Richard Shelby

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Once again, today, tax time is upon us. It is April 17. We know April 15 is the magic day, but it has been extended because of when it fell. Today is the day everybody in America knows that the Federal Government income taxes are due. If you are like me, you spent way too much time completing your taxes this year. Our Tax Code and its accompanying regulations total tens of thousands of pages which are complicated, confusing, and costly to comply with. In fact, since we last had major reform in 1986 there have been more than 14,000 changes to the Tax Code. Average taxpayers should not have to pour over tax regulations for hours on end or pay a tax professional to complete their tax documents. In the IRS' own estimation, the average time burden for all taxpayers filing a 1040 is 30 hours. Unfortunately, what this means is that for most people is that in addition to paying the Government every year, they need to pay someone or buy software to tell them exactly how much to pay their Government. Americans need a simple, common-sense solution. This is why I have introduced S. 1040, the Tax Simplification Act. The Tax Simplification Act establishes a flat income tax of 17 percent on all income and places real spending limits on the Federal Government. First, my proposal would replace our current incomprehensible Tax Code with a flat rate of 17 percent on all individuals' income beyond an exemption for the individual and any dependents. To prevent the double-taxation of income, earnings from savings would not be included as taxable income, resulting in a tax cut for virtually all taxpayers and providing a strong incentive for people to save. Increasing the savings rate in this country should be a priority of this Congress and this bill will do that. As complicated as the individual tax system has proven, it pales in comparison to the hoops U.S. businesses are required to jump through. In preparation for 2005 taxes, businesses and nonprofits spent an estimated 6.4 billion hours complying with the Federal Income Tax Code, with an estimated compliance cost of over $265 billion. Without action, that number is expected to grow to over $482 billion by 2015. What this means is that for every $5 the Government collects right now, businesses are forced to spend another $1 to comply with the countless rules and regulations that we, the Government, have created. These additional costs are then passed on to the consumers, investors, and employees. We need to overcome this notion that our corporate income tax simply applies to some faceless boardroom. Corporations do not pay taxes. People pay taxes. Corporations do not comply with our tax laws. People do. Under my legislation, companies would pay the flat tax of 17 percent rate on their income, simplifying the complicated calculations businesses currently go through to determine their taxable income. S. 1040 simply defines income as the positive difference between revenue and expenses. As the legislation is implemented, the rate of taxation would be 19 percent in the first 2 years and then lowered to the desired rate of 17 percent in the third year. Finally, this legislation would require a three-fifths majority in Congress for any tax increase. This ensures that only in times of the most need would the Government be able to take any more money out of the hands of hard-working Americans. By enacting this legislation we would institute a strong backstop against those that would seek to continue the out-of-control growth of the Federal Government. And we would open a new chapter of responsibility and accountability in our revenue collection. Yes, the flat tax would revolutionize the way our Government operates. Today, if a flat tax were in place, taxpayers would file a return the size of a postcard. Rather than spending hours deciphering convoluted IRS forms or resorting to professional tax assistance, the flat tax would allow taxpayers to complete their taxes quickly and easily. The time for significant reform of our Tax Code is now. The flat tax would revolutionize the way our Government operates. The complexities and inequities of the current tax system would end. They would be replaced by a system that treats every taxpayer equally and represents a massive reduction in the tax burden carried by hard-working Americans. Only by treating every taxpayer equally can our Tax Code ever achieve true fairness. Only when the shackles of our burdensome Tax Codes are removed will we truly see what our great economy is capable of doing. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, today, just a few minutes ago, we voted on the emergency supplemental appropriations bill. I voted against the bill. From the beginning, I have tried to support our troops both morally and materially. It has always been my goal to ensure that our Armed Forces have a clearly defined mission, realistic military objectives, and the best equipment available. Yet, today, I believe we have reached a point where political infighting has led to bartering for bullets. We have tied vital military funding for our troops to an arbitrary date of withdrawal. The Senate, with this vote today--passing this supplemental spending bill with a date of withdrawal--has named the date for defeat in Iraq, if it were to stand. We have taken a step backward. We have put an arbitrary deadline on our military. It is the wrong message at the wrong time. Surely, this will embolden the enemy and will not help our troops in any way. It is a big mistake. I hope the President will veto this bill as soon as he gets it to his desk. I did not support this supplemental because I remain committed to our troops, first and foremost. I yield the floor.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the amendment of Senator Cochran, the amendment to strike the language, of which I am a cosponsor. I raised this in the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense last week. Senator Cochran indicated then that he would do as he has done; that is, to move to strike the language in the supplemental requiring the phased withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq in 120 days, 4 months--120 days. Mr. President, as you heard--and you have been a party to--4 months is clearly not enough time for General Petraeus or the brave members of our Armed Forces to have a chance to see if a surge in troop numbers could turn the war. I don't know for sure. I had, as a lot of us did, a conversation with General Petraeus before he took command about the troop surge, about the 20,000 troops. I personally think we need 100,000 troops, but we don't have them. General Petraeus is a very smart man. He is a combat soldier. He is in control. I believe to put on an arbitrary timeline of 120 days is the wrong message at the wrong time, where they are beginning--just beginning--to secure some neighborhoods. Will they continue to do this? We hope so. But we should bring every bit of stability we can to the Baghdad area. I have no illusion about sooner or later coming home. I would like to see our troops come home. I don't think that will be the end of the struggle with Islamic fundamentalists by any stretch of the imagination, but I think if we are able to stabilize that area of Iraq to some degree, perhaps there can be some kind of diplomatic resolution because ultimately none of us ever envisioned staying in Iraq. We have been there 4 years. I wish we were not there today, but we are and we are heavily engaged. I think we need to give our Armed Forces every opportunity to succeed. We should not send an ambiguous message to them: We are going to support you today and tomorrow we want you to withdraw, in 120 days, or begin to withdraw. I think that is the wrong message, and I think it would undermine the morale of our troops. Congress should not be armchair generals. We should not try to micromanage what is going on on the ground. That is why I support the Cochran amendment. We need to give our commanders and our soldiers every chance to succeed in Iraq, to bring stability there, where diplomatic maneuvers then perhaps could begin to work. Sending ambiguous messages to our Armed Forces is not the right way. They need our support both morally and materially. I believe at the end of the day they are going to get it. The President has already signaled if this language were to stay he would veto this bill. I believe what he says he is going to do. But we can strike this language today. We can move on and get this supplemental passed to make sure our troops are well funded and that they have what they need to succeed. And they will succeed. The members of our Armed Forces are in harm's way every day. We know the horror stories about war. But they bravely face a sometimes unknown enemy and have done everything asked of them--sometimes two and three times, Mr. President, as you well know. Micromanaging the war from the Halls of Congress is not the right thing to do. I urge my colleagues to support the Cochran amendment and strike this language from the supplemental bill. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, before I get into what I want to talk about this afternoon at length, and that would be Iraq and our military operation there, I would be remiss if I didn't say a few words about our colleague and friend, Senator Thad Cochran of Mississippi, the former chairman and now the ranking Republican on the Appropriations Committee, who cast, as we all know from our colleagues' talks today, his 10,000th vote in the Senate. I have known Senator Cochran for 28 years, since I first came to the U.S. House of Representatives. I can tell you, without any reservation, he is a gentleman. He is a bright, very engaged Senator. He knows the appropriations process, but he is courteous to all of us. He will always listen to us, although his position might be 180 degrees from what we are talking about. I congratulate him for this achievement. This is a milestone in the Senate. I don't know if I will ever be here for 10,000 votes. Not many people, as Senator Byrd mentioned this morning, have. So this is a feat in itself. I congratulate Senator Cochran for his diligence and his service to the Nation and to the people of Mississippi in the Senate and, before then, in the House of Representatives, and also as a naval officer, as a young man out of Old Miss Law School.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, I rise today to discuss U.S. military operations in Iraq. Four years ago, we invaded Iraq to disarm an oppressor's regime and restore control of that country to its own people. In the early hours of March 20, 2003, the United States, joined by our coalition partners, began a military campaign against the regime of Saddam Hussein. Code named ``shock and awe,'' the first 24 hours of combat operations filled the country with punishing air attacks. As the massive firestorm of bombs and missiles targeted Iraqi leadership, ground forces rolled towards Iraq's capital. Without question, our military operations were swift and decisive. Approximately 120,000 U.S. troops, as well as a number of forces from our coalition partners, led the invasion into Iraq. Ground forces moved into Baghdad, formally occupied the city, and the Hussein government collapsed approximately 3 weeks after military operations began. Saddam Hussein and his top leadership were captured, killed, or forced into hiding by coalition forces. With Saddam on the run many Iraqis celebrated the downfall of the oppressive regime. While some fighting in Iraq continued, the major battles appeared over just one month after the start of the military campaign. And 43 days after announcing the beginning of the war, President Bush declared that, ``Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.'' Undoubtedly, the President was wrong. After remarkable success during the initial combat operations, it appears that the Bush administration did not sufficiently prepare for the consequences of their military victory. The Bush administration could not have known everything about what it would find in Iraq. But it could have, and should have, done far more than it did. As George Washington once said, ``There is nothing so likely to produce peace as to be well prepared to meet the enemy.'' In the aftermath of the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and the Baathist regime, the U.S. proved it was ill-equipped for the post combat environment it would face. As a result, the Bush administration made grave and glaring political, military, and intelligence miscalculations. As it turned out, the defeat of the Iraqi army was just the beginning of the war. Prewar plans drastically underestimated the number of troops necessary in a post-Saddam Iraq. The troop level of the invasion force proved inadequate to hold the country together after Saddam's regime was removed. The Bush administration failed to heed the warnings of experienced, senior military officers who stressed the need for a large force structure in country to provide security. In particular, on the eve of the invasion, then Chief of Staff of the Army, General Eric Shinseki, predicted ``something on the order of several hundred thousand solders'' would be required to keep peace in a postwar Iraq. While it is evident that General Shinseki was on the mark with his force calculations, the general's comments were quickly dismissed by the Department of Defense as ``wildly off the mark.'' Consequently, the U.S. invaded with what proved to be an insufficient number of troops to secure a postwar Iraq. Immediately after the invasion, it was readily apparent that serious miscalculations, poor prewar planning, misguided assumptions, and wildly optimistic administration reporting was the order of the day. When the Iraqi Government collapsed, there was no framework in place capable of filling the military, political, and economic void. U.S. combat units were assigned to patrol large urban areas with no sense of their mission and no standard set of operating procedures. Looting and other criminal activities were rampant. The U.S. forces were vastly inadequate to control the mounting violence, since the Bush administration had mistakenly believed that U.S. forces would be greeted as liberators rather than as occupiers. The reality was widespread lawlessness throughout the country. To make matters worse, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld denounced the extent of the chaos as simply an expression of pent-up hostility towards the old regime. ``It's untidy.'' Rumsfeld said. ``And freedom's untidy. And free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes.'' We clearly underestimated the disorder and chaos the toppling of the regime would cause. Then we failed to effectively respond to it once it did. The Bush administration simply did not believe that a major reconstruction effort would be required and they were unprepared when the Iraqi infrastructure collapsed. As a result, interagency rivalry and turf wars between the Departments of Defense and State plagued the immediate restoration of security and basic services. Amid the escalating violence and civil disorder, the Department of Defense deployed a small reconstruction effort, led by retired Lieutenant General Jay Garner. Garner became the Bush administration's fall guy for the problems and chaos in Iraq. He was blamed for not implementing key services or restoring order fast enough. Yet, he was prevented from cooperating with planners in the Central Command and denied key personnel increases. He was replaced less than one month after reconstruction efforts began. At this critical juncture, perhaps the single most important event in the destabilization of Iraq after the cessation of large scale military operations occurred--Garner's replacement, Ambassador Paul Bremer, demobilized the Iraqi Army. The abrupt decision in May 2003 to disband the entire force, including apolitical conscripts, may have been one of the most grievous mistakes made by our occupying force. The decision allowed enemies of a democratic Iraq the time necessary to regroup and infiltrate the under- secured nation. We disbanded an organization that would have been vital for providing security and assisting in the rebuilding. The 300,000 strong force almost immediately morphed from soldiers to bitter, unemployed, armed terrorists who became prime recruits for the insurgency efforts. The result of this one decision, gave an enormous boost to the forces of instability in Iraq. In the fall of 2003, the administration faced the dilemma of securing a nation with a limited occupation force and no Iraqi security structures in place. While the Bush administration could have opted to deploy additional forces from the United States, the Department of Defense chose to speed up the Iraqi Army training program. The effect, inevitably, produced Iraqi soldiers who were neither properly trained nor fully committed to the mission. This problem became even more severe with the creation of the Iraqi Civil Defense Corps. The Corps' purpose was to provide local militia forces as adjuncts to the Iraqi army. However, the Bush administration was impatient to create more Iraqi troops to illustrate that additional U.S. forces were unnecessary. They once again increased the training pace which restricted the vetting process of the Iraqi troops. The result was an Iraqi Civil Defense Corps limited in its combat capability, thoroughly infiltrated by insurgents, who predictably collapsed whenever committed to combat. With nothing to fill the power void left by the regime's fall, the U.S. ended up creating a failed state that allowed the insurgency to develop. The United States did not anticipate the deeply divided Iraqi society--one with the Sunnis resentful over the loss of their dominant position and the Shiites seeking power commensurate with their majority status--would devolve the country into sectarian violence. The Bush administration was clearly unprepared for the likelihood that these ethnic differences and the dramatic shift in the power dynamics would cause the sects to engage in violent conflict. Perhaps even more importantly, the administration did not foresee that the U.S. military, as an occupying force, would itself be the target of resentment and armed attacks. Since the invasion, lingering Shiite resentment and Sunni fears associated with the shift in power have helped transform local and individual political or economic disputes into broader religious confrontations. Moreover, the Bush administration insisted that all of the problems of the country were caused by the insurgency, rather than that all of the problems of the country were helping to fuel the insurgency. Security was not established after the fall of the Ba'athist government and still remains beyond our grasp. As a result, the hardening of sectarian and ethnic identities in a postwar Iraq has created significant anxiety among Iraq's neighbors, many of whom also have religiously and ethnically diverse populations. Toppling the regime and dismantling the Iraqi armed forces removed a potential military threat to the Middle East region. Yet, it also eliminated the area's principal strategic counterbalance to Iran. The instability and violence in Iraq, coupled with Iraq's neighbors' fears of an emboldened and potentially hostile Iran, has created new concerns among Middle Eastern nations and sparked increased interest in the future of Iraq. In particular, Gulf governments worry that escalating sectarian violence in Iraq could spread to Iraq's mainly Sunni neighbors and force them into conflict with Shiite-controlled Iran. Gulf governments also believe that regions in Iraq could become safe havens for terrorist organizations if the Iraqi government collapses or the U.S. withdraws troops precipitously. As we debate a strategy for Iraq, we need to make certain we paint the big picture and understand what is at stake. If we precipitously withdraw our troops, we will open the door for the Iranians to exert even more influence in both Iraq and the Middle East. Iran clearly has regional aspirations that will significantly increase without a counterbalance in the Persian Gulf. However, more than just the strategic balance of the region is at stake. The oil reserves in Iraq are vast--believed to be only second in size in the Middle East to those of Saudi Arabia. Imagine over half the world's oil in the hands of the mullahs in Tehran. Picture the world with another nuclear power that hates the United States and all it stands for. The President is correct when he states that those who say the future of Iraq is not a direct threat to our national security are deluding themselves. Madam President, we are now living with the consequences of successive policy failures. The blunders, miscalculations, and failed leadership made by the Bush administration continue to this day. As I stand here today, one thing is clear--we are at a crossroads. One month ago, President Bush addressed the Nation and outlined a new strategy in Iraq. Since that time, the merit and purpose of escalating U.S. troops has been debated around the country. This week, the Senate brought forth several resolutions expressing various viewpoints on the subject. One resolution, introduced by Senators Warner and Levin, disagrees with the troop escalation strategy, but like all the resolutions on Iraq, it is not binding. It cannot deter the President from sending more troops. It cannot withdraw the troops currently in Iraq. And it does not limit the President's power as Commander-in-Chief. That is set in the Constitution. However, what this resolution does is state that we, the United States Senate, the same body that 4 years prior authorized the use of force in Iraq, no longer has confidence in the U.S. strategy in Iraq. Far more significantly, it sends the message to our brave fighting men and women that although the Senate will not stop you from deploying and engaging the enemy, we do not think you can succeed in your mission. That is a message I refuse to send. Therefore, I do not support the Warner-Levin resolution. Our service members need clear direction--not mixed messages from the United States Senate. The Armed Forces need support, both materially and morally, from the policymakers who sent them into combat. Ambiguity has no place in our strategy or operations in Iraq. My opposition to this resolution, however, should not be confused with blind support of the President's policy. I have grave concerns and serious doubts about the future of Iraq and what role the United States will play there. As we scrutinize the new strategy put forth by the President, numerous and troubling questions arise about the future of U.S. involvement. Should we put more of our servicemembers in harm's way? Is the number of troops in the surge enough? Or do we need more? Is it too late to recover and should we just cut our losses and begin to withdraw our troops? If we did withdraw, what would be the cost? American prestige? An unleashing of transnational terrorism? The establishment of Iran as the dominant force in the Middle East? Will the Iraqi government step up to help secure the country? Or will sending more troops only delay Iraq's government from taking more responsibility? The questions could go on and on. In the words of Winston Churchill who once said, ``You ask, what is our policy? You ask, what is our aim?'' I believe there are three fundamental questions that must be answered before moving forward: What is our goal in Iraq? How do we measure success? Just stating that success is the establishment of a democratic and secure government in Iraq is too broad a definition. It represents an endless engagement for the U.S. We need more definable, measurable objectives. That is a basic principle of war. How do we achieve it? What is our strategy? Not just our military strategy, but our overall strategy involving military, political, economic, and social components. And is this new plan set forth by the President a viable option? Is it a rational strategy that will lead to achieving our objectives, which will in turn lead to success in Iraq? When combat operations began, our goal was straightforward--to enable Iraq to be stable, unified, and democratic, able to provide for its own security, a partner in the global war on terror, and a model for reform In the Middle East. Four years later, the country has descended into chaos. While the formal political framework for a democratic government has advanced, insurgent and sectarian violence has increased and become more widespread. Is it still plausible to believe that the U. S. can unify this country so that it will be able to sustain a viable democratic government? We are fighting an insurgency in Iraq. American forces and the Iraqi people have the same enemies--the Shiite, Sunni, and al-Qaida terrorists, illegal militias, Iranian agents, and Saddam loyalists who stand between the Iraqi people and their future as a free nation. Only through a combination of military force, political dialogue, economic development and reform, and increased security for the population will we be able to restore peace. Therefore, we are now confronted with this question: How . will the United States reverse Iraq's steady decline into sectarian and radical religious chaos and bring stability to violence-torn parts of the country? In the announcement of an imminent deployment of 21,500 additional U.S. servicemembers to Iraq, the Bush administration radically shifted its Iraq policy. By increasing the amount of ``boots on the ground,'' many of the basic tenets of the President's Iraq strategy thus far have been repudiated--in particular, that political progress would eventually suppress the violence. The question now becomes, will the increase in our armed forces in Baghdad help stabilize the country and stop the spiral into a civil war, or is it too late? We have entered into a quagmire, and there is no easy exit. This is not a war that will be won overnight and it is dangerous to believe that if we set an artificial time line to withdraw troops that the terrorist violence would not follow us home. The consequence of failure in Iraq is the strengthening and growth of radical extremists who will use the country as a safe haven for their terrorist organizations to threaten the safety and security of the United States and the entire free world. No one appears to have the answer to the calamity that is the current state of affairs in Iraq. Even those outspoken detractors of the Bush plan do not offer practical alternatives. Cutting and running is not an option, not for the United States. Even the appearance of doing so under another name is unacceptable, I believe, at any level. It is clear, though, that things cannot continue forward on this path. The administration and the Congress must find a viable strategy for U.S. involvement in Iraq. I will not stand before you, Madam President, and assert that the Bush plan is not without flaws, nor will I state I am completely confident an additional 21,500 troops will turn the war around, will stabilize Baghdad. We will know that answer soon enough, all of us. But what I do know is this: When you vote to send troops into combat, it becomes your responsibility to ensure their mission is clearly defined, they have realistic military objectives, and they have the best equipment to achieve these goals. As Congress debates the President's plan--and we will--as new ideas and strategies, perhaps new resolutions are brought forward, one thing, I submit, must remain constant: the support we give our soldiers, our service members around the world in harm's way. I acknowledge there are different views within Congress about the way forward in Iraq, but Congress, in my judgment, should never let political infighting lead to bartering for bullets. Cutting off funding for our troops or even under any kind of name or guise should never be an option. The members of the U.S. Armed Forces willingly face grave dangers for each and every one of us. They have bravely faced sometimes an unknown enemy and have done everything that has been asked of them. Abandoning our servicemembers, our soldiers, hampering their ability to fight or cutting off funds for necessary military equipment or supplies cannot be an alternative, in my judgment. We should never take any action that will endanger our Armed Forces fighting in combat. No one, I believe, wants to bring our troops safely home more than I do or you do, Madam President. Yet while many oppose sending more troops, no one in Congress has yet proposed an alternative that allows Iraq to stabilize. Therefore, the last question I pose to the Senate is: Why is no one looking for a way to win as opposed to simply a way out? This should be part of the debate in the few weeks ahead. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, today I honor Mr. Beasor Walker, who has lived a life of great service to our Nation and to my hometown of Tuscaloosa, AL. Beasor was a celebrated soldier in the Second World War, where he fought in the June 6, 1944, Invasion of Normandy. Despite a wound to his side, Beasor stayed with his unit during the duration of the fight and was promoted to company commander. Wounded again, he returned to his unit a second time in order to fight against the Nazis in the December 1944 Battle of the Bulge. It was during this offensive that he earned the Distinguished Service Cross, two Silver Stars, three Bronze Stars, and two Purple Hearts. After 27 years of distinguished service to the U.S. Army, including time at Fort Jackson, where he trained replacement troops for the Korean War, Beasor retired as a colonel. A graduate of the University of Alabama, Beasor was elected sheriff of Tuscaloosa County in 1970. He served as sheriff until 1991, and during his lengthy tenure he was able to greatly improve Tuscaloosa County. Beasor is responsible for integrating the Sheriff's Department, streamlining the homicide squads, and extensively working to improve the Alabama Boys' and Girls' Ranch. Beasor has been inducted to both the Alabama Military Hall of Honor and the Alabama Law Enforcement Hall of Fame. His service to the Nation has been exceptional, and Beasor Walker is more than deserving of this recognition. His sacrifices are appreciated and important to the freedom we enjoy every day. I hope my colleagues will join me in thanking my friend Beasor Walker for his service to our Nation and to the State of Alabama.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following testimony given by Mr. Mallory Factor before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs on September 29, 2004, and before the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs on June 15, 2004, be printed in the Record.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, today I honor LTG John R. Vines, the commanding general of the XVIII Airborne Corps and Fort Bragg. General Vines, an outstanding American soldier from Alabama, will soon retire after more than 35 years of selfless service to this great Nation in the U.S. Army. General Vines' dedication to our soldiers, commitment to excellence, and performance of duty has been extraordinary throughout his career. General Vines' lifetime of service culminated in an assignment as the commanding general of the XVIII Airborne Corps and Fort Bragg, which he has held since 2003. During his time in uniform, General Vines served in a succession of command and staff positions worldwide. The embodiment of an Army Ranger, General Vines has served all over the world, commanding paratroopers in combat during three separate conflicts. As a battalion commander in the 82nd Airborne Division, General Vines led a combat parachute assault in Operation Just Cause in Panama in 1989 and then led the same soldiers in Operation Desert Shield as the first ground combat unit in the gulf. Soon after the United States went to war in 2001, General Vines, as commanding general of the 82nd Airborne Division, led his forces into Afghanistan as head of Coalition Task Force 82 and then assumed control of Combined/Joint Task Force 180 in Bagram. From January 2005 until January 2006, General Vines served as the joint forces commander of Multi-National Corps Iraq in Operation Iraqi Freedom, becoming the first general officer to command forces in both Iraq and Afghanistan. LTG John Vines holds a B.S. degree in chemistry from the University of Alabama and an M.A. degree in National Security and Strategy from the Naval War College. His numerous awards and accolades include the Defense Distinguished Service Medal; Distinguished Service Medal; Defense Superior Service Medal, with Oak Leaf Cluster; Bronze Star Medal, with Oak Leaf Cluster; Legion of Merit, with Oak Leaf Cluster; Combat Infantryman Badge; Master Parachutist Badge, with Combat Star and the Ranger Tab. During his distinguished Army career, General Vines earned a reputation as one of the Department of Defense's most forward-thinking and insightful leaders. Remembered by those who served under his command as both an extraordinary man and leader, General Vines wrote personal condolence letters to the families of each one of his soldiers killed in combat. General John Vines represents the epitome of what Army leaders, soldiers, and the country expect from our military officers. He is a sterling roll model for young soldiers. Well known as the ``Soldiers' General,'' his commitment to the troops he led was unparalleled, even being quoted as saying that success in combat is not about military hardware or technology. ``It boils down to the individual soldiers. It's about having people who have the commitment, the courage, the will, and the warrior values to confront the forces that threaten us. And only so long as we have those men and women who are able and willing to confront this will we be safe.'' His service to the Nation has been exceptional, and General Vines is more than deserving of this recognition. His sacrifices are appreciated and important to the freedom we enjoy every day. I hope my colleagues will join me in thanking LTG John Vines for his commendable service to our Nation and the U.S. Army. I thank his wife Pamela and his sons, Joshua and Jacob, for their steadfast support while he fulfilled this essential duty to our country. I personally wish the Vines' family all the best as they celebrate General Vines' richly deserved retirement.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise to engage the distinguished Senators in a colloquy. Section 702 of the Financial Services Regulatory Relief Act of 2006 clarifies that written conditions in applications and written agreements with institution-affiliated parties are enforceable in order to protect the safety and soundness of insured depository institutions. Institution affiliated parties can include bank directors, officers and principal shareholders. This provision was included at the request of the regulatory agencies, and we have heard some concerns that the regulatory agencies may use this language to require personal guarantees from bank directors and officers in inappropriate circumstances. I ask Senator Crapo if he can explain the legislative intent behind Section 702?

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, today I honor Mr. Jimmy Williamson, who will become the first Alabamian to serve as chairman of the board for the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. This is a tremendous honor, both for Jimmy and for Alabama. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants serves as the national professional association for more than 350,000 certified public accountants. Jimmy's education, experience, and passion for finance make him the best choice to take the helm of the organization. Jimmy, a past president of the Alabama Society of CPAs, is a senior partner and stockholder in the MDA Professional Group accounting firm where he specializes in profit sharing plans, fringe benefits, nonqualified deferred compensation plans, estate and personal financial planning, business acquisitions, and investment review and analysis. I am also proud to say that Jimmy and I share an interest in fraud prevention and detection, one of the most important financial issues we face today. His professional work and leadership on committees, that are too plentiful to name, make him uniquely qualified and prepared for this position. I am proud to recognize his professional achievements and congratulate him on this important post.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, today I honor William ``Bill'' Chandler, a pillar of the Montgomery, AL community. Bill devoted 50 years of his life to developing the YMCA in Montgomery and influencing the lives of thousands of youth. Bill, known as ``Mr. YMCA'' in Montgomery, was a father figure to many young men and women in need of guidance. Bill believed that civic education and open discussions were important to developing youth into productive citizens. He was instrumental in creating and implementing innumerable youth programs focused on leadership development including the Alabama Youth Legislature, the YMCA Youth Conference on National Affairs, Lions International Youth Camp, and the Hi-Y and Tri-Hi-Y programs. Without a doubt, many of Montgomery's, Alabama's, and the Nation's leaders have been directly influenced by Mr. Chandler and the programs he championed. Mr. Chandler also proved himself to be an effective leader and businessman as president of the Montgomery YMCA. Under his leadership, Montgomery's single YMCA grew into the multiple branches operating across the city. His commitment to service was also recognized when he was chosen to serve as the president of Lion's Club International. Mr. Chandler also served as an important leader in Alabama throughout times of racial tension in Montgomery and the State. He worked to open facilities in all parts of the Montgomery community to serve people from all walks of life and was at the forefront of providing integrated services. In 1983, when racial discord was near its boiling point in Montgomery, Mr. Chandler worked with community and civil rights leaders to develop the biracial Youth One Montgomery organization to allow Black and White youth to conduct an open dialog and better understand the issues surrounding race. Bill Chandler, a graduate of Rice University and the University of Georgia, served with distinction as an officer in the U.S. Navy during World War II. An accomplished athlete himself, Bill was also responsible for the creation of a city sports league and the Jimmy Hitchcock award to honor character in high school athletes. Bill was an inspiration to many, and I am truly grateful for the endless contributions he made to the youth in Alabama. He was preceded in death by his wife, Martha Spidle Chandler and will be missed by his three children, Carroll Chandler Phelps, Elizabeth Chandler Walston, and William Robert Chandler; his seven grandchildren; and his sister, Evelyn Chandler Berg. His dedication to community service will be remembered and shared by those whose lives he touched for generations to come.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, today I honor June Collier Fletcher, one of Alabama's most influential women, who died on September 9, 2006. She rose from a meager upbringing to become the president and CEO of National Industries, Inc. Once the largest private employer in Montgomery, June built National Industries from the ground up to become a major automotive supplier employing 5,000 Alabamians. June's drive and ambition allowed her to become a leader in an industry dominated by men. Under her guidance and leadership, National Industries became a flourishing $130 million-a-year electrical connection business. Over the years, June was recognized for her hard work, dedication, and expertise and received numerous awards and accolades. She served as a member of the Commerce Department's prestigious Industrial Policy Advisory Committee, testified before Congress on automotive issues, and was a sought-after speaker on the subject of international trade. June received the Industry Week Excellence in Management Award and was selected to the Committee of 200, an organization of the top 200 women business leaders in America. In addition to her work in the automotive industry, she was also active in petroleum exploration and production, farming, and garment manufacturing. In the 1980s, June's company was awarded a government contract to produce chemical warfare protective clothing which was used during the first gulf war. June was an inspiration to many and I am truly grateful for the endless contributions she made to Alabama and our Nation. She will be missed by her husband Tim Fletcher; her five children, Kara Davis, Ondi Cain, Roessler Collier, Arin Burroughs, Kohler Collier; her stepchildren, Tom Fletcher, Jr., Carrie Fletcher; her 12 grandchildren and 2 great-grandchildren. She will also be missed by her many friends and the numerous people she worked with whose lives she touched throughout her magnificent journey.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, at the proper time I will urge adoption of the amendment, but I think Senator Sarbanes wishes to speak.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to offer the amendment that has just been referenced on behalf of myself and Senator Sarbanes to the Port Security Improvement Act of 2006. This amendment is virtually identical to the Public Transportation Terrorism Prevention Act that the Banking Committee unanimously reported in November of 2005. In fact, the Senate passed an almost identical bill in the 108th Congress. I am hopeful that as we consider port security today, we can include this critically important legislation designed to help address the security vulnerabilities of our Nation's public transportation system. The national dialog has appropriately been focused on aviation post- 9/11, and this week port security is at the top of this agenda here in the Senate. In addition to these key areas, I believe it is imperative that we make transit security a priority, too. We know full well from the occurrences in Great Britain, India, and Spain that our buses, our subways, and rail systems across the country are attractive targets for terrorist attacks. The Public Transportation Terrorism Act before us now is an appropriate first step to address widespread needs, and it paves the way toward making transit safer for the traveling public. The language in this amendment was carefully crafted and is a result of several hearings on this topic, review of two comprehensive studies by the American Public Transportation Association and the Government Accountability Office, and negotiations with key industry leaders. This amendment authorizes $3.5 billion in capital investment grants, operation security assistance, and research. While this is short of the $6 billion worth of needs identified by the industry, it is an important and necessary first step. I thank those who have worked hard over the course of several years to produce a sound piece of legislation that will result in safer public transportation systems, particularly my colleague on the Banking Committee and former chairman, Senator Sarbanes, as well as the chairman and ranking member of the Subcommittee on Housing and Transportation, Senators Allard and Jack Reed. I also thank Chairman Stevens and Senator Inouye with the Commerce Committee for their steadfast support in this effort. In addition, I thank Chairman Collins and Senator Lieberman with the Homeland Security Committee. I ask unanimous consent that Senators Allard, Bennett, Schumer, and Boxer be added as cosponsors of this amendment.

Mr. SHELBY. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. SHELBY. I urge adoption of the amendment if there is no further debate.

Mr. SHELBY. I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. SHELBY. I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SHELBY

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

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we temporarily set aside the Leahy-Bond amendment for 10 minutes.

Mr. SHELBY. I also want to make certain that both the Armed Services Committee and the Defense Subcommittee on Appropriations are receiving identical funding information from the Air Force. To that end, I am committed to working with my colleagues to ensure that we are all receiving the same information and have the same understanding of the needs of the program to move forward at this time. The Tanker Replacement Program is vital to ensuring that our Armed Forces have the most reliable and effective equipment in the world. In a year when the Senate's Defense appropriations bill has been cut $9 billion, I appreciate the difficult funding choices that must be made. As a member of the committee, we have to make those choices. However, as our military aircraft become fewer in number and have to serve longer than those they replace, we cannot afford to take a misstep at the outset of this acquisition program. We must adequately fund the Tanker Replacement Program to ensure our servicemembers have the necessary equipment to successfully defend our Nation. I appreciate Chairman Stevens' continuing assistance with this program, as well as Senator McCain's longstanding interest, and look forward to working with both of them in the coming months to ensure that we can move forward and replace our aging tanker fleet. A lot of those planes are over 40 years old.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on an amendment I have filed regarding the Air Force's KC-135 Tanker Replacement Program. Like my colleagues in the Senate, one of my top priorities is to keep our Nation safe. I am working to ensure that our servicemembers have the best equipment possible. Our Air Force has a fleet of aging refueling tankers that are currently experiencing problems. I simply do not believe we can wait 35 years to replace them. While I understand the fiscal constraints the Defense Subcommittee was under, I believe that the KC-X, the airframe that will replace our nearly 40-year-old fleet of KC-135 tankers, is vital to our national security and to the success of our servicemembers fighting abroad. This acquisition effort is likely one of the most important ones we will execute for many years to come. Whether the objective is to respond to military aggression or to provide humanitarian relief, the combination of distance and time can pose a significant challenge. When we need to respond quickly and in force, tankers allow us to project globally. With our current military commitments abroad, our national security has become dependent upon the tanker force. It is the way we deter, deploy, and fight. We cannot achieve our decisive range capabilities without the air refuelers. The Air Force's current schedule is to award a contract for the new KC-X aircraft in 2007. However, that award could be indefinitely postponed if funding is not restored in the 2007 Defense appropriations bill. While I have filed an amendment, I do not plan to call it up because, as a member of the Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, I understand the problem between the authorizers and the appropriators who may be receiving different information regarding the necessity for funding in fiscal year 2007. I have a letter from the Air Force Deputy for Budget, dated August 2, 2006, stating that the Air Force needs a minimum of $70 million in research and development, test and evaluation funds for the year 2007, in addition to the funds remaining in the tanker transfer fund. I ask unanimous consent it be printed in the Record.

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