Richard Shelby

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed as in morning business for 20 minutes.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, at this point I yield 2 minutes of my time to the distinguished Senator from Idaho.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, this weekend, Chinese President Jiang Zemin arrives in the United States for the first state visit by a Chinese official since 1985. As you know, China has been described by many experts as the No. 1 foreign policy challenge that the United States will face in the 21st century. Next week's summit will help set our course as we respond to that challenge. I have traveled to China six times since I first visited in 1983. Most recently, I traveled to Beijing, Shanghai and Hong Kong during the August recess where I met with numerous senior Chinese leaders, including the Chinese Foreign Minister. In my many visits and contacts, I have witnessed the enormous, and overall positive, changes that have taken place in China since the death of Mao. Yet, while China today is clearly not the China of the cultural revolution, neither is it a ``former Communist country,'' as President Clinton has suggested. As chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, I am especially interested in Chinese foreign and military policies and Chinese intelligence activities, particularly those that pose potential threats to vital American interests. Last month, I convened in the Intelligence Committee exhaustive hearings into Chinese threats to United States national security, including the reported Chinese plan to influence United States elections. I am well aware that there is no country that poses such risks, such opportunities, and such dilemmas for United States foreign and security policy. It is clear that China today, as an emerging economic and military power in the post-cold war, has the option, and increasingly the will, to challenge vital United States interests around the globe. It is equally clear that despite the demise of communism virtually everywhere around the globe, and despite China's extensive and impressive economic liberalization, the Chinese regime remains determined to maintain its repressive domestic political system. I will shortly address these issues in greater detail, but, first, I would like to make just a few general points. When President Clinton meets with President Jiang, he will have the opportunity to define the United States-China relationship in a way that defends vital United States interests and promotes the values upon which our country was founded, while recognizing at the same time legitimate Chinese interests and aspirations. But President Clinton, I believe, must make it clear that if China wishes to be accepted as a responsible world power, it must act as a responsible world power. If China wishes to work together to promote peace and stability in the region and the world at large, as President Jiang suggested in a press interview last weekend, it must not undermine peace and stability in Asia and around the world by reckless and aggressive actions. And President Jiang, I believe, is wrong when he invokes, for example, Einstein and the theory of relativity to justify China's refusal to comply with norms and ideals which, while not yet universal, are on the march worldwide. Relativity, as most of you know, is an immutable law of physics. Relativism is something altogether different, and it is not a concept to which we as Americans subscribe. President Clinton, I believe, must respectfully make it clear that the President of China is wrong when he says that ``democracy and human rights are relative concepts and not absolute and general.'' Our Founding Fathers did not speak in relative terms when they wrote: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. The courageous demonstrators in Tiananmen Square echoed these ideals when they tried to peacefully exercise their right of consent. They adopted our Statue of Liberty as their symbol, and we saw it brutally destroyed by Chinese tanks on TV. In one final general point, we sometimes hear the refrain from the Chinese that they do not wish to be bound by sets of rules and norms that they had no say in creating. There are certain truths that are not limited by time and geography, and the ``inalienable Rights'' spoken of by the Founding Fathers, I believe, are among them. Proliferation and security issues are very important. With the end of the cold war, and the end of the Soviet massive military threat that had provided the glue for the United States-China relationship since its beginning, China has increasingly been willing to challenge core United States interests, by the destabilizing proliferation of weapons technology, and by direct and indirect threats against United States friends and allies. In June of this year, the CIA's nonproliferation center reported that China was ``the most significant supplier of [weapons of mass destruction]-related goods and technology to foreign countries'' in the second half of 1996. China's sales of antiship cruise missiles, ballistic missile technology, chemical weapons, materials and nuclear technology to Iran, a hostile country whose military forces threaten United States interests in an area of vital national concern, directly endanger the lives of American soldiers, sailors and airmen, and, as we know, threaten our ability to defend our interests in the region. Further, these same weapons serve to intimidate our friends and our allies in the Persian Gulf region. The last time the United States was compelled to defend its interest in the region in Operation Desert Storm, we were able to create a coalition of friendly states, many of which were willing to accept the deployment of United States forces on their soil. Who can say, though, in the future that our allies would respond in the same way in a future conflict if they were faced by a credible threat of Iranian missiles bearing nuclear, chemical or biological warheads? The threat from Chinese technology sales is not limited, Mr. President, to weapons of mass destruction. Accurate, conventionally armed missiles, especially antiship cruise missiles like the C-802's that China has sold to Iran, pose a serious danger to United States forces. Remember the U.S.S. Stark. Bear in mind that the single greatest American loss of life in the Persian Gulf war occurred when an Iraqi Scud missile with a conventional payload struck a barracks in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. It is difficult to speak of ``working together to promote peace and stability'' when, for example, China has reportedly supplied Iran with hundreds of missile guidance systems, and in the second half of 1996 contributed ``a tremendous variety of assistance'' to Iran's missile program, according to the CIA. The transfer of nuclear and missile technology to Pakistan, despite repeated United States objections, jeopardizes the stability of South Asia and flies in the face of United States nonproliferation goals, even though it is less of a direct threat to United States forces. But by increasing the likelihood of a nuclear war that could kill millions of innocent people, China jeopardizes its claim to be seen as a responsible world power. It is in this context that we consider the administration's reported plans to announce the implementation of the 1985 United States-China Agreement for Nuclear Cooperation. This agreement cannot, by law, be implemented until the President certifies to Congress that China has met a number of conditions, notably, one, that effective measures are in place to ensure that any United States assistance is used for the intended peaceful activities; and, two, China has provided additional information on its nuclear nonproliferation policies, and that based on this and all other information, including intelligence information, China is not in violation of paragraph 2 of section 129 of the Atomic Energy Act which, among other things, bars United States nuclear assistance to any country that has assisted any other country to acquire nuclear capabilities and has failed to take sufficient steps to terminate such assistance. According to press reports, Mr. President, China has made or is willing to make a number of commitments in order to obtain this certification. United States diplomats are now in Beijing trying to nail down an agreement on these issues. And at this stage, after years of hair splitting and denying with respect to similar commitments in the past--hair splitting and denial, I might add, on the part of both Governments--these commitments must be, I believe, unambiguous and in writing if they are to convince the United States Congress. Just last week, China joined the Zangger Committee, which imposes some modest controls on nuclear exports. The administration also reportedly believes that China has complied with its May 1996 commitment not to provide assistance to any unsafe- guarded nuclear facility. In addition, China has reportedly agreed to cease selling antiship cruise missiles to Iran. While agreement on nuclear cooperation is not conditioned on such transfers of advanced conventional weapons, it would certainly be difficult for the administration to argue for nuclear cooperation while China was continuing to sell advanced munitions that could be targeted on U.S. naval vessels protecting freedom of navigation in the Persian Gulf. As a result of these actions, and other actions, administration officials believe they can make the statutorily required certification, if not at the summit, then in the foreseeable future. If and when such a certification is made, the Congress will have the opportunity to review and, if necessary, overturn this certification. As chairman of the Intelligence Committee, I am asking the Director of Central Intelligence to provide the Intelligence Committee with the information upon which the administration would base its determination. The committee will also closely scrutinize this intelligence to ensure that it does support the administration's determination, whatever it is. But, Mr. President, without prejudging my decision, should the matter come before the Senate, I have the following concerns about early implementation of a nuclear agreement. It seems likely today, Mr. President, and for the immediate future that China lacks the military forces to seriously challenge the U.S. military power in the region. However, Mr. President, as the only great power whose defense spending has increased in recent years, China is acquiring advanced missile, naval, air, amphibious, and other forces capable of projecting power in East Asia and the Pacific region. In addition, Mr. President, the Chinese military apparently has learned the lessons of the American victory in the Persian Gulf war, which demonstrated the superiority of modern technology. Second, in its commitments to date, China has, in effect, agreed only to control sales to unsafeguarded nuclear facilities. This commitment sounds useful on its face, but it is potentially meaningless in countries like Iran and Pakistan that are reportedly pursuing a clandestine military program, because equipment, materiel, and know-how from safeguarded facilities can be transferred to other unsafeguarded facilities, as we all know. Third, Mr. President, the Congress will want to closely scrutinize the text of any commitments by the Chinese Government. In particular, I believe we must ascertain whether these recent promises are limited to halting any future cooperation or trade in strategic technology or, Mr. President, whether they also apply to ending existing contracts and transactions that have been ongoing. If they are only to apply to future activities, then I would be concerned that a whole host of ongoing and dangerous cooperative ventures between China and Iran and other countries would in effect be ``grandfathered'' and thus not prohibited. Fourth, China must recognize that mere grudging compliance with the letter of its international agreements does not make China a responsible member of the world community. I believe, Mr. President, that China must go beyond a narrow reading of its obligations to demonstrate by actions as well as words that it accepts, as it has not done in the past, that the spread of dangerous and destabilizing military technologies is not in anyone's interest, including China's. China, I believe, should, therefore, cease its cooperation with all Iranian nuclear, missile, and other military programs, even if a particular transaction may be permissible under the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty, the Missile Technology Control Regime, or other international legal agreements. I would like to know, Mr. President, how the Chinese foreign and military policy in Asia will work in the future. In the wake of the cold war, China, which for years viewed the U.S. presence in East Asia and the Western Pacific as a stabilizing force, now resents a security structure that is increasingly viewed as intended--to quote some of them--to ``contain'' China. Most troublesome, China has shown a willingness to pursue its goals in the region by the threat or use of force. Mr. President, as we were reminded in last year's Taiwan Straits crisis, Beijing has never renounced the use of force to reunify Taiwan with the mainland. President Clinton, I believe, will have an opportunity to have a serious discussion with the Chinese President about how bracketing Taiwan with missiles, followed by a thinly veiled threat against the United States, comports with his stated goals of ``maintaining peace and stability in the region and the world at large.'' Our President also must make clear, I believe, our determination that the Taiwan issue be resolved peacefully so that China will never be tempted to resolve it by force. In addition, Mr. President, to tension over Taiwan, China has used and threatened force to enforce its other claims in the South China Sea. This undermines a lot of allies and friends. It seems likely that today and for the immediate future, Mr. President, China lacks the military forces to seriously challenge U.S. military power in the region. However, as the only great power whose defense spending has increased in recent years, China is certainly acquiring advanced missile, naval, air, amphibious and other forces capable of projecting power, as I reminded my colleagues just a few minutes ago. Mr. President, to speak of human rights in the area there, in 1996, in a damning and exhaustive report on Chinese human rights practices, the State Department concluded that ``almost all public dissent against the central authorities was silenced by intimidation, exile, or imposition of prison terms or administrative detention.'' In addition to its suppression of political dissent, China continues to maintain a cruel and massive network of forced labor camps. They continue also an inhumane one-child policy, including forced abortion, repression of religious groups, use of forced labor, and ongoing repression in Tibet. President Clinton, I believe, must place President Jiang on notice that Americans are offended by the notion that human rights are ``relative'' and that their practices fit within an acceptable definition of human dignity. I believe, Mr. President, we must ask ourselves, how much real progress can we make in our relationship with China as long as the regime feels compelled to stamp out every ounce of political dissent and believes that it cannot survive without the ``laogai'' labor camp system? Mr. President, on a somewhat more positive note, economic developments, both within China and between China and the United States, continue to generally move in the right direction. However, we encourage China to continue to take the painful but necessary steps to qualify China for membership in the World Trade Organization, notably in the area of opening China's markets. The sooner they do, I believe, the better off they will be. We are also encouraged to see some meaningful progress on the protection of intellectual property rights. Americans support China in its search for prosperity for its people. But we do not, Mr. President, support, and will not tolerate, attempts to build prosperity by ignoring the rules of international trade. Nor will Americans support prosperity built, even in part, on the backs of forced laborers or prosperity that is the result of a Faustian pact in which the Chinese people are forced to effectively surrender their political and human rights in return for economic growth. Mr. President, let me sum up and be clear on where I stand. I support, as most of us do, a strong United States-China relationship, and I have always done so. President Clinton can work with President Jiang to raise Sino-United States relations to a new high level, as the Chinese President has requested. But to truly protect American interests and reflect American values, this relationship cannot be based on ceremony alone. We cannot gloss over problems or sweep them under the rug or keep them unfulfilled--and unenforced--as promises. I believe, Mr. President, it must be based on responsible international behavior with respect to nonproliferation and on refraining from the threat or use of force. Our relationship must be based on steady and consistent progress toward political as well as economic freedom in China. I yield the floor.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Senator from Florida.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I thought there was some kind of order here. Am I misinformed? How much time does the Senator from Massachusetts want?

Mr. SHELBY. I have no objection to that because I am looking for about 20 or 30 minutes.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to introduce legislation to honor John McKinley. John McKinley was a statesman, an influential State legislator, one of the founding trustees of the University of Alabama, U.S. Senator, and the first U.S. Supreme Court Justice from the State of Alabama. Born on May 1, 1780, in Culpepper County, VA, John McKinley began his career in Kentucky after learning the law on his own. In 1818, he moved to Alabama and shortly after his arrival, McKinley, along with Andrew Jackson and John Coffee, became a member of the Cypress Land Co. This company was the largest single purchaser of land in north Alabama in the land boom of 1818. In addition to pursuing his fortune, John McKinley almost immediately entered Alabama politics. In 1820, he was elected to the State legislature. In 1826, McKinley was elected by the State legislature to the U.S. Senate where he served until 1831. In the Old Senate Chamber, just down the hall, he espoused a political theory that to many in Washington may seem quaint. He believed that the national government's sovereignty was limited solely to the powers granted by the Constitution unless expressly relinquished by the States. As chairman of the Committee on Public Lands, he promoted transferring Federal lands to the States for economic development. Defeated for a second term in the Senate, McKinley returned to the Alabama legislature. In the legislature, McKinley gained considerable influence by denouncing the national bank and endorsing President Jackson s efforts to dismantle it. He also supported Martin Van Buren, Jackson's candidate for President in 1836. When the Jacksonian Democrats regained control of the State legislature, the new majority re-elected McKinley to the Senate. Shortly thereafter, as a reward for his loyalty to Jackson and endorsement of Van Buren, the newly elected President nominated McKinley for a seat on the Supreme Court. The Senate confirmed his nomination 1 week later on September 25, 1837, by voice vote. Justice John McKinley was assigned to the ninth circuit, which encompassed Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. While riding circuit in Mobile, AL, Justice McKinley heard the first of three cases collectively known as Bank of Augusta versus Earle. In this controversial decision, McKinley upheld an Alabama statute prohibiting out-of-State banks from making loans in Alabama. The case which was appealed to the Supreme Court was heard in 1839. The Court overturned the McKinley decision, and only McKinley dissented. Chief Justice Roger Taney wrote the majority opinion which declared that there was a law of comity that applied among the States. Therefore, a bank had as much a legal right to offer interstate loans as they do in the charter State. In the lone dissent, however, McKinley made the interesting point that the Court's majority had applied the State sovereignty doctrine in the extreme and that the States ceased to be nations when they ratified the Constitution. His most significant contribution to the Court was writing the majority opinion in Pollard's Lesse versus Hagan (1845). This opinion declared that the Federal Government held public lands in trust until a territory became a State. At the time a territory entered the Union, the public land was rightfully State property. This decision provided a legal basis for opening public lands and for furthering economic development. In addition to Pollard, Justice McKinley wrote nine other opinions in 1845, his most prolific year on the Court. After 1845, his work became sporadic due to general poor health. He attended, however, the Court's sessions as regularly as possible and contributed as best he could. John McKinley remained a member of the Court until his death in the spring of 1852. There is no Federal building to honor Justice McKinley, and the legislation that I am introducing will correct this oversight. The bill designates the Federal courthouse and U.S. Post Office complex in Florence, AL as the ``Justice John McKinley Federal Building.'' The legislation has received the endorsement of the following: Mayor Frost and the Florence City Council, the Lauderdale County Commission, Tennessee Valley Historical Society, Florence Historical Board, Heritage Preservation, Inc., the Alabama State Bar Association, the Lauderdale County Bar Association, and the McKinley Young Lawyers of the Shoals. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and pay tribute to this Alabama statesman.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to introduce legislation to honor John McKinley. John McKinley was a statesman, an influential State legislator, one of the founding trustees of the University of Alabama, U.S. Senator, and the first U.S. Supreme Court Justice from the State of Alabama. Born on May 1, 1780, in Culpepper County, VA, John McKinley began his career in Kentucky after learning the law on his own. In 1818, he moved to Alabama and shortly after his arrival, McKinley, along with Andrew Jackson and John Coffee, became a member of the Cypress Land Co. This company was the largest single purchaser of land in north Alabama in the land boom of 1818. In addition to pursuing his fortune, John McKinley almost immediately entered Alabama politics. In 1820, he was elected to the State legislature. In 1826, McKinley was elected by the State legislature to the U.S. Senate where he served until 1831. In the Old Senate Chamber, just down the hall, he espoused a political theory that to many in Washington may seem quaint. He believed that the national government's sovereignty was limited solely to the powers granted by the Constitution unless expressly relinquished by the States. As chairman of the Committee on Public Lands, he promoted transferring Federal lands to the States for economic development. Defeated for a second term in the Senate, McKinley returned to the Alabama legislature. In the legislature, McKinley gained considerable influence by denouncing the national bank and endorsing President Jackson s efforts to dismantle it. He also supported Martin Van Buren, Jackson's candidate for President in 1836. When the Jacksonian Democrats regained control of the State legislature, the new majority re-elected McKinley to the Senate. Shortly thereafter, as a reward for his loyalty to Jackson and endorsement of Van Buren, the newly elected President nominated McKinley for a seat on the Supreme Court. The Senate confirmed his nomination 1 week later on September 25, 1837, by voice vote. Justice John McKinley was assigned to the ninth circuit, which encompassed Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. While riding circuit in Mobile, AL, Justice McKinley heard the first of three cases collectively known as Bank of Augusta versus Earle. In this controversial decision, McKinley upheld an Alabama statute prohibiting out-of-State banks from making loans in Alabama. The case which was appealed to the Supreme Court was heard in 1839. The Court overturned the McKinley decision, and only McKinley dissented. Chief Justice Roger Taney wrote the majority opinion which declared that there was a law of comity that applied among the States. Therefore, a bank had as much a legal right to offer interstate loans as they do in the charter State. In the lone dissent, however, McKinley made the interesting point that the Court's majority had applied the State sovereignty doctrine in the extreme and that the States ceased to be nations when they ratified the Constitution. His most significant contribution to the Court was writing the majority opinion in Pollard's Lesse versus Hagan (1845). This opinion declared that the Federal Government held public lands in trust until a territory became a State. At the time a territory entered the Union, the public land was rightfully State property. This decision provided a legal basis for opening public lands and for furthering economic development. In addition to Pollard, Justice McKinley wrote nine other opinions in 1845, his most prolific year on the Court. After 1845, his work became sporadic due to general poor health. He attended, however, the Court's sessions as regularly as possible and contributed as best he could. John McKinley remained a member of the Court until his death in the spring of 1852. There is no Federal building to honor Justice McKinley, and the legislation that I am introducing will correct this oversight. The bill designates the Federal courthouse and U.S. Post Office complex in Florence, AL as the ``Justice John McKinley Federal Building.'' The legislation has received the endorsement of the following: Mayor Frost and the Florence City Council, the Lauderdale County Commission, Tennessee Valley Historical Society, Florence Historical Board, Heritage Preservation, Inc., the Alabama State Bar Association, the Lauderdale County Bar Association, and the McKinley Young Lawyers of the Shoals. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and pay tribute to this Alabama statesman.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the chairman for including language on particulate matter research in the VA, HUD, and independent agencies appropriations bill for fiscal year 1998. This bill allocates approximately $50 million for research on the possible health effects of airborne particulate matter. The administration based its most far-reaching and costly air quality standards on inadequate research and methodology. The language in this bill ensures that critically needed research is carefully and objectively mapped-out. The emotionally charged debate on this issue, the concern expressed by State, local, and Federal officials over the rules, and the numerous unanswered questions and uncertainties identified by EPA's science advisers and other independent scientists only serves to underscore the pressing need for further research. There is widespread disagreement in the scientific community over the adequacy of the studies the EPA used as a basis for the new air quality standards. I am greatly disturbed that these costly standards were promulgated without any form of scientific consensus that the regulations will provide any measurable improvement in human health. Currently, these standards are subjective in nature not based on available objective scientific evidence. It is critical to our Nation that a well organized and thought out scientific review of these matters occurs. Premature implementation of the standards is far more damaging to our Nation than taking the time to allow a larger portion of the scientific community to study and review these standards. I believe my colleague from Alabama would like to share his thoughts on this matter.

Mr. SHELBY. When the administration promulgated these rules, they acknowledged the need for additional scientific studies to attempt to validate their actions. Considering the current controversy surrounding the lack of scientific evidence for the air quality rule, I am pleased that your language opens future research to a diverse section of our Nation's scientists. Mr. Chairman, how does this language ensure that the EPA will establish a collaborative relationship with the participating organizations.

Mr. SHELBY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Sessions, for participating in the colloquy. coordinated tribal water quality program

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the conference report be considered read, and that there be 20 minutes equally divided; that, following the conclusion or yielding back of the time, the conference report be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, all without any intervening action or debate.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I submit a report of the committee of conference on the bill (H.R. 2169) making appropriations for the Department of Transportation and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SHELBY. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I have an agreement we have worked on which basically says that on some appropriate vehicle in the future I will work with Chairman Stevens and other members to include a technical correction to this conference report to accomplish the following: At section 337(c) we will insert, after the words: ``House and Senate Committees on Appropriations,'' ``and the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.'' I am doing this at the suggestion of Senator Hutchison from Texas, and we have agreed to this. Mr. President, at this time I will yield back the remainder of my time if the Senator from New Jersey will.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, the bill also provides $1.7 billion for airport improvement grants, which is $700 million more than the administration requested. In total, this bill contains $30.1 billion for investment in infrastructure that the public uses, that is, highways, transit, airports, and railroads. That represents an 8- percent increase over the administration's request. This legislation will improve safety: It provides an 11-percent increase in funds to improve highway safety and will permit FAA to hire an additional 235 aviation safety inspectors and 500 air traffic controllers. Major changes in the bill as a result of conference deliberations include the addition of $150 million in transit operating assistance and reductions of less than 1 percent in the multi-billion dollar FAA and Coast Guard operating accounts. The Senate accommodated requests we received from Senators as fully as we could. In conference, of course, we had to accommodate requests from Members of both the Senate and House with no increase in funds over the Senate bill to cover these requests. That was a very difficult process. We tried to be fair and balanced in our treatment of Members' requests. I want to reiterate a point I made when I brought the Senate bill to the floor in July. Many Senators wanted funds for highway projects of special interest to them and their States. This year, ISTEA reauthorization is providing a vehicle for special project funding, especially in the House where there is very active consideration of such funding. I assure my colleagues that I believe that the Congress has at least as legitimate a role in designating funding for specific highway projects as it does in designating which transit projects will be funded. I intend to review the situation after enactment of ISTEA reauthorization legislation and to work with my Senate and House colleagues in the year ahead to ensure that we have an opportunity to designate funding for highway projects of special interest to our States and communities. There are a great number of people to thank for getting this bill completed. I want to single out a few for special thanks for all their efforts. First, the chairman, my good friend from Alaska. I know he wanted to move this bill along promptly, but he was patient and allowed me to work out the issues that were holding up conference and was always willing to lend his compelling voice to support the Senate position in our discussions with the House. The majority leader as well played a critical role in the negotiations with the House. I want to thank him for his leadership, advice, and guidance, as well as for his personal involvement on this bill. I want to thank my distinguished ranking member on the subcommittee, Senator Lautenberg, for his part in moving the process forward. We don't always take the same position on transportation issues or funding priorities, but he is always a strong advocate for meeting the transportation priorities of the Northeast and presents a perspective on this bill that comes from a great deal of hands-on experience with transportation issues. In addition, this bill has provided an opportunity for me to work closely with the distinguished ranking member of the full committee, Senator Byrd. One of the common priorities Senator Byrd and I share in the Transportation appropriations bill is the completion of the Appalachian Development Highway System. Through his leadership and support, we have been able to provide substantial support for meeting that priority. I also want to thank the other members of the subcommittee for their efforts and the efforts of their staffs in support of the Senate's position during the conference. This subcommittee works well together, and I am blessed with the luxury of having subcommittee members who take transportation issues very seriously and are quick to let me know of their positions on issues. In particular, I want to commend the senior Senator from Missouri, my good friend, Senator Kit Bond. Senator Bond has been a major force in transportation funding issues this year as he has the uncommon responsibilities of sitting on the Budget Committee, the Environment and Public Works Committee, and on the Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation. He was a primary advocate for higher highway funding during the budget process; he is a major force in the Senate consideration of reauthorization legislation, and is one of the most thoughtful and effective members of the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee. Senator Bond can be a dogged advocate for issues of interest to the Show Me State. He was in a position to put passage of the Transportation appropriations bill in jeopardy if his legitimate interest in a matter before the conference was not met. In a display of the statesmanship that shows me why he is such an effective Senator, he refused to hold the bill up--instead, he sought a creative way of meeting both the interests of his State and the needs of the Congress to move this legislation along. I pledge to him here that I will work with him to ensure the satisfactory resolution of this issue. In addition, I want to thank a few staff members who worked hard to put this bill together. The staff director of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Steve Cortese played a critical role in resolving issues between the House and the Senate so that we could have this conference report before the Senate today. His counterpart on the House side, Jim Dyer, as well, deserves note and a word of thanks for his efforts to that end. Although they work in different bodies, these two professionals work together well and are a credit to the appropriations process and the Congress. Further, the subcommittee staff, Joyce Rose, Reid Cavnar, Wally Burnett, and for a short time, George McDonald, as well as my legislative director Kathy Casey and Chief of Staff Tom Young, worked long and hard to put this bill together and I thank them. In addition, Jim English, Peter Rogoff, Peter Neffenger, Carole Geagley, and Mike Brennan have helped make this a truly bipartisan bill, and I thank them. I am proud of what we have been able to accomplish in this bill. It will benefit all Americans as it helps improve transportation services in this country so that the economy and personal mobility are better served. I now turn to my distinguished ranking member from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg, who has worked with me in a bipartisan spirit to produce this bill. Mr. President, I believe overall that this is a good transportation appropriations bill. It is not perfect. Nothing is perfect. But Senator Lautenberg, my colleague from New Jersey, former chairman, now the ranking member of the committee, worked diligently together with our staffs to put this bill together. We had protracted discussions with the House, and at the end of the day we are here with a completed conference report, one which I believe that most people in this body can support. I want to take a minute and thank my staff director, Wally Burnett, for all the work that he has put into this night and day. He knows the subject. He has been very, very diligent and the bill reflects that diligence. I also want to thank my colleague, Senator Lautenberg, for the work and the knowledge that he has of these transportation issues. Knowledge that he is beginning to share with me as time goes on. And, to his staff director, Peter Rogoff, I thank you for cooperating with us on so many of the issues. And, at the end of the day, at the end of the week, and at the end of this conference we are here. At this point, I yield the floor. Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I am pleased to present the conference report on the fiscal year 1998 Department of Transportation and related agencies appropriations bill. This bill is very similar to the transportation appropriations bill that the Senate approved 98 to 1 on July 30. It provides the highest level of funding for Federal-aid highways in history--$22.9 billion. That's slightly less than the amount we had included in the Senate bill because, in conference, we agreed to fund some other House priorities, but it's still a record level. The actual distribution of those funds among the States will depend on reauthorization of ISTEA--the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991--which has provided authorization for Federal surface transportation programs for the past 6 years and which expired at the end of fiscal year 1997. But this increase of almost $3 billion over fiscal year 1997 will almost certainly mean more Federal highway spending for each State. The conference report also includes $300 million for the Appalachian Development Highway System as proposed by the Senate. This is a downpayment toward meeting the Federal Government's commitment to completing that System. The bill includes $4.7 billion for transit grants, including $200 million for Washington Metro. I ask unanimous consent that a table which shows the distribution of these funds under current law be printed in the Record.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to add my voice to the very important discussion that the Senate is having regarding campaign finance reform, and I commend the Senator from Kentucky, Senator McConnell, for not only his leadership but for his tenacity in defending what he believes and so many of us believe is an assault on the first-amendment rights of all Americans. I also thank Senator Lott, our leader, for his leadership in scheduling this debate, and I commend my colleagues who thus far have added insight and value to our discussion. Mr. President, if we are to have campaign finance reform, I believe we must achieve those changes necessary to ensure public trust in our institutions and our Government officials. Serious reform must take into consideration the significant number of Americans who are compelled to make mandatory political contributions at their workplace as a condition of employment. No citizen should be required to make involuntary contributions to any candidate, party, or political interest group. No corporation, no labor union, and no business entity should have the power to twist the arms of their employees or members. These practices are wrong and un-American, and I believe they must be ended as part of our overall effort to reform the financing of Federal elections. Serious reform must also contain provisions that increase the frequency and specificity of mandated contribution disclosure. I support measures which bring about greater transparency, those that allow the American people to know the where, the when, how much, and from whom of campaign contributions. The last election cycle was filled with numerous activities that violated existing campaign laws. As we proceed through this debate, we should be mindful of the fact that these new reforms do nothing to reach those past violations. We must ensure that illegal foreign contributions are kept from election campaigns, and I believe that we must ensure disclosure violations are uncovered and are punished. Thus, perhaps the most important so-called change we can now achieve is to ensure that the existing laws are routinely and are properly enforced. However, in our zeal for change, we should not compromise the rights and freedoms of the same people we claim to protect. We must pay close attention, I believe, to the numerous Supreme Court decisions which clearly set forth that the regulation of many campaign-related activities directly implicates first-amendment rights. In 1974, the Supreme Court reviewed the Federal Election Campaign Act in the case of Buckley and struck down the statutory restrictions on campaign expenditures. In its holding, the Court concluded that political discourse ``is at the core of our electoral process and of the first amendment freedoms.'' While the Court did allow a minimal level of restriction that we know about--caps on the direct contributions to candidates--and only for the purpose of preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption, it granted the full protection, Mr. President, of the first amendment to anyone spending money to communicate an idea, a belief, or a call to action. In no uncertain terms, the Buckley decision makes clear that the first amendment forbids the Federal Government from restricting political speech and expression rights by way of campaign expenditure limits. Mr. President, the Buckley decision does not stand in isolation. For the past 20 years, the Supreme Court of the United States has returned to this decision and consistently and unequivocally reaffirmed its soundness. The Court's subsequent decisions clearly demonstrate this, such as in FEC versus National Conservative Political Action Committee. The Court, tracking the Buckley decision, struck down restrictions on funds spent in support of publicly financed Presidential candidates in furtherance of their election. The Court held that such expenditures fell squarely, Mr. President, within the protections of the first amendment rights. Also, in the FEC versus Massachusetts Citizens for Life, the Court ruled that the voter guide published by an incorporated entity was entitled, Mr. President, to first amendment protections and invalidated an enforcement action the FEC brought against this organization. More recently, Mr. President, in Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee versus FEC, the Court again, following Buckley, held that first amendment protection covers someone communicating an idea, a belief, or a call to action. The Court found that political party expenditures made in support of party ideals and even party candidates were protected under the first amendment of the Constitution of the United States so long as the expenditures were not made, as we say, in coordination with candidates. Mr. President, the Supreme Court rulings provide us two guideposts in our endeavor to reform campaign finance. We have the constitutionally proscribed power and thus the responsibility to prevent corruption and/ or the appearance of corruption in Federal elections, but we can ``make no law * * * [that] abridges the freedom of speech * * *,'' quoting the Constitution. Therefore, I believe that it is essential that any reform initiatives we pass do not further encroach on the basic rights protected under the first amendment. It is not the proper role of Government, I believe, to restrict the ability of the American people to participate in election campaigns. It would be absurd, I think, to allow the Government to control the manner in which Americans communicate. If reform crosses these lines, I think it commands too high a price, it goes too far. Mr. President, in light of the Supreme Court holdings, I do not understand and cannot support the present legislative efforts that directly impinge on first amendment rights. I particularly object to the so-called reform in Senators McCain and Feingold's bill which restricts independent parties from communicating ``for the purpose of influencing a Federal election,'' regardless of whether the communication is expressed advocacy. Just think about it. Time and again, in case after case, the Supreme Court of the United States has held that Congress can only legislate to restrict campaign-related activities where those activities comprise the express advocacy of a particular candidate. The Court even specified in a footnote in the Buckley case what it meant by express advocacy--communications such as ``vote for,'' ``elect,'' ``defeat'' and ``reject.'' So when Congress places restrictions on communications that do not fall within this tightly drawn class, it violates, according to the Court, the first amendment. Mr. President, as we have consistently heard on the floor during this debate, the first amendment is not a loophole. It is beyond our constitutional authority to restrict the ability of independent groups to communicate their political views where they do not engage in express advocacy. Mr. President, I am also greatly troubled, as are others, by a provision in Senators McCain and Feingold's bill which prohibits independent communications that merely mention the name of a candidate within 60 days of a Federal election. Not only does such a restriction strike at the heart of first amendment protections, it all but guarantees a free ride to the incumbent involved in the election. Just think about it, Mr. President. If there is no commentary regarding a candidate's performance in office at the time when the electorate is most tuned into the campaign, no sitting Member would ever lose. Incumbents would be able to capitalize on the inherent advantages of being in office, while challengers would be forced to rely solely on their own and probably much less resources. This provision is incumbent reelection insurance, not campaign finance reform. Make no mistake about it. The electorate must be able to hear all the views about candidates in a timely manner. And candidates must be able to stomach the full range of opinions regarding their candidacy. Mr. President, we must clean up the system but without compromising fundamental first amendment rights. I believe this task is difficult but not impossible. Without infringing upon any American's rights, we can ensure that the American people control the direction of their contributions, have an understanding of who gave what to whom, and are confident that our elections are free of foreign influence, which is so important. Mr. President, the Senate, I believe, should work to enact these measures into law and not infringe on our first amendment rights. I yield the floor. Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from Georgia, Senator Coverdell, for yielding time to me this morning, because I think what we are talking about is very important to the American people. The hearings that the Senate Finance Committee held last week, regarding the problems that pervade the Internal Revenue Service, were very, very important in bringing to light, as the Presiding Officer knows, the level of abuse taxpayers often are subject to at the hands of the Internal Revenue Service. This sort of activity all across this country has affected people in every State, including my State of Alabama. Today I would like to just share for a few minutes one such instance with you and my colleagues in the Senate, and talk about why we need to do more than simply reform the Internal Revenue Service. One of my constituents in Alabama, Phillip Prebeck, of Foley, AL, provides an illustration of an average play-by-the-rules Alabamian, or we should say American, who has had to endure the IRS harassment. His story is particularly poignant because it involves his late daughter, Mary Hunt, and it occurred during a time when he was still grieving over her death. After Mary's death in November of this past year, 1996, Mr. Prebeck prepared his daughter's tax return, deceased daughter's tax return, in early March of this year. And, after including a copy of his daughter's death certificate and a letter explaining the situation as well as other appropriate information, Mr. Prebeck filed the return. In June, the IRS sent a letter to his daughter, his deceased daughter, indicating that she owed $937, and that she needed to pay up. Think of it in this context. Mr. Prebeck phoned the IRS and informed them again that his daughter, Mary, had passed away and had left no estate. The IRS representative, who would not give her name, informed him that he was responsible for the liability nonetheless. What followed was a series of mixed messages from a slew--really, a slew of IRS representatives, as to whether he was responsible for his deceased daughter's tax liability. Mr. Prebeck was unable to work through the situation with one IRS representative, because they refused to allow him to call them back. Think about it. This made it very frustrating, because he could not determine what exactly was expected of him, and he was trying to do what was right as a citizen. Eventually, Mr. Prebeck, with the help of my staff, determined that he did not have to pay the IRS, despite what he had been told over the phone by the IRS on several occasions. Nonetheless, Mr. Prebeck continued to receive correspondence from the IRS, which had first been mailed to his deceased daughter's address, warning him that the liability remained. He then requested a letter from the IRS, absolving him of responsibility, to provide him with some peace of mind as a parent--if you can imagine--and some tangible assurance that he would not continue to be harassed by the Internal Revenue Service. They agreed to provide such a letter, but to this day, and this morning, they have yet to do so. Mr. President, this type of situation that I have just related is not uncommon in America. It is probably not uncommon in the State of the Presiding Officer, Colorado. For every Phillip Prebeck there are hundreds, perhaps thousands of taxpayers, from Alabama, perhaps from your State of Colorado, perhaps from the State of Georgia--every State in the Union, who contact my office or your offices with similar stories. There are more who have had similar problems but do not call. I find the Internal Revenue Service's actions particularly appalling in light of the agency's inability to manage its own financial affairs. For example, and I know you have heard of this because the GAO did the report, in 1996 the General Accounting Office reported the following regarding the audit performed on the IRS. Again, I am going to repeat, this was an audit on the IRS by the General Accounting Office. The Senator from Georgia understands it and has read it. No. 1, this was in 1995, the amount of the total revenue was $1.4 trillion, and tax refunds to the people and companies was $122 billion. But it could not be reconciled to accounting records maintained for individuals in the aggregate. There was a discrepancy of $10.4 billion; $10.4 billion--where? In the IRS itself. The amounts reported for various types of taxes collected--that is Social Security, income tax, excise taxes, for example--cannot be substantiated by the Internal Revenue Service itself. The reliability, according to the General Accounting Office, of reported estimates of $113 billion for valid accounts receivable, and $46 billion for collectible accounts, cannot be determined as of this day. GAO found that the IRS could not document how, and I will use their words, a ``significant portion'' of their $3 billion nonpayroll operating budget was spent. In other words, the IRS, the Internal Revenue Service, could not document how they spent $3 billion of nonpayroll operating budget. Can you imagine that anywhere in America? The amounts that the Internal Revenue Service reported as appropriations available for expenditure of operations cannot be reconciled fully with the Treasury's central accounting records showing these amounts, and hundreds of millions of dollars in differences have been identified. Indeed, the General Accounting Office determined that because of poor IRS financial management, that it could not conduct a reliable audit of the Internal Revenue Service. Think about it. That is appalling. Mr. President, the Internal Revenue Service should have been forced to provide each American with a copy of this report to read it for themselves. The agency cannot account, again, for $10.4 billion in tax revenue and cannot tell you or the American people how they spent $3 billion. But, they can find time to hound a gentleman over his deceased daughter's $900 tax liability that he is not responsible for under the law. Thankfully, the Senate Finance Committee's hearings have galvanized support for reform of the Internal Revenue Service. But what I encourage my colleagues to keep in mind is that the complexity of the Tax Code has created the environment that has spawned the problems that pervade the Internal Revenue Service. The IRS's governance, financial management and quality control problems and the Internal Revenue Service's inability to serve the taxpayer are symptoms of a much larger problem. To address only these issues without embarking upon a comprehensive effort to replace the Tax Code, I believe, is to treat the symptoms and not the root cause of the problems. My concern, and it is a concern of a lot of my colleagues in the Senate, is that after possibly implementing the recommendations of the national commission to restructure the IRS, some may conclude that their job is complete, but that would be a fallacy. On the contrary, I view these proposals only as a beginning, and nothing more than a shortrun solution. Earlier this year, I introduced, again, the Freedom and Fairness Restoration Act that proposes to abolish the Tax Code as we know it and replace it with a flat tax. While some reforms may offer some short-term solutions and relief to taxpayers, they cannot address the larger problems which continue to plague the Internal Revenue Service and the underlying system itself. I believe we must have broad-based reform of the code that provides the public with a simple formula to calculate their taxes without fear of an IRS audit. Although I believe that the flat tax is the best replacement of the current system, I am not here to trumpet its virtues this morning. I simply want to remind my colleagues today that we must not forsake ever our broader agenda to seek comprehensive tax reform. Piecemeal reforms are not a substitute in any way for broad-based reform and will not solve the problems that pervade the IRS. We owe it to the American people to reform the Internal Revenue Service as we know it. I yield the floor. Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today in honor of The Honorable Albert Lee Smith, Jr., who died at age 65 on August 12, 1997, from injuries suffered in a tragic fall at his home. Mr. Smith was a friend, dedicated husband and father. He served with distinction in the U.S. House of Representatives during the 96th Congress on behalf of the people of Alabama's Sixth District. Albert Lee Smith, Jr., grew up in Birmingham, AL and received his bachelor's degree from Auburn University. Always a leader, he served as an officer in the U.S. Navy, and was later awarded an honorary doctor of law degree from Samford University. In 1956, Mr. Smith joined the Jefferson-Pilot Life Insurance Co. in Birmingham. For the next 41 years, Mr. Smith had a distinguished career as a Chartered Life Underwriter. He served as president of the Birmingham Association of Life Underwriters and held several leadership positions in other professional organizations. Albert Lee Smith, Jr. was a true gentleman and conservative visionary. He was an extraordinary leader for the Alabama Republican Party. Active since 1962, Mr. Smith served as a pollwatcher, precinct captain and vicechairman of the county party. At the time of his untimely passing, he was serving as a vice-chairman of the Alabama Republican Executive Committee. Further, Mr. Smith was a delegate to the 1968, 1972, 1976, and 1984 Republican National Conventions. Driven by his desire to help Alabamians, Albert Lee Smith, Jr., ran for Congress to work for lower taxes and a smaller, more efficient government for the American people. Among the first in Congress to do so, Congressman Smith demonstrated concern for the strength of American families as the sponsor of the Family Protection Act. As a member of the House Budget Committee and the Committee on Veteran's Affairs, he supported tax cuts and a strong national defense. Albert Lee Smith, Jr., knew the importance of restoring America's financial and spiritual health for our children and grandchildren. For his dedicated service, Congressman Smith was honored by several important awards: The Taxpayers Best Friend Award from the National Taxpayers' Union; the Leadership Award from the American Security Council; and the Golden Bulldog Award from the Watchdog of the Treasury, among others. Congressman Smith was a public servant of the first order. The Alabama Republican Party nominated him as its candidate for the U.S. Senate in 1984. Following his departure from the House of Representatives, President Ronald Reagan named him in 1985 to the Federal Council on Aging, an appointment subsequently confirmed by the U.S. Senate. An exemplary citizen, leader and role model, Congressman Smith served as a board member of the Birmingham Campus Crusade for Christ and was a member of the Kiwanis Club and the Metropolitan Board of the YMCA. Mr. Smith served as a deacon at the First Baptist Church in Birmingham and was elected by the Southern Baptist Convention to the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs. As a husband, father and friend, Albert Lee Smith, Jr., was a compassionate and thoughtful human being. My prayers go out to Albert's wife, Eunie Walldorf Smith, their children, Karen, Smith, Albert Smith, and Meg Wallace, and their family and friends. The Honorable Albert Lee Smith's lifelong dedication to community and country made our world a better place.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. I would be happy to respond to the questions from the Senator from California.

Mr. SHELBY. Yes, the committee fully funded the President's request under the Transit Planning and Research Program. I will be happy to work with the distinguished Senator from California during conference committee consideration of this issue.

Mr. SHELBY. I would be happy to.

Mr. SHELBY. I understand the Senator's concerns about funding for bus and bus facilities in California and the subcommittee did face very difficult choices for funding. I will be happy to work with the Senator on these issues in the conference committee.