Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Will the chairman yield? I would like to say how much I enjoyed serving with Senator Warner, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee. He has had full hearings on this matter. I have seen his conviction grow as day, after day, testimony in hearings has indicated this is not a good treaty. I know the Senator from Virginia would support it if he believed it was the right thing. I know he has developed a firm view that it is not the right thing. I certainly respect that. It certainly has impacted my view of it, and I agree with him. My instincts are that this is not good for America, and when we say no, it is not going to hurt us in the world. People are going to respect us because we are acting in our legitimate, just interests. We are acting for peace and stability, as a great leader of the world ought to act, and we ought not to be pushed around by some polling data to pass some treaty that is going to undermine our strength as a nation. I thank the chairman for his leadership.

Mr. SESSIONS. Yes.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I am excited and optimistic about our next century and about the next millennium. We made great human technical progress in the 19th century. A lot of things happened in that century that were good. We continued that technological progress in the 20th century. Unfortunately, the forces of totalitarianism, war, fascism, and communism have run loose in the 20th century to an unprecedented degree. Millions died as a result. I do believe, though, the next century, the 21st century, can be the greatest in the history of mankind. Hitler and his forces of national socialism were crushed in this century. Communism and the ``Evil Soviet Empire'' collapsed. The world is a better place with even greater possibilities. We can work together and promote peace, order, stability, and ensure economic, technological, and medical progress to an unprecedented degree. This, I believe, can and will happen. Yes, there will be problems. Ambition, ignorance, greed, and hatred will not be eliminated from the face of this Earth. These will abide. But from a global perspective, they can be contained, and peace and progress can be expanded in the next century to an unprecedented degree. For this to happen, however, the United States must lead. It cannot be Russia. They have deep economic and political problems. It can't be China. They are driven by the Communist chimeras and old ambitions. It can't be Europe, for they have not achieved the political unity or the military strength to act quickly and decisively. The United States has the burden to lead for peace. And not just peace--we need peace with justice, a much harder goal. We are a nation composed of immigrants from all the nations of the Earth. People from all over the world came here to live in freedom. We have also been blessed with the economic, technological, and military strength in addition to the cultural diversity that enables America to be a unique world leader. Yes, many criticize the United States, but they all fundamentally recognize our critical role in a stable and healthy world order. This doesn't mean we are to be the world's policeman for every little matter, but we must lead with confidence and strength. It is necessary, therefore, for our country to have credibility when we speak, to be respected by all, to be feared by expansionist and dangerous forces, and to continue, with even more skill, our self-confident world leadership that we have shown in recent years. That is why I have decided it is necessary for me to oppose the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. I am of the firm opinion this treaty will do at least two things. It will certainly cause our current nuclear stockpiles to be degraded. Simulated tests, all agree, can never be as good as actual tests. Secondly, it will reduce our capacity and, more importantly, perhaps, our will to improve our weapons systems--to keep up with scientific advancements. The result, therefore, will be that the United States will see its nuclear power degraded and its capacity for world leadership eroded. This means less stability in the world. Our allies will have less confidence in our nuclear umbrella. Our adversaries will be more confident, more active, more willing to be aggressive and to push the limits. In addition, our confidence in our own ability to act and lead will be diminished. Our President and Congress must be certain of our ability to act. Senator Warner, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, a tremendous patriot with extraordinary experience in matters military, a man who loves his country, who supports our President when he can and believes he should, who opposes this treaty steadfastly, recently said there can be no doubt in the credibility of that stockpile. That is it, fundamentally. We can't have doubts, our adversaries can't have doubts, and our allies can't have doubts. There have been a lot of discussions about verification. This treaty cannot be adequately verified. We have talked about a lot of other issues today. Safety--how can we be sure of safety if we are not testing our weapons? I will discuss for a few minutes specifically what I believe is a fundamental danger or effect of a complete ban of all testing forever, which this treaty does. In effect, the goal of this treaty will be and is to cap, to freeze, to stop improvements in weapons systems. It will include our weapons systems. Some say: Jeff, we can still do research and they don't have to do all this testing. That is not entirely accurate. Yesterday, as the Director of the Sandia Laboratory testified, they have design data at this time that could be used to produce a new weapon, but they cannot test it to bring it online. That is a significant statement, I believe. We have that capability now, and we are not going to use it. Of course, basic weapons, the Hiroshima-type bomb, do not need to be tested. Everybody who is of scientific sophistication in the world--and there are 44 countries today that are either estimated to be or are actually nuclear-capable--all over the world people have the capability of building a basic nuclear bomb. We ought to know this ban would have no impact on that. This treaty would have no impact on buying and selling of nuclear weapons from a country that has already produced. What this treaty is doing--and I want Members to think about this--is attempting an act that is extraordinary. We will attempt to stop research and testing on new materials and new weapons. If the United States signs such a treaty, we know we will comply with it; we will comply with the spirit and we will not continue to research and develop through testing. Such a decision, I believe, would be unwise and would be contrary to human nature and our tendency to progress, improve, and advance --characteristics of humanity. To pass a treaty such as this will certainly slow our interest in modernization, but it is not likely to slow the research of other capable nuclear nations. They are behind. They--many, at least--will be determined to catch up. They will use this treaty to catch up, similar to the yellow caution flag when there is an accident on a race course-- allowing those off the lead lap to catch up to the leaders. CTBT will allow other states that opportunity. Secondly, in their efforts to catch up, our adversaries may well even achieve a breakthrough, a technological advancement that could leapfrog them even beyond the United States into nuclear leadership in this world. That will not only be bad for America, it will be a setback for stability and peace and justice for the whole world. We have an obligation to work to promote peace and stability. The goal of this Nation, I so strongly believe, is to be a preeminent world power. We have to understand what comes with that: The responsibility to be strong. President Reagan said a number of years ago: Our policy is simple: We are not going to betray our friends, reward the enemies of freedom, or permit fear and retreat to become American policies, especially in this hemisphere. None of the four wars in my lifetime came about because we were too strong. It is weakness--weakness that invites adventurous adversaries to make mistaken judgments. I think that is the history of mankind. Winston Churchill warned England about that when Nazi Germany was on the early march and they could have been stopped earlier at much less cost. I have seen it argued by some that the passage of this treaty will freeze our nuclear leadership in place. I believe that is not sound reasoning. That is a foolhardy concept. It will stop America from improving our arsenal. It will stop America from improving our technology. It will allow, I submit, our adversaries to catch up and, God forbid, pass us. Some may believe all the world powers are the same. They used to say we are just a bunch of scorpions in a bottle. I disagree. The United States has a unique role in the world, a unique ability to lead for good. Our leadership has been good for the world. I defy anyone to dispute it. When historians write of our role in the next century, I want them to write that we used our power to lead the world in great progress toward peace, with justice and economic and technological and medical prosperity. This goal is not going to be furthered by fuzzy thinking. It will not be achieved if we just sign away, by this treaty, capabilities we have that enable America to lead. That is why we are able to lead--because we have superiority. If there are two football teams--and in Alabama we have a lot of them--some of them like to throw a pass and some maybe cannot throw a pass so well. It would be nice to have a treaty beforehand that the one with the ability to pass would sign away that ability. That doesn't happen on a football field, and it won't happen in the world. Our leadership is important, and our military power is crucial to it. That is the solid foundation on which we have to build. We benefited from a certain number of treaties with the Soviet Union that dealt with nuclear weapons in the past. I believe we can continue our efforts to reduce the number of weapons in our arsenal. I believe we can perhaps reduce by 50 percent the nuclear stockpile we have. Yes, we can do that. There are a lot of things we can do that promote peace. But to ban all testing of all nuclear weapons? That is a mistake. I do not believe that will promote peace. I do not believe so. I favor our doing all we can do to stop proliferation, the spread of nuclear weapons around the world. The truth is, this will probably be done best on a nation-by-nation basis. When Pakistan and India had their fuss earlier last year and one tested, then the other one tested. Why? Because they felt their existence at stake, and no piece of paper is going to stop any nation from developing what it believes it has to develop to maintain its freedom, to maintain its autonomy, its independence as a nation. That will not happen. What we have done, as the United States, is provide a nuclear umbrella. We have been able to say to nations: We are not going to let other nuclear powers do you in. Don't develop weapons, we will be there, we will stand firm. We have the capability to destroy anyone who attempts to destroy you. People have relied on that. Many nations have. Germany and Japan could easily develop nuclear weapons. They have declined to do so based on our assurances.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I want to share a few additional thoughts. Earlier today I discussed my belief that if the United States is going to be a leader for peace, it needs to be a leader militarily in the world. It has fallen uniquely to be our responsibility, our burden, our role to do that. I think if we fail to do that, history will record that we abdicated a responsibility. That is critically important. Presiding in the chair is the chairman of the Armed Services Committee. We have had a number of days of hearings--some top-secret, code-word briefings and hearings. Some have been public. I want to share a few things, as I interpret what occurred in those hearings. It is consistent with the headline as has been cited earlier in the New York Times: ``Experts Say Test Ban Could Impair Nuclear Arms Safety.'' That is the way it was interpreted by a New York Times reporter. That is the way I believe it is fair to be concluded. The lab Directors were pressed aggressively by Senator Levin, one of the finer questioners that I have ever observed in this body. He asked them firmly and consistently: Were they on board? They maneuvered around a bit, but they eventually did say they were on board. But Senator Robert Byrd astutely noted they were ``uneasy'' with those answers. In fact, they indicated they were on board only after a good deal of insistence and debate about signing on to the CTBT concept. They indicated that they would sign on and be on board, if the six safeguards could be included. These are employees of the executive branch of the United States Government. They work for the President. They know the Secretary of Energy was testifying there at the same time. The chairman of the committee noted that their testimony was inconsistent with the testimony of the Secretary of Energy at the same hearing on the same day. The Secretary of Energy is a fine person, but he is not a nuclear engineer. He has not been given the responsibility to monitor the safety and security of our weapons. He says they are OK. The President says they are OK. But the experts didn't quite say that. In fact, they said it could impair nuclear arms safety. I think that is important. We do not have one voice about this matter. They talked about the Stockpile Stewardship Program, and they were not nearly so confident in that program as some would suggest. In fact, it almost seemed, I suggest, that they were saying that the President, in 1993, just unilaterally said: We are not going to test, so they are not doing that. This apparently gave them some belief that they could have some other kind of testing, so that is better than nothing. I may be misinterpreting those comments, but I don't think so. I think they basically said stockpile stewardship was not a guaranteed thing, but that they would do their best with it, as patriotic Americans. They said they could not be sure the Stockpile Stewardship Program would work, and they admitted there would be no way to validate the Stockpile Stewardship Program other than through live-fire tests--tests of explosions, nuclear explosions. I ask, is this, indeed, in the best interest of the United States to tie our invaluable deterrent responsibility to an undeveloped, untested, and unvalidated simulation regime? The preamble to the treaty states that cessation of testing is an effective measure of nuclear disarmament. Dr. Robinson, Director of the Sandia Lab, testified that nonnuclear components in today's weapons will ultimately become obsolete and irreproducible--they cannot be reproduced. That is, without testing, our nuclear capability will vanish. If it does, it is a distinct possibility that other states will find the world's situation having changed significantly, and they may decide to determine to expand their own capability. It will, in fact, be, and these words irritate a number of people, but it has a ring of truth to it. It will be a form of unilateral disarmament, we, being the world leader, signing a piece of paper that ultimately leads us to a point where we cannot continue to be the world leader. We know a test ban can't prevent nations from acquiring nuclear weapons. Tests by India and Pakistan showed that. The Sandia Lab Director further testified that, ``[t]hose who claim that by ending nuclear testing, we will close off the threat of terrorist development and use of nuclear explosives mislead themselves.'' And Congress should not accept such arguments as a basis for endorsing a test ban treaty. I hope, Mr. President, we can develop a way to continue to reduce the presence of nuclear weapons. This Congress, this Senate has supported massive reductions in the number of weapons we possess. We have continued to explore other treaties and agreements. I like limited, bilateral agreements with nations such as Russia or China or England or France, where we know what we are doing and it has an end time. We have an agreement. We have a precise understanding of the benefits and risks involved. These broad treaties, to which we are committing with the whole world of nations, many of whom are not going to comply with them, make me nervous. It is not necessarily good for a great nation to do that. A great nation has to be cautious. A great nation can't blithely go out and start signing up to a bunch of treaties and thinking that it will all work out sometime in the future. It is a serious matter. I am glad the chairman and others, Senator Kyl, Senator Helms, have taken such a lead in this. I am glad to see Chairman Helms here. Chairman Helms has said consistently, this treaty is not good for America. He has refused to endorse it. He opposes it. Now we have had hearings and debate, and a growing number in this Senate are agreeing with him. I don't believe there are votes sufficient to pass it, because I do not believe that it is good for the country. I think the opinion of Senator Helms on that is being validated daily by the experts, as well as Members of this body. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for his leadership. I appreciate Senator Biden's ability to articulate and to advocate. It makes us all think carefully about what we are doing. I think it has been a good debate. I think we have learned a lot. In the end, I think this Senate will conclude this is not the time to ratify this treaty. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce the Sessions/Schumer Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 1999. This bill is the product of many months of work by a bipartisan group of Judiciary Committee Senators. It will make many needed reforms to the law of civil asset forfeiture. At the same time, our measures preserve forfeiture as a crucial tool for law enforcement. The Sessions/Schumer bill was drafted in close consultation and with the support of the Justice and Treasury Departments. It has the support of the FBI, the DEA, the INS, and the U.S. Marshall's Service. There are five major reforms in the Sessions/Schumer bill. First, we have raised the burden of proof on the government in forfeiture claims from probable cause to preponderance of the evidence, the same as other civil cases. Second, Sessions/Schumer requires that real property can only be seized through the court. It will be illegal for federal agents to physically seize real property until the property has been forfeited in court. For those who cannot afford the cost bond, our bill also adds a property bond alternative for contesting forfeiture. This provides potential claimants with more flexibility in choosing how to proceed with a claim against seized assets. It will no longer be necessary to provide cash up front to file a claim. Instead, a claimant can simply pledge an asset to cover the anticipated costs or, if the claimant cannot afford this, proceed without posting any bond. Sessions/Schumer also creates a uniform innocent owner defense; an innocent owner's interest in property cannot be forfeited by the government. An innocent owner includes one who had no knowledge that the property may have been used to commit a crime. And in cases where the property was acquired after the crime, the uniform innocent owner defense includes bona fide purchases who have no reason to know that the asset they have purchased may be tainted. The fifth major reform provides payment of attorney's fees. If a claimant receives a judgment in his favor, the Government will pay the claimant's reasonable attorney's fees. I am pleased to note that this bill has the support of a broad coalition of law enforcement groups. It has been endorsed by the Fraternal Order of Police, the Federal Law Enforcement Officer's Association, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, the National Association of Police Organizations, the National District Attorney's Association, the National Sheriff's Association, and the National Troopers' Coalition. As one who believes in justice and who spent many years as a federal prosecutor, I know how important asset forfeiture is in the war on drugs. We cannot allow exaggerated rhetoric and outdated examples to destroy asset forfeiture as a law enforcement tool. I believe that this bill will strike an appropriate balance between those on the front lines of the war on drugs and advocates for reform.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. If I could have 1 more minute.

Mr. SESSIONS. It is part of our responsibility to advise and consent. It is our duty to examine the state of justice in America, and to tell President Clinton that we are not going to continue to approve activist nominees for the Ninth Circuit. We have to have some mainstream legal talent on that circuit, not ACLU members or the like. And, if he will give us that, we will affirm them. If he does not, this Senator will oppose them. I thank the Chair. I yield my time to the Senator from Utah.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Utah for his leadership in this matter. I want to share a few thoughts with Members of this body. I do believe in the rule of law. I believe that we ought to maintain it. I practiced full time in Federal Courts throughout my career, for almost 17 years. I respect Federal Judges and Federal law deeply. When appropriate, I have tried to support President Clinton's nominees for Federal Judgeships, because I believe a President should have some leeway in deciding who should serve on the Federal bench. But I want to say a couple things about the Ninth Circuit. Since I have been in this body--a little over 2 years now--having left the practice of law as a full-time Federal prosecutor, I have had an understanding of the Ninth Circuit better than a lot of other people. I see Ninth Circuit criminal cases cited in Alabama and other areas very frequently because they are usually very pro-defendant. There will be no other criminal case in America that has been partial to a defendant in a given situation--for example a search and seizure, or something like that--and they will find a pro-defendant case in the Ninth Circuit. I can say with confidence, from my experience, that the Ninth Circuit authorities are not well respected by the other circuits in America. They are out of the mainstream. In fact, the Supreme Court has begun to really rap their knuckles consistently. In 1996 and 1997, 28 cases from the Ninth Circuit went up to the U.S. Supreme Court for review, and 27 of them were reversed. In 1997 and 1998, 13 out of 17 were reversed. In 1998 and 1999, it was 14 out of 18. In the past, the numbers have been equally high--for over a decade. The New York Times recently wrote that a majority of the members of the U.S. Supreme Court consider the Ninth Circuit to be a ``rogue'' circuit, a circuit out of control based on the history of their reversal rates. This is not me making this up; that is according to the New York Times. I have been urging the President of the United States to nominate mainstream judges for the Ninth Circuit. That is what we are asking for. Let's get this circuit back into line so that we can have the largest circuit in America give the 20 percent of the people in the United States who are under the Ninth Circuit's jurisdiction justice consistent with the other circuits in America. These people are currently denied this justice because of their extremely liberal, activist circuit. There is no other way to say it. There was an Oregon Bar Bulletin article that studied this issue. The article examined the question of why the Ninth Circuit was being reversed so much in 1997. The article says: ``There is probably an element of truth to the claim that the Ninth Circuit has a relatively higher proportion of liberal judges than other circuits.'' It goes on to note how many are Carter and Clinton nominees. Already, a substantial majority--12 of the active 21 judges--were Carter or Clinton nominees. There is nothing wrong with that per se, however the nominees the White House has been sending to us from California have been even more liberal than the nominees President Clinton has nominated in other circuits. I don't see this kind of activism in nominees to other circuits. So the way I see this thing--and this is important for the members of this Senate to realize--we have the responsibility of advice and consent on judicial nominations. That is a responsibility given to us. We have to exercise it. What I have been saying to President Clinton is, Mr. President, listen to us. Let's get this circuit--this rogue circuit--back into line. Give us mainstream nominees. Mr. Fisher is, in my view, a fairly liberal Clinton appointee.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution and preamble be considered and agreed to, en bloc, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table without any intervening action, and that any statement be printed in the Record.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 193 introduced earlier today by Senator Dodd.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Kansas for the remarks he made earlier and his commitment to revitalizing the moral fiber of this Nation. I think the polls he showed that the American people consider the threat of decline in values as the greatest threat facing our country are correct. If we lose our commitment to honesty, truth, discipline, hard work, and faith, if we lose those values, our Nation could be jeopardized. I thank the Senator from Kansas for raising those points because in many ways they transcend all the other issues we are facing. I know Senator Brownback, the Presiding Officer tonight, was watching closely Sunday night when we had the ``Touched By An Angel'' show. They talked about a Senator who was given a challenge to go out to Sudan and see for themselves what it was like. The show could have been done about the Presiding Officer tonight because Senator Brownback did that months ago. He personally went to Sudan and observed the terrible conditions there. He observed men being abused and killed. He observed women being taken into slavery and abused sexually--being bought and sold nearly into the 21st century. He was appalled by it. He has come back here and done something about that. I know Dr. Bill Frist, another Member of this body, had been there himself, to this poor, dangerous country, and helped serve with medical skills he possesses. I just want to say congratulations to you, and thank you for that. I think that film could well have been written about either of you. You felt a calling to respond to the less fortunate and have done so. I believe something good is going to come out of that. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 281, S. 1606.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, Senator Grassley has an amendment at the desk.

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

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, this is an important day for the United States and for Alabama in the community of Anniston, Calhoun County. Fort McClellan closed today. It was a casualty of the 1995 BRAC process. There was a great institution and a great installation. Thousands and hundreds of thousands of Americans served in that community. It was given to the military in the early 1900s by the people of that area in order to found this base. I would like to read part of an article by Rose Livingston, writing for the Birmingham News, captioned ``Taps for Fort McClellan as final door closes.'' The barracks are boarded up, and barricades block their driveways. Flags have been furled and stored as mementos. Soldiers have packed up and shipped out. Fort McClellan is no more. The 82-year-old Army training base in Anniston finally shut its gates Thursday. It was given birth in 1917 by a community that chipped in to buy the land and donated it to their government. Its demise came at the hands of federal bean- counters, who decided in 1995 that Fort McClellan was surplus. No bugle sounded, no cannon fired for the final shutdown. Those symbols were quieted after a closing ceremony in August, when soldiers were still around to march in it. Most are long gone. All that remains now is a skeleton crew to manage the base's transition from a bustling military post to a profit-generating private enterprise. Indeed, we will be looking for reuse of that facility. The community has a joint power reuse authority: The Chamber of Commerce, the city of Anniston are all working to do what they can to create the kind of activity in a different way than what existed there. I am pleased we had the support of this Senate to create the Center for Domestic Preparedness at Fort McClellan because Fort McClellan was a chemical training school, among other things, and we have to be able to be prepared in this Nation for the use of weapons of mass destruction. So this base at least will be a small part of some of the chemical testing facilities, some of the training facilities, and training of teachers. They will be able to teach firemen and police how to respond if they are faced with a chemical or biological weapons attack in their towns and cities. The people of Anniston, the people of Fort McClellan, and the people of Calhoun County are patriotic Americans. They gave the land that became Ft. McClellan, and now they will receive the land back. But they will lose a great deal of income and support. The people of Anniston fought for their fort, but took the loss gracefully. They believed that chemical weapons would remain a major threat and that we ought not to close this base. I think they made a lot of good arguments. But the Commission decided otherwise, and with good grace, fortitude, and determination, they accepted it and made a determination to move to the future. I believe they will be successful in that. I know time is late. We need to move on to other matters. But I did not want this day to pass before we had an opportunity to pause and recognize the extraordinary contribution of over 2,000 men and women soldiers and over 2,000 civilians who have served at that base.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that S. 1515 be discharged from the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that S. Res. 180 be discharged from the Rules Committee and, further that the Senate proceed to its consideration.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statement relating to this resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until the hour of 9 a.m. on Friday, October 1. I further ask unanimous consent that on Friday, 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 resume consideration of the Labor-HHS appropriations bill.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. For the information of all Senators, the Senate will convene at 9 a.m. tomorrow and immediately begin 30 minutes of debate on the Collins amendment regarding diabetes. At the expiration of that debate, the Senate will proceed to a vote on the amendment. Therefore, Senators may expect the first vote at approximately 9:30 a.m. Further consideration of the Labor-HHS bill is expected during tomorrow's session of the Senate, to be followed by a period of morning business.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of H.R. 2981, which is at the desk.