Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet on Friday, October 2, 1998, at 10:00 a.m. in open session, to receive testimony on ballistic missile defense programs, policies, and related issues.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent that the substitute amendment, as amended, be agreed to.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would also like to offer remarks that I have prepared as we celebrate today the first balanced budget in 30 years. I had occasion to be elected to the Senate on a number of issues, but none more important than a commitment to work for that goal just 2 years ago. I remember when I first got here, Secretary of Treasury Rubin was testifying before the Judiciary Committee on the question of whether we needed a balanced budget constitutional amendment that would mandate that we balance the budget. He said we did not. He said they had a plan that would balance the budget by 2002. I was new. I had been told that Secretary Rubin was quite a skillful witness and that I should be careful. I said, ``Mr. Secretary, that is a nice promise you made. But the truth is you won't be here in 2002 as Secretary of the Treasury, will you?'' Without hesitating, he said, ``Well, I haven't talked to the Vice President yet.'' But I was left with a thought that, well, President Clinton would not be here constitutionally as President past his two full terms, and that he could not make a promise that we could balance the budget long after he left office. So I just say that to say that less than 2 years ago there was great doubt in our country and among our public policy leaders that we would, in fact, be able to balance the budget. This Congress has stepped forward and has made some tough decisions. It has worked with the administration. It has put caps on spending that are holding. And we have now produced a balanced budget amendment with maybe a $70 billion surplus. When I traveled across the state two years ago during my campaign for the Senate, I learned that foremost in the minds of Alabamians regarding the future of our country was the economic legacy we as taxpayers were creating for our children. At the time, that legacy meant budget deficits as far as the eye could see. I believe that part of the reason why I was elected to the Senate was because of my promise to change that legacy by supporting a balanced budget, and to do so by cutting spending and eliminating fraud and abuse. Today, I am proud to witness as a Member of Congress, the first balanced budget in thirty years. It is an historic event much as Neil Armstrong's first steps taken on the Moon in 1969--the last year there was no budget deficit. As a result of this achievement, the American taxpayer is enjoying historically low interest rates on mortgages, car loans, and students loans. Those who could only dream of buying a home are becoming homeowners. Automobiles are more affordable than ever. And students with college loans are finding the burden of their debt lessened as they graduate and enter the workforce. Businesses are benefitting as well. Lower interest rates mean more money to invest in capital, and expanded capital means more jobs. The unemployment rate is at an historic low of 4.5 percent. The effects of this tight labor market combined with such low interest rates has meant returns to workers in the form of higher wages. Indeed, income for the typical American household rose at nearly twice the rate of inflation in 1997. There are many people that deserve credit for this historic achievement, but none more than the American people. It is the American people that created a mandate for a balanced budget by electing those of us to office who would make it their number one priority to put the country's books in the black. I am proud to be part of that mandate. It is a Republican Congress who responded to this mandate by producing a balanced budget and doing it ahead of schedule. If this responsibility had been left to the President, today we would have a $196 billion deficit, which he called for in his 1996 budget. But it is not enough to balance the budget just once. Now that we have achieved a balance, we need to maintain it. Interest rates don't respond to what the deficit is today. They respond to what people think the deficit is going to be in the future, and big hurdles remain before a future of balanced budgets can be assured. Today, we begin a new fiscal year with a surplus of $63 billion. Yet, hard choices regarding spending must still be made in order to preserve Social Security and Medicare, as well as cut taxes in order to keep the economy and families strong. It is a time to celebrate, and I think we should pause and be grateful. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas. We both share a keen interest in space. I will also be speaking on the topic of the 40th anniversary of NASA, which is today. Mr. President, next month, from launch pad 39B at Cape Canaveral, the Space Shuttle's main engines will fire up, the solid rocket motors will ignite, and the crew of seven will be sent off into orbit around our home planet. One of those seven will be the distinguished Senator from Ohio. More than 36 years after his first flight, John Glenn will again orbit the earth in a United States spacecraft. I have here a picture of Senator Glenn taken 36 years ago with Dr. Wernher von Braun in Huntsville, Alabama, my home State. They are shown here discussing a proposed lunar landing craft. What an imagination, what a vision, what an exploring capacity they had. Shortly after that first orbital flight, they were already planning a trip to the moon--a vision that many thought could never be achieved and was achieved so successfully. Senator Glenn's remarkable story is a subplot to the remarkable story of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. On October 1, 1958, just six months before the distinguished Senator from Ohio was named as one of the original Mercury astronauts, NASA was born. Today, NASA marks its 40th anniversary of service to this Nation. It is hard to believe that more than 40 years have passed since the Soviet launch of Sputnik. Spurred by concern over the Soviet advantage in space, the Eisenhower administration proposed the creation of a civil space agency to lead our Nation in the exploration of space. Forty years later, the Soviet Union no longer exists. But NASA stands on the threshold of a new millennium, the undisputed world leader in space exploration. The agency's achievements and discoveries during that 40-year period have changed our world in many ways. Those who are familiar with the space program talk frequently of the many ``spinoffs'' from the program. There are, in fact, many products and services that are obviously and directly attributable to the space program. For instance, many Americans do not leave home in the morning before checking the weather forecast. Being from Mobile and just sitting through a hurricane, this was particularly true for me this past weekend. Of course, weather satellites orbiting the earth have revolutionized weather forecasting. Many of us check the forecast by turning on the television networks that distribute their signals by satellite. Indeed, I saw a writer interviewed recently. He said he realized just how significant this global communications system was when he was on a dirt road in Africa and he picked up a cell phone and, through a satellite, called his home in Ohio. There are a great number of beneficial byproducts of NASA's work that are less obvious. Indeed, many credit the micro-miniaturization of electronics, which was driven by the needs of the space program, with ushering in the whole technological revolution and the information age that we are now experiencing. As important as the tangible benefits from the space program have been, I believe the intangible benefits have been even more significant. What value can we assign to our victory in the space race--to our come-from-behind win against a totalitarian rival? What would have been the military and foreign policy implications of Soviet domination in outer space? But Cold War implications aside, NASA's success has been an important factor in elevating our national spirit. For America, exploration is imperative. We will never be content to sit back as observers while others take the risks and are rewarded with new discoveries. Exploration can take many forms, but, probably more than anyone else, NASA exemplifies our spirit of exploration. There was a time, earlier in our Nation's history, when Alabama and everything west of the Appalachians comprised the frontier. Today, space is the frontier. Since its inception 40 years ago, NASA has been charting the path in this new and exciting territory. On October 7, 1958, just one week after it came into existence, NASA formally approved Project Mercury to send a man into orbit around the earth, investigate his capabilities and reactions to space and return him safely to earth. Project Mercury produced genuine American heroes, like the late Alan Shepard and then-Lieutenant Colonel John Glenn. On May 25, 1961--shortly after Alan Shepard's suborbital flight, and months before Senator Glenn became the first American astronaut to orbit the earth in February of 1962--President Kennedy set a high mark for the young space program. Speaking to a joint session of Congress, he established a national goal of landing a man on the moon and bringing him safely back to earth, and this was to be accomplished before the decade was out. As we all know, the nation and NASA were up to the challenge. On July 20, 1969, an Apollo lunar landing craft carrying Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin touched down on the surface of the moon. That remarkable achievement stands as one of the proudest moments in American history, and one of the greatest achievements in the history of mankind. Since Apollo, NASA's accomplishments have been legion, in aeronautics as well as space, in unmanned exploration as well as human space flight. While it is hard to match the thrill of the first moon landing, the expansion of scientific knowledge flowing from NASA's later programs has truly been historic. As we look to the future, NASA cannot, and would not, rest on its laurels. Within the first few months after its 40th Anniversary, NASA will launch the STS-95 science mission, with Senator Glenn on board, will launch the first U.S. element of the International Space Station, and will launch its next great observatory, the Advanced X-Ray Astrophysics Facility. Following close on the heels of those missions will be the first flights of the X-34 technology demonstrator and the X-33 reusable launch vehicle prototype, as well as the launch of the U.S. Laboratory Module for the Space Station. All of this is scheduled to occur before this millennium closes. With proper support from the Administration, the Congress and the public, NASA will continue to lead the world in exploration well into the next millennium. I am proud of the role that my home state has played and continues to play in the space program. Even before NASA was formed, Dr. Wernher von Braun and his team of rocket scientists with the Army Ballistic Missile Agency in Huntsville were developing new rocket systems. A modified Jupiter-C rocket, developed by von Braun's team, answered Sputnik by placing the Explorer I Satellite into orbit on January 31, 1958. This is a remarkable picture taken at the ABMA Fabrication Lab in Huntsville in 1959. Shown here are the original seven Mecury astronauts, who are touring the facility with Dr. von Braun. From left to right we see: Gus Grissom, Wally Schirra, Alan Shepard, John Glenn, Scott Carpenter, Gordon Cooper, Deke Slayton, and Dr. von Braun. In 1960, 4000 employees of the ABMA in Huntsville were transferred to NASA's control, and Dr. von Braun became the first Director of the George C. Marshall Space Flight Center. Von Braun and the Marshall Center would be responsible for the Redstone rocket, which lifted Alan Shepard into outer space, and for the giant Saturn V rocket, which propelled Apollo 11 to the moon. Marshall Space Flight Center is still NASA's center of excellence for space propulsion, as well as NASA's lead center for Space Transportation Systems Development and for Microgravity Research. Companies and universities in Alabama also continue to play important roles in the space program. So I have reason to be proud of Alabama's contributions. But universities, corporations, and NASA installations throughout the country play important roles in the space program and in space-based research. Our whole nation can be proud of our accomplishments in space, and in NASA's important aeronautics research. We have succeeded because we are willing to take risks. And we have been unwilling to quit when we encounter difficulties and setbacks. The tragic Apollo fire cost the lives of three brave astronauts. But we persevered, and the Apollo program made giant leaps for mankind. During launch in 1973, the Skylab space station sustained damage that threatened to render it useless before it ever was put into service. Creative engineering salvaged that very important program. The Challenger explosion in 1986 was a terribly painful event. We all mourned with the families of those brave explorers. But, following that tragedy, NASA was able to regroup, and has since safely flown 65 Space Shuttle missions, with a tremendous harvest of scientific results. Perhaps it is this knack for overcoming adversity that makes NASA so special. Space is a harsh environment, and setbacks are inevitable. The risks are real. But NASA has done an extraordinary job of coping with the difficult situations that they have confronted. Many times the people of NASA have turned potential failures into remarkable successes. Now, as we stand on the threshold of a new century--indeed, a new millennium--our whole nation can be proud as we look back on NASA's accomplishments in its first 40 years. And we can be optimistic as we look ahead. Optimistic that our spirit of exploration is alive and well. Optimistic that we will continue to see tangible and intangible fruit from our investment in space. Optimistic that our children's lives will be richer because we dare to reach for the stars. Mr. President, I congratulate NASA on its 40th anniversary. I look forward to continuing to work hard to support this program in the future. Unfortunately, the administration's budget for the last 4 years has shown a net reduction in funding for NASA. I have spoken on that before. The budget we approved this year represents a small reduction again this year over last year's budget for NASA. I think it is time that we recognize our character as a nation, that we not cut NASA, that we recognize that it symbolizes who we are as a people. We should recognize that NASA symbolizes our best and highest instincts as a nation, and that we ought to be space explorers as Lewis and Clark explored the frontier, and as we have explored the seas and so many things. Mr. President, I want to again say how much I have been honored to serve with astronaut Glenn, Colonel Glenn, and Senator Glenn. He has been a high representative of this Senate. We cheer him on again as he goes forward to his next flight 36 years after the first.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise to make a few remarks concerning a specific land conveyance provision in the DoD Authorization Bill (section 2837). I am pleased that the conferees were able to make these technical, but necessary changes to the conveyance terms of real property from the Army's Redstone Arsenal to the Alabama Space Science Exhibit Commission. Section 2837 of the Bill ensures that the future development of the U.S. Space & Rocket Center property previously conveyed by the Army to the appropriate agency of the State of Alabama will remain consistent with the long term master plan for the use of that property as agreed upon by the Center, Redstone Arsenal, and Marshall Space Flight Center, and that present financing arrangements and mortgages relating to new and existing facilities at the Space and Rocket Center are preserved, and appropriate coordination of further financing initiatives, mortgages and other debt society arrangements in accordance with the agreed-upon master plan is assured.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I too am concerned about the tritium production decision and its future funding. My position over the last several months focused on the debate to retain the decisionmaking authority of DOE so that the Department might be free to make the most technically feasible, cost-effective decision to meet our national defense needs. I share the concerns of my colleagues about the delay of implementation and the need for adequate funding, and I am hopeful that DOE will include full funding for a tritium production source, not only in fiscal year 2000, but in the outyears as well.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. There was a unanimous consent----

Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, notwithstanding the previous order for adjournment, I be permitted to speak, and the Senate then adjourn under the previous order.

Mr. SESSIONS. I really appreciate Senator Leahy and his leadership as ranking member on the Judiciary Committee. I would suggest, with regard to juvenile justice, that we have not had a year of inaction, as the Senator said. There were 100 changes proposed, and most of those in an apparently futile attempt to gain the support of Democratic Members who have been using procedural tactics to block the consideration of that bill. The bill came out of the Judiciary Committee on a 12-6 vote, and with bipartisan support. Since that time, we have sought to gain additional support from the Democratic side. I have been a prosecutor for almost 20 years. I believe in this bill. It is not a political bill. It is a bill that provides resources and support and strength right to the local juvenile courts throughout America. It is in those courts where the real progress is being made in fighting juvenile crime. I see the Presiding Officer, the Senator from Ohio. A few months ago we had the opportunity to meet in Ohio with a juvenile judge, Judge Grossman, who allowed us to witness a model program in action. In this program the judges have the resources and the capacity to confront youngsters when they are first arrested for juvenile crimes, and the judges also have the option to do something effective to confront those children and to change them from the road of destruction on which they are too often headed. A community may have alternative schools. It may have boot camps. It may have intensive probation supervision. In Ohio, Judge Grossman has a truancy program with trials conducted in the schoolroom with the Judge present. These are the kind of programs that can actually deter juvenile crime in America. That is the heart and soul of this juvenile justice bill. I hope somehow, some way we can get a vote on it this time. It has been frustrating that we have not been able to do that yet. The National Juvenile Judges Association, the Fraternal Order of Police, the Boy's and Girl's Club, and organization after organization have supported this piece of legislation. I don't think there is any group more interested and more professionally concerned than the National Juvenile Judges Association. They have spent a good bit of time analyzing it, and they support it. This bill certainly represents a very important step forward. I thank this body and I thank the Presiding Officer for his leadership on juvenile crime and juvenile justice. It is a matter close to my heart. The Presiding Officer is a former prosecutor who has given intensive leadership to that issue. The legislation we have today is a product of bipartisan compromise and a lot of hard work. I think it is an excellent bill and it will be a tragedy, indeed, if for partisan reasons we are not able to bring it forward. The House has acted on good legislation. If we can get our legislation passed, even in these last few days--I know the time is short--if we can get ours passed and go to conference and work together one more time, we could pass a bill that the people of this country would be proud of and would, in fact, allow us to intervene in the lives of kids who are going wrong and get them on the right track. Sometimes that takes tough intervention. Sometimes they need to go to a boot camp or detention facility or alternative school. We need to help encourage States to do that. Mr. President, I thank the occupant of the Chair for his time and his leadership on this matter.

Mr. SESSIONS. Thank you.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I was taken aback this morning after reading statements made by Vice President Gore that appeared in an article detailing the decision made by the Energy and Water Appropriations conference committee to eliminate Federal funding for the Tennessee Valley Administration's non-power programs. Funding for these TVA programs has been going on since TVA's inception. It has been pared down very much, year after year after year, until it has reached an amount that really can fund only the maintenance of the waterway, the dams, the flow of water, and reservoirs contained therein. The conference committee has determined and has decided that funding for these programs will be eliminated. I am extremely disappointed in that. I want to say a few things about this decision and how it came about, but first I want to comment on what the Vice President said in today's AP story. According to published accounts, Vice President Gore said he was deeply disappointed in these program reductions. Then he said, ``The conference committee's action in zeroing out TVA is completely misguided, unjustified, unfair, and it seriously undermines TVA's important role in enhancing the Tennessee Valley.'' That is what the Vice President said, ``* * * completely misguided, unjustified, unfair, and it seriously undermines TVA's important role in * * * the Tennessee Valley.'' I agree that the decision to eliminate this funding is unfair because for the first time the ratepayer, the Tennessee Valley power payers, will be asked to keep up a waterway, even though every other waterway in America is kept up by taxpayers, through either the Corps of Engineers or other agencies. This is a major change and I think it was an unwise decision. Mr. President, just 2 years ago this administration took action that directly led to this result. There has been debate for some time as to whether or not we ought to fund the Tennessee Valley Authority in this way. Two years ago this President and this Vice President, working through the Office of Management and Budget, which is a part of this administration, submitted a budget to this Congress that zeroed out nonpower funding for the Tennessee Valley Authority. The last time I checked, the Vice President was a part of this administration. Now, those of us who opposed the Administration's decision are in trouble. There was a debate about reducing TVA's funding. People took different sides on it. The chairman of the Tennessee Valley Authority is a personal friend of the Vice President. The Vice President helped the current TVA chairman get his appointment and the Vice President consults with him regularly. Initially, the TVA chairman said he thought the Administration's funding reductions were a good idea and he supported the Clinton Administration's position. We asked him to reconsider. Chairman Crowell held hearings and studied the issue and came back and said he didn't think the Administration's position was a good idea after all; he changed his mind. What I am saying, Mr. President, is that we are ``living in spin'' in this city. It offends me. It is a matter of basic integrity. I am just a former prosecutor from Alabama. I haven't been in this body 2 years. Maybe you are supposed to become immune to these things. I am not immune to it yet. When the Vice President says, ``It is completely misguided, unjustified, unfair,'' and yet 2 years ago he submitted a budget to do the very thing he is now criticizing, it strikes me as somewhat unusual and unfair and unjustified for him to say that. The reason this funding failed and the reason the conference committee succeeded over my objection and over the objection of Senators Thompson, Frist, Shelby and others involved in the Tennessee Valley, was because of the impetus given to this effort by this administration when, along with their chairman of TVA, they supported proposed funding reductions 2 years ago. Once the Administration supported it and said it was a good idea--and were joined in this belief by the TVA leadership itself--it was almost impossible to change the decisionmaking momentum. I am disappointed. I remember that a little over a year ago we held a TVA caucus meeting with the chairman of the Tennessee Valley Authority, Mr. Craven Crowell. During this meeting Mr. Crowell met with Members of the House of Representatives and with Senators who live in the area and who care about the Tennessee Valley. This meeting gave us the opportunity to come together and share information and discuss issues of importance regarding how to make TVA work better. I asked if he had discussed with the President of the United States, President Clinton, the zeroing out of funding for TVA's nonpower resources, and Mr. Crowell said yes. I said, ``Have you talked with the Office of Management and Budget?'' and Mr. Crowell replied, ``Yes, I spend a lot of time with them.'' Then I asked, knowing that the Vice President is from Tennessee and had previously been involved in TVA, ``Did you talk with the Vice President about it,'' and Mr. Crowell said the Vice President ``knew about it.'' So, now we have it. More spin in the Capitol. The President and Vice President personally engaged in recommending the zeroing out of this budget item 2 years ago and now they are coming forward to attack those who carried out what they recommended. In fact, the budget the President submitted has zero dollars for nonpower in the Tennessee Valley. Whatever happens with this issue and what we will do about it, I don't know. I continue to adhere to the belief that it is unfair to ask the people who live there to fund the waterway maintenance and upkeep-- that is what we are talking about--when no other place in the country does it that way. The taxpayers, through the Corps of Engineers or other agencies, do that throughout the country. It shocks my conscience and doesn't enhance my respect for the credibility, integrity, and the honesty of the Vice President to have him make the kind of comments I quoted earlier. In truth, had the President and Vice President not supported reducing this funding 2 years ago, it would not be passing now. I think most people who keep up with the details of this situation know what I am saying is true.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I must say it is not cleared on this side at this time. We would be glad to continue to evaluate that, but I am not at liberty to accept it at this point.

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the distinguished Senator. This amendment has just been presented and is now being seen by the managers. I think both sides of the aisle have expressed some concerns, so we will have to study it some more.

Mr. SESSIONS. I withdraw that request, Mr. President. Mr. MOYNIHAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. SESSIONS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we are prepared to accept this amendment. I know of no objection.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank Senator Kohl and Senator Durbin for their leadership and commitment on this issue and others. This is simply a matter of fairness. The Constitution of the United States authorizes the bankruptcy system and provides for Congress to establish uniform bankruptcy laws. That is a matter that is without dispute. All bankruptcy cases are held in Federal court. It is not too much to ask, since we set every other rule involving bankruptcy, that this body would consider the abuses that arise from the disparity in treatment of homesteads throughout the country. It is really a shocking matter. The New York Times has written about this on a number of occasions and has given some of the examples that are afoot. The First American Bank and Trust Company in Lake Worth, FL, closed in 1989, and its chief executive, Roy Talmo, filed for personal bankruptcy in 1993. Despite owing $6.8 million, Mr. Talmo was able to exempt a bounty of assets. During the proceedings, he drove around Miami in a Rolls-Royce and tended the grounds of his $800,000 tree farm in Boynton Beach. Never one to slum it, Mr. Talmo had a 7,000 square- foot mansion with five fireplaces, 16th century European doors and a Spanish-style courtyard, all on a 30-acre lot. Yet in Mr. Talmo's estimation, this was chintzy. He also owned an adjacent 112 acres and he tried to add those acres to his homestead. The court finally refused to allow this 112 acres, but he was able to keep his homestead, live in this huge house, and keep all this money that ought to have been shared with his creditors. Bankruptcy is to help people start over again. It is not to help them defeat their creditors and remain millionaires. There is example after example in this New York Times article. Talmadge Wayne Tinsley maintained his house during bankruptcy and then he sold his house for $3.5 million, using the proceeds to write a check to the Internal Revenue Service and another one to pay off the mortgage. That left him $700,000 after closing costs and other expenses were deducted from the proceeds. In other words, if you have a multimillion-dollar mansion and go into bankruptcy, you put all your money--except what is in your house--into the bankruptcy pot that trickles out to the people to whom you owe money. You keep the house. As soon as your bankruptcy is over, you can turn around and sell this multimillion-dollar house and live like a king. That is why people are moving to Florida and Texas on the eve of filing bankruptcy. I live in Alabama. We have a very low homestead exemption, but it is only 50 miles from my home of Mobile to Pensacola, FL. Somebody from Mobile could easily move to Pensacola, buy a huge beach home, and then defraud his Alabama creditors. Some think this is a State matter. Senator Kohl talked about this. They say it is an advantage to the State. But the truth is, 90 percent of the people who abuse this system on the homestead--90 percent of their debts are going to be debts in their own State. So really it is a situation in which we have some Senators who are supposedly protecting State interests, but really they are not. I encourage these Senators to think about it. They are not protecting State interests because what this does is allow a scandal to take place. The people who most frequent lose in this process will be the lenders in their own States. That is just not fair. I believe the Bankruptcy Commission has listed this as one of their top priorities for reform. I can see how some Senators may not really be familiar with the bankruptcy process and might think they want to preserve their State systems. But bankruptcy is a classical Federal matter. It is set forth in the Constitution as a Federal matter. All bankruptcy cases are handled in Federal court, not State courts, and the bankruptcy court sets all the rules in almost every category. This is just one that we have, by tradition, allowed to be nonuniform. As a matter of fact, it has been challenged in the Supreme Court, on the basis that the nonuniformity violates the Constitution.

Mr. SESSIONS. Will the Senator from Florida yield?

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I do respect the concern of the Senator from Florida. As a Federal prosecutor for almost 15 years in Alabama, which is part of the 11th circuit, of which Florida is a part--the 11th circuit, I have come to admire and be extremely impressed with the workload and work ethic of the Florida Federal judges, as well as the Alabama Federal judges. Both groups have very high caseloads, higher than the national average. I think probably the middle district of Florida, and maybe the southern district of Florida, are two of the top districts in the country in so needing additional judges. The middle district of Alabama, as you noted, has one of the very highest caseloads. I would share, this bankruptcy bill actually reduces the workload for Federal district judges a bit by not having them handle appeals from bankruptcy. That is the only thing it really affects for Federal district judges, because bankruptcy judges are separate. I would just want to advise the Senator from Florida, I share his concern, but I have been working with Senator Grassley, who chairs this subcommittee involving courts and administrative matters. He has been studying this. We have been having some hearings from judges, particularly courts of appeals. But we have not, in depth, analyzed this problem yet. I know Senator Grassley intends to. I would like to share some things. If a business had a court like the middle district of Florida that not only has a heavy caseload--it has complicated, big drug cases, international cases--they would probably look at the D.C. circuit that has 15 judges and they average 259 cases per judge instead of 855 in Florida and they might decide the taxpayers--or their business--would be better served if we shifted some from places that are not so busy to those that are more busy. I hope we will be able to analyze that, because a Federal judgeship, once you approve it, is a lifetime appointment. They get it for life and it costs $1 million a year for each Federal judge. What we need to begin to look at is some of those circuits that need to shift some judges to high-work districts. We could do that over the years. I think Senator Grassley is committed to this. I am on that subcommittee so I am concerned about it. If we do it right, we can improve justice with a minimal cost to the taxpayer. I think that is what we are called to do and I thank the Senator from Florida for raising the problem.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank Senator Kohl for his leadership.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would like to take a few moments to speak to you about Jim Solomon, who is retiring from his position as head of the Alabama Attorney General's Opinions Division after 35 years of service to the state of Alabama. This division fields legal advice requests from all over the state of Alabama, with the majority of the requests coming from local government officials having various questions concerning ambiguities in state laws. While opinions are not legally binding, they are used as guidelines by the various entities in developing public policy. Therefore, correct interpretation of Alabama laws are essential to the smaller communities and agencies that do not have a legal staff. Mr. Solomon's contributions to this effort have been extraordinary and should be noted. I had the honor of working with Mr. Solomon during my term as the Attorney General of Alabama. He was an outstanding employee who believed in service above self. He never strayed from this work ethic during his 19 years in that office. He served as a role model to others and was someone who could always be counted on regardless of the job or the circumstances. His administrative and supervisory abilities were superior and he was greatly loved by those with whom he worked. One of his most impressive achievements was the indexing of all Opinions from 1979 forward, making it possible for the public to have access to them on the Internet. During Mr. Solomon's employment in the Opinions Division, he was responsible for writing approximately 8,000 Opinions for state and local officials. One of the most memorable opinions caused the previously closed state legislative committee meetings to open to the public. Jim Solomon is more than a great public servant. He possesses in rich measure the qualities that made for a great citizen, a strong churchman, a faithful family man and a good friend to many. He sets high standards and a good example for all of us. Mr. President, I appreciate being able to make these brief comments to my fellow colleagues because it is important that Jim Solomon be recognized for his years of outstanding service to Alabama.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, this Feingold amendment is directly contrary to the purpose of the bill that Senator Grassley has worked so hard for. It requires no fee for filing under chapter 7, where the debtor wipes out all his debts. However, the amendment does require a fee under chapter 13, where the debtor pays back a portion of his debt. Therefore, it would encourage filings under chapter 7, when we believe more people should file under chapter 13. This Congress has considered this issue before and rejected it. The National Bankruptcy Commission just completed a long study of bankruptcy and did not call for the elimination of this fee. The United States Supreme Court in 1973 squarely held that it is constitutional. The bankruptcy system should discourage frivolous filings. Furthermore, this amendment provides no standard for the judge to decide who in bankruptcy ought to pay and who ought not to pay. And, in addition to that, it would clog the courts with multiple hearings regarding who should pay the $160 filing fee. In addition, bankruptcy law currently allows filing fees to be paid in four installments. When a person files bankruptcy, they are able to stop paying all of their debt. Debtors are able to pay the filing fee because all other obligations have been tolled under the automatic stay. This amendment will result in additional court hearings that distract the bankruptcy court from its primary purpose. This practice will be encourage filings under chapter 7 when filing under chapter 13 would be more appropriate. People who can pay a portion of their debt ought to be accountable for that amount. I believe that this amendment will cost millions. In fact, based on the number of filings last year, we could be talking about $100 million in costs. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we have seen a lot of home runs hit lately--McGwire, Sosa, Griffey and company--but I think the Senator from Iowa has hit a home run. He is bringing to this Senate body his deeply held values arising out of his Midwest background about responsibility and integrity, making a system work like it ought to work, and standing up with courage and challenging those who would abuse the system. I think sometimes Congress passes laws that make it easy for people to abuse the system. Senator Grassley is taking the lead as the prime sponsor for this bill, with Senator Durbin, to correct some imbalances. I have been honored to have served on the subcommittee with him and the other members of that subcommittee and to see a bankruptcy bill come forward that actually improves the bankruptcy process while at the same time not denying those who need bankruptcy the right and opportunity to file bankruptcy as is provided for in our Constitution. With regard to these attorneys' fees and to one of the provisions that would be eliminated by Senator Feingold's amendment, I would like to make a couple comments. First of all, the Feingold amendment would say that if somebody filed under chapter 7--that is, straight bankruptcy that wipes out all of your debts--and they were not substantially justified in that circumstance, then the trustee would have to file a motion to object and have a hearing and be paid for out of his funds. And if he prevailed, it would go into chapter 13, where the person filing bankruptcy would at least have to pay back a substantial part of his debts on a monthly basis in a payout plan, which we need more of in this country. But the point is this. If the lawyer was not substantially justified in filing his client under chapter 7, and we had to conduct a court hearing to get the case transferred to chapter 13 because of his error, then who ought to pay? Under the Feingold amendment, the people who loaned money to the debtor would pay for the cost of getting the case transferred, instead of the lawyer who filed it. It doesn't just say the lawyer was in error. It said he was not ``substantially justified'' in filing. The judges know who these lawyers are. They see them come before the courts all the time. The judges are going to give the lawyers a fair shake on these matters. They are not going to hit them every time a case is certified from chapter 7 to 13. But, if the attorney was not substantially justified in filing the case under Chapter 7, the debtor ought to pay. There is no free lunch. Somebody will pay. I think the Senator from Iowa is correct. The Feingold amendment does undermine the integrity of the system. It takes the burden off of the lawyer, allows him to freely file wherever he wants. There is no burden on him to file it under the right act. Once again, this is a historic bill and a good bill. I wish we could do some additional things which I believe are important. However, it does many, many things that are important and will improve a bankruptcy system that is out of control. It is to Senator Grassley's credit that at a meeting with Members of the other party he agreed to a long list of amendments to be debated; I think 16. We need to move this bill. I thought we were down here this afternoon for people to offer amendments; they would offer them and debate them so we could vote on them and get on with this bill. I have been in this body less than 2 years now, but it seems to me there are people who just don't want anything to pass. They want to go into November and say, ``The Republicans don't want to pass any legislation. They have a majority. We can't get legislation passed.'' If people have a right to present amendments and won't come to the floor, how will we get the bill up for a vote? It is almost a filibuster in secret--an underground filibuster. I have been on Senator Grassley's subcommittee and I care about this bill. We are interested in approving the bill if the amendments are good, and we need to oppose the amendments if they are not good. I think it is time for people who say they want good legislation to improve justice in America to present amendments. Let's get on with this legislation. The House has acted. It is time for the Senate to do our job. The result will be something good for America. It was not a partisan bill in committee. It had overwhelming support in the subcommittee and came out of the full Senate Judiciary Committee 16-2, Democrats and Republicans alike joining in this amendment. I don't know why we aren't able to proceed and bring it to a vote and pass it. We have the kind of bill that will help this country. We ought not wait any longer. It is time to pass it. I just note for the record that the Presiding Officer is a member of the Judiciary Committee and has been very supportive of this legislation and helped work hard to improve it. I thank the Chair for his leadership and skill as an attorney to contribute to this debate. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator from Idaho for sharing this information with us. I have, of course, in the course of my tenure as Senator in the last 2 years, had some of the same experiences in Alabama with plans for managing Federal lands. I believe we can do a better job of it. I thank him for sharing that with us. This morning, the President has appeared at the United Nations and spoken to that body. While he is there, I hope he will take the time to take a second look at his proposal to build a new United States mission office at the United Nations. The Environmental and Public Works Committee, on which I serve and which deals with public buildings, had hearings last week and was asked to approve a resolution which would allow funding to be provided to design a new Federal building to house the U.S. mission to the United Nations. The Clinton administration's proposal makes clear that frugality and respect for the taxpayers' money is not a part of this plan. The current building, which is just 40 years old, is located at 799 United Nations Plaza, just across the street from the U.N. building in New York. The prospectus, the proposal, of the General Services Administration, who had managed the building of the new structure, requests our committee to approve a plan that would call for the demolition of the existing building and the construction of a new building which would be the most expensive office building per square foot the U.S. Government has ever built. I asked Ambassador Burleigh and the representative from GSA about this. They did not dispute my assertion that this would be, in fact, the most expensive office building in history. According to the General Services Administration, the U.N. mission building total project costs for the 141,000-square-foot building would amount to $53 million, or $378 per square foot. However, this estimate does not tell the whole story. The rest of the story is that there is another part of the Federal Government that will be contributing to this situation. The State Department is seeking an additional $24 million to spend on security, telecommunications, and the overall State Department oversight of this construction. These additional costs will bring the total project costs for this United States mission--which is really an office building--to the United Nations to at least $77 million, or a whopping $548 per square foot. To put $548 per square foot into perspective, consider that the Islip, NY, courthouse, complete with all kinds of security features to keep judges and juries and defendants separate within its halls, came in with a total project cost of $262 per square foot, and that was extraordinarily expensive. The Foley Square Court House in New York City, accused by many to be grossly overpriced and a waste of taxpayers' money, has a record project cost of $440 per square foot. Now, courthouses are somewhat expensive. They are and should be august buildings. Courtrooms have to have high ceilings. You don't want a big courtroom looking like a little office space. You do need to have some marble, good paneling, big courtrooms. Every judge needs a courtroom to try the case and do the people's business. So courthouses are not really good comparisons to an office building because they ought to be more expensive. But this $548 exceeds any Federal courthouse expenditures we have. Now, they say, this is in Manhattan and real estate is expensive there and that explains the cost of this building. But that is not so because we already own the land. This land was given to the United States for the U.S.-U.N. mission office by the Rockefeller family many years ago. So we have no real estate costs in this project. The U.S. mission to the U.N. building would be 141,000 square feet; the occupiable square footage, according to General Services Administration and the Department of State, would be 107,000 square feet for its 292 current employees. Now, that would amount to 366 square feet for each employee. My colleagues should note that in our offices here in the Russell, Hart, and Dirksen Buildings, we have a number of employees and we have a lot of visitors. Our occupiable square footage--and we have checked it for my staff and myself--is 131 square feet per employee. That is about one-third of what they are asking for in New York, and they are spending $548 per square foot. Before we move ahead and authorize the construction of the most expensive building ever constructed by the taxpayers that I am aware of, a mere office building, we need to be certain that this tremendous expense is justified and that all other options--including maybe releasing some space nearby for certain parts of the operation, if they need more space or renovation, if that is the appropriate thing, they have been examined closely and have proven not to be workable, and that there is no other way to build this building for less cost. I can't imagine there would not be. Just because the staff at the United Nations are involved in important issues does not mean they are masters of the universe and does not mean that they are entitled to palatial accordance. Most of us in our personal lives have to deal with housing that is less than we desire. Our offices have to be less than we wish we could afford. Families and businesses all over America have to make tough choices. Working Americans do it every day. They ask whether they should buy a house with that one more bedroom so their children won't have to share a bedroom. They worry about that kind of thing, and rightly they should. They are frugal, they work hard, and they have a huge tax burden. Our people have to work until April, or later, every year just to pay their taxes--before they even start making money for their own families. I think we have a responsibility. I ran for office just 2 years ago and I traveled all over my State of Alabama and talked to people. They are willing to pay some money up here and send tax money up here, but they want it used wisely. They want it to be used--if we have a surplus--to strengthen Social Security and pay down our debt. They want us to give them some tax relief. They don't want us to be spending this kind of money on office space when we don't need to. I believe it is a very important issue. And I see other buildings of that kind. We have the Patent Office Building that is coming in and coming through our committee at an extraordinary cost in itself, and it is right here in Washington, DC. I think we are going to have to give a real hard look at the Patent Building. A lot of people are concerned about that. People have raised a lot of concern about the $400 million cost overrun on the big Reagan Office Building here in Washington, DC. It is a magnificent building, but it was expensive. I just had the numbers on it. It is right here, three blocks from the White House, which is some of the prime real estate in America. In this Reagan International Trade Center Building, which will house nearly 7,000 Federal employees, the concrete used in the building would pave 106 miles of a two-lane highway. The atrium ceiling, with 1,240 pieces of glass, is 125 feet high. The basement is 7.7 acres. That building comes in at $264 per square foot, which is less than half of what they are talking about for a little office building in New York City, and it would house 7,000 employees. So, Mr. President, these are matters that symbolize to the American people whether or not we in this Congress are managing their money wisely. It is a solemn commitment, a deep commitment that I have, and I hope every Member of this body has, and the President ought to have-- how we are going to manage their money, and manage it wisely, is a responsibility that is deep. I wish that all Americans could have a nice home. I wish every American could have a mansion. They won't have it in this life, but I wish it were possible. But we have to make compromises with reality. We don't have enough money to do everything we would like to do. Mr. President, I will just say this. The President is in New York today. I hope he has had an opportunity to review this proposal that is being sent forward. I believe our committee, which may be voting on it this week, needs to give it a very hard look. I, for one, have not been convinced at all by our hearing last week that this is justified. I intend to do all I can--and I think others will join--to make sure we don't rush into this kind of boondoggle and take money from decent, hard-working Americans to fund a palace at the site of the United Nations. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

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