Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Republican leader and the Democratic leader and others for their kind comments about Gary Sisco. In short, he is one of the finest people I know. He served the Senate with great integrity, ability, and fidelity. He has a wonderful family, high personal values, the kind of person you like to know, like to call your friend, you want to have in your home. He has served so well, and he leaves with grace and style quite in harmony with his whole lifestyle. I thank Senator Lott for raising this point, and I join in his compliments.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, will the majority leader yield for 1 minute to comment on Mr. Sisco?

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I will just say that I believe the President has submitted a scaled-down, fair, and reasonable proposal-- too scaled down, frankly. It ought to have satisfied those who would object. Unfortunately, it has not. We have had to have this debate. And though it is healthy to have the debate, I am confident that the amendment will be defeated and that this small production area will be opened for the benefit of American taxpayers and the American economy. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, this is a very serious national issue. It is not a Florida issue in any strict legal sense at all. I used to be the U.S. attorney and represented the Federal Government. I know that these Federal waters are 260 miles away from Tampa, FL. It is a Federal decision about whether to lease it and produce oil and gas from it. As a resident of Mobile, AL, which is right here at the tip of OCS central planning area, I am pretty familiar with the facts in this case and what happens. Frankly, I have to say I am a little bit disappointed. The President of the United States, in my view, made a mistake when he cut back huge portions of this lease that is on that map to accommodate and appease the political leaders in Florida. What did he get? They still opposed the sale and are still opposing it right on this floor. Yet this map shows a dotted line from my hometown of Mobile, AL, over to Tampa, FL. I wonder if anybody knows what those dotted lines reflect. They reflect a pipeline. That pipeline is being built at this moment. It started in June. The pipeline is to take natural gas produced in the western gulf to Tampa, FL, and to south Florida to meet their surging demands for natural gas. Yet when it comes time for them to go along with a national goal of producing natural gas way out in the Gulf of Mexico, far from where you can see it from land, they say: Oh, no. We can never allow that to happen. They have fought it natural gas production consistently. I am really concerned about this position. We have natural gas here in the Gulf of Mexico. It is being produced off the shores of Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas. Now they want to transport that gas over to Florida. What is that going to do to the price of natural gas for the homeowners in Alabama and electricity users in Alabama? They are going to bid it up. This demand on the limited supply in the western Gulf of Mexico is going to drive up the price of natural gas for the people in Alabama; and, at the same time, Florida refuses to allow any production in Federal waters 100 or more miles from their shore. This is a national issue. One reason, in my view, we have an economic slowdown--and I do not think anybody can dispute it--is an increase in energy prices. Fifty-seven percent of our fossil fuels comes from outside the country. And that amount is growing. What does that mean? What it means is, American wealth is going overseas to Saudi Arabia, to Venezuela, to Iraq and other foreign countries, to pay for oil and gas that we have right here off our coast. Whom do we pay when we produce it here? We pay us. We pay the United States. We keep American wealth. The oil companies agreed to pay $136 million just for the right to bid on this property and are projected to pay $70 million, at least, per year of royalty. More than that will probably go into the Treasury. A big chunk of offshore royalty goes to the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The Land and Water Conservation Fund funds the purchase of parks and recreation areas, estuaries, and to protect environmentally sensitive areas that need to be preserved. So the question is really simple for Americans: Whom are we going to pay? Are we going to transfer our wealth overseas? Keep it within the United States? Or are we going to send it abroad? Make no mistake, people act as if the price of energy makes no difference. But when a family had a $100-a-month gasoline bill several years ago, and now has a $150-a-month gasoline bill, they have $50 less per month to spend for things their family needs. It is right out of their pocket. When that $50--or a big portion of it--is sent over to Saudi Arabia or Iraq and Saddam Hussein, for their oil and gas, we are not helping America. Let me tell you, we do not just have oil and gas wells off the Alabama, Mississippi, Texas, and Louisiana coast 100 miles away, we have them right up in Mobile Bay, in some instances less than a mile from homes. I drove over to Gulf Shores right near Pensacola this Saturday to visit my brother-in-law, and he was there with his grandson. They were so proud. They had a picture of a 40-pound ling, a great fish. Where did they catch it? Under an oil rig about 1 mile off the gulf shore's coast--1 mile. We have never had a problem with these oil and gas wells. Offshore oil and gas production in state waters has helped to generate for the State of Alabama a trust fund of $2 billion. The interest on that fund contributes over 10 percent of our general fund budget on an annual basis. America has benefited from that. That supply has allowed American money to stay in Alabama and the producing States and not to go off to Saudi Arabia. It has helped to build wealth in America as a whole. You may say: You just want the money for Alabama. The truth is, Alabama is not going to get a dime out of this lease except as any other State would under the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The proposed lease sale is in Federal waters. It is not in State waters. But we have produced oil in State waters right off the beaches, right in the bay here, and we have had no problems. People fish around it on a regular basis. It has created a steady flow of income and has been good for America. The President, in trying to be accommodating, agreed to cut back this lease sale to less than one-quarter of the original area proposed by President Clinton. He tried to do that. He moved it off on the Alabama side--nothing in the Florida waters--to try to accommodate Florida. And the Florida politicians are still not happy. But they want this pipeline built. They want this pipeline built so they can get natural gas. And why do they want the natural gas? Because it is needed to fuel the new cleaner burning electricity plants they need to heat and cool their homes, shops and offices. What is particularly valuable in the Gulf are the huge reserves of natural gas. The wells in the remaining lease area are going to be a mixture of oil and gas. But the neck, the ``stovepipe'', that the President shut off as part of his compromise to appease Florida's political leaders was virtually all natural gas. So I think the Senators from Florida are asking a bit much. I would ask them to think about this. Is not this the philosophy that got California in the fix they are in today? For decades California was facing the question of offshore drilling: No. Nuclear power: No. Coal plants: No. Electric plants: No. And what happened? They have brownouts and prices going through the roof. And they want to blame somebody else. They won't blame themselves. But energy is going to come from somewhere. It is either going to come from foreign sources or our own sources. We should not threaten our economy. We should not press down on the brow of American working men and women, with the burden of paying 20, 30, 40, cents more a gallon for gasoline, or twice as much perhaps for natural gas to heat their homes to accommodate some sort of political fear that exists out there. So what I think is important is that we, as America, just relax a little bit. Let's be rational. Let's think this thing through. Let's ask ourselves: What real threat is there? And what are the benefits from producing out there? We simply cannot allow people over in Naples, FL, in their beach houses, worth probably $2, $3, $4 million each, worrying about running their air-conditioners all the time to dictate national energy policy. Do you know how you generate electricity for air-conditioners in south Florida? They use natural gas because it is efficient and clean burning, much better than coal. So they want that natural gas. They just do not want it 213 miles or 260 miles away. ``Oh, no, we can't have this'' they say. I really do not think they know what has happened. I think they have been misled by some politicians and environmentalists who are not responsible. This is an extreme position. I hate to say that. This is an unhealthy position to have this Senate take. We ought not to adopt this amendment that would stop us from producing oil and gas in one-quarter of the previously approved area. It is going to hurt us in America. It is going to hurt us economically. The demands in Florida are significant. Thirty percent of all natural gas produced in America comes out of the gulf, and Florida will consume huge amounts. Their demand is going to double in the next 15 years, and increase over 142 percent in the next 20 years, according to experts. Yes, we should conserve. Yes, I hope people will use those hybrid automobiles. I would like to have one myself. I don't know why everybody doesn't buy one. There must be some reason they don't buy them. If they are so wonderful, why doesn't everybody go out and buy one, if you get 50 miles to the gallon? But I think they have potential. I am interested in looking at them and support the efforts of our automakers to improve efficiency. But it is a free country. Are we going to make everybody go out and buy one?

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, several people who opposed the nomination of Theodore B. Olson to be Solicitor General made charges that contained serious factual errors. These are not, I believe, debatable questions of interpretation when the facts are carefully examined. We have had our bipartisan investigation and hearing, and we have confirmed Mr. Olson, and we should move on; but we owe it to Mr. Olson, to future nominees, and to the Senate as an institution to make sure that the record is correct. Before turning to some specific errors, I want to emphasize that Mr. Olson responded to all of the committee's questions. Mr. Olson is one of the Nation's most talented lawyers and most dedicated public servants. He completed our questionnaire; he answered the questions asked at the hearing; he responded to more than one hundred written follow-up questions; and he repeatedly offered to meet with any Senator who had any further questions. He was clear, he was candid, he was responsive. Indeed, every thing that critics suggest Mr. Olson tried to hide, Mr. Olson in fact volunteered to the Committee, either in his response to the committee's questionnaire or in his responses to our questions. One inaccurate claim was that Mr. Olson engaged in word games in his answers about the American Spectator's ``Arkansas Project.'' In fact, at the committee hearing, it was clear that the committee and Mr. Olson had a shared understanding of that phrase, and Mr. Olson's answers expressly responded within that framework. The questions specifically characterized the ``Arkansas Project'' as involving only the project pursuant to which ``Richard Mellon Scaife funneled money through the American Spectator'' to investigate the Clintons. Those were the words used in the question, and Mr. Olson adopted those words in his answers. There is no indication that any Senator, or Mr. Olson, intended the term ``Arkansas Project'' to refer to anything other than the Scaife- funded journalistic efforts to investigate the Clintons' history in Arkansas. Thus, there were no word games by Mr. Olson. It is Mr. Olson's critics who played word games, by retroactively changing the meaning of the ``Arkansas Project'' to embrace essentially every Clinton-related article published or even considered by the American Spectator magazine in the 1990s. That was not the way the committee or Mr. Olson used that term at the hearing, and it is wrong and unfair to suggest otherwise. At the very least, if any Senator was somehow personally uncertain what Mr. Olson intended when he was answering questions concerning the ``Arkansas Project,'' that Senator could have followed up at the hearing. No Senator did. Second, some have argued that Mr. Olson improperly attempted to minimize his role in the so-called ``Arkansas Project'' during his confirmation hearing. The charges include allegations that only belatedly did Mr. Olson ``admit'' that he and his firm provided legal services to the American Spectator, that he had discussions in social settings with those working on Arkansas Project matters, and that he himself authored articles for the magazine paid for out of the special Richard Mellon Scaife fund. Each of these allegations, however, is contradicted by the factual record. Mr. Olson consistently stated that he and others at his law firm performed legal services for the American Spectator beginning in 1994, that they billed the magazine for those services at their normal market rates, and that the magazine paid them only for the legal services actually performed. Indeed, that Mr. Olson's firm provided legal services to the American Spectator has been widely known and a matter of public record for several years. It is not something that he ``admitted'' under close questioning. Those legal services--involving such things as book contracts and employee disputes--were not ``in connection with'' the ``Arkansas Project,'' and any suggestion to the contrary, based on the record as I know it, is wrong as a matter of fact. As for Mr. Olson's presence in social settings with individuals associated with the ``Arkansas Project,'' the questions were asked and Mr. Olson never made any attempt to conceal or minimize his attendance at those social events. He stated that he was unaware of any discussions at those events concerning the Scaife-funded efforts to investigate Clinton scandals, and no one has contradicted that testimony. Indeed, every knowledgeable individual--including one of Mr. Olson's chief critics--has confirmed that testimony. I also understand that journalists employed by other magazines and newspapers-- competitors of the American Spectator--and a wide range of other persons also attended those social events. Thus, they also had discussions ``in social settings'' with those working on Arkansas Project matters, but no responsible person would assert that their attendance at those events made them participants in the American Spectator's ``Arkansas Project.'' Mr. Olson also testified during his hearing about his authorship and co-authorship of several articles critical of the Clintons and other public officials. Indeed, he voluntarily provided copies of those American Spectator articles to the Judiciary Committee in his response to the committee's standard questionnaire, well in advance of his confirmation hearing. It is simply not correct, as a matter of fact, to suggest that he only ``admitted'' his authorship of the articles after the committee hearing. As to the American Spectator's internal bookkeeping for its payments to Mr. Olson or his law firm, it seems plain that Mr. Olson had no way of knowing how the Spectator categorized those payments for its own purposes, any more than taxpayers will know from the face of the check to what internal account the Government will charge the rebate checks flowing from President Bush's tax cut. Mr. Olson said that he never even saw the checks which were sent to his law firm's headquarters in Los Angeles in payment of routine client billings. All of this is in the record. There was no ``expansion'' or change in Mr. Olson's testimony on the foregoing points over the last several weeks. It is similarly inaccurate to say, as some critics do, that Mr. Olson ``modified'' his answers, ``changed'' his recollections, or ``conceded'' additional knowledge. To a remarkable degree, Mr. Olson has clearly and consistently answered the questions we asked him. His testimony, moreover, has been fully confirmed by the individuals most closely associated with the ``Arkansas Project,'' including the editor-in- chief, editor, and publisher of the American Spectator magazine during the relevant time period, as well as the three individuals who primarily performed the investigative journalism funded by the ``Arkansas Project.'' Each of these individuals stepped forward voluntarily to confirm the accuracy of Mr. Olson's testimony. Indeed, there is no one with percipient knowledge of these events who has contradicted Mr. Olson. Third, some mistakenly attempt to create a conflict in Mr. Olson's testimony by confusing the amounts he was paid for writing articles for the American Spectator with the very different amounts that Mr. Olson's law firm received for providing legal services to the American Spectator over a span of many years. Mr. Olson told the Senate that he was paid from $500 to $1,000 for his articles that appeared in the American Spectator magazine, whereas his firm received $94,405 for legal services. The attempt to create a conflict on this issue requires mixing apples with oranges. There were two different types of payments, for different types of services. In his April 19 answers, Mr. Olson explained that in addition to the $500 to $1,000 fees he received for the articles, his law firm ``has received payments for legal services rendered to the [American Spectator] Foundation from time to time, by me and by others at the firm, at our normal market rates.'' Given that those legal fees were for legal services provided to the magazine over a period of more than 5 years, involving the work of several attorneys, the $94,405 figure is in no way surprising. More significantly, Mr. Olson at all times distinguished between the firm's legal fees, and the separate, comparatively modest amounts he received personally for writing articles for the magazine. It is, again, a factual mistake to suggest that he ever sought to confuse those two amounts. Fourth, some have criticized Mr. Olson for allegedly refusing to respond to an allegation about American Spectator dinner parties. I question whether the Senate should even get into this issue of who attended what dinner parties, given the absence of any serious issue here, and the freedom of speech and press values inherent in a magazine's activities. But this particular allegation was dubious and made by a source who publicly contradicted himself on this very allegation. The allegation appeared only in the pages of the Washington Post. No Senator asked Mr. Olson about that particular allegation, and we have never imposed on nominees of either party an obligation to track down and respond to every far-fetched or baseless charge that might find its way into print. Moreover, one member of the committee did make an inquiry about Mr. Olson's social contacts with employees of the American Spectator and Mr. Olson fully answered that question in writing. So it is factually incorrect to state that he refused to respond to that question. Fifth, Mr. Olson's statement that his legal services for the American Spectator magazine were not for the purpose of conducting investigations of the Clintons is allegedly contradicted by the fact that Mr. Olson's firm was compensated for legal research to prepare a chart outlining the Clintons' criminal exposure, as research for a February 1994 article Mr. Olson co-authored entitled, `Criminal Laws Implicated by the Clinton Scandals: A Partial List.' This charge again is contradicted by record facts. The 1994 engagement letter for Mr. Olson's professional services expressly provided that Mr. Olson and his firm were not engaged ``to do any independent factual research.'' In fact, there is nothing in the public record to suggest that Mr. Olson's work in connection with that article, or for the magazine at any time, involved factual investigation of the Clintons. Comparing the publicly- available applicable Federal criminal code provisions, to publicly- available newspaper stories concerning allegations regarding the Clintons, cannot be described as an ``investigation'' of the Clintons. While there were other factual inaccuracies in the attacks on Mr. Olson, this list demonstrates that the concerns raised regarding Mr. Olson's candor before the Judiciary Committee were unjustified. It is particularly noteworthy that Robert Bennett, one of the most notable lawyers in this country and counsel to then-President Clinton, rejected the claim that Mr. Olson was less than candid in his responses to the Senate Judiciary Committee. More than almost any other person, he knows that facts of the Clinton matters. During an interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN on May 22, Mr. Bennett stated: ``I have recently read [Mr. Olson's] responses to the Senate, and I have looked at a lot of the material, and if I were voting, I would say that Ted Olson was more than candid with the Senate.'' Mr. Bennett is independent; he had no partisan axe to grind in favor of Mr. Olson in connection with this nomination; he, in fact, was a lead counsel for President Clinton for several years; he was not maneuvering for advantage in future nomination battles; he is a lawyer experienced in weighing evidence and cross-examining witnesses; he looked at the evidence; and his conclusion that these allegations are ill-founded is worthy of our respect. I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Bennett. I too have reviewed Mr. Olson's statements before the committee regarding his role in the ``Arkansas Project,'' and I find Mr. Olson's statements to be clear and accurate. The Washington Post editorial board also shares this view. On May 18, after all of the questions regarding the ``Arkansas Project'' had been raised, the Washington Post endorsed Mr. Olson's nomination to be Solicitor General, noting ``Mr. Olson is one of Washington's most talented and successful appellate lawyers, a man who served with distinction in the Justice Department during the 1980s and whose work is widely admired across party lines.'' According to the Washington Post, ``Mr. Olson's prior service at the Justice Department indicates that he understands the difference between the roles of private citizen and public servant.'' As for Mr. Olson's testimony regarding his role in the ``Arkansas Project,'' the Washington Post concluded that ``there's no evidence that his testimony was inaccurate in any significant way,'' and that ``the Democrats would be wrong to block Mr. Olson.'' [Emphasis added.] The Senate thus far has not done a good job of reviewing President Bush's nominees, and in many cases has made upstanding individuals the victims of partisan attacks. The deeply partisan vote over the Solicitor Generalship was a low point. I strongly believe that every nominee deserves fairness in this process and a full chance to get his or her position into the record and considered. It is not right to leave the record incomplete. I hope that, by setting the record straight, the Senate can move on and treat future nominees more fairly.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask for 1 minute. Mr. President, the option provided by Senator Kyl is not a loophole. It is an option. Under his plan, all policies that an employer would offer would provide the external and internal reviews that we have in all of the plans. The option to go to specialists, the gag rule protections that we have made a part of this bill--all of that would be in the plan. It would simply give the employee an option, if he thought it would save him money and he or she didn't intend to sue for benefits, to choose a policy that could be cheaper and simply not have certain lawsuit rights but, in fact, that operate for liability purposes under current law. It is no worse than current law. It is no better than current law. That is an option that could save a working family money that they need for their budget. For those who want all matters to be exactly the same, I don't see why they would resist such an option. I think it is good for the employees. I salute Senator Kyl. I also note that Senator Jeffords had a hearing recently on the uninsured in America. We know there are over 40 million uninsured and that every 1 percent increase in insurance costs causes 300,000 people to drop off the insurance rolls. I think it is a good move. I support it.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would like to agree with the Senator from Texas. Essentially, with these increased damages from punitive damages, oddly enough, the way insurance works in America, the premium payers are going to pay more. The more big verdicts that are rendered, the more premium payers will pay, raising rates for innocent people who had nothing to do with the misconduct that resulted in the punitive damages, resulting in higher costs so more people economically will drop off the insurance rolls. We have a real problem with the uninsured in America. It seems to me this is a solution that is very creative. It is a solution that has been talked about by legal scholars for some time--what to do with punitive damages. Why, the part of it you pay for pain and suffering, you pay for contract laws--the victim gets that. But what about the money that is to punish the company? Where should it go? I suggest the Senator is correct; it go to the uninsured and help people be insured.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I join with my colleagues in support of the Concrete Canoe Competition. Civil Engineers design the backbone of our Nation's infrastructure. By designing, building, and maintaining our infrastructure, these engineers have quietly helped to shape the history of our Nation and its communities. Civil Engineers contribute daily to our standard of living through their designing, building, and maintaining our transportation, clean water, and power generation systems. A great example of civil engineering ingenuity is manifested through the National Concrete Canoe Competition. The Concrete Canoe Competition provides college and university students an opportunity to use the engineering principles learned in the classroom, and apply them in a competitive environment where they further learn important team and project management skills. I am very pleased to announce that on June 16, 2001, the University of Alabama at Huntsville won an unprecedented fifth national Championship in the Concrete Canoe Competition.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Yes.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this issue. I think it is an important issue. There is a real problem we need to wake up and face. As a former Boy Scout and former Eagle Scout, I feel strongly about it and want to share some remarks on the subject. We grew up in a little community outside of town with nine boys in the community. Of the nine, eight became Eagle Scouts and one was a Life Scout. We always teased him, why he didn't finish, and he always said he regretted not having completed the program, one step from being an Eagle Scout. Every Thursday evening, we went to town, and we had to pool our cars. A parent or kids who had their license would drive to our meeting. We would do camps together. We did the Scout oath and Scout laws every Thursday night: On my honor I will do my best To do my duty to God and my country And to obey the Scout law; To help other people at all times; To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight. I never thought that much about it, but over the years that had an impact on my life. In our town, people remained in Scouts into their senior year in high school. The first time I came to Washington was with a Boy Scout troop. We had a 50th anniversary of that troop, and 60 had been Eagle Scouts. From the 9 boys of my little community, 15 miles outside of the town, every one of them had a full degree from college, several have Ph.D.'s, law degrees, and advanced degrees. One is a medical doctor. One is a dentist. It meant a lot to me. We also did the Scout laws every Thursday night: A scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty--that is a good word we don't use much anymore--brave, clean, and reverent. The word ``God'' is used and the word ``reverent'' is used, but it is decidedly not a sectarian organization. Not one bit of the literature or otherwise suggests that. To the contrary, it is an organization that encourages boys to develop a spiritual side and to recognize that they are indeed more than a random collection of particles but are created persons. That is a key component of the Boy Scouts. Several years ago my friend, Senator Enzi from Wyoming, talked about being an Eagle Scout, as is his son. He told a story about the Washington zoo in the U.S. capital. The Washington zoo would not allow the Boy Scouts to have a Court of Honor. And, by the way, one of the founders of the Washington zoo was one of the founders of Boy Scouts. They were not allowed because they discriminate against atheists. The oath required that boys do their duty to God. They said if you were an atheist, you could not take the oath; therefore, you were a discriminatory organization and you could not use the property at the Washington zoo to have a Court of Honor. We raised that point. It was not lightly taken. There were letters written to defend it. But when confronted with it, the leader of the zoo capitulated and apologized and said that was not a good policy and they would not continue to adhere to it. What is troubling to me is that we have skirted the issue some, but there is a group of Americans who believe very strongly--and I don't disparage their motives--that the Boy Scouts' position on gay Scoutmasters is not appropriate, and they have set about to punish the Boy Scouts. I don't think there is anybody here who would deny it. They are politically active. They work United Fund committees, and they work school boards and city councils. And they seek to get them to eliminate Boy Scouts from public facilities. That is what is happening. There is no mystery about that. We give a lot of Federal money to school systems. I don't believe every time something irritates us that the Federal Government ought to get involved, but I feel strongly abut this. The Supreme Court of the United States upheld the right of the Boy Scouts to make this determination. Some say there is no discrimination going on against the Scouts. There plainly is. It will plainly continue. As far as I am concerned, if there is a school system in America that says to a little Boy Scout troop, such as troop 94 in Camden, AL, you can't have a meeting on school grounds because of your policy concerning your leadership and the behavior of your members, you can't have it here, even though the Supreme Court said yes, as far as I am concerned, they don't need Federal money and I am not voting to give it to them. That is where we are. I am not sure exactly how the language is going to come out. I know Senator Helms would like to make sure there was the least possible controversy over it. I would like that also. I firmly believe we ought to affirm through governmental entities and organizations the kind of character-building program to which the Boy Scouts are committed. ``Do a good turn daily'' is the motto. I read and clipped an article that brought tears to my eyes, an article in one of the newspapers about Boy Scouts in Rwanda. They had all their uniforms confiscated, but they had their kerchiefs. The picture with that article showed those Scouts at a hospital in war-torn Rwanda, cutting the grass. They were interviewed, and they said: We always do a good turn daily. I tried to get them some help. The article went on to say that when the totalitarian leader took over, he oppressed the Scouts; he took their uniforms and their books, and he forced all the young people to join, for lack of a better word, a Hitler-type youth group of which everybody had to be a part. They refused. They stayed true to their oath. Under oppression we have the finest example of commitment. That was very moving to me. These ideals are wonderful ideals. I find it difficult for anyone to conclude that there is something unhealthy in the way the Boy Scouts do business. It ought to be affirmed and nurtured. A school system that will not provide them their constitutional right does not deserve a dime of Federal money, in my opinion. I think the Helms amendment will help deal with that and get some attention from around the country. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, we are on the verge and so close to making a realistic and fair and just step in dealing with the complications and frustrations our school systems are wrestling with every day involving disciplinary situations with disabled students. Anyone who talks to them knows it is a very real problem. Our legislation is a middle-ground position. It is more cautious than the Gorton amendment which got almost 50 votes. It is more modest than the House amendment that passed. It simply says, if a child is disabled and commits a violation of discipline rules that would result in discipline for them, they would be treated as any other child, unless and only after a hearing has been held to ensure that the misbehavior the child committed was not connected to that disability--because some children have emotional problems and have difficulty containing themselves. Those children would not be able to be disciplined like other students. We think this is a fair and progressive step. I urge your support. I believe with the Vice President we would be able to pass this. I urge its consideration.

Mr. SESSIONS. On the second vote?

Mr. SESSIONS. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, the issue we are dealing with today is a very important issue. I had no idea how significant teachers and principals and superintendents consider this issue. We have already in the course of this legislation approved a historic increase in funding for IDEA. That is going to help schools do a better job of providing specialized training for students with disabilities to a degree we have never seen before. In fact, 10 or 15 years ago, when the IDEA matter was settled and made a part of Federal law, Congress agreed to pay 40 percent of the cost that would fall on the school system. That agreement was never honored. Congress never appropriated that 40 percent. In fact, we are closer to 10 percent, or even under 10 percent. Now I think we are around 15 or 20 percent of that commitment under the legislation that passed here. I hope we will be able to fund it. We voted to fully fund IDEA. It would be a large increase in funding for school systems. But as I traveled my State, they expressed concern to me. I visited 20 schools in Alabama recently, and I talked to principals and teachers at each one of those schools. They tell me that funding is important. They would like more funding. Many of them know that Congress has not fulfilled that agreement. They told me. Their frustration just pours out over the Federal regulations that deal with children with disabilities. This is the book that has the regulations in it with which they are required to comply. Lawyers, experts, testimony, and hearings occur on a regular basis. It is very difficult for teachers to be able to maintain discipline in their classrooms. Anyone who has talked to teachers in recent years--and perhaps forever, but now I think it is more of a problem--knows they are not able to maintain the level of discipline in a classroom they would like. As a result, it makes it more difficult for them to reach the children in the classroom. It makes learning more difficult. We know that in certain nations in the world they have classroom sizes three times or four times what we have in the United States. Yet they are able to maintain discipline. We need to do a better job of maintaining discipline in the classroom. If you talk to teachers and principals, they will tell you that. One of the greatest irritants to them is the regulation that comes out of this book. Teachers have left the profession based on it. They are incredibly frustrated. When you talk to them, their frustration pours out. They cite example after example of circumstances that you would think would not and could not happen but do happen in America. In fact, it does happen on a daily basis. We have been thinking about how to improve this. How can we improve the ability of school systems to confront a difficult situation with compassion, with consistency in the classroom so that it is clear that no one child can rule the roost, that no one child can just take charge and know they can't be disciplined and actually utilize that power to disrupt the classroom? We have talked with superintendents. We have talked to national leaders. We have talked to lawyers who handle these cases. We have proposed an amendment that is modest, that is less strong in some ways than others that have been adopted, but it will go a long way, if not all the way, in fixing this problem. This is what happens: A disabled child who is misbehaving is treated in an entirely different way than a child who is not a disabled child. They have extraordinary protections that, in effect, make it difficult for discipline to even occur. Lawyers are involved in it to an extraordinary degree. Let me read one letter from a special education coordinator who wrote about this problem. We tried to fix some of this in 1997 to improve it, but from what I am hearing in the field from the teachers, we made the situation worse, not better. This special education coordinator writes: The restrictions inherent in [the 1997] legislation have the potential to ``cripple'' a school system beyond repair. Although my job is to advocate for students with disabilities, I also feel a responsibility to protect the rights of all children to an appropriate education. An elementary school principal writes: Today general educators at all grade levels must deal with a large number of these students who are a challenge to manage and instruct. Having to deal with these behaviors and/ or to constantly change behavior interventions not only takes away important instructional time from other students, but inadvertently reinforces the disabled children's behavior. All class rules should apply to all students and therefore all students should share the same disciplinary action. I have maybe 50 or 60 letters to that effect. Let me read a letter from one teacher who shared her thoughts on this subject: As a special educator for six years I consider myself ``on the front lines'' of the on-going battles that take place on a daily basis in our nation's schools. I strongly believe that part of the ``ammunition'' that fuels these struggles are the ``rights'' guaranteed to certain individuals by IDEA '97. Remember this is a special educator. The law, though well intentioned, has become one of the single greatest obstacles that educators face in our fight to provide all of our children with a quality education delivered in a safe environment. There are many examples that I can offer first hand. However, let me reiterate that I am a special educator. I have dedicated my life to helping children with special needs. It is my job to study and know the abilities and limitations of such children. I have a bachelor's degree in psychology, a masters degree in special education and a Ph.D. in good ole common sense. No where in my educational process have I been taught a certain few ``disabled'' students should have a ``right'' to endanger the right to an education of all other disabled and nondisabled children. It is nonsense. It is wrong. It is dangerous. It must be stopped. There is no telling how many instructional hours are lost by teachers in dealing with behavior problems. In times of an increasingly competitive global society, it is no wonder American students fall short. Certain children are allowed to remain in the classroom robbing other children of hours that can never be replaced. There is no need to extend the schoolday, no need to extend the school year. If politicians would just make it possible for educators to take back the time that is lost on a daily basis, to contain certain students, there is no doubt we would have better educated students. It is even more frustrating when it is a special education child who knows and boasts ``they can't do anything to me'' and he is placed back in the classroom to disrupt it day after day, week after week. And she goes on. There are many other letters. I thought I would share one from a student. I think it is particularly insightful into the problem with which we are dealing. We want to give every possible assistance to children with disabilities, but there are other children in the classroom also. We ought to think about them. Sometimes their very lives are at stake. Sometimes their safety is at stake. Sometimes their dignity is at stake. This is what this 14-year-old writes. It was sent to me earlier this year: I am a 14 year old eighth grader. I have a problem. There is this girl that goes to school with me, she is an ADD student [disabled student]. She has been harassing me for no reason. She has pretty much done everything from breaking my glasses to telling me she is going to kill me. This really bothers me because she is an ADD student and the only punishment she ever gets is a slap on the hand. My principal says there is not much that he can do because of her status as a special ed kid. I asked what would happen if I threatened her back and he told me that I would be suspended from school and forced to stay away. The most she has ever gotten is three days ``in school'' suspension. I think this is wrong. She scares me and I am tired of this. It has been going on for 5 months and it's really getting scary. Unfortunately, that is not a rare event. Too often, that is what we are seeing today. Our legislation is a realistic attempt to deal with it. What it says is--and this is the core of it--if a child's misbehavior in the classroom is unconnected to the disability which they have, then they should be able to be disciplined like any other child in the classroom. We are not creating a permanent set of separate and unequal disciplinary actions in a classroom. If a child has a disability and that disability is connected to their disruptive activity, then we, as a society, have decided we will not remove them from the classroom; that it is something they cannot control, perhaps, and that we will provide them some form of education, whether it is in that classroom or in an alternative setting. But it is morally wrong and legally indefensible, in my view, to say that a child who has a mobility disability, who sells drugs in a class to other students, or who brings a gun to school--and that mobility disability has no connection whatsoever to the misconduct that they act out and do--they should not be protected and treated preferentially over the other students in the classroom. Let me tell you what I have heard from teachers in my State. I have two different examples I will share. There are many. Two children in a car bring a gun to a school campus. They did not bring it in the classroom, but it was a clear violation of the rules. It required a suspension from the school. The nondisabled student is suspended from school. The disabled student is not suspended, or is suspended just for a few days, because they are treated separately. Another example was told to me by teachers where one child sold marijuana to two other children on the school grounds. The seller was a disabled child. The purchasers or receivers were nondisabled children. Under the school rules, they were clearly in violation. The two who received the drugs were kicked out of school for a period of time. The one who sold the drugs was not. The teacher asked: How can we look those children in the eye? What kind of moral authority can we expect to have if we maintain discipline such as that? Isn't that wrong? It is mandated by Federal law, the IDEA regulations that are all over the country. We want to help children with disabilities, but we do not want to create a circumstance that frustrates teachers, that undermines learning, and really does not help the child involved. Over and over again, the letters I receive from teachers tell me they believe it is a bad learning process for a child to believe that they, in the classroom, can do things other children cannot. Then when they get out into the work world, they are treated like everybody else and end up having trouble on the job or with criminal activity. It is a problem we can confront. This legislation says you are entitled to a hearing, but if the hearing finds that your bad activity was not directly connected to your disability, then you could be treated for disciplinary purposes like any other child in the classroom. That is only common sense. It surprises me that anyone would object to that. Secondly, we found in the course of working on this matter that a number of parents are sacrificing to have their children take advantage of special schools. There is a great school, Talladega School for the Blind, in Alabama where a lot of children go. These are not inexpensive schools. Parents sacrifice to send their children there. Under Federal law, the school system must give each disabled child as much assistance as they can based on their disability.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, this provision would say that if the school system believes an alternative school could help and if the parent agrees, if they both agree, they could take their daily allowance for funding for that student and allow the parent to apply to another school. I note that the House voted on a tougher bill than this just the other day by an overwhelming vote. The time has come to fix this problem. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. SESSIONS. I would not want the due process hearing to be eliminated. I don't intend to do that in the legislation. If there is any language there that does that, I will be glad to discuss it with the Senator. I do not believe it does.

Mr. SESSIONS. The Senator's amendment or mine?

Mr. SESSIONS. The Senator said mine eliminated a due process hearing. I would like for him to say where it does that.

Mr. SESSIONS. Objection. Five minutes is a bit much at this time.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. The process that we utilized worked well. Everybody got their votes and got their say. Matters went along fine. President Bush, as a Governor, committed to doing something about education in his State. He was hands on in that effort. As a result, he knew something about education when he ran for President. He determined that it would not be business as usual. He was convinced that children were being left behind, that they were finding themselves in seventh, eighth, and ninth grades unable to do basic education work, and tragedies were in store for them. He got to know some outstanding individuals in education in Texas. One was Dr. Rod Paige, the superintendent of the Houston school system, 207,000 students, one of the largest in America. Secretary Paige had made some real progress there. When he took over in 1995 in that school system, he found only 37 percent of the students were passing the basic Texas test. He had been the dean of a school of higher education. He determined that they could do better, and he insisted that they do better. In 5 years, he doubled that number--1 percentage point from doubling --to 73 percent passing. President Bush saw that. He appreciated that achievement. He was determined to try to bring that kind of progress throughout America. That is why he selected Dr. Rod Paige as his Secretary of Education. Dr. Paige eliminated social promotion. He improved testing. He cracked down on schools that did not work, and he cracked down on discipline problems. It was a real achievement of an extraordinary degree that should give us all hope that we can make much better progress with education than we think. My wife taught. I have been in 20 schools this year. There are teachers around this country teaching their hearts out every day, giving their level best to education. If we can create a system that nurtures them and allows their talents to flourish and not be clamped down by rules and regulations and such, I believe we have the potential for extraordinary progress in education. Finally, I note that testing is critical because if you love children and you care about them and you do not want them to fall behind, you will find out how they are doing. The parents need to know. The teachers need to know. The principals need to know. Everybody needs to know whether learning is occurring. When a child is falling behind in basic reading and math--and they will have to be tested in this program--then you can deal with it. If we let them get to junior high, high school, ninth grade, typically, and they can't do basic math and can't read effectively, they drop out. That is a great tragedy. They will be left behind. We should not allow that. This bill will move us forward. The President will support unprecedented increases in education this year, but he wants that kind of reform. It is part of the bill. I am confident it will come out of the conference committee in a way that he can support. I thank Senator Daschle for his leadership and his time in the late evening.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I also express my appreciation for all who have been involved in this bill. I say to Senator Kennedy, a number of people on this side of the aisle have expressed their appreciation for your leadership. You are a great advocate, but also you manage a bill very well.