Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I am honored to join with the distinguished Senators who have been sponsoring and working for the passage of the bill that we believe will help our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines to increase their pay, their retirement benefits, and other benefits. They will know that this Nation affirms them, believes in them, and cares about them, and is not going to stand by and allow recruitment and retention to go in the tank and to not give them the kind of pay and benefits they have to have to live in this world. We have taken advantage of them in many ways, and it is time to put an end to that. We have done a lot of things to reduce our defense structure. In 1992, we had 1.8 million men and women in the services. By the year 2000, we will be at 1.38 million. We will drop another 24 percent during this period of time. But we, at the same time, increased the pressures and responsibilities our service men and women are facing. They are being sent around the world at greater and greater rates. The operational tempo--the OPTEMPO they call it--has never been higher. I had the opportunity recently to be with an Air Force officer in Montgomery, AL, at Maxwell Air Force Base. He told me he was in Bosnia and received orders to be stationed in Korea. He called his wife who was then in Montgomery and explained this situation to her, and she replied, ``Well, you can go to Korea, I'm going back to North Carolina.'' These kinds of assignments may sound easy to people sitting in Washington, but it is important to families. They will do it. Our soldiers and sailors give of themselves and sacrifice on a regular basis, but they need to know we care about them, that we are willing to pay them a decent wage, that we are going to maintain good retirement benefits and health care benefits for them. There has been a lack of confidence in that, and that, I believe, is one reason retention is down--that and a good economy; people have more choices. We have reduced our enlistment rates. It is harder and harder to enlist and most of the services are not meeting their enlistment rates now, their goals. It is a matter of real importance. I salute Senator Wayne Allard who chairs our Personnel Subcommittee on Armed Services for his leadership, and Senator John Warner, the chairman of the committee, who made this a top priority. We don't want to wait around with it. We want to pass it early this session, and we want to be able to send a message to the men and women who stand ready at any time to defend this Nation, to send them the message that we care about them, we are hearing their concerns, and we are going to respond to them. I recently had a conversation with a senior retired officer. We were talking about the need to restore the 50-percent retirement. He said one of the concerns that he had and that he was hearing among our service men and women is that older NCO's --noncommissioned officers-- are saying to younger NCO's, ``Well, I got a 50-percent retirement; sorry, you're not going to get that,'' and it makes them feel less appreciated. It makes them feel like they are not getting a fair shake, and it makes them more and more willing to give up a service that they may really love and enjoy and believe in and take a job in the private sector. So I think there are a lot of reasons why changing this retirement benefit from 40 to 50 percent is what we need to do, and I salute Senator Allard for it. I am also an absolutely committed supporter of the Federal Government's Thrift Plan. I think it is one of the best ideas that has been done for the men and women who work for the U.S. Government, and extending it to the military is a great idea. It should be done. They will make their contributions, in effect, to an IRA. As years go by, they will see that fund--that is, their fund-- increase and increase over the years. They will feel that that is an additional benefit, an additional basis to stay in the active service of their country in the military and not get out at an earlier time. I think it is also terrible, really shameful, that we have allowed large numbers of our service men and women to have to ask for food stamps. They qualify for food stamps. That is something we must end. I believe this bill understood that, and it will end that and give them the opportunity to receive other compensations than having to go down to the food stamp office to ask for those benefits. I think we owe them that. Finally, Madam President, let me just say this. I talked to a senior officer just today about the military and about this bill. He was extraordinarily supportive of it, but he told me this. He said it is really more than just the money. Our people who make their career in the service of this country, who are prepared at any time to give their life for their country, those people, those men and women, are committed to public service. And what we need to do most of all is to affirm them and to raise up the respect we give to them. They are prepared, at a moment's notice, to go in harm's way for the people of this country. So I believe this bill, in a way, does that. It is saying: We are hearing your concerns. We are going to move promptly. We are going to make this legislation one of the top priorities of this Congress. We are going to move it out of here quickly. And we are going to get a raise to you and retirement changes that will benefit you, that will end food stamps for you, and give you a Thrift Plan opportunity you have never had before. We are going to say we care about what you are doing. We thank you for your service. I believe that is the kind of signal we need to send. It is not all. We have to deal with such things as spare parts, a national missile defense. We have to decide whether we have enough people in the military now. All these kinds of things we are going to be dealing with later on in the year. But right now we need to move with this legislation. I thank the majority leader, Trent Lott, for being an early sponsor and supporter of it and for making a commitment to bring it up at an early time. And again, let me say how much I have been honored to serve with Senator Wayne Allard. He chairs the subcommittee where this legislation has begun. He is doing an outstanding job for our Nation in so many different ways but particularly as chairman of this subcommittee. I am also pleased to see Senator Levin here. He is the ranking member of this committee and is committed to our Nation's strength and defenses. And it is a pleasure to see that this legislation is moving forward in an expeditious manner. Thank you, Madam President. Mr. ALLARD addressed the Chair.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Mr. Robert Schwinghamer on the occasion of his retirement for his significant contributions to our nation's space and rocket program. He served most recently within the office of the Director as the Associate Director, Technical, at NASA's George C. Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama. Bob Schwinghamer's legacy is one of outstanding leadership, unselfish professional service, and a steadfast dedication to America's space program. It is a personal honor for me to recognize the more than 40 years that Bob so willingly committed to our country. I salute the distinguished achievements of this remarkable Alabamian for what his service has meant to the State of Alabama, the Nation, and NASA. Bob's splendid record of achievement speaks for itself. He has been the recipient of several NASA Outstanding Leadership and Distinguished Service Medals; the Presidential Rank Distinguished Executive Award from President George Bush in 1992; Top Engineer in NASA and one of the Top Ten Engineers in Federal Government in 1990 and 1992. He also received numerous Group Achievement and Sustained Superior Performance Awards. With an ebullient leadership style, Bob Schwinghamer also led NASA investigation teams through times of crisis. In 1973, he received the NASA Medal for Exceptional Service to the Apollo Program. In 1986, he led the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident Solid Rocket Motor Investigation Team. In 1998, he received the NASA Outstanding Leadership Medal for leadership in Returning the Space Shuttle Safely to Flight, and in 1990, he led the Space Shuttle Hydrogen Leak Investigation Team. His outstanding record of service and his unfailing loyalty to the U.S. space program cannot be paid its proper due with mere words. Bob Schwinghamer received his Bachelor-of-Science Degree in Engineering from Purdue University in 1950 and then completed his Master of Science Degree in Management from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1968. During his notable career, he served as a registered professional engineer in the States of Indiana, Ohio, and Alabama. Bob is a member of several highly regarded professional and honorary societies including the American Society for Materials, International; American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics; Society of Manufacturing Engineers, and the Society for Advancement of Materials and Processes Engineering. His devotion to the field of science has earned him continuing recognition throughout the space and missile community all over the country. Mr. Schwinghamer's professional prowess and outstanding leadership are certainly noteworthy, but he also deserves recognition for being a devoted husband and father and an involved citizen. As an active member of his community, he has given his efforts to outside activities including service as Vice President of Grissom High School's PTA, President of the Lily Flagg Club, and President of the MSFC Skeet Club. He has and continues to inspire individuals in his workplace, community, and home. Bob's generosity and willingness to serve others is a trait which endears him to all of us. It is with warmest regards and best wishes that I offer Robert J. Schwinghamer and his family every happiness in all of their future endeavors. It is right that we honor and celebrate his retirement. I salute Bob Schwinghamer as he embarks on the beginning of the next chapter of his life. Our nation's space program will have to replace one of its finest. His presence and expertise will certainly be missed.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in introducing the ``Trade Fairness Act of 1999'' and thank Senator Specter for his hard work in crafting this legislation which will help alleviate the economic turmoil in our domestic steel industry caused by illegal dumping. Recent trade data indicates that steel imports to the United States for the first ten months of 1998, ending in October, have reached an all time record of 34,628,000 tons. In contrast, imports to the United States in for the first ten months of 1997, which was itself a record year, equaled 26,708,000 tons. This represents a 30 percent increase. The bill I am joining in cosponsoring with Senator Specter today will help make it easier for the President to enforce our existing trade laws in two ways; it will lower the threshold necessary for the President to take immediate action to stem the tide of illegal imports under section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 and it will create an ``Import Monitoring Program'' for steel, similar to the systems in place in both Mexico and Canada, to identify the country of origin, value and quantity of steel imports into the United States. These actions are in line with the General Agreement on Tarriffs and Trade (GATT) and will not hinder free trade with our international trading partners. The bill will provide necessary information, critical in determining whether illegal trade practices are occurring. This provision will ensure the President can take immediate, decisive action when those practices are identified. The men and women who work in the United States steel business are the most efficient and hardest working people in the world. Given a fair shake, our domestic steel producers have and can continue to compete with any of our international trading partners. Illegal dumping has forced America's steel industry into jeopardy. The jobs of thousands of steel workers in my home state of Alabama and across the Nation are threatened. Our steel workers and companies deserve the protection afforded to them by United States trade law and the rigorous enforcement of those laws by our President.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in introducing the ``Trade Fairness Act of 1999'' and thank Senator Specter for his hard work in crafting this legislation which will help alleviate the economic turmoil in our domestic steel industry caused by illegal dumping. Recent trade data indicates that steel imports to the United States for the first ten months of 1998, ending in October, have reached an all time record of 34,628,000 tons. In contrast, imports to the United States in for the first ten months of 1997, which was itself a record year, equaled 26,708,000 tons. This represents a 30 percent increase. The bill I am joining in cosponsoring with Senator Specter today will help make it easier for the President to enforce our existing trade laws in two ways; it will lower the threshold necessary for the President to take immediate action to stem the tide of illegal imports under section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 and it will create an ``Import Monitoring Program'' for steel, similar to the systems in place in both Mexico and Canada, to identify the country of origin, value and quantity of steel imports into the United States. These actions are in line with the General Agreement on Tarriffs and Trade (GATT) and will not hinder free trade with our international trading partners. The bill will provide necessary information, critical in determining whether illegal trade practices are occurring. This provision will ensure the President can take immediate, decisive action when those practices are identified. The men and women who work in the United States steel business are the most efficient and hardest working people in the world. Given a fair shake, our domestic steel producers have and can continue to compete with any of our international trading partners. Illegal dumping has forced America's steel industry into jeopardy. The jobs of thousands of steel workers in my home state of Alabama and across the Nation are threatened. Our steel workers and companies deserve the protection afforded to them by United States trade law and the rigorous enforcement of those laws by our President.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the concept of prepaid tuition plans and why they are critically important to America's families. As a parent who has put two children through college and who has another currently enrolled in college, I know first-hand that America's families are struggling to meet the rising costs of higher education. In fact, American families have already accrued more college debt in the 1990's than during the previous three decades combined. The reason is twofold: the federal government subsidizes student debt with interest rate breaks and penalizes educational savings by taxing the interest earned on those savings. In recent years, however, many families have tackled rising tuition costs by taking advantage of pre-paid college tuition and savings plans. These plans allow families to purchase tuition credits years in advance. Mr. President, 39 states, like my home state of Alabama, along with a nationwide consortium of more than 100 private schools, have established these tuition savings and prepaid tuition plans. These plans are extremely popular with parents, students, and alumni. They make it easier for families to save for college, while at the same time taking the uncertainty out of the future cost of college. Congress has supported participating families by expanding the scope of the pre-paid tuition plans and by deferring the taxes on the interest earned until the student goes off to college. Mr. President, today, I along with Senators Bob Graham, Connie Mack, Paul Coverdell, Spencer Abraham, and Thad Cochran are introducing ``The Collegiate Learning and Student Savings (CLASS) Act'', a common sense piece of legislation which could help more than 30 million students afford a college education. The CLASS Act will make the interest earned on all education pre-paid plans completely tax-free. Currently, the interest earned by families saving for college is taxed twice. Families are taxed on the income when they earn it, and then again on the interest that accrues from the savings. On the other hand, the federal government subsidizes student loans by deferring interest payments until after graduation. It is no wonder that families are going heavily into debt and at the same time are struggling to save for college. We strongly believe that this trend must no longer continue. In order to provide families a new alternative, The CLASS Act will provide tax-free treatment to all pre-paid savings plans. This bipartisan piece of legislation is sound education and tax policy that provides incentives for savings rather than bureaucratic solutions. For a small cost, the CLASS Act will provide billions in potential savings to help families afford a college education. Mr. President, many individuals have questioned whether these plans will benefit all types of students. Let me say this, it is wrong to assume that tuition savings and prepaid plans benefit mainly the wealthy. In fact, the track record of existing state pre-paid plans indicates that working, middle-income families, not the rich, benefit the most from pre-paid plans. For example, families with an annual income of less than $35,000 purchased 62 percent of the prepaid tuition contracts sold by the State of Pennsylvania in 1996. And the average monthly contribution to a family's college savings account during 1995 in Kentucky was $43. Tax free treatment for prepaid tuition plans must become law. The federal government can no longer subsidize student debt with interest rate breaks and penalize educational savings by taxing the interest earned by families who are desperately trying to save for college. If these goals are achieved, the federal government would no longer be penalizing families for saving but rather be providing families with help they need to meet the cost of college through savings rather than through debt. Mr. President, this legislation has received a tremendous amount of support from the colleges and universities, higher education associations, as well as several public policy think tanks. These include: The Career College Association, the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities, the American Council on Education, the State of Virginia's Prepaid Education Program, The Heritage Foundation and Citizens for a Sound Economy. The idea of tax-free treatment for prepaid tuition plans has also been endorsed by the Washington Post, Time Magazine, and the Birmingham News. Mr. President, in particular, I would like to call my colleagues attention to a September 25, 1998 Heritage Foundation report, authored by Rea Hederman, a Research Analyst in the Domestic Policy Department at Heritage. This shows that over 30 million children stand to benefit from expanded education savings accounts and tuition prepayment plans. I'd encourage my colleagues to review the Heritage report, which breaks down these numbers by both State and Congressional district. Mr. President, I would also like to ask that a copy of this report be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. I would also like to acknowledge the efforts of my good friend Congressman Joe Scarborough, who has introduced the House companion to the CLASS Act, H.R. 254. Mr. President, the time to act is now. I encourage my colleagues to push for this common sense piece of legislation. This Congress should call on the leadership of both Houses, to make this legislation, which cold help more than 30 million students afford a college education, a part of any tax bill we consider this year. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a report and letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, today I join my colleagues, Senators, Murkowski and Landrieu in introducing the bipartisan ``Conservation and Re-Investment Act of 1999''. The Conservation and Re-Investment Act will serve to provide dedicated funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, wildlife enhancement programs and urban parks development by redirecting a portions of the royalty revenues derived from Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas production. In addition, this bill will redirect a portion of Outer Continental Shelf royalties directly back to coastal states which have been impacted by Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas production in order to assist those states in restoring and preserving air quality, water quality, wetlands, estuaries and other coastal resources and environments impacted by Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas production. This bill will allow coastal states to create trust funds, the revenues of which can be used in perpetuity for such purposes as environmental protection, conservation, water quality and public land purchases. Recognizing the boom and bust nature of oil and gas production, Alabama long ago created a protected trust fund from the oil and gas royalties it receives from development off its' coast. The revenues derived from the investment this fund have been used by the state to fund popular wildlife conservation programs and the state's ``Forever Wild'' program. These programs have permitted the state to make land purchases to create and expand Alabama's park system and to help create additional outdoor recreation opportunities for its citizens. It is my hope that this bill will create the conduit for other states and the federal government to follow the example set by my home state of Alabama. While the revenues derived from this fund will be limited to the goals of the Conservation and Re-Investment Act, a prudent coastal state must consider this option to guard against the boom and bust nature of the oil and gas business. Mr. President, this bill will go a long way towards protecting the environment and increasing conservation in coastal states and the entire nation by creating a dedicated funding mechanism to fulfill these goals. We, along with future generations, will benefit greatly from this legislation. I look forward to working with my colleagues to craft a bill which can continue to enjoy bi-partisan support and be passed into law.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the concept of prepaid tuition plans and why they are critically important to America's families. As a parent who has put two children through college and who has another currently enrolled in college, I know first-hand that America's families are struggling to meet the rising costs of higher education. In fact, American families have already accrued more college debt in the 1990's than during the previous three decades combined. The reason is twofold: the federal government subsidizes student debt with interest rate breaks and penalizes educational savings by taxing the interest earned on those savings. In recent years, however, many families have tackled rising tuition costs by taking advantage of pre-paid college tuition and savings plans. These plans allow families to purchase tuition credits years in advance. Mr. President, 39 states, like my home state of Alabama, along with a nationwide consortium of more than 100 private schools, have established these tuition savings and prepaid tuition plans. These plans are extremely popular with parents, students, and alumni. They make it easier for families to save for college, while at the same time taking the uncertainty out of the future cost of college. Congress has supported participating families by expanding the scope of the pre-paid tuition plans and by deferring the taxes on the interest earned until the student goes off to college. Mr. President, today, I along with Senators Bob Graham, Connie Mack, Paul Coverdell, Spencer Abraham, and Thad Cochran are introducing ``The Collegiate Learning and Student Savings (CLASS) Act'', a common sense piece of legislation which could help more than 30 million students afford a college education. The CLASS Act will make the interest earned on all education pre-paid plans completely tax-free. Currently, the interest earned by families saving for college is taxed twice. Families are taxed on the income when they earn it, and then again on the interest that accrues from the savings. On the other hand, the federal government subsidizes student loans by deferring interest payments until after graduation. It is no wonder that families are going heavily into debt and at the same time are struggling to save for college. We strongly believe that this trend must no longer continue. In order to provide families a new alternative, The CLASS Act will provide tax-free treatment to all pre-paid savings plans. This bipartisan piece of legislation is sound education and tax policy that provides incentives for savings rather than bureaucratic solutions. For a small cost, the CLASS Act will provide billions in potential savings to help families afford a college education. Mr. President, many individuals have questioned whether these plans will benefit all types of students. Let me say this, it is wrong to assume that tuition savings and prepaid plans benefit mainly the wealthy. In fact, the track record of existing state pre-paid plans indicates that working, middle-income families, not the rich, benefit the most from pre-paid plans. For example, families with an annual income of less than $35,000 purchased 62 percent of the prepaid tuition contracts sold by the State of Pennsylvania in 1996. And the average monthly contribution to a family's college savings account during 1995 in Kentucky was $43. Tax free treatment for prepaid tuition plans must become law. The federal government can no longer subsidize student debt with interest rate breaks and penalize educational savings by taxing the interest earned by families who are desperately trying to save for college. If these goals are achieved, the federal government would no longer be penalizing families for saving but rather be providing families with help they need to meet the cost of college through savings rather than through debt. Mr. President, this legislation has received a tremendous amount of support from the colleges and universities, higher education associations, as well as several public policy think tanks. These include: The Career College Association, the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities, the American Council on Education, the State of Virginia's Prepaid Education Program, The Heritage Foundation and Citizens for a Sound Economy. The idea of tax-free treatment for prepaid tuition plans has also been endorsed by the Washington Post, Time Magazine, and the Birmingham News. Mr. President, in particular, I would like to call my colleagues attention to a September 25, 1998 Heritage Foundation report, authored by Rea Hederman, a Research Analyst in the Domestic Policy Department at Heritage. This shows that over 30 million children stand to benefit from expanded education savings accounts and tuition prepayment plans. I'd encourage my colleagues to review the Heritage report, which breaks down these numbers by both State and Congressional district. Mr. President, I would also like to ask that a copy of this report be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. I would also like to acknowledge the efforts of my good friend Congressman Joe Scarborough, who has introduced the House companion to the CLASS Act, H.R. 254. Mr. President, the time to act is now. I encourage my colleagues to push for this common sense piece of legislation. This Congress should call on the leadership of both Houses, to make this legislation, which cold help more than 30 million students afford a college education, a part of any tax bill we consider this year. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a report and letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, today I join my colleagues, Senators, Murkowski and Landrieu in introducing the bipartisan ``Conservation and Re-Investment Act of 1999''. The Conservation and Re-Investment Act will serve to provide dedicated funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, wildlife enhancement programs and urban parks development by redirecting a portions of the royalty revenues derived from Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas production. In addition, this bill will redirect a portion of Outer Continental Shelf royalties directly back to coastal states which have been impacted by Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas production in order to assist those states in restoring and preserving air quality, water quality, wetlands, estuaries and other coastal resources and environments impacted by Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas production. This bill will allow coastal states to create trust funds, the revenues of which can be used in perpetuity for such purposes as environmental protection, conservation, water quality and public land purchases. Recognizing the boom and bust nature of oil and gas production, Alabama long ago created a protected trust fund from the oil and gas royalties it receives from development off its' coast. The revenues derived from the investment this fund have been used by the state to fund popular wildlife conservation programs and the state's ``Forever Wild'' program. These programs have permitted the state to make land purchases to create and expand Alabama's park system and to help create additional outdoor recreation opportunities for its citizens. It is my hope that this bill will create the conduit for other states and the federal government to follow the example set by my home state of Alabama. While the revenues derived from this fund will be limited to the goals of the Conservation and Re-Investment Act, a prudent coastal state must consider this option to guard against the boom and bust nature of the oil and gas business. Mr. President, this bill will go a long way towards protecting the environment and increasing conservation in coastal states and the entire nation by creating a dedicated funding mechanism to fulfill these goals. We, along with future generations, will benefit greatly from this legislation. I look forward to working with my colleagues to craft a bill which can continue to enjoy bi-partisan support and be passed into law.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 13 submitted earlier today by Senator Lott.

Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 12 submitted earlier today by Senator Lott.

Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to and that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 15, submitted earlier today by the Democratic leader.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to and that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 14, submitted earlier today by the Democratic leader.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the Senate will convene tomorrow at 12:30 p.m. and begin a period for morning business until 1 p.m. Following morning business, it is expected that the Senate will resume sitting as a Court of Impeachment. It is also expected that at 1 p.m. an agreement may be reached with respect to the pending impeachment trial. A rollcall vote is therefore expected at approximately 1 p.m. tomorrow.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until the hour of 12:30 p.m. on Friday, January 8. I further ask unanimous consent that on Friday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved and that there then be a period for morning business for statements only until 1 p.m., with the time equally divided between the majority and the minority leaders or their designees.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join others to comment on the service provided to America and to Kentucky by Wendell Ford. While we were members of different political parties, I often had the opportunity to hear him speak on this floor and to observe him represent his party as a Democratic leader. He is strong, experienced, filled with good humor and a tough advocate for his state and for his beliefs. I was honored to be the presiding officer for the Senate on the day in which Wendell Ford eclipsed the service record of a host of outstanding Kentucky senators and became the longest serving Senator from that great state. While he loves government, politics and the debate that goes with this office, he is a family man at heart. He has the sense of a southerner. He remembers his friends and he loves his state. He is also independent. I recall one late night that we were debating whether to limit the high attorneys' fees in the tobacco cases. Senator Ford came on the floor and I noticed him looking my way during the debate. As we concluded, he asked if I would yield for a question. I answered his inquiry as best I could and he firmly nodded. Even though his party was strongly against my amendment, and no one could doubt that Wendell Ford is a good Democrat, he voted for the amendment and it passed by one vote. Those are the things that you remember and are a good example for all of us. While we want to be loyal, we are also independent. Mr. President, we are losing one of our more notable members. We will miss the richness of his experience, the sharp debate, and the good humor. While our association has been a short one, I have enjoyed and benefitted from it, and expect that it will continue.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, six years seems too short a time for a man of Dirk Kempthorne's character to serve in the United States Senate. In the two years that I have been privileged to work with the Senator from Idaho, I have been impressed by both his considerable integrity and also his unwavering dedication to the citizens of Idaho and to his fellow countrymen. When I reflect upon Senator Kempthorne's tenure in the Senate, I will remember the traits that made him such a successful legislator. I will especially remember the thoughtful approach the the Senator used when addressing the pressing issues of the day. When Senator Kempthorne chose a course of action, every Senator could be certain that his decisions were guided by careful deliberation, broad consultation, and sincere prayer. Now, Senator Kempthorne has decided to return to his people of Idaho, offering to sere their interests closer to home. Selfishly, I and others will miss his quiet strength, his leadership in a pinch, his good judgment, and his deep faith. It has enriched all who have had the privilege of serving with him and, I must say, it has been a special source of strength to me. Dirk not only talks the talk, he walks the walk. His concern is for the least among us and his insights are superior. Whether he is in a small group meeting, a committee hearing, a leadership conference, a Bible study, or on the floor of the United States Senate, Dirk Kempthorne always reveals himself to be a man of integrity. This is so because he is one solid whole. He does not compartmentalize. What you see is what you get, from the surface to the center. Dirk has called us to higher things than mere public policy. He wants our government to make us better, not just richer and more powerful. His service in the Senate has been to that goal. He is both a humble servant of a higher calling, and an effective leader. We will miss that leadership and strength on issue after issue. We will miss even more his good example, his living proof that one can serve in public life and posses the richest qualities of a Christian gentleman. Dirk, we will miss you. You have made us better by your word, your manner, and your life. Our best wishes go with you. Godspeed Dirk Kempthorne.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I have been honored to have the opportunity to hear Senator Bumpers share his perspective on public service and his personal odyssey. His story is the story of the South-- depression, hardship, tough economic times, small businesses, and the son of a shopkeeper. I, too, am the son of a storekeeper and can understand and identify the qualities that have shaped Senator Bumpers' life. I have had the opportunity to personally observe his service in this body for just 2 years, but in that short time I have been able to appreciate his many excellent qualities. He does indeed reflect the character of the people of Arkansas. He is part of that State; he comes from its people; and, he shares its values. As an attorney who has tried many cases, I have had the pleasure to see him work on the floor of the Senate. He is articulate, able, well prepared, logical, and persuasive. He states his case very effectively. I can just imagine him before a jury in Arkansas as he boils down complex issues to their essence and appeals to their sense of values. I can see just why people refer to him as an outstanding lawyer. Many denigrate that profession, and I have been a strong critic of some of the abuses of the legal profession, but the skills possessed by the Senator from Arkansas are those skills that make a lawyer most valuable. He cuts straight to the heart of the matter in words that are comprehensible by all. Again, I am pleased to have served with the distinguished senior Senator from Arkansas and I wish him well in his future service. He has conducted himself with high standards and has not done anything to bring discredit on this body. He has stood courageously, alone if necessary, for the values that he believed in. There is no doubt, I say to the children and grandchildren of the distinguished Senator from Arkansas, that your father and grandfather has been an able and noble practitioner in this great deliberative body of the greatest nation in the history of the world. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the Senator from Alabama would like about 10 minutes on the bankruptcy bill. There are 10 minutes set aside for me now.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise to make a few remarks concerning the VA health care system, a system that is currently undergoing dramatic changes and reorganization. I would note that these changes, in turn, to include managerial reforms, facility consolidations, and reallocation of resources, all initiated by the Under Secretary for Health, Dr. Kenneth W. Kizer M.D., M.P.H., are having a dramatic impact on when, where, and how VA is providing for our veterans, many of whom are in my home state of Alabama. The private health care sector is likewise undergoing massive managerial and resource changes. We saw evidence earlier this week of the erosion in care for elderly Americans, for instance, when a number of HMO's decided not to participate any further in Medicare+Choice. Over at the VA, using managed care models, Dr. Kizer also shifted inpatient care to outpatient care and heightened the focus of primary care at the expense of specialty care and specialized services. So elderly veterans, and those in speciality care programs around the country, are under the same stresses as their civilian neighbors. Dr. Kizer apparently likes decentralized decision making, and I cannot say that I necessarily disagree with that style. It can be very effective at times and in certain organizations. He has given local VA managers incentives and authority to design and run their own health care operations independent of VA's National Headquarters. In many respects these reforms have been beneficial, even bold I am told, particularly at a time when the VA budget is under severe stress. However, I expressed my personal concern to Dr. Kizer in a phone call earlier this week that there is one area where I believe decentralization and certainly the shifting of resources is having a very negative effect on one of the VA's core missions, and that is, the provision of specialized services for veterans with spinal cord injury and dysfunction. Mr. President, the Congress mandated in P.L. 104-262 that the VA would maintain its capacity to provide specialized services, such as care given in VA's 23 Spinal Cord Injury (SCI) centers. Many have wondered, and rightly so I believe, that budget pressures, reorganization and decentralization of management have created the incentive for local managers to downgrade these expensive specialized programs, generally shifting resources and staff out of one area to make up for shortfalls in others areas. Costs are thereby reduced at the expense of the care for the veterans who need it the most. Specialized programs, including blind rehabilitation, amputation care, specialized health programs, as well as spinal cord injury care, are core disciplines of the VA health care system. They, least of all, should be subject to re-engineering until all aspects of that care have been analyzed from a headquarters perspective. I don't think allowing numerous mangers to make that kind of decision is in the national interest or in the interest of our veterans. Former Senator Alan Simpson from Wyoming, then Chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, presided over the passage of the legislation protecting specialized services. Addressing this particular provision, he said: ``VA is required to maintain special programs (such as treatment of spinal cord dysfunction, blind rehabilitation, amputation and mental illness) at least at the current level. On a per capita basis, these services are expensive to provide and it is not the intent of the Committee to allow VA to reduce them in order to pay for other kinds of routine care.'' Mr. President, I am afraid what Senator Simpson and the Congress feared could happen to specialized programs in general and spinal cord injury programs specifically under VA's current reorganization initiatives is, in fact, happening. Nearly a month ago, I had a visit from Mr. Aubrey L. Crockett, the President of the Mid-South Chapter of Paralyzed Veterans of America. Aubrey represents the health care interests of 1830 spinal cord dysfunctional veterans in Alabama. As he sat confined to his wheel chair, he raised serious concerns that the VA was not maintaining the quality and quantity of its specialized health care services for the over 120,000 veterans nationwide with spinal cord dysfunction. Last month, Gordon Mansfield, the National Executive Director of the Paralyzed Veterans of America addressed the same subject from a national perspective during hearings on the Hill. PVA's leadership has expressed its concerns to me as well. Over 75 percent of their membership, a larger percentage than any other veterans service organization, rely on the VA for all or part of their specialized health care needs. For these individuals with chronic and catastrophic disabilities, any erosion in the care they require can be life threatening. Aubrey indicated that something as simple as a pad for a wheel chair can make a big difference for a veteran. I have come to believe that PVA's concerns need to be addressed. I further believe that any erosion in staffing, bed availability or the quality of care at our nations VA Spinal Cord Injury Centers cannot stand without a review of the underlying reasons, and that the VA must direct the resources to fix the problems in order to comply with the intent of Congress as mandated in the statutes. In an era of tight budgets, local hospital administrators and managers don't see these programs, such as the Spinal Cord Injury programs, as being ``National Programs.'' Ignoring the national mandates, local managers acting under Dr. Kizer's administrative decentralization guidelines have been left to do whatever they felt was warranted. We may disagree on the numbers of reported beds and staff in SCI centers, but even GAO has criticized the inaccuracy of VA data collection efforts. So, it should not be surprising that a number of Senators have questioned VA's procedures and policies as applied to managing its specialized programs. Paralyzed veterans, I think, are the only true judges of the state of the health care they receive. They are the reason the VA health care system exists. If paralyzed veterans have a concern then the Congress must listen, and more importantly, if warranted we must act on their behalf. On September 29, 1998, I wrote to my colleague from Pennsylvania Veterans Committee Chairman Arlen Specter expressing my concerns in this matter. I indicated that ``I will consider placing a hold on the re-nomination'' of Dr. Kenneth Kizer, ``until my concern regarding the maintenance of specialized services within the Veterans Health Administration is adequately addressed.'' Mr. President, I want to commend Senator Specter, and the Committee for its support in this matter. The Committee met every request I had in a timely fashion. Moreover, it helped coordinate a solution acceptable to all parties. America's veterans owe Senator Specter a debt of gratitude for his hard work on their behalf. The solution I had in mind when I wrote to Dr. Kizer was to bring the reins of control for SCI programs back to the National Headquarters level and in the process elevate the controls over policy and resources and restore a greater degree of national guidance and oversight. In doing so, I hoped we would be guaranteeing for some time to come that these changes would meet the needs of our paralyzed veterans and conform to the mandated statutes. Mr. President, I am pleased to report that Dr. Kizer has responded to my concerns with a suggested list of administrative and policy changes that would bring additional control over the spinal cord injury program. I request that my letter to Dr. Kizer dated October 5, 1998, and his letter of policy recommendations dated October 8, 1998 be printed in the Record immediately following this statement. I believe I have Dr. Kizer's commitment to a series of positive improvements to our specialized programs. I look forward to seeing the fruits of his labor and those of the departments he supervises. Similarly, and with the help of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I intend to keep a close watch on these policy changes and the Spinal Cord Injury Program in particular. I have no intention of letting Aubrey or the other 1830 Spinal Cord dysfunctional veterans in Alabama down. This body needs to make certain that the VA is maintaining its capacity to provide specialized health care services and that it is doing as much as it can to care for all our 26 million veterans--all the time. That has always been the intent of Congress and I am certain it always will be. The letters follow: United States Senate, Washington, DC, October 5, 1998. Dr. Kenneth W. Kizer, M.D., Special Assistant to the Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC. Dear Dr. Kizer; I am glad we had a brief chance to speak this afternoon. As I told you, I am ready to remove my hold on your re-nomination for the position of Under Secretary for Health once you clarify for me in writing what action(s) you and the Department intend to take to comply with the statutory mandates for the specialized treatment and rehabilitative needs of disabled veterans (including veterans with spinal cord dysfunction, blindness, amputation and mental illness) identified in section 1706, Title 38 U.S.C. and staffing requirements in section 7306 (f), Title 38