Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, President Bush's Cabinet nominees are the finest group of Cabinet nominees I believe we have seen in the last 100 years. They are extraordinary men and women of accomplishment and achievement. They are grownups. They are people who have a proven record of achievement, and I am proud of them. John Ashcroft is a quality nominee. He is 59 years old. He served twice as attorney general of Missouri, twice as Governor, and he was elected to the Senate. He was five times elected to public office in the State of Missouri, a heartland State, a State that is always a bellwether for who will win the Presidency. This is not a man who is an extremist. This is one of the finest, most decent men I have ever known. This is a man who tells the truth to a degree unusual in this Capital, and to have John Ashcroft accused of not telling the truth by the very same people who on this floor defended the former President of the United States, Bill Clinton, for bald-faced misrepresentations and lies he has finally admitted to making is stunning. John Ashcroft is not that kind of person. John Ashcroft is a better person than that. He tells the truth. He does what is right. I have seen that aspect of his character exhibited time and time again on this floor. He is one of the most principled and decent Senators I have ever known. As I told some friends of mine back home, I have not met a finer person in my church, in my State, or in Washington than John Ashcroft. It is really disturbing to me to have Members of this body be encouraged and pushed by a group of hard-left activists to make statements that are demonstrably untrue. This is especially true when the people parroting these irresponsible statements were not present to observe the hearings that we had on this nomination. In fact, some who have announced their intentions to vote against John Ashcroft did not even wait for the Judiciary Committee hearings to begin before making their rush to judgment. I am a member of the Judiciary Committee, and I was there when we had the hearings concerning this nomination. The committee gave everybody their say. We had representatives of Planned Parenthood, who oppose virtually any kind of control on abortion. We had representatives of the National Abortion Rights Action League as well. We also had a representative from Handgun Control who admitted to me that his organization never criticized the Clinton administration when they allowed prosecutions of gun crimes to drop 46 percent over the past eight years. He never criticized the Clinton administration, not even one single time. Yet he has no problem launching attacks on Republicans who would not agree to support more and more regulation of innocent law-abiding citizens who want to possess guns. That is what the gun debate had become. Whatever bill you agree to pass, these groups want to put something more extreme out there so that it implicates the second amendment to a degree that is arguably unconstitutional, thereby giving them ammunition with which to attack the person who will not vote for it. They never criticized the Clinton administration for not prosecuting gun cases even though Attorney General Reno allowed prosecutions to plummet 46 percent over the past eight years. Why was this group silent? If their agenda is truly one of concern about the criminal misuse of firearms, why were they willing to turn a blind eye to the Democratic administrations lax enforcement efforts? The truth is that many of these activist groups are fundamentally arms of the Democratic National Committee, and they are leaders of the hard left in America. They think they can come in and dictate to the President of the United States that he cannot appoint a decent, exceptionally skilled, and fine individual as Attorney General of the United States. John Ashcroft went to Yale. He graduated from the University of Chicago Law School. He is a scholar. I have heard him make speeches that are extraordinarily fine in their analytical thought. He follows his principles to a degree that I think is unsurpassed here. So it is really surprising to me to hear these complaints raised about him. Let's talk about one matter his opponents keep raising. I would like to stand here all night debunking the myths that the far left has attempted to construct, but for the moment I am just going to talk about a couple of them tonight. The Ronnie White matter is one of the first myths that the hard left is perpetuating. Let's look at the facts. John Ashcroft voted for every single African American judicial nominee who came up for a vote on this floor except Ronnie White--26 out of 27. Ronnie White was opposed not only from his home State of Missouri by John Ashcroft, he was also opposed by Kit Bond, the senior Senator from Missouri. Both of the home State Senators opposed this nominee. Was this some sort of an extremist position? I mean, confirmation is a fact and we need to deal with the cases that come before us. John made a speech on this floor indicating his opposition to that nomination. He voted against it in committee. I think it came up in committee on two different occasions and on both occasions he voted against it and expressed his opposition to the nominee. But, to his credit, he did let the nominee come to the floor for a final vote. He agreed to allow that to happen. So now he has been accused of intentionally mistreating Ronnie White because he allowed the full Senate to consider the nomination, rather than attempting to quietly defeat the nomination in committee. Let me tell you, if you hold a nominee in committee--and I suppose Senator Bond and Senator Ashcroft could have kept that nominee in committee-- the left would have been attacking him now for not letting the White nomination come to a vote. I am telling you, that is what he would be accused of. I have been here on the floor, and I have seen that. John made a speech delineating some of the reasons--which I am going to mention in a moment--that he opposed him. And 54 of the 100 Senators in this body voted no. How is that an extreme matter? Why would they vote no? There were several reasons. Out of the 114 sheriffs in Missouri, 77 of them wrote in opposition to the White nomination. Incidentally, many of these sheriffs are Democrats. Additionally, the Mercer County District Attorney wrote a letter to John Ashcroft stating: Judge White's record is unmistakably anti-law enforcement, and we believe his nomination should be defeated. His rulings and dissenting opinions on capital cases and on fourth amendment issues should be disqualifying factors when considering his nomination. You have heard another far left myth if you listened to the debate to date in that some opponents of John Ashcroft's nomination claim that John Ashcroft's members of the Supreme Court voted to dissent on criminal cases more frequently than Judge White. That is a very inaccurate statement. Let me tell you why. It is because apples are being compared to oranges. While the Ashcroft judge Mr. White replaced did vote against the imposition of the death penalty in a number of cases that Ashcroft nominee was voting on a series of cases that were not the same cases Judge White was ruling on when he was on the Supreme Court. He was ruling on a different group, with different facts and different legal questions involved. It is apples and oranges. In order to place Judge White's death penalty dissents in proper perspective, it is necessary to compare Judge White's rulings to all the members of the court during the time Judge White sat on the court. When apples are compared to apples, it is clear that Judge White dissented four times more frequently than any other judge on that court. That is a record that should be examined. That is a cause of concern. Some of Judge White's opinions that I have read cause me great concern because I was a Federal prosecutor for 15 years, and an attorney general for 2. I know some of the issues that come up with judges. I have spent by far the largest portion of my career in Federal court before Federal judges. You have to understand something about Federal judges. They are appointed for life. They have absolute power in many instances in a trial, power that is unreviewable by any court. The most dramatic of these powers is the ability to grant a judgment of acquittal at the end of the prosecution's case. For example, if you present a case against a defendant for murder, or some other fraud or crime, and the prosecution stands up at the end of its case and says, ``The prosecution rests,'' immediately now, these days, no matter what the evidence, the defense lawyer will stand up and make a motion for a judgment of acquittal. Usually they are denied. Usually these motions are just hot air. They are just saying stuff for the record, frankly. Most prosecutors bring good, strong cases. So defense attorneys as a matter of routine move for a judgment of acquittal. If the judge grants that judgment of acquittal, it is the same as if a jury had acquitted that defendant. Jeopardy attaches. Under the Constitution of the United States, you cannot twice be held in jeopardy under the law. That defendant is acquitted, and he can never be tried again, no matter how guilty he or she may have been of the offenses charged. So a Federal judge with a lifetime appointment in many ways is much more problematic for the system than one member of a seven-member supreme court. John Ashcroft, as a former State attorney general, understood that. Federal judges also routinely overrule the entire criminal justice system of a State. You may say that is not routine. I suggest to you it is very frequent, and they are often asked to do so. For example, if a case is appealed all the way to the Missouri Supreme Court, and the Missouri Supreme Court rules, then the defendant can file post-conviction relief in Federal court and ask the Federal court to review the State case to see if the Federal Constitution has been implicated and violated in some way that the defendant was tried. So if you have a Federal judge on the bench who wants to let criminals go or is undisciplined in the responsibilities of his office in applying the law, or has demonstrated a bias against law enforcement officers, you can have a real problem. In Alabama, people knew who the judges were who were always letting criminals go. It was not a secret. I am telling you, if you have a nominee come up from my State for a lifetime Federal judgeship, I am going to ensure--because I was an attorney general also--that they are going to give law enforcement a fair day in court, too. They are going give the prosecutor a fair chance to put on his or her case. That is the way John Ashcroft felt about it. So imagine his concern when he realized that he had prosecutors in his State opposing the White nomination. He had a majority of the sheriffs in his state oppose this judge. He even received written opposition from national law enforcement organizations, such as the National Sheriffs Association, that wrote in and opposed this judicial nomination. So, keeping these facts in mind, John looked at the record, and thoroughly examined a number of the opinions Judge White had issued which concerned these groups. And what he discovered, as he expressed in his floor speech at the time of the vote, is that Judge White had made a series of ``procriminal rulings''. The far left analyzes this as some sort of unwarranted attack upon Judge White's character, but it was not. It was simply a description of the opinions involved. This is clear if one bothers to read the statement John made here on this floor. He was referring to his opinions. You can call them liberal opinions; you can call them bleeding heart opinions; you can call them anti-law-enforcement opinions. You can call them whatever you want to characterize them. But it is not disqualifying, in my opinion, to be Attorney General if you refer to a justice's opinions as procriminal when they continually rule in favor of criminal defendants. One of the cases that caused the greatest disturbance was the Johnson case. In this case the defendant, Mr. Johnson, was involved in a domestic disturbance. The call went out to the sheriff's department. As so often happens, sheriff's deputies go out to those houses in response to a domestic call. These missions are considered to be perhaps the most risky and dangerous thing they do. In this case a deputy knocked on the door, and Johnson appears with a gun. As the deputy tried to get away, Johnson shot him in the back. The deputy fell to the ground, and Johnson walks over and puts a bullet through his forehead, execution style. That is not enough to satisfy Johnson's blood lust, however. What does he do next? After murdering, in cold blood, a deputy doing his duty, Johnson goes out and tries to track down the sheriff. The sheriff isn't home. But the sheriff's wife is in the home, having a social gathering there--and with her own children about--and he shoots the wife five times through the window, killing her. Then Johnson continues his rampage by tracking down two other deputy sheriffs and killing them. This is one of the most horrible crimes I have seen. At his trial, Johnson's defense lawyers suggest that because he served in Vietnam, the murders were the result of posttraumatic stress syndrome. The trial had all kinds of expert testimony and things of that nature to deal with this issue. The defendant was caught, surrounded in a building, and surrendered. He made a detailed confession. I would say, as a prosecutor, it was a powerful demonstration of guilt beyond virtually any doubt that this defendant committed this crime. The defense tried to say this guy thought he was in Vietnam. These were good defense lawyers, they had been award-winning criminal defense lawyers. All of them were highly skilled. So, on behalf of their client they claimed he had posttraumatic stress syndrome. In light of the overwhelming evidence what else could they do? The murders were plain and simple. During the course of the trial, these lawyers made some representations that were not factually accurate, but which were not sufficiently egregious for the majority of the Missouri Supreme Court to find any error in their actions. But Judge White felt differently. He concluded that the defense attorneys were incompetent, and that Johnson didn't get a fair trial. He also suggested that he wanted to apply an insanity theory that was different from established Missouri law. In fact, what White said was that if Johnson didn't meet the legal definition of insanity, he had something ``akin to madness.'' Two of the most significant criminal justice issues in America are the question of insanity and incompetent counsel. That is true because so many cases in our criminal justice system are like this case--the guilt is clear and overwhelming. So when they go and appoint a paid State attorney, a court-appointed attorney--by the way, in this case these attorneys were retained counsel, hired by this defendant or his family; he hired them; he wanted good attorneys--normally, the appeal goes forward dutifully after conviction because that is what a lawyer is expected to do. The State will pay for it. So they make an appeal and raise these issues on appeal. When the guilt is overwhelming and the defendant did something violent such as this, what are the two issues you can raise? Ineffective assistance of counsel and insanity. And in this one opinion, Judge White showed clearly that he lacked judicial discipline. He lacked a comprehensive and clear understanding of the importance of a judge maintaining clear rules on insanity and incompetence of counsel. His dissent, if applied, would have completely destabilized the law in both of those areas for the State of Missouri. Another big factor in cases is, even if the lawyer made a mistake and could in one sense be held to be incompetent, the judge must ask himself, on appeal, would that have had any likelihood of changing the outcome of the case. Certainly it would not have in this case, as the majority opinion clearly held. There were a series of other cases such as this one that caused the former attorney general of the State of Missouri to wrestle with his conscience about whether or not he could approve this judge. He concluded he could not, that he ought to oppose him. By giving him a lifetime-appointed Federal judicial position, the danger would be great, and he should not be promoted with this kind of anti-law- enforcement record. So he made a statement to that effect on the floor, and 54 Senators agreed with him. That is not disqualifying. That shows to me a man of courage, because he knew it would be a difficult matter, that many would disagree with him and he would probably be attacked. It showed the kind of courage that prosecutors have to have. It is not always a pleasant task to take on these cases. You have to do your duty, and John did in this case. He did the right thing. Judge White's opinions are, in my opinion, outside the mainstream, and he should not have been confirmed--54 Senators agreed with this conclusion. The far left has also made allegations about the Bill Lann Lee nomination, and they have been attacking Senator Ashcroft for his small role--they don't say small role--in the Bill Lann Lee matter. Bill Lann Lee was nominated by the President for chief of the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice. He had been a career civil rights attorney, a good one, who had filed lawsuits all over the country. That had been his goal throughout life. He came at the office from that perspective. That is not disqualifying. As a matter of fact, it could be a good quality. In fact, I consider it a good quality that he had litigated and had been active in the areas of law which he would be called upon to enforce. Many of his cases, however, had obtained rulings or forced agencies he was suing into consent decrees that went beyond what I believe is justified under current Supreme Court law. In fact, in recent years the U.S. Supreme Court rendered an opinion called the Adarand opinion. It was a very important case. It clarified in many ways the issue concerning quotas and affirmative action programs in terms of what is legitimate and what is not. Basically, the Supreme Court held that the Government can't have quotas. It cannot say that you get this contract for highway work because of the color of your skin and you don't get it because of the color of your skin. The Government can have affirmative action programs; it can have action to encourage small businesses. It can do a lot of different things to encourage minorities to have the opportunity to compete. But it cannot, as a matter of American law and fundamental justice, say to one group or another: You can't get this contract because of the color of your skin. We had a hearing on that in the Judiciary Committee. We had Mrs. Adarand, the wife of Mr. Adarand, testify how their business had been damaged by a quota system in Federal highway funding. She described that in some detail. We had a lady, a Chinese American from San Francisco, who testified about her daughter who had studied very hard to get into a special advanced quality school in San Francisco for math and science, I believe. She met the test scores, and they were so excited. Then she got a letter saying they were not accepted. This woman went down to the school's office and said: My daughter made this test score. I thought she would be accepted. Why wasn't she? She said the man to whom she was speaking looked at her and said: She was rejected because there are too many Chinese enrolled already. Even though her child qualified in every way, she was rejected because of her ethnic, racial background. That is the kind of thing that is happening in America today. It is not a healthy thing. Adarand made clear that those kinds of things are not justified. Adarand holds that there is a presumption in the law that programs based on race, that favor one group or another based on their race, are unconstitutional and that they fail and cannot be enforced unless they pass a strict scrutiny test, which is a very high test. Isn't that true? Isn't that what America is about? Equal opportunity for all, regardless of their race and background, color or creed or religion? Yes, that is what America is about. So this is a seminal case. So Mr. Lee came up. It became a really important question as to whether or not he would follow this because his background, particularly in a lot of cases before Adarand was ruled on, was contrary to that. He said he thought Adarand was fine, he would follow it. But we questioned him in some detail about how he interpreted Adarand, and that was a matter that did not go well for Mr. Lee, in my opinion. It troubled the entire committee. The precise questions dealt with the enforcement of Adarand. When asked to state the holding of Adarand--we asked him what he thought the holding of Adarand was--he testified that racial preference programs are permissible ``if conducted in a limited and measured manner.'' Racial preferences are permissible in America, he said, if conducted in a limited and measured manner. But Adarand doesn't say that. That was the problem. Adarand says they are presumptively unconstitutional unless they pass strict scrutiny, some specific reason--normally, a clear bias that is being fixed by a post-adjudication order. But even when this was pointed out to Mr. Lee, he stayed with his expressed position. That was very troubling. I liked Mr. Lee. I told him I liked him. But I was troubled that he was going to be chief of the Civil Rights Division in the Department of Justice, and he wasn't prepared to enforce plain rule, as I saw it, in the Adarand case. Chairman Hatch, who is a constitutional scholar, was also troubled. He came and made a speech on this floor which had the quality of a Law Review article dissecting this important seminal case and Mr. Lee's responses to it. He voted no, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, as did eight other members of the Judiciary Committee, of which I was a member. He failed in committee 9-9. They blamed John Ashcroft as being a man who personally blocked this person from that high office. I don't think that is right. I think that is wrong. That is deliberate distortion of what happened. Members of the committee who were there ought to have known better than to criticize John Ashcroft with regards to the Bill Lann Lee nomination. They should not repeat a false allegation, and they should correct their colleagues who may not know otherwise. It was an honest, professional discussion of the law. It was an honest discussion of what ought to be done for Bill Lann Lee, and we concluded that his understanding of Adarand was different than what we understood Adarand to be and that he could not fulfill the very heart of his office's responsibility if he didn't understand the seminal case on preferences and quotas in America law, the Adarand case. There are hundreds of Federal programs based on race in America. When asked if any of them would fall because of Adarand, Lee suggested maybe one. I think that is unlikely to be so as the law continues to develop in this area. I think we had a real problem there. That is why that matter was decided the way it was. It certainly is unfair to say that this brilliant lawyer, this principled Senator, this public servant of over 25 years was somehow anti-Chinese-Americans because he voted against Bill Lann Lee. He voted for 26 out of 27 African American judges that the Clinton administration sent forward, objecting only to the one in his State where his sheriffs and police chiefs opposed him. Does that mean that he is anti-black? They are wrong. This is going too far. What is happening here is not right. I was talking to a group, and I acknowledged that John was different from the rest of us. He doesn't drink, dance or smoke because of his dedication to his religious beliefs. He has been married to one wife, and he has a fine family. His personal life is conducted on the highest standard of decency and fairness. In many important ways, John Ashcroft is different from the rest of us. In many important ways, John Ashcroft is better than the rest of us. He has appointed numerous African Americans to the bench in Missouri. He signed into law and supported the Martin Luther King birthday law in Missouri at a time when some didn't want to do that. His wife, a law professor herself, is teaching at the Howard University, a majority black college here in D.C. John has a clear record of fairness and justice. It is wrong to allow a series of groups that are not answerable to the American people, that have hard-left agendas, to come in here and caricature his decisions as being somehow anti-civil rights because he voted against Bill Lann Lee; that he is somehow anti-black because he voted against this one judge. To make that kind of caricature of this good man and then ask us to vote against him based on that caricature is fundamentally wrong. If you had heard the testimony and heard him answer and explain how he did this and other things in the hearing, you would agree, I believe, that he made a wonderful case for what he did. It was plausible and reasonable and principled and is not in any way extreme or outside the mainstream of American law. Another far left myth is that John is against integration because he resisted massive Federal Court intervention in the State of Missouri's school systems. Many of you have probably heard of the Kansas City case where a Federal judge imposed a tax and ordered a county commission to impose a tax to pay for the court's plan for education. John was the attorney general of the State of Missouri, the sovereign State of Missouri, that has a constitution that says what State school boards do, what State superintendents of education do, and how the system is set up. This Federal judge came in and ripped it all apart doing what he thought was just. I am telling you, if the attorney general wants to defend his State, what is the matter with that? Who is in charge? Is he supposed to stand idly by and allow the court to do that? Senator Danforth, one of the most respected Senators who has served in this body, is an Episcopal priest, and was attorney general before John. He opposed these court orders. His successor opposed these orders. The second successor to John Ashcroft, Jay Nixon--I was attorney general, and I knew Jay. Jay opposed those orders exceedingly vigorously. But that didn't stop a few of the Members of this body, Senators Kennedy and Harkin, from going to Missouri and having a fundraiser for Jay Nixon in his race for the Senate. Let me repeat that. Senators Kennedy and Harkin held a political fundraiser for Jay Nixon after he opposed these court orders vigorously, yet somehow it was improper for then Attorney General Ashcroft to have opposed them as well. This example is illustrative. Like the integration charge, all the charges made against John are trumped up. This is not fair. John Ashcroft was doing his duty as an attorney general. He favored school integration, and he has stated that unequivocally. He believes in integration, but he did not agree with the actions taken by the federal courts. This is what was in one of the court orders that John Ashcroft resisted as attorney general of Missouri. It ordered the school system to have an 8-lane, 50-meter swimming pool, the biggest in the State, bigger than any of the universities' swimming pools; a 300-seat Greek amphitheater with a stage framed with white columns; a planetarium; greenhouses; a dust-free diesel mechanic shop--I worked in my dad's mechanic shop. It wasn't dust free. It didn't hurt me, I don't think-- broadcast cable radio and TV studios; school animal rooms, including an indoor petting zoo; private nature trails; overseas trips for students; and a model United Nations with language translation. The attorney general is supposed to sit by and let a Federal judge take over the whole State and issue these kinds of orders? Who is going to pay this $1.7 billion? The people of Missouri. Who is this judge? How do judges get to do this? They have to be careful about this. You can't issue orders to remedy a past discrimination. You can't do that, but judges do it regularly. But many judges over reach. Many court rulings have over reached. As attorney general, John Ashcroft thought it was his duty to defend Missouri as his predecessor and as his two successors did. That is not an extreme position. This is second-guessing somebody and twisting it to make it sound as if he opposed integration, which he absolutely did not. There are many more matters that have been charged. The responses to them are just as compelling. In fact, it is clear to me that the case against John Ashcroft totally collapsed in the hearings that we held. We gave everybody a chance to testify. John responded to all of them. He answered 400 questions propounded to him. There is no case here that shows that he wouldn't be the finest kind of Attorney General. I am convinced that he will. I am convinced that he will be a great Attorney General. As one who spent 15 years in the Department of Justice, I dearly love and I respect it from my deepest being. It has not been run well in the last 8 years. It really has not. Morale is not where it needs to be. They have not pursued cases effectively, in my view. For long, long periods of time, chief positions such as Criminal Division Chief have been left vacant. There has not been a focus and a leadership there, and it is desperately needed. More than anybody I know, John Ashcroft can fill that role with integrity, with fairness, and with justice to restore the concept of equal justice under the law, even if it means denying pardons to millionaire fugitives who won't come back to face the medicine. He would never have approved a pardon for that kind of case. That kind of stuff is rotten to the core. The same people in this body who have defended, excused, and apologized for lies, for unprincipled operation of the Department of Justice, or for former President Clinton's subversion of the law, now see fit to attack a man of character and decency. This is tragic, and it speaks volumes about John's opponents. He is going to be confirmed, because my colleagues know the truth about John Ashcroft. He will be a good Attorney General. Members of this Senate in opposition to this nomination ought to reevaluate their conscience about how they have handled this case. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. On behalf of the majority leader, I further ask that following morning business the Senate proceed to executive session to begin consideration of the Ashcroft nomination.

Mr. SESSIONS. On behalf of the majority leader, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until the hour of 10 a.m. on Wednesday, January 31. I further ask consent that on Wednesday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then begin a period of morning business until 10:30 a.m. with Senators speaking for up to 5 minutes each, with the following exceptions: Senator Brownback or his designee, 10 to 10:15 a.m.; Senator Durbin or his designee, 10:15 to 10:30 a.m.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I understand S. 220 is at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 15, submitted earlier today by Senators Sarbanes and Mikulski.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Tomorrow the Senate will be in a period of morning business from 10 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of Senator Ashcroft's nomination to be Attorney General of the United States. Under the order, debate will occur throughout the day. It is hoped that we can schedule Senators in an alternating manner throughout the day.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Notwithstanding the resolution of the Senate of January 24, 1901, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate convene at 12 noon Monday, February 26, 2001; that immediately following the prayer, the disposition of the Journal, and the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, the traditional reading of Washington's Farewell Address take place, and that the Chair be authorized to appoint a Senator to perform this task.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague from California, Senator Feinstein, in sponsoring the James Guelff Body Armor Act of 2001. This legislation is intended to deter criminals from wearing body armor and to empower Federal law enforcement agencies to donate surplus body armor to State and local police departments. This bipartisan legislation is named in honor of James Guelff, a California police officer who was murdered in the line of duty by an assailant wearing body armor and a bulletproof helmet. As a Federal prosecutor for fifteen years, I developed a deep appreciation for the threats that our law enforcement officers face day to day as they wage the war on crime. In my home State of Alabama, Etowah County Officer Chris McCurley was murdered and Officer Gary Entrekin was critically injured in 1997 during a shootout with two criminals shielded by body armor. This bill will make criminals like these pay an extra price for using body armor while harming innocent, law-abiding people. The James Guelff Body Armor Act addresses the abuse of body armor in three ways: First, the bill directs the United States Sentencing Commission to amend the Sentencing Guidelines to include an enhancement for the use of body armor during a violent crime or a drug crime. Thus, criminals who use body armor while attacking law enforcement officers or civilians will spend longer terms in prison. Second, the bill prohibits a person who has been convicted of a violent felony from purchasing, owning, or possessing body armor. Once a criminal has shown a propensity to violent action, he should not be able to use body armor to commit another crime and perhaps evade capture by the police. Third, the bill enables Federal law enforcement agencies to donate surplus body armor, currently totaling approximately 10,000 vests, directly to State and local law enforcement agencies. By protecting our police officers, sheriffs' deputies, and other State and local law enforcement officers with body armor, we can help ensure that more cops come home to their families at the end of their day. It is indisputable that getting our law enforcement officers more body armor will save lives. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, more than 30 percent of the officers killed by firearms in the line of duty since 1980 could have survived had they been wearing body armor. In a survey of American voters in 1999 by the National Association of Police Organizations, 83 percent supported passing laws to keep felons from wearing body armor during the commission of crimes. This is why a broad bipartisan group of law enforcement organizations support this bill including: the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the National Association of Police Organizations, the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, and the National Sheriffs Association. Last year, a very similar bill passed the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously. It passed the entire Senate unanimously. It is time for Congress to act and to protect our law enforcement officers. I call on my colleagues in the Senate, including Senator Feinstein, to join me, and the law enforcement community in supporting this important legislation that will save lives and provide law enforcement officers with more protection in their fight against the most violent criminals.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague from California, Senator Feinstein, in sponsoring the James Guelff Body Armor Act of 2001. This legislation is intended to deter criminals from wearing body armor and to empower Federal law enforcement agencies to donate surplus body armor to State and local police departments. This bipartisan legislation is named in honor of James Guelff, a California police officer who was murdered in the line of duty by an assailant wearing body armor and a bulletproof helmet. As a Federal prosecutor for fifteen years, I developed a deep appreciation for the threats that our law enforcement officers face day to day as they wage the war on crime. In my home State of Alabama, Etowah County Officer Chris McCurley was murdered and Officer Gary Entrekin was critically injured in 1997 during a shootout with two criminals shielded by body armor. This bill will make criminals like these pay an extra price for using body armor while harming innocent, law-abiding people. The James Guelff Body Armor Act addresses the abuse of body armor in three ways: First, the bill directs the United States Sentencing Commission to amend the Sentencing Guidelines to include an enhancement for the use of body armor during a violent crime or a drug crime. Thus, criminals who use body armor while attacking law enforcement officers or civilians will spend longer terms in prison. Second, the bill prohibits a person who has been convicted of a violent felony from purchasing, owning, or possessing body armor. Once a criminal has shown a propensity to violent action, he should not be able to use body armor to commit another crime and perhaps evade capture by the police. Third, the bill enables Federal law enforcement agencies to donate surplus body armor, currently totaling approximately 10,000 vests, directly to State and local law enforcement agencies. By protecting our police officers, sheriffs' deputies, and other State and local law enforcement officers with body armor, we can help ensure that more cops come home to their families at the end of their day. It is indisputable that getting our law enforcement officers more body armor will save lives. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, more than 30 percent of the officers killed by firearms in the line of duty since 1980 could have survived had they been wearing body armor. In a survey of American voters in 1999 by the National Association of Police Organizations, 83 percent supported passing laws to keep felons from wearing body armor during the commission of crimes. This is why a broad bipartisan group of law enforcement organizations support this bill including: the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the National Association of Police Organizations, the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, and the National Sheriffs Association. Last year, a very similar bill passed the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously. It passed the entire Senate unanimously. It is time for Congress to act and to protect our law enforcement officers. I call on my colleagues in the Senate, including Senator Feinstein, to join me, and the law enforcement community in supporting this important legislation that will save lives and provide law enforcement officers with more protection in their fight against the most violent criminals.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the chairman. Mr. President, what is the time situation? Are we still set for a vote?

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we have had quoted on the floor a letter from a group of professors that expressed opposition to this bankruptcy bill. I think we owe it to those who quoted from it to treat the letter seriously and analyze item by item the complaints they have made and discuss it on the floor. I must say that after examining the letter carefully, I must take issue with the professors' conclusions. I intend to try to go over the points that they raise fairly and honestly, and to state the situation as I see it. In fact, I think it is quite plain. The professors are wrong and they are making misleading statements about it. For example, the letter from the professors says: Women and children will have to compete with powerful creditors to collect their claims after bankruptcy. The fact is, the bill makes currently exempt assets--that is, homestead, household effects, tools of the trade--those kinds of things that normally today cannot be made to be sold to pay alimony or child support--non-exempt. Thus, wives and mothers will not have to compete with anyone before, during, or after bankruptcy for these key assets. In fact, a mother, for child support, can take the home--the homestead notwithstanding--of a deadbeat dad and take other assets that he has that otherwise under current law would be exempt. It is a major step forward for the rights of children. The letter from the professors further says: Credit card claims increasingly will be excepted from discharge and remain a legal obligation after bankruptcy. The fact is, the bill makes only credit card debt incurred by fraud nondischargeable, just like taxes and child support are nondischargeable. Debtors who defraud creditors should not be able to discharge their debts in bankruptcy and not pay them. They only ought to be able to discharge the debts they lawfully incurred. That is the current law. That is the law today. You cannot discharge fraudulent debts. In addition, of course, credit card debt is at the end of the line if you have to pay anything. It is a non-secured debt. It is the last priority to be paid in the list of priorities. This letter goes on to say: Large retailers will have an easier time obtaining reaffirmations of debt that legally could be discharged. That is absolutely false. I was charged by Senator Grassley to meet with Senator Reid and the representatives from the White House to develop reaffirmation language that would strengthen protections for people who were asked to reaffirm debts. Frankly, reaffirmations are not all that bad. Many times, people have every reason to want to reaffirm their debts and keep their washing machine, their TV, their furniture, their automobile they use to get to and from work. They want to keep it. They reaffirm their debt and they do not lose it. So we worked out language to which the White House agreed. It strengthens the protections provided to those debtors. It was language agreed-upon in a bipartisan way. The letter further says: Giving first priority to domestic support obligations-- Which is in the bill, giving them first priority of payment-- does not address the problem, and that 95 percent of bankruptcy cases make no distributions to any creditors because there are no assets to distribute. First, the money is going to the bankruptcy court and to lawyers. In our rule, children would be above the courts and the lawyers. ``Granting women and children a first priority permits them to stand first in line to collect nothing,'' the professors say. But the fact is, the means test will place above-median-income-deadbeat-dads into Chapter 13 if they can repay some of their debt--median income for a family of four, by the way, is about $45,000. So, to reiterate, deadbeat dads who are above median income, will be forced into chapter 13 (instead of being able to file Chapter 7) if they can afford to pay back some of the debts they owe--maybe it is 20 percent, maybe it is 30 percent--but they will be put into chapter 13 to pay that. And for 5 years the judge can order them to pay on those debts what percentage he or she believes the debtor is financially able to pay and maintain a decent standard of living. But what is first? What is first paid by that deadbeat dad? His alimony and child support. He would be under court-monitored supervision and direction to pay the first fruits of his income directly in the form of child support and alimony. In effect, you have a bankruptcy judge helping ensure, for 5 years, the full payment of child support and alimony. I believe that is going to be a historic step forward. In fact, this will place children and women in a higher level than they have ever been before. The letter further says: Under current law, child support and alimony share a protected post-bankruptcy position with only two other recurrent collectors of debt--taxes and student loans. The bill would allow credit card debt and other consumer credit to share that position, thus elbowing aside women trying to collect on their own behalf. That is not true. I can understand why some of our Senators are concerned about the bill after they read this letter. It has a bunch of professors' names on it. They think it is true--but it is not true. The fact is, the bill allows only consumer debt that was incurred by fraud to be nondischargeable, which is fundamentally the law today. Even so, only alimony and child support claimants will be able to levee on any of these assets. No one else can levee or get ahead of a parent or a child to claim these exempt assets. Thus, mothers will not have to compete with the IRS, the student loan companies, credit card companies, or anyone else, to attach exempt assets after bankruptcy. Further, I believe the bill will provide more assets for distribution to women and children than before, during, and after bankruptcy. Before bankruptcy, debtors will receive credit counseling information which will help keep fathers on a budget, teach them how to maintain a budget, and out of bankruptcy and paying their alimony and child support in the first place. During bankruptcy, deadbeat dads will be required to pay all past due alimony and child support and to undergo court supervision for up to 5 years under chapter 13, as they pay their No. 1 priority, child support claims. After bankruptcy it is much more likely that a father who has undergone credit counseling, who has been subjected to 5 years of court supervision of his finances, and where alimony and child support were the first things he was required to pay and where he knows that he cannot shield his exempt assets from alimony and child support, will be up to date on all his payments if he has gone through that process-- much more so than today. I see Chairman Grassley is here. I had a number of matters, but I know he would like to wrap up at this time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I have at least six or seven more items that I could refer to from the professors' letter that I believe are based on complaints about an early version of the bill, matters that are not even in the bill today, and other items that are completely distorted in how it affects the poor people in America today. Let me simply say this: We need bankruptcy reform. We have shown a doubling of bankruptcy filings in the last decade. It is time for us to move this bill forward to create a body of law that is less subject to abuse than current law, to close many of the loopholes or at least partially close them. The fact we have not been able to do everything is not a basis to object, in my view. The perfect is the enemy of the good. This is a good bill. I would like to see all the homestead exemptions removed, at least as we agreed earlier. Senator Grassley supported that. The House would not agree. We got half the problems of homestead eliminated in this bill. If we do not pass the bill, we will have the current law which has a host of problems and none of them fixed. That is where we are. We have a good piece of legislation. Chairman Grassley has done a magnificent job of listening to everybody and working out an agreement that is acceptable. Chairman Hatch has likewise been tough in trying to complete this bill. I believe we have a good piece of legislation, and I hope the vote will be overwhelming again today.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank Senator Hatch for his leadership on this bankruptcy bill and for shepherding it through the Judiciary Committee. I remember distinctly when we first began to discuss the problems of children, alimony and child support, the leadership and the firm position Senator Hatch took to guarantee that children and alimony payments would have an enhanced position in bankruptcy, much higher than it had ever been before. That was the goal of Senator Hatch, who has worked on this bill and previous bankruptcy bills and studied this. I am looking at a letter from some professors who don't seem to get it. But the Senator has studied and sponsored the amendment that made some of the historic changes. Is there any doubt in your mind, Senator, that the children will benefit from those child support payments, and women will have more protections for alimony payments under this bill that we are about to pass than if the bill does not pass?

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I express my appreciation and admiration to Senator Grassley for his extraordinary patience, steadfast leadership, and efforts in moving this bill forward over a period of years. Some say this has slipped through. We have had hearings for years. We have had debates on this floor for the last 2 to 3 years. It has passed every time overwhelmingly. But a small group is trying to identify certain little things when they put a spin on it to make it sound as if doing something about a bankruptcy system that is out of control is bad and is not a fair thing. What we are saying fundamentally is, if you make above median income--for a family of four, I believe the median income is $45,000-- and a judge finds you can pay some of your debts back, you ought to be able to pay that. We have examples all over this country. If you talk to any of your bankers and hospitals in your community, you find people with high incomes are just walking away, wiping out all their debts and not paying them. They think it is cool and clever. But it is wrong. When a person receives a value, receives a loan, he or she ought to pay it back if they can. America is very generous. If you cannot pay it back and you are in debt, you can file bankruptcy, wipe out all those debts, and start over free and clear. What this legislation says is, most historically, the small number-- and it is far less than 50 percent--who make higher incomes, if they can pay more, ought to. That is only fair and just. Bankruptcy is a Federal court legal system. Bankruptcy judges are Federal judges. The whole bankruptcy code with which many lawyers have worked--and I have a bit over the years but never mastered; and as U.S. attorney, I had a couple of lawyers on my staff who worked bankruptcy regularly and we dealt with bankruptcy issues--this complex code states who gets what in bankruptcy and how much should be paid. We found we have had a doubling in filings in bankruptcy in the last 10 years, during a time when the economy is doing exceedingly well. We have also found that lawyers--and I don't really blame lawyers; I am a lawyer; I practiced law; if the bankruptcy code gives me a clause somewhere that I can use to the advantage of my client to make them not pay a debt that the client probably should pay--I am going to take advantage of it. It is malpractice not to take advantage of that. Whose responsibility is it if we create a bankruptcy code that has loopholes in it? It is our responsibility. If after over 20 years of this current bankruptcy bill, after over 20 plus years of experience, we see where the problem areas are, where the abuses are, it is our obligation, I think, to do something about it and fix it so that it operates fairly and so that people are treated as they should be treated. What we are saying and what bankruptcy does is say that a person who incurred a debt, a person who received a benefit, doesn't have to pay for it. If you received a loan, they give you $10,000 and you go bankrupt, you don't pay your loan back. Sure, it hurts your brother-in- law who loaned it to you, your banker who loaned it to you, and it has financial repercussions. The bank has to charge higher interest rates when they have more defaults. Consumers pay for that, too. It hurts that family who sits down on a weekly basis adding up their income around the kitchen table, figuring how to pay their debts. Some people don't; they go off gambling or they do other things. Or they have, in fact, a serious financial problem they can't deal with--a huge medical bill. Some families try to figure out a way to work through that; they should. Some can't, and they file bankruptcy. All we are saying is, that that small percentage who is making above median income, who a judge believes can pay some of it, ought to pay it. Maybe it is 25 percent of the debts they owe, but they ought to pay that if they can. It also does a number of things that Senator Hatch and Senator Grassley have mentioned to raise the level of protection and benefits for children and divorced women through alimony. Alimony and child support become No. 1 protected items in this bill. There have been some letters that Senator Kennedy and others read that nobody supports this bill. He stated on the floor not one single organization that advocates for children supports this bill. These are his words: Not one single organization that advocates for women supports this legislation, there is not one single organization that represents working men and women that supports the bill, and that there is not one single organization that represents the interests of consumers that supports the bill. Well, that is not exactly correct. Interestingly, just yesterday I received four letters from organizations that represent the interests of all the groups referred to by Senator Kennedy who do support this bill. Those four organizations writing letters in support of this bill include the National Child Support Enforcement Association. I was attorney general for 2 years in Alabama, and we worked all kinds of ways to utilize the power of the State's attorneys to help increase child support collections. That is one of the main groups in America that does this--the National Child Support Association, the Western Interstate Child Support Enforcement Council, the California Family Support Council, and Attorney General Betty Montgomery of Ohio. I will now tell you a little bit about the contents of the letters. The National Child Support Enforcement Association is committed to ensuring parents fulfill their responsibility to provide emotional and financial support for their children, including honoring legally-owed child support obligations. According to the organization, this bill will ``significantly advance their goal.'' I do not see how any person can stand on the floor of this Senate and not say this bill will enhance the ability of children to receive child support payments. In fact, it enhances it in a multiplicity of ways. It even puts the payments of child support above payments to the lawyers in the case, which may be one of the reasons we are having some objection to this bill. The Western Interstate Child Support Enforcement Council's primary purpose is to ensure that child support workers have effective enforcement tools to carry out their mandated responsibility to establish and collect child support, feels that passage of this bill will ``greatly enhance [their] efforts in this regard by establishing an equitable system of debt repayment and discharge in bankruptcy proceedings.'' This is a strong and clear statement from this organization that cares about children, is dedicated to them, and is working on a regular basis. According to Howard Baldwin, the president of WICSEC, the provisions of this bill: will re-prioritize the elements in bankruptcy plans by establishing child support as the debtor's primary obligation, with all other debts assuming a secondary role. As a result, our Nation's child support agencies will be able to pursue collection efforts without encountering the restrictions caused by existing bankruptcy proceedings. This is another strong statement that they will be able to pursue collection efforts without encountering restrictions under the current bankruptcy laws. The California Family Support Council also supports this bill. At its Annual Training Conference held in February, 2000, the organization noted that: based on [its] experience . . . bankruptcy remains an impediment to [their] ability to collect support and [that is serves as] a haven for those who want to avoid their familial obligations. As a result, the California Family Support Council's membership: feels strongly that this legislation will strenghten substantially the child support enforcement program and improve the collection of child support. So if we don't pass this bill we are going to be continuing under a rule of bankruptcy law far less favorable to children than the ones in existence today. Ohio Attorney General Betty D. Montgomery has strongly endorsed this bill. In her letter to Senators DeWine and Voinovich, and Congressman Steve Chabot, General Montgomery recounted the improvements this bill makes over current law. General Montgomery rightly notes that: current law places domestic support obligations 7th on this list of priorities. By providing that repayment of domestic support obligations move to the head of the list of priorities for debtors to pay in Section 212 of this bill, Congress will ensure that the spouse and the children will continue to collect support payments that are owed during the bankruptcy case. Under the bill, debtors who owe child support would have to keep paying after they file for bankruptcy and creditors could not seize previous payments, which is commendable. What that means is this. Under current bankruptcy law, let's say there is a deadbeat dad who files bankruptcy and he still owes a lot of child support money. It is not dischargeable. He wipes out all his debts but his child support is not wiped out, he still owes that. If he moves off to another State, maybe halfway across the country, and they can't find him, it's hard to make him pay. Under this legislation, if he were certified as somebody with an income sufficient to be put into Chapter 13 and not just wipe out all his debts but had to pay some of those debts back, the first debts he must pay under bankruptcy court specific supervision would be this child support. If it is up to a period of 5 years, which it normally would be, he would be under court order. The mother/wife wouldn't need to hire a lawyer to chase the deadbeat dad all around the country, the bankruptcy judge would be there making sure he paid it. The first moneys that came in would have to go to that child support. This is a historic step for children and families, and I believe we ought to recognize that. I am glad Attorney General Montgomery, the able Attorney General of Ohio who I was honored to know when I was Attorney General of Alabama, recognizes that and has stated it so clearly. Finally, Phillip L. Strauss, assistant district attorney for the city and county of San Francisco, in a September 14, 1999, letter to members of the Judiciary Committee made known his unqualified support for this bill. His 27 years in the DA's Office, Family Support Bureau, and his 10 years' experience as a bankruptcy law professor, convince him that this bill is a real improvement over the current bankruptcy law. In his letter, responding to a July 14, 1999 letter from the National Women's Law Center, Strauss makes the point that none of the organizations opposing this bill in the NWLC letter have actually ever been engaged in the collection of support; Conversely, the largest professional organizations which do perform this function have endorsed the child support provisions of the Bankruptcy Reform Act as ``crucially needed modifications of the Bankruptcy Code which will significantly improve the collection of support during bankruptcy.'' Notes Professor Strauss: Most of the concerns raised by the groups opposing [this] bill do not, in fact, center on the language of the domestic support provisions themselves. Instead they are based on vague generalized statements that the bill hurts debtors, or the women and children living with debtors, or the ex-wives and children who depend on the debtor for support. It is difficult to respond point by point to such claims when they provide no specifics. The crux of the main argument against this bill is: by not discharging certain debts owned to credit and finance companies, the institutions would be in competition with women and children for scarce resources of the debtor and that the bill fails ``to insure that support payments will come first.'' According to Strauss, ``nothing could be further from the truth.'' Indeed, under this bill, there are many protections for women and children over powerful credit and finance companies that exist outside of bankruptcy. Moreover, support claims are given the highest priority under this bill, while commercial debts do not have any statutory priority. Thus when there is competition between commercial and support creditors, support creditors will be paid first. And, unlike commercial creditors, support creditors must be paid in full when the debtor files a case under chapter 12 or 13. In addition, support creditors will benefit--again, unlike commercial creditors--from Chapter 12 and 13 plans which must provide for full payment of on-going support and unassigned support arrears. Further benefits to support creditors which are not available to commercial creditors is the security in knowing that Chapter 12 and 13 debtors will not be able to discharge other debts unless all post-petition support and pre-petition unassigned arrears have been paid in full. In other words, you cannot get discharged from your bankruptcy until you have paid your child support. In conclusion, this bill is a much-welcomed improvement over current law--as noted by these five letters, written on behalf of organizations that deal with these issues every day, in support of it. The opponents should not oppose this bill just to oppose it--that is disingenuous. Mere opposition to any change in the present law, and vague claims that any and all attempts to address such existing abuses as serial filings are oppressive and will harm women and children, and does nothing to advance the proper understanding of the problems we are faced with, in my view. I would just say, those things make it clear from professionals in the field that the legislation is not harsh toward children but, in fact, provides greater protections than they have ever had before, a fact which I assert is indisputable. Somehow, though, there is a feeling here that you just ought to have an untrammeled right, an unlimited right to not pay anybody you don't want to pay; that somehow there is no cost to society when people don't pay their debts. There is a cost to society. There is a cost to you, to me, to everyone in this Chamber, and to everyone in this country because when more people do not pay their debts, the interest rate you pay for your loan has to go up because a part of the reason for an interest rate is the uncollectibility rate, and if a bank makes 100 loans and they collect 99 out of 100, they only have to factor in that percentage of that amount to pay for that one bad loan they write. If only 95 out of 100 are being paid, or 90 out of 100, we will feel it in the interest rates. Who will be paying the higher interest rates? The ones who will be paying the higher interest rates are the people who manage their money, do the right thing, serve their country, train their children, and pay their debts, and we do not want them to feel like they are chumps, that they somehow are not smart. And a really smart person is the one who knows how to run up a bunch of debt and declare bankruptcy. There is a problem into which this country is sliding. The real reason for the increase in bankruptcy filings in America is television advertisement. Turn on your TV. Do you have debt problems? Call old Joe the lawyer. It is 11 or 12 o'clock at night, people cannot sleep, they are worried about their debt. There it is. That is the answer. They go down, and the lawyer says: Give me $1,000. Well, I don't have $1,000. How much do you make? My check is $500. Save up two of those checks and bring them to me. Don't pay any other debt. Don't pay a dime on your credit card. Bring all that money to me. As soon as you bring it to me, I will file bankruptcy. I will wipe out all these debts. You can forget this. That is what is happening. Do not think I am exaggerating. That is what is happening in America today. If their debts are high, they cannot pay their way out of it, it is hopeless for them and they have a low income, they ought to be able to start over again. Anybody who loans money to people who have low incomes and excessive debt--they have to be careful about loaning money. They know they are going to lose sometimes. Understand that. I am not saying we will change that. In fact, I suspect that as high as 90 percent of the people who filed bankruptcy under straight bankruptcy, chapter 7, before this new bill was passed, would be able to do it afterwards. This bill will catch a lot of people who are abusing the system, and it will be a signal that Congress does care and does believe that if you can pay some of your debts, you should pay them. We are going to insist you do, and we are not going to have a court system that allows wealthy people to just walk away from debts they honorably signed up to pay and dishonorably declined to make good on. We can do better. There are a number of things I will say about this bill perhaps tomorrow. I do believe Senator Grassley has done a superb job. It has been a matter of great debate. It came out of the Judiciary Committee by a vote of 16-2 on one occasion, maybe with only three dissenting votes on another occasion. It has passed this Senate with 80 or 90 votes more than once. Somehow always it comes up at the end of a session. It is dragged out. A small group fights it, and at the end they say: We are really for bankruptcy reform, but we are just not for this bill. We know there are abuses, but this bill is not fair. Or, the bill I voted on last time was changed in conference, so it is now bad; I am not voting for it now. I do not think that is legitimate. If they study what is in here, they will see this is a fair bill, that it does close somewhat the homestead loophole about which some Senators have complained. Senator Kohl and I led the fight to eliminate the homestead loophole entirely. I thought it was an abuse, but we just did not have the votes to do entirely eliminate it, so resolved to make significant progress toward tightening it--and we have. Not passing this bill is going to leave us with a total lack of control over the homestead issue. Passing this bill will eliminate fraud totally in the most extreme cases and tighten up the process. It will be a significant step forward, in my view, to controlling that abuse. That is what compromise is about. Chairman Grassley has done a great job working this bill to this point. I believe it is a piece of legislation that should pass, and I remain hopeful the President will sign it. If not, I am hopeful this Senate will be able to override that veto. Yesterday, we had a vote well into the sixties to invoke cloture. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the letter dated October 19 from the NCSEA, the letter dated October 18 from Howard Baldwin, Jr., and the letter dated October 17 from the California Family Support Council be printed in the Record.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 13, the Class Act. I further ask consent that the Senate proceed to its consideration, and an amendment at the desk submitted by Senator Sessions be agreed to, the bill be read the third time and passed, and that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table. Further, I ask that the bill remain at the desk, and that when the Senate receives from the House H.R. 254, the Senate proceed to its consideration, all after the enacting clause be stricken and the text of S. 13, as amended, be inserted in lieu thereof. I further ask that the bill be read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and all previous action on S. 13 be vitiated.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, Senator Graham of Florida and I have been working on this bill. This legislation, in sum, provides that families that are saving for college tuition under prepaid college tuition plans, which are growing in popularity in America, the money they save and the interest that accrues on those plans not be taxable by the Federal Government. That is what this law would do if passed. What we are doing in America today is we have a public policy to encourage families, through loan subsidies and other forms of incentives and delays in payments of interest, to borrow money to pay for college. But people who are saving money, even under State prepaid college tuition plans, are taxed on the money they save. This is a disincentive for the best way to pay for college tuition; that is, saving for college. Well over 40 States have these prepaid plans and the few States that don't are moving to develop them. It is working very well. The Federal tax policy ought to affirm what these States are doing and make this tax-free. I just note that this is a middle class program. For example, 71 percent of the participating families in the Florida prepaid college program have annual incomes under $50,000, and 25 percent have incomes of less than $30,000; 81 percent of the contracts in Wyoming's savings plan have been purchased by families with annual incomes of less than $34,000; 62 percent of the contracts in Pennsylvania have been purchased by families with annual incomes of less than $35,000. The average monthly contribution to a family's college savings account in 1995 in Kentucky was $43. So what we are saying is let's have a good public policy. Let's encourage people to save and make sure it is a wise thing for them to do financially. If we can achieve that, I think it would be good. As far as I understand, there is only one person in this who has an objection. I would be delighted to know who that was. Senator Graham and I would like to talk to them to see if the problem they have can be worked out. I think it is good public policy. Both Vice President Gore and Governor Bush have made statements that clearly indicate their support for this kind of public policy. I am working with Senator Daschle, the Democratic leader, and I thank him for his assistance on this legislation, dealing with an issue he thought important to his State. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. One of the things I have learned is that within every community in America there are agencies called credit counseling agencies. They sit down with families who have debt problems. They sit around a table. They even get the children in. They talk about what the income is, how much the debts are, how much current living expenses are. They help them establish a budget. Some of them will even receive the money and pay the current debts regularly. They call up the banks and credit card companies and other people and ask for modifications of the payment schedule, a reduction in interest rates, and that sort of thing. They are very successful. They help families get mental health counseling if that is needed. They help families get treatment for gambling problems or drinking problems or drug problems. They help families--not like these mills, these bankruptcy mills, where people respond to an ad, a lawyer says they need so much money, and they say: I don't have this much money. The lawyer says to them--I am not exaggerating here--Use your credit card. Put all your bills on the credit card. Bring me your paycheck and pay me my fee. Don't pay anything else. Then we will file bankruptcy, and we will wipe out all those debts. So they get that. They have a little clerk or a secretary or a paralegal who fills out the bankruptcy form. He doesn't see him again until they come to court. He shows up. They present their petition, and eventually the debts are wiped out. And they don't know the names hardly of the people with whom they are dealing. They have no concern or empathy to really deal with the problems in that family. And we also know, from statistics, that the largest cause of marital breakup in America is financial problems. We need to do better about that. So I offered an amendment that has been accepted, and everybody seems to be pleased with it--except some of the lawyers--and that is to say that every person, before filing bankruptcy ought to talk with a credit counseling agency to see if what they offer might be better than going through bankruptcy--no obligation, just talk to them. I think a lot of people are going to find that they have other choices than just going to bankruptcy court. Some people need bankruptcy. We are not trying to stop bankruptcy. Some people need it to start over again--but not everybody. A lot of people can work their way through it with the help of a good credit counseling agency. I think this is a tremendous step forward. I am very excited about it, and I believe it will offer a lot of help to people struggling with their budgets today. Now we have had a most curious development. We have had Senators for the last 2 years come down on this floor and go forward with the most vigorous attacks on credit card companies. Do you know what it is they say they do wrong? They say they write people letters and offer them credit cards. They say this is some sort of an abuse, some sort of preying on the poor, to offer people credit cards. I am telling you, we have laws that this Congress has passed--banking laws and other rules--that say you can't deny credit to poor people unless you have a serious, objective reason to do so. Why in the world would we want to pass a law that would keep MasterCard, Visa, or American Express from writing somebody and saying: If you take my credit card, your interest rate will be such and such, and you can have 6 months at 3 percent interest--or whatever they offer--and if you want to change from the one you have, we have a better deal? What is wrong with that? We often have competition. Interest rates, in my opinion, for credit cards are too high. I am too frugal to have much money run up on my credit card if I can avoid it. I don't like paying 18 or 20 percent interest. What is wrong with offering people an opportunity to choose a different credit card? If these companies were refusing poor people and would not send them notices of the opportunities to sign up, I suppose we would be beating them up and saying they are unfair to poor people or they are redlining them and cutting them off. I wanted to say that. To me, that is sort of bizarre. Second, this is a bankruptcy court reform bill. We are here to deal with the process of what happens when a person files for bankruptcy. We are not here to reform banking laws and credit card laws that are within the jurisdiction of the Banking Committee. That committee considers that. It is really not a bankruptcy court problem, fundamentally. But what have we done in order to get support for this bill and answer questions? We made a number of consumer-friendly amendments in this bill to satisfy those who have complained. Of course, as soon as you give them something, they are not happy, and they say you are defending the evil credit card companies; that is all you are doing, they say. I am trying to create a rational way for people who can't pay their debts to go to court and wipe out their debts, but not rip off people whom they can pay because they have the money to pay. So we have a minimal credit warning, a toll-free number so debtors can find out information about their records. That will be required of credit card companies. There are a lot of good things here that are not in current law. So to not pass this bill will eliminate the steps we have made to put more limits and controls on credit card companies. Without a doubt, that is true. They might like to have a whole rewrite of credit card law in the bankruptcy bill, but that would be inappropriate. I think we have made steps in the right direction and we should continue in that direction. As Senator Grassley noted, there are terrific benefits for farmers under chapter 12. Chapter 12 provisions give additional benefits to farmers who file bankruptcy, and it expires this year. By not passing this bill, we are going to throw away the added protections that farmers have. How is that helping poor people and consumers? How does it help those who are having trouble with credit cards to vote down a bill that provides more demands on credit cards? These are just a few ways, Mr. President, that this legislation improves current bankruptcy law. If time permitted, there are many more improvements that I would like to share with the members of this body. In conclusion, I would just like to say that this bill includes many protections for women and children. It provides a long-overdue homestead fix, credit counseling, help for the family farmer and many other worthy provisions. A vote for this bill is a vote for much-needed change in the bankruptcy law in this country. As such, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank Senator Grassley for his tremendous leadership on this bill. As he has said so plainly and effectively, that anyone who is concerned about consumer problems, debtors, fraud and abuse, and who does not believe this bill is an improvement over current law, has not read the bill. I am going to talk about some of those things. This bill makes progress in virtually every area over current law. Senator Grassley has patiently, for over 3 years, gone through hearings in the Judiciary Committee, on which I have been honored to serve, in his subcommittee, on the floor of this Senate, in conferences, committees, and meetings trying to eliminate every possible objection anyone could have to this bill. When we get to this point after having tremendous votes--over 90 votes, one time 97-1 we passed this legislation--and we still have not made it law because a few dedicated people are threatening to hold it up and the President has indicated he may veto this bill that makes real progress in protecting consumers and fair and just legal dispute resolution. Bankruptcy law is operative in Federal court. It is presided over by a Federal bankruptcy judge, not an Article III judge that presides over Federal district court, but a Federal judge nevertheless. All the laws used in this court, unless the Federal law says otherwise, are federal. There was a Bankruptcy Reform Act passed by Congress in 1978. We have had no significant reforms since then. During the time since 1980, just 2 short years after the passage of that act, there were 330,000 bankruptcy filings. In 1998, there were 1.4 million bankruptcy filings--a 423-percent increase during a time of unprecedented economic growth and prosperity. What is happening? Certainly it is time for us, as good stewards of American legal policy, to take a minute to find out what is happening in bankruptcy court, to see what the abuses are and what loopholes clever lawyers are now using--to see if we can't improve it and make it fairer and better for all concerned. We absolutely can do that. That is why this legislation, essentially as it is today, has repeatedly passed the House and the Senate with overwhelming majorities. It passed the Judiciary Committee 15-3 and 16-2. That is why it ought to pass today. It is absolutely stunning to me that we are at a point where this bill may not pass because of the misinformation and politics that is happening here. There are now 3,474 bankruptcy filings per day. This chart shows the increase in filings subsequent to the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978. It shows a tremendous increase. We are not making up these numbers. There are a lot of reasons for it. Actually, what has happened is that a cottage industry has sprung up. Turn on your TV, turn on your cable channels, look in your newspapers. You will see the ads: ``Lawyers: Wipe out your debts. Got problems paying your debts? Call old Joe the attorney, he will take care of you. He will save you rent. You can get out of paying rent.'' All of a sudden people are doing that. In fact, here is an ad in one paper--and I am going to talk about it a little later--``7 months free rent,'' just call your old buddy the bankruptcy lawyer. ``We guarantee you can stay in your apartment or house 2 to 7 months more''--that means more than you would get under eviction rules of the State which protect tenants from being evicted unfairly--``more without paying a penny. Find out how. We can stop the sheriff or the marshal.'' Call old John your bankruptcy lawyer. This bill ends a host of abuses. It will greatly benefit women and children in their child support and alimony, and those facts cannot be denied. Let me talk about some of the complaints we have heard first. They say this is a procedural unfairness; that this is a bizarre way we have done this, unprecedented, and unfair. We have had this bill up and about for 3 years. It has been debated in so many different ways. It is now part of the embassy security bill which is not at all unusual for one piece of legislation to be made a part of another piece of legislation as it passes through the Senate. The Senate rules allow for that to happen and for it to come forward as a conference bill if the House has voted on it. The House has voted on it and voted in favor of this bill. The House acted on October 12. It is perfectly proper for it to be in the form it is. There have been statements made that we have not had a chance to amend or that we have not had full discussion. There has been constant discussion. There has been agreement time and again to amend it. Senator Kohl, a member of the Democratic Party who worked hard on this bill, and I battled to improve the homestead law. We did not get all we wanted, but we made substantial progress. The homestead law in this legislation is significantly more fair than the unlimited homestead in current law, and if we do not pass the bill, current law will remain in effect, and the homestead abuses will continue unchecked; whereas, this bill eliminates the most serious homestead law abuses. That cannot be denied. I do not understand. We are almost in 1984 land. Is it perfect? Is it the enemy of the good? Yes, I would have liked to have made more progress. I debated it on this floor. I argued for reform. A number of States have laws that would be overridden by changes I would like to see, and they fought tenaciously to hold on to their own laws. We had to make some compromises to move this bill forward, though, and I think we have made substantial progress. If anybody is concerned about the homestead law, why in the world would they vote to keep an old bill and not pass this new bill which improves the homestead provisions. Senator Biden, a member of the Judiciary Committee who was intimately involved in this bankruptcy law, was the ranking member of this conference committee. He voted to bring the bill out to this floor in the form we are in today. Senator Kennedy raised an odd objection. He claims he is worried about poor people, but he wanted to put in language that would allow pensioners who had millions of dollars in their pension accounts--no matter how much they had in there--to keep that money and to not have to pay the guy who put the roof on their house when they filed for bankruptcy. They could file for bankruptcy and keep everything in their pension account, even if it was millions of dollars. Senator Grassley and I thought that was an unfair advantage to the rich. We wanted to cap the amount of money that could be kept in a pension account. If you had a reasonable amount, $1 million, $750,000, whatever the amount would be, we tried to contain it at a reasonable amount. Why should a person keep $2 million in a pension account and not pay his doctor, not pay the local hospital, not pay the man who fixed his roof, not pay the guy who repaired his car or his brother-in- law who loaned him money? Why should that happen? That is not fair, but that is what Senator Kennedy wanted. He pushed for it and, as a compromise--in fact, it does not happen that often--we agreed to concede to that. To say that we were not making changes at the last minute is really strange. Senator Schumer is going to vote against the bill if it does not have his abortion clinic language in it; when, in fact, it does not have abortion clinic language in it now. And he is not going to get it in there because it is an unfair targeting of one group of wrongdoers. He will not agree to have broad-based language, as I would support, and others will. So everybody is losing. The perfect becomes the enemy of the good. Let me mention this. In the 105th Congress, 2 years ago, the House passed this bill 306-118. It passed the Senate September 23, 1998, 97- 1. In the 106th Congress, in May, the House voted 313-108 to pass this bill--an even higher vote. In the Senate, we voted in February of this year, 83-14, to pass this bill. It has broad bipartisan support. It is a tremendous step forward. Why in the world we are having the difficulties we are in having to overcome a filibuster remains difficult for me to understand. I want to talk a little bit about the homestead situation. The Federal bankruptcy law says, with regard to how much money you can protect as your homestead will be determined by State law. In Alabama, the State says you cannot keep more than $5,000 in your homestead. If you have more than $5,000 equity in your house, you need to go refinance it and use that money to pay the people the debts that you owe them. Why should you keep it and not pay your debt if you have this money? In Texas, they say you can have an unlimited homestead exemption; also in Florida, Kansas, and several other States there is an unlimited homestead exemption. They did not want to give that up. I think it is an abuse. We have an example of people leaving New York to go to Florida and buying a multimillion-dollar mansion on the beach, pumping all their assets into it, holding off creditors for a few months, and then filing bankruptcy, wiping out what they owe to everybody; and they are free to sell their million-dollar mansion and use the million dollars to live high and carefree for the rest of their days. That is not right. So we dealt with that. It was not easy. We had a lot of people here who did not want to change that privilege of a State to set that homestead exemption. In Alabama, you can, for example, move from Mobile to Pensacola, FL-- 50 miles away--put all your money in a multimillion-dollar house on the beach and defeat your creditors. That is not right, either. So we tried to do better. We came up with language that would stop that. Senator Kohl and I debated it right here. This legislation provides for a 7-year look-back. If you can prove that a person moved to a State to gain preferential homestead treatment, and he moved assets into a house in order to file bankruptcy and defeat creditors, and if that happened within 7 years, you could set that aside. That is a big step forward--a big step to attack the most blatant fraud that occurs in this area. This provision is in the legislation. By passing this legislation, we can stop this abuse right now. If we do not pass the legislation, we will be allowing this abuse to continue. Let me talk about another very real problem, a loophole, a source of abuse that is causing problems and is very common. People are using Federal bankruptcy laws to hold over on expired leases. That is a lease whose term is 1 year, and they are already beyond that 1 year. They have not paid their rent. It has been terminated, without the debtor paying rent, just like this ad refers to. The sheriff of Los Angeles County has really spoken out aggressively on this. He said: ``3,886 people filed bankruptcy in Los Angeles County in 1996 alone in order to prevent the execution of valid, court-issued eviction notices.'' As this ad says: ``We can stop the sheriff and the marshal and get you more time.'' You do not have to pay your rent. You do not have to pay maybe the lady who has two duplexes and it is her retirement income. You do not have to pay that. You can rip her off for 7 months. Just listen to us. How does it happen? It does happen. Judge Zurzolo, in In re Smith, a Federal bankruptcy judge in Los Angeles, wrote this: . . . the bankruptcy courts in the Central District of California are flooded with Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 cases filed solely for the purpose of delaying unlawful detainer evictions. Inevitably and swiftly following the filing of these bankruptcy cases is the filing of motions for relief of the Stay by landlords who are temporarily thwarted in this abuse of the bankruptcy court system. In other words, what happens? They file bankruptcy. The landlord is seeking to evict them. They file a motion in the bankruptcy court to stay the landlord from proceeding with his eviction until the bankruptcy case is completed. Then the landlord has to go and hire a lawyer to file a motion to say that this isn't a valid use of the stay. A stay only protects you in an asset. If your lease has expired, it is not an asset. If it is not an asset, the court cannot protect it. It is the landlord's; it is not the tenant's, if the lease has expired. So what happens? Mr. President, 3,886 of those were filed, according to the sheriff, simply for that purpose--to get this unfair extension of time without paying rent. How we have a law in this country that promotes and allows this kind of abuse is beyond me. The truth is when the landlord files these motions, he always wins because the lease has expired or it has been legally terminated, and as such the tenant does not have any property. He does not have an interest to be protected. It is the landlord's property, not the tenant's. It costs the landlord a lot of money; and a lot of months and weeks go by while he waits to be returned to rightful possession. The current law is abusive to these law-abiding landlords. We can help them--we can improve on current law--and we should. This bill provides that help. It also allows, of course, all the State protections for eviction that every State provides. California provides a lot before you can be evicted from an apartment or house. As the judge says: Contrary to the false representations made by these ``bankruptcy mills''--he is talking about this cottage industry of lawyers and advertisers who run this stuff--despite their representations, the debtor/tenants usually only obtain a brief respite from the consummation of the unlawful detainer convictions, after having paid hundreds of dollars to the lawyers. That is what the judge said. There are 50,000 bankruptcies a year filed in the Central District of California. The judge says: The mountain of paperwork that accompanies the thousands of abusive ``unlawful detainer'' case filings places an unnecessary burden on our already overworked and under- compensated clerk's office. Of course this mountain of paperwork flows from our clerk's office to the chambers of our judges when landlords file their relief from Stay motions. Because of the increased workload caused by these blatantly abusive unlawful detainer case filings, our court has had to establish special procedures dismissing these cases as quickly as possible so that the court's dockets and the clerk's files will not become more choked with paperwork than they already are. I am not saying this. This is a Federal judge saying this, who deals with these cases every day. I am quoting: These relief from stay motions are rarely contested and never lost as long as the moving party provides adequate notice of the motion and competent evidence to establish a prima facie case. Well, how did this arise? How could such happen? Bankruptcy provides for an automatic stay. If someone is suing you and you file bankruptcy, you don't have to go to court and defend all those cases where you have not been able to pay your debts on time and a bunch of people sue you. If you go into bankruptcy, everything stops. You have only to answer to the bankruptcy judge who sorts out all these legal problems and tells you whom to pay and how much to pay. An expired lease does not constitute an asset of a bankruptcy estate, as the courts have plainly held. That is what this language says, and it will stop this abuse from continuing unchecked and spreading around the rest of the country as more and more of these bankruptcy mills are created. It is expensive for the landlord to do this. He has to hire an attorney. Weeks go by. Maybe the lease was up. Maybe the mother wanted to turn the apartment over to her daughter to live in and the lease was up in January. She starts trying to get the person out, and come March or April or May or June, the person is still there. She has had to file for eviction. Then they get a lawyer who stays it for all this kind of time and really costs individuals a lot of money. There are 7, 8, 9 months without rent being paid and all the while the attorney's fees are adding up. This scenario is a real problem that this legislation fixes. What about women and children? There have been suggestions that somehow women and children are disadvantaged under this legislation. Nothing could be further from the truth. Priority payment: Under current Federal law, child support and alimony payments are seventh in the list of priority debts that must be paid off in a bankruptcy proceeding. Incidentally, what do you think is No. 1? Attorney's fees. In this bankruptcy business and industry, who has been roundly critical of this legislation and who has lobbied their buddies around this Senate telling them this is such a bad piece of legislation? Who is going to have to change their ways? The lawyers. They don't get No. 1 priority over child support any longer, under this bill, and that makes them nervous. What do I mean by No. 1? Often people who file bankruptcy do have certain assets. Those assets are brought into the bankruptcy estate and added up. Let's say there is $5,000 of assets and $50,000 worth of debts. The bankruptcy judge starts paying off. Under the old law, the current law today, if the bankruptcy attorney's fee is $5,000, he gets it all. He has to go down six different steps, paying off six different groups of creditors, before he gets to child support and alimony. We say, if there is $5,000 in the estate and there is child support money owed, the child support money gets paid first out of that, and alimony. How anyone can say that that is unfair to women and children is beyond me. It is beyond comprehension. Those who say that are not right. This is historic change to the benefit of women and children. Nobody can dispute what I have just said about that. It is plain fact. Let me say some other things it does. This legislation requires that a parent who is filing bankruptcy-- let's say a father, deadbeat dad, files for bankruptcy--must fulfill past due and current child support before he can get discharged from bankruptcy. The court is going to monitor him to make sure he is paying his child support. If he is not paying his child support, the court will not give the final discharge that wipes out his debts. He has to take care of his children first. It also will ensure that custodial parents, the parents who have the custody of the children, get effective and timely assistance from child support agencies. It requires the bankruptcy trustee or administrator-- that is, this new law we are proposing and asking to be passed--to notify both the parent and the State child support collection agency when the debtor owing child support or alimony files for bankruptcy. In other words, a mother may not know that her ex-husband or the father of her child who lives in a distant State is even filing bankruptcy. What this says is, the mother has to be told; not only that, the State collection agency which is helping mothers collect the money has to be told so that they can intervene and make sure the child is protected. It will provide timely and valuable information to parents to help collect child support. Jonathon Burris of the California Family Support Council, a group that tries to protect mothers and children, wrote in an open letter to Congress that the provisions in this bill are ``a veritable wish list of provisions which substantially enhance our efforts to enforce support debts when a debtor has other creditors''--and they always have other creditors--``who are also seeking participation in the distribution of the assets of a debtor's bankruptcy estate.'' Phillip Strauss of the District Attorney Family Support Bureau wrote the Judiciary Committee. I was Attorney General of Alabama. I was involved in this. States have district attorneys associations. They can intervene on behalf of women and children to make sure child support is being paid and that the money is being collected. That is what he does full time. He recently wrote the Judiciary Committee. This is a man whose business full-time is collecting money for children. He wrote our committee to express his unqualified support for this bill. Mr. Strauss notes that he has been in the business of collecting child support for 27 years. He knows what he is talking about. He also notes that the National Child Support Enforcement Association, a national group of which he is a part, and the National District Attorneys Association and the Western Interstate Child Support Enforcement Council agree with him and support this legislation. There has been this big talk about how this harms families. Let me describe an amendment I added that I think would be of tremendous benefit. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 7 minutes.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. On behalf of the majority leader, I note that today the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 7 p.m., with Senators Domenici and Reid in control of the time. A vote on a continuing resolution ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. SESSIONS

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