Richard Shelby

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Stealth Tax Prevention Act. Perhaps the most important power given to the Congress in the Constitution of the United States is bestowed in article I, section 8--the power to tax. This authority is vested in Congress because, as elected representatives, Congress remains accountable to the public when they lay and collect taxes. Last year, Mr. President, Congress passed the Congressional Review Act of 1996, which provides that when a major agency rule takes effect, Congress has 60 days to review it. During this time period, Congress has the option to pass a disapproval resolution. If no such resolution is passed, the rule then goes into effect. The Internal Revenue Service, as the President here knows, has enormous power to affect the lives and the livelihoods of American taxpayers through their authority to interpret the Tax Code. The Stealth Tax Prevention Act that I am introducing today, along with Senator Bond and Senator Hagel, will expand the definition of a major rule to include, Mr. President, any IRS regulation which increases Federal revenue. Why? Because we desperately need this today. For example, if the Office of Management and Budget finds that the implementation and enforcement of a rule has resulted in an increase of Federal revenues over current practices or revenues anticipated from the rule on the date of the enactment of the statute under which the rule is promulgated. Therefore, the Stealth Tax Prevention Act will allow Congress to review the regulation and take appropriate measures to avoid raising taxes on hard-working Americans, in most cases, small businesses. Mr. President, the Founding Fathers' intent, as you know, was to put the power to lay and collect taxes in the hands of elected Members of Congress, not in the hands of bureaucrats who are shielded from public accountability. It is appropriate, I believe, that the IRS's breach of authority is addressed, in light of the fact that we are celebrating this week Small Business Week. The discretionary authority of the Internal Revenue Service exposes small businesses, farmers, and others to the arbitrary whims of bureaucrats, thus creating an uncertain and, under certain cases, hostile environment in which to conduct day-to-day activities. Most of these people do not have lobbyists that work for them, other than their elected Representatives, the way it should be. The Stealth Tax Prevention Act will be particularly helpful in lowering the tax burden on small business which suffers disproportionately, Mr. President, from IRS regulations. This burden discourages the startup of new firms and ultimately the creation of new jobs in the economy, which has really made America great today. Americans pay Federal income taxes. They, Mr. President, as you well know, pay State income taxes. They pay property taxes. On the way to work in the morning they pay a gasoline tax when they fill up their car, and a sales tax when they buy a cup of coffee. Mr. President, average Americans in small businesses are saddled with the highest tax burden in our country's history. Allowing bureaucrats to increase taxes even further, at their own discretion through interpretation of the Tax Code is intolerable. The Stealth Tax Prevention Act will leave tax policy where it belongs, to elected Members of the Congress, not unelected and unaccountable IRS bureaucrats. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr President, today, I am pleased to join my colleagues and fellow Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus cochairs Senators Burns, Craig and Murkowski in introducing the Sportsmen' Bill of Rights Act of 1997. Hunting and fishing are traditions that have been an integral part of our history since the inception of our Nation and are among the most basic of our heritage. Through the ages, sportsmen have shown a deep respect and appreciation for the land and have made a concerted effort to wisely use our Nation's renewable natural resources. All across this country, very successful alliances have been formed between hunting and fishing enthusiasts and conservationists. Both are very concerned about protecting natural habitats, and when working together their force includes some 70 percent of the U.S. population. Today, millions of Americans participate in these venerable pastimes. Over 60 million Americans enthusiastically participate in fishing activities and 14 million citizens are licensed hunters. These recreational activities are a significant boost to many local and State economies, as well as the Nation. Sportsmen spent more than $67.9 billion last year on goods and services supporting an industry that employs more than a million people across the country. When discussing the contributions sportsmen have made to our Nation, often overlooked is the fact that sportsmen have carried the burden of financing fish and wildlife management and preservation through the years. America owes our sportsmen a debt of gratitude for their pioneering achievements on behalf of wildlife and habitat conservation. The Sportsmen's Bill of Rights recognizes the important role fishing and hunting play in our society by providing anglers and hunters with explicit access to public lands; opening the process of wildlife management and protecting the integrity of the sportsmen's trust funds. This bill ensures that hunting and fishing opportunities are considered in Federal land management decisions, and provides a clear procedure for Federal agencies to follow in their management of our Federal public lands. For too long, sportsmen have been unduly penalized from equitably sharing public land. This bill mandates that Federal agencies analyze the effects of potential hunting and fishing limitations prior to enacting new land use policies. Hunters and anglers should be granted the right to intervene in any civil action where law would limit the use of land for hunting and fishing. The provisions in the sportsmen's bill of rights assure that Federal agencies support, encourage and enhance the opportunities for fishing and hunting. While this bill promotes access to public lands, it recognizes the need for exceptions and exclusions due to national security concerns, public safety matters, emergency situations and policy reasons that are incompatible with hunting or fishing. This act cannot be used to force the opening of National Parks or monuments administered by the National Park Service to fishing or hunting and this legislation is not intended to place fishing and hunting above other land management priorities. The sportsmen's bill of rights is aimed at setting forth tangible management guidelines. Additionally, this year marks the 60th anniversary of one of our Nation's most successful Federal restoration programs, the Pittman Robertson Act. P-R, as it is often referred to, is a partnership created by the State fish and wildlife agencies and the funds provided by the anglers and hunters. Sportsman across the land have sponsored, supported and maintained the integrity of P-R throughout the last 60 years. The funds are raised through an excise tax on sportsman's goods and subsequently, placed in a fund to be allocated to the States yearly in accordance with statutory formulas. Today $357 million is raised for wildlife restoration through P-R funds in conjunction with the Dingell- Johnson Act and the Wallop-Breaux Act. Due to the congenial partnership of our Nation's hunters and anglers with Federal-State agencies, America's wildlife is thriving. For every taxpayer dollar invested in wildlife conservation, sportsmen and women contribute $9 dollars. At the turn of the century, only 41,000 elk were counted across our Nation. While the Nation's population soared and massive development occurred, sportsmen's conservation initiatives have enable the elk population in just 10 western States to increase to approximately 810,000. Similar stories can be applied to numerous species including the white-tailed deer, the Canada goose, and the wild turkey. Hunters and anglers have been and will continue to be the champions of wildlife and habitat conservation. These examples just begin to demonstrate the value of anglers and hunters to our society. The sportsmen's bill of rights will protect and enhance sportsmen's opportunities and enhance the conservation of wildlife. I urge my colleagues to join me by cosponsoring this important legislation.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr President, today, I am pleased to join my colleagues and fellow Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus cochairs Senators Burns, Craig and Murkowski in introducing the Sportsmen' Bill of Rights Act of 1997. Hunting and fishing are traditions that have been an integral part of our history since the inception of our Nation and are among the most basic of our heritage. Through the ages, sportsmen have shown a deep respect and appreciation for the land and have made a concerted effort to wisely use our Nation's renewable natural resources. All across this country, very successful alliances have been formed between hunting and fishing enthusiasts and conservationists. Both are very concerned about protecting natural habitats, and when working together their force includes some 70 percent of the U.S. population. Today, millions of Americans participate in these venerable pastimes. Over 60 million Americans enthusiastically participate in fishing activities and 14 million citizens are licensed hunters. These recreational activities are a significant boost to many local and State economies, as well as the Nation. Sportsmen spent more than $67.9 billion last year on goods and services supporting an industry that employs more than a million people across the country. When discussing the contributions sportsmen have made to our Nation, often overlooked is the fact that sportsmen have carried the burden of financing fish and wildlife management and preservation through the years. America owes our sportsmen a debt of gratitude for their pioneering achievements on behalf of wildlife and habitat conservation. The Sportsmen's Bill of Rights recognizes the important role fishing and hunting play in our society by providing anglers and hunters with explicit access to public lands; opening the process of wildlife management and protecting the integrity of the sportsmen's trust funds. This bill ensures that hunting and fishing opportunities are considered in Federal land management decisions, and provides a clear procedure for Federal agencies to follow in their management of our Federal public lands. For too long, sportsmen have been unduly penalized from equitably sharing public land. This bill mandates that Federal agencies analyze the effects of potential hunting and fishing limitations prior to enacting new land use policies. Hunters and anglers should be granted the right to intervene in any civil action where law would limit the use of land for hunting and fishing. The provisions in the sportsmen's bill of rights assure that Federal agencies support, encourage and enhance the opportunities for fishing and hunting. While this bill promotes access to public lands, it recognizes the need for exceptions and exclusions due to national security concerns, public safety matters, emergency situations and policy reasons that are incompatible with hunting or fishing. This act cannot be used to force the opening of National Parks or monuments administered by the National Park Service to fishing or hunting and this legislation is not intended to place fishing and hunting above other land management priorities. The sportsmen's bill of rights is aimed at setting forth tangible management guidelines. Additionally, this year marks the 60th anniversary of one of our Nation's most successful Federal restoration programs, the Pittman Robertson Act. P-R, as it is often referred to, is a partnership created by the State fish and wildlife agencies and the funds provided by the anglers and hunters. Sportsman across the land have sponsored, supported and maintained the integrity of P-R throughout the last 60 years. The funds are raised through an excise tax on sportsman's goods and subsequently, placed in a fund to be allocated to the States yearly in accordance with statutory formulas. Today $357 million is raised for wildlife restoration through P-R funds in conjunction with the Dingell- Johnson Act and the Wallop-Breaux Act. Due to the congenial partnership of our Nation's hunters and anglers with Federal-State agencies, America's wildlife is thriving. For every taxpayer dollar invested in wildlife conservation, sportsmen and women contribute $9 dollars. At the turn of the century, only 41,000 elk were counted across our Nation. While the Nation's population soared and massive development occurred, sportsmen's conservation initiatives have enable the elk population in just 10 western States to increase to approximately 810,000. Similar stories can be applied to numerous species including the white-tailed deer, the Canada goose, and the wild turkey. Hunters and anglers have been and will continue to be the champions of wildlife and habitat conservation. These examples just begin to demonstrate the value of anglers and hunters to our society. The sportsmen's bill of rights will protect and enhance sportsmen's opportunities and enhance the conservation of wildlife. I urge my colleagues to join me by cosponsoring this important legislation.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise in support of condition 9 of the resolution of ratification of the CFE Flank Agreement. Condition 9 simply confirms the Senate's role in treatymaking, as established in the U.S. Constitution and reaffirmed in existing law. Specifically, condition 9 restates the requirement, enacted as section 232 of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1995, Public Law 103-337, that: The United States shall not be bound by any international agreement entered into by the President that would substantially modify the ABM Treaty unless the agreement is entered pursuant to the treaty making power of the President under the Constitution. Thus, this body is already on record supporting the preservation of the Senate's constitutional prerogatives in this area. In other words, the President may not unilaterally negotiate substantive changes to the ABM Treaty without the advice and consent of the Senate. Frankly, I am surprised some of my colleagues, who in the past have been strong supporters of this body's constitutional prerogatives with respect to treaties in general, and the ABM Treaty in particular, are arguing to strike condition 9. Not only do the Constitution and U.S. law require Senate advice and consent, but submission to the Senate is also consistent with recent practice on the multilateralization of arms agreements with the Soviet Union to include successor states. Both the multilateralization of START I and the multilateralization of the CFE Treaty were considered by the Senate when it acted on the Lisbon protocol and the CFE Treaty itself. Mr. President, some of my colleagues argue that the multilateralization of the ABM Treaty is not a substantive change. Consider the following: The proposed changes would alter the basic rights and obligations of the parties--the central issue in any contract or treaty. Second, the proposed changes would modify the geographic scope and coverage of the Treaty, and would do so by taking the extraordinary step of defining Russia's national territory to include the combined territory of other independent states of the former Soviet Union. Third, the role and function of the Standing Consultative Commission [SCC], in particular the ability of the United States to negotiate amendments to the treaty to protect our national interests, would be dramatically changed by the accession of new parties to the treaty with effective veto power over treaty amendments. Lastly, some of my colleagues have cited a Congressional Research Service legal analysis that seems to suggest that the Senate has no role in the process. In response, I would like to point out that: The CRS analysis concludes that an apportionment of the rights and obligations of the U.S.S.R. under the ABM Treaty to its successor states would not, in itself, seem to require Senate participation. The CRS analysis goes on to say, however, ``arguably, a multilateralization agreement could include matters that would alter the substance of the ABM Treaty and require Senate advice and consent.'' The administration's proposal clearly falls into the latter category. It does much more than merely apportion the rights and obligations of the U.S.S.R. It apportions some rights to some successor parties--but denies them to others, in effect creating two classes of parties. This asymmetry and lack of reciprocity represents a clear departure from both the legal and strategic assumptions embodied in the initial treaty. It specifically permits Russia to establish ABM facilities on the territory of other independent states. This is not an apportionment; this creates a new right under the treaty. The administration proposal admits to the treaty states which neither have nor intend to have offensive or defensive strategic weapons, while giving them virtual veto rights over the strategic posture of other parties. This brings me to the most important point: The administration's proposal affects the rights of the United States to provide for our own defense as we see fit. It was to protect those rights that the Senate was given its advice and consent role in the first place. The Senate must not abdicate its role, now. I urge my colleagues to support this provision.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, as chairman of the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, I want to briefly state my views on the Warner amendment. Let me first make it clear that I represent a donor State. From 1992 to 1995, Alabama only received about 78 cents back for every dollar it sent to Washington in gasoline taxes. Other States, like Massachusetts for example, received about $2\1/2\ back for every dollar paid in gas taxes. The formula for distributing highway funds is not equitable in my opinion. I think it would be very difficult for any Member to argue that wealthier States should receive more than double in Federal highway funds than they paid in, while poorer States only receive a fraction of their contributions. I want to work to help correct that formula, but that is something that will be addressed later this year when the Federal highway program is reauthorized. My goal in the supplemental appropriations bill was not to try to tackle the donor versus donee issue. As I said before, that will be done in the authorizing committee later this year. Rather, my goal was to simply increase Federal funding for highways to address current and pressing needs and to ensure that all States would come out a winner. We did that. Under this legislation, donor States received an increase in their highway funds compared to fiscal year 1996 levels. Nondonor States, on the other hand, were given additional funds to ensure that they would not be cut below their 1996 levels. Again, nondonor States received their 1996 level of highway funding and donor States received an increase from their 1996 level. All in all, this bill provides States with an additional $933 million in new Federal highway money, and it does so in a way in which every State comes out a winner. In my view, that is a major victory for transportation in America, and it sets the stage for the authorizing committees to resolve the contentious allocation issue later this year. I support more money for donor States, but the Senate, the Appropriations Committee, and the Transportation Subcommittee are made up of more than donor States. I am not sure of what the outcome will be today, but even if the Warner amendment fails, there is no question that the additional funds in the committee bill represent a major victory for donor States, and I will strongly support its passage.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. I appreciate the Senator from Rhode Island's assistance on this matter and am thankful for his recognition of the special circumstances. As the former chairman of GSA's appropriations subcommittee, I am fully aware and supportive of the need to abide by national project cost standards. agricultural credit issues

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I would like to thank the Senator from Rhode Island for his assistance with several issues affecting the U.S. courthouse to be constructed in Montgomery, AL. Last fall, $6 million was included in Public Law 104-208 to help offset cost escalations resulting from: An error made by GSA during its Time Out and Review exercise; inflation; required security upgrades; historic preservation; and, heating, ventilation, and air conditioning improvements. Because this supplemental project funding cannot be obligated by GSA without authorization by the Committee on Environment and Public Works, I have worked closely with Senator Chafee and other members of the authorizing committee to secure their approval. Appropriately, Senator Chafee and others wanted to make sure that this additional funding would not cause the project in Montgomery to exceed the GSA benchmarking and project budgeting process. At my and Senator Chafee's request, GSA confirmed in a letter dated April 21, 1997, that this additional $6 million will not cause the Montgomery project to exceed its benchmark. That is, this additional funding is necessary for GSA to complete the very critical and basic features of a modern courthouse facility.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise to address the issue of verification, and in opposition to the motion to strike condition No. 33 contained in the resolution of ratification, relating to effective verification. I have a number of serious concerns with respect to the Chemical Weapons Convention. As chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, however, I have a particular responsibility to ensure that any treaty ratified by this body can be effectively verified by the intelligence community. If it cannot be verified, the CWC could become the means by which CWC member states, such as China and Iran, expand and enhance--rather than renounce--their CW capabilities. In negotiating the INF Treaty, ratified in 1988, President Reagan set forth an eminently reasonable standard to guide the negotiation and implementation of arms control agreements. ``Trust,'' he said, ``but verify.'' But I am afraid that the critical, second part of President Reagan's formula seems to have been forgotten with respect to this treaty. The CWC, and especially the verification regime, is based on the triumph of hope and trust over experience and history. In its efforts to obtain ratification, the administration has--if I may borrow a phrase from a former vice-chairman of the committee, Senator Moynihan--``defined verification down.'' Condition No. 33 to the resolution of ratification seeks to correct that problem. It conditions deposit of the U.S. instrument of ratification on a Presidential certification to Congress that the treaty is effectively verifiable. This term, as used in the resolution, contains the following elements, based on the traditional definition of ``effective verification'': A ``high degree of confidence'' in our ability to detect, ``Militarily significant violations''--meaning one metric ton or more of chemical agent-- ``In a timely fashion,''--meaning detection within 1 year--and Detection of ``patterns of marginal violation over time.'' Effective verification is ultimately a political judgment that must be made by the President and his national security advisors. However, a key input to this decision is the judgement of the intelligence community. It is currently impossible to reconcile the above definition of ``effective verification'' with the intelligence community's own statements over the past 4 years, which is why condition 33 calls for a new Presidential certification., I would like to briefly restate the intelligence community's key conclusions as to the verifiability of the CWC, as set forth in recently declassified material from the National Intelligence Estimate of August 1993: The capability of the Intelligence Community to monitor compliance with the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) is severely limited and is likely to remain so for the rest of the decade. Our intelligence community is the most capable in the world today. It enjoys extensive resources, and employs an impressive variety of assets to collect information affecting our national security. Yet with all of the sophisticated assets at our disposal, we cannot be confident of verifying this treaty. And some of the most promising new intelligence methods which might have improved this score over the last 4 years, have been significantly underfunded by this administration. We should look to the certification required by condition 33 as an opportunity for the President to tell us of his plans to invest in improvements to our technical collection capabilities to enable effective verification. Therefore I strongly support condition 33 of the resolution of ratification, and oppose the motion to strike. While most will acknowledge that we do not have the technical intelligence capabilities currently in place to provide effective verification, the proponents of the treaty place great stock in the contribution of the verification mechanisms contained in the treaty. For example, the creation of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons [OPCW], and the ability of OPCW inspectors to carry out challenge inspections of suspected violations, are cited as evidence for a mechanism of effective verification. Yet in an unclassified excerpt from the 1993 NIE on verification, the intelligence community states that: The key provision of the monitoring regime--challenge inspections at undeclared sites--can be thwarted by a nation determined to preserve a small, secret program by using the delays and managed access rules allowed by the convention. Those, Mr. President, are not my words. Those are the words of the intelligence community describing its ability to monitor compliance with the treaty before us. I should point out to my colleagues, in light of the fact that the National Intelligence Estimate from which I have quoted is dated August 1993, that the Acting Director of Central Intelligence, George Tenet, and other intelligence officials have confirmed on numerous occasions that the key judgments cited above are unchanged. In an open hearing on February 5 of this year, I asked George Tenet, the acting Director of Central Intelligence, about the verifiability of the CWC. Our discussion went, in part, as follows: Acting Director Tenet said: ``We can never guarantee that a power that signs up to this agreement won't cheat. These . . . chemical and biological developments are small, they are easily hidden. They are not like big nuclear developments that have big signatures that everybody understands.'' I replied: ``In other words, it will be fairly easy to cheat some, wouldn't it?'' Acting Director Tenet responded: ``It will be easy to cheat, Mr. Chairman.'' Mr. President, the treaty before us today is deficient in many respects: both in what it does, and in what it fails to do. As chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I must therefore conclude that the greatest flaw with the CWC is that, absent a certification of effective verification, we cannot even know if it is doing what it is supposed to be doing, and we cannot know the extent to which it is failing to do what it should do: This treaty is unverifiable. Therefore, I support condition No. 33, and oppose the motion to strike. If I have any time left, I yield it to the distinguished Senator from Colorado.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Chemical and Biological Weapons Threat Reduction Act. With the end of the cold war, we live in a much safer, but still unstable, world. Without the bi-polar domination of two superpowers, we now face a world comprised of many nations that have gained power on the world stage by producing a relatively inexpensive means of war. Among the most deplorable methods of war-making known to the world, chemical and biological weapons are horrific tools of mass destruction. Long ago, the United States discontinued and dismantled its biological weapons program and is currently unilaterally destroying its stockpile of poison gas. We would hope that other nations would follow suit, and destroy these weapons as well. However, there are rogue States that are pursuing dangerous weapons programs contrary to international norms against the use and stockpiling of biological and chemical weapons. Some countries are even suspected of pledging to ratify international agreements, while secretly continuing to develop and stockpile these lethal weapons. One significant problem in the fight against chemical and biological weapons is the stunning lack of enforcement of existing international protocols. International agreements, such as the 1925 Geneva Protocol and the 1972 Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, ban the use of poison gas in war and prohibit the acquisition, development, production, and stockpiling of biological weapons. However, they have not been used as an effective deterrent. For example, as the world watched with horror and disbelief when Iraq used poison gas against its own nationals, the community of nations failed to punish the perpetrators of this act. In addition, there is currently no U.S. law which provides criminal or civil penalties relating to the use of these weapons in the United States. Therefore, with the hope of reinforcing U.S. international leadership on chemical and biological weapons, I am proud to be a cosponsor of the Chemical and Biological Weapons Threat Reduction Act. This legislation demonstrates our firm commitment to destroy U.S. chemical weapons, setting a strong example for other countries to follow. Further, this initiative reinvigorates U.S. efforts to enforce existing international prohibitions against chemical weapons, provides strong deterrence, and sends a clear message to nations around the world that the United States will not tolerate the use of these weapons. Specifically, the Chemical and Biological Weapons Threat Reduction Act sets out civil and criminal penalties for the acquisition, possession, transfer, and use of chemical and biological weapons. This legislation mandates the death penalty where the use of these weapons leads to the loss of life and provides for a $100,000 penalty for civil violations. The Chemical and Biological Weapons Threat Reduction Act requires enhancements to U.S. chemical and biological defenses to protect our military men and women. Further, it would require U.S. sanctions, termination of foreign assistance, and suspension of diplomatic relations against any country that uses chemical and biological weapons against another country or its own people. The Chemical and Biological Weapons Threat Reduction Act provides concrete and achievable measures to reduce the threat of these abhorrent weapons. It is the best thing we can do to protect our country, our allies, and our world from any future atrocities caused by the use of chemical and biological weapons. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to express support for Judge Roy S. Moore. Judge Moore is a judge on the circuit court of the State of Alabama. Judge Moore is a lifelong resident of Etowah County, a graduate of the United States Military Academy, a distinguished veteran of the Vietnam War, and a graduate of the University of Alabama School of Law. Judge Moore has always and continues to serve his community, Alabama, and this country with distinction and principle. It is because of his principles that Judge Moore has become an issue. Two years ago, Judge Moore was sued by the Alabama chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union because he opened his court with a prayer and because he displayed the Ten Commandments over his bench. A lower court judge enjoined Judge Moore from praying before court sessions and later barred his display of the Ten Commandments. The Supreme Court of Alabama has since issued a stay of the order barring display of the Ten Commandments. Judge Moore has refused to acknowledge the orders which stop him from praying and displaying the Ten Commandments. I support Judge Moore in his actions. I do not believe that his convocation prayer or the presence of the Ten Commandments in the courtroom violates the Constitution. As the Members of this body well know, a prayer, said from the floor of this Chamber, begins every day in which the Senate is in session. This practice is also followed in the House of Representatives. Furthermore, the Marshal of the Supreme Court, in calling each session to order, implores ``God {to} save the United States and this honorable court.'' It has also become a tradition for Presidents to conclude their State of the Union Addresses with the simple prayer, ``God Bless America.'' I believe these are just a few of the many instances where the Lord is invoked during civil ceremonies and occasions. I believe that these examples are entirely appropriate and in line with the provisions of the Constitution. I feel that our history teaches that the Founding Fathers were against government making efforts to promote specific religions at the expense of others. I do not think it was ever the view of the Founders that the government should adopt a position of Godless neutrality. It is constitutional, it is traditionally appropriate and it is just simply right for our leaders to request the assistance of God in their daily deliberations. I believe that Judge Moore is also correct in refusing to remove the Ten Commandments from his courtroom. The Judge's display is consistent with other displays involving religious symbols and art in or on public property. In fact, a door to the Supreme Court of the United States bears two tablets numbered one to ten, which I interpret to represent the Ten Commandments. Moreover, there are friezes within the Supreme Court which depict Moses, King Solomon, Confucius, Mohammed, St. Louis and a figure called ``Divine Inspiration.'' I believe that these symbolic representations, just like Judge Moore's, are appropriately placed within our public spaces. Their very presence provides guidance and inspiration for our Nation's leaders.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I want to commend the Senator from South Carolina, Senator Hollings, for his many years of effort to reform our campaign system. His commitment to this endeavor is principled and longstanding. I have supported the Senator's efforts in the past, cosponsoring and voting for his legislation that would amend the first amendment of the Constitution to allow Congress and the States to limit the amount of money spent on political campaigns. Mr. President, with all due respect to his efforts and my past efforts, however, I rise today to speak in opposition to the Senator's proposed constitutional amendment. I have supported the Senator from South Carolina's effort in the past because I believed then, as I do now, that we need to improve our current campaign system. But, in my zeal for reform, I ignored what was really at stake. Over the past weeks, however, after much thought and consideration-- after many discussions with constituents and reviewing the writings of many constitutional scholars, all of who support campaign finance reform--I have come to the conclusion that amending the first amendment would be far worse than the current situation. Indeed, if we passed a constitutional amendment to amend the first amendment to solve our current campaign finance problems, the cure would be worse than the disease. Mr. President, the proposed constitutional amendment simply takes away too much--the cost is too high and the risks too great. The first amendment is properly viewed as one of the most sacrosanct bundle of rights protected under the U.S. Constitution and this proposed resolution would strike at the heart of the first amendment-- core political speech. Mr. President, to support such a repeal, is to threaten the very breath of every other right protected under the Constitution--and then nothing is sacred, nothing is sure, nothing is protected. Without free speech, liberty has no meaning. And this amendment would seek to do what the Supreme Court has said cannot be done under the first amendment of our Constitution. In 1974, in the seminal case of Buckley versus Valeo, the Supreme Court as the Presiding Officer knows, struck down the Federal Election Campaign Act's expenditure limits on candidates, individuals, and groups on first amendment grounds--finding that the Government's interest in, among other things, reducing the appearance of corruption was insufficient to justify restricting core political speech and expression. Mr. President, the question facing the Supreme Court was, at bottom: ``whether a person can be prohibited from spending money to communicate an idea, belief, or call to action''? The Court's answer was ``no.'' Since Buckley, the Court has consistently found that the first amendment protects political speech and expression rights from intrusive government restrictions such as campaign spending limits. In FEC versus National Conservative Political Action Committee the Court again struck down spending limits. This time, reaffirming that restrictions on independent expenditures by political committees on publicly funded presidential general election campaigns violate the core of the first amendment's protections. More recently, in Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee versus FEC, the Court found that political party expenditures made without coordination of a candidate were entitled to first amendment protection as independent expenditures. The Court rejected the argument that independent expenditures threaten corruption or give the appearance of corruption. Mr. President, this amendment is about more than just overturning one Supreme Court case, it is about overruling a whole line of first amendment case law. Over the years, the Court has made it clear that the Buckley decision was not some fluke. In fact, Buckley has been reaffirmed many times over. The answer should not be to undo the first amendment because it is viewed as an impediment to reform. There are better, perhaps more realistic and more effective ways of addressing the problems in our campaign finance system. Mr. President, I believe that changes can be made to improve our current system and I intend to support efforts to reform our current campaign finance system. But first, we need to start by enforcing current law, especially in regard to foreign contributions. No foreign contributions should be allowed to influence our political process. It is important to remember that adopting this amendment won't do anything to address the abuses that have recently come to light regarding the White House, DNC fundraisers and foreign influence. Existing laws were broken in accepting foreign contributions. However, we all know that our current laws are not sufficient. We need to target abusive practices which both parties agree should be eliminated. And, Mr. President, I believe that one of the most far reaching and important changes we can make in the system we have today is to demand full disclosure of all campaign contributions and expenditures. The public has a right to know where all funds in the political system come from and where they go. I also remain fully opposed to any form of public financing of political campaigns and intend to fight efforts to shift the cost and effort of running for public office from political candidates to the taxpayer of America. I find it offensive that some would argue that the only way we can purify the political process and eliminate the appearance of corruption is to launder campaign funding through the U.S. Treasury. American taxpayers should not be forced to pay for political campaigns. We have public financing of Presidential campaigns now, and you can see how effective that was in reducing corruption or the appearance of corruption in the last election. Mr. President, reform cannot and should not come at the expense of the public, and yet the reform proposals now being put forth would first rob American citizens of their first amendment rights under the Constitution and then require them to pay for the cost of political campaigns. What a deal. Reform could not be easier--for the political establishment. This amendment has serious ramifications beyond the immediate restrictions placed on an individual's rights to free speech and expression. This amendment also threatens the power of the American people over their Government. By restricting the right to speak freely and to participate in the political process, we restrict our rights to political debate and reduce our ability to control and check our Government. In fact, we give up even the pretense of self-government. I would rather be criticized for changing a position than forever limiting the rights of Americans to speak, to argue, and to participate in the world's oldest constitutional democracy. Again, I sincerely commend my friend and colleague, Senator Hollings, for his effort and commitment to campaign finance reform, but I wish he would reconsider, as I have, his commitment to change the first amendment. I think it would be a mistake now. I yield the floor. Mr. WYDEN addressed the Chair.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, are we in morning business?

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. For the information of all Senators, following morning business tomorrow, the majority leader has indicated that various nominations may be available for consideration on Thursday. Therefore, rollcall votes are possible during Thursday's session.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, these allegations about Ms. Kanchanalak, coupled with her interactions with the National Security Council, are very troubling to me and other members of the Committee. We must fully understand what part, if any, Mr. Lake played. And while Mr. Lake has said that the NSC involvement with the individuals in question was ``from a foreign policy rather than a domestic political point of view,'' the material he provided to the committee gives some indications otherwise. For example, Mr. Lake advised the President against a meeting with Chinese nationals set up by Charlie (Tree) Trie, a major DNC fundraiser, based on the recommendation of his staff that it not take place for political reasons. And when asked about providing photos of the President with Chinese nationals identified as major DNC contributors, a member of Mr. Lake's staff commented on balancing foreign policy considerations against domestic politics. He did not seem to be bothered by the fact that Chinese nationals were identified as major DNC contributors. Clearly, this is an indication of possible illegal activity. Before questioning Mr. Lake about his leadership in these areas, we intend to question his staff further as to the role the NSC played in interactions with and vetting of these DNC contributors and foreign nationals. Senator Kerrey, vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee, and I have requested that the NSC staff be available for the interviews on the record prior to the formal hearings, which will begin, as I have said earlier, next Tuesday. We reserve the right to call NSC staff members to testify under oath, if we deem that in order. The use of intelligence is another area. One of the key responsibilities of the Director of Central Intelligence is to provide unbiased intelligence to the President and to the Congress. Thus, it is very critical that we examine Mr. Lake's record as a consumer of such intelligence. How did he translate intelligence into policy at the NSC? Did he ignore intelligence estimates, spin them to fit administration policy, or raise the standards of evidence? We have concluded our investigation surrounding the administration's use of intelligence in shaping policy toward China, and there are some serious inconsistencies. We are prepared to discuss these with Mr. Lake in the closed session of the committee. Mr. President, given the allegations mentioned in every newspaper about Chinese involvement in DNC fundraising, this is an area for some serious questioning about potential influences on policy, and it should be. For example, there are still documents we wish to review as to the role intelligence played in our policy toward the Government of Haiti. The administration has consistently refused to transmit this information to Congress. Senator Kerrey and I have requested these documents, and we are still awaiting the National Security Council's response. We are also reviewing United States knowledge and assessment of recent events in Iraq and their impact on our policy there and how Mr. Lake used this knowledge in formulating that policy. We are pursuing similar questions in areas relating to Cuba, Somalia, Bosnia, and Pakistan. Ethics violations is another area we are pursuing. While the Justice Department has reached a settlement with Mr. Lake regarding his failure to sell energy stocks that were deemed to create a conflict of interest for him, resulting in a payment of a $5,000 fine by Mr. Lake, the Committee on Intelligence has been investigating this matter further. Although Mr. Lake claims that the failure to sell stocks was a simple oversight, Justice Department investigators interviewed by the committee documented 14 occasions over a 2-year period on which Mr. Lake was reminded that he still owned the stocks. It was only after a White House ethics officer discovered the stocks on his financial disclosure form for a third time that Mr. Lake did divest himself of the investments. Thus, a key question is whether this violation represents financial mismanagement on the part of Mr. Lake or a complete disregard for the seriousness of the ethics standards applied to all Federal employees. Additionally, what example does this set for the intelligence community professionals who must be held to the highest standards of personal conduct? The Intelligence Committee is also investigating the thoroughness of the Justice Department's investigation into Mr. Lake's stocks, particularly those energy-related stocks which created a conflict of interest and subsequent fine. Given that Mr. Lake garnered a profit of over $25,000 on these investments, I have trouble, as other members of the committee do, understanding the Justice Department's arbitrary fine of $5,000, which is the maximum allowed, I understand, for a potential misdemeanor offense. If the case, on the other hand, had been referred to the Justice Department's civil division, a much greater fine of up to $50,000 per offense could have been imposed. Why wasn't this course taken? We do not know, but we will pursue it. Iran-Bosnia and the ``no instructions'' policy. A key criterion for a Director of Central Intelligence is the extent to which he or she can gain the confidence of the Congress in keeping Members fully and currently informed of intelligence community actions. Mr. Lake's role in the execution of the secret ``no instructions'' policy toward Croatia allowing Iranian arms to flow into Bosnia and the decision, Mr. President, not to inform Congress of this action has called into question Mr. Lake's ability to be forthright with the Congress. The distinguished former chairman of the Intelligence Committee, my colleague and an expert in the area, Senator Specter, has raised serious questions regarding this matter which we intend to explore fully during our hearings. While Mr. Lake has admitted that it was wrong not to inform Congress of the ``no instructions'' policy, there remains a number of inconsistencies in testimony before both Houses of Congress as to the extent of the policy decision and its implementation. The Intelligence Committee is working with other congressional committees to review pertinent testimony and decide on an appropriate panel of witnesses to pursue this matter during Mr. Lake's confirmation hearings. The Senate confirmation hearings will represent the first time that Mr. Lake will testify under oath on his role in the development and execution of this policy. As to the FBI background investigation, there has been no resolution regarding requests made by me and a large number of my colleagues to review Mr. Lake's complete FBI background file. Negotiations between White House Counsel Charles Ruff, Senator Kerrey, and I are continuing. A significant number of my colleagues have written the distinguished majority leader stating that they need to review the complete background investigation before they would be prepared to vote on this nomination. Our thorough review of Mr. Lake's background investigation, I believe, is key to a fundamental understanding of Mr. Lake's character and integrity, as it would be for anyone else. Finally, the committee is reviewing information provided by Mr. Lake in response to questions propounded by the committee earlier. We require some clarifications to Mr. Lake's answers, and therefore additional questions have been put forward that must be addressed. There are some areas where we are requesting additional supporting documentation to Mr. Lake's answers, such as his financial disclosures and issues associated with a potential conflict of interest, and we will request for the committee a review of material that was redacted for various reasons. I thank you, Mr. President, for this opportunity to provide the Senate with a status of the Lake confirmation process and an opportunity for me to lay out some of the concerns that I and some of my colleagues have about this nomination. We intend to work through each of these issues in a fair and a thorough manner and look forward to questioning Mr. Lake and others beginning next Tuesday, March 11.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise tonight to give to the Senate the status on the confirmation process in the Intelligence Committee of Anthony Lake, who has been nominated by President Clinton to be the next Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. As I have said on many occasions, I intend to treat the confirmation of Anthony Lake, President Clinton's nominee to be Director of Central Intelligence in a serious, thorough and fair manner. The Central Intelligence Agency and the intelligence community deserve a strong and independent leader to carry them into the 21st century. I believe that everyone in the Senate recognizes that. This leader must be able to guide the fine men and women that serve our country and keep watch on our adversaries, sometimes under the most trying and dangerous of circumstances. And, this leader must be deserving of the confidence of the President, the Congress, and the American people. This is a controversial nomination, we have known this from the beginning. And it is essential that we address all of the issues associated with Mr. Lake's fitness to lead the intelligence community, and his ability to make the transition from White House insider to apolitical provider of intelligence information. I'd like to comment on the six areas in which the committee has considerable work to complete as we proceed with Mr. Lake's confirmation hearings which will begin on Tuesday. We want to get the process moving, but it is important that we have the fullest cooperation from the White House. These six areas are, among others: First, investigation of the role the National Security Council, under Mr. Lake's leadership, had in questionable DNC fund-raising practices, as well as any knowledge Mr. Lake may have had, if any. Second, Mr. Lake's use and interpretation of intelligence provided to him as National Security Advisor, including how he helped translate this intelligence into administration policy. Third, the Justice Department's settlement of Mr. Lake's ethics violations and the potential irregularities in this settlement. Fourth, the way in which Mr. Lake handled the ``no instructions'' policy toward Iranian arms shipments through Croatia to Bosnia. Fifth, review of Mr. Lake's FBI background investigation. Sixth, review of written answers Mr. Lake provided to the committee's questions for the record, many of which require further explanation than was provided. NSC Interactions with DNC Contacts We will continue our investigation into the role of the NSC staff, under Mr. Lake's direction, in the expanding controversy over foreign campaign contributions. At issue is the extent to which Mr. Lake knew of the ties the White House was building with questionable fund-raisers and foreign contributors and what effect this might have had on administration foreign policy. It is apparent that his staff had knowledge of the involvement, and although on many occasions advised against it for either political or foreign policy reasons, never seemed to raise the flag of illegality. And if Mr. Lake was fully informed, did he participate in decisions to continue this involvement or were any admonitions he might have given regarding the nature of these meetings completely ignored? This question goes to the heart of Mr. Lake's ability to be an effective Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. The committee must consider this issue in great detail and determine if Mr. Lake could become embroiled in a potential independent counsel investigation into these matters, as we read in the press. The intelligence community deserves a leader that will not be distracted by such an investigation, if it occurs. The information supplied by Mr. Lake could be the tip of an iceberg, and more inquiry is required. For example, Mr. Lake does not appear to shed any light as to why his staff met with Pauline Kanchanalak, the Thai businesswoman and lobbyist whose contributions to the DNC were eventually returned. New allegations about Ms. Kanchanalak appear in the press every day all over America, and perhaps the world. For example, last Tuesday, the New York Times reported, and I quote: ``One Justice Department official said subpoenas also were served on the United States-Thai Business Council, a trade-promotion group formed in part by Pauline Kanchanalak, a lobbyist who helped raise $250,000 in political donations that have since been returned by the Democratic National Committee.'' The article goes on to say: ``Government officials said the Justice Department two weeks ago subpoenaed records from the Export-Import Bank concerning Ms. Kanchanalak's efforts to help Thai investors * * *'' I ask for unanimous consent that this and other articles about Ms. Kanchanalak be entered into the Record at this point in their entirety.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until the hour of 12 noon on Thursday, March 6. I ask unanimous consent that on Thursday, immediately following the prayer, the routine requests through the morning hour be granted, and that there be a period of morning business until the hour of 1:30 p.m. with Senators to speak for up to 5 minutes each except for the following: Senator DeWine, 20 minutes; Senator Graham, 15 minutes; Senator Torricelli, 15 minutes; Senator Coats, 10 minutes.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, thank you. Mr. President, as we debate the balanced budget amendment, we would be wise to listen to the words of one of our Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson. Mr. Jefferson once wrote that ``the question whether one generation has the right to bind another by the deficit it imposes is a question of such consequence as to place it among the fundamental principles of government. We should consider ourselves unauthorized to saddle posterity with our debts, and morally bound to pay them ourselves.'' Mr. President, I agree with Thomas Jefferson: It is morally wrong for one generation to burden a future generation with its debts. Yet, that is exactly what has happened during the past 27 years in America. The Federal budget has not been balanced since 1969, and as a result, our national debt has grown to more than $5 trillion. In fact, a child born in America today begins life with a $20 thousand share of the national debt. During his or her lifetime, that child can expect to pay $187 thousand in taxes just to cover the interest payments on this debt-- debt he had nothing to do with creating, but debt which will substantially limit his opportunities in life. Mr. President, just look at the strain current interest payments are putting on our national resources. Interest payments consume about 15 percent of the Federal budget, and they are now the third largest item in the budget--only Social Security and defense are larger. Last year, we spent a record $241 billion on interest payments to service the national debt. That is more than double the amount of money the Government spent on education, training, crime, and transportation combined. Mr. President, we cannot afford to continue wasting the taxpayers money in this fashion. This must stop, and the balanced budget amendment will help stop it by ending deficit spending and the growing interest payments on the national debt. However, the opponents of a balanced budget amendment have put forth many false arguments to try to confuse the issue. I want to address several of these arguments one by one. The most deceptive argument opponents of a balanced budget amendment use is that this amendment will hurt the Social Security system, unless Social Security is specifically exempted from the amendment. Mr. President, nothing could be farther from the truth. If the Social Security system is left as the only area of the budget which does not have to come into balance, then future Congresses will have a tremendous incentive to take the FICA revenues, which currently fund the Social Security system, and use them to help fund all other areas of the budget which must be balanced. That would leave the Social Security system in serious financial trouble. Second, exempting Social Security from the balanced budget amendment would further threaten Social Security by allowing Congress to move programs out of the area of the budget which must be balanced and into the exempt Social Security system. This would be a heavy drain on the money originally collected for Social Security. Finally, the whole point of the balanced budget amendment is to put an end to deficit spending. But, as the Social Security trustees tell us, there are massive deficits projected in the system in just a few short years. Therefore, while the rest of the budget is balanced, the Government will still be borrowing huge sums of money to pay its liabilities in the Social Security system. Moving Social Security off- budget is just another sham put forth by those who do not want to face the reality that we must stop piling debt on our children and grandchildren. The truth is the balanced budget amendment will protect Social Security by reducing its biggest threat--massive interest payments. If left unchecked, these payments will dramatically reduce the money available for Social Security benefits. A balanced budget amendment will keep interest payments from increasing and will allow more money to be spent on meaningful programs, including Social Security. Another argument put forth by opponents of a balanced budget amendment is that it will transfer power over the purse strings to the judicial branch of government. This is a serious concern, but one which is misplaced. One of the reasons why the courts will not become unduly involved in the budgetary process is the doctrine of ``standing'' contained in article III of the Constitution. The doctrine of standing requires that a plaintiff has a direct and specific, personal stake or injury. A ``generalized'' public grievance, such as a taxpayer adversely affected by macroeconomic decisions, will not be recognized. Moreover, the courts will owe deference to Congress under both the ``political question'' doctrine and section 6 of the amendment itself which gives Congress the enforcement authority. Another objection to the balanced budget amendment is that it does not provide for a capital budget. The argument here is that just as most families need to borrow money for large purchases, such as a home, the Federal Government should also have the ability to borrow money for capital investments. Those who hold that view, point out that if families had to live under the same circumstances imposed on the federal Government by a balanced budget amendment, no one would be able to purchase a home. Mr. President, comparing the Federal Government to the typical family purchasing a home is a very misleading comparison. The Federal Government has an annual budget of more than $1.6 trillion and the ability to increase its income at will by raising taxes. There is virtually no project conceivable which the Federal Government could not afford to finance without incurring debt. Just consider that we built the entire interstate highway system on a pay-as-you-go basis. The price of a home can easily be three times as much as the annual income of a family, which is why they need to borrow money to purchase it. By comparison, if the Federal Government wanted to undertake a project three times the amount of its annual income, the project would need to cost $4.8 trillion in 1 year. That is simply ludicrous. The truth is that with the amount of resources at the disposal of the Federal Government, there is simply no need for a separate capital budget. The final objection I will address is that the balanced budget amendment will hamper the Government's ability to stimulate to the economy during a recession. Mr. President, the truth is that the Federal Government does not have a very good track record when it comes to trying to stimulate our economy. Bruce Bartlett of the National Center for Policy Analysis, points out that since November of 1948, there have been seven recessions, followed by ``anti-recession'' legislation. In each instance, the recession the legislation was designed to end was over by the time the legislation was finally passed. In fact, Bartlett concluded that ``Without exception, stimulus programs have failed to moderate the recessions at which they were aimed, and have often sowed the seeds of the next recession.'' Part of the reason for this is that Government jobs are very expensive to create. President Carter's budget director testified before the Joint Economic Committee in 1980 that public works jobs cost between $70,000 and $198,000 per job per year. The truth is, Mr. President, Congress should not be in the business of trying to micro- manage our economy. If Congress cannot even balance its own books, why do opponents of the balanced budget amendment believe Congress can manage the entire economy? Mr. President, the decision before us is a simple one. It is a choice of fiscal responsibility or fiscal foolishness. It is a choice of protecting our children's financial future or destroying it. It is a choice of allowing the 50 States to have a say in this matter or denying them that freedom. In the end, Mr. President, it is a question, as Thomas Jefferson said, between right and wrong, and I urge my colleagues to do the right thing and vote for the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Mr. President, the decision before us today is the most important one that this Senate will make in the 105th Congress. Let there be no doubt about it. Since the last balanced budget in 1969, deficit spending has become a permanent way of life in Washington. The result, as we all know, is a $5.3 trillion national debt. This debt is costing the taxpayers of America a quarter of a trillion dollars each year in interest payments alone. The reality is that without a balanced budget amendment, deficit spending will continue as usual and our children and our grandchildren will be left to pay the bill. Mr. President, now that the debate is over and all of the smoke has cleared, we are faced with a simple choice between fiscal responsibility or fiscal foolishness, a choice of protecting our children's financial future or destroying it, a choice of allowing 50 States to have a say in the matter or denying them that freedom.

Mr. SHELBY

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

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce what I consider to be one of the most important pieces of legislation that will be offered this year. It is the Language of Government Act of 1997, which designates English as the official language of the U.S. Government. I have as original cosponsors on that legislation Senators Byrd, Coverdell, Craig, Faircloth, Gregg, Helms, Hutchinson of Arkansas, Inhofe, Lugar, Santorum, Thurmond, Cochran, and Sessions. Mr. President, language, as we all know, is a powerful factor in society. As de Tocqueville observed more than a hundred years ago, ``The tie of language is perhaps the strongest and the most durable that can unite mankind.'' That was true then, and it is true today. Just as surely as language has the power to unite us, it has the power to divide us. One year after French-speaking Quebec rejected by a razor-thin margin the referendum to secede from Canada, our neighbor to the north is still grappling with the repercussions of the vote. English-speaking residents of Quebec have threatened to secede if Quebec proceeds with another referendum. There are many examples in the world of what happens to nations that are divided among language and ethnic lines. Bosnia, as we all know, has been decimated by ethnic strife. The countries of the former Soviet Union are in constant internal conflict and turmoil. Today, more than 320 different languages are spoken in our country. We should respect each of these languages and those individuals who speak them. But in order to assimilate the various cultures and ethnic groups that comprise our great Nation, I believe we must use English. Furthermore, the Federal Government should not, in my opinion, be expected to administer its official business in all of these languages. Yet, the Federal Government continues to expand the number and types of services that it administers in foreign languages. Layers of bureaucracy have been added as these governmental agencies have evolved into permanent multi-language service providers. In light of this fact, Mr. President, I believe it is imperative that we establish in America a responsible, coherent language policy for all of us. The legislation that I offer today, on behalf of myself and the colleagues I mentioned earlier, is simple and straightforward. It designates English as the language of the Federal Government and requires that most Government functions be performed in English. There are exceptions to that rule, Mr. President, for safety, emergencies, and health-related services. I want to emphasize that ``official English'' is directed at the Federal Government and its agents, but does not cover private citizens. In no way, Mr. President, does the bill limit an individual's use of his or her native language in home, church, community, or other private communications. Mr. President, since last December, the Nation has engaged in a heated debate over using ``ebonics'' in public schools. We are all familiar with that. I do not intend to join that debate today. Instead, I raise this in order to mention a fundamental point. In the words of Maya Angelo, ``The very idea * * * can be very threatening, because it can encourage young men and women not to learn standard English.'' Without mastering English, our children and grandchildren cannot succeed. Indeed, as so many Americans know from their own experiences, proficiency in English propelled them from a life of poverty to a future full of opportunity. A substantial body of evidence supports that notion and confirms that there is a direct correlation between an individual's ability to speak English in America and that person's economic fortunes. A recent Ohio University study concluded that if immigrant knowledge of English were raised to that of native-born Americans, their income levels would increase by $63 billion annually. In 1994, the Texas Office of Immigration and Refugee Affairs published a study of Southeast Asian refugees in Texas. It conclusively demonstrated that in that population, individuals proficient in English earned over 20 times the annual income of those who could not speak English. Analysis of 1990 census data shows that immigrants' incomes rise 30 percent as a result of being able to communicate in English. So, without question, fluency in the English language will do more to empower people coming to America than all Federal Government services combined. The Federal Government, however, is offering more services and producing more publications in a multitude of foreign languages, at a cost of $14 billion annually. Conducting official Government functions in a foreign language supposedly facilitates assimilation into our society. What began in a piecemeal fashion to facilitate assimilation has mutated into institutionalized and permanent multilingual programs and services. The effect, Mr. President, is that it destroys the incentive to learn English, which undermines one of the key objectives of integration in this country. As I stated earlier, the plain truth is that immigrants who do not develop proficiency in English will almost always be relegated to a lower rung on the economic ladder, often far below their earnings potential. By designating English as the official language of our Government, we send a clear and unmistakable message that English is a necessary part of life in America. But it is not just a symbolic gesture. If most communication with the Federal Government is conducted in English, it encourages fluency in English. At the same time, establishing a language policy will stop the frivolous expenditure of printing Government documents in foreign languages. There is no justification for the money wasted to produce, for example, ``The Reproductive Behavior of Young People in the City of Sao Paulo'' in Portuguese or publication on the U.S. Mint in Chinese. The money squandered on those documents would be better spent teaching English to those who cannot speak it. My bill states that the savings from this initiative be used to teach English in America. Mr. President, national polling indicates that 86 percent of Americans support making English the official language of this country. In fact, Mr. President, 8 out of 10 first-generation immigrants in America support this legislation. As our Nation becomes more diverse, it becomes more and more important for Congress to deal with the establishment of an official language policy. Our consideration of this bill shows that we take our national heritage and democracy seriously.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, the Tuition Tax Elimination Act, which will help make college more affordable for thousands of young people all across America. I am pleased that Senators Sessions, DeWine, Hutchinson, Faircloth, Cochran, and Smith of New Hampshire have joined me as original cosponsors. This bill will eliminate a new Federal tax on the tuition expenses of students participating in State prepaid tuition programs. Here is how the tax came about. It is no secret that many families in our Nation are struggling to finance their childrens' education. College tuition costs have skyrocketed in the past decade increasing 95 percent at private institutions and 82 percent at public institutions. Newsweek magazine reported last year that some families will spend more than $100,000 just to send one child to college. To combat the high cost of a college education, many States, including Alabama, have set up prepaid tuition funds. These funds allow parents to make a tax-free investment, years in advance of their child's enrollment in college, with the guarantee that the child's tuition will be paid for by the State when he or she enrolls in college. Last year, the IRS attempted to impose taxes on States operating prepaid tuition funds by claiming that the funds were not legitimate functions of the State and thus not exempt from Federal taxation. If the IRS had been successful in their attempt, many States would have been forced to terminate their prepaid tuition programs. Fortunately, Senators McConnell, Graham, and I were able to get a provision in the Small Business Job Protection Act which clarified that prepaid tuition programs should not be subject to Federal taxes, since they are a legitimate function of State governments. At the same time, the IRS was also attempting to impose a tax on the parents' contributions to these State prepaid tuition programs. What the IRS wanted to do was to count the annual increased value of the parents' contribution as income and tax it. Again, Senators McConnell, Graham, and I put a provision in the minimum wage bill last year to prevent the IRS from taking those actions. However, there was a provision of that bill which I did not support. It provided that when a student enrolls in college under a prepaid tuition plan, the student must pay taxes on the difference between the value of the tuition costs, which are paid by the State, and the amount his or her parent paid for the contract. Essentially, this provision is a new tax on students. I attempted to offer an amendment to strike this provision, but unfortunately, no amendments were in order. Mr. President, prepaid tuition programs are a creative way many States all across the country have developed to help more young people afford a college education. We need to do everything we can at the Federal level to encourage these types of programs. The Tuition Tax Elimination Act will do that by relieving students from Federal taxes on their tuition expenses. This legislation will provide that distributions from qualified prepaid tuition funds are not to be counted as taxable income for the student, as long as the money is spent for the designated purpose. This legislation is fully paid for with a provision which would suspend the automatic inflation adjustments used to award the earned income tax credit to individuals without children. President Clinton's 1993 tax bill expanded the EITC to cover individuals without children, and currently, a childless individual earning between $4,220 and $5,280 is eligible for a maximum EITC amount of $323. Each year, these income levels are adjusted upward for inflation. Many people have questioned whether we should even be providing the EITC to individuals without children. However, that is a question which can be addressed in other legislation. This offset does not eliminate the EITC for individuals without children; it simply eliminates the annual increase in the EITC calculation for individuals who have no dependents. This provision passed the Senate last year as a part of welfare reform, but it was dropped in conference. Mr. President, the cost of going to college is now more expensive than ever, and is growing much faster than inflation. Eliminating the tax students will face on their tuition expenses is a real step toward making college more affordable for thousands of young people all across America, and I hope my colleagues join me in support of this legislation.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, the Tuition Tax Elimination Act, which will help make college more affordable for thousands of young people all across America. I am pleased that Senators Sessions, DeWine, Hutchinson, Faircloth, Cochran, and Smith of New Hampshire have joined me as original cosponsors. This bill will eliminate a new Federal tax on the tuition expenses of students participating in State prepaid tuition programs. Here is how the tax came about. It is no secret that many families in our Nation are struggling to finance their childrens' education. College tuition costs have skyrocketed in the past decade increasing 95 percent at private institutions and 82 percent at public institutions. Newsweek magazine reported last year that some families will spend more than $100,000 just to send one child to college. To combat the high cost of a college education, many States, including Alabama, have set up prepaid tuition funds. These funds allow parents to make a tax-free investment, years in advance of their child's enrollment in college, with the guarantee that the child's tuition will be paid for by the State when he or she enrolls in college. Last year, the IRS attempted to impose taxes on States operating prepaid tuition funds by claiming that the funds were not legitimate functions of the State and thus not exempt from Federal taxation. If the IRS had been successful in their attempt, many States would have been forced to terminate their prepaid tuition programs. Fortunately, Senators McConnell, Graham, and I were able to get a provision in the Small Business Job Protection Act which clarified that prepaid tuition programs should not be subject to Federal taxes, since they are a legitimate function of State governments. At the same time, the IRS was also attempting to impose a tax on the parents' contributions to these State prepaid tuition programs. What the IRS wanted to do was to count the annual increased value of the parents' contribution as income and tax it. Again, Senators McConnell, Graham, and I put a provision in the minimum wage bill last year to prevent the IRS from taking those actions. However, there was a provision of that bill which I did not support. It provided that when a student enrolls in college under a prepaid tuition plan, the student must pay taxes on the difference between the value of the tuition costs, which are paid by the State, and the amount his or her parent paid for the contract. Essentially, this provision is a new tax on students. I attempted to offer an amendment to strike this provision, but unfortunately, no amendments were in order. Mr. President, prepaid tuition programs are a creative way many States all across the country have developed to help more young people afford a college education. We need to do everything we can at the Federal level to encourage these types of programs. The Tuition Tax Elimination Act will do that by relieving students from Federal taxes on their tuition expenses. This legislation will provide that distributions from qualified prepaid tuition funds are not to be counted as taxable income for the student, as long as the money is spent for the designated purpose. This legislation is fully paid for with a provision which would suspend the automatic inflation adjustments used to award the earned income tax credit to individuals without children. President Clinton's 1993 tax bill expanded the EITC to cover individuals without children, and currently, a childless individual earning between $4,220 and $5,280 is eligible for a maximum EITC amount of $323. Each year, these income levels are adjusted upward for inflation. Many people have questioned whether we should even be providing the EITC to individuals without children. However, that is a question which can be addressed in other legislation. This offset does not eliminate the EITC for individuals without children; it simply eliminates the annual increase in the EITC calculation for individuals who have no dependents. This provision passed the Senate last year as a part of welfare reform, but it was dropped in conference. Mr. President, the cost of going to college is now more expensive than ever, and is growing much faster than inflation. Eliminating the tax students will face on their tuition expenses is a real step toward making college more affordable for thousands of young people all across America, and I hope my colleagues join me in support of this legislation.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation--along with Senators Grassley, Cochran, Roberts, Abraham, and Hutchinson--which will restore to American farmers an important tool in meeting their Federal income tax obligations. Mr. President, America would not be what it is today without the dedication, sacrifice, and hard work of the American farmer. The American farmer is the most efficient farmer in the world. Each farmer in America provides food and fiber for 94 people in our country and an additional 35 people abroad. As a result, Americans enjoy the most affordable, healthy, and stable food supply of any country in the world. Yet, despite the successes of the American farmer, they are faced with unique and difficult barriers, they must overcome, including unpredictable weather, natural disasters, plauges of insects and diseases, and excessive Government regulations. All of these result in substantial income fluctuations for the average farmer. Wide swings in farmers' income from year to year, result in a tax burden much higher than individuals with a stable source of income because surges in income are taxed at a higher rate than is a steady flow of income. This problem is compounded when a farmers income is exaggerated by the sale of land or other assets. Prior to 1986, farmers were allowed to average their income over a 2- year period in order to give them some sense of regularity and predictability in their payment of Federal taxes. This provision was repealed as part of the 1986 Tax Act, which reduced the number of tax brackets and lowered the top rate of 28 percent. However, since 1986, Congress has added two new tax brackets, and increased the top rate to 39.6 percent. This change, along with the move to a more market-oriented farm program, makes it imperative that Congress restores to farmers the ability to average their income, and the legislation I am introducing today will do just that. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated last year that this bill would cost about $90 million over 5 years. Representative Nick Smith has sponsored an identical bill in the House, and it has the broad support of the farming community. Groups endorsing this proposal include: Alabama Farmers Federation, American Farm Bureau Federation, National Association of Wheat Growers, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, National Farmers Union, National Grain Sorghum Producers, National Grange, National Pork Producers Council, and Women in Farm Economics. Mr. President, the success of our Nation depends in large part on the success of the American farmer. Until we can enact broad-based tax reform, we should provide farmers with some sense of regularity and predictability in meeting their Federal tax obligation. This legislation will do that, and I hope my colleagues will support it.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation--along with Senators Grassley, Cochran, Roberts, Abraham, and Hutchinson--which will restore to American farmers an important tool in meeting their Federal income tax obligations. Mr. President, America would not be what it is today without the dedication, sacrifice, and hard work of the American farmer. The American farmer is the most efficient farmer in the world. Each farmer in America provides food and fiber for 94 people in our country and an additional 35 people abroad. As a result, Americans enjoy the most affordable, healthy, and stable food supply of any country in the world. Yet, despite the successes of the American farmer, they are faced with unique and difficult barriers, they must overcome, including unpredictable weather, natural disasters, plauges of insects and diseases, and excessive Government regulations. All of these result in substantial income fluctuations for the average farmer. Wide swings in farmers' income from year to year, result in a tax burden much higher than individuals with a stable source of income because surges in income are taxed at a higher rate than is a steady flow of income. This problem is compounded when a farmers income is exaggerated by the sale of land or other assets. Prior to 1986, farmers were allowed to average their income over a 2- year period in order to give them some sense of regularity and predictability in their payment of Federal taxes. This provision was repealed as part of the 1986 Tax Act, which reduced the number of tax brackets and lowered the top rate of 28 percent. However, since 1986, Congress has added two new tax brackets, and increased the top rate to 39.6 percent. This change, along with the move to a more market-oriented farm program, makes it imperative that Congress restores to farmers the ability to average their income, and the legislation I am introducing today will do just that. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated last year that this bill would cost about $90 million over 5 years. Representative Nick Smith has sponsored an identical bill in the House, and it has the broad support of the farming community. Groups endorsing this proposal include: Alabama Farmers Federation, American Farm Bureau Federation, National Association of Wheat Growers, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, National Farmers Union, National Grain Sorghum Producers, National Grange, National Pork Producers Council, and Women in Farm Economics. Mr. President, the success of our Nation depends in large part on the success of the American farmer. Until we can enact broad-based tax reform, we should provide farmers with some sense of regularity and predictability in meeting their Federal tax obligation. This legislation will do that, and I hope my colleagues will support it.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, today I am introducing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. This is the same amendment which I have introduced in every Congress since the 97th Congress. Over the past 20 years, I have devoted much time and attention to promoting this idea because I believe that the single most important thing the Federal Government could do to enhance the lives of all Americans and future generations is to balance the Federal budget. Mr. President, Alexander Hamilton once wrote that ``* * * there is a general propensity in those who govern, founded in the constitution of man, to shift off the burden from the present to a future day.* * *'' History has proven Hamilton correct. We have seen over the past 27 years, that deficit spending has become a permanent way of life in Washington. During the past three decades, we have witnessed countless ``budget summits'' and ``bipartisan budget deals,'' and we have heard, time and again, the promises of ``deficit reduction.'' But despite all of these charades, the Federal budget has never been balanced, and it remains severely out of balance today. The truth is, Mr. President, it will never be balanced as long as the President and the Congress are allowed to shortchange the welfare of future generations to pay for current consumption. A balanced budget amendment to the Constitution is the only way possible to break the cycle of deficit spending and ensure that the Government does not continue to saddle our children and grandchildren with this generation's debts. Mr. President, everyone in America would benefit from a balanced Federal budget. The Congressional Budget Office has stated that a balanced Federal budget would lower interest rates by up to 2 full percentage points. That would save the average American family with a $75,000 mortgage on their home, about $2,400 per year. It would save the average student with an $11,000 student loan about $1,900. That is real money put in the pockets of hard-working Americans, simply by the Government balancing its books. Moreover, if the Government demand for capital was reduced, that would increase the private sector's access to capital, which in turn, would generate substantial economic growth and create thousands of new jobs. On the other hand, without a balanced budget amendment, the Government will continue to waste the taxpayers' money on unnecessary interest payments. In fiscal year 1996, the Federal Government spent about $241 billion just to pay the interest on the national debt. That is more than double the amount spent on all education, job training, crime, and transportation programs combined. Mr. President, we might as well be taking these hard-earned tax dollars and pouring them down a rat hole. We could be putting this money toward improving education, developing new medical technologies, finding a cure for cancer, or even returning it to the people who earned it in the first place. But instead, about 15 percent of the Federal budget is being wasted on interest payments because advocates of big government continue to block all efforts to balance the budget. Mr. President, a balanced budget amendment will change all of that. It will put us on the path to begin paying off our national debt, which is currently more than $5 trillion. This amendment will help ensure that taxpayers' money will not continue to be wasted on interest payments. Opponents of a balanced budget amendment act like it is something extraordinary. Mr. President, a balanced budget amendment will only require the Government to do what every American already has to do: balance their checkbook. It is simply a promise to the American people that the Government will act responsibly. Mr. President, we do not need any more budget deals. We do not need any more ``bipartisan'' summits resulting in huge tax increases. What we need is a hammer to force the Congress and the President to agree on a balanced budget, not just for this year, but forever. Mr. President, a constitutional amendment to balance the budget is the only such mechanism available.