Richard Shelby

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.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, language included in the Senate report of the Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service and General Government appropriations, and included by reference in the fiscal year 1997 Omnibus Appropriations bill, directs the Department of the Treasury to review the problem of unfair nonprofit competition with small firms. The language also directs the Treasury to take ``steps, if necessary, to develop regulations clarifying the substantially related test as it applies to tax-exempt travel and tour activities.'' I want to speak briefly to the need for such regulatory clarification. Mr. President, the travel and tour industry in this Nation is comprised predominately of the smallest entrepreneurial firms--tour operators and promoters, travel agents, hotel and motel owners, bus owners and operators. Small businesses that organize tours, small businesses that conduct tours, and small marketers that sell tours combined comprise one of the largest sectors of our economy. Although not often thought of as such, these entrepreneurs are vital exporters. By providing a large flow of service to foreign visitors they constitute one of the most successful exporting blocs in the United States. They export America and an understanding of America, from the national parks to our many other great attractions. Mr. President, I raise these points not only to recognize the immense size and contribution of this industry, but to help us appreciate how important it is to ensure that our policies support and nurture a vibrant, competitive travel and tour industry. To an increasing extent these small businesses have been besieged by a source of unfair competition from nonprofit organizations, who now comprise more than 10 percent of our GDP. Some of the Nation's wealthiest tax-exempt organizations have discovered that travel and tour activities, albeit primarily a commercial venture, are an easy way to supplement income. Now, Mr. President, small businesses support nonprofits in financing many of their endeavors. Small businesses recognize the important work of many nonprofits. They are partners with nonprofits. Indeed, while their contributions are not often publicized in the Conference Board, the U.S. Small Business Administration has determined that small firms are the largest contributors to nonprofits on an employee-by-employee basis. Small firms also do not fear competition from tax-exempt organizations, any more than they do from large firms, foreign firms, or any other entity. They embrace competition as a necessary part of their daily routine. But what small businesses do resent, however, is competition where one party has been given an unfair advantage. And the competitive playing field between small firms and nonprofits has not been level for some time. Today, nonprofits make extensive use of privileged franking on mail, and they often cross-subsidize their travel activities using capital acquired for other purposes. And last but not least, when they directly compete against small firms they frequently enjoy the largest benefit taxpayers can bestow upon them--complete absolution from the income tax. Mr. President, my concerns and the concerns expressed by this Congress are not new. Congress has tried to address this concern of unfair competition in the past. Indeed, more than 45 years ago, the Congress passed what is known as the unrelated business income tax, which taxes income that is not substantially related to the tax- exempt's mission. And, in 1986, the Supreme Court in U.S. v. American Bar Endowment, 477 U.S. 105, reiterated that ``[t]he undisputed purpose of the unrelated business income tax was to prevent tax-exempt organizations from competing with businesses whose earnings were taxed.'' However, growth in the number of nonprofits, an increased emphasis on commercial as opposed to donative sources of revenue, and most importantly, a paucity of guidance over what is meant by substantially related have combined to make that standard virtually meaningless. The Congress is not alone in its concern over the failure of the law to prevent unfair competition. Even the IRS itself believes the substantially related standard, without adequate definition, is virtually unenforceable. And equally important, the U.S. Small Business Administration believes that guidance is necessary. I offer for inclusion in the Record a recent letter sent by the SBA chief counsel to the Department of the Treasury urging a regulation. For many small tour operators, the discernible distinction between their activities and that of the nonprofit is not in the markets they serve or in the services they market, but rather in the inexplicable and unjustifiable distinction that, on the income predicted, one pays taxes and the other does not. And to make matters worse, a rationale for this cross-subsidization does not exist. As businesses point out, rather than enabling nonprofits to serve the needy for which an exemption is warranted, the exemption enables nonprofit travel and tour promoters to tap and maintain access to the high-end, most lucrative part of the market--the segment with the greatest disposable income, the greatest number of professionals, and the highest component of educated customers. When this competition occurs, there is a distinct and quantifiable competitive advantage nonprofits enjoy from total relief from the income tax. Mr. President, for these reasons, the Senate report which accompanied the appropriations bill for the Treasury, Postal Service and General Government Appropriations Subcommittee, directed the IRS to review this situation. Action on this issue is requested by Congress. It is being requested by the U.S. Small Business Administration. It is sought by the IRS field agents. And last but not least, it is urged by the millions of small businesses that suffer from unfair competition. The letter follows: U.S. Small Business Administration, Washington, DC, June 27, 1996. Re unrelated business income tax travel and tour-related services--need for clarification. Hon. Donald C. Lubick, Acting Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy, U.S. Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC. Dear Assistant Secretary Lubick: This office has heard from numerous small business groups for more than a decade about the problems that taxpaying small businesses have when they are in competition with tax exempt organizations. As you know, resolving this issue was a recommendation of the White House Conference on Small Business and, we believe, the intent of the unrelated business income tax (UBIT) was to maintain an equitable business environment when tax-exempt organizations produced income from activities that are beyond the activities on which their exemption status is based. Most recently, a concern has been expressed within the travel and tourism industry (an industry made up predominantly of small businesses) that the line has become so imprecise that their industry is being damaged. They fear that the area will be regulated or is being regulated in a manner which prevents their participation in the regulation drafting process. We share their concern. I am writing to urge the Treasury Department to incorporate a rule-making into the 1997 IRS Business Plan that would clarify the ``substantially related'' test for purposes of determining unrelated business income arising from the travel and tour activities of tax-exempt entities. A regulation would provide guidance where there is little existing guidance and would address an important, persistent and growing concern of small businesses over an issue of fundamental fairness. It would raise additional revenue through greater compliance in an area of known non- compliance, and standardize inconsistent application of the law by clarifying a hazy area of the law. As you know, whether or not income from a commercial travel and tour activity by a university, a museum or other nonprofit is taxable depends upon whether or not the activity is ``substantially related'' to the organization's exempt function. Unfortunately, the inherently subjective nature of the ``substantially related'' test, difficulties in its administration, and extremely limited guidance have contributed to a perception of fundamental unfairness by the small business community, particularly in the travel industry. This helps to explain why the issue rose to such prominence in the 1995 White House Conference on Small Business (and, for that matter, in the 1986 White House Conference on Small Business). Rather than enabling nonprofits to serve traditional educational tour markets for which exemption is appropriate, small businesses complain that this exemption has emboldened tax-exempts to maintain and expand into those market segments with the highest disposable income, the largest number of professionals, the most educated customers, and the least need for tax exemption. Under current guidance, Technical Advise Memoranda or Private Letter Rulings, the Service has a fairly well established set of criteria under which it has found such activity to be exempt. However, the industry tells us that the subjective nature of the criteria gives a little reliable guidance for determining when commercial tours and travel will be taxable. It is in the resulting gray area that most of the commercial activity is currently undertaken. Despite substantial increases in tax-exempt travel and tour activity and greater commercial character of that activity, the tax treatment of such activity remains largely undefined, fueling the perception of unfairness and increasing overlap in the travel and tour activities conducted by both sectors. Guidance in the form of a regulation, with examples, would better define the contours of the ``substantially related'' test and fill these gaps. Promulgation of a proposed regulation will ensure that the issue is framed in terms of the central focus of the debate--the application of the UBIT to what are essentially commercial travel and tour activities. A rulemaking will attract the greatest level of factual input from both the for-profits and nonprofits. Moreover, a rulemaking may even save Federal resources by eliminating the need for extensive audits with limited guidance and negative and inconsistent court rulings that may result from inadequate guidance. Indeed, it is our understanding that guidance has also been requested by the nonprofit community in order to alleviate increased audit activity. We understand that the Treasury, in its proposed 1997 business plan will be focusing on several issues affecting nonprofits. We would welcome your including the regulatory guidance under the ``substantially related'' test--already identified to be of central concern to small businesses--as one of the priorities under that plan. The Office of Advocacy, and specifically Russ Orban of my staff, would welcome the opportunity to work with you, and would be pleased to discuss how such a regulation might be fashioned. Sincerely yours, Jere W. Glover, Chief Counsel. 

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. That is correct. Several members have raised objections to this provision for a variety of reasons, and as a result, we have specifically not included it in this omnibus bill.

Mr. SHELBY. Yes, that is the subcommittee's intent. As a cosponsor of Senator Thomas' bill, S. 1724, the Freedom From Government Competition Act, and a supporter of the Thomas amendment, I am deeply concerned about this issue and look forward to OMB revising this policy. Immigration Reform

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I will not take much time of the Senate, because time is short. There is no doubt that questions will arise with regard to this bill. Questions will arise regarding intent. I want to take this time to ensure that a printing error in the Treasury portion of the bill does not cause any confusion. The manager's statement regarding the Internal Revenue Service Tax Modernization System [TSM] Request For Proposal [RFP] addressed on page H12010 of Saturday's Record uses two dates: July 31, 1997 and July 31, 1999. July 31, 1997 is the date. Mr. President there may be other errors, but I have not found them. The Government Printing Office has done an exceptional job in producing a lengthy and complex document in a very short time. fcc relocation

Mr. SHELBY. The Senator is correct. At the request of GSA this provision was included in the committee report accompanying the fiscal year 1997 Treasury, Postal appropriations bill. During floor consideration of the bill, this provision was converted to statutory language.

Mr. SHELBY. The conferees believe existing law, particularly the Economy Act and the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act, address this issue.

Mr. SHELBY. That is correct. The GSA should not use funds appropriated to it to facilitate the move. Since the Commerce Appropriations Subcommittee denied requested funding for the relocation, the proposed move should not go forward until Congress has more closely examined the proposal. I would like to work with the gentleman from Oklahoma and the relevant Senate committees to fully understand whether the proposed relocations are justified and if so, how we might go about reducing costs associated with the plan. We should take a close look at these issues in the next Congress. Until we've had the time to closely examine these issues, however, I do not believe the proposed relocation should go forward. Accordingly, we did not include language allowing GSA to fund the proposed move and they should not use any of the resources provided to them for that purpose.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and pay tribute to Tennessee Alloys Co. of Bridgeport, AL, for their remarkable health and safety record. On April 19, 1996, the Tennessee Alloys Co. plant reached the 4-year mark without a single lost time accident. During this time period, the plant worked a total of 678,585 hours. Mr. President, this is an outstanding accomplishment. Tennessee Alloys Co. is a producer of ferroalloys, and employs nearly 80 people. It is a joint venture of Applied Industrial Materials Corp., the managing partner, and Allegheny Ludlum Corp. Specifically, Tennessee Alloys Co. manufactures 50 percent ferrosilicon, 75 percent ferrosilicon, and high purity ferrosilicon. These products are a critical element used in the production of iron castings and steel and have special application in high performance generators, transformers, and motors. Bridgeport plant manager Jerry Rich and his management team deserve special recognition on this occasion, as do the Tennessee Alloys Co.'s other hard working employees. Tennessee Alloys Co. sets a fine example by demonstrating the importance of high productivity balanced with concern for the health and safety of employees. This balance is not possible without the total commitment of both employees and management who take great pride in their work and their company. I would therefore like to recognize Tennessee Alloys Co. for its outstanding health and safety record and wish them continued success in the future.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Any may I then ask: Is it true that section 257 of the Telecommunications Act, which ensures that small businesses are not unfairly disadvantaged by Federal regulations, was supported by both parties?

Mr. SHELBY. I thank the chairman. In addition to advocating a regulatory framework that encourages and promotes competition in the telecommunications industry, I have been particularly concerned that small and entrepreneurial firms are allowed to compete on a level playing field in all industry sectors in the United States and global economies. Indeed, with passage of the Telecommunications Act, Congress sought to provide opportunities for small businesses to participate in the telecommunications industry while also moving the entire industry toward a more competitive framework overall. Section 257 of the Act directs the FCC to ``identify and eliminate * * * market entry barriers for entrepreneurs and other small businesses in the provision and ownership of telecommunications services. * * *'' Mr. President, this is very clear and precise language and should leave no question as to the intent of Congress on matters relating to small businesses. Nevertheless, it has come to my attention that the FCC, in two recent rulemaking decisions relating to new satellite services, has adopted stringent financial standards, the practical effect of which is to erect market entry barriers to telecommunications ownership by entrepreneurs, small businesses and similar entities. Under the Commission's strict financial standard, applicants are required to demonstrate financial qualifications either on the basis of a corporate balance sheet or alternatively, on the basis of fully negotiated, irrevocable funding commitments from outside sources. This standard unfairly favors large corporations who may submit a balance sheet as part of their licensing application, regardless of whether the funds reflected on paper are actually committed to the project and even though the corporate giant, like its smaller competitors, will likely turn to external financiers and investors to ultimately fund its system. In fact, the award of all satellite licenses in one of the proceedings I refer to have gone to large corporations. In contrast, applications from small entrepreneurial companies have been deferred because they have been held to the stricter test requiring proof that funds have been irrevocably committed by others on behalf of their entire project. This is a very high hurdle to clear. Although numerous small businesses, as well as the Small Business Administration and a number of U.S. Senators and Congressmen, have raised concerns about these strict financial standards with the FCC, we have received no adequate response from the FCC, nor has the Commission modified its policy in this area. To the distinguished chairman of the Commerce Committee I ask: Was it the intent of Congress with passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to encourage the FCC to ease the regulatory framework and encourage competition in the telecommunications industry? And, further, was it the intent of Congress that regulations that act as market entry barriers to small and entrepreneurial businesses be identified and eliminated as soon as possible?

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I have one final question for the chairman of the Commerce Committee for purposes of clarifying that the intent of Congress with the Telecommunications Act is to ensure that the marketplace, not the U.S. Government or a regulatory body, decides who the winners and losers in this industry will be. In the case of the strict financial standard imposed by the FCC for satellite system applicants, it seems to me that rather than making a judgment on what the FCC may feel is a company's financial ability to compete, perhaps the FCC should focus more on technical considerations for licenses, leaving the ultimate success or failure of an applicant to the marketplace where it appropriately belongs. Will the chairman continue to work with me and others to ensure that the FCC implements the law according to our intent, particularly as this relates to small and entrepreneurial ventures and financial standards applicable to these important participants?

Mr. SHELBY. I would say to my friend that at the time this bill was drafted and I was not aware of that development.

Mr. SHELBY. I would tell my friend that I have encouraged the Drug Czar to work in terms of regional cooperation rather than focusing on individual States, and I am pleased to learn that the Rocky Mountain States are pursuing such an association. To that end, I would agree with the Senator from Wyoming that this money should go to meeting the updated application's program objectives.

Mr. SHELBY. Yes. Although the bill sets out minimum amounts to be transferred to state and local entities for drug control activities, I would certainly encourage the Director to transfer additional funds where needed for appropriate state and regional efforts.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I want to congratulate the chairman for reporting out a bill that provides funding for many important programs, while at the same time moving toward our goal of balancing the budget. Of particular interest to me, this bill funds the activities of the Federal Communications Commission which is currently undertaking the important task of implementing the historic Telecommunications Act of 1996. Mr. President, I would like to raise a concern that many of us have relating to the FCC's implementation of the act, and I would therefore ask the indulgence of the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee to allow me to enter into a colloquy with the chairman of the authorizing committee, the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, we hope this will be the last day of the 104th Congress, and I would be remiss if I did not take this opportunity to remark about several of my colleagues--friends from both sides of the aisle--for whom today will be their last day as a member of this distinguished institution. Let me first acknowledge my colleague from Alabama, Senator Howell Heflin. He came to the Senate the same year I came to the House of Representatives: 1979. He had a distinguished record as a lawyer and then as Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court. As Chief Justice, Senator Heflin led the modernization of the judicial system in Alabama. Throughout his three terms as a member of the Senate, he has served with distinction and honor. His integrity and dedication made him an exemplary Chairman of the Ethics Committee. We also should not forget his service on both the Judiciary and Agricultural Committees. He was very active, as he has been throughout his career, on both of these committees, where he showed his concern for the welfare of the country. Senator Heflin's retirement is indeed a great loss to this body. There are a number of other colleagues, in addition to Senator Heflin, whom we will miss. Senator Simpson of Wyoming, who served this side of the aisle as our assistant minority leader, is a man of untold ability, wit and intelligence. Senator Simon of Illinois is a man of unquestioned integrity. Senator David Pryor of Arkansas, who was on the floor just a few moments ago, is ending his third term as a Member of the U.S. Senate where he, too, has distinguished himself. A former Congressman and Governor of Arkansas, he concludes a laudable political career. One of our most senior Senators, Claiborne Pell of Rhode Island, the longtime chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, is recognized as a leader in the area of international relations. He also has made his mark in the field of education. All of us are familiar with the Pell grant and other programs that he has inspired. We will certainly miss Senator Nunn who brought a very reasoned position to all issues relating to foreign relations and national security. This goes without saying, but I thought he was an outstanding chairman of the Armed Services Committee. I feel fortunate to have had the privilege to serve with him on that committee for 8 years. Senator Nancy Landon Kassebaum, a Republican from Kansas who currently chairs the Labor and Human Resources Committee, is a distinguished Senator in her own right. Just look at her recent leadership to bring about long overdue reforms in the field of health insurance. Senator Bennett Johnston of Louisiana is the former chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. We are certainly going to miss him. He has had a distinguished career here during his 24 years in the U.S. Senate. Senator Mark Hatfield of Oregon, the current chairman of the Appropriations Committee on which I now serve, has served with his characteristic civility and integrity. In recent days, he has worked through the night in the negotiations with the White House on the omnibus appropriations bill that we are getting ready to consider in a few hours. Senator Jim Exon of Nebraska, a former Governor of Nebraska, is a three-term Senator from that state. I had the privilege of serving with him on the Armed Services Committee. Senator William S. Cohen, a Republican from Maine, a former outstanding Member of the U.S. House of Representatives before he was elected to the Senate. We will miss not only his wit, his intelligence, and his thoughtfulness, but also his writing ability, which at one time or another helped us all. It has been an honor to serve with Senator Hank Brown, a Republican from Colorado as it was to serve together in the U.S. House of Representatives. What has saddened me, and a number of my colleagues, is he will leave this body with such a bright and promising career after only 6 years. Senator Bill Bradley of New Jersey has served 18 years in the Senate. He has spent days and nights, weeks and months up here, and I think, not in vain, in dealing with a common sense income tax program for all Americans. Mr. President, we will miss all these people because individually and collectively they have enriched this body. I wish them well in their future endeavors. I yield the floor.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I am pleased to announce our success in passing the Shelby-Mack regulatory relief bill which is included as part of the omnibus appropriations bill. This bill will allow banks to devote additional resources to productive activities, such as making loans and extending credit to small businesses and potential homeowners. This hard fought, thoroughly debated legislation streamlines disclosure requirements, eliminates duplicative regulation and removes unnecessary filing and record keeping requirements. I have been working diligently on a regulatory relief package for many years. It is only with tireless effort, conviction in market principles, and the blessing of a Republican Congress have we been able to turn the tides of banking legislation and provide significant regulatory relief for America's financial sector. In doing so, we have strengthened America's banking system and produced an environment conducive to competing in the rapidly changing, global financial market. While I am convinced this bill will encourage economic growth and opportunity, by no means do I believe our job in Congress is complete. Over the years, we have witnessed an accumulation of banking laws with complete disregard to the burden it has placed on financial institutions and with very little value-added in terms of safety and soundness. I continue to believe that a more thoughtful structure of banking laws accentuating free market principles and jettisoning the heavy hand of Government regulation is the only way to ensure American financial institutions have the ability to complete in the dynamic marketplace of the 21st century. The Shelby-Mack bill is just the first deregulation bill a Republican Congress will give the American people. Next year I intend to move forward with another bill to increase the access of credit to consumers as well as strengthen the safety and soundness of the U.S. financial system. In particular, the Community Reinvestment Act [CRA] places an enormous regulatory burden on banks--especially small banks. The truth of the matter is that banking, financial and labor regulations drive up the cost of low and moderate income housing for the very people they are intended to help. Indeed, Federal Reserve Governor Lawrence Lindsey has stated that ``[a]n urban policy that increases the flexibility and creativity allowable under CRA and recognizes the wide variety of financial services and the enormous diversity of the markets involved could be a powerful tool to those in the business of community development.'' It is my intention to address these regulatory inequities in the 105th Congress. Mr. President, as consumers and politicians realize the benefits of the efforts of the 104th Congress, it is my sincere hope that legislators will understand the value of independent thinking and the economic freedom we seek to bestow upon every American in the United States. asset conservation, lender liability, and deposit insurance protection act of 1996

Mr. SHELBY. The committee shares your sentiment that Federal agencies should get moving toward greater use of ESPC and ECM. And they will now be on notice that this is a desire of the committee and that we will be monitoring their progress.

Mr. SHELBY. Yes, the committee supports the increased use of ESPC and ECM to reduce energy use by Federal agencies to save taxpayer dollars and reduce environmental pollution.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, this, we hope, will be the last day of this Congress, and I would be remiss if I did not have some remarks about some of my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, who are retiring. The first one I would like to mention is my colleague from Alabama, Senator Howell Heflin. He came to the Senate, when I came to the House, in January 1979. He had a distinguished record as a lawyer and then as chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court. He was very involved in the reform of our judicial system in Alabama. In the Senate, he has served with distinction and honor. He chaired the Ethics Committee for a long time. He was also very active, and has been throughout his career, as a member of the Judiciary Committee and as a member of the Agriculture Committee. But there are a number of other colleagues, other than Senator Heflin, whom we will miss. Senator Simpson of Wyoming, former whip, our assistant minority leader, a man of untold ability, wit, and intelligence. Senator Simon of Illinois, a man of, I believe, unquestioned integrity. Senator David Pryor of Arkansas, who was on the floor just a few moments ago, a former Congressman, former Governor of Arkansas, and now ending his third term as a Member of the U.S. Senate where he, too, has distinguished himself. Senator Claiborne Pell of Rhode Island, one of our senior Senators, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, very active for many, many years in the area of foreign relations and international relations. He also has made his mark in the field of education. We all know about the Pell grants and other things that he has spearheaded in America. My colleague Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia. We will certainly miss Senator Nunn, because I always thought he brought a very reasoned position to foreign relations and to the Armed Services that we all deal with from time to time. I thought he was an outstanding--and this goes without saying--chairman of the Armed Services Committee where I had the privilege to serve with him on that committee for 8 years. Senator Nancy Landon Kassebaum, a Republican from Kansas, currently the chairman of the Education and Labor Committee, a distinguished Senator in her own right. We will certainly miss her. Look at just her recent leadership, working with the Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, in the insurance field in which we have made tremendous reforms, thanks to her. Senator Bennett Johnston of Louisiana, former chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. We are certainly going to miss him. He has had a distinguished career here, 24 years in the U.S. Senate. Senator Mark Hatfield of Oregon, the current chairman of the Appropriations Committee that I now serve on. He has served with untold distinction, too, on that committee and has been involved in recent days and nights in the negotiations with the White House on this budget resolution that we are getting ready to deal with in just a few hours. Senator Jim Exon of Nebraska, a former Governor of Nebraska, three- term Senator from Nebraska. I had the privilege of serving with him on the Armed Services Committee where he, too, served with honor and distinction. Senator William S. Cohen, a Republican from Maine, a former outstanding Member of the U.S. House of Representatives before he was elected to the Senate. This is someone we will miss, not only his wit, his intelligence, his thoughtfulness, but also his writing ability at times helps us all. Senator Hank Brown, a Republican from Colorado. I had the honor to serve with him in the U.S. House of Representatives. What has saddened me, along with a lot of others, is, he will leave this body with such a bright and promising career after only 6 years. Senator Bill Bradley of New Jersey, 18 years in the Senate, who has spent days and nights and weeks and months up here, I think not in vain, most of the time dealing with a commonsense income tax program for all Americans. Mr. President, we will miss all these people because individually and collectively they have added a lot to this body. I wish them well in their future endeavors. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I have been very disturbed by the recent press reports detailing the President's willingness to pardon Susan McDougal and possibly other former business partners and friends who have been convicted of defrauding the government. The President's public willingness to suggest that a pardon may be forthcoming, at a time when Susan McDougal is facing contempt charges by a lawfully empaneled grand jury for not responding to questions about the role and truthfulness of the President himself, undermines our judicial system and seriously questions his ability to fulfill his obligation to see that ``the laws be faithfully executed.'' As you will recall, Mr. President, Susan McDougal was convicted on several felony counts of defrauding the government. She was tried and convicted by a jury of her peers in Little Rock, Arkansas and sentenced to 2 years in prison for her crimes. While the President may not be pleased with the results of Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr's, investigation, including the conviction of many of his friends and former associates, it is outrageous for the President to now allege prosecutorial misconduct on behalf of Mr. Starr. At the request of Attorney General Reno, a three judge panel appointed an Independent Counsel, Kenneth Starr, to investigate fully any violation of Federal law relating in any way to James B. McDouglal's, President William Jefferson Clinton's or Mrs. Hillary Rodham Clinton's relationships with Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan Association, Whitewater Development Corporation, or Capital Management Services, Inc. Mr. President, the President's recent statements raise serious questions about his intent to interfere with, and possibly undermine, the Independent Counsel's ongoing investigation into these matters. Today, Senator Bond and I are submitting a concurrent resolution that would express the Sense of the Congress that the President should disavow any intent of issuing presidential pardons to James and Susan McDougal and Jim Guy Tucker and reaffirm one of the basic tenets of our American system of justice that no one is above the law.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of overriding President Clinton's veto of the Partial-birth Abortion Ban Act. First, this legislation bans a gruesome, deadly procedure. When performing a partial-birth abortion, the abortionist first grabs the live baby's leg with forceps and pulls the baby's legs into the birth canal. He then delivers the baby's entire body, except for the head; jams scissors into the baby's skull and opens them to enlarge the hole. Finally, the scissors are removed and a suction catheter is inserted to suck the baby's brains out. This causes the skull to collapse, at which point the dead baby is delivered and discarded. No one interested in the welfare of children could ever approve of such a heinous act. President Clinton has put politics above life by trying to keep this procedure legal. Second, his veto is extreme because this procedure has questionable medical value. In fact, the American Medical Association's Council on Legislation--which unanimously supports banning this procedure--stated that a partial-birth abortion is ``not a recognized medical technique'' and concluded that the procedure is basically repulsive. Third, even though this procedure is not used to save the life of the mother, there is an explicit provision in the bill to protect any physician who feels that this procedure is necessary to save the life of the mother. Despite this safeguard, President Clinton continues to raise false arguments in bowing to the liberal wing of his party. Mr. President, the President's own wife has written a book about the value of children, entitled ``It Takes a Village.'' I don't know what type of village the Clinton's believe children should be raised in, but it should not be a village where it is a crime to disturb the habitat of a kangaroo rat but it is perfectly acceptable to suck out the brains of a baby. That is barbaric. It should no longer be tolerated in our society, and I urge my colleagues to join me in standing up for helpless children by overriding the President's blatantly political veto.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, on September 5, 1996, several senators expressed concern about language regarding property insurance activities by HUD's Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity contained in the committee report accompanying the VA, HUD, and independent agencies appropriation bill. For some time now, HUD has claimed it has jurisdiction under the Fair Housing Act to investigate complaints about alleged insurance redlining practices. Statements have been made that the committee report language is an effort to somehow exempt the insurance industry from civil rights enforcement. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is not about civil rights. It is about regulation. Congress never intended to apply the Fair Housing Act to property insurance for the simple reason that the insurance industry is subject to State regulation under the McCarran-Ferguson Act. It is for this reason that the Congress chose specifically not to include the sale or underwriting of insurance under the Fair Housing Act. HUD's enforcement and regulatory activities regarding property insurance is clearly a waste of resources because it duplicates State laws and regulations. Virtually every State and the District of Columbia have laws or regulations governing unfair discriminatory practices by insurance companies. States are actively investigating and addressing discrimination where it is found to occur. HUD is just adding another wasteful and unnecessary layer of bureaucracy. Congress faces many hard choices in working to fulfill its commitment to eliminate unnecessary Federal spending and red tape. With respect to HUD, Congress must determine how to preserve essential programs while creating a more efficient Federal Government and reduce the budget deficit. If there is one area of Federal spending where Congress need not struggle to determine whether cutbacks are appropriate, it is HUD's activities regarding property insurance.