Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill along with my colleague Senator Inhofe, which makes a technical correction to the Safe Drinking Water Act. This bill will end a frivolous lawsuit, clarify the intent of Congress and allow our State regulators and the Environmental Protection Agency to focus on protecting underground drinking water. This bill clarifies the Safe Drinking Water Act by exempting hydraulic fracturing from the definition of underground injection. Hydraulic fracturing is a process used in the production of coalbed methane. This process uses high pressure water, carbon dioxide and sand to create microscopic fractures in coal seams to release and extract methane, oil and gas. Most states in which hydraulic fracturing is used, including my own state of Alabama, have in place regulations to ensure hydraulic fracturing continues to be a technique used in a safe manner. This technique has been used safely by coalbed methane, oil and gas producers for over fifteen years and has never been attributed to causing even a single case of contamination to an underground drinking water source. On May 3rd of 1994, the Legal Environmental Assistance Foundation (LEAF) submitted a Petition for Promulgation of a Rule to withdraw the EPA's approval for the state of Alabama's Underground Injection Control (UIC) program. LEAF cited a case in Alabama of alleged drinking well contamination to justify its lawsuit. The EPA carefully reviewed this petition and on May 5th of 1995 the Administrator of the EPA, Carol Browner wrote to LEAF and stated ``based on that review, I have determined that Alabama's implementation of the UIC program is consistent with the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act''. Administrator Browner continued ``There is no evidence that the hydraulic fracturing at issue has resulted in any contamination or endangerment of underground sources of drinking water''. I ask unanimous consent that a complete copy of the text of that letter be inserted into the Record.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. The Senator is precisely correct. It will be a sense of the Senate that that be done. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I wish to thank Senator Cochran and Senator Kohl for agreeing to my amendment to provide fairness to the administration of the crop disaster program enacted by Congress last Fall. I also wish to thank Senator Harkin for his interest in this issue.

Mr. SESSIONS. Again, I thank the Senators. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I too am concerned with the dilemma facing our local steel mills in Alabama and I want to commend the Senator from West Virginia for his leadership, working, in a bipartisan manner with Senators from all the steel-producing and other adversely affected states, to address the substantial economic injury that the illegal dumping of imported steel has caused across the country through an Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee program, which is to be part of the Emergency Supplemental appropriations bill, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1999. My understanding is that the intent of the Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee program is to afford all qualified steel companies with the opportunity to obtain a loan guarantee, whether or not the company is now or is placed in a situation where it must seek to reorganize under Chapter 11 of the United States bankruptcy laws before the end of this year? Is my understanding of the program correct?

Mr. SESSIONS. As you know, the Senate Judiciary Committee, of which I am a member, spent a great deal of time last year examining the bankruptcy law and how to improve it for both doctors and creditors, I am particularly concerned that companies that seek to reorganize under Title 11 of the U.S. Code, are not precluded from obtaining a loan guarantee under this program since by definition the debts of such companies exceed their assets. Let me be specific, if a company does not have traditional forms of available ``security,'' such as is defined in the 11 U.S.C. Sec. 101, would the Board consider an order of the federal bankruptcy judge finding that a guarantee is necessary to enable the company to operate its business or reorganize meets that requirement?

Mr. SESSIONS. The power of a United States bankruptcy court already provide that a court may issue any order that is necessary or appropriate to carry out its responsibilities of the bankruptcy law to protect the custody of the estate and its administration. Specifically, 11 U.S.C. Section 364 requires a debtor to obtain the permission of the court as a prerequisite to incurring additional credit. If a United States bankruptcy court determines that a qualified steel company under its jurisdiction requires the immediate access to a guarantee in an amount less that $25 million, would that company be precluded from participating in the program because it has an immediate need of a lesser amount of guarantee than specified in section f(4)?

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise to speak regarding my amendment to improve the crop loss assistance program. I would like to begin by expressing my appreciation to Chairman Stevens, Senator Cochran, Senator Lugar, and Senator Kohl for their assistance in gaining an agreement on this amendment. I believe this amendment will help provide much needed assistance to our Nation's farmers. In the fiscal year 1999 omnibus appropriations bill we provided emergency funds to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to aid farmers who have suffered losses due to natural disasters in recent years. I believe the regulations that were promulgated by the USDA were inadequate to address the needs of many of our farmers. Under the multi-year disaster assistance provisions contained in the fiscal year 1999 omnibus appropriations bill, farmers who experienced losses in three of the last five crop years (1994-1998) or 1998 alone were eligible for 25 percent of indemnities paid. Farmers would be paid the higher of the multi-year or single year loss but would not quality under both. Many farmers in parts of Alabama experienced losses in two out of five years, or experienced devastating losses in years other than 1998 and so were ineligible for the disaster assistance. In addition, many producers experienced losses but did not meet the eligibility requirement since they may have had up to 35-percent losses but no insurance indemnity was paid that crop year. Farmers may have also experienced a loss with a private crop policy such as rain and hail but did not have enough of a loss to trigger the indemnity. This amendment would require that USDA count indemnity losses by private policies such as rain and hail that were paid during the crop years 1994-1998 to be counted as a loss, under the three out of five year crop loss requirement. In determining eligibility for the multi-year provisions, the Risk Management Agency, RMA, simply generated a list of producers by taxpayer ID and if their production records showed a loss for either 1998 or three out of the five preceding crop years, RMA determined they were eligible. However, since these private crop policies are not offered under the Multi-Peril Crop Insurance program, MPCI, and purely a private contract between the insured producer and insurance company, RMA did not count these losses as qualifying under the multi-year provisions. This amendment will simply provide equity for producers who might have experienced losses under their private policies such as rain and hail, but did not experience losses under the catastrophic or ``buyup'' policies. I believe this amendment will provide essential flexibility in the program so that farmers who have endured severe conditions in recent years can qualify for the assistance we provided in the omnibus bill last year. I ask unanimous consent that a letter from me to Secretary Glickman be printed in the Record.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Wyoming for allowing me to introduce this important amendment with him. I want to congratulate him for his good work on an issue that is, at its heart, a matter of great concern to those of us who believe that the Federal Government often goes too far in exerting its will on the individual States. I think that the legislation that we have adopted today is good legislation that recognizes the importance of protecting the ability of States to regulate gambling within their borders. 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 regarding his promulgation of the rules at issue today. Every one of the Attorneys General who signed this letter did so because we had come to the same legal conclusion: the Secretary of the Interior does not have the authority to take action to promulgate regulations allowing class III gambling in this manner. In fact, I believe that if the Secretary of the Interior were to attempt to finalize this rule and take action, he would immediately be sued by States throughout this country in what would amount to expensive and protracted litigation. I feel the Secretary would lose these suits, and that this amendment offers us the opportunity to prevent such a waste of resources on both the State and Federal level from occurring. This is an important issue for my State of Alabama, which has one federally recognized tribe and which has not entered into a tribal- State gambling compact. The citizens of Alabama have consistently rejected the notion of allowing casino gambling within the State. If the Secretary of the Interior is allowed to unilaterally provide for class III casino gambling for this tribe, where the State has not agreed to enter into a compact and against the expressed will of the people, he will also be unilaterally deciding to impose great burdens on local communities throughout Alabama. This is because the one federally recognized tribe in our State owns several parcels of property, and it is likely that once casino gambling was established in one area it would spread to others. Let me share with you a letter that the Mayor of Wetumpka, whose community is home to one of these parcels of property, 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 gaming facility here. Mayor Glenn's concerns about the costs to her community if the Secretary were able to exert this kind of authority have been seconded by other communities. Let me share with you an editorial that appeared in the Montgomery Advertiser. Montgomery is the state capital, and is located just a few miles from Wetumpka. 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 decision to be reached in Washington. Alabama has to have a hand in this high stakes game. Mr. President, the author of this editorial is correct. 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. I would also like to address another issue in connection with the regulations the Secretary of the Interior has proposed. If the Secretary is allowed to exert this kind of power, he will be in a position to enrich selected tribes, potentially by millions of dollars, simply by stroking a pen. I do not think this is proper. This is a powerful capability. Imagine the conflict of interests that could arise as tribes lobby the Secretary to either approve, or disapprove, requests for class III casino gambling facilities. Indeed, the current Secretary of the Interior has already had his actions in similar instances brought under investigation to see if departmental decisions were influenced by campaign donations. This is unseemly, and unsound. I think we should ensure that States remain a vital part of the negotiating process to add legitimacy to decisions that are made. Mr. President, this amendment has broad, bipartisan support. It has been supported by the National Association of Governors, the National Association of Attorneys General, the Christian Coalition and the National League of Cities. It is a reasonable, limited approach to this problem and, on a more fundamental level, ensures the proper respect for the role of States in deciding these issues. It reflects my public policy belief that gambling decisions should be made on a rational basis by the people of the State who would have to live with the results of that activity, rather than by the Federal Government. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this legislation, I welcome its inclusion in the Supplemental Appropriations legislation and I urge my colleagues to fight to preserve this provision during the conference negotiations with the House.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President: I rise to make a few remarks concerning S. 257, The National Missile Defense Act. S. 257 will establish that it is the policy of the United States to deploy as soon as it is technologically possible an effective National Missile Defense (NMD) system capable of defending the territory of the United States against limited ballistic missile attack whether accidental, unauthorized, or deliberate. Many have asked why would we want to do this as soon as technologically feasible. The answer finally came earlier this year when the Administration finally admitted that the Threat is here and now, not some indefinite number of years down the road. The Threat, is upon us. According to CIA Director George Tenet's testimony on February 2, page 6, ``theater-range missiles with increasing range pose an immediate and growing threat to US interests, military forces, and allies--and the threat is increasing. This threat is here and now.'' If we look at what the Iraqi's have or will have in the near future, why would we delay given that we are conducting an aggressive air campaign against Iraqi air defense targets daily? If we look at the improvements the Chinese have made in their missile program at our expense, why would we delay waiting for the Chinese to prove in some scenario yet undefined that they have the capability to destroy an American city or two? If we look at the proliferation of technology leaving Russia to rogue states because they provide the hard currency to Russian scientists that the West cannot, why then would we wait? There are some who say that we should wait and work the ABM problem out with the Russians. They say that if we move forward with a deployment this will make the Russians angry. Mr. President, the Russians have strongly objected to any US deployment to Kosovo, yet I do not see the Administration holding back on its desire to send upwards of 4000 troops to the region. Isn't protection of the United States more important that Kosovo? Our goal in the effort to deploy a National Missile defense System has two crucial impacts on our security: First, it will signal to nations that aspire to possess ballistic missiles with which to coerce or attack the United States that pursuit of such capabilities is a waste of both time and resources. Second, if some aspiring states are not deterred, a commitment to deploy an NMD system will ensure that American citizens and their property are protected from a limited attack. The Rumsfeld Commission report stated that, ``the warning times the US can expect are being reduced. Under some plausible scenarios the US might have little or no warning before operational deployment.'' This is a statement from a very creditable commission. It suggests that America ought to move quickly to defend itself. A NMD system deployed now is the step in the right direction. We cannot afford to debate the ``what could be's or should be's any longer.'' This Congress must act, and act now. I doubt if the American public would forgive this Congress if a situation arises for which we are not prepared. Lastly, I have a comment about the Chinese spying incident. I have been in two meetings with Secretary Richardson in the last two days. My feeling on this issue is: We have now learned of improved Chinese Missile guidance system capability due to US computers--sold to the Chinese by two US firms. Chinese spying has provided that nation with the instructions on how to fabricate compact warheads (MIRV's) Both of these acts should never have happened. Mr. President, America cannot tolerate continued slackness in security and we need to press forward with protecting our nation--not tomorrow, not next month, not five years from now. We need to move the NMD program forward as soon as technically feasible.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the plan of the Senator from Iowa to mandate to the States how they will spend the money they won in litigation against tobacco companies. It went on for quite a number of years. The State attorneys general gradually, through various different theories of law--and there were lots of different theories--won those lawsuits and achieved a tremendous settlement. Basically, the tobacco companies, at some point, just capitulated and agreed to pay billions of dollars. At this point, the Federal Government may or may not have a claim upon that money. Senator Hutchison of Texas has introduced legislation, which I intend to support, which would say that that money would stay with the States. They won it in the litigation. It is part of their settlements. They should keep it. And the Federal Government is not claiming it. I understand the Senator's idea--and I know he has the highest motives behind it--is to tell the States how they should spend portions of that money, primarily under the theory that it was Medicaid money, and the Federal Government put money into Medicaid, a big chunk of the money is paid by the Federal Government for Medicaid. But let me just say why I think we would be better off not doing that. First of all, in all the settlements, as I understand it, only one settlement, Florida's, mentions Medicaid. A large number of the cases mentioned Medicaid in their lawsuits, but a lot of them were based on other causes of action against the tobacco companies: RICO, the racketeering charges; antitrust violations--unjust enrichment was the one in Mississippi, which I thought was astounding, to win several billion dollars on the old common law theory, equity theory, of unjust enrichment. In fact, they filed it in an equity court and did not even have a jury trial. They eventually settled it without even a trial occurring. But at any rate, that money goes to the States, and it is their money. I suggest that the States already are planning how to spend it. I understand in Texas, according to Senator Hutchison, who will be back on the floor shortly, they have antismoking educational campaigns planned. Alabama has, I believe, a good program. It is called Children First. It is a program to deal with dropouts, to deal with teen smoking and drinking and drug abuse and problem kids, preschool programs, a comprehensive plan to deal with juvenile crime and violence and delinquency, and to help place children first. The funding for it will come from the settlement of this lawsuit. They are counting on doing that. To mandate them to spend it on entirely a new set of proposals they have never given any thought to would complicate Alabama's freedom to spend the money they won the way they want to spend it. I really believe it would be a terrible burden on the State of Alabama. I think that is going to be true in every State where these settlements have taken place. So what we have is the Federal Government saying, ``If we can't have the money, and if we're going to lose on this amendment''--and Senator Hutchison has bipartisan support for it, and I am confident it will pass--``if we're going to lose on this amendment, if we don't get to bring it into our Treasury so we can spend it and do what we want to do with it, we'll just declare how the States have to spend it. By the way, if you don't satisfy us, the Secretary of HHS, Secretary Shalala, can cut off your Medicaid funding or deny you benefits under these settlements in the future.'' So I just believe that that isn't what we need to be doing here. I do not think that is good public policy. I believe that these States are already at this moment planning how to spend it. And, by the way, these mandates are not easily achievable. Presumably, a State, to get money under it, would have to call a special session of their legislature--have to call a special session. And what if they did not want to vote to do that? What if good and decent State legislators said: We don't want to do these percentages that the Senator has just proposed. We don't want to spend our money just like that. We would like to spend it on Children First. We would like to spend it on delinquency camps or alternative schools. We want to do it on various other projects that are not precisely what is mandated here. Maybe they are already spending money on programs mandated here. I salute the Senator from Texas. I believe she has the right approach. We need to let this money go, give it up. We did not file the lawsuits; the States filed the lawsuits. We did not win the lawsuits; the States won the lawsuits. The tobacco companies agreed to pay the money to the States. And they are going to spend it for what they believe is best for their people. I think we ought to follow that. I want to mention one other thing. I am uncomfortable with this deal in which the Secretary of HHS would be able to review the allocation of the funds by the States and given the power to cut off funds to the States if they did not precisely allocate it as this proposal would allocate it. I do not think that is the kind of power we need to have over the States. I think this is good legislation. The Senator from Texas, I know, will be returning to the floor in just a moment, and she will be making further comments on it. I thank the Chair for his attention and I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SESSIONS. Yes.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, on May 1-3, 1999 more than 1,200 students from across the United States will be in Washington DC to compete in the national finals of the ``We the People . . . The Citizen and the Constitution'' program. I am proud to announce that a class from Corner High School from the city of Warrior will represent my home state of Alabama in this national event. These young scholars have worked diligently to reach the national finals and through their experience have gained a deep knowledge and understanding of the fundamental principles and values of our constitutional democracy. The ``We the People . . . The Citizen and the Constitution'' program is the most extensive educational program in the country developed specifically to educate young people about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The three-day national competition is modeled after hearings in the United States Congress. These hearings consist of oral presentations by high school students before a panel of adult judges. The students testify as constitutional experts before a ``congressional committee,'' that is, the panel of judges representing various regions of the country and a variety of appropriate professional fields. The student testimony is followed by a period of questioning during which the judges probe students for their depth of understanding and ability to apply their constitutional knowledge. The student team from Corner High School is currently conducting research and preparing for the upcoming national competition in Washington, DC. I am extremely proud of the students and teacher and wish them the best of luck at ``We the People'' national finals. I look forward to greeting them when they visit Capitol Hill.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Chair. I appreciate the work Senator Jeffords has done. Mr. President, I would like to share just a few thoughts. I have been involved in education with my children. I have taught, my wife has taught in public school. We care about education. We have school boards all over America that care about education. I know one of the school board members in my hometown of Mobile, AL, exceedingly well. His abilities and talents will match any Member of this body. He knows a lot more about the education going on in his area than we know in this body. Who is to say what is the best way to expend money to improve our children's education? The thing that counts is that magic moment in a classroom when learning occurs and children are motivated and inspired to do better. I do not believe this Congress has the ability or has a proven track record of improvement. We now have a host of amendments. We have 788 Federal programs--788. We had an amendment offered yesterday that would mean the 789th; it would create a dropout czar for America. I have been involved in local programs to deal with dropouts. Programs like that are happening all over America. It is not going to be solved by some Federal dropout czar. This legislation is precisely what we need. It needs to go out of here clean, not as an appropriation, big Government spending bill, but a bill that gives flexibility to the schools. The Presiding Officer was Governor. He knows how much benefit was gained when welfare reform was accomplished and we gave flexibility to Governors. I think it is time we give flexibility to our State and local school systems to improve education. I thank the chairman, the Senator from Vermont, for his leadership. This is good legislation. It is time for us to pass it, and we can debate these issues about how further to help education when the elementary and secondary education bill comes up, which the Senator will be leading later this month. I thank the Senator.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I am pleased to be working with the Senator from Connecticut on truancy legislation. I am struck by the alignment of our interests here. I believe this is a national problem and one that deserves federal attention. I am pleased that Senator Dodd and I have been able to work out an agreement here that avoids an amendment to the Ed Flex bill on this subject, which would be a concern for me and a number of my colleagues who very much want to be supportive in this effort to address truancy. I look forward to working with the Senator to bring forward a strong bill from my committee to support efforts to assist local governments in their efforts to reduce truancy. afterschool care

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would like to share a few remarks. I have had the pleasure to be able to preside over this body for the last hour and hear some excellent remarks from Senators who are concerned about education. I thought, as we heard some good remarks from one of our brother Senators about an amendment to deal with the dropout rate, that this is how we have gotten where we are today in large part. The remarks were good. I personally am concerned about the dropout rate. I have been involved in youth programs in my hometown of Mobile, AL. We had a meeting with the police and the school boards on how to deal with truancy, dropout problems, and what we could do to confront that. That is happening, I suspect, all over America right now. Some schools have good dropout programs, others do not. The question was, are these numbers--showing 50 percent in many schools dropping out before graduating--are they accurate? I am not sure that they are, frankly. We questioned that in our community, because sometimes when people transfer from one school to another, they are counted as a dropout. But we do have higher dropouts than we need. And good school systems are identifying them at the earliest possible time in dealing with them. But I thought to myself as it was suggested--this amendment would suggest and mandate that we have a dropout czar in America--so this U.S. Senate now is going to take it upon itself to have a czar to deal with dropout problems. And that will be the 789th--if I am correct in my numbers--Federal program Congress would have adopted and that is now in effect, all to be added to a bill called Ed-Flex that is suppose to give more flexibility to the school systems, to allow them to use the resources we are sending to them now effectively to deal with the problems as they know they exist and they would like to deal with them. Yes, I wish I could wave a wand and create a program that would instantly eliminate the dropout problem in America. I would be tempted, as all of us are, to think we could appoint a czar in Washington who would stop the dropout problem. But I really do not think it is going to happen. What we have to do is strengthen our school systems in the classroom, where teaching occurs, making those schools more friendly, more motivating, more interesting, more challenging, educating the young people who are there, because really the only thing that counts is that magic moment in a classroom when the learning occurs between teachers and pupils. One of the Senators said our problem is schools are too big. Well, I guess next we will have a czar to set the sizes of schools in America. My daughters both graduated from a large high school in Mobile, AL. Bill Bennett came down and gave them an award as one of the best high schools in America--racially balanced--a big high school, Murphy High School, an outstanding high school. It is a large school. All large schools are not bad. In fact, our dog was named Murphy, named after the high school. We loved that school. My wife and I participated in the PTA and were most interested in what went on there. When I graduated, my senior class had 30 members. It was a public high school. The one who finished third in my class of 30 is now dean at the University of Alabama. And I finished below her. And the one who finished two below me--seventh--graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy. I do not think we need in this body to be saying what the sizes of schools ought to be and how school systems ought to run their programs. We need to help them in every way we can and to eliminate this problem, as I noted earlier today, where a system like Montgomery, AL, spends, according to the letter I got, $860,000 to comply with Federal regulations. The Federal Government gives 8 percent of the funding and over 50 percent of the regulations. So our chairman, Senator Jeffords, has presented a commonsense, reasonable, modest step toward allowing local school systems to petition for the right to have flexibility in how many of these governmental programs are ordered. That is so rational, it makes so much sense, and it in fact was proven effective in the welfare reform bill. That is all we are talking about. There is no doubt Senator Jeffords will conduct hearings on any of these matters. He will take testimony and receive it and consider matters to deal with truancy, matters to deal with drug problems, matters to deal with special education. We want to deal with that. But that will come up in the education bill that will come along later. This bill needs to remain a clean bill designed to create flexibility for our school systems in America. That is what it ought to be. We ought not to allow it to be clogged up with every Senator's view of what would be wonderful if they just ran schools in America, because that is how we have gotten in this fix. That is what we are trying to make some progress toward completing. I care about education. I care about public education. I taught. My wife has taught. Our children have participated in public education. We want to make it better. But I am not at all persuaded that the Members of this body have studied the problems of the Mobile, AL, or Vermont school systems. They have not studied those problems. They do not know how to fix them. They read a study somewhere that says something, and they feel obligated to come down here and present the next program, the 789th program, Federal Government mandate, to fix it. Then they can go back home and say, ``I fixed truancy, I fixed dropout problems,'' or whatever. I just say to my colleagues that this is not the way to do it. We have elected school board presidents, school board members. We have superintendents of education. We have principals. We have teachers. They know our children's names. We need to put as much power and as much money into the hands of the people who know our children's names as we possibly can. If they do not care about our children, we need to make sure we have someone there who does. But I submit to you they do care about them. They are better trained than we are in education. They are seeing kids every day in their classrooms. They know what facilities are in existence. Do they need more teachers? Do they need more classrooms? Do they need more computers? Let them decide that. That is what we should do; give them the flexibility to make the decisions needed. I think we will find, if we pass this bill, that instead of just the 12 States indicated in the chart from the GAO report this past November--the GAO studied this Ed-Flex bill that gave 12 States the right to have more flexibility in their educational programs. They concluded that they have used their authority well, the flexibility given to them, and that the waiver authority has been used carefully and judiciously. Why would we expect otherwise? Why would we expect that the people we have elected and hired to take care of our children, who know our children's names, are not going to use freedom and financial support from Washington carefully and expeditiously? I feel very strongly about this. I see the Senator from Arkansas has come to the floor. I will be anxious to hear his remarks, because he has served on this committee, that I have just joined this January, for the past 2 years. He is passionately concerned about improving education. He has a bill that I am proud to support--Dollars to the Classroom. That bill goes much further than this Ed-Flex bill. I believe it would be a historic step toward empowering our local education system to get out from under Federal regulations and be able to focus entirely on educating our children, get that money and authority to the classroom where it can be used wisely. I thank the Chair for the time and I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank Senators Jeffords and Frist and those who have worked so hard on the Ed-Flex bill. This is an outstanding piece of legislation. It has the support of our Nation's Governors, the National Governors' Association. They strongly support this legislation. Most of the educational leadership in the States and local communities support this type of legislation. My Governor of Alabama, a Democrat, Don Siegelman, supports this legislation. Mr. Ed Richardson, the State superintendent of education in Alabama, supports this legislation. The Ed-Flex bill came out of Labor Committee last year with a 17-1 vote. Democrats and Republicans supported it. Now this year, the President indicates that he will support it and sign this legislation. The strength of it is that it is a clean bill. Basically, what it says is that we learned a lot from the historic welfare reform debate during the 104th Congress. We learned if you give State and local officials some flexibility and the ability to do things differently than the Federal regulations have mandated, they will find ways to be better. They will find ways to do a better job. It is an affirmation of them. I'd also indicate that a GAO report in 1998 said that the Department of Education officials have told the GAO that they believe that 12 Ed- Flex States, the 12 States that now have this legislation as a pilot project, have used their waiver authority carefully and judiciously. Mr. President, It simply goes against reason that people duly elected to run the school systems in our counties and States would abuse flexibility and should be denied creativity because those of us in this body believe we know how to run their school systems better. The Federal Government provides only 7 percent of the money for State and local education, but it mandates over 50 percent of the regulations. Let me read you a letter I received from the Montgomery public schools in Montgomery, AL. This is what I was told with regard to paperwork that has to be done for the Federal Government. Personnel in the schools of the Montgomery Public School System and three Central Office assistants are estimated to spend this year 16,425 hours in Title I program documentation, bookkeeping, etc. What this boils down to moneywise, is that the system spends $860,833.48 for the personnel to take care of the paperwork. This is a conservative estimate and does not include such programs as HIPPY and other programs funded by Title I not housed in schools. This is the kind of thing that is happening. This is the kind of money we need to get down to the classroom. I taught in public schools one year. My wife has taught in public schools a number of years. Our two daughters graduated from a large public high school in Mobile, AL. We have been involved in PTA. To suggest the principals and teachers and school superintendents do not care about their kids and are not trying to do better to get more bang for their buck every day is to demean them and put them down, while we have this idea that we have to protect the system by mandating what they do. I think the Ed-Flex bill is a wonderful bill. It is a clean bill. It is not a radical bill. It allows applications for waivers and that sort of thing. Mr. President as a teacher, as a spouse of a teacher, and as a parent of children in the Alabama public schools, I know that the most important event is that magic moment in a classroom when learning actually occurs. That magic moment is not enhanced by micromanaging regulations from Washington, DC. It simply does not help education. Mr. President, I care about education. I want to see our education system improved. I will support--as Congress has done for the last 10 years--increased Federal funding for education. But I want to be sure it is used wisely and efficiently so that learning is enhanced, and not creating a bureaucracy that takes 35 cents out of every dollar before it ever gets down to the States. That is what we have learned. In fact, after this modest bill, I will be supporting a bill that will have even greater impact which will require that 95 percent of every Federal education dollar that is expended actually goes to the local classroom. Let me share with this body a response to a question I proposed to a principal of a Title I elementary school in Alabama, Mr. Thomas Toleston. He was asked what would he do if he had less Federal mandates which would help free up some extra money for his school; if the Federal Government would eliminate the regulations, how would he spend the freed up funds. This is what he said he would like: I would ensure that Southlawn would implement a comprehensive summer school program in reading and math for all students who score below average on the Stanford Achievement Test 9. No one here even knows what the Stanford Achievement Test 9 is. He does; this is his career. That is what he would like to spend more money on--not building a new classroom or 100,000 new teachers. He said: This would include sufficient faculty, hardware and software in an effort to bring those poor performing students up to average performance. So you could take your year-long teachers and pay them extra to work in the summer school program. If additional funds were available, I would also attempt to bring more faculty to our extended day program [afterschool programs] to offer more exposure to our students. These exposures would be in the areas of music, i.e. violin and other musical instruments that are available in the Montgomery Public School System, but are not being utilized. They would take extra funds to have teachers come down after school to do this, not new teachers. Another area of interest to me would be the ability to provide students with scholarships of additional exposure. This would include paid trips to the Huntsville Space Center to increase students' interest in science and math. Now, we have been talking about building classrooms and adding 100,000 teachers and all these ideas that people in this body, who have been doing some polling, and they think the polls are good so they offer to mandate it all over the country. Mr. Toleston never mentioned any of those ideas, yet we here in Washington want to force them on him and his school? The earlier we expose students to these hard core areas the greater the chances for them to develop an interest. I would also like to expand our present extended day program to begin classes in computer program at the 4th and 5th grade level. This is a career that will allow one to have a fairly good paying job without a college degree. This program would provide a net for some of the students who we know will never make it to college. But, again, I think that the interest must be presented at the elementary level to make a significant difference. Since we all know that the greater the parent involvement the better students do in school, I would like to have more money set aside for parent programs. Presently, I have one teacher who volunteers one night a week to teach parents how to use computers. I would like to compensate her but the funds are not available. Under this bill, if we have Federal mandates, they still won't be available. He goes on to say: Most of the planning for the school year takes place during the summer months. The stipend paid to teachers is $50.00 per day. I would like to have the flexibility to offer my teacher an additional $50.00 per day. This still seems like a small price to pay but it would be a worth while incentive for them to give up one of their summer vacation days. I feel that this would encourage more teachers to be apart of the planning process during the summer. Once school starts it is time to execute our plans--no time for planning. Mr. President, those are just some of the points that I would make. I would just say this: People are asking, Why won't this bill pass? I think they have to look at those on the other side of the aisle who say often that they are for returning control to the local people, to people we have elected in our communities to run our school systems. But when the chips are down, there is always some reason not to. I hope that we can work through some of these amendments, all of which ought to be debated during the Elementary and Secondary Education Act that we will be taking up later this year, not on this bill. This is a clean bill, and should be kept clean. If we will do that, we can pass this important bill, and then we can deal with many of these issues later. Mr. President, I thank you for the time. I d also like to again thank Senators Frist and Jeffords for all of their hard work on this bill. I agree wholeheartedly with the premise of this legislation which is that, if given more flexibility, our local school systems can improve their ability to educate our children. I notice that the majority leader has arrived on the floor. I am pleased to yield.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Thomas Toleston listed a number of items, including taking kids to educational programs like NASA, afterschool programs, he mentioned bringing in extended-day programs and for paying faculty for extended-day programs. I just say this: The people we elected in our communities care about our children. We ought to allow them to do their job with the least possible headache from Washington. It is arrogant of us to think we know better how to spend the money to educate the children than the people who elected us. Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.

Mr. SESSIONS. Thank you, Madam President. I want to express my appreciation to Senator Frist for his excellent leadership on this bill. Senator Jeffords, who has managed it, brought it out of the committee last year 17-1. It has broad bipartisan support, and was crafted by Democrats and Republicans. Yet, we get here now and we get into this kind of political brouhaha, this kind of spat that does nothing for education. It is not healthy for America and confuses people about what is important. As Senator Frist noted, we are talking about a bill, Ed-Flex, that will give our school systems some flexibility as we gave the State welfare systems flexibility. We know how well they did when we gave them that flexibility. It would give the school that same kind of flexibility and not cost one dime. It would not cost any money. Blithely now, we have a Senator walking in here to propose a $12- billion amendment--just like that--100,000 teachers. Somebody ran a focus group, I suppose, did a poll somewhere and the people said, ``We like teachers; we like smaller class sizes.'' We have hired Ph.Ds and experienced teachers to lead our school systems. Principals all across America are concerned about the schools in your community and in my community. I don't know why we should have some mandate here; we haven't even had hearings on this. We will spend $12 billion on teachers--maybe we ought to consider whether we should spend it on something else. This legislation is supported by the National Governors' Association. There is not a Governor in America today who didn't get elected who promised to improve education in his State. They are committed to the improvement of education in their States. They love their children in their States as much or more than Senators love the children in each of the 50 States. They want good school systems. They support this bill. They are calling on us to pass this bill and get out of this political folderol we are going through. Our new Governor in Alabama, a Democrat, Don Siegelman, supports this bill. Dr. Ed Richardson, the Alabama State superintendent of education, supports the legislation. I will share some information with this body. One of my staff people visited a Montgomery title I school in a poor neighborhood, sat down with the principal, and asked him what he would like for his school system if he could name it right now. The principal, Mr. Thomas Toleston, from Southlawn Elementary School, when asked what he would do if he could be free from redtape and Federal regulations, said: I would ensure that Southlawn implement a comprehensive summer school program.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I want to say how much I appreciate the courtesies of Senator Abraham and Senator Levin as we work through this effort to achieve this Gold Medal for Ms. Rosa Parks. I think it is a very fitting and appropriate thing that we do so. So I rise today to recognize Ms. Parks, a native Alabamian, who through her life and example has touched both the heart and the conscience of an entire Nation. She is a native of Tuskegee, and a former resident of Montgomery, AL. Her dignity in the face of discrimination helped spark a movement to ensure that all citizens were treated equally under the law. Equal treatment under the law is a fundamental pillar upon which our Republic rests. In fact, over the first 2 months of this year this Senate has discussed that very issue in some detail. As legislators, we should work to strengthen the appreciation for this fundamental governing principle and recognize those who have made extraordinary contributions toward ensuring that all American citizens have the same opportunities, regardless of their race, sex, creed, or national origin, to enjoy the freedoms this country has to offer. Through her efforts, Ms. Parks has become a living embodiment of this principle. And it is entirely appropriate that this Congress takes the opportunity to acknowledge her contribution by authorizing the award of a Congressional Gold Medal to her. Her courage, what we in Alabama might call ``gumption'', at a critical juncture resulted in historic change. Certainly, there is much still to be done. True equality, the total elimination of discrimination, and a real sense of ease and acceptance among the races has not been fully reached. But it is fair to say that in the history of this effort, the most dramatic and productive chapter was ignited by the lady we honor today. Ms. Parks' story is well known, but it bears repeating. She was born on February 4, 1913, in the small town of Tuskegee AL to Mr. James and Leona McCauley. As a young child, she moved to Montgomery with her mother, who was a local schoolteacher. Like many Southern cities, the Montgomery of Ms. Parks' youth was a segregated city with numerous laws mandating the unequal treatment of people based on the color of their skin. These laws were discriminatory in their intent, and divisive, unfair, and humiliating in their application, but for years Ms. Parks had suffered with them until the fateful day of December 1, 1955, when her pride and her dignity would allow her to obey them no more. On this day Ms. Parks, a 42-year-old seamstress, boarded a city bus after a long, hard day at work. Like other public accommodations, this bus contained separate sections for white and black passengers, with white passengers allocated the front rows, and black passengers given the back. This bus was particularly crowded that evening. At one of the stops, a white passenger boarded, and the bus driver, seeing Ms. Parks, requested that she give up her seat and move to the back of the bus, even though this meant that she would be forced to stand. Ms. Parks refused to give up her seat and was arrested for disobeying that order. For this act of civic defiance, Ms. Parks set off a chain of events that have led some to refer to her as the ``Mother of the Civil Rights Movement.'' Her arrest led to the Montgomery bus boycott, and organized movement led by a young minister, then unknown, named Martin Luther King, Jr., who had been preaching at the historic Baptist church located on Montgomery's Dexter Avenue. The bus boycott lasted 382 days, and its impact directly led to the integration of the bus lines while the attention generated helped lift Dr. King to national prominence. Ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to rule on the constitutionality of the Montgomery law which Ms. Parks had defied and the court struck it down. This powerful image, that of a hard working American ordered to the back of the bus, simply because of her race, was a catalytic event. It was the spark that caused a nation to stop accepting things as they had been and focused everyone on the fundamental issue--whether we could continue as a segregated society. As a result of the movement Ms. Parks helped start, today's Montgomery is very different from the Montgomery of Ms. Parks' youth. Today, the citizens of Montgomery look with a great deal of historical pride upon the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church. Today's Montgomery is home to the Southern Poverty Law Center, an organization devoted to the cause of civil rights and also the Civil Rights Memorial, a striking monument of black granite and cascading water which memorializes the individuals who gave their lives in the pursuit of equal justice. Today's Montgomery is a city in which its history as the ``Capital of the Confederacy'' and its history as the ``Birthplace of the Civil Rights Movement'' are both recognized, understood and reconciled. But Montgomery is not alone in this development. Many American cities owe the same debt of gratitude to Ms. Parks that Montgomery does. In fact, Ms. Parks' contributions may extend beyond even the borders of our nation. In the book ``Bus Ride to Justice,'' Mr. Fred Gray, who gained fame while in his 20's as Ms. Parks' attorney in the bus desegregation case and as the lead attorney in many of Alabama's and the Nation's most important civil rights cases, wrote these words, and I don't think they are an exaggeration: Little did we know that we had set in motion a force that would ripple throughout Alabama, the South, the nation, and even the world. But from the vantage point of almost 40 years later, there is a direct correlation between what we started in Montgomery and what has subsequently happened in China, eastern Europe, South Africa, and even more recently, in Russia. While it is inaccurate to say that we all sat down and deliberately planned a movement that would echo and reverberate around the world, we did work around the clock, planning strategy and creating an atmosphere that gave strength, courage, faith and hope to people of all races, creeds, colors and religions around the world. And it all started on a bus in Montgomery, Alabama, with Rosa Parks on December 1, 1955. For her courage and her conviction, and for her role in changing Alabama, the South, the nation and the world for the better, our Nation owes thanks to Ms. Parks. I hope that this body will extend its thanks and recognition to her by awarding her the Congressional Gold Medal.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I want to say how much I appreciate the courtesies of Senator Abraham and Senator Levin as we work through this effort to achieve this Gold Medal for Ms. Rosa Parks. I think it is a very fitting and appropriate thing that we do so. So I rise today to recognize Ms. Parks, a native Alabamian, who through her life and example has touched both the heart and the conscience of an entire Nation. She is a native of Tuskegee, and a former resident of Montgomery, AL. Her dignity in the face of discrimination helped spark a movement to ensure that all citizens were treated equally under the law. Equal treatment under the law is a fundamental pillar upon which our Republic rests. In fact, over the first 2 months of this year this Senate has discussed that very issue in some detail. As legislators, we should work to strengthen the appreciation for this fundamental governing principle and recognize those who have made extraordinary contributions toward ensuring that all American citizens have the same opportunities, regardless of their race, sex, creed, or national origin, to enjoy the freedoms this country has to offer. Through her efforts, Ms. Parks has become a living embodiment of this principle. And it is entirely appropriate that this Congress takes the opportunity to acknowledge her contribution by authorizing the award of a Congressional Gold Medal to her. Her courage, what we in Alabama might call ``gumption'', at a critical juncture resulted in historic change. Certainly, there is much still to be done. True equality, the total elimination of discrimination, and a real sense of ease and acceptance among the races has not been fully reached. But it is fair to say that in the history of this effort, the most dramatic and productive chapter was ignited by the lady we honor today. Ms. Parks' story is well known, but it bears repeating. She was born on February 4, 1913, in the small town of Tuskegee AL to Mr. James and Leona McCauley. As a young child, she moved to Montgomery with her mother, who was a local schoolteacher. Like many Southern cities, the Montgomery of Ms. Parks' youth was a segregated city with numerous laws mandating the unequal treatment of people based on the color of their skin. These laws were discriminatory in their intent, and divisive, unfair, and humiliating in their application, but for years Ms. Parks had suffered with them until the fateful day of December 1, 1955, when her pride and her dignity would allow her to obey them no more. On this day Ms. Parks, a 42-year-old seamstress, boarded a city bus after a long, hard day at work. Like other public accommodations, this bus contained separate sections for white and black passengers, with white passengers allocated the front rows, and black passengers given the back. This bus was particularly crowded that evening. At one of the stops, a white passenger boarded, and the bus driver, seeing Ms. Parks, requested that she give up her seat and move to the back of the bus, even though this meant that she would be forced to stand. Ms. Parks refused to give up her seat and was arrested for disobeying that order. For this act of civic defiance, Ms. Parks set off a chain of events that have led some to refer to her as the ``Mother of the Civil Rights Movement.'' Her arrest led to the Montgomery bus boycott, and organized movement led by a young minister, then unknown, named Martin Luther King, Jr., who had been preaching at the historic Baptist church located on Montgomery's Dexter Avenue. The bus boycott lasted 382 days, and its impact directly led to the integration of the bus lines while the attention generated helped lift Dr. King to national prominence. Ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to rule on the constitutionality of the Montgomery law which Ms. Parks had defied and the court struck it down. This powerful image, that of a hard working American ordered to the back of the bus, simply because of her race, was a catalytic event. It was the spark that caused a nation to stop accepting things as they had been and focused everyone on the fundamental issue--whether we could continue as a segregated society. As a result of the movement Ms. Parks helped start, today's Montgomery is very different from the Montgomery of Ms. Parks' youth. Today, the citizens of Montgomery look with a great deal of historical pride upon the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church. Today's Montgomery is home to the Southern Poverty Law Center, an organization devoted to the cause of civil rights and also the Civil Rights Memorial, a striking monument of black granite and cascading water which memorializes the individuals who gave their lives in the pursuit of equal justice. Today's Montgomery is a city in which its history as the ``Capital of the Confederacy'' and its history as the ``Birthplace of the Civil Rights Movement'' are both recognized, understood and reconciled. But Montgomery is not alone in this development. Many American cities owe the same debt of gratitude to Ms. Parks that Montgomery does. In fact, Ms. Parks' contributions may extend beyond even the borders of our nation. In the book ``Bus Ride to Justice,'' Mr. Fred Gray, who gained fame while in his 20's as Ms. Parks' attorney in the bus desegregation case and as the lead attorney in many of Alabama's and the Nation's most important civil rights cases, wrote these words, and I don't think they are an exaggeration: Little did we know that we had set in motion a force that would ripple throughout Alabama, the South, the nation, and even the world. But from the vantage point of almost 40 years later, there is a direct correlation between what we started in Montgomery and what has subsequently happened in China, eastern Europe, South Africa, and even more recently, in Russia. While it is inaccurate to say that we all sat down and deliberately planned a movement that would echo and reverberate around the world, we did work around the clock, planning strategy and creating an atmosphere that gave strength, courage, faith and hope to people of all races, creeds, colors and religions around the world. And it all started on a bus in Montgomery, Alabama, with Rosa Parks on December 1, 1955. For her courage and her conviction, and for her role in changing Alabama, the South, the nation and the world for the better, our Nation owes thanks to Ms. Parks. I hope that this body will extend its thanks and recognition to her by awarding her the Congressional Gold Medal.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the Constitution of the United States requires the Senate to convict and remove the President of the United States if it is proven that he has committed high crimes while in office. It has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty that President William Jefferson Clinton has persisted in a continuous pattern to lie and obstruct justice. The chief law officer of the land, whose oath of office calls on him to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, crossed the line and failed to protect the law, and, in fact, attacked the law and the rights of a fellow citizen. Under our Constitution, such acts are high crimes and equal justice requires that he forfeit his office. For these reasons, I felt compelled to vote to convict and remove the President from office.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chief Justice and fellow Senators, I appreciate this proceeding. And I appreciate the process we have gone through. I hope my remarks will be in the spirit of deliberation, and that some of what I say will be of value to you. If there was a mistake made in this case, it is that we have treated this more like a piece of legislation than a trial. It probably would have been better to have just allowed the House to have a week or 8 days to present evidence and the other side present their evidence and then vote and we would have been out of here. As it is, we have been involved in the managing of it. And I have been impressed that together we have somehow gotten through it in a way that I think I can defend. It is marginal, but I think we have conducted a trial that I feel we can defend. The impeachment came from the House so we have to have a trial and a vote, in my opinion. Judging on matters like this is not easy, but we all have had to do it. Juries make decisions like this every day. The President has to grant pardons and make appointments and remove appointments. Senators have to vote on nominations and so forth. I have had the adventure of appearing before Senators judging me on a previous occasion. And now I am in this body and the other day the Chief Justice declared that we were all a court, and I thought, ``My goodness, I am a Federal judge and a Senator, how much better can life get than that?'' Now, someone suggested that this is a political trial. But the more we make it like a real trial, the better off we are going to be and the better the people are going to like it and the more they will respect it. Our responsibility is to find the facts, apply the Constitution, the law, and the Senate precedent to those facts. And precedent is important. We should follow it unless we clearly articulate a reason to change. Unless we do so we are failing in our duty. If we want to change our precedent, we obviously have that power. But we don't come at this with a blank slate since the 1700s and Federalist 65. We have had a lot of impeachments since then, and this Senate has established some precedent during that time. I think the dialogue between Madison and Mason suggests a somewhat different view of things than Federalist 65, in the mind of many. But I would just say to you we have had impeachment trials of Judges Claiborne, Nixon and Hastings since then. That is our precedent, in recent years, about what we believe are our laws and how they should be interpreted. I would say this about the case. Others may see it differently. But with regard to the obstruction article, I might have a bit of a quibble with the way the case was presented. I think there was a lot of time and effort spent on trees and not enough on the plain forest. Let me just say to you why I believe the proof of obstruction of justice is so compelling, beyond a reasonable doubt, to a moral certainty. And that is, because the President received interrogatories, he got a subpoena to a deposition, and he knew his day was coming. He knew he was going to have to tell the truth or he was going to have to tell a lie, and it wasn't going away. He tried to avoid the day. He went all the way to the Supreme Court to try to stop that case from going forward, and the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled ``No, you don't get special privileges. You have to go forward with the case.'' So, here he is having to do something. If he states he did not have a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky, if he files an answer to an interrogatory, which he did in December, in which he flatout stated that he had never had sex with a State or Federal employee in the last decade, that would be false. He filed such a false answer to a lawful interrogatory. Then he is at a deposition, and what happens at the deposition? His attorney tries to keep him from being asked about Monica Lewinsky. They produce her affidavit and the attorney says that the President has seen that affidavit and had the opportunity to study it. The President testifies later in that deposition: It is ``absolutely true.'' That is when it all occurred, right there, and talking with Monica beforehand was critical because if she didn't confirm the lie he was going to tell he couldn't tell it. She wanted a job and the President got it for her. If they didn't submit the Lewinsky affidavit, the President was going to be asked those questions. If they talked about the gifts, the cat was going to be out of the bag. It is just that simple. The wrong occurred right there. Then, when he left that deposition, he was worried. He called Betty Currie that night, right after that deposition, the same day, because he knew he had used her name and she was either going to have to back him up or he was in big trouble. So, he coached her. That is what it is all about. You can talk about the facts being anything you want to, but that is the core of this case and it is plain and it is simple for anybody to see who has eyes to see with, in my view. So I think that is a strong case. The question is whether or not, if you believe that happened, you want to remove him from office, and I would like to share a few thoughts on that. Having been a professional prosecutor for 12 years as U.S. attorney, and I tried a lot of cases myself, I really have felt pain for Ken Starr. I had occasion to briefly get to know him. I knew that his reputation within the Department of Justice as Solicitor General was unsurpassed. He was given a responsibility by the Attorney General of the United States and a court panel to find out what the truth was. The President lied, resisted, attacked him, attacked anybody Mr. Starr dealt with, virtually, in seeking the truth. And Ken Starr gets blamed for that, and then 7 months later we find out that the President was lying all the time. He was lying all the time. And somehow this is Ken Starr's fault that he pursued the matter? I am sure he suspicioned the President was lying but it couldn't be proven until the dress appeared and then we finally got something like the truth. Now, one of the most thunderous statements made by counsel--I am surprised it didn't make more news than it did--was the representation by White House counsel that judges hold office on good behavior. Those of you who fight tenaciously for the independence of the judiciary, know that this is not the standard for removal of judges. The courts have gone through it in some detail. Law reviews have been written about it. Judge Harry T. Edwards, Court of Appeals for D.C. Circuit, wrote in a Michigan law review that: Under article II, a judge is subject to impeachment and removal only upon conviction by the Senate of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. This is because he is a civil officer. The President, Vice President and Judges are civil officers of the United States. There is only one standard for impeachment. The Constitution is a marvelous document. We respect it. To do so, we must enforce it as it is written. It says that civil officers, judges are removed for only those offenses. There are no distinctions between the President and judges. Just because one official is elected and one is not elected, one's term is shorter, or there are more judges than Presidents--makes no difference--that is not what the Constitution says. They face the same standard for impeachment. I really believe we are making a serious legal mistake if we suggest otherwise. If the standard is the same, then we have a problem, because we removed a bunch of judges for perjury. Of course, a President gets elected, but the President holds office subject to the Constitution. One of the limitations on your office as an elected official is don't commit a high crime or misdemeanor and if you commit a high crime or misdemeanor, you are to be removed. I don't think there is a lot of give in this, frankly. With regard to precedent, precedent is important because it helps us be objective, less political, less personal and do justice fairer. That is what the Anglo-American common law is all about. Judges have established precedent, and judges tend to follow that precedent unless there is a strong reason not to. This is important for the rule of law. Perjury and its twin, obstruction of justice, do amount to impeachable crimes and our precedent in the Judge Nixon case proves that. I believe we set a good standard in that case, finding that perjury is a high crime, clearly, and we ought to stay with this standard. Some have argued that the House Judiciary Committee on the President Nixon matter declared that tax evasion was not an impeachable offense because it was not directly related to one of the President's duties. I don't think that is clear at all. As a matter of fact, as I recall a few House Members and minority Members signed a statement to that effect. But let me ask you this, and think about this, if a minority on the House Judiciary Committee voted on something, or Gerald Ford said something when he was in the House about impeachment, such is not precedent for the U.S. Senate. It is our precedent that counts. It is the precedent established by Judge Hastings, Judge Nixon, and Judge Claiborne that we ought to be concerned about. I do not believe the Constitution says that the standard for removal is whether somebody is a danger to the Republic's future. The Constitution says if you commit bribery, treason, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, you are out, unless there are some mitigating circumstance somebody can find, but the test is not whether or not the official is going to continue to do the crime in the future. What if it is a one-time bribery that is never again going to happen. Mr. Ruff advocated the ``danger'' standard, and it really disturbed me because it is not in the Constitution. If we were to reject the standard we use for judges for impeachment, I do believe that would mean a lowering of our standards. We will not be holding the President to the same standards we are holding the judges in this country, and I don't think the Constitution justifies a dual standard. As a prosecutor who has been in the courtroom a lot, I am not as cynical as some have suggested today about the law. I have been in grand juries hundreds of times--thousands really. I have tried hundreds of cases. I have seen witnesses personally. I have been with them before they testified and have seen them agonize over their testimony. I know people who file their tax returns and pay more taxes than they want to, voluntarily, because they are men and women of integrity. I have seen it in grand juries. I have seen people cry because they did not want to tell the truth, but they told it. They filed motions to object to testifying, but when it came right down to it, they told the truth. I believe truth is a serious thing. Truth is real and falsehood is real. This is, in my view, a created universe and we have a moral order and when we deny the truth we violate the moral order and bad things happen. Truth is one of the highest ideals of Western civilization commitment to it defines us as a people. As Senator Kyl said, you will never have justice in a court of law if people don't tell the truth. So this is a big deal with me. I have had that lecture with a lot of people who were about to testify. I believe we ought not to dismiss this lightly. There was a poignant story about Dr. Battalino and her conviction for lying about a one-time sex act and the losses she suffered. Let me tell you this personal story, and I will finish. I was U.S. attorney. The new police chief had come to Mobile. He was a strong and aggressive leader from Detroit. He was an African- American. He shook up the department, established community-based policing, and caused a lot of controversy. A group of police officers sued him. His driver, a young police officer, testified in a deposition that the chief had asked him to bug other police officers illegally. Not only that, he said, ``I've got a tape of the chief telling me to bug.'' It leaked to the newspapers, all in the newspapers. They wanted to fire the chief. The FBI was called because it is illegal to bug somebody if there is not a consenting person in the room. It is different with Linda Tripp. Let me just explain the law. If you can remember and testify to what you hear in conversation, you can record that conversation and play it later under law of virtually every State in America. Maryland apparently is different. Here, the driver's action would be illegal. Anyway, the young officer finally, under pressure of the FBI, confessed. The lawsuit hadn't ended. The civil suit was still going on. He went back and changed his deposition and recanted. His lawyer came to me and said, ``Don't prosecute him, Jeff. He's sorry. He finally told the truth. He went back. The case wasn't over.'' We prosecuted him. I felt like he had disrupted the city, caused great turmoil and violated his oath as a police officer, and that we could not just ignore that. The case was prosecuted. He was convicted, and it was affirmed on appeal.