Richard Shelby

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the Arctic national Wildlife Refuge or ANWR. As my good friend and colleague from Alaska Senator Stevens has outlined, oil and gas exploration in ANWR is not a new issue. In fact, it is an issue that was contemplated when Congress expanded the boundaries of the Arctic national Wildlife Refuge in 1980, by requiring the Department of Interior to prepare a detailed study on the Coastal Plain area and recommend how it should be managed. The Department of Interior's study recommended that the entire area be made available for oil and gas leasing, describing it as ``the most outstanding petroleum exploration target in the onshore United States.'' Despite this recommendation, no action has been taken an ANWR the intervening years except for the 1996 Budget Reauthorization Act authorizing the opening of ANWR which was retold by President Clinton. I understand that there is a push and pull between those who believe we should strive to achieve energy independence by drilling in ANWR and those who feel that we should protect the environment and preserve ANWR. But, I believe that we can do both. We have come a long way since the very first oil fields were drilled. Today we have the ability, the technology and the know-how to drill in ANWR and protect and preserve the environment. What is more, we are not proposing to drill in the entire Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as one might assume when they listen to our debate. In fact, this amendment will only allow for drilling on 2,000 acres of the total 19 million acres that encompasses the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The events of September 11th have made it glaringly obvious that the time has come for the United States Congress to step up to the plate and take an active interest and an active role in securing our nation's energy future. We can no longer sit on the side lines and assume that wind energy, solar panels, and battery packs are going to advance our Nation's energy interest. No matter how many tax credits we force on alternative fuels or how much money we devote to research into these technologies, the fact remains that our country is increasingly dependent on foreign sources of oil. The reality of the situation is that our Nation is more reliant on foreign sources of oil today than it was during World War II. This despite CAFE standards and other investments in alternative fuel vehicles. The Energy Information Administration estimates that in the next 20 years America's demand for oil is projected to increase by 33 percent. Yet as consumption increases, U.S. production continues to decrease. I think that is a frightening fact and I believe that we must address it by increasing domestic production. If this means that we need to drill in ANWR, then we must drill in ANWR. Today, foreign imports supply 60 percent of our Nation's consumption. This dependence makes us vulnerable. It is not in our national interest to continue to be beholden to volatile foreign countries for our energy needs. This country needs a rational energy policy. And we need a national energy policy that includes new sources of production so that we have access to our own energy supplies. Without our own energy supplies, this country will continue its increasing dependence on volatile foreign sources that could be terminated at any moment. We cannot continue to put more and more power in the hands of foreign suppliers, foreign countries. ANWR has the potential to produce over one million barrels of oil a day. One million barrels a day is enough to replace the volume that we currently import from Saudi Arabia or Iraq for more than 25 years. Energy independence should be our long-term goal. But reducing our reliance on foreign energy sources should be our short-term goal. This country needs a balanced national energy policy that encompasses these goals. We need an energy policy that protects the environment, increases the efficient and effective use of renewables, encourages diversification of generating capacity AND most importantly, increases our domestic production. ANWR presents the United States with enormous potential for increasing domestic production. I think that we would be fools to pass up such an important opportunity for our Nation. I encourage my colleagues to join with me in supporting this amendment to allow oil and gas exploration in ANWR.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I wish to recognize and pay tribute to Colonel Timothy A. Peterson, Chief, Senate Liaison Division, Office of the Chief of Legislative Affairs, and Department of the Army who will retire on June 1, 2002. Colonel Peterson's career spans over 28 years, during which he has distinguished himself as a soldier, scholar, leader and friend of the United States Senate. A New York native, Colonel Peterson graduated from the United States Military Academy in 1974 and was commissioned as a lieutenant in the Field Artillery Branch of the U.S. Army. During his career he has commanded soldiers from the battery through the installation level. At Schofield Barracks in Hawaii, he commanded the 7th Battalion, 8th Field Artillery Regiment of the 25th Infantry Division and later served as the Installation Commander of the U.S. Army Garrison at Fort Dix, NJ. As a scholar Tim Peterson has sought opportunities to improve himself throughout his career. In addition to teaching mathematics to cadets at the United States Military Academy, he has served as an American Political Science Association Congressional Fellow and a Army Senior Fellow, Secretary of Defense Corporate Fellowship, as well as receiving advanced degrees from the University of Puget Sound, University of Washington, the Salve Regina College and the U.S. Naval War College. Since September 1999, Tim Peterson has served with distinction as the Chief Army Senate Liaison. He has superbly represented the Chief of Legislative Liaison, the Army Chief of Staff, and the Secretary of the Army while promoting the interests of the soldiers and civilians of our Army. His professionalism, mature judgement, sage advice and interpersonal skills have earned him the respect and confidence of the Members of Congress and Congressional staffers with whom he has worked on a multitude of issues affecting our Army, its soldiers and civilians. In almost 3 years on the Hill, Tim Peterson has been a true friend of the United States Senate and the Congress. Serving as the Army's primary point of contact for all Senators, Congressional Committees and their staffs, he has assisted Congress in understanding Army policies, operations, requirements and priorities. As a result, he and his staff have been extremely effective in providing prompt, coordinated and factual replies to all inquiries and matters involving Army issues. In addition, he has personally provided invaluable assistance to Members and their staffs while planning, coordinating and accompanying Senate delegations traveling worldwide. His substantive knowledge of the key issues, keen legislative insight and ability to effectively advise senior Army leaders have directly contributed to the successful representation of the Army's interests before Congress. Throughout his career, Colonel Tim Peterson has demonstrated his profound commitment to our Nation, a deep concern for soldiers and their families and a commitment to excellence. Colonel Peterson is a consummate professional whose performance in over 28 years of service has personified those traits of courage, competency and integrity that our Nation has come to expect from its professional Army officers. I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking Colonel Peterson for his honorable service to our Army, its soldiers and the citizens of the United States. We wish him and his family well and all the best in the future.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the Girl Scouts of the USA, this month celebrating 90 years of building character and enhancing the life skills of our Nation's young women. The contributions and achievements of this outstanding organization have endured for nine decades, helping girls to grow up courageous and strong. I would like to praise the work of the Girl Scouts, and in particular recognize the Girl Scouts of Alabama, who number almost 45,000 girls and women. Established on March 12, 1912, the Girl Scouts are based on the noble belief that all young women should be given the opportunity to develop physically, mentally and spiritually. Their founder, Juliette Gordon Low, convened that first meeting with just 18 girls from Savannah, GA. Today her vision continues with a national membership of 3.8 million, making the Girl Scouts the largest organization for girls in the world. Over the years the Girl Scouts have remained true to their founding principles, and still abide by the Girl Scout Promise and Law, just as they did in 1912. These principles emphasize honor, accountability, courage, respect, God and country and are valuable lessons for our young women to incorporate into their lives. Girl Scouting has had a tremendous impact on the evolving role that women have played in our country over the past ninety years. The leadership qualities, self confidence and creative thinking that the Girl Scouts teach are all qualities essential in good citizens and great leaders. Indeed, two-thirds of female doctors, lawyers, educators, community leaders and even women members of Congress were once Girl Scouts. It is a true testament to the Girl Scouts that many of these women believe that Girl Scouting has had a positive impact on their lives. The Alabama Girl Scouts are celebrating their 90th anniversary by helping to promote literacy with their ``Books for Alabama Kids'' project. The seven Girl Scout councils in Alabama have been collecting children's books over the past 6 months to be donated to schools in the counties in which they were collected. Tomorrow the books will be presented on the Capitol steps in Montgomery. I would like to commend the Alabama Girl Scouts for their community service and dedication to promoting literacy in the state. I would like to acknowledge the nine decades of excellence of the Girl Scouts. We have seen tremendous changes in our country over the years, and they should be proud to have adapted and flourished. It demonstrates that building character and preparing for the future are qualities that never go out of style.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate my colleagues on the conference committee for their efforts on behalf of our Nation's school children. This legislation encompasses a number of important reforms for our schools. One notable provision reforms the collection and dissemination of personal information collected from students to protect their privacy. Earlier this year Senator Dodd and I introduced the Student Privacy Protection Act. The goal of this legislation is to ensure that parents have the ability to protect their children's privacy by requiring parental notification of any data collection for commercial purposes from their children during the school day. I am pleased that the conference agreed with Senator Dodd and me on the importance of protecting student's privacy and the essential nature of parental participation in the process. The need for this provision stems from the growing practice of a large number of marketing companies going into classrooms and using class time to gather personal information about students and their families for purely commercial purposes. In many cases, parents are not even aware that these companies have entered their children's school, much less that they are exploiting them in the one place they should be the safest, their classroom. The provision included in H.R. 1 builds on a long line of privacy legislation to protect kids, such as the Family Educational Rights Act, the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act and the Protection of Pupil Rights Act. The goal of these laws, as is the case with our provision, is to ensure that the privacy of children is protected and that their personal information cannot be collected and/or disseminated without the prior knowledge and, most importantly, the ability of parents to exclude their children from such activities. We understand that schools today are financially strapped and many of these companies offer enticing financial incentives to gain access. Our goal is not to make it more difficult for schools to access the educational materials and the computers that they so desperately need or to deter beneficial relationships. Rather our goal is to ensure that the details of these arrangements are disclosed and that parents are allowed to participate in the decisionmaking process. The bottom line is that parents have a right and a responsibility to be involved in their children's education. Much of these noneducational activities are being done at the expense of the parents' decision making authority because schools are allowing companies direct access to students. The provision included in H.R. 1 enhances parental involvement by giving them an opportunity to decide for themselves who does and does not get access to their children during the school day.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I applaud and share Senator Inouye's desire to strongly support the Army in its transformation to a lighter, more deployable, agile, lethal and survivable force, in order to meet the challenges we have today and certainly expect in the future. This transformation to an Objective Force is very ambitious in terms of new capabilities, and I think we should all recognize the significant technological risks associated with this endeavor.

Mr. SHELBY. I believe the off-the-shelf FOGM can provide an acceptable alternative to NetFires if circumstances require it. I know that with Senator Inouye's leadership, we will keep on top of these critical technology issues. I look forward to our continuing to work together as we face funding decisions about these important transformation programs.

Mr. SHELBY. While the Objective Force and the Future Combat System are relatively new terms, many people may not be aware that Army scientists and engineers have been working on transformation technology since before the end of the cold war. For example, the Fiber Optic Guided Missile, FOGM, has been demonstrated with soldiers and has performed most of the objectives required for the artillery component of the Future Combat System known as NetFires. FOGM is inherently immune to radio-frequency jamming, a serious concern for NetFires. It does not require a not-yet-developed automatic target recognition capability like NetFires. It is soldier-proven technology already in service or in development in several other countries. It offers the potential for significant savings in time and money in getting to low rate initial production, compared with NetFires. I fully support work on leap-ahead technology programs like NetFires, but I believe we should take prudent steps to mitigate against high risk programs by continuing work on alternative capabilities.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.

Mr. SHELBY. How much time remains?

Mr. SHELBY. I yield that time back. Unanimous Consent Agreement

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

Mr. SHELBY. I yield 3 minutes of my time to the Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Specter.

Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, I yield myself as much time as I consume. I rise in support of the fiscal year 2002 Transportation appropriations conference report before the Senate this morning. While I do not support every item, policy, program, or initiative in the conference report or statement of managers, I do support the package reported overwhelmingly from the conference committee and as just described by the Senator from Washington. This is the first year the Senator from Washington is chair of the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, and I believe that she has accounted herself well on this bill. This is a balanced bill. Clearly, the Mexican truck issue reflects that balanced approach. I believe that the Senator from Washington did an admirable job of managing this issue through a lengthy debate on the Senate floor and through the conference committee negotiations with the House and the administration. The resolution of the Mexican truck issue allows for the safe opening of the border to Mexican trucks with appropriate inspections, oversight, and audits of Mexican-domiciled trucks and trucking companies. This compromise kept the focus on truck safety and security at our border and never lost sight of the need to work with the administration and the House to forge a workable solution. Our approach on this issue was always to move the debate forward and allow a resolution based on safety standards rather than prohibiting any action by the department to manage the truck safety issues we face at our southern border. I think the conference report treatment of this matter meets that test. The FAA, the Coast Guard, and the Department's new Transportation Security Agency are all adequately, if not generously, funded in this bill. The funding levels match the AIR 21 levels for the FAA's two capital accounts, and the funding for FAA operations meets the President's budget request. Accordingly, the conference report meets the TEA 21 transit funding levels and increases the obligation limitation for highways above the TEA 21 firewalled levels. This funding commitment recognizes the priorities our colleagues in the Senate place on these accounts. This is not only the first year of the Senator from Washington as the chair of this subcommittee, it is also the first year that Peter Rogoff has assisted her on the bill as the majority clerk. The committee and the Senator from Washington were both well served by Peter Rogoff--and his staff, Kate Hallahan, and Coast Guard Commander Cyndi Stowe. I also commend Wally Burnett and Paul Doerrer of my staff on the committee. They worked hand in hand with the Democrats. I believe that is why we are where we are today, on the verge of adopting this conference report. I urge all of my colleagues to support the conference report and send it to the President for his signature, with the type of overwhelming margin we saw in the other body of a 371-to-11 vote on the adoption of this report. I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the floor.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, the world is a very different place than it was the last time Congress passed an intelligence authorization bill. As we all know, we are now at war, but we are not only at war, we are in a particular kind of war: A war against global terrorism in which the lives of thousands of innocent Americans have already been lost. This war has turned some of the conventional wisdom on its head. In past wars, intelligence agencies served to support the warfighter. In this war, however, the intelligence agencies are on the front lines all over the world. Good intelligence has always been critical in wartime, but the war we fight today is an intelligence-driven one to a degree we have never seen before. This war has no front lines and the field of combat is global. Wherever terrorists and their supporters can be found, that is the battlefield. Never before have we demanded or have we needed so much from our intelligence services. I have been privileged to serve as the chairman, and now the vice chairman, of the Senate Intelligence Committee. I treasure my relationship with the chairman, Senator Graham. He has brought great, steady leadership to the committee. He is a veteran of the committee. He has been there a long time, we have worked together on a lot of initiatives, and we are going to continue to do that. Some of what I have learned about our intelligence community over the last 7 years that I have been on the committee is very encouraging. It has many truly outstanding people doing very good work. Today it is working, actually right now, to respond vigorously to the unprecedented demands this war places upon it. But our intelligence community has changed far less rapidly than the world around it. In too many important ways, it remains structured as it was during the cold war. The U.S. intelligence services were crucial to our victory in the cold war, but times have changed and they keep changing. Our intelligence system still remains wedded to the institutional fiefdoms and information stovepipes of the past. Our intelligence community is still too little of a community and too much of a freewheeling federation that lacks effective, centralized control and management. We have a nominal Director of Central Intelligence who has and apparently is resigned to having little authority over the community he is supposed to head. Although the press of events since the September 11 events have prompted our agencies to communicate and to cooperate with each other much better, we still have a very long way to go before U.S. intelligence can effectively meet this new challenge. Helping our intelligence community overcome these problems will be a challenge for this Congress and the President in the months and years ahead. This bill before us today embodies the Senate's continued support for the intelligence community, authorizing its appropriations for the next fiscal year. It also represents a small first step in what will be our role in driving significant reforms in U.S. intelligence, by helping set the stage for improved oversight. This bill, for example, increases Congress's ability to evaluate allegations of wrongdoing within the Central Intelligence Agency by requiring the CIA Inspector General to notify the Director of credible complaints against the agency. Building upon the report our committee recently produced on CIA activities in interdicting illegal drug flights in Peru, the bill before us also requires special reporting and certifications by the President for such interdiction operations. Additionally, the bill requires that national counterintelligence strategies and threat reports be approved by the President before being submitted to the Congress. This bill is not a bill to revolutionize the intelligence community. That effort will take time, but I believe it is now inevitable. This is a bill to keep the intelligence community on an even keel while it tries to respond to the challenges it faces today, and while we work to help it change in the right ways. I have long been a strong supporter of U.S. intelligence, and I am pleased that we in the Senate continue to support it with special vigor in this time of crisis. We have more to do, however, and Congress will continue its tradition of assertive oversight. It must. Today, more than ever, we need an intelligence community that is able to overcome the tyranny of its conceptual and institutional stovepipes. We need one that does not merely respond to our present emergency by doing more of the same, just with more money and more people. That will not be enough. A bigger and better funded status quo is not good enough. The status quo has not and will not serve us well in a world of increasing and more diverse threats. I believe we need management that is able and willing to fight for the intelligence community within the administration and to reach out to unconventional thinkers. The time for ``steady as you go'' is over, and we need leaders who are not afraid to take on the ossified bureaucracies. I believe Chairman Graham and I agree that change must come, and it will. Again, I commend Chairman Graham for his efforts in getting this bill to the Senate today and managing it in a professional way. Senator Graham's steady leadership of our committee has been instrumental during a turbulent period on Capitol Hill and throughout the Nation. I thank him again for his efforts and look forward to continuing our close working relationship. At the end of the debate on this bill, I urge my colleagues to support it. It will permit our intelligence community to continue its current operations while we work to lay the foundations for a more capable intelligence community that can meet the challenges ahead. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Nonconventional Natural Gas Reliability Act. This body has moved forcefully and responsibly since the tragic events of September 11 to address the most pressing and immediate needs of the country. However, action on priorities such as comprehensive energy legislation, has been delayed but remains vitally important. As Congress moves forward to address this pressing issue, it is my belief that any comprehensive energy legislation must include provisions designed to increase access to North American natural gas supplies. Following the energy crisis of the 1970's, Section 29 of the Internal Revenue Code was enacted to provide a tax credit to encourage production of oil and gas from unconventional sources such as Coalbed Methane, Devonian Shale, Tight Rock Formations, and Tight Gas Sands. This credit has helped the industry invest in new technologies that allow us to recover large oil and gas deposits locked in various formations that are very expensive to develop. In 1998, the United States consumed 22 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Over the next fifteen years that number is expected to exceed 31 trillion cubic feet. Significant growth in consumption will be particularly evident in the area of electric generation, where environmental issues make natural gas the fuel of choice. The National Petroleum Council predicts that natural gas production by conventional means will remain relatively constant over the next several years, ultimately falling 7 to 9 trillion cubic feet short of what is needed. The Gas Technology Institute and the National Petroleum Council estimate that economic incentives may allow nonconventional natural gas to bridge to gap by providing an annual addition of 7 to 9 trillion cubic feet of natural gas to our domestic supply. Section 29 of the Internal Revenue code was designed to provide this economic incentive. For current production, ``section 29'' benefits expire at the end of next year and there are no incentives for new production. Today I am introducing ``section 29'' legislation which is designed to keep current ``section 29'' wells in production and provide the incentive for new wells to be brought on line. Providing a ``clean'' alternative to conventional natural gas, and keeping all of our existing sources of energy online will continue to be a priority for this great nation in the years to come. My legislation would provide section 29 credits for qualifying new wells and facilities through 2009, and for the continuation of benefits to wells and facilities currently in production through 2006. Whether it is artificial fracturing of gas bearing formations, extensive dewatering, gas clean-up issues, these nonconventional resources can be significant more expensive to drill, to maintain, and to produce. Thus, it is important to support continued production at existing wells and facilities. There are few instances where the facts are more compelling and the conclusion so clear. Giving section 29 a new lease on life is a wise investment of taxpayer dollars that will result in lower natural gas prices and greater domestic energy supply. I encourage my colleagues to join with me in support of the Nonconventional Natural Gas Reliability Act. 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 introduce the Nonconventional Natural Gas Reliability Act. This body has moved forcefully and responsibly since the tragic events of September 11 to address the most pressing and immediate needs of the country. However, action on priorities such as comprehensive energy legislation, has been delayed but remains vitally important. As Congress moves forward to address this pressing issue, it is my belief that any comprehensive energy legislation must include provisions designed to increase access to North American natural gas supplies. Following the energy crisis of the 1970's, Section 29 of the Internal Revenue Code was enacted to provide a tax credit to encourage production of oil and gas from unconventional sources such as Coalbed Methane, Devonian Shale, Tight Rock Formations, and Tight Gas Sands. This credit has helped the industry invest in new technologies that allow us to recover large oil and gas deposits locked in various formations that are very expensive to develop. In 1998, the United States consumed 22 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Over the next fifteen years that number is expected to exceed 31 trillion cubic feet. Significant growth in consumption will be particularly evident in the area of electric generation, where environmental issues make natural gas the fuel of choice. The National Petroleum Council predicts that natural gas production by conventional means will remain relatively constant over the next several years, ultimately falling 7 to 9 trillion cubic feet short of what is needed. The Gas Technology Institute and the National Petroleum Council estimate that economic incentives may allow nonconventional natural gas to bridge to gap by providing an annual addition of 7 to 9 trillion cubic feet of natural gas to our domestic supply. Section 29 of the Internal Revenue code was designed to provide this economic incentive. For current production, ``section 29'' benefits expire at the end of next year and there are no incentives for new production. Today I am introducing ``section 29'' legislation which is designed to keep current ``section 29'' wells in production and provide the incentive for new wells to be brought on line. Providing a ``clean'' alternative to conventional natural gas, and keeping all of our existing sources of energy online will continue to be a priority for this great nation in the years to come. My legislation would provide section 29 credits for qualifying new wells and facilities through 2009, and for the continuation of benefits to wells and facilities currently in production through 2006. Whether it is artificial fracturing of gas bearing formations, extensive dewatering, gas clean-up issues, these nonconventional resources can be significant more expensive to drill, to maintain, and to produce. Thus, it is important to support continued production at existing wells and facilities. There are few instances where the facts are more compelling and the conclusion so clear. Giving section 29 a new lease on life is a wise investment of taxpayer dollars that will result in lower natural gas prices and greater domestic energy supply. I encourage my colleagues to join with me in support of the Nonconventional Natural Gas Reliability Act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise to make a few comments and observations about the September 11 attacks and about some of the aviation security issues facing the Senate in the pending legislation. To put these issues in perspective, I'd like to recall the extraordinary actions of the passengers on United Flight 93 on September 11, the ill-fated flight that crashed in Pennsylvania. In the ultimate act of self-sacrifice and heroism, a group of passengers rushed the cockpit and thwarted the terrorists aboard that flight from inflicting additional damage and loss on this great Nation. Without doubt, those fathers, mothers, husbands, and wives, patriots one and all, saved the lives of hundreds of Americans wherever that aircraft was targeted. They understood what was happening, that they would probably never again see their loved ones, but they acted heroically and, in sacrificing their own lives and dreams, probably saved the lives of hundreds of their fellow citizens. This Nation, and perhaps this Congress on an even more personal level, owes them a debt of honor and gratitude that is hard to articulate. They deserve our recognition and our commitment that we will meet, address, and repel the threat that forced them to pay so great a price. They were among the many Americans in New York, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and around the Nation who acted courageously during and in the aftermath of the terrorist attack on September 11. They brought honor to all who love this country and what it represents, they are what America is all about. These were not warriors or law enforcement officials. You might say that they were neighbors, members of parishes, or people we might meet in our grocery stores. They were just ``average'' Americans. And the world should wonder and our enemies should tremble at their mettle. As devastating as the heinous act of September 11 was, and as incalculable as the pain, disruption, and loss inflicted upon the victims at the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and onboard the four hijacked United and American flights was, America and our very way of life we cherish will endure. No one can make right the loss that the families, the coworkers, the friends and loved ones of the victims suffered because of these despicable acts. I know that all of us here in the Senate and across this great Nation continue to reflect and pray every day for the aggrieved and the fallen. We must take every step to assure the Nation that this tragedy cannot be repeated. That is a tall order. I commend to your attention the comments made by the pilot of United Flight 564 on Saturday, September 15 to the passengers aboard that flight after the door closed and as they prepared to depart from Denver International Airport. He is reported to have said: I want to thank you brave folks for coming out today. We don't have any new instructions from the Federal government, so from now on we're on our own. He continued: Sometimes a potential hijacker will announce that he has a bomb. There are no bombs on this aircraft and if someone were to get up and make that claim, don't believe him. If someone were to stand up, brandish something such as a plastic knife and say ``This is a hijacking'' or words to that effect, here is what you should do: Every one of you should stand up and immediately throw things at that person, pillows, books, magazines, eyeglasses, shoes, anything that will throw him off balance and distract his attention. If he has a confederate or two, do the same with them. Most important: get a blanket over him, then wrestle him to the floor and keep him there. We'll land the plane at the nearest airport and the authorities will take it from there. Remember, there will be one of him and maybe a few confederates, but there are 200 of you. You can overwhelm them. The Declaration of Independence says, ``We, the people . . .'' and that's just what it is when we're up in the air: we, the people, vs. would-be terrorists. I don't think we are going to have any such problem today or tomorrow or for a while, but some time down the road, it is going to happen again and I want you to know what to do. Now, since we're a family for the next few hours, I'll ask you to turn to the person next to you, introduce yourself, tell them a little about yourself and ask them to do the same. That pilot's guidance is serious--but these are serious times. Americans are a people who empower themselves to do great things. Clearly, the actions of the passengers and the crew on the American airlines flight earlier this week illustrate that the flying public, the pilots and the crews are willing and committed to maintaining the safety and security of our airways. We should not delude ourselves into thinking that simple pronouncements from the FAA, with all due respect, or tweaking the Federal Aviation Regulations, will allow us to sleep comfortably on transcontinental flights. It is all of our responsibility to ensure the safety of our airways. The passengers aboard United Flight 93 knew that instinctively, the pilot on the United flight out of Denver merely reminds us of it. Accordingly, as we review and reform our safety and security procedures, we must ask a simple question: would the actions and initiatives we propose to undertake have prevented the recent terrorist attacks and will they prevent future acts. Unfortunately, I'm concerned that the bill as currently drafted may fall short of meeting that standard. Our actions must be meaningful, effective, and they must restore the confidence of the American public in the integrity and safety of our transportation systems. If there ever were a time for bold and aggressive steps to improve the safety of our transportation systems, now is that time. I believe, no, I know, that this Congress and the American people will accept and embrace meaningful steps toward that end. We only need look at the full measure of sacrifice made by the passengers aboard United Flight 93 to know the depths of our responsibility and I am heartened by the fact that I know that same spirit is aboard every plane in the sky. I believe that it all starts with our intelligence capability, we have to have the best possible intelligence about potential or imminent threats in order to constantly focus and modify security procedures and efforts. Intelligence is the first line of offense in our war against terrorism. The principle that should guide us is that through human scrutiny and technological screening, we should put passengers through sufficient security procedures to identify potential threats; For the passenger, that might mean answering computer generated and tailored questions at the ticket counter which might be followed by interviews with security personnel; passage through a metal detector which might be followed by a thorough physical search of carry-on baggage, and perhaps passage through another magnetometer or wanding before boarding the aircraft. For checked baggage, that should mean passage through various and increasingly sophisticated explosive detection systems followed by thorough physical search for any bag that requires further scrutiny, there should also be random physical searches for all bags to improve proficiency and to raise the security penetration. In addition, we should accelerate our research into emerging technologies to improve our ability to detect weapons carried by people or explosives secreted away in baggage. We also may need to consider stronger limitations on both hand carried and checked bags. For the aircraft, that should mean armed air marshals on flights and hardening the cockpit door, as Delta Airlines has already begun, revising access procedures to the cockpit, and increasing the security training of pilots and crews, including allowing pilots the option of defending themselves. We should require background checks of everyone who has access to the aircraft: whether pilots, crew, ground personnel, baggage handlers, caterers, and other contract personnel, with regular and periodic reviews. For the airport, it entails a more substantial armed police force, conspicuously and constantly present in the public areas and concourses. In addition, we need to improve the airport access procedures and technologies to make sure that people are where they are supposed to be and not in places that could present a threat to the aircraft or passengers. Simply put, we need to expeditiously pursue security technologies and procedures at airport access points that cannot be defeated by even well organized and clever terrorists. And so, we come full circle back to intelligence, without a robust and aggressive intelligence effort that is constantly questioning where, how, and who may plan the next attack, our security measure will not evolve to meet the challenge. Unfortunately, if that is the case, we're merely waiting for the next attack. Clearly, we must approach airline, airport, and aircraft security issues in complementary and overlapping ways to establish a security ``net'' around our aviation system. What do I mean by a ``net?'' If we are suspicious about a bag or a passenger, that information is relayed and additional, more extensive security measure like I've described would be employed. The increased tempo and breadth of security operations pose dramatic cost increases for airlines and airports and for the Federal Government. I note that the legislation before the Senate contains an authorization to reimburse airports for the direct costs of increased law enforcement requirements mandated by the FAA. I think this is a legitimate and reasonable approach. The Federal Government should not place unfunded Federal mandates on our airports or any other unit of local government. Clearly, the FAA mandated security directive requiring airports to increase the law enforcement presence is necessary. I intend to work with my colleagues on the appropriations committee to provide funding to help defray these costs and I commend the authorizing committee for providing that authorization in this bill. However, notwithstanding that there are some useful provisions in this bill, I'm concerned that this legislation and this debate has gotten bogged down about whether we should ``federalize'' the aviation screening functions. I doubt that ``federalizing'' is the panacea that some would have you believe. For some, it is an instinctive response to turn to the Federal Government in the wake of a crisis without ever questioning if it is the responsible action to take or if the federal bureaucracy will be any better. So, ``federalization'' may be a bad idea whose time has come. We're missing the point if we misinterpret the mandate from the American people to improve aviation security with a public desire that the people searching our bags or manning the security checkpoint must be receive a paycheck from the U.S. Treasury. Keep in mind, the weapons that the terrorists carried on the aircraft were legal to carry on the aircraft. What failed was intelligence, our response time, and the lack of security on board the aircraft. Let's fix those things. Until September 11, it was legal to take a 4-inch knife on board an aircraft, and metal knives were commonplace in first class meal service. The price tag for full Federal assumption of airport security is not small, in excess of $2 billion annually and that cost will only rise. And that's forever. We must weigh that commitment of taxpayer dollars against whether it would result in either improved security, or the perception of improved security. There are a lot of things that the Federal Government does well, I would argue that this is not one of them. Let's not mislead the public into interpreting ``federalization'' to mean that baggage screening is going to be conducted by law enforcement officers. Not even the supporters of full federalization are contemplating having Federal law enforcement officers search passengers or carry-on baggage. In a federalized world, the metal detectors and bag searches would be conducted by Federal bureaucrats. I don't think that over time, the American taxpayer is going to look at a bureaucrat bag screener and say, ``I feel safer because a Federal employee is checking my bags.'' Remember, the money we spend on replacing private sector employees with government bureaucrats means we will have that much less money for other security improvements, and we're talking about hiring as many as 30,000 new Federal employees. That's three Army divisions. I'm also concerned about the concept of a two-tier airport security construct. Some have advocated that we ``federalize'' at the largest airports while not ``federalizing'' at other smaller airports. That logic is inconsistent with its proponents' other flawed reasoning that security will somehow be magically improved and tightened by virtue of ``federalization.'' The simple fact is we must improve aviation security at all airports. We cannot have weaker points and stronger points in the system. Instead, we must tailor our security architecture to stop terrorists no matter where they attempt to get into the system. Further, I fail to see how creating a new Deputy Administrator at the FAA or a new Deputy or Assistant Secretary at the Department of Transportation moves the aviation security ball down the field. Since both the past administration and this administration have had such difficulty in filling the Deputy Administrator of the FAA position, I'm concerned that we're unnecessarily confusing and complicating the Federal bureaucracy. I can't remember a case where an additional layer of bureaucracy led to the swift, decisive leadership I believe is necessary, especially in regards to safety and security. I'm also not certain that either the DOT or the FAA are the only, or the best place, for any new security function to reside. I would hope that the relevant committees of jurisdiction would explore whether these responsibilities wouldn't be better executed at the Department of Justice, the Department of the Treasury, or in the new Office of Homeland Security. Personally, I believe that the President got it right in his proposal. The Federal Government would assume management and oversight of the security function. It is imperative that we have standards for personnel, background checks, and training, as the President proposed, to improve the security net. That is the appropriate role of the Federal Government. I'm disappointed that the bill before us today seems to be taking this issue in a different direction. When we addressed the imminent financial crisis facing the airline industry 2 weeks ago, we acted expeditiously to restore the confidence of the financial markets that Congress and the administration had confidence in the future of air travel in America. Congress and the administration must move expeditiously, but deliberately, to augment the interim security procedures already instituted by the Administration. This is not a one time infusion of capital or liquidity as was necessary in the Airline Stabilization legislation. Make no mistake, we must get this done and get it right before the end of this Congress. Taking a few more weeks as this bill moves through conference will not shake the confidence of the American public. The American people will live with our decisions on aviation security for a long time. It is critical that we address the problems in the system without rushing to judgment. If we act precipitously we run the risk of failing to address security in a thoughtful and comprehensive fashion, and, we may well lose the opportunity to make the meaningful improvements that are essential to provide a system worthy of the American public's confidence. In the extreme, we run the risk of perpetrating a fraud on the American public by misleading them into a false sense of comfort that we have met the security challenge in this bill. Congress has time to get this right. This is a complicated and crucial issue and we should take the time to get it right. The administration has taken the interim steps to restore public confidence and to bolster security at airports; our actions should augment and complement those steps, not quibble over organization charts and who mans the security checkpoints. Clearly, the airlines, the airports, and pilots, such as the United Airline captain I quoted earlier, are taking responsible and meaningful steps to improve safety and security. We should follow their example.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Mr. Larry Wade Morris from Alexander City, AL who assumed the presidency of the Alabama State Bar this past July. Larry has worked hard throughout his extensive career to gain a reputation as one of the premier trial lawyers in the Nation. He has also endeavored to become a civic leader and an outstanding public servant. I want to congratulate Larry on his tremendous accomplishments and to recognize his progression from promising young lawyer out of the University of Alabama in 1968 to the distinguished President of the Alabama State Bar in 2001. If you looked up the definition of a true Alabamian in the dictionary, you would not find a better description than Larry Morris. His character and work ethic are beyond reproach, and the Southern values instilled in him in from his youth continue to guide him today. Born in Alexander City, AL, Larry grew up attending public school in Montgomery. He graduated from Robert E. Lee High School and finished his undergraduate education at Auburn University. At that point, Larry made the decision to attend law school at the University of Alabama and join the long list of prominent Alabamians who have attended this respected legal institution. He received his law degree from the University in 1968, and had the distinction of serving as the president of the Student Bar Association. After graduation, Larry returned to his hometown of Alexander City to begin his impressive career in the legal profession. Larry is now the Senior Partner in the firm of Morris, Haynes & Hornsby. Larry has demonstrated exceptional leadership abilities throughout his scholastic and professional careers. His service as president of the Student Bar Association was very highly regarded and helped to hone the skills that he has demonstrated during his professional and political life. In 1973, he served as the president of the Young Lawyer's Section of the Alabama State Bar. He is a past president of the Chamber of Commerce for Alexander City, has served on the Task Force for Judicial Elections for the Alabama State Bar and is also a past president of the Alabama Trial Lawyers Association. From 1974 through 1978, he was elected to serve in the Alabama State Legislature. During this time, he had the distinction of being named Outstanding Freshman Legislator by the Alabama Press Association. Larry Morris is a loyal, dedicated man who has always been very generous with his time and support for community affairs. In addition to his duties as president of the Alabama State Bar Association, Larry is also a member of the University of Alabama Law School Foundation and the Leadership Committee for the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Alabama. He is a member of the American Board of Trial Advocates, and serves on the Task Force for Multidisciplinary Practice for the Alabama State Bar. The many accomplishments and accolades of Larry Morris attest to his dedication to civic leadership and his deep belief in the law. I could not think of a better individual to represent the state of Alabama as the president of the State Bar Association. I join Larry's wife, Beverly, and their four children, Mark, Clark, Brian and Kevin Russell, in honoring his achievements. I know that they are proud of Larry, as are the many of us who have known him over the years.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today in remembrance of a long-time former employee of mine, Terry Michael Lynch. Terry was killed Tuesday morning at the Pentagon in the tragic and senseless events of a day that will never be forgotten in America. Terry worked for me for over 15 years, both in the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, and I would like to take this opportunity to reflect on the life of a dedicated family man and a true patriot. Terry was born in 1952 in Youngstown, Ohio, Terry grew up as the son of a steel-factory administrator. he graduated from high school in Youngstown, and received both his bachelor's and master's degrees in history from Youngstown State. It was there that Terry met his wife of 24 years, Jackie. Terry worked on Capitol Hill as an aide to former Alabama Republican Congressman Albert Lee Smith. Some of you might remember the Congressman. He began working for me in 1983, when I was a Member of the U.S. House of Representatives. When I entered the race for the United States Senate in 1986, Terry was one of the first volunteers to take personal time away from his family here in Virginia and travel throughout Alabama doing any task that was needed. Terry came over to the U.S. Senate with me as my Legislative Assistant assigned to the Armed Services Committee and continued in that position from 1987 through 1994. In 1995, Terry became a professional staff member of the Senate Intelligence Committee and for two years brought his expertise to the Intelligence Committee. He subsequently worked as a member of the professional staff of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee chaired by Senator Specter. Terry was most recently employed by the consulting firm of Booz Allen and Hamilton. To say and give you all of this background does not touch the essence of Terry Lynch. He was one of the most loyal, caring, unpretentious, and compassionate human beings I have ever had the privilege of knowing. Terry was a foundation of strength and stability for everyone that knew and loved him. He was the kindest soul and the most dedicated and loving father to his two daughters, Tiffany and Ashley. Terry's passion for helping others, especially the men and women in uniform with which he so closely worked, was always evident over the course of his career. This week, former staff members have called from all over the world to express their deep grief. And, although they had not seen Terry in many years, he made such a strong impact on all of us that to this day, he still lives on in each of our hearts in some way. Terry Lynch's spirit and his memory will forever be with us--the people who worked with him and knew him in the House of Representatives, who worked with him and knew him in the Senate, and who worked with him and knew him in the Pentagon where he died. We are all, I believe, better people for having known Terry Michael Lynch. Terry was an intelligent man with a heart of gold. He was also a great American. His life should not have ended in this unfortunate and premature manner, because he had so much ahead of him. But I promise you I will do everything in my power to ensure that Terry's life, and the lives of all Americans affected by this terrible tragedy, did not end in vain. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today in order to reiterate my concerns over the Export Administration Act of 2001. There is little doubt that this bill will pass. The writing is on the wall. However, with all due respect to the administration and to my colleagues on the Banking Committee, I have and will continue to oppose S. 149. Neither I nor Senators Thompson, Kyl, Helms or McCain desire to impede American business entities in their pursuit of new markets. I for one tend to agree with President Calvin Coolidge, who said that, ``The chief business of the American people is business.'' Every Senator here today is an advocate for enhanced trade and for helping U.S. industry to export its goods and services. Exports bring prosperity to this Nation's companies and work to its citizens. If my advocacy for the U.S. technology industry were the sole basis upon which my decision on this legislation was to be based, I could easily change my past position and support passage of the Export Administration Act, or EAA as it is known. However, the other basis upon which the EAA should be measured is its effect upon the national security of the United States. Earlier this summer, I was inspired when I listened as one of my colleagues, who had not previously supported my position on the EAA, publicly and emphatically stated, and I paraphrase, that when it comes to the difficult question of promoting trade or preserving national security, we must err on the side of national security. That balance is the crux of this week's debate. We should not support a measure that could, as written, result in harm to Americans by technology developed and sold by Americans. The pending bill addresses the control of ``dual use'' technology, that is, technology that has both commercial and military applications. Most commonly, our current export controls entail a licensing process for the export of most dual use technologies. Rather than prohibit exports outright, we generally ensure that we can determine which countries are receiving technology and keep track of anomalies in exporting so that we can measure whether technology is being put to military use. The EAA also regulates which countries will be permitted to import U.S. dual-use technologies. Generally, U.S. companies are not permitted to export dual use products to countries like Iran and Iraq. This bill is an attempt to rewrite our export control laws to make them more rational. I too believe that this nation needs new export laws to meet today's trade realities. However, this effort must not open the floodgates for our dual use technology to be exported, without the ability for the U.S. Government to follow where that technology goes and its ultimate application. For an export control regime to function properly, it must provide for a balancing of the commercial benefits involved--which are generally obvious, easily-quantified, concentrated, and immediate--with the national security concerns, which are typically shrouded in secrecy, difficult to quantify, diffuse, and long-term in nature. In this equation, national security can easily get the short end of the stick. Not everything is shrouded in secrecy. In accordance with Section 721 of the 1997 Intelligence Authorization Act, twice a year the Director of Central Intelligence submits a report on trends in the proliferation of weapons technologies. Part of the report is unclassified. The report identifies key suppliers of dual use missile, nuclear, and conventional arms technologies, as well as dual-use biotechnology and chemical technology. Nations such as China and Russia are identified as key suppliers. They export their technology to the likes of Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria, Sudan, Pakistan and India. The report received last winter detailed a continuing and significant problem. Regarding Iran, the report states, and I quote: Tehran expanded its efforts to seek considerable dual use biotechnical materials, equipment, and expertise from abroad--primarily from entities in Russia and Western Europe--ostensibly for civilian uses. We judge that this equipment and know-how could be applied to Iran's biological warfare program. Outside assistance is both important and difficult to prevent, given the dual-use nature of the materials, the equipment being sought, and the many legitimate end uses for these items. Regarding Iraq, the report indicates that Saddam Hussein is utilizing all means to acquire dual-use technology. The report states: Iraq has attempted to purchase numerous dual-use items for, or under the guise of, legitimate civilian use. This equipment, in principle subject to UN scrutiny, also could be diverted for weapons of mass destruction purposes. In addition, Iraq appears to be installing or repairing dual-use equipment at chemical weapons related facilities. With respect to India, ``India continues to rely on foreign assistance for key missile and dual-use technologies where it still lacks engineering or production expertise in ballistic missile development.'' The report goes on to cite Russia and Western Europe as the primary conduits of India's missile related technology. As stated in the Report, Pakistan received significant assistance from Communist China for its ballistic missile program in the early part of last year. As recently as this past weekend, the administration was forced to impose sanctions on the China Metallurgical Equipment Corporation for selling missile technology to Pakistan. The corporate entity in Pakistan which received the technology was also sanctioned. I know this has been and continues to be an issue of great concern to Senator Thompson. I commend him for his efforts to publicize Communist China's blatant disregard for its pledge not to support foreign nuclear missile programs. The report did contain one note of optimism, which I believe is also directly applicable to today's debate. Nations such as Libya and Iran continued to attempt to acquire needed materials for weapons of mass destruction in Western Europe. They had some success in the first half of 2000, but the CIA report states that, ``Increasingly rigorous and effective export controls and cooperation among supplier countries have led the other foreign WMD programs to look elsewhere for many controlled dual-use goods.'' The point is, that while we cannot stop all proliferation, a rigorous export control regime can be effective in diffusing the spread of potentially threatening dual-use technology. Mr. President, the problem is real. I believe it is a significant statement when the Chairmen and now Ranking Members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, the Foreign Relations Committee, the Intelligence Committee, the Committee on Governmental Affairs and the Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism and Government Information, have serious issues with the protections this legislation provides our national security. I am deeply disappointed that the new administration was not able to support reasonable amendments which would address the national security equities which we have highlighted. I am concerned that the interests of the high tech business community have replaced reasonable consideration of our dual use export control regime. Technologies which are exported today can and will have to be dealt with by this Nation's national security apparatus. Consequently, I urge my colleagues to support the amendments of Senators Thompson, Kyl, Helms, and others, which will strengthen S. 149 with respect to national security. They are only a handful of the changes which should be made to this bill but they will serve to give the Defense Department and the State Department a more level playing field in the export control process from which to protect national security. There is a proper balance between promoting business and preserving the national security. This bill does not strike that balance. As a conferee, I am hopeful that in conference, I can work with the members of the House, especially Chairman Hyde and continue these efforts to tilt the balance in favor of national security. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record entitled ``Report to Congress on the Acquisition of Technology Relating to Weapons of Mass Destruction and Advanced Conventional Munitions, 1 January through 30 June 2000.''

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, I am pleased to join Senator Feinstein in introducing the ``Identity Theft Prevention Act of 2001.'' Unfortunately, with the growth of electronic commerce, there has been a corresponding growth in the number of high tech crimes. In fact, identity theft is now the fastest growing crime in the United States. Over the last few years, identity thieves have stolen billions of dollars from hundreds of thousands of people. The difficulties for victims of identity theft do not simply end after the crime that has been committed. It can take years and considerable effort for victims to clear their names, reestablish their credit histories and get themselves back on their feet. In some cases, the crime never ends: stolen personal information is used repeatedly by numerous thieves placing individuals in an endless cycle of victimization. The ``Identity Theft Prevention Act of 2001'' is intended as a first step towards combating this devastating crime. The legislation requires new, common sense measures such as: notifying a credit card holder of a request for an additional card or request to change an address; requiring consumer approval prior to the issuance of credit; and truncation of credit card account numbers on print-out receipts. These provisions are intended to reduce the opportunities of thieves to obtain the consumer data they use to commit fraud in the first place. Additionally, in an effort to ease the considerable burdens the crime places on its victims, the bill makes it easier for consumers to report fraud and for them to quickly restore their credit history after they have been targeted. The seriousness of the of the crime of identity theft has already been well documented in economic terms: hundreds of thousands of people have lost billions of dollars. However, the crime causes additional losses that far exceed the economic ones. An identity theft victim can lose his or her hard-earned good name and reputation in a matter of seconds. I believe Senator Feinstein's bill will help prevent such assaults and it will help those who are victimized restore their credit record and their reputation more quickly. I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of this bill.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, I am pleased to join Senator Feinstein in introducing the ``Identity Theft Prevention Act of 2001.'' Unfortunately, with the growth of electronic commerce, there has been a corresponding growth in the number of high tech crimes. In fact, identity theft is now the fastest growing crime in the United States. Over the last few years, identity thieves have stolen billions of dollars from hundreds of thousands of people. The difficulties for victims of identity theft do not simply end after the crime that has been committed. It can take years and considerable effort for victims to clear their names, reestablish their credit histories and get themselves back on their feet. In some cases, the crime never ends: stolen personal information is used repeatedly by numerous thieves placing individuals in an endless cycle of victimization. The ``Identity Theft Prevention Act of 2001'' is intended as a first step towards combating this devastating crime. The legislation requires new, common sense measures such as: notifying a credit card holder of a request for an additional card or request to change an address; requiring consumer approval prior to the issuance of credit; and truncation of credit card account numbers on print-out receipts. These provisions are intended to reduce the opportunities of thieves to obtain the consumer data they use to commit fraud in the first place. Additionally, in an effort to ease the considerable burdens the crime places on its victims, the bill makes it easier for consumers to report fraud and for them to quickly restore their credit history after they have been targeted. The seriousness of the of the crime of identity theft has already been well documented in economic terms: hundreds of thousands of people have lost billions of dollars. However, the crime causes additional losses that far exceed the economic ones. An identity theft victim can lose his or her hard-earned good name and reputation in a matter of seconds. I believe Senator Feinstein's bill will help prevent such assaults and it will help those who are victimized restore their credit record and their reputation more quickly. I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of this bill.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. I agree, Mr. President, on the importance of the Federal Government's role in maintaining a safe interstate highway system and will work with the chairwoman and other interested Senators to fulfill the federal commitment and maintain the interstate.

Mr. SHELBY. Likewise, I am well aware of your support for the program, and I know how important it is to rural areas including the community of Muscle Shoals, Alabama. I will work with the Chair during the conference to address the concerns you have raised.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, I rise today to introduce legislation to reform the board structure of the Tennessee Valley Authority. The legislation that I am introducing with my colleague from Alabama would create a corporate structure to oversee TVA. This legislation expands the board from the current three members to 14 members, requiring the President to appoint two members from each of the seven states in which TVA operates. In addition to expanding the board, our legislation creates the position of a Chief Executive Officer who will be responsible for daily management and operation decisions. Under this new structure, board members would serve on a part-time basis, receiving a stipend for their services and the CEO would become the only full-time, paid position. It is no secret that TVA has suffered financial turmoil in the past and is still trying to work its way out of substantial debt. In my view, restructuring and reform are overdue. The goal of this legislation is to provide the Authority with board members that have a direct interest in the well-being of TVA and its rate payers and to place at the helm a Chief Executive Officer to make the difficult business decisions that will guide TVA through the impending challenges of an evolving energy industry. TVA is a multi-billion dollar entity. However, it continues to operate under the same administrative structure it did when Congress created the Authority in 1933. Senator Sessions and I believe that it is time for that structure to change. It is time for the Tennessee Valley Authority to step into the 21st Century and out of the bureaucratic stronghold that has guided its decision making process for so long. We believe that this new board structure will equip TVA to meet the challenges of the future and better serve the people of Alabama and the other States in which it operates. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.