Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Most of those plants don't have self-insured, and they are already subject to State regulations.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I just want to say something and get it off my chest. It is offensive to me, and almost demeaning to this Senate, for people who disagree with the work that has been done by people such as Dr. Bill Frist, and Senator Collins from Maine, and Senator Jeffords, who worked hard on this bill, to suggest that they are bought and paid for by insurance companies and HMOs. I haven't talked to an HMO, but I have talked to some people who are concerned about expanding costs of health care. It is Alabama businesses. We had the Business Council of Alabama in my office just a few days ago, a group of them. It is the biggest group in the State. The first thing they said was: Jeff, please don't vote for something that is going to skyrocket health care costs. We are afraid of that. We have already got an 8-percent inflation cost increase predicted for next year; 8 percent already. You vote on a bill, the Kennedy bill, with 6 percent more? Please don't do that. We can't afford to cover our employees. They are going to lose health care. And the numbers back that up. This is what we are about. It offends me to have it suggested that some insurance company is here--HMOs are not even here, that I have observed. They do not care what the rules are. You tell them what the coverage is, what the rules are, and they will write the policy and up the premium to pay for it. And working Americans are going to pay for it. That is what is really unfair to me. For Senators to suggest that there is a scorecard and only truth and justice and decency and fairness occur when her amendment is voted on? We have amendments. This whole bill mandates and controls and directs HMOs on behalf of patients. Everything that is in it, that is what it does. Some just want to go further, and whatever you do is never enough. There is always another amendment to go further. It is a sad day when we have a group of fine Americans who worked on this legislation for 2 years or more, to present a bill that is coherent, that improves and protects the rights of people who are insured to a degree that has never happened before, and have them accused of being a tool for some special interest group. It is just not so. The Members on the other side know it, and they ought not to be saying it. It is wrong for them to do so. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I do appreciate the leadership of the Senator from West Virginia on the steel question. It is important; a company in critical condition, with 1,800 employees in Alabama and a 30-year record of business success, which has, in just the last week, gone into bankruptcy. And I do believe the loan guarantee could help save that historic company. I thank the Senator for his leadership.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I understand the remarks the Senators have made. It has been suggested earlier that we have had an absurd policy for years and that Cuba is not a real threat to us, certainly not as much of a threat as North Korea. I suggest if that is so--and it certainly has not been so for very long; I suggest Cuba could in the future be a threat to the United States--it is because we stood up to them. We contained them. We basically defeated them and stopped them when they had a systematic determination to subvert the Western Hemisphere and even sent troops into Africa on behalf of Russia, when there was a Soviet Union to subvert Africa for totalitarian communism. That is what it was about. We have done some things that I think were necessary and have preserved democracy for this hemisphere. It is something we ought to be proud of. As for Castro, it is time for him to retire. It is time for him to give it up. It is time for him to put his people above his own personal aggrandizement and lust for power. If he cares about his people, he ought to give it up. He can go to North Korea, if he wants to go to a Communist nation. I don't have any sympathy for the man. I do not know why people want to go to Cuba. All the time: I want to go to Cuba, go to Cuba. Well, I would suggest maybe Honduras. Those people have suffered terrifically. There are people in Haiti we could help. I do not know why everybody wants to help a nation that is oppressing its people so much. Be that as it may, there are provisions now for people to gain exemptions, if they have a just cause to do so, to go to Cuba. Those who have a legitimate reason can find a way to go there, as the Senator noted. I think we have an appropriate policy. I will oppose changing it. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to protect the health and pension benefits of thousands of clergy and lay workers. This legislation clarifies the regulatory status of church benefit programs and allows service providers to continue contracting with church plans. Unfortunately, state insurance statutes, in all but three states, fail to address the legal status of these benefit programs. Thus, under some interpretations of state insurance law it is possible to conclude that these employer plans are subject to regulation as insurance companies. This uncertain legal status has caused service providers to refuse to contract with church plans--leaving these programs without the necessary tools to maximize benefits and reduce costs. Recently, the Insurance Department of South Dakota informed the church benefits community that either federal or state legislation is necessary to exempt their programs from their state's insurance laws. With the possibility that 46 more states could make the same request, I believe the only practical solution is for Congress to clarify the status of these plans. That is what my legislation does. Mr. President, my legislation is within the spirit of the National Securities Markets Improvement Act (NSMIA) of 1996 (P.L. 104-290) which not only exempted church plans from federal securities laws--providing the same treatment secular plans had previously enjoyed--but, also preempted state securities laws. This is not a unique idea. Similarly, the Internal Revenue Code includes numerous accommodations to the special circumstances of church plans. For example, the church plans which annuitize benefits are deemed not to be commercial insurers for purposes of maintaining their tax-exempt status. Mr. President, I have heard from ministers in my state about the urgency to move this legislation expeditiously. Indeed, Bishop Wesley Morris of the United Methodist Church visited me about this very matter. It is supported by the Church Alliance, a coalition of more than 30 denominational benefit programs, including the Presbyterian Church in America, the Rabbinical Pension Board, the Christian Brothers Service, the United Church of Christ, The United Methodist Church, the Episcopal Church, the Southern Baptist Convention and many others. While these denominations may disagree about certain theological issues, they are united in providing sound health care and pension programs to their ministers and lay workers. Furthermore, while there are differing opinions with the Senate, and among ourselves, about health care legislation, there should be no disagreement that we need to protect benefit plans that serve ministers and lay workers. It makes no sense to leave these programs at the mercy of 47 different insurance laws. Every person active in his or her church knows the rising cost of health care is a problem. Mr. President, I want to clarify two points with respect to preemption of State laws as provided by this legislation. The exception that allows states to enact legislation applicable to church plans is intended to permit states to regulate church plans only if a specific statute is passed by a State legislature on a stand-alone basis and the sole purpose of the statute is to regulate church plans. Furthermore, I want to point that this legislation is intended to permit insurance companies and other service providers to contract with church plans regardless of whether such church plans would have been treated as multiple-employer welfare arrangements under State law, if this legislation had not been enacted. Mr. President, I urge the Senate to pass this measure.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to protect the health and pension benefits of thousands of clergy and lay workers. This legislation clarifies the regulatory status of church benefit programs and allows service providers to continue contracting with church plans. Unfortunately, state insurance statutes, in all but three states, fail to address the legal status of these benefit programs. Thus, under some interpretations of state insurance law it is possible to conclude that these employer plans are subject to regulation as insurance companies. This uncertain legal status has caused service providers to refuse to contract with church plans--leaving these programs without the necessary tools to maximize benefits and reduce costs. Recently, the Insurance Department of South Dakota informed the church benefits community that either federal or state legislation is necessary to exempt their programs from their state's insurance laws. With the possibility that 46 more states could make the same request, I believe the only practical solution is for Congress to clarify the status of these plans. That is what my legislation does. Mr. President, my legislation is within the spirit of the National Securities Markets Improvement Act (NSMIA) of 1996 (P.L. 104-290) which not only exempted church plans from federal securities laws--providing the same treatment secular plans had previously enjoyed--but, also preempted state securities laws. This is not a unique idea. Similarly, the Internal Revenue Code includes numerous accommodations to the special circumstances of church plans. For example, the church plans which annuitize benefits are deemed not to be commercial insurers for purposes of maintaining their tax-exempt status. Mr. President, I have heard from ministers in my state about the urgency to move this legislation expeditiously. Indeed, Bishop Wesley Morris of the United Methodist Church visited me about this very matter. It is supported by the Church Alliance, a coalition of more than 30 denominational benefit programs, including the Presbyterian Church in America, the Rabbinical Pension Board, the Christian Brothers Service, the United Church of Christ, The United Methodist Church, the Episcopal Church, the Southern Baptist Convention and many others. While these denominations may disagree about certain theological issues, they are united in providing sound health care and pension programs to their ministers and lay workers. Furthermore, while there are differing opinions with the Senate, and among ourselves, about health care legislation, there should be no disagreement that we need to protect benefit plans that serve ministers and lay workers. It makes no sense to leave these programs at the mercy of 47 different insurance laws. Every person active in his or her church knows the rising cost of health care is a problem. Mr. President, I want to clarify two points with respect to preemption of State laws as provided by this legislation. The exception that allows states to enact legislation applicable to church plans is intended to permit states to regulate church plans only if a specific statute is passed by a State legislature on a stand-alone basis and the sole purpose of the statute is to regulate church plans. Furthermore, I want to point that this legislation is intended to permit insurance companies and other service providers to contract with church plans regardless of whether such church plans would have been treated as multiple-employer welfare arrangements under State law, if this legislation had not been enacted. Mr. President, I urge the Senate to pass this measure.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I express my appreciation for the excellent remarks delivered by the Senator from Missouri. He and the Senator from Minnesota have been champions of lowering the burden of government on American people since they have been in this body. They are known for that. They have given time and effort and passion to it. I really was inspired by the remarks of the Senator from Missouri. I appreciate them very much. We are in a time of surplus. We have time to make some decisions about what we are going to do with that surplus. The President's own Office of Management and Budget midyear review now indicates that we will have, over 10 years, a $1 trillion surplus outside of Social Security available to us. I suggest we have to consider allowing working Americans to keep more of what they earn. That is clearly a policy that will nurture freedom. The more money we take from individuals, the more we take from families, the more we shift it to a burdensome bureaucracy in Washington, the more we diminish their freedom, their power vis-a-vis the government. The government is strengthened. The individual and family is weakened. It is just that simple. The power to tax is the power to destroy. A tax diminishes freedom. It penalizes certain behavior, and it encourages other behavior. I think we have to be honest with ourselves. This great economy has done some wonderful things for America. We are also finding that people are moving up in the tax brackets, higher and higher tax brackets, meaning they are paying a higher percentage of their income to the government each year. And the sad fact is that the total percentage of the gross domestic product; that is, of all goods and services produced in America, is increasing. According to the Federal Government's own statistics, in 1992, when this administration took office, before the big tax increase, we were sending 17.6 percent of the gross domestic product to the Government. It will reach 20.7 this year or next year--a steady increase. To say that tax decreases are going to destroy the Government and somehow result in a massive reduction in funds to the Government is silly. The year before last we rolled back one-third of the 1993 huge tax increase that the administration pushed for. We rolled that back and included within it a $500 per child tax credit. I know the Senator from Wyoming, the Presiding Officer, was a supporter of that, and the Senator from Minnesota, was a big supporter of that $500 per child tax credit. I made it one of my highest priorities and worked extremely hard to see that that became a reality. They say: Well, you can't afford a tax cut. If you have a tax cut, we will increase our deficit. That has not happened. In fact, we are continuing to see surpluses accrue. But what I want to ask the American people to do is think about this: A family with three children making $35,000 a year, or $45,000 a year, will now receive a tax credit--not a tax deduction but a $500 reduction in the amount of money they have to pay in taxes to the Government for each of those children--$1,500. They will be getting those refunds this spring. Many have already received those refunds--$1,500 for a family. That is $120 per month tax free for a family to use for things. If there is somebody struggling today, as the Senator from Missouri noted, it is working families. It is expensive. They will have $120 a month to buy shoes with, or maybe a new set of tires for the car, or maybe money so the child can go on a school trip that they would like for them to go on but are wondering how they are going to pay for it. They will get it every month, because this Congress said, no, we are not going to keep taking this money from the families; we are going to allow you to keep it and use it as you see fit. Who cares more about children than a mother who cares about her children? Who can best decide what they need than the family? It is a myth that if you do not vote for more and more and bigger programs, you love your children less. That is an incorrect statement. It really offends me, because what we are doing is taking that money from families who love their children and who know their children's names. Nobody in Washington knows my children's names or the names of children in Alabama. They can't possibly utilize resources as effectively as the people who love them and who are raising them. I really believe that was a nice step forward. But it was just one step. I am proud that we accomplished that. It took some effort. It looked as if it wasn't going to happen, until finally the American people understood what was being talked about. They realized that it was in fact possible to achieve it, and the people started speaking. The Congress--some of those who objected--got the message, and the President got the message. He signed that bill. So we are looking at a continual possibility of a surplus in the future. I am concerned that we are showing an unhealthy increase in the amount taken by Government. I think it is time to send some of that back to our people. We can make reform of Social Security, we can secure Medicare, and I am absolutely strongly committed to the Social Security lockbox--to setting aside our Social Security surplus so we don't spend it, and making sure it is there to allow us to strengthen and improve Social Security. That is the first step. If we spend the Social Security surplus by new and bigger programs--there is always some new program that somebody has--we are not going to have it to save Social Security. Likewise, we have an opportunity with a non-Social Security surplus-- this $1 trillion, this $1,000 billion, that will be ours in the next decade--to make a decision: Are we going to allow the Government to grow and become more and more a dominating force in our lives, or are we going to encourage families and freedom and prosperity? Just for example, I support and am working very hard on a program I call ``The Class Act.'' Most States--42 States now--have a plan called a prepaid college tuition plan where you can buy into college tuition, invest your money into it as your children grow, so much a month, how you choose, and when your child gets to the age to go to college, it can be paid for. We found that the Federal Government taxes all the interest that accrues on that money. The Federal Government is taxing and penalizing families who are doing the right thing by saving for their children's college education at the same time that we are providing tax breaks, interest rate breaks, and interest deferred payments to people who borrow for college. As a result, we have found that borrowing in the last decade has tripled--three times what it was in the previous decade. And savings are down. Good government policy calls on us and demands of us that we encourage the highest and best qualities in people. Taxing and penalizing people who save, and at the same time subsidizing people who borrow, which we need to do--people need to be helped in borrowing to go to college; we are not eliminating any of those programs--is wrongheaded. It is not encouraging our highest and best instinct as a people. We are different from the rest of the world. This was never a government-dominated country. It has never been run by a king. It has never been run by a totalitarian Communist dictator. It is made up of millions of independent, free Americans who respect themselves and their communities and care about themselves and their communities. We don't believe the Government ought to do everything for us. People are prepared in this country, as a part of our very character as a people, to take care of themselves whenever they can. But if the Government continues to take more of their wealth and take more of the money they earn every month, making it more and more difficult for them to meet their responsibilities, then they tend to look to Government to fund them. That is not a good trend for us. This is basic. This represents a basic divide in this Senate and right down the hall in the Congress between people whose visions differ about the nature of our country. I say let's celebrate our character of individualism, personal responsibility, personal integrity, good financial management, and frugality. Let's encourage savings and not tax people's money who save. I think it is time for us as a nation to think about this. We dare not get into a big spending program. We do not dare start taxing and spending again. We have an opportunity for a historic time for America. I am proud to join with the Senator from Minnesota in promoting it.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation which will simplify and update a provision of the Tax Code that affects the sale of timber. It is both a simplification measure and a fairness measure. We call it the Timber Tax Simplification Act of 1999. Under the current law, landowners who are occasional sellers of timber are often classified by the Internal Revenue Service as ``dealers.'' As a result, the small landowner is forced to choose, because of the Tax Code, a method of selling timber that they may not prefer. Fundamentally, there are two methods of selling timber. The first method is known as ``lump sum'' sales, and it is the most popular, but it is subject to a higher tax rate. The second method, pay-as-cut sales, allows for lower capital gains treatment but results in the landowner having to accept unnecessary risks throughout the timber selling process. Why, one might ask, do these conflicting incentives exist for our Nation's timber growers? Earlier in the century, outright, or ``lump sum,'' sales on a cash advance basis were associated with a ``cut-and- run'' mentality that did not promote good forest management. ``Pay-as- cut'' sales, in which a timber owner is only paid for timber as it is actually harvested and taken to the mill, were associated with ``enlightened'' resource management. Consequently, Congress, in 1943, in an effort to provide an incentive for this preferred method, passed legislation that allowed capital gains treatment under section 631(b) of the IRS Code for ``pay-as-cut'' plan sales, leaving the ``lump sum'' sales to pay a much higher rate of tax. It is said that President Roosevelt was not in favor of the bill and almost vetoed it. Ultimately, however, he signed it into law. Today, however, section 631(b), along with many other provisions of the IRS Code, is completely outdated. Forest management practices are much different from what they were in 1943, and ``lump sum'' sales are no longer associated with poor forest management. Indeed, there is very little poor forest management today. People recognize the value of timberland, and timber is almost never cut without being properly replanted. While there are occasional special situations when other methods may be more appropriate, most timber owners prefer the ``lump sum'' method, over the ``pay-as-cut'' method. The reasons are simple. When a timber sale is entered into, the title to the timber is transferred on the closing of the sale. Once a contract is assigned, the buyer, who is often a corporation, a sawmill, or a corporate timber company, assumes the risk of any physical loss to the timber due to fire, insects, disease, or storms. Furthermore, the price to be paid for the timber is determined and received by the landowner at the time of the sale. In addition, such a ``lump sum'' sale best protects the rights of the landowner, by preventing delays not only in the actual cutting and harvesting of the timber, but in the receiving of payments. Unfortunately, in order for timber owners to qualify for the favorable capital gains treatment, they are virtually forced to market their timber on a ``pay-as-cut'' basis under section 631(b), which requires landowners to sell their timber with a ``retained economic interest.'' This means that the landowner, not the buyer, must bear the risk of any physical loss during the time period contracted with the buyer to harvest the timber. Furthermore, the buyer pays for only the timber that is actually harvested. As a result, this type of sale can be subject to fraud and abuse by the timber buyer. Since the buyer pays only for the timber that is removed and scaled, there is an incentive to waste poor quality timber--by breaking the tree during the logging process--underscale the timber, or remove the timber without scaling. Many different valuation methods can be utilized by sophisticated buyers against a landowner; the landowner may not fully realize how the timber is being priced, and even then he is paid only when the timber is delivered to the mill at a certain complicated rate. But because 631(b) provides for the favorable tax treatment, many landowners are forced into exposing themselves to unnecessary risk of loss and complications by having to market their timber in this manner instead of the more preferred ``lump-sum'' method. Like many of the provisions in the Tax Code, section 631(b) is outdated and prevents good forestry management. Timber farmers, that have usually spent decades producing their crop, should be able to receive equal tax treatment regardless of the method used for marketing their timber. The IRS has no business--and, in effect, it does--stepping in and dictating the kind of sales contract a landowner must choose. The legislation I have introduced will provide greater consistency by removing the exclusive ``retained economic interest'' requirement in the Internal Revenue Code section 631(b). This change has been supported or suggested by a number of groups for tax simplification purposes, including positive comments from Internal Revenue Service officials who have indicated they see no reason for this present law. The Joint Committee on Taxation has studied this legislation to consider what impact it might have on the Treasury and found that it would have no real cost--only a ``negligible impact'' according to their analysis. Reform of 631(b) is important to our Nation's nonindustrial, private landowners because it will improve the economic viability of their forestry investments and protect the taxpayer from unnecessary exposure to risk of loss. This in turn will benefit the entire forest products industry, the U.S. economy, and especially the small landowners. So I urge my colleagues to join me and Senator Paul Coverdell, of Georgia, who is a cosponsor of this legislation, in this effort to simplify the Tax Code and to promote good forestry management. There is simply no longer any need for this bizarre, complex tax regulation that is driving individual landowners to make choices they would not otherwise make. Choices that cost them money and unnecessarily shift risk in a way that ought to be decided among the parties--the buyer and the seller--and not the Internal Revenue Service.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, I would like to note that the Senate will now be in a period of morning business until 1 p.m. Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of the agriculture appropriations bill. Under a previous order, the Senate will begin a series of up to four stacked cloture votes at 5:30 p.m. Those votes will be on invoking cloture on the agriculture appropriations bill, followed by cloture on the motion to proceed to the transportation appropriations bill, cloture on the motion to proceed to the Commerce-State-Justice appropriations bill, and cloture on the motion to proceed to foreign operations appropriations. Therefore, Senators can expect the first vote to begin at 5:30 p.m. I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation which will simplify and update a provision of the Tax Code that affects the sale of timber. It is both a simplification measure and a fairness measure. We call it the Timber Tax Simplification Act of 1999. Under the current law, landowners who are occasional sellers of timber are often classified by the Internal Revenue Service as ``dealers.'' As a result, the small landowner is forced to choose, because of the Tax Code, a method of selling timber that they may not prefer. Fundamentally, there are two methods of selling timber. The first method is known as ``lump sum'' sales, and it is the most popular, but it is subject to a higher tax rate. The second method, pay-as-cut sales, allows for lower capital gains treatment but results in the landowner having to accept unnecessary risks throughout the timber selling process. Why, one might ask, do these conflicting incentives exist for our Nation's timber growers? Earlier in the century, outright, or ``lump sum,'' sales on a cash advance basis were associated with a ``cut-and- run'' mentality that did not promote good forest management. ``Pay-as- cut'' sales, in which a timber owner is only paid for timber as it is actually harvested and taken to the mill, were associated with ``enlightened'' resource management. Consequently, Congress, in 1943, in an effort to provide an incentive for this preferred method, passed legislation that allowed capital gains treatment under section 631(b) of the IRS Code for ``pay-as-cut'' plan sales, leaving the ``lump sum'' sales to pay a much higher rate of tax. It is said that President Roosevelt was not in favor of the bill and almost vetoed it. Ultimately, however, he signed it into law. Today, however, section 631(b), along with many other provisions of the IRS Code, is completely outdated. Forest management practices are much different from what they were in 1943, and ``lump sum'' sales are no longer associated with poor forest management. Indeed, there is very little poor forest management today. People recognize the value of timberland, and timber is almost never cut without being properly replanted. While there are occasional special situations when other methods may be more appropriate, most timber owners prefer the ``lump sum'' method, over the ``pay-as-cut'' method. The reasons are simple. When a timber sale is entered into, the title to the timber is transferred on the closing of the sale. Once a contract is assigned, the buyer, who is often a corporation, a sawmill, or a corporate timber company, assumes the risk of any physical loss to the timber due to fire, insects, disease, or storms. Furthermore, the price to be paid for the timber is determined and received by the landowner at the time of the sale. In addition, such a ``lump sum'' sale best protects the rights of the landowner, by preventing delays not only in the actual cutting and harvesting of the timber, but in the receiving of payments. Unfortunately, in order for timber owners to qualify for the favorable capital gains treatment, they are virtually forced to market their timber on a ``pay-as-cut'' basis under section 631(b), which requires landowners to sell their timber with a ``retained economic interest.'' This means that the landowner, not the buyer, must bear the risk of any physical loss during the time period contracted with the buyer to harvest the timber. Furthermore, the buyer pays for only the timber that is actually harvested. As a result, this type of sale can be subject to fraud and abuse by the timber buyer. Since the buyer pays only for the timber that is removed and scaled, there is an incentive to waste poor quality timber--by breaking the tree during the logging process--underscale the timber, or remove the timber without scaling. Many different valuation methods can be utilized by sophisticated buyers against a landowner; the landowner may not fully realize how the timber is being priced, and even then he is paid only when the timber is delivered to the mill at a certain complicated rate. But because 631(b) provides for the favorable tax treatment, many landowners are forced into exposing themselves to unnecessary risk of loss and complications by having to market their timber in this manner instead of the more preferred ``lump-sum'' method. Like many of the provisions in the Tax Code, section 631(b) is outdated and prevents good forestry management. Timber farmers, that have usually spent decades producing their crop, should be able to receive equal tax treatment regardless of the method used for marketing their timber. The IRS has no business--and, in effect, it does--stepping in and dictating the kind of sales contract a landowner must choose. The legislation I have introduced will provide greater consistency by removing the exclusive ``retained economic interest'' requirement in the Internal Revenue Code section 631(b). This change has been supported or suggested by a number of groups for tax simplification purposes, including positive comments from Internal Revenue Service officials who have indicated they see no reason for this present law. The Joint Committee on Taxation has studied this legislation to consider what impact it might have on the Treasury and found that it would have no real cost--only a ``negligible impact'' according to their analysis. Reform of 631(b) is important to our Nation's nonindustrial, private landowners because it will improve the economic viability of their forestry investments and protect the taxpayer from unnecessary exposure to risk of loss. This in turn will benefit the entire forest products industry, the U.S. economy, and especially the small landowners. So I urge my colleagues to join me and Senator Paul Coverdell, of Georgia, who is a cosponsor of this legislation, in this effort to simplify the Tax Code and to promote good forestry management. There is simply no longer any need for this bizarre, complex tax regulation that is driving individual landowners to make choices they would not otherwise make. Choices that cost them money and unnecessarily shift risk in a way that ought to be decided among the parties--the buyer and the seller--and not the Internal Revenue Service.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I yield the floor. Mr. WYDEN addressed the Chair.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I just left a marvelous event in which Mr. John Edwards of my hometown of Mobile, AL, was recognized nationally for his selfless service to youth. He had been trained as a boxer and has done some professional boxing. Mr. Edwards has two children. He trains now 18 to 36 young people in a gym. He works two jobs and trains them on the side. He does more than just teach them boxing; he teaches them how to work, how to save, how to manage money, and the important characteristics that are necessary for life. He told me, when they come there, the first thing he asks them to produce is a report card. If it is not good enough, he puts them on sort of his own probation, and he works with them to see their grades improve. I just believe there are more people than we realize in America today who are giving of themselves for other people. Mr. Edwards shared that. It is important to me because I chair the Youth Violence Committee. Young people are in trouble today, and they need adults who care about them and who will spend time with them. There are people like Mr. Edwards who have done that to an extraordinary degree, and we salute all of them. I particularly congratulate Mr. Edwards on his commitment to his community and my hometown of Mobile, AL.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I have a number of matters before we close up for the evening.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution and preamble be agreed to, en bloc; that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Con. Res. 40, introduced earlier today by Senators Lott, Daschle, and others.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with the senior Senator from Alabama as we support this piece of legislation that I believe will help the American steel industry. It is not an industry that has stuck its head in the sand, that has failed to modernize, that is not competitive. The steel industry has gone through very difficult times and has, in fact, been able to make itself competitive and is able to sell steel products in this country cheaper than foreign imports can be sold here. That is good for America because it means that Americans are working to produce that steel. It is an important thing for this country. I really want to say that I have visited Gulf State Steel in Gadsden, Alabama, where my wife grew up. It is the largest employer there, 1,800 or so people. I have visited there at least three times and I felt the fire in that furnace. I met with the people who work there. They are producing steel at world class competitive prices, and they are continuing to get better. They are going to continue to get better. But we have had this circumstance of a crisis around the world in foreign countries, desperate for American dollars, and they have sold their steel here below cost. You may say, well, that helps the automobile industry, or whatever. Maybe you could make that argument. It is an economic argument that people like to make. But I suggest, and believe strongly, that what is happening is we have a potential in this period of dumping to destroy significant segments of our steel industry, which will in the future, and soon, be competitive again. Do you see what happened? Through these cut-rate imports, sold below cost, it can sink companies like Gulf State Steel. They are struggling to survive. Many of these people have been working at that steel mill for many, many years. Some of them are children of people who worked there. If they weren't competitive, OK; but they have been competitive. They have made the needed changes, and this short-term dumping has the ability to sink those companies. This loan program, I believe, will deal with that. There is no doubt that dumping has occurred and that it has materially injured this industry. There is no doubt that the Clinton administration knew that illegal dumping was occurring, and they failed to take the kind of decisive action that would have ended the problem months ago. So I am offering my support for this bill, which will take a modest step toward helping steel companies and small oil and gas companies who have been victimized by illegal dumping. The Department of Commerce has determined that illegal dumping of steel into the U.S. market began in 1997. During the fourth quarter of 1997, there were 7 million tons of steel imported. But within a year, that number had totaled 11 million tons, which is a 55 percent increase. Is that explained because of some technical breakthrough by foreign competitors that reduced their costs? Did American steel companies who have been on the cutting edge of efficient production suddenly revert to outdated production methods? Did U.S. steelworkers, who produce more steel per worker than any other in the world, lose their edge? The answer is no. U.S. steelworkers and companies did not lose a share of the market because of inefficiency or a sudden improvement in the competitors' efficiency. The steel that came into our market was below production cost prices because countries like Russia, Brazil, Japan and Indonesia were subject to a currency crisis and needed U.S. dollars. Because the administration had a history of not enforcing these trade laws, sometimes as a back doorway to implement foreign policy goals, our overseas competitors saw an opportunity to dump steel and get this hard currency. Unfortunately, our foreign policy goals came at the expense of steelworkers and their families. Despite repeated calls from Congress, including myself, there has been an insufficient response to date. Even in the face of indisputable evidence that dumping was occurring, we have not stopped the wave of illegal imports flooding our shores. In November of 1998, the U.S. International Trade Commission, an independent commission that examines illegal trade practices, determined that dumping as defined in that agreement was in fact occurring. It was not until 4 months later, and over a year after the problem was first identified, the Department of Commerce finally began to enforce trade laws and placed a tariff, a preliminary dumping margin, on steel imported for Brazil and Japan in February of 1999. This enforcement action was narrowly focused and left out some of the biggest countries, such as Russia, which were found to be dumping steel on the U.S. market. Adding insult to injury, the Secretary of Commerce entered into a suspension agreement with Russia. The practical effect of this was to end the Department of Commerce and the International Trade Commission's trade investigations of Russia. It did nothing to discourage future dumping by Russia or any other country. In fact, the suspension agreement may have actually rewarded Russia for its illegal trade practices by sending the stark message that there is no adverse consequences for committing or attempting to commit trade crimes against the United States. The worst that may happen if you commit trade crimes against the U.S., under this climate, is a polite request through a suspension agreement to please stop. The administration's actions have been too little too late. The suspension agreement should be viewed as an ineffective method. This action will undoubtedly lead to additional dumping by other countries. Thousands of good jobs in this country have already been lost. The pattern of poor action and inaction taken by this administration will undoubtedly set groundwork for future job losses and create a crisis that we need to be concerned about. The United States must not sit idly by and allow its economic strength to be damaged by consistent, unfair trade practices. We must respond to that. In Alabama, there are a number of steel companies that have been injured. Gulf State Steel, as I mentioned, in Gadsden has been directly impacted by imports. As a result, employees and families have been faced with increasing uncertainty about the future of their very facility. The production methods used and the caliber of the workforce at Gulf State and other steel plants--many of them are in Alabama--make this industry one of the most efficient in the world. Alabama steelworkers can compete effectively with other countries in the United States and indeed throughout the world. The current financial problems faced by our domestic steel makers are not the result of poor management, outdated equipment, or an underskilled workforce; rather, it is the direct consequences of illegal dumping of foreign imports into the United States. If Gulf State Steel was to cease operations as a result of illegal dumping, it would force dismissal of nearly 2,000 workers. According to an economic impact study conducted by Auburn University, the economic impact of a plant closing would be staggering to Etowah County, which has already seen one plant close of 1,300 people. Direct job losses would exceed 1,800 workers. Indirect job losses would total 3,020. Statewide job losses would total 4,820, and the overall economic impact on Etowah County would exceed $300 million. This is just one example of the crisis dozens of steel companies now face throughout the United States. The steel, oil and gas loan bill we are considering today is a modest solution to assist these companies that have been already injured by illegal trade practices. It is not a handout. It is not corporate welfare. It is a loan program designed to give these companies which might otherwise be faced with bankruptcy--some are faced with bankruptcy right now--an opportunity to recover the damages they have suffered at the hands of unfair trade practices. While this bill would authorize a highly qualified board to offer heavily secured loans to the distressed owing up to $1 billion, it will not cost $1 billion. The Congressional Budget Office has put the total cost at $247 million. The Congressional Budget Office takes into account the fact that some companies which might receive loans have been damaged beyond the point of recovery, which could result in some defaults. But the cost of inaction is much greater. In Etowah County alone, Auburn University's economic study put the cost of bankruptcy for just this one steel company at over $300 million. This figure doesn't even account for the tremendous social costs associated with the loss of jobs and income to families employed by this company. I want to say I support free trade. I do not believe in providing unjustified economic assistance to companies. I don't believe in erecting unwise and unjustified trade barriers. This bill would not hurt free trade. It would instead provide modest assistance to the companies and their employees who have been injured by the rampant proliferation of illegal trade practices that we have permitted to occur, and that this administration has permitted to occur too long. I believe that we have a situation much akin to maybe people on the edge of water, a body of water. The water doesn't reach their level, and they have been able to survive and live for a long time. But a giant wave comes along one time, and the wave hits them with such an impact that they are knocked down and they are destroyed. We have had a wave of illegal imports. It has been declared by an agency to be illegal. That wave that hit our country has destabilized and undermined the strength of a number of different steel companies and, therefore, jeopardized the jobs of many Americans and incomes to the country. When you are in bankruptcy, it is hard to get a loan. It is hard to get financing if you are in bankruptcy, or on the verge of it. So this would allow these companies to get this income to continue to operate. Once we end the dumping, we are going to be back to a circumstance in which they can continue to operate and make a profit, as they were before this occurred. I believe it is justified. I see the senior Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd, who has worked so hard, and Senator Domenici and others. I am pleased to support him in this effort. I believe that somehow, some way, when this thing is over, we will have been able to provide some assistance to these companies to enable them to survive and continue to be productive contributors to our Nation's economy. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. I would like to comment on the bill, but if we could have a few minutes for a quorum call, that would be good.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. In executive session, I ask unanimous consent, on behalf of the majority leader, that the nomination of Richard Morningstar be discharged from the Foreign Relations Committee, and that the Senate proceed to its consideration. I further ask unanimous consent that the nomination be confirmed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, any statements relating to the nomination be printed at the appropriate place in the Record, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, tomorrow the Senate will convene at 9:30 a.m. and proceed immediately to a rollcall vote on passage of H.R. 1664. Following that vote, the Senate will begin the State Department authorization bill. Several amendments are expected to be offered. Therefore, additional votes could occur until the hour of 11:45 a.m.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I further ask that following that vote, the Senate proceed to the State Department authorization bill under a previous consent agreement.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 9:30 a.m. on Friday, June 18. I further ask that on Friday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate proceed to a final passage vote relative to the oil, gas, steel loan program.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Strom Thurmond, I ask unanimous consent that the privilege of the floor be granted to Ernie Coggins, a legislative fellow, during the pendency of the emergency steel loan guarantee program and emergency steel, oil and gas loan guarantee program, H.R. 1664.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I am pleased to have the opportunity to comment on this extremely important bill. I congratulate Senator McCain for his leadership. I am confident it will pass with a strong vote. This morning we completed our second day of a joint economic committee on the high-tech national summit. We have heard some of the leading practitioners of computer business in America, including Alan Greenspan and the president of MIT, and we have discussed the tremendous role computers and high-tech equipment have played in the economic growth of this country. Most people may not know that for a number of years the average wage of Americans has been increasing twice as fast as the cost of living. That is exactly what we want in America. We want productivity. That occurs because of an increase in the productivity of our workforce. Mr. Greenspan, who everybody recognizes is such a knowledgeable person about our economy, attributes that primarily to the increased productivity that has come from being on line with our computer systems. Experts, including Bill Gates of Microsoft, talked about the leading exports from the United States being computer related. This is good for America. We are buying more than we take in. We are selling less than we buy. We need to change that. We need to increase our exports. The one industry that is strong in that record is the computer industry. Craig Barrett of Intel testified yesterday. I asked him about the Y2K bill. He said it was critical for their industry to maintain economic growth. Some say they can pay, and we can sue and sue. I know one Senator mentioned a case, and I believe it was the same case, in which a man testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee. He had filed a lawsuit over the computers in his company. He eventually won. I asked him how long it took. The litigation took 2 years. With regard to asbestos, we have 200,000 lawsuits completed, 200,000 pending, with another 200,000 expected. They are filed all over this country. Do we want hundreds of thousands, perhaps even a million or more, lawsuits filed in every court in America, with every single case clogging those courts, distracting the computer companies from fixing the problem, trying to defend against the litigation with punitive damages and other unexpected costs that somebody might claim in a lawsuit? We need to act. It is the responsibility of Congress to set the standards for lawsuits. We have every right to do that. That is what the legislative branch does. We have an industry that deals throughout the United States. It deals throughout the world. We need to make sure it fixes the problem--and focuses on fixing the problem, not on draining its resources. With regard to asbestos, 70 percent of the asbestos companies are now in bankruptcy, and of the money they paid out through this litigation onslaught, only 40 percent actually got to the victims. What I think this bill is intended to do, with strong bipartisan support, is to make sure the moneys these companies spend are spent on fixing the problem. The idea that somehow joint and several liability is horrible is not so. Many States already have joint and several liability in every aspect of their legal system. We are simply saying for this one problem we will have joint and several liability. Frankly, I think that is the better way to go. Why should a company that is not responsible but for 10 percent of the problem pay the whole cost of the problem? What is just about that? I don't think that is a good argument. We have a potential crisis in our country. We have the potential, make no mistake about it, to significantly damage our highest and most productive industry, the industry that has led to our economic growth and increased wages for American workers. We are endangering that community. If anyone thinks hundreds of thousands of lawsuits filed against all our computer companies in every county in America will not drain them of creativity, will not drain them of research and development, will not reduce their ability to be competitive in the world, I suggest that person is clearly wrong. I thank Senator Wyden and Senator Dodd, on that side, and Senators McCain and Hatch, who have worked on this bill. They have done a good job, and I am pleased to support it. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.