[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 14]
[Senate]
[Pages 20892-20895]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                          TAX RELIEF PROPOSALS

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I put a little editorial up here, and I 
hope I made it big enough that those who photograph what we talk about 
here can see it.
  I want to read this paragraph in yellow, and I want to speak to Vice 
President Gore's constant harping about the 1 percent of the American 
taxpayers getting too much of a tax break. I would like to do that for 
about 10 or 12 minutes.
  But first, let me suggest to the middle-class American people who 
have been waiting for a tax cut that if you elect Vice President Gore, 
you can wait perhaps forever because, as this editorial says, he might 
say over and over and over--maybe as many times as he said ``1 
percent'' the other night--that he is for middle-income Americans 
getting a tax break.
  But this is the Washington Post--not the Washington Times or the 
Albuquerque Journal--that says:

       If Mr. Gore believes middle-class people need a tax break, 
     he might better give them one--and let them decide how to 
     spend the money. If he believes the Government should do more 
     to promote education, he could do so more effectively with 
     truly targeted spending programs rather than with tax credits 
     that, for example, go to those who could and would pay for 
     tuition in any case along with those who need the help. But 
     for political reasons, the Democrats, as in 1992 and 1996, 
     believe they need to cloak their programs in the language and 
     form of tax cuts. One result would be an ever more complex 
     Tax Code.

  The truth of the matter is that the Vice President of the United 
States spoke the other night about the unfairness of the tax proposals 
of George W. Bush.
  I just want to start by correcting one thing for sure. There are no 
middle-income tax cuts in Vice President Gore's proposal--the last time 
he spoke to it, the second time he spoke to it, and the time he sent us 
an 81-page budget. There are no middle-class tax cuts. Why? Because he 
chooses to say to the American people: If you do this with your money, 
you get a credit; if you do that with your money, you get a credit.
  But for those who do not do this or that because they don't have any 
children to put in day care or they don't have any of the other things 
they need that he wants to give them tax credit for, the overwhelming 
percentage of the middle class gets zero.
  That is maybe what we ought to be talking about whenever he says 1 
percent. Perhaps we ought to say middle-class people, zero; middle-
class Americans, zero--maybe 16 times, as he did the other night in 
referring to ``1 percent.''
  Having said that, I want to talk about the progressive taxes the 
American people pay and the progressive system we live under because I 
believe there are millions and millions and millions of Americans who 
have not been told what our Tax Code is and have not been told what 
George W. Bush's tax proposals would do. Let me try that for a few 
minutes.
  I just told you what the Washington Post said about his tax 
proposals. In essence, even when he chooses to help--that is, the Vice 
President--the middle-class Americans, he chooses, I say to my friend 
from Alabama, to tell them how to spend the tax cut.
  That is the essence of the difference between the across-the-board 
cut of George W. Bush and the Vice President, although he has much less 
on the tax side, in any event--the Vice President--but he chooses to 
say: Mr. and Mrs. America, I don't want you to have a $1,500 tax cut if 
you are making $60,000 or $50,000. What I want you to do, if you want 
to take advantage of what I want you to do, if you do one of these five 
or six things as we have said, you will get a tax break.
  If you are Mr. and Mrs. America, you might say: I don't need any of 
those taxes. Why don't you just give me my money and let me spend it?
  That is one of the very big differences between the two parties at 
this point, as indicated by this editorial.
  In 1992 and 1996, Vice President Gore again chose in behalf of his 
colleagues to say: We want to give you a tax cut, but do not 
misunderstand; you have to use it our way or you don't get it.
  Is there anybody in America who thinks a tax cut should be used only 
the way the Federal Government wants them to use it? I don't think they 
even understand a tax cut to be that. But you can rest on it, that is 
what he is talking about--not a single middle-income tax cut--zero. I 
repeat.
  I would like to talk a little bit on what has happened to the Tax 
Code of the United States.
  Mr. President and fellow Senators, we have the fairest and most 
progressive Tax Code any country has ever lived under. Let me tell you 
what it does today.
  If anyone wants one of these, I will gladly give them one. The 
Internal Revenue Service gives us the information, and the Joint 
Committee on Taxation, which is a combined committee, gave us this 
information.
  Let me talk about the 1 percent.
  Fellow Americans, 1 percent of the taxpayers of America--1 percent--
currently pay a shocking 33 percent of the taxes.
  Let me repeat, Mr. President. On the income tax side, the top 1 
percent of Americans pay 33 percent of the taxes that America collects 
from income. They are rather wealthy. They make $250,000 and over, and 
1 percent pays 33 percent of the taxes.
  Let me right off the bat give you an astonishing number. If you are 
to adopt George W. Bush's across-the-board tax cut, guess what percent 
the top 1 percent will pay then? Remember I said, right now under our 
very progressive code, they pay 33 percent of all the taxes we collect.
  I say to my friend from Alabama, it is a startling revelation. After 
we cut

[[Page 20893]]

everybody across the board, as George Bush suggests, the top 1 percent 
will pay 34 percent total taxes. In other words, their portion of the 
total taxes will go up 1 percent, not come down. Isn't that 
interesting?
  So everyone understands who is rich and who isn't and who pays a lot 
of taxes and who doesn't, let's talk about the top 10 percent of 
taxpayers. Most people watching and most people visiting are in that 
bracket because the top 10 percent of the taxpayers are people earning 
$79,000 or higher. How much of the total taxes collected by America 
from income does the top 10 percent pay? I am sure, unless someone has 
studied it, in your wildest guess you will not conclude this. Sixty-
seven percent of the income taxes collected come from the top 10 
percent of the people in this country who are earning $79,000. Imagine.
  Can anyone imagine a fairer system if you want to tax people who earn 
money than to have 1 percent of the population that makes substantial 
money pay 33 percent of the taxes, and the top 10 percent of 79 and 
higher pay 67 percent? Frankly, it is obvious to me our Vice President 
is, once again, running on an issue that has been tried before, and we 
are very grateful as a nation that it has never worked. He is 
practicing the art of class warfare. He wants to make sure Americans do 
not trust the capitalist system where people might make more money, one 
versus another, depending on what they are doing, what they have 
invested in, and for what they have taken a risk. He wants to make the 
issue that the top 10 percent, which pays 33 percent of the taxes, does 
not deserve to be looked at when we look at cutting taxes for 
Americans.
  I am quite sure that sooner or later the American people are going to 
catch on that everybody who pays taxes gets a tax break. So nobody will 
have a misunderstanding, if you don't pay taxes, you don't get a tax 
break. I think that is pretty fundamental. There are many millions of 
Americans working for a living who do not pay any U.S. income tax. 
Right off the bat, when you speak about giving other people who are 
earning less tax breaks, we have to understand a very large percentage 
of Americans don't pay any taxes. They may think they are paying a lot 
because they are paying Social Security taxes, and neither candidate is 
recommending, from what I can tell, that we dramatically reduce the 
Social Security--other than George W. Bush saying let's investment 2 
percent. Otherwise, I haven't heard anybody saying that onerous Social 
Security tax is the one that ought to be fixed.
  Let me repeat, when the tax plan is in place under Mr. Bush, the top 
1 percent will pay $4 trillion in taxes when we have finished the tax 
across-the-board cut. Let's give that again: That top 1 percent will 
pay $4 trillion in income taxes, and it will be 34 percent of the new 
income taxes that we are taking in.
  What will that $4 trillion buy that 1 percent of Americans are paying 
in taxes? It will buy all of the following: All of our defense 
programs, welfare, food stamps, child nutrition, State child health 
insurance. We just picked some programs. That top 1 percent will pay 
for all of that out of what they pay in income taxes.
  If Mr. Gore continues to refer to this top 1 percent as public enemy 
No. 1, then I can only say that the top 1 percent are high-income 
folks; the top 10 percent earn $79,000 and above. One group pays 33 
percent of the taxes; and the other group pays 67.
  What should we do? Should we say because they pay 67 percent of the 
taxes but they make $79,000 or more they should get no tax reduction? 
If you are going to have a tax reduction because you have a giant 
surplus, let's be fair and say the American Tax Code is fair. We ought 
to continue to be fair, leave it as fair as it was, but make sure we 
understand the top 10 percent deserve some tax relief, since they are 
paying 67 percent of the tax.
  Let me also suggest that the bottom rung of wage earners and 
taxpayers in America--so there is no misunderstanding about my 
progressivity comment that we have a progressive code--the bottom 50 
percent pay 4 percent; the bottom 50 percent of our earners pay 4 
percent of the taxes of America.
  I think we have a pretty fair system. In fact, it is very heavily 
skewed towards those people making $79,000 or more. But George Bush, 
from what I can analyze, intends to leave it the same. It will come out 
like it is in terms of progressivity, excepting that those in the top 1 
percent, by a coincidence of reducing the total tax take, will end up 
paying 34 percent instead of 33--even if we give them a tax break.
  I do believe it is rather authentic when the Washington Post says to 
Vice President Gore, if you want to give the middle income a tax cut, 
give it to them. Don't tell them what they must use it for in order to 
get a tax credit or tax break. That is not very American. Why should 
the Government tell wage earners, people who are making money in the 
American system, what they must do with their income if they want a tax 
break? I thought if you were going to give it back, you would give it 
back to them so they can spend it.
  I will discuss another issue, Mr. Vice President. I don't come today 
to the floor to talk about the case of the schoolgirl in Florida who 
had to stand for one of her first days of classes this fall because 
$150,000 worth of computers had yet to be unboxed. That is one of the 
statements made by our Vice President in his debate. It is now, today, 
authentic, that is not a true statement. The people from that school 
and that school district have denied it. I think by this hour the Gore 
campaign has said it is a mistake.
  The Vice President said essentially in his own words that the 
analysis of his budget from the budget experts who work for this 
Senator, the chairman of the Budget Committee, although they happen to 
work for me, what they produced as the estimate of the cost of his 
budget ideas would use up the entire surplus and $700 to $900 billion 
of the Social Security surplus. He said something like, it is not worth 
the paper.
  I have analyzed with this same staff many budgets. They have come out 
as right as anyone around. They said before the Vice President put his 
entire package together, that if every single program he advocates 
would get funded--it is 200 or more new programs--there will be between 
20,000 and 30,000 new Federal employees.
  Incidentally, when the Vice President takes great credit for 
shrinking the Government and says we have reduced the number of people 
working for the Government, it would be good to note that 90 percent of 
the shrinkage of Federal employees is because the military was reduced. 
Between 85 and 90 percent of that entire personnel reduction is from 
military reductions.
  But let's get back to this. That budget staff said there are 200 new 
programs in the Vice President's ideas for America. They also suggested 
to me it is a new era of big government, excessive government, and 
obviously huge increases in what government will do.
  I laid that before the Senate in this report. It is as correct today 
as it was then. And, indeed, we have now seen Vice President Gore's 
plan all in one package. They reanalyzed it and said their original 
estimate is right, that he would have to spend the surplus to pay for 
his entire budget. We will have that report next week in an edition 
similar to this one, in which each program is analyzed and we tell the 
American people either the Vice President is suggesting myriad programs 
he does not intend to do or intends to do less than he said because if 
he is going to do what he says in his last written proposal, you cannot 
do those programs without spending all of the surplus and part of--not 
all of it but part of the surplus that belongs to Social Security.
  I close by saying the Vice President Tuesday night talked a lot about 
the lockbox. Isn't it amazing that Democrats, including the Vice 
President, talk about the lockbox as if they invented it; they pursued 
it; they are the ones who really advocated it and kept it alive. I want 
to say this is one time when Senator Domenici has to say: That is not 
true. It came out of the Budget Committee and I was the first Senator 
to suggest it. The proposal I suggested has never been voted on to

[[Page 20894]]

this date because it is a real lockbox. It really makes it tough to 
spend either Social Security--and if you want to use the same format 
for Medicare, that is fine. But let's get it straight. We have been 
trying to get a lockbox passed up here from our side. Whatever we 
propose is either too strict, too rigid, doesn't have enough 
flexibility for the Treasury Department, or something. But let's make 
sure everybody understands we started the idea; we pursued it with 
great vigor. It is now part, I believe, of what we believe. Whether we 
get it passed or not, in our form, I believe everybody around here is 
going to be frightened to death if a Budget Committee says: Hey, this 
budget is spending Social Security surplus money. I believe we have 
that ingrained in our minds because the public expects it.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, before the Senator from Nevada takes the 
floor, I ask unanimous consent following the Senator from Alabama, 
Senator Durbin be recognized for a half hour in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, this morning's Washington Post features an 
article entitled ``Iverson's Bad Rap Is Well-Deserved.''
  It is a story about one of the Nation's high-profile National 
Basketball Association stars who is about to release a rap CD that 
encourages gun violence, degrades women, and blatantly bashes people 
because of their sexual orientation. The National Basketball 
Association, the Philadelphia 76ers, his team, Mr. Iverson's record 
label, his coach, and every fairminded person should condemn this kind 
of so-called entertainment for the trash that it is. Clearly, these are 
not the kind of messages that one of the NBA's leading and most 
talented players should be sending to tens of thousands of kids who 
watch him play and may idolize him.
  I fully respect Mr. Iverson's first amendment rights, but clearly the 
message he is sending encourages violence and implicitly condones it, 
hardly the kind of conduct one would expect from a celebrity whose 
conduct is admired by many of the Nation's youth.
  What makes this particularly objectionable is the fact that Mr. 
Iverson and many of his other incredibly talented colleagues in the NBA 
are specifically marketed by the NBA itself as superheroes to our kids. 
The NBA is ultimately in a business to make money, and that is fine. 
They use their stars to promote their teams. But one would hope the NBA 
would exercise good judgment in choosing the athletes they select to 
promote because many of these athletes use their stardom to, again, 
promote themselves and to use that same kind of marketing appeal. And 
when the message, as in this case from Mr. Iverson, is both hateful and 
dangerous and is absorbed by all too many of our Nation's youth, it is 
a vicious cycle that the NBA should end immediately.
  The NBA has the power to pick and choose which athletes they are 
going to market and promote. They should exercise sound judgment and 
discretion before encouraging this kind of promotion and the 
reprehensible message it sends.
  A few weeks ago I joined with many of our colleagues, both in 
committee and on the floor, in condemning some of the media produced in 
Hollywood, some of the videos, some of the violence that so often 
invades the Nation's television audience. We should also condemn this 
kind of conduct as well. When the NBA promotes these questionable 
athletes, they assist them in their quest to become wealthy media 
darlings, and that only helps other media outlets such as record 
companies and movie studios to exploit their now already famous 
personalities. In fact, Mr. Iverson's record company is apparently 
planning to use the NBA's very well publicized All-Star weekend to 
release the uncensored--and one could only conclude even more 
objectionable--version of his soon-to-be-released CD.
  Again, it is ultimately going to have to be up to the NBA as to who 
they promote and market and who they do not. But they need to realize 
if they continue to promote and market athletes who use their league-
endorsed celebrity to promote or incite violence or the degradation of 
more than half the Nation's population, they will continue to bear a 
great deal of responsibility for the consequences of these actions.
  I find it somewhat incredible that the Philadelphia 76ers' own coach 
has said, according to the Washington Post article, that he does not 
have a problem with Mr. Iverson's CD. That is nothing more than a cheap 
copout, and the NBA, the Philadelphia 76ers, and his coach should 
immediately condemn this outrageous, dangerous, and hateful message.
  Let me give an example of one of the lyrics that is on this CD. Mr. 
Iverson says on his CD if someone is ``man enough to pull a gun/Be man 
enough to squeeze it.''
  In addition, he also advocates the murder of gay men on his new CD.
  I am told that a wire report has been circulated this afternoon 
indicating that Mr. Iverson has apologized to gay men and to women for 
the hateful language contained in his CD. I call upon Mr. Iverson to do 
more than that; to ask, as a responsible American, as a role model, 
which he styles himself to be: Let's not issue this CD. Let's recall 
it. That would be the kind of conduct we should ask and expect of Mr. 
Iverson.
  There are many athletes in America who do provide the kind of role 
model all Americans can endorse--the Cal Ripkens and the Tiger Woods in 
the World. These are the kind of people who send a very positive 
message about the value of the work ethic and the commitment to 
standards. All of us admire that kind of conduct. If Mr. Iverson is 
deemed to be a role model for America's youth, I suggest that the youth 
of America is in serious trouble.
  Michael Wilbon also had a very interesting response to this subject 
in the Post this morning. I commend it to my colleagues as well.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent this article be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                   Iverson's Bad Rap Is Well-Deserved

                          (By Michael Wilbon)

       Like a lot of other folks who care about basketball, I keep 
     waiting for Allen Iverson to grow up. I keep waiting for him 
     to lift some weights and get stronger so that he can better 
     withstand the pounding he takes. I keep waiting, hoping for 
     him to realize that games are often won at the previous day's 
     practice, which he may or may not have attended. I keep 
     hoping that he is old enough now--25--to understand there's a 
     world of difference between being a great talent and a great 
     player, between somebody who's got game and a champion. I 
     keep waiting for Iverson to understand that the notion of 
     being a role model goes way beyond a lot of people walking 
     around town wearing your jersey.
       But here we are, at the start of NBA season No. 5, and 
     Iverson seems no closer to getting any of this than he did 
     four years ago. Maybe he's further away. My vigil appears to 
     be in vain.
       NBA camps have just opened, and Iverson is in the news 
     already, again for the wrong reasons. The story with sizzle 
     is the controversy over a soon-to-be-released rap CD on which 
     Iverson does what the majority of thug rappers do: He 
     demonstrates that he, too, can bash gays, degrade women and 
     talk about shooting somebody. That's the genre. It's pretty 
     clear how this breaks down; if you're under 30 (regardless of 
     race, nationality, gender), chances are overwhelming you're a 
     lot more open to thug rap than if you're over 40. I'm 41, and 
     most rap doesn't speak to me, doesn't move me whatsoever. But 
     I do listen to it enough to know that lyrics Iverson's 
     spewing on ``Non-Fiction'' are fairly common.
       That doesn't mean people won't be offended, and 
     legitimately so. Iverson's rap on gays, as reported earlier 
     this week in the Philadelphia Inquirer: ``Come to me with 
     faggot tendencies/You'll be sleepin' where the maggots be.'' 
     He also raps, ``Man enough to pull a gun/Be man enough to 
     squeeze it.''
       This is a young man who in the same breath will tell you he 
     is a role model? Sadly, he is probably right on the mark. And 
     sadly, the hip-hop community seems to get a pass on gay-
     bashing and misogynist behavior.
       Given what this kid has been through in his life, and that 
     the present environment existed long before he came along, 
     many of

[[Page 20895]]

     us have extended Iverson the benefit of the doubt. He's about 
     used it up. It's not about his twisted lyrics, specifically. 
     It's about squandering talent, it's about being a self-
     absorbed egomaniac whose position in the culture isn't nearly 
     as big as he thinks it is. It's about never listening to 
     anyone, and having no regard for anything that doesn't 
     revolve around him and his. Kinda like the very dead 
     Notorious B.I.G. and Tupac, which I'm sure Iverson would take 
     as a compliment.
       I thought Iverson was getting somewhere when he said 
     earlier this week, ``The whole time I've been in the NBA, I 
     haven't been professional at all. I always looked at it like 
     it was just basketball. This year will definitely be the best 
     season I've had since I've been in the NBA. I owe it to 
     myself and my family and my teammates to be a better player.
       ``I'm concentrating on basketball. I haven't been working 
     on my game as serious as I should've. I have the raw talent. 
     this is going to be the most important year of my career 
     because all eyes are on me this year. Everybody's wanting to 
     see if I can be the captain, if I can be a leader, if I can 
     be professional besides playing basketball, and if I'm up to 
     the challenge. I'm ready for it because it's something I can 
     do.''
       But the longer you listen to Iverson, the more you realize 
     he's disconnected from the world we live in, even the world 
     he lives in. The attitude is: I can be late or miss practice 
     whenever I want because I'm Allen Iverson, The Answer, and 
     the team don't have nothin' if it ain't got me. And if you 
     make a big deal out of me cussin' the coach and standing up 
     my teammates and getting fined 50 times in one season, then 
     you must be a punk 'cause I'm tough and you ain't.
       Iverson is ticked off because the 76ers tried to trade him 
     because he repeatedly is late to practice, if he shows at 
     all. You know what his take is? ``That's embarrassing to hear 
     that an organization is thinking about trading its franchise 
     player because he's tardy to practice.''
       Of course, it never occurred to him that it ought to be 
     embarrassing for the franchise player to be tardy repeatedly. 
     That wouldn't cross his mind. ``You're going to send me to 
     the worst team in the league?'' he asked incredulous at the 
     possibility of going to the Los Angeles Clippers, apparently 
     unaware that players a whole lot more accomplished than he is 
     (Wilt and Kareem to name two) were traded in their prime.
       Truth be told, the Clippers don't want Iverson. Several 
     teams have turned down the chance to trade for him and here's 
     why: They're afraid he'll never get with the program--
     anybody's program. He plays his heart out every time he puts 
     on a uniform. For those 48 minutes, there isn't anything he 
     won't do to win a basketball game. He'll sacrifice his body, 
     he'll do the dirty work some superstars don't want to do. But 
     the great players in any sport know it only starts there. And 
     that's what Iverson hasn't grasped. You know what he said 
     this week about his repeated tardiness, which by the way has 
     angered his teammates?
       ``Yeah, I was late to practice, but, believe me, [the 
     number of] times that I heard nobody would put up with that. 
     I'm not even brave enough to miss that many practices.''
       So how many, Allen? ``I don't know; I wasn't counting. 
     Don't nobody complain about the effort I give in a game. 
     [Given the injuries and pounding he takes] it's bad enough I 
     had to come to the game.''
       Iverson went on to say he was ``hurt hearing some of the 
     things the fans were saying, some of the things people on the 
     coaching staff were saying. I thought a lot of people in this 
     organization were my friends and I found out the hard way 
     that there's no friends in this business besides your 
     teammates.''
       I guess those would be the teammates for whom he won't come 
     to practice on time. I guess those would be the friends who 
     have begged him for years to get his act together to try to 
     realize there are obligations that come with an $80 million 
     contract. If they're not sucking up to him, they're against 
     him, they don't understand him, they're not as tough as he 
     is.
       Folks under 30 are tired of people my age wanting Iverson 
     to be Bird or Magic or Jordan, and that's understandable. 
     Different time, different place, the world evolves. But I'm 
     looking at Kevin Garnett now, at Ray Allen, at Tim Duncan, at 
     Shaq and Kobe Bryant. There is a new generation of players 
     trying to be all they can be. And they have fully developed 
     lives outside of basketball.
       Iverson, meanwhile, raps one thing, but his actions speak 
     even louder. It's everybody else's fault, it's the coach's 
     fault, it's the system's fault. He says he is going to 
     change. It reminds me of Bob Knight saying he was going to 
     change. I'm hoping Iverson is different because he's more 
     than 30 years younger than Knight; he can grow up if he 
     wants. But maybe it's more important for him to talk loud 
     while saying nothing.

  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, again, let me urge the NBA and the 
Philadelphia 76ers to step forward and be heard. They will say: Look, 
we cannot control Mr. Iverson's conduct. That may be true. But they 
have an obligation, a responsibility to speak out and to condemn such 
conduct, even if they are unable to control it. So far, either they 
have, by silence, acquiesced, or they have to acknowledge that they 
find nothing wrong with the CD.
  I find that both troubling and tragic if that is the standard we are 
to follow.
  Again, the NBA, the Philadelphia 76ers, and their coach ought to 
speak out loud and clear and indicate this is not the kind of conduct 
they expect from one of their star athletes and to be as critical of it 
as I know Americans are in general.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor. I believe some of our other 
colleagues have reserved time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Nevada for 
sharing those serious concerns. It was not long ago that a group of us 
wrote the major department stores in the country asking them not to 
sell this violent material to minors, and they responded as good 
corporate citizens.
  They said: We have a constitutional right to sell it, but we are not 
going to do it. Either we are not going to sell it at all, or we are 
going to make sure children produce an ID so we know they are old 
enough to buy the material. I thought that was a good corporate 
response.
  Yes, the NBA may not legally be able to stop this stuff, but they 
ought to express their concern about it. The Senator makes a valid 
point, and I salute him for it.
  (The remarks of Mr. SESSIONS pertaining to the introduction of S. 
3169 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced 
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. SESSIONS. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.

                          ____________________