Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I associate myself with the excellent analysis by Senator Hatch. He chairs the Judiciary Committee. He has had hearings on this very problem. I think he has explained the situation very well. We need, in the course of dealing with computer Y2K problems, a uniform national rule. That is what we are attempting to do here. One of the great problems for the computer industry is that they are subject to 50 different State laws. The question is, Can they be unfairly abused in the process of massive litigation? I suggest that they could be, and actually that the entire industry could be placed in serious jeopardy. I recall the hearings we had in the Judiciary Committee on asbestos. There were 200,000 asbestos cases already concluded, and 200,000 more are pending. Some say another 200,000 may be filed. What we know, however, is that in that litigation 70 percent of the asbestos companies are now in bankruptcy. We do not have all the lawsuits completed yet. We also know that only 40 percent of the money they paid out actually got to the victims of this asbestos disease. That is not the way to do it, and that is what is going to happen in this case. What the Senator from North Carolina is basically arguing is for each State to keep its own economic loss rule, as I would understand his argument. But the problem with this is that a clever State could run out tomorrow and change its economic loss rule, or the court could rule and allow a few States to drain this industry, while other States are maintaining the national rule. First and foremost, the economic loss rule is a traditional rule of law. This statute basically says that. We will use a national rule for economic loss. It is a significant issue because we are blurring the differences between tort and contract. Alabama used to have common law pleading in which they were very careful about how you pled a case. You had to plead in contract or you had to plead in tort. If you pled in contract, you were entitled to certain damages. If you pled in tort, you were entitled to other damages. But you had to prove different elements under each one to get a recovery. The courts have said certain actions are not tort and certain action are not contract--they are only one. This legislation that is proposed would say, let's accept the national rule, the rule that has been clearly approved by the U.S. Supreme Court. Senator Hatch quoted from the U.S. Supreme Court in a unanimous verdict in approving this economic loss rule. I think it would be a big mistake for us to go back to the 50-State rule instead of the uniform rule so that we can get through this one problem, the Y2K problem, and limit liability and focus our attention on fixing the problem rather than lawsuits. If we have lawsuits in every single county in America, we are not going to have 200,000, we are going to have 400,000, or more. We have to end that. I know my time is up.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, this amendment simply provides that rule 704 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which most States have adopted-- as a matter of fact, I think no more than a handful have not adopted Federal Rules of Evidence, and most of those have adopted 704; it happens that the State of Alabama did not adopt rule 704. Particularly with regard to these Y2K cases, I think rule 704 would be an appropriate rule of evidence. It allows the introductions of analyses and reports by parties to the litigation that would indicate whether or not the entity that is involved had or had not taken adequate steps toward curing the Y2K problem, whether or not they actually have moved in that direction in a sufficient way. It could be the defense or, on the other side, assist the plaintiff. I think this would be a good amendment and bring Alabama's law and perhaps a handful of other State laws into compliance, into uniformity in this Y2K bill. We worked hard to have support across the aisle. I thank my colleagues, both Democrats and Republicans, for their courtesy and interest in dealing with this problem. I think we have developed language, after a number of changes, that will leave most people happy. I hope this amendment will be accepted. I know some Members will want to review this amendment before next week when we have a final vote.

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator from Washington, and I thank him for his leadership on this important issue dealing with an economic problem that could place one of America's greatest industries in jeopardy. I believe this is an important piece of legislation. I thank Senator Gorton for his leadership.

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, this country is facing an unusual and very dangerous legal situation. I understand and appreciate the details given by the Senators as they have debated the nature of contracts and damages and economic loss rule and negligence as compared to contract law. It is pretty complex. Historically, we have created rules under which to file. For contracts, you have burden of proof. If you file under tort, you have another standard you have to prove. All of those are complex, and we ought to be openminded to make sure we are proceeding in a way so as to create a statute that is effective and will achieve what we want. It is time for us to face up to the fact that we do need some change in this Y2K computer problem. Our Nation is facing a real challenge. We could end up with massive litigation in every single county in America: lawyers on both sides filing lawsuits arguing over how much business was lost in this grocery store, how much this bank lost; arguing over punitive damages, standards of proof; the computer companies situated in one State are having to defend themselves against 50 separate State laws; sometimes individual judges within individual States, if they do not have guidance, may rule differently than one expects them to rule. Under the circumstances of this situation, as a person who does believe States ought to do those things they do best, and the Federal Government ought not to take over, when we are dealing with the computer industry--which is not only interstate but international and is a fundamental source of our productivity increases--that industry can be sued thousands of times throughout the country, and as a result, they will be weakened economically, they will be substantially less able to fix a problem that may occur and will spend more and more time with lawyers and on litigation than they need. We need to create a system which focuses on fixing the problem, and that does mean changing the way we have to do business for this one problem for a maximum of 3 years. This is what we need to do. We do not need to allow our Nation to assault from every possible venue that exists in this country the computer industry, which Alan Greenspan has indicated is one of the primary reasons for our productivity increases as a nation, why our Nation is doing better than other nations, and why we need to keep it that way. I see the distinguished Senator from Arizona has arrived. There may be some time remaining. I will be glad to yield the floor to him.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Five.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, today the valiant men and women of our Armed Forces are in their third month of deployment for Operation Allied Force in Yugoslavia and Kosovo. However, in these final months of this Century, when you say Armed Forces, you are not referring merely to our Active Duty forces. In nearly every situation concerning our Nation's defense forces, when you speak of Armed Forces you also must include the Reserve Components. As Secretary Cohen and General Shelton have asserted, the Armed Forces cannot undertake any significant deployment without the citizen-soldiers of the Reserves and the National Guard, together we call them the Reserve Components. For example, 2,937 reservists are currently deployed world-wide on operational deployments; 1,000 reservists have supported Operation Uphold Democracy in Haiti; 12,000 reservists have deployed to Bosnia; annually 20,000 reservists deploy to world-wide training sites. When we look at these figures in light of the major missions the reserves have been involved in since Desert Storm to Operation Southern Watch , for instance, reserve participation has gone up for some elements from a Desert Storm high of 33% to a high of 51% of the overall force deployed in later operations. To bring this point even closer to home, the President just called up two weeks ago 33,100 reservists for duties in support of the air operations over Kosovo and Serbia. So, for those of us who find it imperative to provide our Armed Forces with the resources that they need to carry out our Nation's increasingly diverse military responsibilities, this means providing all of our components, Active, Reserve, and National Guard with the leadership structure that they need. Mr. President, it would be my wish to tell you today that we could count on the leadership of the Department of Defense to provide all of the components of our Armed Forces with the resources they need, be it equipment, personnel, or training. Unfortunately, while the leadership means well, and I am sure is trying to do the right thing for each component, in a number of areas at the end of the day the Active Components are doing far better from a resourcing standpoint than are the Reserve Components. This is because when the services sit down at the table to allocate resources the cards are stacked, I am afraid, heavily in favor the active component missions and requirements. How this happens can be attributed to the inequity of the rank those officers who make the resource decisions at the senior levels. It is at these levels that the Active Duty forces have an overwhelming advantage rank and in the power of the advocates who design the missions, provide and train the manpower, and who get establish the requirements for equipment and resources, as well as installations from which they project combat power. In the Armed Forces there is a very simple way to measure power, you can count the senior officers--specifically the generals and admirals who make the decisions for their components. In the Army there are a total of 307 general officers. In the Air Force the number is 282. When compared to the 118 United States Army Reserve General Officers and the 75 United States Air Force Reserve General Officers or the 195 Army National Guard General Officers of whom only 92 have Federal Recognition there appears to be an inequity when it comes to the Reserve Components. In the case of the Army, Air Force, Marine and Navy Reserves, there are no four or three star positions. In the case of the National Guard, the answer is one three star--- the Chief of the National Guard Bureau who represents both the Army and the Air National Guard. This means that in the case of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps Reserves and the Army and Air Force National Guard, each component's home team advocate is merely a two-star. I do not choose the phase ``merely a two-star'' by accident. ``Merely'' is an apt word when you are talking about the fight for resources in the Pentagon. When programming and budgeting decisions are made within the services, the existing rank structure excludes the Reserve chiefs from what I consider to be full participation in deliberations, which are the realm of three-star participants. The Reserve chiefs are relegated to the periphery and must rely on a higher-ranking participant at the table to champion their cause. They cannot speak for themselves or their components unless asked. Now, this is wrong in my opinion and a classic example of how the Reserve chiefs are restricted from actively participating in the decision making process. Furthermore, the two-star Reserve Component commanders exercise their preeminent authority over other senior commanders of their components who also wear two stars. While the Reserve and Guard chiefs, by necessity, have made this situation work, this arrangement is considered exceptional everywhere but in the Reserve Components. Let me give you a compelling example of the inequity I am speaking of by looking closely at but one of our Reserve Components, the Army Reserve: The Chief, Army Reserve, or the CAR as he is commonly known, is responsible for more than 20 percent of the Army's personnel. The same applies for the Chief of the Navy Reserve. The CAR commands a total Army Reserve force of over a million soldiers. Of those soldiers over 415,000 are in the Ready Reserve and of those billets, nearly 205,000 are in the ever more frequently deployed Selected Reserve. Don't let anybody use the outdated pejorative ``weekend warrior'' for these citizen soldiers. Granted, when not deployed, they are not 24- hour-a-day troops. Nevertheless, the CAR also commands nearly 19,000 full-time support personnel plus nearly 4,400 Department of the Army Civilians, or DA civilians. In contrast an Active Component four-star, yes, a four-star general in the field commands an average of 48,400 troops plus DA civilians. An active component three-star general in the field commands lesser number of troops, plus civilians, but only 3 percent of that commanded by the Chief, Army Reserve. The Chief, Army Reserve, in the exercise of his preeminent authority over the other senior commanders of his component is also responsible for evaluating 57 brigadier generals and 42 major generals. In contrast an active component four-star, yes, four-star general in the field is responsible for evaluating an average of 31 brigadier generals and 10 major generals. An active component three-star general or admiral in the field is responsible for evaluating an average of only 7 brigadier generals and only 2 major generals. The Chief, Army Reserve has full responsibility for $3.5 billion of fiscal year 1999 appropriations--nearly triple that ($1.2 billion) of a three-star general in the field and over 62% of that ($5.6 billion) of a four-star general in the field. Currently the Army National Guard provides 54 percent of the Army's combat forces, 46 percent of the Combat Support capability, and about one third of the Combat Service Support forces. Likewise, the Air National Guard is a fully integrated partner in the Air Force providing 49 percent of the theater airlift capability, 45 percent of the aerial tanker forces, 34 percent of the fighters and 36 percent of the Air Rescue resources. The Air Force Reserve, 74,000 strong, notably has been the second largest major command in the USAF since it was elevated to that status in 1997. Only the Air Combat Command, with its 90,000 personnel is larger, and, of the other eight major Air Force commands, seven are commanded by 4-star generals. Only the smallest, the Special Operations Command with fewer than 10,000 personnel, is commanded by a major general. Prior to Desert Storm the Air Force Reserve had been involved in 10 contingencies. However, since the Gulf War, it has been involved in over 30 contingency, nation-building and peacekeeping operations. The Air Force Reserve provides the Air Force 20 percent of its capability. Air Force Reserve Command aircrews serve over 125 days a year on average; support personnel serve over 60. The Commander Naval Reserve serves in a billet that, in the past, actually was filled by a vice admiral and reports directly to the Chief of Naval Operations, which is not even typical for a Navy three-star admiral. He is responsible for software development and acquisition for the Navy's Manpower and Personnel information systems. The Naval Reserve is responsible for: five percent of the Navy's total complement of ships and aircraft, 100 percent of intra-theater air logistics, 100 percent of the Navy's harbor surface and subsurface surveillance forces, 90 percent of the Navy's Expeditionary Logistics Support Force, 47 percent of the Navy's combat search and rescue capability, and 35 percent of the Navy's total airborne ocean surveillance capability. The Commander, Marine Force Reserve commands over 40,000 personnel and provides 20 percent of all U.S. ground divisions and 13 percent of all U.S. tactical air. The Marine Corps Reserve provides the Marine Corps the following: 100 percent of the adversary aircraft, 100 percent of the civil affairs groups, 50 percent of the theater missile defense, 50 percent of the tanks, 40 percent of the force reconnaissance, 40 percent of the air refueling, and 30 percent of the artillery. We find similar core competencies in the Army Reserve where the USAR provides 97% of Civil Affairs units, 81% of all psychological units, 100% of Chemical Brigades, 75% of Chemical battalions; and 85% of all medical brigades or roughly 47% of all Army Combat Service Support. What are the implications for the Reserve Components? Well, when reserve commanders, by virtue of their ranks, are outgunned so to speak by active counterparts, it means that the men and women in the Reserve Components, which are deploying with ever- increasing frequency, might be deploying with less than the best resources because of the type of unit, where it fits in the equipping matrix or the deployment matrix. I am gravely concerned that ALL TROOPS regardless of component receive the training they need before they deploy. I am concerned you see because I was an Army reservist for 13 years and understand what it means to be on the short end of things they need like professional development training or speciality training. Admittedly, in some cases there are valid reasons for these disparities. In other cases there are not. What is clearly needed is a level playing field to ensure that the limited defense resources, whether equipment, personnel, or training slots, are fairly distributed. Because the nation has come to depend to such a great extent on the readiness of the Reserves and the National Guard, decisions taken within the Pentagon must be discussed, made and agreed to among individuals more nearly alike in authority. To expect a two-star major general to compete equally with three- and four-star generals is unrealistic. To not compete for funds on an equal basis is to guarantee the component is under-capitalized for the mission it is asked to perform. The need for three star ranks for the Reserve and Guard chiefs has been understood for years. In 1989, a study by General William Richardson recommended elevation of the Chief, Army Reserve to (four- star) general. In 1992 the Hay Group, which reviewed all Reserve Component general and flag officer billets, specifically recommended elevation of the Chiefs of the Army, Navy and Air Force Reserves and the Directors of the Army and Air Force National Guard to three-star rank. In 1992, an independent commission chaired by General John Foss, USA (Ret) recommended elevation of the CAR to lieutenant general. The 1997 Defense Authorization Act directed the Secretary of Defense report to Congress not later than six months after enactment the recommended grades for the Reserve and Guard chiefs. It is now May 1999 and we have yet to see the report called for in the 1997 statute. So, you can see my point. We have waited patiently for DoD to send us a report upon which to make a full evaluation on general officer positions and it hasn't arrived. More deliberation and delay is sought. I say NO. It is time to take action--NOW. This is why I am offering this command equity amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000. My amendment will make the positions of the Chiefs of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps Reserve and the Directors of the Army and Air National Guard carry the three-star ranks. Each of them absolutely must have it to ensure success and proper resources given the realities of today. Incumbents will be promoted and their successors will be promoted to three-star ranks upon confirmation by this body. A valid argument can be made that the Army and Air Force already have all the three-star generals (45 and 37 respectively) that they need and while the active army, for instance, has reduced its overall general officers from a 407 in 1991 to 307 in 1999 to correspond with changes in force structure and missions, the reserves conversely need these grade increases to correspond with increases in assigned world-wide missions, contingency deployments and need for greater share of resources. Accordingly, my command equity amendment, while creating a few more three star positions, does not exacerbate that situation by increasing the overall numbers of senior officers in the Army or Air Force. This over abundance of high grade officers is not the case for the Navy and the Marines, who are not now flush with senior grade billets; therefore, my amendment does provide new billets that the Navy and Marines really would need. Mr. President, I am very pleased today that Chairman Warner, Senator Levin, and others who have been working on this bill have seen it fitting to agree and to accept as an amendment that there will be a series of three-star ranks given to the Reserve Forces of the United States. That is a critically important matter. For a few minutes, I would like to explain why it is equitable and fair and why this will be an important step forward for the Reserves. I served for 13 years in the Army Reserve. In the unit I served there was a chief of staff. I remember getting out after 13 years and he remained in and was activated for 6 months for Desert Storm. Reservists all over America, like those in the 11-84 transportational unit, are being deployed; 33,000 have now been called up for the Kosovo activities. In Desert Storm, in Kuwait, the Iraq war, 33 percent of the forces committed to that war were Reserves or National Guard. I am including National Guard when I talk about the Reserve components. They play a critical role. Yet, in our allocation of rank, they have not been treated, in my opinion, fairly. It impacts on them when they seek to make sure that the interests of the National Guard and Reserves are properly taken care of. When the brass sits around the table and decides how we are going to deal with the limited amount of resources available, the Army Reserve, the Naval Reserve, the Air Force Reserve and the Marine Reserve--their officers sit there with just two stars. They do not have the same level of clout that they would otherwise have. I would like to share a few things with you. I have some charts that deal primarily with the United States Army Reserve, but the numbers are similar regarding the Navy, Air Force, and the National Guard units. The Chief of the Army Reserve is now a two-star general. In the course of his duties, he is required to evaluate 57 brigadier generals. That is one star, and there are 42 major generals with two stars just like himself. That is a responsibility he has, whereas in the Active Army a four-star general is only required to evaluate 31 brigadier generals, one star, and ten major generals, two stars. This shows you what a four-star has responsibility for and what the Chief of Army Reserve has. In the Active Army, a three-star general is responsible for evaluating an average of just seven brigadier generals and two major generals, but he has a higher rank than the Chief of the Army Reserve who has to rate 57 brigadiers and 42 major generals. It strikes me that we have gone a little bit too far in containing the rank available for the important position of Chief of Army Reserve. The Chief of the Army Reserve also, for example, has full responsibility for $3.372 billion in the fiscal year 1999 appropriations. That is nearly triple that of a field three-star general, and over 62 percent, almost as much, as a four-star field active-duty general. An active three-star general's prorated share of the Active Army 1999 appropriations is a mere $1 million. Let me show you this chart. I think it again adds some impact to what I am saying. The General Chief of the Army Reserve commands over 1 million total Army reserves. Those include those who are in retired status, subject to being recalled; the active reservists, which has 200,000; the ready reserves, which are subject to a more immediate callup; plus 18,000 FTS personnel and nearly 4,300 civilian personnel; whereas a field Active Army four-star commands an average of only 48,000 troops plus civilians. So you can begin to see the situation we are facing. I do not believe it reflects a proper balance. Two years ago, the Appropriations Committee asked the Department of Defense to submit an analysis of this situation for improvement. That report has not been received as requested. It seems to me plainly obvious that we need at least three-star generals in charge of the Army Reserve and the Naval Reserve--a three- star general for Army Reserve, Naval Reserve, and Air Force Reserve, Marine Reserve. There is one three-star general in the National Guard. Because of their large size--they are bigger than any one of the other components--we believe they need two three-star generals. With that, I believe we will have a more appropriate balance in the leadership and rank in our Defense Department. I thank the Chair.

Mr. SESSIONS. That is correct. In fact, there are 45, now, three-star generals in the Army. This would only involve two of those.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, funding for Ballistic Missile Defense Technology has been in a steady decline since Fiscal Year 1992, with the Army part of the budget down approximately 70% during this period. All indications are that it appears technology funding is headed for further descent in the future. The Ballistic Missile Defense Technology program is in the category of research and development, a category that bridges the gap between basic research and full-scale weapon system development and it is critical to preventing technical obsolescence and to meeting emerging threats. Historically, this applied research in the area of ballistic Missile Defense has been vital to the evolution of systems that are being developed and deployed today to meet an ever-growing missile threat. It is the wellspring of new defense systems and the source of demonstrated technology that is needed to make upgrades to systems already in the field. The emphasis in the Ballistic Defense Technology program for the past 7 to 8 years has been on acquisition, getting systems developed and fielded. Following Desert Storm in 1991, it was clear that ballistic missiles were a real threat and that the problem of proliferation of these missiles would be of grave concern for many years to come. There were understandable calls to rapidly build defense systems to counter this threat. While this emphasis is on deployment certainly justified by the pace and scale of the threat, it has resulted in a serious reduction in the advanced development budget. This means the missile defense systems entering the inventory today are the products of laboratories of the services over a number of years, in some cases over a span of 20 or more years. If we are to remain the world's leader in missile systems, it is imperative that we do all we can to stop this dramatic erosion of Ballistic Missile Defense Advanced Technology funding and strengthen the chain of development upon which future defense capability depends. We are indeed ``eating our seed corn'' when we pull from our research efforts to fund the deployment of systems or carry out other military missions such as those found in the contingency operation arena such as Bosnia or Kosovo. This Sense of the Congress calls upon the Secretary of Defense to take a hard look at the Future Years Defense Program to ensure that funding in the future years defense program is adequate for both advanced ballistic missile defense technology development and for existing ballistic defense major defense acquisition and improvement programs. To that end we look forward to the Secretary's report by March 15th, 2000 on his plan for dealing with the matters identified in the amendment. amendment no. 493 (Purpose: To require a report regarding National Missile Defense) In title II, at the end of subtitle C, add the following:

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Some change is necessary. I certainly agree with that.

Mr. SESSIONS. I am aware of some of those allegations.

Mr. SESSIONS. I was hoping that perhaps we could get with the Air Force one more time, and maybe they would be amenable to improving this amendment to give them maybe more certainty or more prompt resolution of it and get this matter settled. I think that is going to be important. I want to maintain the vitality and the attractiveness of the Civil Air Patrol and the many thousands of volunteers that do so much. We want to increase accountability. We want to increase their responsibility to professionally manage every dollar. They are an agency that receives our funding, and we have every right to expect rigorous accountability. I would like to develop a system in which the Air Force feels comfortable. I think we are close to that. Maybe we can reach that.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I think it is time to reevaluate the way the Civil Air Patrol is supervised. I am inclined to think that the Air Force justifies and makes a good case for tighter accountability and for maybe more direct ultimate control over how the Civil Air Patrol operates. But, as Senator Allard has eloquently discussed, it is a popular volunteer agency that we don't want to become too bureaucratic, else we may lose the popularity that is involved with it. I hope before we vote on this--I suspect the vote is set for tomorrow, is that correct, not tonight?

Mr. SESSIONS. I favor that. I certainly favor full investigation of every allegation of wrongdoing. I believe that Senator Allard's amendment calls for that. I think the difference would be: Are we prepared tonight to make the final decision about how this reorganization occurs or should we get a GAO report and an IG report first?

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator. I have supported Senator Allard's amendment, because, as I understand it, it calls for a GAO evaluation and an inspector general investigation for the potential wrongdoing.

Mr. SESSIONS. Two or 3 minutes.

Mr. SESSIONS. I appreciate and respect the insight of the Senator from Oklahoma, because he has stood steadfastly for good defense, and he knows this issue exceedingly well. Again, I think maybe we can reach a compromise that would give us some opportunity to review the reorganization and the structure.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator from Kansas.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Kansas for bringing forward a very critical amendment. I spent 17 years as a U.S. attorney or assistant U.S. attorney, representing the United States in court. I am looking at the legal implications of this amendment as a lawyer for the United States. What we are doing here is very, very historic. This Congress has ratified a defensive treaty. We are moving into a new world. We are looking at an entirely different approach to life, and the President is unilaterally expanding the commitments of this Nation under the guise of a new NATO that is involved in new missions, as the Senator from Oklahoma has just noted; committing us solemnly with the same depth of commitment that we put our lives, our fortunes, and our honor to preserve the integrity of democracy against totalitarian communism for all of these years. That is what is being asked here. To have that done without full debate and full approval of this Congress is astounding and would represent a major legal erosion of the powers of the Senate and the Congress, particularly the Senate, to review these matters. So I cannot express too strongly how important it is this Senate reassert its historic responsibility to advise and consent to involvement in these kind of foreign policies. Once the President commits us, we pay for it. Right now this action in Kosovo amounts to 19 NATO nations meeting and deciding how to deploy the U.S. Air Force. We are paying for this war in their own backyard, and they are voting on how to conduct it. We simply have to get a better grip on it.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize one of Alabama's great native sons, Dr. George Vernon Irons, Sr., and to acknowledge the eulogy by Dr. James D. Moebes, given at his funeral service on July 21, 1998. A native of Demopolis, Dr. Irons was Distinguished Professor of History and Political Science, Samford University, 43 years, Distinguished Professor Emeritus, 22 years--a Samford record. Dr. Irons taught not only history but how to make history--teaching 17 students who become university presidents--more than any educator. Dr. Irons was also one of Alabama's true athletic greats--the only distance man--the only University of Alabama track man--ever inducted into the Alabama Sports Hall of Fame. Mr. President, only three men have been inducted into the Alabama Sports Hall of Fame on the first ballot: Ralph Shug Jordan, Paul Bear Bryant and Dr. George Irons. He was its oldest member at age 95. Mr. President, Dr. Irons was truly an institution in himself. He first came to Howard College (now Samford University) in Birmingham in 1933. When Dr. Irons reported to Howard College, the school was in serious financial trouble owing a half million dollars. Dr. Irons gave a wealth of leadership, dedication and promise, sorely needed by Howard. The rest of history. Today Samford University is the largest privately endowed Baptist school in the world; largest Baptist pharmacy school in the world. The only Baptist university in America with an inspiring domed school of divinity on its campus. Born in Demopolis, Dr. Irons taught at Duke University for two years before joining Samford. Dr. Irons was a founding member of the Alabama Historical Association in 1947 and attended the 50th anniversary of the organization last year in Birmingham. He was also a member of the Southern Historical Association, Alabama Baptist Historical Association, Birmingham-Jefferson Historical Society and John H. Forney Historical Society. Dr. Irons historical writings were published by those organizations. He was past president of the Alabama Writer's Conclave and received a distinguished service award from that organization in 1977. He also served as Vice President of the Alabama Academy of Science. Dr. Irons was awarded the George Washington Honor Medal from Freedom's at Valley Forge, Pennsylvania, in 1962 and the George Washington Honor Award in 1963. He was Director of Samford's Freedom Foundation Program which won a record seventeen consecutive awards. The Samford yearbook, Entre Nous, was dedicated by the Samford student body to Dr. Irons, and unprecedented four times during his teaching career--in 1941, 1960, 1969, and 1974. He served as a member of the Jefferson County Judicial Commission from 1961 to 1965, selecting circuit judges for the largest judicial circuit in Alabama. Dr. Irons was selected to Who's Who in America, Who's Who in the South and Southwest, Who's Who in American Education and Directory of American Scholars. Dr. Irons is a true Alabama sports legend. In the early 1920's, the prowess of the Alabama Crimson Tide football had ebbed. However, Crimson Tide track and distance star, George Irons, kept the athletic flame burning at the Capstone as its ``Knight of the Cinderpath.'' The late Senator John Sparkman, a classmate of Irons, said, ``George Irons was all we had to cheer about--if it hadn't been for Irons, athletics would have been pretty boring back then.'' His athletic feats have been heralded by legendary Coach Paul ``Bear'' Bryant as ``truly outstanding athletic achievements,'' Coach Wallace Wade (three time Rose Bowl winner) as the ``greatest distance runner of his day,'' and Coach Hank Crisp as ``self-made distance star for the Alabama Crimson Tide.'' In 1923, he was described by those who knew him best--his fellow classmates at the University of Alabama, including the late U.S. Senator John Sparkman: ``George Irons: The South's greatest distance runner and a scholarly Christian gentleman. He is one of the true greats of Alabama athletic history, an honor man in scholarship and a record breaking athlete-- that is a real man--our Knight of the Cinderpath.'' [The Corolla, 1923.] At his interment ceremonies Dr. Irons received full military honors. A 21 gun salute was fired and taps bugled in honor of his valiant service in World War II, rising to the rank of Colonel, with 33 years active and reserve duty. It's no surprise his life had such brilliant radiance. No surprise his devoted valiant service was so broad in scope. Devoted service to: Family. His wife, Velma Wright Irons, a distinguished educator in her own right--sons, Dr. George Vernon Irons, Jr., Charlotte, North Carolina, a practicing cardiologist and William Lee Irons, a prominent Birmingham attorney. Both have left notable marks on their professions of medicine and law. Parenthetically, Dr. George V. Irons, Sr., and his son, William L. Irons, are the only father-son listing selected to the 1998 Who's Who in America from the entire State of Alabama--yet another record for this remarkable man. Alma Mater. The University of Alabama--where he established his name in crimson flame as ``one of the true greats in Alabama's famed athletic history.'' A Phi Beta Kappa honors student, Irons was the University of Alabama's--the State of Alabama--nominee for the Rhodes Scholarship to England in 1924. Since the University's founding in 1831, only seven athletes have been selected to become a member of Phi Beta Kappa. College. Dr. Irons was a key player in seeing Howard College grow from a financially distressed school, to the largest privately endowed Baptist university in the world--an internationally acclaimed university. Dr. Irons was elected by the Samford University Faculty to serve as Grand Marshall of all academic, graduation and commencement exercises. Leading the academic processionals for fifteen years, carrying the silver scepter, symbol of Samford University's authority--Dr. Irons wore brilliant blue academic gowns and silks with dignity and distinction. In 1976, the Samford University Faculty wrote in the University's records by Resolution: ``In the long history of Samford University, Dr. Irons must be ranked at the very top in terms of his widespread beneficent influence, the love that former students evidence from him, and his impeccable character and qualities of modesty, humility, kindness and selfless service to the University. [Samford University Resolution (1976)] Country. Dr. Irons distinguished himself in World War II, rising to the rank of Colonel, defending his Nation for a third of the 20th Century in war and peace. God. Dr. Irons gave tireless service to his Church as deacon, Sunday School teacher and Chairman of the Board of Deacons, and was elected as lifetime Deacon, Southside Baptist Church. His life reflects his depth of devotion in word, thought and deed--an icon of virtue--a legendary role model for generations of Samford students spanning over half a century. Mr. President, America salutes Dr. George Vernon Irons, Sr., as record breaking champion athlete for his alma mater, the University of Alabama, as Colonel, World War II, who defended his Nation for a third of the 20th century in war and peace, as Distinguished Professor, 43 years, Distinguished Professor Emeritus, 22 years, as Grand Marshall, Samford University, elected by the Faculty to preside over all commencement and academic exercises, as one of its most admired leaders in its proud history. America salutes Dr. Irons for his character, devotion to cause, exemplary standards of honor, duty and integrity. America proudly salutes Dr. George Vernon Irons, Sr., one of Alabama's greatest native sons, whose life of devoted service is an inspiration to all Americans.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise in support of Senator Enzi's bill to offset the supplemental appropriations bill. Senator Enszi's bill is consistent with my belief that we must pay for this emergency supplemental bill with offsets. Mr. President, under the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Congress, the President, and the American people agreed to cap the growth of our Government's spending programs. In doing this we were able to balance the budget and head down the path of fiscal responsibility. We have agreed under the law to these spending caps. We should not now turn our backs on the commitment we made to the American people, by going back on our word and breaking this agreement with them. Because of this commitment to the American people, Congress must not bust these spending caps. In that same vein, at the zenith of our success to have finally balanced the Federal Government's budget for the first time in 29 years, we ought not look to spend $13 billion we don't have. We can ill afford to use our first wave of surpluses, especially the surpluses garnered from the Social Security trust fund to pay for this supplemental. We can ill afford at this critical juncture to break our pledge to our seniors over social security, not to the public over keeping our budgets balanced. In closing Mr. President, I believe Senator Enzi's bill, of which I am an original cosponsor, is right on the mark. We need to use common sense in budgeting in our Nation's Capitol. Granted we have several emergencies confronting us, from the disasters that have hit our constituents across the land, the need to increase FEMA's funding to meet these needs, desperately needed funds for our farmers--including my provision to the bill that will help our farmers to qualify for disaster funds, up to the need to support our troops in Kosovo. But--we must pay the bill. I support Senator Enzi and our other cosponsors, by calling for reduced spending in other federal programs in order to fund these necessary emergencies. This is truly the only way this Congress can justify spending money we don't have.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Utah, who is a master legislator, who took this bill through storms none of us expected would occur. This was an emotional time in America. It has generated an awful lot of amendments and ideas, some of which are good and some of which I frankly think are not healthy. I believe we need to focus on prosecuting criminals who use guns. It always galled me as a former Federal prosecutor myself that here this administration blamed the Congress for not passing more laws when their own Department of Justice had allowed prosecutions of gun cases to drop 40 percent. You wonder why we are passing laws if they are not using them. Those were some of the matters that came up. My vision for this bill from the beginning was to create a Federal program to assist the local juvenile justice systems in America. We put money where these judges and prosecutors and probation officers are overwhelmed by the huge crush of juvenile cases. We have increased funding dramatically for adult programs for crimefighting but we have not done the same for juveniles. Those juveniles, then, come on and become adult criminals. I hope everybody in America who cares about what is happening will ask how their juvenile court system is doing. Does the judge in their town have an option when a child is arrested to send them to prison, detention, boot camp, alternative schools, drug treatment, mental health, family counseling? Can the judge impose that? Can he impose a probation order and then have the resources to make sure that youngster is at home at night at 7 like he ordered, or do we do like most courts in America, because they do not have enough resources, so orders are written but nobody enforces them? If we love these children, if we care about these children, when they are arrested, we will drug test them, because if they are using drugs, they are going to continue in the life of crime. Sixty-seven to 70 percent of the people in America who are arrested for a felony test positive for an illegal drug. It is an accelerant to crime. This legislation does that kind of thing. It provides money for drug testing. It provides money for recordkeeping. We hope every juvenile court system in America will input criminal history records into the Federal NCIC, National Crime Information Center, that the FBI manages. They want these records because these children move around and some of them are very violent. Those records need to be maintained. This bill provides for that. It provides for research on which programs are working. Many of them are not successful, according to the Department of Justice, and we need to make sure these prevention programs are working well. It provides for research for that. I am of a belief that this legislation--and it can use some work in conference, and I know Senator Hatch and others will try to improve it--can help us create a better juvenile justice system so we can intervene effectively at the first arrest. We can make that youngster's first brush with the law their last because we deal with them seriously and not as a revolving door. Sometimes we have to use some form of detention because some of these kids just will not mind otherwise. We know that. They have multiple arrests. I believe we have made some progress. I am honored to have worked with Senator Leahy, Senator Biden, and certainly Senator Hatch, the chairman of our committee. He is an outstanding legislator, a man of integrity and principle, and an outstanding constitutional lawyer who cares about his country and serves it well every day. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, Senator Hatch chairs the Judiciary Committee. It would be the responsibility of that committee to give oversight to the COPS Program. It has been a 5-year program and requires a reauthorization. We just received, within the last month or 6 weeks, an inspector general's report from the Department of Justice. This is President Clinton's Department of Justice. It raised serious concerns about how this program is being managed and administered. When 78 percent of the recipients could not demonstrate they redeployed officers, or could not demonstrate they had a system in place to track the redeployment of officers in the community policing, then we have a problem, since the whole COPS Program was sold as a program to further community policing. It was supposed to bring new police officers on line. We found 41 percent of the programs inspected by President Clinton's Department showed indicators of using Federal funds to supplant local funds instead of using grant funds to supplement local funding. I am reading directly from the report. These are very serious allegations. To pass this amendment, $7 billion to reauthorize this program, in the dead of night without any hearing would be a colossal blunder. It would be an abdication of our responsibility, especially in light of this scathing report by the inspector general's office. The thought of it boggles my mind. I can't believe it would be even suggested. We ought to review, as we were supposed to when the program passed 5 years ago, how it has worked. We haven't had any hearings on it. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I think the Senator is correct. We do have authority as Senators to speak out. The President spoke out in a radio address just a few days ago, according to the Washington Post. He broadcast a radio address bluntly challenging the purveyors of violent movies and video games to accept a share of the responsibilities for the tragedies, such as the Columbine High School massacre, based on the evidence that some people become desensitized and are more prone to emulate what they see on the screen. However, reading this very same article, when he went out, within hours of that radio address, and met personally with the titans of Hollywood, he delivered that message ``with all the force of a down pillow.'' The Washington Times said he assured the filmmakers that they were not bad people, as they showered him with $2 million. He assured them they had no personal responsibility for the Columbine High School massacre in Littleton, CO. Instead of blaming Hollywood for making violent films, he said the real blame lies with theaters and video stores that show them and sell them to minors. The President told the audience of stars and studio moguls that they should not blame the gun manufacturers either, but he blamed the Republican Members of Congress who will not enact his gun control laws. The President gingerly suggested at the Saturday night fundraiser in Beverly Hills that sustained exposure to ``indiscriminate environments can push children into destructive behavior,'' but he added quickly, the producers, directors, and actors who ponied up $2,500 per couple are not at fault. ``That doesn't make anybody who makes any movie or any video game or television program a bad person or personally responsible with one show with a disastrous outcome. There is no call for finger pointing here.'' He later went on to note we were going to work it out as family. We need to send a clearer message than that. Perhaps his radio message was a better message. It is unfortunate that when he met with them face to face, he toned it down an awful lot, apparently. I suggest, if the Senator will comment, which one does he think those media moguls are going to believe was his real view, the one he said on the radio or the one he said to them personally?