Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank my good friend from Ohio, Senator DeWine, for offering this important amendment. This amendment will maintain in force the current law restricting Federal funding for abortions to cases of rape, incest, or life of the mother. This amendment would leave in place the restriction on Federal Employee Health Benefit Plans which prevents those plans from paying for abortions except in the case of rape or incest, and when the life of the mother is in danger. The principle here is simple: Should the taxpayers, regardless of whether they are pro-life or not, be forced to pay for abortions? Make no mistake about it, abortions provided under the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program would be subsidized by the taxpayers. Although employees are charged for the health plan they elect, a significant portion of the cost of those plans is offset by the Government using taxpayer dollars. Therefore, by participating in a health plan, employees who oppose abortion are effectively subsidizing abortions when they pay their health insurance premiums. If the major health plans all fall in line and start paying for abortions, employees who are morally opposed to abortion are put in a very difficult position. There are millions of Americans, myself included, who feel very strongly that abortion is the taking of an innocent human life. It is unconscionable to ask taxpayers to subsidize elective abortions. Whatever your position on abortion is, this is one point we should all be able to agree on. Congress has consistently agreed that we should not ask taxpayers to promote a policy, in essence, of paying for abortion on demand by a Federal employee. This is the same amendment that was accepted by voice vote during the debate for fiscal year 1998 Treasury-Postal Appropriations; accepted by this body during the debate for fiscal year 1996; and in fact, this is the same language that has been supported by a bipartisan group of Senators and Representatives from 1983 to 1998. Madam President, I will just say this. People in this country can disagree about the sensitive issue of abortion. The laws are as they are. Some people like them, some people don't like them. But with regard to the question of whether or not taxpayers ought to be required to fund abortions, this country and the law and the vote of almost every State and this Congress has been not to fund that, and not to take taxpayers' money from individuals who feel very, very deeply and personally about this issue and expend that money to eliminate life. That is not a choice that we believe this Congress ought to make. We ought to prohibit it as part of this legislation. Maybe we won't even need a vote on it. But if we do, so be it. I think it will pass again this year, as it has. Again, I appreciate the work of the Senator from Ohio for reestablishing this year this important principle.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would like to make a few remarks on the family impact statement amendment offered by Senator Spencer Abraham earlier today. It is an amendment that I supported last year. I think it is a very, very important signal and an important event for this Government. I rise today in strong support of this important amendment and to voice my complete disagreement with antifamily action taken by President Clinton. In 1997, President Ronald Reagan, recognizing the importance of the American family and the need to be aware of the negative impact that Federal laws and regulations can have on the family, signed Executive Order 12-606. The purpose was to ensure that the rights of the family are considered in the construction and carrying out of policies by executive departments and agencies of this Government. Mr. President, even though we are faced with a staggering increase in out-of-wedlock births, rising rates of divorce, and increases in the number of child abuse cases, apparently President Clinton does not believe that considering the impact of regulations on families is good policy. Much to my dismay, on April 21, 1997, President Clinton signed Executive Order 13045, thus stripping from the American family any existing protection from harm in the formulation and application of Federal policies. President Reagan's Executive Order 12606, placed special emphasis on the relationship between the family and the Federal Government. President Reagan directed every Federal agency to asses all regulatory and statutory provisions ``that may have significant potential negative impact on the family well-being. * * *'' Before implementing any Federal policy, agency directors had to make certain that the programs they managed and the regulations they issued met certain family- friendly criteria. Specifically, they had to ask: Does this action strengthen or erode the authority and rights of parents in educating, nurturing, and supervising their children? Does it strengthen or erode the stability of the family, particularly the marital commitment? Does it help the family perform its function, or does it substitute government activity for that function? Does it increase or decrease family earnings, and do the proposed benefits justify the impact on the family budget? Can the activity be carried out by a lower level of government or by the family itself? What message, intended or otherwise, does this program send concerning the status of the family? What message does it send to young people concerning the relationship between their behavior, their personal responsibility, and the norms of our society? The elimination of President Reagan's Executive Order 12606 is just the latest in a series of decisions that indicates the Clinton administration's very different approach to family issues. From the outset of President Clinton's first term, it became clear that his administration intended to pursue policies sharply at odds with traditional American moral principles. White House actions have ranged from the incorporation of homosexuals into the military to the protection of partial-birth abortion procedures, to opposing parental consent in cases involving abortion for minors. Mr. President, many have suggested it is community villages, in other words government, that raise children. But really it's families that raise children. Families are the ones who are there night and day to love, to care for, and to nurture children. Many bureaucratic regulations produce little benefit, but can have unintended consequences. The examples are too numerous to mention. What our amendment will do is to require the ``regulators'' to stop and take a moment to think through their regulations to make sure that, the most fundamental institution in civilization--the family, is not damaged by their actions. This is a reasonable and wise policy. Mr. President, I find it very odd that of all the Executive orders that exist, President Clinton would reach down and lift this one up for elimination. This body should speak out forcefully on this subject and I am confident we will. The families of America deserve no less. This amendment is a sound and reasonable piece of legislation which will restore a valuable pro-family policy that had been established for 10 years. I urge all my colleagues to stand united, Republicans and Democrats, to show that the preservation of the family is not a partisan issue. Our voices united will send a loud and certain message to the President and this Nation that we consider family protection to be one of America's most important issues and we will not accept decisions that mark a retreat from our steadfast commitment to our Nation's families. Mr. President, I strongly believe that American families must be considered when the Federal Government develops and implements policies and regulations that affect families. Therefore, I am honored to be an original cosponsor for this amendment, which will reinstate the Executive order of President Reagan. I would like to thank my colleagues, Senators Abraham, Faircloth, Hutchinson, for their dedicated work and help on this issue. As we know, there is some dispute and controversy and concern in this body concerning the President's proclivity to utilize executive regulations to carry out various policies that he wants to carry out. He eliminated this regulation of President Reagan by his own Executive Order, and in fact has stated and reflected his view that the American family is not at times jeopardized by the actions of this Government, and special watch and attention is not necessary to that. I just want to say this. Governmental policy in this country ought to consider what is good, wholesome, and healthy. The American family represents the finest opportunity to affect the growth, health, well- being, the mental attitude, and the lawfulness of a young person. Healthy families tend to raise healthy children. It is not always so. It is not always so. Families that have trouble raise good kids a lot of time, and families that are personally good have troubled children. But fundamentally and historically we know, and there has been much data in recent months and years--you remember the article, ``Dan Quayle Was Right.'' So we know that there is a general consensus today that a healthy family is important. I think it was a bad signal. I think it is sad that in this entire monumental bureaucracy of this Federal Government that involves $1.7 trillion in expenditures every year, you don't have to give special concern to your actions with regard to how they might impact the American family. I think in that regard the President made a serious error, and he sent a signal to this great Government and those who work for him within the executive branch that they don't have to give special scrutiny to it. I believe it was a mistake. Senator Abraham's amendment would restore that. I thank Senator Campbell for his interest and concern on these issues and for giving me a few moments to make these remarks. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I rise in support of this proposal by Senators Hutchinson and Brownback, the proposal so eloquently supported by the majority leader, Trent Lott. He is exactly right, in my opinion. I was at that first press conference when this proposal was announced. I believed in it then and I believe in it now. The Internal Revenue Code with 7,500 pages and over 800,000 words, has grown each year and continues to grow. We cannot ask the American people to read thousands of pages before they pay their taxes. We cannot ask them to pay hundreds and hundreds of dollars to have accountants do their tax returns, returns they used to be able to do themselves. It is simply not fair, and it is not right. As I recall what a good tax is supposed to be, if there is a good tax, according to the textbooks, it is a tax that is understandable. It is a tax that is predictable in terms of revenue. I would say that is one thing our Tax Code does, it produces a very large but predictable supply of revenue. But a ``good'' tax is also supposed to be easy to collect and is supposed to be perceived as fair. I would say it is only in the predictability of revenue that our Tax Code acceptable. Otherwise, it is really on unacceptable terms that revenue is raised to fund this great Government. A few months ago, last fall, Dick Armey and Billy Tauzin from the House of Representatives came to my hometown of Mobile, AL, to have a debate about the Tax Code. Mr. Armey is in favor of a flat tax, and Mr. Tauzin, a consumption tax. The place was packed, standing room only. They announced it on the television and on Sunday night people came out from all over. They were fascinated and asked questions. They were energized by this debate. I am told that everywhere Mr. Armey and Mr. Tauzin go people are there in record numbers; they are interested in this issue, and they care about it. For days after the debate in Mobile, people came up to me, and this is the question they asked: Jeff, can we really do it? Is this something we can do? And my answer to them was: Absolutely, we can do it. There is no reason under this Sun that we cannot pass a simplified Tax Code. We must be able to say to the American people, the people who elected us, that we can produce a Tax Code that is simple, fair, easy to understand, and produces a steady revenue. And whether it is a flat tax or a consumption tax or some combination of both, we need to focus on this issue in Congress. By passing a deadline, with 4 years to go, we will set a date that will force us to confront this issue and respond to the wishes of the American people. Having run for office just recently, in 1996, I know the American people are confident the Government is going to have money to run itself. I also know they want tax reductions. With the recent surpluses, they want more than they wanted just a few years ago. But what they really want is a Tax Code that is simple and fair, and we can give that to them. We need to make a commitment to that end. And if we do so, I believe that people in this country will appreciate it very much. I favor this proposal. The American people are fed up. It will help make this country competitive because we will not have wasted all this time and effort collecting taxes. Instead, we will spend it developing new and improved products in our businesses and industries in America so that they can continue to be competitive in the world. I appreciate this opportunity to speak. I salute Senators Hutchinson and Brownback and all others who support this amendment, and I look forward to being a part of the reality of eliminating the Internal Revenue Code as we know it today. Mr. KOHL addressed the Chair.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I will be glad to. I have yielded the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. Yes, the Senator is quite correct. It does apply to a number of different circumstances. Some of those circumstances, I suggest, probably are constitutional. Many of those things may be required. Certain parts of it may not be. I suggest, with regard to those that may not be, let's go on and not have it take 3 years to get up through the court system. Let's have a review so there can be a prompt determination of what would be legitimate and what would not be.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I had occasion to study this issue previously, and there is a serious question this country is facing. I believe the Supreme Court has given attention and careful review to it. I believe they are very, very sensitive to the national interest in having minority citizens, minority groups be able to rise and succeed in our Nation. At the same time, I think the Supreme Court is troubled by a policy that, in effect, says you have a preference simply because of the color of your skin. In fact, I think that they have said Adarand could violate the Constitution of the United States. That is a serious matter. I believe the Adarand decision is well decided. I believe in my judgment, and I don't claim to be a Supreme Court Justice, but in my judgment the present statute that we passed is in violation of Adarand. But, regardless of that, the President has said that he can cure the problems of Adarand through regulations and they intend to issue regulations that would avoid this conflict. I am not sure that is possible. It may be. But what I hear the Senator from Kentucky to say is we are not here to debate that issue again. We are simply saying that if this law, and the regulations imposed by it, violate the Constitution of the United States, before we pass it we ought to set up a system in which there can be a prompt review by the courts to judge on that. That is all this does, it seems to me. I salute him for suggesting at least one small step that will reach a final conclusion of this matter. Before the Senate Judiciary Committee we had hearings on this matter. We had the lady who was married to the president of Adarand Corporation. She testified how they had suffered because of the set- asides in the transportation law. I think it is a serious question. If it is outside the Constitution, they ought to have an expedited review. I think the Senator from Kentucky has proposed a reasonable, fair amendment. I think any of us ought to be able to support that. I thank him for doing so, and I look forward to continuing this healthy debate about how we ought to disperse the benefits in this country, what standards should be applied, and how our goods and services ought to be dispersed. I suggest they should not be dispersed on the basis of the color of one's skin. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. SESSIONS. I enjoyed listening to the Senator. I think he suggested something that, maybe indirectly, he didn't mean to. First, I want to say I am aware of and respect and appreciate what the Senator has done over the years on crime prevention and law enforcement. But the Senator is not suggesting, I don't think, that any one of these programs is targeted for reduction in any fashion by this amendment, is he? This amendment would simply take a new program and not increase it as much as my colleague and others may prefer to, but none of these programs is threatened. It is not a block grant of any existing programs?

Mr. SESSIONS. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I have had an interesting time listening to the Senator from Delaware with his remarks about the purpose and intent of our amendment. I think in that regard he is in error. And I think we should talk about that. First of all, the Fraternal Order of Police, whom he quoted, and the Boys & Girls Clubs, have supported the incentive block grants. I certainly agree that prevention, intervention, and enforcement are the keys to the effort to reduce juvenile crime. And what is intervention? The experts are telling me--mental health workers, drug abuse people, judges, probation officers whom I have talked with at great length--tell me the most effective point of intervention is when a child has been arrested for some sort of offense, taken to the juvenile court, and answers to the judge and the probation officer. His parents are involved. And if that child is found to be involved with drugs or other psychological or emotional problems that may be involved, that is the single best time to intervene and to prevent them from future criminal conduct that not only makes victims out of innocent young children, who are most often the victims of other juvenile offenders, but also prevents that child perhaps from heading down a life of crime that would leave them serving long periods of time in prison. And the Senator says these programs that I have cited are not prevention programs. I find that really stunning, to say a homeless youth program, a program designed to deal with homeless youth, isn't a crime prevention program. It surprises me to hear him say that. Mental health programs, he suggested, are not prevention programs. Or children who are victims of abuse as a child, programs that deal with that certainly are prevention programs. By the way, our amendment does not affect any of these programs. They all continue. The Foster Grandparent Program, I suggest, is a way to prevent children from being involved in crime. Art for Youth--that is what the art people tell me, ``We need more programs to help these young people express themselves,'' and that would help prevent them from a life of crime. At-Risk Youth Program, certainly those are prevention programs. I just say we have many prevention programs. In fact, we have none dedicated to law enforcement. The fact that the Department of Justice spends several billions of dollars on law enforcement should not be in any way considered to have an impact on youth crime, because the truth is the Federal Government does not deal with juvenile criminals. They probably prosecute less than 100 a year in all the Federal courts in America, certainly less than a couple hundred. It is just not done. Juvenile crime is dealt with in the State systems. That is where we have the crisis. That is where we need to do something about it. The Senator from Delaware is most eloquent in advocating after-school programs. For who? Under what circumstances? How much will we spend on them? Which agency should administer that? I suggest without any hesitation that the Department of Justice doesn't need to be the agency handling an after-school program. That ought to be done through the educational establishment.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I see the distinguished Senator from Utah, the prime sponsor of the Juvenile Justice Act and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, is here. I will be glad to yield to him any time he wants on the amendment, and then I will talk on the amendment. Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.

Mr. SESSIONS. Thank you, Mr. President. I call up amendment No. 3245 and ask unanimous consent that Senator Hatch be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would like to say how much I have appreciated the opportunity to work with Chairman Hatch. He is an outstanding leader, a terrific lawyer, an outstanding constitutional scholar, and a champion for bringing order and discipline to ending crime in America. There is no one here who has contributed more over the years to that effort than Senator Hatch. And his advice and friendship, as we have gone forward, has been very, very helpful to me. Mr. President, let me just say this. I am going to go right to the heart of this matter. I came here to work on juvenile crime after serving as a Federal prosecutor for 15 years and attorney general of Alabama for 2 years. I care about juvenile crime. I have studied it. I have talked to juvenile crime experts--prosecutors, probation officers, judges--who have worked with it on a regular basis. I have concluded that we have a juvenile justice system that is overwhelmed by the flood of more and more cases, more and more serious cases. According to a New York Times article, in Chicago they spend 5 minutes per case. That shows you what is happening in America, around the country. You talk to police officers in every town and they are frustrated by what is happening in juvenile justice. They tell me, ``Jeff, we can't do anything to them, and they know it. They are laughing at us.'' I have heard that all over. It is not the fault of the judges. But it is really the fault of all of us who have allowed the adult criminal justice system--and rightly so--to be strengthened significantly. We have gone to three times as many adult people in jail, for example, as we had just 18 years ago. And now we have had very little increase in the number of youngsters who have been detained under any kind of detention program than we had before. And we have had the most serious increase in the most violent type criminal activity by that younger group. So what do we do about it? They say we need a balance between prevention and law enforcement. And I agree with that. What we want to do--and my amendment does--is seek to have balance. Look at this chart. We have $4.3 billion dedicated to prevention programs in this budget already. That is what this Government is spending. This is from a study done by the General Accounting Office that was just completed in May of this year. We found that there is no money dedicated solely for juvenile law enforcement--unless perhaps we count the money that was funded in the block grant that I am supporting today from last year. Otherwise, there is none. I think we need to think seriously about what we are doing. Under this bill, this appropriations bill, the amount of money that was to be expended for the block grant program to increase and support juvenile justice in our local communities to help our States do that-- we have gone from $250 million in last year's budgetary authority, cut to $100 million this year. In addition to that, in the program that the President has supported, we have gone from $20 million to $95 million. I want to share with you what that program spends the money on. This is the prevention program that has gone from $20 million to $95 million in this year's budget. It says it is to provide juvenile justice system programs for children, youth, and families, these things: Recreational services. Now, that is No. 1 listed on the plan--recreational services. I am for recreation, but I am not sure in a juvenile crime bill, in an effort to fight crime, we ought to be promoting recreation. Tutoring and remedial education. I am going to show you here in a minute a list of 129 programs that are filled with those kinds of activities. What we do not have is any help for our juvenile judges and probation officers and drug treatment personnel in the court systems. Here is the third one: Assistance. This is what it says: ``Assistance in the development of work awareness skills.'' That is on what we are spending $50 million. I don't know what that means. Child and adolescent health and mental health services. We have a host of those already funded by this Government. Alcohol and prevention programs. We have that pending legislation right now to a tremendous degree, and we already have programs spending moneys on that. Leadership and development activities. Now, I don't know what that means. Finally, teaching that people are and should be held accountable for their actions. I agree with that. But how do you teach people to be accountable for their actions if you arrest a youngster in a household burglary and he is taken to the police station and released that very night and sent home and nothing happens to him? Is that the way you teach it? I say that is what they are hearing. That is what people are hearing and that is what you will find if you talk to your law enforcement officer. What are we already funding in this governmental program? We are spending $4 billion in 129 programs for at-risk delinquent youth, according to the General Accounting Office. Here, under Department of Treasury, gang resistance education and training projects, $8 million; juvenile justice delinquency prevention and mentoring, $4 million; juvenile justice prevention allocation of the States, $70 million. Under Department of Labor, employment and training research and development projects; job training for the homeless demonstration program; and so on and so on, program after program after program, designed with good intentions to deal with kids who are at risk. Now, let's go back to square one. Let me tell you what I think ought to be done. Who are the most at-risk children? Those are the ones who are going to court now. According to a Newsweek article, 70 percent of the young people who murder someone have taken a gun to school previously. That is a stunning number. What that says does not surprise me in the sense that most of the young people in America who are committing serious crimes--the armed robberies, the assault with intent to murder, the murders, the rapes--have been in trouble with the judge and the courts before. They have been there before. If the courts are spending only 5 minutes to deal with them, no wonder they are coming back time and time and time again. As Senator Hatch said, our goal must be to make that first brush with the law the last. How can we do that? That is what we are saying. What should this Senate do? I am telling you, based on my experience and the hearings we have had for the last 2 years, what we need to do is strengthen the juvenile justice system. That is what we need to do. Now, that does not mean you put people in jail every time they get caught. It means when you arrest them, the first thing you should do is drug test them. Is this criminality being driven by drugs? If it is, then we ought to have them in a treatment program. They ought to be drug tested and monitored to make sure they get off drugs. That is the first thing you do. If this is the third, fourth, or fifth offense and they have committed a serious crime, they ought to be detained. We cannot continue to allow repeat offenders to run at large, even though they are 16 or 17 years of age. There was a murder in Montgomery, AL. Three youngsters killed a night watchman. I called the police department to ask about the prior record of those offenders. This is what they told me: 7, 7, and 15 prior arrests. That is what they had, each one of them. One 7, one 7, and another 15 prior arrests. They were still on the street. The revolving door was still operating and they murdered somebody. We would have done them a favor had they been detained, sent to an alternative school, sent to a boot camp. Perhaps we could have intervened in that lifestyle and stopped that murder from occurring. As it is, they were certified as an adult, will now be convicted as an adult, and sent off to an adult jail for a very long sentence. Who benefited from that? The reason is that juvenile court system in Alabama, and all over America, is overwhelmed. Our bill provides an incentive grant to the States for the purposes of strengthening that. It will give those juvenile judges the authority they need to crack down on juvenile crime and to change that life direction that is heading in the wrong direction, to the right direction. Let me tell you what this money can be used for. It will be used for programs to enhance prosecution and confinement of juvenile criminals as part of the graduated sanctions proposal. Everyone, on both sides of the aisle, agrees that we need graduated sanctions. When you are caught for one offense and you do another one, you go up a punishment level. The sanction is a punishment increase. That sends an important message that crime does not pay. It would fund programs that require juvenile delinquents to pay restitution to victims of juvenile crime. It would fund programs that require juvenile offenders to complete school or vocational training. That is what our proposal would do. It would require juvenile criminals to pay child support. If they have a child, they ought to be supporting that child. There would be programs to curb truancy. We need to get these kids back in school promptly. As soon as we can identify truants, they need to be apprehended and sent back to school before they get so far behind that they are hopelessly behind their contemporaries. Programs need to be designed to collect, record, and disseminate information on their criminal history. It would provide drug testing, programs for antidrug youth programs and the like. It would have a serious habitual offender program. It would have programs targeted toward youth gangs, and the construction and remodeling of short-term facilities for juvenile offenders. You have to have someplace to put them or you are just releasing them the very day they are caught. That is what is happening. They are being released the day they are caught. We need more juvenile facilities so there can be some detention. This would allow the States to apply for a grant, for matching money, to have detention facilities, alternative schools and boot camps and whatever they think is necessary to strengthen their court system. As a policymaker, recognize we have a limited amount of money. How do we apply that money most effectively? Who do we use it on? We use it on, I suggest, those people who are already coming into contact with the criminal justice system. Routinely, they are being arrested in America today for the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, tenth time, and nothing serious has happened. The reason is we have not given enough attention and support to those juvenile judges, those prosecutors, those probation officers, who are out every day trying to change lives. If we can strengthen that group, that is what we should do. Now, I am not opposed to general programs, after-school programs. I am not opposed to alternative schools. In fact, I would support those. Our proposal and our need today, the most critical need, is to identify those young offenders who are heading to a life of serious criminality, who have the potential to kill somebody, maybe your son or daughter, maybe my son or daughter. We see in the headlines every day young people committing those kinds of crimes. The answer to it is to find out who is capable of that at the earliest possible stage and do something about it. Most of those are going to be coming through the juvenile court system. In that juvenile court system, most good ones--and I have visited them around the country; they have mental health treatment, drug treatment, counseling, incarceration, alternative schools, evaluations to determine whether or not they have learning disabilities and those kinds of problems--try to get those children on the right road. That is where we need to spend our money if we want to reduce serious juvenile crime. Spending it on every child in America in after-school programs may be a good decision for America to pursue but we have not had hearings on it and analyzed it. But it is an education function, primarily. This bill--our effort, our block grant--is designed to assist the juvenile justice system in performing their function of identifying and confronting those young offenders when they first brush up against the law, and to make sure that first brush is their last brush. If we do that, we will be investing our money wisely. I submit that the program that is in this bill that I just shared with you is vague, unspecific, and does not deal primarily with the kids that we need to deter from crime; and taking the money from that program and shifting it to this block grant and increasing it will focus our resources on the kids that need it the most. I yield my time. Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.

Mr. SESSIONS. Yes.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I understand the Senator's concern, passion, and emotional commitment to that problem of 14 million kids, after school, many of whom are unsupervised. I understand that. But I believe if we are going to have an after-school program that doesn't distinguish between at-risk kids and others, we are talking about billions of dollars, tens of billions of dollars, an amount of money of which our program doesn't even scratch the surface; we are talking $50 million, is what we are talking about. How can we best use that $50 million in some sort of vague, generalized program? Let me read to you again what this statute would dispense under the grant for prevention programs: for recreational services, tutoring programs, assessment in work awareness skills. JJTPA, the job program for youth, isn't that a prevention program, $1 billion spent on that? Certainly tries to help young people who are out of work and who have never worked before get a job. That is a prevention program. We are spending $1.1 billion on that. What we need to do is deal with the youngsters who are coming into contact with the juvenile justice system. If something isn't done about it, they are going to murder somebody or they are going to end up committing an armed robbery and having to serve 20 years, because they are certified as an adult because they committed a serious crime at age 17 and they have to go off for 20 years. Had we had a juvenile justice system capable of intervening early--at 12, 13, 14 or 15, when they are being arrested again and again--they wouldn't be down there. I have been there. I have talked to juvenile probation officers and judges who have dealt with this on a daily basis. I am telling you, the Juvenile Judges Association in this country endorses this block grant program wholeheartedly. They know that is what we need to do. We need to be dealing with the kids who are most at risk, the ones already coming into contact with juvenile justice. This plan to spend $50 million more on this program is political. That is what it is. It is a political game. We are going to create a confrontation on the floor and we are going to say we care about children, we want to prevent them from crime, and we are going to spend more on all of these programs; this wide open deal--it has no goals, no standards, no real teeth to it--spend the money on anything in the world. That is on what we want to spend our money. Everybody who has any support for the law enforcement community doesn't like kids, doesn't want to see them change, doesn't care about prevention. All you guys want to lock them up. Some children need to be locked up. I just told the Members of this body about the three kids who murdered a night watchman--7, 7, and 15 prior arrests for those kids. They would have been better, that night watchman and his family, would have been better if the court system had enough resources to intervene effectively at that point in time. That is not mean. That is not unkind. That is not a kind of response that is insensitive. You simply cannot allow repeat, dangerous young offenders to be released time after time after time with nothing more than vague programs like this to deal with it. Do you think that juvenile judge who has given his life to dealing with kids, do you think that juvenile probation officer who has been working with them all of his life, doesn't care about them? Do you think they are not going to try to craft a program that would help those children? I am telling you, that is what is happening in America where there is sufficient resources for it. Some of them have to be incarcerated. One of the greatest success stories is in Boston, MA. You have heard about the Boston Miracle. They did two things. They targeted their resources. A professor from the University of Maryland advised the Department of Justice, ``If you want to reduce crime, target your resources on the groups and the people who need it the most, primarily those who have been arrested.'' But in Boston they took the high crime communities, the areas where there were gangs, they confronted the gang members and told them if they did not change their lifestyle, they would be prosecuted. The judges backed them up. They locked up those who were the leaders and the others quit being so active. The murder rate plummeted. It was dramatic what they had done. My staff member went there and visited with them in Boston. She said, ``Do you have a place to put them when they violate probation and curfew,'' and they said, ``Yes, that was a commitment on behalf of the community.'' So we are giving resources to the juvenile justice system to set aside the kind of detention facilities, alternative schools, safe houses, whatever they feel is necessary to be able to remove that kid, discipline them for repeat offenses, and change their lifestyle. But it is important they not be left on the street, leading a bunch of other kids down the wrong path. If you get rid of the main leaders, a lot of the other kids will cease to be involved in a life of crime. What kind of a message does it send if the police arrest a youngster for the fourth time for an armed robbery or a car theft and nothing happens to him? What kind of moral message is that? This prevention grant program they want to spend $50 million on says one of the goals is to teach that people are and should be held accountable to their actions. Well, I agree with that. We are not saying that the first time a youngster gets in trouble they need to be certified as an adult or sent off for a long period of time, but they need to be confronted seriously. They have to have a serious confrontation with their own immoral, illegal act. Their parents need to be involved in that. They need to have counseling programs, drug testing, drug treatment, and other activities and programs designed to insist that they get on the right track. Judges and drug treatment people tell me that it is extraordinarily helpful when a person who has violated the law is under the gun of the judge. In other words, he can say you will go to that treatment program. We are going to drug test you. I expect you to stay drug free. I expect you to be back in school. I expect you to be home at night. In Boston, I expect you to follow the curfew I am going to give you. Boston has a curfew. They call it Operation Night Light. And street police officers go out and knock on the door at 8 or 9 o'clock, or whenever the curfew is, to see if that youngster is there. If he is not there, something happens to him or her. They don't just forget it. That is not happening all over America. What is happening all over America-- and I was there for 15 years as a prosecutor--is they come in and meet their probation officer. Some of them have family meetings for 2 or 3 weeks; they meet with parents and try to turn them around. But because of lack of resources, they say ``your curfew is 9 o'clock,'' but they don't check. Nobody is checking on these children. They do what they want to, basically, unless they get caught on another offense. If we want to prevent crime, if we want to intervene--and intervention is one of the legs of this way to defeat crime, according to the Fraternal Order of Police--if we do that effectively, we can begin to change people. For those who want change, they simply cannot be allowed to travel in the community and threaten the lives and health of other people with impunity. We have to have spaces to put them. Our bill provides matching money that States can use, if they choose, to expand their detention capacity. And it doesn't have to be bars; it can be any kind of facility that would allow the judge to detain them and not allow them to just walk free--although some of them need to be locked up behind bars. Let me share this number with you. Since 1980, adult prison space in America has more than tripled. Adult crime has been dropping now for some time now to a significant degree. I am convinced that one of the reasons for that is because we are doing a better job of identifying the repeat dangerous offenders, and they are serving longer periods of time. They are not corrupting others around them, and they are not out on the street committing crimes. Many repeat offenders--we know, according to a Rand study--commit as many as 200 crimes per year. You may say that is ridiculous, they don't commit 200 crimes per year. Well, that is four burglaries a week. Many commit four in one night. These repeat offenders commit a substantial amount of the crime in America. And the same is true with juveniles. We simply have to identify those, and some of them are going to have to be incarcerated. But while we were tripling the adult prison space in America, let me share this with you. In 1978, there were 56,000 beds in juvenile detention facilities in America. In 1994, during a period when violent juvenile crime has more than doubled--I am talking about armed robbery, assault with intent to murder, murder; those kinds of things were doubling and more than doubling during that period, and we had gone on from 56,000 to 61,000 bed spaces by 1994. Do you see what happened? We poured our resources into adult criminality and we made a big impact. But we didn't respond appropriately to juvenile crime. We did not expand our commitment there. We did not give the judges and probation officers the resources needed to intervene effectively, to monitor these youngsters who need close monitoring, because they are on the edge and they can go either way. They didn't give them those resources, and as a result, juvenile crime continued to go up, while adult crime was declining. (Mr. BURNS assumed the Chair.)

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I am pleased that we are beginning to see a modest reduction in juvenile crime--although many experts are telling us that, with the demographics of more teenagers being in the crime-prone years, in the next few years we can expect those numbers to edge back up. I think one reason is that since 1994 States have begun to focus on juvenile crime and commit more resources to it. It is beginning to have an affect. It is a myth and not true that we have no ability to affect crime. That is not true. Somebody said that we are going to end up putting everybody in jail. Well, everybody doesn't rob; everybody doesn't burglarize. We ought to do something serious to everybody who commits a serious crime. If we do so promptly and effectively, with wisdom, in a smart way, we can affect the crime rate, and we can make the lives of Americans safer. We ought to do that. To me, there is no higher function of a government than to make its citizens safe in their communities, on their streets, in their homes, and where they go to work. What higher function could a government have than that? We have failed in that regard. I have seen it, and I have talked with the judges. That is why the Fraternal Order of Police, the Judges' Association, and the Boys and Girls Club support this project. Our proposal--unlike the one set forth in the statute already, in which they are adding $50 million--is targeted to deal with criminality. Their proposal, again, is for leadership development activities, recreational services, teaching that people are and should be accountable for their actions. Well, there is nothing wrong with those goals, but that is not a very good crime proposal, in my opinion. I have been there. I have prosecuted crimes, I have dealt with every aspect of it. That is not the way to deal with crime. That is not targeted at all. That says you can spend the money on any doggone thing you want to spend it on. Our proposal--the block grant proposal--was developed along with the support of Senator Biden from Delaware and others. And we had input and discussions with the ranking member from Vermont on the Judiciary Committee. Everybody had some input. They may not agree with everything in it, but it is focused on crime prevention, intervention and enforcement. By the way, the Senator from Delaware mentions $1 billion in prevention programs. He admits that. We only have $100 million in this enforcement program. By the way, also in this bill the chairman has brought out is a new $220 million for a safe schools initiative. It is designed to build partnerships in the communities between police and schools and to try to make schools safer. That is $220 million in new money in another program designed that way. What we have left out, I am telling you--I can't tell you how strongly I believe this; I know it in my heart--what we are leaving out is the greatest engine for reducing juvenile crime, and that is the juvenile court system. They are the ones that are innovating at the most basic level, when kids are out of control. They have the capacity to effectively order them to do things they don't want to do, and to monitor those orders if we give them the support necessary. So if we put the money into the block grant program, it would enhance prosecution and define opportunities to effectuate the bipartisan agreement that we have to support graduated sanctions or increase levels of punishment for repeat offenders. It would provide for short- term confinement for those who need it. Some do. It will also provide for the incarceration of violent repeat offenders for more extended periods. Not all the money would be for that; only 40 percent would be for that. It would provide moneys for programs that require juvenile delinquents to pay restitution. It would provide programs to require juvenile offenders to complete schooling in vocational training. Is that a prevention program, or not? Is that a program that doesn't care about kids, or not? Does anybody deny that we need to have some children go into custody of some fashion? I doubt that. It has programs to require young juveniles to pay their child support. They ought to support their children. They bring them into this world. Programs to curb truancy. The Senator from Delaware says we need to do something about truancy. I agree, absolutely. Truancy is a key signal that a child is out of control. School systems, police departments, and others ought to have an intensive effort to identify truancy at the earliest level. His bill, if they want to put $50 million more in, doesn't have anything about truancy in it. The program I support does. It provides programs that seek to curb truancy by name. Then it has programs to collect records, drug testing of youngsters, juvenile crime prevention programs, and night curfews. Antidrug programs could be funded under this. We have programs to deal with habitual offenders; programs targeted at youth gang members, trying to break them up; and programs to train law enforcement officers, juvenile judges, prosecutors, probation officers, and other court personnel in how to better deal with children. We have $50 million on the table. That is what we have--$50 million sitting there. Do you want to put it in this bogus program that has no standards, can be spent for anything, or a program carefully crafted, carefully crafted to identify those youngsters who need help, and get it to them in a way that will reduce crime? I am sorry if I feel strongly about it. But I have been involved in it for a long time. And I have worked hard on this committee. I am absolutely convinced that this is a valid program. We have many prevention programs. This has much of a prevention aspect to it. But what we don't have any money for is to strengthen our enforcement aspect. Mr. President, this is a critical issue to me. It is the overlook aspect of crime in America: How can we most effectively intervene and change the lifestyle of these youngsters? Too often they are coming in for vandalism, petty theft, maybe for burglary, maybe for a household burglary, a car theft. And they come in and get involved in some other serious crime, are treated as an adult, and sent off for 15 years in the slammer. If we could have intervened for the first offense or two effectively, sometimes they might have been well served if they had been sent to jail or detained a few days. If we had intervened effectively there, we would have fewer crime victims and less need for housing for a youngster who became a career criminal and ended up serving a long time in jail. Mr. President, that is the purpose of our amendment. I believe it meets all the standards for prevention, and for enforcement, and for intervention. I think it is the right way to go. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. I will be glad to.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, there has been a lot of talk recently about more and more gun laws, more and more complicated and esoteric, having less and less ability to protect the safety of the American people. Let me tell you we have some outstanding, effective gun laws on the books now that allow people who are felons to be prosecuted for possessing a gun, that allow the prosecution of people who carry a gun during a felony to receive 5 years without parole, consecutive to any other offense. Look at what this administration that is always talking about gun prosecutions has done. In 1992, when they took office, there were 7,048 ``triggerlock prosecutions'' of serious gun offenders in this country; now, 1997, 3,765. It has plummeted that percent. What they need to do is enforce the laws they have and quit worrying about passing laws that are not very relevant and not going to have any impact on crime in America. I think the American people need to understand that. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would like to say a few things about grand juries. I spent 15 years as a Federal prosecutor working with grand juries on a regular basis. And people say, ``Oh, it's a secret proceeding.'' Well, would you rather have your witnesses have to go and testify in open court? You see, the purpose of a grand jury is simply to determine whether there is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed and whether the defendant probably committed it, to set that case for trial. It is a protection. Some say, ``Well, just let the prosecutors indict and eliminate the grand jury because the grand jury will indict a ham sandwich.'' I heard that here today. Grand juries will not indict a ham sandwich. You have to present evidence to them sufficient for them to understand the charge; and the evidence that is presented is before they will return an indictment and set the case for trial. At trial, the burden of proof is not ``probably committed a crime''; at trial the burden of proof is ``beyond a reasonable doubt''; to a moral certainty sometimes the judge charges the jury. So that is where the trial takes place. Now, I recall a line by Justice Macklin Fleming in California. He said, ``Perfect justice is not achievable in this life. In the pursuit of perfect justice, we destroy what justice is achievable.'' Well, I just say that an obsession with everything becoming more and more complicated is not the history of our Nation and its criminal law. The founders of our country realized you needed a trial and that people who are accused of crimes ought to have a chance to present their defense fully before a jury of 12 citizens, with their lawyer there to argue, debate, object, and do everything possible to defend that client in that trial, but there ought to be a vehicle to decide whether a case should go forward. They decided it was better for the defendant and for the witnesses when a charge is brought by virtue of a grand jury investigation before citizens of the community, if the testimony is taken in secret, so that if the evidence is not sufficient, the public may never even know that the individual was under investigation and his reputation would not be stained. I submit to you that sometimes grand juries will not indict. And also, in the course of an investigation, a prosecutor may discover, as his witnesses are called and put under oath, that the good case he thought he might have had was not sufficient. Many times I have pulled a case after presenting evidence before a grand jury because I was not confident, and the grand jury wasn't confident, that there was enough evidence to proceed to indictment. Sometimes I presented grand jury indictments to a grand jury and thought there was evidence to indict and a grand jury declined to do so. That is the power and privilege they have been given under our laws in this country. Based on my experience, the grand jury system certainly is working. It has served us well for 200 years. I think we ought not to, this late night, without any debate or without any analysis or without any hearings, alter this historic principle, which I believe protects citizens from embarrassment as well as unfounded charges. I have to suggest and note for the Record, Mr. President, that the Department of Justice strongly opposes this Bumpers amendment. They don't think it is the way we ought to be going now. I share that feeling, and that shows that both I, as a Republican Senator, and the Department of Justice agree on this. I think we are making a big mistake to go forward at this time without having considered precisely what we are doing. There are a number of important reasons. The chairman of the Judiciary Committee has stated quite a number of those in his excellent legal way, demonstrating his legal skill and analysis of important issues that come before us. He has made that point. I will not take any more time on it. I feel very, very strongly about this issue. I think it would be a colossal error for this body, without any hearings, to change this historic principle, because I will tell you, it will tie the grand jury in knots. You will have another adversarial hearing. You will have two trials instead of one. It will not further the ascertainment of truth, which is the purpose and nature of a grand jury. I know others need to talk, Mr. President. I yield the floor. Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we are a Nation of explorers, a Nation of discoverers. Our people see ourselves in that light; the world sees us in that light. Unfortunately, for the last 5 years, the great agency of this Government that epitomizes our explorative nature--NASA--has seen a cut in its budget--for 5 straight years. They have reduced personnel by 25 percent since 1993. This is a tragic event. The President's budget this year had a cut of $180 million. The committee restores most of that, but it still represents a $33 million cut again this year. We need to put an end to that. We need to get back into exploring our solar system and our galaxy. That is who we are as a people. We need to increase the funding. This bill would first have level funding, and then get us on the road next year to increased funding. The money as an offset would come from that portion of the AmeriCorps program that pays people to volunteer. It has been zeroed out in the House, and it is a good offset.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I wish to express my sincere appreciation to my good friend, Senator Bond, from Missouri, who is managing this bill in a magnificent fashion, and the ranking member, the distinguished Senator from Maryland, Senator Mikulski. She is a true friend of space and NASA. Under the leadership of these two distinguished Senators, the subcommittee has done an excellent job in crafting this important piece of legislation. But, this bill provides funding for a variety of important Federal agencies, and a number of areas in this bill are of special interest to me and my constituents. However, today I would like to confine my remarks to the issues involving NASA and its funding and budget. First, I congratulate this Senate for its strong support of the International Space Station. On July 7, a few days ago, this body voted by a 2 to 1 margin to continue this Nation's commitment to research in space. The first assembly flights of the space station are only a few months away. When it becomes operable, the space station will provide a unique microgravity laboratory that will far exceed any capability that has been previously available on the space shuttle or the Mir Space Station. Advances in medical and pharmaceutical science that result from space station research alone, may ultimately justify our national investment in the space station. Shuttle-based research is just beginning to demonstrate the enormous potential of using the microgravity environment for research into pharmaceutical products, and other aspects. Important developments in physics, materials science, life science and other fields through the space station research are not only possible, but probable in the future. Furthermore, perhaps more important, the space station represents a bridge to further human exploration in space. The willingness and foresight of this Congress to take a long-term view to keep the United States involved in manned exploration of the universe is important. Since its establishment in 1958, NASA has been a tremendous force for scientific and technological progress in this Nation. In addition, NASA has been a source of inspiration for literally millions of people, myself included, who were captivated by the dream of exploring the frontiers of space. Despite its great record and strong public support, however, NASA is laboring under the weight of several successive years of significant budget cuts. For fiscal year 1999, the President proposed giving NASA less than $13.5 billion, which is far less than 1 percent of the national budget. This would mark the fifth year in a row that NASA's budget has been cut, in terms of real dollars. If we consider the further reduction in buying power caused by inflation during this 5-year period, the significance of these cuts become apparent. To make matters worse, the administration's budget estimate for fiscal year 2000 contemplates almost $200 million in additional budget cuts to NASA. The cuts in the President's budget request are all the more disconcerting in that they come in a year in which the President is proposing increases for almost every other civilian research and development budget as part of what the administration calls the 21st Century Research Fund. Let me ask, can any agency symbolize to our people, and to the world, the discovering, adventuring spirit of America better than NASA? The administration, and this budget, appear to suggest differently. If the administration wants to build a bridge to the 21st century, then NASA must be one of its trusses. It simply does not make sense for our dynamic, high-tech Nation to keep cutting NASA's budget year after year. I share the concern expressed by the National Space Society. They wrote recently: NASA's potential to be a world leader as we move into the next millennium will be compromised by a lack of Administration interest in space exploration. That is a serious comment and we ought to think carefully about it. The low priority put on the space program is evident when you compare the President's budget submission with the budget projections for NASA from past administrations. This chart makes the comparison. In 1991, a very distinguished panel studied space, the Committee on the Future of the U.S. Space Program. They projected what we ought to be spending to keep NASA at the level at which they thought it should be. It went all the way up to almost $60 billion by the year 2003, and would be at $37 billion next year. Right now we are at $13 billion in this budget. In addition to that, according to the FY 1993 budget submission that was projected to carry out through this time period, we would have substantially more money in the NASA budget. Indeed, this year shows us $8 billion below the budget submission that was projected in 1993 for NASA. That is a significant reduction. During this whole time, the total reduction from the budgetary projections for NASA total $27 billion. So they have had basically a flat and declining budget at a time they were projected to go up significantly. I think those are matters of great importance. Norm Augustine, the Chairman of Martin Marietta, saw the need for NASA budgets which would rise by 10 percent a year through the end of the decade. We have not kept up with his vision for America and the Commission's vision for America, and we must do better about that. Let me ask this: How has NASA coped with these large budget reductions that they sustained? In my view, they have done very well. Under the leadership of Administrator Dan Goldin, NASA has made ``Doing more with less'' not just a slogan, but a reality. Administrator Goldin has pushed his agency over and over again to do things better, faster and cheaper. The results at NASA, in my opinion, have been remarkable. They have done a good job. Mr. Goldin told me several weeks ago that ``business as usual'' does not count anymore at NASA. I am sure all of my colleagues recall the fascinating Mars Pathfinder Mission. Just 1 year ago, Pathfinder, on July 4, with its little Sojourner rover, was busy exploring the surface of the red planet. Most of my colleagues probably recall also the Viking mission in 1976. The Viking spacecraft landed on Mars, took photos, and was the first mission to scoop up and analyze Martian soil. Viking was a remarkable success. It cost over $3 billion, however, in today's dollars, and took about a decade to develop. It was about the size of an average car. By contrast, the Mars Pathfinder of last year took a quarter of the time to develop, it cost less than one-tenth as much, and it was a fraction of the size, yet produced remarkable results, catching the attention of the world. I am told the Internet site, NASA's Internet site, received more hits during that period of time than any other site in history. So this chart summarizes what has been accomplished in terms of Mr. Goldin's goal of faster, better, and cheaper. As to cheaper, the average spacecraft development cost has gone from, in fiscal years 1990 to 1994, a cost of $600 million, down to $175 million in the period fiscal years 1995 to 1999, and they expect it to be at $85 million. That is the kind of progress we like to see. It makes space exploration much more viable in today's world than it was. The average development time in terms of years: In fiscal year 1990 to 1994, a new mission took 8.3 years; in 1995 to 1999, it is now at 4.4. It will go to 3.5, and 3.1, under their efforts. With regard to flight rate, that is the number of launches they are able to conduct per year--in 1990 to 1994 there were just 2. In 1995 to 1999 they have gone up to 9. In fiscal year 2000 they expect to have 13; and, in 2004, they expect to have 16. That is good. They are doing what this Congress has asked; that is, to do more with less, to explore space and to make the kind of progress that makes America proud. Mr. President, during this time since 1993, NASA has cut its number of employees 25 percent. I recall a time 3 years ago when I became Attorney General of Alabama and I faced a budget crisis of enormous proportions. The first day I took office, we made a major decision. We had to terminate the employment of one-third of our people. We worked hard, we did a lot of different things, and we were able to continue the productivity of that office; and begin to build on that as time went by and have a better office. NASA has done what we have asked them to do. There is no other agency, I believe, in this kind of research and exploration that has had that kind of employment cut in the last 4 or 5 years. They have done well. They are doing more in less time at less cost and at the same time with less people. I think it is something we ought to be proud of and we ought to celebrate. But we ought not to keep taking advantage of them and always cutting their budget because they are performing as we encouraged them to do. With regard to space flight by humankind, they have continued to work on that, and it is difficult, but they have reduced the cost of space shuttle flights by 42 percent between 1992 and 1997. That is what we like to see. They are working to cut those costs even more. The conclusion we draw is that during a time of tight budgets, NASA has been doing better than could be expected, and they responded to this Congress' challenge. Certainly, up to a point, budget challenges can be healthy for an agency. They force some critical self- examination, and they result in some positive changes. We have heard that the periodical giving of blood makes a person strong, but if you give more than a pint and more blood and more blood, it begins to weaken you. I believe NASA is lean and healthy and strong now. It is at a good point, and we need to strengthen it now and allow it to flower and grow and continue its great scientific exploration. The budget request for 1999 increases other civilian and research development agencies. Almost all of them, whether it is the NIH or National Science Foundation, received substantial budget increases, but not NASA. The administration proposes increases for all the major agencies in VA and HUD, but not for NASA. For fiscal year 1999, the administration has requested less than $13.5 billion, a reduction of $183 million from last year's budget. Fortunately, Senator Bond and Senator Mikulski restored $150 million of that cut, and that leaves NASA facing a $33 million cut for fiscal year 1999. That is just not acceptable for this Nation. This is not a huge amount, but it is an important principle. Our history, our heritage, our character as a nation is that we are explorers. We believe in discovery and reaching out beyond our homeland and exploring this universe. That character is at stake if year after year we keep cutting our exploration agency. That is why I am proposing this amendment. It would add $33 million in funds for NASA for fiscal year 1999. That would bring it up to level funding--that is all--but it would be a statement, an important message by this Congress, that the day of cutting their budget more and more will end. We are supposed to have offsets for that, and we have worked hard at that. There is no way you can have a pleasant experience when you talk about finding funds for an offset. I have noticed, and it is well known at this time by the Members of this body, that the House committee has terminated the AmeriCorps budget, zeroed it out. We have over $220 million in this bill's funding for AmeriCorps. The whole program is about $400 million. If we take $33 million from that, we are talking about less than a 10-percent reduction in that budget. That will probably happen in conference committee because, as I said, the House committee has zeroed out the budget, and we expect it to be less. This may be and does appear to be a perfect place to find the funds we need to maintain the NASA spending at the level of last year. In the future, we need to work to increase that budget to identify the kind of programs that will be exciting and worthwhile in this Nation and in this world. Of the $33 million in additional funds provided by my amendment, $20 million would go to NASA's aeronautics, space transportation, and technology line item, which includes the Reusable Launch Vehicle Program. It will also provide funds to accelerate research in advanced space transportation technologies. Additional funds will also be available for NASA's important aeronautics programs and many other projects. It will have $13 million for additional funding for NASA's science and technology programs. It will provide them the kind of affirmation and support they need. I thank our distinguished subcommittee chairman, the Senator from Missouri, and our ranking member, the Senator from Maryland, for their efforts in restoring much of the money that was cut from NASA's budget by the President's budget request. While the amount of money is not large in terms of this Senate's overall budgetary concerns, it is significant and it sends an important signal. Adoption of my amendment will send an important message, a message that says that NASA's programs are significant for the future of this country and its citizens and that this Congress is not going to be a party to continued reductions in support for space exploration. That is not what we ought to do. We ought not to worry about it when we have well below 1 percent of our budget going for this project. Next year's budget submission from the President will literally take this Government into the 21st century. I call on President Clinton to demonstrate true leadership by proposing an increase in NASA's budget. The President's plan to cut additional millions from NASA next year is not acceptable. Last year, on this floor, I made a speech proclaiming my conviction that we must continue to be a nation of explorers. At that time, I stated the following: Space is a key to the image and the future of this Nation in the 21st century and beyond. We must have national leadership, keen vision, clear-cut goals and a strong commitment from this Congress and the Congresses to follow. We must be willing to pay the price necessary to realize our dreams and the dreams and goals of our children. That was true last year, and it is true today, and it will continue to be true. We are a nation of explorers. This is how the world sees us. It is how we see ourselves. All over the world on July 4 last year, people watched Pathfinder on Mars. The Internet lit up like it has never lit up before. There were record high levels of inquiries. Let's not allow this great achievement to slip away from us. Let's not give it away at this point in time. We have to make a decision as we stand on the threshold of the next millennium. It is no time to be timid; it is no time to fall back. We are on the verge of some of the world's greatest accomplishments in science and space and technology. NASA will play a key role in that. Mr. President, that is why I ask for support for this amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment and ask for its consideration. I also ask that Mr. Jim Frees, a member of my staff, be given the privilege of the floor throughout the debate.

Mr. SESSIONS. I yield the floor. Ms. MIKULSKI addressed the Chair.

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

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