Richard Shelby

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. SHELBY. I urge its adoption.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. SHELBY. We have no objection to the amendment.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, we have no objection to the amendment, the Thompson amendment.

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

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, we have not had a chance to really study the Wyden amendment yet. We have just had a quick opportunity to review the Senator's amendment. We need to look at it more closely, and we have some other people doing it. There are some other committees this could have tremendous impact on. We do not know what CBO will say about this, if anything. It might need to be scored, what the cost is, if any. We just started into the bill. We have a little time, I believe. I was wondering if the Senator from Oregon would set it aside and let us look at it.

Mr. SHELBY. If the Senator from Oregon will just yield briefly, this would give us a chance for both my staff and the staff of the Senator from Nebraska to look at this amendment and see what the significance of it is. We will be glad to get back with the Senator. Is that OK?

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending committee amendments be temporarily laid aside.

Mr. SHELBY

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

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. I ask unanimous consent the bill be deemed read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill appear at this point in the Record.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Veterans' Affairs Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 1669, and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

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 11 a.m. on Wednesday, September 11; further, that immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be deemed approved to date, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate immediately resume H.R. 3756, the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate disagree to the amendment of the House and request a conference with the House on the disagreeing vote and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask that the Chair lay before the Senate a message from the House on S. 640. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith) laid before the Senate the following message from the House of Representatives: Resolved, That the bill from the Senate (S. 640) entitled ``An Act to provide for the conservation and development of water and related resources, to authorize the Secretary of the Army to construct various projects for improvements to rivers and harbors of the United States, and for other purposes'', do pass with the following amendment: Strike out all after the enacting clause, and insert:

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Finance Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 1918, and further that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the President pro tempore of the Senate be authorized to appoint a committee on the part of the Senate to join with a like committee on the part of the House of Representatives to escort His Excellency, John Bruton, Prime Minister of Ireland, into the House Chamber for the joint meeting on Wednesday, September 11, 1996.

Mr. SHELBY

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

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

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Thank you.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I wanted to come to the floor today and try to set the record straight on Senator Dole's tax relief plan. Over and over, Mr. President, the media pundits and the liberal Democrats, such as our President, have been telling the American people that Senator Dole's tax relief plan will ``balloon the deficit'' or result in ``extreme'' or ``draconian" spending cuts which will hurt our children and starve the poor. Mr. President, I believe these scare tactics are not only wrong, they are shameless, and it is time we start standing up here and telling the American people the truth. I want to briefly lay out in a few minutes today some of the facts to expose the myths put forth by the guardians of Big Government--yes, the guardians of Big Government. First, Mr. President, President Clinton, I believe, is wrong, wrong to claim that broad-based tax relief will increase the deficit. He often points to the 1980's as proof that cutting taxes results in higher deficits. However, the facts just do not support his claim. For example, when President Reagan, with the help of the Congress, cut the taxes in the early 1980's from a top rate of 70 percent down to 28 percent, total revenues to the Treasury during that time increased by 99.4 percent during the following decade. What was this due to? It was due to the record rates of economic growth which occurred during the 1980's, an average, Mr. President, as you will recall, of about 4 percent a year. These cuts stimulated the longest peacetime economic expansion in American history. More than 20 million new jobs were created, and more people were paying taxes, increasing Government revenues at that time. The fact is, Mr. President, that the massive deficits of the 1980's did not result from tax cuts; they resulted from skyrocketing rates of Federal spending. For example, during the 1980's, Federal spending increased by 112 percent; it doubled in just 10 short years. This out- of-control spending is the culprit for the deficits of the 1980's, not President Reagan's tax cuts. What this means for us today is that we should not hesitate to give the American people long overdue tax relief. History over and over, Mr. President, has proven that lower taxes generate economic growth and will increase every citizen's standard of living. But we need to make sure such relief is accompanied by cuts in spending. Cuts in spending is the issue. This is where the Democrats have tried to scare people. We have heard over and over that broad-based tax relief will result in extreme cuts in spending. Mr. President, the underlying assumption of this argument is that the Government has cut costs everywhere it can and that all wasteful Government programs have been eliminated and that the only Government programs which are left are ones that, if cut, would hurt children or starve the poor. That, Mr. President, is every bit as extreme as it is ridiculous. The idea that the Government simply cannot afford to let people keep more of the money that they earn is appalling. Whose money is it anyway, Mr. President? Since when did the Government have an entitlement to everything people earned? This is an important point here today because, by buying into the argument that the Government cannot afford to give Americans a tax cut, we lose title to our freedom every day, sort of by adverse possession, if you will. Congress should not have to justify broad- based tax relief. Rather, Mr. President, it should justify every single dollar it takes out of the pockets of the American people who work every day to supply it. The White House should never again say that we cannot afford broad- based tax relief. Let me give you just a small example of one way we could pay for tax relief. I think it is instructive. Robert Shapiro of the Progressive Policy Institute has identified, Mr. President, more than $100 billion of corporate welfare hidden in the current Tax Code, special interests' Tax Code. We should eliminate all corporate welfare, Mr. President, and enact immediate tax relief for individuals in America. I have introduced legislation which would do this by scrapping the entire Tax Code, eliminating all deductions and special tax breaks for special interests, and replacing it with a low, flat-rate tax system. The Tax Code should not be a tool, Mr. President, for Washington to maintain control over our citizens' private resources. Washington should not single out certain people or corporations in America to receive special treatment in the form of tax breaks, as they have done over the years. Everyone--everyone--in America should be on the same playing field. And they are not. The flat tax would rid this town of thousands of lobbyists who spend millions of dollars a year trying to get special tax breaks for corporate America. All in all, the Congressional Budget Office has identified thus far 64 provisions of the Tax Code which can be considered corporate welfare. This is increasing the tax burden of the average taxpayer by hundreds of billions of dollars. Mr. President, I reject the notion that we cannot afford broad-based tax relief for the American people. That view is simply a smokescreen used by the President and the Democrats to safeguard their sacred social programs and maintain Federal control over the economy. There is plenty of room in the Federal budget, I believe, if we look hard enough, to provide broad-based tax relief and still balance the budget. Republicans have already done it once and I think we can do it again. I just hope the next time we do, Mr. President, we will have a President who will not protect the status quo and veto our proposal but look to help the working people of America. I yield the floor.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to inform my colleagues in the Senate of another case where a foreign government is punishing an American company for no legitimate reason. The United States must stand up against such actions by foreign governments and end such unfair and unwarranted treatment of our citizens. Some years ago, two of my constituents, Bill and Allan MacDonald, respected businessmen in Alabama and the United States, invested in Bermuda's struggling cable television system. The MacDonalds were encouraged to make their initial investment by the Bermudian Government because of the poor state of the cable television system. The MacDonalds devoted not only sizeable amounts of time and energy to this effort, but they also invested sizeable amounts of their own money to upgrade the cable television system. Contrary to the expectations of some Bermudians, the MacDonalds turned the company around and the company began making money. As soon as the business began to do well, some Bermudians began to try to wrest the business away from the MacDonalds. These Bermudian citizens, with the help of their Government, are determined to take control of the company away from the MacDonalds now that the company is doing well. My question to the Senate today is: Will the U.S. Government let this happen? Mr. President, the U.S. Government and the State Department in particular must do a better job of protecting U.S. businesses operating abroad. We must make sure that foreign countries know that we will not tolerate unfair trade practices against American companies or citizens. Mr. President, I do not know if we can get the Bermudian Government to treat the MacDonalds fairly, but one thing we can do is make sure that Bermudian companies do not receive more favorable treatment in the United States than United States companies receive in Bermuda. It is my understanding that a Bermudian company, Telebermuda, has applied for a general landing license to the Federal Communications Commission [FCC]. Under U.S. law the FCC may not grant such a license without the approval of the Secretary of State. In addition, this same law states that ``the President [FCC] may withhold * * * such license when he shall be satisfied after notice and hearings that such action will assist . . . in maintaining the rights or interests of the United States or of its citizens in foreign countries * * * .'' I have requested the Secretary of State to withhold his approval of Telebermuda's license application, until the case involving my constituents is resolved. Mr. President, this case is not only important to my constituents, it is important for all businesses who operate overseas. It is our duty to ensure that they are treated fairly. We cannot allow foreign governments to take advantage of U.S. businesses. If the Bermudian telephone monopoly or other Bermudian interests want to buy the MacDonalds interest in Bermuda Cable they should pay the fair market price for the MacDonalds interest in the company. Mr. President, I am not asking for special treatment for the MacDonalds, but I believe they are entitled to receive justice. Mr. President, I hope that the Bermudian Government will reexamine this situation involving my constituents and determine that it is in their best interest to treat all businesses fairly and not punish people because they are from the United States or other foreign countries.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose the amendment offered by Senator Bumpers to terminate the international space station. The distinguished Senator from Arkansas again tells us that America should abandon its commitment as the leader of this historic endeavor. Supporters of this amendment have many reasons why we should desert our international partners just when we are about to launch the first sections of this incredible project into orbit. Mr. President, I reject these arguments for a number of reasons. First, Mr. President, the opposition talks of cost overruns, and yet, despite the complexity of this task and the various challenges that will be encountered as the station moves from the drawing board to reality, NASA is committed to remaining within the $17.4 billion projected cost for the redesigned space station. Frankly, Mr. President, we have cut and trimmed the resources available for the space station to the point where NASA has little, if any, flexibility in dealing with the inevitable challenges it will face. Today we debate the very existence of the space station when we should be talking about maximizing NASA's flexibility within the limits that we have already placed upon them. Second, the opposition tells us that NASA may divert science funds to construction accounts, thereby leaving the station with no scientific capability at all. While NASA may rephase funds intended for developing scientific experiments, this management initiative in no way reflects a reduction in NASA's commitment to research on the space station. Some payload facilities are developing ahead of schedule, and NASA is wisely coordinating these elements to be complete when the station is ready to accept them. This rephasing of funds will allow NASA to augment its program reserve accounts to place them at acceptable levels. This is the type of planning and initiative that we should support, not attack. Third, we are told that the contractors involved in the station's construction are encountering significant problems with the first two nodes. Mr. President, if all great research and development projects were terminated because they encountered significant problems, we would be without many, if not all, of the greatest discoveries in human history. Yes, the space station is a great challenge, but, the men and women working on the station have yet to encounter an obstacle that they cannot surmount. In fact, node 1 has recently completed a successful pressure test and will now undergo a post-test inspection and final preparation for launch. This is an exciting time for the space station and we should be focusing our attention on its permanent successes and not its temporary set-backs. Fourth, termination of the international space station will undermine the credibility of the United States with its international partners who have already invested more than one-half of their planned $10 billion contribution. We have taken the lead on this project and given our word that we will see it through. Leadership requires resolve and character. It is not in the American character to break our promises and abandon our friends and partners, especially when the prize we all seek is within our grasp. Finally, Mr. President, termination of the space station will end any promise of meaningful space-based long-duration research in cell and developmental biology, human physiology, biotechnology, fluid physics, combustion science, materials science, low-temperature physics and the large-scale commercial development of space. For decades, the space program has driven science and technology development, motivated our children, and inspired a nation and the world. Mr. President, we stand at the threshold of a new millennium. Let it not be said that we squandered one of our first opportunities for greatness in the 21st century. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair.