Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I am very proud of the excellent comments that have been made by a group of distinguished Senators today regarding this amendment. It is not an itty-bitty matter; it is a very serious matter. And it reflects a reevaluation by this body of the priorities we are placing on helping families raise children. It reflects a change in what we have been doing, because we have been, in fact, subsidizing one form of child care, a form of child care used by only a few American families, and have been taxing all the other American families to support that one form, which is institutional public day care essentially. And I do not believe that is good policy. As Senator Coats mentioned earlier, mothers want, if they are given a choice, to be at home with their children, for the most part, during their formative years. We know that. Scientists and people also, who have studied this, have concluded that it is better for them to be at home, when they can. So we need to subsidize and support equally all forms of child care, if we do so, and we ought to do it in a way that allows parents the choices that they prefer. All right. Let me just mention, first, the background on which we are operating. This is from the census report, the last census report. This is titled: ``Patterns of Child Rearing for Children Under Age 5.'' The mother is not employed; the care is by the mother in the home-- almost 50 percent; 48 percent of mothers with children under age 5 raise them in their home. The President's proposal in current law provides no benefit for those families--zero--even though they may be giving up substantial income because the mother has been in the workplace before and chooses to stay at home because they believe, after prayerful thought and concern in the family, that this is the best way to raise their children. We ought to affirm that. We ought not to penalize that by taxing the decision to support this decision. The mother is employed, and the child is in a group day care preschool program--16 percent. That is what we have been subsidizing. That is the group we have been subsidizing. You have the mother who is working, but the child is taken care of by a nonrelative, somebody in the home. Maybe it is a nanny who comes and stays in their home and takes care of the children because parents feel, where possible, they would like their children to grow up in their home and have the stability and the confidence that comes from that kind of environment. And 11 percent do that. They get no benefits under this proposal. The mother is employed and the care is by a relative, an aunt, a mother, a grandmother or sister. They are taken care of. That is 13 percent. They have no benefit under the current law or the President's proposal. The mother is employed--employed--and the care is by the father or the mother--12 percent. For all of these, only this group gets compensation. That is not good policy. This Congress, this Government in America ought to adopt public policy that in fact encourages our highest and best choices. We ought to do that, and I think we can do that. Now, to point out the unfairness of it, look at this chart. This is where a husband and a wife are employed, both of them employed, one may not be full time. Their average income is $57,000. Where there is a dual-earner family, both husband and wife work and are employed full time, their average salary is $64,000. But where you have a single earner, a husband is employed and the wife not employed, and the husband may not be employed full time--and many do not have full-time jobs; they cannot get them--their average income is $38,000. Where the husband is employed and the wife is not employed, the husband is employed full time, the average income is $42,000. You see the difference. We are subsidizing this choice. We are not subsidizing this choice where parents stay at home. That is not good public policy, and I think we need to change it. I congratulate Senator Smith, who just spoke, because he is asking us to consider what we are going to do to eliminate this imbalance. I think he has thought the matter through, and he has come up with some conclusions that he has put in legislation to which this body needs to give serious thought. Of course, this resolution basically does not suggest a solution to the problem. It just says we are going to set a policy here to change the way we have been doing business. I think we ought to affirm parents who, after prayerful, careful, serious thought among themselves, conclude that it is best for their children to forgo a second income and stay at home. I think we ought to affirm that with public policy. Finally--I know my time is about up--this is a matter of significance. I have been delighted to see Senators calling our office the last 2 days wanting to sign on as cosponsors of this amendment. While I was on the floor yesterday, three Senators asked me could they join as a cosponsor of this amendment. It has broad bipartisan support--Democrats and Republicans. I hope we have a unanimous vote on this issue. But what I want to say is this: Do not sign on as a cosponsor, do not vote for this resolution, if you are not prepared to back it up by votes on the floor when we start setting tax policy and we start appropriating funds. If you are not prepared to support this philosophy, do not sign on because that is what erodes public confidence in America. We talk a good game, but when the chips are down we often find reasons not to follow through on our commitments. I believe this is good public policy. I believe it is a resolution that sets the tone for this Congress. The House has passed a similar resolution, 419-0. I think that says something. I believe this body will be virtually unanimous, if not unanimous. After that, we are going to have to talk with Senator Smith and other Members of this body to figure out a way to implement that policy. It is a challenge to all the committees that are going to be dealing with these issues. They are going to have to reflect this view. I hope that they will. If they don't, we need to stand up and say we are not going to pass or support legislation that is not consistent with this resolution that treats all parents equally. Mr. President, thank you for the time. I thank my fellow Senators for their support for this resolution. I believe it is a great step forward in improving child care and development in America. Thank you, and I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. 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. With regard to the amendment we have been discussing this morning and the fact that families are choosing to give up a second income in order that they may have a parent stay home with their children in the early, formative years, I want to share a few thoughts with this body. As I traveled my State last month and I discussed this issue, time and time again families would come up to me after my remarks and say, ``Thank you for saying that. We made that exact decision in our family. My wife had worked, and she decided she wanted to stay home with the children while they are young. It costs us a lot of money. We don't regret it. We are glad you have considered us raising children and you believe we ought to have a fair shake in that regard.'' My wife taught school for 4 years. When we had children, we made a decision she would cease teaching. I was able to have a decent income and take care of the family. We were not rich, but that was a decision we made, and we were very glad we did that. In fact, we probably would not have qualified for benefits under this program because this would be a program favoring lower income people. Additionally, I wanted to share some numbers with the Members of this body. According to the most recently available data from the Census Bureau, a dramatically different picture is showing up than the one many would project. The facts show that although day care use did increase rapidly through the 1980's, the increase in the use of day care has come to a halt. The percentage of children under age 5 with employed mothers nearly doubled from the mid-1970's through 1998, but in subsequent years maternal employment remained fixed. In 1994, the last year recorded by the Census, the percentage of preschool children with employed mothers was still 52 percent, the same as it was in 1998. My personal observations of the people I associate with, that my children have gone to school with, are that people are questioning the mentality that it is always best for both parents to work, and they are making different decisions. It is time for us to have Government policy that reflects that. I am very pleased with the bipartisan support this amendment is receiving. I think it reflects a serious reevaluation on behalf of this Congress on how to spend money in aid of children. I solicit the support of all Senators for this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment No. 2166 offered previously.

Mr. SESSIONS. I request the yeas and nays of my amendment No. 2166.

Mr. SESSIONS. Thank you. Mr. President, I think, indeed, we are dealing with an important issue. I know the Chair himself, along with other Senators, has introduced legislation that would, in effect, accomplish many of the things that are called for in this amendment. I salute you for your concern for children and your work in that regard. I think it is time for us to make sure that we establish a policy in this body that treats parents equally who sacrifice for their children. I think this amendment makes that point, and I am proud to offer it. Mr. President, I believe we do have, by consent, 2 hours set aside for debate on this amendment. At this time, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of that time be reserved. I would like to speak on it some more, and other Senators have advised me that they would be speaking on this.

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that the occupant of the Chair, Senator Roberts, be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. SESSIONS. I would be honored to have that.

Mr. SESSIONS. Yes.

Mr. SESSIONS. The names I read, except for Senator Dodd, have already been listed as sponsors on the legislation. I ask that Senator Dodd and Senator Domenici be added as cosponsors.

Mr. SESSIONS. All right. Mr. President, the resolution notes a number of things. It notes that, whereas ``a recent National Institute for Child Health and Development study found that the greatest factor in the development of a young child is `what is happening at home and in families.' '' That is something all of us have known instinctively, and we believe that our public policy has not affirmed that effectively. Our resolution would move us in the right direction. It goes on to note: Whereas, as a child's interaction with his or her parents has the most significant impact on the development of the child, any Federal child care policy should enable and encourage parents to spend more time with their children; nearly \1/2\ of preschool children have at-home mothers and only \1/3\ of preschool children have mothers who are employed full time; a large number of low- and middle-income families sacrifice a second full-time income [by their own decision] so that a mother may be at home with her child; the average income of 2-parent families with a single income is $20,000 less than the average income of 2-parent families with 2 incomes; only 30 percent of preschool children are in families with paid child care and the remaining 70 percent of preschool children are in families that do not pay for child care, many of which are low- to middle-income families struggling to provide child care at home; child care proposals should not provide financial assistance solely to the 30 percent of families that pay for child care and should not discriminate against families in which children are cared for by an at-home parent; any congressional proposal that increases child care funding should provide financial relief to families that sacrifice an entire income in order that a mother or father may be at home with a young child. Therefore, it be resolved that the Congress of this United States recognizes that: many families in the United States make enormous sacrifices to forego a second income in order to have a parent care for a child at home; there should be no bias against at-home parents; parents choose many different forms of child care to meet the needs of their families, such as child care provided by an at-home parent, grandparent, aunt, uncle, parent, neighbor, nanny, preschool, or child care center; any quality child care proposal should include, as a key component, financial relief for those families where there is an at-home parent; and mothers and fathers who have chosen and continue to choose to be at home [with their children] should be applauded for their efforts. Mr. President, the purpose of this resolution is not to suggest that we do not need more relief for families. We need relief for families where both parents work or where the only parent works. They need relief. But we ought not to discriminate and be biased against those parents who sacrificially choose to spend the time they believe is necessary for their child to develop emotionally, morally, religiously, and ethically. That is a good thing for America. It is a good thing when parents can and are willing to spend their time with their children. Public policy should affirm that choice, just as it affirms other choices that parents make or feel compelled to make. I would suggest that this is a matter we ought to support aggressively. I believe it is a matter that will help set the tone for our budget process as we go forward. It will send a signal to those on the committees who will be considering legislation to see what we can do to strengthen our ability to care for children, and I believe this resolution to be quite significant and representative of a marked change in the direction that we have followed before. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Dodd be added as a cosponsor to this amendment. He called our office before I had a chance to add his name to the sponsors of this resolution, among whom are Senators Lott, Shelby, Enzi, Faircloth, Helms, Nickles, Grams, McConnell, Lieberman, Brownback, Inhofe, Craig, Hutchison, Frist, Coverdell, Ashcroft, Abraham, Mack, DeWine, and Coats, and others are being added as we go along.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I think the issue before the Senate as we debate the budget resolution is how to set our priorities as a nation. Where do we want to spend our resources? Are we expending our resources in ways that strengthen our American Republic and the people who make it up? Are we using resources in a way that will strengthen families? And are we using resources in a way that undermine families or at least undermine the freedom of families to make choices they believe are important in their lives? I have just introduced an amendment which expresses the sense of Congress that the Federal Government should acknowledge the importance of stay- at-home parents and should not discriminate against families who decide to forego a second income in order for a mother or father to be at home with their children. The resolution is nearly identical to the House resolution sponsored by Representative Bill Goodling, chairman of the Education and Work Force Committee, which passed the House of Representatives on February 11 by a vote of 409-0. President Clinton has proposed spending $21.7 billion over the next 5 years in new Federal child care programs. Although the money the President is proposing to spend will benefit parents who use business and institutional day-care providers, it will not assist the single largest provider of child care in this country, at-home parents. The President's plan does provide us with an opportunity to think seriously about this subject and see if we can provide a better way to help parents raise their children. I believe this resolution is critically important. It provides this body with an opportunity to discuss and debate our Nation's focus on the issue of child care: Should our Government continue to promote and fund child care programs designed to give middle-class parents who hire others to care for their children tax cuts or other benefits while at the same time denying relief to parents who make sacrifices so that one parent can remain at home to care for their young children? It seems unfair to me that we tax families who sacrifice outside earnings to ensure that one parent is home with their children while subsidizing families in which both parents work. In fact, the statistics show that when both parents work, they have a higher income. So in fact we are taxing those with a lower income to subsidize decisions of those with a higher income. Studies show that most parents would prefer to work less and spend more time with their children if they could afford to do so. By subsidizing only nonparental care for our children, our Government is pushing many families in a direction they do not wish to go. More parents are staying home. They are choosing to forgo extra income. These private, personal, and family decisions are being reached on long-term moral, religious, and educational considerations. Good decisions by parents in these matters benefit our Nation, and they should be affirmed by governmental policy, not undermined by governmental policy. As I traveled my State over the last recess and talked with people raising this issue, people would come up to me after meetings, and they would say: ``Jeff, we agree with you. We both used to work. Now only one of us works. We prayed about it and we know we are going to have to get by with less money. But we decided this is the best for our family.'' I don't denigrate in any way families who choose for both parents to work. I don't ask that we diminish support for the single parent who works. I just say, Mr. President, it is time for this body to join the House and to send a message to America and a statement to the President and to the rest of this Government that we believe that those parents who stay at home to raise their children ought to be affirmed also. They also should receive benefits, and they ought not to be the chumps in this process. Because they are giving of themselves with great sacrifice to raise the next generation of Americans who will lead this country. Make no mistake our economy is in great shape. This Nation is strong and vibrant economically. The one threat I see that could undermine that strength is for us to undermine the values that we pass on to our children. That our work ethic is reduced, that our moral discipline and integrity as a people is undermined. These qualities are strengthened when families can spend those formative years with their children in a close relationship. Psychiatrists and psychologists refer to it as ``bonding.'' During those first years, it is important for a parent and a child to bond in order for that child to develop confidence and a sense of self-worth that can only be gained in many instances from that relationship with their parents. We have many difficult societal problems, and none are more important than developing properly the next generation of leaders. I just say this, Mr. President: Our Nation can never rise higher than the individual quality of the citizens who make it up. And what are those qualities that make us a great people? It goes beyond mere education. It goes beyond how much money we make or how smart we are. It really depends on a willingness to cooperate, to work together, on whether or not we have high ideals, whether or not our children are raised with hope and a vision for progress, whether or not they have integrity, good discipline, a work ethic that will allow us to be competitive in the world. We need to strengthen our families as they endeavor to raise the next generation of leaders. Now, Mr. President, last year, we passed a budget that wonderfully provided a $500 per child tax credit to families in this country--one of the finest steps we have taken in many years to actually help families. This allows them to keep money that they could spend as they wish. A family of three could, in effect, have $120 extra each month, tax free, not taxable, a tax credit that they could use for their children. This extra money may mean buying shoes, textbooks, or the extra money it takes to go to a movie or on a school trip. These families are able to make their own decisions about spending. That was a wonderful step in the right direction. It did not discriminate against those families who work or those who choose not to have both parents work. It was an equal, across-the-board benefit, something that was good. I think now we need to make this additional statement by this body: That we expect in the future to treat all parents equally. The amendment makes a number of points, Mr. President, and I will share those briefly. I don't know what my time is, but I don't want to go over.

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, another Senator in this body made some very strong criticisms of the special prosecutor, Mr. Ken Starr. Judge Starr was appointed to that office some time ago. In recent months he was asked to continue his investigation into matters involving the Monica Lewinsky situation and to the possible obstruction of justice. It happened this way: Mr. Starr presented information to the Attorney General of the United States, Janet Reno. He told her about the circumstances and what he knew and the evidence that had been obtained. She agreed that a special prosecutor should be appointed. They then went to a three-judge court, and the three-judge court, as the law requires--Federal judges, all with lifetime appointments, above politics--those three judges commissioned Kenneth Starr to be an investigator of this circumstance. He, therefore, has been directed by a court. He accepted that responsibility. As a result of that, he has a duty to perform. Now, Mr. President, I know that the Chair has served, himself, as attorney general of the great State of Missouri. I have served as attorney general of Alabama. And I served almost 12 years as a Federal prosecutor, a U.S. attorney. I have prosecuted a great many public corruption cases, fraud cases, white-collar-crime cases. They are not easy. The people who have committed those kinds of crimes do not desire that they should be caught. They do not make it easy that they should be apprehended. It would be their preference to be able to get away with whatever they may have committed. Now, many say Ken Starr as special prosecutor has a duty or responsibility to get someone. I assure you, that is not true. I assure you, with all confidence, because I have served in the Department of Justice with Mr. Starr and I know his reputation, that he has absolutely no desire to get anyone. But he has been commissioned, he has been given a mandate, he has been given a responsibility to find out what the facts are. Sometimes that requires issuing subpoenas. If you do not get the facts, you have not conducted an investigation, and you have violated your responsibility and the requirements that have been given to you. If you do not interview the secretary sitting outside the office about what went on there, what kind of investigation is that? What kind of investigation is that? That would be like no investigation at all. What about this circumstance--some say that his attempt to question the mother of Miss Lewinsky is somehow wrong. Congress makes the laws of the United States. I was a prosecutor for nearly 17 years. I know how the law is written. There is no grant of immunity or protection for a mother for confidentiality of communications under these circumstances. It is not there. If the Senator from Vermont or other Senators in this body want to change the Federal law to create a protection for that, let them introduce the legislation. Let us have it out right here. Let us discuss it. But that is not the law. So we have, in the special prosecutor, an individual who is supposed to gather the evidence he can legally gather. Presumably he believes the mother of this young lady has information that she ought to give, and he has every right to ask for it. In fact, to fail to ask for that information would be a failure of the responsibility that has been given to him by the courts and laws of this country. There are a lot of other things being said, such as why would you dig into his books? I saw a report recently about an individual who was charged with poisoning someone. This is not hypothetical but it is an example, I think, of why subpoenas sometimes are issued. Under the subpoena the authorities discovered and uncovered a book the individual had describing how to make poisons. I had an occasion to personally prosecute, a number of years ago, a doctor. He was the subject of two national television movies and a book. In the course of that, we discovered a book that he had on deadly poisons and how to commit murder. It was relevant to our case, and it was introduced in the case. So I do not know what it is that Mr. Starr issued that subpoena for. He cannot defend himself. He cannot run in here and say, ``Oh, Senator, let me tell you why we did that. Your remarks are unkind. They're unfair. I had a specific reason for issuing that subpoena. Let me tell you what it is.'' He can't do that. So he is a victim of these kinds of complaints by those who want to undermine his ability to do the job he has been commissioned to do. I am really troubled by this. I am very, very troubled that we in this body, and, in fact, the President of the United States of America and his staff, are systematically trying to intimidate and undermine the legal and moral authority of the commissioned special prosecutor. To my knowledge, that has never happened before in our country. If there is nothing to hide, why not let him do his job? They say, why doesn't he finish? If they would be more forthcoming, he would have already been finished. How can you finish when people refuse to give testimony? They claim executive privilege and therefore make you go to court to obtain court orders, which takes months to get, to argue over these issues. The President committed early on that he would be forthcoming, that he would give all the evidence, and the truth should come out. But, as so often occurs with this President, we are finding that not to be the case. Mr. President, I will just conclude and say that, if nothing else, we need to respect the rule of law. That great hymn, ``Our Liberty is in Law,'' that is the American form of government. We respect the rule of law. We do not use political power or other efforts to undermine that rule. We trust our system to work. We have multiple opportunities to appeal if the system goes awry at any stage. Ultimately we have to accept that. And if we respect it and give ourselves to it with integrity and ability, I think we can get just results. We may not ever know the full truth in this circumstance. That is not Mr. Starr's responsibility. Mr. Starr's responsibility is to get as much truth as he can get. He can find the truth within the rule of law. So it is really discouraging to me to see when a subpoena is issued to any institution for a specific piece of information, it is to be compared to some fishing expedition. Because I assure you, that is not true. I assure you that that subpoena would not be issued unless there was a sound basis for it.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, this morning the Senate will immediately proceed to executive session for a rollcall vote on the confirmation of the nomination of M. Margaret McKeown to be United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit. Following that vote, the Senate is expected to begin consideration of the budget resolution. Under the statute, there are 50 hours of debate on the resolution. However, I hope we could yield a good portion of that time back. On Monday, if an adequate amount of time is yielded back on the budget resolution, then it would be the leader's intention to postpone any votes on Monday until Tuesday. As always, all Senators will be notified when that is worked out. Next week, in addition to completing action on the budget resolution and the Coverdell A+ education bill, we may also take up and finish the emergency supplemental appropriations conference report, if available. Colleagues are warned in advance that next week will be a hectic week as we work toward the Easter recess. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise today to recall the contributions made to Alabama and the Nation by Roy Johnson, the district attorney for the Fourth Judicial Circuit of Alabama. Roy's untimely death on February 11, 1998, at age 49, cut short his career and deprived his wife Anita, his son Matthew, and his daughter Gabrielle of a loving and devoted husband and father. Roy was the friend of thousands, and I was pleased to call him a personal friend. In addition, I knew him well as a professional prosecutor with whom I worked on a regular basis during the years I served as U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Alabama. Service to his country as a Marine captain demonstrated his love for country, but it also caused him to develop, during his service time, a form of hepatitis that damaged his liver and which ultimately resulted in his having to undergo a liver transplant operation. There were high hopes for the success of the operation. He seemed to be doing well when there occurred a sudden turn for the worst, and Roy was gone. After nearly 18 years of service to Bibb, Dallas, Hale, Perry and Wilcox Counties, Roy had made plans to retire from his post as district attorney and to commence the practice of law with his brother Robert W. ``Robin'' Johnson II in his beloved hometown of Marion. And they also have law offices in Birmingham and Washington, DC. I am pleased today, Mr. President, that his brother Robin is here today to hear these remarks about my good friend, his brother, Roy Johnson. As his long-time chief assistant, Ed Greene said, ``Everything seemed so bright for him.'' His death was truly a shock to me and to many. Roy had great pride in his circuit and the people in it. He loved them deeply. He worked tirelessly on their behalf. The fourth judicial circuit is located in the heart of Alabama's Black Belt region--a beautiful area of the State in which the people know not only their neighbors, but they know the grandparents and grandchildren of their neighbors. E.T. Rolison, Jr., supervisory U.S. attorney in Mobile, AL, noted, ``Roy did as much for law enforcement coordination as anyone I have [ever] seen in my 25 years with this office.'' And this was a high compliment from Mr. Rolison, who served for many years in the U.S. attorney's office and worked hard to further coordination between local, State and Federal law enforcement agencies. Mr. Barron Lankster, himself a district attorney in nearby Marengo County, and an African American, noted that he had commenced his career in Roy's office. Mr. Lankster said, ``He fully integrated his office when he took over and treated everyone fairly and equitably.'' A graduate of Tulane University and the University of Alabama School of Law, Roy was prepared intellectually and professionally for the broad demands of his work. He loved history and he loved the wonderful Antebellum home in which he lived. The home was located right on the parade grounds at Marion Military Institute, an excellent military school. MMI, along with Judson College, have played a key role in making the town of Marion an extraordinary academic and intellectual community. Roy's love and support for Marion Military Institute was deep and longstanding. Certainly, his career in the U.S. Marines helped shape his belief that we must have a strong national defense. I remember with delight the occasion when Roy's fellow marine, Col. Ollie North, was under great attack in Washington. This was before Colonel North's rebuttal that turned the tables on his accusers a bit. But Roy spoke out for him then. He served with him in the Marines, and he spoke up at a time of great unpopularity. I congratulated him later when it turned out that Colonel North had turned the tables a bit on that circumstance. He stood by his friends. He was indeed forever true. During the mid-1980s, we worked together on the prosecution of three individuals for voter fraud in Perry County. The prosecution caused a great deal of furor locally and nationally. During that time I came to appreciate Roy's cool head, his innate decency, his legal skills, and his character. Despite political pressure, this marine never wavered. He stood firm for what he believed to be right, and did so in a fair and just manner. The bond which we developed in that case was never broken. There is much more that can be said about this educated, caring, fair, strong, loyal and kind son of the South. Certainly he was big in stature and big in spirit. I am confident that if we were able to accomplish a fully accurate analysis of the many contributions he made to his judicial circuit and his region, the most significant would be his skill and determination during a period of rapid social change. He helped provide equal justice to all and conducted himself and his office in a manner that reflected fairness to everyone. His leadership and his strength of character provided a framework which allowed for the development of harmonious relations between the races. Sometimes there would be periods of good feeling and sometimes there would be periods of tension and conflict. But whatever the situation, Roy stood firm and strong for justice and contributed mightily to the historic changes that have taken place in this region. Roy loved Marion. He loved the Black Belt and the people who lived there and the people he represented. I know he is pleased that his strong and effective chief deputy, Ed Greene, in whom he placed such trust over the years, has been appointed to complete his term. I have the greatest respect for Ed's ability and have enjoyed working with him over the years, and I compliment Governor Fob James for his wise appointment. I have been honored to know Roy Johnson. He was a superior public servant, an outstanding prosecutor. And I thank the Chair for allowing me to place these remarks upon the record and to express my sincerest sympathy to his fine family for the great loss they have suffered. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, a few comments on another subject.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, this President has not defended his actions on the basis that this is a private matter; ``it is something between me and my wife and consenting adults,'' and that sort of thing. He has denied these allegations flat out, and he has placed in dispute, under oath, contradicting statements. So now we have a mess in this country, and it is a direct result of the actions of the President of the United States. He has gotten himself in a situation in which his statements directly contradicts that of other people's statements, under oath. That is a matter that is not going away lightly. I will say what is offensive to me and is of concern to me: He has embroiled the Office of the Presidency in this matter. He has used the power, the staff, the people of his office to defend himself and to entwine them into this affair. He has, therefore, during the course of this activity, in my opinion as one Senator--and I had no intention to speak this morning on this subject, but it has been troubling me for a long time--I think he has dishonored the Presidency in that regard. He has not handled it properly. I wish it were not so. It is not good for this country. It is not the right thing for us to have to be going through today. There is no one who has any responsibility for it but the President. If he thinks he can go around and claim that is the fault of the person who has been commissioned by an objective Federal court to investigate his activities instead of the President--that is what he is suggesting--then that is not accurate. I am very troubled by this matter. I think what we need to do is simply to allow the special prosecutor to do his job. He may well find there is evidence of wrongdoing. He may find there is no evidence of wrongdoing. He may find there might be some evidence of wrongdoing but there is insufficient proof to bring charges. I don't know what will happen. I hope we get it over with. I hope the President will cooperate. But I think we need to be respectful of the legal process in this country and not attempt to undermine it, because we don't undermine a part of it without undermining all of it. Every day, by a prosecutor in America, young people are being tried for drug offenses and other offenses, and they have to accept the workings of that system. Police accept the workings of that system. Mothers and fathers accept the workings of that system when their children are charged with a crime. It is a painful, horrible, difficult time for all, but we have to respect the rule of law. I am very, very troubled by those who, in my opinion, make comments and suggestions to try to attack an investigation and, in effect, undermine the law by political power and political influence. This should not happen. I think it is a matter we need to talk more about in this body. Mr. President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator from Wyoming for yielding me time. I rise to endorse the comments made by Senator Enzi. In 1996, I was the attorney general of the State of Alabama, and I was one of the 22 attorneys general that signed the letter that Senator Enzi mentioned earlier. This letter, which was initiated under the leadership of Attorney General Bob Butterworth of Florida, was a 13-page letter discussing the legal reasons why the attorneys general believe that the Secretary of the Interior ought not to be setting the gambling policies for our various States. Why did we take this position? Because our review of applicable law revealed to us that there was no legal basis for the Secretary of Interior to act this way, especially in light of the important Seminole Tribe v. Florida case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1996. The issue of tribal gaming is a matter of extreme importance. My home state of Alabama has consistently rejected casino gambling in the State. We have one small Indian tribe that owns several pieces of property in the State. If that tribe were able to go to the Secretary of the Interior and obtain approval to build casinos on their property, we would soon have three major, active casinos in the State of Alabama bringing with them all the problems that are associated with casino gaming. The tribal reservations are extremely small, however they would impact the community to a great degree. As the Senator from Wyoming so eloquently said, it is the States who will bear the burdens and the responsibility and the consequences of having the Secretary of Interior impose gambling on them. The Secretary of the Interior should not be imposing tribal gaming decisions on the States. In the past, the Secretary had indicated that he would prefer not to intervene in these matters. If that is so, then he certainly should not oppose this legislation that would prohibit his ability to unilaterally decide state gaming issues. I think this issue is a matter that we need to treat very significantly. Make no mistake about it, having been involved in the process, I learned something that is quite important, and that is just how much money is involved. When the Secretary of the Interior, one man, can look at one group of claimants, or favor one Indian tribe over another, and he can then select a group and say, ``You can get a gambling casino,'' he may have made that group hundreds of millions of dollars-- I do not mean one million, I mean hundreds of millions of dollars--and another tribe may get nothing from that. The Secretary's ability to make one decision which makes certain groups rich and certain groups poor is one reason why the committee testimony concerning Mr. Babbitt's dealing with contributions tied to Indian gaming was such a dramatic, and unseemly, event. So I think that is not the way public policy and gambling policy ought to be set in America. It ought to be set on a rational basis by the people of the State who would have to live with that activity. I think Senator Enzi is correct. Similar legislation passed once before, I think, with consent. I hope that it will again. I believe we need to make clear that the people of our States will be the ones to decide whether or not gambling occurs. I would just like to share a quote from an editorial appearing in the Montgomery Advertiser last year. In this editorial the Advertiser, the newspaper of the capital of Alabama, says: Regardless of whether one favors or opposes legalized gambling on Indian lands, surely there can be little dispute over the legitimate interest of states in having some say in the matter, rather than having gambling instituted within their borders through federal-level negotiations. Respecting the role of states is fundamental to this issue, and Senator Enzi's amendment solves the problem of Federal intrusion created by the regulations put forward by the Secretary of Interior. I salute Senator Enzi for his amendment, and I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Utah, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, for his leadership in this matter and in so many other matters. He is an outstanding legal scholar, an outstanding lawyer, a man of integrity, ability, and fairness who works extraordinarily hard to make sure everyone who comes before the committee has a thorough opportunity to express themselves and to defend themselves, and that others who have information to share are allowed to do so. I think it was an extraordinary event that he allowed a second hearing to be held for the Massiah-Jackson nomination. That was a very fair thing to do. I agree with the distinguished chairman that it is a good idea and a good thing that this nomination has been withdrawn. Ms. Frederica Massiah-Jackson has a number of problems with her nomination. I would just like to make a few points about the process and about her nomination. District Attorney Lynne Abraham, a Democrat in Philadelphia, who has served a number of years, and has also served on the judicial bench in Pennsylvania with Judge Massiah-Jackson, wrote us a letter saying that she had not opposed or commented on nominees of any kind before, but she wrote a letter stating she felt that she should do so on this occasion. Among other things, she said: This nominee's judicial service is replete with instances of demonstrated leniency toward criminals, an adversarial attitude toward police and disrespect toward prosecutors unmatched by any other present or former jurist with whom I am familiar. That was a letter written reluctantly and in sadness, but a letter I think she felt she had to share with us. Her opinion was shared by the District Attorneys Association in Pennsylvania, the Fraternal Order of Police, and the National Fraternal Order of Police. We were also presented a list of 50 cases in which we were given detailed statements of sentences and judicial rulings by this judge, prepared by district attorneys who had no obligation to do that but did so because they were concerned about it. Those cases have been around here for well over a month and have never really been effectively rebutted. So I think to say the newly uncovered twenty cases were somehow critical in this matter is not really accurate. I think the new cases were additional troublesome matters, but the whole list of cases previously submitted were quite troubling also. Just briefly, Madam President, while I am relieved that this nomination has been withdrawn, I think it shows fully why the Senate should carefully and thoroughly examine judicial nominees. Specifically, I thank Senator John Ashcroft, who is here today, and Senator Strom Thurmond for placing a temporary hold on this nomination after it was voted out of the Judiciary Committee by a 12-to-6 vote last fall. At that time, this nomination was moving toward confirmation last fall. It is a classic example of why the Judiciary Committee and the Senate as a whole should deliberately screen judicial nominees. President Clinton has suggested that the Senate should speed up confirmation of Federal judges. With all due respect, the Massiah- Jackson nomination demonstrates why the Senate should confirm Federal judges at a fair but careful pace. Judge Massiah-Jackson's nomination was reported out of the Judiciary Committee with approximately a dozen other judicial nominees at the end of last year. There was an effort to confirm these judges quickly before the year ended. Without Senator Ashcroft's and Senator Thurmond's temporary holds, this nominee would have been confirmed, I have no doubt. If this had happened, it would have been unfortunate, because many of Judge Jackson's unacceptable decisions had not yet been uncovered. In addition, as of last fall, the above-mentioned law enforcement organizations had not studied this nominee's record in detail. In fact, when Judge Massiah-Jackson's nomination was reported out of committee, none of these groups formally opposed the nomination. In fact, Senator Specter held a hearing in Pennsylvania to allow people to state objections. He gave them an opportunity to do so, but none came forth at that time. Without Senator Ashcroft's and Senator Thurmond's hold, this nominee would have been confirmed, in all probability, before her record had been adequately examined. A Federal judgeship is a lifetime appointment. The confirmation process is the only chance to review a judicial nominee's qualifications. The confirmation process is literally the point of no return. Unlike State judges, Federal judges cannot be recalled or voted from office. This is why it is so vitally important for the Senate to carefully fulfill its constitutional duty to advise and consent to the President's nominees. Judge Learned Hand, referring to the lack of control over federal judges, once said, ``They can't fired us. They can't even dock our pay.'' A Federal judge has extraordinary power. Many of those powers involve decisionmaking authority that is absolutely unreviewable on appeal. For example, if a judge, at the conclusion of a prosecutor's case, dismisses the case and grants a judgment of acquittal to a defendant, that is the same as a jury verdict of acquittal, and the Government cannot appeal. Such directed verdicts simply cannot be appealed. So I think it is important that this process be allowed to work, and it did work. I believe that Judge Massiah-Jackson will have the opportunity as a State judge to demonstrate her abilities and skills there, to continue to serve the people of Pennsylvania. I was impressed with her demeanor and courtesy and the way she handled herself at her hearing, but I do feel like the just conclusion was reached. Madam President, that is the conclusion of my remarks. I yield the floor. Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Absolutely. This is not a close question.

Mr. SESSIONS. Will the Senator yield?