Richard Shelby

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. I yield to the Senator from Maryland 4 minutes.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Bryan CRA amendment. This amendment not only strikes the small rural bank exemption that we have in the Banking Committee bill and that we adopted on a bipartisan vote, but it also replaces that language with a significant expansion in CRA--the same language Chairman Gramm and I vehemently opposed on the Senate floor this past year. Community banks, as the Presiding Officer knows, by their very nature, serve the needs of their communities and do not need a burdensome Government mandate to force them to allocate credit or to originate profitable loans. And, contrary to the assertions of critics, there is no evidence whatsoever that the small bank exemption would have ``devastating consequences'' for low- and moderate-income rural communities. There remains no documented evidence to prove such an assertion, just as there is no tangible evidence that CRA has ever helped rural communities in America. What is documented, though--and Chairman Gramm has worked tirelessly to do so--is the kinds of blackmail agreements and extortion practices that the Community Reinvestment Act enables community groups to engage in. The truth of the matter is that the small bank exemption would exempt less than 3 percent of bank assets nationwide. Thus, 97 percent of all bank assets would still be subject to the Community Reinvestment Act. Just bear with me a minute on this chart. We have bank assets of $5.711 trillion. But banks above $100 million, rural and nonrural, control 97 percent of the bank assets in America. The small banks in America that we are talking about, those under $100 million in assets-- there are 3,667 of them--control only $165 billion, or 2.9 percent of all the banking assets. Can you imagine? BankAmerica, for example, has $614 billion in assets. And I commend them for that. They are a well- run bank. But that is more than all 3,667 small rural banks in America put together; it is about 4 times more. So let's look at this in a realistic situation, as this chart here depicts. Mr. President, critics will point out that the small rural bank exemption which I and Senator Gramm have in the bill would exempt 3,700 banks. That is true. But to put that into context again, and to reiterate, one needs to understand that BankAmerica, as I have just shown, is four times the size of all small rural banks in America. Indeed, BankAmerica possesses $614 billion in assets, or 10.7 percent of all bank assets in this country. If one looks at the list of large banks, one will soon realize that the vast majority of bank assets are concentrated in the large, multibillion-dollar banks that can most easily shoulder the burden of CRA. The assertions of those who oppose the small bank exemption that we have in the banking legislation also do not comport with the comments I have received from small banks across the country. In fact, I have many letters from small bankers who complain about the burden of CRA, as well as the regulators' subjective reporting requirements dealing with CRA. I would like to take a moment to read some letters from some small bankers in Alabama. I believe they have a right to be heard. I will quote from some of these. The first one says: I don't think, in these small community banks, that we have to be examined by people who usually don't understand our purpose, to enforce us to service our community * * *. Small community banks are a Service Institution. I know because I have just completed 39 years this month. All this time in small home-owned banks that deliver services that are essential to rural life. Where services have been rendered over the years even before we knew anything about

Mr. SHELBY. About 10.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, there are few people in the United States Congress who are as familiar with war as is the sponsor of this joint resolution, my esteemed colleague from Arizona, Senator John McCain. I agree with the principles behind his resolution; that this Nation should not fight wars to a stalemate, it should fight them to win or not fight them at all. Mr. President, for the past 6 weeks, American military forces have been participating in a NATO-led aerial campaign in the Balkans. In March, I voted to support the use of air power in this operation. It was my view then that the administration had already committed our forces to action. A vote against the President, when bombing was imminent, would have undercut our troops at the front. However, that is not the case with the resolution before us today. As a nation we have a choice to make. The choice should be an informed one. Our intentions in this operation have been noble and just. However, the boundaries of this conflict are not apparent to many in this body nor it seems to a majority of the American people. Before we give a blank check to the administration, I believe that the President should clearly articulate to both Congress and the American people the objectives and the national interest which require a resolution authorizing full scale war. To date he has not done so. As have many of my colleagues, I have traveled to the region. I have been briefed by General Clark, spoken to troops in the field and visited refugee camps in Albania. There is no question that our military personnel are the best in the world and are doing an outstanding job under extremely difficult circumstances. However, I have grave concerns over NATO's ability to salvage the humanitarian situation through aerial bombardment and its policy of war by committee. I know that Senator McCain shares this latter concern. The United States led a coalition force during the Persian Gulf war. Yet in that war it was our military leaders and not politicians in Brussels who called the shots. Mr. President, we won the Persian Gulf war; we are not winning this war. My fear is that if we adopt this resolution now, it will be viewed as tacit approval of an overly bureaucratic and ineffective NATO command structure. The Senate can pass this resolution and authorize the President's ``. . . use of all necessary force and other means . . .'' but I fear the effect will be mitigated by the current command structure. It is a prerequisite that prior to any escalation of our involvement in this conflict, that NATO streamline its command structure and put professional soldiers back in charge. A greater concern to me is the effect that this operation is having on the readiness of our military forces worldwide. Can we adequately defend South Korea, Taiwan, and Kuwait while waging a full scale war against Serbia? Some of the facts are alarming. We have no carrier battle group in the Western Pacific. The Air Force has committed one- third of its combat aircraft to the Balkans. The President has authorized the activation of over 33,000 reservists, including many Air National Guard tanker pilots from Birmingham, Alabama. The United States is still involved in an undeclared shooting war with Iraq. Last week, the administration informed the Appropriations Committee that the Nation's stated ability to simultaneously fight and win two major regional conflicts is tenuous at best. And finally, our intelligence resources are being stretched thin due to this crisis. In short, we are pushing the envelope of our military capabilities. It begs the question: Is there a vital national interest in the Balkans which necessitates a commitment of the bulk of our limited military assets and endangers longstanding strategic interests? I don't have the answer to that question. The answer must come from the President. He must make his case for war to the Congress and American people prior to the passage of any resolution authorizing full scale war. I urge him to do so. It is his duty as the Commander in Chief. The stakes are very high. I close with a reaffirmation of my support for our military forces throughout the world, especially those personnel fighting in the Balkans. Like their predecessors throughout history, the Americans who today go in harm's way wearing the uniform of their country lead a noble pursuit. Their service is not just another job as some would have us believe. Regardless of the outcome of this vote, I pledge my continued support to those soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and Coast Guardsmen who are in the field as I speak today. This resolution authorizes the President to, ``. . . use all necessary force and other means, in concert with United States allies, to accomplish United States and North Atlantic Treaty Organization objectives in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.'' I have no doubt that Senator McCain knows what it takes to succeed in a military campaign. I am confident that our military leaders know what it takes to succeed in a military campaign. However, as of today, this administration has demonstrated neither the vital necessity for, nor the capacity to successfully prosecute, a full scale war in the Balkans. I urge the Commander in Chief to execute the duties of his office and make that case before Congress and the American people. Until he does so, I cannot in good conscience vote to support Joint Resolution 20.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I would like to bring to your attention the National Association of Letter Carriers Food Drive Day. On Saturday, May 8, letter carriers from around the country will collect nonperishable food items placed near their customers' mail boxes. The food will then be given to local food pantries for distribution to those in need. The National Association of Letter Carriers in Alabama collected more than 500,000 items last year alone, and I would like to encourage my colleagues to support the letter carriers' food drives in their States, districts, and hometowns in order to make this worthy event a success.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to impose a moratorium on the foreign visitors program at the Department of Energy's (DOE) nuclear laboratories. The bill prohibits the Secretary of Energy from admitting any person from a ``sensitive country'' to our national laboratories, unless the Secretary of Energy personally certifies to the Congress that the visit is necessary for the national security of the United States. A ``sensitive country'' is a country that is considered dangerous to the United States and that may want to acquire our nuclear weapons secrets. Mr. President, the Senate Intelligence Committee has been critical of the Department of Energy's counterintelligence program for nearly ten years. Beginning in 1990, we identified serious shortfalls in funding and personnel dedicated to protecting our nation's nuclear secrets. Year after year, the Committee has provided additional funds and directed many reviews and studies in an effort to persuade the Department of Energy to take action. Unfortunately, this and prior administrations failed to heed our warnings. Consequently, a serious espionage threat at our national labs has gone virtually unabated and it appears that our nuclear weapons program may have suffered extremely grave damage. Now, the administration has finally begun to take affirmative steps to address this problem. While I welcome their efforts, I am disappointed that it took a some bad press to motivate them rather than a known threat to our national security. Nevertheless, the Department of Energy has begun the process of repairing the damage caused by years of neglect, but it will take time to make the necessary changes. In fact, it may take years. In the interim, we must take steps to ensure the integrity of our national labs. I understand that a moratorium on the foreign visitors program may be perceived as a draconian measure. Until the Department fully implements a comprehensive and sustained counterintelligence program, however, I believe that we must err on the side of caution. The stakes are too high. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to impose a moratorium on the foreign visitors program at the Department of Energy's (DOE) nuclear laboratories. The bill prohibits the Secretary of Energy from admitting any person from a ``sensitive country'' to our national laboratories, unless the Secretary of Energy personally certifies to the Congress that the visit is necessary for the national security of the United States. A ``sensitive country'' is a country that is considered dangerous to the United States and that may want to acquire our nuclear weapons secrets. Mr. President, the Senate Intelligence Committee has been critical of the Department of Energy's counterintelligence program for nearly ten years. Beginning in 1990, we identified serious shortfalls in funding and personnel dedicated to protecting our nation's nuclear secrets. Year after year, the Committee has provided additional funds and directed many reviews and studies in an effort to persuade the Department of Energy to take action. Unfortunately, this and prior administrations failed to heed our warnings. Consequently, a serious espionage threat at our national labs has gone virtually unabated and it appears that our nuclear weapons program may have suffered extremely grave damage. Now, the administration has finally begun to take affirmative steps to address this problem. While I welcome their efforts, I am disappointed that it took a some bad press to motivate them rather than a known threat to our national security. Nevertheless, the Department of Energy has begun the process of repairing the damage caused by years of neglect, but it will take time to make the necessary changes. In fact, it may take years. In the interim, we must take steps to ensure the integrity of our national labs. I understand that a moratorium on the foreign visitors program may be perceived as a draconian measure. Until the Department fully implements a comprehensive and sustained counterintelligence program, however, I believe that we must err on the side of caution. The stakes are too high. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to honor a number of American heroes. During World War Two, over 6,300 sailors and Marines were members of the crew of the Battleship U.S.S. Alabama. The ship and crew were instrumental in the defeat of both Germany and Japan. The crew was credited with the downing of 22 enemy aircraft and was awarded numerous citations and medals including the European-African-Middle Eastern Medal and the Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal with nine battle stars. This week, the U.S.S. Alabama Crewman's Association is holding its annual reunion at Battleship Memorial Park in Mobile, Alabama. I ask the Senate to pass this Joint Resolution which commends and recognizes the gallant crewmen of the U.S.S. Alabama. To those men I say congratulations and thank you for a job well done. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, in my capacity as Chairman of the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, I want to raise an issue of critical importance with my friend, the Chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Domenici. Mr. Chairman, it has come to my attention that there is a substantial difference between the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) in terms of the estimated outlay costs of the highway and transit firewalls, as contained in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA- 21). As the Chairman is aware, TEA-21 effectively established the aggregate obligation limitations pertaining to our major federal highway and transit programs for the six years covered by TEA-21. Despite the fact that the CBO and OMB are required to strive each year to minimize differences in their outlay estimates for each program in the federal government, we find that there is a dramatic difference between the outlay estimates that CBO and OMB attribute to the cost of fully funding the firewalls for highways and transit in FY 2000. Specifically, the Congressional Budget Office's estimate of the outlays associated with the highway firewall is a full $772 million higher than the amount estimated by OMB. Similarly, the CBO estimates that the outlays associated with the transit firewall is a full $569 million higher than the level assumed by OMB. Taken together, there is more than a $1.3 billion difference between the two agencies' estimates. It is my understanding that, for purposes of developing this budget resolution, the Chairman assumed the lower of these outlay figures for the highway and transit firewalls. I want to inquire whether the Chairman of the Budget Committee intends to score the Transportation Appropriations Bill for FY 2000 in an identical fashion when the bill is reported by the Appropriations Committee later this year. If the Transportation Appropriations bill is scored with the much higher outlay estimates associated with the CBO estimate, it is possible that the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee's entire outlay allocation could be needed solely to honor the highway and transit firewalls leaving little or no other resources for the needs for the Federal Aviation Administration, the Coast Guard, and the National Railroad Passenger Corporation. This illustrates the danger of firewalls within budget functions. They create a perverse incentive for the Administration to underestimate the outlay impacts in order to shift budgetary resources to other priorities--but when the request comes to Congress it must be scored by CBO. Accordingly, the budget resolution and the appropriations bill run the risk of substantially higher outlay scoring on firewall accounts than the Administration assumed and accordingly must cut the firewalled functions or other discretionary programs to accommodate the increased outlays.

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 generations is to ensure that we have a balanced federal budget. Mr. President, 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.'' Mr. President, I completely agree with these sentiments. History has shown that Hamilton was correct. Those who govern have in fact saddled future generations with the responsibility of paying for their debts. Over the past 30 years, annual deficits became routine and the federal government built up massive debt. Furthermore, Jefferson's assessment of the significance of this is also correct: intergenerational debt shifting is morally wrong. Mr. President, 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. Mr. President, 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 billion 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 whose 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, Mr. President, 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. Mr. President, 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. Is it the Committee's intent that the Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee Program, established under S. 544, be made available to all qualified steel companies that satisfy the requisite security requirements in section (h)(2) at the time loan commitment is made as well as available at the time the loan becomes effective, regardless of whether or not a qualified steel company is now or could be required to reorganize under Chapter 11 of Title II of the U.S. Code?

Mr. SHELBY. As you know, several companies have already been forced into bankruptcy because of the ``critical circumstances'' that these unprecedented levels of imports have caused--Acme, Laclede, and Geneva Steel come to mind--and that several other companies are in a distressed financial condition, including companies in West Virginia and Alabama. Senator Sessions and I have met with the workers of steel companies on numerous occasions since this crisis started last fall. We have been told that because of this dire situation, companies are no longer able to borrow money in the private sector because of the disruptive and uncertain market. In which they must operate and that the immediate implementation of the Emergency Steel Loan Program is essential to the continued viability of these companies. It is my understanding that this programs is specifically designed to encourage the private sector to make such loans available and that the Board will expedite its review of loan guarantee applicants that are in immediate need of such financial assistance.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I was pleased to cosponsor the provision of the Senator from West Virginia for an Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee program when the Committee on Appropriations reported the bill to the Senate earlier this month. I felt then, as I do now, that many steel companies have suffered significant economic injury as a result of the illegal dumping of foreign steel. In my own State of Alabama, at least one steel mill I know of is now teetering on the brink of bankruptcy due to this illegal activity. I was, therefore, very pleased by the Senator from West Virginia's effort to address this problem and provide some short-term needed relief to our steel companies. I know Senator Sessions shares my support for this provision because of our concern with the plight of local steel mills in our State of Alabama.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I stand today in support of a very simple yet essential piece of legislation, the National Missile Defense Act of 1999. The bill states: It is the policy of the United States to deploy as soon as is technologically possible an effective National Missile Defense system capable of defending the territory of the United States against limited ballistic missile attack, whether that attack is accidental, unauthorized, or deliberate. That is all the language does. Mr. President, this bill may concern rocket science but it does not take a rocket scientist to realize the inherent necessity of this legislation for the safety of this country. Currently, our nation is defenseless against the threat of ballistic missile attack. Some have shrugged their shoulders and said, ``So what, America won the cold war without a missile defense. The Soviet Union never attacked us and no one else will either.'' Yet the fact that the United States won the cold war is the very reason that America faces a new and very real missile threat today. The world is not as simple in 1999 as it was during the cold war. Today, a much less stable Russia still maintains an awesome nuclear arsenal. Communist China is developing into a superpower with interests which are frequently adverse to our own. That development includes a force of ballistic missiles capable of striking the continental United States. And as we have seen in recent weeks, China is persistent in its efforts to acquire the technology necessary to make its missiles more accurate and deadly. Equally disturbing, today's threat includes the use of ballistic missiles by rogue nations and terrorist groups. The disintegration of the Soviet Union has exacerbated the proliferation of missile technology and lethal payloads. Iran and North Korea are developing and testing longer range missiles. Both countries are potential adversaries in regions vital to the national interest of the United States. Both countries have ties to international terrorist groups. With proliferation rampant, these two countries will surely not be the last to acquire long range missile technology. The failure to deploy an effective national missile defense system could subject this nation to diplomatic blackmail from any rogue state or terrorist group that can purchase or steal ballistic missile technology. Some have argued, as does the administration, that this bill will disrupt ongoing negotiations with Russia concerning the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Mr. President, if that is the case, then so be it. The ABM Treaty was signed with the Soviet Union. That state no longer exists and as such the treaty should be declared void. A number of constitutional scholars have adopted this view. Nevertheless, if it is the policy of this administration to honor the treaty, that policy should not be permitted to impede the deployment of a missile defense system. The administration can negotiate enough flexibility into the treaty to permit a viable national missile defense. Mr. President, the bill we are considering states that this nation will deploy a system when it is technologically feasible. That technology is being developed as we speak and is nearly at hand. However, I would urge my colleagues in the months and years ahead to continue investment in missile defense support technology. It is an important yet often overlooked investment. Under funding support technology today will jeopardize the future effectiveness of any missile defense system. Rapid changes in technology and potential development of missile defense countermeasures by our adversaries require that this nation maintain its technological superiority. That superiority does not come without a price. However the cost of losing our technological edge is one I hope this body never has to consider. Mr. President, some well intentioned opponents of this bill have stated that treaties and superior intelligence gathering will protect us from a future ballistic missile attack. This is nothing more than a gamble with the lives of the American people. Treaties have been broken throughout history. Intelligence is effective only when properly interpreted and disseminated. Ask the men of the U.S.S. Arizona at the bottom of Pearl Harbor. Intelligence collection did them little good. Mr. President, I am not willing to gamble with the lives of the American people. I continue to strongly support the National Missile Defense Act of 1999 and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague Senator Bond, to introduce the Stealth Tax Prevention Act. Among the many powers given to Congress by the Constitution of the United States, the responsibility of taxation is perhaps the most important. The Founding Fathers rationale behind bestowing this power to Congress is that because, as elected representative, Congress remains accountable to the voters when they levy and collect taxes. Politicians are rightly held responsible to the public for producing fair and prudent tax legislation. Three years ago, 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 interpret the Tax Code. The Stealth Tax Prevention Act, that Senator Bond and I are introducing along with Mr. Coverdell, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Burns, Mr. Gramm, Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Abraham, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Helms, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Grams, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Hutchinson, and Ms. Snowe, will expand the definition of a major rule to include, Mr. President, any IRS regulation which increases Federal revenue. Why? Because we need to return the authority of taxation to the United States Congress. 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, in most cases, small businesses. The discretionary authority of the Internal Revenue Service exposes small businesses, farmers, and others to the sometimes arbitrary actions of bureaucrats, thus creating an uncertain and, under certain cases, hostile environment in which to conduct day-to-day activities. Most of these people do not have lobbyists that work for them other than their elected Representatives. 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 burden discourages the startup of new firms and ultimately the creation of new jobs in the economy, which has really made America great today. Americans are now paying a higher share of their income to the Federal government than at any time since the end of World War II. They, Mr. President, as you well know, pay State income taxes. 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 bureaucrats to increase taxes even further, at their own discretion through interpretation of the Tax Code is unconscionable. The Stealth Tax Prevention Act will leave tax policy where it belongs, to elected Members of the Congress, not unelected and unaccountable IRS bureaucrats.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, the legislation that abolished the Civil Aeronautics Board in 1978 and deregulated the airline industry has been a huge success. Americans are flying more, and more Americans are flying; at the same time, air fares have dropped and air travel has become safer. The average price of an airline ticket has decreased approximately 33 percent in real terms since market forces replaced the whims of federal bureaucrats in setting fares. The number of passengers flying domestic routes has more than doubled to approximately 600 million annually. It is not surprising, then, that air travel is no longer an exclusive privilege of the elite and today is accessible to most Americans. While deregulation of the airline industry overall has yielded the benefits that free markets promise, there are growing pains. As the number of air passengers increases, so has the number of consumer complaints against air carriers. Some members of Congress have concluded that competition does not work for commercial aviation. They have stepped forward with proposals to reimpose federal control over air fares and carrier routes, to offer taxpayer subsidies to fledgling air carriers to compete against industry goliaths, or to levy a variety of new fines that would add to the Department of Transportation's duty the role of meter maid. We should be wary of any such effort to reintroduce the heavy hand of government under the auspices of protecting airline passengers. Mr. President, lets not rush to throw out the baby with the bath water and undo twenty years of unprecedented growth and consumer savings under deregulation. Now is the time to reinvigorate competition in the air passenger market, even if the air carriers do not welcome it. The best way to increase competition is to regulate less, not more. Regulations that serve as barriers to the commercial aviation market should be removed. Regulations that promote the division of the marketplace into regional cartels should be abandoned. Regulations and FAA management practices that delay the installation of new technology that facilitates competition should be streamlined. I believe that we can also increase competition in the airline industry by providing the traveling public with more useful information and by giving consumers ownership of the commodity they have purchased--their seat on an airplane. Today, I am introducing legislation that will provide passengers with greater information about their air fare and flight and with greater flexibility over unused or partially used fares. The price of an airline ticket is as much a mystery as the Pyramids or the Hanging Gardens. In fact, The New York Times reported that on a single flight, passengers paid 27 different fares, ranging from $87 to $728. We should not adopt any measure that discourage air carriers from discounting fares or that chill the benefits airline consumers are now receiving. Air carriers, however, should not be allowed to continue bait-and-switch advertising. If an air carrier offers a discounted fare, my bill permits all passengers to make a confirmed reservation at that same price for a twenty-four hour period. Under my bill, consumers will get more ticket and flight information. Airlines will be required to notify passengers about flight delays, cancellations, or diversions. Air carriers must also disclose if the passenger will be traveling on a carrier other than the one from whom the consumer purchased the ticket or if the flight will require the passenger to change planes. At the same time, my bill will ensure that air carriers are penalized for canceling flights, bumping passengers, and holding travelers hostage on board an aircraft with inpunity. Whenever an airline passenger is unable to make a flight, the passenger will have the opportunity to board a similar flight on a standby basis. Whenever an airline cancels a flight for their convenience, it will have to offer to compensate each passenger. Whenever an airline keeps passengers on board an aircraft that sits on the tarmac for more than two hours, it will have to offer to compensate each passenger. The Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 started a revolution in the airline industry, a revolution that according to a Brookings Institution study has benefitted consumers by $18.4 billion. That revolution is unfinished. I want to take the next step and promote new competition in the passenger aviation marketplace. My bill does this by taking away much of the mystery associated with flying. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, the legislation that abolished the Civil Aeronautics Board in 1978 and deregulated the airline industry has been a huge success. Americans are flying more, and more Americans are flying; at the same time, air fares have dropped and air travel has become safer. The average price of an airline ticket has decreased approximately 33 percent in real terms since market forces replaced the whims of federal bureaucrats in setting fares. The number of passengers flying domestic routes has more than doubled to approximately 600 million annually. It is not surprising, then, that air travel is no longer an exclusive privilege of the elite and today is accessible to most Americans. While deregulation of the airline industry overall has yielded the benefits that free markets promise, there are growing pains. As the number of air passengers increases, so has the number of consumer complaints against air carriers. Some members of Congress have concluded that competition does not work for commercial aviation. They have stepped forward with proposals to reimpose federal control over air fares and carrier routes, to offer taxpayer subsidies to fledgling air carriers to compete against industry goliaths, or to levy a variety of new fines that would add to the Department of Transportation's duty the role of meter maid. We should be wary of any such effort to reintroduce the heavy hand of government under the auspices of protecting airline passengers. Mr. President, lets not rush to throw out the baby with the bath water and undo twenty years of unprecedented growth and consumer savings under deregulation. Now is the time to reinvigorate competition in the air passenger market, even if the air carriers do not welcome it. The best way to increase competition is to regulate less, not more. Regulations that serve as barriers to the commercial aviation market should be removed. Regulations that promote the division of the marketplace into regional cartels should be abandoned. Regulations and FAA management practices that delay the installation of new technology that facilitates competition should be streamlined. I believe that we can also increase competition in the airline industry by providing the traveling public with more useful information and by giving consumers ownership of the commodity they have purchased--their seat on an airplane. Today, I am introducing legislation that will provide passengers with greater information about their air fare and flight and with greater flexibility over unused or partially used fares. The price of an airline ticket is as much a mystery as the Pyramids or the Hanging Gardens. In fact, The New York Times reported that on a single flight, passengers paid 27 different fares, ranging from $87 to $728. We should not adopt any measure that discourage air carriers from discounting fares or that chill the benefits airline consumers are now receiving. Air carriers, however, should not be allowed to continue bait-and-switch advertising. If an air carrier offers a discounted fare, my bill permits all passengers to make a confirmed reservation at that same price for a twenty-four hour period. Under my bill, consumers will get more ticket and flight information. Airlines will be required to notify passengers about flight delays, cancellations, or diversions. Air carriers must also disclose if the passenger will be traveling on a carrier other than the one from whom the consumer purchased the ticket or if the flight will require the passenger to change planes. At the same time, my bill will ensure that air carriers are penalized for canceling flights, bumping passengers, and holding travelers hostage on board an aircraft with inpunity. Whenever an airline passenger is unable to make a flight, the passenger will have the opportunity to board a similar flight on a standby basis. Whenever an airline cancels a flight for their convenience, it will have to offer to compensate each passenger. Whenever an airline keeps passengers on board an aircraft that sits on the tarmac for more than two hours, it will have to offer to compensate each passenger. The Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 started a revolution in the airline industry, a revolution that according to a Brookings Institution study has benefitted consumers by $18.4 billion. That revolution is unfinished. I want to take the next step and promote new competition in the passenger aviation marketplace. My bill does this by taking away much of the mystery associated with flying. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague Senator Bond, to introduce the Stealth Tax Prevention Act. Among the many powers given to Congress by the Constitution of the United States, the responsibility of taxation is perhaps the most important. The Founding Fathers rationale behind bestowing this power to Congress is that because, as elected representative, Congress remains accountable to the voters when they levy and collect taxes. Politicians are rightly held responsible to the public for producing fair and prudent tax legislation. Three years ago, 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 interpret the Tax Code. The Stealth Tax Prevention Act, that Senator Bond and I are introducing along with Mr. Coverdell, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Burns, Mr. Gramm, Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Abraham, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Helms, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Grams, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Hutchinson, and Ms. Snowe, will expand the definition of a major rule to include, Mr. President, any IRS regulation which increases Federal revenue. Why? Because we need to return the authority of taxation to the United States Congress. 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, in most cases, small businesses. The discretionary authority of the Internal Revenue Service exposes small businesses, farmers, and others to the sometimes arbitrary actions of bureaucrats, thus creating an uncertain and, under certain cases, hostile environment in which to conduct day-to-day activities. Most of these people do not have lobbyists that work for them other than their elected Representatives. 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 burden discourages the startup of new firms and ultimately the creation of new jobs in the economy, which has really made America great today. Americans are now paying a higher share of their income to the Federal government than at any time since the end of World War II. They, Mr. President, as you well know, pay State income taxes. 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 bureaucrats to increase taxes even further, at their own discretion through interpretation of the Tax Code is unconscionable. The Stealth Tax Prevention Act will leave tax policy where it belongs, to elected Members of the Congress, not unelected and unaccountable IRS bureaucrats.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the nomination of James M. Simon, Jr., to be the Assistant Director of Central Intelligence for Administration. As part of the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (S. 1718), the Senate Created the Office of the Director of Central Intelligence (ODCI), clarified the DCI's responsibilities for managing the Intelligence Community, and crated three new leadership positions in the ODCI: the Assistant Director of Central Intelligence (ADCI) for Collection, the Assistant Director of Central Intelligence for Analysis and Production, and the Assistant Director of Central Intelligence for Administration. According to the Act, the ADCIs were to be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. At Conference, the House agreed to create the three new positions provided that the position of Deputy Director of Central Intelligence for Community Management (DDCI/CM) also be created as a position requiring the advise and consent of the Senate. Therefore the Conference Report included the three ADCI positions and added the DDCI/ CM position within he Office of the DCI. The ADCIs report directly to the DDCI/CM. This new leadership structure was enacted into law by P.L. 104-293. The intent was to create a ``Goldwater-Nichols'' equivalent legislation for the intelligence Community by breaking down the barriers to effective community management erected by the very powerful directors of various intelligence agencies. In many cases, these directors act unilaterally on the day-to-day decisions concerning collection, production, and administration within the Community. On May 22, 1998, the Committee favorably reported the nomination of Joan Dempsey to be the first DDCI/CM. The Senate confirmed her on May 22, 1998. A great deal of the responsibility for management improvement within the Intelligence Community will lie with the Assistant Director of Central Intelligence for Administration. Therefore, the position requires a strong and determined individual that is prepared to confront and overcome the inevitable resistance of an entrenched and calcified bureaucracy. Mr. James M. Simon, Jr., a career intelligence officer, was nominated by the President to be the first Assistant Director of Central Intelligence for Administration, and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence held open hearings on his nomination on February 4, 1999. On February 24, 1999, the Committee voted to favorably report the nomination of Mr. Simon to he full Senate. Mr. Simon was born in Montgomery, Alabama on 1 July 1947. He is married to Susan Woods of Tuscaloosa, Alabama. Mr. Simon was commissioned in the US Army in 1969, retiring in 1997 from the active reserve. Trained as a signal officer and in intelligence, he has commanded a SIGINT/EW company and has been operations officer of a psychological warfare battalion. He is a graduate of the Military Intelligence Officers Advanced Course, the Command and General Staff College, and has completed the Security Management Course from the national War College. After discharge, Mr. Simon became a research intern at Radio Free Europe and served as teaching assistant to the Dean of the University of Southern California's Graduate Program in International Relations in Germany prior to returning to the United States to study for a Ph.D. Mr. Simon has a B.A. in political science from the University of Alabama and a M.A. in international relations from the University of Southern California. He held both Herman and Earhart fellowships while pursuing a Ph.D at USC with emphasis in national security, bureaucracy, Soviet studies, and Marxism-Leninism. He has given lectures at Harvard, Cornell, Utah State, the Joint Military Intelligence College, the Command and General Staff College, the Navy War College, the Air War College, and the national War College. For two years, he taught Soviet war fighting at he Air University's course for general officers. Mr. Simon left USC before completing his dissertation and joined the CIA in 1975 through its Career Training Program. He served briefly in the clandestine service before joining he Directorate of Intelligence's Office of Strategic Research as a military analyst specializing in tactics and doctrine. He served as chief of a current intelligence branch as well as of two branches concerned with Soviet military strategy, doctrine, and plans. From 1986 to 1990 he was in charge of the intelligence community organization responsible for asking the imagery constellation. In 1990, he was assigned as the senior intelligence representative to the US delegation for the Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty in Vienna where he was principal negotiator for the Treaty's information exchange protocol. After ratification, in 1991, Mr. Simon was reassigned as Chief of ACIS Rhein Main in Frankfurt; the Community's facility responsible for the preparation, debriefing, and reporting of information gained by arms control inspection teams throughout Europe. In 1993, Mr. Simon became chief of a division in the Office of European Analysis and in 1996 was named Chief of the Collection Requirements and Evaluation Staff. The Intelligence Committee believes that Mr. Simon is well qualified for this new position. Accordingly,I again urge my colleagues to support this nomination and vote in favor of the Nominee.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, paragraph 2 of Senate Rule XXVI requires that not later than March 1 of the first year of each Congress, the rules of each Committee shall be published in the Record. In compliance with this provision, I ask that the Rules of the Select Committee on Intelligence be printed in the Record. Rules of Procedure of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Rule 1. Convening of Meetings 1.1. The regular meeting day of the Select Committee on Intelligence for the transaction of Committee business shall be every other Wednesday of each month, unless otherwise directed by the Chairman. 1.2. The Chairman shall have authority, upon proper notice, to call such additional meetings of the Committee as he may deem necessary and may delegate such authority to any other member of the Committee. 1.3. A special meeting of the Committee may be called at any time upon the written request of five or more members of the Committee filed with the Clerk of the Committee. 1.4. In the case of any meeting of the Committee, other than a regularly scheduled meeting, the Clerk of the Committee shall notify every member of the Committee of the time and place of the meeting and shall give reasonable notice which, except in extraordinary circumstances, shall be at least 24 hours in advance of any meeting held in Washington, D.C. and at least 48 hours in the case of any meeting held outside Washington, D.C. 1.5. If five members of the Committee have made a request in writing to the Chairman to call a meeting of the Committee, and the Chairman fails to call such a meeting within seven calendar days thereafter, including the day on which the written notice is submitted, these members may call a meeting by filing a written notice with the Clerk of the committee who shall promptly notify each member of the Committee in writing of the date and time of the meeting. Rule 2. Meeting Procedures 2.1. Meetings of the Committee shall be open to the public except as provided in S. Res. 9, 94th Congress, 1st Session. 2.2. It shall be the duty of the Staff Director to keep or cause to be kept a record of all Committee proceedings. 2.3. The Chairman of the Committee, or if the Chairman is not present the Vice Chairman, shall preside over all meetings of the Committee. In the absence of the Chairman and the Vice Chairman at any meeting the ranking majority member, or if no majority member is present the ranking minority member present shall preside. 2.4. Except as otherwise provided in these Rules, decisions of the Committee shall be by a majority vote of the members present and voting. A quorum for the transaction of Committee business, including the conduct of executive sessions, shall consist of no less than one third of the Committee Members, except that for the purpose of hearing witnesses, taking sworn testimony, and receiving evidence under oath, a quorum may consist of one Senator. 2.5. A vote by any member of the Committee with respect to any measure or matter being considered by the Committee may be cast by proxy if the proxy authorization (1) is in writing; (2) designates the member of the Committee who is to exercise the proxy; and (3) is limited to a specific measure or matter and any amendments pertaining thereto. Proxies shall not be considered for the establishment of a quorum. 2.6. Whenever the Committee by roll call vote reports any measure or matter, the report of the Committee upon such measure or matter shall include a tabulation of the votes cast in favor of and the votes cast in opposition to such measure or matter by each member of the Committee. Rule 3. Subcommittees Creation of subcommittees shall be by majority vote of the Committee. Subcommittees shall deal with such legislation and oversight of programs and policies as the Committee may direct. The subcommittees shall be governed by the Rules of the Committee and by such other rules they may adopt which are consistent with the Rules of the Committee. Rule 4. Reporting of Measures or Recommendations 4.1. No measures or recommendations shall be reported, favorably or unfavorably, from the Committee unless a majority of the Committee is actually present and a majority concur. 4.2. In any case in which the Committee is unable to reach a unanimous decision, separate views or reports may be presented by any member or members of the Committee. 4.3. A member of the Committee who gives notice of his intention to file supplemental, minority, or additional views at the time of final Committee approval of a measure or matter, shall be entitled to not less than three working days in which to file such views, in writing with the Clerk of the Committee. Such views shall then be included in the Committee report and printed in the same volume, as a part thereof, and their inclusion shall be noted on the cover of the report. 4.4 Routine, non-legisative actions required of the Committee may be taken in accordance with procedures that have been approved by the Committee pursuant to these Committee Rules. Rule 5. Nominations 5.1. Unless otherwise ordered by the Committee, nominations referred to the Committee shall be held for at least 14 days before being voted on by the Committee. 5.2. Each member of the Committee shall be promptly furnished a copy of all nominations referred to the Committee. 5.3. Nominees who are invited to appear before the Committee shall be heard in public session, except as provided in Rule 2.1. 5.4. No confirmation hearing shall be held sooner than seven days after receipt of the background and financial disclosure statement unless the time limit is waived by a majority vote of the Committee. 5.5. The Committee vote on the confirmation shall not be sooner than 48 hours after the Committee has received transcripts of the confirmation hearing unless the time limit is waived by unanimous consent of the Committee. 5.6. No nomination shall be reported to the Senate unless the nominee has filed a background and financial disclosure statement with the Committee. Rule 6. Investigations No investigation shall be initiated by the Committee unless at least five members of the Committee have specifically requested the Chairman or the Vice Chairman to authorize such an investigation. Authorized investigations may be conducted by members of the Committee and/or designated Committee staff members. Rule 7. Subpoenas Subpoenas authorized by the Committee for the attendance of witnesses or the production of memoranda, documents, records or any other material may be issued by the Chairman, the Vice Chairman, or any member of the Committee designated by the Chairman, and may be served by any person designated by the Chairman. Vice Chairman or member issuing the subpoenas. Each subpoena shall have attached thereto a copy of S. Res. 400, 94th Congress, 2d Session and a copy of these rules. Rule 8. Procedures Related to the Taking of Testimony 8.1. Notice.--Witnesses required to appear before the Committee shall be given reasonable notice and all witnesses shall be furnished a copy of these Rules. 8.2. Oath or Affirmation.--Testimony of witnesses shall be given under oath or affirmation which may be administered by any member of the Committee. 8.3. Interrogation.--Committee interrogation shall be conducted by members of the Committee and such Committee staff as are authorized by the Chairman, Vice Chairman, or the presiding member. 8.4. Counsel for the Witness.--(a) Any witness may be accompanied by counsel. A witness who is unable to obtain counsel may inform the Committee of such fact. If the witness informs the Committee of this fact at least 24 hours prior to his or her appearance before the Committee, the Committee shall then endeavor to obtain voluntary counsel for the witness. Failure to obtain such counsel will not excuse the witness from appearing and testifying. (b) Counsel shall conduct themselves in an ethical and professional manner. Failure to do so shall, upon a finding to that effect by a majority of the members present, subject such counsel to disciplinary action which may include warning, censure, removal, or a recommendation of contempt proceedings. (c) There shall be no direct or cross-examination by counsel. However, counsel may submit in writing any question he wishes propounded to his client or to any other witness and may, at the conclusion of his client's testimony, suggest the presentation of other evidence or the calling of other witnesses. The Committee may use such questions and dispose of such suggestions as it deems appropriate. 8.5. Statements by Witnesses.--A witness may make a statement, which shall be brief and relevant, at the beginning and conclusion of his or her testimony. Such statements shall not exceed a reasonable period of time as determined by the Chairman, or other presiding members. Any witness desiring to make a prepared or written statement for the record of the proceedings shall file a copy with the Clerk of the Committee, and insofar as practicable and consistent with the notice given, shall do so at least 72 hours in advance of his or her appearance before the Committee. 8.6. Objections and Rulings.--Any objection raised by a witness or counsel shall be ruled upon by the Committee or other presiding member, and such ruling shall be the ruling of the Committee unless a majority of the Committee present overrules the ruling of the chair. 8.7. Inspection and Correction.--All witnesses testifying before the Committee shall be given a reasonable opportunity to inspect, in the office of the Committee, the transcript of their testimony to determine whether such testimony was correctly transcribed. The witness may be accompanied by counsel. Any corrections the witness desires to make in the transcript shall be submitted in writing to the Committee within five days from the date when the transcript was made available to the witness. Corrections shall be limited to grammar and minor editing, and may not be made to change the substance of the testimony. Any questions arising with respect to such corrections shall be decided by the Chairman. Upon request, those parts of testimony given by a witness in executive session which are subsequently quoted or made part of a public record shall be made available to that witness at his or her expense. 8.8. Requests to Testify.--The Committee will consider requests to testify on any matter or measure pending before the Committee. A person who believes that testimony or other evidence presented at a public hearing, or any comment made by a Committee member or a member of the Committee staff may tend to affect adversely his or her reputation, may request to appear personally before the Committee to testify on his or her own behalf, or may file a sworn statement of facts relevant to the testimony, evidence, or comment, or may submit to the Chairman proposed questions in writing for the cross-examination of other witnesses. The Committee shall take such action as it deems appropriate. 8.9 Contempt Procedures.--No recommendation that a person be cited for contempt of Congress shall be forwarded to the Senate unless and until the Committee has, upon notice to all its members, met and considered the alleged contempt, afforded the person an opportunity to state in writing or in person why he or she should not be held in contempt, and agreed by majority vote of the Committee, to forward such recommendation to the Senate. 8.10. Release or Name of Witness.--Unless authorized by the Chairman, the name of any witness scheduled to be heard by the Committee shall not be released prior to, or after, his or her appearance before the Committee. Rule 9. Procedures for Handling Classified or Sensitive Material 9.1. Committee staff offices shall operate under strict precautions. At least one security guard shall be on duty at all times by the entrance to control entry. Before entering the office all persons shall identify themselves. 9.2. Sensitive or classified documents and material shall be segregated in a secure storage area. They may be examined only at secure reading facilities. Copying, duplicating, or removal from the Committee offices of such documents and other materials is prohibited except as is necessary for use in, or preparation for, interviews or Committee meetings, including the taking of testimony, and in conformity with Section 10.3 hereof. All documents or materials removed from the Committee offices for such authorized purposes must be returned to the Committee's secure storage area for overnight storage. 9.3. Each member of the Committee shall at all times have access to all papers and other material received from any source. The Staff Director shall be responsible for the maintenance, under appropriate security procedures, of a registry which will number and identify all classified papers and other classified materials in the possession of the Committee, and such registry shall be available to any member of the Committee. 9.4. Whenever the Select Committee on Intelligence makes classified material available to any other Committee of the Senate or to any member of the Senate not a member of the Committee, such material shall be accompanied by a verbal or written notice to the recipients advising of their responsibility to protect such material pursuant to section 8 of S. Res. 400 of the 94th Congress. The Clerk of the Committee shall ensure that such notice is provided and shall maintain a written record identifying the particular information transmitted and the Committee or members of the Senate receiving such information. 9.5. Access to classified information supplied to the Committee shall be limited to those Committee staff members with appropriate security clearance and a need-to-know, as determined by the Committee, and, under the Committee's direction, the Staff Director and Minority Staff Director. 9.6. No member of the Committee or of the Committee staff shall disclose, in whole or in part or by way of summary, to any person not a member of the Committee or the Committee staff for any purpose or in connection with any proceeding, judicial or otherwise, any testimony given before the committee in executive session including the name of any witness who appeared or was called to appear before the Committee in executive session, or the contents of any papers or materials or other information received by the Committee except as authorized herein, or otherwise as authorized by the Committee in accordance with Section 8 of S. Res. 400 of the 94th Congress and the provisions of these rules, or in the event of the termination of the Committee, in such a manner as may be determined by the Senate. For purposes of this paragraph, members and staff of the Committee may disclose classified information in the possession of the Committee only to persons with appropriate security clearances who have a need to know such information for an official governmental purpose related to the work of the Committee. Information discussed in executive sessions of the Committee and information contained in papers and materials which are not classified but which are controlled by the Committee may be disclosed only to persons outside the Committee who have a need to know such information for an official governmental purpose related to the work of the Committee and only if such disclosure has been authorized by the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Committee, or by the Staff Director and Minority Staff Director, acting on their behalf. Failure to abide by this provision shall constitute grounds for referral to the Select Committee on Ethics pursuant to Section 8 of S. Res. 400. 9.7. Before the Committee makes any decision regarding the disposition of any testimony, papers, or other materials presented to it, the Committee members shall have a reasonable opportunity to examine all pertinent testimony, papers, and other materials that have been obtained by the members of the Committee or the Committee staff. 9.8. Attendance of persons outside the Committee at closed meetings of the Committee shall be kept at a minimum and shall be limited to persons with appropriate security clearance and a need-to-know the information under consideration for the execution of their official duties. Notes taken at such meetings by any person in attendance shall be returned to the secure storage area in the Committee's offices at the conclusion of such meetings, and may be made available to the department, agency, office, committee or entity concerned only in accordance with the security procedures of the Committee. Rule 10. Staff 10.1. For purposes of these rules, Committee staff includes employees of the Committee, consultants to the Committee, or any other person engaged by contract or otherwise to perform services for or at the request of the Committee. To the maximum extent practicable, the Committee shall rely on its full-time employees to perform all staff functions. No individual may be retained as staff of the Committee or to perform services for the Committee unless that individual holds appropriate security clearances. 10.2. The appointment of Committee staff shall be confirmed by a majority vote of the Committee. After confirmation, the Chairman shall certify Committee staff appointments to the Financial Clerk of the Senate in writing. No Committee staff shall be given access to any classified information or regular access to the Committee offices, until such Committee staff has received an appropriate security clearance as described in Section 6 of Senate Resolution 400 of the 94th Congress. 10.3. The Committee staff work for the Committee as a whole, under the supervision of the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Committee. The duties of the Committee staff shall be performed, and Committee staff personnel affairs and day-to-day operations, including security and control of classified documents and material, and shall be administered under the direct supervision and control of the Staff Director. The Minority Staff Director and the Minority Counsel shall be kept fully informed regarding all matters and shall have access to all material in the files of the Committee. 10.4. The Committee staff shall assist the minority as fully as the majority in the expression of minority views, including assistance in the preparation and filing of additional, separate and minority views, to the end that all points of view may be fully considered by the Committee and the Senate. 10.5. The members of the Committee staff shall not discuss either the substance or procedure of the work of the Committee with any person not a member of the Committee or the Committee staff for any purpose or in connection with any proceeding, judicial or otherwise, either during their tenure as a member of the Committee staff at any time thereafter except as directed by the Committee in accordance with Section 8 of S. Res. 400 of the 94th Congress and the provisions of these rules, or in the event of the termination of the Committee, in such a manner as may be determined by the Senate. 10.6. No member of the Committee staff shall be employed by the Committee unless and until such a member of the Committee staff agrees in writing, as a condition of employment to abide by the conditions of the nondisclosure agreement promulgated by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, pursuant to Section 6 of S. Res. 400 of the 49th Congress, 2d Session, and to abide by the Committee's code of conduct. 10.7. No member of the Committee staff shall be employed by the Committee unless and until such a member of the Committee staff agrees in writing, as a condition of employment, to notify the Committee or in the event of the Committee's termination the Senate of any request for his or her testimony, either during his tenure as a member of the Committee staff or at any time thereafter with respect to information which came into his or her possession by virtue of his or her position as a member of the Committee staff. Such information shall not be disclosed in response to such requests except as directed by the Committee in accordance with Section 8 of S. Res. 400 of the 94th Congress and the provisions of these rules, or in the event of the termination of the Committee, in such manner as may be determined by the Senate. 10.8. The Committee shall immediately consider action to be taken in the case of any member of the Committee staff who fails to conform to any of these Rules. Such disciplinary action may include, but shall not be limited to, immediate dismissal from the Committee staff. 10.9. Within the Committee staff shall be an element with the capability to perform audits of programs and activities undertaken by departments and agencies with intelligence functions. Such element shall be comprised of persons qualified by training and/or experience to carry out such functions in accordance with accepted auditing standards. 10.10. The workplace of the Committee shall be free from illegal use, possession, sale or distribution of controlled substances by its employees. Any violation of such policy by any member of the Committee staff shall be grounds for termination of employment. Further, any illegal use of controlled substances by a member of the Committee staff, within the workplace or otherwise, shall result in reconsideration of the security clearance of any such staff member and may constitute grounds for termination of employment with the Committee. 10.11. In accordance with title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (P.L. 102-166), all personnel actions affecting the staff of the Committee shall be made free from any discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, handicap or disability. rule 11. preparation for committee meeting 11.1. Under direction of the Chairman and the Vice Chairman, designated Committee staff members shall brief members of the Committee at a time sufficiently prior to any Committee meeting to assist the Committee members in preparation for such meeting and to determine any matter which the Committee member might wish considered during the meeting. Such briefing shall, at the request of a member, include a list of all pertinent papers and other materials that have been obtained by the Committee that bear on matters to be considered at the meeting. 11.2. The Staff Director shall recommend to the Chairman and the Vice Chairman the testimony, papers, and other materials to be presented to the Committee at any meeting. The determination whether such testimony, papers, and other materials shall be presented in open or executive session shall be made pursuant to the Rules of the Senate and Rules of the Committee. 11.3. The Staff Director shall ensure that covert action programs of the U.S. Government receive appropriate consideration by the Committee no less frequently than once a quarter. rule 12. legislative calendar 12.1. The Clerk of the Committee shall maintain a printed calendar for the information of each Committee member showing the measures introduced and referred to the Committee and the status of such measures; nominations referred to the Committee and their status; and such other matters as the Committee determines shall be included. The Calendar shall be revised from time to time to show pertinent changes. A copy of each such revision shall be furnished to each member of the Committee. 12.2. Unless otherwise ordered, measures referred to the Committee shall be referred by the Clerk of the Committee to the appropriate department or agency of the Government for reports thereon. rule 13. committee travel 13.1. No member of the Committee or Committee Staff shall travel abroad on Committee business unless specifically authorized by the Chairman and Vice Chairman. Requests for authorization of such travel shall state the purpose and extent of the trip. A full report shall be filed with the Committee when travel is completed. 13.2. When the Chairman and the Vice Chairman approve the foreign travel of a member of the Committee staff not accompanying a member of the Committee, all members of the Committee are to be advised, prior to the commencement of such travel, of its extent, nature and purpose. The report referred to in Rule 13.1 shall be furnished to all members of the Committee and shall not be otherwise disseminated without the express authorization of the Committee pursuant to the Rules of the Committee. 13.3. No member of the Committee staff shall travel within this country on Committee business unless specifically authorized by the Staff Director as directed by the Committee. rule 14. changes in rules These Rules may be modified, amended, or repealed by the Committee, provided that a notice in writing of the proposed change has been given to each member at least 48 hours prior to the meeting at which action thereon is to be taken.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Soldiers', Sailors', Airmen's, and Marines' Bill of Rights Act of 1999. The Joint Chiefs of Staff and many members of this body have expressed concern over the state of our military forces. One of the most serious problems identified by the Joint Chiefs is the recruitment and retention of dedicated and highly trained personnel. This legislation begins the process of rectifying that situation. Our Armed Forces must not only be able to fight and win on the battlefield, they must be able to compete for high quality personnel against robust private sector employers. I am proud to say that this bill gives our military a much more equitable chance to recruit and retain the best persons this country has to offer. This legislation authorizes a significant and long overdue military pay raise. It enhances two long time staples of recruitment and retention; the military retirement system and the Montgomery G.I. bill. It authorizes a subsistence allowance for enlisted personnel so that no military member will be forced to live on food stamps. Finally, I am very pleased that this bill includes an authorization for military personnel to participate in a Thrift Savings Plan similar to the plans afforded other non-uniformed Federal employees. Mr. President, the bill which I stand in support of today should be considered as a beginning. Congress has an explicit constitutional duty to see that the Armed Forces are equipped and maintained. Their unique task is daunting and at times life threatening. The Congress and this administration should not treat military service as just another job. This bill represents the Senate's view that the personnel of America's Armed Forces are worth a significant investment. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. To every member of our Armed Forces, whether afloat, ashore or airborne, wherever they are in the world, I say thank you and well done!

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Daniel Pratt, a distinguished Southern Industrialist and founder of the city of Prattville, Alabama. A man whose vision guided the state on a course of industrialization and modernization. As a celebration of Daniel Pratt's 200th birthday, 1999 has been named the ``Year of Industry'' in Alabama. This is a significant tribute to honor a very important figure in the history of Alabama. Daniel Pratt's legacy not only includes the beginning of modern industry to the state, but also philanthropic deeds that were unrivaled for his era. Daniel Pratt's indomitable pioneer spirit serves as an inspiration to others who have faced adversity and conquered the unknown. Born in 1799, Daniel Pratt was raised in Temple, New Hampshire. Brought up as a Congregationalist in a traditional Puritan family, Daniel Pratt grew up disciplined, structured, and religious. He received only a limited education, but took advantage of an opportunity to apprentice under a family friend, who was an architect and a builder. This new focus in his life helped to channel his natural inclination towards machinery and building. After his mother's death in 1817, Daniel Pratt acted on his ambitions and set out for the South, which he regarded as a land of opportunity. Daniel Pratt's formative years instilled in him a strong work ethic and religious convictions, along with a sense of compassion. These two attributes would help to guide him through difficult decisions throughout his life. After sailing to Savannah, Georgia, Daniel Pratt did not immediately become a rich entrepreneur. Initially, he put the tools of his apprenticeship to work as a builder and planner for wealthy planters. After a few years, he moved onto ship building, adding to his burgeoning knowledge of construction and the industrial process. Daniel Pratt was willing to take the long road to success. He realized that the only way to succeed in life was through hard work and gritty determination. He also had the common sense to learn from others, which paid off when he befriended Samuel Griswold, who was a prominent cotton gin manufacturer in the area. Through friendship as well as a business relationship, Daniel Pratt learned the trade which would ultimately thrust him into the forefront of Southern industrialization. Daniel Pratt proved to be so adept at the manufacture and sale of cotton gins, that he became a partner in the enterprise within a year. At this point in his life, Daniel Pratt's unbridled vision was able to manifest itself in his actions. He saw that the expansion of the cotton gin into the West was a fantastic opportunity for his new enterprise. He realized that the center of distribution in the South would revolve around the great river systems which offered the advantage of water as a cheap source of power. Pratt had planned to stay in business with his partner, but with Indian uprisings in the Alabama area, his partner became apprehensive. This did not deter Daniel Pratt in the slightest. As his first biographer, Shadrack Mims wrote: ``The indomitable will of Daniel Pratt, that spirit of enterprise which characterized him through life, was not to be daunted nor discouraged by Indian uprisings. He purchased material for fifty gins, put the same on wagons, and in 1833, he with his brave wife headed for Alabama.'' Daniel Pratt rapidly met the success he foresaw in his move to Alabama. He found quick sales among the planters of the Alabama Black Belt. He established a temporary site for his factory along Autauga Creek and immediately began to expand his operations. Within a period of five years, it was evident that he needed a larger area for a permanent site. He chose to settle on a marshy, heavily wooded piece of land only three miles from his original site. In only ten years, he turned this hostile area into a thriving manufacturing village of eight hundred people. This is the site that would eventually form the booming industrial town of Prattville. Initially, the Gin Factory was the corner stone of the economy in the new settlement. But as business grew, Daniel Pratt reinvested the profits into new industries in the town. By the 1850's, Prattville, for its size, furnished the most diverse industrial pattern in the United States. In addition, the Pratt Gin Company became the largest gin factory in the world, with unrivaled quality in construction. Daniel Pratt's business was so successful, that he began to invest money in the state infrastructure. He presided over railroad conventions and sparked Southern railroad growth with his generous infusion of capital. Daniel Pratt also used his good fortune to invest in the Red Mountain Iron and Coal Company, and he controlled the Oxmoor iron furnaces in the Birmingham Industrial district. In his honor, the great vein of coal west of Birmingham was named the Pratt Vein, and Pratt City was later incorporated into the town of Birmingham. These furnaces were destroyed by Wilson's Raiders during the Civil War, but Daniel Pratt was determined to rebuild them. With the help of his son-in-law, Henry Debardeleban, he did just that, and by 1873, they were back in operation. The name was changed to the Eureka Mining Company, and the towns of Birmingham and Bessemer began to thrive. Daniel Pratt is credited with being one of the driving forces behind the development of that entire area of the state. In 1847, the University of Alabama awarded him the degree of Master of Mechanical and Useful Arts, the only one of it's kind the University has ever given. Pratt also served as a distinguished member of the Alabama House of Representatives throughout the duration of the Civil War. However, it was Daniel Pratt's philanthropic deeds which set him apart from other industrialists of his time. Pratt built schools and churches for workers in his textile mill with his own money. His boundless paternalism towards his workers led him to teach in Prattville's Sunday Schools. It was his sincere desire to better both the town of Prattville as well as the entire South through his relentless efforts to preach the industrial gospel. He wrote numerous letters and articles professing his industrialist beliefs, which were published in southern newspapers and periodicals across the area. Although born 200 years ago, Daniel Pratt serves as a shining example of a pioneer spirit which transformed the South into a thriving industrial center. His leadership, vision, courage, and generosity is an inspiration to everyone.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1999. 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 Senator Dodd, 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 Mack, Craig, and Brownback in introducing this important legislation. Our bill, which is identical to legislation voted out of the Senate Banking Committee with bipartisan support in the 105th 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. No longer is a majority of the utility service offered by so few a provider. In fact, over 80 percent of the utility holding companies are currently exempt from PUHCA. This legislation implements the recommendations of 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 . . .'' The regulatory restraints imposed by PUHCA on our electric and gas industries are counterproductive in today's global competitive environment and are based on historical assumptions and industry models that are no longer valid. Repeal will not create regulatory gaps; the ability of the States to regulate holding company systems, together with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's powers under the Federal Power Act and the Natural Gas Act render PUHCA redundant Our bill assures the FERC 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. In the competitive environment that we now find ourselves, it is imperative to remove a major bottleneck that constrains the ability of American gas and electric utilities to compete. This bill has been reported out of the Senate Banking Committee in the last two Congresses, but due to time constraints, was never voted on in the full Senate. I am confident that we have the votes to pass this legislation this session. While it is unclear that a sufficient consensus exists to ensure legislative progress on comprehensive reform of the electric and gas industry, it is very clear that the first step to comprehensive reform is the repeal of PUHCA. I am pleased to announce, Mr. President, that a broad consensus for PUHCA repeal does exist, and the Senate should act on this very important legislation as soon as possible.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1999. 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 Senator Dodd, 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 Mack, Craig, and Brownback in introducing this important legislation. Our bill, which is identical to legislation voted out of the Senate Banking Committee with bipartisan support in the 105th 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. No longer is a majority of the utility service offered by so few a provider. In fact, over 80 percent of the utility holding companies are currently exempt from PUHCA. This legislation implements the recommendations of 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 . . .'' The regulatory restraints imposed by PUHCA on our electric and gas industries are counterproductive in today's global competitive environment and are based on historical assumptions and industry models that are no longer valid. Repeal will not create regulatory gaps; the ability of the States to regulate holding company systems, together with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's powers under the Federal Power Act and the Natural Gas Act render PUHCA redundant Our bill assures the FERC 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. In the competitive environment that we now find ourselves, it is imperative to remove a major bottleneck that constrains the ability of American gas and electric utilities to compete. This bill has been reported out of the Senate Banking Committee in the last two Congresses, but due to time constraints, was never voted on in the full Senate. I am confident that we have the votes to pass this legislation this session. While it is unclear that a sufficient consensus exists to ensure legislative progress on comprehensive reform of the electric and gas industry, it is very clear that the first step to comprehensive reform is the repeal of PUHCA. I am pleased to announce, Mr. President, that a broad consensus for PUHCA repeal does exist, and the Senate should act on this very important legislation as soon as possible.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to increase the retirement benefits for military personnel by allowing them to participate in the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP). Many of us are concerned about the current state of readiness in our military forces, and rightly so. In the last decade, the number of Americans wearing their nation's uniform has decreased precipitously along with the funding that pays for their weapons, aircraft, ships, wages, housing, and benefits. Tragically, as the defense budget withers, our military's operational tempo soars. Overseas deployments have steadily increased in number, scope, and duration. Our troops are working harder than ever and yet, we have failed to support them. In addition to inadequately funding much needed weapons modernization, we have kept their wages low and slowly eroded their benefits. As we make it less and less attractive to serve, we will not be able to recruit high quality people and those that now serve will continue to leave. Recruiting and retention are the backbone of our military services. Without either there is no readiness. Our service men and women are being stretched to the breaking point, and they are voting with their feet. We must act now. Senior Pentagon officials have determined that retirement benefits are a key consideration in the decision to pursue a military career and therefore are critical to the retention of our best people. Because of reduced retirement benefits--commonly referred to as ``Redux''--an increasing number of mid-career personnel are deciding to leave the military. In recent testimony to the Senate, General Henry Shelton, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stated that ``that is why, among a number of pressing needs, reforming military retirement and military pay remains the Joint Chiefs' highest priority.'' The bill I am introducing today is simple and straightforward. It shores up the military retirement system by allowing military personnel to supplement direct benefits through participation in the Thrift Saving Plan (TSP). This legislation will provide ALL military personnel a retirement benefit that is available to federal employees and all of us in the Senate and our staffs. Furthermore, the inherent flexibility of TSP will give military personnel and their families greater control over their retirement benefits. For these reasons, this legislation is a priority for the leadership in the Senate. Specifically, my bill will allow members of the armed services to contribute up to 5 percent of basic pay in a tax-deferred individual account where the funds are held in trust and invested and can later be withdrawn at retirement. As an additional incentive for a military career, personnel will be qualified to contribute up to 10 percent of their basic pay after 10 years of service. As is the case with the Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS), the government would provide up to 5 percent to match the individual's contribution. So often we marvel over our high-tech weapons systems and we forget that they are useless without highly skilled and professional Americans to operate them. If the services continue to hemorrhage qualified people at current rates, there will be a reckoning the magnitude of which we are not prepared to endure. We must take action now to slow the exodus of qualified personnel from the military. I believe that this bill will be a powerful tool to assist the services in retaining personnel, and I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.