Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Looking at the chart, I joined this body in 1997, and at that time we had a very tough battle on this side to produce a modest tax reduction, the $500-per-child tax credit and reduce capital gains from 28 to 20 percent and even lower for lower income people. They told us that was going to run up the debt; we were going to have more debt. Looking at that chart, interest rates appear to have gone down and, in fact, our surpluses have occurred since then; is that correct?

Mr. SESSIONS. Will the distinguished Senator yield for a question?

Mr. SESSIONS. Actually reducing tax rates on capital gains increased income to the Government; is that fair to say?

Mr. SESSIONS. I will simply say this. In this election--since we are talking about elections here on the other side--the American people have a choice: Will they elect a President who, with his deepest core beliefs, would be a no-growth, no-production kind of President or will we elect a President who understands America's critical need for energy and who will help create policies that are environmentally sound, that will allow us to remove ourselves from under this yoke of the OPEC cartel? Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. I yield to the majority leader.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have 1 additional minute. Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, to follow up on the marvelous remarks that have gone before, I remember the first hearings I attended of the Joint Economic Committee. I tell this story about who gets the credit for the economy. Alan Greenspan was the witness that day. I am not a trained economist. I have been interested in these issues, but I am not a trained economist. We started the discussion, and the chairman made a joke about who deserved credit for the economy: Was it Mr. Greenspan or was it President Clinton? Members on both sides joked about that and laughed a little bit, and we went on with the hearing. I had an article from USA Today, not a great economic journal, but it was an interesting article, and it interviewed businessmen from Germany, Japan and England, asking them why the U.S. economy was doing so much better than theirs. They had double-digit unemployment of 12 and 13 percent, higher inflation, and less growth than we were having. They asked them why. They all agreed. They said it was because the United States, even though our taxes are high, had less taxes, less regulation, and a greater commitment to the free market. I asked Mr. Greenspan if he agreed with that. He looked up at me and said: ``I absolutely agree with that.'' Less taxes, less regulation, and a greater commitment to the free market. ``Absolutely,'' he said, that is the basis for the sound American economy. I think our taxes are still too high, but they are less than Europe. Our regulations are less, and we are more committed to letting free market forces allocate our resources than having the Government do it as they do in the European countries. I believe that is the basis for being successful. I thought later what I really should have said at that time was that Ronald Reagan deserves credit for this economy because that is what he fought for and that is the direction we moved. We have had substantial increases in taxes that have burdened Americans substantially. There is one thing that troubles me about this economy, and that is the rising cost of fuel in America. If there is one thing that threatens our economic growth, it is the increase in energy prices. I have been talking with businessmen in my State. They tell me their concerns. Their profits are down. I traveled with a truck driver from Birmingham to Clinton to Montgomery. He told me he is paying $800 more a month for fuel. I talked to businesspeople about their fuel costs. Families that were paying $100 a month this time last year for gasoline for their clunkers and all that they have their families driving around in, are now paying $160 a month for that fuel. That is $60 a month taken out of their family's budget that they could be spending for things in the marketplace. They will not be spending it in the marketplace because it is going to pay for energy costs. That is a threat to us. We need to break that cycle. It occurred not so much because of economic forces but because of political actions by the OPEC nations when they got together and withheld supplies and drove up energy prices and sat there and collected billions of dollars from America. The OPEC politicians beat our politicians. They outsmarted us. They took advantage of our lack of production of American industry. We got even more and more indebted to them for our energy, and they drove up the price. We had no choice but to pay it. We are paying 20 cents more, 60 cents more per gallon of gasoline and most of that is going straight to those countries. If we tax gasoline in America 50 cents a gallon, which is not too far from what we do, at least that money goes to the State of Alabama or to the Federal Government and is spent in the United States. In effect, OPEC has taxed us. Every time you go to the gas pump and pay for that gasoline, much of it is going straight out of our country. It is a huge transfer of American wealth. It has the potential to not only damage the family budget but to damage our economy. I think we have to do something about it. The long-term solution is to get serious and start increasing production. We have the capacity to increase production in the United States.

Mr. SESSIONS. I have remarks which I will give if the Senator is finished. I enjoyed so much hearing his analysis.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I do prefer to take off Christmas. But we have a high duty to do our work and do it right. I thank the Senator for his comments, and I note that he desires, and I do, that we reach an accord. I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SESSIONS. I am sure the majority leader would work toward that end. I know it has been his goal since this Congress began to move the appropriations bills to not find us at this point. Frankly, I am sympathetic with the fact that he has tried to do that and has been frustrated time and again. I think some people wanted us to end up in this very position, and they got their wish. And as far as I am concerned, we can stay here until January 1 or December 31 to do our business. Wiser people will decide that.

Mr. SESSIONS. What I understand is this, that the majority leader has made this proposal to the Democratic leader which has not been accepted as of yet; that he would ask unanimous consent we stand in recess when we complete our business today until 5 p.m. Tuesday, and that the time between 5 p.m. and 7 p.m. be a period for morning business with the time equally divided, and that at 7 p.m. the Senate proceed to consider the 1-day continuing resolution and a vote occur immediately on the resolution when it is received from the House without amendments, debate, or motions in order. That will be the proposal at this point, as I understand it. But I am sure the majority leader would be open to improvements.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I am disheartened to hear the Senator from New York would take such a strong position on this bill since he had been an original promoter of it. It passed this body by 90 votes, at least twice, I think three different times--88 or 90 votes. It is good to see Senator Grassley here, who was the prime sponsor of the legislation. To have it die over this one issue is really unbelievable, particularly since Senator Grassley and others have offered several different ways we could meet the objections on the abortion clinic language, which I consider to be awfully insignificant in the line of the legislation except for the important philosophical and legal points. I think it will be a tragedy if we do not. This bill passed this body by around 90 votes, over 90 votes one time--three different times. It has been debated in committee. If I am not mistaken, the vote was 18-2 in committee, the Judiciary Committee, on which Senator Grassley and I served and brought that bill out. It is a bipartisan bill. I, along with Senator Reid, got involved with working with the White House not long ago on reaffirmations, the one issue they said was left to settle, and we settled that issue to the satisfaction of the White House. Now what do we have? A move to kill, once again, good bipartisan legislation that has been overwhelmingly supported in this Senate. It is a shame and a disgrace. It is outrageous that somehow, some way, we passed this with veto-proof majorities and we are not able to get it up for a last vote or get it passed. I feel strongly about that. Maybe now we can get it out of here and the President will see fit to sign it. The homestead language Senator Wellstone mentioned, I agree with him. I think we ought to make bigger changes in the provisions that say people can put all the money they want to in a homestead and not have it taken from them in bankruptcy. You could put $10 million in 160 acres and a mansion and you would not have to give it up to pay your just debts to your doctor, to the gas station down the street, to the friends from whom you borrowed money. That is not right. We made, though, for the first time, over the vigorous objections of several key States that have those kinds of provisions in their State Constitutions--Texas, Florida, Kansas--they fought tenaciously for that, but we made historic progress in limiting the ability of a debtor to hide his assets in a multimillion-dollar mansion. That was a great step forward. To say we ought to keep current law, which has no controls whatsoever, and not pass this bill, that has the first historic steps to control debt abuse, is really cutting off your nose to spite your face. That is the kind of thing we are hearing. Let me tell you what this bill fundamentally does. It says if you are of median income--that is, $44,000 for a family of four--if you are a family of four and you are making below that $44,000, you can be bankrupt and not pay any of your debts, just as the current law says. But if you are making above that and the judge concludes you can pay a part of your debts--10 percent or more--then he can order you to go into chapter 13 and pay back some of the debts that you can pay back. What is wrong with that? We have had a doubling of filings in bankruptcy over the last 10 years. We have over a million bankruptcies filed per year. It is being done primarily because lawyers are advertising. Turn on your TV anytime at night and you will see they are there: ``Solve your debt problems, call Old John, 1-800. We will take care of your debts.'' Do you know, if you owe $60,000 and you really don't want to pay that $60,000 debt, and today you are making $80,000, you can go down to a bankruptcy lawyer, file chapter 7, and wipe out that debt and not pay one dime of it? You can do that. There is no control. It is being done all over America today and it is not right. What does that say to a good, hard-working family who sits down around the kitchen table, pray tell, and tries to figure out how they can pay their debts? This family does not buy a new car, does not go on a vacation, does everything right, they pay their debts, and clever John goes down to the bankruptcy lawyer and doesn't pay his debt. Something is wrong in America when we allow that kind of abuse to occur time and time again. It is true--I do not believe it is 3 percent--the majority of people who file bankruptcy will not be affected by this bill. But those who are abusing it will be. If you are a doctor and you are making $150,000 a year and you owe $300,000 in student loans and other debts, and you can pay $50,000 of that, shouldn't you be required to pay it? We have examples of physicians declaring bankruptcy against all their debts when they could have easily paid a substantial number of them. Why shouldn't they pay what they can pay? In America, we believe if you are hopelessly in debt and you cannot pay out, we give people--and we always have--the right to file bankruptcy. It is just that it has become so common, the process of advertising and filings. The numbers are going up. While the economy is hitting records we have never had before, filings in bankruptcy keep going up. What is going to happen when we have a serious problem in this country? We have worked hard. I put in a provision that says before you file bankruptcy, you ought to talk to a credit counseling agency. Credit counseling agencies actually help people who are in debt. They help them set up budgets, they advise them whether or not they can pay off their debts. If not, they will go to a lawyer and file bankruptcy. But if they could pay it off, pay down the high interest notes first, negotiate with creditors, set up a payment plan, get the whole family in--if there is a drug problem, gain treatment; if there is a mental health problem, get treatment. Gamblers Anonymous can be used for people who have these problems. A lot of these things are driving bankruptcy. None of that is occurring in bankruptcy court. Lawyers come in, they claim a $1,000 fee, or $2,000, or whatever, and their secretaries fill out the forms. They don't even meet the client until they get to court. The judge declares all their debts wiped out, and they walk out of court. That is not helping treat the root cause. But credit counseling does. It says: We respect you, American men and women. We want to help you get your financial house in order, and if you can avoid bankruptcy, we will show you how and help you do that. That is a good step in the right direction. There are a lot of other things in this bankruptcy bill that improve the law. It has not been changed in over 25 years. We have new experience with the law. We have seen a host of abuses of the law, loopholes through which people are driving trucks. We closed those loopholes. For the most part, it has been overwhelmingly received by everybody in this body. Over 90 Senators in this Senate have voted for it, Democrats and Republicans. The White House has approved all of these. We have a problem with bankruptcy. We can do better. This bill is fair. It raises protections for women and children far above anything before. Before, lawyers and other debts were paid before child support. In this bill, alimony and child support are raised to the highest level. The first money paid goes to pay child support. That is a big, positive change. By killing this bill, that will not happen. The old rules will be in effect and children and women will not get that preferential treatment. We can do better. This is a good bill. I think the President will reconsider. He has been involved in this process for well over 3 years, as we have been wrestling with it, having hearings and debates on this floor and in the House. To say this is sneaking the bill in is really unbelievable. It has been a source of regular debate and bipartisan agreement, and now we get to the very last of this session and see an effort to derail it over this odd idea that out of all the activities in America, if you get sued by an abortion clinic, you cannot file for bankruptcy. One of the suggestions I made and others have made is, what about a union group that tears down a business? What about a group of environmental activists that tears up and protests and illegally does business? Do they get to claim bankruptcy against their debts, but not those who go to an abortion clinic because they are religious, I suppose? Why should we have such a double standard, a political law in bankruptcy? That is a political act, not something that ought to be in the bankruptcy court of America. I said if you either take it out or draw it broadly and it covers similar acts by other groups, then I will support it, but I am not going to vote for a law that simply targets one group that one Senator does not like. What is right about that? How is that good law? Some Senators and the President do not like abortion protesters. I guess he thinks they are too religious, so they do not get to claim bankruptcy, but everybody else does. People who put metal spikes in trees that injure people in the forest business, I guess they do not count. That is where we are on this. That is such an infinitesimal problem which we can overcome, unless the real agenda is to see bankruptcy does not pass. I hope that is not so. We have gone too far. We have worked too hard. We have a bill that has bipartisan support. I am hopeful yet that the President will sign it, and it will be good for America. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it recess until the hour of 2 p.m. on Tuesday, October 31. I further ask unanimous consent that on Tuesday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then proceed to a period of morning business until 6 p.m., with Senators speaking for up to 10 minutes each as under the previous order.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the Senate will convene tomorrow at 2 p.m. with up to 4 hours for morning business, with Senators Reid and Wellstone and Lott in control of the time. Under the previous order, the continuing resolution will be passed by unanimous consent. As a reminder, cloture was filed on the bankruptcy bill today. That cloture vote will occur during the day on Wednesday, as well as a vote on a continuing resolution. Senators will be notified as those votes are scheduled. On behalf of the leader, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess under the previous order following the remarks for up to 5 minutes each for Senators Wellstone, Schumer, and Sessions.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, let me announce to the Members exactly what this consent would provide. The Senate will reconvene at 2 p.m. on Tuesday and basically spend the day conducting morning business. Assuming the House passes a clean 1-day continuing resolution, that would be done without a vote and, therefore, there would be no votes during Tuesday's session of the Senate. All Senators are reminded that a cloture vote on the bankruptcy bill will occur during the day on Wednesday. All Senators will be notified as to the exact time of that vote on Wednesday.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in recess until 2 p.m. Tuesday, and that the time between 2 p.m. and 6 p.m. be for a period of morning business with the time between 2 p.m. and 4 p.m. under the control of Senators Reid and Wellstone and from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. under the control of the majority leader. I ask unanimous consent that following the recess of the Senate on Tuesday, October 31, 2000, the Senate be authorized to receive a continuing resolution funding the Government for one day, and that upon receipt the continuing resolution be considered passed. I further ask unanimous consent that if the Senate receives a continuing resolution containing anything other than a one day provision, the Senate be authorized to receive that continuing resolution, and that at 8:30 p.m. on Tuesday, October 31, 2000, the Senate reconvene and immediately proceed to the consideration of that continuing resolution.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that morning business be extended with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each until 7:30 p.m.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, to conclude on this education matter, this Congress has been responsible. It has increased funding for education well above the inflation rate. It has increased funding for education the last 2 years that I have been on the education committee, I know for a fact, above what the President asked for. We believe that money ought to be sent down to the States. It ought to be sent to them, and they ought to be challenged to develop, as Texas did, a plan of excellence. That ought to be ultimately determined by good, sound testing that that State adopts so it can tell whether learning is occurring. There are schools in this country, unfortunately, where learning is not occurring. They are dysfunctional schools. We do not need to keep putting money in those kinds of circumstances. Good quality testing can tell whether learning is occurring. We ought to allow the men and women whom you and I elect in our hometowns all over America to decide how to run that fundamentally. Yes, we will want to have controls on it, certain rules and regulations, but fundamentally we need to have a different mindset. We need to have a mindset that says to the educators, the people who are in our classroom, that we trust you, we are trying to help you, not make your life more troublesome, not giving you more headaches and paperwork; we want to help you teach our children, to help create more magic moments in that classroom where learning occurs. There are good schools in Alabama and all over America. I have been in those schools. I had the honor to acknowledge a few days ago Mr. Terry Beasley, the principal of the year for the State of Alabama. He taught my children in public schools in Alabama. He is a magnificent person with an unbelievable degree of dedication to learning. He has gone from one of the greatest teachers I have known to one of the best principals one would know. There are people like that all over the system. We are not helping them. This governmental regulation and bureaucracy is making it worse and making their lives more difficult. We can improve that, but not the way we are going. We are going to need some changes. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? Does the Senator from Texas yield for a question?

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I would like to say a number of things. First of all, there is no reason for us to be here today on Sunday. It is not necessary. No good purpose is occurring. We had weeks of debate on the Patients' Bill of Rights. The Senator from Massachusetts is repeating those arguments. We had weeks of debate on education, of which I was a part. Now we come back, at the very end, and we are going to have a rehash of all of that. The President is going to hold up this legislation needed to operate this Government. He asks that the Congress come back on a daily basis--even on Sunday--to debate it. Somehow he thinks maybe through this political mechanism he can change a dynamic that is taking place in the American public. They are beginning to make a decision that, in my view, the White House is not happy about, and they are desperate to try to change that dynamic, to change that trend, and to try to create a disturbance on the floor of this Congress about matters we have been talking about all year, that should not be coming up now. There is no need for us to be here today. But we are here. I will be here every day that we need to be here. I will be here until Christmas. I will be here, Lord willing, after this President leaves office. And we will be talking about these issues. It is important that we do the right thing, that we not just be stampeded and pushed around and be worried about elections so we are afraid to vote because the President is out here saying ugly things about us if we don't do what he says. It is our duty to do the right thing. We have been considering these issues for months. We have been debating them for months. That is all we are about here today, to do the right thing. I hope the leaders on this side of the aisle do not do things just to get out of here. I am willing to stay, and other people I know are willing to stay, if need be, to debate and work toward a reasonable compromise, or to stand firm, if need be, on the issues that are important to America. I know the Senator from Massachusetts discussed the patients' bill of rights that Governor Bush allowed to become law in Texas. That bill did have the right to sue in it. It was a big part of our debate in the HELP Committee--the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee-- of which I am a member and of which the Senator from Massachusetts is a member. As I recall, several months ago, the Democrats were all touting this Texas bill because it has the right to sue in it, beyond what I think ought to be made a part of a health care reform bill. The Patients' Bill of Rights that came out of this Senate was debated. Amendments were offered on this floor. And they lost. The bill that came out of this Senate--and that is in debate in conference today--what does it do? When we talk about the right to sue, we are not talking about a doctor who might cut off the wrong leg and that you can't sue that doctor. It simply is, if an insurance company says this procedure--for example, maybe it is a cosmetic procedure and is not covered in your insurance policy, so they cannot pay for it; and the patient says: Yes. I think you should pay for it. So they want to have suits for punitive damages that go for years. So what was created in this legislation was a mechanism for every patient to have certain rights to get a prompt and full determination of what is just, and get their coverage if they are entitled to it. The way it would work would be that a physician could call and talk to an insurance company physician, an expert. If they do not agree that this was covered, they then could appeal to an out-of-the-insurance company expert or arbitrator approved by HCFA, the Health Care Financing Administration--the Federal Government--President Clinton's HCFA. They could then appeal and get an objective ruling on whether or not this was covered. Then there are certain litigation rights that continue to exist, in any case. But what I am hearing is, business companies that are providing insurance to their employees are saying: This costs us a lot of money. We are doing it for our employees. But if you are going to have us sued, Congress, we will just get out of the business of insuring our employees. We will just give our employees a certain amount of money and they can buy insurance or not buy insurance. It will not be our problem if they do not buy it. Tough luck. We have been doing this, but we are not going to be in the position that we are going to be sued. That was a big deal in this very Congress. And the law in Texas is more generous on lawsuits than the one we approved in this Senate. Senator Kennedy wanted wide-open lawsuits. He supported that aggressively, but he lost. He did not win that issue. It is not the will of this Senate. We ought not to be worrying about this at this point in time, this late in the day, when we need to approve legislation to fund this Government. The Senator from Massachusetts also came to the floor to talk about education. Yes, it is a top priority. We are increasing funding for education. I am on the education committee. We discussed that. In the last 2 years this Congress has spent more money on education than President Clinton asked for. We increased his request for education money. We spent more than he asked for. But what was the debate? It went on an extended period of time right here. The debate was: Who is going to direct how it all gets spent? Were we going to trust the men and women who run our schools, the men and women who have been elected in each one of our communities to be on the school board? Are we going to trust them to spend more of this Federal money or are we going to continue to micromanage education dollars from Washington? I have been in 20 schools this year. I have met with principals, teachers, and students in each of these schools. I always set a time to meet with the principals and teachers, and usually school board members drop in, and I ask them what their problems are. I say: The Federal Government gives about 7 percent of the cost of education in America; 93 percent comes from State and local governments. I ask: Based on the regulations and paperwork, the interruption in your ability to discipline in the schools caused by Federal regulation, which would you prefer--the Federal Government take its 7 percent and leave, take away the paperwork and the rules and regulations, or get the 7 percent? The answer: Take your money and go. These are teachers who have given their lives to education. They are passionate about this. They don't want a Federal bureaucracy in Washington running their schools. What they would like is as much money as we can get to them. And we are increasing funding for State education well above the inflation rate, two or three times the inflation rate above what President Clinton has asked for. We tried to pass a new Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which is up for reauthorization this year. We had to stop considering it basically because of a filibuster from the other side. We voted. We had amendments. We went on for over 2 weeks debating the issue. The other side was losing that debate. They were losing the votes. But if you don't have over 60 votes here, you can't shut off debate. The majority leader urged them to agree to a time limit. He said we can have many more amendments, and let's vote on them and bring this bill to conclusion. But they would not because, in fact, they had a filibuster going on. They did not want to change this old educational system that is run by bureaucracies 10 feet deep, people who have lost sight of what education is all about. All they want to do is make sure their accounting is right in every school system in America. There are over 700 Federal education programs in this country. The other side keeps arguing that we can't get rid of them. No, we can't consolidate them. No, we can't trust the people in our communities we elect to run our schools. No, they are not to be trusted. We have to tell them what to do. One Senator on this floor said: They may spend the money on swimming pools. Who knows best how to educate children-- professional educators, teachers who have given their lives to it, principals who are dedicated to it, or some Senator here who has thousands of issues that come before them, everything from Medicare, Social Security, the attack on the U.S.S. Cole, all those issues? We don't know education. Neither does Al Gore know education. I will tell you who has been wrestling with education for six years, and that is the Governor of Texas. Governors are involved in education. When he talks about education, he talks about it with a deep and abiding passion because he understands it. He has been in schools all over Texas. He is hearing the same things I have heard in the 20 schools I have been in around Alabama this year: that the Federal Government is not an aid, is not helping us, it is hurting us. We have Federal regulations that keep children in classrooms who are a threat to the teacher and the students, and they cannot be removed because of Federal rules. We have paperwork that is driving them crazy. They can't spend the money on what they need to spend it on. They have to spend it only on what this Government and its 700 education programs say to spend it on. So we tried to fix that. We couldn't do it because of the President and the filibuster that went on here. If we elect the Governor of Texas, who has managed education, as Governors do, who ran on education, got elected on education, and was elected with a 69-percent vote for reelection on education, we are going to get some changes. The bureaucrats in Washington, the special interest crowd in Washington, the group that tries to turn out votes in elections, those people are not going to be happy. But teachers, principals, parents, and school board members are going to be happy because it is time for a change. It is time to break this Washington stranglehold on education. We give less than 10 percent of the money for education, but we micromanage how it is all spent. It is not acceptable, and we must stop it.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to be able to speak for 15 minutes in morning business.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I also note, on behalf of the majority leader, that it appears that the House of Representatives will not send the continuing resolution over until 7:30 p.m. or later, so we will continue, I suppose, in morning business.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would like to thank my colleague for his hard work on this issue. I, too, look forward to working with my friend from Tennessee and other colleagues on this important issues.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would like to engage the distinguished Senator from Tennessee in a brief colloquy to clarify language in the Public Health Improvement Act of 2000 as it pertains to public health countermeasures to a bio-terrorist attack. I commend my colleague for bringing such an important measure to the Senate floor. His legislation addresses several weaknesses that persist today in the pre-crisis and consequence management phases of an attack by a terrorist using a weapon of mass destruction, WMD. Since the end of the cold war, our nation has strived to address how we might cope with an event the likes of which we have never seen on our soil; an event that could easily produce thousands of civilian casualties. To this end the government has taken some steps to train responders, provide them needed equipment, and in rare cases created exercises to test systems and response capabilities. The nation is making strides, and government is spending billions on all sorts of related programs. Yet, I think we remain adrift and ill-prepared to address both the cause and effect of a WMD event, particularly one involving a biological weapon. American's Public Health system is second to none. It has the inherent capacity to thoroughly plan, properly train, and expertly execute tasks associated with a crisis. My colleague's experience in the field of medicine takes the need for planning and training for a bio-terrorist event to the next level by requiring the establishment of two interagency working groups. Each is designed to bring the expertise resident in the government today forward in a constructive manner which will allow agencies to set in motion processes that will result in increased planning, preparedness and most importantly response. One of the failures of WMD programs found elsewhere in the nation and elsewhere in the government is the unnecessary proliferation of new bureaucracies created to manage new programs, grants, and training programs at the expense of producing qualified graduates. Therefore, I believe in this instance that it is extremely important to use existing Public Health Service training facilities, particularly those with WMD training programs in place whenever practical to respond to the training needs of medical professionals outlined in this legislation. Does the Senator from Tennessee agree that these PHS facilities, which already have the infrastructure in place to implement weapons of mass destruction training and related activities, should be considered as an eligible applicant of any grants or new training initiatives initiated by the Secretary?