Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the Kohl amendment to the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. I ask if I might offer briefly a second-degree amendment to this and then return the floor to the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. SESSIONS. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Friday, November 5, 1999, to conduct a hearing on pending nominations.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Friday, November 5, 1999, at 11 a.m. and 1 p.m. to hold two hearings.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Friday, November 5, 1999, at 11:30 a.m. to hold a closed hearing on intelligence matters.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I had the privilege of representing this Congress, with a number of other Senators, at a European conference of the North Atlantic Assembly. The President's own appointee as Chairman of the International Atomic Energy Administration, or association, Mr. John Rich, made a marvelous talk. I can sum it up fairly by saying that he concluded there is no way this Nation, or the world, can ever meet our clean air global warming goals without the enhancement of nuclear power. He demolished the idea that renewables, or others, could come close to filling the gap. This is the President's own appointee. I don't know. Maybe he ought to go sit down in the White House, or with the Vice President, and discuss these issues because we are facing a crisis. We need to maintain our atmospheric purity as much as we can. We certainly don't need to be increasing. I thank the Senator for his time.

Mr. SESSIONS. How are we going to increase production of power and at the same time shut down the nuclear energy that other nations are using regularly?

Mr. SESSIONS. We haven't had a new nuclear plant built in almost 20 years.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with my colleagues, Senator Chris Dodd, which will support the work of over 600 religious organization based credit unions in the U.S. Many of these credit unions provide an essential source of financing for churches, religious schools, mission agencies, and related community projects such as homeless shelters, drug intervention facilities, and homes for abused women and children. Some of these credit unions rely on other credit unions to fund their loans to religious organizations through loan participation agreements. these loan participation agreements are classified as business loans and are counted against the member business loan caps that credit unions must abide by as a result of the Credit Union Membership Access Act signed into law last year. Consequently, the exemption for credit unions having a history of business lending contained in that act though well intended, doesn't solve the problem because religious organizations based CUs will not be able to sell loans to other credit unions who will have to count these faith based loans toward their business lending cap. The sale of loan participations is a necessary first step before any of these loans can be originated. the legislation I am introducing along with Senator Dodd will allow the approximately 600 religious organization based credit unions in America to exempt from loan participations those loans they originate to religious non-profit organizations. In doing so, our bill will assure a steady source of capital for these organizations and community based missions. Finally, Mr. President, I would like remind my colleagues that religious organization based credit unions enjoy a long history of safe lending and encourage them join Senator Dodd and me in passing this legislation. No other credit union program will do more to help the poor, the homeless, the disabled and those otherwise in need. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. There being no object, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I am proud today to join with Senators Tim Hutchinson, Warner, Torricelli, Mack, Shelby, Nickles, Inhofe, Thurmond, Ashcroft, McConnell, Roberts, Kohl, Feingold, Cleland, Hollings, Breaux, Graham, Collins, Grams, Lautenberg, Enzi, Murkowski, Gorton, Landrieu, Robb and Lincoln in introducing the Organ Donation Regulatory Relief Act of 1999. This legislation is designed to prevent an unprecedented Federal takeover of our Nation's organ transplant system by the Department of Health and Human Services. This act would nullify a highly controversial rule issued by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Donna Shalala, that would give her sole authority to approve or disapprove organ allocation policies that are currently established by the private-sector transplant community throughout this country. This move by the administration would preempt Congress' role in encouraging a fair and equitable transplant system through the authorization of the National Organ Transplant Act. My bill would simply nullify the proposed HHS rule until such time as Congress passes amendments to the National Organ Transplant Act. This bill would preserve Congress' prerogative to consider changes or improvements to the current system while maintaining the private-sector role of thousands of patients, families, volunteers, and medical professionals that are now responsible for our organ transplant policy. It will allow Congress the time needed to consider new initiatives to encourage more organ donation which is the heart of our organ shortage problem. In my home State of Alabama, the University of Alabama-Birmingham, has one of the most effective and finest organ transplant centers in the world. It is the largest liver transplant facility in the world. I am extremely proud of their efforts. Let me just say this, this system has been built up carefully, utilizing State law and other laws. It works very effectively. I am very concerned that Federal Government policies have now been proposed that would upset this. It has not only upset the University of Alabama-Birmingham but transplant centers, and mainly university hospitals all over the country. And that is why we believe action needs to be taken at this time. I believe the current plan is fair and does a good job of acquiring and allocating organs for transplantation. For example, since the passage of the National Organ Transplant Act in 1984, the number of people receiving organs has increased annually, and the survival rate has improved steadily. A recent study by the Institute of Medicine came to the same conclusion: The committee found that the current system is reasonably equitable for the most severely ill (Status 1) liver patients, since the likelihood of receiving a transplant is similar across organ procurement organizations for these patients. The Institute of Medicine study contradicted the underlying rationale in some numbers that I believe were unwisely interpreted. They underlie this rationale for the controversial ``rule'' on organ allocation that has been proposed by the Department of Health and Human Services. In a careful analysis of 68,000 liver patient records, the Institute of Medicine panel said: . . . the ``overall median waiting time'' that patients wait for organs--the issue that seems to have brought the committee to the table in the first place--is not a useful statistic for comparing access to or equity of the current system of liver transplantation, especially when aggregated across all categories of liver transplant patients. HHS has maintained that reducing regional differences in waiting times was the primary goal of their new rule on organ allocation. The HHS rule is a solution in search of a problem and would only inhibit the continual improvements made by the transplant community since the passage of NOTA 15 years ago. The HHS policy is also shortsighted in its wholesale preemption of State laws regarding organ transplantation. Many of the beneficial policies that have served to improve organ procurement and donation are based on State laws, such as the organ donor checkoff on driver's licenses, and the HHS preemption fails to recognize that fact. This year's Labor-HHS appropriations bill provided for a 3-month moratorium on the implementation of the rule from the time of its enactment. But, unfortunately, this may not and probably will not provide adequate time for Congress to consider this very complicated issue in the context of amendments to the National Organ Transplant Act. That is why it is necessary, indeed, imperative. And that is why 26 Senators have signed on to this legislation in such a short period of time. It is imperative that we nullify the rule so that these life-and- death issues can be considered without fear of a clock running out on ways to improve the current system and provide the gift of life to so many Americans. Hospitals and the physicians who operate in those hospitals are the key to the success of the organ transplant program. They receive phone calls at all hours of the night, and they go out and retrieve those organs from people who have been killed. And they have to do it under short periods of time. If they are going to do that simply to send off the organs to some hospital of which they are not committed personally or to patients of which they are not serving, they will not be as effective in retrieving the organs. Not as many people will benefit and not as many people will have their lives saved as a result. I believe that HHS' actions are unwise. It reminds me of that old adage: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. We do not have and have not seen a real complaint from the citizens of America over the operation of our organ transplant system. This has been created by unelected bureaucrats here in Washington, and it is not healthy, in my view. But there will be a full opportunity, if this bill is passed, to allow the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, of which I am a member, to hold hearings and review the facts in order to develop the best transplant program we possibly can. If we can improve the system, I say let's do it. But let's be sure we do not break something that is not broken already. So I thank the outstanding work of several of my colleagues on this important issue, including Senators Tim Hutchinson, John Warner, Robert Torricelli, and Senator Don Nickles, the assistant majority leader. Without their leadership, this legislation could not have come to fruition. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. If the Senator will yield, I believe Senator Wyden also wanted to make remarks for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. SESSIONS. Senator Wyden, before we adjourn.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank Senator Hatch, who made very impressive remarks on this subject, for his leadership as chairman of the Judiciary Committee. I particularly wish to express my appreciation to the Presiding Officer who has led this effort since I have been in the Senate to reform our bankruptcy court system. Make no mistake about it, we are talking about a Federal court system that provides the ability for individual Americans, who legitimately owe debts to people not to pay their debts and to wipe those debts out. This is a historic American principle. We have had bankruptcy courts. They are referred to in the Constitution of the United States. They are uniquely and totally a Federal court procedure. I think it is appropriate for us to make timely changes as the nature of our times in court change. We review what is happening and make sure our law is effective to accomplish the best and highest ideals of the American people. We last passed historic bankruptcy reform in 1978. We have not since that time confronted the issue squarely and fundamentally and comprehensively to see what is happening and see what we can do about it. Any Federal court system must be fair, it must be coherent and logical, it must be commonsensical, and it must help us further our economic growth and vitality as a nation. At the same time, any legal system we establish, as the Chair so eloquently said, has a moral component. We need to make sure as a nation that our bankruptcy laws encourage the highest and best ideals of the American people. In fact, all laws should do that; particularly, I suggest, bankruptcy laws. We believe, as Americans, that people who get hopelessly in debt ought to be able to start over and not have their lives forever burdened by debts they could never repay. That is the historic principle. We should not retreat from that, and certainly this bill reflects no retreat from that. But it is never a good thing to go into bankruptcy. It is an unfortunate event, when people reach a point in their lives when they are unable to pay a just debt they incurred because they got some benefit from that debt. They borrowed money to buy a TV set; they borrowed money to buy a car; they borrowed money to take a trip. Somebody loaned them that money. The purpose of that loan was to have it repaid, and most people believe they ought to repay that debt. If ever in this country we believe that we do not have to pay debts, because it is inconvenient or difficult, we have a real problem because the ability of honest and hard-working people to obtain loans is going to be much more difficult. An individual citizen should pay his or her debt. It is possible--and we made great progress, Mr. President, under your leadership--to create a system that does allow people to start over. But at the same time, it does not reward those who lightly walk away from debts they have every ability to repay either in whole or in part. Fundamentally, the way this system works is very unusual, in many respects. If a person makes a salary of $80,000 and if that person has a debt of $50,000 and that is the only debt they have, it may strike you they could easily pay it off in 2 or 3 years without a great deal of strain, perhaps. It may strike Americans as strange to realize, regardless of their ability to pay it off in relatively short order, they could walk into bankruptcy court, file under chapter 7, and wipe out that debt and not ever have to pay it. Some people do that and abuse the system. I heard recently of an individual who made $35,000 a year, had a $1,500 debt, and filed for bankruptcy because he did not want to pay that debt. That kind of thing happens in our court. That is an extreme example, but there are less extreme examples of it on a routine basis. If a person is able to pay back a part of their debt, why should they not? You say, well, it was for a hospital. Why should the hospital not get paid if he can pay some of his legitimate hospital bills? Why would we not want them to do that? Why should we say to an honest person who struggles to pay the hospital bill: You are just a chump; you are the clever guy, you went and got a lawyer, paid him $1,000, and he is going to wipe out your $3,000 debt to the hospital. If a person cannot pay their hospital bill, if they cannot pay their other bills, if their income will not support it, then bankruptcy is for them. But there are abuses, I assure you, and they are quite common--too common, I suggest. There is a strange tendency in the filings, whether you file under chapter 13 or chapter 7--as you know, when you file in chapter 7, you simply offer up your assets, wipe out all your debts and walk away, never to have to pay any of those debts again. If you file under chapter 13, the court will work with you and your attorney and develop a repayment plan for all or a portion of that debt. They will stay the interest that is accruing on the debts. They will say how much ought to be paid to each creditor. They will keep those creditors from suing or filing any harassment action against the person paying them off until the debts are paid. In my home State of Alabama, in Birmingham, which is where chapter 13 payments began quite a number of years ago, over half, maybe more than 60 percent of the individual citizens, for some reason--for various reasons--have chosen to file under chapter 13 and pay back all or a portion of their debts. But in some of the larger urban areas of this country, that figure is even under 10 percent. Routinely, the lawyers come in and advise their clients to file under chapter 7. They file under chapter 7 and wipe out all their debts when many of those could easily pay them back. There are some good reasons why people would want to file under chapter 13 and pay back a lot of the debts they owe. They will be able to have more self respect as individuals if they pay off their debts. It stops the creditors from suing them, the phone calls, and the harassment that might come when you owe many different debts. You have a better credit rating when you have paid off your debts, and you are able to keep certain items you might not be able to keep otherwise. There are other advantages to filing chapter 13. If a court were to decide, as they could under our new law, that you have the ability to pay back and you are shifted to chapter 13, it is not all bad. There are many reasons why a careful lawyer representing a client would suggest chapter 13 is a good way to go. So we have a system today that is very enticing to the irresponsible. We have a system today that is driven by a lot of different factors. One factor is the advertisements we see on television describing how to avoid your debts. People see those advertisements and then go to the attorneys who specialize in bankruptcy. The attorneys tell them: You have these debts, and the easy thing to do is file chapter 7; I will file your bankruptcy for $700, $1,000, and you will not have to pay any more debts. You have to put everything you have on your credit card for the next 3 months. Do not pay any bills; do not pay any of your payments on any of your notes; take that money and give it to me; set aside the rest of it; we will file bankruptcy and just wipe it all out. That is what is happening in America today. People are induced to do that. I thought about it: Do they know? People get depressed and get panicky. They do not know what to do. People are suing them and threatening them. They go to their lawyer and ask for advice. I am of the opinion that at least a significant minority of those individuals want to pay their debts, but for various reasons they are in trouble and unable. I visited in my hometown of Mobile an outstanding institution, a nonprofit credit counseling agency. That agency meets with families who are in financial trouble. The people at this agency sit down with these families and help them work out a budget. It helps the family members understand the consequences of spending. It helps them to set priorities on which debt to pay first. It helps them to set up a savings plan. Sometimes they will even receive the check and pay certain debts that are required and give the family a certain amount of cash to use for their weekly or monthly bills. Normally, they call the credit card companies, the banks, and other people who have claims against the family and negotiate a lower interest rate. They are able to do that. Companies will do it. And the families can pay off those debts in that fashion. It is highly successful. One of the main reasons for divorce in America today is financial difficulty. That is a known fact. As a matter of fact, it is the main reason. These nonprofit agencies encourage people to undergo marital counseling. A lot of people are in financial trouble because of alcoholism. Credit counseling or nonprofit agencies care about the people who come before them and help them get alcoholism treatment or help them get into AA. Many gamblers are in financial trouble. One member of the family gambles and has lost the money. This is a known fact. They get people into Gamblers Anonymous and help save their family. Maybe they need mental health treatment. They can oftentimes get them into those treatment facilities. That kind of thing is healthy. One of the things I suggested, something with which the chairman, Senator Grassley, and others on the committee agreed, is before you file for bankruptcy, you have to contact a credit counseling agency and discuss with them the possibility of choosing an alternative to filing for bankruptcy. The truth is, most people want to pay their debts. They just do not know how to do it in a way that will be OK in light of the creditors pressing on them. We believe that can be a significant step forward in helping people in debt. They can be counseled by experts in money management on how to handle their money and get out of debt on their own, how to maintain their self-respect and pride, and to actually pay off the debts. If you get a loan from your brother-in-law or if you borrow money from the bank, you ought to pay it back if you can. This bill encourages that. There are people with high incomes who are filing for bankruptcy today. We have heard the stories of young lawyers and young professionals who get a new car, have student loans and $5,000 or $6,000 in credit card bills, and the creditors are calling. They do not really want to slow down. They can just file for bankruptcy and wipe out these debts. That is not right. We will be focusing on that. It will not burden poor people. Credit counselors will have to be approved by the bankruptcy court. They will be nonprofit individuals who will be audited on a regular basis. These are the steps I believe will encourge people to avoid filing bankruptcy. This bill will be a major step forward for families who are entitled to child support and alimony. They will be moved to the top of the priority list. It will be a great step forward for them. Child support and alimony will be improved. A bankruptcy system for farmers that is adjusted to their unique problems will be enhanced and made permanent by this legislation. Senator Grassley has been a champion of those issues for many years, and he has achieved that again in this bill. We will make it permanent with this bill. I respect the work the Senator from Iowa is doing. This is a good piece of legislation. It calls on individuals to pay what they can. It allows judges to consider the circumstances involved before an order is given. It will improve the respect businesses and Americans have for bankruptcy if they know it is not being abused as it is today. We can stop it, and we can do better. This bill will do that. There are loopholes that good lawyers have learned to exploit. I do not blame the lawyers for it. If we have it in the law of Congress that says this is appropriate, they are going to use it to the benefit of their clients. We had a circumstance in which a tenant's 1-year lease had expired. He had not paid his debts. The landlord wanted to evict him. He filed for bankruptcy. People are filing all over America and getting a stay of legal action, causing the landlord to hire a lawyer and wait several more months before he can get the person removed from the premises. Maybe he never intended to lease it for more than 1 year anyway. Maybe he had another tenant to take the place after 12 months. That person, through abuse of the bankruptcy system, could do that. That is very common in America. Many of these problems are being addressed. I know the chairman believes strongly that creditors ought not have lawyers go down to court all the time. The bill allows you to represent yourself, if you choose, in bankruptcy court under many circumstances. This legislation will improve the system of law in Federal courts. It will have a more just result. It will stop individuals who are able to pay back all or a portion of their debts from walking into court and wiping out their debts. This bill will stop that. For people in serious debt who fall below the median income of America, they will be able to choose chapter 7 or 13. But for those with higher incomes, if they have the ability to pay the debts, we think this bill will make them do so, or at least a portion of what they owe, if the judge so orders. It is a step in the right direction. I am proud to serve on the subcommittee which Senator Grassley chairs. This bill is a step forward for our courts. I hope as we move forward we will have the support we had previously. It passed in this body last year with 94 out of 100 votes. It is essentially the same bill. It passed in our committee by a vote of 14-4. It passed the House with 303 votes to 100. It is a popular bill. It has broad bipartisan support. It has dragged on for far too long. It is time for us to see it to conclusion. I thank the chairman for his leadership, determination, and persistence in driving this bill to a successful conclusion. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I do think Senator Hutchison wants to talk on another matter.

Mr. SESSIONS. I understand and respect the Senator's position.

Mr. SESSIONS. That is correct. I do have the closing script.

Mr. SESSIONS. Yes, please.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, for a lot of reasons, I believe the nuclear power industry cannot be a dinosaur, as was suggested earlier. The world today has 6 billion people on it; 2 billion of those people have no electricity. They are without power. In the next 25 years, we expect another 2 billion people to be added to the world population. Many of the people who do have power today, have it only in very limited quantities. We know there is an extraordinary expansion of life expectancy and improvement in lifestyle where electricity is present. People can have water pumps. They don't have to go to the well with a bucket or a jug to get water for their families. There is no doubt the quality of people's lives, the length of their lives, some estimate it increases as much as 50 percent, is greatly improved if they have access to electricity. Think about it. As a matter of humanity, a human imperative, nothing could be better than expanding the availability of electricity throughout the world. We now know that there will be at least a 50-percent increase in electricity generation by the year 2020, doubling by the year 2050. That is a big increase. Now at the same time, a number of people--Vice President Gore being one of them--have expressed great concern over global warming and the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. They tried to commit this country to a massive reduction in the emission of greenhouse gases. In fact, the Kyoto treaty the President signed and supports calls on this Nation, between the years 2008 to 2012, to actually reduce our emissions by 7 percent below 1990 levels. When you consider at the same time our economy, population and demand for energy has continued to increase since 1990, greenhouse gas cuts envisioned by the Kyoto treaty would amount to a cut of nearly one-third of today's energy use in America to achieve that goal, a one-third cut. That is a big-time number. We are heading for a train wreck. We want to reduce emissions and increase power generation at the same time, yet we refuse to develop new nuclear power infrastructure. Some greenies think you should live out in the woods and just let the rain and sunshine take care of you and maybe have a windmill to generate power. But that is not proven to be efficient or effective. There will be opportunities to expand the use of renewable energy, but it does not have the potential, using even the most generous forecasts, to reach a level that would satisfy the demands of the Kyoto treaty. So how are we going to do it? Twenty percent of the power generated in the United States is generated by nuclear power. France has 80 percent. They continue to build nuclear power plants on a regular basis. Look at it this way. Ask yourself, how can we meet the demand of both increased energy and reduced emissions? Nuclear power has no greenhouse gases that are emitted from the production of electricity. It emits no waste into the atmosphere. It is the only large-scale clean-burning electricity production method. Yet, the very same people who fight for even more stringent clean air regulations are often also opposed to nuclear power. Twenty percent of our power, at this very moment, comes from nuclear power. Utility companies have not ordered a new plant since the late 1970s, so it has been over 20 years since we have built a new nuclear plant. Other industrial nations are continuing to build them, such as France, Germany, and Japan and China. Do we want China to build coal plants to meet its massive need for electricity? Is that what we are asking them to do? Are we saying China can have it, but not us? Fundamentally, we need to confront this question for humanity's sake. Should we increase the production of nuclear power? Through over 50 years of experience with nuclear energy, there has not been a single American injured from a nuclear plant, not a single person in the world injured by the production of American-generated equipment for nuclear power? Not one. None. How many have died in coal mines, or on oil rigs, or from truck wrecks in transporting oil and coal, and train wrecks? Which is safer, I submit to you? This is an irrational thing to me. I can't understand such objection from those who long for a cleaner environment. I believe, first of all, we need to understand that America needs more power to support our growing economy and population. The world needs more power. It will be a good thing for the world. To meet these demands, we are going to have to use nuclear power. I don't just say this as a Member of the Senate. I am not an expert. However, last year I happened to be in attendance at the North Atlantic Assembly, in Edinburgh, Scotland, with members of Parliaments from all over the world gathered there. Ambassador John B. Ritch, III, addressed us. He is President Clinton's appointed Ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Administration. He shared some important thoughts with us about the future of nuclear power. He mentioned some of the things I have already shared with you. From his remarks, he said: Nuclear energy, the one technology able to meet large base- load energy needs with negligible greenhouse emissions, remains subject to what amounts to an intense, widespread political taboo. Then he goes on to point out that we cannot possibly meet our world energy demands without increasing nuclear power. How is it we are not able to do that? How is it we have not been able to build a single nuclear plant in the United States, even though we have not had a single person injured from the operation of one since the conception of the program over 50 years ago? How is that true? Well, one of the tactics that has been used is to spread this fear that nuclear waste is going to pollute the environment forever, and that it can't be stored anywhere. It is just going to destroy the whole Earth if we do that. Well, that notion is so far from reality. I understand the Senators' political commitment to their State and maybe they believe it is going to be somehow negative to their State. They talked about how much exposure to radiation you are going to have. This stuff is not going to be thrown all over the sides of the highways. The waste will be stored in a solid rock tunnel in the ground, inside thick, technologically advanced, containers within the tunnel. It is not a lot of product. It doesn't take up a lot of space. It can be safely stored. Who is going to be subjected to any radiation from it? Are they going to bring schoolchildren down there to look at it? It is going to be sealed off from the public. The Yucca mountain site is in the remote desert, in area that was previously used to test over 1000 atomic bombs. Somebody said the Lord created that desert so we could put that waste there. I don't know, but I say this to you. I don't see how the storage of very well-contained nuclear waste, placed hundreds of feet underground in the Yucca Mountain chamber--inside a mountain--is going to damage the life, health, and safety of anybody. It is beyond my comprehension that we would argue that. I know that maybe people don't like it to come through their States. People don't like interstate highways coming through their farms, and they don't want to move their homes, so they object. But if the Government decides that is where the interstate highway has to go for the good of all the people, they build a highway. I used to be a Federal attorney and we would condemn people's property and take it for public use. Our country has 20 percent of its power generated by nuclear power plants, and we are incapable of finding a place in this whole vast country to put it? That is beyond my comprehension. We have to act responsibly and take decisive action. Nuclear energy simply must remain a part of our mix in the future. I thought it was interesting that the Senator from Nevada indicated that Vice President Gore would not sign this bill. Well, maybe he would not sign this bill. Vice President Gore has also indicated that he flatly opposes offshore drilling for natural gas. Natural gas is the only non-nuclear fuel which has a chance of filling the demand for new power while reducing overall air emissions in the near future. Gas is produced predominantly from offshore wells. We have a significant deposit off the gulf coast of the United States. Yet the Vice President opposes the development of these significant deposits of clean burning fuel. But the Vice President not only opposes nuclear power, he opposes the storing of nuclear waste in a sane way, in a single, guarded location-- and not scattered in all 50 States, in hundreds of different locations. He also opposes, as he said recently, offshore gas production. How are we going to meet our demands for the future, I ask? I think the Vice President's position is a very unsustainable position. It will not hold up to scrutiny and he will have to answer to that. If we are not going to use nuclear power and we are not going to use gas, what are we going to use? How can we do it without a huge cost and increase in expense for energy in America. The world is heading into a new century. Nuclear power is going to play a key role, without any doubt in my mind, in making the lives and the health of people all over this world better tomorrow than it is today. It is going to make people healthier. Their lifestyles are going to be better. They are going to have pumps to bring water to their homes. They are going to have electric heating units to cook their food so they do not have to go out and gather wood or waste to burn. And it is going to clean up our global environment in ways we have never known before. We have prospects, if we don't run from science and if we don't retreat from the future. If we go forward and take advantage of the opportunities given to us, we can really have a terrific century. I think it is going to be better and better. But it does make you wonder sometimes how people who seem to be caring deeply for the environment and our future could block the things that would be most helpful to us. That is a concern I have. I hope we can reach the extra two votes. We have 65 votes. We need 67 to override a Presidential veto. There is bipartisan support-- Republicans and Democrats--for this bill. It is the right thing to do. I urge the President not to veto it. If he does, I urge the Members of this body in both political parties to vote for clean air, vote for the future, vote for improving the quality of our lives, both in the United States and the world. For over 50 years the United States has been a leader in the peaceful use of nuclear power. The United States needs to continue to be a leader in this industry. We don't need to be sitting on the sidelines while the rest of the world is developing the technology to produce even safer electric power through nuclear energy and even greater productivity through nuclear energy. I have had the opportunity to talk to some of the country's finest scientists. They are absolutely convinced that if we improve regulations, have a little more research and a little more commitment, we can create a nuclear power plant that may even eliminate nuclear waste entirely. But that is a step for the future, but the not too distant future. It is an exciting time.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I wish to say a few words about an outstanding American who has left us. The flowers in this Chamber now recall for us the life of John Chafee, the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island who was 77 years of age. He served his country in an extraordinary number of ways. I served for my first 2 years in this body on the Environment and Public Works Committee that he chaired. He was a wonderful person, a gentleman of the highest order, a man of propriety and decency, a classic Yankee, a leader who loved his country. He not only loved it, he proved his love to it. He served in World War II in the Marines, landed on Guadalcanal with the first invasion forces, and a few years later he was recalled as a rifle platoon leader in Korea. He served 4 years as Secretary of the Navy and 6 years as Governor of Rhode Island. They wrote a book a few years ago entitled ``In Defense of Elitism.'' John, I want to say, was not an elitist. In fact, he wasn't an elitist but he was of a higher standard than most of us will ever achieve. He cared about what was right and wrong. He fought for what he believed in. He was highly intelligent, and he was blessed in a lot of different ways. He went to the finest schools in America. He went to Deerfield Academy in Massachusetts as a high school student, was a Yale undergraduate, Harvard Law--the very best education he could have. That was during a time prior to World War II when there wasn't any doubt what those young men and women were taught. They were taught duty, honor, humility, integrity, frugality, service to their country and fellow man, courage, and manliness. Those are traits that were part of his growing up, traits he never gave up until he took his last breath. He was not part of the ``do your own thing'' crowd. John Chafee was part of the crowd who won World War II and defeated the Soviet Union, preserved freedom and democracy around the world, and eliminated totalitarian communism virtually from the face of the Earth. John was helpful to me personally. I never had a harsh word with him. He loved environmental issues. He was a strong environmentalist. We didn't always agree. I came here from Alabama having talked to a lot of people who were a little bit irritated every now and then about governmental regulations that seemed to have no benefit to the environment and caused great burdens on farmers and business people. I am at this moment quite prepared to consider improving those acts. But John was part of the drafting and crafting, and he didn't give them up easily. He knew the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act had historic benefits in improving our Nation's environment. He would not give them up easily. He had to be convinced that you were right in every way before he would move toward any change in those laws. He really was an effective public servant. He was effective as chairman of a committee. He was effective as an environmentalist. And he was certainly able to keep that committee together in a most harmonious way, with Republicans and Democrats able to work together with great harmony. It is a rare thing we see here when we have that kind of harmony. We had that kind of friendship. His grandfather was Rhode Island's Governor. His great uncle was a Senator from Rhode Island. He had a great ancestry of personal service. He announced a year ago that he himself would not seek reelection to the Senate. But he was extraordinarily proud that his son Lincoln, the mayor of a city in Rhode Island, was going to seek the seat he had so long and ably held. That was a source of great pride for him. And I talked to him about that race. I think many of our brethren in the Senate have shared here our own thoughts about John Chafee and the quality of life he led. Many knew him much longer than I and knew him better than I. But my experience with him was personal, it was real, and it was very positive. I think he is one of the finest people I have known. He exemplified high ideals, the kind of high ideals with which he was raised and from the community of which he was a part. He reflected that and carried it out with great integrity and ability. We will all mourn his loss, and our sympathies are extended to his family, his daughter, and his four sons.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak as in morning business for 15 minutes.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, along with Senators Lott, Thurmond, Helms, Kyl, Inhofe, Allard, and Tim Hutchinson, I have introduced a concurrent resolution, with the House, regarding the transition of control of the Panama Canal from the United States to the Republic of Panama. I thank my colleague, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Helms, for agreeing to discharge the resolution quickly to give Congress a chance to consider it in a timely manner. I hope we can bring this resolution before the Senate, debate it, and vote up or down on the merits. Indeed, the Senate must be heard on this issue, which is important to our national security. In accordance with the 1977 Panama Canal Treaty, the withdrawal of the United States Armed Forces from Panama is almost complete, and with it will be the relinquishment of our control of the canal, which will take place December 31 of this year. The canal is of vital interest, however, to the United States, and it is an invaluable world asset. Unfortunately, Panama's ability to maintain and provide adequate security for the canal is lacking. Exacerbating this tenuous situation is the growing influence of the People's Republic of China in the region. Almost as soon as we started our pullout, a company called Hutchison- Whampoa, closely associated with the People's Republic of China, began to establish its presence and to fill the void left by the United States in Panama. Hutchison-Whampoa, Limited, holds leases for two port facilities at either end of the canal. Documented evidence shows that Hutchison-Whampoa, Limited, is closely tied to the Chinese Government. The fears voiced by the American people when the United States negotiated this treaty in 1977 have been validated. The American people were right to be skeptical of Panama's ability to adequately maintain the operability of the canal and guarantee its independence and security. These fears were supposedly addressed in the Panama Canal Treaty's companion, the Treaty Concerning the Permanent Neutrality and Operation of the Panama Canal, which promises that the canal will remain open during times of peace and war. It also guarantees ``expeditious transit'' to the United States through the canal in times of conflict, generally interpreted to mean that, in an emergency, U.S. warships would be sent to the head of the line. Still not satisfied with these provisions, the Senate, under Senator DeConcini's reservation, insisted on the right of the United States to intervene militarily, if necessary, if it appeared the canal was about to be closed or threatened. Apparently, Panamanian President Torrijos did not agree and offered his own counter-counterreservation, nullifying DeConcini. Inexplicably, this counterreser- vation, which Panama ratified, was never transmitted to the Senate for consideration. Consequently, in 1996, the Panama Government awarded control of two key port facilities through a questionable bid process to Hutchison- Whampoa. Under the so-called Law No. 5, passed by the Panamanian National Assembly, it appears Hutchison-Whampoa has the authority to block or delay passage of ships through the canal to meet its business needs. This Chinese company could simply declare that passage of U.S. warships could be harmful to their business and we would have a serious problem in moving ships through the Panama Canal. I have heard from many of my constituents on this issue. Some believe China will attempt to base bombers and missiles there. The Department of Defense has asserted this scenario is unlikely. However, recent antagonistic statements by China, such as thinly veiled threats concerning Taiwan and declarations possessing the neutron bomb, are reasons for people to be concerned. There are two legitimate security concerns related to regional spying, narcotrafficking, illegal immigration, and the creation of bureaucratic obstacles which over the long term could impede the flow of traffic through the canal. Such actions could have a significant impact on American trade. The Panama Canal sees the transit of nearly one-third of the world's shipping each year, including 15 percent of all imports and exports of the United States, 40 percent of U.S. grain exports, and in the vicinity of 700,000 barrels of oil every day. Though prohibited by treaty, Hutchison-Whampoa, perhaps at Chinese's behest or with their influence, could impede commercial military traffic. We hope this will not occur. There is no immediate indications that it will occur. But stopping the flow of these exports is a possible consequence of the leases that have been executed, and they could have significant devastating impacts on free trade, particularly for the United States. The resolution I introduced was intended to address the issue of the Panama Canal security to raise the concerns of the Congress to the President, before some action is taken that could in the long term damage or threaten our security. Panama has recently elected a new government. By reputation, President Moscoso is a woman of the highest personal character and possesses an astute political intellect. I am confident of her ability to lead Panama into the 21st century and to positively contribute to the security and economic growth of the Western Hemisphere. I believe there is probably no better time than while this new administration is in its infancy to engage Panama in discussions to address the concerns I have described. As this resolution calls for, the United States should request that the Moscoso government investigate the charges of corruption or improprieties related to the granting of the Panama Canal contract to operate the ports by the previous administration. Prior to the awarding of these leases, several consortiums--some of which included U.S. bids--had submitted bids to operate the ports that were better than offers made by Hutchison-Whampoa. Without warning, Panama twice closed and reopened the bidding process, changing the rules and accepting higher bids after the bidding was supposed to have been closed. At one point, it is said that Panama asked a U.S. company to rescind its bid, citing a potential monopoly of firms in Panama. The sudden rules changes and unusual requests, at the very least, raised suspicions. Our Ambassador to Panama vigorously protested this bidding procedure and fought hard against it. The matter is even more troubling because the contracts have, by the passage of laws in Panama, extended them to the length of 25 to 50 years. It is called Law No. 5 in Panama. Therefore, this resolution also requests that if President Moscoso, along with her government, finds illegal or improper dealing in this bidding process, they take steps to ensure a new process be undertaken; that it be transparent and fair to all parties. The final provision of this resolution addresses the security issues. The canal, its mechanism of locks and dams, is fragile at best. By their own admission, Panama doesn't have the necessary resources to protect it. It disbanded its military after the U.S. invasion in 1989 to oust the Noriega regime. Now, as the United States has withdrawn its military forces--there are only a few hundred troops remaining today-- drug trafficking through Panama has begun to increase. Panama's national police force is ill equipped by all admissions and is not prepared to counter this threat. The Colombian civil war is spilling over Panama's eastern border and the threat of terrorism is growing daily. Russia and other organized crime groups are developing bases in the isthmus. Further, China's newfound foothold in the Americas has affected the flood of illegal immigrants who are coming in, using Panama as the staging area for their journey to the United States. As a U.S. attorney, around 1990 I prosecuted a major international alien smuggling case involving a planeload of Chinese citizens who were brought to Panama and then secreted into the United States. They were able to be stopped, arrested, and people were prosecuted for it. Even at that time, China was using Panama as a conduit to bring illegal aliens into the United States. There is evidence that there is a Chinese role in this smuggling. Our resolution calls for the negotiation of security arrangements to protect the canal and Panama on a mutual basis, respecting the sovereignty of each nation to protect Panama and the canal from any outside forces that might undermine it and undermine the free trade on which we have come to depend that goes through the canal. The United States must not abrogate its leadership responsibilities when we relinquish control of the canal. We must emphasize to Panama our legitimate interest that sound, security standards be maintained, and we must work with Panama to fight corruption, illegal drug activity, gun running, and illegal immigration rings. The United States must also send a clear message to China, or any other entity with designs on the canal, that we will guarantee the security and neutrality of the canal through all necessary force. China's influence in Latin America has been expanded. We certainly don't want to see a resurgence of Communist activity in the Western Hemisphere at this time in history. I see the majority leader is here. I thank him for his leadership and interest in so many areas, particularly in this matter.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Ohio, Senator DeWine for his eloquent remarks that were delivered in such a way as to touch the conscience of all of us. I join him in also thanking Senator Santorum for his insightful, intelligent, and passionate commitment to ending this horrible procedure which, by any definition, is not good for this country. I also appreciate the leadership of Senator Bob Smith, who is here tonight. Senator Smith started this debate a number of years ago. I don't know if people thought he was even telling the truth about it or not. They didn't know it was really going on. But as time has gone by, we have seen more and more that this procedure is horribly true and much more common than we knew. This is a bipartisan effort, Republicans and Democrats. We have joined together, and I think it is important we work together to not just talk about this problem but to end it. Some, I think, would prefer not knowing about it. They do not want to be told the gruesome details of this procedure; how a child, a baby, just 3 inches from birth, is deliberately and systematically killed. That is not something people want to talk about. They cringe and wish it would go away. I wish the procedure would go away. Unfortunately, it has not. It is so cruel, so inhumane, and so unnecessary, I believe this legislation is justified and necessary to prevent it. A number of people during this debate have expressed concern about the life of the mother. I have heard this argument during my time on the Senate Judiciary Committee, serving with Senator DeWine and others. We have had a number of hearings on this subject. The bill, crafted by Senator Santorum, provides for this contingency. It would permit this procedure, partial-birth abortion, but only ``to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life- endangering physical condition caused by or arising from pregnancy itself.'' These are the kinds of exceptions that are in this bill. Some may say, as most physicians do, that these exceptions are not necessary. It is never the kind of occurrence that would justify this procedure. But it is in this bill. It makes me wonder why those who are concerned about the health of the mother are not able to read those words and understand them. The truth is clear. This bill will not endanger the life of the mother. The fact is, the American Medical Association has noted that this procedure is never medically necessary. It is not the kind of procedure we need to use. It is a convenient procedure that abortionists have found they like to use. I don't think it is necessary and it should be outlawed. So there is broad bipartisan support for the bill from both pro-life and pro-choice people. I think that shows what we are debating goes beyond the traditional debate on abortion. This support exists because the partial-birth abortion procedure deeply offends our sensibilities as human beings and as a people who care for one another, who know that life is fragile and believe that people need to be treated with respect and dignity and compassion. The Declaration of Independence notes life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, those are ideals of American life. A child partially born has those rights ripped from them in a most vicious way. This is a dangerous policy. It is a thin line, a thin thread that we are justifying a procedure that is so much and, I think, in fact is infanticide. It is an unjustifiable procedure we are dealing with. There has been a tremendous amount of debate on the number of partial-birth abortions performed each year. The pro-abortion groups and others have emphatically insisted that the total number of partial- birth abortions performed was small, and they were only performed in extreme medical circumstances. Therefore, they say the Federal Government should not pass laws about it. But now we know the truth. It has come out in dramatic form. Their issue, that this procedure is rare and only for extreme circumstances, has plainly been established to be false. These claims were either manufactured or disseminated in an attempt to minimize the significance of the issue. As reported in a 1997 front-page article in the Washington Times, Mr. Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers--let me say that again, the executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, who has been traveling the country and saying these procedures were rare--admitted, that he had ``lied through his teeth'' about the numbers of partial-birth abortions performed. Mr. Fitzsimmons estimated ``that up to 5,000 partial-birth abortions are performed annually and that they're primarily done on healthy women and healthy fetuses.'' That is a fact. That is what we are dealing with today. Those who would oppose this procedure, I believe, are not as concerned--or at least are not thinking clearly--when they suggest their opposition is based on their concern for the health and safety of the mother. I say to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, how can we answer to our children, our constituents, and others if we allow children to be destroyed through this brutal partial-birth abortion procedure? So I think if we are a nation that aspires to goodness, that aspires to be above the course and to reach minimum standards of decency, this legislation is needed. I find it very puzzling that there is such resistance to the banning of just this one brutal procedure. I ask myself, what is it? I have heard it said that, well, the people who oppose partial-birth abortions do so for religious reasons, as if that is an illegitimate reason. Was it illegitimate for Martin Luther King to march for freedom based on his belief in the Scriptures? It is not an illegitimate reason if you have a religious motivation. But that has been a complaint about those who would question this. I have analyzed the opposition to this partial-birth abortion bill and I can't see that it can be founded on law. I can't see that it can be founded on science; the AMA says it is not necessary. I can't see that it can be founded on ethics. Certainly, it seems to me that it is so close to infanticide--if not in fact infanticide--that it is difficult to see how it could be argued ethically. Why is it? The only thing I can see is that there is a sort of secular religious opposition to any control whatsoever on abortion--we will never agree to anything, any time, anywhere, no matter what you say. We are going to allow these procedures to go forward just as long as the abortionists wish to perform them and you, Congress, should never intervene in any aspect of it. I don't believe that is a rational argument. It is not justified. This legislation is specific; it is directed to a procedure that all good and decent people, I believe, if they knew the facts and studied it, would know to be an unacceptable procedure. It would ban one procedure and it would not affect other abortions. I think all good Americans should be for it. I will be deeply disappointed if the President of the United States insists once again on vetoing this legislation, which has the overwhelming support of the Members of Congress and the American people. I don't see how it is possible that we continue to come back to this floor again and again over this issue. But it is going to continue because the procedure continues. Lives are being eliminated in a way that is unhealthy and not good for America. It is below the standards to which we ought to adhere. I thank Senator Smith, who is here, and Senator Santorum for their leadership and dedication to this issue. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?