Richard Shelby

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, last October, Dale Earnhardt drove his familiar black Goodwrench Chevrolet, with the silver No. 3 painted on each side, past a waving checkered flag to win the Winston 500 at Talladega Superspeedway. The victory was Earnhardt's tenth first place NASCAR Winston Cup race at Talladega, a feat no other driver has accomplished. It was the 76th win of his career; sadly, it was his last. A week ago Sunday, Dale Earnhardt died in a tragic accident on the last turn of the last lap of one of the last great American traditions, the Daytona 500. NASCAR lost one of its greatest drivers who was in large part responsible for the tremendous growth of the sport from a regional pastime to an international success. Winston Cup drivers lost a fierce competitor whose aggressive style set the standard for a generation. Millions of fans lost the ``Intimidator,'' a hero admired as much for his charismatic demeanor as his talent as a driver and tenacity during a race. Whether you cheered for him or against him, you couldn't help but admire the passion with which he pursued the checkered flag. There is a bittersweet irony in that Dale Earnhardt finished his career at Daytona. The track at Daytona defined Earnhardt as a racer. He won 34 races there, more than any other driver. This earned him the reputation as the best superspeedway racer of all time. The Intimidator, however, did not win the Daytona 500 until the 1998 season. It took 20 years, but he finally took the greatest of all superspeedway races. No other measure of success was as elusive to Dale Earnhardt. In 1979, he beat Harry Gant, Terry Labonte, and Joe Milliken for the Rookie of the Year in one of the most competitive rookie battles ever. He joined Richard Petty as the only other driver to win the NASCAR Winston Cup Championship seven times. He was voted National Motorsports Press Association Driver of the Year five times. Dale Earnhardt was the only driver to win the Winston Cup title the year after winning the rookie title. Although he did his best to live up to his nickname the ``Intimidator'' during a race, Dale Earnhardt was the first to extend a hand and offer congratulations after it was over. This is the mark of a true champion. Dale Earnhardt often expressed frustration at the practice of NASCAR to require artificial devices to reduce speeds on some tracks and the type of racing it produced. Nevertheless, he excelled at these so- called restrictor-plate races. In fact, Dale Earnhardt mastered the draft so well at these races that the fellow racers he passed remarked, ``it was like he can see air.'' In Alabama, we look forward to seeing the black No. 3 car on the high banks at Talladega twice a year. No matter where he started at the beginning of the race, you could count on Dale Earnhardt to be near the front by the end. His victories at the world's biggest and fastest track include, as I mentioned earlier, ten NASCAR Winston Cup races, as well as one NASCAR Busch Grand national race and three IROC races where he bested the greatest drivers of his time. Dale Earnhardt was intensely loyal to his family. He was a father whose pride in his children was greater than his desire in winning races. Our thoughts are with his wife Teresa, and his children: Kerry, Kelly, Dale, Jr. and Taylor Nicole. May God bless all of them and watch over them in this time of need. Former driver and now television analyst Darrell Waltrip perhaps best captured the sentiment of drivers and fans alike when he said, ``The scariest thing on the track used to be seeing Dale Earnhardt in your rear view mirror. Now the scariest thing is not seeing him there at all.'' The world will miss Dale Earnhardt and his competitive spirit. We pray that his family and friends find some comfort in the way his fans admired this truly unique American sports icon.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps Eligibility Reform Act of 2001. I believe this bill will shore up the military's ability to recruit and retain qualified junior officers. This legislation will reform our college level Reserve Officer Training Corps Units by expanding eligibility for those programs. This bill contains two primary provisions which will alter the way in which ROTC determines eligibility. First, it will allow active duty enlisted personnel, who have been selected for an officer commissioning program, to participate in ROTC training. These enlisted personnel are already on college campuses and are attached administratively to an ROTC unit. Their tuition is paid by their respective service and they earn their regular active duty pay while earning their degree. However, these enlisted personnel do not normally begin their formal officer training until after earning their degree when they attend their respective service's officer candidate school. On average, our military's officer candidate schools are three months long. This legislation would permit these personnel to complete their officer training at the ROTC unit which serves the college or university they are attending. This would be a more equitable use of an officer candidate's time and would decrease the time and cost associated with training. Additionally, it will free up positions at officer training schools and significantly increase their ability to cope with fluctuations in the number of officer recruits. Second, this legislation increases the maximum age for participation in ROTC scholarship programs from 27 to 35. In other words, if a cadet or midshipman can complete their degree and earn their commission, by the maximum legal commissioning age of 35, they should be able to earn a scholarship which will pay for that education. This provision will allow the services to use scholarship money to cover the entire commissioning envelope. Our military recruiters will be able to provide financial incentives to an older yet valuable age group. I have been told that officer trainees in the 27 to 35 age group are more mature and focused and are less likely to try to back out of their service commitment. This legislation is one small initiative in our effort to rebuild the morale and readiness of our armed forces. Whether they be infantry commanders, pilots, submariners, intelligence analysts or information technology specialists, our junior officer ranks are depleted across the spectrum. In conjunction with the service academies and officer candidate schools, the ROTC scholarship program has been the backbone of our military's ability to train and commission high quality junior officers. My proposal today would merely expand this established program to include regular active duty personnel and an older and more seasoned citizenry. Overall, I believe that this bill will help the military to commission more junior officers, especially those with valuable prior enlisted service. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps Eligibility Reform Act of 2001. I believe this bill will shore up the military's ability to recruit and retain qualified junior officers. This legislation will reform our college level Reserve Officer Training Corps Units by expanding eligibility for those programs. This bill contains two primary provisions which will alter the way in which ROTC determines eligibility. First, it will allow active duty enlisted personnel, who have been selected for an officer commissioning program, to participate in ROTC training. These enlisted personnel are already on college campuses and are attached administratively to an ROTC unit. Their tuition is paid by their respective service and they earn their regular active duty pay while earning their degree. However, these enlisted personnel do not normally begin their formal officer training until after earning their degree when they attend their respective service's officer candidate school. On average, our military's officer candidate schools are three months long. This legislation would permit these personnel to complete their officer training at the ROTC unit which serves the college or university they are attending. This would be a more equitable use of an officer candidate's time and would decrease the time and cost associated with training. Additionally, it will free up positions at officer training schools and significantly increase their ability to cope with fluctuations in the number of officer recruits. Second, this legislation increases the maximum age for participation in ROTC scholarship programs from 27 to 35. In other words, if a cadet or midshipman can complete their degree and earn their commission, by the maximum legal commissioning age of 35, they should be able to earn a scholarship which will pay for that education. This provision will allow the services to use scholarship money to cover the entire commissioning envelope. Our military recruiters will be able to provide financial incentives to an older yet valuable age group. I have been told that officer trainees in the 27 to 35 age group are more mature and focused and are less likely to try to back out of their service commitment. This legislation is one small initiative in our effort to rebuild the morale and readiness of our armed forces. Whether they be infantry commanders, pilots, submariners, intelligence analysts or information technology specialists, our junior officer ranks are depleted across the spectrum. In conjunction with the service academies and officer candidate schools, the ROTC scholarship program has been the backbone of our military's ability to train and commission high quality junior officers. My proposal today would merely expand this established program to include regular active duty personnel and an older and more seasoned citizenry. Overall, I believe that this bill will help the military to commission more junior officers, especially those with valuable prior enlisted service. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Social Security Privacy Act of 2001. This legislation would prohibit the sale and purchase of an individual's Social Security number by financial institutions and include Social Security numbers as ``nonpublic personal information'' thereby subjecting the sharing of Social Security numbers to the privacy protections of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. I believe Congress has a duty to stop Social Security numbers from being bought and sold like some common commodity. While the Social Security number was created by the federal government to track workers' earnings and eligibility for Social Security benefits, we all recognize that it has become something much more than that. The number is now the key to just about all the personal information concerning an individual. There was never any intention or consideration for financial institutions to use a person's social security number as a universal access number. Such easy access and extreme availability of personal information leads to adverse consequences including fraud, abuse, identity theft and in the most extreme cases--staking and death. While Congress waits to act, the number of incidents involving identity theft are rapidly increasing. In fact, last year the Washington Post, reported that ``ID Theft Becoming Public Fear No. 1.'' The New York Times noted that, ``Law enforcement authorities are becoming increasingly worried about a sudden, sharp rise in the incidence of identity theft, the outright pilfering of peoples personal information for use in obtaining credit cards, loans and other goods.'' Not only is identity theft happening more often, recent events confirm that no one is immune from this problem. Just last month, a California man was convicted of using Tiger Woods' Social Security number to obtain credit cards that he used to run up more than $17,000 in charges in Mr. Woods' name. Identity theft can affect anyone. It is extremely serious. It costs our economy hundreds of millions of dollars each year. Once it occurs, it is very difficult for the victim to restore his or her good name and credit rating. The incidences of identity theft are growing at an ever increasing pace. Now, how does identity theft relate to the average financial institution? In 1999, a reputable Fortune 500 company, U.S. Bancorp, legally sold account information--including Social Security numbers--of one million of its customers to MemberWorks, a telemarketer of membership programs that offer discounts on such things as travel to health care services. Now some may believe we stopped such activity by including a provision, Section 502 (d), in the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act limiting the ability of institutions to share account information with telemarketers. That provision, however, does not stop a financial institution from buying and selling individual Social Security numbers. Indeed, it is even legal to sell individual's birth date, and mother's maiden name. If you have those three things, you have the keys to the kingdom--not to mention any and every account that individual has. The evolution of technology is making the collection, aggregation, and dissemination of vast amounts of personal information easier and cheaper. The longer we wait to act on this very important issue--an issue that is supported by a vast majority of Americans--the more the American people lose confidence in the U.S. Congress and out ability to lead. This legislation would basically prohibit the sale and purchase of an individual's Social Security number. I do not know anyone in this country that believes financial institutions should be making a profit by trafficking individual's Social Security numbers. While financial institutions have used the Social Security number as an identifier, the sale and purchase of these numbers facilitates criminal activity and can result in significant invasions of individual privacy. In addition, my legislation would include Social Security numbers as ``nonpublic personal information'' for the purpose of the Gramm-Leach- Bliley Act, thereby subjecting the sharing of Social Security numbers to the privacy protections in that Act. Current regulations say that Social Security numbers are not considered nonpublic personal information if the number is ``publicly available,'' as in bankruptcy filings, etc. I just cannot find a reason as to why Congress should aid and abet criminals in attaining individual Social Security numbers by having a law on the books that treats Social Security numbers as ``public information.'' Indeed, no American would agree the public good is being served by making their personal Social Security number available for anyone who wants to see it. For those of you who are concerned that this legislation would hinder a financial holding company from sharing information among its affiliates, fear not. This legislation does not limit a financial institution's ability to share an individual's Social Security number among affiliates in any way. I hope my colleagues will join me in protecting the Social Security numbers.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Social Security Privacy Act of 2001. This legislation would prohibit the sale and purchase of an individual's Social Security number by financial institutions and include Social Security numbers as ``nonpublic personal information'' thereby subjecting the sharing of Social Security numbers to the privacy protections of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. I believe Congress has a duty to stop Social Security numbers from being bought and sold like some common commodity. While the Social Security number was created by the federal government to track workers' earnings and eligibility for Social Security benefits, we all recognize that it has become something much more than that. The number is now the key to just about all the personal information concerning an individual. There was never any intention or consideration for financial institutions to use a person's social security number as a universal access number. Such easy access and extreme availability of personal information leads to adverse consequences including fraud, abuse, identity theft and in the most extreme cases--staking and death. While Congress waits to act, the number of incidents involving identity theft are rapidly increasing. In fact, last year the Washington Post, reported that ``ID Theft Becoming Public Fear No. 1.'' The New York Times noted that, ``Law enforcement authorities are becoming increasingly worried about a sudden, sharp rise in the incidence of identity theft, the outright pilfering of peoples personal information for use in obtaining credit cards, loans and other goods.'' Not only is identity theft happening more often, recent events confirm that no one is immune from this problem. Just last month, a California man was convicted of using Tiger Woods' Social Security number to obtain credit cards that he used to run up more than $17,000 in charges in Mr. Woods' name. Identity theft can affect anyone. It is extremely serious. It costs our economy hundreds of millions of dollars each year. Once it occurs, it is very difficult for the victim to restore his or her good name and credit rating. The incidences of identity theft are growing at an ever increasing pace. Now, how does identity theft relate to the average financial institution? In 1999, a reputable Fortune 500 company, U.S. Bancorp, legally sold account information--including Social Security numbers--of one million of its customers to MemberWorks, a telemarketer of membership programs that offer discounts on such things as travel to health care services. Now some may believe we stopped such activity by including a provision, Section 502 (d), in the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act limiting the ability of institutions to share account information with telemarketers. That provision, however, does not stop a financial institution from buying and selling individual Social Security numbers. Indeed, it is even legal to sell individual's birth date, and mother's maiden name. If you have those three things, you have the keys to the kingdom--not to mention any and every account that individual has. The evolution of technology is making the collection, aggregation, and dissemination of vast amounts of personal information easier and cheaper. The longer we wait to act on this very important issue--an issue that is supported by a vast majority of Americans--the more the American people lose confidence in the U.S. Congress and out ability to lead. This legislation would basically prohibit the sale and purchase of an individual's Social Security number. I do not know anyone in this country that believes financial institutions should be making a profit by trafficking individual's Social Security numbers. While financial institutions have used the Social Security number as an identifier, the sale and purchase of these numbers facilitates criminal activity and can result in significant invasions of individual privacy. In addition, my legislation would include Social Security numbers as ``nonpublic personal information'' for the purpose of the Gramm-Leach- Bliley Act, thereby subjecting the sharing of Social Security numbers to the privacy protections in that Act. Current regulations say that Social Security numbers are not considered nonpublic personal information if the number is ``publicly available,'' as in bankruptcy filings, etc. I just cannot find a reason as to why Congress should aid and abet criminals in attaining individual Social Security numbers by having a law on the books that treats Social Security numbers as ``public information.'' Indeed, no American would agree the public good is being served by making their personal Social Security number available for anyone who wants to see it. For those of you who are concerned that this legislation would hinder a financial holding company from sharing information among its affiliates, fear not. This legislation does not limit a financial institution's ability to share an individual's Social Security number among affiliates in any way. I hope my colleagues will join me in protecting the Social Security numbers.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would reduce the capital gains tax for properties held for more than five or ten years. Such legislation is needed to help increase investment and to decrease inefficient economic behavior. Under current law, people holding capital property are often discouraged from selling their property because of the large anticipated tax liability. Such a ``lock-in'' of assets is economically undesirable. Economists have estimated that perhaps as much as 7.5 trillion dollars are ``locked-in'' the portfolios of American taxpayers. By reducing the tax on certain long term capital gains, we would decrease the ``lock-in'' effect and allow investors to liquidate or hold capital assets based on market factors rather than the tax code. Opponents to lower taxation of capital gains argue that reducing capital gains tax rates would result in a revenue shortfall. Such an argument fails to recognize the effect that reduced taxes will have on investment behavior. By lowering taxes on capital gains, we will encourage, rather than discourage, capital investment. I believe the resulting situation would be a rise in the number of investment transactions and in the amount of gain realized in each taxable year which will in turn lead to an increase in tax revenue. This trend has been well-documented as evidenced by the fact that every capital gains tax reduction in the last forty years has resulted in increased federal revenue. In addition to increasing federal revenue, a cut in the capital gain tax rates would benefit individual states, as a vast majority of them also tax capital gains. The current capital gains tax dissuades investment and economic growth. By lowering the capital gains tax rates, my bill would help lower the cost of capital and spur economic growth. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of the 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 reduce the capital gains tax for properties held for more than five or ten years. Such legislation is needed to help increase investment and to decrease inefficient economic behavior. Under current law, people holding capital property are often discouraged from selling their property because of the large anticipated tax liability. Such a ``lock-in'' of assets is economically undesirable. Economists have estimated that perhaps as much as 7.5 trillion dollars are ``locked-in'' the portfolios of American taxpayers. By reducing the tax on certain long term capital gains, we would decrease the ``lock-in'' effect and allow investors to liquidate or hold capital assets based on market factors rather than the tax code. Opponents to lower taxation of capital gains argue that reducing capital gains tax rates would result in a revenue shortfall. Such an argument fails to recognize the effect that reduced taxes will have on investment behavior. By lowering taxes on capital gains, we will encourage, rather than discourage, capital investment. I believe the resulting situation would be a rise in the number of investment transactions and in the amount of gain realized in each taxable year which will in turn lead to an increase in tax revenue. This trend has been well-documented as evidenced by the fact that every capital gains tax reduction in the last forty years has resulted in increased federal revenue. In addition to increasing federal revenue, a cut in the capital gain tax rates would benefit individual states, as a vast majority of them also tax capital gains. The current capital gains tax dissuades investment and economic growth. By lowering the capital gains tax rates, my bill would help lower the cost of capital and spur economic growth. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of the 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 with my colleague Senator Dodd to introduce the ``Student Privacy Protection Act''. This legislation is intended to ensure that parents have the ability to protect their children's privacy by requiring that anyone who wishes to collect data for commercial purposes from kids in school must first seek and obtain parental permission. The need for this legislation stems from the fact that a large number of marketing companies are going into classrooms and using class time to gather personal information about students and their families for commercial gain. 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. Our legislation 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 legislation, 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 in most cases, consent of the parents. 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. Rather our goal is to ensure that the details of these arrangements are disclosed and that parents are allowed to participate in the decision- making process. The bottom line here is that parents have a right and a responsibility to be involved in their children's education. Much of what is occurring now is being done at the expense of the parents' decision making authority because schools are allowing companies direct access to students. This legislation 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 rise today with my colleague Senator Dodd to introduce the ``Student Privacy Protection Act''. This legislation is intended to ensure that parents have the ability to protect their children's privacy by requiring that anyone who wishes to collect data for commercial purposes from kids in school must first seek and obtain parental permission. The need for this legislation stems from the fact that a large number of marketing companies are going into classrooms and using class time to gather personal information about students and their families for commercial gain. 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. Our legislation 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 legislation, 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 in most cases, consent of the parents. 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. Rather our goal is to ensure that the details of these arrangements are disclosed and that parents are allowed to participate in the decision- making process. The bottom line here is that parents have a right and a responsibility to be involved in their children's education. Much of what is occurring now is being done at the expense of the parents' decision making authority because schools are allowing companies direct access to students. This legislation 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 rise today with my colleague Senator Bond, to introduce the Stealth Tax Prevention Act. Perhaps the most important power given to Congress by the Constitution of the United States, is the responsibility of taxation. The Founding Fathers rationale behind bestowing this power on Congress is that as elected representatives, Congress remains accountable to the people when they levy and collect taxes. Members of Congress, unlike Federal agency bureaucrats, are rightly held responsible to the public for producing fair and prudent tax legislation. In 1996, Mr. President, Congress passed the Congressional Review Act, which provides that when a major agency rule takes effect, Congress has 60 days to review it. During this time period, Congress has the option to pass a disapproval resolution. If no such resolution is passed, the rule then goes into effect. As you know, Mr. President, the Internal Revenue Service maintains an enormous amount of power over the lives and the livelihoods of the American taxpayers through their authority to implement and enforce the Tax Code. Even though Congress, and only Congress, has the authority to tax, the Internal Revenue Service has found a ``backdoor'' way to increase our federal tax burden through their interpretive authority. The Stealth Tax Prevention Act, that Senator Bond and I are introducing along with Mr. Thomas, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Burns, Mr. Helms, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Cochran, Ms. Snowe, and Mr. Allard, will return the authority of taxation to the United States Congress by expanding the definition of a major rule to include any IRS regulation which increases Federal revenue. For example, if the Office of Management and Budget finds that the implementation and enforcement of a rule would result in an increase of Federal revenues over current practices or revenues anticipated from the rule on the date of the enactment of the statute, the Stealth Tax Prevention Act would allow Congress to review the regulations and take appropriate measures to avoid raising taxes on hard working Americans and small businesses. The discretionary authority of the Internal Revenue Service exposes small businesses, farmers, and individual taxpayers to the sometimes arbitrary actions of bureaucrats, creating an uncertain and, in many instances, a hostile environment in which to conduct day-to-day activities. The Stealth Tax Prevention Act will be particularly helpful in lowering the tax burden on small business which suffers disproportionately, Mr. President, from IRS regulations. This tax burden discourages the startup of new firms and ultimately the creation of new jobs in the economy, which has really made America great. Average American families and small businesses are saddled with the highest tax burden in our country's history. Americans pay federal income taxes, they pay state income taxes and they pay property taxes. On the way to work in the morning they pay a gasoline tax when they fill up their car and a sales tax when they buy a cup of coffee. Allowing federal bureaucrats to increase taxes even further at their own discretion through interpretation of the tax code is intolerable. The Stealth Tax Prevention Act will leave tax policy where it belongs-- to elected members of Congress--not an unelected and unaccountable IRS.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague Senator Bond, to introduce the Stealth Tax Prevention Act. Perhaps the most important power given to Congress by the Constitution of the United States, is the responsibility of taxation. The Founding Fathers rationale behind bestowing this power on Congress is that as elected representatives, Congress remains accountable to the people when they levy and collect taxes. Members of Congress, unlike Federal agency bureaucrats, are rightly held responsible to the public for producing fair and prudent tax legislation. In 1996, Mr. President, Congress passed the Congressional Review Act, which provides that when a major agency rule takes effect, Congress has 60 days to review it. During this time period, Congress has the option to pass a disapproval resolution. If no such resolution is passed, the rule then goes into effect. As you know, Mr. President, the Internal Revenue Service maintains an enormous amount of power over the lives and the livelihoods of the American taxpayers through their authority to implement and enforce the Tax Code. Even though Congress, and only Congress, has the authority to tax, the Internal Revenue Service has found a ``backdoor'' way to increase our federal tax burden through their interpretive authority. The Stealth Tax Prevention Act, that Senator Bond and I are introducing along with Mr. Thomas, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Burns, Mr. Helms, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Cochran, Ms. Snowe, and Mr. Allard, will return the authority of taxation to the United States Congress by expanding the definition of a major rule to include any IRS regulation which increases Federal revenue. For example, if the Office of Management and Budget finds that the implementation and enforcement of a rule would result in an increase of Federal revenues over current practices or revenues anticipated from the rule on the date of the enactment of the statute, the Stealth Tax Prevention Act would allow Congress to review the regulations and take appropriate measures to avoid raising taxes on hard working Americans and small businesses. The discretionary authority of the Internal Revenue Service exposes small businesses, farmers, and individual taxpayers to the sometimes arbitrary actions of bureaucrats, creating an uncertain and, in many instances, a hostile environment in which to conduct day-to-day activities. The Stealth Tax Prevention Act will be particularly helpful in lowering the tax burden on small business which suffers disproportionately, Mr. President, from IRS regulations. This tax burden discourages the startup of new firms and ultimately the creation of new jobs in the economy, which has really made America great. Average American families and small businesses are saddled with the highest tax burden in our country's history. Americans pay federal income taxes, they pay state income taxes and they pay property taxes. On the way to work in the morning they pay a gasoline tax when they fill up their car and a sales tax when they buy a cup of coffee. Allowing federal bureaucrats to increase taxes even further at their own discretion through interpretation of the tax code is intolerable. The Stealth Tax Prevention Act will leave tax policy where it belongs-- to elected members of Congress--not an unelected and unaccountable IRS.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now be in a period of morning business with Senators speaking therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, thank you for your courtesy. Over the past 8 years, I believe our Justice Department has floundered dangerously, challenging our most basic understanding of the rule of law and starkly reminding us in America of the awesome power of the Federal Government and the dangers that the exercise of that power can present to a free society such as ours. I believe public confidence in our system of justice has been seriously damaged in the past 8 years and that our country has suffered as a consequence. I believe it is time to restore the public trust, and I do not believe there is a better qualified or more honorable man to do that job than Senator John Ashcroft, our former colleague. Indeed, he is one of the most, if not the most, experienced nominees for Attorney General we have ever had in our history. He is one of the best educated, most experienced nominees for Attorney General I have seen in my 23 years in Washington. What is most outstanding about Senator Ashcroft is not his resume, although we could go on and on and on about that. It is not his strong record of leadership as the attorney general of his State of Missouri and his leadership as the Governor of the State of Missouri. No, it is not his impressive legislative accomplishments in the Senate. I submit what is most outstanding about John Ashcroft is his character. It is the strength of that character that makes him so well suited to be Attorney General of the United States. His principles and his integrity underscore the kind of leadership the Justice Department so desperately needs and the American people so rightly deserve in an Attorney General. John Ashcroft's conscience and his conviction ensure rather than question his commitment to enforce the laws of our land fairly and impartially. I do not believe even for a moment that Senator Ashcroft's most fierce opponents truly believe he will not endeavor to enforce our laws faithfully. While his conservatism threatens them, their real fear, I believe, is that he will enforce the law without prejudice, that he will be uniform in his application. This is because their greatest ideal, I believe, is to use the Justice Department as a tool to advance the political and social agenda of America by selectively enforcing laws with which they agree and ignoring those with which they disagree. John Ashcroft, I submit to you, is not going to do that. As a man who respects the rule of law and the importance of the public trust in our justice system, I have no doubt that he will enforce the laws of the land rather than creatively interpret them, twist or contort them to match his personal beliefs. I am pleased to support the nomination of John Ashcroft to be the Attorney General of the United States. I sincerely believe he will honor the office of Attorney General and he will restore integrity to the Justice Department. I look forward to his confirmation later today by the Senate and his future service to the United States of America.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. This is the same amendment which I have introduced in every Congress since the 97th Congress. Throughout my entire tenure in Congress, during the good economic times and the bad, I have devoted much time and attention to this idea because I believe that the most significant thing that the Federal Government can do to enhance the lives of all Americans and future generation is to ensure that we have a balanced Federal budget. Our Founding Fathers, wise men indeed, had great concerns regarding the capability of those in government to operate within budgetary constraints. Alexander Hamilton once wrote that ``* * * there is a general propensity in those who govern, founded in the constitution of man, to shift the burden from the present to a future day.'' Thomas Jefferson commented on the moral significance of this ``shifting of the burden from the present to the future.'' He said: ``the question whether one generation has the right to bind another by the deficit it imposes is a question of such consequence as to place it among the fundamental principles of government. We should consider ourselves unauthorized to saddle posterity with our debts and morally bound to pay them ourselves.'' I completely agree with these sentiments. History has shown that Hamilton was correct. Those who govern have in fact saddled future generations with the responsibility of paying for their debts. For a large part of the past 30 years, annual deficits became routine and the federal government built up massive debt. Furthermore, I believe that Jefferson's assessment of the significance of this is also correct: intergenerational debt shifting is morally wrong. Some may find it strange that I am talking about the problems of budget deficits and the need for a balanced budget amendment at a time when the budget is actually in balance. However, I raise this issue now, as I have time and time again in the past, because of the seminal importance involved in establishing a permanent mechanism to ensure that our annual federal budget is always balanced. Without such an amendment there is a no guarantee that the budget will remain balanced. A permanently balanced budget would have a considerable impact in the everyday lives of the American people. A balanced budget would dramatically lower interest rates thereby saving money for anyone with a home mortgage, a student loan, a car loan, credit card debt, or any other interest rate sensitive payment responsibility. Simply by balancing its books, the Federal Government would put real money into the hands of hard working people. In all practical sense, the effect of such fiscal responsibility on the part of the government would be the same as a significant tax cut for the American people. Moreover, if the government demand for capital is reduced, more money would be available for private sector use, which in turn, would generate substantial economic growth and create thousands of new jobs. More money in the pockets of Americans, more job creation by the economy, a simple step could make this reality-a balanced budget amendment. Furthermore, a balanced budget amendment would also provide the discipline to keep us on the course towards reducing our massive national debt. Currently, the Federal Government pays hundreds of billions of dollars in interest payments on the debt each year. This means we spend billions of dollars each year on exactly, nothing. At the end of the year we have nothing of substance to show for these expenditures. These expenditures do not provide better educations for our children, they do not make our Nation safer, they do not further important medical research, they do not build new roads. They do nothing but pay the obligations created by the fiscal irresponsibility of those who came earlier. In the end, we need to ensure that we continue on the road to a balanced budget so that we can end the wasteful practice of making interest payments on the deficit. However, opponents of a balanced budget amendment act like it is something extraordinary. In reality, a balanced budget amendment will only require the government to do what every American already has to do: balance their checkbook. It is simply a promise to the American people, and more importantly, to future generations of Americans, that the government will act responsibility. Thankfully the budget is currently balanced. However, there are no guarantees that it will stay as such. We could see dramatic changes in economic conditions. The drain on the government caused by the retirement of the Baby Boomers may exceed expectations. Future leaders may fall pray to the ``general propensity * * * to shift the burden'' that Alexander Hamilton wrote about so long ago. We need to establish guarantees for future generations. The balanced budget amendment is the best such mechanism available.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. This is the same amendment which I have introduced in every Congress since the 97th Congress. Throughout my entire tenure in Congress, during the good economic times and the bad, I have devoted much time and attention to this idea because I believe that the most significant thing that the Federal Government can do to enhance the lives of all Americans and future generation is to ensure that we have a balanced Federal budget. Our Founding Fathers, wise men indeed, had great concerns regarding the capability of those in government to operate within budgetary constraints. Alexander Hamilton once wrote that ``* * * there is a general propensity in those who govern, founded in the constitution of man, to shift the burden from the present to a future day.'' Thomas Jefferson commented on the moral significance of this ``shifting of the burden from the present to the future.'' He said: ``the question whether one generation has the right to bind another by the deficit it imposes is a question of such consequence as to place it among the fundamental principles of government. We should consider ourselves unauthorized to saddle posterity with our debts and morally bound to pay them ourselves.'' I completely agree with these sentiments. History has shown that Hamilton was correct. Those who govern have in fact saddled future generations with the responsibility of paying for their debts. For a large part of the past 30 years, annual deficits became routine and the federal government built up massive debt. Furthermore, I believe that Jefferson's assessment of the significance of this is also correct: intergenerational debt shifting is morally wrong. Some may find it strange that I am talking about the problems of budget deficits and the need for a balanced budget amendment at a time when the budget is actually in balance. However, I raise this issue now, as I have time and time again in the past, because of the seminal importance involved in establishing a permanent mechanism to ensure that our annual federal budget is always balanced. Without such an amendment there is a no guarantee that the budget will remain balanced. A permanently balanced budget would have a considerable impact in the everyday lives of the American people. A balanced budget would dramatically lower interest rates thereby saving money for anyone with a home mortgage, a student loan, a car loan, credit card debt, or any other interest rate sensitive payment responsibility. Simply by balancing its books, the Federal Government would put real money into the hands of hard working people. In all practical sense, the effect of such fiscal responsibility on the part of the government would be the same as a significant tax cut for the American people. Moreover, if the government demand for capital is reduced, more money would be available for private sector use, which in turn, would generate substantial economic growth and create thousands of new jobs. More money in the pockets of Americans, more job creation by the economy, a simple step could make this reality-a balanced budget amendment. Furthermore, a balanced budget amendment would also provide the discipline to keep us on the course towards reducing our massive national debt. Currently, the Federal Government pays hundreds of billions of dollars in interest payments on the debt each year. This means we spend billions of dollars each year on exactly, nothing. At the end of the year we have nothing of substance to show for these expenditures. These expenditures do not provide better educations for our children, they do not make our Nation safer, they do not further important medical research, they do not build new roads. They do nothing but pay the obligations created by the fiscal irresponsibility of those who came earlier. In the end, we need to ensure that we continue on the road to a balanced budget so that we can end the wasteful practice of making interest payments on the deficit. However, opponents of a balanced budget amendment act like it is something extraordinary. In reality, a balanced budget amendment will only require the government to do what every American already has to do: balance their checkbook. It is simply a promise to the American people, and more importantly, to future generations of Americans, that the government will act responsibility. Thankfully the budget is currently balanced. However, there are no guarantees that it will stay as such. We could see dramatic changes in economic conditions. The drain on the government caused by the retirement of the Baby Boomers may exceed expectations. Future leaders may fall pray to the ``general propensity * * * to shift the burden'' that Alexander Hamilton wrote about so long ago. We need to establish guarantees for future generations. The balanced budget amendment is the best such mechanism available.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Elder E.E. Cleveland, a civic and religious leader for over 50 years with the Seventh-day Adventist Church. A graduate and an eventual professor at Oakwood College in Huntsville, Alabama, Elder Cleveland is a shining example of a man whose devotion to principle and belief can serve to inspire and influence others. In honor of the new Bradford Cleveland Institute for Continuing Education located at Oakwood College, I wanted to take this opportunity to recognize a man who has been a pioneer in religious and community involvement. After graduating from Oakwood College in 1941, and being ordained in 1946, Elder Cleveland embarked on a remarkable path which has taken him all over the United States, across 6 continents, and 67 countries. He has conducted over 60 public Evangelism campaigns, trained over 1,100 pastors world-wide, and held scores of church revivals. In fact, Elder Cleveland was the first black church leader sent to Asia, Europe, South America and Australia, and has preached to integrated audiences in Cape Town and South Africa. He has authored sixteen published books and two Sabbath School Lesson Quarterlies, and served as a Contributing and Associate Editor to numerous religious journals and publications. In fact, Elder Cleveland was presented with an award by Governor Guy Hunt in 1989, for being the most distinguished Black Clergyman in the State of Alabama. It can truly be said that Elder Cleveland has touched the lives of many throughout the world. This broad sense of community is demonstrated in his involvement in many areas. Elder Cleveland participated in the First March on Washington in 1957 with Dr. Martin Luther King, and organized the NAACP Chapter for students on the Oakwood College Campus. He also was a member of the Washington, D.C. Branch of the Organizing Committee of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference's ``Poor People's March'' on Washington in 1968. In addition, he has conducted ``Feed the Hungry'' programs in over 20 cities in the U.S. and helped to establish a feeding depot in Washington, DC. Elder Cleveland remains a great Evangelist, teacher, author, and leader. He has received over 100 awards, honors and citations for his various achievements. Currently, Elder Cleveland lives with his wife, Celia Abney Cleveland, in semi-retirement in Huntsville, Alabama. I would like to take this opportunity to commend Elder Cleveland for his commitment to his moral principles and his unwavering dedication to helping those less fortunate.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 2001. This bipartisan bill is designed to help America's energy consumers by repealing an antiquated law that is keeping the benefits of competition from reaching our citizens. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Gramm and Sarbanes, chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Senator Murkowski, chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Majority Leader Lott, and Senators Dodd, Craig, and Crapo in introducing this important legislation. Our bill, which closely tracks legislation voted out of the Senate Banking Committee with bipartisan support in the 106th Congress, repeals the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935, PUHCA. The original PUHCA legislation passed over 60 years ago in 1935. At that time, a few large holding companies controlled a great majority of the electric utilities and gas pipelines. However, such a limited number of providers no longer offer a majority of the utility service. In fact, over 80 percent of the utility holding companies are currently exempt from PUHCA. This legislation implements the recommendations that the Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC made first in 1981 and then again in 1995 following an extensive study of the effects of this antiquated law on our energy markets. In the 1995 report entitled. ``The Regulation of Public-Utility Holding Companies,'' the Division of Investment Management recommended that Congress conditionally repeal the Act since ``the current regulatory system imposes significant costs, indirect administrative charges and foregone economies of scale and scope . . .'' In the end, the report serves to highlight the fact that the regulatory restraints imposed by PUHCA on our electric and gas industries are counterproductive in today's competitive environment and are based on historical assumptions and industry models that are no longer valid. In order to ensure that ratepayers are protected, this bill provides the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the States access to the books and records of holding company systems that are relevant to the costs incurred by jurisdictional public utility companies. As a result, the regulatory framework to protect consumers is not only protected in this bill, but enhanced. Let me be clear about the effect of PUHCA repeal: it eliminates redundant and burdensome regulation while enhancing existing consumer protections. Mr. President, we are at a time in our nation's history when we are going to have to make some critical choices regarding our national energy policy. The fact is, future technological innovation and economic growth is contingent upon this country's ability to meet its ever increasing demand for energy. In order to do this, we need to modernize production systems, increase market competition, and strip away unnecessary regulations. Achieving these goals is going to be a difficult and time consuming process. However, repeal of this law would be the first step in the right direction. Mr. President, it has been a very long time since it first became clear that this out dated, Depression-era law had become an unnecessary constraint on the ability of American gas and electric utilities to compete. Unfortunately, the many bipartisan efforts to repeal PUHCA have not been successful. However, strong support still exists for its elimination. I believe that it is imperative that we achieve this goal in the 107th Congress. 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 Public Utility Holding Company Act of 2001. This bipartisan bill is designed to help America's energy consumers by repealing an antiquated law that is keeping the benefits of competition from reaching our citizens. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Gramm and Sarbanes, chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Senator Murkowski, chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Majority Leader Lott, and Senators Dodd, Craig, and Crapo in introducing this important legislation. Our bill, which closely tracks legislation voted out of the Senate Banking Committee with bipartisan support in the 106th Congress, repeals the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935, PUHCA. The original PUHCA legislation passed over 60 years ago in 1935. At that time, a few large holding companies controlled a great majority of the electric utilities and gas pipelines. However, such a limited number of providers no longer offer a majority of the utility service. In fact, over 80 percent of the utility holding companies are currently exempt from PUHCA. This legislation implements the recommendations that the Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC made first in 1981 and then again in 1995 following an extensive study of the effects of this antiquated law on our energy markets. In the 1995 report entitled. ``The Regulation of Public-Utility Holding Companies,'' the Division of Investment Management recommended that Congress conditionally repeal the Act since ``the current regulatory system imposes significant costs, indirect administrative charges and foregone economies of scale and scope . . .'' In the end, the report serves to highlight the fact that the regulatory restraints imposed by PUHCA on our electric and gas industries are counterproductive in today's competitive environment and are based on historical assumptions and industry models that are no longer valid. In order to ensure that ratepayers are protected, this bill provides the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the States access to the books and records of holding company systems that are relevant to the costs incurred by jurisdictional public utility companies. As a result, the regulatory framework to protect consumers is not only protected in this bill, but enhanced. Let me be clear about the effect of PUHCA repeal: it eliminates redundant and burdensome regulation while enhancing existing consumer protections. Mr. President, we are at a time in our nation's history when we are going to have to make some critical choices regarding our national energy policy. The fact is, future technological innovation and economic growth is contingent upon this country's ability to meet its ever increasing demand for energy. In order to do this, we need to modernize production systems, increase market competition, and strip away unnecessary regulations. Achieving these goals is going to be a difficult and time consuming process. However, repeal of this law would be the first step in the right direction. Mr. President, it has been a very long time since it first became clear that this out dated, Depression-era law had become an unnecessary constraint on the ability of American gas and electric utilities to compete. Unfortunately, the many bipartisan efforts to repeal PUHCA have not been successful. However, strong support still exists for its elimination. I believe that it is imperative that we achieve this goal in the 107th Congress. 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 Older Americans Tax Fairness Act of 2001. My bill would completely eliminate the unjust taxation of Social Security benefits by the end of 2005. The premise of my legislation is simple: Social Security benefits were never intended to be taxed. At its inception and continuing on for the next fifty years, Social Security benefits were exempt from taxation. Budgetary shortfalls in 1984 and 1993, however, led to the taxation of these benefits. The economic situation of America is now such that the continued taxation of Social Security benefits is wasteful and unnecessary. Under the current law, beneficiaries of Social Security are taxed on as much as 85 percent of their benefits. Furthermore, under the latest changes made by the Clinton Administration, some older Americans find themselves in a situation where for every dollar they earn over a threshold amount, $1.85 is subject to tax. In addition to being fundamentally and logically unfair, I believe such taxation provides senior citizens with a strong disincentive to work. In other words, taxation of benefits creates a situation where many senior citizens decide to not work rather than to earn additional income which may trigger taxation of their Social Security benefits. Working senior citizens add a wealth of knowledge and experience to the workplace. As such, we must make sure that our American workforce is not deprived of these valuable assets. Our laws should encourage, not discourage, older Americans with a desire to work to continue contributing to our society. Unfortunately, that is not what is happening today. Despite disincentives to work, many older Americans are forced to do so to be able to pay for living expenses, healthcare, prescription drugs and other essentials. To these people, every penny counts in determining whether they are able to meet these costs. However, when we tax Social Security benefits, we make it virtually impossible for millions of older Americans to make ends meet. In effect, taxation of Social Security benefits forces many Americans to endure stressful situations in what should be a special time of their lives. Clearly, we cannot allow such an unjust situation to continue. The taxation of Social Security benefits impacts a wide segment of society, including a large portion of the middle class. For example, a person with $35,000 in income and $10,000 in benefits pays almost $1,000 more in taxes than he or she would, had the Clinton-Gore increase not been enacted. By repealing the 1993 Clinton-Gore increase, as well as the 1984 tax on Social Security benefits, my bill would give millions of Americans the financial freedom and security they deserve. Mr. President, every day my office receives letters and calls from older Americans throughout the country voicing their opinions on the taxation of Social Security benefits. Their message is clear--stop the unfair taxation of these benefits. I ask my colleagues to listen to their constituents and to do the right thing by joining me in support of this bill.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Older Americans Tax Fairness Act of 2001. My bill would completely eliminate the unjust taxation of Social Security benefits by the end of 2005. The premise of my legislation is simple: Social Security benefits were never intended to be taxed. At its inception and continuing on for the next fifty years, Social Security benefits were exempt from taxation. Budgetary shortfalls in 1984 and 1993, however, led to the taxation of these benefits. The economic situation of America is now such that the continued taxation of Social Security benefits is wasteful and unnecessary. Under the current law, beneficiaries of Social Security are taxed on as much as 85 percent of their benefits. Furthermore, under the latest changes made by the Clinton Administration, some older Americans find themselves in a situation where for every dollar they earn over a threshold amount, $1.85 is subject to tax. In addition to being fundamentally and logically unfair, I believe such taxation provides senior citizens with a strong disincentive to work. In other words, taxation of benefits creates a situation where many senior citizens decide to not work rather than to earn additional income which may trigger taxation of their Social Security benefits. Working senior citizens add a wealth of knowledge and experience to the workplace. As such, we must make sure that our American workforce is not deprived of these valuable assets. Our laws should encourage, not discourage, older Americans with a desire to work to continue contributing to our society. Unfortunately, that is not what is happening today. Despite disincentives to work, many older Americans are forced to do so to be able to pay for living expenses, healthcare, prescription drugs and other essentials. To these people, every penny counts in determining whether they are able to meet these costs. However, when we tax Social Security benefits, we make it virtually impossible for millions of older Americans to make ends meet. In effect, taxation of Social Security benefits forces many Americans to endure stressful situations in what should be a special time of their lives. Clearly, we cannot allow such an unjust situation to continue. The taxation of Social Security benefits impacts a wide segment of society, including a large portion of the middle class. For example, a person with $35,000 in income and $10,000 in benefits pays almost $1,000 more in taxes than he or she would, had the Clinton-Gore increase not been enacted. By repealing the 1993 Clinton-Gore increase, as well as the 1984 tax on Social Security benefits, my bill would give millions of Americans the financial freedom and security they deserve. Mr. President, every day my office receives letters and calls from older Americans throughout the country voicing their opinions on the taxation of Social Security benefits. Their message is clear--stop the unfair taxation of these benefits. I ask my colleagues to listen to their constituents and to do the right thing by joining me in support of this bill.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Military and Overseas Citizens Voting Fairness Act of 2001. This bill ensures that the men and women of the military who go into harm's way and bravely serve our country will have their vote counted. Given the great sacrifice these men and women make to defend our country, it is essential that we as lawmakers do all that we can to have their voices heard. Although military mail is technically supposed to carry a postmark, the reality of the situation is that exigent circumstances aboard Navy ships and in foreign theaters can result in mail being sent without a postmark. Because several states require a postmark for an absentee ballot to be counted, the unfortunate outcome is that many military persons who went through the timely process of registering, applying for and sending in a ballot are disenfranchised through no fault of their own. My bill provides that lack of a postmark does not result in automatic rejection of an overseas ballots in states that require a postmark. Specifically, the bill states that as long as there is conclusive proof of timely sending and the ballot is received by a state within 10 days after a federal election, mere lack of a postmark will not prevent the ballot from being counted. My bill lists two ways in which conclusive proof of timely sending may be established, although any conclusive evidence could establish timely sending. If a ballot is received on or before election day, logic dictates that the ballot was sent in a timely manner. Also, timely sending would be conclusively established by examining the date of signature and witness on the outside of the ballot envelope. Fraudulently misstating the date would be punishable by civil and criminal penalties. In addition to creating a uniform absentee voting law, my bill includes provisions to allow polling places on domestic military bases. These provisions will make it easier for military personnel located on remote bases to be able to participate in the voting process. Voting is one of the most important civic duties in a democracy. By allowing voting to take place on-base, we as the Senate, will guarantee that the men and women of our military will have every opportunity to exercise their important right to vote. Mr. President, confidence, clarity, and participation in our voting process are vital to the continuation of our great democracy. The election of this past year illustrates the need for change in our voting procedures. While more reform will be needed, my bill is a crucial step in that direction. For this and all the above reasons, I urge you and all my other colleagues to support the passage of this all important bill.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise in tribute to a friend and colleague, Julian Dixon. Congressman Dixon honorably represented the 32nd District of California for more than 22 years. Julian and I were members of the Congressional Freshman Class of 1978. It was my pleasure to serve with him for more than two decades. Everyone in the Senate knew him and I know no member of the House or Senate who did not like him, as well as respect him. His life exemplified public service and his actions were always motivated by truth, justice and compassion. He was without question a Distinguished Gentlemen. During his tenure in office, Congressman Dixon accomplished many things. He was always magnanimous in victory and gracious in defeat and accepted difficult assignments, such as the Chairmanship of the House Ethics Committee in 1989. It is a responsibility that few members seek and only the most selfless accept. Congressman Dixon did so, and the House of Representatives is a better place for his service. From 1957 to 1960, he served as an enlisted man in the United States Army, rising to the rank of sergeant. This experience made him a life long advocate for the men and women in the Armed Forces. He understood their hardships and needs as well as any member of the Congress. The military services have lost a good friend. At the conclusion of the Cold War, our defense expenditures were cut dramatically. Literally, hundreds of military installations, large and small, around the Nation were slated for closure. Thousands of small businesses depended entirely, or mostly on work generated by the defense industry, and they were in danger of failure. In an effort to help these businesses, Congressman Dixon sponsored legislation to assist small businesses in making the difficult transition to new markets. His efforts saved innumerable small businesses from going under and now many are thriving because of his foresight and stewardship. Most recently he was the very able Ranking Member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. He was a voice of reason and restraint in an arena that often lends itself to hyperbole and grandstanding. Julian served his country well in this capacity. Congressman Dixon was known for his intelligence, political savvy and strong character. While Julian surely had much lift to accomplish, he truly made a difference while he walked among us. He was a family man and a man of the people. He will be missed. Our prayers are with his family, friends and people he served so well.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. The Senator from Ohio is correct. The House and Senate intelligence committees agreed to combine the working groups for both the Nazi and Japanese Imperial Government declassifications in order to obtain economies of scale from both a substantive and financial perspective. However, the requirements set forth in the Japanese Imperial Government Disclosure Act in no way impact on the requirements set forth in the Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act.

Mr. SHELBY. Yes. Title VIII covers any still-classified U.S. Government records that are related to crimes committee by the Japanese Imperial Government during World War II.