Richard Shelby

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, what is the pending business?

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I yield our time, and I understand the Senator from Nebraska does also.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise because I have some grave concerns with the current form of the Government Secrecy Act of 1997 (S. 712) and I am pleased that the distinguished Majority Leader and my distinguished colleagues are open to a discussion of this legislation with the goal of establishing the basic principles on which Federal classification and declassification programs are to be based. More stability, reliability, and consistency are needed in the government's approach to both the protection--and I emphasize protection--as well as the release of classified information to the public. The recent compromise of sensitive information through rushed declassification highlights the need for more oversight and accountability of the declassification process. I have serious concerns that S. 712 does not adequately protect sensitive intelligence sources and methods and will unnecessarily cost the taxpayers many hundreds of millions of dollars. I support the Commission on Government Secrecy's finding that the public has a right of access to the large majority of government-held information and that, in general, too much information is classified and kept secret too long. However, secrecy is essential to intelligence, and U.S. security has depended and still depends on secrecy to succeed. We must proceed with caution in our commitment to make more classified information available to the public. In this regard, I am concerned that some provisions of S. 712 erode the Director of Central Intelligence's statutory authority and ability to protect intelligence sources and methods. Further, the bill will cost untold millions to declassify and release the tremendous amount of currently classified material in a way that still protects the most sensitive sources and methods. For example, DOD reports to have over 1.2 billion pages of 25 year and older material of historical value that requires review for declassification. The current estimated average cost of review is $1 a page. This means that the cost of declassification of this group of documents alone will be over $1.2 billion--that's billion with a ``B'', Mr. President. I am also concerned that the so-called Declassification Center created in S. 712 will not correct the problems facing the current declassification system. It will end up being another costly and unnecessary government bureaucracy. Instead, to promote greater accountability, I propose that we create a more effective and enhanced Executive branch oversight function for classification and declassification programs. In addition, I believe sanctions for unauthorized disclosures should be added to the bill. We need to consider new and unique categories of secrecy for our most sensitive intelligence operations--perhaps to include very serious penalties for public discussion of these activities. Finally, I am troubled that the bill leaves open the possibility of judicial review of Executive branch classification decisions. This will undoubtedly lead to costly legal challenges that could result in judicial second-guessing of the Commander-in-Chief on national security matters. I look forward to addressing these and other concerns in our Committee. Our collective goal should be to craft legislation that establishes a sensible framework for a classification and declassification system that continues to protect sources and methods while improving oversight and accountability at an affordable cost. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Shelby pertaining to the introduction of S. 1675 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed in morning business for 10 minutes.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, what is the pending business before the Senate?

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Congressional Office of Regulatory Analysis Act. This legislation would establish a small, professional office within the legislative branch charged with analyzing the potential impacts of Federal rules and regulations. In April 1996, Congress passed and the President signed the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. Included in this legislation was a provision known as the Congressional Review Act or CRA which established an expedited process for Congress to review and disapprove Federal agency regulations. Under the CRA, agencies are required to send their final regulations to Congress 60 days before they take effect, and they can be overturned by a joint resolution of disapproval that is signed by the President. At the time of enactment, this law was hailed as a way to rein in agencies and prevent the implementation of costly regulations with few practical benefits. The legislation that I am introducing would give Congress the tools to fully implement the CRA and reduce the regulatory drain on our economy. Under current law, the potential impacts of new regulations are not systematically evaluated--a fact that I think would come as a surprise to most of our constituents. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within OMB reviews regulations only to ensure that they conform to Administration policies and current law and that they do not interfere with the actions of other Federal agencies. However, this office has performed these minimal calculations on only a small fraction of the new rules promulgated in recent years. In addition, the General Accounting Office (GAO) was given some additional responsibilities under the CRA. GAO must now submit to Congress a checklist citing which reports an agency has or has not completed when developing a new rule. These reports are often incomplete or nonexistent, and Congress has little recourse for obtaining factual information in these instances. For these reasons, I believe that a Congressional Office of Regulatory Analysis (CORA) is essential to allowing Congress to fulfill its oversight obligations. At present, Congress does not have any resources for objectively evaluating the potential costs and benefits of new regulations. CORA can provide those resources. While the executive branch has thousands of employees devoted solely to creating and enforcing regulations, Congress has few means of effectively overseeing those rules. Our committee staffs are already stretched to their limits, and they cannot possibly study and evaluate each and every regulation that comes out. We need a professional staff that is charged with analyzing regulations and providing Congress with its findings. By gaining access to this valuable information, Congress will then be able to decide whether or not to pursue further action under the CRA. Specifically, CORA would analyze both the monetary and non-monetary effects of all new major regulations. Non-major rules would be evaluated at the request of committees or individual Members of Congress. In addition to providing information on costs and benefits, which are very important, CORA's analyses would also explore possible alternative approaches to achieving the same goals as the proposed regulation at a lower cost. Finally, this office would issue an annual report on the total cost of Federal regulations to the United States economy. I believe that anything which costs the average American family $6,800 per year warrants very careful Congressional examination. Without the objective information that CORA can provide, oversight cannot properly be carried out. Senator Bond, the chairman of the Small Business Committee, has joined me as a cosponsor of this legislation. I urge the rest of my colleagues to join us in establishing this office in order to ensure that future regulations do not place unnecessary burdens on the American public. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, the Balanced Budget Act (BBA) of 1997 took important steps to begin to combat the financial problems that have plagued the Medicare system for some time. However, the BBA included a provision that may disqualify Medicare beneficiaries who receive home health care stemming from their need for venipuncture services. Many Alabamians who rely on the Medicare home health care program have contacted me expressing their concern with this provision. Much of the concern has resulted from a lack of information as to the true effects of this provision. Therefore, I rise today to offer the Medicare Venipuncture Assessment Act of 1998. This legislation will provide an eighteen month moratorium on the venipuncture provision included in last year's BBA, and direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to conduct a study to determine what the specific effects will be of doing away with venipuncture as a qualifying skill for home health care. In addition, this legislation provides a window of time for Congress to address any problems found by HHS, and craft an appropriate solution that protects the seniors who receive home health care, without perpetuating fraud and abuse in the system. But perhaps the most important aspect of the Medicare Venipuncture Assessment Act is that it will provide much needed piece of mind to many of our seniors. Mr. President, we owe it to our constituents to separate fact from fiction with regard to this matter, and fully inform them of the effects of the venipuncture provision contained in last year's BBA. If administered correctly, home health care can be a cost effective alternative to nursing home and hospital based care. This legislation protects the Medicare home health care system by providing specific statutory action to root out fraud and abuse in the program, while ensuring that the seniors who truly need home care receive it. I strongly encourage my colleagues to join me in this effort by cosponsoring the Medicare Venipuncture Assessment Act of 1998.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, the Balanced Budget Act (BBA) of 1997 took important steps to begin to combat the financial problems that have plagued the Medicare system for some time. However, the BBA included a provision that may disqualify Medicare beneficiaries who receive home health care stemming from their need for venipuncture services. Many Alabamians who rely on the Medicare home health care program have contacted me expressing their concern with this provision. Much of the concern has resulted from a lack of information as to the true effects of this provision. Therefore, I rise today to offer the Medicare Venipuncture Assessment Act of 1998. This legislation will provide an eighteen month moratorium on the venipuncture provision included in last year's BBA, and direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to conduct a study to determine what the specific effects will be of doing away with venipuncture as a qualifying skill for home health care. In addition, this legislation provides a window of time for Congress to address any problems found by HHS, and craft an appropriate solution that protects the seniors who receive home health care, without perpetuating fraud and abuse in the system. But perhaps the most important aspect of the Medicare Venipuncture Assessment Act is that it will provide much needed piece of mind to many of our seniors. Mr. President, we owe it to our constituents to separate fact from fiction with regard to this matter, and fully inform them of the effects of the venipuncture provision contained in last year's BBA. If administered correctly, home health care can be a cost effective alternative to nursing home and hospital based care. This legislation protects the Medicare home health care system by providing specific statutory action to root out fraud and abuse in the program, while ensuring that the seniors who truly need home care receive it. I strongly encourage my colleagues to join me in this effort by cosponsoring the Medicare Venipuncture Assessment Act of 1998.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bipartisan bill with my colleague from Florida, Senator Connie Mack, and 11 other original cosponsors from the Banking Committee. Entitled the ``Financial Regulatory Relief and Economic Efficiency Act of 1997,'' the bill is designed to promote greater access to capital and credit for businesses and consumers, while ensuring the safety and soundness of our financial system. The acronym for the bill, FRREE, is actually indicative of the bill itself. If enacted, the bill would free valuable resources at financial institutions now being used to comply with the bureaucratic maze of current rules and regulations, and instead allow institutions to commit more of those resources to the business of lending. This is especially important, now that we are entering the 80th month of the current economic expansion. The 9 completed expansions since the end of World War II have averaged 50 months. Thus, many professional economists, businessmen, and academics worry how much longer the expansion of the current business cycle can go. Because this bill frees up resources that are inefficiently being used in the private sector, I believe this bill could have a substantial positive impact on extending the current business cycle as well as minimize any future economic downturn. One key provision would repeal an antiquated law that disallows banks to pay interest on business checking accounts. Due to sophisticated and expensive technology, big corporations can get around this problem by employing sweep accounts. However, smaller, family owned businesses cannot take advantage of this expensive technology and are forced to keep their money in noninterest bearing checking accounts. The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Office of Thrift Supervision, concluded in their 1996 Joint Report, ``Streamlining of Regulatory Requirements,'' that the statutory prohibition against paying interest on demand deposits no longer serves a public purpose. Today, the repeal also has the support of the Chamber of Commerce, the National Federation of Independent Business, and the American Farm Bureau Federation. The bill also allows the Federal Reserve to pay interest on reserve balances, thus reducing potential volatility in short-term lending rates. Given the historical importance of price stability, it is imperative we give the Federal Reserve this tool in order to better conduct monetary policy. In short, Mr. President, the bill repeals outdated laws that hinder the management practices of institutions; cuts bureaucratic red tape; eliminates unnecessary bookkeeping; increases funds available for residential mortgage lending; and eliminates unnecessary restrictions on the discounting, and bundling of financial services to consumers. The bill enjoys the overwhelming support of the Senate Banking Committee and the chairman of the committee, Chairman D'Amato, is committed to having hearings on this bill when we return early next year. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate has passed House Joint Resolutions 91 and 92 granting the consent of Congress to the Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa [ACT] and the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee- Flint [ACF] River Basin Compacts. I would like to thank the majority leader, his staff, and my colleagues from Alabama, Georgia, and Florida for their efforts and leadership in moving these valuable bills. With the passage of these compacts, the three States now may move forward and begin the difficult task of allocating water resources throughout the region. The compacts set forth the framework for the three States to resolve the critical issue of how our scarce water resources are divided. This partnership will enable the States to determine the best utilization of our shared water supply. These rivers are an invaluable resource to our States--essential to Alabama's economic and personal well-being. I look forward to continuing to work with Gov. Fob James and the Alabama delegation to assure that Alabama's water needs are met today and in the future.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bipartisan bill with my colleague from Florida, Senator Connie Mack, and 11 other original cosponsors from the Banking Committee. Entitled the ``Financial Regulatory Relief and Economic Efficiency Act of 1997,'' the bill is designed to promote greater access to capital and credit for businesses and consumers, while ensuring the safety and soundness of our financial system. The acronym for the bill, FRREE, is actually indicative of the bill itself. If enacted, the bill would free valuable resources at financial institutions now being used to comply with the bureaucratic maze of current rules and regulations, and instead allow institutions to commit more of those resources to the business of lending. This is especially important, now that we are entering the 80th month of the current economic expansion. The 9 completed expansions since the end of World War II have averaged 50 months. Thus, many professional economists, businessmen, and academics worry how much longer the expansion of the current business cycle can go. Because this bill frees up resources that are inefficiently being used in the private sector, I believe this bill could have a substantial positive impact on extending the current business cycle as well as minimize any future economic downturn. One key provision would repeal an antiquated law that disallows banks to pay interest on business checking accounts. Due to sophisticated and expensive technology, big corporations can get around this problem by employing sweep accounts. However, smaller, family owned businesses cannot take advantage of this expensive technology and are forced to keep their money in noninterest bearing checking accounts. The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Office of Thrift Supervision, concluded in their 1996 Joint Report, ``Streamlining of Regulatory Requirements,'' that the statutory prohibition against paying interest on demand deposits no longer serves a public purpose. Today, the repeal also has the support of the Chamber of Commerce, the National Federation of Independent Business, and the American Farm Bureau Federation. The bill also allows the Federal Reserve to pay interest on reserve balances, thus reducing potential volatility in short-term lending rates. Given the historical importance of price stability, it is imperative we give the Federal Reserve this tool in order to better conduct monetary policy. In short, Mr. President, the bill repeals outdated laws that hinder the management practices of institutions; cuts bureaucratic red tape; eliminates unnecessary bookkeeping; increases funds available for residential mortgage lending; and eliminates unnecessary restrictions on the discounting, and bundling of financial services to consumers. The bill enjoys the overwhelming support of the Senate Banking Committee and the chairman of the committee, Chairman D'Amato, is committed to having hearings on this bill when we return early next year. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I compliment my colleagues on the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee on today's successful passage of the Amtrak reauthorization bill. I acknowledge that the procurement, labor, and liability reforms contained in this bill as amended by the chairman's substitute amendment are the end result of difficult negotiations and compromises among many competing interests, and represent many years' effort. Issues such as contracting out and mandatory 6-year severance pay have been taken out of statute and put on the negotiating table. I hope this bill's provisions, along with future negotiations, result in some real reforms. Even with the $2.3 billion in tax credits that will be released on January 1, 1998 if this reauthorization bill is enacted into law, Amtrak will still be hard-pressed to continue running trains in the future, if meaningful improvements are not made in the way the railroad does business. Since I have taken on the chairmanship of the Senate Appropriations Transportation Subcommittee this year, one thing has become crystal clear: Amtrak does not intend to be weaned from Federal subsidies any time soon. The Amtrak-Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees [BMWE] union agreement reached last weekend contains contingencies that require appropriations levels higher than those in current law or contemplated by the balanced budget agreement. Amtrak touts its glidepath to self-sufficiency as the funding path that will eventually lead to the elimination of Federal operating subsidies. However, the Amtrak-BMWE agreement points to a glidepath in the opposite direction. The fiscal year 1998 transportation appropriations bill provided $793 million for Amtrak operating and capital expenses. Added to Federal subsidies paid to Amtrak since the Corporation was formed in 1971, the taxpayers have thus far spent $22 billion on a national railroad that carries fewer than 20 million passengers a year--less than 1 percent of all annual intercity passenger trips in the United States. According to the General Accounting Office, the average Amtrak direct Federal subsidy is $38 per passenger trip, compared to $1.50 per commercial airline passenger enplanement. This is subsidy that comes out of the pockets of every American taxpayer, and yet, wide swaths of the country are not served at all by Amtrak, and many communities that do have train service only see the train a few times a week, or at odd hours of the night. There is a growing sense that Federal funding of Amtrak can no longer be justified on fiscal or mobility grounds, and that it is time to consider phasing out the railroads's public monopoly status. I really hope that the reforms contained in this reauthorization bill do make a difference in the way Amtrak does business. Because if they do not, by releasing these tax credit funds, the Congress may simply be extending Amtrak's financial instability for 2 more years, and costing the taxpayers yet more appropriated funds for the subsidy of a failed experiment.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise in my capacity as chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence to support passage of the conference report on S. 858, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998. This important legislation authorizes funds for intelligence programs and related activities of the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, and other Government entities. This conference report also represents the culmination of a lengthy and detailed review by the Intelligence Committee of the plans, policies, and programs contained in the President's budget submission for fiscal year 1998. In this regard, I wish to commend the vice chairman of the committee, Senator Kerrey from Nebraska, for his assistance in crafting this important legislation. Senator Kerrey played a pivotal role in shaping this legislation, and I am pleased we were able to work together, in a bipartisan manner, to bring this legislation to the floor. It's a good bill; my colleagues should support it; and the President should sign it into law. Let me also take this opportunity to commend Chairman Goss, my counterpart on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, along with Mr. Dicks, the ranking minority member. We have developed what I consider to be a very positive and productive working relationship, which manifested itself in the smooth functioning and cordial atmosphere in which our conference deliberations took place. Although Senate and House conferees completed action on this legislation 7 weeks ago, a joint decision was made not to file the conference report at that time. This was due to the fact that the conference committee on the Fiscal 1998 National Defense Authorization Act had yet to resolve all open issues. Given that funding for all intelligence programs and activities is, consistent with past practice, included in the intelligence authorization bill, we agreed to withhold bringing our bill to a vote until conference action on the Defense authorization bill was completed and the Defense authorization bill was voted on by the Senate. The conferees on S. 858 took several important steps to improve this country's ability to collect, analyze, and produce intelligence about America's adversaries. We authorized funds above the President's request because we believe there are areas where additional resources are needed in this post-cold-war period of uncertainty. While the mission of our intelligence gathering organizations has not changed, the areas on which they must focus have become diverse and more challenging. I am, therefore, particularly pleased that the conferees agreed with the Senate that additional resources should be added for advanced research and technology development and in five areas that I call the ``five C's'': counternarcotics, counterterrorism, counterproliferation, counterintelligence, and covert action. The conferees did not agree, however, to include Senate section 306, ``Encouragement of Disclosure of Certain Information to Congress,'' in the final conference report. The 20 conferees from the Senate--the 19 members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and Senator Strom Thurmond, the distinguished chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee--voted unanimously in favor of the provision that would require the President to notify Federal employees and contractors with classified contracts that they are not violating any law, Executive order, regulation, or policy if they disclose information, including classified information, evidencing wrongdoing to the committees of Congress with primary oversight of the Federal department or agency involved. A majority of the House conferees voted against the measure, but they agreed that the issue should be explored in more detail and they committed to producing legislation soon. Both committees will schedule hearings on the subject early next year. The conferees did include a declaration, in lieu of section 306, expressing the sense of Congress that Members of Congress have equal standing with the executive branch to receive classified information to carry out their constitutionally mandated oversight functions. I am disappointed that we were unable to convince a majority of our House colleagues to support Senate section 306. Given the importance of congressional oversight of intelligence activities, the committee will devote significant attention to this important issue in the near future and I look forward to producing legislation that both Houses can agree on. I also hope that the President will work with the committees in drafting such legislation. I urge the President to reconsider his threat to veto a provision that would allow individuals within his own administration to come forward to the appropriate committees of Congress with evidence of wrongdoing, rather than leaking it to the press, as seems to be the case today. Again, Mr. President, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. I am familiar with it. This project is being developed at the National Aviation and Transportation Center on Long Island and is anticipated to provide an intermodal transportation simulation training, education and planning asset for the entire nation. A total of $19.5 million in federal funding over the next five years has been determined by officials at the National Aviation and Transportation Center as needed to help carry out this project. According to these same officials, this level of federal funding is expected to trigger at least $5 million in private sector contributions and up to $7.5 million in funding from New York State.

Mr. SHELBY. I would be pleased to accommodate the Senator from New York.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, the Senator from New York has my assurance that I will work with him to try and identify a source of funding that will allow the CAST effort to commence in fiscal year 1998.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, according to the latest statistics, Alabama is home to 47,011 military retirees. We have the eight largest population of retired service personnel in the Nation. Senator Bond highlighted the many changes in DOD's health care system that are limiting access to health care for military retirees aged 65 and above. I would like to briefly explain how these general trends are affecting the 47,011 military retirees in my State. The 1995 BRAC slated Fort McClellan for closure by 1999. When that base closes, Noble Army Hospital will be forced to close as well. The emergency room at Lyster Army Hospital at Fort Rucker is being closed. At all of the military treatment facilities, space-available is becoming unavailable. In addition to these physical changes, TRICARE came on line in region 4, and Alabama now is experiencing excessive delays in receiving reimbursement payments and other well-known problems associated with TRICARE. Many private physicians who provided CAMPUS are leaving the DOD health care, which I believe is unacceptable and irresponsible. Despite extended service and sacrifice, retired service members are the only Federal employees who will lose their government-sponsored health insurance when they become eligible for Medicare. This bill takes a modest step forward to insuring that military retirees receive at least as much as Members of Congress or retired Federal employees. Military retirees have dedicated their lives to protecting our Nation; we owe it to them to pave the way for health care equity. I thank Senator Bond for his leadership in introducing this legislation. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this bipartisan bill.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Dr. Joseph Barry Mason, the Dean of the College of Commerce at my alma mater, The University of Alabama, in my hometown of Tuscaloosa. Dean Mason is a remarkable man, a distinguished educator and a good friend. Joseph Barry Mason received his undergraduate degree from the Louisiana Tech University College of Administration and Business. Upon receiving his Ph.D. in marketing from The University of Alabama in 1967, Dr. Mason joined the faculty of The University and, since that time, he has served that institution with distinction. During his tenure, Dr. Mason has served as the Chairman of the College of Commerce Department of Management and Marketing, and since 1988, as the Dean of the College of Commerce and the Russell Professor of Business Administration. Dr. Mason's professional associations extend beyond the campus of The University. He is a former chairman of the board of the American Marketing Association and the 1976 Beta Gamma Sigma National Scholar. Further, in 1984 Dr. Mason served as the Chairman of the UA Task Force on Cost Savings. In that capacity, Dr. Mason worked with the General Motors Rochester Products Plant and the United Auto Workers in Tuscaloosa in order to identify cost savings and prevent the closure of the 200-employee facility. As a result of his successful efforts, the groundwork for future academic-industrial partnerships was laid. For his excellence in education, Dr. Mason has received numerous distinguished awards. Dr. Mason received the Leavey Award for Excellence in Private Enterprise Education from the Freedoms Foundation of Valley Forge, PA. In 1986, he was named the first annual recipient of the Academy of Marketing Science Outstanding Educator of the Year Award. And in 1994, Dean Mason was designated a Distinguished Fellow of the Academy of Marketing Science. At various points in his career, The University has honored Dean Mason, as well. For bringing distinctive credit to the academic community, Dean Mason was awarded the John F. Burnman Distinguished Faculty Award and The University of Alabama National Alumni Association Outstanding Commitment to Teaching Award. Recently, Dean Mason was honored by Louisiana Tech University as its 1997 Distinguished Alumnus. As many of my colleagues know, on Saturday, November 1, 1997, The University of Alabama will play Louisiana Tech at our Homecoming Football game. On that day, Dean Mason, loved and respected by all who have known him, will be honored as a friend and leader to not only The University of Alabama, but also to Louisiana Tech. On this day, on behalf of my wife, Annette, we wish Joseph Barry Mason our sincerest thanks and congratulations for his dedication to making a difference.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, according to the latest statistics, Alabama is home to 47,011 military retirees. We have the eight largest population of retired service personnel in the Nation. Senator Bond highlighted the many changes in DOD's health care system that are limiting access to health care for military retirees aged 65 and above. I would like to briefly explain how these general trends are affecting the 47,011 military retirees in my State. The 1995 BRAC slated Fort McClellan for closure by 1999. When that base closes, Noble Army Hospital will be forced to close as well. The emergency room at Lyster Army Hospital at Fort Rucker is being closed. At all of the military treatment facilities, space-available is becoming unavailable. In addition to these physical changes, TRICARE came on line in region 4, and Alabama now is experiencing excessive delays in receiving reimbursement payments and other well-known problems associated with TRICARE. Many private physicians who provided CAMPUS are leaving the DOD health care, which I believe is unacceptable and irresponsible. Despite extended service and sacrifice, retired service members are the only Federal employees who will lose their government-sponsored health insurance when they become eligible for Medicare. This bill takes a modest step forward to insuring that military retirees receive at least as much as Members of Congress or retired Federal employees. Military retirees have dedicated their lives to protecting our Nation; we owe it to them to pave the way for health care equity. I thank Senator Bond for his leadership in introducing this legislation. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this bipartisan bill.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the nomination was confirmed.