Richard Shelby

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. The Senator may ask questions of the Senator from Nebraska, too.

Mr. SHELBY. Both of us. Sure.

Mr. SHELBY. What about 40 minutes? Is that OK?

Mr. SHELBY. At 4:45. Would that be OK?

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise in strong support H.R. 1833, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. When the Founding Fathers drafted the Constitution of the United States, they made it abundantly clear that one of the most crucial roles of government is to ``secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.'' Yet, over the past few decades, the value of life in America has been substantially cheapened, and the opportunity for liberty diminished. The rise in drive-by shootings, gang warfare, and abandoned babies, all point to the fact that life in America is not considered as precious as it used to be. One of the most gruesome indicators of the decline in the value of life is the practice of partial-birth abortions. A partial-birth abortion is an abortion in which the person performing the abortion partially delivers a living baby before killing the baby and completing the delivery. H.R. 1833 will bring an end to this grisly procedure. Opponents of this bill try to disguise partial-birth abortions as reproductive health services, but a close examination of the procedure shows it is no such thing. When performing a partial-birth abortion, the individual 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. Mr. President, this procedure is cruel and indefensible, and it is an assault to the common values of the American people. Listen to what nurse Brenda Pratt Shafer, who witnessed one of these abortions, had to say in her letter to Congressman Tony Hall: The baby's body was moving. His little fingers were clasping together. He was kicking his feet. All the while his little head was still [[Page S 16750]] stuck inside. Dr. Haskell took a pair of scissors and inserted them into the back of the baby's head. Then he opened the scissors up. Then he stuck the high-powered suction tube into the hole and sucked the baby's brains out. I almost threw up as I watched him do these things. Mr. President, several medical experts have recently stated that this is not a medically necessary procedure. The American Medical Association's Council on Legislation--which unanimously supports banning this procedure--also stated that partial-birth abortions are ``not a recognized medical technique'' and concurred that the ``procedure is basically repulsive.'' I agree this procedure is repulsive; it is the grotesque killing of a new-born baby. Its feet are out, its hands are out, its legs are kicking, its arms are reaching. It is a new-born baby. Think of what kind of society we live in when we fine and arrest people for affecting the habitat of an endangered kangaroo rat but explicitly allow the abhorrent practice of sucking out the brains of a new-born baby. Moreover, most partial-birth abortions are performed for purely elective reasons. Martin Haskell, who is one of the chief advocates of this procedure, stated to AMA News in a July 1993 interview that, ``I'll be quite frank: most of my abortions are elective in that 20-24 week range. In my particular case, probably 20 percent are performed for genetic reasons. And the other 80 percent are purely elective. * * *'' Despite the consensus in the medical community that these procedures are not used to save the life of the mother, H.R. 1833 contains a safeguard for any practitioner who reasonably believes this procedure is necessary to save the life of the mother. This legislation is balanced and well-reasoned, and it merits our support. Mr. President, we need to return to the premise that life in America is precious and sacred. Our Nation's children are our hope and our future, and government at all levels has an incumbent responsibility to protect these children who cannot protect themselves. I support this legislation and urge my colleagues to support it as well.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, we have entered a new age in American politics. All of us know that. The days are long gone when elected officials can get elected, duck controversy, avoid hard choices, and, yes, hide from the judgment of the people. Governing in 1995 requires hard choices, adherence to principle and accountability. As party defections increase, as State legislatures and governorships change hands, my former colleagues on the other side of the aisle scratch their heads and ask why. The answer is simple, Mr. President. On the other side of the aisle there is no accountability and no willingness to make hard choices. Instead, I believe they remain wedded to the status quo politics and policies that have led this country to the verge of bankruptcy. For 60 years the other side has steadily created a Federal monster that now handles $1 out of every $4 in our economy. While the growth of the Government that past half century is stunning, it should come as no surprise to all of us. The politics of the status quo promoted on the other side of the aisle operates on the simple premise that the American people will always trade their freedom and their hard-won dollars for the promise of Government security. ``Tax and spend.'' Yes, Mr. President, ``tax and spend, and the docile American people will never resist. Tax and spend, tax and spend, and the American people will never support the reform or repeal of a Government program. Make the American people dependent on the Federal Government for everything from income and health care to business subsidies, and they will never resist or even reject us.'' These, Mr. President, I believe, are the maxims by which the agents of the status quo operate. But, Mr. President, the agents opposed to change have vastly underestimated the American people. The reason, Mr. President: The price of a balanced budget is so high that the American people will reject any politician who attempts to do the right thing and bring the budget into balance. They are dead wrong. We are allowing families to keep more of their hard-earned dollars, and we are ending welfare as we know it, and, above all, we are balancing the budget. The agents of change have a solemn obligation to do the unheard of, keep their promises. And I believe we will. Mr. President, I would just like to show two charts in the short time I have of what parents can purchase with a $500-per-child tax credit in America. For example, with a $500 tax credit, items parents can purchase: a winter jacket, $30; winter boots, $30; athletic socks, $6.50, six pairs of those; a sweat shirt, $12; books, $100; a tutor for their child, $230, 32 hours. That is $498.50. We checked it out. We also have another chart for the $500 tax credit. Parents can purchase 847 jars of baby food or, Mr. President, 2,370 disposable diapers or approximately 6 months of electric bills. The $500 tax credit for working families in America is real, and they need it.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I am very pleased to see that a bill has been introduced to repeal the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 [PUHCA]. PUHCA has long since outlived its usefulness. It has become duplicative with other regulation, both at the Federal and State levels. The utility industry, both gas and electric, has changed dramatically since PUHCA was first enacted, and particularly the new competitive pressures and State regulation that now exists, makes PUHCA unnecessary. I thank Chairman D'Amato and my colleagues on the Banking Committee, and the Securities and Exchanges Commission [SEC], which has recommended repeal, for their diligence in bringing this legislation before us. While the utility industry is changing, there are some who argue that any action on the repeal of PUHCA must be tied to broader changes in the structure of the electric utility industry. I do not accept or support that position, but rather believe that PUHCA can and should be repealed while the debate on the other broader issues matures. The SEC first recommended repeal of PUHCA in 1982, and have more recently, in June, called again for the antiquated law's repeal. We should act accordingly.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the amendment offered by the senior Senator from Arkansas. Mr. President, once again we find ourselves debating the merits of the 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 say we simply cannot afford to continue funding the space station. Mr. President, I ask you, Can we afford not to? [[Page S 14243]] History tells us that mankind is destined to explore beyond the bounds of this tiny planet. The question is not whether we should take the next logical step. The question is: ``Will we lead or will we follow?'' I believe the United States is destined to lead. Leadership, Mr. President, requires commitment. America's relatively small investment in the space station demonstrates our commitment to the future of technology in space. It also demonstrates our commitment to our international partners who have joined with us to make this dream a reality. Abandoning the space station at this late date not only squanders our initial investment, but it tells our partners that they can no longer depend on us to meet our commitment to international space exploration. Our credibility among the space faring nations depends on our actions today. Mr. President, a leader must also have vision and vision is meaningless without the courage to fulfill its promise. When we began funding this project, we set out on a journey that held out great promise and it continues to do so. Again, we hear from those who do not share our vision and are content to quit. Opponents suggest that the space station costs more than it is worth and that we should therefore stop funding it now and redistribute that money to more pressing social programs. Not only do they fail to recognize the enormous potential of space research and exploration, but they are content to sacrifice the promise of a better tomorrow for the failed programs of today. Mr. President, one of the most important Federal priorities of any government is to create opportunities for a better life in the future. We can not effectively do that anymore by just pumping money into life on Earth today. We must look ahead. We must search for ways to sustain our society, our culture, our life into tomorrow. The space station holds that promise. Mr. President, the space station has a legitimate mission, an impressive design and a plan to achieve its goals. Granted, it has had its difficulties, but all great endeavors will meet with obstacles. Although the space station faces more challenges, NASA is prepared now, more than ever, to meet those challenges. This unprecedented example of international cooperation is now on schedule, on budget and is worthy of our support. So, I ask my colleagues that share the vision of space exploration to join me in reaffirming our country's commitment to our future by opposing this shortsighted attempt to strip funding from the space station. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SHELBY

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

Mr. SHELBY. I thank the Senator.

Mr. SHELBY. Would the Senator from Rhode Island state the question again?

Mr. SHELBY. The Senator is correct. The revenue loss is projected to be $1.4 billion over 5 years but the underlying bill will result in savings of over $40 billion over 5 years.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President I ask unanimous consent to add the following Senators as original cosponsors of the amendment: Senators Santorum, Grams, Helms, Gramm of Texas, Coats, and Lott.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, along with the Senators that I have just mentioned as cosponsors, that is, namely, Senators Craig, Lott, Hatfield, Coats, Santorum, Grams, Helms, and Gramm of Texas, I am introducing an amendment that we believe will help strengthen the role of the family in America. The out-of-wedlock birthrate in America is projected to reach 50 percent by early next century, and I am concerned that this trend will result in a dramatic increase in the number of children abused and neglected. There are now close to 500,000 children in the [[Page S 13585]] foster care system, but only 50,000 are placed for adoption each year. Our amendment would effectively find homes for many children who need parents and find children for parents who need families. The objective of this amendment is to provide an appropriate incentive to encourage a policy which should be embraced by all Americans. Adoption is a positive event that benefits everyone involved. Obviously a loving, caring family for a parentless child is the primary benefit of adoption. Studies show the adopted child receives a strong self identity, positive psychological health and a tendency for financial well-being. Parents who adopt children also benefit. They receive the joy and responsibility of raising a child as well as the love and respect only a child can give. The emotional fulfillment of raising children clearly contributes to the fullness of life. Lastly, we should not forget the advantages to communities as a whole in America. Society is unambiguously better off as a result of adoption. Statistics show time and again that children with families intact are more likely to become productive members of the community than children without both parents. Unfortunately more times than not, a financial barrier stands in the way of otherwise qualified parents. The monthly cost of supporting the child is not the hurdle, but instead the initial outlay to pay for the adoption. There are many fees and costs involved with adopting a child, which include maternity home care, normal prenatal and hospital care for the mother and child, preadoption foster care for infant, home study fees, and legal fees. These costs can range anywhere from about $13,000 to $36,000, according to the National Council for Adoption. Like the person who wants to buy a home, but cannot because the financial hurdle of a down payment stops them, potential parents often cannot adopt a child because of the substantial initial fees, fees that could actually exceed the cost of a down payment for a home. As a result, children are denied homes, and parents denied children. Our amendment seeks to address this problem. It would allow a $5,000 refundable tax credit for adoption expenses. This credit would be fully available to any individual with an income up to $60,000 and phased out up to an income of $100,000. Other adoption tax credits have been put forth, but the key element of our adoption tax credit is its full refundability. This provision will allow many couples who may not have a tax liability in a given year to be able to afford to open up their home to a parentless child. A fully-refundable adoption tax credit is an essential part of any welfare reform measure like the one we have before us. Our amendment would also provide that employer-provided adoption assistance would be excluded from gross income for taxable purposes. Those receiving assistance from their employer to cover costs over and above the first $5,000--which would be taken care of by the credit-- would not have to count that assistance as income. Finally, the amendment provides that withdrawals from an IRA can be made penalty- free and excluded from income if used for qualified adoption expenses. Representative Joseph Kennedy and others are advocating a proposal similar to this in the House. I believe these changes will go a long way in making adoption a reality for many children and helping them find the loving homes they so desperately need in America. This amendment has the strong support of 14 adoption organizations, which represent more than 1,000 adoption agencies and practitioners. Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will join us in reaching out to families in order to provide a better, brighter future for our children and a heightened degree of appreciation for the potential that adoption holds for our society. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. SHELBY. I yield an additional minute.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, under a unanimous-consent agreement, I was slated to offer an amendment dealing with food stamps. I will not offer that amendment at this time. I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senators Helms and Faircloth to offer this amendment to the welfare reform bill. This amendment is based on the simple notion that recipients of public assistance should give something in return for their benefits. To not require work for welfare, is to promote irresponsibility, which is ultimately harmful to the recipient. This amendment is straightforward. It states that those recipients of food assistance, who are able-bodied, do not have any dependents, and are between the ages of 18 and 55, must work for an average of 40 hours per month in order to receive their food assistance. Some critics might point out that the Dole amendment already has work requirements for Food Stamp recipients. However, those work requirements do not begin until 6 months after the person begins receiving food assistance. Workfare programs should resemble the private sector to the greatest extent possible, and I do not know of any business which pays its employees for 6 months before the employee ever begins working. Our work requirement is structured identically to private sector employment: wages--or benefits in this case--are paid after the service is rendered. This will promote personal responsibility and self-sufficiency. Finally, one of the main benefits of work requirements is that they are a humane way of screening people off of welfare who do not belong on the rolls. Many people receiving benefits which are now free, will opt to pursue other options they currently have in the private sector if they are faced with even a minimal work requirement. If they have no such options, they will be able to continue to receive benefits in exchange for community service. However, CBO has estimated that this work requirement will save taxpayers $5.5 billion over 7 years, due to a decrease in the food stamp rolls of more than 1 million individuals. This will free up money to be used on people who are in genuine need, who have small children, and who have no employment options in the private sector. Again, this amendment does not affect anyone with small children, or anyone who is disabled or elderly. It is carefully targeted at those who are the most likely to be able to move into the private sector. Mr. President, this is a responsible amendment, and one I hope my colleagues will support.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside so that I may send two amendments to the desk. I ask for their immediate consideration.

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

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendments be set aside until next week.

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

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I wish to engage the distinguished Senator from Virginia, the chairman of the Subcommittee on AirLand Forces, in a brief colloquy regarding the Army's Crusader program. Senator Warner, I note that the committee has fully supported the Army's priority development of the Advanced Field Artillery System, Crusader program and I commend the committee for its action. However, I am concerned by the actions of the House National Security Committee relative to the liquid propellant [LP] gun aspect of the Crusader program. I have been led to believe that the Army recognized the performance advantages of the LP gun and that the Army in recognition of those performance enhancements accepted the risks associated with LP development. Am I correct in that understanding?

Mr. SHELBY. I am concerned that the House has written several pages of bill language which would legislate noncontractual performance goals which might add schedule risk and might jeopardize the schedule flexibility critical to the successful management of any development effort. I am also concerned that the House position appears to prejudge the failure of the LP gun while not adequately considering the risk nor providing comparable oversight for the Army's backup technology, unicharge.

Mr. SHELBY. I want to thank the Senator from Virginia and the Senator from Massachusetts for their understanding of this matter and for their commitment to work to resolve this in conference.