Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. If the Senator will yield, I do not think the legislation requires that. In 1991, we did not fund the elections but had supervision. I think we can have supervision through the Department of Labor or Justice. But we do not have to fund a $22 million election.

Mr. SESSIONS. My understanding was that a vote was expected tonight but that a number of Senators had some things they wanted to say about this bill and were being provided the opportunity to do so. I am not aware that there is any agreement not to vote. I thought the agreement in fact was to vote.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we just voted earlier today 95 to 0 to direct the President of the United States not to enter into treaties in Japan dealing with global warming at this time. Those of us who care about the Earth on which we live want to make sure we are good stewards of this planet that we are blessed to have and we care about it very deeply. I have had the opportunity to serve on the Environment and Public Works Committee and have heard testimony from some of the Nation's most outstanding experts on the question of global warming. I am a new Senator, just having come here in January, and was very interested and fascinated by the possibility of trying to learn more about this problem that I have been reading about, as have so many Americans. I must admit to you that I have been somewhat surprised by a number of things, including a lack of unanimity among scientists, a lack of data among scientists, and a serious disagreement among scientists. I am also somewhat surprised, despite the very strong feelings of people who study this, that the President continues to be determined to enter into treaties that could adversely affect the economic well-being of the United States. Let me say first, in my simple way of thinking about this problem, a regulation is the equivalent of a tax. It would be no different for us than if we were to regulate the electric power industry and added costs to companies by mandating environmental controls in addition to the ones that they have implemented to preserve the environment for years. If we implement those controls, their customers are going to pay in terms of rate increases. Increases will be paid by the citizens who consume power, and every American consumes power. So we have to understand that a regulation that imposes a burden on some big company, like a power company, is really a tax on all of us. It is a regulation that impacts all of us. It adds to the cost of doing business in America. Every small business that utilizes electricity will have to pay for that power at a higher cost. It will make them, therefore, less able to compete with other people around the world. I think that is a fundamental principle we must not look for. The Atlantic Monthly recently had a most marvelous article about economic growth, progress, and technological advancement. Those, it said, are the greatest ways to fight pollution and to clean our environment. The areas that are most polluted, the areas that are least safe to live in and where people have the shortest lifespan are the undeveloped nations of the world. This article devastated the myth that progress and technological advancement imperil the environment. Indeed, just the opposite is the case. Improved technology and improved progress allow us to do more for less and improve our environment. We do know, though, that we are already, as a nation, facing a difficult challenge around the world. We are having a difficult time protecting the jobs of working Americans in the face of lower-wage nations that are taking our jobs. Ross Perot, in running for President, used the phrase ``a giant sucking sound,'' as he referred to jobs going overseas. The fact is, every day we place greater and greater burdens on the productive businesses in our Nation. At some point, the cumulation of those burdens reach a point that makes those businesses uncompetitive in the world and can severely damage the economic strength of this Nation. That is why the AFL-CIO and working unions all over America are questioning and opposing this treaty, because they see it will add one more burden to the United States and one more advantage to undeveloped nations who already have these low-wage rates to knock down and take away the productive capacity of American industry. I think it is a valid concern. Second, Mr. President, my simple mind, as I have been here, has caused me to think about how many treaties I see that we are entering into. I have this vision in my mind of Gulliver among the Lilliputians lying there with strings tying the giant down where he couldn't get up. Hundreds of little threads tied him down, and he could not move. We are a great nation, the greatest really on Earth, the greatest perhaps in the history of the world. We have great privileges and great requirements as a great nation. We ought not to lightly enter into treaties that bind us, keep us from being able to fully effectuate the capabilities that we have and enter into treaties with other nations, some of whom may not honor those treaties. It is one thing for them to sign up. We have seen nations sign up and say they won't use poison gas and then they have used poison gas, and nothing is done about it. What if we sign a global warming treaty and other nations who sign it do not comply? What will we do then? I suggest we will do nothing. We will honor that treaty, as we always do, because we take those things very seriously. Let me make a couple of points. The first thing that I have learned in our committee hearing is just how small a part of the problem we are facing is caused from humankind. Look at this chart. It is a remarkable chart--CO2 emissions, natural versus man-made. Eighty to eighty-five percent of emissions that cause global warming are supposed to be CO2. This is a big problem. 96.9 percent of the CO2 emissions on this Earth come from natural causes; things which combustion and other things do not affect. The rest of the world contributes 3.1 percent. The U.S. contribution is less than 1 percent, .6 percent. If we eliminated all the production of CO2 in the United States, we would only make a small dent in the overall problem of CO2 emissions. That is why people are saying they are not sure what is causing global warming, if we have global warming at all. I think we have to know that. Those of us who are talking about imposing tremendous economic burdens on American industry place us in a position of not being able to remain competitive in the world, for a benefit perhaps nonexistent. I think this is a matter we have to consider seriously. Do we have global warming? That is a matter that I know is a given-- it is said. Some 2,000 scientists say it is, but many do not know why. There remains a lot of dispute about global warming. I am not sure what the real situation is. I am certain that there is some slight warming, but I must say that it is not clear. Dr. Christy, a NASA contractor and a professor at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a premier university in scientific research, has studied satellite data for 20 years. He has been able to ascertain from that data what the atmospheric temperatures are around the world, not just on one seashore where the gulf stream may affect it or some prevailing winds may have affected the temperature temporarily. This is a global change. He has studied this over 20 years, beginning in 1979. Dr. Christy reached a remarkable conclusion based on his studies of temperature changes. As stated in his testimony before the full Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, the level of the atmosphere he is testing should be warming, according to those who believe in the global warming models, because global warming caused by the greenhouse effect should be an atmospheric effect, but he found the atmosphere has not warmed. This black line reflects the temperature, and it has actually gone down during the almost 20 years that he studied. No one has contradicted that evidence. It wasn't evidence that he went out and gathered. It was evidence that he just took from the satellite information that was already available to the public, and he made a comprehensive study of it. What is interesting is, based on his information, we may not have global warming at all. As I said, that information has not been disputed in any way. Not many years ago, the prediction was that we were going to show a 4-degree increase in climate temperature in the next 100 years; 4 degrees growth would be the average increase in temperature in the next 100 years. Now, those numbers have dropped to 2 degrees. The experts have reduced those already just in the last few years to 2 degrees. Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia and senior fellow of environmental studies at the CATO Institute, testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on June 26, 1997. This is what he said: Critics argued some years ago, as I did, [he said] that this would have to be a dramatic reduction in the forecast of future warming in order to reconcile fact with hypothesis. In other words, he realized that the people who were predicting this 4-degree increase were wrong, and some time ago he predicted they would have to modify this. By 1995, [he said] in its second full assessment of climate change, the IPCC [the U.N. panel] admitted the validity of the critics' position [his position]. When increases in greenhouse gases only are taken into account, most climate models produce a greater warming than has been observed to date-- In other words, we predicted a greater warming than we were actually seeing, than nationally has been observed. unless closer climate sensitivity to the greenhouse effect is used. In other words, we were predicting too high a sensitivity to the greenhouse effect. The IPCC continued: There is growing evidence that increases in aerosols are partially counteracting the warming. There are many things that are involved there. Dr. Michaels then added this comment. I thought it was very instructive, Mr. President. He said: I believe the secular translation of this statement is that either it is not going to warm up as much as was previously forecast or something is hiding the warming. I predict every attempt will be made to demonstrate the latter before admitting that the former is true. I thought it was interesting he used those words: ``I believe the secular translation of that document.'' I thought about why he did that, why he used those phrases. He is a scientist, a University of Virginia scientist. Why would he say that? I think he is saying that because he senses in many of the people who are promoting this agenda almost a religious bent, a commitment beyond rationality, a commitment beyond science, a sort of supernatural belief that we have to clean this Earth, and nothing we do as human beings here is healthy, and it is all bad. It goes beyond rationality. I tend to agree that we have some things that are said, that I have observed on our committee, that would indicate that that is true. Let me add one more thing before I conclude. The other thing we have learned is that global warming is hard to fix obviously if 97 percent of--by far, the No. 1 problem of greenhouse gas--CO2, is from natural causes. So we have a problem. We had testimony recently from four scientists before our committee. And I would like to share with you one of the exchanges that took place there. One professor thought that even though he was supporting the treaty, he thought we should take only modest steps at this time. And he believed that a significant tax on fuel and carbon products would be the way to do it. That is what he proposed. He said, ``I think we need to start moving in that direction.'' Dr. Richard S. Lindzen was a member of that panel. He is an Alfred P. Sloane Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. When testifying before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works on July 10, 1997, Dr. Lindzen said, ``I'm saying more than that. I'm saying that Dale''--talking about the professor--``that what he's proposing, take the scenario that you expect, an increase of 4 degrees''-- so Dr. Lindzen is saying, OK, let us assume that you are predicting a 4-degree increase in temperature in the next century, what affect would this tax, a significant tax on oil and all carbon products, have on our environment? This is what he said, ``. . . take the scenario that you expect an increase of 4 degrees, if we imposed his tax, that would knock the temperature down over 100 years to 3.95 degrees. Only five one- hundredths of a degree would be affected by a tax to reduce that kind of emission of gases.'' We are dealing with a very serious problem. I am concerned about American economic growth. I want the American people to have good jobs and be competitive in the world. I want a healthy environment. I believe in that. I am willing to invest some money in that. But I am not willing to invest money in a project that will have almost no effect and perhaps is dealing with a problem that may not even exist. We need more science, more study before we ask the people of this Nation to commit their resources into an effort that we could do somewhere else; $10 billion, $100 billion spent on this is $100 billion we could spend on child health care, emergency room admissions, and a lot of other things that we desperately need in this country. So, Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to share those thoughts with you. I think we are dealing with an important issue. And I hope that the American people will pay close attention to it as we go forward. I yield the floor. Mr. COATS addressed the Chair.

Mr. SESSIONS

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 to proceed for 5 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the men and women whose work contributes to our nation's great space program. Their contributions have made the first seventeen days of the month of July a high point of public interest and enthusiasm. I would like to share with my colleagues some observations of these contributions. Earlier this week, I visited NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, AL, and spent a few minutes talking with three of the astronauts on board of the Space Shuttle Columbia. Members of my staff viewed their launch on July 1 from the Kennedy Space Center in Florida. It was another great launch and another great milestone for Columbia and our shuttle program. In case you missed the landing on CNN, Columbia returned safely to Earth at approximately 7:15 a.m. this morning. While in orbit, the crew conducted world class research in areas which are so critical to our future success in the global economy--biotechnology, materials science, and combustion research. This research is vitally important, and here is why: It is hard to understate the importance of the biotechnology research when you consider the hundreds of proteins in the human body. We currently understand the structure of about 1 percent of these proteins. If scientists can decipher the exact structure of a protein, they can determine how it works with other proteins to perform a specific function. For example, by studying a protein that is part of a virus, they can learn how that virus attacks plants or animals. To do this, however, scientists must grow near-perfect crystals of that protein. While some can be done quite easily on Earth, some are distorted by gravity. During Columbia's mission, protein growth experiments grew large quantities of various proteins. These experiments are designed to improve our knowledge and lead to breakthroughs in diabetes, bronchial asthma, AIDS, various kinds of inflammation, and Chagas disease, a disease affecting 20 million people worldwide but most prevalent in Latin America and making its way into the United States. Materials science has unlimited potential. Historically, mankind's development has been tied to the development of new materials since the dawn of time--the ``Stone Age'', the ``Iron Age'', the ``Bronze Age.'' As humanity matures into the ``space age,'' the need for new materials is as important and evolutionary as ever. The key to materials science research is understanding how the structure of a material forms and how this structure affects the properties of the material. On Earth, sedimentation and buoyancy cause uneven mixing of the ingredients of the material and can deform the structure as it solidifies. Imperfections in the structures of metals and alloys can affect mechanical strength or resistance to corrosion, while similar flaws in glasses and alloys can make them easier to crack or break. In microgravity, sedimentation and buoyancy are reduced or eliminated, enabling investigators to learn how these factors affect the final structure of the material. The knowledge gained from the studies on board Columbia will be used to improve materials processing on earth. These are the materials which will allow us to chart the great unknowns of space in the decades ahead. The third area of world-class research was conducted in combustion, which accounts for approximately 85 percent of the world's energy production and a significant percentage of the world's atmospheric pollution. Combustion plays a key role in processes involved in ground transportation, spacecraft propulsion, aircraft propulsion, and hazardous waste disposal. However, despite many years of study, we have only a limited understanding of many fundamental combustion processes. The results from experiments in these areas will help NASA design engines for cleaner air and more fuel efficiency. Just a tenth of 1 percent increase in the ability to burn fuel more efficiently can more than pay the cost of a shuttle mission and help keep the environment cleaner as well. We spend hundreds of billions of dollars each year on oil and every penny saved is a penny that stays right here in America. All of these experiments I just mentioned, Mr. President, were performed inside Spacelab, a joint venture of NASA and the European Space Agency. Investigators representing 32 universities, 12 commercial industries and five government agencies participated in the 33 microgravity experiments in Spacelab. This mission was a bridge between the activities currently possible on Spacelab and those of a much longer duration but with similar international cooperation that will take place on International Space Station. This mission caused no great fanfare like the Mars mission is continuing to cause. Like many of you, I greatly enjoyed watching the coverage of the landing of the Pathfinder with my family over the Fourth of July weekend. I felt a special pride at this event. The Mars mission is a uniquely American accomplishment and has captured the imagination and attention of the world. I look forward to the day when the United States sends a manned mission to Mars. America must continue to be a nation of explorers, carrying out the traditions of discovery embodied by Lewis and Clark, and the other great explorers. So much depends on our leadership and the dedication of thousands of men and women working on projects large and small that will lead us to new frontiers in space. This morning, NASA Administrator Dan Goldin addressed the Republican Freshman Caucus. We discussed with him many of NASA's visionary projects and the future need for the International Space Station as a bridge to future exploration. On the Space Station, NASA will learn how to keep astronauts safe and healthy for long periods of time. They will learn how to shield astronauts from radiation. They will learn more about how to combat the bone loss astronauts experience after they have been in orbit for just a short period of time. And they will learn how to deal with medical problems, such as blood loss, a virus or bacterial infection, and surgical procedure. These are all things that we must be prepared for if we are to send men and women in space for long periods of time. Mr. Goldin praised astronaut Michael Foale, our astronaut abroad the Mir space station, as a true American hero. Foale is demonstrating to the world that U.S. astronauts are prepared to deal with adversity and hardship. He stressed that our children are seeing a drama in real time that is as fascinating to them as the drama we followed aboard Apollo 13 many years ago. Mr. Goldin assured us, however, that he has three teams examining the safety factors of the Mir and that all must sign off before any more U.S. astronauts are placed on board. He has confidence in the crew and confidence in the Mir, he strongly believes we must stay the course. Each Senator in attendance received a copy of the first photograph to be returned from Mars. I understand Mr. Goldin will be sending one to each Member of this body. He also proudly stated that NASA's Internet site on this mission has received over 300 million hits during its first five days, breaking all records for an Internet site. This mission has united the world in its interest. It has sparked the imagination of a new generation of space adventurers, and only time will tell how far they will go. In conclusion, Mr. President, I believe the Mars mission symbolizes the very best of America. It transcends politics and demonstrates the cutting edge technology that has made our Nation the forerunner in space exploration. This is truly the way we want the world to see us, isn't it? Space is the key to the image and the future of this nation in the 21st century and beyond. We must have national leadership, a keen vision, clear-cut goals, and a strong commitment from this 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. Where will we be in just 20 years from now? Mr. Goldin and his employees at NASA have the vision that will take us beyond the fringe of the universe and, along the way, will provide untold benefits for mankind. We are indeed a nation of adventurers and the crew of Columbia, the scientists at JPL and U.S. astronaut Michael Foale are setting the azimuth and cutting the trail for us to follow. The question is ``Will we heed the signs and run the risks to get to the other side?'' I believe our nation is ready for that challenge and will meet it in every way. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, this amendment would appropriate an increase of $6 million to the budget request for the Explosive Demilitarization Technology Program [PE 63104D] to conduct a demonstration program at Anniston Army Depot. This is a much-needed demonstration of current commercial off-the-shelf blast chamber technology as an acceptable alternative to open burning/open pit detonation [OB/OD] by reducing significantly emissions and noise caused by OB/OD. The demonstration has nationwide application if successful and is in keeping with the military's program of continuing technology evaluation of demilitarization methods for existing conventional ammunition as described in the Joint Demilitarization Study, September 1995, page II-4-14, a study prepared for the Director, Environmental and Life Sciences, Defense Research and Engineering, Office of the Secretary of Defense. Annually we spend millions of dollars on the production of new munitions of all types. At the other end of the pipeline however is the vexing problem of disposing of outdated munitions of all types. The enormity of the problem for this Nation is this: The stocks managed by the Army, DOD's Manager for Conventional Ammunition [MCA], currently stored in 26 States totals approximately 449,308 tons of material and costs over $12 million annually to store according to a DOD 1995 Joint Demilitarization Study. More serious however is the fact that the study predicts an additional 730,420 tons will be generated into that stockpile by the end of fiscal year 2001. Let me state again the magnitude of the problem for the Nation: through the end of fiscal year 2001, over 1.2 million tons of material will pass through or reside in the military conventional ammunition account. This is enough ammunition to exceed 2,800 earth-covered magazines and will cost over $1.2 billion to destroy if we assume that it costs approximately $120 million to destroy 107,000 tons of material using fiscal year 1995 projections. The technology in the COTS blast chamber has the potential of mitigating local environmental concerns; the potential of increasing destruction throughput; and is capable of destroying in a safe and environmentally sound manner greater than 98 percent of the explosives the DOD stores utilizing particulate bag house technology at locations in America, Europe, and the Pacific. Alabama stores in excess of 22,437 tons of material ranking us fifth in size of stockpile. Environmental considerations are of paramount importance to me and to a balanced national level demilitarized program. I think DOD, the Army, and the Joint Ordnance Commanders Group, Demilitarization and Disposal Subgroup, are playing a major role in ensuring that our various storage sites, to include Anniston Army Depot, are in compliance with Federal, State, and local regulations. Likewise, I think the DOD is also quite sensitive to public opinion. While better cost-efficient ways must be found to destroy this seemingly unlimited amount of material, we must take advantage now of new technologies in the R&D stage to compliment the current OM/OD method of destruction, with the view that not in the too distant future those technologies will not only replace aging organic demilitarization facilities, but close the chapter on the risky OB/OD method before the environmental challenges close the book for us. The JOCG cited three environmental challenges in a study to be considered in life cycle management of the demilitarization program. They are: permitting facilities, disposal of residuals, and cleanup. With new technologies the effects of each can be mitigated and give local communities new hope that their environment will no longer be fouled by OB/OD. On June 19 Anniston Army Depot received permission from the State of Alabama to proceed with the construction of its chemical weapons disposal facility. This is an emotionally charged issue, but one that will be managed every step of the way with safety of the operation and concern for the community as its highest priorities. Previous plants in our country are proving that this can be done. However, conventional ammunition destruction lags behind, in my opinion, on both counts. For this reason I strongly believe that a demonstration program at Anniston involving COTS blast chamber technology begins the long awaited opportunity to rid north Alabama of another type of munition material, that only grows more unstable with time and will furnish the data upon which the JOCG can make full-scale development decisions for other locations in the country. Today, TOW missile rounds, currently in storage, are experiencing storage problems and must be dealt with as a higher destruction priority over older missiles. Storage quantities for TOW missiles reaches nearly 400,000 rounds. I cannot conceive that OB/O, in Alabama or anywhere else in the Nation, is the most efficient and most responsible method of destruction for these missiles. Other methodologies must be utilized and they must be demonstrated now. The COTS blast chamber I am recommending for this demonstration program is totally enclosed, constructed of steel and consists of a hydraulic chamber door, exhaust fan and over-pressure controls. The chamber is large enough to accommodate the TOW missiles I described above and allows the military additional flexibility in destroying some of those munitions even as the demonstration matures. Noise measurement of 0.5 percent of what is allowable by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration are cited by the manufacturer. Emission controls for exhaust rates and temperatures are also controlled. The chamber will work with Anniston's current Subpart X permits, and according to the manufacturer the blast chamber is 80 percent cleaner than OB/OD. These are pluses for any community in our country. In sum, the people of this Nation should not have to wait for the perfect system to evolve when a very good system is currently on hand and available to demonstrate that it can do the job for which it was designed more efficiently. Our environment will not wait; the munitions will not wait, and the people should not have to wait for the slow wheels of government to find the perfect solution. Let us begin moving now, by bringing this demonstration program on line in fiscal year 1998 and see if we as a country cannot benefit from a simple technology that can get the job done. Madam President, I would like to personally thank Senator Stevens for his support and for including this important DOD appropriations bill.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President this amendment would authorize an increase of $6 million to the budget request for the Explosive Demilitarization Technology program (PE 63104D) to conduct a demonstration program at Anniston Army Depot. This is a much needed demonstration of current commercial off-the shelf blast chamber technology as an acceptable alternative to open burning/open pit detonation (OB/OD) by reducing significantly emissions and noise caused by OB/OD. The demonstration has nation-wide application if successful and is in keeping with the military's program of continuing technology evaluation of demilitarization methods for existing conventional ammunition as described in the Joint Demilitarization Study, September 1995, page II-4-14, a study prepared for the Director, Environmental and Life Sciences, Defense Research and Engineering, Office of the Secretary of Defense. Mr. President annually we spend millions of dollars on the production of new munitions of all types. At the other end of the pipeline however is the vexing problem of disposing of outdated munitions of all types. The enormity of the problem for this Nation is this: The stocks managed by the Army, DOD's Manager for Conventional Ammunition (MCA), currently stored in 26 States totals approximately 449,308 tons of material and costs over $12 million annually to store according to a DOD 1995 Joint Demilitarization Study. More serious however is the fact that the study predicts an additional 730,420 tons will be generated into that stockpile by the end of fiscal year 2001. Let me state again the magnitude of the problem for the Nation: through the end of fiscal year 2001, over 1.2 million tons of material will pass through or reside in the military conventional ammunition account. This is enough ammunition to exceed 2800 earth covered magazines and will cost over $1.2 billion to destroy if we assume that it costs approximately $120 million to destroy 107,000 tons of material using fiscal year 1995 projections. The technology in the COTS blast chamber has the potential of mitigating local environmental concerns; the potential of increasing destruction throughput; and is capable of destroying in a safe and environmentally sound manner greater than 98 percent of the explosives the DOD stores utilizing particular bag house technology at locations in America, Europe, and the Pacific. Alabama stores in excess of 22,437 tons of material ranking us fifth in size of stockpile. Environmental considerations are of paramount importance to me and to a balanced national level demilitarized program. I think DOD, the Army, and the Joint Ordnance Commanders Group, Demilitarization and Disposal Subgroup, are playing a major role in ensuring that our various storage sites, to include Anniston Army Depot, are in compliance with Federal, State, and local regulations. Likewise, I think the DOD is also quite sensitive to public opinion. While better cost-efficient ways must be found to destroy this increasing amount of material, we must take advantage now of new technologies in the R&D stage to compliment the current OB/OD method of destruction, with the view that not in the too distant future those technologies will not only replace aging organic demilitarization facilities, but close the chapter on the risky OB/OD method before the environmental challenges close the book for us. The JOCG cited three environmental challenges in a study to be considered in life cycle management of the demilitarization program. They are: permitting facilities; disposal of residuals; and, cleanup. With new technologies the effects of each can be mitigated and give local communities new hope that their environment will no longer be fouled by OB/OD. Mr. President, on June 19 Anniston Army Depot received permission from the State of Alabama to proceed with the construction of its chemical weapons disposal facility. This is an emotionally charged issue, but one we are assured will be managed every step of the way with safety of the operation and concern for the community as its highest priorities. Previous plants in our country are proving that this can be done. However, conventional ammunition destruction lags behind, in my opinion, on both counts. For this reason I strongly believe that a demonstration program at Anniston involving COTS blast chamber technology begins the long awaited opportunity to rid North Alabama of another type of munition material, that only grows more unstable with time and will furnish the date upon which the JOCG can make full-scale development decision for other locations in the country. Today, TOW missiles rounds, currently in storage, are experiencing storage problems and must be dealt with as a higher destruction priority over older missiles. Storage quantities for TOW missiles reaches nearly 400,000 rounds. I cannot conceive that OB/O, in Alabama or anywhere else in the Nation, is the most efficient and most responsible method of destruction for these missiles. Other methodologies must be utilized and they must be demonstrated now. Mr. President, the COTS blast chamber I am recommending for this demonstration program is totally enclosed, constructed of steel and consists of a hydraulic chamber door, exhaust fan and over-pressure controls. The chamber is large enough to accommodate the TOW missiles I described. Noise measurements of 0.5 percent of what is allowable by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration are cited by the manufacturer. Emission controls for exhaust rates and temperatures are also controlled. The chamber will work with Anniston's current Subpart X permits, and according to the manufacturer the blast chamber is 80 percent cleaner than OB/OD. These are pluses for any community in our country. Mr. President, our environment will not wait; the munitions will not wait, and the people should not have to wait for the slow wheels of government. Let us begin moving now, by bringing this demonstration program on line in fiscal year 1998 and see if we as a country cannot benefit from a simple technology that can get the job done. Amendment No. 752, as modified (Purpose: To provide for the assignment of an officer in the grade of O-7 or above to the position of defense attache in France) At the end of subtitle F of title V, add the following:

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I rise at this time, Mr. President, to make some remarks about the hearings going on in the Governmental Affairs Committee. I think they are most important hearings. I think it is important we remember that the committee, headed by the excellent and fine Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Fred Thompson, was commissioned by this body. They were mandated by this body to go out and discover the facts and to conduct an investigation of illegal and improper activities in connection with the 1996 political campaigns. So they have a responsibility and a duty that falls to them at this point whether they want it or not, whether they wish they did not have it, and they have to see it through and do it in a formal and proper way. I think the committee is at a point where it is not dealing with exact science, but with a process by which that committee needs to go out and find the facts, apply those facts to the law, to decide what actions ought to be taken and to evaluate it that way. It was by a 99-to-nothing vote that this Senate, Democrats and Republicans, directed that committee to do its work. And so we ought to let them do their work and let them follow the evidence where it leads, to let them apply that evidence to the law and to analyze the results and make recommendations for the future. A key part of that investigation is gathering the facts. I served for 12 years as a U.S. attorney. That was the Federal prosecutor for the southern district of Alabama. And, as such, I had the duty for many years--to handle major corruption-type cases involving complex white- collar crime, and so I have had a lot of experience in that field. I have not been commenting on this case and the evidence because I think we ought to let the committee do its work. I made one previous statement about this investigation a few weeks ago addressing my concerns to the grant of immunity, and I think we ought to talk about that and a few other things today. This investigation is dealing with a serious question, and that question is whether or not a foreign nation, not really considered a friendly nation, Communist China, may have systematically and intentionally set about to influence the American election in 1996 and, in fact, to influence American policy. We know that the President of this United States was a great critic of President Bush because he said President Bush was too accommodating to China and needed to be more tough in dealing with China. And then, after he becomes President, we know that he now is a leading spokesman in this country for accommodation with China. So whatever that is about, the facts in this case will have to tell us. But I do think it is clear that we are dealing with unusual types of problems with campaign financing. This may not be only a technical violation of the law, but it is a situation in which we may have a foreign power, an adversary, a Communist nation, with the largest standing army in the world, attempting to influence elections. We need a bipartisan effort, similar to those conducted in the past. We need the spirit of Howard Baker in the Watergate hearings who, as a Republican, made sure that he cooperated in that investigation and sought the truth. We need the spirit of Warren Rudman, Republican, who participated in the Irangate matters that were investigated here. He always sought to get to the truth regardless of politics. I have not seen that, frankly, by some in the leadership in the other party on this committee. It seems to me there has been too much partisanship. Now that those committee hearings are proceeding, they need to proceed professionally and objectively and all members need to pull together to find out the facts and get the truth out. I did want to talk, Mr. President, about the question of immunity. We had the not unusual, if you are familiar with complex prosecutions, situation yesterday when the committee hearings commenced that the ranking member from the Democratic Party announced that Mr. John Huang, who had been the main focus in the investigation, was prepared to testify if he were granted immunity. I think we have to be very careful about that. In fact, at this point, I would advise the members to say no to immunity at this point in the process. There may come a time when immunity is necessary, but at this point I do not think it is. That is my experience after many years of prosecuting. You use immunity, first and foremost, to get the testimony of the little fish, to find the people who may know something about the case, and then that helps you develop the real facts of the case and go on to the higher-ups. I was very concerned a few weeks ago--and it is the only comment I have made about this matter since I have been in the body--when members of the Democratic Party were refusing to grant immunity to little fish in this case. Now that they are talking about one of the top ones, they are suggesting that maybe we ought to grant immunity to him, but they were objecting to and questioning the wisdom of granting immunity to what they called the nuns and the priests in the Buddhist temple, those who have taken vows of poverty, and they have yet given large contributions to the Democratic campaigns, and the investigators want to ask them questions about where that money came from because there was a clear suggestion it was not their money, that somebody had given them that money and then they had taken it and made the contribution, and that would be technically a crime. And their lawyers were saying, as good lawyers would, ``we will tell you about it but my people didn't understand this; they are not political sophisticates; we will tell you who told us; we will tell you who gave us the money; we will tell you who did it; but we don't want you to turn around and prosecute us.'' So that is the type of circumstance the committee must decide. You may not want to prosecute those people anyway. They may not have understood what they were doing was against the law. So that is an appropriate circumstance for the committee to consider immunity. I thought it was critical and a matter of stonewalling of that investigation to, across the board, just deny consideration of immunity for those people, and now we are dealing with a situation in which on the first day of the hearings comes the announcement that Mr. Huang, under some complicated theory, would be prepared to testify if he is given immunity for everything he did except being a spy. Well, my observation is that that is not a good way to proceed, and there are several reasons why that is true. First of all, Mr. Huang wants to come in and get immunity from the things that it appears there may be such evidence right now to convict him of. That is not a bad deal, if they have evidence to convict you of a number of crimes. Let us say maybe it is money-laundering or maybe it is a violation of the Hatch Act or maybe it is the Ethics in Government Act or Illegal Foreign Contributions Act or campaign finance laws, in which you deliberately run money through someone else's name so that it would appear to come from them and not from someone else. Those kinds of things can be violations of the law. The investigators have done a lot of work on this. Perhaps they already know the basic facts, and probably Mr. Huang knows what they know also. So it would not be unusual for a good lawyer representing Mr. Huang to see if he could not pull a little gambit, if he could come in on the first day of the hearings when everybody's attention is focused on other things and announce, if you give me immunity, I will tell you what I know, but just remember, I don't need immunity for being a spy because you don't have the evidence about that perhaps. Maybe that is what he is thinking. The context of this thing is very troubling to me. My advice to the members of that committee would be to be very, very careful about it. There are a number of other things that are troubling to me. You have to remember that the grant of immunity can in fact undermine prosecutions later. We have to know that the Department of Justice, even though those of us on the Senate Judiciary Committee and others have called on the Department of Justice to appoint an independent prosecutor and Attorney General Janet Reno has declined to do so, the Department of Justice is conducting an investigation of Mr. Huang. They may already have evidence which indicates that he has committed crimes against the United States. And if that is true, then it is a real serious thing for the Senate to go through the process of granting him immunity. In fact, I would think it would be very bad at this point; of all the people who are most prominently involved in this, who played a high role--and he was a high Department of Commerce official. These problems are serious. Huang is a major player in the campaign finance scandal that we are seeing unfold, and I think he ought not readily be given any grant of immunity. I think it would undermine the legitimate prosecution that could go on later. As a prosecutor, one thing I always tried to avoid was to be in a situation in which I granted immunity to the main crook in the case. If you have five people involved and you need the testimony of some others to maybe bring out the details, you do not give that immunity to the main crook. You do not give immunity to the person you have the most evidence against already. That does not make sense. I think that this is a gambit, this is an attempt to rush in here while this committee has a well-planned schedule to bring in the evidence that is in existence about this scandal and to bring it all to the fore, to disrupt that process. The committee ought to stay the course. They ought to bring in the evidence from every source, and when they have all the evidence brought in, they then ought to objectively, coolly and professionally consider whether or not Mr. Huang deserves immunity, but until then I say no. I think we ought to be very careful about this process. It is a very serious thing. Finally, let me just say that this process is important. The people of this country are entitled to know that there has been an objective and thorough evaluation of the allegations that have been so prominently talked about here. I think that is important. I think Americans expect that. They would be concerned, rightly, if one of the primary persons alleged to be involved in wrongdoing who could have been involved in maybe a half a dozen different criminal activities, were to be given immunity at the very beginning of these hearings, and therefore perhaps end up with a situation in which you have prosecutions against lesser offenders and the main culprit goes free. That is a very serious matter. And sometimes in America, as one writer said a number of years ago, we suffer from a colossal inability to discriminate among levels of wrongdoing. I would say to you that if some of the facts here turn out to be true, we are dealing with a very serious violation of American law and campaign procedures involving millions of dollars, involving a Communist nation, a Communist power attempting to influence this Nation. I think that committee has to see it through. They have to get the facts and call the shots, no matter what the consequences. Mr. President, I salute the leadership of Senator Thompson and others on that committee. I believe they are doing a good job and I am confident that the truth will come out. I believe in this process. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would first like to say I appreciate the leadership of the Senator from Oklahoma. Senator Inhofe has done an outstanding job in working to preserve the defense of his Nation, and his comments about our lack of preparedness are very serious. I think this body, as a body traditionally considered to be the long-term evaluator of national security interests of this Nation, needs to listen to what he says. I thank him for those comments.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise today so that this great body may momentarily reflect upon the importance of our upcoming Fourth of July celebration. Over 200 years ago, this country began a historic experiment. Our Founding Fathers were told it would fail. Yet, after many trials and tribulations, the United States of America stands, it can fairly be argued, as the greatest Nation in the history of the world. Independence Day is our annual celebration of this achievement. Yet, we must have the courage and honesty to admit that we are not all that we hope to be. We have much work to do, and we have many dreams to make a reality. This is our American journey. And let us not forget the debt we owe to those who sacrificed to make this journey possible, the men and women who have stood sentry as our country marched to greatness. Today, they protect the finest democracy the world has ever known and keep watch around the globe. They are a beacon of hope, freedom, and justice to all the world's nations. Today, we trumpet the personal courage of our forefathers and the continuing sacrifices of the members of our armed services. Who are these veterans and service members? We all know them. He was your friend in school. She was the kid next door. You go to church with them, and you pass them in the grocery store. They are Americans just like you and me, but when our Nation called, they willingly put themselves in harm's way. We asked them to serve their country and they obliged us. They have made this celebration possible. Many of these regular Americans found themselves in extraordinary circumstances. They were only expected to do their duty, but they found the strength to do more. It is for these uncommon displays of valor that we have reserved the Congressional Medal of Honor. It is the highest honor which we can bestow on a member of the Armed Forces, and it is but a small demonstration of our gratitude for their acting above and beyond the call of duty. The men who have earned this award do not ask for recognition or acclaim. They believe they were only doing their jobs. They consider themselves ordinary soldiers, sailors, and airmen. But, we call them heroes. I dedicate this day to them, and I humbly thank them for their special sacrifice to guarantee the privileges we too often take for granted. I am proud to say that Alabama is home to 27 of these great Americans. Seven of these Alabama Congressional Medal of Honor winners are still alive today. Henry Eugene ``Red'' Erwin, Robert Lewis Howard, William Robert Lawley, Jr., Ola Lee Mize, Michael J. Novolsel, James Michael Sprayberry, and Harold Edward ``Speedy'' Wilson all have different heroic tales but common heroic traits. They steeled themselves with tremendous gallantry and fought without regard for their safety. From where did this courage come? For some, it was their loyalty to a fellow serviceman. For others, it was the strength of their convictions. And most certainly, it was done with God's help. Let us today take a moment to congratulate each veteran we know for a job well done and come before them with a spirit of the humblest gratitude as we enjoy the bounty of this great, independent Nation. For we are the Nation that people in every corner of the world wish to call their own. We are a people who will not stop short of greatness, a nation who earns her prosperity with the labor of her citizens, and the land of opportunity whose hand extends for both rich and poor alike. We need not only be proud of our veterans but also of every citizen who holds the same ideals and dreams for America. She is great because of the businessmen who fuel her economy, the religious leaders who guide her morals, the farmers who provide her bountiful sustenance, and the many other Americans who are free to fulfill their dreams each day. God bless those who have stood and fought on her behalf and, most of all, God bless America.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I want to thank Senator Roth for his outstanding leadership that he has given on this important issue. But I feel very, very strongly that we need to do more for working families. Working middle-class American families today are struggling to get by. My youngest son will start college this fall. But I will tell you, I have children; three of them under age 13 and three of them over age 13. It costs more for a 14- or 15- or 16-year-old than it does for a 12- or 10-year-old. Anybody who has raised a family knows that. The demands on those families are fierce today. They are struggling to get by. This is the heart and soul of a family middle-class tax cut. Many kids will not be going off to college. They will never be going to college. But even if they are, many of those families need the money now. They have a flat tire and they need to replace a tire. They need shoes or to go on a school trip. They need to make their own decision about how to spend their money. This is important to me. It is important to American families. I salute Senator Gramm for raising this issue, and I am in support of this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? Let's imagine a single mother who is teaching school with three children ages 17, 15, and 12 hoping to save money for college and just getting by. The transmission breaks on the car, and there is a $400 bill. Who should decide who ought to spend that money? The Members of this body, or that mother?

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask that the time be equally divided.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Thank you, Mr. President. It is an honor to be here to talk about one of the most important issues facing this country, and that is the tax burden on working Americans. Many people think that it is just a political gimmick when we talk about the need to reduce taxes. They think that is just a gimmick to get votes, that we are trying to appeal to the people in a way that somehow is less than honest and forthright, or that we are seeking to buy votes by promising a tax cut. Mr. President, it is much, much deeper than that. The problem in this country is that we are reaching a tax burden that is unacceptable. An excessive tax burden has the capacity to diminish our competitiveness in the world, while an easing of that tax burden has the potential to increase our productivity as a nation. All we have to do is let people keep more of their hard-earned money. Taxes are, in a way, a penalty, a punishment on hard work. If you want to reduce something, you tax it. If you want to encourage something, you subsidize it. One of the problems with our country is that we have been penalizing good behavior. We have been penalizing people who work hard--husbands and wives who have jobs, or maybe they have two jobs each. They work and make money to take care of their children. We are taxing them to a degree that we have never taxed them before. We have diminished their strength and hurt those families that are struggling to get by. We subsidize people that don't work, give money to people who choose not to work, and we have wasted money on programs that are actually counterproductive. The U.S. Government is not an efficient entity. We do not use dollars wisely. But families do. They are struggling to get by. Let me ask you, how bad is the situation we are currently dealing with? First of all, I don't think anybody would be surprised to know that this Government brings in more money today than it ever has in its history. Every month, every year that goes by, we bring in more money than the month and the year before. That will not change, even when we pass these tax breaks for working Americans. So we are bringing in more money. We are not trying to shut down this Government. We are going to allow it to bring in more money. We are going to allow this Government to bring in more money, even with these tax cuts. So this is not an extreme position. What you may not know is this: When President Clinton took office in 1992, 19 percent of this Nation's gross domestic product went to the Government. That is a very large sum, no doubt about it. Since that time, and since his 1993 tax increase--the largest tax increase in history--we have gone from, last year, 20.9 percent of the gross domestic product--the gross domestic product is the total of all goods and services produced in this Nation--going to government, to, this year, over 21 percent. This 21 percent is paid by the taxpayers and working citizens of this Nation to the Government in the form of taxes. I think it is important, Mr. President, for us to think about this in historical terms. What does this mean? Bruce Bartlett of the National Center for Policy Analysis wrote recently about this. He made this point: Never in the history of this Nation have we reached the point where 21 percent of the Federal gross domestic product is paid to this Government in the form of taxes--not during the height of World War II did we reach that level, not during the Korean war did we reach that level, not during the Vietnam war did we reach that level, and not during the recessions when the economy has slowed down did we reach that level; none of those times have we reached the point where we paid the highest level in history--21 percent of the gross domestic product--to this country. Last year, when I ran for office and I asked people for their support, I talked to them about the future and the direction this country ought to take. They expressed to me their desire to have less Government, a return to local government, and a reduction in the power and influence and waste and mismanagement of the Federal Government. The trends are clear, and the trends are not good. What this tax proposal does is, it says to this giant bureaucracy of the Federal Government that we want to bring you under control. We don't want 22 percent of GDP going to the government next year, 24 the next, 26 the next, and 28 the next and, finally, a third, or even a half of our money going to the Federal Government. That is not the way to keep this Nation strong. We need to do better. Taxes are too high. We are not claiming they are too high because we are trying to get people's support by promising some political tax gimmick. This is a fundamental, governmental policy change. That is what I was sent here to do, to be a part of that. I wish that the tax cuts that have been proposed and are being pushed by my Republican colleagues could be bigger. But we know we have to have bipartisan support and be able to overcome a Presidential veto. As a result, we have had to work hard and compromise to reach a significant tax cut. This is significant tax cut, but I wish it were bigger. It is a good tax cut; we need to have it and we need to proceed with it. One complaint that has been made, Mr. President, is that this is a tax cut for ``rich'' people. It doesn't help the poor people. Well, a tax cut can only be applied to those who pay taxes. This is a tax cut, not a welfare program. We have welfare programs. We still have our Food Stamp Program. We still have our Aid to Families With Dependent Children. We are going to provide more money this year than ever and provide health insurance for those who don't have it. We are going to continue Medicare and strengthen that and make it a sounder policy to help poor people in America. This is not a welfare program. We are talking about a tax cut for people that are working and paying taxes. That is who needs a break right now--middle America. We need to be right up front about it. This is not a welfare program. It is a tax cut for people who are paying more taxes than they ought to pay. Federal income taxes are graduated. The highest income people do pay more taxes. A family of four making $20,000 does not pay income taxes. Most families of four will not pay any taxes with a $20,000 income. Our idea is to allow those middle-class Americans, who are working and struggling to get by, to keep more of their money. I have traveled Alabama in the last few years and I have talked to people. I have seen studies and all of the economic data that we get around here. I have served on the Joint Economic Committee of the Senate and the House, where we have dealt with economic reports from the Department of Labor and various other departments of the Government. We have analyzed those figures, and what my instincts tell me, and what I have learned from campaigning throughout Alabama, as well as from what the statistics show, is that middle-class, working families are struggling to a degree they have never struggled before. In 1950, 70 percent of a middle-class, average family's income was shielded from Federal income tax. They paid no taxes on 70 percent of the money they earned. Today, only 30 percent is shielded. The percentage that you pay on the amount that you earn is higher. Taxes have gone up. In 1950, the average working family only paid 2 cents out of every dollar to the U.S. Government in the form of taxes--2 cents. Today, it is 25 cents. That is a dramatic change in American policy. I submit to you, Mr. President, that it is unacceptable. I think it is time for us to be frank with ourselves, to be honest, to realize that we can't keep increasing tax burdens so that we politicians here in this Senate and this Congress can pass programs and pass out money and claim we are heroes. It is not our money we are passing out. It is money that we took from some family that needed that money. Let's think about this $500 per child tax credit. A family of three, at $1,500 per year, can divide that up per month and it will be over $100 per month, tax free. Tell me a family making $30,000 can't use an extra $100 per month. Frankly, I am concerned about the idea that we ought to mandate in later years, at age 13 or 14, that they be required to apply that tax credit toward college savings. I am telling you that is not realistic. Working families in America today are concerned about getting by; they are not always concerned about college. They have a car that needs tires on it. They might need to fix the muffler. The children might need to go on a school trip. Where are they going to get the money for that? This could provide that. I think we ought to trust the families with these decisions and let this be their tax cut. We, in Congress, should not try to manage what they are going to do with it. A lot of kids don't go to college. A lot of kids work their own way through college. Maybe that family desperately needs that money now for personal items just to get by. That is who we ought to be supporting. So, Mr. President, I feel very strongly about this. I am most proud to be associated with a group of Senators who are committed to realistically reducing the tax burden on America. I was so proud to be associated with Senator Kyl from Arizona who spoke previously. Senator Kyl has been a champion for estate tax reduction. And I was pleased to join with him as an original cosponsor on his bill to eliminate this estate tax. I think that is an unfair tax. The estate tax only brings in about 1 percent of the Federal Government's income. Considering the amount of money it brings in compared with the cost of administering that program and the great gymnastics that people go through to try to avoid it, the estate tax is just inefficient and unfair. We could eliminate that tax and make this country and this economy more healthy. Total Federal Government and State government taxes now amount to over 30 percent of the gross domestic product. In my opinion, measuring the tax rate to the growth domestic product is a good and just way to determine just how significant our tax burden is. Finally, Mr. President, I want to share this story. I think it is a very important story. I serve on the Joint Economic Committee. Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal Reserve System, testified at one of the first committee hearings I attended. It appeared he was about to raise interest rates, and everyone was most anxious. The economy was going along well. We were all pleased about the growth of the economy. There were a number of discussions about why the economy was doing so well. Some joked that it was President Clinton, and some said it was Mr. Greenspan. It was just a lighthearted conversation. When it came my time to ask him questions, I asked him about an article that I had read in USA Today. They interviewed business people from Germany, England, and Japan. They asked them why the American economy was doing better than the economies of those three nations. When you boiled it down, those representatives from those three nations gave three reasons. They said the American economy is stronger because we have lower taxes, less regulation, and a greater commitment to the market economy, to the free market. I asked Mr. Greenspan if he agreed with that. He said, ``Yes, I absolutely agree with that.'' He said that without hesitation. Those are the cornerstones of a strong and vibrant economy. We cannot keep raising our taxes every year so that we take a larger and larger portion of our gross domestic product. We will end up like Germany with unemployment over 12 percent instead of around 5 percent. That is what we will be heading to. So this drive, this imperative to reduce taxes is not just to see if we can buy votes for letting people have more money; it is to try to invigorate and maintain the competitive capacity of this Nation. That is why we are doing better than the rest of the world. I don't know who you could say deserves credit for this economy. We could have a lot of different ideas. But I would say that the Republican Party and Presidents Reagan and Bush, who spent a whole career fighting to reduce regulations and to contain the growth of taxes, even reduce taxes, played an important role in this economy. We need to remember that and maintain our historical position as a nation that will fight to keep its tax burden from going up. So, Mr. President, I am pleased to be here today to express my excitement and primacy of support for legislation that will allow Americans who work hard every day to keep more of their money. They can spend it on the things they want to spend it on and not on something that somebody in Washington wants to spend it on. It will be good for them. It will be good for their families, and it will be good for the competitive and productive capacity of this Nation. I think this is an extremely important issue. We should not minimize it. Lower taxes will make us a stronger and more competitive Nation. We will have a greater increase in our economic growth. And out of that growth, we will have the capacity to serve those who are less fortunate. If we kill the goose that laid the golden egg, if we continue to tax this economy to the degree that it drives its growth down, we will not have that strength and that capacity to meet the challenges of our Nation. Just look at the economies of Europe and Japan. You will see what can happen to us if we are not careful. I am excited about what is happening. I look forward to having the opportunity to vote on many of these issues. I hope that the result will be that this economy will be free from further taxation, that we will have more growth and more productivity, and that we will be more competitive in the world. Thank you, Mr. President. 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. I thank the Senator from Ohio very much. Mr. President, I believe our time has about expired. I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes to wrap up.

Mr. SESSIONS. Very good. Mr. President, first I would again like to thank the Senator from Ohio for his support and for his insight, certainly shared by the Director of the FBI, on the importance of having a national crime information center for the criminal history of violent young offenders. Mr. President, Senator Hatch, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, is today in the Finance Committee markup--a very, very important meeting. He could not be with us. But we are both proud of this bill. The Hatch-Sessions bill has the potential to really reduce crime. One of the things that has been talked about and that we have heard a lot about is prevention money. I will assert with absolute confidence that the certainty of swift punishment is a necessary tool in the prevention of crime. As other Senators have said, our juvenile justice system in this Nation is broken. Ask your local police officer anywhere in this Nation, and they will tell you that it is not working effectively. We cannot allow that to continue. This legislation will mandate certain reforms. It will help fund other reforms. And it will do one thing that we have to do, and that is to increase bed space and detention space for violent juvenile offenders. We have not spent that kind of money in the past. We have increased adult detention space three and fourfold, but we have not acted accordingly for young offenders. This bill will provide matching money, which acts as the biggest source of our money in this bill. And we will have a lot of money in the bill that will help go towards prevention in a lot of different ways. But I want to make this point for all of America to understand. Clearly this Congress and this Nation is involved already in prevention. This bill is designed to fix a broken juvenile justice system. We have to do that. And we cannot allow people to have 7, 8, 15 different arrests and not be held accountable for that. Let me show you this chart. The title of it is across the top: ``Federal Programs for At-Risk or Delinquent Youth.'' These are juvenile prevention programs. There are 131 of these programs that have been funded by this Government. We spend $170 million on juvenile crime. We already spend $4 billion on prevention programs through virtually every agency and department of Government. Look at these things. The Department of Interior: Indian child welfare groups; Department of Housing and Urban Development: The 4-H groups, youth apprenticeships, youth sports programs: Department of Labor: Job training for homeless demonstration projects, summer youth employment training, school to work opportunities, Youth Fair Chance; Department of Transportation: Youth-impaired driving techniques projects; gang resistant education and training in the Department of the Treasury. So it is just on and on. One of the things Senator Thompson talks about a lot is his belief that we have no idea about what works in terms of prevention. He is very frustrated by all of these programs with no real belief in whether or not we know that they work. So, in consultation with him--and Senator Hatch has agreed--we have added to this bill a substantial sum of money for research to analyze these programs to see which ones work. We want to prevent crime, and we care about young offenders. But the most crucial thing we are facing today is a situation like that of the young lady who Senator Domenici mentioned who was stabbed in the throat by a young violent offender, in which the juvenile justice system did not work. Those offenders are not being properly processed, and when apprehended are not properly punished. This bill will mandate a series of graduated sanctions. We want to make sure that the first brush of a young offender with the law is his last. I believe we can do that. This bill is a major step forward in that regard. I appreciate the opportunity, Mr. President, to share these thoughts and ideas with my colleagues. I yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, S. 10, the juvenile justice bill that will shortly be before this Senate, is one of the best pieces of legislation for law enforcement that I have seen in a number of years. I am absolutely convinced that it is the finest reform of criminal justice in at least 20 years. This bill was crafted last term by Senator Hatch, who is a prime sponsor of it and who is chairman of the Judiciary Committee. I have had the dual honors of serving as the chairman of the Juvenile Violence Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee and also of working with him on this legislation. We are very proud of the bill that has been produced. We think it will do tremendous things for law enforcement. It is the kind of bill that does what it ought to do. It is not designed to get headlines; it is designed to improve the system of criminal justice in America. Mr. President, I served for 17 years, the better part of my professional career, as a prosecutor. It has been a particular honor for me to be able to have the opportunity to participate in reforming juvenile justice in America, because I know from my firsthand personal experience, gained as a U.S. attorney and as attorney general of Alabama, that this system is not working well. I am pleased at this time to be able to recognize Senator John Ashcroft of Missouri to speak on this issue. He is a former attorney general of Missouri, and spent two terms, 8 years, as Governor of that great State. He is a student of juvenile crime and the crime issue in general. He has spoken eloquently on it in our committee. He will be having hearings later this week in Missouri on this issue, and I will be pleased to join with him at that time. He has some remarks that he would like to share about this bill. At this time, I am honored to recognize the Senator from Missouri, Mr. John Ashcroft.

Mr. SESSIONS. I want to express my appreciation for the exceptional remarks made by the Senator from Missouri, Senator Ashcroft. He has talked to us as one who has authority. He has spoken from his heart. He has spoken the truth. He has identified a problem in criminal justice, and he is absolutely correct. If you had 5,000 law enforcement officers and prosecutors in here and they were listening to that, they would say, ``Yes, that is correct. He is telling the truth.'' We do not do a favor to young offenders or to the justice system or to judges or to probation officers or to mothers and fathers, if we do not allow the full truth of people's criminal backgrounds to be known. All over America, police officers--many may not know this--are denied the right to maintain fingerprints and photographs of young offenders. This information cannot be held anywhere outside of the juvenile court because of the secrecy laws. This bill does not mandate the elimination of secrecy laws. This bill does not eliminate that great tradition that we adhere to of trying to give young offenders a chance to get their lives back in order and to live life without a criminal record held over their heads. But it does say that records ought to be made available to the criminal justice system. When a young offender at age 17 commits armed robbery, and is later arrested in another State at age 19, that police chief, that prosecutor, or the judge who sentences him for his acts in the second State, needs to know what kind of prior criminal history he has. The National Crime Information Center houses confidential criminal records solely for law enforcement purposes. I think it is a needed tool and a tremendous step forward. The Director of the FBI appeared before the Judiciary Committee just 2 weeks ago. I asked him this very question. He said: ``Yes, law enforcement needs that information. Yes, the FBI will receive it if it's sent to us from the States. We need it, and we do not need any additional money to process it.'' Now, some have said it will cost huge sums of money for the States to implement this. That is, in my opinion, clearly incorrect. We have had this claim studied by a professional group. Their results show that $50 million is more than enough to handle implementation, and this bill has $50 million in it for this purpose. I doubt it will cost that much. In many areas of our Nation, it costs very little for a local juvenile court to simply report an arrest or conviction and send it off to the FBI. There is almost no cost whatsoever. Some of the cities may want to have computer terminals and dedicated personnel. The money this bill provides will be more than adequate. Previous funding for juvenile justice in America was $170 million. Under this bill, it would go to $700 million, a more than threefold increase in expenditures because we want to do something about the crime problem. Adult crime has been dropping for the last half-dozen years. We have made some real progress in that regard. One of the main reasons for that decrease is that we have doubled and tripled prison space for repeat adult offenders. Prison does work to reduce crime, but we have not done anything in the realm of juvenile crime to compensate for the dramatic increases that are occurring. According to the Department of Justice's own study, juvenile crime will double by the year 2010. We need to begin to deal with that. It has already doubled in the last 10 years. Juveniles are committing serious crimes, as the Senator from Missouri said, including robbery, murders, rapes. Those are the kind of crimes we must crack down on. One thing that is important for us, as U.S. Senators to understand, is that juvenile justice has historically been and will remain a province of the States. Mr. President, 99.99 percent of juvenile crime cases are tried in State courts. We need to improve the ability of Federal courts to prosecute certain selected juvenile crime cases. This bill will do that. Still, juvenile crime cases will remain the province of the States. So if we want to improve juvenile justice, Mr. President, we need to help these States improve their system. That is what this bill does. Now, what is the problem with the Federal system? As a U.S. attorney for 12 years, I know the problem. If you wanted to prosecute a young offender in Federal court, an offender who appropriately should be prosecuted in Federal court, a number of things have to occur for this to happen. First, you have to get approval from the U.S. Department of Justice. Second, you have to seek certification of that young offender as an adult to be tried in the Federal system. Before you can do that, the offender has the right to appeal. Often when that appeal takes place it goes to the circuit courts of the United States and a year or more may go by before the case ever comes up for trial. As a practical matter, it is virtually impossible to effectively prosecute routine or even significant juvenile cases in Federal court. We have shut the door to Federal court. I do not believe that the Federal courts should take over juvenile prosecutions throughout America, but they ought to be able to prosecute certain cases that are appropriate to be prosecuted in Federal court. We need to reform that system. This bill does it. It removes the appeal process. It would allow a U.S. attorney, in many circumstances, to make the decision on his own as to whether or not to prosecute and bring that case to trial, just like any other criminal case. So we are going to have some very good improvements in that regard in the Federal system. In addition, Senator Hatch and Senator Feinstein have worked hard on a proposal to crack down on the violent gang activity that is disturbing so many areas of this country. In fact, gang activity occurs in every State in America. This bill includes very good, very tough, Federal antigang legislation that will help us break up these organized activities and will help us put an end to that kind of dangerous gang activity. We are pleased this bill will do that. The Senator from Missouri mentioned a very important thing and that is the question of intervention. Professionals in counseling talk about it frequently. By intervention they mean that a person who is on a bad road, who is heading down the road to destruction, who is making serious mistakes either in term of drugs, alcohol, or criminality, needs something to happen to intervene in that process or that person will end up being destroyed by that problem. That is what this bill attempts to do, both by recordkeeping, so we can identify whether or not this is a repeat offender so that the judge and the prosecutor will know that when they deal with sentencing, and also through drug testing. We know that in the District of Columbia, where drug testing of every arrestee is done today, 66 percent of the persons tested test positive for some sort of drug in their system. That is a significant statistic. Do not think, Mr. President, that this is only true of Washington. There are cities all over America that have been involved in testing programs like this, typically to determine the connection between drugs and crime, and their results consistently show that from 60 percent to 70 percent of their arrestees for criminal activity test positive for drugs in their system. When a young offender appears before a juvenile judge, that judge needs to know, if he wants to help that child--by crafting a penalty or a sanction that will help change his lifestyle--whether or not that person is drug free or whether he is using drugs. This bill will mandate that the States test every offender upon arrest, and it provides more than enough money to pay for that mandate. We are not doing an unfunded mandate. The bill provides more than enough money to pay for that provision. To me, drug testing is an essential aspect of any criminal justice system. When a young person is arrested, the judge needs to know, his probation officer needs to know, his parents need to know, whether or not drugs are a contributing factor to that young person's criminal activity. Eric Holder, who just appeared before the Judiciary Committee as the nominee for Deputy Attorney General of the United States, a position which is second in command at the U.S. Department of Justice, was a former Federal judge in the District of Columbia and is the current U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. I asked him about drug testing, specifically whether he thought it was a good idea. He said, ``Absolutely. We did it regularly in Washington, DC. As a judge, that is the kind of information I had to have to make the right kind of decisions about whether offenders should be released, how they should be treated, and what kind of punishment they should have.'' Mr. President, drug testing is not designed to set up a situation where juvenile offenders would be prosecuted again for another crime. That is not the purpose. It does not sustain a prosecution for a crime. But what it does do is provide the judge, the probation officer, the prosecutor, and the family, with the knowledge that the young person has a problem with drugs. To me, any effective juvenile justice system that does not have regular drug testing as a part of it is an ineffective system. It fails to meet the basic requirements of what a legitimate criminal justice system is. We are trying to reach out all over America by supplying funds to help the States and the localities have the kind of resources they need to do drug testing and improve the current system. Some have raised the question that this is a violation of civil rights; that you cannot make an arrestee be tested. Well, they are being tested all over America already upon arrest. They have been tested in the District of Columbia every day for over 20 years. Jay Carver, who just resigned from that program, had led it for 20 years. He knows how that program works and he supports it. It is not a civil rights violation. When a person is arrested for a crime, a judge has the discretion to determine whether or not to release that individual from custody. If the judge has the power to keep a person's very liberty, to deny him his right to walk out of court and be a free person, he certainly has the right to say you can be released from custody on probation or on bail but you have to maintain certain curfew hours and you have to submit to drug testing. That is a far less intrusive intervention in that person's life. Also, we find the cost of those tests are $5 to $6 for initial drug screening. We believe that is a very inexpensive way to deal with this. Again, as I view the drug testing program, it is a diagnostic tool. It is a tool to help identify the real problem that a child might be facing and to help the justice system and the parents develop a strategy to deal with that. There are a number of other parts of this bill that we think are extremely important and will help to actually reduce juvenile crime in America. Those things include removing unnecessary and burdensome mandates that law enforcement tells me cause young offenders to be released routinely for offenses they should never be released for. They tell me over and over that the young offenders are laughing at them because of their inability to carry out sanctions. Mr. President, I am delighted to take this opportunity to recognize the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, Senator Domenici. He has had a very strong interest in juvenile justice. He has submitted legislation on that that has been made a part of this legislation. I am delighted he is here. I am prepared to yield any time he desires to share his thoughts on this important subject.

Mr. SESSIONS. We have until the end of the hour.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I appreciate very much the comments of the Senator from New Mexico. People are angry. We need to do better. There was a case in Alabama 2 years ago where three juveniles murdered a man. Those 3 offenders had 7, 8 and 15 prior arrests each and yet they were out on the streets murdering somebody. He is exactly correct. We need a system of increased sanctions, and this bill calls for graduated sanctions. That means increasing the punishment for each offense to send a message that juvenile offenders are not going to walk free. Mr. President, I am delighted to have Senator DeWine from Ohio here. He is a former prosecutor, former Lieutenant Governor of the State of Ohio, who has great knowledge in these law enforcement matters. He is a leader on the Judiciary Committee, a leader on our committee to reform juvenile justice. I am pleased to yield to him at this time.

Mr. SESSIONS. If the Senator will yield a moment, I think it would be instructive if he would share, from his personal experience as Lieutenant Governor and working in this area, the importance of records. He, more than any Member of this body, has firsthand experience in that area.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I appreciate the remarks of the Senator from Kentucky about the death of the minority leader's father. We all share in that pain. There is a sense of sadness in this body, and as we contemplate that, maybe it helps us all reflect on the fact that we are all human beings who share the same goals for the betterment of this country. I think that is a good thing for us to contemplate.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Thank you, Mr. President.