Richard Shelby

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. I thank the chairman. As the chairman is aware, repeal of the Public Company Utility Holding Act of 1935 has been a priority of the Senate Banking Committee for almost 25 years. As recently as 1997 and 1999, the Senate Banking Committee reported PUHCA repeal bills out of committee. As chairman of the Banking Committee, I have been pleased to work with the Chairman of the Energy Committee to ensure that PUHCA repeal was included as part of a comprehensive Energy bill. I congratulate the chairman for reporting a bill out of Committee that includes PUHCA repeal. Nevertheless, I have concerns that the expanded merger review authority for FERC provided for in the Electricity title undermines the important policy goals behind PUHCA repeal. It is widely understood that PUHCA has served its purpose and is outdated. Now, PUHCA acts as a barrier to interstate capital flows, and other Federal laws make the PUHCA regime redundant. The purpose of PUHCA repeal legislation is to eliminate these duplicative and unnecessary regulatory burdens. I am concerned that PUHCA repeal is undermined by legislation providing FERC with enhanced merger review authority over utility companies. I do not believe that Congress should repeal PUHCA, only to replace it with a burdensome regulatory framework administered by FERC. But I am afraid that may be exactly what we are doing in the Electricity title of this bill. I do not believe that Congress should require enhanced FERC merger authority as a prerequisite for PUHCA repeal. I would ask the chairman to consult with me during conference to ensure against this result. As the Senate Banking Committee has done recently, I think it is important that we repeal PUHCA without creating additional regulatory burdens.

Mr. SHELBY. Thank you, Mr. chairman.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in relation to the Feinstein amendment. The issue of liquefied natural gas, or LNG, has become one of great concern In my home State of Alabama and to many others across the country. I believe it is important that LNG be part of our Nation's comprehensive energy plan. However, we must ensure that these facilities are safe and are sited in appropriate locations that have the support of the local communities and the State. I recognize that the Federal Government should have the authority to site and permit these facilities--but not without the input of the State and the local community. I do not believe that the Federal Government should run rough-shod over State and local interests. It is imperative that they be protected throughout the siting process. To that end, I believe that a clear and direct line of communication between the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and State and local governments be established--because I do not believe that the current process provides such an avenue. However, I do not believe that the Feinstein amendment is the appropriate way to ensure this relationship. While I am firmly committed to States rights, I believe that giving a State ``veto'' power over the siting of an LNG terminal is contrary to the Constitution and in my opinion, not in the best interests of our Nation. The interstate commerce clause clearly places matters of interstate and foreign commerce in the hands of the Federal Government. I believe that we can provide an avenue for State and local involvement while still preserving the constitutional role of the Federal Government in matters of interstate commerce. To that end, I have worked with Chairman Domenici and Senator Bingaman to craft language that strikes that important balance. I believe that we have crafted a proposal that does just that and would encourage my colleagues to consider that language before we end debate on the issue of LNG. The proposal that I reference will provide our State and local communities with a strong voice in the permitting and siting process of LNG facilities while maintaining the critical role of the Federal Government in interstate and foreign commerce. This language ensures that State and local authorities are represented by a single party or agency throughout the process and that their concerns regarding safety, security, coastal conservation and environmental protection are clearly articulated and acknowledged. In addition, the language also clearly lays out the process for developing a cost sharing plan between the industry and the State, local, and Federal agencies tasked with maintaining safety and security around the facility. This will ensure that these facilities do not tax the response systems to the detriment of the surrounding community. I have been involved in the debate over LNG for the last several years and my goal and concern has been and always will be to protect the citizen's of Alabama while also providing an opportunity for the development of a critical asset. I thank Chairman Domenici for his willingness to work on this issue and find a common ground.

Mr. SHELBY

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

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support for the nomination of Bill Pryor, to serve on the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. I have known Bill for many years and have the highest regard for his intellect and integrity. He is an extraordinarily skilled attorney with a prestigious record of trying civil and criminal cases in both the Federal and State courts. He has also argued several cases before both the Supreme Court of the United States and the supreme court of the State of Alabama. As the Attorney General of the State of Alabama, Judge Pryor established a reputation as a principled and effective legal advocate for the State and distinguished himself as a leader on many important State issues. During his tenure as Attorney General, it was his duty and obligation to represent and defend the laws and interests of the State of Alabama. And while he may not have always agreed with those laws, he consistently fulfilled his responsibility dutifully and responsibly. Long before being nominated to the Eleventh Circuit, Judge Pryor made it a priority to be open and honest about his personal beliefs, which is what voters expect from the persons whom they elect to represent them. Yet he has shown again and again that when the law conflicts with his personal and political beliefs, he follows the law as articulated by the Constitution and the Supreme Court. Despite his detractors, I believe it is important to note that actions speak louder than words, and certainly, Judge Pryor's actions since joining the Eleventh Circuit speak volumes about his fairness and impartiality. During his brief tenure on the Court, Judge Pryor has authored several opinions that effectively demonstrate his willingness to protect the rights of those often overlooked in the legal system. In light of all of the information that has been presented here today, I believe that we must confirm Judge Pryor. Bill Pryor is a man of the law and that is what we need in our Federal judiciary. Whether as a prosecutor, a defense attorney, the Attorney General of the State of Alabama, or a Federal judge, he understands and respects the constitutional role of the judiciary and specifically, the role of the Federal courts in our legal system. Indeed, I have no doubt that he will make an exceptional Federal judge because of the humility and gravity that he brings to the bench. I am also confident that he will serve honorably and apply the law with impartiality and fairness--just as he has done during his brief tenure on the Eleventh Circuit. I again encourage my colleagues to support Judge Pryor's nomination because I believe it is what is right for our people, and it is what is right for our country. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to once again introduce my flat tax bill, S. 1099 the ``Tax Simplification Act of 2005.'' The President has made fundamental tax reform a top priority for his second term. I believe my bill offers that fundamental tax reform and will drastically improve our Nation's economy and the way Americans go about the business of paying taxes. This bill would repeal the current Internal Revenue Code and create a single rate for all taxpayers-- seventeen percent when the tax is fully implemented--and gives tax-free treatment to all savings and investment, not just dividends. A major reason why I support a flat tax is because it wil1 place more money into the hands of hardworking Americans. It will allow individuals--not the government--to decide how to best spend their money. Lowering taxes allows Americans to keep more of their money to keep up with monthly expenses like, insurance coverage, educational costs, and prescription drugs. Lowering taxes also makes it easier for Americans to save for their retirement through private savings plans. Although I strongly believe in the importance of private savings, my bill leaves the Social Security system intact and, in fact, provides seniors with more money by repealing the current tax on Social Security benefits. I have said many times before that our current progressive tax system is unfair. It punishes success and stymies economic growth. The only way we can remedy this is to adopt a single tax rate for all taxpayers. Transitioning to a flat tax will not only increase the fairness of the tax code, but it will also increase the incentives to work and thus boost economic growth. Today our tax code and its regulations total more than 60,000 pages which are complex, confusing and costly to comply with. Were a flat tax in place now, taxpayers would file a return the size of a postcard, and every American would be taxed equally and at the same rate. Rather than spending hours poring over convoluted IRS forms, or resorting to professional tax assistance, the flat tax allows taxpayers to determine their taxes quickly and easily. Everyone will fill out the same simple return, everyone will be taxed at the same rate, and everyone will pay their fare share. Paying taxes may never be a pleasant experience, but at least under a flat tax it wouldn't be mind-boggling. I fully realize that the bill I am introducing today is a monumental shift from the current tax code, but the time is ripe for fundamental tax reform. We must not allow the enormity of the task to deter us from enacting better, more efficient tax laws. I therefore urge my colleagues to join me in support of this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to once again introduce my flat tax bill, S. 1099 the ``Tax Simplification Act of 2005.'' The President has made fundamental tax reform a top priority for his second term. I believe my bill offers that fundamental tax reform and will drastically improve our Nation's economy and the way Americans go about the business of paying taxes. This bill would repeal the current Internal Revenue Code and create a single rate for all taxpayers-- seventeen percent when the tax is fully implemented--and gives tax-free treatment to all savings and investment, not just dividends. A major reason why I support a flat tax is because it wil1 place more money into the hands of hardworking Americans. It will allow individuals--not the government--to decide how to best spend their money. Lowering taxes allows Americans to keep more of their money to keep up with monthly expenses like, insurance coverage, educational costs, and prescription drugs. Lowering taxes also makes it easier for Americans to save for their retirement through private savings plans. Although I strongly believe in the importance of private savings, my bill leaves the Social Security system intact and, in fact, provides seniors with more money by repealing the current tax on Social Security benefits. I have said many times before that our current progressive tax system is unfair. It punishes success and stymies economic growth. The only way we can remedy this is to adopt a single tax rate for all taxpayers. Transitioning to a flat tax will not only increase the fairness of the tax code, but it will also increase the incentives to work and thus boost economic growth. Today our tax code and its regulations total more than 60,000 pages which are complex, confusing and costly to comply with. Were a flat tax in place now, taxpayers would file a return the size of a postcard, and every American would be taxed equally and at the same rate. Rather than spending hours poring over convoluted IRS forms, or resorting to professional tax assistance, the flat tax allows taxpayers to determine their taxes quickly and easily. Everyone will fill out the same simple return, everyone will be taxed at the same rate, and everyone will pay their fare share. Paying taxes may never be a pleasant experience, but at least under a flat tax it wouldn't be mind-boggling. I fully realize that the bill I am introducing today is a monumental shift from the current tax code, but the time is ripe for fundamental tax reform. We must not allow the enormity of the task to deter us from enacting better, more efficient tax laws. I therefore urge my colleagues to join me in support of this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise tonight to speak in support of the Federal Public Transportation Act of 2005. We know it as the Transportation bill. This bill was marked up in the committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs on March 17 and reported out with a unanimous vote. I am proud of this legislation which was crafted on a bipartisan basis with cooperation from the distinguished Senator from Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes, the committee's ranking member and former chairman. The Federal Public Transportation Act of 2005 provides record growth for public transportation. The funding authorized in this bill will provide for significant improvements to and expansion of the Nation's transportation infrastructure. I am pleased to be working with my colleagues, Chairman Inhofe from the Environment and Public Works Committee, and Chairman Stevens from the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee. I want to thank my friends from the Finance Committee, Senators Grassley and Baucus, for working so diligently to identify additional money for public transportation. Thanks to their efforts the Banking Committee's transit title provides record growth for transportation, $53.8 billion overhis is an increase in the share of transit funding over TEA-21 and I am confident that this money will be helpful in meeting surface transportation needs across the country. Public transportation services are often the only form of transportation available to many citizens. These services provide mobility to the millions of Americans who cannot, for various reasons, use an automobile. More than 80 million Americans cannot drive or do not have access to a car. Further, senior citizens are the fastest growing segment of the U.S. population. Many of them require access to public transportation in order to maintain their independence and to access vital healthcare services. Today, the American public transportation industry consists of nearly 6,000 transit systems in both urban and rural areas. These transportation agencies operate a diverse array of vehicles, including subways, buses, light rail, commuter railroads, ferries, vans, cable cars, aerial tramways, and taxis. According to the Texas Transportation Institute's 2005 Urban Mobility Report, congestion costs over $63 billion, more than 3.7 billion hours of delay and 2.3 billion gallons of excess fuel annually. The average driver loses more than a week of work each year sitting in gridlock. The same report finds that without public transportation, there would be 1 billion more hours of delay. The report also finds that public transportation reduces the cost of congestion by about $20 billion per year. Public transportation investments help create employment and sustain economic health. The Department of Transportation has estimated that for every $1 billion in Federal highway and transit investment, 47,500 jobs are created or sustained. The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, TEA-21, expired on September 30, 2003, and has temporarily been extended through May 31, 2005. The delay in providing a long-term authorization has had a significant impact on State and local governments which have been unable to develop long-term programs for funding. Public transportation represents an important part of the Nation's transportation infrastructure, which by its nature, requires long-term planning and project development. Delays in funding have resulted in project delays which ultimately increase costs and postpone the benefits which projects are designed to produce. The impact is particularly significant in States with short construction seasons since planning must be done well in advance of contracting for construction. Therefore, the committee has responded and taken action to reauthorize the public transportation title of TEA-21 in order to continue the Federal Government's critical role in public transit programs. This bill accomplishes three important policy goals. It creates funding flexibility, increases accountability, and improves the performance and efficiency of the transit programs in the United States. The bill creates several new formulas to better address growing transit needs. A ``rural low density'' formula is created to allow for transit services in sparsely populated areas where employment centers and health care are great distances apart. A ``growing states'' formula is created to allow communities with populations projected to grow significantly in the coming years to put in place needed transportation infrastructure. A ``transit intensive cities'' formula is created to address the needs of small communities where the level of transit service exceeds what their population-based formula would provide for. Finally, our bill also creates a ``high density'' formula to provide additional funding for States with transit needs that are particularly great because they have transit systems in extremely urban areas with high utilization rates. The bill increases the accountability within the transit program. It rewards transit agencies which deliver projects that are on time, on budget, and provide the benefits that they promised. Further, this bill allows communities to consider more cost-effective, flexible solutions to their transportation needs by opening up eligibility within the New Starts program to non-fixed guideway projects seeking less than $75 million in New Starts funds. With this change, other solutions can be fostered, such as bus rapid transit, which is more flexible than rail at a fraction of the cost. Finally, the bill seeks to improve the performance and efficiency of transit systems nationwide. It provides incentives for the coordination of human service transportation activities in order to eliminate duplication and overlap. It increases the focus on safety and security needs within transit systems to help insulate them against terrorist attacks. It also enhances the role of the private sector in providing public transportation in an effort to reduce cost and to improve service. The Federal Public Transportation Act is very good legislation. The funding made available by this bill and the policy initiatives contained in the bill will dramatically improve the public transportation program to help Americans with their mobility needs in both urban and rural areas nationwide. I commend this bill to the Senate and ask my colleagues for their support. I yield the floor.

Mr. SHELBY. I yield to my colleague from Maryland.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a good friend who recently retired after three decades on the radio. John Ed Willoughby, who has been a familiar voice on WAPI-AM 1070s morning talk-radio show, ``The Breakfast Club,'' signed off on April 15, 2005. John Ed's last day on the air was the 30th anniversary of his first day on the air: April 15, 1975. Over the years, I had many opportunities to join John Ed on the air, and I always appreciated his candid, honest, and humorous demeanor. John Ed was born February 3, 1935, in Birmingham, AL. He attended West End High School, where he excelled on the athletic field as quarterback of the football team, and captain of the baseball and basketball teams. He attended the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa, which is where our friendship began. We met as students at the University of Alabama, and it was there that we both served as members of the Delta Chi fraternity. His radio career began in 1975 on WSGN radio with cohost Tommy Charles. The duo was an instant success and became Birmingham's top rated radio morning show for 8\1/2\ years. John Ed and Tommy then moved to WVOK-AM/WQUS-FM for a short time before going to WERC radio in 1985. They were a talk radio force to be reckoned with, remaining No. 1 in Birmingham, until Tommy's passing in 1996. Following Tommy's death, Doug Layton joined John Ed and they stayed on the air until February of 1998. In June of 1998, John Ed joined his son, J Willoughby and Scott Michaels for a morning show devoted to talk radio on WAPI-AM called ``The Breakfast Club.'' He would finish out his career at WAPI. I have had the pleasure of being interviewed by John Ed numerous times over the years. Whether it was in-studio in Birmingham, in Washington during one of his visits, or over the phone, John Ed has been informative and fair. His listeners could count on a funny and enlightening show every morning. John Ed is blessed with a wonderful family. I suspect that his newfound free time will give him the opportunity to enjoy more time with his wife Jean, son J, daughter-in-law Kim and granddaughter Samantha Jean. Incidentally, J Willoughby has assumed the reins from his father, and is on the air with Richard Dixon. John Ed has been a great friend to me and a familiar and loyal voice to so many in Alabama. He will be greatly missed by his devoted listeners, but I am certain they join me in wishing him the very best as he embarks on many new endeavors.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Mr. Paul Davis, who was recently awarded with the 2005 Alabama Press Association Lifetime Achievement Award. Paul Davis has been in the newspaper business for more than 35 years, and his career has been filled with courageous accomplishments. The Alabama Press Association Lifetime Achievement Award honors outstanding service in journalism for individuals who have spent a large percentage of their newspaper career in Alabama. Paul has been recognized for standards of excellence in journalism, courage and controversy on tough issues, and a voice for those less fortunate. Paul has spent most of his professional career in Alabama. From 1969 to 1973, he was a reporter, columnist and then associate editor at the Tuscaloosa News, my hometown newspaper. Following his time at the Tuscaloosa News, he moved on to serve as editor of the Selma Times Journal and then as vice president and general manager of the Natchez Democrat in Mississippi. From 1983 to 1998, Paul served as editor, publisher and president of the Auburn Bulletin, the Spirit Magazine, and the Tuskegee News. Today, he serves as the president and publisher of Davis Publications of Auburn. I believe that Paul is well-known for his work as a young reporter at the Tuscaloosa News. Through his investigative reporting, he exposed the abuse of retarded youth and adults at Partlow School and the horrific treatment of patients at the state mental institution, Bryce Hospital. He uncovered the unthinkable details about patients living in wards with no air-conditioning during hot Alabama summers with only one psychiatrist to care for some 5,000 patients. He reported that attendants would dispense pills every hour to keep patients sedated day after day. Even worse, we learned that patients helped construct caskets in the basement and buried their fellow patients in fields behind the hospital, using only numbers to identify the graves. His work on this issue earned him a nomination by his publisher, Buford Boone, for the Pulitzer Prize. Paul also played an important role in the Federal case regarding the treatment of mental patients. In this important case, U.S. District Judge Frank M. Johnson, Jr. ruled that mental patients have a constitutional right to treatment. Following Judge Johnson's ruling, Paul was asked to serve as chairman of the Human Rights Committee at Bryce Hospital. Indeed, his investigative work in this area helped reform Alabama's mental health hospitals. Long before his reporting exposed the horrific conditions of the mental hospital in Tuscaloosa, Paul spent many days during his youth at Partlow School, visiting and playing games with the residents. Later in life, as president of the Civitan Club in Tuscaloosa, he helped open the first rehabilitation center at Partlow. Paul Davis has also been an outspoken critic of the leadership at Auburn University. A devoted Tiger fan himself, he has written numerous articles about the school's board of trustees. Supporters and opponents alike agree that, while you may not like what he has to say, he is in- depth and thorough in his reporting. He was recently honored with the Academic Freedom Award from the Auburn University chapter of the American Association of University Professors for his articles on governance issues at Auburn. In addition to the Lifetime Achievement Award and the Academic Freedom Award, Paul has received numerous professional and civic awards and has twice been nominated for the Pulitzer Prize. Paul is a member of the American Political Science Association; Society of Professional Journalists, Sigma Delta Chi; and the National Mental Health Association. He also served as past presidents of both the Alabama Press Association and the Alabama Press Association Journalism Foundation. His company, Davis Publications, publishes the Tuskegee News weekly, and he is a columnist for the Auburn-Opelika News. Paul and his wife Gayle have five sons, one daughter, and thirteen grandchildren. I have tremendous respect for Paul Davis and his devotion to uncovering the truth. He is most deserving of the Alabama Press Association Lifetime Achievement Award, and I am pleased to congratulate him on this important achievement.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Dorgan as a cosponsor.

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

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 466 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to speak about this amendment because I believe it is very important to our Reserve and Guard units who have been called upon to serve their country during this time of war. This amendment is based on a bill I introduced last month with Senator Dorgan. It provides a financial safety net for the families of our service members proudly serving in our Nation's military Reserve and National Guard. Today, our National Guard and Reserve units are being called upon, as you well know, more than ever and are being asked to serve their country in a very different way than they have in the past. The global war on terror and the high operational tempo of our military require that our Reserve components play a more active role in the total force. These long tours and frequent activations have a profound and disruptive effect on the lives of these men and women and on the lives of their families and loved ones. Many of our reservists suffer significant loss of income when they are mobilized, forcing them to leave often higher paying civilian jobs to serve their country. Such losses can be compounded by additional family expenses associated with military activation, including the cost of long distance phone calls and the need for additional childcare. These circumstances create a serious financial burden that is extremely difficult for reservists' families to manage. I believe we can and we should do more to alleviate the financial burden; therefore, the amendment I am discussing this afternoon would provide a completely refundable income tax credit of up to $20,000 annually to a military reservist called to active duty. The amount of the tax credit would be based upon the difference between wages paid by the reservist's civilian job and the military wages paid upon mobilization. The tax credit would be available to members of the National Guard or Ready Reserve who are serving for more than 90 days and would vary according to their length of service. Now is the time to recognize the service and sacrifice of the men and women in the Guard and Reserves. I believe the Congress should focus on this issue. It is important to thousands of service members who are serving their country and their families who are struggling financially. Mr. President, I recognize that the emergency supplemental before us today may not be the best place to begin a discussion about this subject, so I urge my colleagues on the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Finance Committee to not only study but to work with me and Senator Dorgan to act on this issue this year. This is very important to thousands and thousands of families in this country. At a time when the Nation is calling our guardsmen and reservists to active duty to execute the war in Iraq, fight the war on terrorism, and to defend our homeland, I believe it is imperative that Congress recognize their vital role and acknowledge that the success of our military depends on these troops. It is not too much to ask of our Nation and, more importantly, I believe it is the right thing to do. Amendment No. 466, withdrawn Mr. President, I want to withdraw my amendment because I don't think this is the proper place for it on the supplemental, but it is the proper place to begin the debate in the Senate. I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today with a heavy heart to pay tribute to the passing of my good friend, our former colleague, Senator Howell Heflin. Judge Heflin, as we often called him, was a stalwart in the Senate, devoted to improving my State of Alabama and the Nation with each decision he made and I believe every vote he cast. When I first entered the Senate in 1987, Judge Heflin was the senior Senator from my State of Alabama. I considered him a good friend and colleague over the 18 years he served here. I always appreciated his humor and his solid values. I believe he will be remembered as one of Alabama's most respected politicians. Judge Heflin was a strong voice for Alabama in the Senate. He served as chairman of the Senate Ethics Committee and as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He worked to ensure that Alabama was indeed well represented in this body. He was deeply devoted to his job, and, as we know, often spent dinners out that were meant to be time off as an opportunity to help his constituents who happened to be at the same restaurant. Howell Heflin was born June 19, 1921, in Poulan, GA, to Reverend Marvin Rutledge Heflin and Louise Strudwick Heflin. He graduated from Colbert County High School in Leighton, AL, and Birmingham Southern College in Birmingham, AL. Following his graduation from Birmingham Southern College in 1942, Judge Heflin enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps. His military service during World War II took him to the Pacific Theater, where he was wounded twice and awarded the Silver Star for bravery. He was also awarded two Purple Hearts. Upon his return from World War II, he attended the University of Alabama School of Law and was admitted to the Alabama State Bar in 1948. From 1948 to 1971, Judge Heflin was an attorney in Tuscumbia, AL. He was elected as the chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court in 1970. He was well known for his efforts to modernize Alabama's legal system. It was because of his profound work as chief justice that he became affectionately known as ``The Judge'' even after he became a Senator. He was elected first to the Senate in 1978, and was reelected to two more terms, for a total of 18 years of service--three terms--in the Senate. In 1997, he left public life and returned home to Tuscumbia, AL, to enjoy time with his family. Howell Thomas Heflin led a full life. Each chapter of his life--as a war hero, a jurist, and a public servant--was completed with great fervor and devotion. He did nothing halfway, and everyone who knew him recognized and appreciated that.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, today I pay tribute and honor a dear friend of mine who passed away recently. Bill David Smith, whom I have called a friend and relied on for half a century, passed away at the age of 72. He is survived by his beloved wife, Jane Bandy Smith, and two sons, David and Stuart. Bill David was passionate about all things in which he was involved, loved his community of Tuscaloosa, and was very proud to be an Alabamian. We became friends during our time at the University of Alabama, and I have always appreciated his counsel and support over the years. My wife, Annette, and I have shared many memories with Bill David and his wife, Jane, which we will cherish for years to come. Bill David was born in Meridian, MS, and spent most of his youth in Gadsden, AL. A University of Alabama graduate, he was an honor student and received both a bachelor's and master's degree in accounting. After graduation, he was a founding partner in the accounting firm, Morrison and Smith LLP. Bill David was actively involved in activities surrounding the accounting profession and served as President of the Alabama Society of Certified Public Accountants and Chairman of its State Legislation Committee. He was also a member of the Council of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. Bill David was a member of the board of directors for the Alabama Trust Fund and the Business Council of Alabama. Dedicated to a number of civic organizations, he served on the Tuscaloosa County Juvenile Advisory Board and the Alabama Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council. Beyond Bill David's devotion to his work and his community, he was a dedicated friend to many. A good natured person with a huge heart, Bill David often showed compassion for those less fortunate. His quick wit and intellect fostered his passion for policy issues and politics. He cared very deeply for his community and its people. But most of all, my thoughts and prayers go out to Jane and their two sons. Bill David was a dedicated family man and his presence will be missed by those who knew him best. Indeed, we will all miss him.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, as we continue to debate the Federal Government's fiscal year 2006 budget, I can think of no better time to discuss the need for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. It is for that reason that I stand before you today--to introduce a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. This is the same amendment that I have introduced every Congress since the 97th Congress. Throughout my tenure in Congress, during good economic times and bad, I have devoted much time and attention to this idea because I believe that one of the most important things the Federal Government can do to enhance the lives of all Americans and future generations is to balance the Federal budget. Our Founding Fathers, wise men indeed, had great concerns regarding the capability of those in government to operate within budgetary constraints. Alexander Hamilton once wrote that: ``. . . there is a general propensity in those who govern, founded in the constitution of man, to shift the burden from the present to a future day.'' Thomas Jefferson commented on the moral significance of this ``shifting of the burden from the present to the future.'' He said: ``the question whether one generation has the right to bind another by the deficit it imposes is a question of such consequence as to place it among the fundamental principles of government. We should consider ourselves unauthorized to saddle posterity with our debts and morally bound to pay them ourselves.'' I completely agree with these sentiments. History has shown that Hamilton was correct. Those who govern have, in fact, saddled future generations with the responsibility of paying for their debts. Over the past 30 years, annual deficits have become routine and the Federal Government has built up massive debt. Furthermore, Jefferson's assessment of the significance of this is also correct: intergenerational debt shifting is morally wrong. Over the years, we have witnessed countless ``budget summits'' and ``bipartisan budget deals,'' and we have heard, time and again, the promises of ``deficit reduction.'' But despite all of these charades, the Federal budget remains severely out of balance today. The truth is, it will never be balanced as long as the President and the Congress are allowed to shortchange the welfare of future generations to pay for current consumption. This is evidenced by the fact that I stood in this same place, introducing this same legislation during both the 106th and the 107th Congresses while the Federal budget was actually in balance. But alas, I stand here today with an enormous Federal deficit and a ballooning Federal debt. A balanced budget amendment to the Constitution is the only certain mechanism to break the cycle of deficit spending and ensure that the Government does not continue to saddle our children and grandchildren with the current generation's debts. A permanently balanced budget would have a considerable impact in the everyday lives of the American people. A balanced budget would dramatically lower interest rates thereby saving money for anyone with a home mortgage, a student loan, a car loan, credit card debt, or any other interest rate sensitive payment responsibility. Simply by balancing its books, the Federal Government would put real money into the hands of hard working people. Moreover, if the governments demand for capital is reduced, more money would be available for private sector use, which in turn, would generate substantial economic growth and create thousands of new jobs. More money in the pockets of Americans and more job creation by the economy can become a reality with a simple step--a balanced budget amendment. On the other hand, without a balanced budget amendment, the Government will continue to waste the taxpayers' money on unnecessary interest payments. In fiscal year 2004, the Federal Government spent more than $321 billion just to pay the interest on the national debt. That is more than the amount spent on all education, job training, and crime programs combined. We might as well be taking these hard-earned tax dollars and pouring them down the drain. I believe that this money could be better spent on improving education, developing new medical technologies, finding a cure for cancer, or even returning it to the people who earned it in the first place. But instead, about 15 percent of the Federal budget is being wasted on interest payments because advocates of big government continue to block all efforts to balance the budget. A balanced budget amendment to the Constitution can be the solution to this perpetual problem. A balanced budget amendment will put us on a path to paying off our national debt, which is currently almost $8 trillion. This amendment will help ensure that taxpayers' money will no longer be wasted on interest payments. Opponents of a balanced budget amendment treat it as if it is something extraordinary. They are right, a balanced Federal budget would be extraordinary. And I believe that adopting an amendment that would require the Federal Government to do what every American already has to do--balance their checkbook--is exactly what this country needs to prove that Washington is serious about accomplishing this extraordinary feat. A balanced budget amendment is simply a promise to the American people that the Government will spend their hard-earned tax dollars responsibly. I think that we owe our constituents and future generations of Americans that much. We do not need any more budget deals or false promises from Washington to reduce the deficit. What we need is a hammer to force Congress and the President to agree on a balanced budget, not just this year, but forever. A constitutional amendment to balance the Federal budget is the only hammer forceful enough to make that happen. I urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, as we continue to debate the Federal Government's fiscal year 2006 budget, I can think of no better time to discuss the need for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. It is for that reason that I stand before you today--to introduce a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. This is the same amendment that I have introduced every Congress since the 97th Congress. Throughout my tenure in Congress, during good economic times and bad, I have devoted much time and attention to this idea because I believe that one of the most important things the Federal Government can do to enhance the lives of all Americans and future generations is to balance the Federal budget. Our Founding Fathers, wise men indeed, had great concerns regarding the capability of those in government to operate within budgetary constraints. Alexander Hamilton once wrote that: ``. . . there is a general propensity in those who govern, founded in the constitution of man, to shift the burden from the present to a future day.'' Thomas Jefferson commented on the moral significance of this ``shifting of the burden from the present to the future.'' He said: ``the question whether one generation has the right to bind another by the deficit it imposes is a question of such consequence as to place it among the fundamental principles of government. We should consider ourselves unauthorized to saddle posterity with our debts and morally bound to pay them ourselves.'' I completely agree with these sentiments. History has shown that Hamilton was correct. Those who govern have, in fact, saddled future generations with the responsibility of paying for their debts. Over the past 30 years, annual deficits have become routine and the Federal Government has built up massive debt. Furthermore, Jefferson's assessment of the significance of this is also correct: intergenerational debt shifting is morally wrong. Over the years, we have witnessed countless ``budget summits'' and ``bipartisan budget deals,'' and we have heard, time and again, the promises of ``deficit reduction.'' But despite all of these charades, the Federal budget remains severely out of balance today. The truth is, it will never be balanced as long as the President and the Congress are allowed to shortchange the welfare of future generations to pay for current consumption. This is evidenced by the fact that I stood in this same place, introducing this same legislation during both the 106th and the 107th Congresses while the Federal budget was actually in balance. But alas, I stand here today with an enormous Federal deficit and a ballooning Federal debt. A balanced budget amendment to the Constitution is the only certain mechanism to break the cycle of deficit spending and ensure that the Government does not continue to saddle our children and grandchildren with the current generation's debts. A permanently balanced budget would have a considerable impact in the everyday lives of the American people. A balanced budget would dramatically lower interest rates thereby saving money for anyone with a home mortgage, a student loan, a car loan, credit card debt, or any other interest rate sensitive payment responsibility. Simply by balancing its books, the Federal Government would put real money into the hands of hard working people. Moreover, if the governments demand for capital is reduced, more money would be available for private sector use, which in turn, would generate substantial economic growth and create thousands of new jobs. More money in the pockets of Americans and more job creation by the economy can become a reality with a simple step--a balanced budget amendment. On the other hand, without a balanced budget amendment, the Government will continue to waste the taxpayers' money on unnecessary interest payments. In fiscal year 2004, the Federal Government spent more than $321 billion just to pay the interest on the national debt. That is more than the amount spent on all education, job training, and crime programs combined. We might as well be taking these hard-earned tax dollars and pouring them down the drain. I believe that this money could be better spent on improving education, developing new medical technologies, finding a cure for cancer, or even returning it to the people who earned it in the first place. But instead, about 15 percent of the Federal budget is being wasted on interest payments because advocates of big government continue to block all efforts to balance the budget. A balanced budget amendment to the Constitution can be the solution to this perpetual problem. A balanced budget amendment will put us on a path to paying off our national debt, which is currently almost $8 trillion. This amendment will help ensure that taxpayers' money will no longer be wasted on interest payments. Opponents of a balanced budget amendment treat it as if it is something extraordinary. They are right, a balanced Federal budget would be extraordinary. And I believe that adopting an amendment that would require the Federal Government to do what every American already has to do--balance their checkbook--is exactly what this country needs to prove that Washington is serious about accomplishing this extraordinary feat. A balanced budget amendment is simply a promise to the American people that the Government will spend their hard-earned tax dollars responsibly. I think that we owe our constituents and future generations of Americans that much. We do not need any more budget deals or false promises from Washington to reduce the deficit. What we need is a hammer to force Congress and the President to agree on a balanced budget, not just this year, but forever. A constitutional amendment to balance the Federal budget is the only hammer forceful enough to make that happen. I urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, through the course of the debate on the bankruptcy reform bill, it has become clear there are many Senators who have concerns about the numerous aspects of the credit card industry. I want to point out that I am aware of the Senator from Ohio's concerns in particular. I want to indicate for the Record that I recognize these concerns and to note that I have had a longstanding interest in exploring these matters more deeply. Therefore, I am willing to commit to holding hearings in the Banking Committee later this year to examine the credit card industry and the need to reform credit card regulations. I believe the ranking member also shares my interest in holding hearings.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, the amendment of the Senator from Hawaii is dressed up as a credit counseling amendment, but it would cause havoc in our modern consumer credit system. It requires that a lender stop charging interest on the outstanding debt of any bankrupt debtor who participates in a debt management program. The practical result is that lenders are forced to either waive further payments on an extension of credit or have the debt discharged in bankruptcy. This will not be good for the consumer, the borrower. This is a sweeping change in modern banking practices. We have had no hearings in the Senate Banking Committee. I ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. I absolutely agree with Senator Feinstein and look forward to working with the Senator. I say to Senator Sarbanes, through the course of the debate on the bankruptcy bill it has become clear that there are many Senators who have concerns about numerous aspects of the credit card industry. I want to indicate for the record that I share many of these concerns. Furthermore, I want to point out that I am aware of his particular concerns as well as those of Senators Kyl and Feinstein.

Mr. SHELBY. I fully agree and therefore I am willing to commit to holding a hearing in the Banking Committee to examine the practices within the credit card industry. I believe it is our responsibility to develop a complete record on these matters so that we can make informed judgments as to whether we need to take any specific actions. I look forward to obtaining input from Senator Sarbanes and from Senators Kyl and Feinstein in putting together this hearing.

Mr. SHELBY. I agree.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by my colleague from Minnesota, Senator Dayton. Basically, he has offered an amendment to create a Federal usury law. While I understand and appreciate the good intentions of my colleague, I cannot support what amounts to Federal price controls. This is a mode of regulation from a bygone day. Price controls are a failed experiment that often hurt those who they are intended to help. Even if the price control envisioned in this amendment was never triggered, it would set a very bad precedent. Credit underwriting is the assessment of the risk. Interest rates are intended to reflect the risk of a particular credit. They have to. While I appreciate my colleague's concerns, I fear that his amendment will result in credit becoming less accessible to more Americans. Market forces are the best regulator of prices. As chairman of the Banking Committee, which has jurisdiction over consumer credit and price controls, I must oppose this amendment and encourage my colleagues to do so. We are going to have some hearings on similar matters in the Banking Committee, and I hope Senator Dayton would work with us in that regard.