Richard Shelby

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. I take a few moments to commend the Senator from Nebraska for his remarks. I think he speaks for most of us, if not all of us. He speaks eloquently in congratulating the Army. That is something we shouldn't forget: The role of the Army, what the Army stands for, what the Army has done, often at a tremendous price, as we know. We shouldn't forget that. I commend the Senator from Nebraska for his remarks.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

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

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, the pending business before the Senate is the House bill, is that right, or the Senate bill?

Mr. SHELBY. We have some procedural obstacles to clear, is my understanding here. In the meantime, what I will do is go ahead and make my opening statement.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, chairman Stevens and the leader asked us to move quickly on this year's Transportation appropriations bill, and I'm happy to say that with the assistance of the senior Senator from New Jersey, we have reported a bill for the Senate's consideration. I am speaking of the Senate bill now. Considering that the Senate approved the Transportation appropriations bill in September last year, I suppose that presenting this bill during the second full week in June would qualify as moving more quickly this year. I commend Senator Stevens and Majority Leader Lott for pushing this agenda. Both Senator Lautenberg and I strongly support this package, though neither one of us agrees with every decision and funding level that is included in the bill and report. However, this bill contains the essential elements of a Transportation appropriations bill that meets the challenge of adequately funding the Transportation programs within the budget constraints that we have set for Federal spending in fiscal year 2001. I will spend a few minutes on the bill funding summary. The bill provides a total of $54.7 billion, which is $4.7 billion more than the fiscal year 2000 enacted level. Because the firewalled highway and transit programs account for most of this growth--not to mention the increases in aviation capital investment anticipated in FAIR-21 that this body approved just a few months ago--we have been left with no choice but to constrain the growth in the FAA and Coast Guard operations accounts and Coast Guard capital account. Nevertheless, I am confident that, with responsible management, the funding levels for FAA operations and for the Coast Guard are adequate to meet the challenges of safely and effectively managing the nation's airways and the execution of the Coast Guard missions. I note that the administration requested 15 percent growth in the Coast Guard operations account and 12 percent in the FAA operating expenses account. The bill before you today directly provides 9 percent growth in both those operating accounts with an additional 4 percent potential growth available to the FAA operations account if necessary to maintain aviation safety at the discretion of the Secretary of Transportation and the FAA Administrator. That is a lot of money--and a great deal of growth under the budgetary constraints we are operating under. At the same time, the funding levels in our bill require the Secretary to balance the critical needs of both the Coast Guard and the FAA as he (or she) manages the Department. My concern is not that we haven't provided enough resources. My concern is that they won't be administered with an eye towards saving the taxpayers money or toward seeking efficiencies in program execution. We have rejected the administration's proposal to divert highway funds in Revenue Aligned Budget Authority--or RABA--to other programs. This unrealistic proposal raised expectations, but is nothing more than a case of the administration wanting to say they support the highway firewalls while proposing to spend the money on nonhighway activities. You can't have it both ways. We have also rejected the administration's proposal to levy new user fees. Three years ago during my first year as chairman of the Transportation subcommittee, we said no to the administration's new user-fee taxes, 2 years ago, we said no again to the new and improved user-fee taxes from the administration, and last year, we again said no thanks to the newly reconstituted user-fee tax proposal from the administration. Guess what? This is my fourth year as chair of the Transportation appropriation subcommittee, and the President's budget again includes $1.3 billion in new user-fees taxes--I am starting to recognize a pattern. Is anyone in the administration listening to what Congress is saying about new user-fee taxes? Along these lines, I would note that the shortfalls that the administration will complain about in the FAA operations account in this bill are far short of the user-fee proposals that they have proposed for the FAA, not to mention the Coast Guard. If the administration would refrain from submitting budgets with new user-fee taxes as a budget gimmick that they know will never be enacted to hide other non-transportation spending, it would make all our jobs a lot easier to meet realistic targets and expectations for these operations accounts. The bill before you meets the TEA-21 firewall levels for highway and transit investment. In highways, the RABA funding has all been distributed to the states in accordance with each state's share of the program consistent with last year's Senate appropriations bill. In short, every states gets more highway funds through the approach taken in the bill before you. I urge every Senator to refer to the table I will insert in the Record to see the total highway funds that will be available for highway construction in his or her state through the approach we propose. The transit new starts and bus projects are not earmarked, which is the way the Senate has handled these programs the last 2 years. This is an approach that has worked well for the Defense appropriations process with respect to the National Guard equipment account, and I believe that it is a good model for balancing congressional and administration priorities in the allocation of discretionary transit projects. The bill provides $4.4 billion for the activities of the U.S. Coast Guard, and, as I mentioned earlier, there is an 9 percent increase for the operating expenses of the Coast Guard. I think we can all agree that it is essential to provide the Coast Guard with the resources they need to continue their tradition of maritime search and rescues, protecting the environment and our coastlines, and enforcing our laws on the seas. There are a few general provisions that I would draw to your attention. One requires the administration to submit with their budget request an accounting of what programs are to be cut if the Congress does not choose to enact the next complement of new user-fee tax-budget gimmicks. Although there are other issues that will be discussed during consideration of this bill, I will note one now. That issue is the national ``.08'' blood alcohol content provision. Senator Lautenberg, who is managing his last Transportation appropriations bill this year, makes a compelling case for why the states should adopt ``.08''. This language was included in the bill at his request and will vote to support its inclusion the bill the Senate passes. I urge you to look at it and consider it carefully. The bill before the Senate sets the stage well for a conference with the House. The House 302b for Transportation appropriations has substantially more budget resources than the bill before us today. As a result, the House passed bill is higher in a number of accounts than the bill before the Senate today. Notably, the Coast Guard has $150 million more in the Operating Expenses account, $100 million more in the AC&I account--the Coast Guard's capital improvement account, and the FAA operations account is $200 million higher than the Senate bill. We have included a number of flexibility provisions for the Secretary of Transportation and for the FAA administrator to soften the impact of those cuts from the President's budget request, but the fact remains that we are below the House appropriated levels in those accounts in particular. In addition, there are a number of specific projects or procurements that are included in the House bill that are not in ours, and a number of initiatives in our bill that are not in the House- passed bill. I believe that we can resolve all of these issues in conference to the satisfaction of both bodies and present a conference report that the President will sign. We know of a few amendments to the bill and we would encourage those Members who have amendments to come to the floor to offer them or to see if they can be accepted. We want to work with Members where possible and will seek time agreements on amendments so we can move the bill. Mr. President, I also would be remiss if I did not note my colleague, Senator Lautenberg, has joined us. He is the former chairman of this subcommittee and is now the ranking Democrat. I have enjoyed working with him on this subcommittee. This will be the last Transportation bill he will help manage. I can tell my colleagues that he has rendered a great service to his State and to the country. He has been a lot of help to me as I have worked through this process, the same road which he has been down many more times. Before yielding the floor, I ask unanimous consent that a list of revenue aligned budget authority be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be agreed to, which is the committee substitute for the House bill, and the amendment be treated as original text for purposes of further amendment, and that no points of order be waived.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate resumes the Transportation bill at 9:45 a.m. in the morning, Senator Voinovich be recognized to offer his amendment regarding passenger rail flexibility.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, in light of this agreement, on behalf of the leader, I announce that there will be no further rollcall votes tonight. It is the hope of the managers--Senator Lautenberg and I--that this bill will be passed by 1 p.m. on Thursday, tomorrow. All Members have a lot in this Transportation appropriations bill. I hope all Members who have amendments will come forward. A lot of Members are already coming. We are working them out. If we work together, I think we can work this out tomorrow.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter to Senators Lott and Daschle dated May 21, 2000, be printed in the Record.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Mr. Filippo Milone, a well-known community leader who was recently given the Republican Congressional Committee's Businessman of the Year Award. Filippo runs the highly successful and well regarded Pillars restaurant in Mobile, Alabama which serves some of the best cuisine not only in the state, but in the entire country. This award is truly a testament to Filippo's reputation in the Mobile business community and to the high esteem in which he is held by his peers. I want to congratulate Filippo and his wife of 27 years, Geltrude, and offer my thanks for their dedication to the city of Mobile. Born in Italy in 1938, Filippo came to the United States after fulfilling his duties in the Italian military. After traveling to various parts of the country, Filippo chose to settle in the Mobile area to establish a business and raise a family. Calling upon his extensive culinary training, Filippo opened the Pillars restaurant in 1975 with the idea of creating a unique dining experience for customers. Today, the Pillars restaurant continues to thrive. Filippo has 40 employees and enjoys the satisfaction that comes with creating opportunities for others. He is active in the community as a member of many local organizations, including the Restaurant Association, the Chef's Association, and Lion's Club. Indeed, Filippo's many activities truly entitle him to the recognition that comes with being named a Businessman of the Year. Again, I would like to congratulate Filippo and his entire family on this award. I have had the pleasure of eating at the Pillars Restaurant on numerous occasions and can honestly say I have never been disappointed. Both the service and food are always first class, and being in the company of someone with such a deep sense of community is always a pleasure. His commitment to the Mobile area and to Alabama should be commended.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Freedom from Behavioral Profiling Act of 2000.'' This legislation would disallow financial institutions from buying and selling an individual's most personal and detailed buying habits without proper notification and without his or her permission. Put another way, financial institutions would only be allowed to buy, sell or otherwise share an individual's behavioral profile if the institution has disclosed to the consumer that such information may be shared and the institution has received the consumer's affirmative consent to do so. Technology exists today that allows financial institutions to monitor and collect your personal buying and spending habits. According to the April 3 issue of Business Week magazine, Visa International is ``using neural networks to build up elaborate behavioral profiles. Over months, these systems . . . track a person's behavior online and off, then match it against models of similar personality and behavior types . . .'' What this means is that financial institutions have the ability to follow you to the grocery store to track your purchases--whether you are abiding by your doctors recommended diet--and then to the drug store to see what kind of drugs you are purchasing. The institution can also track where you go throughout the day and into the evening, and exactly what time you were there. Business Week also reported that such ``far-flung threads'' as your ``taste in paperbacks, political discussion groups'' and clothing are being ``sewn into online profiles where they are increasingly intertwined with your data on health, your education loans and your credit history.'' What does this information have to do with getting a mortgage? More importantly, are these institutions sharing these behavioral profiles? Given the track record of some of the blue chip firms like Chase Manhattan Bank and U.S. Bancorp, I believe the risk is too great to assume otherwise. Even more important, what happens when these behavioral profiles get into the wrong hands? That rarely happens you say. Guess again. A Russian teenager using the name ``Maxus'' stole 350,000 credit card numbers from CD Universe's Web site last December. He then told CD Universe that he would post the numbers on the Internet unless they paid him $100,000. When they refused to pay him he posted the credit cards numbers and thousands of visitors downloaded more than 25,000 account numbers between December 25 and January 7. A similar case happened on March 24 of this year when two teens in a small Welsh village hacked into computers of several online merchants making off with more than 26,000 credit card numbers. The FBI says losses connected to the thefts could exceed $3 million. Mr. President, if teenagers from around the world are gaining access to account numbers, there is no question they can steal data banks of behavioral profiles. In fact, they are. A front page article in the New York Times dated April 3, 2000, reports that ``Law enforcement authorities are becoming increasingly worried about a sudden, sharp rise in the incidence of identity theft, the outright pilfering of people's personal information and, with that information in hand, thieves can acquire credit, make purchases and even secure residences in someone else's name.'' Mr. President, an important point here is that potential criminals do not even have to steal the information. Due to the significant loopholes in the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act passed last year, an individual's behavioral profile could legally be passed along without the affirmative consent of that individual. The unchecked growth of data banks and the business of profiling unquestionably facilitates identity theft. Some may suggest that there is no harm in behavioral profiling. I disagree. Despite the fact that consumers are ``shielded'' in fraudulent cases, subject to only $50 maximum liability, the burden is on credit card owners to prove the fraudulent charges are not their own. If the fraudulent charge is not found immediately, continued purchases or applications for more cards by the criminal can wreak havoc on an individual's credit rating. In fact, one witness recently testified before the Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Government Information that she spent over 400 hours trying to clear her name and restore her good credit. In ``card-not-present'' transactions, that is orders by mail, telephone or Internet where no signature is required, merchants are forced to cover the loss. Thus, identity theft and fraudulent purchases also take a toll on the small business man. Reports suggest that one out of every ten online purchases is fraudulent. My colleagues know that small businesses do not have the margins to eat the charge on one out of every 10 purchases. Mr. President, 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. Mr. President, 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 thank the Senator from Vermont for his understanding in helping us work this out, and also the Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch, for his indulgence. (The remarks of Mr. Shelby pertaining to the introduction of S. 2304 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed in morning business for 10 minutes.

Mr. SHELBY. Absolutely.

Mr. SHELBY. I ask it be set aside and that I may proceed in morning business for 10 minutes.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Older Americans Tax Fairness Act. This legislation would eliminate--yes, eliminate--the unfair tax on Social Security benefits in this country. Last week, this body, the Senate, took a historic step toward giving senior citizens more financial freedom and retirement security by passing legislation to repeal the earnings limit on Social Security benefits. We seized an opportunity to allow seniors to continue to work and contribute their skills and knowledge to the most vibrant economy in recent memory. While the U.S. economy is currently reporting the lowest unemployment number in years, employers are finding that labor is difficult to come by and they are searching for ways to address this challenge. Increasingly, they are turning to senior citizens to fill the void. However, many seniors are finding that while they may want to work to better their standard of living or have to work to make ends meet, they are being hit by an additional tax burden, one that taxes their Social Security benefits--their retirement security, in other words--such that working, in many cases, is not financially beneficial to them. When the Social Security program was first established by Congress, Congress did not intend for benefits to be taxed at all. In fact, Social Security benefits were exempt from Federal taxes for half a century. But because of a financial crisis within the program in the eighties and President Clinton's desire to fund new programs in 1993, seniors who earn a modest wage now find that anywhere between 50 and 85 percent of their Social Security benefits are taxed in America. This tax on Social Security benefits is misguided, I believe, and only acts to penalize hard-working and productive senior members of society. As workers, these senior citizens are taxed when they earn their money, as we all know, they are taxed when the Government returns it in the form of Social Security benefits, and if they are smart enough or lucky enough to save it to give it to their children or grandchildren, they will have to pay estate taxes, or a death tax, before anyone sees a penny, in a lot of cases. Not only is this essentially double taxation to some of our most vulnerable citizens, our seniors, it is harmful to many seniors. Many seniors need to work in order to pay for costly health insurance premiums, prescription drugs, and other expenses which they incur as they grow older. For these seniors, working is not a choice, it is a necessity. If we eliminate the tax on Social Security benefits in America, most seniors would have more disposable income to pay for many of these necessities of life. But rather than helping them, I believe we hurt them--that is, the seniors--by taxing their Social Security benefits, lowering their standard of living, and decreasing the amount of disposable income they have available to them. What many fail to recognize is, working seniors continue to contribute to the economy not only in terms of knowledge and added productivity but by paying taxes on their earnings and paying into the Social Security trust fund without ever recognizing an additional benefit. Clearly, the benefits seniors provide to our economy in terms of investment, knowledge, and skills far outweigh the minimal costs to the Treasury of repealing this unjust tax on Social Security. This tax on Social Security benefits implies the Federal Government thinks senior citizens have nothing to contribute in the way of effectiveness, efficiency, experience, or knowledge to the workforce. You know and I know this is not true. Senior citizens are our most valuable resource. They can provide knowledge, insight, and experience to our booming economy. And they do. We should treat them fairly and allow them to continue to earn and to save without imposing a discriminatory ``old age tax'' simply because they want to continue to contribute to society. Responsible seniors--who plan for their retirement, who save and invest for the future, and who strive to leave something to future generations--are finding that it is just not worth it. At a time when we are trying to encourage savings and investment, it does not make sense to continue to tax Social Security benefits. I am today encouraging my colleagues to join me in supporting the Older Americans Tax Fairness Act to bring additional fairness and freedom to the lives of millions of our most respected Americans. Let's repeal the tax on Social Security benefits. Let's make it like it used to be. It is the right thing for the seniors in America.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter dated March 10, 2000, to Senators Lott and Daschle from myself and Senator Bryan regarding S. 2089, the Counterintelligence Reform Act of 2000.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today in support of H.R. 1883, the Iran Nonproliferation Act of 1999. As chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, I am in a privileged position to have access to the volumes of intelligence information gathered at great expense and even risk of life by our intelligence community. Sadly, this intelligence leads me to the conclusion that our efforts thus far to stem proliferation have failed. As the Director of Central Intelligence told me in an open Hearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee just this month: Mr. Chairman, on proliferation, the picture that I drew last year has become even more stark and worrisome. Transfers of enabling technologies to countries of proliferation concern have not abated. Particularly in the case of Iran, the intelligence indicates that the proliferation of missile technologies as well as the technologies and expertise to enable their development of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, continues unabated. Our nonproliferation efforts haven't failed because we haven't tried other things. They have failed because the tools we have used thus far have not been up to the task. The task is indeed formidable. Iran desperately wants these weapons. We wish they didn't. We wish the problem would go away on its own. But the evidence indicates that it won't. In the unclassified version of a report submitted to me on January 21st pursuant to a mandate in the Intelligence Authorization Act of 1997--a report available to all Members--the Director of Central Intelligence stated: Iran remains one of the most active countries seeking to acquire WMD [weapons of mass destruction] . . . from abroad. In doing so, Tehran is attempting to develop an indigenous capability to produce various types of weapons--nuclear, chemical, and biological--and their delivery systems. With regard to missile proliferation, in his testimony to me this month, the DCI reported that: Most analysts believe that Iran, following the North Korean pattern, could test an ICBM capable of delivering a light payload to the United States in the next few years. And, he added, Iran could become not just a recipient, but a proliferator: While Russia, China, and North Korea continue to be the main suppliers of ballistic missiles and related technology, long-standing recipients--such as Iran--might become suppliers in their own right as they develop domestic production capabilities. Iran is not just seeking missiles, but also biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons. Iran is seeking dual-use technologies to further the biological warfare program it began during the Iran-Iraq war. Iran also wants to maintain a prohibited chemical weapons capability. According to the January DCI report I just mentioned, Iran, despite its commitment to give up chemical weapons under the Chemical Weapons Convention, ``has manufactured and stockpiled chemical weapons, including blister, blood, and choking agents and the bombs and artillery shells for delivering them.'' They have continued to ``seek production technology, expertise, and chemicals that could be used as precursor agents in its chemical warfare program from entities in Russia and China.'' Finally, Iran wants a nuclear weapons capability. According to the DCI: ``Iran sought nuclear-related equipment, material and technical expertise from a variety of sources, especially in Russia, during the first half of 1999.'' Importantly, Iran is seeking an indigenous capability. Their pursuit of WMD and delivery systems has lead to a maturing indigenous capability. This means that the window in which we can stop significant proliferation to Iran is closing rapidly. This means that the time to intervene is now. Some have suggested that the recent elections in Iran should lead us to pause our consideration of this bill. I disagree. First, to the degree that the newly elected Iranian legislators seek to constrain efforts to develop and deploy weapons of mass destruction, I believe that this legislation will strengthen such an effort. It demonstrates the seriousness with which the United States Congress views proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Second, existing evidence indicates that we cannot count on the elections to bring an end to Iran's national policy of developing weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery. It is important to underscore that former President Rafsanjani, considered a moderate in Iranian political circles, was the very leader who initiated Iran's pursuit of those weapons. Indeed it was Rafsanjani who said that ``Chemical and biological weapons are poor man's atomic bombs . . .'' After he became Iran's President, he is quoted as saying: ``We should fully equip ourselves in the defensive and offensive use of chemical, bacteriological and radiological weapons.'' We cannot expect that Iran will therefore give up its pursuit of these weapons on their own. This bill will provide additional incentive for them to do so, and we will watch carefully for evidence of such a decision, but at this point, absent strong policy on our part, we must conclude that the policy of acquiring these weapons and their means of delivery will continue. The task of stemming proliferation to Iran is made more difficult because individuals and the nations from which they proliferate have their own strong motives for aiding Iran. For some individuals, the motive is money. But why can't we simply rely on the governments in which they operate to stop them? In some cases, governments are too week to intervene. In others, the government looks the other way or even promotes proliferation to Iran because their leaders welcome the challenge an Iran with missiles and weapons of mass destruction poses to the United States. We need the tools to offset the benefits of aiding Iran. We must ensure that there are financial and other costs associated with supplying the assistance Iran still needs in its drive for weapons of mass destruction and missiles. H.R. 1883 gives the United States tools to attack proliferation on the supply side. The first tool is the light of exposure to scrutiny. H.R. 1883 requires the President to submit annual reports identifying every person that, on or after January 1, 1999, transfers to Iran goods, services or technology on existing control lists or items with the potential to make a material contribution to Iran's development of nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons or ballistic or cruise missile systems. As a result, the Congress, the American people, and the community of nations will know who is supporting Iran's efforts to threaten peace and stability. We will shine a light on those lining their bank accounts by selling the tools of hideous death and unimaginable destruction to Iran. The threat of public exposure should serve as a significant deterrent to those who contemplate proliferation to Iran. The second tool offered by H.R. 1883 is the authorization for the President to deny perpetrators of proliferation access to some U.S. trade. I highlight the word ``authorization.'' The sanctions provided by H.R. 1883 are not mandatory and exceptions are granted. These tools, properly employed, will help stem the tide of proliferation to Iran. Are there costs? Yes. Some U.S. businesses may be called upon by the President to refrain from commerce with individuals that are shown to be materially aiding Iran's weapons of mass destruction and missile programs. But such a potential cost seems reasonable to me in light of the potentially far greater cost if we fail to act--the lives of American men, women, and children. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 1883 in a bipartisan way, as our House colleagues did when they voted to pass H.R. 1883 by a vote of 419-zero.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the work of the Cullman County Commission in Cullman County, Alabama, for its positive work in the community. I specifically want to pay tribute to Mr. George Spear, the Commission Chairman, as an individual who exemplifies the positive impact a public official can have on a community. Through his direct efforts, Mr. Spear has established the Cullman 2000 Committee, a year-long celebration bringing together both young and old in the area to honor the county's unique heritage and shared future. Founded in 1873 by Col. John G. Cullmann, the county's roots are firmly entrenched in Alabama history. Cullman County is well known for its industry, modern health care, and agriculture production, which ranks at the top of the state. The many events planned throughout the year are designed to celebrate the county's history and successes and to give residents a sense of pride in their community and the common bond they share as members of the county. It will give all residents of Cullman County a sense of their place in county history. I commend the Cullman County Commission and particularly Mr. Spear for his hard work and sense of civic pride. Without the efforts of the Commission, the Cullman 2000 Committee would not have been possible. As Cullman County looks toward the future, it is reassuring to know that the leaders of the county are keeping in mind the importance of the county's colorful past.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. I yield the floor.

Mr. SHELBY. Yes it is.

Mr. SHELBY. I share the disappointment expressed by my colleague, the senior Senator from New Hampshire. As he knows, I have worked steadily with him over the past several years to address his well-founded concerns with respect to the way the POW/MIA issue has been addressed by our Intelligence Community. I agree that the provision to which he refers would help us with our oversight responsibilities. That is why I supported his amendment, as did my Vice-Chairman, when our intelligence bill passed the full Senate earlier this year. I want the Senator to know that I will work closely with him over the next few months to find a way to get the listing of POW/MIA reports he seeks provided to the Senate. He has a right to review these reports, as does every Member of the Senate. I would urge the Director of Central Intelligence and heads of each of our intelligence agencies to work cooperatively with the Select Committee on Intelligence on this matter. I also want the Senator to know that I will include his provision in next year's authorization measure if the information he seeks is not provided to the Senate in the next few months. I thank him for his leadership on this important matter.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader I submit a report of the committee of conference on the bill (H.R. 1555) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2000 for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States Government, the Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.