Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I share Senator Conrad's desire that we do more for IDEA. Under President Bush, we have done more than ever. We also need reform of IDEA. If we listen to our teachers, principals, and school people, they will tell us that the Federal laws are driving them crazy, undermining their ability to discipline. We need some reform at the same time we put in some additional money. We have a chance to do that this year. What I want to express my concern about is this manufactured issue about the supplemental and that we cannot proceed with our budget without knowing what the supplemental is going to be. We have a budget law that says we have to have this done by April 15. We cannot sit around here and wait forever. I would just like to remind everybody how we got here. Last fall, in this body and the House--we voted 77 to 23 in this Senate to authorize the President of the United States to use force, if he deemed fit, to protect the security of the United States. After great care and every option being pursued, the President has concluded that we should use force. I am not aware that a single one of those 77 Senators wishes to change their vote. I also note that at that time the Democrats controlled this body. And at that time, while we voted to authorize the President to act, we debated the cost. We talked about the cost a great deal. People had all kinds of ideas about the cost. And when we voted to authorize him to act, we knew there would be a cost. We also knew our budget was not in balance and the effect of the war would be to exacerbate the debt that we had. Nobody had any doubt about that. Nobody has any doubt about that today. In the Armed Services Committee, of which I am a member, we voted to proceed with an authorization bill. We will have an authorization bill that sets our spending criteria for next year, with a limit that we pass here. We are going to have a nice increase in the baseline for defense next year, with far greater increases than ever occurred under President Clinton and the Democratic leadership here. Suggesting we are not doing enough for defense--we are having a nice, solid, significant increase. I wish it could be more. In our circumstances, it is the best we can do. So we know we are going to fund the budget. We are going to fund this war. And we know how we are going to do it; and that is, by a supplemental. Now, for example, Turkey is still waffling around, to some degree, about whether or not we can come through there in pursuing this war. There are a lot of uncertainties out there. It is not fair to expect that the President can walk in here today and give us an accurate total about how much this war is going to cost. We certainly ought not to fail to meet our April 15 deadline of passing a budget based on that objection. We are going to fund this war, and we should fund this war completely. We are going to do it by a supplemental. Everybody knows it. It is nothing more than a delaying tactic for them to claim that we should not proceed with the budget until the supplemental is done. In fact, who knows, we could have a supplemental even after the war is over, but we probably need it sooner so we can make sure our funding stream continues apace. Historically, we have never budgeted the cost of a war. The Congressional Research Service has done a report. They report: Presidents have not requested and Congress has not approved funding for wars in advance of the start of operations. Rather, administrations have requested funding after the operations have begun, and Congress has subsequently appropriated money to meet the specific documented budgetary requirements. It goes on to say: Congress has provided the executive branch with considerable flexibility in financing military operations in advance of specific congressional action on appropriations. So this is just an excuse. This is just a political gimmick that we know is going on. We know this supplemental is going to be significant. We have known that from the very beginning. I don't believe we ought to be deterred from completing our statutorily required duty, and that is to produce a budget waiting on this issue. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I notice the two leaders are here. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I rise today to honor Dr. George V. Irons, Sr.'s induction into the Alabama Men's Hall of Fame. Dr. Irons was Distinguished Professor of History and Political Science at Samford University for 43 years and a prominent civic leader. As a professor, he taught 17 students who became university presidents--a record in American education. Dr. Irons was also one of Alabama's true athletic greats--the only University of Alabama track field athlete ever inducted into the prestigious Alabama Sports Hall of Fame. He is also the only person inducted by both Alabama Sports Hall of Fame and the Alabama Men's Hall of Fame. While a student at the University of Alabama, he was spotted by Coach Hank Crisp running across the campus because he was late to class. Coach Crisp promptly put him on the track team where he set a collegiate record the first time he pulled on a Crimson Tide uniform. Remarkably, his records still stand today. Before the days of the million-dollar band at major football games, halftime entertainment consisted of a sport called road racing. After laps in the stadium runners would speed over a hill-and-dale course, about 4 miles, finishing as the halftime show. In this realm, his feats have been heralded by as the greatest of his era. The Men's Hall of Fame was created by the Alabama Legislature in 1987 to honor posthumously those men who in their chosen professions have made national and international impact for the betterment of humanity. Past inductees include some of America's most distinguished leaders: Warner Von Braun, famed scientist who developed rockets which propelled American astronauts to the Moon; George Washington Carver, botanist who mutated plants to create vital food sources throughout the South; and James A. ``Brother'' Bryan, who gave sacrificially to fellow Alabamians during some of the severest economic times. Its most recent inductee, Dr. Irons, joined the Howard College (now Samford University) staff in 1933, the depth of the Great Depression. On his first day the College President asked him to report to the bank to try to stop mortgage foreclosure on the school. At this time, the school owed over a half million dollars. Dr. Irons' personality and persuasion on behalf of the college won the day, saving the school from foreclosure. During difficult economic times, he often taught for the salary of an IOU and in his spare time he coached the college track team and fired the dorm furnace. In 1962 he received Freedom Foundation's George Washington Medal of Honor for his speech: ``Freedom, America's Weapon of Might.'' It was broadcast worldwide on the U.S. Armed Forces Network. He was the first Alabamians to win this award. He also distinguished himself through military service in World War II and was a respected leader in civic, social, and professional organizations. Dr. Irons was elected to the Alabama Men's Hall of Fame as the representative of the entire 20th Century. J.L.M. Curry, former Congresswoman and ambassador whose statue as one of Alabama's two representatives in the Capitol's Statuary Hall collection, was elected for the nineteenth century. It is good this revered Hall of Fame honors those heroes who celebrate the best of our past. I am hopeful that Dr. Irons' life as an athlete, university educator, military serviceman, and community leader will continue to serve as an inspiration for future generations.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. We voted to eliminate the death tax once before. It is time to complete the job. I support the amendment.

Mr. SESSIONS. That would be sufficient.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I send a modification to the desk on behalf of Senator Kyl, which he failed to file earlier.

Mr. SESSIONS. My understanding is that it has been agreed to previously.

Mr. SESSIONS. I withdraw that request at this time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, there is a death tax. I had in my office 2 days ago Professor Harold Apolinsky, from the University of Alabama. He is indeed a brilliant professor. He has dedicated his life to the elimination of the death tax. He says it is an immoral tax. He feels so strongly about it that he has given an incredible amount of his time and effort and resources into seeking its elimination. I recall just how much of an impact it can have. A lady I know told me the story of her grandfather. President Reagan had been in office in 1981, and they passed an amendment that changed the death tax a little bit. Do you know what it was then when they changed it? The rate was 70 percent on estates over $175,000. Four Members in this body voted to keep it at that rate. They reduced it to 55 percent. Big deal. They were home for Christmas and the family was gathered. He had cancer and he was dying, fading fast. She told the story that every morning he asked what day it was. He died at 10 a.m. on January 1, the day the law took effect--his last great act for his family to protect a little bit more of the farm that he had built up over all those years. I believe we are in agreement on the modification now; is that correct?

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I reoffer the modification on behalf of Senator Kyl. I think maybe we have an understanding now.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, this is a big deal in real life. We are talking about taking half of somebody's accumulated estate. That is a lot. It does happen when people die, and there are professionals out there who do this business, and they try to manipulate and avoid and delay, and sometimes they are successful, sometimes they are not. I want to talk about it in a little bit different vein tonight. I want to talk about what I think is a major problem in America. I know Senator Conrad is concerned about it. It is a collapse of smaller businesses and a trend toward larger and larger consolidation of business. I know an individual in Alabama--I met him at a town hall meeting. He and his father spoke to me. They told me they are paying $5,000 a month for life insurance on their father's life. They own three motels. They would like to expand motels. That $5,000 a month would probably help them buy a fourth motel. But they have to pay it for no other reason than if something happens to their father, they would have to pay an estate tax, and it would come out of their small business and they would lose it. Remember, this little chain of three motels is competing against Ramada, Holiday Inn, Marriott, and they are getting savaged every generation by a 50-percent tax on what the value of that family's estate is. That tax is not paid by the broadly held corporations, the international corporations. They never pay this tax. Think about it. It is a tax that falls on small businesses and individuals. It does not fall on big businesses. I know an individual who owns several thousand acres of land. He is very fortunate and very generous with ball teams and schools and charitable organizations and is a wonderful person. Some might say he is wealthy. But the big paper companies own millions of acres of land. They don't ever pay a death tax. He is competing, really, with them. I know International Paper owns 2 million acres of land. They are never impacted by the death tax. Ask yourself, why is it that banks in towns all over America are closing? In Mobile, AL, we had four local banks. They are all gone today. One or two came back, but all of them were sold out to the big ones. Why? Because the people who owned them got up in years and they were facing a confiscatory tax on what they had accumulated. They didn't have the cash to pay it. Everything they owned was in the bank, the business they built up. They had to get out and get liquid and create a situation in which they could avoid some taxes, perhaps, and have the cash to pay the tax because if they had to sell off the business all at once to pay the tax, it would collapse. I am saying, with absolute confidence, this death tax is a driving force behind the collapse of small businesses. Think about funeral homes. I know the occupant of the chair, who is from Tennessee, knows that the people running those funeral homes are usually good business people. As the population grew and more people came to the end of their life, they have done well in their business, but they are then facing the death tax. Maybe they have stock or bought some property, and they may have a home that has appreciated in value. All of a sudden they are looking at a big hit. Now funeral homes are being brought up by chains--broadly held corporations now have these funeral homes. They will never pay the death tax. It will never impact them. How do you with a $3 million company compete with Holiday Inn? We want to encourage $50 million companies, $100 million companies, and $200 million companies to compete against billion-dollar companies. We are chopping them off. A vision I have is that you go out in the woods and there is a little pine tree trying to grow and compete with the taller trees. But just as it breaks in and gets sunlight, somebody comes in and chops the top off and takes half of it. It will never be able to compete. We are putting them at a disadvantage. It cannot be overcome. I believe it is unhealthy. If we care about small business, about encouraging innovation and competition and growth in America, we need to think about this. So I think there are a lot of reasons we ought to consider the elimination of this tax. It is certainly an unfair tax. People have paid their taxes, and then at the time of their death, they are taxed again in a way that savages the ability of a business to remain competitive. I note that the taxes are only a percent or two of the income to this Government. It is not critical to our revenue.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I have 7 minutes following the Senator from California. Is that consistent with the way the manager of the bill has been operating the floor? If not, I will withhold.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Alaska for his tremendous leadership on this issue. It is a very important issue to America. I salute the Presiding Officer for her leadership on it. It is so important. There is no doubt about it; any activity in this area would have minimal environmental impact. This is going to be the most closely watched drilling ever to occur in the world, I suppose. It will be environmentally sound in every possible way, using the newest technology, as Senator Domenici said. It will be on land where you can control things better. It will be a minute footprint in these millions of acres of land. It is going to be carefully done. While we are talking about safely drilling in Alaska, today no one I know of is seriously opposing drilling in the Caspian Sea. No one is opposing the drilling that goes on in Venezuela. We are drilling off the coast of Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi, and in the Gulf of Mexico right now, producing oil and gas in a much more high-risk environment than this would ever be. So this is an unbelievable argument to me. It goes against all logic. This is a minute environmental impact, I suggest. But it represents, without doubt in my mind, the greatest economic growth potential of anything in the President's package or anything we are dealing with on the floor right now. This is an important growth issue for America. The reason is, we are talking about new wealth to America. Every day, if we do not buy the oil that comes from this region, we will be sending our money to Venezuela and Saudi Arabia and Iraq and whatever other OPEC nation we would be sending it to--a direct sucking sound of American wealth going to foreign nations. We have had various studies. One said 735,000 jobs would be produced. Another one has come in at 575,000 jobs that would be created. I want to make one point. These are going to be critical jobs, high- paying jobs in drilling--environmental engineers, pump manufacturing, shipping, transportation, rail, airlines are going to be active, steelworkers, teamsters, and that kind of thing, high-paying jobs. Money will be paid to them out of the money that we would have otherwise sent outside of this country for foreign oil that would not have been paid to American workers. High paid salaries to American workers--it will be missed by us. So I would say this is big. I will just briefly make this point. How big is it? If we had 575,000 jobs, and they are making higher wages, if they are a spouse who is working, they may be paying more than the figure I would float out, but I suggest these jobs will result in IRS payments to Uncle Sam, Uncle Sugar, of probably $10,000 per job. You add that up, 575,000 jobs at $10,000 to the tax man of the United States, that turns out to $5.75 billion a year to the Treasury of the United States. Over 10 years that is almost $50 billion. Are we going to pay this to the ``stans,'' to Russia, Venezuela, Mexico, Iraq, Kuwait, those countries? That is who is getting it now and will be getting it in the future. It is really a tremendous amount. This does not count the royalties that will be paid by the drilling companies to the United States. They will be paying $10 to $20 billion over the life of this activity. We have also not forgotten, I hope, that the drilling here, under the legislation as proposed, will result in the payment of $2.5 billion to the Land and Water Conservation Fund for conservation programs in America. I have absolutely no doubt--I know the Presiding Officer shares this--that $2.5 billion will do more environmental good throughout the entire United States than this 2,500-acre footprint of drilling would cause damage in this vast ANWR region of Alaska. I really believe this is a tremendously important economic issue for America. It is jobs, jobs, jobs. Those of us who are wrestling with a budget in this country that shows declining revenues, it will guarantee increased tax revenues to the United States. We must not allow exaggerated fears to pull us back from this important issue. It is great to be with the Senator from Alaska, and know he knows this issue so well. I appreciate his leadership. Yes, it is good for Alaska, but it is good for America. We thank you.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the Senator is speaking so well on these issues as an accountant. I think he is the only accountant in the Senate, and a small businessman himself. I would like to ask this question on the double taxation. I have heard economists and others, like Larry Kudlow, for example, say that big corporations are withholding earnings. They are not paying them out in the form of dividends because they are taxed. And they are retaining those earnings. Then they are using those earnings, when they don't know what to do with them, basically, to buy up small competitive corporations. Does the Senator think, based on his experience in business, that could be one factor in the consolidation of big businesses more and more in America? And is that unhealthy for the country?

Mr. SESSIONS. Just to follow up, is it the view of the Senator that by eliminating the double taxation on dividends, this would encourage businesses to distribute dividends to shareholders and not hoard it and end up purchasing and consolidating their business interests, expanding it by purchase of competitive smaller businesses?

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Chair for giving me an opportunity to speak on this important budget issue, and I thank Senator Nickles for yielding me time. Mr. President, I congratulate Senator Nickles and express my admiration for him, quite sincerely, for the superb job he has done as chairman of the Budget Committee. It is a very important committee in this Congress. He has handled it with great skill. He knows, and we all know, that this year we need a budget. Last year we did not pass a budget. Last year we did not pass 11 out of the 13 appropriations bills during the tenure of the Democratic leadership, and we were left to commence this year with the very difficult problem of funding the Federal Government by passing in an omnibus bill 11 appropriations bills that should have been passed last year before October 1 when the fiscal year began. We were operating on a continuing resolution and operating in a way that made no sense if anybody studied it. If the American people had known how poorly we had operated last year, they would have perhaps been even more upset than they have been with us. This year, we have a Budget Act and we passed it out of committee. We have it before the Senate. If we continue our timely operation, we will pass it according to the time limits of the Budget Act. We will have a framework for our spending program in the Congress, and only then will we know what our limits are and what we have to spend, what we can do in terms of tax cuts, and how we can stimulate and grow this economy. Those are the issues that I think are important. I note, in response to some of the comments, my good friend Senator Conrad complained that Senator Crapo had not been accurate or described the full picture when he discussed the problems with surpluses this year, the deficit this year, and how it occurred. What Senator Crapo said was absolutely correct. Senator Crapo pointed out that they had predicted a $300 billion-plus surplus this year, and with that prediction hanging out there, spending went up substantially the last couple of years. Now with the economic slowdown and the 9/11 attack, the stock market taking hits, those predictions have not been accurate. He posed a question: Why is there a deficit this year? Why is it being projected for next year? And he explained without dispute, I think, that it was not the 2001 tax cut passed by this Congress and requested by President Bush. It represented only 19 percent of the reduction in revenue. That 51 percent of the reduction in revenue to the Federal Government was a result of the economic slowdown, and 24 percent of the disappearance of our surplus was the direct result of increased spending. The point he was making, and that is so important for us to know, was that economic growth is the way we are going to get out of deficit. It is not counting numbers. It is what we can do to strengthen the American economy, to get people working again. There are some good aspects in the President's package for growth, but one of them is ANWR. I flatly dispute the argument that if we could bring on the oil production out of Alaska, that the Alaskans want us to produce, that would not positively impact our economy. As a matter of fact, the National Group of Unions has come before Congress and urged us, pleaded with us, to pass ANWR. Their estimates are that it would create 600,000 jobs. That is jobs in the United States of America. When we buy oil from other countries such as Venezuela and Saudi Arabia, who gets the jobs? People in those countries get the jobs. They pay taxes to their countries on the income they make. If we had Americans working on this pipeline and steel mills build the pipe and do all that would be a part of this tremendous endeavor economically, they would be paying taxes to the United States of America. When we buy oil from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Venezuela, and places such as that, it is a transfer of our wealth to those countries. We want to keep as much of that wealth home as possible. Does anyone think the environment is important in Venezuela? I do not think they would. I submit that with the technology, and control by the Environmental Protection Agency, and the watching by the environmentalist groups, there is no doubt in my mind we will produce oil cleaner in the ANWR region than we would in any of these other countries. So I believe that is a red herring, and it is a tremendous economic potential for us to work on that. So growth is important. I also would point out to my friend, Senator Conrad, there is no dynamic scoring whatsoever in his numbers. They do not suggest there is any growth in the economy that comes from allowing people to have revenue and be able to keep money in their own pocket. It does create an economic growth situation. That is unaffected, and it even becomes more significant as the years go by in the outyears. Our friends across the aisle are proposing some sort of growth package, but it is very anemic, $300 or $350 per person. That is no answer at all. What we want to do is get our country back on steady growth progress. If we can do that on a healthy level so that we are leading the world, as we have and really as we do today in terms of a large economy that is growing, I think we can make progress that will begin to erase these deficits and we will not do it by taxing American people more. We have heard Senator Kennedy complain with gloom and doom that everything is going so horribly bad, this war is going to put us in bankruptcy, and the American economy is going to fail. Oddly, on the announcement that hostilities may be nearby, the stock market has been surging today. I do not think we should be so gloomy. I think we ought to see the possibilities for the future. I say this about funding this war: We voted last October, and we had a full debate by all the Members of this body. Senator Kennedy, I guess to his credit, from his point of view--and he is consistent--opposed the war. But overwhelmingly, we voted to support it, 77 to 23. We talked about the costs at that time. Everybody knew it was going to cost, and everybody knew it would be paid for by a supplemental because it is not a part of the normal defense budget. We made a commitment to our troops. We have a quarter of a million troops in the Iraq region, and they are prepared to put their lives at stake for us. I do not think there ought to be the slightest suggestion in any way that we are not going to honor that commitment. When we committed to put our troops there, we committed to pay the cost of it. I, for one, believe we ought to keep it low. I believe we ought to get our troops out when the war is successfully completed, if it goes to a conflict, as soon as we possibly can. I think we ought to do everything we can to strengthen Iraq. But I do not believe this Nation should permanently attach itself in a military way to Iraq, for a whole lot of reasons, and I do not think it is going to happen. I do not believe the Secretary of Defense believes that. I do not think the President does. Some of these figures that are being floated around have been exaggerated. So we voted. We are going to back him. As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I point out that on February 27 of this year, in a letter signed by our chairman, Senator John Warner, and the ranking Democratic member, Carl Levin, they suggested clearly that we would fund the costs of a war by a supplemental. In the letter they wrote on February 27, it says: The administration is expected to request a supplemental appropriations for these concurrent and future military operations. We urge our colleagues' consideration for any such request. We must show strong support of our troops in the field. Signed, Carl Levin and John Warner. Now, that is what we have been doing all along, and everybody knows it. I know the Democratic leader, Senator Daschle, has been promoting the idea--was quoted in the paper, and it came up at the Budget Committee; now it has come up on the floor--that they would start carping about the fact that we cannot have a budget until the President sets forth in detail exactly what money is going to be spent on this conflict, a conflict that has not even occurred yet. He should not be expected to do that. We had the Congressional Research Service to check on budgeting for wars in the past, and they stated this, if it makes any difference to anybody: Presidents have not requested and Congress has not provided funding for wars in advance of the start of operations. Rather, administrations have requested funding after operations have begun and Congress has subsequently appropriated money to meet specific documented budgetary requirements. Further: Congress has provided the executive branch with considerable flexibility in financing military operations in advance of specific congressional action on appropriations. Of course, that is the way it has been historically because that is the way it is. We cannot predict how these things are going to go with certainty. I believe that is a red herring and an improper thing to be saying now, to suggest that we may not be willing to fund this effort. We are going to keep the cost as low as possible. But this Congress, through its vote last fall, when Democrats were in the majority, authorized the President to act if he needed to and we would pay for it. I will make a couple of points in general about where we are with the budget and what we can do about it. The economy has been sinking. In fact, as I recall, during the last month of President Clinton's tenure in office, the economy was in negative growth. The President inherited an economy that began to stall. It began to make some progress, and then there was 9/11, and the economy has not moved. We do not need to get into recriminations or blame. The question is, What do we do now to grow this country, get our economy moving? That is the question we ought to deal with. When there is a robust economy, unemployment falls. This allows American workers choices on jobs. Certainly some workers will be able to find a job and other workers will have choices and can pick a better job. Growth helps employment. It provides more overtime to workers and it provides more revenue for the Government. That ought to make our big government friends happy. The more people work, the more they make overtime, the more they pay taxes, and the more we can spend it in Congress. We clearly are at a point where we need to strengthen economic growth. Americans believe and the characteristics we display as a Nation are to focus on growth in the private sector. Innovation occurs there; investment occurs there; jobs are created there. That is how we make progress as a nation. That is why we remain strong economically. We are not where we want to be. I saw recently unemployment in Germany was at 13 percent. The French economy is in trouble. The Japanese economy has been in trouble for a long time. Consistently, our economy has been stronger than the other industrialized nations in the world. We have done it because we have believed in the private sector. We learned through the big government years, it does not work. Tax and tax and spend and spend does not create jobs. We remember President Clinton made that dramatic announcement, the era of big government is over. It represented the collection of intellect and economic offense of tax-and-spend government. It was a big deal when he said that. It was an important change in our psychology. I suggest we ought not go back to tax and spend. We need to watch what we do. We need to contain the growth in spending. We have another growth plan this year. We need not follow that European model that has stilted their economy. It is the time of less taxes, less regulations, and a greater commitment to the free market has allowed us to be a vibrant and strong economy and allowed us to have money to spend on a military, have money to spend on incredible amounts for our research and health care, to be able to help the fight for AIDS around the world, because we have a strong economy. We need to defend and cherish that aggressively. There are a number of components of this tax package. I don't know who my colleagues refer to as the rich, but let's talk about some of the people who are going to benefit from eliminating the marriage penalty, reducing tax rates for all groups, accelerating and enhancing the tax credit individuals get for children, enhancing the child tax credit, and eliminating double taxation on dividends. The President has proposed moving forward the cuts in the marginal tax rates. Those are the rates paid, depending on your income level, with lower rates made retroactive to January 1 of this year, which will give a stimulus to the economy. What does that mean? Tax brackets in excess of the 15 percent rate, already slated to decrease in 2004 and in 2006 based on the existing law, will be made effective immediately. In other words, we are phasing in tax cuts and the reduction of that 15 percent rate at 10 percent and making that happen by 2006. The President said let's make that effective immediately. These are working Americans, lower-income working Americans. Currently, the tax brackets in this range are 27 percent, 30 percent, 35 percent, and 38.6 percent at the top. The President's proposal will immediately reduce each of these tax brackets to 25, 28, 33, and 35 percent. At their lowest levels, these benefit married couples with taxable income of $47,000 and up, and single taxpayers with taxable incomes of $28,000 and up. Who would benefit from the change? The Treasury Department estimated 28 million taxpayers would receive an average tax reduction of $1,100. That is almost $100 per month this Government will not be extracting from hard-working American citizens. They will be allowed to keep that money. There is no tax on this. Remember, there is no withholding on this reduction in tax. It is right off what you would be paying the Federal Government. A taxpayer who gets a $90 a month benefit receives a benefit of $90 a month. Second, the plan calls for acceleration of the reduction of the 10 percent bracket expansion that has been scheduled for 2008 and brings it to 2003, this year. That means effective immediately, for married couples, their first $14,000 in taxable income is taxed at only the rate of 10 percent. It does not mean their first $14,000 they earn, but the first $14,000 taxable income after their deductions. That is a 33 percent reduction. Under current law, only the first $12,000 in taxable income is allowed to be received at this preferential rate. Single taxpayers would see their first $7,000 in taxable income immediately fall under the lower rate. Who benefits? The Treasury estimates it would reduce taxes for over 69 million taxpayers. The President is also proposing an accelerated reduction in the marriage penalty. As we have all learned, there is a penalty on marriage in this country. It is the result of a quirk in the Tax Code which assesses additional tax liabilities on couples who choose to marry and file jointly rather than remaining single where they can file separately. The marriage penalty is an unfair and incredibly unpopular part of the Tax Code. In fact, we are in the bizarre position in this country of penalizing that which we would want to encourage--marriage. I know someone who got divorced in January. They said had they been clever and gotten their divorce in December they would have saved $1,800 on their taxes. We had the spectacle of the U.S. Government paying bonuses to people who divorced and penalizing people who marry. It is not good social policy. It is not good tax policy. It is something we ought to eliminate. It is past due to be eliminated. We are working on that. We were going to phase this in by the year 2009, and the President proposes making that effective this year so people get the benefit now. A married couple earning a taxable income of $47,000 or more will be able to claim twice the standard deduction they are currently allowed. Who benefits from this? According to the Treasury Department, 35 million married couples would receive an average tax deduction of $574 from this alone. That is meaningful money for any family. The economic principle is when you tax something, you get less out of it. When you subsidize something, you get more. We have been taxing marriage and subsidizing divorce. That is not good for this country to be doing. Another of the President's proposals is to accelerate the child tax credit, immediately raising this credit to $1,000 in 2003 from its current $600 level. When I got elected to the Senate in 1996, I campaigned on this issue. I talked to young families all over America. They are trying to buy a house. They have to have a car. Maybe both are working. They have to have two cars. They are trying to raise children and meet those expenses. The tax deductions that were significant for children in the 1950s have been totally eroded, and they are getting whacked in taxes. They are trying to raise the next generation of children taking care of us when we are drawing Social Security. I think this is a huge deal. I remember how excited I was when we passed the $500-per-child tax credit in 1997. They said this was cutting taxes too much. It was too much of a tax cut and we could not sustain it. But we continued, ending up later having the huge surplus we had just a couple of years ago. This is a fairness issue. In this country, the people who may be hurting the most when you look at it fairly are young couples, just working, just beginning in their careers. They have not raised up and gotten seniority, been promoted and making higher wages, but they have young children they are trying to take care of, to educate, to buy shoes for, to take to Disney World on occasion if, Lord willing, they have the opportunity. We ought to pass this tax deduction and accelerate it as good public policy. This will also put money in the pockets of families to spend on behalf of their children. It will help the economy when they buy products. Somebody makes those products. Somebody at the store benefits from that. You pay sales taxes on it. The State and local governments benefit from that also. According to the numbers I have, 26 million families would receive an average tax benefit of $623. That is $40-plus or $50 per month as a tax benefit as a result--per child under this plan. We have a plan for small businesses to be able to accelerate their depreciation, their expensing of new investments from $25,000 to $75,000. We want to encourage businesses to expand, to invest. When they do that, they hire people to do the expansion. They buy equipment. They expand their building. They improve their parking lot. They create economic growth. Small businesses, for a lot of reasons, are not being treated fairly in today's business environment. I strongly believe, in the course of passing legislation that would create a budget for us and that would allow for a growth package and would set the spending levels for America, we need to create an atmosphere, not of dependence on government benefits; what we need to do is create an atmosphere that invigorates employment in the private sector, creating jobs, creating choices of jobs for American workers, where they can get raises and leave one business and go to another one for a higher paying job if they want, where they can get bonuses, and where they can have overtime and bring home more money. That is what we need to do, to strengthen our economy. Our goal should be to do that. One of the reasons the Council of Economic Advisers has recently estimated that the President's plan will spur the American economy to create over 2.1 million jobs in the next 3 years is this focus on the private sector. The President is focused on assuring America's continued economic growth. This plan is one large indication of his commitment to promoting job creation. The President's plan also calls for the elimination of double taxation on corporate dividends. Under his plan, dividend income received by individuals would be excluded from their taxable income, if those dividends are paid out of previously taxed corporate earnings. This is a very important provision. Many people in America's investor class understand that when they buy stock and receive dividends, they are paying probably a third or more of that in taxes in addition to the fact that it has been paid previously by the corporation. According to the numbers that have been put together, the United States of America has the second highest tax in the world on corporate earnings, second only to Japan--over 70 percent when you total it up. So this is an unhealthy situation. What is happening for a lot of reasons is the American businesses realize if they distribute--after they make a profit and they pay their 35 percent corporate tax on that--if they distribute it to their stockholders, they have to pay another 35 or so percent on it--or more. So what do we think, and what do the experts think, this reduction would do to help the economy? I think one thing it would do, clearly, is it would make stocks more attractive. It would cause people to have an additional reason to invest in the stock market. Whatever the level the stock market would be, whether it was low or high, by passing this tax it would make it higher than it would be otherwise. I don't guarantee the stock market will go up because it passes, but I guarantee it will be higher than it would otherwise have been. Why? Because when you make the purchase of a stock that produces a dividend, and that dividend comes to you tax free, it is a more attractive investment. That is why people buy tax-free bonds instead of other bonds. So that would be helpful in raising the stock market. It would make it more attractive. I think it important for us to recall that revenue to our Government is volatile. One reason revenue income to our Government is volatile is the stock market. When the market is up and people sell stock, they have to show a capital gain, and they will pay a tax on the sale--20 percent normally. When the market is down and they sell a stock, they do not take a gain, so they do not pay 20 percent tax on that profit; they take a capital loss. If they have some other product they sold--real estate they sold and showed a gain on--they can use the loss in the market to offset that gain. Also, they are allowed, under the Tax Code, to take $3,000 per year and offset that capital loss against their ordinary income, reducing the ordinary income tax they would pay. To me, this is a clear indication that if the stock market is high and doing well, the Government will receive more revenue. That is not factored into any of these projections whatsoever, what impact the dividend tax reduction would have. If the market is up, revenue will be up. It will give businesses more value if their stock goes up, and they will be able to invest more and grow more. With a higher value stock, they can do that. In summary, the dividend tax is an unfair double tax. It is the second highest in the world. The elimination of this tax will help the stock market; it will help the recovery; it will help businesses be able to borrow and invest. It will allow individuals to receive income on which they do not have to pay taxes. They will have more money to spend. Because of the change from taking losses to growth, revenues to the Government will go up. I think it is the right thing to do. Dollar for dollar, it is a good plan. I tell you, there are many good things in the President's proposal. It is something we have to deal with this week. This budget will set the framework for where we are going. It will set the outline for what our spending and our taxing plans will be. I hope we will focus on two things: containing spending, making it at a reasonable level, and growing this economy, because it is only through growth we will be able to return to surpluses and eliminate the deficits that are now occurring. I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. Fifteen to twenty minutes.

Mr. SESSIONS. We passed it as part of a stimulus package before. The bill that has been put forward as the Democrat stimulus plan calls for the elimination of those which would amount to a tax increase over the current law of $16.7 billion in 2004 and $14.8 billion in 2005. I ask the Senator if he believes this kind of very large increase in taxes on small businesses would be wise in a time of economic slowdown?

Mr. SESSIONS. I know the Senator is committed to whatever figure we have to do to fund the effort of our fine men and women in uniform. I was looking at the Democratic proposed stimulus plan, and it is pretty anemic. I ask Senator Conrad if he knew that not only was it basically limited, most of it in just 1, 2, or 3 years, but that in fact in 2004, as a result of eliminating the depreciation provisions that are in existing law, it would amount to a $16.7 billion tax increase on small businesses in 2004 and a $14.8 billion increase in 2005?

Mr. SESSIONS. I understand that. I think the suggestion is our budget process has to stop until that occurs. And I think it is impossible for the President to give us a number now. I believe it does cause some confusion in our unity, which I would not favor. But I want to ask the Senator this.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I am pleased to be able to make some remarks in support of the nomination of Judge William H. Steele to be U.S. district judge for the Southern District of Alabama. He is one of America's finest magistrate judges--a magistrate judge who does a lot of the kind of legal work that goes on in every Federal courthouse in America. Magistrate judges are not title III Federal judges, but they do much the same work day after day that Federal judges do. During his time as a magistrate judge, Judge Steele has had firsthand experience in the work, and he has won the respect of the bench and the bar in southern Alabama. He has been in training now for 12 years for this position. In the Southern District of Alabama the magistrates are used to an extraordinary degree by the Federal judges who allow the magistrates to do as much work as possible. And they frequently preside over civil cases with the consent of the parties involved. I have talked with other lawyers and judges in Alabama. They are very excited about his nomination and look forward to his confirmation. Some people talk about public service, but throughout his life, Bill Steele has done more than just talk. Judge Steele has dedicated the better part of his life to public service and has served both this country and the State of Alabama well. After graduating summa cum laude from the University of Southern Mississippi in 1972, Judge Steele served in the U.S. Marine Corps as an officer, pilot, and instructor pilot. During his service in the Marine Corps, Judge Steele participated in the operation to evacuate American citizens from Lebanon in 1976. He also served in the Alabama National Guard as a pilot and as commanding officer of an assault helicopter company. After serving his country in the Marine Corps, Judge Steele attended the University of Alabama School of Law. After law school, he was employed as an assistant district attorney in Mobile, AL, and worked for 6 years in the office of a Democrat district attorney. I was U.S. attorney during that time. That is where I got to know Bill. Our staff worked closely with the district attorney's office, and they always came back with the most glowing opinions of Bill Steele and his integrity, his judgment, and his fidelity to truth and justice. Later, Judge Steele became chief assistant district attorney in Mobile. I got to know him well during that time and developed great respect for him. I think he tried 100 or more trials as an assistant district attorney. Then, in 1987, given his reputation for excellence, I hired him as an assistant attorney in the U.S. Attorney's Office. I can say without reservation that during his service, while I was a U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of Alabama, Judge Steele did not disappoint. Judge Steele tried a number of cases while he was in the U.S. Attorney's Office, which is the Federal system in which he will now be a district court judge. He held that position for 2 years and then went into private practice and did an excellent job there. He was instrumental as a private practitioner and chief assistant district attorney, in the establishment of the Child Advocacy Center, an agency devoted to identifying and providing assistance to child victims of physical and sexual violence. In 1990, the Federal court in the Southern District of Alabama commenced its search process for a U.S. magistrate. They usually have 60 or more applications. It is a very competitive process. The judges want the very finest lawyer--someone who would make a superb judge because the better work that magistrate does, the more relief the Federal district judges get. After all that competition, he won and was hired. For 13 years now he has served as a magistrate judge. He has done so many different cases. Bill Steele is one of Alabama's most outstanding magistrate judges, and I am confident that he will be an even better district court judge. I have followed Judge Steele's career since the time I worked with him at the U.S. Attorneys Office in the Southern district of Alabama, so I know from firsthand experience what kind of individual Judge Steele is. This statement will not do him justice. He is a nominee of the highest order, and it is an understatement when I say that I am pleased that President Bush has chosen to nominate Magistrate Judge William H. Steele for elevation to the Southern District of Alabama. As a magistrate judge, Judge Steele has been training for a district court position for the last 12 years, and because the Southern District of Alabama utilizes magistrate judges to a greater extent than most other districts, he will be able to hit the ground running in his new position. I have had conversations with the other judges in the Southern district and I know that they are as excited about Judge Steele's nomination as I am, so I am glad that we can move forward with his confirmation. Some people talk about public service, but throughout his life, Judge Steele has done more than just talk. Judge Steele has dedicated the better part of his life to public service and has served both this country and the great state of Alabama well. After graduating summa cum laude, from the University of Southern Mississippi in 1972, Judge Steele served in the United States Marine Corps as on officer, pilot, and instructor pilot. During his service in the Marine Corps, Judge Steele participated in the operation to evacuate American citizens from Lebanon in 1976. Judge Steele also served in the Alabama National Guard as a pilot and as the commanding officer of an assault helicopter company. After serving his country in the Marine Corps, Judge Steele attended the University of Alabama School of Law, graduating in 1980. After law school, Judge Steele was employed as an Assistant District Attorney in Mobile, Alabama, and worked for six years for a democrat District Attorney. At the District Attorney's Office, Judge Steele distinguished himself as an outstanding advocate, litigating close to, if not more, than 100 jury trials. In recognition of his legal skills and leadership qualities in the District Attorney's Office, Judge Steele was appointed as Chief Assistant District Attorney in 1985. As the Chief Assistant, Judge Steele was instrumental in establishing, the Child Advocacy Center, an agency devoted to identifying and providing assistance to, child victims of physical and sexual violence. In 1987, given his reputation in the community for excellent legal abilities and personal skills, I was proud to hire Judge Steele as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of Alabama. I can say without reservation, that during his service, while I was the U.S. Attorney in that office, Judge Steele did not disappoint. I found him to be a first-rate lawyer who set the standard for integrity by treating all parties with respect. In 1990, Judge Steele was appointed to the position, which he currently holds, as a United States Magistrate Judge. He has served in this position with distintion, handling a full array of criminal and civil matters in federal court. The Southern District of Alabama has a heavy caseload, and the judges there depend on magistrate judges to go beyond preliminary criminal matters and social security cases. The magistrate judges in the Southern District are in rotation to receive 25 percent of the civil docket, where the parties consent. So Judge Steele has been doing the job of a district judge, including presiding over civil jury trials in many instances. It is my understanding, from talking to lawyers who practice in the Southern District, that Judge Steele has managed his docket well and the numbers show it. This is simply an outstanding nominee. Judge Steele has not only been a leader in the workforce, but has been a leader and a active participant in his community as well, serving on the board of the Child Advocacy Center that he helped establish. And for the record, Judge Steele does not shy away from the arts. Judge Steele often volunteers his time to support First Night Mobile, a family-oriented, New Year's Eve, alcohol-free celebration of the arts, and he regularly performs with the Mobile Symphonic Pops as a saxophone player. I acknowledge, that all of these accolades would be futile, if Judge Steele had not demonstrated commitment to the rule of law and to the Constitution, during his service as a magistrate judge. In my view, this is the first and foremost requirement for a federal judge. This is what our democracy hinges upon, and I know that Judge Steele is committed to that requirement. Judge Steele has a reputation for being eminently fair and impartial throughout the bar association. And having worked with him personally, I know that he is an individual with unquestioned integrity and the utmost character. I will just say this: when it comes to serving with the distinction, it is the lawyers in the community who know a judge the best. Here is what Fred Gray, former counsel to the late Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., had to say about Judge Steele in a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee supporting his confirmation: I have practiced law in the State of Alabama and before all the federal district courts . . . I realize that it is important that all the judges who serve on the courts . . . are one[s] who possess the necessary personal characteristics, experience, practical knowledge, legal skills and professional background, so they will administer justice in a fair and impartial manner. I have discussed [Judge Steele's] qualifications generally and specifically with reference to intelligence, honesty, morality, integrity, maturity, stability, demeanor and temperament with members of the bar who know him and have practiced before him and other judges who sit on some of the courts in Mobile. Based upon their representations to me, Judge Steele possess all the necessary qualities for a [federal judgeship]. I have had the opportunity to meet with Judge Steele personally . . . I believe he will be fair to all litigants who appear before him . . . regardless of color or national origin or the type of litigation. I believe he will administer justice tempered with mercy. I do not believe that you could receive a better endorsement than this one. The lawyers and individuals who know Judge Steele best, because they have worked with him and practiced in front of him, have all voiced support. Since his nomination has been pending, Judge Steele has been endorsed by a number of individuals including the current President and 16 former presidents of the Mobile Bar Association, several former president of the Birmingham Bar, and several former presidents of the Alabama Bar Association. The Vernon Z. Crawford Bay Area--African-American--Bar Association of Mobile, AL gave its unanimous endorsement: The . . . Association strongly recommends Magistrate Bill Steele for this position because he recognizes and is sensitive to the issues facing African American lawyers and the African American community. . . . We give Magistrate Steele our highest recommendation. Major General Gary Cooper, USMC--Ret., former Ambassador to Jamaica, president of a Commonwealth National Bank in Mobile, AL, and an African American: As an African American citizen of Mobile and as a retired Marine, I appreciate what William Steele has done for his community as a county and federal prosecutor and federal magistrate, and what he has done for his country as a Marine helicopter pilot. His record indicates that he will make a fine . . . Judge. Joy Williams, former law clerk to Magistrate Judge Steele and an African American: [W]hile I was the only person of color clerking on the court at the time, I truly felt comfortable and accepted from the moment I interviewed with Judge Steele. He has never given me a reason to question the sincerity of his support of me and my endeavors both professionally and personally. Merceria Ludgood, Assistant County Attorney for Mobile County, former Director of Program Services for Legal Services Corporation in Washington, D.C., and former Executive Director of Legal Services Corporation of Alabama: Magistrate Judge Steele is one of the finest men I have ever known. Never once have I believed his actions to be motivated by politics or ambition. He simply wants to do the right thing for the right reasons. Robert D. Segall, attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union in the case opposing the display of the Ten Commandments in an Alabama courtroom: Judge Steele is an outstanding selection, is very highly qualified, and I respectfully urge his prompt confirmation. Carlos A. William, Southern District of Alabama Federal Defenders Organization: During the years I have practiced in [Judge Steele's] court, I have come to know a jurist of integrity, professionalism and compassion, and I have grown to respect his judgement. . . . [I] note that every lawyer in my office, Kristen Gartman Rogers, K. Lyn Hillman Campbell and Christopher Knight, in unsolicited comments, have expressed their support for Magistrate Steele's nomination. It is therefore without hesitation that I send this letter in support of Magistrate William Steele's nomination. Larry C. Moorer, long time practitioner in Mobile, Alabama and an African American: Over the years, I have handled several legal matters before Magistrate Judge Steele . . . He has shown over the years that he is fair and impartial, and will rule according to the law regardless of public opinion or possibly his own personal feelings. . . . Magistrate Judge Steele provides a level playing field . . . [and] he possesses the attributes for being an outstanding appellate judge. Larry Sims, President of the Mobile Bar Association and 16 former presidents. Numerous officers and members of the Women of the Mobile Bar Association. Hodge Alves, President of the Mobile Chapter of the Federal Bar Association. Several former presidents of the Montgomery Bar Association. Bruce Rogers, incoming president of the Birmingham Bar Association, and a number of former presidents. Warren Lightfoot, former president of the Alabama Bar Association, and managing partner of one of the most respected litigation firms in Birmingham, AL. Jim North, a prominent Democrat in Birmingham, former clerk for Justice Hugo Black, and former President of the Alabama Bar Association. Rosemary Chambers, Circuit Judge of Mobile County. Chris Galanos, a Democrat and former District Attorney of Mobile County who employed Steele as a prosecutor for several years. Alex Bunin, Federal Public Defender, Districts of Northern New York and Vermont. Greg Breedlove, on behalf of the unanimous firm of Cunningham, Bounds, Yance, Crowder and Brown, L.L.C. in Mobile, Alabama--prominent Democratic, plaintiffs' firm. John Morrow, former president of the Birmingham Bar Association and long-time practicing attorney with one of the largest firm's in Birmingham, AL. Ed Allen, 38-year practitioner with one of the largest firms in Birmingham, Alabama, and former member of the Executive Committee of the Birmingham Bar Association, and the Labor and Employment sections of the American Bar Association and the Alabama Bar Association. Henry Brewster, Mobile, AL, Democrat plaintiff's lawyer whose practice focuses on employment discrimination cases. Jerry McDowell, long-time practitioner from Mobile, AL. This support, in my view, confirms that President Bush made the right decision in nominating Judge Steele. Judge Steele has the professional qualifications, integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament to serve on the federal bench in the Southern District of Alabama. The ABA has acknowledged such, rating him unanimously qualified. As a magistrate judge in the Southern District of Alabama, he is practically already doing the job. Judge Steele will make an excellent addition to the federal bench, and deserves to be confirmed by this Senate. I look forward to supporting Judge Steele and to casting my vote in favor of his confirmation. I urge my colleagues to support Judge Steele. I yield the floor. I want to say I don't know that I have met a finer individual, a more dedicated patriot than Judge Bill Steele. He is someone I admire and someone who is admired by people I admire. People who have good judgment of character think he is first rate. The Bar Association in the Southern District of Alabama has unanimously told me time and again how much they appreciate him and how well they think he will do as a Federal judge. And I am very pleased for him. He has received support from a large number of different sources. Of course, the established bar in the Southern District of Alabama speaks very highly of him. You ask what about others? What do they say about him? The President of the Alabama Bar Association for the State is Mr. Fred Gray. He was former counsel for the late Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and has tried some of the most historic cases in the history of the United States. He was involved in New York Times v. Sullivan and Chameleon v. Light Foot and was the attorney on the Rosa Parks bus boycott case. He worked directly with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., at that time. He has written an excellent book describing the bus ride to justice. He writes to me his strong support for Judge Steele. He realizes he said it is important that all judges who serve on the courts possess the necessary personal character, experience, knowledge, legal skills, and professional background so they will administer justice in a fair and impartial way. He went on to explain his meeting with Judge Steele--his knowledge of him, and his support for him. Group after group has written on Judge Steele's behalf. I believe this Senate will make a wise decision if Judge Steele is confirmed. I have absolutely no doubt that this fine nominee will serve with distinction. He will serve and treat every party before the court with courtesy. He will control his court with firmness but fairness. He will demonstrate integrity. And, most of all, every day that he goes to work, Bill Steele will sit there and try to do what he can to produce justice. I am delighted he has been able to move through the process. I thank my colleagues in the Senate for their help. I saw Senator Leahy earlier. I congratulated him and thanked him for allowing this nomination to move forward. I thank Senator Hatch for his determination to move nominees, who are qualified, forward to confirmation. As I said, I am confident in Judge Bill Steele. The courts of the United States will have a superstar who will do a superb job.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 3:45 all time be yielded and the Senate proceed to the first vote, which is on the confirmation of Mr. Bybee.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to an outstanding citizen of the great state of Alabama, William C. Chandler. For over 50 years, Mr. Chandler's mission has been to help the youth and community around him. His work and endeavors have improved the lives of so many disadvantaged children and greatly enriched the Montgomery community. The foundation of good will he has laid will undoubtedly continue to help countless more as he settles into retirement. His career began in 1945 when he received his Naval ROTC Officer commission and served 16 months in the Pacific theater. Upon returning, he finished two degrees, taught mathematics and became assistant director at the Young Men's Christian Association, YMCA, in Athens, GA. Two years later, in 1956, he moved to Alabama where he spent the next 54 years working hard to help the children and families of Montgomery, starting as the Boy's Work Secretary and as a Junior Lion's Camp Director. When he got to Montgomery, the YMCA program was very small and in need of financial support. Though the program was small and not well supported, Mr. Chandler had a larger and more significant vision for the Montgomery YMCA. He spearheaded their Capital Campaign and raised over $1 million, a truly impressive amount considering it was the 1950s. With this money, two more local YMCA facilities were introduced, with even more being built in the 1960s and 70s. Today these facilities serve over 65,000 people each year in seven local counties. Though Mr. ``YMCA,'' as he is popularly called, centered most of his time and efforts around the YMCA, he also founded many other types of programs to help young women and local families. Included in these are the Alabama Youth in Legislature Program, which gives high school students a hands-on experience with the government. He also started the Hi-Y and Tri-Y programs, which are social and service organizations for high school aged men and women. He also began the Moral Education Program for young men and women; created the Jimmy Hitchcock Award, honoring outstanding high school Christian youth; launched the Montgomery Lions International Youth Camp; and, started the Youth to Europe Program. He also established the After School Child Care Program, currently serving more than 3,000 children, began the ``Success by Six'' Program, which teaches young children how to lead good lives by the time they're six, as well as the ``Gift of Life'' Program, helping mothers and their children in need of help. In addition, to the great many programs he established, Mr. Chandler served in several significant and distinguished roles throughout his career. Beginning in 1953, he became General Director of the Montgomery YMCA, which he served in until May, 2002. In the 1960s, he served as the Chairman of the Helen Keller Memorial Project of the Montgomery Lions Club and then became their chapter president 1965. He also held a large leadership role in the YMCA Youth Conference on National Affairs, and became Lions Club International President in 1980, during which he visited 42 countries meeting with many dignitaries, including Pope John Paul II. For his great work, Bill has been awarded many honors, including 18 International President's Awards, the Melvin Jones Extension Award, the Key Member Award and the District Governor's Extension Award. He is a Melvin Jones Fellow, and a recipient of the Ambassador of Goodwill Award, the highest honor a Lion can receive from the association. He is also the recipient of three very prestigious awards, including the Montgomery Advertiser's ``Citizen of the Year'' award, the Alabama Journal's ``Citizen of the Year'' award in 1991, and he was named Montgomery's ``Man of the Year'' in 2001. Mr. Chandler's many good deeds can never be counted because his charitable pursuits were countless and often done anonymously. He is an example of a great statesman and leader. He has helped so many people, particularly those in need, and has served as a great role model for the young lives he has so generously helped. I am very proud of his great work. I have seen him lead for good in a host of areas. For a time, I served on his YMCA board. It was easy to see the love and respect those outstanding city leaders had for Bill. It was a respect fairly earned and came as a product of a long and productive life of able service to those less fortunate. I have had the great opportunity in my life of over one half a century to meet and know many great and selfless Americans. As the leader the YMCA and of Alabama's Lions Club, of which I am one, I have seen his unsurpassed, and remarkable leadership for good. I know Bill will continue to help those around him, even in retirement. I applaud his tireless efforts on behalf of all Alabamians and would like to take this opportunity to thank him for all that he has contributed to Montgomery, the State of Alabama, and our Nation. I ask my colleagues to join me today in recognizing Mr. William Chandler for his outstanding achievements and wish him well in his retirement.