Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak in morning business for 7 minutes.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I understand at this time the President is considering vetoing the nuclear waste bill that passed here by a substantial majority. That is very troubling to me. It is time for us to dispose of nuclear waste. We have the capability. The citizens of America, through their electric bills, have paid billions of dollars to build this waste disposal area out in the Nevada desert to place this nuclear waste--which is not explosive. It is simply radioactive and it is placed in the right kind of containers and will be placed in the ground of the desert of Nevada where we exploded 1,000 bombs on top of the ground in developing our nuclear bombing capability. But every nuclear electric-generating plant in America produces some waste. That waste is being stored on site. We agreed some years ago to create this fund and to store this waste. Now, every time we come to this Senate, every time this debate comes up for a vote, a majority votes for it and the President ends up vetoing it and we fall just short of the number of votes to override that veto. Through an unusual number of circumstances, I have become somewhat familiar with the concerns involving energy and nuclear power in America. I formed a very clear opinion of what we have to do if we are going to meet the demands for power and the demand to clean up the atmosphere. The Kyoto treaty, which the President signed and the Vice President supported, the executive branch made an amazing agreement that we would reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 7 percent from 1990 levels by 2012 or 2010--the exact year escapes me. Since that time, our demand for energy has increased. Since 1990, our emissions of greenhouse gases have increased by 8 percent. By the year 2012, if we were to comply with the agreement the President tried to commit us to, we would have to reduce, from this day, 15 percent of our greenhouse gas emissions when we know our demands for energy are going to increase between now and 2010. This is a box we cannot get out of; not under present plans. There was a marvelous 2-hour show on Sunday night on public television's ``Frontline'' on greenhouse gases and the potential of global warming. They went over all the issues at that time. I think it was tilted slightly more than the science indicates that we are in a period of global warming, but it does appear we may be. We need to be thinking about that. But the scientists and experts I have talked with say we cannot meet those goals without nuclear power. Mr. President, 20 percent of the electricity in this country is produced by nuclear power, but we have not approved a new plant since the 1970s. France has over 60 percent--soon to be 80 percent--of its power generated by nuclear power. Japan also has a large percentage generated by it. In the United States, we have never lost a life as a result of nuclear power. Nuclear power produces, as you know, no pollution for the atmosphere--zero. Huge amounts--20 percent--of our electric power is produced by nuclear power with no emissions out there. We have a crisis in our energy policy with regard to fuel oil and our domestic production since 1992, when this administration took office. The reason I am talking about that is I believe there is a no-growth, antienergy policy that is made a part of our American policy under the Clinton-Gore administration. They do not believe in production of greater amounts of energy. We have reduced our domestic production of oil by 17 percent since 1992. Yet our demand for oil and gasoline has increased 14 percent. That is a shocking figure. That is why we are so much more dependent on the Middle East, OPEC, for oil and gas. That is why they are able to demand higher prices. Maybe the gas companies added a few cents on a gallon, but almost all of that was a direct result of their demand for oil from the Middle East and Venezuela and the OPEC nations, and we virtually pay double for it. What that means is if your gasoline has gone up from $1 to $1.45 at the gas pump, that extra 45 cents is going outside of America to one of these OPEC nations. It is a drain on the wealth of this country, and I submit it does suggest it could threaten the economic prosperity we are enjoying today. How can we meet our environmental goals? How can we do that without thinking broadly about what is occurring? We heard recently the Vice President saying, with regard to nuclear power, that he does not support an increased reliance on nuclear power for electricity generation. He does not support an increased reliance on nuclear power for electricity generation, but he would keep open the option of relicensing existing nuclear plants. I think that is a stunning statement. That is a no-growth policy. We are going to limit greenhouse emissions but we are not going to allow any increase in nuclear power. Another one of his stunning proposals is to not drill any further for natural gas in the deep Gulf of Mexico. There are great reserves of natural gas there. Natural gas, even if it breaks out of our pipeline, does not pollute as does oil. It is not sticky. It evaporates. It is not a real dangerous pollutant. And when it burns, it is the most efficient burning of all fossil fuels and produces the least amount of pollution. If we move to a cleaner energy source, natural gas is it. But the Vice President, who opposes nuclear power, now is opposing drilling for natural gas in the Gulf of Mexico. That he explicitly stated during his campaign in New Hampshire. In fact, he said he would consider rolling back the leases that have already been issued. So this is a dangerous time for us. I hope we are not moving to make unwise decisions that would, in effect, result in the drying up of our supply of energy and raising the price of energy for every American and having that money go overseas to foreign nations. We need to produce more nuclear power. I will be talking more about that in the future. My plea is to the President: Do not veto this bill. Let's keep America as a strong nuclear-powered country.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask the Chair lay before the Senate a message from the House of Representatives of the bill (S. 1567) to designate the United States courthouse located at 223 Broad Street in Albany, Georgia, as the C.B. King United States Courthouse. The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message from the House of Representatives: Resolved, That the bill from the Senate (S. 1567) entitled ``An Act to designate the United States courthouse located at 223 Broad Street in Albany, Georgia, as the `C.B. King United States Courthouse'.'', do pass with the following amendments: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent the Senate concur in the amendments of the House.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask the Chair lay before the Senate a message from the House of Representatives on the bill (S. 1769) to the reporting requirements of section 2519 of title 18, United States Code, beyond December 21, 1999, and for other purposes, The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message from the House of Representatives; Resolved, That the bill from the Senate (S. 1769) entitled ``An Act to continue the reporting requirements of section 2519 of title 18, United States Code, beyond December 21, 1999, and for other purposes'', do pass with the following amendments: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent the bill, as amended, be read the third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, the amendment to the title be agreed to, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent the amendments be agreed to en bloc.

Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent that the committee substitute amendment, as amended, be agreed to.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 411, S. 1627.

Mr. SESSIONS. The chairman has two amendments at the desk and I ask they be considered en bloc.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask the Chair lay before the Senate a message from the House of Representatives on the bill (H.R. 1753) to promote the research, identification, assessment, exploration, and development of gas hydrate resources, and for other purposes, The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message from the House of Representatives: Resolved, That the House agree to the amendment of the Senate to the title; and agree to the amendment of the Senate to the text to the bill (H.R. 1753) entitled ``An Act to promote the research, identification, assessment, exploration, and development of gas hydrate resources, and for other purposes'', with the following amendment: In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate amendment, insert the following:

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate agree to the amendment of the House to the Senate amendment.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that any committee amendments, where applicable, be agreed to, the bills then be considered read the third time and passed, as amended, if amended, any title amendments be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to any of these bills appear at this point in the Record, with the above occurring en bloc.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration, en bloc, of the following Energy Committee matters: S. 397, Calendar No. 448; S. 503, Calendar No. 449; S. 1694, Calendar No. 450; S. 1167, Calendar No. 451; H.R. 150, Calendar No. 452; H.R. 834, Calendar No. 453; H.R. 1231, Calendar No. 454; H.R. 1444, Calendar No. 455; H.R. 2368, Calendar No. 456; H.R. 2862, Calendar No. 457; H.R. 2863, Calendar No. 458; S. 408, Calendar No. 462; S. 1218, Calendar No. 463; S. 1629, Calendar No. 467; H.R. 3090, Calendar No. 488; S. 1797, Calendar No. 494; S. 1892, Calendar No. 497.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I was disappointed to hear one of our fine Senators, an able attorney, take the floor just a few minutes ago to commence a new round of attacks, it appears, on the new independent counsel, Mr. Ray. We went through a period of time in which a person in this country was trying to enforce the law, trying to complete his duty as a sworn officer of the court, an individual asked to serve by the Attorney General of the United States, Mr. Starr, who conducted himself with restraint, propriety and fidelity to duty--a thankless task. He then gave up that office. Now it appears that Mr. Ray will be subjected to the same type of remarks. It is really disturbing and frustrating for me to hear that. I hope we don't hear that beginning. He simply made the obvious statement to the paper that the President can be indicted after he leaves office. He said that the investigation is not complete. He is charged with completing the investigation. He has an obligation to complete it, and he should complete it. I don't think anyone would suggest that he ought to stop before the evidence is gathered, that he ought not to fulfill his duty and responsibility that has been given to him. So I am really concerned about that. During the impeachment trial--and I hate to even recall that, but I didn't start this discussion tonight--I remember that those on the other side of the aisle said even if a crime were committed, that would be something a prosecutor would deal with but it did not require us to impeach. Obviously, that is true. People could have believed that crime was committed and that an impeachment vote was not required. But that does not suggest a prosecution should not go forward. We have a principle in this country that is chiseled into the walls of the Supreme Court building: Equal Justice Under Law. The Supreme Court made clear during the Nixon case, and at other times, that no American is above the law. They say, well, you would never prosecute another citizen in America for committing perjury in a civil case. That is silly. Well, I suggest that is not accurate. People are prosecuted for perjury in civil cases. I served as a U.S. attorney for 12 years in Mobile, AL. I remember very distinctly a young police officer who accused the chief of police of corruption. He was his driver. He made allegations in a deposition, and lawsuits were filed against the chief of police in Mobile, AL, who was an African American. They were coming after him. He repeated that under oath, and it turned out to be totally bogus. He eventually admitted it was bogus. He came to me as a U.S. attorney, a Federal prosecutor--it was a Federal lawsuit--and I believed it ought to be prosecuted. We charged that young man for that stupid, perjurious, felonious act. He pleaded guilty to it, as well he should have. I don't know why the President is above that. If he did a crime, he ought to answer for it. I remember when this matter was at one of its intense points, I shared a private conversation with a distinguished Senator on the other side of the aisle. I shared with him that maybe the President ought to just admit he did something wrong, say he did it to the world, say he didn't tell the truth, ask the Congress to not impeach him, ask the American people for forgiveness, and say when he serves his term and walks out of there, he is willing to plead guilty to any crime he committed and ask for the mercy of the court. Now that would have ended the whole thing. That would have taken a manly act on his part, which I didn't really see occur during that time. So I don't know how it ought to be handled. But I don't believe a duly appointed special prosecutor needs to be subjected to abuse on the floor of the Senate for doing what he is instructed to do and charged with doing by the courts of America. And to say it is like Russia, I don't appreciate that one bit. What is like Russia is when leaders lie, cheat, steal, and maintain their office. That is what happens in a country such as Russia, not in a free democracy where all Americans are equal and have a right to know that every other public official is equal and subject to the law just as they are. I am not suggesting I know what the facts are or that Mr. Ray does or does not have a good case. I have been a prosecutor, and I know what you have to do. A prosecutor has to gather the facts. Then if he has a case, he has to put it out before the whole world. If it is not there, he will be remembered for a bogus and unfair prosecution, if he ever got an indictment from a grand jury, which I doubt he would if he didn't have a good case. I am not afraid of the system. The President is subject to the system as is anyone else. I wish we could bring this investigation to a close, but I happen to be on the committee involved in an investigation of various matters involving campaign finance and spying and that sort of thing. Senator Specter from Pennsylvania chairs it, and Senator Torricelli is a member. We have an incredibly difficult time getting information and documents from this Government. No wonder it takes Mr. Starr and Mr. Ray so long and they are frustrated at every turn in obtaining evidence they need to make a legitimate decision and present a legitimate case to a grand jury. I wish this were over. I wish we never had to talk about it. I don't intend to raise the subject myself. But as a Federal attorney, I have been in court trying to do my duty. I have made up my mind that I am not going to allow somebody who is doing his duty to gather the evidence and make a decision on whether a case ought to go forward to be abused and compared to somebody in Russia. I am not going to allow that. We need to speak out against that, and I intend to do so at every opportunity.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that any committee amendments, where applicable, be agreed to, with the exception of S. 1727, which should be withdrawn, and a substitute amendment to S. 1727, which is at the desk, be agreed to, the bills be read three times and passed, as amended, if amended, any title amendments be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements related to any of these bills be printed in the Record, with the above occurring en bloc.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to consideration en bloc of the following Energy Committee matters: S. 1705, Calendar 492; S. 1727, Calendar 493; S. 1836, Calendar 495; S. 1849, Calendar 496; S. 1910, Calendar 498; H.R. 1615, Calendar 499; H.R. 3063, Calendar 500; S. 1778, Calendar 508.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements be printed in the Record, including a statement of Senator Stevens.

Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H. Con. Res. 269 reported by the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent the Senate stand in adjournment under the provisions of H. Con. Res. 303.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. For the information of all Senators, the Senate will convene on Tuesday, April 25, at 9:30 a.m. and immediately begin debate on the motion to proceed to the victims' rights legislation until 12:30 p.m. At 2:15 p.m., when the Senate reconvenes from the weekly party conference luncheons, the Senate will vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to S.J. Res 3. If that cloture vote is not invoked, then a second vote will occur on cloture on the marriage penalty bill. It is hoped that cloture will be invoked and debate can begin on the crime victims resolution following the vote. In addition, the leaders will continue to work to resolve the Democratic objections to the marriage penalty bill.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn under the provisions of H. Con. Res. 303 until the hour of 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, April 25. I further ask consent that on Tuesday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then begin to debate on the motion to proceed to S.J. Res. 3, proposing an amendment to the Constitution to protect the rights of crime victims, until 12:30 p.m., with the time equally divided between the two bill managers. I further ask unanimous consent that at the hour of 12:30 p.m. the Senate stand in recess until the hour of 2:15 p.m. in order for the weekly party caucuses to meet.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that, notwithstanding the adjournment, the Senate committees have from 11 a.m. until 1 p.m. on Thursday, April 20, in order to file legislative matters.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the joint resolution be read the third time and passed, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to this resolution be printed in the Record.