Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent the amendment be made the pending amendment.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3790.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I believe it is time for us to quit nibbling around the edges and to eliminate the estate tax on the American people. It is an abysmal tax. It is an unfair tax. It taxes people on money they have already made. They pay taxes on that money. Then, after that, they may invest and buy property. When they die, the tax man reaches in and grabs up to 55 percent of the value of that estate. That is an astounding fact. The Federal Government is taking 55 percent from people for this tax. A majority of the people who have an estate have to go through the estate tax computation. It is an unfair tax. I believe we ought to reduce taxes across the board. I was a leader and fought hard for the $500-per-child tax credit for middle-income American families. I think that was one of the finest things we ever did. It provided $1,500 in extra money --without taxes--for a family of three. That is $100-plus a month they can spend on their children. I supported equality in making insurance premiums deductible that don't apply to small businesses. We fought for the capital gains tax reduction. People said that was a tax for the rich. When we reduced the capital gains tax, more people were willing to buy, sell, and trade properties, stocks, and other things, and they paid more taxes. Revenues to the Government went up. We will talk about the marriage penalty. It is absolutely unjustifiable to raise taxes on a couple who are married by $1,400 a year--$100 a month for a man and woman who are out working. When they get married, they have to pay more in taxes than if they lived single. It pays a bonus, in effect, for people who get a divorce. That is not the kind of public policy we ought to have. I want us to remember that nearly 70 percent of the American people oppose this estate tax. They know it is unfair and it ought to be eliminated. I want to share a few insights into this subject, other than discussing the matter in general. I have had the opportunity to meet with people from Alabama--environmental experts--who shared with me that with regard to landowners and timber owners, the estate tax is one of the single most damaging environmental pieces of legislation that exists. They tell me that routinely, people who inherit timber land and property who owe large amounts of taxes have to go out and prematurely clear-cut the timber on the property and sell it to pay the estate tax. When you are talking about a 55-percent tax, what are you going to do if you are the widow or child of a person who worked and saved all his life and did everything right? You have to sell off the property or cut the timber--every stick of it--to pay the tax man in Washington. That is not good for families and for the environment. The estate tax hurts farmers. Farmers are particularly property wealthy, but cash poor. They take what they have and plow it back into their land and equipment. When they die, they may have a very large tax burden. Perhaps they are making only a small amount on each acre they farm, but they are making an income from it. But maybe the problem is the land now is next to an interstate and the land now would be good for a motel and they want to value it at $100,000 an acre. All of a sudden, they are multimillionaires, and the family is hit for $1 million or $2 million or $5 million in taxes. The farmers in this country are universally opposed to this tax. Every farm organization in my State tells me every time I meet with them, ``Eliminate this estate tax, Jeff, whatever you do. That is rotten and we need to get rid of it.'' That is driving the issue before us today. This tax savages small business. Every generation of farmers and small businesspeople have a debt. That business or family must absorb the cost of paying the estate tax. No such tax falls on the large, mega corporations, the giant international, multinational corporations. They never die. They never pay this tax. But every generation of small business has to face it. Every generation of farmers has to face it. Is it any wonder why large paper companies can buy up thousands of acres of land that have to be sold off by farming families who can't afford to pay the taxes on it, and then they never pay that tax? This is not a good tax for this country. It is wrong for this country. It punishes middle America, those who have done the right things by saving and accumulating some wealth. This kills off competition. I know the story of an autoparts company. The family had built up an autoparts dealership. They had maybe as many as 27 stores; they were all about the State. You could see those companies there and they were growing. All of a sudden, the father who owned the company died, and they were faced with a huge tax burden. What could they do? They could borrow millions of dollars to pay the tax man, they could sell off a large part of their stores but lose the advantages of scale that they were gaining by growing and getting competitive with bigger companies, or they could sell out. The company family had to make a decision. They sold the company to a major national autoparts company, and everybody would recognize their name. That large company would never be faced with that kind of capital crisis as a result of a death. But the smaller companies are. Maybe, just maybe, that 27-store autoparts company would have continued to be able to grow. Maybe, just maybe, they would not have had to shut down the distribution center in the small town in Alabama, as they did when it sold out to the big corporation. Maybe they could have grown and become a competitor to the major parts company distributing in this country and provided more competition, driving down the price of autoparts for the average American citizen who is out to buy what he needs to fix his automobile, truck, or farm equipment. I think this thing has to be viewed in the overall context of how it impacts economic growth and competition in this country. I believe we need to make sure that we have not ingrained in our law a tax that reaches down, and when you have a big bush, a big growth of a plant that is growing big, maybe it is a Wal-Mart or Kmart or maybe a Car Quest, and it is getting bigger and bigger, and this little plant grows up and starts competing with it and gets a little sunlight and starts getting bigger, all of a sudden, somebody comes out and cuts the top off of it. That is what the estate tax does; it cuts the top off of small businesses. It savages them and makes them less competitive against the international, multinational, mega corporations. It is an anticompetitive act. I believe we ought to do something about it. It brings in less than 2 percent of the income to this country. I reject this demagogic attack that because somebody made $20 million, they are somehow evil and rich and ought to be made to pay a huge amount of tax on that money. Well, it was said the Republicans are for this bill. It is a Republican idea and that is all bad. But in the House, even though those Democratic Representatives were under the most intense pressure from their leadership to hang to the party line, 65 of them rejected the pressure and stood firm and voted to completely eliminate this tax. I think that shows it is not limited to a Republican idea. It is a broad bipartisan idea that has the overwhelming support of the American people. We only do it on estates of $20 million or more. I want to talk about that directly. They say: Well, for an estate of $75 million, we ought to have no sympathy for them. We ought not to feel any concern that the tax man takes 55 percent of it. What is 55 percent of $75 million? It is $40 million. Who says it is fair to take $40 million of an estate that somebody has worked all of their life to build up with after-tax money, and you are just going to rip it out and send it to Washington? I don't believe that is just. Again, those are the kinds of companies and businesses that are getting competitive. They have the ability to compete in the marketplace. If we savage them, we are knocking down small industries and businesses that might be competitive against the established order. I think it is healthy for America to have growing companies worth $100 million or $150 million. I see no need to attack them when we don't attack Wal-Mart, Kmart, or GM, and Nestle's, and those kinds of companies. Now we hear this talk about Social Security. Oh, yes, if we vote to eliminate the estate tax, we are going to oppose Social Security. Let me tell you that we are going to protect Social Security. We are not going to allow Social Security to fail. We support it on this side of the aisle. We fought aggressively for a lockbox to lock up any Social Security surplus and guarantee it would not be spent by the big spenders that are here. The Democrats across the aisle opposed it and would not allow us to pass that bill. We set it aside anyway. But we don't have the protection to do it year after year as we would if we had passed a lockbox. Why wouldn't they support that, if they like Social Security so much? The reason is they want more money to spend, spend, spend. That is the mentality--spend, spend, spend; ask for more votes for the people to whom you give money, and keep them in power year after year. By the way, we know more in Washington how to spend your money than you do. Make no mistake, this is a classic case of taxes and who has the power. You give more money to the Federal Government and have less for yourself. Then the Government is empowered and you are diminished. We ought to ask ourselves: How is it that the percentage of the total gross domestic product that goes to the Federal Government since President Clinton took over in 1992 has gone from 17.9 percent to 20.7 percent, higher than at the peak of World War II? To say we can't conduct our business, take care of the needs of this country, and keep that tax rate from rising every year and the rising percentage of money going every year to Washington is a mistake. It is a fundamental choice that we as Americans have to make. Will we continue to allow the erosion of the independence, freedom, and autonomy of individual American citizens to be eroded in favor of a bloated and growing political Washington establishment? Those are the choices we are dealing with. We ought to eliminate bad taxes. This estate tax is one of the worst. It costs an incredible amount for the Federal Government to collect. It costs an incredible amount for the families who have to go through the estate tax process to have to try to figure out ways to create trusts and so forth to minimize it. It is extremely painful to families. It brings in less than 2 percent of our national budget. Let's get rid of the tax. Let's not keep it anymore. Let us reject this cause that we are going to eliminate it for some but we are going to keep it on these other groups that make $20 million because they are evil, and we can take 55 percent of their money; that is all right. I don't believe that is a legitimate principle on which to operate. I believe the tax rate ought to be fair. We have increased our Federal maximum tax rate on the wealthy now to 39 percent of what they make. That is a high amount--39 percent of everything somebody makes at the margin. Why do we now need to reach into the grave and take out what they have accumulated after paying those taxes? I think we are going to eliminate this tax sooner or later. The American people support it overwhelmingly. The farmers and the small business groups support the elimination. So do the American people. I would like to express my appreciation to Senator Jon Kyl for his leadership in consistently, effectively, and brilliantly promoting this legislation from the beginning. We are at a point where we are going to bring it up for a vote. We had to have cloture to get it here. I appreciate that the majority leader has favored that. I look forward to hearing the Senator from Arizona's remarks at this time.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise for the purpose of engaging the chairman of the Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support, Committee on Armed Services to discuss a matter of some great interest relating to an Army installation located in my State. As the chairman knows, the Redstone Arsenal is located in Alabama, near the city of Huntsville. Although Redstone is not an arsenal in the traditional sense, there are certain provisions of Title III, Subtitle D, Sections 331 and 332 of the bill that I understand will apply to Redstone Arsenal. Specifically, the provision of the bill which would codify the ARMS Act and its facility use contracts and in-kind consideration provisions, and the provision on Centers of Industrial and Technical Excellence that would allow the government owned, government operated industrial facilities to pursue partnerships and arrangements with private sector entities to more fully utilize the plant and equipment at these facilities. In my own state there is interest of at least one private sector entity currently doing business on Redstone Arsenal with others to follow: By using the Facilities Use and In-Kind Consideration provisions of ARMS, the Logistics Support Facility has been able to establish a presence on Redstone Arsenal. Using these innovative approaches, the Logistical Support Facility has been able to utilize existing Army facilities that might otherwise have been deemed to be excess. This is certainly a win-win situation for both the company and the U.S. Army: a win for the LSF which gets facilities that are close to their customer--the U.S. Army, and a win for Redstone Arsenal, which receives consideration for the use of an otherwise empty facility which it might otherwise have to pay to maintain or demolish. Am I correct in my belief that Section 332 will allow the Logistical Support Facility and other similarly situated operations to operate on Redstone Arsenal?

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I know the Senator has been involved in this. I am excited so many others are involved with the possibility that we can have a detailed map of the human genome through the identification of the 3 billion nucleotide basis that make up the human genome, helping to cure diseases. It is an exciting time. This Congress has played an important role. I know Dr. Charles DeLisi has played a key role. I know Senator Domenici, perhaps more than any other official in government, saw the possibilities of this several years ago, and used the power and leverage he had to make it a governmental project of the highest priority. I know he cares about it. Would the Senator share with the Senate his insight as to where we are in the human genome at this time.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I will share a few remarks at this time about the rise in gasoline prices that are impacting American families. I recently pumped the gas at a gas station in Alabama. I talked to a lot of people. I talked to a young lady who commuted 50 miles plus, every day, to go to college. She talked to me about working part-time and going to college, how much the gasoline prices were eating into her weekly budget, and what she was trying to do to keep those prices down. It does impact Americans. Gasoline increases hurt our Nation's productivity. It is a transfer of wealth that could be spent on computers, education, better equipment, shoes, food, housing, that has to be spent on a substance for which we previously had paid less. That is a diminishment of our national wealth. It is important and should not be treated lightly. Over a year ago, we had gasoline in many States, depending on the amount of tax those States imposed, selling at close to $1 a gallon. Senator Hutchison noted most of our gasoline comes from foreign sources. In fact, the Energy Information Agency reports that we are buying 56 percent of our oil on the world market. Just last year, we were buying oil at $10 a barrel, transporting it across the ocean, refining it, shipping it to gasoline stations and 7- 11 type stores, for sale all over America. One could go down to a gas station and buy that gasoline for around $1 a gallon, and 40 cents of that dollar was taxes. So the gas was actually 60 cents a gallon. People say the oil companies are all evil and horrible, but I think those numbers are pretty good. Madam President, 24 hours a day at virtually any town intersection in America, anyone could buy gasoline, if we take the tax off, for around 60 cents a gallon. That is a remarkable achievement. Go to the same gas station and buy a bottle of water; you will probably pay $3 or more a gallon. The little bottles of water cost 70, 80, 90 cents a bottle. Still there has been a remarkable increase in gasoline prices over the last 12 months. How did we go from $1 to $1.50, $1.60, $1.70, $1.80, and even $2 a gallon for gasoline? What happened? How did it happen? If we are going to set good policy, we ought to ask ourselves that question. The main issue is that OPEC wanted more money. The oil-producing group, the cartel, so to speak--Middle East countries including Saudi Arabia along with Venezuela, and others --that overwhelmingly supply the oil to meet world demand, got together and decided they wanted more money. They made a political decision they were going to do certain things, as Senator Domenici said, to drive up the price of gasoline. The world economy was coming up, so Asia was using more gasoline, other nations were using more gasoline. So they simply quit producing as much. They reduced their production, and they didn't cheat on one another. It actually worked. They created a worldwide shortage. The price for a barrel of gasoline, at $11 a year or so ago, rose to over $30 a barrel. It hovers around $30 a barrel now and is more than double today what it was last year at this time. That has driven up the cost of gasoline. First, we have to understand that. In addition, we are now in a summer vacation time cycle. People take their trips. We use more gasoline in the summer than at any other time. That is another complication. Increased demand creates upward price pressure. There have been problems with pipelines, and I don't dispute that. Gasoline companies, pipeline companies, the distributors, and the people who actually run the gasoline stations, set the prices as they choose, some of those businesses are catching this rise and perhaps trying to make a few extra cents. It does not surprise me that is the case. Fundamentally, we have a shortage of supply in this world. The OPEC nations have done that through political action. It is very serious for our economy. There will be a negative impact on our Nation. How did that happen? When political activities occur, you can only respond, basically, politically. It seems to me, this administration has not been alert at all to the problems we are facing. The Clinton- Gore administration has not understood energy policy. It has effected a series of small steps, really no-growth extremist steps, that have debilitated our own American oil and gas industry, leaving us more vulnerable to a determined OPEC cartel that demands higher prices. That is basically what happened to us. How are we going to defeat that? It is going to really take political action to use our power against it. Frankly, there are some people in this country--most people who are sophisticated know this--who believe we ought to have higher gas prices. That is the Clinton-Gore Administration's policy for America. They believe if gasoline prices go up, we will drive less, we will buy their kind of small cars, windmills will become more popular, solar panels will be more popular, and that kind of thing will happen. They believe we ought to have higher energy prices. I believe we ought to support alternative energy sources, but I do not believe we ought to be taxing American people to encourage them to alter their lifestyles, taking money out of their pockets, making them pay more money for gasoline for these agendas. I am concerned about that. With regard to how it is impacting America, I think it is a fairly simple matter. What is really happening in this country is we are paying 20 cents, 30 cents, 40 cents more a gallon because of OPEC price increases. That is, in effect, a tax on American consumers by OPEC. In effect, when you go to the gasoline station and you buy a gallon of gas, if it is 10 cents, 20 cents, 30 cents, 40 cents more because of their prices they are charging, we are paying them that much more. It is not an economic thing; it is done by their political monopoly cartel power because of our failure to produce energy domestically. We need to do better to produce more energy in this country. I have to say we have a policy in our Nation, by this administration, that is contrary to that idea. For example, if we are going to increase energy production in America, we need to promote production and exploration. One of the ways we could do this is to open up areas of federal land with proven oil reserves. We have, in Alaska, an ANWR region with huge supplies of oil. In fact, that region of Alaska, is about the size of the State of North Carolina, and the size of the area where the oil would be produced is about the size of Dulles airfield. It is a very small area, but within that small area they can produce huge reserves of oil. This administration has steadfastly, through vetoes, refused to allow oil production there even though a majority of this Senate has voted for it, as I recall. They do not dare because they think it might have some environmental impact. Experience shows that today's oil and gas production technology has a minimal negative environmental impact and in ANWR it affects a tiny area. So they have taken that source of oil--oil which could help us compete effectively in the world and stop the transfer of our wealth to Saudi Arabia and give us greater bargaining power--off the table. There are huge reserves of natural gas in the Gulf of Mexico--huge reserves. Natural gas is one of the cleanest burning fuels we have. Much of our electricity generation is being transferred from coal and other fuels to natural gas because it burns so much cleaner and it is relatively inexpensive. Vice President Gore, in his speeches in New Hampshire during the primary campaign, said that not only did he oppose any further drilling for natural gas in the Gulf of Mexico, but he wanted to cut back on those leases already approved for drilling. I think that is an extremist position. They drill for gas right within the Mobile Bay, my home town. It is a clean substance, compared to oil. Even if it leaks, it evaporates rapidly. It doesn't have the sludge that oil does. To stop production of gas in the Gulf of Mexico is an extremist position and one which will make us more vulnerable to Saudi Arabia and OPEC. It is not acceptable. This administration refuses to allow production of oil in the Rocky Mountain area where as much as 60 percent of the land is owned by the Federal Government. They virtually shut off drilling in those areas. There has been growing interest in coalbed methane production, in which you can drill a well into coal seams and bring out methane gas, a very clean burning gas. New technology has made the production of this clean fuel economically viable, but through environmental regulations which even the EPA does not support, this fledgling energy production source is at risk. Finally, this administration has steadfastly opposed the use of nuclear power, which Senator Domenici mentioned. They refuse to allow us to store waste nuclear fuel, spent uranium fuel rods, in a remote desert tunnel in Nevada, where we used to blow up atom bombs on the surface. It ought to be done. By refusing to allow spent fuel to be safely stored, it compromises our ability to produce more of our energy by nuclear power which produces absolutely zero air pollution. It is a nonpolluting source of power. France already generates 80 percent of their power by nuclear power. Japan is moving in that direction. We have to realize we need to do more with nuclear power. In fact, in this country, over 20 percent of our power comes from nuclear. But we have not ordered and brought on- line a new plant in over 20 years. Those are the actions which must be done be done. The policies this administration support are wrong, the consequence of these policies are clear: shortage of energy and higher prices. That is what will occur. That is what is occurring. I think we need strong leadership from this administration to deal with this problem now. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I love to hear the story Senator Domenici tells about helping to make this human genome project a reality. He shared it with me some time ago. It is one of those success stories we can feel good about. It does provide opportunities for health improvement in America in an extraordinary way. We heard recently remarks by the head of the National Cancer Institute who described one form of leukemia that had been diagnosed, and that certain types of treatments cured 60 percent of the leukemias and 40 percent were not cured; they didn't know why. But after the human genome study, they found out there were actually two different kinds of leukemias, and the treatment served one and not another. A lot of good breakthroughs are on the horizon, I am convinced.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I want to share some thoughts tonight about a major development concerning the investigation involving the financing of the Vice President's 1996 reelection campaign. First, however, I would like to say that this matter should have been over some time ago, but the Attorney General declined to appoint an Independent Counsel. The Justice Department attorneys who were involved in the investigation of the campaign financing matter have recently testified before the Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee, which is chaired by Senator Specter and of which I am a member. In my opinion, these attorneys have not produced credible and justifiable reasons for the lack of an appointment of an Indpendent Counsel or for the extraordinary delays that have incurred in the campaign finance investigation. My 15 years of experience as a prosecutor in the Department of Justice convince me that if the Department of Justice was not going to call for an outside prosecutor--an Independent Counsel--to investigate Vice President Gore, it had an imperative obligation to investigate the matter thoroughly, promptly, and fairly and to bring it to a conclusion. But the attorneys for the Department of Justice who have been involved in this matter for years did not do that. Late this afternoon, the Associated Press and the New York Times reported that Robert Conrad, the new head of the Justice Department's Campaign Finance Task Force, has requested that Attorney General Reno appoint a ``special counsel.'' After the expiration of the Independent Counsel Statute, Attorney General Reno has the authority to appoint a special counsel to investigate Vice President Gore's involvement in the 1996 campaign fundraising matters. This is the most recent in a long line of highly respected officials within and without the Department of Justice who have asked for a complete and independent investigation of various aspects of the Vice President's fundraising activities. Unfortunately, each and every previous request for an independent investigation has been denied. FBI Director Louis Freeh, himself a former Federal judge and a former experienced and skilled Federal prosecutor who personally prosecuted some of this country's most complex cases, recommended the appointment of an Independent Counsel in the fall of 1996. FBI General Counsel Larry Parkinson also recommended an Independent Counsel. The former head of the Justice Department's Campaign Finance Task Force, Mr. Charles La Bella, also recommended that an Independent Counsel be appointed. He actually did so several times after he took over as head of the task force in the fall of 1997. He eventually resigned from that position. Chief FBI Investigator DeSarno joined in La Bella's recommendations. Ms. Judy Feigin, Mr. La Bella's chief prosecutor in 1998, also recommended that an Independent Counsel be appointed in the campaign finance matter. Finally, Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General Bob Litt--the associate Attorney General third in line to Janet Reno at the Department of Justice, an individual she picked and was approved by the President--recommended the appointment of an Independent Counsel. He switched his position after opposing such an appointment for some time. Even Mr. Litt recommended an Independent Counsel in 1998. But no independent investigation has been approved to date. Mr. Conrad testified before our subcommittee a few days ago. He impressed me as a solid prosecutor with over 10 years experience, with a substantial record of trying courtroom cases. He understood his duty. He was soft spoken. He was solid. He would never be led into saying things he did not think were proper. We were very impressed with him. Since his involvement with the case began approximately six months ago, some five people have pleaded guilty or been convicted of criminal offenses arising from the financing of the 1996 Clinton-Gore campaign. So his recommendation for an independent investigation is entitled to substantial weight and is very, very important for America. I sincerely and earnestly request that the Attorney General not deny this most recent request to investigate the Vice President regarding the receipt of illegal campaign contributions. Yesterday, at our hearing, chaired by Senator Specter, Mr. Conrad testified that he had personally interviewed Vice President Gore in April. Mr. Radek, a top Department of Justice official, has recently confirmed, in an NBC Meet the Press interview, that Vice President Gore's Buddhist temple fundraiser is ``still under investigation by the task force. And if any evidence shows up that Vice President Gore knew about the crimes that were involved there, of course, that would, again, cause a triggering of the now independent counsel regulations in the department.'' I believe Mr. Radek was referring to the new special counsel provisions. News accounts in the New York Post recently reported that at the interview, the Vice President ``blew his top . . . because they asked about his illegal Buddhist temple fundraiser for the first time.'' Further, the Vice President ``seemed stunned'' and ``fumed'' when confronted with these allegations, and the interview ``ended in a yelling match between Gore and federal investigators.'' These are the investigations of Mr. Conrad. After four years, finally Vice President was asked about this. That is the description of that interview. I would think the Vice President would want to clear up the matter and be candid and forthcoming with the investigator. It would certainly be better for the country. It would certainly allow the matter to have been concluded sooner. What is this campaign financing matter about? Why is it that this Buddhist temple matter simply will not go away? On April 29, 1996, in Hacienda Heights, California, Vice President Gore held a fundraiser at a Buddhist temple--a tax-exempt institution where you shouldn't be able to hold a fundraiser. Several questions arose from this fundraiser. Who were the people surrounding Vice President Gore at this event? Were the people involved in this event involved in illegal foreign- source contributions? What was the role of the Vice President's staff and DNC staff regarding this event? What was the Vice President's role regarding this fund-raising event? The poster shows a picture of Vice President Gore at the Buddhist temple fund raiser. To his far right is Maria Hsia, his long-time friend and fund-raiser of more than 10 years, who was recently convicted on 5 felony counts. Her convictions stem directly from the Buddhist temple fund-raiser. It is important to note that the investigation by the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee concluded that Maria Hsia is an ``agent of the Chinese government, that she acted knowingly in support of it, and that she has attempted to conceal her relationship with the Chinese government.'' To Vice President Gore's immediate left is Ted Sieong, who fled the country as soon as he was implicated in the fund-raising scandals and who we believe remains under criminal investigation. Ted Sioeng is an overseas businessman who has been tied to hundreds of thousands of dollars in illegal contributions during the 1996 campaign, and the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee concluded that he ``worked, and perhaps still works, on behalf of the Chinese government.'' Behind and to Vice President Gore's right is John Huang, a Vice Chairman of the DNC staff who helped the Vice President plan the Buddhist temple event. Mr. Huang also subsequently pleaded guilty to a felony count. He raised over a million in illegal foreign-source contributions. Finally, behind the Vice President and to his far right is Man Ho Shih a Buddhist Nun who admitted to another Committee of the Senate that she and others set about destroying documents relating to the temple fund raiser. According to one of her fellow monastics, those documents were destroyed because they ``did not want to embarrass the Vice President.'' She also fled the country before she was scheduled to testify in a court of law, and is now under indictment, but evading custody. Moreover, another key piece of evidence which could shed some light on this issue, the videotape of the event, has never been found. This is a serious matter. The rule of law is a serious matter. A legitimate investigation is required. I make no suggestion that the Vice President is guilty of any crime related to this event and I sincerely hope that he is not. I am deeply troubled that senior officials in the Justice Department have refused for four years to allow investigators the opportunity to ask the necessary questions of the Vice President and other senior administration officials so that this matter can be resolved one way or the other. Indeed, we had testimony in our subcommittee, and we went over it two days ago with Mr. Mansfield the former Assistant United States Attorney in Los Angeles who started the initial investigation of the Buddhist temple fundraiser. When this news broke late in the 1996 Presidential campaign, Mr. Mansfield, who had previously and successfully prosecuted a Republican Congressman for campaign fraud, was preparing his investigative plan for this event. He testified that in these kind of cases you need to move quickly to get records and documents and interview witnesses. But he was stopped by a political appointee, the chief of the Public Integrity Section in the Department of Justice, by written direction. And he was not allowed to proceed to interview witnesses, or to issue subpoenas for documents. And, indeed, the Department of Justice subsequently declared that no Independent Counsel was required, rejecting the suggestion of Senator McCain, who previously talked on this floor and who wrote at that time calling for an Independent Counsel to be appointed. And five other Members joined in that letter. But the Department of Justice attorneys who stopped Mr. Mansfield's investigation did not interview any witnesses or do any significant investigation. That is why I believe it is important that Mr. Conrad's request for the appointment of a special counsel should be granted. The Attorney General has one more chance to do what I believe is her duty. Mr. Conrad has a reputation as a man of integrity and a solid prosecutor who gets results. As the current chief prosecutor who has been in place for only a few months, has done a fine job in securing 5 convictions and guilty plea agreements in several key cases. One of these involved Pauline Kanchanalak, who was responsible for funneling approximately $690,000 of illegal foreign money to the Democratic National Committee and 5 state Democratic parties. More than $457,000 of this amount was related to one White House coffee on June 18, 1996, organized by John Huang and attended by President Clinton. Another case involved the conviction of Maria Hsia on March 2, 2000, which resulted, in part, from her involvement in the California Buddhist Temple fundraiser to funnel more than $100,000 of illegal foreign money into the Clinton-Gore 1996 reelection campaign. Even after her conviction on five felony counts, Maria Hsia is still not in jail. In fact, Judge Friedman granted her request to have her passport returned so she can travel freely between China and the United States. At any rate, some progress apparently is being made. And I commend the efforts of Mr. Conrad. I believe that his work has the potential to restore the integrity of the Department of Justice, and I believe Attorney General Reno should follow his advice and appoint a special counsel to conclude this matter. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I appreciate Senator McCain for raising this important issue. I agree with him that is difficult to conceive that anyone would think that material that comes through the Internet which would not be allowed in the library in a book should be allowed to be in there electronically. It is frustrating to see the National Library Association, who I have observed over the years have a very radical view of absolutely no one telling a librarian what can be brought into a library. I don't think that is legitimate. Their salaries are paid by the taxpayers, and they receive money from the Federal Government. They don't have an absolute, unprotected right to select whatever they want in the library. It is not a healthy matter.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 15 minutes each.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would like to share some thoughts on the OSHA regulations, these ergonomic regulations. First, I want to say that it is a worthy goal to improve safety and health in the workplace, but we ought to look at it carefully and we ought to, as a representative body of the people, look at the democratic aspect of this process and be prepared to examine these regulations before we authorize them to go forward and make sure they meet a scientific standard, and in addition to the extraordinary costs we know they will cause, we need to know that they will actually improve safety and health in the workplace. Last year, before OSHA published its proposed ergonomic rules, Senator Bond introduced a bill, which I supported, prohibiting OSHA from publishing its final ergonomics standard until the National Academy of Sciences completes a congressionally mandated peer-review of all the scientific literature concerning ergonomics. Unfortunately, a minority number of Senators in this body were able to block its consideration. This year, I am pleased to join with Senator Enzi, who has tenaciously and effectively pointed out the problems with this rule and why it ought to be delayed. I just believe that we have to remember that experts have characterized this legislation as ``the costliest government job mandate since the founding of the United States.'' That is a matter that should give us all pause. I believe it is important to base whatever regulations we have on sound science, and I don't believe that OSHA has done so. This is an important issue. I am going to talk about three cases in recent years in which OSHA has been found not to have based its regulations on sound science or justifiable procedures. I do that because a lot of people think, well, if OSHA says it, it must be good. Somehow they are blessed with ``all-knowing wisdom.'' But you have already heard from Senators who pointed out a number of things that OSHA has done that are certainly not justifiable. It is not what I say to you today, but what the courts have said about this that is important. Certainly, it is important to provide a safe environment. Ergonomics, though, are based upon decisions and recommendations made by ergonomists and/or engineers, and not physicians, and their medical theories have proven to be controversial. OSHA has attempted to apply ergonomics in three legal cases that they litigated to judgment. In each instance, OSHA suffered major losses. These cases demonstrate the vast uncertainty surrounding these regulations and the science OSHA claims supports their implementation. Even the ``experts'' on ergonomics at OSHA admit there is a great deal of uncertainty in these regulations. OSHA has litigated these claims under the ``general duty'' clause of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. This clause provides a general obligation on every business in America, all employers, to protect workers from ``recognized hazards'' of ``death or serious physical harm'' and functions as a catchall under which OSHA frequently attempts to expand its regulatory power. One important aspect in the cases I will discuss is that OSHA had the burden of identifying hazardous job conditions. In the cases I am talking about, OSHA had to prove these were hazardous job conditions, and they have to show how they would be corrected. In the rule we are debating, the burden will be put on the employers to make these decisions. We are going to find out that OSHA could not do it. Yet they are going to demand that every employer in America--many of them small businesses--are to meet these kinds of standards. No. 1, in the 1995 case, Secretary of Labor v. Beverly Enterprises, OSHA sought to prevent nursing home employees from lifting up residents in order to care for them and move them about the room. OSHA would have preferred carting the elderly residents about with mechanical hoists. In a 31-day trial before a Federal administrative law judge, OSHA presented four expert witnesses, each with a Ph.D. in this field. These were some of the leading ergonomics theorists in the Nation, some of which had done extensive research on the practice of lifting in nursing homes. The federal administrative law judge concluded ``There is no reliable epidemiological evidence establishing lifting as a cause of low back pain. Science has not been successful in showing when and under what circumstances lifting presents a significant risk of harm, none of the experts could say with reasonable medical certainty that any injury claimed by Beverly employees was caused by their job tasks.'' With all of the resources of the federal government, including numerous experts, the Department of Labor and OSHA were not able to fulfill their obligation to ``define the hazard in such a way as to advise Beverly of its obligations and identify the conditions and practices over which Beverly may exercise control so as to reduce or eliminate the hazard.'' That is a direct quote from the judge. If a federal agency is unsuccessful, how are employers expected to meet this burden under the ergonomics rule. The courts have also spoken in regards to the ``flawed'' science that is the basis for this proposed ergonomics rule. In the 1998 case Secretary of Labor v. Dayton Tire, OSHA launched an attack on 22 different manufacturing jobs in a single tire-manufacturing plant. This is yet another case of the federal agency utilizing their large financial and personnel resources to prove their case. OSHA assigned three compliance personnel to a six-month inspection and investigation of the facility. At trial before the administrative law judge it called more than three dozen witnesses, including 31 employees, 4 doctors from the facility, 3 OSHA investigators, and 2 experts. Thousands of man hours were spent in preparation for the trial, studying the jobs they claimed caused the injuries. The trial lasted 6 months, even though the company only called one witness. The OSHA witnesses had extensive experience with ergonomics, with one having spent the last six years as an analyst for OSHA whose ``primary job'' was conducting ergonomic analysis. OSHA's medical expert in the case was a university professor who was certified as an expert in ergonomics, who with the assistance of three other faculty members and six residents, had conducted extensive analysis of the medical records of the Dayton Tire employees who allegedly suffered from musculosketetal disorders. The Professor confessed during the trial that ``if he had been the treating physician, he would not have felt comfortable making a diagnosis of the conditions, nature and cause'' of those injuries. This uncertainty is quite alarming coming from a man with expertise in the area. The fact that he conceded that his study did no more than ``present a red flag that something may be wrong'' at the plant concerned the judge. The judge ruled and held that this method was ``not trustworthy'', ``scientifically valid'', or ``scientifically reliable'', stating that ``Conjectures that are probably wrong are of little use''. Ultimately, the judge concluded that the expert's analysis ``failed to meet the minimal requirements for evidentiary reliability established in Daubert v. Merrel Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the 1993 Supreme Court decision that requires judges to exclude ``expert'' testimony that uses scientifically invalid methodology or reasoning. This standard is generally referred to as the ``junk science'' standard.'' This testimony was rejected as not even valid testimony under the ``junk science'' doctrine. That is what OSHA was relying on in that case. The fact that OSHA characterized the methods of their experts in the Dayton Tire as ``widely used and generally accepted'' among ergonomics experts, clearly shows that when scrutinized the science that is the basis of this ergonomics standard is fundamentally flawed. In the 1997, Pepperidge Farm case, OSHA had its only opportunity to have an ergonomics case decided by the full Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. The risks that OSHA identified in the case were ``capping'' cookies-- employees lifted the top of a sandwich cookie from one assembly line and placed it on top of the bottom of the cookie on another assembly line in a repetitious fashion. To abate these conditions, OSHA ordered the company to increase its staff, slow assembly line speeds, increase rest periods, or simply automate the entire operation. Automation means job loss. People complain that when we automate we are losing jobs. One reason that is happening is these kinds of regulations that drive up the costs; and to make it more economic for a company to avoid these kinds of lawsuits and Federal complaints, they could just go on and create some new form of a machine that could do the work without people. While the commission did accept some of the major premises of ergonomics, such as repetitive workplace motions causing worker injuries--I am sure under the circumstances that can happen; I would not dispute that--the commission ruled that OSHA failed to show that its proposed ergonomics measures were appropriate means of reducing musculoskeletal disorders purportedly caused by the worksites. The Commission found that some ergonomic measures had been implemented by the company and that the additional measures proposed by the agency's expert ergonomists were not shown to be feasible and effective. The decision is particularly damaging because OSHA had enlisted enormous resources and leading experts to show what the company should have done to avoid worker injury. Yet OSHA and its experts could not prove in open court what works, again raising the question of how businesses can make such determinations when OSHA can't. In these three cases OSHA deployed hundreds of experts and millions of dollars to target what they considered to be particularly hazardous worksites. But because of the flawed science the agency could not determine what if anything was wrong, or how to correct it. And the courts rejected their view. This is why business is concerned. Some think just because they have the name OSHA, that they do everything right. They have been knocked down time and again by the courts. Businesses do not understand and do not have confidence that the 300 pages of these proposed regulations are going to apply fairly, and they do not believe it is scientifically based. I can understand their concerns. Employers should not be held to a standard that has consistently alluded the agency that seeks to regulate them. I believe we should pass Senator Enzi's amendment and delay the ergonomics standards until the uncertainties regarding the science and implementation of this can be further explored. I don't know the answer. OSHA has, through these three cases, established that they don't have the answers either. Why don't we allow the National Academy of Sciences' study to be completed? Why don't we get opinions of the physicians and medical experts who can understand these issues before we rush to force these regulations into play? That is what we should do. That is why I believe the amendment by Senator Enzi is the proper amendment. Let's get the scientific basis before we act. I thank the President. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the people of Colombia are good people. They maintained a democracy for a long time. There are 40 million people in Colombia. They are our fifth largest trading partner in Latin America. They are struggling with violence that has been going on for 40 years. There are at least two major Marxist-oriented guerrilla groups who control nearly 50 percent of the territory of Colombia. They have attempted repeatedly, through President Pastrana, to negotiate with these guerrillas and have had very little success. In fact, the guerrillas have taken advantage of the good auspices of the people of Colombia and President Pastrana, and even strengthened their hold on the territory and strengthened their antidemocratic activities. There are paramilitary groups in the country also who are operating outside the law and are involved in drug trafficking. The guerrilla organizations sustain themselves through the most active kidnapping in the world. Colombia has the highest number of kidnappings in the world. Its murder rate is probably the highest in the world. The guerrilla groups sell protection for drug traffickers, and that is how they make their money to maintain their existence. I believe, as a former Federal prosecutor who has been involved in studying the drug issue and has prosecuted many cases in the district of Mobile, AL, involving quite a number of Colombian drug dealers and cartel members, we are going to have limited ability containing the drug problem in America through this money. But what we can do with this money and what is critical that we do with this money is strengthen the country of Colombia. We need to say to them: We support you; we believe in your democracy. The 97-plus percent, as Senator Biden said, of the people in that country support their government, not these guerrilla organizations. They want peace, they want unification, they want economic growth, they want human rights, and they want a rule of law. That cannot be done and we cannot expect Colombia to stop drug trafficking in their nation if 40 percent of the territory is outside their control--50 percent perhaps. I am distressed that this administration in public statements, in testimony before committee hearings, has refused to say: We support Colombia in their efforts against these guerrillas. They suggest their only motive is to provide money to help knock down drug production in Colombia. That is distressing to me. Ambassador Pickering testified and I cross-examined him. He said: Our emphasis is drugs. That is not the basis of what we are doing. We want to help Colombia. We want Colombia to create a peaceful government to take control of its country. We want to encourage strong leadership, the kind of leadership that Abraham Lincoln provided when he unified this country. That is what needs to be done in Colombia to bring this matter to a conclusion once and for all. If we do not do so, we are pouring new wine in old wine bottles. We are pouring money down a dangerous rat hole. This amendment says: We support you, Colombia. We believe in you, Colombia. We explicitly endorse and support your efforts through peace negotiations or warfare, if necessary, to unify your country, to bring peace so you can then eliminate the drug trafficking that is occurring there. Drug trafficking is a major problem in Colombia. It is our No. 1 supplier of cocaine. The cocaine production in Colombia has more than doubled in 5 years. Heroin is going up. Seventy percent of the heroin in the United States comes from Colombia. The main reason is the Government of Colombia does not control its territory. There are whole areas of territory outside the control of the government. We should support this country, and this amendment says so explicitly. Mr. President, do I still have a minute under the agreement?

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I have a further modified amendment consistent with the request of Senator Leahy to strengthen the language that says our support for the Colombian Government would be conditioned upon their following defined standards of human rights, as Senator Leahy placed in the bill.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I send a modification to the desk. I would like to share a few thoughts about this situation.

Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Yes. That would be satisfactory to me, and such other accommodations we can make to make it better for the managers.

Mr. SESSIONS. I will.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, this is indeed an important Defense authorization bill. We have worked on it for a long time. Unfortunately, it is now being jeopardized by an attempt to shove further and further abortion rights, abortion entitlements forward, to be paid for by the American taxpayers. That is a principle we ought not to confront, in my view. As I see it, there has sort of been a quasi, uneasy truce among those who disagree about abortion. We have said the right exists and people can choose it, but we are not requiring that the American taxpayers pay for it. People on both sides may like to see that changed in various directions, but fundamentally that is where we are. We have an important defense bill being jeopardized by this approach that says that taxpayers have to have the Army, Navy, and Marine hospitals converted into abortion clinics. I do not believe that is popular with the service. I know it is not popular with the physicians in the service. In fact, I am disappointed to hear that the Secretary of Defense--I now hear from this floor--favors this amendment. Once again, we have politicians and bureaucrats in the Department of Defense playing political and ideological games with the morale and esprit de corps of the men and women in the military. I do not appreciate that. Every physician who was called upon previously, when there was a period in which these abortions were to be performed in military hospitals, rejected that. Not one military physician, who swore an oath to preserve life and who had character and integrity that led them to conclude they ought not to do these abortions, would do so. So there is unanimous support. I do not know why the Secretary of Defense ought to be doing this. I did not know that it happened. I knew that a bureaucrat, an Under Secretary of Defense, had said it was a constitutional right. It is not a constitutional right to have the taxpayers provide a place for someone to conduct an elective surgery. That is not a constitutional right. It is a constitutional right, according to the Supreme Court, that no State can pass laws to stop someone from going out and seeking an abortion and having it. Basically, that is the current state of the law by the U.S. Supreme Court. That is the right. It is not a right to have it paid for by the American citizens, many of whom deeply believe it is wrong. Overwhelmingly, a majority-- apparently all physicians in the military--do not want to do this. Why are we forcing it? It is not good for military morale. It is not going to improve the self-image of the patriots who defend us every day. I feel strongly about that. I wish the Secretary of Defense had not come forward in that way. What is the policy? What are we saying to our women in uniform today? The policy says: Join the service and you may be deployed. Most people may serve their whole career and never be deployed outside the United States but some are. So you may be deployed. We say to them: You have a full right to have an abortion, as any other American citizen. You have that right. We have regulations, implemented by the Clinton-Gore administration, to guarantee those rights. We say: But you must pay for that procedure. The taxpayers are not going to pay for it. If you are on foreign soil and there is not an American hospital nearby or an abortion clinic nearby, you will be given leave. You will be given free travel on military aircraft to come back to a place you think is appropriate to have your abortion. We are just not going to pay for it. We are not going to convert our hospitals, and we are not going to have our physicians who don't approve of this procedure be required to take training in and undertake that procedure. That is the way it is. That is not a denial of constitutional rights. If it were, why don't we have a lawsuit and have the U.S. Supreme Court declare that is an unconstitutional policy? There is zero chance of having the Supreme Court declare the policy, as I have just stated it, unconstitutional. It is an absolutely bogus argument to say the current state of the law concerning abortions in military hospitals is unconstitutional. It is not so. It is inaccurate and wrong. It ought not to be said. If it is so, it will be reversed by the Supreme Court. But it will not be because it is not unconstitutional. Someone suggested that this is oppressive to women. That is a very patronizing approach to women in the military. The women I know in the military are quite capable. They know how to make decisions. They are trained to make decisions. They are strong and capable. They are not going to be intimidated from taking a medical course they choose to take. It is not a question of asking permission of their commanding officer. They can have the abortion as they choose. If they want to be transported back to the United States on free travel, they have to ask for the free travel. They have to ask their commander, someone to give them the travel back on the aircraft. It is not begging the commanding officer for permission to have the abortion, which is a right protected by the Constitution. It has been argued that we are here to place barriers in the way. No. The regulations guarantee the right of a woman in the military to have an abortion and guarantee the right to be transported back to a place where the abortion can be provided. It does not bar an abortion. How can daylight be turned to darkness in that way? There are many deep beliefs on both sides of this issue. We need to be clear in how we think about it. If we think about it fairly, we will understand that the U.S. military guarantees and protects and will assist a woman to achieve an abortion. What we are saying is, we shall not be required to provide a hospital, doctors, and nurses to do so. I think that is a reasonable policy in this diverse world in which we live. We do not need to jeopardize the entire Defense bill by challenging the deeply held and honorable position of many Americans. We need to reject this amendment. I think it is basically an attempt to shove, once again, the abortion barriers even further, to attempt to get around the Hyde amendment which flatly prohibits expenditure of Federal dollars to carry out abortions. The Hyde amendment is quite sane, quite reasonable, quite fair in light of the deeply held opinions of Americans. Let us not go further. Let us reject the Murray amendment.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President. It is with great pleasure that I rise today to pay tribute to Lieutenant Colonel David A. DeKeyser for his dedicated military service to our country. LTC DeKeyser retired on June 5, 2000 from the United States Army Reserve after serving 28 distinguished years as an officer in the Transportation Corps. I have known him well for many years and since I joined the Senate in 1997, he has served as my Chief of Staff. I came to know LTC DeKeyser personally during the 1970's and 1980's when we were both assigned to the 1184th Transportation Terminal Unit (TTU) in Mobile, Alabama. For 8 years we trained at monthly drills and annual training. We have worked with one another since that time in a series of increasingly important and difficult assignments. LTC DeKeyser was born March 21, 1950 in Mobile, Alabama. He was commissioned as a Second Lieutenant in 1972 from Auburn University. Throughout his career--with duty assignments in Europe, the United States, the Middle East during Operation Desert Storm, and most recently with duty at the United States Transportation Command--he consistently distinguished himself. During times of peace and war, in both command and staff positions, he has achieved excellence. He was activated with the 1184th TTU for duty during the Gulf War and spent 6 months away from his family in Kuwait. LTC DeKeyser was decorated with the Joint Service Commendation Medal, and the Southwest Asia Service Medal. His other notable military awards include the Legion of Merit, the Defense Meritorious Medal, and two awards of the Meritorious Service Medal. LTC DeKeyser's professionalism and leadership as a military officer earned him the respect and admiration of his soldiers, fellow officers, and members of the U.S. Congress. No officer was better liked or respected--from the newest private to the commanding officer--than LTC DeKeyser. He is known for his integrity, compassion, humor, and ability to inspire men and women from all walks of life. These are the qualities of a soldier who deserves the thanks of a grateful nation for a job well done. In addition, he made notable contributions in his community as a member of various civic organizations to include the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, the Alabama Coastal Resources Advisory Council, the Mobile Area Chamber of Commerce, the Alabama-Mississippi Sea Grant Consortium Advisory Committee, Goodwill Industries Board of Directors, the American Heart Association Board of Directors, the Mobile Jaycees, and the Reserve Officers Association. Armand has served his country for 28 years in the Army but he has also provided magnificent services to the Nation in a number of other crucial government assignments. I know about these because we are partners. In the 1980's, I asked him to leave his business career to serve as a law enforcement coordinator for the office of the United States Attorney. As was typical of Armand's nature he eagerly looked to expand our work and we decided to initiate a ``Weed and Seed'' program in an attempt to revitalize the Martin Luther King area of Mobile. This historic neighborhood had fallen victim to decay, crime and drugs. Working with our other law enforcement coordinator, Eric Day, Armand gave himself to the project with his typical enthusiasm. Mr. President. I can say that the program was a great success. I once told Armand, when they put you in the grave, your work to make this neighborhood a much better place may be your greatest accomplishment. Later in 1994, I was elected Attorney General of Alabama and I asked him to leave his beloved Mobile to come to Montgomery to serve as my Administrative Officer. When we took office, we faced a huge financial problem as a result of terrible financial management. Armand responded with great effectiveness--closing several off-site offices, disposing of one-half of the office automobiles, reducing staff, and helping us reorganize. Personnel was reduced by one-third and legal work improved Then, when I was elected to the U.S. Senate, I asked him to serve as my Chief of Staff. Once again, he agreed. He has done a magnificent job and there can be no doubt that his military service has played a key role in helping our office achieve the high level of effectiveness that we currently enjoy. Armand is a soldier's soldier. He has given his best to the Army. It has caused him to be away from home and family and called for personal sacrifice. But, for 28 years, he has answered the call and served with great distinction. I salute Armand for his faithfulness to the nation, and wish him, his wonderful wife Beverly, and sons David and Phillip many wonderful years of happiness and good health in his retirement.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. If the Senator from West Virginia would give me 1 to 2 minutes before his remarks, I would be finished and glad to yield the floor to him.

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator from West Virginia for his courtesy.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, a few moments ago the Senator who is presiding over the Senate spoke on the floor, expressing some views about the nation of India. I believe the Senator raised a very important matter that is too little discussed in our Government, in our news media, and in this country. It seems to me every time I have heard the Senator speak on it, he makes perfectly good sense. I believe the Senator is on the right track with a very important issue for our country. I simply want to say to the Senator, thank you for raising it. I believe it is a matter we need to discuss more. India is soon to be the most populous nation in the world. It is a democracy. There is no reason for us to have an adversarial relationship with them. The CTBT issues can be overcome. It is time for us to rethink our policy in that area. I thank the Senator for raising the issue. I yield the floor.