Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, the economy has been struggling for about a year now. We have had a number of difficulties that have made our economy not as healthy as we would like it to be. Oddly enough, for the week of September 11, according to the hearing we had in the Joint Economic Committee, unemployment actually dropped. There was an increase in employment that week. So maybe our economy was moving in the right direction. But immediately after September 11, and the shock this Nation went through, we slipped back into what has now been called a recession. Factories are closing in a number of places. Quite a few have closed in my State. It has been quite discouraging that this tends to happen more often in small towns where you have just a few businesses. That is where you see more of the closings than in the urban areas. The National Bureau of Economic Research has declared that we have slipped into recession. And the terrorist attacks have hurt us in a lot of different ways involving jobs for families in America. So I have been pushing for some time that we make sure we complete this Congress with a good, healthy stimulus package. I have raised that observation with quite a number of people. But we are not, to my knowledge, making any progress. I have referred to the people who I understand are working on it as ``the masters of the universe.'' They are back there somewhere outside of this Chamber, working and manipulating and talking to people about what ought to be in the package. And, yes, they take input, and I have talked to them, and other people have talked to them--and I did not suggest it is not a tough job; it is a tough job--but we are getting close to the time when we should recess, and people are suggesting that we might even complete this Congress without a stimulus package. I think that would be a very bad mistake. Even the most conservative economists have suggested we would have a one-half of 1 percent increase in the GDP if we have a stimulus package of $75 billion to $100 billion. I believe that is clearly worth the effort. That one-half of 1 percent, in an economy as large as ours, is very significant. It means many people will continue to have jobs that they would not have otherwise. It means that many people will be working and paying taxes to the Government which will help us with our deficit situation. It means many people will be working and taking care of their families and not going into debt and will be buying things, such as at the grocery store, that they would not otherwise be buying. So I think we need to be sure we move in that direction. That is why I have offered today S. 1804, which is cosponsored by Senators Tim Hutchinson, George Allen, and Bob Smith. And I intend to move this bill if we do not see progress. Really, I intend to seek a vote on it if it is in any way appropriate and possible this session. Let me mention a few things that are in the bill which I think are common sense and would be good policy. One of the things I have been wrestling with is the earned-income tax credit. This is a program that began in 1975. It is now a $31 billion program that provides a tax credit to low-income working Americans. It is designed to make work more beneficial and more rewarding so that, particularly, families can live off of low-income jobs. In fact, the program is quite generous for a family of four or more who qualify appropriately. They can receive $4,000 a year. An average family with one qualifying child, that receives the earned-income tax credit, receives almost $2,000 a year. On average, it is over $1,900 per year that they receive. This totals out, if you figure it on an hourly basis for the average family of four that receives the earned-income tax credit, to almost $1 an hour pay raise over whatever they are making. If they are making $6 an hour and they get another $1, that is a big increase. If you are at $5 an hour and you get $1 an hour, that is a 20-percent increase in your pay. It is more than that in take-home because you don't have any withholding out of a tax credit. The way this thing has been working, however, is not healthy. The way this thing has been working is, the money goes to the worker when they fill out their income-tax return the next year. In February or March, when they fill out the tax return, they get this $1,900 in a lump sum check sometime in the spring after they worked. Congress wrestled with that. They didn't believe that was furthering a policy of the Congress, and so they tried to provide the credit on the worker's paycheck. In years past, in the 1970s and all, when this passed, people didn't have the computers we have today, and requiring small businesses to calculate this and put it on the paycheck caused some grief. But today, because everything is automated, it is much easier to do. In recent years, Congress tried to do something about it. In 1978, they passed legislation that said a worker could have it put on their paycheck if they want to. Oddly enough, only 5 percent of workers have chosen this or know they can. Therein lies a problem, and there are several reasons. One, they probably don't know about it. Another one is that oftentimes they are told that if you get this advanced payment on your check instead of getting a refund next year, you may owe money to the Government next year. And that caused some to not take advantage of it. At any rate, only 5 percent of Americans are taking advantage of this policy. I believe it ought to be the policy. I believe the policy was founded to begin with, with the idea of helping people, encouraging people to go to work. If you are not making much more than the minimum wage, sometimes people may wonder if they are not better staying at home on welfare. The money should be put on there. Most economists, most good public policy students of the situation believe that. That is one of the points of this stimulus bill that I have. Let me tell you why it is such a good stimulus package. It is good because the money for people who have worked this year, who receive the benefit of the earned-income tax credit, they will get their refund next year. What my proposal says is in January, they would begin to receive next year's $1,900, on their paycheck. Current law allows a recipient to get about 60 percent of their earned income tax credit in advance, on their paycheck. We calculate, of the $31 billion that is annually being spent on the earned income tax credit, this proposal would bring to the average worker, infused into the economy next fiscal year, $15 billion, a year before the time it would normally be in the economy. I believe that is good public policy. It is good to encourage work. It will help people who need money now to take care of their families. It will be coming to them in a regular way, and it will help them take care of their families. That would be a good stimulus package. It would help us next year when we have to balance the budget because we would have $15 billion less to spend on the tax refunds because it would have been paid out throughout this fiscal year. It would help us get back into a balanced budget which is important. This year, we are not going to be in a balanced budget. We are going to be in deficit unfortunately. Next year, we have an opportunity to get out. This package in that regard would help us do so. I strongly believe that is a good thing that should be considered. It would infuse money into the economy and have a net drain on the economy of zero over a 2-year period, except perhaps some interest loss to the Government. Another matter that we believe should be in this package is a proposal for relief for those who are unemployed. Everybody has been talking about that. We ought to be able to reach agreement on that. Senator Baucus had a proposal. The House Republicans had a proposal that came out of that chamber. A centrist proposal has been put forward by Senators Collins, Smith and Landrieu that hits the area about right. It increases the weeks for unemployment for up to 13 additional weeks, and it begins calculating that for anybody who was unemployed at the time of September 11. It is more expansive in that regard. We have a good bipartisan unemployment compensation package. Another thing it is time for us to do would be to complete the reduction of the 27-percent tax bracket down to the 25-percent tax bracket. We committed to doing that over the 10-year tax plan. This would accelerate that next year, and working Americans would receive a little more take-home money every week as a result of a reduction in that tax rate. That has a lot of support. One thing that has not been mentioned, but I strongly believe would be one of the most beneficial proposals, is to advance the child tax credit. Under our current 10-year tax reduction package that passed, we will increase the child tax credit for families to $1,000, but it will take nine years for it to become $1,000. I believe for next year alone we ought to do that. So every family who obviously is hurt the most in a recessionary environment would receive an additional $400 per child tax credit that they could use to help their families. That would be a good impact. The cost of that is about $20 billion in terms of estimated revenue lost to the Government, but it is a real stimulus into the economy, into the hands of families who will be spending it on their children. It will help keep the economy moving in a healthy way. That is a good step. It is good public policy. Families trying to raise children would have additional income to take care of them. A lot of people are at a point where they have had to cash in stocks and other investments that they have and have taken losses for it. For individuals, this allows them to deduct those losses on their tax return, but the limit on loss deductions is $3,000 per year. We believe that, particularly in light of the fact that many people may be cashing in investments, we should at least raise it up to $5,000 per year which could be helpful to people in desperate circumstances. One other thing that is important--and Senator Allen has been a champion of this and has won me over--is the need to provide a tax credit to encourage American families to become technologically literate, to encourage American families to purchase computers for children who are in school so they will have a computer at home so they can become a part of the high-tech world that is all about us today. He has proposed, and we have put as a part of this bill, a $500 tax credit for the purchase of software or computer systems for a family. To really get a jolt out of it, we are only going to propose that for a 3- month period. And the computer companies, I am sure, and all the marketing companies and the stores will be promoting that you have a $500 rebate on your purchase of a computer for your family, if you have a student in school. I think that is a good step. The computer industry has been hurting badly, and having this money available could get them off the ground, get them moving again and, at the same time, help children, help them become educated and to become an active part of the high-tech world in which we now live. Some of the matters that are in the legislation we proposed, I don't believe there is a single thing in it that somebody could say is a special interest. It has a business provision. It has Senator Baucus's 10-percent advance depreciation, which would encourage businesses to purchase equipment and allow them to depreciate a little faster, and encourage them, perhaps, to recapitalize in their business. That was Senator Baucus's 1-year proposal. I don't believe there is anything in this bill that does violence to fairness or justice. I don't think there is anything in this bill that in any way could be considered special interest or unfair. I believe we have a simple package--myself and the three Senators who have introduced this with me--that would infuse $75 billion into the economy, with virtually no bureaucracy, virtually no overhead, targeted to middle and lower income America--putting $75 billion into their hands early, allowing them to spend it and get this economy going again. I am not sure businesses--and I have heard a number of economists say this--are in a mood to do a lot of investing in new equipment to produce a lot more product if there is nobody to buy. So I think that the way we proceed would be to allow people who have families and who work every day, and who need every dollar they get to survive--give them a little bit more to take home. If they do, they will spend it and help get the economy moving again. If nothing else, it will help them get by, whether it improves the economy or not. Of course, we do have $5 billion in grant money to the States that would allow them to deal with emergency situations in their States for people who are hurting also. That has been a bipartisan project, and it has a little more than has been proposed in the President's request. We think that is a good figure that everybody can rally around. I believe getting a tax stimulus package together and passed is not that hard. It doesn't have to be lockstep the way everybody is negotiating now. They have dug in on every position. Some of the issues in my package they are dealing with and some of them they are not considering. My provisions do the job just as well--in fact, better than what I am hearing discussed in a lot of ways. I think the majority leader needs to be sure we don't get to the end of this session without time to bring this up. If they can't reach an agreement, we are going to have a problem. The bill was up and amendments were being offered. When debate and amendments were not shut off, the bill was pulled down. It has gone behind closed doors and we are sitting around here saying: Maybe they will reach an agreement; maybe they will not reach an agreement. I have a bill that I think we need to vote on if we can't get some agreement with which I and other Members are comfortable. We need to vote on this bill because it is a good bill. It is not that complicated in any way to administer or put together. I thank the Chair for her attention. I look forward to further discussions on this issue. I certainly look forward to making sure before this Congress recesses we bring up and pass legislation that will help this economy. I don't know how much it would take to do it. The experts say $75 billion is worth half a GDP percentage point in growth. That is good news. I think it is exactly the kind of shot that might be helpful. If we don't pass something, that could be a sad event also. In fact, the markets and people might lose confidence even more than they have already if we don't pass a stimulus package. It is a double burden to move that forward. I thank the Chair for listening. I thank my colleagues in the Senate for their consideration of this legislation. We look forward to making sure a stimulus package clears before we recess. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, the economy has been struggling for about a year now. We have had a number of difficulties that have made our economy not as healthy as we would like it to be. Oddly enough, for the week of September 11, according to the hearing we had in the Joint Economic Committee, unemployment actually dropped. There was an increase in employment that week. So maybe our economy was moving in the right direction. But immediately after September 11, and the shock this Nation went through, we slipped back into what has now been called a recession. Factories are closing in a number of places. Quite a few have closed in my State. It has been quite discouraging that this tends to happen more often in small towns where you have just a few businesses. That is where you see more of the closings than in the urban areas. The National Bureau of Economic Research has declared that we have slipped into recession. And the terrorist attacks have hurt us in a lot of different ways involving jobs for families in America. So I have been pushing for some time that we make sure we complete this Congress with a good, healthy stimulus package. I have raised that observation with quite a number of people. But we are not, to my knowledge, making any progress. I have referred to the people who I understand are working on it as ``the masters of the universe.'' They are back there somewhere outside of this Chamber, working and manipulating and talking to people about what ought to be in the package. And, yes, they take input, and I have talked to them, and other people have talked to them--and I did not suggest it is not a tough job; it is a tough job--but we are getting close to the time when we should recess, and people are suggesting that we might even complete this Congress without a stimulus package. I think that would be a very bad mistake. Even the most conservative economists have suggested we would have a one-half of 1 percent increase in the GDP if we have a stimulus package of $75 billion to $100 billion. I believe that is clearly worth the effort. That one-half of 1 percent, in an economy as large as ours, is very significant. It means many people will continue to have jobs that they would not have otherwise. It means that many people will be working and paying taxes to the Government which will help us with our deficit situation. It means many people will be working and taking care of their families and not going into debt and will be buying things, such as at the grocery store, that they would not otherwise be buying. So I think we need to be sure we move in that direction. That is why I have offered today S. 1804, which is cosponsored by Senators Tim Hutchinson, George Allen, and Bob Smith. And I intend to move this bill if we do not see progress. Really, I intend to seek a vote on it if it is in any way appropriate and possible this session. Let me mention a few things that are in the bill which I think are common sense and would be good policy. One of the things I have been wrestling with is the earned-income tax credit. This is a program that began in 1975. It is now a $31 billion program that provides a tax credit to low-income working Americans. It is designed to make work more beneficial and more rewarding so that, particularly, families can live off of low-income jobs. In fact, the program is quite generous for a family of four or more who qualify appropriately. They can receive $4,000 a year. An average family with one qualifying child, that receives the earned-income tax credit, receives almost $2,000 a year. On average, it is over $1,900 per year that they receive. This totals out, if you figure it on an hourly basis for the average family of four that receives the earned-income tax credit, to almost $1 an hour pay raise over whatever they are making. If they are making $6 an hour and they get another $1, that is a big increase. If you are at $5 an hour and you get $1 an hour, that is a 20-percent increase in your pay. It is more than that in take-home because you don't have any withholding out of a tax credit. The way this thing has been working, however, is not healthy. The way this thing has been working is, the money goes to the worker when they fill out their income-tax return the next year. In February or March, when they fill out the tax return, they get this $1,900 in a lump sum check sometime in the spring after they worked. Congress wrestled with that. They didn't believe that was furthering a policy of the Congress, and so they tried to provide the credit on the worker's paycheck. In years past, in the 1970s and all, when this passed, people didn't have the computers we have today, and requiring small businesses to calculate this and put it on the paycheck caused some grief. But today, because everything is automated, it is much easier to do. In recent years, Congress tried to do something about it. In 1978, they passed legislation that said a worker could have it put on their paycheck if they want to. Oddly enough, only 5 percent of workers have chosen this or know they can. Therein lies a problem, and there are several reasons. One, they probably don't know about it. Another one is that oftentimes they are told that if you get this advanced payment on your check instead of getting a refund next year, you may owe money to the Government next year. And that caused some to not take advantage of it. At any rate, only 5 percent of Americans are taking advantage of this policy. I believe it ought to be the policy. I believe the policy was founded to begin with, with the idea of helping people, encouraging people to go to work. If you are not making much more than the minimum wage, sometimes people may wonder if they are not better staying at home on welfare. The money should be put on there. Most economists, most good public policy students of the situation believe that. That is one of the points of this stimulus bill that I have. Let me tell you why it is such a good stimulus package. It is good because the money for people who have worked this year, who receive the benefit of the earned-income tax credit, they will get their refund next year. What my proposal says is in January, they would begin to receive next year's $1,900, on their paycheck. Current law allows a recipient to get about 60 percent of their earned income tax credit in advance, on their paycheck. We calculate, of the $31 billion that is annually being spent on the earned income tax credit, this proposal would bring to the average worker, infused into the economy next fiscal year, $15 billion, a year before the time it would normally be in the economy. I believe that is good public policy. It is good to encourage work. It will help people who need money now to take care of their families. It will be coming to them in a regular way, and it will help them take care of their families. That would be a good stimulus package. It would help us next year when we have to balance the budget because we would have $15 billion less to spend on the tax refunds because it would have been paid out throughout this fiscal year. It would help us get back into a balanced budget which is important. This year, we are not going to be in a balanced budget. We are going to be in deficit unfortunately. Next year, we have an opportunity to get out. This package in that regard would help us do so. I strongly believe that is a good thing that should be considered. It would infuse money into the economy and have a net drain on the economy of zero over a 2-year period, except perhaps some interest loss to the Government. Another matter that we believe should be in this package is a proposal for relief for those who are unemployed. Everybody has been talking about that. We ought to be able to reach agreement on that. Senator Baucus had a proposal. The House Republicans had a proposal that came out of that chamber. A centrist proposal has been put forward by Senators Collins, Smith and Landrieu that hits the area about right. It increases the weeks for unemployment for up to 13 additional weeks, and it begins calculating that for anybody who was unemployed at the time of September 11. It is more expansive in that regard. We have a good bipartisan unemployment compensation package. Another thing it is time for us to do would be to complete the reduction of the 27-percent tax bracket down to the 25-percent tax bracket. We committed to doing that over the 10-year tax plan. This would accelerate that next year, and working Americans would receive a little more take-home money every week as a result of a reduction in that tax rate. That has a lot of support. One thing that has not been mentioned, but I strongly believe would be one of the most beneficial proposals, is to advance the child tax credit. Under our current 10-year tax reduction package that passed, we will increase the child tax credit for families to $1,000, but it will take nine years for it to become $1,000. I believe for next year alone we ought to do that. So every family who obviously is hurt the most in a recessionary environment would receive an additional $400 per child tax credit that they could use to help their families. That would be a good impact. The cost of that is about $20 billion in terms of estimated revenue lost to the Government, but it is a real stimulus into the economy, into the hands of families who will be spending it on their children. It will help keep the economy moving in a healthy way. That is a good step. It is good public policy. Families trying to raise children would have additional income to take care of them. A lot of people are at a point where they have had to cash in stocks and other investments that they have and have taken losses for it. For individuals, this allows them to deduct those losses on their tax return, but the limit on loss deductions is $3,000 per year. We believe that, particularly in light of the fact that many people may be cashing in investments, we should at least raise it up to $5,000 per year which could be helpful to people in desperate circumstances. One other thing that is important--and Senator Allen has been a champion of this and has won me over--is the need to provide a tax credit to encourage American families to become technologically literate, to encourage American families to purchase computers for children who are in school so they will have a computer at home so they can become a part of the high-tech world that is all about us today. He has proposed, and we have put as a part of this bill, a $500 tax credit for the purchase of software or computer systems for a family. To really get a jolt out of it, we are only going to propose that for a 3- month period. And the computer companies, I am sure, and all the marketing companies and the stores will be promoting that you have a $500 rebate on your purchase of a computer for your family, if you have a student in school. I think that is a good step. The computer industry has been hurting badly, and having this money available could get them off the ground, get them moving again and, at the same time, help children, help them become educated and to become an active part of the high-tech world in which we now live. Some of the matters that are in the legislation we proposed, I don't believe there is a single thing in it that somebody could say is a special interest. It has a business provision. It has Senator Baucus's 10-percent advance depreciation, which would encourage businesses to purchase equipment and allow them to depreciate a little faster, and encourage them, perhaps, to recapitalize in their business. That was Senator Baucus's 1-year proposal. I don't believe there is anything in this bill that does violence to fairness or justice. I don't think there is anything in this bill that in any way could be considered special interest or unfair. I believe we have a simple package--myself and the three Senators who have introduced this with me--that would infuse $75 billion into the economy, with virtually no bureaucracy, virtually no overhead, targeted to middle and lower income America--putting $75 billion into their hands early, allowing them to spend it and get this economy going again. I am not sure businesses--and I have heard a number of economists say this--are in a mood to do a lot of investing in new equipment to produce a lot more product if there is nobody to buy. So I think that the way we proceed would be to allow people who have families and who work every day, and who need every dollar they get to survive--give them a little bit more to take home. If they do, they will spend it and help get the economy moving again. If nothing else, it will help them get by, whether it improves the economy or not. Of course, we do have $5 billion in grant money to the States that would allow them to deal with emergency situations in their States for people who are hurting also. That has been a bipartisan project, and it has a little more than has been proposed in the President's request. We think that is a good figure that everybody can rally around. I believe getting a tax stimulus package together and passed is not that hard. It doesn't have to be lockstep the way everybody is negotiating now. They have dug in on every position. Some of the issues in my package they are dealing with and some of them they are not considering. My provisions do the job just as well--in fact, better than what I am hearing discussed in a lot of ways. I think the majority leader needs to be sure we don't get to the end of this session without time to bring this up. If they can't reach an agreement, we are going to have a problem. The bill was up and amendments were being offered. When debate and amendments were not shut off, the bill was pulled down. It has gone behind closed doors and we are sitting around here saying: Maybe they will reach an agreement; maybe they will not reach an agreement. I have a bill that I think we need to vote on if we can't get some agreement with which I and other Members are comfortable. We need to vote on this bill because it is a good bill. It is not that complicated in any way to administer or put together. I thank the Chair for her attention. I look forward to further discussions on this issue. I certainly look forward to making sure before this Congress recesses we bring up and pass legislation that will help this economy. I don't know how much it would take to do it. The experts say $75 billion is worth half a GDP percentage point in growth. That is good news. I think it is exactly the kind of shot that might be helpful. If we don't pass something, that could be a sad event also. In fact, the markets and people might lose confidence even more than they have already if we don't pass a stimulus package. It is a double burden to move that forward. I thank the Chair for listening. I thank my colleagues in the Senate for their consideration of this legislation. We look forward to making sure a stimulus package clears before we recess. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act has done a lot of great things. It has had a consistently strong goal to mainstream disabled children into regular classrooms. I have in the last year or so visited 20 schools in my State. I try to take the opportunity each time to meet with the principals and teachers in a conference and ask them about their problems, what are their frustrations, what is working, what is not working, what can we do in the Federal Government to help them. The thing I hear over and over again--and I ask Senators if they hear the same thing; I suspect they do--is that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act has become a legal nightmare. It has created laws that are not helpful and are costing the schools tremendous sums of money in litigation. It is not helping children in ways we would like to help them. Yes, we want to mainstream every child who can be mainstreamed. I will share this story. I attended a wonderful, award-winning elementary school in a mid-size town in Alabama. It was so well decorated. It was the first week of the school year. The classrooms were well appointed, well organized, with bulletin boards of first quality. My wife taught elementary school a number of years, and I know about those things and what you are supposed to do. The principal told me this story. He said: The first day of school, when we were working as hard as we could to do all the things necessary to make that first day a great day for the kids, I spent that afternoon and until 7:30 that night with 13 individuals, including a group of lawyers, over how long an individual child should be kept in the mainstream classroom. This child had a serious emotional disability and was not going to be removed from school but would be put in an alternative setting where the disability could be dealt with. But the parents and lawyers wanted the child to be mainstreamed. In the previous year, I believe that child had been in the classroom 1 hour a day. The principal had concluded the child didn't need to do that. He was disrupting the classroom and the child would not benefit from being in the classroom an hour a day, and he decided to change that policy. So they did that under the individual plan for the child. As a result, an objection was raised. The compromise--he told me this, and I find this unbelievable-- was that the child was allowed to be in the classroom for 15 minutes a day. After all of that. As part of that settlement, the school was obligated to pay the lawyer who brought the allegation because the child had prevailed--at least in some part. So they had to pay the lawyer's fee for their lawyers and the lawyer's fee of the people on the other side. The teachers and all who had relevant information about this had to disrupt their first day of school to meet and meet and meet. They had to prepare and they had to talk to experts and have expert testimony about this child and what they could do--all because of the Federal education disabilities act. We want to help children who can be in the classroom--children who have sight disability, who can't hear, or children who have other disabilities and are in wheelchairs; they need to be mainstreamed. We want to achieve that. Nothing here would say otherwise. There are a lot of problem areas, though, and there is a cottage industry of lawyers who are filing lawsuits regularly. The District of Columbia tells us they had nearly 2,000 cases last year, and they are over the kinds of issues about which I am talking. These children are not being thrown on the ash heap. The question often is, What kind of program or benefit do they get? Do they stay in the main classroom or go to a special education classroom. We had a case in Alabama--and this is true all over America--where a child was so unable to control himself--apparently unable, or at least did not control himself--an aide was hired by the State to meet him at the school bus stop in the morning, go to school with that child, sit with him all day in the classroom, and come home with him in the afternoon. This is happening all over America. The lawyers and the regulations are impacting principals and teachers who love children. They want to see children do well, and they want to see every child reach their highest and fullest potential; but they are being handicapped by complex regulations and litigation. I say that in general. Then I will say this: $150 an hour is not unusual. There are a lot of regulations that we have where the hourly fees are lower than that. Criminal defense attorneys are paid less than that in most States in America. $150 an hour is a 20-percent increase over the current law. This Hutchison amendment is a 20-percent increase over current law in the District of Columbia. This was requested by the District of Columbia. They say, well, you don't cap other lawyer's fees. Other lawyers don't have their fees capped. Let me say this: If someone cheats you on a contract and you sue them and you win the lawsuit, they don't pay you anything for legal fees, unless it is in the contract, which it normally is not. Most people in America file a lawsuit, they pay their lawyer out of what they recover. So we have given a special advantage to lawyers in disability cases and in several other instances in lawsuits against Government agencies. We have agreed to pay their legal fees, but they are not guaranteed unlimited legal fees, guaranteed to be paid forever, however much they want or whatever some judge may agree to award them. So I think this is a reasonable amendment. It is a serious request of the school board of this city, which is facing an avalanche of lawsuits. There were nearly 2,000 last year. None of this money that is expended--the $10.5 million that was saved last year is not being thrown away. The $10.5 million that is saved can be used to help disabled children and provide them better programs. If we pay out more money in legal fees, from where do people think it is coming? It is coming from the children. That is where it is coming from--the people we want to help. We need to address nationally some of the litigation that is arising with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. There is not a superintendent of schools in America who has been on the job very long, I suggest--or certainly very few who would suggest this system is working effectively. Principals tell me all the time it is a nightmare for them. It is disrupting their ability to educate our children. They tell me the child who is getting hurt is the average child. There are special programs for the bright children and for those with disabilities, but the average child is getting shortchanged. Oftentimes, teachers are so frustrated they are leaving the profession. They are being sued for how they handle difficult circumstances.

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Chair and reiterate my support for the Hutchison amendment.

Mr. SESSIONS. I will finish the time of Senator Hutchison. How much time does the Senator have?

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. There is objection on this side, and I object.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed in morning business.

Mr. SESSIONS. 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. SESSIONS. I thank the President. I express my appreciation for the good work of the Senator from Louisiana on the issues that she described. I appreciate her commitment to education and to the improvement of education.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to discuss legislation I have offered that would be good public policy for the country and a terrific stimulus for the economy beginning in January. Let me explain what this is about. We have in this country a policy of helping the working poor called the earned income tax credit. That was passed in 1975. It was designed to help lower income people working on an hourly wage have a higher income to take care of their families. It is shaded in fact pretty heavily in favor of low-income people who have children. It has worked well on the whole. There have been a lot of people who have criticized it. They have called it welfare. In a way, it is a benefit given. But it is a benefit given in exchange for work, when a person works. It is a benefit from the Federal Government called the earned income tax credit. It is a tax credit. If you work, you earn it. It has in general been a good way to help the working poor, as we call them today. Since 1975, we have done that. The way the person receives the money, however, is detached from their work. The way a person receives their earned income tax credit is to file their tax return in February, March, April and get a tax return the next year after working all year. For example, for the year 2001, a low-income worker with two or more children could claim $4,008 in earned income tax credit, a worker with one child could receive up to $2,428, and a worker with no children could receive $364. The average earned income tax credit for a beneficiary with a qualifying child, one child, in 1999, was $1,941. That is about $150 a month, almost $1 an hour when figured on 160 hours for a month. It is a significant benefit from the Federal Government. From a public policy point of view, it has been less effective in achieving the goal we want it to achieve, which is to encourage work, because it is received at the end of the year, really the next year; and it is disconnected to the work the person has undertaken. We want to encourage people to work. We want work to be more rewarding. We want a person making $6 an hour making $7 an hour, just like that. Let's have them make $8 an hour if they were making $7. This could be done if we could in fact have this earned income tax credit paid at the time the person works, as part of their paycheck. In fact, this idea had been discussed earlier, a number of years ago. We passed a bill in this Congress that would allow people to choose this and, oddly, not many people have. However, most people don't fully understand it. Others are afraid they might end up having a tax liability next year and didn't choose it. I don't think businesses have encouraged people to take it as much as they should and, as a result, only 5 percent of the people who are eligible and choose this earned income tax credit have it paid to them in advance when they work. So I think we have a problem there. We can strengthen our economy and we can strengthen the reward for a person going to work if we tie this credit to the work they do, to their paycheck. In addition, I have discovered that the earned income tax credit is worth, for America, $31 billion a year. That is a lot of money by any standard. As we are looking at this time how to create an infusion of cash into our economy in a way that would strengthen this economy to make it more healthy, more vibrant, to get people purchasing again, to put dollars in the hands of consumers, I can think of no better way with the least possible cost to the Treasury than to have this money that would be entitled to come in the next fiscal year actually start coming in January on a person's paycheck. I think that would be a tremendous way to pour additional money into the economy without having any impact on the Treasury, except the loss of interest on the money the Federal Government would be sitting on. This would not hurt poor people in any way. It would not withhold or delay them receiving any money. But in fact it would advance their receipt of the money. So they would be receiving in February, March, April, May, when their tax refund comes due, their refund under the earned income tax credit for this year's work, but they would have already begun on January 1 of this year to receive on their paycheck the money for next year. So it would advance that payment and would provide a real stimulus to the economy because low-income people are going to be the ones who are most likely to spend it. Remember, it would impact their paychecks significantly in that there is no withholding from this earned income tax credit. They will have already paid their insurance, retirement benefits, Social Security, FICA, and withholding taxes. All of that would have already been paid. Whatever they get in addition would be money they could put into their pockets. So it would achieve the goal of the earned income tax credit to enhance and make work more valuable and, at the same time, would provide a tremendous stimulus to our economy. I am excited about this possibility, and I know Senator Reed, who is in the chair, and I have discussed this. He was at least intrigued by this idea. I was pleased today that Senator Nickles, who has been a critic of the earned income tax credit, one who has studied it carefully and has observed some of its problems, believes it is a good reform, and he is supporting and has signed onto this bill as an original cosponsor. So we have an opportunity to do something good for the economy, to do something good for poor people, to in effect have the businesses that now have to provide the option to their employees to go on and provide this money, which is reimbursed by the Federal Government immediately-- it doesn't cost them anything--and their workers would receive 50 or 60 cents an hour pay raise as a result of this payment. I think it is something they ought to be excited about doing. I think it would enhance their workers benefits from working and make them better employees. So it is time for us to do it now. I have been concerned about the issue. I have studied it for a number of years. I had some independent research done on it several years ago, and I have been thinking and looking for an opportunity to present it in the form of legislation. At this time, when we need a financial stimulus, I can't think of a better time. So I am asking the Finance Committee, and I have talked with the Director of the OMB, Mitch Daniels, the Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. O'Neill, and his top staff person. They are all intrigued by this and believe it has merit. I think it is time for us to consider that this be a part of our stimulus package. It has little long-term impact on the Federal Treasury, but it would provide a tremendous infusion of cash into the economy just at the time we need people to go to the store and buy things, generating demand out there that would allow factories to produce more products. It would be giving additional wages to people who may be getting less overtime now than they were a year ago--maybe not even getting 40 hours a week now as they were last year. Those people would receive higher wages for each hour they do work. I talked to a businessperson today, and they said they were on 4-day workweeks with their employees. They hated to do it, but there wasn't demand for their products sufficient to keep them fully engaged. Rather than lay people off, they put everybody on a 4-day workweek. So a lot of people are losing hours, and this would help keep them from losing income. I think it is good for the low-income workers in America. I think it is good for the economy, and I think it is good public policy for America. Mr. President, we have talked with members of the Finance Committee and with the administration. I hope they will seize this opportunity to do something that, to me, has a win-win-win all over it, with no negatives. It is the right thing to do. Some say, well, business people may not want to handle the paperwork on this. Businesspeople print their checks out by computers, and it is not difficult for them. The money is paid to them. I talked to one gentlemen who hires employees-- quite a number of low-income workers. He said he though it was a wonderful idea. It would be great for his workers, and it would be no problem at all for them to make that a part of their payroll check plan. It is just a matter of getting the person who processes that to factor it in, and it works rather easily. Again, I believe it is a good idea, and I have submitted it to the Senate. I will be talking with the leadership and urging its passage. It is the right thing to do, and I think we ought to do it. The time is long past that we make this earned income tax credit really do what it is supposed to do, which is encourage work. It is to encourage people to work and, at the same time, when we do it by advancing it this year, we will provide a stimulus to the economy in a very significant way. We estimate that out of $31 billion in earned income tax credit, we would be advancing at least $15 billion next year, and that would be a healthy stimulus indeed for the economy.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to discuss legislation I have offered that would be good public policy for the country and a terrific stimulus for the economy beginning in January. Let me explain what this is about. We have in this country a policy of helping the working poor called the earned income tax credit. That was passed in 1975. It was designed to help lower income people working on an hourly wage have a higher income to take care of their families. It is shaded in fact pretty heavily in favor of low-income people who have children. It has worked well on the whole. There have been a lot of people who have criticized it. They have called it welfare. In a way, it is a benefit given. But it is a benefit given in exchange for work, when a person works. It is a benefit from the Federal Government called the earned income tax credit. It is a tax credit. If you work, you earn it. It has in general been a good way to help the working poor, as we call them today. Since 1975, we have done that. The way the person receives the money, however, is detached from their work. The way a person receives their earned income tax credit is to file their tax return in February, March, April and get a tax return the next year after working all year. For example, for the year 2001, a low-income worker with two or more children could claim $4,008 in earned income tax credit, a worker with one child could receive up to $2,428, and a worker with no children could receive $364. The average earned income tax credit for a beneficiary with a qualifying child, one child, in 1999, was $1,941. That is about $150 a month, almost $1 an hour when figured on 160 hours for a month. It is a significant benefit from the Federal Government. From a public policy point of view, it has been less effective in achieving the goal we want it to achieve, which is to encourage work, because it is received at the end of the year, really the next year; and it is disconnected to the work the person has undertaken. We want to encourage people to work. We want work to be more rewarding. We want a person making $6 an hour making $7 an hour, just like that. Let's have them make $8 an hour if they were making $7. This could be done if we could in fact have this earned income tax credit paid at the time the person works, as part of their paycheck. In fact, this idea had been discussed earlier, a number of years ago. We passed a bill in this Congress that would allow people to choose this and, oddly, not many people have. However, most people don't fully understand it. Others are afraid they might end up having a tax liability next year and didn't choose it. I don't think businesses have encouraged people to take it as much as they should and, as a result, only 5 percent of the people who are eligible and choose this earned income tax credit have it paid to them in advance when they work. So I think we have a problem there. We can strengthen our economy and we can strengthen the reward for a person going to work if we tie this credit to the work they do, to their paycheck. In addition, I have discovered that the earned income tax credit is worth, for America, $31 billion a year. That is a lot of money by any standard. As we are looking at this time how to create an infusion of cash into our economy in a way that would strengthen this economy to make it more healthy, more vibrant, to get people purchasing again, to put dollars in the hands of consumers, I can think of no better way with the least possible cost to the Treasury than to have this money that would be entitled to come in the next fiscal year actually start coming in January on a person's paycheck. I think that would be a tremendous way to pour additional money into the economy without having any impact on the Treasury, except the loss of interest on the money the Federal Government would be sitting on. This would not hurt poor people in any way. It would not withhold or delay them receiving any money. But in fact it would advance their receipt of the money. So they would be receiving in February, March, April, May, when their tax refund comes due, their refund under the earned income tax credit for this year's work, but they would have already begun on January 1 of this year to receive on their paycheck the money for next year. So it would advance that payment and would provide a real stimulus to the economy because low-income people are going to be the ones who are most likely to spend it. Remember, it would impact their paychecks significantly in that there is no withholding from this earned income tax credit. They will have already paid their insurance, retirement benefits, Social Security, FICA, and withholding taxes. All of that would have already been paid. Whatever they get in addition would be money they could put into their pockets. So it would achieve the goal of the earned income tax credit to enhance and make work more valuable and, at the same time, would provide a tremendous stimulus to our economy. I am excited about this possibility, and I know Senator Reed, who is in the chair, and I have discussed this. He was at least intrigued by this idea. I was pleased today that Senator Nickles, who has been a critic of the earned income tax credit, one who has studied it carefully and has observed some of its problems, believes it is a good reform, and he is supporting and has signed onto this bill as an original cosponsor. So we have an opportunity to do something good for the economy, to do something good for poor people, to in effect have the businesses that now have to provide the option to their employees to go on and provide this money, which is reimbursed by the Federal Government immediately-- it doesn't cost them anything--and their workers would receive 50 or 60 cents an hour pay raise as a result of this payment. I think it is something they ought to be excited about doing. I think it would enhance their workers benefits from working and make them better employees. So it is time for us to do it now. I have been concerned about the issue. I have studied it for a number of years. I had some independent research done on it several years ago, and I have been thinking and looking for an opportunity to present it in the form of legislation. At this time, when we need a financial stimulus, I can't think of a better time. So I am asking the Finance Committee, and I have talked with the Director of the OMB, Mitch Daniels, the Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. O'Neill, and his top staff person. They are all intrigued by this and believe it has merit. I think it is time for us to consider that this be a part of our stimulus package. It has little long-term impact on the Federal Treasury, but it would provide a tremendous infusion of cash into the economy just at the time we need people to go to the store and buy things, generating demand out there that would allow factories to produce more products. It would be giving additional wages to people who may be getting less overtime now than they were a year ago--maybe not even getting 40 hours a week now as they were last year. Those people would receive higher wages for each hour they do work. I talked to a businessperson today, and they said they were on 4-day workweeks with their employees. They hated to do it, but there wasn't demand for their products sufficient to keep them fully engaged. Rather than lay people off, they put everybody on a 4-day workweek. So a lot of people are losing hours, and this would help keep them from losing income. I think it is good for the low-income workers in America. I think it is good for the economy, and I think it is good public policy for America. Mr. President, we have talked with members of the Finance Committee and with the administration. I hope they will seize this opportunity to do something that, to me, has a win-win-win all over it, with no negatives. It is the right thing to do. Some say, well, business people may not want to handle the paperwork on this. Businesspeople print their checks out by computers, and it is not difficult for them. The money is paid to them. I talked to one gentlemen who hires employees-- quite a number of low-income workers. He said he though it was a wonderful idea. It would be great for his workers, and it would be no problem at all for them to make that a part of their payroll check plan. It is just a matter of getting the person who processes that to factor it in, and it works rather easily. Again, I believe it is a good idea, and I have submitted it to the Senate. I will be talking with the leadership and urging its passage. It is the right thing to do, and I think we ought to do it. The time is long past that we make this earned income tax credit really do what it is supposed to do, which is encourage work. It is to encourage people to work and, at the same time, when we do it by advancing it this year, we will provide a stimulus to the economy in a very significant way. We estimate that out of $31 billion in earned income tax credit, we would be advancing at least $15 billion next year, and that would be a healthy stimulus indeed for the economy.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, in just a few minutes we will be voting on a Federal judge nominee for the Federal District Court of the Northern District of Alabama, Karon Owen Bowdre. Senator Shelby and I are pleased that President Bush chose to nominate her. Her nomination moved through the committee and will be up for a vote in just a few minutes. Karon Bowdre is a first-rate judicial nominee. Karon Bowdre has been a student, a legal practitioner, and a professor of law. She graduated cum laude from the Cumberland School of Law, where she served as associate editor of the Cumberland Law Review. Cumberland may be the largest school in Alabama. It is an excellent law school. After graduating from law school Mrs. Bowdre served as a law clerk for the Honorable J. Foy Guin, Jr. in the Federal District of Northern Alabama, the court to which she has been nominated. She is very familiar with the Federal district court, having clerked and practiced there. Judge Guin, a wonderful Federal judge, has taken senior status. He was number one in his class at the University of Alabama School of Law. His father was an excellent practitioner. I had the honor of practicing in his law firm immediately after his going on the bench in Birmingham. Mrs. Bowdre has a good background. She clerked for the Federal judge in the very district that she will be serving. Prior to becoming a full- time professor, Mrs. Bowdre spent several years as associate and partner, practicing law at the well-respected law firm of Rives & Peterson in Birmingham, our State's largest city. Rives & Peterson is an outstanding firm and her serving as partner in that firm is proof of her legal ability. During a substantial part of that practice, she litigated a number of cases in the Federal court system. For the last 11 years, Mrs. Bowdre has been teaching students about the rule of law. As a professor and director of the Legal Research and Writing Program at the Cumberland School of Law, she has authored numerous articles on insurance law and legal ethics. She has established a reputation as a professor who insists on quality work from students, and high ideals and high ethics. In addition, she has been called to testify as a legal expert on insurance issues and has been involved in lecturing at Continuing Legal Education seminars. Mrs. Bowdre knows how to deal with lawyers, with witnesses, and with parties. These experiences have no doubt prepared her for service on the Federal bench. Her reputation as a lawyer and as a scholar has earned her broad support in the community. I would like to quote a letter submitted by perhaps one of the most successful plaintiff lawyers in Alabama, Jere Beasley. Even though Mrs. Bowdre, as an insurance defense attorney, was generally arguing the opposite position of Mr. Beasley, he had this to say on her behalf. I have known Karon for a number of years and believe that she will be an outstanding U.S. District Judge. She will have wide acceptance from lawyers . . . regardless of whether they represent plaintiffs or defendants. While my practice is one that represents plaintiffs only, I am convinced that Karon will be fair and competent to all concerned and that is all that any lawyer should ask of a judge. She is highly qualified and, in my opinion, will do an outstanding job. Her integrity, experience, and commitment to the rule of law are outstanding. I commend Chairman Leahy for placing her on the Senate Judiciary Committee agenda last month and for moving the nomination. I recommend her to my colleagues in the Senate without reservation. I served for almost 15 years--12 years as U.S. Attorney and 2\1/2\ as Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Federal court. Those 15 years of practice full-time in Federal court gave me a basis to appreciate the value of a good Federal judge. When you go to court every day and you are there before a Federal judge who has a lifetime appointment, they can afford to be irritable, if they so choose, and there is nothing you can do about it. This knowledge makes you realize the importance of good Federal judges. I am confident that Mrs. Bowdre will be the kind of judge that will serve the litigants and lawyers well that appear before her. Day after day and hour after hour she will give her best service to the country, and she will give her honest and best rulings in case after case that comes before her. You can't ask for more than that. She has integrity, outstanding legal ability, and broad experience. She will be an outstanding Federal judge. I am honored to have submitted her name. I am confident she will be confirmed in a few minutes. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, today I rise to re-introduce legislation to help preserve the heritage of eight historic women's colleges and universities. The legislation would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to provide restoration and preservation grants for historic buildings and structures at eight historically women's colleges or universities. The bill directs the Secretary to award $16 million annually from fiscal years 2002 through 2006 to the eight institutions. Funds would be awarded from the National Historic Preservation Fund and are subject to a 50 percent matching requirement from non-federal sources. The sweeping changes of the industrial revolution prompted Congress in 1862, with further action in 1887 and 1890, to provide Federal support for the establishment of agricultural and mechanical colleges with growing emphasis on industrial and technical education. Unfortunately, these ``land-grant'' schools were only for men, leaving women untrained as they entered the expanded work force. Women's advocates, such as Miss Julia Tutwiler in Alabama, immediately recognized the need for institutions where women could receive an equal education. Beginning in 1836, eight institutions in seven separate States were established as industrial schools for women. These institutions include the Mississippi University for Women, in Alabama the University of Montevallo, Georgia College and State University, Wesleyan College also in Georgia, Winthrop University in South Carolina, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Texas Women's University, and the University of Science and Arts of Oklahoma. These eight institutions remain open, providing a liberal arts education for both men and women, but retain significant historical and academic features of those pioneering efforts to educate women. Despite their continued use, many of the structures located on these campuses are facing destruction or closure because preservation funds are not available. My legislation would enable these buildings to be preserved and maintained by providing funding for the historic buildings located at the colleges and universities that I have identified. Funding would originate from the National Historic Preservation Fund. No more than $16 million would be available and would be distributed in equal amounts to the eight institutions. My bill also provides that a 50 percent matching contribution from non-federal sources and assures that alterations in properties using the funds are subject to approval from the Secretary of the Interior and reasonable public access for interpretive and educational purposes. These historically women's colleges and universities have contributed significantly to the effort to attain equal opportunity through postsecondary education for women, low income individuals, and educationally disadvantaged Americans. I believe it is our duty to do all we can to preserve these historic institutions and I ask my colleagues for their support.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, today I rise to re-introduce legislation to help preserve the heritage of eight historic women's colleges and universities. The legislation would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to provide restoration and preservation grants for historic buildings and structures at eight historically women's colleges or universities. The bill directs the Secretary to award $16 million annually from fiscal years 2002 through 2006 to the eight institutions. Funds would be awarded from the National Historic Preservation Fund and are subject to a 50 percent matching requirement from non-federal sources. The sweeping changes of the industrial revolution prompted Congress in 1862, with further action in 1887 and 1890, to provide Federal support for the establishment of agricultural and mechanical colleges with growing emphasis on industrial and technical education. Unfortunately, these ``land-grant'' schools were only for men, leaving women untrained as they entered the expanded work force. Women's advocates, such as Miss Julia Tutwiler in Alabama, immediately recognized the need for institutions where women could receive an equal education. Beginning in 1836, eight institutions in seven separate States were established as industrial schools for women. These institutions include the Mississippi University for Women, in Alabama the University of Montevallo, Georgia College and State University, Wesleyan College also in Georgia, Winthrop University in South Carolina, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Texas Women's University, and the University of Science and Arts of Oklahoma. These eight institutions remain open, providing a liberal arts education for both men and women, but retain significant historical and academic features of those pioneering efforts to educate women. Despite their continued use, many of the structures located on these campuses are facing destruction or closure because preservation funds are not available. My legislation would enable these buildings to be preserved and maintained by providing funding for the historic buildings located at the colleges and universities that I have identified. Funding would originate from the National Historic Preservation Fund. No more than $16 million would be available and would be distributed in equal amounts to the eight institutions. My bill also provides that a 50 percent matching contribution from non-federal sources and assures that alterations in properties using the funds are subject to approval from the Secretary of the Interior and reasonable public access for interpretive and educational purposes. These historically women's colleges and universities have contributed significantly to the effort to attain equal opportunity through postsecondary education for women, low income individuals, and educationally disadvantaged Americans. I believe it is our duty to do all we can to preserve these historic institutions and I ask my colleagues for their support.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Would the State of Alaska benefit from that?

Mr. SESSIONS. If there is production, the Federal Government would receive additional royalties?

Mr. SESSIONS. Would there be royalties paid each year after that during production?

Mr. SESSIONS. But if we were to open ANWR, the Federal Government, just from the sale of the leases, would receive $1.6 billion?

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, will the Senator from Alaska yield for a question? I want to get this straight. Right now when we buy oil from foreign countries, the royalties, the labor, the pipes, and all the construction and drilling, all the economic investment is in those foreign countries; is that correct?

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I would just like to share a few remarks at this time concerning the energy bill. We need to improve our production of energy within the United States, and I would like to share a few thoughts about why I think it is a critical part of stimulating the economy. At this time of economic slowdown, we need to create circumstances that will allow the economy to grow and flower. It has struck me for some time--and I have mentioned this on the floor previously--that our economic slowdown began over a year ago, and it began not long after we saw a tremendous surge in the price of energy. The price of a barrel of oil in the United States was as low as $13 a barrel. It soon leaped to $30 a barrel. And 60 percent of all the oil we utilize in the United States is purchased abroad. So there was a tremendous transfer of American wealth. We got no more oil--not a single barrel of oil--but we were paying more than twice as much for that oil as we were paying just months before it surged upward. That drained a great deal of money from this economy. It demonstrated, with great clarity, the dependence we have on foreign oil. And most of the reserves of foreign oil are in the Middle East. It has pointed out the dangers we face if we do not make some changes. Now we are engaged in hostilities in the Middle East, and we see, once again, just how fragile that supply of oil is to our Nation, and how quickly it can be interrupted. Our economy needs to improve. I think it is incumbent on us to consider, quite seriously, reforming our energy laws so that we can produce more energy in this country. If we can do that, we will be able to keep more money at home. So when a well is drilled, the question is, Will it be drilled in Saudi Arabia or Iran or Iraq or Kuwait, or will it be drilled somewhere in the United States? When it is drilled here, not only does the money stay here--the royalties that are paid to the State or the landowner for the oil--but all the people who drill the well, all the people who work at it, process the oil, and move that oil from the wellhead site--all of those people will be paid salaries; and then they will pay taxes. They will help reduce our unemployment, increase tax revenue, and provide income for American workers. So we need to do a number of things to improve our energy situation so that we reduce the drain on our economy from the constant purchase of oil abroad. Conservation is a critical part of that. The more we can reduce the use of oil and gas in America, then the less demand we have to transfer wealth abroad to purchase it. At the same time, the more we can produce in the United States, the greater our chance will be to churn that money again within the United States, creating jobs, salaries, retirements, and health care benefits, as well as taxes for our States and our governments, our local school systems, and the Federal Government. It will strengthen our economy in a number of ways. I think improving our energy production would be a critical step in revitalizing our economy. I do not think it is coincidental that we began to sink not long after we saw a tripling of the price of oil on the world market. I am delighted to see the ranking member of the Energy Committee, Senator Murkowski, in this Chamber. I know he wants to speak on this issue. He has been a constant, steady advocate for America: What is good for American workers, what is good for this country, what we need to do to remain economically strong. If we do not remain economically strong, we cannot do the good things in this country, and around the world, we want to do. He has been a great champion of that. As I said, I see he is in this Chamber. I suspect he would like to talk on the energy issue in more detail. I thank him for his leadership and yield the floor to him.

Mr. SESSIONS. And the workers even in Alaska are supposed to pay Federal income tax.

Mr. SESSIONS. Instead of having workers in Saudi Arabia paying taxes to Saudi Arabia, Iraq, or Iran, they would be paying taxes to the U.S. Government.

Mr. SESSIONS. I know there are people who have become emotionally committed to this ANWR issue. I hope people will rethink it. As the Senator from Alaska has explained repeatedly, we have such a small area that needs to be produced, and wells are so much more sophisticated today. One well can drain a much larger area than ever before. There is a virtual pipeline there. That is important. The Senator mentioned a threat from foreign dependence. Was it not just a few years ago the price of oil per barrel on the world market was around $13 and the cartel, since they had so much of the oil, fixed the price and drove it up to as high as $30 a barrel?

Mr. SESSIONS. I guess the point is, these are supposedly our friends who triple the price we have to pay for oil. We have to pay three times as much money to foreign sources, and we get no more oil than we did the day before they drove it up?