Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, I announce that the Senate will be in a period of morning business today until the hour of 12 noon. Following morning business, it is the majority leader's intention to begin consideration of the Department of Defense authorization bill. If an agreement cannot be reached to proceed to the DOD authorization bill, the Senate will, hopefully, begin consideration of the intelligence authorization bill. Therefore, Senators can expect rollcall votes throughout today's session on these matters. As always, Senators will be notified accordingly when any rollcall votes are scheduled. I thank my colleagues for their attention. Mr. FORD addressed the Chair.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, last Thursday, June 12, I along with Senators DeWine, Faircloth, Hutchinson, Coats, Coverdell, and Ashcroft co-sponsored S. 891, Senator Spencer Abraham's Family Impact Statement Act of 1997. I rise today in strong support of this important piece of legislation and to voice my complete disagreement with the recent anti- family action taken by President Clinton. In 1987, President Ronald Reagan, realizing the importance of the America family and the need to be constantly aware of the negative impact that Federal laws and regulations can have on the family, signed Executive Order 12606. The purpose of this order was to ensure that the rights of the family are considered in the construction and carrying out of policies by executive departments and agencies. Mr. President, even though we are faced with the staggering increase in out-of-wedlock births, rising rates of divorce, and increases in the number of child abuse cases, apparently President Clinton does not believe that considering the impact of Government regulations on families is good policy. Much to my dismay, on April 21, 1997, President Clinton signed Executive Order 13045, thus stripping the American family any existing protection from harm in the formulation and application of Federal policies. President Reagan's Executive order placed special emphasis on the relationship between the family and the Federal Government. President Reagan directed every Federal agency to assess all regulatory and statutory provisions ``that may have significant potential negative impact on the family well-being.'' Before implementing any Federal policy, agency directors had to make certain that the programs they managed and the regulations they issued met certain family-friendly criteria. Specifically, they had to ask: Does this action strengthen or erode the authority and rights of parents in educating, nurturing, and supervising their children ? Does it strengthen or erode the stability of the family, particularly the marital commitment? Does it help the family perform its function, or does it substitute Government activity for that function ? Does it increase or decrease family earnings, and do the proposed benefits justify the impact on the family budget? Can the activity be carried out by a lower level of government or by the family itself? What message, intended or otherwise, does this program send concerning the status of the family? What message does it send to young people concerning the relationship between their behavior, their personal responsibility, and the norms of our society? The elimination of President Reagan's Executive order is just the latest in a series of decisions that indicates the Clinton administration's very different approach to family issues. From the outset of President Clinton's first term, it became clear that his administration intended to pursue policies sharply at odds with traditional American moral principles. White House actions have ranged from the incorporation of homosexuals into the military to the protection of partial birth abortion procedures. Mr. President, many have suggested it is community villages, in other words Government, that raise children. But the real truth is, families raise children. Families are the ones who are there night and day to love, to care for, and to nurture children. Many bureaucratic regulations produce little benefit, but can have unintended consequences. The examples are too numerous to mention. What our legislation will do is require the regulators to stop and take a moment to think through their regulations to make sure that, the most fundamental institution in civilization--the family, is not damaged by their actions. This is a reasonable and wise policy. Mr. President, I find it very odd that of all the Executive Orders that exist, President Clinton would reach down and lift this one up for elimination. This body should speak out forcefully on this subject and I am confident we will. The families of America deserve no less. S. 819, The Family Impact Statement Act of 1997, is a sound and reasonable piece of legislation which will restore a valuable pro- family policy that has been established for ten years. I urge all my colleagues to stand united, Republicans and Democrats, to show that the preservation of the family is not a partisan issue. Our voices united will send a loud and clear message to the President and to this nation that we consider family protection to be one of America's most important issues and that we will not accept decisions which mark a retreat from our steadfast commitment to our Nation's families. Mr. President, I strongly believe that American families must be considered when the Federal Government develops and implements policies and regulations that affect families. Therefore, I am honored to be an original cosponsor S. 891 the Family Impact Statement Act of 1997 which will reinstate the pro-family executive order of President Reagan. I would like to thank my colleagues, Senators Abraham, DeWine, Faircloth, Hutchinson, Coats, Coverdell, and Ashcroft for their dedicated work and help on this issue. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the Senators from Utah and Maryland for their hospitality.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we are facing a crisis in juvenile crime in America. At no time in our Nation's history have we experienced such severe and pervasive juvenile violence. The statistics tell a frightening story. From 1983 to 1992--in just 9 years--juvenile arrests for violent crimes increased 57 percent. Specifically, juvenile arrests for aggravated assaults increased 95 percent while juvenile arrests for murder rose 128 percent. To put it in more concrete terms, over 2 million juveniles are arrested each year, many for violent crimes. In 1995 alone, teenagers committed almost 4,000 murders. Sadly, the worst is yet to come. A huge demographic explosion will occur early next century. By 2006 the teenage population will top 30 million, the most in 30 years. Respected criminologists, such as James Q. Wilson and Marvin Wolfgang, agree that this demographic bulge could have a disastrous effect because of the large increase in young males in their crime-prone years. The number of juveniles will increase 31 percent by the year 2010. Experts predict this increase, particularly in young males, will mean at least 3,000 more murderers, rapists, and muggers on the streets than exist today. A U.S. Department of Justice report confirms these dire predictions. The Justice report estimates that by the year 2010 juvenile arrests for violent crime will more than double. So today I want to discuss how we can help the States fight juvenile crime. As chairman of the Youth Violence Subcommittee of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, I am greatly interested in crafting a bipartisan juvenile justice bill. But before we begin, let's face the facts. The Federal Government has only a limited role in fighting juvenile crime. Ninety-nine percent of all juvenile cases are tried in State courts. I believe that S. 10 is a great bill because its primary focus is aimed at helping the States fight juvenile crime. So today there are three main provisions of S. 10 that I would like to talk about and to highlight, and which I think we ought to consider: drug testing, the expansion of juvenile detention facilities, and recordkeeping. S. 10--the Hatch-Sessions bill--deals with these important problems in an effective way. First, let's talk about drug testing. S. 10 provides the States block grants to fight juvenile crime. One of the requirements to receive the block grants is that States make reasonable efforts to drug test all juveniles arrested for a felony. There is no provision in S. 10 more important, in my opinion, than drug testing. Drug testing is one of the most important diagnostic and rehabilitative tools available in fighting crime. Mr. Eric Holder, President Clinton's nominee for Deputy Attorney General, who testified just last week before the Judiciary Committee, stated that drug testing provided vital information for dealing with juveniles who have been arrested, and that when he served as a Federal judge he tested all arrestees. Drug testing is so important because it allows authorities to identify a drug problem before the juvenile becomes hopelessly addicted. It tells the parents what may have driven this young person to become involved in crime. It helps the judge to craft an appropriate sentence and appropriate police conditions. It helps the probation officer conduct appropriate supervision of these young offenders. However, many have raised a concern about the cost of drug testing requirements in S. 10. There is great bipartisan support for drug testing. The only question raised is whether or not it is too expensive. It is not. For example, a typical price charged by a commercial laboratory for a single drug test for cocaine and marijuana is $5.75. Moreover, volume purchases of drug testing equipment can reduce that price to even less than $5. Both of these figures have been verified by official price quotes from commercial laboratories. S. 10 provides $75 million to the States to implement this drug testing provision. If the roughly 900,000 juveniles arrested last year for FBI indexed felonies were tested at $6 a test, it would cost approximately $5.4 million. It should be noted that most States already test arrestees to some extent. Therefore, the cost will be reduced significantly. Obviously, S. 10 provides more than ample resources, not only for an initial test but for supervision followup tests as well. That is important. When a young person is released from prison, followup tests should be conducted, particularly if he has drug tendencies. A followup test can tell whether or not that child is back into an unhealthy lifestyle and headed for criminal trouble and additional time. Another important matter is juvenile recordkeeping. Juvenile recordkeeping in America is a travesty. Most judges--whether in adult court or juvenile court--do not have access to a defendant's juvenile record because those records are either sealed or are not shared with other jurisdictions within the law enforcement community. S. 10 greatly improves juvenile recordkeeping without overstepping the Federal Government's role in juvenile crime, and without great expense. One of the few requirements in this bill is that the States make reasonable efforts to record, collect, and disseminate juvenile criminal records for the FBI just like they do for all adult cases. In order to ease the burden on the States, we provide funds to help them upgrade their juvenile justice record system. We have estimates from organizations that specialize in recordkeeping that State juvenile records can be updated and sent to the FBI for roughly $50 million. I believe S. 10 provides the States with more than sufficient resources to accomplish this goal. And please note that this bill in no way mandates the States to open their cases. Each State will make its own decision. It simply says that the law enforcement community, through the National Crime Information Center computer system, will have arrests and convictions for serious felonies by juveniles. Those records are only available for law enforcement and judicial purposes. The following is a true story that illustrates the problem we are talking about. A 15-year-old was arrested and pled guilty to armed robbery. Previously, he had been arrested several times for violent crimes in a different State. Unfortunately, the presiding judge did not have access to these prior arrest records because they were not part of the National Crime Information Center computer system. Despite the fact that he had pled guilty to a violent crime, the judge decided to release him after being assured that he would be going into a residential facility. Soon after that young offender was released, he shot and paralyzed a police officer during an attempted theft. There is no doubt that the judge would not have released him, had he had access to that juvenile's prior record of violent crime. The lack of access to juvenile records in this case directly contributed to a tragic crime. When a probation officer supervises a young offender, he needs to know the young offender's criminal history. It is simply illogical that we fail to maintain those records in a readily accessible way. Reporting juvenile records to a national clearinghouse will provide law enforcement officers and judges across this Nation with accurate criminal history information. This will serve to protect law enforcement personnel when they are dealing with juvenile suspects and defendants, as well as provide necessary information to the judiciary. One proper role for the Federal Government, in law enforcement, is to serve as a national clearinghouse for information. Our proposal fulfills such a role and in the process dramatically improves our juvenile justice system. There is another matter of importance. The Hatch-Sessions bill helps States improve their juvenile detention centers. The bill provides matching grant money to the States for the construction and renovation of juvenile detention facilities. In the last 20 years, juvenile prison construction has not kept pace with the tremendous increase in juvenile crime. While States and the Federal Government have increased adult prison capacity significantly, the construction of juvenile facilities has been neglected consistently. Ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, if crime is to be reduced, we must increase juvenile detention and juvenile detention space. I mention crime, and not merely juvenile crime, for this reason. The line between juvenile crime and adult crime has never been so blurred. An ever-increasing amount of serious crime is committed by young offenders. By some accounts, juveniles now account for almost 20 percent of violent crime arrests and over one-third of all property crime arrests. The following facts illustrate the need for more juvenile detention centers. Only 56 out of every 1,000 juveniles arrested are incarcerated. I repeat that. Only 56 out of every 1,000 juveniles arrested are incarcerated. We are simply not identifying the violent criminals and putting them in prison. To put it in more concrete terms, consider this. In 1991, over 123,000 juveniles were arrested for violent crimes, yet there were less than 50,000 juvenile beds in the United States available to house them. And many repeat, habitual property criminals have to be incarcerated, too. I wish that were not so, but that is simply the fact. We have had a doubling of violent juvenile crime in less than a decade. We simply have to increase our bed space. Again, I wish that were not so. A lack of proper juvenile detention centers eliminates the deterrent effect of the criminal justice system. When a police officer arrests an offender in a stolen car for burglarizing a person's home, and he cannot keep him even 1 night in the local jail because it is not an approved juvenile facility or because there is no space in the juvenile facility--that young offender is released back on the street. This undermines respect for the law. Not only does the young offender get the wrong impression, but so do his classmates, running-mates, and gang members. They see Billy get arrested and expect something to happen. When he is released the very same day, they get a message. It is not the message we want to convey. We simply have to step up to the plate and do more about that. Another matter. Many of my colleagues have indicated that our bill fails to provide sufficient prevention money. I would like to point out that according to the General Accounting Office, the Federal Government currently has 131 programs administered by 16 different departments and agencies that may be used to benefit at-risk and delinquent youth. In 1995, the total cost of these programs exceeded $4 billion. We are already spending tremendous sums of Federal taxpayer money on prevention programs. I hope they work. Some of them do and some of them do not. We need to do a better job of oversight. And the States also are spending tremendous sums of money for prevention purposes. We have a juvenile justice system that is broken, and we need to fix it. Here is a chart which shows the huge number of programs and the total dollars--$4 billion--being spent right now with Government appropriated funds for at-risk and delinquent youth. This bill has prevention matters in it, but it is also focused primarily on changing our juvenile justice system from a state of collapse into an effective system that will actually work to deter crime. There are 21 gang intervention programs, 35 mentoring programs, 42 job training assistance programs, 47 counseling programs, 44 self- sufficiency programs, 53 substance abuse intervention programs. Each of these programs is already being funded in an effort to help at-risk young people not get caught up in a life of crime. The penalty imposed for every act of wrongdoing, starting from that first offense, is in itself prevention. Mr. President, 61 percent of the juveniles brought into the juvenile court system are 15 years of age or younger. These juveniles may still be amenable to discipline. However, there is currently little respect for our State juvenile system because the juvenile judges have little resources and almost no bed space to carry out the sanctions they would like to impose. S. 10 will assist the States in rectifying this deficit in resources. So, Mr. President, I have mentioned only three provisions of the bill today but there are many more. There is a tough antigang provision that has great potential to crack down on gangs; historic reforms of Federal procedures to make cases more easily prosecutable in Federal court; elimination of unwise Federal mandates; requirements for local juvenile crime, advisory committee groups, and I just noticed the Senator from Delaware has arrived. This provision is modeled after a provision he put in the law a number of years ago to require the local court system to get together to discuss civil case processing. We believe, and I think Senator Biden agrees, that if we are going to give money to a local juvenile court system, we ought to at least ask that the judge, the prosecutor, the sheriff, and the police chief get together and discuss just how well their system is working and what they can do to make that system work better. I appreciate the consistent leadership over the years that Senator Biden has provided. He is the ranking member of the Juvenile Justice Subcommittee, and his contributions were very valuable in putting together a bill that I believe eventually will be a historic step forward in juvenile justice. I believe that this is the most significant juvenile crime bill in over 20 years. Our juvenile justice system is broken. These are sound, thoughtful, practical and effective provisions that will help fix a broken system. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues as time goes by to give the highest consideration to this legislation and urge their support of its passage. I yield the floor. Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 15 minutes as if in morning business.

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I am honored to be in this great body and particularly honored today to be able to say a few words from my heart about the Senator from South Carolina. I have no doubt really that I would not be here today if it were not for Senator Thurmond. I first met him--and this is typical of his leadership and commitment to this country--when I was a U.S. attorney in the early 1980's. I had just been appointed. There was a reception the Attorney General of the United States had. He came to that reception and stayed 30 to 40 minutes. As chairman of the Judiciary Committee, he stayed and he met every U.S. attorney in attendance that night before he left. That demonstrated to me his commitment to law and order. Many people have talked about his leadership with regard to military matters, and they are certainly legendary and unsurpassed in this body. But in terms of law enforcement, he has been an absolutely key figure in the reform of the Federal criminal justice system in America, that makes our Federal criminal justice system today, in my opinion, superior to any State criminal justice system. He did that in many bills, but in the 1984 act he was chairman of the Judiciary Committee that eliminated parole and made every person who is sentenced in America serve the full time they are sentenced, that reformed the bail law so that people could not be out on bail for years before they were ever tried, and many other reforms--the most historic criminal justice reform bill, I am certain, in my lifetime. He was a key player and a leader. In 1986, I had the pleasure to be a nominee for U.S. district judge. That was not an experience which worked out good for me, but Senator Thurmond believed in me. He fought for me. He stood by me day after day. He refuted the charges that were made that were not true, and he stood by me. A number of years later, he came to Mobile as a Patriot of the Year. There were 600 people from the city of Mobile there, and he recognized me in the audience. He said good things about me. His support, his friendship, his steadfast commitment to me and to this body was important in my career and I want to say personally how much I appreciate that, Senator Thurmond. It is amazing to me that I have the honor and the privilege to be in this body and to be able to say to you how much I appreciate your support and friendship, to say how much I appreciate your service to your country, as a military leader and as a Member of this body. I know some may think it not politically correct, but I will say this. Senator Thurmond has represented his State with great fidelity and character. He has represented his region as a southerner with the highest of standards as a southern gentleman. He has reflected the qualities of courage and integrity, bravery and commitment to truth that have reflected great credit on his community, his State, his region, his Nation, and this body. I am honored to have the opportunity to say how much I appreciate that. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the sacrifices made by the millions of men and women who have served in the Armed Forces of the United States. While Members of this body have perhaps thousands of constituent service men and women on the rolls from their State, men and women who have served and are serving be they active duty, Reserve, National Guard, or retired, I want to draw special attention to one story in particular, an uncommon story of valor and courage, that is truly representative of the thousands of veterans in Alabama and all over these United States. Mr. President, I want to speak today about the supreme sacrifice many Americans made for our country as prisoners of war. Mr. Hubert Davis, of Tuscaloosa, AL, is one such hero. As a B-17 fighter tail gunner in World War II, Mr. Davis' plane was hit while approaching a bombing target over Schweinfurt, Germany, on April 13, 1944. After his B-17 became engulfed in flames, Mr. Davis struggled with an awkward British parachute as the plane capsized, like a ship caught in a terrible storm at sea and crashed to the ground. Mr. Davis barely managed to escape from the B-17 and immediately pulled his ripcord. He parachuted to the ground and was captured by the German forces. As the D-day invasion was still some weeks away there was no hope of escaping to Allied lines in Europe. During his prison experience, Mr. Davis was subsequently moved from prison camp to prison camp while suffering from injuries sustained in the rough parachute landing. He was subjected to interrogations in which life and limb was threatened--all for our freedom. Mr. Davis' family received a telegram notifying them that their son was lost-in-action and a second telegram 10 days later announcing that he was killed-in-action. Eventually, however, Mr. Davis was liberated by the 13th Armored Division of Patton's 3d Army and now resides in Tuscaloosa, AL. Mr. President, Mr. Davis was prepared to pay the ultimate price for his country. While I have highlighted the odyssey of one tailgunner, and one ex-POW from World War II, Mr. Davis is emblematic of the thousands of men and women who dedicated the very fabric of their being for the greatest democracy known to history. From the Revolutionary War to the Persian Gulf, we have been blessed by an exemplary group of patriots who have served their country admirably and with distinction. Since our country has enjoyed many years of relative peace as a result of the heroic efforts of men and women like Hubert Davis, I hope his story reminds each of us of the trials and tribulations our forebears have endured to preserve the precious freedom we all so deeply enjoy today. Mr. President, to further recognize the valor of our many veterans, I ask to have printed in the Record along with my brief remarks Gen. Douglas MacArthur's farewell speech to the cadets at West Point, May 12, 1962. Since its delivery, this speech has been known as MacArthur's ``Duty, Honor, Country Speech.'' It is plain spoken and on the day when we reflect on those who have given so much, it serves to remind us all what it means to be an American. God bless the United States. The remarks follow: Gen. Douglas MacArthur: Duty, Honor, Country; May 12, 1962, U.S. Military Academy, West Point, NY No human being could fail to be deeply moved by such a tribute as this [Thayer Award], coming from a profession I have served so long and a people I have loved so well. It fills me with an emotion I cannot express. But this award is not intended primarily to honor a personality, but to symbolize a great moral code--a code of conduct and chivalry of those who guard this beloved land of culture and ancient descent. For all hours and for all time, it is an expression of the ethics of the American soldier. That I should be integrated in this way with so noble an ideal arouses a sense of pride, and yet of humility, which will be with me always. ``Duty,'' ``honor'', ``country''--those three hallowed words reverently dictate what you ought to be, what you can be, what you will be. They are your rallying point to build courage when courage seems to fail, to regain faith when there seems to be little cause for faith, to create hope when hope becomes forlorn. Unhappily, I possess neither that eloquence of diction, that poetry of imagination, nor that brilliance of metaphor to tell you all that they mean. The unbelievers will say they are but words, but a slogan, but a flamboyant phrase. Every pedant, every demagogue, every cynic, every hypocrite, every troublemaker, and, I am sorry to say, some others of an entirely different character, will try to downgrade them even to the extent of mockery and ridicule. But these are some of the things they do. They build your basic character. They mold you for your future roles as the custodians of the Nation's defense. They make you strong enough to know when you are weak, and brave enough to face yourself when you are afraid. What the Words Teach They teach you to be proud and unbending in honest failure, but humble and gentle in success; not to substitute words for actions, not to seek the path of comfort, but to face the stress and spur of0difficulty and challenge; to learn to stand up in the storm, but to have compassion on those who fall; to master yourself before you seek to master others; to have a heart that is clean, a goal that is high; to learn to laugh, yet never forget how to weep; to reach into the future, yet never neglect the past; to be serious, yet never to take yourself too seriously; to be modest so that you will remember the simplicity of true greatness, the open mind of true wisdom, the meekness of true strength. They give you a temperate will, a quality of the imagination, a vigor of the emotions, a freshness of the deep springs of life, a temperamental predominance of courage over timidity, of an appetite for adventure over love of ease. They create in you heart the sense of wonder, the unfailing hope of what next, and joy and inspiration of life. They teach you in this way to be an officer and a gentleman. And what sort of soldiers are those you are to lead? Are they reliable? Are they brave? Are they capable of victory? Their story is known to all of you. It is the story of the American man-at-arms. My estimate of him was formed on the battlefield many, many years ago, and has never changed. I regarded him then, as I regard him now, as one of the world's noblest figures; not only as one of the finest military characters, but also as one of the most stainless. His name and fame are the birthright of every American citizen. In his youth and strength, his love and loyalty, he gave all that mortality can give. He needs no eulogy from me; or from any other man. He has written his own history and written it in red on his enemy's breast. But when I think of his patience in adversity of his courage under fire and of his modesty in victory, I am filled with an emotion of admiration I cannot put into words. He belongs to history as furnishing one of the greatest examples of successful patriotism. He belongs to posterity as the instructor of future generations in the principles of liberty and freedom. He belongs to the present, to us, by his virtues and by his achievements. witness to the fortitude In 20 campaigns, on a hundred battlefields, around a thousand camp fires, I have witnessed that enduring fortitude, that patriotic self-abnegation, and that invincible determination which have carved his statue in the hearts of his people. From one end of the world to the other, he has drained deep the chalice of courage. As I listened to those songs [of the glee club], in memory's eye I could see those staggering columns of the first World War, bending under soggy packs on many a weary match, from dripping dusk to drizzling dawn, slogging ankle deep through the mire of shell-pocked roads to form grimly for the attack, blue-lipped, covered with sludge and mud, chilled by the wind and rain, driving home to their objective, and for many to the judgment seat of God. I do not know the dignity of their birth, but I do know the glory of their death. They died, unquestioning, uncomplaining, with faith in their hearts, and on their lips the hope that we would go on to victory. Always for them: Duty, honor, country. Always their blood, and sweat, and tears, as we sought the way and the light and the truth. And 20 years after, on the other side of the globe, again the filth of murky foxholes, the stench of ghostly trenches, the slime of dripping dugouts, those boiling suns of relentless heat, those torrential rains of devastating storms, the loneliness and utter desolation of jungle trails, the bitterness of long separation from those they loved and cherished, the deadly pestilence of tropical disease, the horror of stricken areas of war. swift and sure attack Their resolute and determined defense, their swift and sure attack, their indomitable purpose, their complete and decisive victory--always through the bloody haze of their last reverberating shot, the vision of gaunt, ghastly men, reverently following your password of duty, honor, country. The code which those words perpetuate embraces the highest moral law and will stand the test of any ethics or philosophies ever promulgated for the things that are right and its restraints are from the things that are wrong. The soldier, above all other men, is required to practice the greatest act of religious training--sacrifice. In battle, and in the face of danger and death, he discloses those divine attributes which his Maker gave when He created man in His own image. No physical courage and no greater strength can take the place of the divine help which alone can sustain him. However hard the incidents of war may be, the soldier who is called upon to offer and to give his life for his country is the noblest development of mankind. You now face a new world, a world of change. the thrust into outer space of the satellite, spheres, and missiles marks a beginning of another epoch in the long story of mankind. In the five or more billions of years the scientists tell us it has taken to form the earth, in the three or more billion years of development of the human race, there has never been a more abrupt or staggering evolution. We deal now, not with things of this world alone, but with illimitable distances and as yet unfathomed mysteries of the universe. We are reaching out for a new and boundless frontier. We speak in strange terms of harnessing the cosmic energy, of making winds and tides work for us, of creating unheard of synthetic materials to supplement or even replace our old standard basics; to purify sea water for our drink; of mining ocean floors for new fields of wealth and food; of disease preventatives to expand life into the hundreds of years; of controlling the weather for a more equitable distribution of heat and cold, of rain and shine; of spaceships to the moon; of the primary target in war, no longer limited to the armed forces of an enemy, but instead to include his civil populations; of ultimate conflict between a united human race and the sinister forces of some other planetary galaxy; of such dreams and fantasies as to make life the most exciting of all times. And through all this welter of change and development your mission remains fixed, determined, inviolable. It is to win our wars. Everything else in your professional career is but corollary to this vital dedication. All other public purposes, all other public projects, all other public needs, great or small, will find others for their accomplishments; but you are the ones who are trained to fight. the profession of arms Yours is the profession of arms, the will to win, the sure knowledge that in war there is no substitute for victory, that if you lose, the Nation will be destroyed, that the very obsession of your public service must be duty, honor, country. Others will debate the controversial issues, national and international, which divide men's minds. But serene, calm, aloof, you stand as the Nation's war guardian, as its lifeguard from the raging tides of international conflict, as its gladiator in the arena of battle. For a century and a half you have defended, guarded, and protected its hallowed traditions of liberty and freedom, of right and justice. Let civilian voices argue the merits or demerits of our processes of government: Whether our strength is being sapped by deficit financing indulged in too long, by Federal paternalism grown too mighty, by power groups grown too arrogant, by politics grown too corrupt, by crime grown too rampant, by morals grown too low, by taxes grown too high, by extremists grown too violent; whether our personal liberties are as thorough and complete as they should be. These great national problems are not for your professional participation or military solution. Your guidepost stands out like a ten-fold beacon in the night: Duty, honor, country. You are the leaven which binds together the entire fabric of our national system of defense. From your ranks come the great captains who hold the Nation's destiny in their hands the moment the war tocsin sounds. The long, gray line has never failed us. Were you to do so, a million ghosts in olive drab, in brown khaki, in blue and gray, would rise from their white crosses, thundering those magic words: Duty, honor, country. Prays for Peace This does not mean that you are warmongers. On the contrary, the soldier above all other people prays for peace, for he must suffer and bear the deepest wounds and scars of war. But always in our ears ring the ominous words of Plato, that wisest of all philosophers: ``Only the dead have seen the end of war.'' The shadows are lengthening for me. The twilight is here. My days of old have vanished--tone and tint. They have gone glimmering through the dreams of things that were. Their memory is one of wondrous beauty, watered by tears and coaxed and caressed by the smiles of yesterday. I listen vainly, but with thirsty ear, for the witching melody of faint bugles blowing reveille, of far drums beating the long roll. In my dreams I hear again the crash of guns, the rattle of musketry, the strange, mournful mutter of the battlefield. But in the evening of my memory always I come back to West Point. Always there echoes and re-echoes: Duty, honor, country. Today marks my final roll call with you. But I want you to know that when I cross the river, my last conscious thoughts will be of the corps, and the corps, and the corps. I bid you farewell.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to recognize the celebration of the 40th anniversary of U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense. During this week, May 19-22, 1997, a number of special events will be taking place in Huntsville, AL, to celebrate this important anniversary. I wish to express my congratulations to the Army community in Huntsville for their splendid record of achievement in space and missile defense, and to ask my colleagues to join me saluting them for what this has meant to our Nation's security. The U.S. Army led the nation into space and ballistic missile defense [BMD] in 1957 with the authorization to proceed with the launch of an artificial satellite and the start of development of the Nike Zeus BMD system. The Army Ballistic Missile Agency successfully launched the free world's first artificial satellite in 1958, only 89 days after receiving the go-ahead, restoring America's leadership in space exploration following the Soviet Sputnik launch 3 months earlier. The Huntsville BMD team performed the first demonstration of a successful intercept of an ICBM class ballistic missile in 1962, deployed the first and only BMD system in the United States, conducted the first nonnuclear intercept of an ICBM in 1984, and carried out the first and the largest number of intercepts of tactical ballistic missiles, including the spectacular performance of the Patriot system against Scud rockets during Desert Storm. The U.S. Army role in space has continued to provide significant contributions to battlefield communications, precise detection, tracking of threatening missiles, and a host of space-based capabilities tailored for the war-fighter on the ground. The Huntsville team has made significant contributions to BMD technology, including development of nuclear and nonnuclear interceptors and kill vehicles; advanced BMD radar and optical sensors; the first BMD computer, associated software and a long progression of innovations in BMD computational capabilities; and lastly, a wide range of BMD phenomenology, components and techniques. In view of their long record of outstanding achievements, the future of military space and BMD lies to a large extent in the hands of the men and women who work in the Army organizations in Huntsville, together with their industry team mates. Mr. President, I salute Huntsville and the hard-working men and women of that great community. Most importantly, I wish to extend a warm and hearty congratulations to the U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense team for a job well done, and best wishes for its continued success now and during the next 40 years.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the partial-birth abortion ban. I applaud the bipartisan effort taking place to bring this bill to the floor. Most importantly, I applaud the efforts of my good friend, Senator Santorum from Pennsylvania, who has effectively and courageously articulated many of the reasons that this procedure should not be accepted in America today. People in this country are concerned about our Nation. They are concerned about its moral values; they are concerned about its goodness. What do we value, what do we cherish, what do we respect and how do we live? Mr. President, I think it is time for all of us to think about that. I am a lawyer. I served for quite a number of years as a Federal U.S. attorney charged with enforcing laws, and I have been thinking about this both as a lawyer, and as a person who wants to decide what kind of laws we ought to have. I do believe that laws do affect and reflect the character and the values that the people of this Nation hold dear. I say to you, Mr. President, that we need clarity in our law. No matter how we debate or what we feel about the overall question of abortion, this procedure, in which a child is partially removed from the womb of the mother, is partially born, to then have its life exterminated, is a standard that we ought not to allow. We should not allow children who are partially born to be murdered. I think that is an area in which it is appropriate for the law to have a clear distinction. Some have said the President will not sign this bill, that he will veto it again. But I remember what the President said his reasons for the last veto were. He said these procedures were rare, and that they were performed only to preserve the life or the health of the mother or to preserve the reproductive right of the mother because of the most severe abnormalities in the infant. Those are the reasons he gave; those are the reasons American citizens were told from this very floor by many of the people who are arguing today in support of this procedure. That is what they were told. Mr. Ron Fitzsimmons, the executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers--that means the national group of abortionists-- admitted publicly that he had lied through his teeth, that the false information he had displayed made him sick to his stomach. So I will just say to you, Mr. President, that I do not believe President Clinton has made up his mind on this matter. The reasons he gave when he struck down this bill last time are not present today. I believe that with the election behind him he has an opportunity now to abide by his conscience and to abide by the facts which have been proven repeatedly to be true, and I believe that when this bill is passed, it will be signed by the President. I certainly hope so. I think he certainly needs that opportunity, because the circumstances have greatly changed. So I will say again how much I appreciate the work of the Senator from Pennsylvania, Senator Santorum, how much I respect his commitment, love and capacity for all humankind. I think it is an important question for this country because it sets a standard about who we are, what we will accept in our community, what kind of laws we ought to have, and based on that, I support this bill, and I urge my colleagues to do so. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. For the information of all Senators, tomorrow morning the Senate will resume consideration of S. 672, the supplemental appropriations bill. As previously announced, the Senate will recess from 12:30 to 2:15 in order for the weekly policy luncheons to meet. There is a pending amendment which will necessitate a rollcall vote. Senators will be notified as soon as possible as to the scheduling of that and other votes. In addition, we expect other amendments to the supplemental appropriations bill to be introduced tomorrow. Therefore, Senators can expect additional voting during Tuesday's session of the Senate. As a reminder to all Senators, a cloture motion was filed today. Therefore, all first-degree amendments must be filed by 2:30 p.m. to be in order.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate resume consideration of S. 672.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today it stand in adjournment until the hour of 10 a.m., on Tuesday, May 6. I further ask unanimous consent that on Tuesday, immediately following the prayer, the routine requests through the morning hour be granted and the Senate then immediately resume consideration of S. 672, the supplemental appropriations bill.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that the first-degree amendments under the cloture motion be filed by 2:30 p.m., tomorrow.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that on Tuesday, the Senate stand in recess from the hours of 12:30 to 2:15 in order for the weekly policy conferences to meet.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period of morning business.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Senate Resolution 79.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the resolution appear at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Thank you, Mr. President. I take the floor today to offer my support as a cosponsor of S. 543, the Volunteer Protection Act of 1997. As this week's volunteer summit clearly shows, there is a need throughout America for the kinds of services that are offered by selfless volunteers who are applying their time, their skills, and their labor toward bettering the lives of others. Regrettably, however, the fear of lawsuits has become so pervasive that many people fail to follow through on their charitable impulses, or the charities themselves decide not to take on activities because of the fear of litigation. The legislation being discussed today will go a long way toward removing this artificial barrier to individual service. I would also like to congratulate the drafters of the bill, Senator Coverdell in particular, for recognizing the need to take this corrective action. In my own experience as a member of various boards and commissions for charitable organizations, I have witnessed firsthand the difficulties these organizations face in recruiting volunteers to undertake worthwhile activities. Fear of lawsuits is one of these reasons. I remind my colleagues that there was a time in American tort law when the doctrine of charitable immunity would have isolated many of the individuals subjected to lawsuits today from this type of liability. This doctrine was based in large part on the public policy premise that a society is bettered in the long run not by creating barriers to volunteer activity but, instead, by encouraging volunteer action. In recent years, this fundamental policy principle has been undermined. I think it is time for this body to begin to address this problem. Few people will deny the need for unpaid, selfless volunteers in our society. These highly motivated individuals often will tackle problems that would have been impractical for anyone else, including the Government, to take on. In its purest form, every individual action taken by a volunteer in one area allows scarce resources to be used somewhere else. The efficient use of volunteers allows us to have more bang for our charitable buck. These efficiencies and cost savings are being undermined, however, in higher insurance premiums and legal fees. Senators Abraham, Coverdell, and McConnell pointed out this fact recently in a newspaper article. In their article they cite the example of a Little League baseball league that had its liability premiums go from $75 to $795 in just 5 years. I have been involved in Little League baseball. My son has played, and I have coached. I know how hard those individuals work to sell hamburgers and hot dogs and peanuts to make money to buy ball caps and uniforms. These kinds of insurance rates are really detrimental to the public spirit in America--and the rate increases are driven by lawsuits. I believe that this bill will strengthen the role of both volunteers and nonprofit organizations. It restores common sense to the way our courts treat volunteers by protecting them from tort liability for simple acts of negligence. It also retains penalties for egregious activities such as sexual abuse and hate crimes and civil rights violations. Individuals who commit these kinds of acts will still be subject to lawsuits. It will not protect people who have done acts under the influence of drugs or alcohol, so that volunteers who commit illegal acts or improper acts under the influence of alcohol will still be liable. And, although the individual volunteer may not be liable for compensatory damages, the organizations who are utilizing the volunteer's services would remain liabile to compensate injured parties who have been wronged. I support this bill's limitation on punitive damages. Under this bill punitive damages may not be awarded unless a claimant demonstrates through clear and convincing evidence--it is not impossible evidence; just clear and convincing evidence--that the harm arising from the actions of a volunteer was the result of conduct that was either willful or criminal in nature or that showed a genuine indifference to the safety of others. By raising the legal bar for the award of punitive damages, we will accomplish two goals. We will help ensure that only the conduct that truly deserves such a penalty will be punished and we will reduce the amount of punitive damages awarded, thereby freeing up resources to be used for more productive purposes. The bill's elimination of joint and several liability for noneconomic losses, such as pain and suffering, will advance these goals as well. Let me say this, Mr. President. There has been a suggestion that the Ku Klux Klan would be covered under this bill. I do not believe that is correct. I do not believe the Klan would be covered by the definition of a charitable organization under this bill. I certainly would not want it to be covered. But in any case, in any circumstance, actions that are willful and unlawful would remain, under this bill, subject to lawsuits and punitive damages. I had the opportunity, as U.S. attorney, to be involved in prosecuting a number of Klan members for an illegal action. It resulted in the death of a young black man for no other reason than because of his race. One of those individuals is serving life without parole and another one is on death row today. As U.S. attorney, just last year, that death sentence was upheld by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. I expect, as months go by, that he will be brought forward to execution, as he should be. Arising out of that case, under the leadership of one of America's most capable lawyers, Morris Dees, a civil lawsuit was filed against the Klan. It resulted in the winning of that lawsuit because of the Klan's policies that encouraged violence. That organization itself was held responsible for the criminal actions of its members. As a result of that action, the Klan headquarters was forfeited and sold for the benefit of the family that suffered death in that case. I will just say this, Mr. President. That lawsuit would not be prohibited by this bill, because it was illegal and a part of a hate crime. The activities that gave rise to that lawsuit are exempted from the protections offered by this bill. Those kinds of lawsuits would continue. It is disturbing to me to see individuals take this floor and suggest that a bill designed to protect people's charitable impulses, to allow them to participate freely in helping other people without fear of being sued, that that would somehow be a bill designed to protect that despicable organization, the Ku Klux Klan. I think that it is unfortunate that that suggestion has been made. It is not true and is not a legitimate basis to object to this bill. Finally, I support the bill's respect for federalism. The inclusion of the State opt-out provision in this bill recognizes the role of individual States in setting the statutory boundaries of their own tort laws when citizens of the same State are the only parties to an action. States can opt out of this if they choose. It does not mandate that they concur in these activities. So again, I would like to encourage my colleagues to support this bill. It is good legislation which will serve to reinvigorate the volunteer spirit that has been a traditional component of the American character. There have been a number of shows and studies and reports done on Alexis de Tocqueville and his travels throughout America. One of the things he was most struck by was the volunteer community spirit of America. That is a good spirit. The President, former President Bush, Gen. Colin Powell, and others recognized that just this weekend. We need to make sure that the laws of this country are supportive and conducive to the volunteer spirit. I think we have lost some of that protection. It needs to be restored. I congratulate Senators Coverdell, Abraham, and McConnell for their efforts. I look forward to having the opportunity to vote for this bill's final passage. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I supported Senate Executive Resolution 75, a substitute for the resolution of ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention [CWC] offered by Senator Helms. I thank my colleagues Senator Helms, Senator Kyl, and Senator Biden for their hard work over the last several days and their leadership in bringing the Chemical Weapons Treaty debate to the floor. I also wish to thank Senator Dick Lugar for his support as we prepared for this debate. Senator Lugar's detailed analysis of the many complicated issues of the treaty have been invaluable. Without doubt this treaty is better than when we started. Mr. President, though new to this body, I am fully aware of the seriousness of the task before us and I appreciate the thorough quality of the debate. I have studied this treaty and its components. I have reviewed a tremendous amount of associated materials provided me from all quarters. I, like so many of my colleagues, even at this late moment in the debate, still have outstanding concerns with certain provisions of the Chemical Weapons Convention, most notably the effects articles X and XI will have on our country. Yesterday, the President, in a letter to the majority leader, basically stated that, In the event that a state party or states parties to the convention act contrary to the obligations under Article I . . . I would, consistent with Article XVI of the CWC, and in consultation with the Congress, be prepared to withdraw from the treaty. Mr. President, I am still not sure that the President will act, or at least act decisively, when the situation warrants because our current track record of taking strong action when other nations violate treaties and agreements with us is not good. Let me cite a few examples of what I mean. The 1972 AMB Treaty. Recently, the President reaffirmed his commitment to the outmoded ABM treaty in Helsinki. This agreement will limit the ability of this Nation to deploy even a limited national missile defense. Is this wise, given the way the Soviets responded to the initial treaty by continuing to work on a new generation of ICBM's and associated warheads? Was not this treaty ironclad? Apparently not. What did we really do in the face of the violations? Nothing. The Iran-Iraq war. Iraq, according to a conversation I had with former Secretary of Defense under President Carter Jim Schlesinger, Iraq has been and is a signatory to the Geneva Convention which since after World War I has prohibited the use of chemical weapons, yet in the Iran-Iraq war of the eighties, Iraq used poison gas as a way of stemming the human wave attacks of the Iranians. What was the reaction of the United States and of other Western Powers to this blatant violation of the Geneva Convention? ``To avert our gaze'' might be a way to put it. Stated another way, we stood by and did nothing even though the war was not one of international proportions. There are other examples as well: Saddam Hussein chose not to employ his chemical weapons against American troops for one reason only. It was because of the reminder that President Bush provided him, rather than our reliance on a treaty. Oh yes, that reminder was, according to Secretary Baker, that the United States made it very clear that if Iraq used chemical weapons against United States forces, that the American people will demand vengeance, and that we had the means to achieve it. This is an example of where we were finally willing to do what was necessary. Mr. President that is my point this evening. We are a superpower. We have the means to achieve the ends required by our national interests should it be required. The question then is whether this treaty achieves those ends, or whether this treaty will create a false sense of security; a phantom security that is provided by others whose interests more often than not conflict with our own. I find it difficult to believe that a rogue state with little means at its disposal would be willing to divest itself of such weapons. Mr. President, in 1987, former Senator Malcolm Wallop explained in his book how arms control can be a delusion. We might stop and consider this point before we vote because former Senator Wallop also reminds us that Arms control presents four dangers: the falsehood that security is to be found in the promises of adversaries rather than in one's own prudence and preparedness; the falsehood that one should fear inanimate things--weapons--rather than the evil men and regimes who would use them for bad purposes; the falsehood that armaments are militarily valuable only as bargaining chips in the arms control process; and finally, the falsehood that U.S. strategic superiority is both useless and destabilizing to the world. Mr. President, I believe strongly in this Nation. I believe strongly that our strength lies where it has always been, both in the hearts of Americans, and in our own industry. I am not ashamed to admit I would rather be self-reliant because that means our confidence will be placed in Americans, not in some inspector from an international bureaucracy. I, Mr. President, am not ashamed to admit that I am proud of the military superiority our Nation enjoys, paid for by American taxpayers, and manifested in the men and women of our Armed Forces. They deserve the best equipment, training, and protection this Nation can provide. It troubles me that while we sit here ready to hand over the security for chemical defense that rightfully belongs here, we are allowing the Department of Defense to reduce its chemical defense program. Finally, Mr. President, I am not ashamed to admit that when our adversaries consider chemical weapons we need to send a message just as strong as the message that America sent to Saddam Hussein--we will respond, and we will do so in an overwhelming and devastating manner. That is a message all state parties can understand. We shouldn't wobble, nor shy away from the responsibility to our citizens. People are responsible for the proliferation of chemical weapons, not pieces of paper, and to this end we are woefully overconfident if we think a simple piece of paper will stop the proliferation of chemical weapons. Mr. President, the question is truly one of vigilance. Are we better off taking care of ourselves, using our own resources, empowering our own intelligence services to keep abreast of the threats abroad? I think so. I cannot agree with the proposition, that I read in the Washington Post recently, ``That standards and values violated are better than no standards or values at all.'' America has standards and it certainly has values. We are eliminating our chemical weapons and we must not rely unverifiable and unenforced international norms, which according to former Secretary of Defense Jim Schlesinger ``will induce a false sense of security in law-abiding societies.'' Mr. President, in closing I want to leave my colleagues with the words of Senator Wallop: ``Unverifiable, unenforceable accords do not promote valuable international norms. The difference is that the former threaten to make arms control a sham--an outcome that can translate into incalculable harm to our Nation and its people.'' We should not enter into a treaty which we know at the start will not be honored. This demeans the treaty process and only increases the likelihood that we will fail in our duty to protect the security of this Nation. I thank the chair.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would just like to take a few minutes on this important day in our Nation's history, this day that comes up every year, when we are responsible for paying our taxes, to discuss the problems of working families and what they are facing in America. Two years ago, I traveled all over the State of Alabama, campaigning for Attorney General. I talked to all kinds of people. This past year I campaigned throughout the State of Alabama and talked to hundreds and hundreds of young families who are struggling throughout our State. They are struggling all over America. People who are doing their very best to live the American dream are not able to do so because of financial reasons. Many families are calling on their parents to help them with the finances and burdens it takes to raise their children. We need to help those families. I was recently in a committee meeting in which a very wise Senator said: We look at numbers and we study statistics and we do all these kinds of things. But, when it comes right down to it, we need to use our judgment about what we believe are the most important problems facing America. In my judgment, no matter what numbers show--and numbers back me up on this--in my judgment, working families are struggling. In terms of income, the numbers have declined in the last 6 years in relative terms, considering inflation. It is more expensive than ever to raise children today. I want to show a chart that illustrates a shocking statistic. In 1950, due to the personal exemption for children and family members, which allows you to exempt your income from taxes, 70 percent of the average working family's income was exempt from taxes. They did not have to pay taxes on 70 percent of their income. Today only 30 percent of working families' income is exempt from taxes. They must pay taxes on 70 percent of their income and they are paying at a much higher rate than they paid in 1970. Is there any reason to wonder that working families are falling further behind? In 1950, they paid 2 cents of every dollar to the Federal Government. Today, every working family pays 25 percent of every dollar to the Government. That is unacceptable. No wonder families are struggling to raise and educate their children, who will take care of us in the future. The Republicans have proposed a bold plan to give a $500-per-child tax credit to every working family in America. I support that proposal and campaigned for it very aggressively. Just a few months ago the President said he believed in the per-child tax credit and that he would support such a plan because it is needed to bring working families' incomes up to the level that they need to be. I ask American families today to think about this. What would you do if there were two children in the family and you had a $1,000 tax credit? That means $1,000 extra income to the family, in which there would be no income tax or health care taken out--nearly $100 a month, $90 a month extra income that you could spend for your family. It would be available to buy shoes, clothes and for field trips for school. Maybe the car breaks down--you could repair the transmission. Maybe you need a set of tires for the vehicle or just grocery money. These are the kinds of things that families struggle with every day. This tax credit would put real money into their hands and drive their incomes up in an immediate way. It would put an immediate source of income into the pockets of the people who are making America great. These are the people who are going to raise the next generation who will lead this country. The families today are raising that next generation that will take care of us and we need to give them some relief. We need to give families some income so that they can do their job of raising their children. We need to give them the kind of commitment that our families gave to us. One thing I must say. The President says he is for a tax credit. But you have to look at the small print, as we so often have to do. His $500 deduction would only go up to age 13. I have had children under age 13. I have had children over age 13. Anyone who has had children in that age group knows it costs more to raise a teenager than it does a younger child. That is totally unacceptable. The President says he is for a tax credit. Let's do it. Let us support the teenagers, too. Let families have the kind of money so they can raise their teenagers in the way they should. I feel this is a very important issue for our country. I think it is important that this body recognize that we have penalized working families. It is time to give families some relief and restore them to the position they were in a number of years ago. It is time to restore and strengthen family values in America. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Thank you, Mr. President. I am pleased to be able to comment on this judicial vacancy. I certainly respect Senator Grassley and his comments. I agree with him very, very much. I think it is an important point to note that people say that administrative cases are difficult to administer, and that they may have a file that is fairly thick. Well, judges have law clerks. They go through the files. Even if the file is thick, the issue coming up on an administrative appeal may be very simple and may involve nothing more than a simple interpretation of law. Many of those can be disposed of very easily. Based on my 12 years of experience as a U.S. attorney practicing in Federal court in cases involving all kinds of Federal litigation, I don't at all concede the point that every administrative law case is substantially more difficult than others. As a matter of fact, Judge Silberman testified in 1995 that it is true that the administrative law cases are generally more complicated, and other judges in other circuits, like the second circuit, will tell you that some of their commercial litigation coming out of the Federal district court is terribly complicated, too. I am not in a position to compare the two. Let me just say this from personal experience. I talked earlier today about the testimony of Chief Judge Tjoflat from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. He said that they have 575 cases per judge, and that they cannot handle any more cases. I was involved in a 7-week trial of a criminal case that I personally prosecuted. In the course of that trial 18,000 pages of transcript were generated, and when the case was heard on appeal, there were 20 or more issues involving 5 or more defendants. Many of these criminal cases are extremely difficult. I will also point out that the eleventh circuit includes the southern district of Florida which probably has, outside of New York and California, the largest number of complex criminal cases, in particular international drug smuggling cases, of any circuit in America. Those cases are sent to the eleventh circuit and yet they can manage their caseload in this fashion. I think it is a remarkable accomplishment. The fourth circuit, with 378 cases per judge, has the fastest turnaround of any circuit in America. We talk about the need to move cases rapidly, and it is argued that we need more judges to move cases rapidly. How is it that the fourth circuit, with 378 cases per judge, has the fastest disposition rate of any circuit in America? It is because they are managing their caseload well and because they do not have more judges than are necessary. As Judge Tjoflat testified before our committee, too many judges actually slows down the process and makes good judging more difficult. I think that is a matter that we should address. I would like to note that we have not delayed this matter. We are prepared to have this matter come to a vote. More delays would have been possible if we had wanted simply to delay this process. I feel it is time to vote on this issue. I respect the legal ability of Mr. Garland. He was on the Harvard Law Review. It does not bother me if he was editor in chief of the Harvard Law Review. It would not bother me if he had been editor in chief of the law review at the University of Alabama School of Law. The fact remains that the taxpayers should not be required to pay for a judge we do not need. The taxpayers should not have to pay $1 million per year for a judge that is not needed. Mischief sometimes gets started. I recall the old saying my mother used to use: an idle mind is the devil's workshop. We need judges with full caseloads, with plenty of work to do, important work to do. This circuit is showing a serious decline in caseload. In fact, caseload in this circuit declined 15 percent last year. That decline continues. I think it would be very unwise for us to fill a vacancy if there is any possibility that the caseload will continue to decline. We do not need to fill it now, and we certainly do not need to fill it in the face of this declining caseload, because once it is filled, the judge holds that position for life and the taxpayers are obligated to pay that judge's salary for life. That is an unjust burden on the taxpayers of America. Fundamentally, this is a question of efficiency and productivity. There are courts in this Nation that are overworked, particularly many of the trial courts. We may not have enough money to fill those vacancies. Let us take the money from this Washington, DC circuit court and use it to fund judges and prosecutors and public defenders in circuits and district courts all over America that are overcrowded and are overworked. Those are my comments. We have studied the numbers carefully. We are not here to delay. We are not here in any way to impugn the integrity of Mr. Garland. By all accounts, he is a fine person and an able lawyer. He does have a very good job with the U.S. Department of Justice. We probably need some trial judges here in Washington, DC, and if the President nominated him to be one of those trial judges, I would be pleased to support him for that. That will conclude my remarks at this time. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from Judge Silberman dated March 4, 1997, in which he said that the filling of the 12th seat would be frivolous and in which he noted the continuing decline in caseload. I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from the Director of Governmental Affairs for the Christian Coalition written in opposition to the filling of this vacancy, noting that it is not warranted.