Richard Shelby

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. What is the pending business?

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, if I could add a few more comments to the remarks made by the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island. The Senator from Rhode Island is a distinguished veteran of the Senate. He has been here and has made his presence felt. He chairs a very important committee in the Senate--the Environment and Public Works Committee. I have had the privilege and the pleasure of working with him on a number of issues both on and off this committee. I can tell you, he has been the catalyst for the money for Rhode Island here in the Senate. Let us set the record straight. Thank you.

Mr. SHELBY. Absolutely.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, Senator Collins has been in touch with our subcommittee throughout the year as we prepared the 1998 Transportation appropriation bill. She has talked to us more than once. In particular, the Senator from Maine has made clear that securing available sources of funding for the NEPA study is a very high priority for her and the people in the northern part of her State of Maine. The Senator has also been a strong supporter of higher funding in fiscal year 1998 to meet other necessary transportation priorities on behalf of the State of Maine as well. Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to confirm the inquiry of the Senator and to reiterate that the State of Maine is clearly able to use highway funds provided in this act, subject to ISTEA reauthorization, to conduct a NEPA study. I believe that the Senator from Maine has made a compelling case for moving ahead with this study and, in fact, I believe that the NEPA study would be a good use of a portion of Maine's highway funding. Mr. President, Senator Collins has made it very clear to the subcommittee how important improving the travel corridor in northern Maine is, and I share her view that this NEPA study would be a very high priority for funding in 1998.

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

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following be the only first-degree amendments in order to S. 1048 other than the pending amendments, and that they be subject to relevant second-degree amendments. I send the list to the desk.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I further ask that when all of the above amendments have been disposed of, S. 1048 be advanced to third reading and the Senate immediately turn to H.R. 2169, the House companion bill, all after the enacting clause be stricken and the text of S. 1048, as amended, be inserted, H.R. 2169 be immediately advanced to third reading, and the Senate proceed to vote on passage, all without further action or debate.

Mr. SHELBY. Finally, I ask that following the vote on passage of the transportation appropriations bill, the Senate insist on its amendments, request a conference with the House, the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate, and S. 1048 be placed back on the calendar.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise in support of Senate Resolution 98. The negotiations on limiting post-2000 emissions of greenhouse gas emissions, which are scheduled to conclude in December in Kyoto, Japan, will have a significant impact on all Americans. This resolution addresses concerns that the administration has chosen to ignore while pursuing an international agreement that will bind the United States for decades to come. Science should lead policy. Once again, the administration is pursuing an environmental policy that is based on insufficient research and analysis. Many in the scientific community believe that we are still years away from computer models that can confidently link global warming to human activity. Yet without strong scientific data, the administration is ready to commit the United States to binding actions that will impose economic and social burdens on every American. Recently, the Department of Energy released a report by the Argonne National Laboratory containing several troubling findings on the effects of the proposed treaty on our economy. Among the conclusions, the study found that without requiring developing countries to meet the same emissions standards as the rest of the world, up to hundreds of thousands of U.S. jobs will move overseas to so-called developing countries that have refused to participate in any new climate agreement. Higher energy prices will lead manufactures to produce less at higher costs resulting in job loss, higher consumer prices and an inability to compete in a global marketplace. This will devastate our Nation. Yet, the administration is pushing to commit the American people to participate. The developed countries should not shoulder the responsibility for reducing greenhouse gas emissions around the world. It seems obvious that in the long-run increasing emissions in developing countries will far outweigh any actions taken by the developed countries. Any binding actions by the United States must be accompanied by binding commitments from developing countries. I believe a majority of Americans would agree that devastating our Nation's economy by promoting industry flight overseas is not the answer to a global issue. The public has a right to know how the administration's commitments requiring them to reduce fossil fuel energy will be accomplished and how their lives, jobs, and futures will be affected. I am greatly disturbed that the administration has not sought, and therefore has not received, support from Congress or the American public on this matter. Mr. President, the American people deserve an open, objective and honest debate on the development of U.S. climate change policy. Without that, I can not and I will not support committing the United States to limiting post-2000 greenhouse gas emissions.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to express my continued support for the peanut program. Mr. President, just last year the Senate completed a comprehensive review of all federally sponsored farm programs. This review prompted extensive debate in this chamber--debate in which divergent positions were articulated and competing interests were expounded. Ultimately, after much hard work, consideration and compromise, the Senate produced the landmark 1996 farm bill. The farm bill sets Federal farm policy through the year 2002 and contains fundamental changes which have impacted every facet of Federal involvement in farm programs--from crop subsidies, conservation practices and rural subsidies to credit, research and trade policies. Included in this legislation were provisions that specifically covered the peanut program, provisions which made considerable changes to the program. This year, despite the significant work that went into putting the farm bill together, despite the fact that the farm bill reforms of the peanut program have only been on the books for little over a year and have only affected one crop, and despite the fact that thousands of farmers have made significant financial and farming commitments through the year 2002 in reliance upon the provisions of the farm bill, some Members have discussed undoing the work of the sponsors of the farm bill and dismantling the peanut program. Mr. President, I feel any attempt to change the peanut program is unnecessary, misguided, and would ultimately destroy American peanut farming and American peanut farmers. Mr. President, the peanut program helps support more than 16,000 family farmers, many of whom live in some of the poorest, most agriculturally dependent areas in the United States. Mr. President, the peanut program provides American consumers with a steady and large supply of safe and cheap peanuts and peanut products. Mr. President, the peanut program works for American peanut farmers and American consumers. It has been significantly revised in recent years and these revisions will only serve to enhance the program if allowed to stand. We must allow farmers who have relied on the farm bill an opportunity to work within the new peanut program.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. If my colleagues would yield for a moment, I would like to endorse the well-reasoned recommendations made by the Senator for Kansas. The recently issued particulate matter rule is troubling given the scientific uncertainties and the significant costs that will be imposed on the government, citizens, and businesses in Alabama--and in the rest of the Nation--that are already struggling to meet the air quality standards required by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. The cost of implementing the new particulate matter standards is staggering, especially considering the questions that remain about the actual public health benefit. Further scientific examination of the matter is necessary prior to placing additional economic burdens on the American public. Premature implementation of the standards could be far more damaging to the Nation and I strongly recommend taking the time to fully review the scientific basis of the rulemaking.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, although the tax reconciliation bill promises to cut taxes by approximately $76 billion over 5 years and $238 billion over 10 years, it should be viewed as only a small step forward in providing tax relief to the American people. I remind my colleagues this afternoon that we must not forsake our broader agenda to seek comprehensive reform of our tax system. Piecemeal tax cuts are not, and I want to say it again, are not a substitute for broad-based tax reform. Therefore, I rise today to offer the Freedom and Fairness Restoration Act which will scrap the entire Income Tax Code as we know it and replace it with a system that taxes all income once and only once at one low, flat rate of 17 percent. A flat tax, I believe, will correct the vast and pervasive problems of the current system. As illustrated before here, the complexity of Federal tax laws costs taxpayers approximately 5.3 billion hours to comply with the current Internal Revenue Code. The Tax Code is so complicated that even the IRS doesn't understand it. In 1993, the IRS gave 8.5 million wrong answers to taxpayers seeking assistance, and the IRS sent out 5 million correction notices which turned out to be wrong. In 1996, this past year, taxpayers spent a staggering $225 billion trying to comply with the Tax Code. Think about it--$225 billion in America spent by the taxpayers trying to comply with the Tax Code. This is a deadweight loss to the economy that is, as the Presiding Officer knows as a member of the Armed Services Committee, about equal to our national defense budget. We live in a society that accepts the notion that some level of taxation is necessary to finance the cost of Government, but it is important that it does no more harm than is necessary to achieve the stated goal. The current Tax Code is the product of a 40-year experiment with social engineering that has hampered the effort of the American people to be free, bear the fruit of their labor and ultimately live the American dream. Recently, the bipartisan national commission on restructuring the IRS came out with a report laying out their vision for a new and improved IRS. One of the key recommendations of this commission that was made was that simplification of the tax law is necessary to reduce taxpayer burden and to facilitate improved tax administration. We need to address significant tax policy changes that will not only provide taxpayers with relief, but will simplify and equalize the tax collection in this country. Taxation is bad enough without administering that tax through the inefficient, inequitable, and oppressive tax system that we have today. Rather than wading through stacks of complicated IRS forms and instruction manuals, under a flat tax taxpayers would file a simple, postcard-size return. When fully phased in, the family allowance would be $11,600 for a single person, $23,200 for a married couple filing jointly and $5,300 for each dependent child. These allowances will be indexed to inflation under our bill. For a family of four, this will mean that their first $33,800 of income would be exempt from taxation by the Federal Government, which will assure a progressive average rate for low-income households. The flat tax, I believe, will restore fairness to tax laws by treating everyone alike, regardless of what business they are in, whether or not they have a lobbyist in Washington or how much money they make. If you earn more, under the flat rate tax, you would pay more. Under the current system, one taxpayer may pay little or no taxes because they have paid an accountant or tax attorney to figure out the Tax Code for them. At the same time, another person with the same exact income but who does not have the professional assistance may pay much more in taxes. I say that is not fair. Under a flat tax, this would end. People would not have to hire an accountant or tax attorney simply to comply with the law. Everyone would fill out the same simple, postcard-size return. Everyone will be taxed at the same rate. And, yes, everyone will pay their fair share. Furthermore, the flat tax will eliminate the double taxation of savings and promote jobs and higher wages in this country. Because the flat tax applies a single low rate to all Americans, I feel it is the best replacement of the current system. I do not think that Americans should have to jump through hoops just to keep the money they have earned through their hard work. The current Tax Code basically says you can keep your money only if you do what we think you should do. This is not freedom; it is serfdom. The flat tax does away with Government micromanagement of people's personal lives and allows them to spend their hard-earned money as they see fit. But perhaps the most important virtue of the flat tax is that it supports the basic value of work, savings, and individual liberty. It has been a commitment to these principles that has made America the most successful economy in the world. In recent years, we have watched as the private sector has streamlined itself. I think it is now time for us to streamline the Tax Code.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, although the tax reconciliation bill promises to cut taxes by approximately $76 billion over 5 years and $238 billion over 10 years, it should be viewed as only a small step forward in providing tax relief to the American people. I remind my colleagues this afternoon that we must not forsake our broader agenda to seek comprehensive reform of our tax system. Piecemeal tax cuts are not, and I want to say it again, are not a substitute for broad-based tax reform. Therefore, I rise today to offer the Freedom and Fairness Restoration Act which will scrap the entire Income Tax Code as we know it and replace it with a system that taxes all income once and only once at one low, flat rate of 17 percent. A flat tax, I believe, will correct the vast and pervasive problems of the current system. As illustrated before here, the complexity of Federal tax laws costs taxpayers approximately 5.3 billion hours to comply with the current Internal Revenue Code. The Tax Code is so complicated that even the IRS doesn't understand it. In 1993, the IRS gave 8.5 million wrong answers to taxpayers seeking assistance, and the IRS sent out 5 million correction notices which turned out to be wrong. In 1996, this past year, taxpayers spent a staggering $225 billion trying to comply with the Tax Code. Think about it--$225 billion in America spent by the taxpayers trying to comply with the Tax Code. This is a deadweight loss to the economy that is, as the Presiding Officer knows as a member of the Armed Services Committee, about equal to our national defense budget. We live in a society that accepts the notion that some level of taxation is necessary to finance the cost of Government, but it is important that it does no more harm than is necessary to achieve the stated goal. The current Tax Code is the product of a 40-year experiment with social engineering that has hampered the effort of the American people to be free, bear the fruit of their labor and ultimately live the American dream. Recently, the bipartisan national commission on restructuring the IRS came out with a report laying out their vision for a new and improved IRS. One of the key recommendations of this commission that was made was that simplification of the tax law is necessary to reduce taxpayer burden and to facilitate improved tax administration. We need to address significant tax policy changes that will not only provide taxpayers with relief, but will simplify and equalize the tax collection in this country. Taxation is bad enough without administering that tax through the inefficient, inequitable, and oppressive tax system that we have today. Rather than wading through stacks of complicated IRS forms and instruction manuals, under a flat tax taxpayers would file a simple, postcard-size return. When fully phased in, the family allowance would be $11,600 for a single person, $23,200 for a married couple filing jointly and $5,300 for each dependent child. These allowances will be indexed to inflation under our bill. For a family of four, this will mean that their first $33,800 of income would be exempt from taxation by the Federal Government, which will assure a progressive average rate for low-income households. The flat tax, I believe, will restore fairness to tax laws by treating everyone alike, regardless of what business they are in, whether or not they have a lobbyist in Washington or how much money they make. If you earn more, under the flat rate tax, you would pay more. Under the current system, one taxpayer may pay little or no taxes because they have paid an accountant or tax attorney to figure out the Tax Code for them. At the same time, another person with the same exact income but who does not have the professional assistance may pay much more in taxes. I say that is not fair. Under a flat tax, this would end. People would not have to hire an accountant or tax attorney simply to comply with the law. Everyone would fill out the same simple, postcard-size return. Everyone will be taxed at the same rate. And, yes, everyone will pay their fair share. Furthermore, the flat tax will eliminate the double taxation of savings and promote jobs and higher wages in this country. Because the flat tax applies a single low rate to all Americans, I feel it is the best replacement of the current system. I do not think that Americans should have to jump through hoops just to keep the money they have earned through their hard work. The current Tax Code basically says you can keep your money only if you do what we think you should do. This is not freedom; it is serfdom. The flat tax does away with Government micromanagement of people's personal lives and allows them to spend their hard-earned money as they see fit. But perhaps the most important virtue of the flat tax is that it supports the basic value of work, savings, and individual liberty. It has been a commitment to these principles that has made America the most successful economy in the world. In recent years, we have watched as the private sector has streamlined itself. I think it is now time for us to streamline the Tax Code.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. SHELBY pertaining to the introduction of S. 1040 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

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

Mr. SHELBY

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

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today in honor of Judge Donald H. Patterson who died at age 61 on May 28, 1997 after his courageous 7-month battle with lung disease. Donald Patterson was a friend, dedicated father and community leader who was respected by all who knew him. Judge Patterson honorably served the people of Lauderdale County, AL, as an elected judge in the 11th Judicial District of Alabama. Don grew up in Florence, AL and then received both his bachelor's and law degrees from the University of Alabama. Always a leader, Don was president of the student government association while at the university. Following his graduation from law school, Don served active duty in the U.S. Army, and later, 6 years in the U.S. Army Reserve. In 1959, Don began his law practice with Bert Haltrom. The two continued to practice until Bert Haltrom was appointed U.S. district court judge. Until Don's election to the circuit court in 1989, he practiced law with Florence attorney Gary Jester. Judge Patterson was a true gentleman and leader. His Christian values are reflected not only in the way he lived his life, but in the many organizations he led, belonged to and served. Until his passing, Judge Patterson was a member of the Alabama Judicial Study Commission and a director of the Alabama Circuit Court Judges Association. Additionally, Judge Patterson served as chairman of the Florence- Lauderdale Industrial Expansion Committee; director of the chamber of commerce; past president of the Florence Rotary Club, and a recipient of the Paul Harris Fellow of Rotary International Award. Furthermore, he served numerous other legal, civic, and Christian groups. Judge Patterson was a first-rate judge and lawyer--always very professional and knowledgeable. As a Sunday school teacher and past chairman of the board of the First Methodist Church of Florence, he was an exemplary citizen, leader, and role model. And as a husband, father, grandfather, and friend, Don was a compassionate and wonderful human being. My prayers go out to Don's family and friends. Don Patterson's lifelong dedication to community and country made our world a better place--he will be sorely missed.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I am pleased to inform my colleagues that today the Select Committee on Intelligence unanimously voted to favorably report the nomination of Mr. George J. Tenet to be the next Director of Central Intelligence. Although the committee held hearings in May, shortly after receiving the nomination from the President, the committee postponed final action pending the conclusion of a preliminary investigation by the Department of Justice. The Attorney General was required to make a determination of whether to recommend the appointment of an independent counsel to investigate allegations involving Mr. Tenet's financial holdings and disclosure. Today, the committee was officially notified that the Attorney General had concluded that no further investigation was warranted and that she would not seek appointment of an independent counsel. The Vice Chairman, Senator Kerrey, and I promptly convened a meeting of the committee and voted to favorably report the nomination to the full Senate. This prompt action by the committee, once the Justice Department investigation was completed, reflects the strong support Mr. Tenet has among the members of the committee. Mr. Tenet faces some daunting challenges as he prepares to officially assume the responsibilities of the Director of Central Intelligence. He must successfully guide the intelligence community toward new and far more difficult missions. He must ensure that the quality and integrity of his people remains high. He must provide thorough and unbiased analysis to this Nation's policy-makers and he must keep, as he has pledged, the Congress fully and currently informed of all intelligence activities. The latter point is very important, Mr. President, because the intelligence community, and specifically the Central Intelligence Agency, has not enjoyed a great deal of public support in recent years. It will be Mr. Tenet's responsibility to restore the public confidence in his organization, and he can do that by remaining faithful to the values of this Nation and by ensuring that the people's representatives are kept fully appraised of all the community's activities. The intelligence community is rich with outstanding Americans, many of whom risk their lives to protect the security of this Nation. These people place a great deal of trust in their leadership and it is up to Mr. Tenet to honor that trust. The committee believes that he will. Mr. President, it is with pleasure that I recommend, as chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, that the Senate unanimously approve the nomination of George John Tenet to the next Director of Central Intelligence.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, the bill before the Senate tonight, promises to provide about $75.8 billion in tax relief over the next 5 years and approximately $238 over 10 years. Mr. President, that is a good step forward. But, Mr. President, I rise tonight to remind and encourage my colleagues that while this bill might be viewed as a good step forward in providing tax relief to the American people. It is just that: a step forward--hopefully, toward greater reform in the future. I will offer a sense-of-the-Senate resolution for a very simple, but very important purpose: We must not forsake our broader agenda to seek comprehensive reform of our tax system. Tax cuts are not a substitute for broad based reform. Mr. President, while we live in a society that accepts the notion that some level of taxation is necessary to finance the cost of government, our challenge has always been how much government and at what cost. In my view, the power to tax is the most ominous and potentially destructive power granted to government by the people and that is because taxes empower governments, not people, With that in mind, our tax policy should do no more harm than is necessary to achieve its stated good. This maxim underscores why we need to change our current system, and specifically eliminate the estate and capital gains taxes. Our current tax system promotes waste and inefficiency, penalizes savings and investment and rewards dependency. Not only is the current Tax Code inequitable in who and how it taxes, it is responsible for fueling much of the growth of government and Federal spending. Changing how we collect revenue to pay for the cost of government will be a significant step in helping devolve power from Washington back to the people and restoring greater freedom. We need to address significant tax policy changes that will not only provide taxpayers' relief, but will simplify and equalize tax collection. Taxation is bad enough without administering that tax through an inefficient, inequitable, complex and unresponsive tax system. Yesterday, the National Commission on Restructuring the IRS came out with their report and recommendations. I have not had an opportunity to review their report completely, but I did note that simplification on the Tax Code was among one of their primary recommendations, including establishing one broad based tax system. While the Commission was not tasked and did not address specific legislative proposals to reform the tax system, I believe that the underlying principle of seeking a``truly fair and comprehensive'' tax system is something we can all agree on And I would take this opportunity to commend my colleagues from Nebraska and Iowa for their leadership on this issue. While I believe a flat tax is the most equitable replacement that supports the most freedom at the least cost--this resolution is not an endorsement of the flat tax. It only calls for Congress and the President to move forward with consideration of broad based reform. While this bill attempts to reverse the punitive effects of our tax policy and tax system which currently punishes the basic values of work, savings and individual liberty, it is not sufficient to undo the basic premise that seems to underlie the current system and that is that the Government is entitled to all that you earn. And only through selected, targeted tax credits, deductions, exemptions and the like are the American people allowed to keep portions of the income that they work hard every day to earn. Our tax policy should support the most freedom at the least cost and embody the least intrusive means of levying and collecting taxes. But most importantly of all, Mr. President, we need a policy that does not punish the basic values of work, savings and individual liberty. Mr. President, without comprehensive tax reform, we will never truly be able to say that the era of big government is over. Mr. President, I would encourage my colleagues to join me and the Senator from Idaho in supporting this sense-of-the-Senate resolution.

Mr SHELBY

Mr SHELBY. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation that reaffirms one of the basic principles that formed our Nation-- protection of private property rights. The Private Property Owners' Bill of Rights is intended to reaffirm this constitutional right. The right to private property is an essential freedom. While the fifth amendment to the Constitution recognizes that the Federal Government may take property for public use; it explicitly mandates that Government must compensate the private property owner. In recent years, this fundamental right has been blatantly ignored in the name of habitat and species preservation. Since the inception of our Nation, ownership of private property has been a cornerstone of economic liberty and prosperity. The current Federal regulatory polices are an ominous cloud hanging over every landowner from the established developer to the hardworking generational farmer. Myriad new environmental regulations stemming from the Endangered Species Act and the wetlands statues of section 404 of the Clean Water Act have rendered countless acres of private land useless. Thus leaving property owners deprived of the ability to farm, develop, or even repair existing structures on their own land. This bill does not challenge the integrity of the Endangered Species Act or the wetlands statutes; it simply attempts to shift the burden of enforcing these laws from the individual back to the Government. For too long, the policies of the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Army Corps of Engineers, or the Environmental Protection Agency, with respect to these statutes, have gone unchecked. Property owners should not be singled out to bear the costs of public policies. If our Government determines that a certain parcel of land should be conserved or a species protected, it should purchase the land at a fair and just price. Current regulations punish individuals that happen to own land that the Government wants to manage without purchasing. Enforcement of land use statutes can range from exorbitant fines to the inability to use one's own land or even to time in prison. Currently, expensive and lengthy mitigation is the only recourse available to contest the Government's actions. Simply put, this is an intolerable situation. Continuing the punitive approach to conservation will only serve to alienate those that are in the best position to assist with the efforts. It is estimated that three-fourths of these lands that meet the Federal Government's definition of a wetland through section 404 of the Clean Water Act, are privately owned. It is time to change the bureaucratic viewpoint that protecting a private property owners' constitutionally guaranteed rights comes at the cost of protecting the environment. Contrary to the Government's actions, both are intrinsically linked. Throughout my tenure, I have heard countless stories of landowners being denied the right to use their own land--the very property that they purchased or inherited, cared for, developed and pay taxes on-- because the Government determines there is a need to preserve the property for a wetland or species. These citizens find themselves in a regulatory nightmare--unable to live off the land yet unable to sell it to the Government, or anyone for that matter, for full market value. Only on paper is the land truly theirs. For example, a farmer in Missouri was accused of destroying wetlands simply for moving dirt while repairing a broken levee on his family's property. In another disturbing instance, Texan Marge Rector spent $830,000 to purchase 15 acres of land for her retirement. Soon after, it was determined that her land was a potential habitat for the black- capped vireo and the golden-cheeked warbler. Within 5 years, her land was determined to be worth approximately $30,000. Her retirement dream turned into a nightmare. Unfortunately these are not isolated cases, there are hundreds of individuals in similar predicaments across our country. This issue is not limited by geographical boundaries, socio-economic status or occupation. Any individual that owns land is subject to unexpected, unpredictable environmental regulation that--at the very least--will rob a person of the economic value of their land or, worse, force a landowner into prison for rightfully using their land. Mr. President, the time has arrived to realistically address the matter at hand by creating a clearly defined policy for Federal agencies to follow. Abusing the rights of private property owners in the name of the environment must end. Congress needs to act before the economic future of more citizens is put at risk. Therefore, I am pleased to reintroduce the Private Property Owners' Bill of Rights with my colleagues, Senators Nickles and Hutchison. This bill would reaffirm the Federal Government's constitutional responsibility to protect private property by requiring the Federal Government and its agents, to include private property owners in any process or action to take private land. The Private Property Owners' Bill of Rights requires a Federal agency and its representative to give notice and gain consent from property owners prior to entering a property owner's land for the purpose of gathering information to enforce the Endangered Species Act or any wetlands statute. Private property owners also would be guaranteed the right to complete access to that information and the right to debate its accuracy prior to the Government's use of it. Additionally, this legislation requires Federal Government agencies to create an administrative appeals process for owners of property adversely affected by environmental regulations. The Endangered Species Act will be amended to require that private property owners are notified and included in any management agreement that would affect their land. These provisions will assure that the landowner's voice is heard. Most importantly, the private property owners' bill of rights guarantees compensation for landowners whose property is devalued by $10,000 or 20 percent of its fair market value by Federal action. Uniform guidelines would be created that all Federal agencies and landowners would follow when developing a compensation agreement. If disagreements arise between the parties, they may request arbitration. In no manner does this option limit the availability of alternative legal measures. These are reasonable protections to ensure that landowners' rights, guaranteed under the Constitution, are not violated and that Government affirmatively meets its constitutional obligation to protect private property. Our Nation is built on the principles of individual freedoms and rights. It is time that the Federal Government abide by the laws of our land and stop the practice of regulating private property without the benefit of compensation. These abuses must end. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this effort. I ask unanimous consent that the Private Property Owners' Bill of Rights Act of 1997 be printed in the Record.

Mr SHELBY

Mr SHELBY. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation that reaffirms one of the basic principles that formed our Nation-- protection of private property rights. The Private Property Owners' Bill of Rights is intended to reaffirm this constitutional right. The right to private property is an essential freedom. While the fifth amendment to the Constitution recognizes that the Federal Government may take property for public use; it explicitly mandates that Government must compensate the private property owner. In recent years, this fundamental right has been blatantly ignored in the name of habitat and species preservation. Since the inception of our Nation, ownership of private property has been a cornerstone of economic liberty and prosperity. The current Federal regulatory polices are an ominous cloud hanging over every landowner from the established developer to the hardworking generational farmer. Myriad new environmental regulations stemming from the Endangered Species Act and the wetlands statues of section 404 of the Clean Water Act have rendered countless acres of private land useless. Thus leaving property owners deprived of the ability to farm, develop, or even repair existing structures on their own land. This bill does not challenge the integrity of the Endangered Species Act or the wetlands statutes; it simply attempts to shift the burden of enforcing these laws from the individual back to the Government. For too long, the policies of the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Army Corps of Engineers, or the Environmental Protection Agency, with respect to these statutes, have gone unchecked. Property owners should not be singled out to bear the costs of public policies. If our Government determines that a certain parcel of land should be conserved or a species protected, it should purchase the land at a fair and just price. Current regulations punish individuals that happen to own land that the Government wants to manage without purchasing. Enforcement of land use statutes can range from exorbitant fines to the inability to use one's own land or even to time in prison. Currently, expensive and lengthy mitigation is the only recourse available to contest the Government's actions. Simply put, this is an intolerable situation. Continuing the punitive approach to conservation will only serve to alienate those that are in the best position to assist with the efforts. It is estimated that three-fourths of these lands that meet the Federal Government's definition of a wetland through section 404 of the Clean Water Act, are privately owned. It is time to change the bureaucratic viewpoint that protecting a private property owners' constitutionally guaranteed rights comes at the cost of protecting the environment. Contrary to the Government's actions, both are intrinsically linked. Throughout my tenure, I have heard countless stories of landowners being denied the right to use their own land--the very property that they purchased or inherited, cared for, developed and pay taxes on-- because the Government determines there is a need to preserve the property for a wetland or species. These citizens find themselves in a regulatory nightmare--unable to live off the land yet unable to sell it to the Government, or anyone for that matter, for full market value. Only on paper is the land truly theirs. For example, a farmer in Missouri was accused of destroying wetlands simply for moving dirt while repairing a broken levee on his family's property. In another disturbing instance, Texan Marge Rector spent $830,000 to purchase 15 acres of land for her retirement. Soon after, it was determined that her land was a potential habitat for the black- capped vireo and the golden-cheeked warbler. Within 5 years, her land was determined to be worth approximately $30,000. Her retirement dream turned into a nightmare. Unfortunately these are not isolated cases, there are hundreds of individuals in similar predicaments across our country. This issue is not limited by geographical boundaries, socio-economic status or occupation. Any individual that owns land is subject to unexpected, unpredictable environmental regulation that--at the very least--will rob a person of the economic value of their land or, worse, force a landowner into prison for rightfully using their land. Mr. President, the time has arrived to realistically address the matter at hand by creating a clearly defined policy for Federal agencies to follow. Abusing the rights of private property owners in the name of the environment must end. Congress needs to act before the economic future of more citizens is put at risk. Therefore, I am pleased to reintroduce the Private Property Owners' Bill of Rights with my colleagues, Senators Nickles and Hutchison. This bill would reaffirm the Federal Government's constitutional responsibility to protect private property by requiring the Federal Government and its agents, to include private property owners in any process or action to take private land. The Private Property Owners' Bill of Rights requires a Federal agency and its representative to give notice and gain consent from property owners prior to entering a property owner's land for the purpose of gathering information to enforce the Endangered Species Act or any wetlands statute. Private property owners also would be guaranteed the right to complete access to that information and the right to debate its accuracy prior to the Government's use of it. Additionally, this legislation requires Federal Government agencies to create an administrative appeals process for owners of property adversely affected by environmental regulations. The Endangered Species Act will be amended to require that private property owners are notified and included in any management agreement that would affect their land. These provisions will assure that the landowner's voice is heard. Most importantly, the private property owners' bill of rights guarantees compensation for landowners whose property is devalued by $10,000 or 20 percent of its fair market value by Federal action. Uniform guidelines would be created that all Federal agencies and landowners would follow when developing a compensation agreement. If disagreements arise between the parties, they may request arbitration. In no manner does this option limit the availability of alternative legal measures. These are reasonable protections to ensure that landowners' rights, guaranteed under the Constitution, are not violated and that Government affirmatively meets its constitutional obligation to protect private property. Our Nation is built on the principles of individual freedoms and rights. It is time that the Federal Government abide by the laws of our land and stop the practice of regulating private property without the benefit of compensation. These abuses must end. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this effort. I ask unanimous consent that the Private Property Owners' Bill of Rights Act of 1997 be printed in the Record.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that immediately following the disposition of the two amendments that we have been talking about, that the bill be read a third time, and the Senate proceed to a vote on passage of S. 858, as amended, if amended.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Aviation Subcommittee on the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Thursday, June 19, 1997, at 2:30 p.m. on United States/Japan aviation relations.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on International Economic Policy, Export and Trade Promotion of the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 19, at 9:30 a.m. to hold a hearing.