Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate immediately proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations to the Executive Calendar: 169, 229, 230, and 234.

Mr. SESSIONS. I further ask unanimous consent that the nominations be confirmed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, any statements relating to the nominations be printed in the Record, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and that the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator from Washington. I appreciate his leadership and commitment to education. He is an excellent spokesman on this issue. Mr. President, my daughters have graduated from public schools. My wife and I have graduated from public schools. We want to strengthen our public schools. We want to improve schools; certainly, we do. What we really want to do is improve public education. We want to make it better. I believe that so strongly. It is curious to me that there are some in this body who think there is only one way to do it--to spend an extra billion or so--and that is to spend it on 100,000 teachers, which I suppose is an issue that somebody poll tested and ran surveys on and thought that sounded like a good political way to fix education. We have to be responsible. We have to think these thing through. The Gorton amendment says, OK, we want to do more than we have done. The Senator from Washington says, I will sponsor an amendment that spends more for education than the President has requested. But he wants to give the local school systems the ability to decide how to use that money. As I travel around my State having town meetings in every county in my State, almost every meeting I have the local superintendent of education comes up and we talk about education. I am not hearing them tell me they want more micro-managed, targeted assistance from Washington, more regulations, more paperwork to fill out, and more controls on how they are operating to improve their education. They are not asking for that. What they are saying is--and this is happening all over America; school systems are in intense self-study; Governors are in intense study of their education situation--we have to do better about how we do education. Just to say we need more teachers and that is all you can spend this money for does make good sense. It is not being against education; it is not being against learning; it is not being against schools, to say we ought not to target this money for one use only. We need to be flexible. What we do know is this: Class size in America is down. As a matter of fact, it has been reported that 42 States already meet the goal of 18 students per teacher; 42 States are already doing that. What is troubling--and I know the Presiding Officer, the Senator from New Hampshire, has talked passionately about this so often--is our achievement numbers are still going down. When you get at the level of 16, 17, 18, 19 students per teacher, what do we know from scientific study and analysis? It is not whether it is 19 or 17 in a classroom that is key. It is the quality of the teacher, the learning environment that occurs there. Do they have the kind of textbooks and equipment needed? Do they have the resources from which that teacher can draw? Is there discipline there, or are there Federal rules and regulations hampering a teacher's ability to maintain discipline and to remove students who are disruptive from the classroom? Aren't those the things my colleagues hear when they talk to teachers? That is what they are telling me. I agree with the Gorton amendment, to allow the school systems to use this money--more money in this amendment than asked for by the President for education--as they see fit but without the restrictive rules and regulations and controls. Why isn't that what we ought to be doing? Why is it that some people in this body have their own idea about how they have to improve education and only their way is the way to have it done? I would just say that this is a mistake. I believe it very strongly. We are all united together in our concern to improve education. But how we do it is the question. My wife taught for a number of years. I taught for a year. We both were in the PTA. She was a volunteer teacher in the classroom to help teachers teach on a daily basis. I think that helps. Perhaps a program that will allow local schools to help parents to participate more directly as aides to teachers on a volunteer basis may be of far more benefit than adding 1 more teacher to a classroom and getting that number down from 19 to 18. Who knows for sure? We know this: There is an intense reevaluation of education in America today. There are a lot of things we don't know. But our superintendents, our principals, our State school boards, and our Governors are having to answer to the American people about why they should continue to give more and more money to the system when progress is not occurring and in fact we are showing a decline in so many different areas in our education achievement. We know that among the industrialized nations, the United States finished 19th recently out of 21 countries in mathematics and lower in science and technology. Something is afoot here. Mandating teachers without giving school systems a choice to improve education and learning is a big mistake. I certainly share that. I would like to mention a few other things we ought to think about as we go through this debate. The ``Washington knows best'' attitude is wrong. The federal government funds 7 percent of the money for education in America. While 93 percent comes from the States and local governments. That is what we have always believed was correct. We have always believed that we don't want a central state government educating all our children. We want our children to be educated by people we know, people who know our children's names. For the most part, that happens in America today. And we ought to enhance that. But what we have found is that there are 778--get this--778 Federal education programs in existence today. That is a lot of programs. That is why the education systems are telling me: Jeff, we have to have a full-time person just to fill out the paperwork in order to comply with the federal regulations. This amendment by Senator Murray would add number 779, I suppose. And before the education bill goes through, we may even try to add a bunch more in addition to that. But we never go back and eliminate those that are not proving to be effective. We have also found that today only 65 cents out of every dollar we dedicate to education from Washington actually gets to the classrooms where the kids are and the teachers are. To me, that is not acceptable. It is simply not acceptable. Too much of it is kept in Washington. That which gets down to the schools and the classrooms has so many strings on it and regulations and so much paperwork that it is not as effective as it ought to be. I just say this: We have 50 States in this Nation that fund 93 percent of the cost of education in their States. Most of these Governors have made education a top priority. More and more, are doing everything possible to fix education in their states. We ought to give them some freedom and flexibility to be innovative, creative, to fix and improve education, and not try to run it from up here. There is just no doubt about that in my mind. I know we can do a better job with education. I know we can improve the quality of American life. I know this for a fact: We would have better education if the Federal Government gave more money to the school systems with fewer strings, fewer regulations, less redtape, and less bureaucracy. Somewhere, some way, we need to enhance that magic moment that occurs in a classroom, that sublime moment when a child learns, when that teacher and child communicate and good things happen. Just having 789 programs instead of 788 I don't believe is the right direction. Slade Gorton's amendment would allow the school system to use it for teachers, computers, textbooks, or whatever they need. It would be available for that in the same proportion the proponents of the amendment would require. It would go to schools in the same fashion. But they would be able to use it for teachers or any of the other things you can imagine that would be necessary. I thank the Chair. I thank Senator Gorton for his dedication and his leadership on this issue. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator from Wyoming and appreciate so much his leadership on so many different issues. His steady hand, his wise insight, and determination to make education better in America--I certainly share that. Education is critical to our Nation's strength, economically, intellectually, and morally, and in relation to our character and other things. Unity in a nation depends on good education. It includes high technology, but it also includes history, literature, art, and those kinds of things. I strongly believe in public education. I am prepared to support it and do support it. I think we can do a lot for our country. I was a product of public education. My wife was the product of public education. My wife taught a number of years in public schools. I taught 1 year in public schools. Our daughters graduated from a major public high school in Mobile, AL. They were active in all of the school's activities. They were annual editors of the yearbook there. It was a big part of our lives. We participated in the PTA. My wife has volunteered on regular occasions in the classroom, assisting teachers as an aide, as is done in many schools today. I think those ideas are oftentimes better than spending endless amounts of money. Too often parents are not encouraged to be a part of the education process. I think they can contribute to that. So educational excellence in the classroom is what it is all about. What our goal needs to be is to enhance that magic moment that occurs in a classroom between a teacher and a child when learning occurs and where excitement is present. That will benefit our children. Some of the things we have done in education over the years really cause me concern. I think it is important for us, as a nation, to recall another point, and that is that the Federal Government is not the primary focus of education in this country. Ninety-three percent of the money spent on education comes from our States and localities. That is where education is run. That is a historic, fundamental view in America--that education ought to be a local process and that we do not want the Federal Government dominating all of our education and telling us how everything ought to be run. But what we have learned is, over the years, for the little money the Federal Government does put forth--the 7 percent that it contributes-- so much of that money goes into regulations and burdens on local schools. We understand that 50 percent of the regulations for public schools in America come from Federal programs where only 7 percent of the money is provided. Currently, there are 788 Federal Government education programs. School systems, small and large, have to employee teams of people just to write grants, to figure out how they can get some of this Federal money for their school systems. And when they get the money, they cannot use it as they wish; they have to comply with burdensome federal regulations, essentially fitting some bureaucrat's idea of what ought to be done in that school. One thing I have learned here is that schools across this country are different. In the school I attended in the town of Camden, AL, 30 of us graduated from high school together. Well over half of us started the first grade together in that school. It was an excellent high school. I was blessed. I was at the University of Alabama this weekend, and I met the dean of the human services department there; she was my classmate in our little class of 30. Another member of that group went on to Annapolis. And others have done well. But it was a public school, a small school. My daughters went to a high school that had 2,000 students. So schools are different. The needs are different in each of the States. It is very difficult for the Federal Government to control and dominate and say precisely how learning should occur in every classroom across this country. I fundamentally believe that decisions about our children's education must be made by individuals who know our children's names. We need to be sure that what we do in this Nation is a benefit to children and not a burden. I am really pleased to see Dr. Bill Frist, the distinguished Senator from Tennessee, who previously presided in the Chair, because earlier this year he led the fight for a bill we called Ed-Flex that would say: We are going to give schools more flexibility to utilize Federal dollars than they have had before in return for strict accountability. It was a tough fight. Those on the other side of the aisle, the President, and all his staff, fought that bill tooth and claw--even though the educators and the teachers and principals were telling us: We badly need it. It was a battle. We did not get to go as far as we would have liked, but it was a good step in the right direction. We need to do more of that. Do we really care about our children? Do we want to make sure they learn as best they can? Let's give the money to the people we elected as our school board presidents and commissioners and superintendents to run our school systems; the people who know our children's names. Those people care about children; it is not just people in this body. Many of us who have little or no knowledge about education, how is it we think we know all there is to know about education? We can read a newspaper article about somebody having a good idea, so we pass a Federal program to fund it, and we end up with 788 programs that really burden education. Let me tell you about a number of things that are out there. I had a letter from a good, long-time friend of mine. I was a Federal prosecutor and attorney general of Alabama. This friend, Dave Whetstone, was a district attorney in one of our larger counties for quite a number of years. Dave Whetstone ran into the IDEA Act. Based on what IDEA says, children with disabilities ought not to be separated. They are supposed to be kept in the classroom. That is certainly a good principle. We ought not to separate children who don't need to be separated. But the act says, no matter what you do or how violent that child may get, they can't be removed from the classroom for more than 45 days. They have to be put back in there because of Federal law. During committee hearings this year, we heard from a superintendent from Vermont who told us that over 20 percent of the education costs in the school system with which he was involved went to funding the regulations of this program. One cannot believe what it demands. In the Alabama case, there was a young man who was the subject of a Time Magazine article, ``Is This the Meanest Kid in All of Alabama?'' I have met with District Attorney Whetstone to discuss this very problem because he raised the question. He wrote me a letter in late April. He said: I am writing you this letter concerning my general outrage over the laws of the Federal Government and how they are being administered in relation to school violence. I had already been having meetings . . . concerning the Federal Disabilities Act. The general thrust of the matter is that violent children are being kept in school because of the new Federal Rules relating to disabilities. I can point to at least seven to nine occasions in Baldwin County in which I believe expulsion was called for, but could not be accomplished because of the interpretation of the Disabilities Act. He goes on to talk about the story of this one child. In summary--Americans may not understand this--with regard to children who are really disruptive, they hire aides to not only be in the classroom to help the teacher for this one child who is disruptive, the aides go to their homes, ride the school buses with them to keep them from disrupting the bus, stay with them all day, and ride the school bus home at night. That is what they were doing with this young man. He had violent tendencies. In one case on the school bus, he had an incident, and the aide tried to stop him from wrecking the school bus. He tried to wreck the school bus, and he attacked the aide. That is when the district attorney got involved and filed legal action to try to overcome this thing. That is the problem we are living with, and that is driven by Federal regulations that are, in fact, reducing our ability to educate. I don't know which children ought to be kept in the classroom and which ought to be removed. I would like to see every child who can stay in a classroom stay in a classroom. I think that is extraordinarily important. But some children are so disruptive that it undermines the whole teaching process. I believe the decision must be left to the local principals and school boards. I have had teachers tell me: Jeff, I can't put up with it anymore. It is too stressful for me. I am going to get out of this profession that I love as soon as I can. Much of it is driven, if you talk to your friends and neighbors who teach, by discipline problems. You would not know, if you listened to these education bureaucrats in Washington, that a lot of it is driven by burdensome Federal education rules and regulations. This Congress, since the Republican Party took the majority, has increased Federal funding for education 27 percent. All this talk about slashing funds for education is not true. We do believe--I certainly believe--in public education and helping public education to flourish, but we need to do it the right way. We need to do it in a way that helps teachers to achieve that sublime moment when the learning occurs in a classroom and kids are motivated and they get that insight that may lead them on to a lifetime of learning. I am not sure the 788 programs we have now are working. I pledge to the people of the United States, I am going to work to do all I can to continue to support our States in their efforts to educate, but I am going to try to reduce Federal regulation and Federal intervention in their schools and give them the kind of opportunities they have not had in many years to improve education in those schools. Each school does it differently. We can't mandate it from here. It worked for welfare reform. Do my colleagues remember that? We said: We are going to stop mandating all these rules for every community in America. We are going to challenge the States to take the welfare money we have been spending and create programs they believe, in their State, are comprehensive and will get people off welfare and back to work. It has worked, and we have had a massive reduction in the welfare rolls. It has been good for America. We can do the same for education. The Senator from Tennessee has been a national leader for education reform. He is on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. He has been a national spokesman for it, and it has been a pleasure for me to join that committee and work with him. Mr. President, I have concluded my remarks. I am pleased to yield to the distinguished Senator from Tennessee on this subject.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Has the Subcommittee from time to time, directed the EPA to fund studies related to pending regulations when there is a need?

Mr. SESSIONS. I would like to make the Senator aware of a situation in my own state of Alabama where the EPA is being forced by a court order to promulgate regulations regarding an activity called hydraulic fracturing. Alabama is the second largest producer of coal bed methane in the country. The production of this clean burning fuel from coal beds has only recently become economically viable and offers a way to capture methane from coal beds which might otherwise be vented into the atmosphere during normal coal mining operations. As you know, methane is thought to be a potent contributor of the so-called ``greenhouse'' effect and has been shown to contribute the formation of ground level ozone. However, the production of methane for fuel use helps to reduce air emissions and improves our balance of trade by contributing to our overall domestic gas production. Increased production of coal bed methane should be encouraged. One of the procedures needed to produce methane from coal beds is the use of hydraulic fracturing. Hydraulic fracturing essentially involves the placing of water and sand down a well bore at high pressure to create microscopic fractures in the coal beds which allow methane gas to escape. Following this procedure, over 90 percent of the water and sand propping agent is pumped out of the well and disposed in compliance with all State and Federal laws. There has never been a documented case of underground water contamination resulting from this procedure. The EPA never intended to regulate this procedure. However, in 1995 a lawsuit was filed against the EPA claiming that the hydraulic fracturing in Alabama should be regulated through the Underground Injection Control program established by the Safe Drinking Water Act. The EPA argued that hydraulic fracturing did not fit in the context of the Underground Injection Program, that the State of Alabama already regulated the process and that the procedure itself posed little risk to underground drinking water sources or the environment. In 1997, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals made a technical ruling that hydraulic fracturing does in fact, constitute underground injection because it does involve the placement of fluids underground. Following the court ruling, the EPA implied that it might support a technical change to the Safe Drinking Water Act to exempt hydraulic fracturing from the Underground Injection program. However, efforts to get this technical correction passed into law were upset by the EPA who called for more time to study the issue. Unfortunately, the EPA has still not developed the scientific data to determine whether or not there is even a need for federal regulation of hydraulic fracturing at all. It is no wonder that the EPA has not dedicated many resources to this issue. No where in the nation has there been even a single case of groundwater contamination from hydraulic fracturing operations despite the dramatic increase in the use of this procedure over the last 15 years. In fact, based upon the data which is currently available, I believe that federal regulation of hydraulic fracturing operations may be an ineffective use of both federal and state resources. However, there is a need to be certain that hydraulic fracturing does not pose a threat to underground sources or drinking water and more scientific study must be completed. The Geological Survey of Alabama, working in conjunction with Alabama universities, has already initiated study on the environmental impacts of hydraulic fracturing operations. Because of the work which the Geological Survey has already begun, it would make an ideal institution to carry out additional studies on the impact of hydraulic fracturing and could contribute a great deal to the body of scientific data needed by the EPA. The Geological Survey has proposed an 18 month study, using $175,000 of federal funds through an EPA grant, to carefully examine the environmental impacts of hydraulic fracturing operations. I would ask that the Senator from Missouri work to include language in the VA/ HUD Appropriations Conference report that would direct the EPA to make this important grant.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the need to collect good scientific data upon which the Environmental Protection Agency can establish appropriate regulations to protect human health and the environment.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator from Iowa and appreciate his steadfast leadership on this issue. I also thank the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch, for his leadership. We have worked over the past several years to produce a much needed piece of legislation, a reform of Federal bankruptcy law. Bankruptcy is provided for in the U.S. Constitution, and we have seen some remarkable changes in the last few years that demand that we reform the system. Last year there were over 1.4 million bankruptcies filed in America. That comes out to almost 4,000 filings every day of the year. Since 1990, personal bankruptcies are up 94.7 percent. This dramatic increase in personal bankruptcies occurred in spite of the fact that over that same period business bankruptcies fell 31 percent and the country enjoyed a healthy and expanding economy. These statistics demonstrate there is need for reform immediately. Bankruptcy exists to provide relief as a last resort for the most debt-ridden individuals. It is not a financial planning device. This bill was needed last year, but it did not pass due to the same kinds of partisanship and political tactics we have seen here today. This year, I think Congress will pass this bill. I hope we will proceed to it today for a final vote. The majority leader of the Senate and the Members of this Senate have a lot of work to do this year. We have quite a number of critical appropriations bills, including the Defense appropriations that may come up later tonight. We have to consider those bills. We cannot have a bankruptcy bill like the one that passed this Senate last year with 97 votes--a very similar bankruptcy bill which almost every single Senator voted for. That bill turned into a Christmas tree of amendments on every kind of unrelated issue that any Senator wanted to bring up, and I am afraid that the same thing might happen today. Why is this happening? I will tell you why. Some Senators do not want this bill to pass, but they are afraid to vote against it straight up, and so they offer amendment after amendment, and they tell the majority leader: We won't have any limit. We want to offer as many amendments as we can on a number of unrelated subjects--international affairs, economics, whatever they want to bring. This means we could be here for weeks on a bill that has been debated for the last 2 years with great intensity. The Senate does not need that. The majority leader cannot allow that to happen. We will have to not proceed with it, I assume, if we cannot get cloture today. A bankruptcy bill similar to this passed the House earlier this year 313-108. Senator Grassley's bill came out of the Judiciary Committee 14-4. So I am proud to be a key sponsor of this. I think it makes the kind of changes we need without changing the fundamental principles that if a person is over their head in debt, helplessly unable to pay their debts, they ought to be able to wipe out those debts and start over. We have no dispute with that principle. That is a fundamental, historic principle. I know it makes a lot of people mad to think that somebody does not have to pay their debts, that they can just go to court and wipe out their duly signed contract. But this country has always adhered to the view that if your debts reach a certain level and you cannot pay them, you can start afresh. We do not have debtors' prisons. And I certainly agree with that. But we do have a growing trend in America in which people making $60,000, $80,000, $100,000 a year owe a significant--but not great--debt and just go into court and file straight bankruptcy under chapter 7. If they make $100,000 a year and they owe $60,000 that they could easily pay off in a period of years, they can go into bankruptcy court and wipe out their debt. These individuals can file under Chapter 7 and just not pay their debts--whether it is the guy next door, the garage mechanic, the automobile car dealer, the credit card bank note--that debt can simply be wiped out. There is no way a court can stop this behavior right now. It is not being stopped. And it is going on regularly. What Senator Grassley's legislation does is say to the courts: You have a duty to look at the debtor's income, to analyze what a person's income is. If they are able, over a reasonable period of time, to pay back a significant portion of their debt, they ought to pay it back. Why? Because it is a moral question. And the moral question is this: The man making $100,000, who owes $60,000 in debt--$2,000 of that may be to the mechanic who fixed his car--who ought to be paying that? Who ought to get the money? The man who did the work for him and fixed his car or fixed the roof on his house? Should he be paid, or should this man be able to live in his house bankrupt and not pay his debt to the people who helped fix it for him? It is just that simple. It is a question of justice and right and wrong. One provision that I worked hard to put into this bill that I think is good and very innovative is a requirement that people at least consider an approach to credit counseling before they actually file for bankruptcy. There are a number of excellent credit counseling agencies in America. They can sit down with people and negotiate with their creditors and get them to reduce the interest rates. They can help people make payment plans. They help the family put a budget together. If somebody is addicted to gambling, these credit counseling agencies can get them in Gamblers Anonymous. If they have mental health problems, they can help with that. The agencies can help them decide which debts ought to be paid first, such as the ones with the highest interest. They can negotiate on behalf of their clients delays in certain debt so they can pay others first. I visited for virtually a full day at a credit counseling agency in my hometown of Mobile. I was extraordinarily impressed with what they do and the services they offer. This bill would require that, before you file for bankruptcy, you ought to at least talk to one of these credit counseling agencies. We have seen what is happening today before. Senator Grassley saw this at just about this time last year. We had a bill that came up and cleared the committee by an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote--a bill that we got through this body with an overwhelming vote. I believe 97 Senators voted for it. Yet when it came back up, we had just these kinds of dilatory tactics designed to delay and put the bill off to avoid a vote. I don't know why that is true. There is nothing but fairness and justice and improvement in this bill. It is time for us to respond to this growing rush of people who are claiming bankruptcy, many of whom don't deserve or need the protections of the judicial system to address their debts. We want bankruptcy to be available for those who truly need it but not for those who view it as an easy way to wipe out debts that they could pay. I think we have made some real progress with this bill. I hope politics doesn't enter into the Senate's consideration of these reforms. If it does, I hope the American people will understand and look through the political tactics and the manipulation to see right through this. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise this evening in support of Chairman Warner and the Senate Armed Services Committee Department of Defense Authorization bill S. 1059, which will be voted on tomorrow morning. This is a bill I strongly encourage my colleagues to support. It sends a powerful message to military men and women worldwide, that this body respects what they do for America each and every day, as they carry out a hundred different operations, in as many nations. We heard their voices and have done something positive in improving their quality of life and that of their families. We believe they deserve the best equipment American technology can produce. The statements made by our Service Chiefs on our state of military readiness provided an azimuth for the committee back in January, and some 70+ hearings later we have a product which provides a funding level for new budget authority of $288.8 Billion, which is $8.3 Billion above the President's budget request. The crisis in the Balkans followed this plea for more funding and Chairman Warner responded with over 15 hearings on Kosovo and related activities. We learned of the shortfalls in our planning, and were proud to learn of the exploits of our men and women in uniform who have never let us down. We are, however, left to ponder the problems inherent in coalition warfare, and the direction of the new strategic concept in NATO. Chinese Espionage too took us in yet another direction and the committee has responded with a real change in organization of the Department of Energy so that we do not fall once again into sloppy security awareness. This was truly a vexing problem that no doubt will haunt this nation for years to come. I hope the President will not hesitate in accepting these considered changes. This is a tough issue that warrants a firm solution. Mr. President, this bill is just part of the work that lies ahead as we restore America's Defense to the status it deserves. I feel we are committed, on the Senate Armed Services Committee, to investigating the problems associated with: Cyber/Information warfare; WMD Proliferation; Chemical and Biological weapons; Organized Crime and Narco-terrorism. Our troops are doing a great job the world over! They are truly the best led and trained in the world, and they deserve the best equipment, the best support and the most funding we can provide them. To this end, I am please that Chairman Warner accepted my amendment to this bill which calls for the Secretary of Defense to make the positions of the Chiefs of the Reserves and the two National Guard Directors hold three star rank. This bill mandates, it seems to me, that these key leaders, who do so much every day to help us keep the peace world-wide, must hold three star rank. I hope they soon will. I again congratulate Chairman Warner on bringing us so far in what certainly seems a short period of time. S. 1059 is a great bill. It needs all our support. I thank the Chair. band 9/10 transmitters

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would like to join and associate myself with the remarks of Senator Hatch, chairman of the Judiciary Committee. We will be having hearings tomorrow on the pardon of FALN terrorist groups. I would like to share a few thoughts at this time. I feel very strongly about this matter. I spent not the 26 years that Howard Safir, who is now the Commissioner of Public Safety in New York, spent with the Department of Justice. But I spent 15 years at the Department of Justice. It really troubles me. It very much saddens me to see what is happening to that Department. Senator Hatch said the Attorney General is asleep at the switch while the White House runs the Department of Justice. Too often that has been true. I hate to say that. I love that Department of Justice. I respect it. On the facade of the Supreme Court, right across this street, are the words ``Equal Justice Under Law.'' I would like for people to think about a couple of things. Three-thousand people in prison in this country during the Clinton administration--more than 3,000--asked for clemency. This administration followed the procedures established by Executive order in 1893. They referred it to the Department of Justice for a background review and a recommendation. After that was done, only three--only three--had clemency granted to them. A clemency is a very unusual thing. It is to allow somebody to get out of jail before they serve their full sentence imposed by a court of law and affirmed by the appellate courts of this country. So this is unusual. Apparently, it was done against the objections of the people who were involved in the case who knew about it. The prosecuting attorney--the U.S. Attorney's Office--apparently recommended no. The FBI, which investigated the case, said no. The Federal Bureau of Prisons said no. We don't know yet. I hope that we will find out--and I hope this administration does not stonewall--what the Pardon Attorney's recommendation was. It went on up to the Deputy Attorney General of the United States. So we need to find out what happened. It cannot be, in my view, justice. Some said: Well, what if one of these 16 may not have been personally involved in the violent act? I want to tell you what a conspiracy means. These individuals knowingly and deliberately joined with a group, FALN, which had been involved--and well known in Puerto Rico throughout this country--in public bombings and assassinations and maiming of American people. They joined with that group. They were caught with C-4 explosives and truckloads of guns in participation of that effort. I want to note what the law is on that. Under one case in the Fifth Circuit, the court held that ``A conspiracy is like a train. When a party knowingly steps aboard, he is part of the crew and accepts responsibility for the existing freight (that was already carried).'' That is what we have here. There is no doubt that this group joined this criminal enterprise and participated in it and were apprehended by courageous FBI agents working undercover. There is no doubt that it was tried in a high profile case in Chicago, New York, and other places. You can be sure that the Marshals Service and the FBI were guarding the judge, the jury, and the families because this was a big-time prosecution of people who were determined to destroy this country and defeat the U.S. Government. That is what it was about. This was a high profile, very intense effort. It was done by prosecutors and FBI agents who willingly put their lives at risk to bring them to bear. And once they were convicted, we have not had any more bombings. It was a successful, courageous effort that saved lives in this country. It is not acceptable for this President to go around the Department of Justice professionals, violating President Grover Cleveland's Executive order which he could have changed if he wished to but never did. It is the established procedure--and for reasons that I can only conclude have to be political because they certainly cannot be based on law and fact. I would just say this: Justice is a fragile thing. But I would like to ask the American people and the Members of this body to think about this: What about the other 3,000 people who did not get their pardons? Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, one of the key things in any pardon is that the individual is presumed to be guilty of the offenses, and when they review a pardon or a clemency it normally does not even deal with the question of guilt or innocence. It is assumed since the jury has convicted them and the case has been affirmed--and I don't think there is any doubt about these defendants. They have never even denied their involvement in these offenses. But I would like to point out that before you have clemency for individuals, they really should renounce, clearly and unequivocally, the acts which they have done. You would think that would mean some of these prisoners would say that violence in these circumstances was terribly wrong, I wish I hadn't done it, I am sorry for the lives, I apologize for the destruction and devastation it has caused. But that is not the case. I am reading here from the Washington Post, a newspaper here in Washington known for its pro-Clinton leanings. This is what Michael Kelly has written about this very subject, about whether or not they have renounced their wrongdoing. He says: . . . none of the 16 prisoners has ever admitted to complicity in any fatal bombings or expressed specific remorse for those bombings. No one has ever apologized to the families of those murdered. The statement signed by the 12 who have accepted commutation does renounce the use of violence, but it expresses no contrition or responsibility for past actions. And these selected statements distributed by the White House did not fully and honestly represent the views of the 16. Not included, for instance, was a 1998 [just last year] statement by one of the FALN leaders, Oscar Lopez Rivera, in which Rivera rejected the whole idea of contrition. I am quoting here Michael Kelly in the Washington Post: I cannot undo what's done. The whole idea of contrition, atonement, I have a problem with that. So I will just say that is a sad event we are now proposing, to offer clemency to persons with that type of mentality. I believe this has been a colossal error, a great stain on the integrity and consistency of the Department of Justice pardon and commutation procedures. It cannot be explained to any rational person. It represents an aberrational, unfair, and unjust act that I can only conclude was driven by some forces, probably political, outside the realm of justice. It is a terrible thing. I agree with the Senator from Georgia, it is important that at least this branch of Government, the Senate and the House, speak out clearly and deplore it. I thank the Senate for its time and attention and I yield the floor. Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I join with the Senators from Georgia and Texas and the majority leader, Trent Lott, in expressing my very deep concern about what I consider to be one of the greatest miscarriages of justice I have seen in our country. When the President of the United States chose to pardon these 16 terrorists, he did an act which I can only conclude is based on political reasons and not on merit, and in doing so, he has damaged the credibility of the Department of Justice, a Department of this Government I dearly love, at which I spent 15 years and have some real appreciation for and have some understanding about how it works. Equal justice under law is a cornerstone of our Government. It is on our Supreme Court building right across the street, chiseled into the marble of that building, ``Equal Justice Under Law.'' Before we go into the details of this matter, I suggest that there are a million or more Americans in jail at this very moment. As a Federal prosecutor, part of the Department of Justice, and U.S. attorney, I had the responsibility to preside over cases in which young men and women involved, maybe for the first time, with large amounts of cocaine and marijuana received very severe sentences for their offenses--15 years, 20 years, life without parole for people as young as 25 years of age. I have seen that in Federal court under the laws this Congress has passed for serious drug offenses. Now, there are other criminal offenses in this country, and every one of those individuals has some excuse for what they did. They have some basis to claim they didn't mean it or they have changed or they have turned over a new leaf. In 1893, the President of the United States issued a document, an Executive order, that transferred the investigatory power over clemency and pardons to the Department of Justice, a logical step. The country was growing and he had no ability to investigate these cases. So an office in the Department of Justice exists, known as the pardon attorney, and it is the responsibility of that office to investigate these matters. Let me read to you from the current Department of Justice manual. They call it the United States Attorney's Manual. It says this when it talks about the pardon attorney: The pardon attorney, under the direction of the associate Attorney General, receives and reviews all petitions for executive clemency--which is what we have here-- which includes pardon after completion of the sentence, the commutation of sentence, remission of fine and reprieve, initiates necessary investigation, and prepares the Department's recommendation to the President. Now, fundamentally, that is a logical requirement. The Constitution flatly gives unreviewable power to the President to pardon anyone for an offense against the United States as he so chooses. They have set up this procedure to make sure we have some sort of order and consistency, but the President ultimately has the power. I understand he has only done a few commutations --maybe as few as four--in recent years. At any rate, that is an unreviewable power. To the extent to which he does it, we don't legally have the power to stop it in this body. We might as well accept that. But when the President of the United States takes a power given to him by the Constitution and he abuses it and he denigrates the orderly procedures of justice, when he elevates terrorists over other people who may well deserve pardons much more, or having their sentence cut much more, he has abused his power and abused his office, and it is the duty and responsibility of this Congress to do the only thing we can, and that is to adopt a resolution that speaks clearly that we don't accept it, don't agree with it, and we deplore it. So I salute the Senator from Georgia for preparing that resolution and presenting it and bringing it forward this day. There are thousands of people in Federal prisons today--thousands of them, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands--who are more deserving of a commutation of their sentence, or a pardon, than these defendants in this case. There is no doubt about it. I am quite confident, and I would be shocked if the pardon attorney who is required to do an evaluation of this approved and recommended that the President make these clemency actions. I just would be amazed if that happened. If they did, that pardon attorney needs to come before the Congress for hearings in this body and explain why they chose to have these terrorists' sentences cut and not someone else. If the person did recommend that, I don't see how they are fit to remain in office. I don't see how they can look in the eyes of the mothers and fathers, as I have, of people in prison who are asking for a break on their sentences, and you tell them no, no, no, no, no--and then you give a break to these people. It is a fundamental question of justice that is so deep that a lot of people don't understand it. But we must exercise the pardon and clemency powers in this country effectively, fairly, and judiciously. The President has not done that in this case. I wanted to share with the Members of this body a letter to the Wall Street Journal from just a couple of days ago, written by Deborah A. Devaney, former assistant U.S. attorney. I once was an assistant U.S. attorney. I supervised some of the finest assistant U.S. attorneys this country has ever produced for 12 years as U.S. attorney. I want to read what she said about this case. It chills my spine. This is clearly what this is about. Make no mistake about it, when Deborah Devaney and her cohorts were prosecuting these terrorists, you better believe when they came home at night and talked to their families about it, they talked about their own personal safety because these were terrorists, murderers, who suggested they would kill the judge if they had a chance to do so. This was a courageous prosecution, and this person deserves to be heard on this subject. This is what she said: As one of the FALN prosecutors, I know too much. I know the chilling evidence that convicted the petitioners--the violence and vehemence with which they conspired to wage war on all of us. I am quoting her exact words: I know, too, the commitment and sacrifice it took the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office to convict these terrorists in three separate prosecutions. In the first prosecution, some of the petitioners were captured in the back of a van loaded with weapons to be used to commit armed robberies to fund the FALN operations. Now, we have a President who is always talking about some new gun law to apply to some innocent American citizen. Here we have people with a van full of weapons designed to conduct armed robberies to get money to create bombs to kill American citizens, and he cuts their sentences. In the second prosecution, three of the petitioners were caught on videotape in safehouses-- That is where they thought they had a safe house-- making bombs that they planned to plant at military installations. So they had a house set aside to make bombs to blow up a military installation, and the FBI penetrated it, apparently, and videotaped it. Now, I will tell you, there are a lot of people in the Federal penitentiary today who deserve clemency a lot more than these, but only four others have gotten it since this President has been in office, apparently. She goes on to note: Through determination and luck, the FBI was able to obtain search warrants allowing them to surreptitiously disarm those bombs at night. They went in the place and disarmed the bombs as part of the undercover effort. In the third prosecution, the imprisoned leader of the FALN, (whose sentence President Clinton has drastically reduced) led a conspiracy of cooperating radical groups to obtain C-4 explosives to be used to free him from Leavenworth Penitentiary -- He was already in jail and they were going to free him-- and to wage war on the American people. Most of the petitioners were convicted of seditious conspiracy, a prosecution reserved for the most serious conspiracies, that of opposing by force the authority of the United States. Yet the President has seen fit to reward these conspirators simply because they were unsuccessful in their murderous attempts. Well, he said, ``I pardon them because nobody was hurt.'' Now you know why nobody was hurt by this bunch. It was because they were caught in the act before they completed their crime. They were caught with a van load of guns to commit robberies, apparently, before they were able to commit the robberies. They penetrated the bombmaking enterprise and caught them before they could make the bombs. Morally they are as responsible as if they had been able to carry out their intentions. There is no basis to suggest they deserve a lesser punishment or should be relieved of the just sentence that was imposed on them by a Federal judge and had it affirmed by the courts of appeals in full appellate review. It goes on to note that when the news of the clemency petition broke, the White House spun the tale that Mr. Clinton was freeing only those who harmed no one. A few dedicated agents are the only people who stood in their way. That is what Ms. Devaney says. Only a few dedicated agents were there, or they would have harmed someone at the risk of their very lives, I submit to you. The conspirators, she says, made every effort to murder and to maim. It is no small irony that they should be freed under the guise of humanitarianism. Then she goes on. Since the granting of the clemency petition, we have been subjected to the spectacle of convicted terrorists objecting to the conditions precedent to their release. Isn't that a spectacle? Isn't she correct about that? He has given them a pardon--letting them out of jail. And now they are not happy because he asked them not to do violence in the future. That is too much of a burden on them, they say. That is really an embarrassment to this Nation. This Nation is a great nation. The Presidency of the United States is an august office of power and prestige, and the President needs to exercise that power carefully. The world will be laughing at us over this. The world is laughing at this. We ought not to be. We ought to be outraged. Contrast those protestations, she says, with a poignant message of the Connors whose lives were forever diminished by the political murder of their father. There is little anyone can say to give solace, but I would like the Connor family to know that there were those who cared about the victims and fought for them, Ms. Devaney--and those FBI agents--being one of them who fought for them and who believed these crimes were the precursors to heightened domestic terrorism, and who tried very hard to protect the American people. In fact, I will add that this series of prosecutions and tough sentences that were imposed by a courageous Federal judge broke the back of these terrorist acts. We have a safer country today because of it and because of the courage of the people who brought these cases successfully. Then she finished. All of America ought to hear this. This is her last line. I would like the Connor family to know that the American justice system did not fail them. The President did. This is a real serious issue. Justice in this country is extremely important. Out of all the people who are in jail today--all over America in Federal jails, many of them convicted and serving long sentences, some of them might deserve a sentence to be cut every now and then. For some of them maybe their offenses were not so serious that a pardon after some period of time in private life living a good life would be justified. I have supported, in 15 years as a Federal prosecutor, two or three pardons for people who I believe justified it. These were pardons after they had served their time--not letting them out of jail before their time was over--after they had led a good life for a number of years, and only after I thought, after fully evaluating their case, that the offenses were not so serious that a pardon would be improper. Many of those offenses may have been technical offenses, paperwork offenses, or things that were less serious. But to take a terrorist, a person with a truckload of guns, C-4 explosives, and plans to blow up military bases, and give them a pardon over everybody else in the prison system in America--that doesn't make sense to me. There is something afoot here. I think it is important that the First Lady rejected this after the storm blew up. I think we need to know where the Vice President stands on this and what his views are on this. The President has apparently acted. I hope it is not too late for him to change his mind. But if it has been done, it has been done. It is his power. He can do it. And we can't do anything about it. Let me show you what the Department of Justice U.S. Attorneys Manual, section 1-2.108 under the Office of the Pardon Attorney rubric notes about how you determine who deserves clemency. With respect to commutation of sentence--that is what we are talking about here--appropriate grounds for considering clemency include disparity of sentence. Have they received a lot more sentence than somebody else of the same offense? A terminal illness--we don't have that here--and meritorious service on the part of the petitioner in some fashion. Pardons after completion of the sentence usually are granted on the demonstration of good conduct for a significant period of time after release from confinement. The seriousness of the offense, it goes on to say, are factors that should be considered in whether to grant clemency. I think we have a number of things that we need to know about. I hope the Senator from Georgia will be having some hearings about it. We need to know. What did the Attorney General do? Did she recommend for or against this? Frankly, I cannot imagine the Attorney General recommending these pardons. I am going to be shocked if she recommended it. We need to know whether the pardon attorney recommended them or not. He has a duty in this case. Did they even bypass him? You will notice one other thing that is most unusual about how this process was conducted. Here it is in the Code of Federal Regulations-- referring to the same subject--petitions and recommendations: Executive clemency, says the Attorney General, shall review each petition and all pertinent information developed through the investigation. It says ``shall review each petition.'' Is there a petition in this case? From what we have seen in the papers, there was not. These people never even asked for a pardon. They never even petitioned for a pardon to set forth why they are entitled to one. According to the U.S. attorney's manual, the petition initiates a background investigation to see if it is worthwhile to go forward. That, again, is an extraordinary event--the President pardoning 16 convicted terrorists sentenced to a very long time in prison who have not even petitioned for it. I can't imagine that. That is beyond my comprehension. It is a threat and a diminishment to the rule of law in this country. It is an embarrassment to the justice system of our country. I hope we will continue to look into it. We will find out what basis there was for it. We know the FBI opposed this clemency. We know the Federal Bureau of Prisons opposed it. Indeed, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, it is reported, have audio records indicating that some of these 16 have vowed to resume violent activities--recordings made while they were still in prison. And he has pardoned these people? That is beyond my comprehension. Mr. President, I hope that we will proceed with it carefully. It is not a matter that is insignificant. If this is what we call politicizing justice in America, it is sad, and we need to know if that is true. We need to stand up as a nation and as a Senate, reject it, and say we will not condone politics when it comes to justice; we will not do so; we will protect the lives of Americans; we will validate the personal risk this young prosecutor and those FBI agents expended in order to apprehend these criminals and the risk and damage and suffering of the victims throughout the procedure. I hope we can do that, get to the bottom of it, and that the truth will come out. To pardon somebody is so serious, if I were the pardon attorney of the United States and I recommended against these pardons, and then the President of the United States pardoned them, I don't believe I could continue to serve in that administration. I believe I would submit my resignation. Every year there are thousands of requests for pardon and clemency. A lot of them are so much more deserving of this. And the President comes along, for some unknown reason to me as pardon attorney, and grants these pardons to terrorists, and I am supposed to forget that and continue to deny every day young men and women who have served sentences who are so much more deserving of a pardon. What kind of justice system is that? What kind of right and wrong is that? I say to the pardon attorney who is presidentially appointed and confirmed by this Congress: We want to know your position on this. This goes for the Attorney General. We want to know what the Attorney General's recommendation was on this before it got to the President. As someone who loves justice and the legal system of America, as someone who cares about its faithful execution and the laws being fairly and objectively enforced, equal justice under law, I believe we have to talk about this. We cannot let this slide. I congratulate the Senator from Georgia. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee substitute be agreed to.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 265, S. 28.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until the hour of 9:30 a.m. on Friday, September 10. 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 to have expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then begin morning business time with Senators speaking for up to 10 minutes each with the following exceptions: Senator Durbin, or his designee, 9:30 to 10:30; Senator Coverdell, 10:30 to 11:30.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. As in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that the injunction of secrecy be removed from the following convention transmitted to the Senate on September 9, 1999, by the President of the United States: Convention (No. 176) Concerning Safety and Health in Mines (Treaty Document No. 106-8). I further ask that the convention be considered as having been read the first time; that it be referred, with accompanying papers, to the Committee on Foreign Relations and ordered to be printed; and that the President's message be printed in the Record.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. For the information of all Senators, the Senate will convene at 9:30 a.m. and will be in a period of morning business throughout the day. As for next week, it is the intention of the majority leader to complete action on the Interior appropriations bill early next week and to begin consideration of the bankruptcy reform bill as well as any available appropriations bills. As previously announced by the leader, the next series of rollcall votes will occur on Monday, September 13, at 5 p.m.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise today to join with my distinguished colleagues, Senator Enzi and Senator Graham, in offering this important amendment to the fiscal year 2000 Interior appropriations legislation. This is an amendment that should be supported by anyone who is concerned about the issue of gambling, and who also believes that the Federal Government often goes too far in exerting its will on the individual States. I think that the amendment we offer today, which will prohibit taxpayers money from being expended to implement the final rule published on April 12, 1999 at 64 Federal Register 17535, is an important amendment because if it passes it will prohibit the Secretary of the Interior from unilaterally approving the expansion of casino gambling on Tribal land throughout this country, including States, like Alabama, in which a Class III gambling compact has not previously been negotiated. Allow me to briefly share some of my thoughts on the importance of this amendment. As Attorney General of Alabama, I cosigned a letter with 25 other Attorneys General that was sent to the Secretary of the Interior in regards to his promulgation of the rule we seek to block today. Every Attorney General who signed that letter shared the opinion that the Secretary of the Interior did not have the legal authority to take action to promulgate regulations which gave him the authority to allow casino gambling in this manner. In fact, I previously warned the Secretary that if he attempted to implement this rule, he would immediately be sued by States throughout this country in direct challenge to these regulations, resulting in a terrible waste of resources on both the State and Federal level. Unfortunately, my prediction has come true, as the States of Florida and Alabama have filed suit to block the implementation of this rule. This is an important issue for my State, which has a federally recognized tribe and which has not entered into a tribal-State gambling compact. Alabama's citizens have repeatedly rejected attempts to allow casino gambling to occur within our State. However, under the rules that the Secretary of the Interior has promulgated, he has given himself the authority to unilaterally decide whether tribes within the State will be allowed to open casinos, regardless of the opinion of the State itself, despite his obvious conflict of interest, and even in the absence of any bad faith on the part of the States. I fail to see how the Secretary of the Interior can cede himself the authority to make this determination for the people of Alabama. Allow me to quote two points from the legal analysis prepared by the States of Florida and Alabama which highlight these issues: The States of Florida and Alabama point out in their lawsuit that ``under IGRA, an Indian tribe is entitled to nothing other than the expectation that a State will negotiate in good faith. If an impasse is reached in good faith under the statute, the Tribe has no alternative but to go back to the negotiating table and work out a deal. The rules significantly change this by removing any necessity for a finding that a State has failed to negotiate in good faith. The trigger in the rule would allow secretarial procedures in the case where no compact is reached within 180 days and the State imposes its Eleventh Amendment immunity.'' Additionally the States' challenge points out the problems associated with the Secretary of Interior's conflict of interest. In their argument the States point out that ``the rules at issue here arrogate to the Secretary the power to decide factual and legal disputes between States and Indian Tribes related to those rights. Pursuant to 25 USC Section 2 and Section 9, the Secretary of the Interior stands in a trust relationship to the Indian tribes of this nation. The rules set up the Secretary, who is the Tribes' trustee and therefore has an irreconcilable conflict of interest as the judge of these disputes. Therefore, the rules, on their face, deny the States due process and are invalid.'' Both of these points help to illustrate just how badly flawed the regulation proposed by the Secretary of the Interior is, and help underscore why Congress should be vigilant in ensuring it cannot be utilized. Why is this issue so important to my State? Because in giving himself the ability to decide whether to allow tribal Class III gambling in a State, the Secretary of Interior has given himself the ability to impose great social and economic burdens on local communities throughout Alabama. Let me share with you a letter that the mayor of Wetumpka, Jo Glenn, whose community is home to property owned by a tribe, wrote me in reference to the undue burdens her town would face if the Secretary were to step in and authorize casino gambling. Mayor Glenn writes: Our infrastructure and police and fire departments could not cope with the burdens this type of activity would bring. The demand for greater social services that comes to areas around gambling facilities could not be adequately funded. Please once again convey to Secretary Babbitt our city's strong and adamant opposition to the establishment of an Indian Gambling facility here. Mayor Glenn's concerns have been seconded by other communities. Let me share with you an editorial that appeared in the Montgomery Advertiser in regards to regulations being discussed today. The Advertiser wrote: Direct Federal negotiations with tribes without State involvement would be an unjustifiably heavy handed imposition of authority on Alabama. The decision whether to allow gambling here is too significant a decision economically, politically, socially to be made in the absence of extensive State involvement. A casino in Wetumpka--not to mention the others that would undoubtedly follow in other parts of the State--has implications far too great to allow the critical decisions to be reached in Washington. Alabama has to have a hand in this high stakes game. Mr. President, the States of Alabama and Florida were correct to challenge this regulatory proposal, and the writers of the above quoted letter and editorial were correct when they voiced their objections to it. We should not allow the Secretary of the Interior to promulgate rules giving himself the authority to impose drastic economic, political and social costs on our local communities, and we should take steps now to ensure that he is unable to do so. I urge my colleagues' support for the Graham-Enzi amendment.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I have been honored to join the Armed Services Committee this year. Senator Warner just took over as its new chairman. Some said we did not do anything the first part of the year, but even before the impeachment hearings came, Senator Warner knew that we had a crisis in our defense circumstances. He has served as Secretary of the Navy. He loves this country, and he loves our men and women in uniform. He decided early that we had to send a signal to reverse this 13-year trend of cutting our defense budgets, and he did that with great leadership. We have now a very healthy pay raise this year for our men and women, a guaranteed pay raise in excess of the inflation rate for the next 5 years for our men and women in the services. We want to send them a message that we are concerned about the rapid deployments that they are undergoing and the amount of time they spend away from their families. And we want to continue to monitor that. I want to say how much I have enjoyed serving with the Senator. Members of both parties respect him and enjoy working with him.

Mr. SESSIONS. Yes.