Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I do. In fact, to that extent, we continue a double standard for a child. The school would have the option to move the child to an alternative setting, but not remove him from the school or not deny educational services. My amendment does that. It says if the discipline problem is a product or related to their disability then the child may not be denied educational services.

Mr. SESSIONS. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, my concern would be if I may give my remarks first, before Senator Harkin. I am concerned about that. That would be my request.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we now turn to amendment No. 604, an amendment I have offered.

Mr. SESSIONS. No.

Mr. SESSIONS. I say it this way: Most school systems are required under Federal law to provide educational services. If they have special needs, they have to provide them. Many children have an individual, one single individual who goes with that single child all day long to help them. Our amendment gives one little option that, I think, would be helpful to parents or teachers. It says if the parents came in and believed a school for the blind or a school for the deaf down the street has a better program than public education, and the school agreed, and it is a certified school for that disability, they could ask for, if the school agreed, funding to go to that other school.

Mr. SESSIONS. First, let me say thank you so much, and to your staff, for giving careful attention to this. Many items have been included because you have suggested them. You are asking questions that are important. As a result of our discussions with lawyers who deal with these issues, school people, your staff and others, we made this language crystal clear. It says a local educational agency responsible for educating a child may transfer the child to an accredited school if it is selected by the child's parents and carries out the program and the school determines that program would benefit the child. In other words, both the parents and the school must agree. The parents cannot say: I want to take my money and take my child to this school. The school would have to agree. The parents would have to agree. That provides the protection from abuse that might otherwise occur.

Mr. SESSIONS. That is correct. It could not exceed the average daily expenditure cost of the child and it could be only used for the education of the child.

Mr. SESSIONS. If their discipline or behavioral problem is not related to their misbehavior, then this language will say they would be treated like any other child who misbehaves in school, subject to discipline, suspension, or other disciplinary action a school would normally impose. I know you would like to say any child, perhaps, could have an alternative, but I am not sure we have the funding to do that. But I don't think in this instance if their misbehavior is not connected to their disability, they should be treated preferentially to another child.

Mr. SESSIONS. I think most schools are doing a pretty good job. As the Senator knows, the Federal Government committed to pay 40 percent of IDEA costs and never paid much more than 10 percent or 15 percent of that. This bill would fully fund that 40 percent. But under the law--and there are groups of parents who meet, advocacy groups, and lawyers who are active in Alabama and every State--if they are emotionally disturbed children and they cannot control themselves, they cannot be removed from school as a result of that. If they are a danger to themselves or others then they can be provided services in an alternative setting, perhaps, but they cannot be denied educational services. That is the universal in the United States.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, what is the order of business at this time?

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator from Arkansas for his leadership on this important issue. The U.S. military has been a guardian of liberty for the United States and for freedom-loving people all over the world. It has preserved our freedom. I wish it were not so that we had to have a military, but we do, and it is critically important the men and women in the military have the best education, and they recruit the best young people in America, urging them to consider a career in the military. There is a group that is active in America that sometimes is hostile to that. One of the most astounding things I learned a few years ago as attorney general of the State of Alabama, a young man I hired to work in my office went to law school, and the law school he attended would not allow military recruiters to come on the law school campus to solicit lawyers to join the military. I was astounded. He said the students got up a petition to protest it. I thought he was kidding. He was not kidding. In fact, that was the circumstance. I talked to the dean and I later drafted legislation to require that law schools allow recruiters on campus. They told me apparently it is a problem, and it may be a reality all over America. They said the reason this was occurring was because the accrediting agencies for law schools take the position that the ``don't ask, don't tell'' policy of the U.S. military, approved by former President Bill Clinton, is discriminatory and, therefore, law schools cannot allow anybody who discriminates to come on campus. So they have made that an accrediting factor and have intimidated law schools. This unelected group--who they are, I am not sure; perhaps they are leftover antiwar activists--is dictating this around the country. I think this legislation will be a healthy signal that the Senate says, as I told this law school dean: You have freedom. We have a rule of law in America today because men and women in uniform have defended against the Communist totalitarians, the Nazi oppressors, and defeated them and preserved liberty. The very concept, the very idea that a legal arm of the Defense Department, the JAG officers, are not respected and cannot recruit on the campus of the best law schools is unacceptable. I appreciate the opportunity that Senator Hutchinson has provided to allow this amendment be included as a part of his legislation. I think it is good public policy. I think it is wrong to allow this to happen in America today. I think this legislation could make a big step in eliminating the problem. If it does not, we may have to have more specific legislation in the future. I thank the Chair. I thank Senator Hutchinson. I thank Senator Kennedy and Senator Gregg.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. He said in Houston it made them better. In the first year or two, they lost some students and people complained. He said: I supported it. If people could get a better education somewhere else, it was all right with me. I cared about those children. But--he said--do you know what happened? We improved our school system so much in Houston that as years went by they were coming from private schools to the public schools; the public schools grew at the expense of private schools because we got better. He said there is no way a private school can succeed and beat a public school in the long term, if it is run right. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. I will just wrap up and say the Secretary of Education, Dr. Paige, tried it in Houston, a huge school system--I ask for 1 minute to wrap up--favors this idea.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Hampshire for his leadership and dedication on this issue. He cares about children deeply. He cares about public education. He wants to see it more successful. This is not some sort of plan to weaken public education. As I have listened to him discuss his vision for making sure children are not trapped in schools that are utterly failing and having their futures damaged, I have become convinced, as much as I believe in public education, that this is a project we ought to try. We ought to allow this opportunity for alternative ways, particularly in programs for low-income children in failing schools, and let's see how it works. I think it is appropriate for the Federal Government to utilize money under these circumstances to help analyze, through very effective examination of these programs, whether or not they are working. If it is clearly a benefit, maybe we ought to do more. If it is not a benefit, maybe that will be the end of it. I certainly think allowing 3 States that voluntarily choose to participate in this program, 10 cities that voluntarily choose to participate--not who are made to participate; it is their option if they would like to participate in this program--let's try it, but let's monitor it, let's watch it, let's see how it goes. I think we may find progress will be made. We do know one thing for sure. There are nearly 9,000 schools in America that have been identified as failing, many of those for a number of years, some 4, 6, 8 years failing consistently. I think it is inconceivable--really immoral--not to take some steps to deal with that circumstance. These children are falling behind in those schools. Those children have to be falling behind. They are not receiving the quality of education other children are receiving in succeeding schools. It is difficult for them. They come, many of them, from not an ideal home life, and then they are sent to a school system that is failing. No wonder they tend to have great difficulty. What can we do for them? I was a U.S. attorney for a long time. A lot of people haven't thought about this very clearly, but the law requires them to go to that school. They do not have any choice whatsoever. If they live a few blocks over this way, they may be in a school that is quite successful, but because they are in this school district, they must, by law--all over America, that is the pattern--they must go to that school. They are ordered to go to that school. Many times they are being ordered year after year, week after week, day after day, to go to a school that is not functioning and is not succeeding. There is something wrong about that. I know people, as the Senator from Arkansas said, who check out the school district, and they have the money to decide where they want to live, and they move to a district where they are comfortable. People know the schools that are working and the ones that are not. I think we can do better. This is a voluntary program for only 3 States if 3 States apply, 10 cities if 10 cities apply, to let them try these programs under a strict evaluation process. I believe it can be helpful for America. The moneys that will support this will not in any way come from existing programs. It will provide new money but not a whole lot of money to make this occur. It requires families be poorer families, not people who have the money themselves to perhaps take advantage of choice. No title I money will be spent. Rather, an additional $50 million will be made available to the handful of cities and States that choose to participate in this program. It provides additional resources to carry out this demonstration project that I believe will work. The evaluation that will occur is going to be healthy. It is going to examine and measure student achievement in the alternative situation. It is going to measure parental involvement in education with parental involvement increased. It is going to evaluate the satisfaction of parents and all involved in the program. And it will evaluate the overall impact on the performance of the public school system. In other words, if it is damaging the public school system, we will find that out.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I join with Senator Wyden in our concern that summer not be a vacuum for children. I have had, for quite a number of years, a deep concern that children are losing too much over the summer. Every child perhaps does not need to go to summer school. I am not perfectly sure how it ought to work. But ultimately I think we have the question of whether or not we could do a better job in the summer. We do know this. We do know that in an age where we are doing a better job of testing, we are finding that children are falling behind. We have seen some studies that indicate the normal summer school programs of today have not been very effective in helping those children who fall behind. So it strikes me as perfectly good sense and good public policy for the U.S. Government to be involved in helping to identify how education is occurring, where the problems are, and to do good scientific research to help our States and local school systems to best understand what is occurring and how they might, with frugal and wise use of their money, get the most learning possible by each and every child in a school system. A few years ago, Senator Feinstein and I offered a very serious amendment to end social promotion. Social promotion is a system where a child is clearly falling behind the minimum standards of education, yet they are passed on because people think that helps them socially. Dr. Paige, the Secretary of Education, from the Houston school system became the superintendent of that school system when only 37 percent of the students were passing the Houston basic education test. He decided to make some serious changes. One of the changes he made was to end social promotion and to provide more incentives to help children who were falling behind. In 5 years, those passing that test went from 37 percent to 73 percent. This was in a huge 210,000-student system in Houston, TX, one of the largest school systems in America, facing all the problems that a big inner-city school system would face. He took those tough positions because he loved those children. He did not want to see them just be passed along and not learn, to be not up to the level they needed to be, finally reaching a level in school where they were so far behind, they just dropped out. That is the pattern he said he saw and was determined to end, and he did a remarkable job when he was in Houston of ending that cycle. The goal is for us to be a lot more serious about education. The goal has to be to have some change in education. Senator Wyden is correct: We need to ask some of these questions. We need to know what is occurring in our school systems. One of the things that is plain and simple is, perhaps if we can identify children who are falling behind in early grades and provide them with a high-quality, well-managed summer school program, we just may be able to achieve special results for those children. And then when they come back in September, instead of falling even further behind during the summer, they are up and ready to compete with the other children in that class. One of the things I strongly believe is appropriate for the Federal Government to do is to do this kind of research. So we are going to have the Department of Education review these programs, these programs in each one of these pilot five States that will be selected. They will be required to submit intense data on what they have done and how they did it. We will have the General Accounting Office as an additional independent evaluator of these school systems. Maybe when we look at them around the country, we can say: This clearly works, this is real progress; or, this did not show much good progress. We can use that information to challenge every school system in America to use the best available scientific evidence to plan a summer school program that works for every child and focuses not just on going through the motions of a summer school but actually bringing a child up who has fallen behind, getting them ready to start in the fall, motivating them with more confidence than they would have otherwise had. I am honored to join Senator Wyden on this legislation. We are starting the right way. It has the potential to provide us information that could be extraordinarily valuable. I thank him for his commitment and leadership. I thank Senator Durbin, who also is strongly committed to summer school programs, for working with us on this legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, some good news came out this week. I don't know how many people saw it. It was a report of the status of the surplus in our accounts for the United States. As it was reported in the Wall Street Journal and other organizations, for the month of April of this year, the surplus was $30 billion larger than the surplus for April of last year. For the first 4 months of this year, it showed that the surplus was $41 billion larger than the surplus of the first 4 months last fiscal year. That is a rather significant event because we are in an economic slowdown. As everyone knows, a vibrant economy is the greatest motivator for creating surpluses. There is a lot of fear out there that we may not continue to have surpluses. Since I have been in the Senate, going on my fifth year now, every projection on the status of the budget has understated the income to the Federal Government. For the last 3 years, the surplus has substantially exceeded what OMB and the Congressional Budget Office have projected for the surplus. To me, we have one goal as a Congress and a Government: To try to make sure this economy gets on its feet again and gets humming and makes even more money for the taxpayers and for individual Americans. But at the same time, we have to look at what is happening. The good news is that even in a time of slowdown, we have a real surplus churning out there. We have gone from a gross domestic product take by the Federal Government of 17.6 percent of GDP to 20.6 percent of GDP. The Government is taking a larger and larger percentage of American wealth to fund governmental programs. That is a historic change. It may not sound like much to go from 17.6 to 20.6, but 20.6 represents the highest amount we have taken from the American economy for the Government since the height of World War II. What is at work here is an opportunity for the American people to say: Great, we are paying down this debt in record numbers. We are paying down all debt that can be paid down without a penalty being paid on it. We are doing the right thing as far as debt is concerned. We are setting aside money for contingencies, $500 billion or so for contingencies. That is extra spending. Remember, this surplus is calculated above inflation. When they figured how much the surplus would be, they figured in that the Government would increase spending at the rate of inflation every year. So we have the rate of inflation in there, another $500 billion for extra spending, and we are paying down debt at record numbers. It is time for us to have at least this $1.35 trillion tax cut. We can do that. If we do not do that, we will spend more, and we will continue to take more of the overall wealth of the American economy. It will move us into a system such as those that exist in Europe that some in this body admire and want for us. Our economy is more vibrant. Our economy is more productive. Our people have better health care and better incomes than Europeans. Our unemployment rate is lower by and large than our competitors, even though they have so many good things to offer their people. We are on the right track. I am pleased with where we are today. Nothing could give me greater anticipation that within hours, perhaps, we will be able to send to the President of the United States a piece of legislation that will represent perhaps the largest tax cut in over 20 years, that could allow him to fulfill the promise on which he was elected to allow the American people to keep a larger portion of their wealth, to be able to spend it on their needs for their families, and for their children. It is a great day. I am excited about it. I hope the conferees can complete their work promptly and we can bring that bill to the floor and we can make it law promptly. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize a member of my staff, Nancy Briani, who will be retiring from the Senate at the end of this month. She will be sorely missed by me and all who have had the opportunity to work with her. Nancy began her career in the Senate 25 years ago when she joined the staff of Senator Jim Pearson of Kansas as a receptionist. Following Senator Pearson's retirement in 1978, Nancy became office manager for his successor--Senator Nancy Landon Kassebaum. From the setting up of that freshman Senator's office to closing down operations and turning in the keys 18 years later, Nancy was there and remains a very close friend of Senator Kassebaum. She has approached her job as office manager in a diligent and methodical fashion. She recognizes that well-organized support functions are a critical foundation in the hectic and fast-paced environment of a Senate office. Nancy has consistently brought to her work a quiet, but firm, determination to see that things are done properly. She stayed, as we were taught many years ago, until it was done right. During her tenure in the Senate, Nancy helped guide her coworkers through the transition from 3-color carbon sets to the computer age, and she is a good manager of computers. It fell upon her to determine how to file the ``yellows'' in a post-carbon era and how to assure that documents were not ``lost in space'' due to haphazard filing and forgotten file names. Her proofreading skills are not limited to catching typos. Rather, she brings to bear the full force of her early experience and training as a teacher. One of the most well thumbed cards in her Rolodex is that of the Grammarphone--a grammar hotline operated by Frostburg State Universtity--to make sure our material goes out correctly. After all, a Senator ought to know how to punctuate correspondence. Shortly after my election to the Senate in 1996, I had the good fortune of bringing Nancy onto my staff after Nancy Kassebaum retired. Her years of experience and her solid professionalism proved invaluable to me in putting together my office here in Washington. Her effective management of the day-to-day operations of my office has made a real difference in my ability to serve the people of Alabama. The work that Nancy has done in her 25 years of service in the Senate does not produce headlines in the newspaper or segments on TV talk shows. Indeed, this is the first time in her 25 years that she has come on to the floor of the Senate Chamber. Young staff members get to do that if they are working on legislation, but she has been doing her job managing the work product in our office. In fact, the best mark of success for an office manager is that the smooth operation of an office is taken for granted. In that, Nancy has excelled. The truth is that Nancy lives by the greatest American virtues. She is directly honest, she is exceedingly diligent in her work, always taking care to ensure that things are completed and done right. I have greatly admired her frugality, a trait that has fallen from favor but which is much needed today. She watches every penny of the taxpayers' money in a way I greatly admire. In a host of ways, Nancy has lived by these great American values and has taught them to hundreds of young people who have worked with her as interns and young staffers over the years. Such richness of contribution simply cannot be replaced. As Nancy leaves the Senate to start a new chapter in her life, she can take great pride and satisfaction in the accomplishments she has made and the respect she has earned. Just today, staff people from all over this Senate were in our office expressing their admiration for her as she had a reception this afternoon. I am grateful for her efforts and the dedication as a member of my staff. I wish her and her husband, Vince, who retired a few years ago after a career with NASA--he was with NASA during the glory days of the space age--I wish Nancy and her husband, Vince, all the best in their future years. We look forward to seeing you both on a regular basis and thank you again for the great contributions you have made to the success of our office and to the people of the United States.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I have about a 5-minute statement, but I am pleased to allow the Senator from Connecticut to go first.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that any time used in the quorum call subsequent to this be charged against both sides equally.

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

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania for his outstanding remarks. He does, indeed, have a passion for truth and he pursues those he believes are not telling the truth aggressively in his examination and defends those he thinks are being unfairly accused. I have seen his skill in committee hearings many times. Senator Specter raised a number of questions about the allegations that were made about Mr. Olson. But his questions concerning the merit of the allegations against Mr. Olson were never answered. In fact, he simply asked: ``Precisely what is it you say he was testifying falsely about?'' And I don't believe a satisfactory answer to this day has been given to that question. Mr. President, I support Ted Olson's nomination to be the next Solicitor General. I commend Senators Leahy, Daschle, Hatch, and Lott for reaching an agreement to have the Olson nomination voted on today. Certain charges were made, but they have been investigated and, in my view, have been found wholly without merit. The charges were raised in a newspaper article in the Washington Post the day that the vote was scheduled on Mr. Olson's nomination. Some of the Senators questioned the article. Subsequently, after the facts were examined, the Washington Post endorsed Ted Olson for this position. Nonetheless, Senator Hatch agreed to delay further and allow the matter to be examined even more thoroughly. That is why we are here today. Now that most of the partisan rhetoric has receded, I am glad the Senate will follow the moderate and wise voices of Professor Laurence Tribe, Robert Bennett, Beth Nolan, Floyd Abrams, and Senator Zell Miller in moving this nomination to confirmation. The Solicitor General is the most important legal advocate in the country. The job has been called the greatest lawyer job in the world. As U.S. attorney for almost 15 years, I had the honor of standing up in court on a daily basis to say: ``The United States is ready, Your Honor.'' I spoke for the United States in its Federal district court normally in the Southern District of Alabama. But what greater thrill could there be, what greater honor than to stand before the great U.S. Supreme Court and represent the greatest country in the history of the world and be the lawyer for that country in that great Court? Ted Olson is worthy of that job. He and his subordinates will shape the arguments in cases that come before the Federal appellate courts and, most importantly, before the Supreme Court of the United States. In this fashion, law is shaped slowly and carefully one case at a time over a period of years. I note, however, that I have a slight disagreement with my distinguished colleague from Vermont on the question of this being an extraordinarily more sensitive a position than others. While it is a position that requires great skill and legal acumen, the truth is that the Solicitor General does not do a lot of things independently. Basically, the Solicitor General asks the Supreme Court, or perhaps some other lesser court if he chooses, to rule one way or the other. He is not making decisions independently about policies or procedures such as an FBI Director would make or the Deputy Attorney General or the Attorney General. He is basically in court constrained by the justices before whom he appears. And it is, as everyone knows, critical that a Solicitor General maintain over a period of years credibility with the Supreme Court. Ted Olson, as a regular practitioner before the Supreme Court of the United States, understands that and will carefully husband his credibility with that Court as he has always done. The Solicitor General must be a constitutional scholar of the first order, a lawyer and legal advocate with broad and distinguished legal experience, and must possess unquestioned integrity. Ted Olson excels in each of these categories. First, Mr. Olson is a constitutional scholar of the highest order. He has studied and written about the Federalist Papers, the Framers, and the Constitution. He earnestly believes in the Constitution's design of limited and separated powers. He sincerely and deeply believes that the States cannot deny any person equal protection of the laws. He understands that history and theory of our fundamental law. There is no doubt about that, in my opinion. And he has been involved with it all of his professional career--in Government and out of Government, including many successful years as a partner in one of the great law firms in the country: Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. Second, Mr. Olson's distinguished experience as a lawyer demonstrates his understanding that the Constitution has real and meaningful impact on the lives of ordinary Americans. He has applied constitutional theory as an Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel. That is a critical position in the Department of Justice that provides legal counsel in the Department of Justice and to all governmental agencies, usually including the President of the United States. He held that office in previous years. He has done this in his own practice when advocating before the courts, including the Supreme Court of the United States. In Aetna Life Insurance Company v. Lavoie, he advocated the due process rights of litigants who faced a judge who had a conflict of interest in the case but would not recuse himself. He represented those litigants to ensure that they would get a fair judge. In Rice v. Cayetano, he advocated the voting rights of those excluded because of their race. And in Morrison v. Olson, he advocated the position that the separation of powers principle required prosecutors to be appointed by the executive branch, a position that this entire Congress has now come to embrace many years later. That was a courageous position he took. Ultimately, Mr. Olson won because his position was validated by subsequent events. Mr. Olson had a legal career which has, to a remarkable degree, placed him as a key player in many of the important legal battles of our time. It is remarkable, really. These cases, many intense, have enriched him. They have enhanced his judgment and wisdom. I can think of no one better prepared to help the President of the United States and the Attorney General deal with complex, contentious, and important cases that are surely to come as the years go by. When he was before the Judiciary Committee, I asked him: ``Mr. Olson, are you prepared to tell the President of the United States no?'' Presidents get treated grandly, like corporate executives and Governors, and they want to do things, and they do not want a lawyer telling them they cannot do it. But sometimes there has to be a lawyer capable of telling the President ``no.'' ``No, sir, you cannot do that. The law will not allow that. I am sorry, Mr. President, we will try to figure out some other way for you to do what you want to do; you cannot do that.'' I believe, based on Ted Olson's experience, his closeness to the President, the confidence the President has in him, he will be able to do that better than any person in America. Finally, Mr. Olson is a man of unquestioned integrity. For example, when asked on numerous occasions to criticize the justices of the Florida Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore litigation, he always declined. He always respected the justices and their court, and even if he disagreed with their legal opinion--and his position was later validated by the U.S. Supreme Court. Mr. Olson's conduct in the most famous case of this generation, as well as his reputation, won him the endorsement of his adversary, Professor Laurence Tribe the famed and brilliant advocate for Al Gore. Indeed, a President assembles an administration, and he is entitled to have around him people in whom he has great confidence, people whom, in the most critical points of his administration, he trusts to give him advice on which he can rely and make decisions. What greater validation is there than perhaps the greatest lawsuit of this century for the Presidency of the United States, to be decided by the Court, and whom did President Bush, out of all the lawyers in America, choose? Did he want someone who was purely a political hack, someone who was a political guru, or did he want the best lawyer he could get to help him win the most important case facing the country maybe of the century? Whom did he choose? Isn't that a good reflection on Ted Olson's reputation that the President chose him, and it is not surprising that Al Gore chose someone of the quality of Laurence Tribe, two great, brilliant litigators in the Supreme Court that day. Mr. Olson has written and he has thought deeply about constitutional law. He is not professor, however, as many of our Solicitors General have been. He has been a lawyer involved in Government in all kinds of issues. During that time, he has gained extraordinary insight, skill, and knowledge about how Government works. He has incredibly unique and valuable qualities to bring to this office. There is simply no better lawyer and no better person to fulfill the awesome responsibilities of the Solicitor General of the United States than Ted Olson. It is my privilege to support him and advocate his nomination. I know there are a number of questions people will raise and have raised, but I believe, as Senator Specter pointed out in our hearings, we have to see where the beef is, what is the substance of the complaints against him. One of the issues that came up was that he minimized his involvement in the ``Arkansas Project'' and that he did not tell the truth before the committee. I have the transcript of the testimony he gave. This is what happened at the committee. He was sitting right there in the room testifying before us. Senator Leahy went right to the heart of the matter, as he had every right to do. This was his question: ``Were you involved in the so-called Arkansas Project at any time?'' The answer: Mr. Olson: As a member of the board of directors of the American Spectator, I became aware of that. It has been alleged that I was somehow involved in that so-called project. I was not involved in the project in its origin or its management. No one found fault with that. That statement has not been disputed to this day. There is certainly no evidence to say otherwise. He stated: I was not involved in the project in its origin or its management. As I understand it, what that was was a contribution by a foundation to the Spectator to conduct investigative journalism. I was on the board of the American Spectator later on when the allegation about the project was simply that it did exist. The publisher at that time, under the supervision of the board of directors, hired a major independent accounting firm to conduct an audit to report to the publisher and, therefore, to the board of directors with respect to how that money was funded. I was on the board at that time. Mr. Olson was on the board when they conducted an investigation that the board decided to do. Mr. Olson continued his answer in Committee: As a result of that investigation, the magazine, while it felt it had the right to conduct these kinds of investigations, decided that it was not in the best interest of the magazine to do so. It ended the project. It established rules to restrict that kind of activity in the future. Senator Leahy interrupted him there. If he did not say enough, Senator Leahy had every opportunity to ask him more questions. He was still talking about it when Senator Leahy interrupted him and stopped him. The transcript shows: . . . to restrict activities of the kind in the future and put it-- Senator Leahy: And Senator Leahy asked some other questions about the same matter which Mr. Olson answered and that I do not think have been credibly disputed either. I submit that the man told the truth absolutely, indisputably. I really believe, as Senator Specter said in Committee, we ought to be responsible around here. We ought to be careful about alleging that a nominee for a position such as Solicitor General of the United States is not being honest or is somehow being dishonest about what he says. I do not believe there are any facts to show that. That is why I care about how we proceed, and I am glad an agreement was reached that the matter could come forward. On the question of Mr. Olson's integrity, we have a number of people who vouch for him. Let's look at these Democrats. Laurence Tribe, the professor who litigated against him in Bush v. Gore, said: It surely cannot be that anyone who took the prevailing view [in Bush v. Gore] and fought for it must on that account be opposed for the position of Solicitor General. Because Ted Olson briefed and argued his side of the case with intelligence, with insight, and with integrity, his advocacy on the occasion of the Florida election litigation--profoundly as I disagree with him on the merits--counts for me as a ``plus'' in this context, not a minus. If we set Bush v. Gore aside, what remains in Ted's case is an undeniably distinguished career of an obviously exceptional lawyer with an enormous breadth of directly relevant experience. I certainly agree with that. That is from Al Gore's lawyer. Walter Dellinger, former Solicitor General under President Clinton, said when Ted Olson was at the Office of Legal Counsel he ``was viewed as someone who brought considerable integrity to the decision-making.'' Beth Nolan, former Clinton White House counsel and Reagan Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel attorney in a letter said: [W]e all hold Mr. Olson in a very high professional and personal regard, because we believe that he made his decisions with integrity, after long and hard reflection. We cannot recall a single instance in which Mr. Olson compromised his integrity to serve the expedients of the [Reagan] administration. Floyd Abrams, esteemed first amendment lawyer, stated in March 2001: I've known Ted since we worked together on a Supreme Court case--Metromedia v. San Diego--20 years ago and . . . I've always been impressed with his talent, his personal decency and his honor. He would serve with distinction as Solicitor General. Harold Koh, former Clinton Administration Assistant Secretary of State in February of this year: Ted Olson is a lawyer of extremely high professional integrity. In all of my dealings with him, I have seen him display high moral character and a very deep commitment to upholding the rule of law. Robert Bennett, attorney for former President Bill Clinton during a lot of this litigation and impeachment matters also supports Mr. Olson's nomination. He is a well-known defense lawyer and certainly very close to President Clinton. He came to the markup when we voted on this in committee and sat throughout the markup. This is what he wrote to the Committee: While I do not have any personal knowledge as to what role, if any, Mr. Olson played in the ``Arkansas Project'' or the full extent of his relationship with the American Spectator, what I do know is that Ted Olson is a truth-teller and you can rely on his representations regarding these matters. . . . He is a man of great personal integrity and credibility and should be confirmed. So, then-Governor Bush chose a man to represent him in the biggest case in his life. He chose a man who had a reputation of this kind among opposing lawyers, lawyers who do not agree with him politically. That is what they say about him. He is uniquely qualified for the job, and he has the unique confidence of the President of the United States. This is what we ought to do: We ought to give the President whomever he wants in his administration if we can justify doing so. If there is some serious problem, we have a right to inquire into that. That has been inquired into and no legitimate basis has been developed on which to oppose the nomination. Then the question is: ``Should a nominee be confirmed?'' And the presumption is that he should unless there is a problem. There were a number of ``charges'' suggested. I will mention briefly that Mr. Olson wrote articles for the American Spectator and received some pay for some of them. He admitted that before the hearings. When he was asked to produce what he published, he submitted those articles to the Committee. Everybody knew that. After the hearing, Senator Kennedy said he was going to vote for him. He was satisfied. There was no dispute about his involvement with the magazine. His opponents said Mr. Olson played word games. Mr. Olson clearly responded that he wasn't involved in the management or the origin of this so-called Arkansas Project, but that when he was at dinners and he talked about the public Clinton scandals over dinner. Anybody knows if you are at a luncheon and you are talking, or at a dinner with an editor and he is writing political articles of this kind, you are going to talk about it. But it doesn't mean he originated the project or managed the project in any way, and that is what he said, ``I did not do.'' With respect to Mr. Olson's representation of David Hale, he plainly said that he was not compensated for that work. He said he had helped Hale from the beginning, but that he was never paid for it--he never got paid for representing him. He never denied representing David Hale, being asked by another lawyer, I believe he said, to help him. This was supported by the Independent Counsel Ray who has stated that the Shaheen Report on whether Mr. Hale was paid to testify found no evidence of any improprieties here. With respect to an American Spectator article on Vince Foster's death, Mr. Olson did not write it. He told the magazine employees that he didn't put much stock in it, but it was all right for the magazine to publish it. The First Amendment generally protects the press when it publishes articles on public figures. It is a free country. I do not believe that the magazine was sued over it. Mr. Olson didn't put much stock in it, but if the magazine wanted to publish it, fine. That is what I understood his statement to be. That is very different from the nominee writing the article or submitting it in a brief to a court. There were questions raised about a chart that he prepared that showed the federal and state criminal offenses that the Clintons could have violated if public allegations were proven in a court of law. He gave the chart to the Committee before we even had the hearing. That was something he had written and produced. We all knew about that. I would just say this. A man's professional skill, his integrity, is determined and built up over a period of years. We in this body, as Senators, know we can make a speech here and we can misspeak, and we have one of our staff, if they have a little time, go back and read it and correct the record. A nominee cannot do that. What Ted Olson said, he said under oath. I don't see he made a mistake at all. We never apologize around here. We make mistakes. We misstate facts. I have done it. I try not to. As a former prosecutor, I always try not to misstate the facts. I work at it very hard. I still find when I leave the floor sometimes I have misspoken. But are you going to call a press conference and try to apologize? We just do it and get away with it. This man told the truth. I don't see where he told anything that was a lie. I know there are some activists who do not want to see the man who handled the Bush v. Gore case confirmed. They don't want to see confirmed a man who gave legal advice to the American Spectator, who thought there was something rotten in Arkansas and went out and investigated it. How many of them went to jail over it? Some of them are still in the bastille, perhaps for crimes they committed that this magazine investigated. What is wrong with that? Isn't this America? I don't see anything wrong with Mr. Scaife giving money, legally, to investigate a stinking mess. That is what we had in Arkansas. The Independent Counsel investigations and the impeachment were tough times for this country. Those matters are behind us. We are at a point now where we have a new administration that is building its team. It is time that the President be able to have his top constitutional adviser on board, be able to do his duty. I am glad we can have this debate. Some see this nomination differently. I respect their views. Ultimately, however, there is no dispute based on facts in the record. I am glad this nomination is being moved forward and that we can have an up-or-down vote on it. I believe Mr. Olson will be confirmed. I think he should be. I am honored to cast my vote for him. I urge others to do so likewise. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Hatch, I yield time to the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Nancy Briani of my staff be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of my remarks on her retirement.