some, and I am sure we will make progress on them. I inquire, Madam President, about the time.

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

Mr. SESSIONS. No. I think we are here on bankruptcy and are glad to go forward.

Mr. SESSIONS. Somebody else is going to be replacing me. The Senator can go right ahead. I thank the Senator for his courtesy, as always.

Mr. SESSIONS. I will be returning later.

Mr. SESSIONS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I know Senator Shelby travels throughout Alabama every year in every county, as do I. When we do so, we learn something about the State. As a kid going into Birmingham, I saw the Vulcan statue, the symbol for the steel city of Birmingham. It is a preeminent symbol of Alabama, and there will be no other statue in the State with as much prominence. With the local citizens raising $10 million, with my support and certainly that of Senator Shelby, the contribution from the Federal Government will help complete this historical renovation and restoration. It is a good use of the money, in my opinion as a Senator from Alabama. It is a good priority use of money for historic development. I oppose the McCain amendment.