Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in morning business for 10 minutes.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Child Custody Protection Act. Senator Spencer Abraham of Michigan has previously spoken on this matter, just a few minutes ago. I have been honored to be a cosponsor of that legislation with him from the beginning and to participate in a number of different activities that he has led to try to call this legislation to the attention of the people of America, and to do what we can to see that it is brought up for a vote in this body, and to pass this legislation. It appears to me that this legislation would be difficult for most anybody to oppose. The issue of abortion has divided our country for many years now. But the issue we are considering today is not whether abortion should be legal or not. The Supreme Court, in my opinion, erroneously took that issue away from the people, ripped it out as a matter for the democratic process, and decided and declared that the Constitution prohibits the limiting of abortions, except in certain circumstances. But even the Supreme Court has made it clear that it is proper for a State to declare that an abortion should not be performed on a minor child unless the parents are consulted. Certainly, they have to be consulted about minor surgery--and they are consulted by their school principals and teachers if they are even given Tylenol. To perform an abortion without parental consent is a very dramatic interference in family and parental relationships that many States have decided to protect. Even our Supreme Court, which has ruled erroneously, in my opinion, in a number of different ways on this issue, has approved that. We have now discovered that there is a problem. We have discovered that people are taking children across State lines, from one State where parents have to be notified--third parties are intervening in the family relationship and are taking children across to another State that doesn't have that law, for the purpose of having an abortion performed on them. In my view, the right of parents to be involved in these major decisions affecting their minor children is a fundamental thing and ought not to be lightly transgressed. State parental consent and notification statutes are an important protection for fundamental parental rights. Let me say that the issue before us today is not whether States should have such laws--some do, some don't--the issue before us today is whether we will allow these important and clearly constitutional State laws to be circumvented. The purpose of this bill is simply to preclude some third party from trampling on the rights of parents by advising a minor child to have an abortion, and then assisting them by taking them across a State line to a State where they can have one. This legislation before us today would forbid a third party from transporting a minor child across the State line for the purpose of an abortion, without the parent's knowledge or consent, in order to evade compliance with the law of the State where the parent and child reside. This is hardly a radical or extreme proposal, and the bill is necessary. It is constitutional and it is carefully and narrowly drawn. Senator Abraham has done a superb job in drafting this legislation. He has listened to those who have expressed concerns about it, and he has constantly revised and improved it. It is an exceptionally fine piece of legislation, in my opinion. Mr. President, let me say that I believe this bill is necessary. In the Judiciary Committee hearing we had, we heard horrible stories. One involved Joyce Farley's 13-year-old daughter and one involved Eileen Roberts' 14-year-old daughter. In both cases, these young girls were secretly transported across the State line by adults seeking to hide the fact of the pregnancy from the children's parents. In both of these cases, these young girls were taken from a State that had a parental consent statute to one that did not. In both of these cases, the young girls suffered serious complications from these legal, but botched, abortions. Parenthetically, Mr. President, let me state that recently in the New York Times there was an op-ed piece by a former abortion doctor who, according to the first paragraph in the article, had performed 45,000 abortions. He said that, for a number of reasons, parents ought to be involved in these decisions, and that parental notification laws are correct, and that the pro-abortion forces undermine their own efforts and their credibility when they oppose them. He pointed out that children should be consulting with their families for these kinds of situations. And from a medical point of view, he pointed out that when a child is transported a long distance to a medical center to have an abortion, perhaps she has not had good adult advice as to whether or not that is a good doctor or clinic. When she goes there, she is then returned at a long distance to the home of her parents. Many times, he noted, there are complications. Parents need to be aware and to be watching the child to help her if complications occur. And he said return visits to the abortion clinic for checkups are little done when a child has a long distance to go back to the clinic. So for health and medical reasons, he believes that children ought to consult with and have the approval of their parents before they obtain abortions. Of course the laws of each of those States--and the Supreme Court rulings--require that there be an option for a child who is pregnant to go to court and get an order for an abortion without notifying a parent. So there is an option, required by the Supreme Court decisions. Mrs. Farley testified that her daughter was taken out of state for an abortion by one Rosa Marie Hartford. Ms. Hartford was actually the mother of the 18-year-old young man whose statutory rape of the then- 12-year-old girl is what caused the pregnancy. In other words, the woman was trying to cover up the criminal activity of her son. The son later pled guilty to statutory rape. The attorney general for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania testified concerning his efforts to prosecute Mrs. Hartford under state law for interfering with the custody of a minor. Those efforts may or may not ultimately prove successful. Attorney General Fischer testified concerning the difficulties of pursuing such a case under state law, and strongly recommended passage of this bill. This issue does not involve a few isolated cases. An attorney for the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy, has acknowledged this. Attorney Kathryn Kolbert stated, and I quote: ``There are thousands of minors who cross state liens for an abortion every year and who need assistance from adults to do that.'' We have seen several examples of abortion clinics which openly place advertisements in the yellow pages in nearby states that have parental consent statutes. These advertisements proudly proclaim: ``No parental consent.'' Thus, these clinics are openly encouraging the evasion of state laws, and something needs to be done about it. Because of the interstate nature of this problem, a Federal solution is required. This bill is constitutional. As I have stated earlier, the Supreme Court has upheld the types of state parental notification and consent laws that this bill would help to bolster. It is specious to suggest that this bill would unduly burden the right to an abortion. The bill does nothing more than prohibit the evasion of constitutional state statutes. This bill is a valid and appropriate exercise of Congress's authority under the Commerce Clause. I was a Federal prosecutor, Mr. President, for nearly 15 years. A long-term Federal statute is the Mann Act. It has for many years--many years back, I think, since 1913--prohibited the interstate transportation of women or girls across State lines for prostitution or other immoral purposes. That is a Federal law. The constitutionality of the Mann Act has been upheld by the Supreme Court since the early 1900s. It is a very close analogy to the Child Custody Protection Act, which would preclude the transporting of minor girls across State lines to evade State parental involvement laws. Any constitutional objections to this bill, in my opinion, would be without merit and would certainly fail. Also, this bill is very narrow in its scope. It does not prohibit interstate abortions. It does not invalidate any state laws. It does not establish a right to parental consent for residents of any state that does not already have a parental consent law. It doesn't even attempt to regulate the activities of the pregnant minor herself. It only reaches the conduct of outside parties who wrongfully usurp the rights of parents that are guaranteed by state law. Some suggest that the bill should be narrowed further, to exempt the interference with parental rights, if the adult is a relative of the child, they could interfere with the parents' rights. I would disagree with that. This bill would not prevent the minor from seeking counsel from an aunt or grandmother or anyone else. It would prohibit aunts and grandmothers from violating the rights of the child's parents by secretly driving the youngster to another state for an abortion without telling the parents. I personally wonder whether it might be worse to have a grandmother or an aunt interjecting themselves in between the parent and the child, than to have some stranger do it. The result is the same. It is the same. It is the parent who has the responsibility, who brought the child into the world, and who has raised the child. The destructive impact on the family could be greater in that case. In any event, the grandmother isn't the parent, and the aunt isn't the parent; and neither relative nor stranger should have the right to circumvent parental involvement statutes. If a well-meaning grandmother wants to be helpful, in most situations she should encourage the child to confide in her parents. In the rare circumstances where that would not be appropriate, and the child is intent on obtaining an abortion, the judicial by-pass procedure could be used. That is, a child could go to a court, and the abortion could be authorized by the judge. The child could go to court in those circumstances. In summary, this bill is narrowly crated, it is well written, it is necessary, and it is constitutional. The House of Representatives passed this bill with a strong bipartisan majority of 276 to 150. I urge my colleagues to do likewise. We need to ensure this bill receives a vote on the merits. We are apparently going to have to invoke cloture to even get it up for a vote. There is a strong determination--I consider it an extreme commitment--to support anything that favors abortion by too many Members of this body. This is a reasonable bill. This is a fair bill. It is an appropriate action by the Congress of the United States involving interstate commerce. As a Federal prosecutor, I prosecuted those who transported stolen motor vehicles--ITSMV, Interstate Transportation of Stolen Motor Vehicles, stolen property, lots of those kinds of cases. This is one type of case that is quite appropriate for us to legislate on. I hope that every Member of this body will vote for it. It ought to pass overwhelmingly. It is good public policy. I, again, congratulate Senator Abraham for his determined and skilled legislative leadership in crafting and presenting this outstanding piece of legislation. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I appreciate the remarks of Senator McCain from Arizona. He is a true American patriot, an academy graduate, a former fighter pilot, a prisoner of war, a person who has been a leader in this body in matters of defense. A few days ago, a Senator from the other side, Senator Lieberman, made a seminal address on the need for morality, integrity and honesty in public leadership, and by the President in particular. Senator McCain's remarks, in my opinion, are equally as important. He has said some things, as a conscience of this body, on defense matters that we ought to listen to, and I am hearing it repeatedly from people I know in the military services who are concerned about the erosion of our national defense. I join with him in those concerns. I appreciate him sharing it with us, and I hope he will continue to speak out in this body as eloquently as he does on these important issues.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator. We have a robust democracy. People have their say. I am inclined to think this obsession with eliminating the ability of people to speak out freely in an election cycle is unwise. It does threaten the robust nature of this democracy. I recall last year we had 30 Members here who voted to amend the first amendment to the Constitution so they could pass this kind of legislation. I think at least they were honest enough to propose a constitutional amendment to amend the first amendment, which I thought was stunning. But at any rate, my time has expired. I just wanted to share those comments. I thank the Senator from Kentucky. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I now move to proceed to S. 1981, the salting bill, and send a cloture motion to the desk.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, this cloture vote will occur on Monday, September 14, 1998. I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum under rule XXII be waived.

Mr. SESSIONS. I now withdraw the motion.

Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now turn to S. 1981, the so-called salting bill.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I have a number of housekeeping matters. On behalf of Senator Lott, I ask unanimous consent that passage of S. Con. Res. 110 and S. Con. Res. 111 be vitiated and the resolutions be indefinitely postponed.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I further ask unanimous consent that the following calendar numbers be indefinitely postponed: 46, 84, 155, 226, 277, 279, 413, and 432.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 458, S. 2071.

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that Senators have until 10 a.m. to file second-degree amendments to the Grassley amendment to the bankruptcy bill if the cloture vote occurs.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 9:30 a.m. on Friday, September 11. I further ask that when the Senate reconvenes on Friday, immediately following the prayer, the routine requests through the morning hour be granted, and the time between 9:30 a.m. and 10 a.m. be equally divided between Senators Abraham and Leahy or their designees. I further ask that at 10 a.m. the Senate proceed to the cloture vote on the motion to proceed to the child custody bill.

Mr. SESSIONS. I further ask that if an agreement cannot be reached on the bankruptcy bill, there be 30 minutes for closing remarks to be followed by a cloture vote on the Grassley substitute.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I understand that there is a bill that is due for its second reading.

Mr. SESSIONS. I ask that the bill be placed on the calendar.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order, following the remarks of the Senator from Nebraska, Senator Kerrey. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. For the information of all Senators, and on behalf of the majority leader, Senator Lott, when the Senate reconvenes on Friday at 9:30 a.m., there will be 30 minutes for debate on the cloture motion on the motion to proceed to the child custody protection bill. At 10 a.m., a cloture vote will occur on the child custody bill. If an agreement can be reached with respect to the bankruptcy bill, then the second cloture vote with respect to the bankruptcy bill will be vitiated. If an agreement cannot be reached, a second cloture vote would occur at approximately 11 a.m. At the conclusion of the two votes, the Senate can be expected to resume the Interior appropriations bill. Therefore, additional votes can be expected during Friday's session of the Senate. The Senate could also consider any other legislative or executive items cleared for action. As a reminder, Members have until 10 a.m. to file second-degree amendments to the bankruptcy bill.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would like to join Senator Hatch in expressing my admiration and respect for Senator Grassley and the members of his committee who have worked hard on this bankruptcy reform legislation. It has obtained almost universal support. It passed the committee 16 to 2, and it reflects a good step in our public policy. As Senator Grassley says, the current liberalized bankruptcy law discourages personal responsibility, that is, it makes it easy and even encourages persons to avoid their responsibility. That is not good. A Harvard professor has written a book which talked about how during the first 150 years of this Nation's existence every law that came up for consideration was judged on the basis of whether it made our people more responsible and better citizens. I think that is a goal we have lost sight of in recent years. What we need to do is make sure our legislation sets standards that call people to their highest and best ideals and not dumbing them down and encouraging them to cop out, to take the easy way out, to avoid their debts when there is no real justification for it. Most people may not understand, but a person making $70,000 with $30,000 in debts can walk into a bankruptcy court in America, at any place, at any time, and file for bankruptcy. Even though he would be perfectly able to pay off those debts, he can wipe them all out. This is true even if, just a few months before, he or she had signed a promissory note to pay those debts. This behavior vitiates contracts, and it vitiates responsibility. So I think, based on the fact that we have had a doubling of bankruptcy filings in the last decade and we have seen a 60 percent increase in bankruptcy filings since 1995, we do have a problem in this country. This is not driven by the economy, because we are in good economic times. In 1997, however, we now know that $40 billion in consumer debt was erased by bankruptcy filings in this country. Where does that debt go? Who pays that debt? What happens to it? It is passed on to the other American citizens who are in debt but who pay their debts, who pay their credit card bills, who pay their bank notes. They have to pay higher interest rates, to the tune of $400 per family per year, to balance out some of these people who are filing for bankruptcy but do not deserve it. Many people, a majority of those filing, do not abuse bankruptcy. But a significant number are abusing the bankruptcy laws, and we ought to do something about it. There was a recent article written by former Secretary of the Treasury Lloyd Bentsen, former Democratic Vice Presidential candidate, and former chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. This is what he said: With growing frequency, bankruptcy is being treated as a first choice rather than a last resort, as a matter of convenience rather than necessity. He goes on to note: A rising tide of bankruptcies will sink all ships and hurt those who need credit the most, those who have to borrow money. People do not understand--and many in this body do not recognize-- that many who have done well, such as a family making $30-$40-$50,000 a year, will have debts. When they have a car payment that comes up, if they have an $800 balance on their credit card, those interest points make a difference to them--whether they pay 15 percent or 18 percent or 19 percent interest. As former Secretary of the Treasury under President Clinton, Senator Bentsen, said: In the United States, we believe that through hard work anyone can become a success. America's bankruptcy laws reflect a fundamental element of our Nation's entrepreneurial spirit. Their intent is to ensure a fresh start for those who try and fail, and they form an important thread in our social safety net. But when some people systematically abuse the system at great expense to the rest of the population, twisting the fresh start into a free ride, Congress must step in and tighten up the law to protect those who unfairly bear the cost. When it comes to bankruptcies of convenience, this time has come. So I agree; it is a bipartisan issue. Senator Grassley has worked diligently to gain the broadest possible support. This bill came out of the Senate Judiciary Committee 16 to 2. A virtually unanimous vote on a bill of this kind is unusual and should be noted. Why is it necessary? I want to mention a few things that are in the bill, and then I want to comment on the unusual and unfortunate circumstance we are in now in which the minority party is attempting to block even consideration of the bill that so many of their own members have already supported in committee. They in fact filibustered the bill before it could even come to the floor. People say this is a do-nothing Congress. Maybe they are trying to make it so. This is a good bill. It has been worked on for several years. It has been improved and refined. It has very broad support, and we ought to pass it. These are some of the things it does: It allows creditors, those who are owed money, and panel trustees to participate in the review of the debtor's decision to file a chapter 7 instead of a chapter 13. Most people do not realize that when you go to file bankruptcy, you have two choices, if you are a normal consumer who is in debt. You can file under chapter 7--wipe out all your debts and not have to pay anything. Your money goes into a pot and is divided up on a proportional basis to creditors, and you walk away free and clear. This permits a fresh start, which is a great American tradition. We are not trying to eliminate that at all. But there is another tradition, too. That is the tradition of chapter 13, which in fact was first created in my home State of Alabama, in Birmingham, and it is still a very popular alternative there. It provides the option for a debtor who wants to try to pay back his debt to do so. The Court approves his plan, and he pays a certain amount of money into the chapter 13 fund, and it is distributed to his debtors. They give up the interest rates that they have been charging on it, and at least they get something back out of it. And this person is able to be discharged without having filed for bankruptcy because the debts have, in fact, been honored. This is a procedure that I think ought to be encouraged. What we are finding is that in some areas of the country almost nobody files chapter 13. But it is a high filing issue in Alabama. People want to pay their debts, and they are taking this option. So what this bill says is that if a person has $100,000 per year income and he only owes $30,000 and he wants to file chapter 7, this will give the creditors a chance to object and say, ``Judge, we think you ought to review this. He doesn't need this bankruptcy. Why should he be able to walk away from his debts when people who are making $30,000, have three kids, and are trying to get by by the skin of their teeth are paying their debts? Why doesn't he pay his?'' I think that is fundamental, and we need to get away from this automatic deal in which the filer has total power to choose whether or not he files under 7 or 13. The bill also requires consumers to receive information concerning credit counseling before filing. Many people do not know that there are tremendous credit counseling centers in almost every community in America. These persons help the families. This differs from when a debtor goes in to see a bankruptcy lawyer who simply has his secretary asks the person to fill out a form. The debtor may not even see the lawyer; the lawyer has probably hundreds of these cases. The secretary has you fill out a form, and he files a bankruptcy, and he hardly even talks to the client. That too often happens. In credit counseling, the person sits down with the credit counselor. They go over their income. They talk about how they can pay that off. Maybe the banks or the credit card companies would reduce their interest rates if the person could make regular payments and not go into bankruptcy. They help them deal with problems in families such as gambling addiction. I have been talked to credit counseling people across this country. They are telling me that gambling is a big factor driving bankruptcy filings. Maybe Gamblers Anonymous would be the right thing for them. Maybe there is a mental health problem, depression in the family or other things that these people who are not sophisticated in finance did not know would be available to them to help them overcome their debt problem. So I think that would be a great thing. It is not going to eliminate huge numbers of filings, but I assure you, I believe we will have a number of families helped by this personally, maybe marriages saved. And it will help them develop a plan to pay off this debt and avoid the stigma of bankruptcy. It would be a good thing and is an important part of this bill. I am confident of this because on my study of this issue. I offered an amendment to this bill which was adopted. The bill also requires, during bankruptcy, that people who do declare bankruptcy participate in a debt management class. We found in some districts as much as 40 percent of the bankruptcy filings are by people who filed bankruptcy before. We need to educate them on some basic principles of how to manage their money and hopefully they will not come back again and other debts will not be abrogated. This legislation would require debtors to provide more financial information, including tax returns. It provides for random audits requiring referrals for possible criminal prosecution. I was a Federal prosecutor for 15 years and we formed a bankruptcy fraud task force to deal with this problem. The truth is that there are very, very few bankruptcy fraud prosecutions in America. This is Federal court. We expect people to be truthful in what they submit, and those who are not honest must suffer criminal sanctions, or the word will get out among the bankruptcy lawyers that it doesn't make any difference and that nothing will ever happen to you if you are not candid and truthful in filling out your statements. It also allows creditors to represent themselves; that is, people to whom money is owed can go down to bankruptcy court to represent themselves without a lawyer. The Presiding Officer here today, Senator Grassley, felt very strongly about that provision. And the truth is, it is a key issue. If you have a $500 debt owed to the garage, the furniture store, the jewelry store, or whatever, you may spend that much on a lawyer to go down there and represent you. What kind of relief is that, if you cannot go yourself, if you have to spend more on collection than what you collect? Senator Grassley has been very steadfast in believing that we need to change that situation. It is a good step in this bill, because most of these matters are not that complicated. All you really need is a verified claim from the person who is owed the debt. So I believe this bill represents a major step forward. It is a bill that seeks to lift our standards as Americans to encourage people to pay their debts if they are able to, to train and educate them so they will not get in financial trouble in the future. That is something we ought to do, to perhaps reduce this ever-increasing spiral of bankruptcy filings. It is a good bill. I am disappointed, shocked, and really stunned that we are now at a point where we cannot even get the bill up for debate and we have to deal with a filibuster and we are going to have to have a cloture vote on whether or not we even consider this legislation. It is not controversial. It is good legislation. It is carefully crafted. It is good for America. It is good public policy. It calls people to a higher standard, eliminates abuse and fraud and criminality, and ought to be something that will go through this Congress with the most minimal objections. I do not know what politics are behind the objection here. Sometimes I think it is just a desire to keep this Congress from passing anything and utilizing every rule and technical objection that can be made to frustrate the normal working through of good legislation. At any rate, I believe we will prevail on this motion, we will get the bill up, and I believe it will pass in this chamber as it did in the House, and then we will have done something good in this Congress: We will have reformed a bankruptcy system that is out of control.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would like to thank the distinguished Senator from Utah, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee for his outstanding leadership in juvenile justice and juvenile justice reform, as he mentioned, and the other issues that come before that committee. The distinguished chairman is a great constitutional lawyer and a great champion of law and order. I came to this body less than 2 years ago. I was a prosecutor for over 15 years in my professional career. I have found myself with the opportunities and challenges of being the chairman of the Youth Violence Subcommittee. I made up my mind that we were not going to play politics, and that we were going to produce a bill that would have a practical impact and effect in a way that would reduce juvenile crime in America. That was the goal we set out to accomplish. We developed some excellent ideas and have worked with the Democratic members of the committee continuously. The committee, on a 2 to 1 vote, with bipartisan support, has cleared this bill and brought it to the floor. I must say that I am extremely disappointed to learn today that there will be no limit on debate on this bill. The majority leader, Senator Lott, has a lot of important pieces of legislation, and I have asked him to keep this bill alive, to keep it up on the agenda so that we can have a vote on it. We want to vote on it. But we cannot spend all of our time on this legislation, but we do not have cooperation from the other side. We had 8 weeks of debate on this legislation in committee, and I consider it to be the most significant juvenile crime legislation maybe ever, certainly in the last 20 years. As with most meaningful pieces of legislation, there have been some disagreements, so we worked hard, as Senator Hatch said, time and time again to make this bill more palatable to Democratic Senators. We modified it in several important areas. These modifications are in the bill and would be part of the consent agreement if we could get it today. So I am deeply disappointed that the minority party has rejected the unanimous consent proposal and in effect has jeopardized once again our ability to pass a strong, effective juvenile justice bill which would strengthen the juvenile system and actually reduce juvenile crime. We worked in good faith with the minority and the changes we made were designed to further accommodate them. The changes were painful and frustrating to me, and I hated to include them, but I did so in the hope that we could gain the kind of bipartisan support that would ultimately lead to passage of the things that most of us who have studied this legislation believe are critical. I am disappointed that we have not achieved that end. There are several important things I want to mention that are in the bill. There is a $2.5 billion block grant program to strengthen the State juvenile justice system. The money goes directly to the States. And 75 percent of the money has to go to the counties where the juvenile courts are, where the juvenile judges are overwhelmed, where they have no juvenile halfway houses, detention centers; they do not have money for drug testing. We need to strengthen that activity so that that juvenile judge, when a young person comes before him or her charged with a crime, the judge has the resources and the capacity to intervene effectively in that child's life. And if the judge intervenes effectively, they can perhaps change that child's direction, which is oftentimes on the road to destruction--put them on the right path, help get them off drugs by drug testing, place them back into school, get mental health treatment if that is called for, and obtain the family counseling that is so often necessary. According to a New York Times front page article on juvenile justice, the Chicago court system spends 5 minutes per case. How can a judge work with that kind of caseload and workload? How can a judge work with insufficient probation officers, insufficient detention space for the serious offender, insufficient halfway houses, or with boot camps for those who deserve it? How can they effectively turn the tide? They cannot. And that is what is wrong. But I have a sense that all over America cities and counties are coming together, demanding that we do something about juvenile crime. We have spent a tremendous amount of money on adult crime. We have tripled and quadrupled our bed spaces in adult prisons. We have spent very little on juvenile crime, when that has been the No. 1 crime growth area in the country. This bill will encourage more spending to correct that situation. For the first time, it will set up a recordkeeping system that would maintain the secrecy of juvenile records from the general public but would make these records available to law enforcement officers. Right now they are not, amazing as it sounds. To get records on a child, law enforcement officers have to go out to each and every juvenile facility in the country. They cannot get them from a national crime information center. Drug testing is a critical event in effectively diagnosing a young person's problems. What we require is that youngsters who are arrested for crimes be drug tested upon their arrest. We fund that testing by giving the States money. Then the judge can know whether this child's criminality is being driven by a drug problem or not. And if it is, they can require drug treatment. It is an absolute tragedy that we are not able to pass this bill today. Judge Eric Holder, Washington, DC, who wants drug testing of everyone, said it is absolutely essential for a judge to know whether the kids and adults coming before the court have a drug problem. Mr. President, this bill is a professionally crafted bill. It remains, in my opinion, an effective, solid, progressive step of historic proportions to assist our State and local communities to effectively deal with the growing problem of juvenile crime in America. Based on my experience of over 15 years, I know that passing this legislation is the right thing to do. We must continue to work to get a vote on this bill. I will continue to listen to any suggestions for change. Senator Hatch has continued to keep the doors open for discussion so that we can proceed with this bill. Frankly, I believe something is happening here, and I am just going to say it. The bankruptcy bill came out of the Judiciary Committee 16 to 2. It is an absolutely excellent bankruptcy bill. It is not radical in any way and has tremendous bipartisan support, however, we come down here today and the Democratic minority members oppose even bringing it up for consideration. The juvenile justice bill comes out of committee with a 2 to 1 vote and the minority objects, a filibuster, and refuses to agree to a rational compromise on debate. It appears to me that the members of the other party are obstructing legislation. For some reason, they do not want good legislation to pass. We ought to be working on these bills. If there is a legitimate difficulty, let's deal with it. I am willing to do so. But it is time for us to pass good legislation. I don't think it is right for people to go around talking about a do-nothing Congress when we produce good legislation, bring it to the floor, only to have the minority object under the rules of this body. The rules are legitimately utilized, but the other side ought to be held accountable for obstructing good legislation. So, again, I am disappointed that we could not get this agreement. I believe that we have an outstanding juvenile justice bill and I have been honored to work with Senator Hatch and others on the committee to produce it. I yield the floor. Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce ``The Collegiate Learning and Student Savings Act'' a common sense piece of legislation which will help more than 2.5 million students afford a college education. This legislation, cosponsored by Senators Bob Graham, Mitch McConnell and Paul Coverdell, will allow private colleges and universities to establish prepaid tuition plans and allow a family's investment in ALL state or private tuition savings and prepaid plans to be tax-free. Let me take a few minutes 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 1990s 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 that savings. In recent years, however, many families have tackled rising tuition costs by taking advantage of pre-paid college tuition plans. These plans allow families to purchase tuition credits years in advance. Thanks to innovative programs already established by 17 states, like my home state of Alabama, parents can actually lock in today's tuition rates for tomorrow's education. 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. My legislation, modeled after the efforts of the House Ways and Means Chairman Bill Archer and Senator Coverdell's efforts on the ``A+ Education Accounts'' bill, will make earnings in state AND private education pre-paid plans completely tax-free. Currently, most of the interest earned by families saving for college is taxed twice. Families are taxed on the income they earn and then again on the interest they earn through savings. On the other hand, the federal government subsidizes student loans by deferring interest payments until graduation. It is no wonder that families are struggling to save for college and instead are going heavily into debt. This trend must not continue. In order to provide families a new alternative, ``The Collegiate Learning and Student Savings Act'' will provide tax-free treatment to all pre-paid plans for public and private colleges and universities. This would place all savings plans and all schools on an equal playing field. This bipartisan piece of legislation would not only provide American families with more than $1 billion dollars in much-needed tax relief over the next decade, but would also help control the cost of college for all students. 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. Mr. President, It is erroneous to assume that tuition savings and prepaid plans benefit mainly the wealthy. In fact, the experience of existing state plans indicates that working, middle-income families benefit most. For example, families with an annual income of less than $35,000 purchased 62 percent of the prepaid tuition contracts sold by Pennsylvania in 1996. The average monthly contribution to a family's college savings account during 1995 in Kentucky was $43. 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 trying to save for college. Both public and private prepaid tuition plans should be held equal by the federal government and must be completely tax free. If these goals are achieved, the federal government would be providing families the help they need to meet the cost of college through savings rather than through debt. Mr. President, American families accumulated more college debt during the first five years of the 1990s than in the previous three decades combined. Recognizing that this trend cannot continue, several states have established tuition savings and prepaid tuition plans. Now, a nationwide consortium of more than 50 private schools, with more than 1 million alumni, has launched a similar plan for private institutions. These plans are extremely popular with parents, students, and alumni. They make it easier for families to save for college, and the prepaid tuition plans also take the uncertainty out of the future cost of college. ``The Collegiate Learning and Student Savings Act'' eliminates the double taxation that exists on interest earned through the programs and ends the disparity that currently exists between public and private colleges. Mr. President, I would like to thank the cosponsors of ``The Collegiate Learning and Student Savings Act'', Senators Graham, McConnell and Coverdell, for their assistance and dedication to this issue.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation, which I have drafted to address a matter which is of growing concern in my state. In particular, my constituents who live and work in the coastal communities of Alabama have voiced serious and legitimate concerns about the validity of recently issued National Marine Fisheries Service regulations which threaten to reduce the total allowable catch of red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico this year. The red snapper stock in the Gulf of Mexico is a very important economic asset for my state and, in fact, serves as a major economic linchpin for many of these coastal communities. I believe that my bill presents a reasonable solution to ensuring the long-term viability of the snapper stocks while also ensuring continuity and economic stability for individuals and communities who are so reliant on the income that commercial and recreational snapper fishing provides. Additionally, I feel that this bill could provide relief for persons in the shrimp industry, who feel that they have been unduly and unfairly burdened by NMFS regulatory requirements. Mr. President, I would also like to stress that this bill would assist all Gulf Coast communities that rely on the red snapper as an asset and I would hope that my colleagues who are hearing the same concerns from their constituencies will join with me in support of this bill. Mr. President, I will have more to say about this bill in the future. For the sake of brevity, however, I would simply like to highlight some of the features in my legislation. To begin with, it maintains a total allowable catch of 9,120,000 pounds for each calendar year 1998 through 2001 which is to be allocated according to the current 51% commercial and 49% recreational split. The intent of this language is to provide certainty to our coastal communities by establishing a total allowable catch quota for this time period which cannot be lowered. The bill also provides that release of this quota cannot be conditioned upon the performance of bycatch reduction devices over the 1998-2001 time period. Additionally, the legislation maintains the current minimum size limits, and maintains the National Marine Fisheries Service's recently established 4 bag limit. My bill also requires the Secretary of Commerce to immediately review existing turtle excluder devices to see if they can be certified as bycatch reduction devices in the hopes that, if they can be so certified, shrimpers will be spared the cutting of an additional hole in their nets. Finally, my bill will also require a future study of bycatch reduction efficiency to be undertaken by the Secretary so that snapper management techniques can be based on accurate, and scientifically sound, understanding of the role that bycatch reduction devices can play in our efforts to continue to strengthen the replenishing snapper stocks. In my view, this bill adds clarity and stability to a situation that has been needlessly complicated over the past several years, and will allow both the regulators and the regulated community an opportunity to ``catch their breath'' as we determine the proper steps to take in resolving this ongoing debate.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to say a couple things that I think are very important. I think this amendment is much more important than it may appear to some who probably will be casting their vote on it. We are a great Nation, the greatest Nation in the history of the world. This body, this Senate, has traditionally been involved in American foreign policy and American national defense. We are spending a very large sum of money on this mission which is ill-defined and provides little immediate benefit to our Nation. Other nations which have a far clearer and more direct interest in it are contributing far less to it. This mission has exceeded $10 billion, money which comes from the American taxpayers. We went through a BRAC process, a base-closing process of which the Senator from Texas and the Senator from Oklahoma, who is here today, are all quite aware. We saved $9 billion. We spent more than that already on Bosnia, an operation that has very little vision. The President has articulated very poorly and inadequately, in my opinion, any justification for an extended mission with no end in sight. As the President said in remarks earlier, it was a political decision to move into this area of the world. Therefore, it is a decision quite appropriate for this body to respond to. I say it is time for us to confront the issue, demand some answers, require the President to be responsible, and assert our rightful role as a U.S. Senate in American national defense. I am, frankly, disappointed that a Senator would move to table and cut off debate on this issue. I think we ought to say a lot more about it, and we ought to have a lot of time talking about it, not be cutting off this debate. Maybe some of them have made up their minds, they think they know what is best for everybody else here, but I am not so certain they do. So I don't know. I do not have much time. I know others do. And we are going to have the vote on the motion to table shortly. And I just feel very strongly about it. We have a role in this world, not to be the policemen. We have ballistic missile defense. We have chemical, biological weapons. We have strategic capabilities that we must fulfill. We cannot just drift into this without a clear understanding of our mission. Mr. President, I yield the floor.