Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and I thank Senator Inhofe for giving me this time. I particularly thank Senator Inhofe and Senator Bingaman for their leadership in moving forward on the hydraulic fracturing issue. The purpose of this bill is to help us produce more energy, and cleaner energy, to meet our energy needs more at home from our domestic sources, but also to do it in a cleaner way. There are a lot of things we can do to make that happen. One significant and important event is to deal with the hydraulic fracturing issue. I believe we can make some progress. This is a process that is used for the production of coalbed methane. They use high-pressure water, carbon dioxide and sand to create microscopic fractures in coal seams, and that releases the methane that is in that coal seam. That is the basic process. Of course, carbon dioxide is readily available in the atmosphere. It is not a pollutant, the sand is not a pollutant, and water is not a pollutant. They have never believed that this process in any way was a polluting enterprise. Most States in which hydraulic fracturing is used--including my State of Alabama--have implemented regulations to ensure that hydraulic fracturing continues to be used in a safe manner. The technique has been used safely by coalbed methane oil and gas producers for over 15 years, and there has never been a single event of contamination to underground drinking sources. The history of this issue is kind of simple. Currently, EPA has directed the state of Alabama to regulate hydraulic fracturing under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Neither EPA nor Congress ever intended to be regulating this procedure. However, in 1995 a lawsuit was filed against EPA. This was Carol Browner's EPA, which was very aggressive in regulating anything that needed to be regulated. They claimed that the hydraulic fracturing in Alabama should be regulated under not an obscure but a significant rule called the Underground Injection Control Program that was established by the Safe Drinking Water Act. The Underground Injection Control Program was designed to regulate the disposal of hazardous waste underground, but fluids and sand used in hydraulic fracturing certainly are not hazardous waste. The lawsuit was filed and the EPA defended it. They said we should not be regulating this. They defended it in court: It did not fit within the purposes of the UIC Program, and that the State of Alabama already sufficiently regulated the process, and the procedure itself posed little risk to underground drinking water sources or to the environment. In 1997, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, in analyzing the statute written by Congress, found that the language in the statute, whether Congress intended to cover it or not, reading the plain wording, covered injection of carbon dioxide and sand in the ground and it is covered by the Safe Drinking Water Act. We have been trying to do something about this situation for quite some time. It has been a burdensome process. Congress has come up with a number of ideas. The EPA pretty well indicated at the beginning they supported fixing this problem, and we have moved forward on it. I believe this compromise which Senator Bingaman and Senator Inhofe have talked about--a thorough scientific review--will show that there is no environmental degradation whatsoever. Once that is done, we can fix this process and get it back into the normal scheme of things. This is a big impact on my State. We are the second-largest producer of coalbed methane in the country. It is a process that started in Alabama. The technology was developed in Alabama. I guess that is why they picked on our State to file the lawsuit. As a result, this has had a significant adverse impact on the State of Alabama. We have had 300 new hydraulic fracturing proposals submitted since the lawsuit.

Mr. SESSIONS. I ask I be allowed 2 additional minutes.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would like to share some thoughts as we move toward a vote on the Price-Anderson nuclear liability amendment that will be coming up later this afternoon. It is an important amendment. It represents an extension of current policy, and it is something we should do. The reason we should do that, I am so firmly convinced, is that nuclear power is an important component of our national energy mix. One out of every five times Americans turn on their light bulbs, one out every five times Americans turn on their refrigerators, or turn on anything else, one out every five times Americans use electricity, that electricity is produced thanks to nuclear power. Currently, 20 percent of our supply comes from nuclear power. I think it is time for us to consider not only maintaining that but actually increasing that percentage. The Palo Verde Nuclear Generation Station in Arizona, for example, generates more electricity annually than any other power plant of any kind, including coal, oil, natural gas, and hydropower. We simply have to realize the potential of this energy source and join many of the other leading nations in the world in continuing to implement nuclear as a major component of our energy mix. The Energy Information Agency predicts a 30-percent increase in the demand for electricity in this country by the year 2015--a 30-percent increase in demand over the current level. Twenty percent of our power today comes from nuclear power. France produces over 60 percent from nuclear. Japan produces nearly 50 percent of its electricity from nuclear power sources. In 10 countries, there are 29 nuclear plants currently under construction. The United States has none. We should be following suit. We simply do not need to allow the rest of the world to get ahead of us on the question of producing power by nuclear energy. I have enjoyed visiting our nuclear plants in Alabama. The Tennessee Valley Authority is setting records for safety, reliability, and productivity at their Browns Ferry plant. They have 1,000-plus employees making high wages and producing a steady source of energy 24 hours a day. They have the time to shut down those plants for refurbishing, and the cost has been reduced quite significantly. It is an important part of our energy mix. Shortly after I came to the Senate, I attended the 44th Annual Session of the North Atlantic Assembly in Scotland. Members of parliaments from throughout the North Atlantic nations attended. At that meeting, the Ambassador to the United Nations International Energy Agency appointed by President Clinton, John B. Ritch, III, stated in his presentation that electricity demands will double in the world by 2050 and the one technology capable of meeting a large baseload with negligible greenhouse emissions is nuclear power. He added: In the century ahead, mankind must place great reliance on harnessing the nuclear genie and using it to maximum effect, if our needs are to be met and our security preserved. In fact, he went into some detail about the cost and the benefits of alternative sources of power. He concluded that they all have some benefit but that none can even come close to meeting this huge surge in demand the world is going to be facing in the decades to come. Nuclear energy is a clean source of energy. It is environmentally friendly. I am astounded we have the debate that we have over whether or not nuclear energy is a positive thing for the environment. It most certainly is. Nothing else can produce this kind of source of power with no air pollution from it. We would never have air as clean as we have today if we dropped all our nuclear plants and started producing that energy with coal or oil. We could not come close to that. According to a study conducted by Energy Resources International, nuclear energy has prevented the release into the atmosphere of 219 million tons of sulfur dioxide, 98 million tons of nitrogen oxide, and 2 billion tons of carbon dioxide since 1973. Annually, nuclear power prevents the release of 5.1 million tons of sulfur dioxide, 2.4 million tons of nitrogen oxide, and 33 million metric tons of carbon. In Alabama, there are currently two nuclear powerplants: Browns Ferry and Farley. In 1999, those powerplants avoided the release of approximately 163,000 tons of sulfur dioxide emissions, 90,000 tons of nitrogen oxide emissions, and 6.8 million metric tons of carbon emissions. The building blocks of ozone, that we know is not a good thing in our atmosphere, as we have created it in manmade quantities--an irritant to our lungs, a health risk to children and the elderly--are not emitted at all by nuclear powerplants. Ozone precursors are fossil fuel produced. Implementing nuclear energy is the only way we can meet our projected energy demand while simultaneously reducing the release of sulfur dioxide and nitrous oxides. Furthermore, nuclear energy does not emit carbon dioxide, which is what people blame for global warming. That is a matter I think people cannot dispute. It strikes me as hypocritical that those who complain most and express the most fear about global climate change are, in general--but not always--the same people who are against nuclear power. Many of these people, I believe, unfortunately, are not rational on this subject. People have referred to them as ``nuke kooks.'' But, whatever, they are obsessed with blocking nuclear power. A few years ago the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, a reputable professional organization composed of innovative individuals, engineers, who design solutions to meet our energy needs, issued a paper regarding climate change. In the paper, they made numerous statements regarding the importance of nuclear to our energy mix. They stated: It is unlikely, however, that a worldwide, stable atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration-- That is, a stable amount of carbon dioxide in the air-- can be reached without the use of nuclear, renewable, and biomass energy for electric power generation. Our legislation significantly promotes biomass and renewable energy. There is little in this bill to really increase nuclear power. I continue to quote: Assuming that the historical trend continues in which electricity consumption follows economic growth, it becomes essential that the U.S. environmental policies include retention of existing nuclear power generation capacity. Indeed, these policies should include development and implementation of additional nuclear power reactors to meet a growing demand for electricity. . . . Looking at this matter objectively, just at the overall picture of our energy demands, it is clear to me that nuclear energy is the only viable solution to meeting both our energy demands and our environmental objectives. It will produce power required to meet our energy needs in a safe and environmentally friendly way. People say: It is risky. It is dangerous. The people who live near the nuclear reactors in Alabama with whom I meet and talk are very strong supporters of nuclear power. The overwhelming majority of Americans favor nuclear power. They favor the expansion of nuclear power. But let's talk about the safety record. The nuclear energy sector has, in any way you look at it, a stellar safety record. We have not lost one life in this country--ever--as a result of a nuclear power accident in the history of this country. How many people have we lost in accidents with trucks and trains carrying coal, or with pipelines carrying natural gas, or in coal mines, or in other ways where lives are lost in the production of other unclean sources of energy, the kind of sources of energy that produce NOx and SOx and the kind of adverse exposures to health that come from fossil fuels? So we have those kinds of unhealthy actions, too, in addition to just the safety factor in producing the energy. The main reason the nuclear industry is so safe is that it is overseen--originally by the Atomic Energy Commission and now the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. As a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee at the time, we had a number of hearings about the oversight by NRC. They are meticulously reviewing and monitoring nuclear plants all over America. They do that on a constant basis. They are exceeding other countries in the cost of their supervision and in the minutiae of it. But we have not had any accidents. We had the problem at Three Mile Island. A major sea change has occurred since then. A recent study has shown that no one suffered injury from the Three Mile Island accident, even though, if you asked Americans, they would probably think people were injured from it. But a scientific study has indicated there were no injuries, whatsoever, as a result of that accident. But since then, we have learned and we have stepped up, even to a much higher degree, our supervision by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission of nuclear plants. I do not believe we will see that ever happen again. I believe we would react so much better, if anything were to begin to happen like that, that we would not see that kind of event occur again. We are also looking at new and special ways to produce nuclear power, new kinds of reactors where it would be impossible to have a nuclear reactor explosion or break. Last June, at the Economic Club of Chicago, in a major address, Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board--the architect, I suppose, of our economy--talking about what America needed to do, made this statement: Given the steps that have been taken over the years to make nuclear energy safer, and the obvious environmental advantages it has in terms of reducing emissions, the time has come for us to consider whether or not we can overcome the impediments to tapping its potential more fully. Doesn't he always have a nice way of saying those things? I think it is time for us to consider the impediments to the expansion of nuclear energy. I agree with him, especially in light of our goal of cleaning up our air. Every year, the Federal Government provides tax credits and financial incentives for solar cells and wind turbines and biomass sources. I supported many of those. We are not providing anything here for nuclear energy. I think we need to consider that. Many people have objected, saying, you have no place to put nuclear waste, and this is, somehow, the Achilles' heel of nuclear power. They act as if the amount of nuclear waste would cover the entire State of Rhode Island, I suppose, and that nuclear waste is so hazardous, if you move it on a rail or truck, it could blow up and kill us all. The truth is, if a truck loaded with nuclear waste were to roll over or a train were to roll over, as Senator Murkowski says, it does not blow up, it does not flow off into the air; you just pick it back up, put it on the track, and send it off. We can move nuclear waste. There is no danger in that. It is an irrational thing that we have created this idea that somehow it is greatly disastrous and risky to move nuclear waste to an acceptable site to store it. I applaud the work of the Secretary of Energy, Spence Abraham, a former Member of this body, and President Bush who are moving forward with a decision on Yucca Mountain to store this waste. It is the culmination of decades of scientific study, consultation with science and environmental advisers, and meetings with leaders and citizens in Nevada. Finding a safe and central repository is mandated by a law passed years ago, and it is also necessary for America's homeland security. For example, 40 percent of our Navy's fleet is powered by nuclear power. The lack of a repository drives up the cost of nuclear power, rendering this clean power generation less economical than it would be and less competitive. Certainly one of the main reasons we are not building new plants today is because of the waste problem. Of course, those who oppose nuclear energy, I strongly believe--and a fair person would agree--have used this as a tool to attack nuclear power and not allow us to proceed in a rational way. Nuclear materials are now stored in 131 aboveground facilities in 39 States in America; 161 million Americans live within 75 miles of these sites. One central site in the Nevada desert, where we exploded nuclear bombs on the surface when we were first learning how to make nuclear bombs, provides much more protection for America, much more security, and is much cheaper than keeping all these other sites that have been ongoing. Nobody has ever been injured from the 131 sites we now have. They are going to bury it in the ground, spending billions of dollars paid for by the nuclear energy companies, part of the rates they charge, to fund this site. We need to use that. We have the ability to solve this problem, to move ahead with it. The only objection I can see, other than some of the people in Nevada that oppose it, is that it would relieve an objection, it would remove an objection that the antinuclear supporters have used to hide behind in their opposition to nuclear power. This nuclear liability amendment we will be voting on this afternoon is critical to helping us maintain, not expand but maintain our current clean source of 20 percent of our electricity. We ought to pass that. We ought to open our eyes to the possibilities for the world for the expansion of nuclear power. It has been said that the lifespan of human beings on this globe who have ready access to nuclear power electricity is twice that of countries where it is not readily available. Electricity is one of the great discoveries in the history of mankind. If you don't think so, what would it be like to have to cook by fire every day or wash your clothes in the river? It is an energy system that has done so much for the world. We have large portions of this world--think about India, China, South America, not nearly at full capacity on electricity--that could use much more electricity. How are we going to produce it? What will happen to our global warming theorists when they start using coal and other fossil fuels in huge numbers to meet their growing demands for power around the world? Do they think they are not going to expand their electricity? How could we ask them not to? How could we ask a poor country where people are dying at 40 and 45 years of age, with all the adverse consequences, not counting the quality of life, to not expand their energy? They are not going to be able to do it solely with solar and windmills and biomass. It is just not there; the numbers are not there. Yes, we can do conservation. Yes, we can reduce our use. Yes, we could be more efficient. I visited an Alabama plant not long ago that makes refrigerators. That product they produce uses one-half the electricity of one of the same size used 10 years ago, but you can't go much lower. It takes a certain amount of electricity to run a refrigerator. We have a limit on how much we can conserve. In fact, many of our better and easier steps toward improving efficiency have already been found. We are using them. The new steps to make ourselves more energy efficient are out there. Many more can be done. But they will not make as big an impact as the ones we have already undertaken. That is the law of science. It would be an error of colossal proportions for our environment, for safe energy, and for low-cost power, if we do not deal with the question of nuclear liability. I believe we will do that. I am confident we will pass it later on this afternoon. We also need to, as a nation, shake off the misinformation about nuclear power. Look at it. Consider the fact that we lost not one life in America as a result of the production of nuclear power, that we have not lost any lives as a result of breathing pollutants, as we probably have, as we certainly have, from coal and other plants, as a result of breathing the air around nuclear plants. This is a good environmental issue. It is a good energy issue. It has the potential to move us forward. We need to be thinking about the great potential to make the plants that are more modern and more efficient and even more safe than today. In fact, some can be designed that make it impossible to release radioactive material. I know we will be voting later on this afternoon on this amendment. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I have some further comments specifically addressing the Price-Anderson insurance program for nuclear powerplants that we will be voting on a little later this afternoon, maybe around 2:15. Making some points about the details of it, 45 years ago the nuclear power industry said if they were going to go forward with this new source of power, they wanted to be able to develop an insurance program that would work and that would assure the communities in which they are building these plants they would be operated safely, and if something bad occurred that everybody would be compensated. Those communities have been confident in that process ever since, but the act does expire and it is time for us to extend it. It would be a terrible mistake if we did not. It would cause quite a bit of heartburn. I will share a few thoughts about how this insurance program works. I believe people would feel good about it and want to go forward with it. The average business in America that does the things they do every day may have products on their premises that are somewhat dangerous. If a terrorist or somebody blows it up and it kills people, it is not their fault. They are not liable. They did not do anything wrong. They were not negligent. They were not irresponsible. They were not reckless, and they did business in a safe way. Of course, the nuclear power industry operates precisely the way the Nuclear Regulatory Commission tells them to operate, in a safe fashion. At any rate, they are doing what they can to comply with the law and the regulations, and they have had this insurance policy. Each plant has a $200 million policy for which they are personally responsible. If anything happens, they carry their own $200 million policy. The entire industry has come together and pooled up to $9 billion of a policy, and this is sort of structured by the Price-Anderson Act, and it is all paid for by the nuclear power industry. Above that, if something were to happen so badly above that, then the Federal Government would have liability to pay under Price-Anderson. That is what our American communities have had a right to expect. They were told that when the plants were built, and we need to continue that policy today. We certainly do not need to stop it. I believe the votes are there, and we will pass an extension of Price-Anderson. It would be a bad thing, cause unnecessary heartburn, would be a breach of the fundamental promises of the Federal Government that we do that if we did not extend it, and also it could weaken the nuclear power industry, further containing any hope of expansion of this 20 percent of our electric-generating capacity that produces no pollution. As I noted earlier, the U.S. nuclear powerplants prevent 5.1 million tons of sulfur dioxide from being emitted into the atmosphere, 2.4 million tons of nitrogen oxide, NOX, and 164 metric tons of carbon from entering the Earth's atmosphere. That is the kind of thing they do on a regular basis, producing power cleanly and safely for the benefit of humankind throughout this country. For over 45 years, Price-Anderson has provided a guaranteed compensation to the public in the event a nuclear accident were to occur. It provided coverage for precautionary evacuations and out-of- pocket expenses, reducing delays that are inherent in any kind of lawsuit that would have been filed, maybe taking years. It guaranteed prompt payment by the insurance companies; no lawsuits. You are liable. You accept strict liability, which is not the law, as I noted, for other businesses, and it consolidated the matters in a single Federal court so promptness and efficiency and fairness can occur. That is a good policy. We ought not to end it now. It is important for safe and clean power to be continued to be produced for America, and I believe we will have a strong vote in favor of it this afternoon. Thus, I note there is concern by people, but even in Three Mile Island the total amount expended was less than $200 million, compensating everybody and doing all the things necessary to test and examine and make sure the community was safe; $191 million. That would all be covered by that insurance company's own policy, that power company's own policy. If it went above that, up to $9 billion, then the industry would pay for it. Only above that would the taxpayers have any risk. I think it is a good bargain for America. It is a sound program. We ought to continue it. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, it has come to my attention that Colonel Edward D. Bishop is retiring after 30 years of exemplary active military service in the United States Army. He served his country with dignity, honor, courage and integrity. Colonel Bishop is concluding his career as the Chief, Congressional Affairs, U.S. Army Materiel Command, AMC, from August 2000 to May 2002. The Colonel's extraordinary insight into congressional affairs has greatly assisted the United States Army Materiel Command with the tough before the United States Congress. AMC is the one place in the Army where technology, acquisition, and logistics are integrated to assure Army readiness. Colonel Bishop as the Chief, Congressional Affairs, AMC was able to work the hard issues for the Army in order for AMC to continue to sustain the nation's defense industrial base. Ed Bishop is a world-class logistician who served our nation in numerous logistical assignments throughout his career. From January 1996 to August 2000, he was assigned as the Director of the United States Central Command, CENTCOM, Liaison Office. He was the commands representative to the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, the Service Staffs, Congress, and numerous Federal Agencies on political-military, operational, and logistics issues affecting 25 countries in Southwest Asia, Central Asia, and Horn of Africa. Ed's other assignments included Division Chief in the Joint Logistics and Security Assistance Directorate from June 1993 to January 1996. During this period, he negotiated host nation support agreements with selected Gulf countries, monitored the readiness of prepositioned materiel, and provided interface with CENTCOM and the Joint Staff Crisis Action Team. Prior to this period, Col. Bishop was assigned to U.S. Forces Command and Joint Task Force, Somalia. Colonel Bishop is a native of the great state of Alabama and a distinguished graduate of Jacksonville State University, Jacksonville, Alabama in 1972, and commissioned as a Second Lieutenant of Infantry. Later, he earned a Master of Business Administration, MBA, in Business Administration in 1982, from Florida Institute of Technology, and is a graduate of the Industrial College of Armed Forces at Fort McNair, Washington, D.C. Colonel Bishop's military decorations include the Defense Superior Service Medal, Army Meritorious Service Medal with five oak leaf clusters, a Joint Service Commendation Medal, Army Commendation Medal with three oak leaf clusters, the Army Achievement Medal, the United Nations Service Medal, and the Army Humanitarian Service Medal. Throughout his career, Colonel Bishop has brought astute judgment, bold recommendations and selfless service to our Army. Mr. President, Colonel Bishop deserves the thanks and praise of the nation that he faithfully served for so long. I know the Members of the Senate will join me in wishing him, his wife, Linda, two sons, Ryan and Troy, their daughter-in-law Sonya, and their lovely grandson Dylan, all the best in the years ahead.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would like to share some thoughts on an issue of some importance, both as it relates to the traditional role between the States and the Federal Government and with regard to the constitutional role between the Federal and State governments, and then some personal insight into the idea that people who have been convicted of felonies in this country should be mandated the right to vote by the Federal Government in States that may not agree with that idea. Frankly, people who violate felony laws--this does not include juvenile crimes, it does not include traffic offenses, it doesn't include DUIs, and it doesn't include petty theft and small drug offenses. It deals with people who have felony convictions, many of whom have served time in jail. Historically, we have referred to those people as being outside the law or, in short, outlaws. All the way through the beginning of the United States of America, we have believed that a person who violates serious laws of a State or the Federal Government forfeits their right to participate in those activities of that government, that their judgement and character is such that they ought not to be making decisions on the most important issues facing our country. Virtually every State in this country takes that position to one degree or another. As a prosecutor for 15 years, I wonder about how those people I helped put in the slammer feel about me. I do not care about them voting on my election. Would it intimidate or discourage or diminish the ability of judges who run for election? Or would a prosecutor who runs for election in some way not be as aggressive? Would it be a concern to them? Would it allow votes to occur against a strong law- and-order candidate that might not otherwise occur? I do not know. But, for a lot of reasons, our States have decided they do not want to give felons, people who have committed serious offenses in this Nation, the right to vote. That is a common practice in virtually every State in America where they have some restrictions on it. Sometimes what we do in this Chamber is argue about what we have the power to do. But the other question is, What ought we to do? I think this Congress, with this little debate we are having on this bill, ought not to step in and, with a big sledge hammer, smash something we have had from the beginning of this country's foundation--a set of election laws in every State in America--and change those laws. To just up and do that is disrespectful to them. At this very moment, in States throughout America, legislatures are discussing under what circumstances felons should or should not be allowed to vote. Some are allowing them to vote in any number of different ways, under certain circumstances, based on what crimes they may have committed, how long they served in jail, how long they have been out of jail, whether or not they seek a pardon and get it, whether or not they have been rearrested. Whatever they decide to do, it is going on in those legislatures. We have not had hearings, to my knowledge, on this subject. I am on the Judiciary Committee, which normally deals with those issues. We have not had hearings. We have not had anything but an amendment appear in this Chamber on this subject. It would be unwise for us to presume, after such a short debate, that we ought to just override the laws in every State in America. We should not do that out of respect for them. Most Americans are familiar with President Ford's and President Carter's work together on any number of issues--a Republican President and a Democratic President. They have had some discussion about these issues. They had a commission that dealt with voting issues. They concluded--I will quote from their report--``we doubt that Congress has the Constitutional power to legislate a federal prescription'' on States prohibiting felons from voting. In other words, they doubt that this Congress has the constitutional power--not a question of deference or propriety--to do this. That was a bipartisan commission with two of our elder statesmen for whom people in this country have great respect. The Supreme Court, in 1974, specifically held that felons do not have a fundamental right to vote and that excluding felons from voting does not violate the U.S. Constitution. That is clear law from the Supreme Court of the United States in 1974, and it has not been altered since. Another Federal court has even concluded that the facial validity of felon voting restrictions may be ``absolute.'' So there may be one or two States that impose no restrictions on voting, but the overwhelming majority do. And they have given thought to it. Each State has different standards based on their moral evaluation, their legal evaluation, their public interest in what they think is important in their States. That is what I believe we should do. We should follow that. When we allow a brief moment of debate to alter State historic principles on issues of complexity such as this, we are really stepping beyond our bounds. I want to stay on the point a little bit about the propriety, about the deference, about the respect this Congress should give to States. Yes, there are certain steps we take when we believe it is in the overwhelming national interest--particularly when there is a need to have uniformity in rules and regulations--to pass some regulation for health or safety, such as for railroad width or whatever we decide to do. Those things are justified. But it ought not to come up with some last-minute vote without in- depth hearings, without hearing from secretaries of States around the country, without hearing from State legislators who may have voted on it last month or may have voted on it last year and discussed these very issues and debated them within their States. And we come in now, and we are going to tell them: We do not care what you think. We do not care about your debates. We have not had debate here, but we are going to change our mind. We are going to change the law of America. And anybody who committed acts of murder, burglaries--whatever they did-- serious drug offenses, drug dealing, they can all vote now in America. I am not for that. Somebody else may be. That is a good matter to debate. The question is, Where should it be debated? I say it should be debated where it has always been debated: In the States of America. They have set the voting qualifications for our voters, except for certain major requirements that the Constitution places on them and Federal law requires. But this should not be an expansion now into this category of voting. I strongly oppose it. I think it is a big-time mistake. It is a rush job. It is disrespectful to the hundreds, thousands of State legislators who deal with these issues regularly. We have not had any serious suggestion, to my knowledge, that the voting process is being gummed up over this rule. It seems to be working well. Each State has its own system for identifying felons and informing them that they are not qualified to vote. To change that now on this bill would be a terrible step. It is something we would regret. If you believe President Ford and President Carter in the commission they established, it would be reversed by the Supreme Court of the United States as being unconstitutional. When we pass legislation in this Chamber, we have sworn to uphold the Constitution. If we have evidence that it is unconstitutional, we ought not to pass it on that basis, also. So as a matter of policy, respect, and constitutional law, it ought not to be voted for. Frankly, I do not think the American debate and American policy is going to be better informed if we have a bunch of felons in this process as opposed to them not being in this process. That is my 2 cents' worth. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Chair. So these large corporations are never impacted by estate taxes, but they are competing with smaller farmers, smaller timber producers, and smaller landowners. Whenever a family member in one of those privately held companies dies, they get whacked by the Federal Government with a tax. It makes them less competitive. In my State of Alabama, we have seen an extraordinary number of banks go out of business by selling out to larger banks. Small, closely held banks no longer exist today. One of the main reasons is that the family sits around the table and wrestles with what they are going to do about the future. They get an offer from a big holding company to buy them out. They consider how much in taxes they are going to have to pay and how they are going to keep the bank going while paying 55 percent tax on it. They end up selling out, and then we get bigger and larger corporations with more and more concentrations of wealth and less competitiveness in the American economy. We need and desire more smaller motel companies. We need more small entrepreneurs. We need more stores selling material, like Home Depot or Wal-Mart. But those stores, if they are closely held, end up getting whacked in each generation by an estate tax. I talked to a young man and his father. They had four motels. He told me they were paying $5,000 a month for insurance on the father's life, trying to make sure that if he were to die, they wouldn't lose their investment. That is the reality of America. This tax is favoring large corporations in their competitiveness against small corporations and companies and closely held companies. It is not fair. It is not healthy for the economy. We can do better. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Arizona for his hard work and leadership on this. I appreciate the remarks of the Senator from Texas. He is eloquent, as always, and is effective in the points he makes. First of all, I would like to say why I think it is appropriate that we have this sense-of-the-Senate amendment on the farm bill. It is because it is one of the most significant issues for farmers in America. I speak to farmers frequently. When I first began to campaign for the Senate, they told me right upfront that one of their top priorities was the elimination of the death tax. It threatens everything they do. I was shocked and really surprised to hear the Senator from North Dakota say he is not worried about people passing on their farms to their children. I thought that was what the farm bill was all about. I thought it was all about trying to preserve a family farm. What good does it do to preserve the farm, have a living wage for farmers, and then make them pay 50 or 55 percent of the value of the farm to the Government every generation? Eliminating the death tax is about preservation of the farm. I think it is appropriate that we are considering it. It is certainly one of the highest priorities of every agricultural organization of which I know. Second, let me say why I think this thing is bad economics for America, why it is hurting our economy, and why we need to eliminate it. First of all, the death tax is extraordinarily difficult to compute and collect by the Federal Government. It produces a lower return based on how much money the taxpayer has to pay than almost any other tax we pay. It is an extraordinarily complex thing. It causes individuals to go through the most intricate gyrations and causes them to make financial decisions they would never make otherwise except to attempt to avoid being decimated or having their heirs decimated by the death tax. Let me tell you what I am really concerned about. This is an issue that I feel has not been talked about enough. There are a lot of different ideas that people have about why this tax is bad. I would like to talk about a purely economic argument that strikes me as a great unfairness about the death tax. Let us say International Paper Company, or the Weyerhaeuser Company, owns 1,000 acres of land, and an individual owns 1,000 acres of land and saves some money and manages it well. Then the individual dies. They have to pay an estate tax. But Weyerhaeuser or International Paper, which may own 600,000 acres of land, or maybe multimillion acres of land, never pays a death tax. Big corporations, large stock-held corporations, never have their corporate work--Mr. President, I believe there is a little noise here. Even I can't think very well when it is going on.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I appreciate the opportunity to talk on this issue. Our phones have been ringing off the hook from farmers in Alabama. I think in the last day or so, we have had 60 calls. People are very concerned about this amendment, and it has become clear it has a real potential to damage agriculture, particularly in the southern region. The fact is that cotton, one of Alabama's top cash crops--the top cash crop--is expensive to grow, $350 an acre. The cost of a new cotton picker is $300,000-plus. That is a significant investment. As the years have gone by, cotton farmers have realized they cannot make a living on 200 acres, and they cannot pay the cost of their equipment and all the investment in producing cotton on smaller acreage farms. What has happened is they have leased farms from elderly people who do not have the ability any longer to farm, but renting their land produces some income for them in their retirement age. Widows who do not choose to farm the land make a little income from renting. Then there is the whole infrastructure around it. My personal history has been in the farm community. That is where I grew up. The first 12 years of my life, my father had a county store. He had a grist mill in that store and actually ground corn for farmers in the neighborhood. He sold them horse collars and nails and everything else, including all their groceries, as they did their farming in the community. Later, he bought a farm equipment company, sold International Harvester equipment--hay balers, bush cutters, cotton pickers, and all the tractors and line of equipment that go with that, pickup trucks and so forth. There are a lot of people involved in agriculture. For us to say we are going to limit the size of farms in an odd way by not allowing them to receive the same benefit that a smaller farm does is a mistake if we think that is going to somehow create more small farms. What will happen? We are going to lose a lot of the infrastructure that goes with agriculture in our rural areas. It will impact the farm equipment dealer. It will impact the grocery store. It will impact the hardware store, the feed seller, the seed seller, the fertilizer seller, the pesticide dealer, the herbicide dealer--all of that infrastructure will be reduced. I am concerned that through a back-door effort that some have various reasons to support--some because they think it does not impact their region and some because they believe it will reduce production in America and therefore somehow help in other ways--all of these are back-door efforts that ought not to be accomplished in this method. If we want to debate, let's debate. I don't believe this is the way to accomplish it. I think this amendment will have a tremendous adverse impact, particularly on the farmers who are calling me. I have talked to them personally. I have been traveling the State and talking with farmers personally. They are very concerned about this amendment. It could hurt substantially. I join with the remarks of Senator Hutchinson and Senator Lincoln and appreciate their eloquent thoughts. I wanted to share that additional insight. I also appreciate the insight of Senator Cochran, who will be speaking on this amendment as well. We are at a point where we can do some real damage to agriculture in Alabama and the South. I urge the Senate not to do that. I urge Senators to vote no on this amendment.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I have to object to 10 minutes.

Mr. SESSIONS. I will not object to that at this point. I know Senator Torricelli has some brief remarks. I know they both are very interested in these issues and it is time we talk about them, but we have a stimulus package on the floor and we want to get to that as soon as possible. Is 5 minutes all right for Senator Torricelli?

Mr. SESSIONS. We have business on the floor, and I know people would like to change the focus of our debate on the stimulus package, which is overdue in my view. I was willing to let the Senator have a few more minutes. I would not object to 5 minutes.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, when I first came to the Senate and I met with farm people in my State, this was their No. 1 issue--to eliminate the death tax. It is savaging closely held enterprises all over America, particularly farms. It is something that touches people in a very real way. The way this elimination has occurred as part of the budget reconciliation, as Senator Nickles so ably described, we will have elimination of the death tax 1 year, and a reimposition of it the next year, leaving estate planning problems for people trying to wrestle with that. It has human consequences. I remember being on an airplane not too long ago with a professional woman. She told me about her grandfather dying back in the 1980s. A tax change in the death tax was passed during the Reagan years. It was to take effect January 1. The family was home for Christmas. He was dying of cancer. He had terminal cancer. Each morning he asked what day it was. He died 11 a.m., January 1--his last contribution to his family. This is personal. It is real. It savages businesses. Let me try to explain why I believe we have a particularly pernicious consequence as a result of the death tax that has not been sufficiently discussed and is causing damages to our economy far greater than a lot of people thought. This is the reason. I thought about farmers in Alabama. Maybe they own a couple thousand acres, and maybe some of that land is near an airport or town and the value on paper is high but they don't want to sell it. Compare that to an international paper company that may own 600,000 acres of land, 200,000 or 100,000 acres of land. They compete against one another. If they are timber producing, and both grow timber, they compete against one another. The big multinational corporation that does business all over the world is never impacted adversely by the estate tax. People who own stock in it may be, but not that corporation. But the individual competitor, the competitor of the big international corporations, builds up a little capital, equity, and realizes some success, and they can get savaged, each generation, by a 50-percent tax. This makes them uncompetitive. Is there any doubt why farmers getting to the end of their lives, small businessmen wanting to pass on their business to their family, have to sit down and discuss what they are going to do? They have to sit down and decide if they can pay that generational tax and still operate the business. What if the business has a lot of investment, a lot of capital, hiring a lot of people, but they do not have a lot of cash? How can each generation pay this huge death tax to the Government? Yet the big business competitor, a broadly held international corporation, with which they compete, does not ever become impacted by the death tax. That is happening in America. We need to encourage locally owned corporations. We need to nurture them, not oppress them. We need more competition in the American economy. It is troubling that virtually every bank in my home State of Alabama has been sold and bought up by a bigger bank, and they get bought up by bigger banks. Why? One reason is families who used to routinely own banks, that were tied to the community, supporting Boy Scouts, schools and the United Way, cannot compete. They are looking at the death tax coming down on them. They figure they can protect themselves against it more effectively by selling off their small business to a larger corporation that does not have to pay that tax. I thank Senator Kyl for his leadership. I believe we ought to consider that the death tax is an anticompetitive activity that hurts competition by damaging small businesses and farms in a way that does not occur to larger, wealthier international enterprises.

Mr. SESSIONS. Will the Senator from Nevada restate the unanimous consent request?

Mr. SESSIONS. Do we have a time agreement? How quickly will we be back on the Kyl amendment?

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

Mr. SESSIONS. I offer this as a second-degree amendment.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I believe we are on the Baucus amendment. On behalf of Senator Kyl, I call up amendment No. 2758 as a second-degree amendment.

Mr. SESSIONS. Reserving the right to object, my concern is that has already been taken care of by Senator Reid. It might confuse matters. I object.

Mr. SESSIONS. First I want to express my personal appreciation to Senator Kyl for his leadership on this issue since I have been in the Senate. There is no one here who understands it more than he, or has fought more effectively to see it become more a reality, the elimination of the tax. But, I say to Senator Kyl, what I was thinking about was the circumstance of a small business seeing a death on the horizon and a death tax coming up. The fact that they know they have to make a payment of significance to Uncle Sam--would that not perhaps cause them to hesitate to invest in new equipment, to modernize or expand their business, knowing that that might cause them to use up their cash or even borrow money, and in fact make the economy less vibrant than it otherwise would be?

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be named as a cosponsor of Senator Kyl's amendment.