Richard Shelby

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Dorgan, be immediately recognized after my remarks.

Mr. SHELBY

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

Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, I rise in support of the fiscal year 2002 Transportation appropriations bill put before the Senate today by Senator Murray. I do support the package reported unanimously from the Committee on Appropriations and just described by the Senator from Washington in pretty good detail. There is the first year for the Senator from Washington as chairperson of the Appropriations Transportation Subcommittee. I believe she has accounted for herself well on this bill. We have worked together. She has put a lot into it, and I believe this is basically a balanced bill. I believe that every Member can look at this bill and find a great deal that they can agree with. But, I also think it is safe to say that if you look hard enough, just about everyone can find something they would probably disagree with. Clearly, that is the case with the Mexican truck issue. I believe that everyone in this body is supportive of ensuring the safety of trucks on our highways. I believe that many in this body consider the approach to Mexican trucks adopted on the House floor as being heavy- handed, and contrary to the goal of improving the safety of trucks at our borders, within the commercial zone, and ultimately, beyond the commercial zone on the balance of our Nation's highways. Senator Murray has crafted a provision, section 343, that takes a different approach. It provides for Mexican truck access to our highways beyond the commercial zone once the Department has an adequate inspection regime in place and can assure that those carriers and trucks meet articulated safety and insurance standards. The approach of the Senator from Washington moves the debate on this issue forward and allows a resolution of this issue based on safety standards rather than prohibiting any action by the Department to manage the truck safety issues we face at our southern border under NAFTA. For my colleagues who would support the House language, some of whom may offer a similar provision during consideration of this bill, I would point out that provision does little, if anything, to promote truck safety on our highways. It may keep some unsafe trucks from gaining entry to our country, but it doesn't create a framework or any incentive to improve the safety of Mexican trucks. I have to tell you, that I am probably less troubled by an outright prohibition than is the Senator from Washington. But, I am willing to pursue this issue with her through the Senate and to address my colleagues' concerns during conference to ensure that traffic beyond the commercial zone is safe. To do that, it is incumbent on us to provide the necessary resources to begin adequately inspecting motor carriers at the border. I am pleased that the bill before us provides a total of $103.2 million to enhance safety at the border--$15 million more than the President requested. Specifically, the bill includes $13.9 million to hire an additional 80 safety inspectors, $18 million for enhanced Motor Carrier Safety Grants to border states, and $71.3 million for motor carrier safety inspection facilities along the United States-Mexican border. That is a quantum leap forward in terms of ensuring safe transportation of goods across the border for the benefit of American consumers. While we must provide the tools to the Department, we must also provide the Department with the flexibility to put forth a policy for operations beyond the commercial zones, so long as the policy would not undermine the safety of American families on our highways. The Murray language does just that. It allows the Department to process applications of Mexican-based motor carriers after the Department remedies deficiencies highlighted by the Department of Transportation Inspector General and after Mexican-domiciled carriers meet the strict safety requirements that this bill demands. Chairman Byrd and Senator Stevens have provided the Transportation Subcommittee with a generous allocation, and that has allowed this bill to fund the programs and the initiatives that the Senator from Washington has just described. I would like to take a few minutes to highlight a couple of those items. For the Coast Guard, this bill provides $45 million more than the President's request for operating expenses--and that is in addition to the $92 million that was just agreed to in the supplemental conference report for fiscal year 2001. While the Coast Guard isn't overfunded, it is not underfunded. The resources are in this bill to continue and grow lifesaving, fisheries enforcement, drug interdiction, and migrant interdiction activities in fiscal year 2002. I believe we need to continue vigorous oversight to make sure that these dollars get to the Coast Guard districts and to the men and women who volunteer to put their lives at risk to save lives, and to meet the Coast Guard's other missions. I continue to be concerned about the growth in overhead at the headquarters. The increasing costs there are troubling. I would also like to point out the bill provides the $325.2 million for the first year of construction funding for the Coast Guard's Integrated Deepwater Project. This funding represents the first significant installment of a 20-year, $10 billion Coast Guard program to put in place a systems integrator to design, develop, and construct new surface ships, aircraft, sensors, and communications equipment--or modernize legacy assets--used to conduct operations 50 miles offshore and beyond. I have serious reservations about the long-term funding prospects of this procurement, the inherent schedule and cost risks of the acquisition strategy, and with Coast Guard's ability to manage a contract of this magnitude and complexity. While I am merely raising these concerns now, I intend to discuss them in greater detail later during the consideration of this bill in this Senate Chamber. The FAA is 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 exceeds the President's budget request. While the cost efficiencies from the controller agreement have yet to show up in the operations account, and there continue to be significant slippages and cost escalations in several of the FAA procurement programs that are critical to modernization of the National Airspace System, the bill before the Senate provides badly needed funding to continue the operations and to support an aggressive modernization program. Accordingly, the committee-reported bill also more than meets the TEA-21 highway and transit funding levels and increases the obligation limitation for highways and provides additional resources for transit new start systems. This funding commitment by the committee bill recognizes the priorities on these accounts reflected in the requests from Members of the Senate. I commend the Senator from Washington, Mrs. Murray, for her attention to the interests of the Department and the Senate in constructing the package before the Senate today. While the bill commits a fair amount of funding for the Appalachian Development Highway System, I would note that a great deal more funding is required to complete the commitment that has been made to this system. The ADH system is far less complete than the National Highway System and many years at these funding levels will be required to improve some of the most deficient and dangerous segments of the rural highway system in all of America. The bill provides $521 million for Amtrak and authorizes the railroad to immediately use all of these funds in one fiscal year. For the past several years, the bill has limited Amtrak to using 40 percent of its funding in the first year so the balance would be available for the next. Keep in mind that this money is appropriated for capital activities and investments, so the provision and anticipation that it would all spend out is unusual in and by itself. My sense is that this extraordinary action is at best a short-term solution. Amtrak, as a lot of you know, is engaging in short-term borrowing to cover operational and debt service costs and Amtrak's cash shortfall is growing to unsustainable levels. Allowing the cash-starved Amtrak to spend its entire appropriation for fiscal year 2002 will allow, however, Amtrak to squeak through to the Spring of 2002, when this failed experiment, I believe, will again be out of money. I hope that we can move this legislation quickly through the Senate and through the conference. During Senate consideration of the Transportation appropriations bill, I will cover some of these issues in more detail, as will Senator Murray. But I look forward to working with the Senator from Washington, the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations, and with interested Members to consider and pass this legislation.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a dear friend, James A. Turner of Tuscaloosa, Alabama. Jim Turner was a man of great courage, intelligence and character. We were friends for more than 40 years. I believe America has lost a great patriot with the recent death of James A. Turner. Born in 1925, Jim grew up on a farm just outside of Tuscaloosa, Alabama. As World War II began, Jim left high school to serve his country. He enlisted in the Marine Corps and served with honor. Indeed, he earned and received the Purple Heart in 1945 on Iwo Jima when a machine gun blinded him during battle. Jim returned to Alabama and in spite of his blindness earned his undergraduate degree in 1949. He received his juris doctorate from the University of Alabama in 1952. Jim always credited his wife and classmate, Louise, for his success in school. Louise read Jim's textbooks to him so he could keep up with his studies. Following graduation, Louise joined Jim at their law firm, Turner and Turner. Today, their son, Don, and their grandson, Brian, also work at Turner and Turner. The family law firm has spanned five decades and continues to thrive in Tuscaloosa. Together, Jim and Louise raised three wonderful sons, Don, Rick and Glenn, who have brought them great joy in life. Their grandchildren, Brian, Lindsay and Brittany; and great-granddaughter Farris, are sources of considerable pride. Jim was active in his community. He was an active member of the Tuscaloosa Bar Association and also served as President of the Tuscaloosa Bar Association. His family worshiped at United Methodist Church in Alberta. We have in recent years heard reference to ``the Greatest Generation.'' Many of us have friends and relatives who have served our country and earned the right to wear that mantle. However, I know of few men who lived every day of their lives with the valor, courage, and love of country with which Jim Turner lived his entire life. Our country has lost a good man and great lawyer, a devoted husband and father, a proud Marine and a loyal American. Words cannot express the respect I have for Jim Turner, nor can they express the sorrow my family and our community feels since this loss.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the McCain amendment to the Interior appropriations bill. I am troubled, quite frankly, that I have to defend Federal funding for historic preservation of the Vulcan Monument, which is of great importance to the people of Alabama and the South. The Vulcan Monument in Birmingham, AL, is a unique and enduring hallmark of the city. It was constructed in 1904 to mark the 100th anniversary of the Louisiana Purchase and stands as a symbol of economic transformation in the South. Much like the Arch, the Golden Gate Bridge, the Statue of Liberty, and the Liberty Bell represent their respective cities and are symbols representing greater achievements for their communities and our Nation, the Vulcan stands as an important historical landmark for Birmingham and represents the rebirth of industrial development in the South. I want the record to be clear that while Federal funds are important to the restoration of the Vulcan Monument, city and local fundraising efforts are leading the way towards completing the restoration project. While the Federal share for restoration efforts reaches $3.5 million, private citizens throughout the region have contributed over $10 million. This is an excellent example of a public-private partnership trying to preserve an important historical treasure for the South and our Nation. It happens to be in Birmingham, AL. I believe this amendment is misguided, and I pray it will be defeated.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, Congress recently passed a tax bill that provides much-needed relief for all Americans. While I am pleased that the tax bill included marriage penalty relief, a reduction in marginal rates and a phase out of the estate tax, these changes unfortunately increase the tax code's complexity. Furthermore, despite the positive changes made this year, the current code still retains the alternative minimum tax, the taxation of Social Security benefits, and marginal rates that increase with income. I rise today to introduce legislation that takes tax reform to the next level and addresses the fundamental problems of the current code. My bill accomplishes this by repealing the current Internal Revenue Code and replacing it with a flat tax, where all taxpayers pay the same rate. As with current law, not all wage earners will pay a Federal income tax under a flat tax. In order to assist lower income Americans, I have included large standard deductions. For example, a family of four would need to make more than $35,200 before paying a single penny in taxes. Some argue that it's fair to tax wealthier people at higher rates. I believe that nothing can be further from the truth. Not only is this type of tax policy fundamentally unfair, it also prevents our economy from realizing its full potential. A flat tax does not mean that a school teacher will have the same tax liability as Bill Gates. The principles of math dictate that people who make more will still pay more in taxes with a single rate. The difference is that with a flat tax those who earn more will no longer be penalized by rising marginal rates. My bill also increases tax fairness by eliminating itemized deductions and credits. While these tax breaks benefit those who are lucky enough to claim them, they consequently hurt the taxpayers who are not. As a result, people with the same yearly salaries can pay very different Federal income taxes depending on whether they have children, they decide to own or rent a home, or decide to finance a family vacation through a credit card or a home equity loan. Over time the tax code has evolved from a way to collect Federal revenue into a way to encourage and reward behavior the government deems important. I believe that the American people are intelligent enough that they do not need the Federal Government dangling a carrot in front of them when they make life decisions. Furthermore, I believe that people should not be punished for deciding to make these decisions in ways that are contrary to what the government decides is right. Simplification is yet another reason our country needs the flat tax. The National Taxpayer Advocate cited complications in the tax code as the number one issue taxpayers faced in 2001. As the IRS publishes more and more regulations, and new tax laws are enacted, the complexity of the tax code will only grow. The complexity of the tax code forces many Americans to seek the advice of tax professionals at the cost of many millions of dollars. No tax code should be so puzzling that the average person has to spend his hard-earned money to hire a tax preparer or an accountant. Those who decide to brave the tax code and file their own returns do not fare better. These people face conflicting IRS advice and many hours of completing confusing tax forms. All of these needless hassles results in taxpayer frustration and apathy and less time spent on more productive endeavors. Under the flat tax, a taxpayers would be able to be quickly and accurately file their returns. There would be no itemized deductions or credits to calculate, no capital gains tabulations and no alternative minimum tax. With this new simplicity, taxpayers would be able to complete their personal income tax return in virtually no time at all compared to the 13 hours the IRS estimates it takes to complete a 1040 form. I understand that my bill is a major change from the current tax code. Many people have become complacent with the status quo. Still others enjoy using the tax to implement social policy. I on the other hand believe though that a tax code should have one purpose and that is to collect revenue. I hope that my colleagues will begin to seriously look at alternatives to the current code. The legislation I have introduced today is an excellent opportunity to bring this debate to the floor of the Senate. The combination of freedom, simplicity and fairness make the flat tax the ultimate goal of true tax reform. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of meaningful and comprehensive tax reform.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, throughout this debate, we have wrestled with how we best improve education for all of our children; whether it is more money, more flexibility, more accountability, higher standards, less bureaucracy, more choice. All of these considerations and goals are worthy and certainly play an important role in ensuring that our children receive the best education possible. But, there is one ingredient--one factor--that without fail, is the most essential to a child's education and that is a parent. I submit that there is no school building, no computer, no TV, no textbook that can replace the role of a parent when it comes to educating a child. And accordingly, no government official or school official shares the same interest as a parent in protecting and raising their child. I say this because the amendment Senator Dodd and I are offering today is about ensuring the rights and responsibilities of parents in raising and educating their children. As parents, we entrust schools with our children in the hope and belief that they will receive a strong education that will prepare them for the future--that they will be taught and learn the basic foundations for success--reading and writing, math and science. Parents expect this. What they don't expect and what many of them aren't even aware of is that their children will be used as captive focus groups for marketers during the school day. That is not part of the bargain and, I submit, it shouldn't be. Last year a GAO study found that marketers and advertisers are increasingly targeting our children in the school setting. This is not some freak occurrence. It is a calculated marketing strategy that is intended to get around parents and reach kids directly in a way they could not normally. In a recent column raising concerns about this phenomenon, George Will notes how marketers now study ``marketing practices that drive loyalty in the preschool market'' and ``the desires of toddler-age consumers.'' In addition, marketers advise that ``School is. . .the ideal time to influence attitudes.'' There is no question that there is a lot of money to be made in marketing to children. According to a report by the Motherhood Project at the Institute for American Values, in 1998 alone, children ages 4 to 12 spent nearly $27 billion of their own money and influenced nearly $500 billion in purchases by their parents. As parents, many of us have probably felt like it was a lot more than $500 billion at times. I am all for free enterprise. But, there are boundaries. And, marketers are crossing those boundaries when they seek to go into public schools and collect marketing information on children without parental consent. A recent editorial in the Christian Science Monitor echoes this sentiment. Schools are for learning, not market research . . . Businesses do have a role in education. They can lend financial and other kinds of support, and be recognized for such. But educators and businesses also need to recognize boundaries--and stay within them. Congress has acted in the past to provide some boundaries to schools and protect parental rights and children's privacy. The Family Education Rights Protection Act, the Protection of Pupil's Rights Act and the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act all provide parents with some ability to protect how information is collected and shared on their children. None of these laws, however, protect parents' rights when third party marketers seek to collect similar information from their children in the classroom. Our amendment seeks to address this gap in the law and reenforce these boundaries by ensuring that when third parties want to come in to the classroom and conduct market research and collect information on our children for strictly commercial purposes, they have to ask the parent. We are not breaking new ground here other than filling in gaps in existing law. In addition, parental consent is already required for many other activities that occur in the schools, including extracurricular activities, field trips, and internet access. Indeed, parental consent is required before students may participate in the Everybody Wins Program that many Members and staff of this body participate in. I know there have been concerns and questions raised about our amendment and active lobbying against our efforts. However, in working with the White House, I believe we have addressed most of the these concerns as reflected in our modified amendment. We have sought to minimize concerns over ``burden'' by requiring parental consent for only those commercial/marketing activities that seek to collect information on children. In addition, we have attempted to provide local flexibility --while ensuring parental involvement--by allowing local school boards to provide additional exceptions to the consent requirements so long as the information they seek to collect is not personally identifiable and the school notifies the parents of their policy on these data collection activities. Despite our good-faith efforts to address legitimate concerns, I understand that some financial interests may oppose parental consent no matter what. They are willing to argue that requiring parental consent imposes a burden on local schools. I fundamentally disagree and submit that if we have come to the point where we consider parents a burden and parental consent a mandate--then we have a bigger problem in this country. Parents a burden? I say we need more such local burdens in our schools, not less. You simply can't get more ``local'' than a parent. And as a corollary to this, I would suggest that these interests have it backwards. It is rather the local schools that are interfering in the rights of parents. Schools exceed their authority when they allow third parties to come in to the classroom and collect information on children for strictly commercial purposes. We have tried to focus this amendment on those non-educational activities that parents traditionally maintain authority over. Parents have a tough enough time trying to raise and instill certain values in their children. Schools should not be a parent-free zone where marketers get unfettered access to children that they would not otherwise be able to achieve anywhere else. There is nothing intended in this amendment to disadvantage public- private partnerships in our schools. And, in fact, most public-private partnerships have nothing to do with collecting personal information on children. Indeed, I continue to believe that many of these relationships can be very positive for schools and students. We want to encourage, not discourage many of these relationships. But, I submit that these public-private partnerships should be able to withstand the scrutiny of parents when they seek to collect information on their children. If it is in their child's interest--you can be sure a parent will give their permission. I don't know of any reputable company whose business model would be based on intentionally skirting parental rights and targeting children directly in the schools. And, I doubt, that any business that relied on such a tactic would be around very long. I do, however, believe that the amount of interest and extensive lobbying that has been shown on our little amendment is a strong indication of how much money is being made on targeting kids in the schools and how important it is to some marketers to get around parents and get access to our children directly. Our modified amendment was crafted in consultation with the Administration, and is supported by the National Parent Teacher Association, Commercial Alert, the Eagle Forum, the American Conservative Union, Focus on the Family, and the Motherhood Project at the Institute for American Values, among other groups. I am pleased with the acceptance of this amendment by the Senate and thank the managers for their work on this bill and on our amendment. I look forward to working with my colleagues as the bill is considered in conference.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, Congress recently passed a tax bill that provides much-needed relief for all Americans. While I am pleased that the tax bill included marriage penalty relief, a reduction in marginal rates and a phase out of the estate tax, these changes unfortunately increase the tax code's complexity. Furthermore, despite the positive changes made this year, the current code still retains the alternative minimum tax, the taxation of Social Security benefits, and marginal rates that increase with income. I rise today to introduce legislation that takes tax reform to the next level and addresses the fundamental problems of the current code. My bill accomplishes this by repealing the current Internal Revenue Code and replacing it with a flat tax, where all taxpayers pay the same rate. As with current law, not all wage earners will pay a Federal income tax under a flat tax. In order to assist lower income Americans, I have included large standard deductions. For example, a family of four would need to make more than $35,200 before paying a single penny in taxes. Some argue that it's fair to tax wealthier people at higher rates. I believe that nothing can be further from the truth. Not only is this type of tax policy fundamentally unfair, it also prevents our economy from realizing its full potential. A flat tax does not mean that a school teacher will have the same tax liability as Bill Gates. The principles of math dictate that people who make more will still pay more in taxes with a single rate. The difference is that with a flat tax those who earn more will no longer be penalized by rising marginal rates. My bill also increases tax fairness by eliminating itemized deductions and credits. While these tax breaks benefit those who are lucky enough to claim them, they consequently hurt the taxpayers who are not. As a result, people with the same yearly salaries can pay very different Federal income taxes depending on whether they have children, they decide to own or rent a home, or decide to finance a family vacation through a credit card or a home equity loan. Over time the tax code has evolved from a way to collect Federal revenue into a way to encourage and reward behavior the government deems important. I believe that the American people are intelligent enough that they do not need the Federal Government dangling a carrot in front of them when they make life decisions. Furthermore, I believe that people should not be punished for deciding to make these decisions in ways that are contrary to what the government decides is right. Simplification is yet another reason our country needs the flat tax. The National Taxpayer Advocate cited complications in the tax code as the number one issue taxpayers faced in 2001. As the IRS publishes more and more regulations, and new tax laws are enacted, the complexity of the tax code will only grow. The complexity of the tax code forces many Americans to seek the advice of tax professionals at the cost of many millions of dollars. No tax code should be so puzzling that the average person has to spend his hard-earned money to hire a tax preparer or an accountant. Those who decide to brave the tax code and file their own returns do not fare better. These people face conflicting IRS advice and many hours of completing confusing tax forms. All of these needless hassles results in taxpayer frustration and apathy and less time spent on more productive endeavors. Under the flat tax, a taxpayers would be able to be quickly and accurately file their returns. There would be no itemized deductions or credits to calculate, no capital gains tabulations and no alternative minimum tax. With this new simplicity, taxpayers would be able to complete their personal income tax return in virtually no time at all compared to the 13 hours the IRS estimates it takes to complete a 1040 form. I understand that my bill is a major change from the current tax code. Many people have become complacent with the status quo. Still others enjoy using the tax to implement social policy. I on the other hand believe though that a tax code should have one purpose and that is to collect revenue. I hope that my colleagues will begin to seriously look at alternatives to the current code. The legislation I have introduced today is an excellent opportunity to bring this debate to the floor of the Senate. The combination of freedom, simplicity and fairness make the flat tax the ultimate goal of true tax reform. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of meaningful and comprehensive tax reform.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to one of this country's great educators as she retires after over 30 years of teaching English in my home state of Alabama. This week marks the end of an outstanding career for Jane Ellen Stritzinger as she retires from Demopolis High School. Mrs. Stritzinger has taught thousands of students to write well and motivated many to pursue higher education. I join her family, friends, fellow teachers and the students she has guided in congratulating and wishing her well in retirement. Her devoted service to the young people of Alabama has made both the state and the nation better places. Her leadership and teaching will be sorely missed. Mrs. Stritzinger's awards, activities and leadership positions are far too numerous to list exhaustively, yet a few bear special mention. She was selected as the Alabama State Teacher of the Year, District V winner for 1999-2000. Mrs. Stritzinger has also received the University of West Alabama College of Liberal Arts Alumni Achievement Award, the Tombigbee Girl Scout Council Outstanding Educator Award and the Alabama Council of Teachers of English Distinguished Service Award. She has also been recognized three times by the National Endowment for the Humanities with Awards allowing her to attend special seminars. In addition to her support of educational efforts, Mrs. Stritzinger has played active roles in numerous community organizations including historical, alumni and religious organizations. Mrs. Stritzinger spent most of her career teaching English and literature to twelfth grade students at Demopolis High School where she has been responsible for the Advanced Placement, Honors and College- bound English classes. In addition, she has served as the Chairperson of the English Department at Demopolis High School for twenty years and of both the English Curriculum Development and the English Textbook Committees. Early in her career, she taught English at Uniontown High School and remedial reading at Westside School and served as Assistant Director of the Alabama Consortium for the Development of Higher Education. She has helped mold the minds of students as they prepared for college and for life. Her focus on encouraging and recognizing academic excellence extended beyond her classroom to the numerous activities and organizations she helped coordinate including founding the local chapter of the National Honor Society. Mrs. Stritzinger holds a strong belief in encouraging students to improve their reading abilities and develop strong writing skills. She championed using the Accelerated Reader Program and applied for her school to become an Alabama Reading Initiative Demonstration site. She devoted countless hours over the years to the Alabama Penman Creative Writing Contest, the Gulf Coast Writing Conference, the Program to Recognize Excellence in High School Literary Magazines, a tutorial program for high school students and the Beta Club. Mrs. Stritzinger participated in a program on writing instruction filmed by the State Department of Education for Alabama Public Television. Strong schools foster strong students and Mrs. Stritzinger worked diligently to improve the quality of our Alabama schools. She was selected as Chairperson of the Ten Year Study for Demopolis High School for Southern Association accreditation and as Teachers' Representative to the Demopolis Educational Foundation. She served as chairperson of the Grants Committee for the Educational Foundation and coordinated a system-wide meeting for reading and language teachers on improving test scores. Mrs. Stritzinger represented Demopolis High School on the Mid- South Humanities Project, the University of Alabama Bio-Prep Workshops and a School Improvement Workshop. She also served on an Alabama State Department of Education Evaluation Team to accredit Judson College. Central to her effort to improve our schools was her twenty years as a Cooperating Teacher providing guidance to student teachers seeking classroom experience. She also played an active role in encouraging the use of technology in the classroom including through the use of the Internet. Mrs. Stritzinger earned both Masters and Bachelors degrees in English and maintains affiliations with numerous education associations. She has been married to Pete Stritzinger for 36 years and while pursuing this busy career raised two daughters--Ann and Gloria. Mrs. Stritzinger's commitment to Demopolis Schools continues a tradition begun by her mother Lucille Lewis who was also a long serving public school teacher. No one can begin to quantify the amazing impact that a teacher of Mrs. Stritzinger's ability has had on her students and on her community. The success stories are myriad and many of Mrs. Stritzinger's students have risen to become pillars of their communities. Often her students have been inspired by Mrs. Stritzinger's teaching to pursue careers as teachers or careers which depend upon the critical thinking and strong writing skills fostered by her classes. As you can tell from my description of her career, Mrs. Stritzinger's involvement in the Demopolis City School System will be hard to replace. Although I am sure she will stay involved with the schools and the community after retirement, she has begun a legacy of success that is sure to be continued. I am confident that her former students and fellow teachers will continue to rise to the challenges that Mrs. Stritzinger posed to them. Congratulations again Mrs. Stritzinger on such an outstanding career.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask the majority leader, to understand the steps we are going through, is the majority leader saying to the Senate we will postpone the 5:30 p.m. or 6:30 p.m. vote on Monday until Tuesday morning?

Mr. SHELBY. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I would like to ask the majority leader, is there any way that he could postpone this vote until Tuesday morning? I will not be here Monday evening. There is no way I can be here. I haven't missed a vote this year.

Mr. SHELBY. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would increase the deductibility of business meals to 100 percent. By only allowing a 50 percent deduction, the current law unfairly hurts small business owners who many times conduct business face to face over a meal. For these people, the costs of business meals truly is a legitimate business expense. However, unlike other business expenses, they are not able to fully deduct the cost of business meals. America's small businesses are the backbone of our economy. Allowing full deductibility of business related meals will lighten the heavy financial burden small business owners face daily just to be able to keep their doors open. Furthermore, increased deductibility will inject additional capital into our country's businesses, allowing them to spend more money on innovation and growth. Such activities will lead to more jobs and a stronger economy. Full deductibility of business meals will also create an increase in restaurant patronage. As a result, my bill will benefit waiters, waitresses, cooks and other restaurant workers by increasing their job security and wages. Increased wages will make it easier for restaurant employees to meet the rising cost of living. With the cost of gasoline, electricity, and health insurance rising to unprecedented levels, higher wages can not come soon enough. Just as importantly, increased wages will make it easier for more Americans to save for their retirement. Rather than living paycheck to paycheck, increased wages in the restaurant industry will make it possible for more people to begin to save for the future. Given the bleak predictions for the continued solvency of the Social Security trust fund, Congress must do all that it can to encourage saving. Similar bills to increase the deductibility of business meals have been introduced in previous years. Now is the time to move beyond mere discussion and to move towards meaningful action. This legislation will have a positive effect on our economy. It fosters small business growth and will help increase wages for many Americans throughout the country. I ask that my colleagues join me in support of this bill. 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 legislation that would increase the deductibility of business meals to 100 percent. By only allowing a 50 percent deduction, the current law unfairly hurts small business owners who many times conduct business face to face over a meal. For these people, the costs of business meals truly is a legitimate business expense. However, unlike other business expenses, they are not able to fully deduct the cost of business meals. America's small businesses are the backbone of our economy. Allowing full deductibility of business related meals will lighten the heavy financial burden small business owners face daily just to be able to keep their doors open. Furthermore, increased deductibility will inject additional capital into our country's businesses, allowing them to spend more money on innovation and growth. Such activities will lead to more jobs and a stronger economy. Full deductibility of business meals will also create an increase in restaurant patronage. As a result, my bill will benefit waiters, waitresses, cooks and other restaurant workers by increasing their job security and wages. Increased wages will make it easier for restaurant employees to meet the rising cost of living. With the cost of gasoline, electricity, and health insurance rising to unprecedented levels, higher wages can not come soon enough. Just as importantly, increased wages will make it easier for more Americans to save for their retirement. Rather than living paycheck to paycheck, increased wages in the restaurant industry will make it possible for more people to begin to save for the future. Given the bleak predictions for the continued solvency of the Social Security trust fund, Congress must do all that it can to encourage saving. Similar bills to increase the deductibility of business meals have been introduced in previous years. Now is the time to move beyond mere discussion and to move towards meaningful action. This legislation will have a positive effect on our economy. It fosters small business growth and will help increase wages for many Americans throughout the country. I ask that my colleagues join me in support of this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I objected to the motion earlier to proceed to the Export Administration Act. I want to share some of my concerns in why I did that. I, too, serve on the Banking Committee. I have been on it 15 years. I worked with Senator Gramm, Senator Sarbanes, Senator Enzi, and Senator Johnson. It is a great committee. It is the committee of jurisdiction for this legislation. I also happen to be chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence. And this is why I am concerned about this piece of legislation today. Yesterday, we in the Intelligence Committee spent 2 hours being briefed on the damage of our national security from China's seizure of sensitive technologies aboard our EP-3 reconnaissance plane, which remains, as of this hour, in Chinese custody. Chinese technicians are picking that plane apart, and I do not believe they are looking for loose change under the seat cushions. Yet today, right now, we are talking about moving to debate a bill that will make it easier for the Chinese, and others, to get technology like that aboard the EP-3 and other advanced technologies without any licensing or export restrictions. I ask my colleagues: What is wrong with this picture? I am sure the Chinese leadership can't believe its luck. The U.S. Senate, which until a few days ago was criticizing China's aggressive tactics, militaristic policies, and disdain for the rule of law, is now rushing to open the floodgates for the advanced technologies China needs to upgrade its military. And a few days after the administration announced an unprecedented package of arms to help Taiwan defend itself, the Senate wants to sell China the very technologies that will help it to overcome Taiwan's defenses, and threaten the U.S. The events of the last several weeks underscore a fact that has been apparent to many of us for some time: China is not our strategic partner. It is our competitor and could be our adversary. Yet we are moving ahead on this bill today as if these events never occurred. I fear the Senate is signaling to the Chinese that whatever they do and however much we may criticize their actions, we will always put our commercial interests ahead of our national security. We have done this in the past, and we are reaping the results today. Equally important is the risk of advanced dual-use technologies falling into the hands of countries such as Iran, Iraq, or Libya. While supporters emphasize the economic benefits of provisions in this bill that would ease controls on exports to large markets like Russia and China, they don't tell you that Russia and China are routinely identified by the Director of Central Intelligence as the ``key suppliers'' of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons technologies. Although this bill may help our U.S. technology industry increase its exports in the short run, I believe its impact on our national security in the long run may be disastrous. As a result, I cannot support proceeding to this bill at this time until the entire U.S. Government has had an opportunity to thoroughly review the legislation, take a fresh look at our overall China policy, conduct an in-depth study of our export control policies, and address the national security concerns shared by the chairmen of the national security committees in the Senate. In addition to these governmentwide efforts, we in the Senate must do our homework. This is an extremely complex piece of legislation that raises a host of extremely complex issues. They need to be debated and looked at thoroughly. The economic benefits of increased high technology exports are quickly apparent and relatively obvious; the national security implications are less immediate, less obvious, and often classified. Therefore, before voting on this legislation, every Senator should have the benefit of the extensive briefings that Senators Warner, Helms, Thompson, Kyl, McCain, and I have had. Should the Senate now vote to take up the EAA, I intend to join my colleagues from the other national security committees in setting forth in detail our concerns about the national security implications of this bill. We believe the case is compelling for those who are willing to listen. That is why I object to proceeding with the bill so soon. I yield the floor.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, S. Res. 41 designates April 4, 2001 as ``National Murder Awareness Day.'' In 1999 alone, 15,533 people were murdered in the United States according to FBI statistics. Murder affects not only the victims themselves, but it affects the lives of countless other family members and friends of victims. While murder rates have decreased from their record highs in the 1980s, further improvement is needed as the murder rate in 1999 was still 5.7 per 100,000 inhabitants--24 percent higher than the 1950 murder rate. To help address the glaring murder problem in our country, I introduced the National Murder Awareness Day resolution with my colleague Senator Sessions. This resolution will raise awareness of the devastating impact murder has on our country. In addition, it recognizes the important role local communities can play in combating the thousands of senseless murders that occur each year. The idea of devoting a day to raising murder awareness originated with Citizens Against Crime, a grassroots victim's rights organization located in Selma, Alabama. This group was successful in having the Alabama state legislature designate April 4, 2000 as Alabama's ``Murder Awareness Day.'' According to Citizens against Crime, this designation was overwhelmingly successful in mobilizing community resources to address the problem of violent crime in Alabama. Mr. President, the murder problem in America is complex and will require concerted efforts by people and communities throughout our great country. The National Murder Awareness Day resolution reflects the importance of these efforts. I am pleased my colleagues joined me in passing this important resolution.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, 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 pay special tribute to the Valley Haven School, an important part of the Valley, AL community. Valley Haven is a school for infants, toddlers and adults who are mentally retarded or multi-handicapped. On May 5th, the school will hold it's 25th Annual Hike/Bike/Run for Valley Haven, a fund raiser which generates the crucial local funding which is vital to the school's survival. Valley Haven School was started 41 years ago and has grown into a large, professionally staffed operation. With over 116 clients in ages ranging from 3 months to 70 years, you can see, that Valley Haven must meet significant financial standards each year to maintain viability. The school does this outside of local tax structures, so operating expenses and matching funds for grants must be raised primarily through the community at large. The Hike/Bike/Run for Valley Haven is the key fund raiser of the year which helps to bring the community together for this important cause. Among the events included in the occasion are a 5k, 8K, 10 or 22 mile run, 10 or 5 mile walk, 22, 11, or 5 mile bike, trike, and stroller event, and even a horse trail ride. I take this opportunity to wish all those helping to organize the event and those planning to participate my best wishes in their efforts to support the school. Whether contributing time, physical effort, or financial resources, working to ensure educational opportunities for others is truly a worthy cause.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Freedom from Behavioral Profiling Act of 2001.'' This legislation would require financial institutions to provide proper notice and obtain permission from a consumer before they could buy, sell or otherwise share an individual's behavioral profile. Everyone recognizes the importance of insuring the accuracy and security of credit and debit card transactions. Without basic safety features, consumers would avoid non-cash transactions and our economy would greatly suffer as a result. However, financial institutions have taken their data gathering efforts far beyond what is necessary to protect consumers from fraud, inaccurate billing and theft. Companies are using transactional records generated by debit and credit card use and are developing detailed consumer profiles. From these files they know the food you eat, the drugs you must take, the places you go, and the books you read, as well as every other thing about you that can be gleaned from your buying habits. Troubling as it is that financial institutions are assembling such profiles, I find it even more worrisome that these companies are selling and trading these intimate details without consumer knowledge or consent. In as much, ``your'' sensitive personal information has become a commodity bought and sold like some latter day widget. I believe the American people have the right to be informed of these activities and should have the option to decide for themselves whether or not their personal information is shared or sold. I find it quite ironic that the very institutions that work so hard to secure sensitive corporate information are the same companies that work so hard to exploit the personal information of consumers. Unfortunately, it would seem that corporate America has decided that the ``Golden Rule'' is not applicable in the Information Age. The American people are only now becoming aware of the behavioral profiling practices of the industry. The more they find out, the more they do not like it. That is why I am offering this legislation, to give the consumer the ability to control his or her most personal behavioral profile. Where they go, who they see, what they buy and when they do it, all of these are personal decisions that the majority of Americans do not want monitored and recorded under the watchful eye of corporate America. Colleagues in the Senate, I hope you will join me in an effort to give the people what they want, the ability to control the indiscriminate sharing of their own personal, and private, consumption habits.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Freedom from Behavioral Profiling Act of 2001.'' This legislation would require financial institutions to provide proper notice and obtain permission from a consumer before they could buy, sell or otherwise share an individual's behavioral profile. Everyone recognizes the importance of insuring the accuracy and security of credit and debit card transactions. Without basic safety features, consumers would avoid non-cash transactions and our economy would greatly suffer as a result. However, financial institutions have taken their data gathering efforts far beyond what is necessary to protect consumers from fraud, inaccurate billing and theft. Companies are using transactional records generated by debit and credit card use and are developing detailed consumer profiles. From these files they know the food you eat, the drugs you must take, the places you go, and the books you read, as well as every other thing about you that can be gleaned from your buying habits. Troubling as it is that financial institutions are assembling such profiles, I find it even more worrisome that these companies are selling and trading these intimate details without consumer knowledge or consent. In as much, ``your'' sensitive personal information has become a commodity bought and sold like some latter day widget. I believe the American people have the right to be informed of these activities and should have the option to decide for themselves whether or not their personal information is shared or sold. I find it quite ironic that the very institutions that work so hard to secure sensitive corporate information are the same companies that work so hard to exploit the personal information of consumers. Unfortunately, it would seem that corporate America has decided that the ``Golden Rule'' is not applicable in the Information Age. The American people are only now becoming aware of the behavioral profiling practices of the industry. The more they find out, the more they do not like it. That is why I am offering this legislation, to give the consumer the ability to control his or her most personal behavioral profile. Where they go, who they see, what they buy and when they do it, all of these are personal decisions that the majority of Americans do not want monitored and recorded under the watchful eye of corporate America. Colleagues in the Senate, I hope you will join me in an effort to give the people what they want, the ability to control the indiscriminate sharing of their own personal, and private, consumption habits.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, paragraph 2 of Senate Rule XXVI requires that not later than March 1 of the first year of each Congress, the rules of each committee shall be published in the Record. In compliance with this provision, I ask unanimous consent that the rules of the Select Committee on Intelligence be printed in the Record.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to address the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's, OSHA, recent rule on ``Ergonomics.'' I have said in the past and I will say again, this rule falls short of sound science and good policy. In fact, this ergonomics rule is a poison pill for American industry and its workers in the midst of a slowing economy. In theory, an ergonomics regulation would attempt to reduce musculoskeletal disorders, such as Carpal Tunnel Syndrome, muscle aches and back pain, which, in some instances, have been attributed to on- the-job activities. However, the medical community is divided sharply on whether scientific evidence has established a true cause-and-effect relationship between such problems and workplace duties. We need to understand the sound scientific basis to support such a costly and burdensome rule. It is in the interest of employers and employees to reduce, to the greatest extent possible, the painful, time-consuming and profit-consuming impact of ergonomics injuries. Unfortunately, the regulation assumes that employers aren't already doing everything possible to take care of the health and well-being of employees. In fact, recent data seems to indicate that the number of work-related injuries is declining. In the last seven years, the incidence of injuries attributed to ergonomics has gone down by a third, 26 percent in carpal tunnel syndrome and 33 percent in tendonitis. OSHA finalized this rule during the 11th hour of the Clinton administration. As a result of OSHA's last minute actions, small business owners across the country have faced unnecessary confusion, fear and misunderstanding regarding their explicit responsibilities, the compliance standards and the liability that they may face as a result of the new rule. It is still unclear how these new regulations will be viewed in light of State workers compensation laws. Most believe that it overrules these state laws and as a consequence, workers claiming ergonomics injuries will be allowed to collect more than what would traditionally be allowed under the workers compensation laws in their States. In addition, the regulations are extremely unclear as to what must cause the on-set of the injury. For example, if you are a member of a softball league on your own time and you develop a repetitive motion injury from swinging the bat that is further agitated by your work as a computer programmer, you could conceivably claim that you have suffered an ergonomics injury. This ergonomics rule is conservatively estimated to cost Americans $4.2 billion a year. Hundreds of small businesses will surely fold under the weight of this burdensome regulation. Too often the people who suffer the most from unfettered government regulatory actions are not only the small business owners, but their employees, the very people that OSHA purports to protect by this rule. We do have a recourse. Under the Congressional Review Act, Congress has the final say. I would like to encourage my colleagues to weigh the options and hopefully come to the same conclusion that I have: These regulations are a poison pill for American industry and American workers.