Richard Shelby

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.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of legislation that I am introducing which is intended to prevent foreign nationals from making financial contributions to federal elections. Last October, in the trial of Charlie Trie, Judge Paul L. Friedman ruled that the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) does not prohibit foreigners from making campaign donations to political parties or Congressional Campaign Committees. The holding of this case is based on an extremely narrow reading of the language of the FECA. Judge Friedman ruled that because the FECA specifically prohibits foreign nationals from making direct contributions to the campaigns of candidates for federal office but does not specifically prohibit donations, or ``soft money'' expenditures to the parties, such donations are not prohibited by the FECA. While we can argue the merits of this decision and question whether it merely tracks the letter rather than the entire spirit of the FECA, it is quite clear that this ruling opens up our system of federal elections to the possibility of foreign influence. My bill clarifies the law by amending the FECA to prohibit donations by foreign nationals to ``a national committee of a political party or a Senatorial or Congressional Campaign Committee of a national political party for any purpose.'' This new provision along with the existing prohibition of direct contributions by foreign nationals, will provide the Federal Election Commission with the ability to prosecute those who illegally attempt to influence federal elections. Ultimately, my bill will get us closer to achieving the desired effect originally contemplated by the FECA--ensuring that federal campaigns are free of foreign money. Mr. President, regardless of any member's views concerning the direction that campaign finance reform should take, I believe that amending the FECA to prohibit foreign influence in federal campaigns requires swift action.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of legislation that I am introducing which is intended to prevent foreign nationals from making financial contributions to federal elections. Last October, in the trial of Charlie Trie, Judge Paul L. Friedman ruled that the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) does not prohibit foreigners from making campaign donations to political parties or Congressional Campaign Committees. The holding of this case is based on an extremely narrow reading of the language of the FECA. Judge Friedman ruled that because the FECA specifically prohibits foreign nationals from making direct contributions to the campaigns of candidates for federal office but does not specifically prohibit donations, or ``soft money'' expenditures to the parties, such donations are not prohibited by the FECA. While we can argue the merits of this decision and question whether it merely tracks the letter rather than the entire spirit of the FECA, it is quite clear that this ruling opens up our system of federal elections to the possibility of foreign influence. My bill clarifies the law by amending the FECA to prohibit donations by foreign nationals to ``a national committee of a political party or a Senatorial or Congressional Campaign Committee of a national political party for any purpose.'' This new provision along with the existing prohibition of direct contributions by foreign nationals, will provide the Federal Election Commission with the ability to prosecute those who illegally attempt to influence federal elections. Ultimately, my bill will get us closer to achieving the desired effect originally contemplated by the FECA--ensuring that federal campaigns are free of foreign money. Mr. President, regardless of any member's views concerning the direction that campaign finance reform should take, I believe that amending the FECA to prohibit foreign influence in federal campaigns requires swift action.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. I want to thank the Senator from Pennsylvania for his comments and to confirm his understanding with respect to the Drexel Institute. As noted in the Senate committee report, the funds allocated within the Statement of Managers are to be made available for the purposes expressed in section 5118 of TEA-21. the american competitiveness and work force improvement act

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, it is my pleasure to stand shoulder-to- shoulder with my colleague from South Carolina, the distinguished President pro tempore, in this effort to increase funding for research into the use of polymer additives for asphalt and concrete pavement. The Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee directed that $2 million be committed for further research into polymer additives. Limited resources prohibited us from committing additional resources to this effort. The provision the Committee added to the Report was designed to respond to a shortfall in this area by directing federal research efforts into further study of the effects of polymer additives on pavement quality and performance. I greatly appreciate the Senator from South Carolina's interest in this matter, and I look forward to working with him and the FHWA to ensure this research is completed and reported to the states and other interested parties in a timely fashion.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, due to an inadvertent oversight, Senator Susan Collins was not listed as a cosponsor of S. 2145, the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 1998, when the Senate returned from August recess in September. I hope this statement in the Congressional Record will clarify Senator Collin's enthusiasm for S. 2145. I thank Senator Collins for her support of the bill.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, while I know that the Senate will not take up consideration of S. 625, The Auto Choice Reform Act of 1997, during the 105th Congress, I wanted to put my views regarding this legislation on the record. S. 625 creates a federally mandated two-tracked automobile insurance system under which car owners would have the option to enroll in a ``personal protection system'' or the traditional ``tort maintenance system.'' Those who select the personal protection system are promised ``prompt recovery'' of economic loss, regardless of fault. However, they forfeit the right to recover damages for pain and suffering while being exempted from liability for such damages themselves. I have some strong concerns regarding this type of so-called ``reform'' legislation. First and foremost, I believe that the argument that ``Auto Choice'' will reduce insurance premiums is unfounded. Over the last few years, the numerous states that have adopted no-fault insurance programs similar to those in this legislation have had the highest premiums in the country. In fact, in 1995, 6 out of the 10 states with the highest average liability premiums were no-fault systems. In light of the failure of auto choice to lower premium costs, I cannot understand why we are seeking to put such a system into place across the country. I am also greatly troubled by the fact that this bill involves an attempt by the federal government to impose a one-size-fits-all solution on the states. While I recognize that some reforms are necessary, I do not believe that federalizing our tort system, is, or should be the solution. For more than 200 years, states have had the power to develop and refine their own tort systems. Supreme Court Justice Powell wisely observed: ``Our 50 states have developed a complicated and effective system of tort laws and where there have been problems, the states have acted to fix those problems.'' Mr. President, federally directed reform efforts such as those contained in S. 625 detract from the states' abilities to fashion their own initiatives and deny them the opportunity to provide solutions to meet their own particularized needs. Furthermore, I am troubled by the fact that this bill allows people to waive their right to recover for noneconomic damages. Mr. President, such a provision could lead to a lifetime of pain and suffering for those who suffer massive injury in a car accident. In fact, that possibility is so high, no state, not one, allows its citizens to choose to waive their right of recovery for pain and suffering. Consider the fact that in all likelihood people would ``choose'' to waive these rights when they are sitting in their den, filling out their insurance forms. Mr. President, I would argue that the timing of such a choice precludes the possibility of informed consent on the part of the consumer. No one can predict the future, people cannot say whether they will need to pursue recovery for some accident. I predict that, many of those who so choose will one day find that they guessed wrong. Mr. President, checking off a box on a form could forever cost someone the ability to seek damages for loss of a limb, blindness, loss of a child or permanent disfigurement. This legislation does not provide a choice, it opens people up to take an unnecessary chance. This legislation contains another flaw in that it does not fully protect the rights of those who choose traditional tort protection. Someone who chooses tort law coverage can only seek complete access to the courts if the at-fault driver has also selected traditional tort law coverage. Thus, a victim in an accident has to hope to be lucky enough that the person that hits him has selected the ``right'' type of coverage. Again, what appear to be ``choices'' in this bill are in effect risky chances. Mr. President, if we revisit this issue in the future, I believe we must closely consider these factors. Ultimately, we must also note that we cannot advance reform without taking our federal system into consideration. What is right in Alabama, may not be proper for California, or North Dakota or Connecticut. States must play the preeminent role in setting the course for tort law reform. Common sense demands it, our legal traditions demand it, and our Constitution demands it.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. I thank the Majority Leader and Chairman Campbell for their support. The lack of public access to research data feeds general public mistrust of the government and undermines support for major regulatory programs. This measure was long overdue and it represents a first step in ensuring that the public has access to all studies used by the Federal government to develop Federal policy.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to ask that my colleagues support the Conference Report on the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999. I want to thank Chairman Young for his leadership in the Conference, and note for my colleagues that Chairman Goss was unable to chair the conference due to a serious medical condition in his family. We all wish Mrs. Goss a speedy recovery. I believe that the Conference Committee put together a solid package for consideration by the full Senate that fairly represents the intelligence priorities set forth in both the Senate and House versions of the Intelligence Authorization Act. I am pleased to report that the Conference Committee accomplished its task in a strong bipartisan manner, and I want to thank my colleague from Nebraska, Senator Kerrey, for working so closely with me to produce this legislation. I believe that the Conference Report embraces many of the key recommendations that the Senate adopted in its version of the bill. We recommended significant increases in funding for high-priority projects aimed at better positioning the Intelligence Community for the threats of the 21st Century, while at the same time reducing funds for programs and activities that were not adequately justified or redundant. The Conference Report includes key initiatives that I believe are vital for the future of our Intelligence Community. These initiatives include: bolstering advanced research and development across the Community, to facilitate, among other things, the modernization of NSA and CIA; strengthening efforts in counter- proliferation, counter-terrorism, counter-narcotics, counter- intelligence, and effective covert action; expanding the collection and exploitation of measurements and signatures intelligence, especially ballistic missile intelligence; developing reconnaissance systems based on new small satellite technologies that provide flexible, affordable collection from space with radars to detect moving targets; boosting education, recruiting, and technical training for Intelligence Community personnel; enhancing analytical capabilities; streamlining dissemination of intelligence products; and providing new tools for information operations. The conferees have provided the funds and guidance to ensure that military commanders and national policymakers continue to receive timely, accurate information on threats to our security. At the same time, we have found some critical areas within the Community that are in need of major improvements. First, the CIA's foremost mission of providing timely intelligence based on human sources (``HUMINT'') is in grave jeopardy. CIA case officers today do not have the training or the equipment needed to keep their true identities hidden, to communicate covertly with agents, or to plant sophisticated listening devices and other collection tools that will provide timely intelligence on an adversary's intentions. Second, what many see as the ``crown jewel'' of U.S. Intelligence-- the National Security Agency's signals intelligence capability-- likewise is in dire need of modernization. The digital and fiber optic revolutions are here-and-now, but NSA is still predominantly oriented toward cold war-era threats. The Director of NSA has recommended major changes in how NSA performs its mission--changes we endorse--but those recommendations were not adequately addressed in the President's budget. Third, promising technologies and systems for detecting missiles and other threats were short-changed in the President's budget request. Likewise, robust funding for new tools for conducting information warfare, new sensors to detect and counter proliferation, and a demonstration of radar technology on small and affordable satellites were not adequately addressed in the budget request. And fourth, the declining quality of analysis within the Intelligence Community is cause for great concern. Responding to the failure to predict the Indian nuclear tests, the Director of Central Intelligence commissioned retired Admiral David Jeremiah to review what went wrong and why. Among other findings, Admiral Jeremiah concluded that Intelligence Community analysts were complacent; they based their analyses on faulty assumptions; and engaged in wishful thinking. It is my belief that such is the state of analysis as it relates to many issues and problems, including political-military developments in China, the ballistic missile threat, and more. We can and should expect more from the Intelligence Community. And as we demand more from our Intelligence Community in a number of areas, we also demand fiscal responsibility. The Conference Report includes a number of reductions to programs that were not adequately justified or were redundant with other elements within the Intelligence Community. The Conference Report also places some fiscal restraints on programs that have historically been allowed to grow unbounded. These programs are primarily in the area of technical satellite collection, and the conferees placed a cost cap on the National Reconnaissance Office's next generation imagery satellite constellation, called the Future Imagery Architecture. I believe that this action is necessary to ensure that the program stays on a solid fiscal footing from the start, and focuses on the key performance parameters generated by the Intelligence Community and the Department of Defense's Joint Requirements Oversight Council. Finally, the Conference Report includes a provision to name the CIA Headquarters Compound after President George Bush. I am happy that we were able to recognize President Bush's service to this country as both Director of Central Intelligence and as President. As DCI, Mr. Bush brought innovation to the CIA, and dramatically improved the morale within the Agency. He demonstrated leadership and integrity at a time when both were desperately needed to help restore confidence in the CIA and the other elements that make up the Intelligence Community. It is a fitting tribute that we designate CIA headquarters the George Bush Center for Intelligence. Mr. President, the Conference Committee worked closely together, in a strong bipartisan fashion, to produce a comprehensive Intelligence Authorization Act, and I urge my colleagues to support its adoption.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to discuss language that has been added to the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999. The language, establishing the ``Intelligence Community Whistleblower Act of 1998,'' creates a process by which employees of intelligence agencies can provide information to Congress about certain potential problems without fear of reprisal or threats or reprisal. Some of these provisions create duties for the Inspectors General (IGs) of the Department of Defense and the Department of Justice, and modify the Inspector General Act of 1978. As a result, they fall squarely within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, which is the Senate's primary oversight committee for the IG community. However, Senator Thompson, the chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, worked with me to ensure that the language comports with the overall framework of the Inspector General Act. I thank my colleague for his participation in this issue.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished friend, Senator Kyl, for introducing S. 1194--the Medicare Beneficiary Freedom to Contract Act and for his leadership on this issue. I firmly believe it is my obligation, as an elected member of the United States Senate, to defend the liberty of the constituents that put me in office. Freedom manifests itself in various ways, but one fundamental concept of importance in America is the protection of one's discretion over one's financial resources. I often raise this issue in the context of taxes, but in addition to allowing one to reap what one sows, it is equally important that people have the ability to spend their earnings as they see fit. I want to be perfectly clear what I think the essence is of what we are discussing when the issue of Medicare private contracting arises. We are talking about allowing people to spend their money as they see fit. This is a very simple, yet important, freedom that people enjoy. We are not talking about letting people buy illegal products, but rather about the right of people to spend their money on health care. Only in Washington DC could such a notion be considered controversial. But to those who have little regard for individual freedom, and who have a vested interest in seeing the scope and power of government grow, this is a controversial matter. H.L. Menken once said that ``the most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself.'' That is the threat, Mr. President. Those that favor the Medicare monopoly, often even to the detriment of Medicare beneficiaries, resist the freedom of people to make these private decisions, because it threatens the government's control of health care delivery. Unfortunately the era of big government is not over. In fact, it is alive and well and is embodied in Section 4507 of last year's Balanced Budget Act. Therefore, I want to request that Majority Leader Lott and Finance Committee Chairman Roth help us attach S. 1194 to the first appropriate legislative vehicle, so that we can repeal Section 4507. Mr. President, we must restore the right of our elderly to buy the health care they feel they need, without any ``big government'' constraints on their decisions. This effort is important not only to our ensuring quality health care to our elderly, but also to the larger battle of defending freedom in America.

Mr. SHELBY

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

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to add my voice to the debate regarding the FY 1999 Agriculture Appropriations bill. While I know this bill contains numerous important items including funding for agricultural research, credit programs, conservation programs, and food safety initiatives, I want to specifically mention my concern regarding the portions of this legislation which provide emergency relief to America's farmers. The last few years have been very difficult for America's farmers. I know this very well because of the numerous difficulties suffered by farmers in my state of Alabama. Last year, North Alabama was hit with an especially cold and rainy spring which greatly reduced the yields of cotton farmers. Peanut farmers in Southeastern Alabama were hit with a toxic mold blight which cost them greatly when they tried to market their peanuts. Before the close of the Summer of 1997, Hurricane Danny dumped inches of rain on and brought devastating winds to Southwestern Alabama. This storm alone caused millions of dollars in crop losses and farm related damages. Mr. President, unfortunately I cannot say that weather conditions improved much in Alabama this year. Early spring flooding was followed by devastating heat and drought. Alabama's cotton producers, corn producers, cattle producers and peanut producers were forced to battle extreme conditions as they tried to keep crops and livestock alive. If this was not enough, Hurricane Georges swept through the Gulf Coast this past week and caused millions of dollars more in crop losses. To add insult to these weather-induced injuries, the troubled economic conditions in Asia and throughout other parts of the world have decreased the number of available markets for our farmers. The loss of these markets has in turn led to lower prices. Where our farmers have actually made a crop, they are finding that the market has bottomed out and there is very little profit available to them. Mr. President, a series of natural disasters coupled with economic collapse have hit Alabama's farmers extremely hard. They need help. I am well aware of the fact that many other regions have suffered significant farm-related losses. As I have pointed out, however they have not been affected exclusively. I want the devastation that Alabama's farmers have suffered to be recognized on the record. Mr. President, this bill provides $2.1 billion in disaster assistance funding and grants the Secretary of Agriculture broad discretion to implement disaster assistance awards. I urge the Secretary to make a full and complete review of all the factors affecting farmers in every region of the country. I want it noted that I believe that it is fundamentally important that the Secretary be aware of the extreme conditions that have befallen farmers in my state. When Secretary Glickman makes the awards for farm disasters and economic losses, I want him to make them based on a fair appraisal of all farm losses throughout the country. I believe that all my colleagues will agree. Our farmers deserve no less.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I will take just a minute tonight. I associate myself with Senator Gramm. We worked on this together in the Banking Committee and we will be working together on this for a long time. I will take a minute to inform the Senate of my objections to H.R. 10. I believe that members of the Senate have not had the proper time to study and debate this matter. Most do not even know what is in this bill. This is a very complicated bill. There are a lot of good things in it, but there are some things that Senator Gramm has raised and I will raise as the debate goes along that we need to debate and we need to take out of this bill. I believe Senators are just being told basically that this is a historical opportunity, you must pass H.R. 10. Think about it tonight. We make history in this Chamber, the U.S. Senate, every day. If we pass H.R. 10 just because everyone on Wall Street tells us to pass H.R. 10, this will, indeed, be a historical moment. But I don't believe that is going to happen, not with a lot of the provisions that are now in the bill. If H.R. 10 is so great, why is everyone reluctant to debate the bill? How come the members of the Senate Banking Committee were not permitted to read, study, or share the manager's amendment until the morning of the markup? Is that the way a Committee is supposed to function? What is hidden in this bill? I'll tell you one thing that is in this bill--so well hidden, not one of the bank trade associations--not the American Bankers Association, the Independent Bankers Association of America, America's Community Bankers, the Bankers Roundtable or even the Consumer Bankers Association knew the implications of the CRA expansion in this bill until Senator Gramm and I sent around a ``Dear Colleague'' about a week and a half ago. None of those associations realized that they were subjecting member bank officers and directors to million-dollar-a-day civil money penalties for CRA noncompliance. Why didn't the associations realize this? These associations are caught up in the rush to judgment. They have not given proper consideration to this bill, and neither have we. With less than a week to go in this Congress, H.R. 10 is being jammed through the Senate. The Senate is supposed to be the deliberative body. There are many good things in H.R. 10, Mr. President, but there are also many bad things in H.R. 10. Currently, community groups and even labor unions use CRA to protest the merger of financial institutions. Most of the time, the merging institutions are forced to pay off the protest groups just in order to consummate the merger. Make no mistake about it, this is legalized extortion, one that the U.S. government is aiding and abetting. The financial institutions who support this bill are used to paying off consumer groups. Nationsbank and BankAmerica have committed $350 billion to CRA in order to merge. Citibank and Travelers Group have committed over $100 billion to CRA in order to merge. These large institutions are used to paying a toll every time they want to do business. That may be fine for Wall Street, but that is not fine for Main Street. Not every financial institution around the country has $350 billion to buy off consumer groups and labor unions. Who do you think pays for this legalized extortion? I'll tell you who: all the paying customers in this country. Everybody is complaining about large institutions charging more and more fees at higher rates, ATM fees, late fees and the like. It takes a lot of fees to pay for a $350 billion CRA commitment. Senator Gramm and I have consistently stated our position since the Banking Committee first held a hearing on H.R. 10 several months ago. We will not seek to repeal, reduce or eliminate the CRA as it stands in its current form. However, we will not agree to expanding either the scope or the enforcement authority of CRA in H.R. 10. Now, some have insisted on expanding both the scope and enforcement authority of CRA in H.R. 10. In this bill, some even delink CRA from deposit insurance and subject bank affiliated wholesale financial institutions woofies to CRA. The interesting thing about this is the woofies do not take deposits of less than $100,000 and are not insured by the Federal Government. I guess, we could roll over like all the banks before us who have paid off the consumer groups. But, I for one, will not succumb to that kind of extortion, and I will fight this thing as long as it stays in the bill. Government mandated credit allocation is wrong. Legalized extortion is wrong. Last week, Senator Gramm said that this is a principled objection. It is. We will not be bought off by Wall Street. Wall Street does not have the best interest of Americans in mind in this bill. The only thing they understand is dollars and cents. The principle they understand is profit. The interest of Wall Street is not always the interest of Main Street. Here is a message for Wall Street in terms I hope they can understand: If you really want to pass financial modernization, in order to consummate mergers and make money off of every American by offering a vast array of services, go to those that are insisting on expanding CRA and ask them to work with Senator Gramm and myself in making H.R. 10 CRA neutral. Otherwise, I believe this bill will ultimately fail. There may be some late nights and strong words, but I, for one, am committed to ensuring this bill will not become law.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. I object.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 484, H.R. 1836.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 593, S. 2273.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee amendment be agreed to, the bill be considered read a third time, and the Veterans' Affairs Committee then be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 4110, and that the Senate then proceed to its consideration. I further ask unanimous consent that all after the enacting clause be stricken and the text of S. 2273, as amended, be inserted in lieu thereof, the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statement relating to the bill be printed in the Record. I finally ask that S. 2273 be placed back on the calendar.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to James Francis (Jimmy) Crawford, a tireless public servant, a prominent businessman, and a man whose deep religious convictions touched the lives of many. Jimmy Crawford was a lifelong resident of Abbeville, Alabama, and was serving his third consecutive term as mayor. His contributions to the city of Abbeville left an indelible mark in the memories of all who knew him. Jimmy passed away on Thursday morning, September 17, 1998 at the age of 58. Throughout his life, Jimmy Crawford selflessly dedicated himself to the benefit of others and stood by his principles and ideals in an unwavering fashion. From his early youth, Jimmy demonstrated a considerable eagerness to help others. Growing up in Abbeville, Jimmy was active in the Boy Scouts of America, achieving the highest possible rank of Eagle Scout. After graduating from Abbeville High School in 1957, Jimmy attended school at Howard College, now Samford University. At Howard, Jimmy earned the distinction of being named in Who's Who Among American Colleges and Universities. These accomplishments served as a hint of the dedicated life which Jimmy would eventually lead. Upon his return to Abbeville, Jimmy quickly became a respected and admired businessman in the community. His rental and finance firm provided the vehicle for Jimmy to help to organize and assist area businesses. He was the charter president of the Abbeville Jaycees, and was awarded the highest Jaycees honor by being named International Senator in 1975. Jimmy moved on to become the president of the Abbeville Chamber of Commerce in 1975 and 1976. During his tenure, the Chamber saw unprecedented growth and one of the largest memberships in the history of the organization. Jimmy was a member of the Abbeville Lions Club and a former member of the Abbeville Kiwanis Club. He also served for eight years on the Abbeville Recreation Board, two of those as chairman. No one would dispute the fact that he played a vital role in the development of these various organizations and the entire business community of Abbeville. Jimmy also achieved notoriety with his impressive political achievements. He was first elected Mayor of Abbeville in 1988 and was currently serving in his third term. He was vice-president of the Board of Directors of the Southeast Alabama Regional Landfill Authority. He served dutifully on the Board of the Southeast Alabama Gas District for ten years, taking the position of chairman in 1995. He was active in the Alabama League of Municipalities as a member of the Executive Committee, and achieved the high honor of being a certified municipal official. Jimmy was extremely proud of his accomplishments as Mayor, most recently working with my office to secure important transportation and downtown revitalization grants. Remarkably, Jimmy's business and political successes did not take away from his other devotions. Jimmy was a man with unwavering religious beliefs that led to a life of teaching the word of God. He was a charter member of the Calvary Baptist Church of Abbeville, where he served for 36 years. During this time, Jimmy served in a variety of capacities for the Church, including the post of chairman of the deacons for four terms, as well as Sunday School superintendent and teacher. Along with these responsibilities, Jimmy was the founding director of the Abbeville Christian Academy and served on its Board of Directors for many years. During his time involved with the Calvary Baptist Church and the Abbeville Christian Academy, Jimmy had the opportunity to help shape the lives of the children whom he taught and provided them with a firm groundwork in morality and Christianity which will help to guide them through life. From his youth, Jimmy was also an avid sports fan. Having played football for Coach Bobby Bowden at Howard College, his competitive spirit never faltered. He was a former coach of the Abbeville Christian Academy Pee Wee Generals, and freely gave of his time to coach various teams in the Abbeville Recreation Department. He also was an avid Auburn University fan, from where his two daughters, Lil and Fran, graduated. James Francis ``Jimmy'' Crawford will be remembered as a devoted husband and father. He will be missed by all who knew him, especially his wife Jo Smith Crawford; his daughters Lillian Ella Crawford, of Birmingham; and Martha Frances Crawford, of Abbeville; and other relatives and many friends whose lives he touched. I will truly miss Jimmy. His many accomplishments touched the lives of every citizen of Abbeville and beyond. He should be remembered as a man with great vision and leadership. My heart is with his family during this difficult time.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in recess until 9 a.m. on Thursday, October 1. I further ask that the time for the two leaders be reserved.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 645, H.R. 3412.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, Senator Bond has an amendment at the desk. I ask for its consideration.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that the Senate stand in recess under the previous order following the remarks of Senator Robb.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. For the information of all Senators, on behalf of Senator Lott, tomorrow the Senate will convene at 9 a.m. and begin 3 hours of debate on the defense authorization conference report. At the conclusion of debate time at approximately 12 noon, the Senate will proceed to vote on the adoption of the conference report. Following that vote, the Senate may begin consideration of S. 442, the Internet tax bill, with relevant amendments in order and a Bumpers amendment regarding catalog sales. The Senate may also consider S. 1092, the Cold Bay-King Cove legislation under a 6-hour time agreement or any other legislative or executive items cleared for action. Therefore, Members should expect rollcall votes throughout Thursday's session with the first vote occurring at approximately 12 noon.