Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would like to congratulate Chairman Hatch for his outstanding work on this very important issue that deals with a constitutional right that is as fundamental as our right to free speech. The Constitution says that the Government cannot take somebody's property without paying just compensation for it. Let me repeat that. Property cannot be taken without it being paid for. Too often in America today, we have government agencies that would like to take control of someone's property, but they don't want to pay for it. So these agencies take property through the use of regulations and laws. Sometimes their actions are legitimate. For example, zoning regulations are often perfectly legitimate rules that we have to have if we are going to live together. But there often reaches a point in which the actions of a municipality, or a county, or a State, or a Federal Government--which is primarily what we are dealing with here-- can, in fact, take the beneficial use of that property without offering any compensation for it. That is wrong; it should not happen. This bill is a modest, very reasonable step. Senator Hatch has compromised and worked with those who have different views, and he has crafted a bill that is logical, reasonable, realistic, and that will protect our Constitutional property rights while not doing anything that would deny our ability to protect our environment. To me, it is clearly wrong to say that passage of this legislation would in any way restrict the environmental rights in this country. So I join in support of it. I think it is outstanding legislation. It simply provides a mechanism to protect our cherished fifth amendment constitutional rights.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I intended to come to the floor today, along with Senators Bob Graham, Mitch McConnell and Paul Coverdell, to offer an amendment to the Higher Education Act that would have helped more than 2.5 million students afford a college education. I would like to particularly recognize the outstanding efforts of my good friend from Kentucky, Senator McConnell. He has been a true champion of this issue for quite a number of years. Senator Bob Graham of Florida has done an outstanding job of guiding and helping us work on this amendment and handle it in the proper way. His advice and leadership have been crucial in gaining the support for this amendment that we think is necessary for its passage. Let me take a few minutes to discuss the concept of prepaid tuition plans and why they are critically important to help America's families. As a parent myself, who has put two children through college--I just had my second one graduate in May, and another one is currently in college--I know firsthand that America's families are struggling to meet the rising cost of higher education. In fact, American families have already accrued more college debt in the 1990s than during the previous three decades combined. The reason is twofold: The Federal Government subsidizes student debt with interest breaks and deferred payments and penalizes educational savings by taxing the interest that accrues on those savings accounts for college. In recent years, however, many families have tackled rising tuition costs by taking advantage of prepaid college tuition plans. These plans allow families to purchase tuition credits years in advance. Thanks to innovative programs already established by at least 17 States, like my home State of Alabama, parents can actually lock in today's college tuition rates for tomorrow's education. Congress has supported participating families in this effort by expanding the scope of prepaid tuition plans and by deferring taxes on the interest earned when students go off to college. Recently, thanks to the hard work of Senator Coverdell and several Members of the House of Representatives, including Chairman Bill Archer, a provision was included in the Coverdell A+ Educational Accounts bill, which would make all earnings in all prepaid tuition plans tax free. That is, interest that accumulated on the savings would accumulate without having to be taxed. Unfortunately, President Clinton has promised to veto that bill on his opposition to several other unrelated provisions--provisions that I think are excellent, but the President has made clear his intention in that regard. Due to his anticipated veto, more than 2.5 million students and their families planning to take advantage of prepaid tuition and savings programs over the next decade will be denied the ability to invest in their children's education using tax-free interest income. Our amendment, modeled after Chairman Archer's and Senator Coverdell's efforts during the A+ Educational Accounts conference committee, would have made earnings in State and private prepaid plans completely tax free. Currently, most of the interest earned by families saving for college is taxed twice. The parent is paying taxes on it when he earns it. Then they set it aside in the college account--even the prepaid tuition accounts--and they have to pay taxes on the interest that it earns. On the other hand, the Federal Government subsidizes student loans by deferring interest payments until after graduation and sometimes giving low-interest rate loans. So it is no wonder that American families are having a hard time saving for college and instead are having to go heavily into debt to finance college at a later time. This trend must not continue. As a matter of fact, it is not good public policy. Mr. President, let me take a few minutes to make a very critical point. I had an opportunity this morning to review a standard student education loan agreement, which belongs to one of my staff members. The loan, which was used to pay for the final 2 years of his college education, was $13,674.02. My young staffer is currently 25 years old. After the roughly 15 years it will take to pay off his loan, at which time he will be 40 years of age, he will have paid a total of $13,171.64 in interest alone. Mr. President, that will bring his total payment for his 2 years in college to $26,845.65; that is nearly double the original loan balance. This is the Federal Government's only option, the only way it provides help to families to pay for their children's education. So in order to provide families a new alternative, the Sessions- Graham-McConnell-Coverdell amendment would provide tax-free treatment to all prepaid plans for public and private colleges and universities. This would place all savings plans and all schools on an equal playing field. This bipartisan amendment would not only provide American families with more than $1 billion in much-needed tax relief over the next decade, but would also help control the cost of college for all students. In fact, the track record of existing State prepaid plans indicates that working, middle-income families benefit the most from these prepaid plans. Prepaid tuition plans must become law. The Federal Government can no longer subsidize student debt with interest rate breaks and penalize educational savings by taxing the interest earned by families who are trying to save for college. Both public and private prepaid tuition plans should be held equal by the Federal Government and must be completely tax free. If these goals are achieved, the Federal Government would be providing families with the help they need to meet the cost of college through savings rather than through debt. Indeed, as a nation we ought to be reviewing all of our laws and all of our public tax policies to make sure we are encouraging savings rather than encouraging debt. Too often our policies have been just the opposite. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks several items in support of my amendment.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, unfortunately at this point I will be having to withdraw this amendment due to the fact that it appears it may be in violation of existing rules governing the revenue proposals which have to originate in the House of Representatives.

Mr. SESSIONS. I asked for 10 minutes.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we believe we have a good plan. I want to again say how much I appreciate the leadership, advice, and support given by Senator Bob Graham of Florida. He is an outstanding Senator and has been a great aid to this effort. I see him on the floor at this time and would be glad to yield such time as I have remaining to Senator Graham.

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I simply say with regard to the letters that have been introduced, those are letters to me from the Independent College Association and from the several other groups, such as the American Council on Education, that say the steps referred to in this amendment ``would make prepaid tuition plans more widely available and more attractive for families. By doing this, families will have a strong incentive to begin to save money for college when their children are young. And, as with any investment, saving early is vitally important.'' That is the American Council on Education, dated July 9, referring to this amendment. The National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities is likewise supporting this amendment. They say, ``On behalf of the over 900 independent colleges and universities that make up the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities, I want to express our appreciation of your efforts. ``We agree that students and families who want to utilize prepaid tuition plans should be allowed to dedicate those funds to the institution of their choice'' to be able to compete on a level playing field. The College Savings Plans Network has likewise supported this proposal in a letter to Congressman Archer dated July 2, 1998. The National Association of State Treasurers has adopted this resolution. Many State treasurers have formulated this legislation in the State--in fact, the Alabama State Treasury, and former State Treasurer George Wallace, Jr., is the one who passed the legislation in Alabama for the prepaid tuition plan. Also, The Heritage Foundation has supported this effort. Exhibit One American Council on Education, Government and Public Affairs, Washington, DC, July 9, 1998. Hon. Jeff Sessions, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Sessions: I am writing with respect to the amendment on prepaid tuition plans that you hope to offer when the Senate considers S. 1882, The Higher Education Amendments of 1998. In recent years, states and private sector organizations have begun to offer prepaid tuition plans designed to encourage families to save money for higher education. The American Council on Education supports these efforts. We believe that your amendment would enhance these plans in two important ways. First, it would exclude from federal income tax the value of the plan when the student enrolls in higher education. Second, the amendment would allow private colleges and universities to establish these initiatives. These steps would make prepaid tuition plans more widely available and more attractive for families. By doing this, families will have a strong incentive to begin to save money for college when their children are young. And, as with any investment, saving early is vitally important. We understand that there may be a jurisdictional problem with your amendment and we hope that this can be satisfactorily worked out. If it proves impossible to fix the jurisdictional issue, we will work with you to ensure that your plan is enacted this year. We are enormously grateful for your leadership on this issue of such importance to families and colleges and universities. We look forward to working on it with you. Sincerely, Terry W. Hartle, Senior Vice President. National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities Washington, DC, July 9, 1998. Hon. Jeff Sessions, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Sessions: On behalf of the over 900 independent colleges and universities that make up the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities, I want to express our appreciation of your efforts to allow private colleges and universities to establish prepaid tuition plans that would enjoy the same tax treatment and preferences as state sponsored plans. We agree that students and families who want to utilize prepared tuition plans should be allowed to dedicate the funds to the institution of their choice. Allowing private colleges and universities to compete on a level playing field in the tax arena is absolutely necessary and fair. We appreciate the parliamentary restrictions of including this language in the Higher Education Reauthorization Act, S. 1882, and look forward to working with you to see that this issue is addressed in a manner that will be enacted into law in the very near future. Again, thank you for your efforts. Please do not hesitate to contact me if and when I can be further assistance on this or any issue of importance to independent higher education. Sincerely, David L. Warren, President. College Savings Plans Network, Lexington, KY, July 2, 1998. Hon. Bill Archer, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: On behalf of the College Savings Plans Network, I am writing in support of the proposed amendment by Senator Jeff Sessions to S. 1882, The Higher Education Amendments of 1998. The amendment is designed to increase the nation's saving rate and to improve access to higher education. The College Savings Plans Network (CSPN), the association of the state-sponsored college tuition programs, strongly supports Senator Session's amendment which would establish an exclusion from gross income for amounts distributed from qualified tuition programs to cover qualified higher education expenses. The enactment of this provision would further the public policy of encouraging parents to save for their children's college education, which would provide long-term benefits to the U.S. economy. CSPN urges you to support the amendment to S. 1882. CSPN believes that the tax treatment of the qualified state programs should be carefully crafted to account for the unique design and circumstances in which the state programs operate. The Network supports the amendment because it provides clearer tax treatment for contributions to and distributions from the state-sponsored plans. Clearer tax treatment would encourage college savings, and would reduce the need to borrow, which would provide long-term benefits to over 700,000 families who participate in the state-sponsored qualified tuition programs. Thank you for your strong leadership on this proposal and commitment to expanding the educational opportunities of American families. Very truly yours, Marshall G. Bennett, President, College Savings Plans Network and Mississippi State Treasurer. Resolution Federal Tax-Exemption for College Tuition Programs Urging the Congress and the President to enact bipartisan legislation that will provide for the tax-free treatment of qualified state-sponsored college tuition programs, including both prepaid and savings programs. Whereas, over the last several years, the constantly increasing costs of higher education and decreases in state and Federal funding of higher education have made an affordable, high quality college education increasingly difficult to obtain for everyday Americans; and Whereas, in response, State legislatures created state- sponsored college savings programs to help families afford postsecondary education for their children; and Whereas, the State sponsored programs are designed and operated in a manner to account for the unique nature of each state's educational system; and Whereas, the programs are primarily directed to middle- income working families and encourage and permit these families to save for and send their children to college, where otherwise they may not be able to access postsecondary education without relying on significant borrowing to afford spiraling tuition costs; and Whereas, over the past five years borrowing for higher education expenses has increased more than in the previous three decades; and Whereas, the State sponsored programs are accountable to State-level policymakers, and are subject to close public scrutiny and multiple levels of accountability, which provides strong safeguards to the public's interest in these programs; and Whereas, the Congress, recognizing the unique role states play in providing access to higher education for their citizens, in 1996, passed legislation to improve the tax treatment of State sponsored programs; and Whereas, the Congress, further recognizing the unique role states play in providing access to higher education for their citizens, has included provisions in the Revenue Reconciliation Act that would further clarify and enhance the tax advantages offered to families through qualified state tuition plans, and Whereas, under the proposed legislation, parents will be given greater incentive to save for or prepay a major portion of higher education costs in advance, in increments as little as $15 or $25 a month, which fit easily within their budgets; and Whereas, this legislation is truly bipartisan and has been widely supported by Democratic and Republican members of the House and Senate. Now, Therefore Be It Resolved, That the National Association of State Treasurers does hereby call upon the Congress and the President of the United States to promptly enact legislation providing for tax-free treatment of distributions from qualified state-sponsored college tuition programs.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I am disappointed the administration has seen fit to reduce NASA's budget by $183 million this year. Frankly, I think it ought to be increased. I would like to share a couple of thoughts about that with the Members of this body and the people who may be listening. From 1983 to 1992, NASA's budget went up from $7 to $14 billion. That is less than 1 percent of the national budget in this country, but that was a significant increase. During that time, they made two planetary launches. In the last number of years, that budget has seen a significant reduction. In fact, according to a committee that was formed in 1991, a committee on the future of space formed by President Bush, they had the expenditures for NASA going up to as high as $40 or $50 billion. As it turned out, under the previously agreed-upon budget for NASA, we should be at about $16 or $18 billion. In fact, that budget has been cut every year, and over the last 5 years they have sustained a $27 billion reduction in what was projected for their budget even under our last budget agreement. People say, ``Jeff, that is just numbers; it doesn't mean much.'' NASA has cut its employees since 1993 by 25 percent. They have cut their employees 25 percent. There is no agency in this American Government that has done a better job of producing more for less than they have. In fact, the fiscal year 1994 budget for NASA was $14.5 billion, and the fiscal year 1998 for NASA is $13.6 billion. During this same time, they have been sustaining these substantial losses in income. They are now making planetary launches one every 10 weeks. Whereas they used to do two planetary launches in 9 years, they are now doing them one every 10 weeks, even though their budget is down and employees are down 25 percent. They are doing some remarkable things. Last July 4, the Martian lander landed, and we saw those vivid photographs that were shipped all over the world. The American people and the people of the world stood in amazement as we saw the actual ground of the planet Mars. It was an exciting time. My family and I watched that in our home with amazement and pride at what this country had accomplished. Let me point this out: 20 years before, we had done another Martian landing. We had not had one in 20 years. The Martian landing 20 years before, in actual dollars, cost 10 times as much as the one last year. They were able to accomplish this landing last year for one-tenth of the cost 20 years before. This is the kind of achievement that is important for our country. The whole world watched it. Mr. Dan Goldin, who directs the NASA program, told us that they had more hits on their web site from around the world than they even had in the United States. It was by far the biggest single time of people tuning in to the NASA web site from all over the world. The world was watching America. We are the leader in space. We need to remain the leader in space. We are a nation of explorers. That is our heart and soul. That is our national characteristic. We have explored this Earth pretty well. We are now exploring the heavens. We need to continue forward with that. Sure, the space station has gone over, but from the numbers I have just told you, even though the space station has cost more than it should--and a lot of that is involved with trying to work with the Russians, who have not been very effective in fulfilling their portion of it, and we need to evaluate that--everything else they have been doing has been doing more for less. We are going to be able to continue to have repeat launches at less cost and more success and highly technical launches that can bring us the kind of science and improvements in our life that can benefit the entire world. This is the kind of thing with which America needs to be involved. I am excited about it. I wish we were still on that bill. I had some things to say about it. We are going to handle health care as we go down the road, but I think it is important for the people of America to note that we moved off that bill because the other party sought to change the agenda that was set, to go off on an entirely new tangent, attaching to this bill an entirely different subject matter that requires a great deal of debate and discussion. That was not the appropriate thing to do, and the majority leader did the only thing he could, which is pull down the bill. Mr. President, I thank you for this time, and I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, tomorrow morning the Senate will immediately resume consideration of the IRS reform conference report. It is expected that there will be lengthy debate during Wednesday's session on the conference report with a final vote occurring by late afternoon. In addition to the conference report, the Senate may consider any other legislative or executive items that may be cleared for action. Members are reminded that a cloture motion was filed to the substitute amendment to the product liability bill, and, therefore, Senators have until 1 p.m. on Wednesday to file first-degree amendments to the substitute.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I know there has been some brouhaha this afternoon about not being able to debate a health care bill, and I came down here earlier today to talk about the bill we were on, the VA-HUD bill, an extremely important piece of legislation that was set regularly on this agenda. Amendments were being offered to it. Everybody has known for some time that we were going to be dealing with health care and managed care and HMOs and that sort of thing. It is certainly going to be coming up on our agenda when the time is right, and everybody will have full opportunity to debate that issue. I hope we do. I expect we can make some improvement in our health care policy in America. But the bill that we were on was important. I submit it was a political act by people in this body to derail where we were going, to introduce onto the VA-HUD bill this kind of massive change in agenda to try to create a debate on health care when this body was on another item. That is what the majority leader is for, to try to set agenda in a rational way. He has done that. We are going to be on health care later, but we should have stayed on the bill that we were on.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I ask that I be allowed to proceed as in morning business.

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, July 8. I further ask unanimous consent that when the Senate reconvenes on Wednesday, immediately following the prayer, the routine requests through the morning hour be granted and that the Senate then resume consideration of the IRS reform conference report.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination on the Executive Calendar: Calendar No. 495. I further ask unanimous consent that the nomination be confirmed; that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action; and that the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I object to further proceedings on this matter at this time as well.

Mr. SESSIONS. I object to further proceedings on this matter at this time. I ask that the second bill be read.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I understand that there are two bills at the desk that are due for their second reading, and I ask that the first be read.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask for its second reading, and I object to my own request.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I send to the desk a bill and ask that it be read for the first time.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would like to thank the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Thurmond, for accepting my amendment which ensures the dual track strategy the Department of Energy (DOE) is currently pursuing for tritium production will remain in place. Acceptance of this amendment ensures the Secretary of Energy will have the flexibility to make the best decision based on a careful review of the cost, technical, schedule and policy issues associated with each of the tritium production options. In May, during the House National Security Committee's deliberation of the FY '99 Department of Defense (DOD) re-authorization bill, an amendment offered by Congressmen Markey and Graham was accepted without a roll call vote. Their amendment (Markey/Graham amendment) would preclude the Secretary of Energy from selecting a commercial light water reactor for the production of tritium. The Markey/Graham amendment, if passed into law, would force the Secretary of Energy to select the Accelerator Production of Tritium (APT) by eliminating the option to produce tritium using a Commercial Light Water Reactor (CLWR). The APT is the only other option currently available to the Department of Energy. The results of this action would, in my opinion, require the Secretary to select the highest risk and most expensive option to produce tritium--a decision which could saddle the taxpayers with a $14.5 billion debt. To put this in context, $14.5 billion is more money than the states of Alabama, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Virginia, Rhode Island, Idaho, Oklahoma, Mississippi and New Mexico combined will receive during the next five years under the recently passed TEA21 transportation bill. The White House, Secretary of Energy, Secretary of Defense and the Citizens Against Government Waste have all written letters in opposition to the Markey/Graham amendment in the House-passed bill, which would prevent the Department of Energy from making the best decision on tritium production. In a Statement of Administration Policy to House National Security Committee dated May 20th, 1998, the Administration voiced its concern over the amendment to the House DoD re-authorization bill and stated: ``The Administration strongly opposes . . . amendments . . . to prohibit the use of commercial light water reactors for the production of tritium; by eliminating the least costly, most technically mature option under consideration by DOE. Tritium production in commercial reactors is not inconsistent with U.S. non-proliferation policy''. Furthermore, in a letter dated June 23rd, 1998, the Secretary of Energy restated the Administration's position: ``The Administration strongly opposes this amendment and any amendment that prejudges departmental decision making within the dual track strategy. A careful and deliberate review of cost, technical, schedule, and policy issues associated with each option is essential to meet our security needs most economically and reliably''. And finally, in a letter provided to me June 25th, 1998, the Secretary of Defense stated: ``DoD opposes the amendments for three reasons. First, if the amendments were to become law, DOE would require an immediate additional investment of nearly $250 million to accelerate the development of APT. The long term impacts of the amendment are far more significant. The life cycle cost of APT could be as high as $8.8 billion. The life cycle cost of the Reactor option could be as low as $1.6 billion. Thus, the amendments could mandate an unfunded liability of up to $7.6 billion . . . Second, the amendments would likely increase the cost of the DOD Stockpile Stewardship Program. Finally, this amendment seems to be predicated on the assumption that the use of commercial reactors is inconsistent with the US non proliferation policy. It is not. The DOE will forward shortly a completed interagency report that concludes the non proliferation policy issues associated with the use of a reactor are manageable and that the DOE should continue to pursue the reactor option as a viable source for future tritium production. . .Therefore, I urge you to oppose amendments which would prohibit the Reactor production of tritium from being considered as an option. Passage of any such amendment would place the Defense Authorization bill at risk''. Mr. President, I would ask unanimous consent that all three letters be printed in the Record.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would be happy to engage the Committee Chairman in a colloquy on the subject of tritium production.

Mr. SESSIONS. That is correct. We must have new tritium production to maintain a credible nuclear deterrent. The Department of Energy is currently assessing two potential technologies to produce tritium for defense purposes. One option is to construct a linear accelerator facility and the other is to complete the Bellefonte nuclear plant in my home state of Alabama.