Richard Shelby

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I just want to remind my colleagues that initially in the committee we had cut approximately $75 million perhaps more than the House. We thought in the committee, as I said earlier, that we were trying to be fair in the process. I thought the earlier amendment, the Kerrey amendment was selective and aimed at selected projects. So I thought only to be fair is to take everything including my own courthouse in Montgomery, AL. And if the Senate, Mr. President, wants spending cuts in Federal buildings which affects just about every State, then they can go with the $1.8 billion cut the Shelby amendment offers. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this list of projects that I alluded to earlier, ``General Services Administration Federal Buildings Fund Construction and Repair Projects,'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I was in a committee when I learned that my colleague from Alabama, Senator Heflin, had made a statement that he was not going to seek reelection for a fourth term in the U.S. Senate. As his junior Senator--which he used to remind me he wanted me to remain the junior Senator for a long time, and I acquiesced. I said, ``I want you to remain the senior Senator for a long time.'' I want to remind Members that he is not leaving today. He has nearly 2 years that he will be with the Senate, felt. I will, as his colleague from Alabama, appreciate every day his counsel, his maturity, and his, at times, recommendations of what to do and not to do and how to do it. In 1970--it seems just a few years ago--Howell Heflin was elected to the office of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Alabama. On that same day, I was elected to my first term in the State senate. I had the opportunity to get to know Judge Heflin better, to work with him, to work with him on modernization of the courts of Alabama, for which he won a national award for his leadership and was greatly recognized for that. In 1976 he chose not to run for reelection as chief justice of the Supreme Court of Alabama. Somebody said, ``Well, he is retired.'' We knew, Judge, you had not retired. You were just going into some other things--maybe the practice of law, maybe teaching, which he did for awhile. But, in 1978, he ran and was elected to the U.S. Senate from Alabama, the first time. Again, our paths crossed. I was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives on the same day that he was elected to the Senate. He was sworn in to the U.S. Senate. I was sworn in across the road here, to the U.S. House of Representatives. So we continued to work together. With his leadership here, he was the senior Senator, I worked with him the 8 years I was in the House. Then, when I was able to join him in 1986, I continued to work with him. He has served not only Alabama, our State, but the Nation with distinction. We are not going to miss him for awhile because he is going to be with us. But I will miss him after the 2 years. And I want to say to his family--his wife Mike, his son, Tom, and his grandchildren in Tuscumbia, he is not going to retire. He is just going to do something else. Thank you, Judge.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to inform my colleagues about a truly outstanding group of American veteran LST [landing ship tank] sailors that intend to sail a 50-year-old World War II LST 13,000 miles from the Far East to our shores. Their plans are for this vessel to arrive and sail under the Golden Gate Bridge on August 14, 1995, to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the end of World War II in the Pacific and to honor the thousands of LST sailors that served on them over the past half century. After a 10-day layover on the west coast the seasoned crew of 70 sailors will sail the ship to its homeport, the National D-Day Museum in New Orleans. I say seasoned because these men sailed on LST's during World War II when they were just 18 to 24 years old. Now, 50 years later they will again be sailing an LST. This time the voyage will be during the peace they fought for so nobly and that we all now enjoy. One member of the crew is a constituent of mine, William Irwin of Huntsville, AL. During World War II he was a decorated lieutenant who served aboard LST 277. During the return voyage of the LST Ship Memorial, he will again be sailing as a lieutenant (3d deck officer). To be considered, he and other members of the crew completed 4 months of training and were tested with Coast Guard standards; Lieutenant Irwin's score was 100 percent. All will meet rigid physical and professional requirements. I am enclosing a list of the proposed crew that includes sailors from 24 States. The crew will spend 10 days aboard the vessel checking out equipment and preparing for the historical voyage that is planned to commence upon its departure from the Far East on June 20, 1995. There will be stops in the Philippines, Guam, and Kwajalein along the 13,000-mile homeward trek. Departing the Marshall Islands, the crew intends to proceed to the Equator and sail eastward until they cross the international dateline. They will continue on to Pearl Harbor in Hawaii and then will proceed to San Francisco. The voyage will require 47 days at sea with the LST traveling at an average of 7 knots. This project has become a reality through the combined efforts of the U.S. LST Association, the National D-Day Museum, and the Navy that will provide the crew and its training. The LST Ship Memorial, that will be funded by private donations, will be the only one of its kind, worldwide. homeported 6 months of the year at the National D-Day Museum, located on Lake Pontchartrain, LA. For the remaining 6 months it is the intention of the organization to sail our inland waterways. The crew will stop along the route and allow free public access for viewing, to keep alive the memories of World War II and remind the public of the heroism, bravery, and sacrifice of the 2 million men that served and sailed on these gallant vessels. Plans are underway in the first year to sail the LST inland via the Mississippi, Ohio, Illinois, and Missouri rivers, as well as the Great Lakes, as the U.S. Navy did in 1945 and 1946. The following year the LST will sail the east coast and the third year she will sail the along the west coast, repeating the cycle every 3 years. Mr. President, I would like to commend Lt. William Irwin, Chief Milan Gunjak, president of the United States LST Association, Dr. Stephen Abrose, founder of the National D-Day Museum, Comdr. Robert Jornlin, vice president of the U.S.S. LST Ship Memorial, Comdr. Jack Melcher, Sr., president of U.S.N. and project director and all their supporters for their hard work and efforts in securing this fitting memorial to an important naval vessel and to the sailors who served aboard LST's during World War II. Mr. President, I ask that a proposed list of the LST crew be printed in the Record. The crew list follows:

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to help strengthen the role of the family in America. With the hustle and bustle of the world today, we sometimes overlook simple, commonsense ways to help one another. My bill, entitled ``Adoption Assistance for Families Act,'' would effectively find homes for children who need parents and find children for parents who need families. Mr. President, the objective of my legislation is to provide an appropriate and reasonable incentive to encourage a policy which should be embraced by all Americans. Adoption is a positive action that benefits everyone involved. Obviously, a loving, caring family is the primary benefit of adoption. Studies show the child also receives a strong self identity, positive psychological health and a tendency of financial well-being. On the other hand, 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 contribute to the fullness of life. Lastly, do not forget society. 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 society than children without both parents. Unfortunately more times than not, a financial barrier stands in the way of otherwise qualified parents-to-be. The monthly costs of supporting the child people may not realize, but there are many fees and costs involved with adopting a child. These include: maternity home care, normal prenatal and hospital care for the mother and child, preadoption foster care for the 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. Just like the person who wants to buy a home, but cannot because the financial hurdle of a downpayment stops them, so are the parents-to-be who cannot adopt a child because of the substantial initial fees, fees that could actually exceed the cost of a downpayment for a house. As a result, the benefits to everyone involved never materialize; children do not receive loving parents and married couples are prohibited from welcoming children into their compassionate family. My bill seeks to address this problem. The Adoption Assistance for Families Act 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. I believe this tax credit will go a long way in helping children find the caring homes they so desperately need. This legislation would undeniably benefit children, parents, and society as a whole. Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will join me 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 life holds. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, Webster's dictionary defines the term ``red herring'' as ``something that distracts attention from the real issue. [From the practice of drawing a red herring across a trail to confuse hunting dogs].'' The reason I share this definition is because most all of the arguments we have heard over the past 4 weeks in objection to the balanced budget amendment amounts to little more than red herrings. The objections are simply distractions from the real issue. The real issue is that Federal spending is out of control and unless we pass a constitutional amendment to control spending, our children and grandchildren will never know the America we take for granted. The United States has a current national debt of over $4.75 trillion and according to President Clinton's new budget, will be $6.7 trillion in the year 2000. I have said it before and I will say it again Mr. President, debtors are never free, they are only subject to dominion of their creditors. That is the real issue. Over the past couple of weeks, we have heard no less then six red herrings that are repeated time and again. I would like to take a moment to go through them one at a time and explain why they are just distractions from the real issue. Red herring No. 1: The balanced budget amendment would raid Social Security and put the burden of balancing the budget on the elderly. The fact is that there is no Social Security trust fund. The surplus to which many speak is actually in the form of IOU.'s. The purpose of the balanced budget amendment is to ensure the solvency of the United States so we can protect the living standards of Americans and pay our creditors. If we experience a currency problem like Mexico, we will not be able to pay our creditors much less Social Security recipients. If you truly care about the elderly and clearly understand the issue at hand, I see no other option but to support the balanced budget amendment. Why do the opponents view the Reid and Feinstein amendments as litmus tests to whether we support Social Security? They contest the only reason one would not support these amendments is because one wants to raid the trust fund. Some of the opponents even say we should be more honest with the American people and what we have in mind for Social Security. Besides the fact there is no trust fund, this charge is completely false and an effort to demagog the issue at hand. To imply proponents of the balanced budget amendment favor cutting Social Security is incorrect, wrong, and at odds with the consistent demonstrated record of advocacy Congress has toward seniors. We should not balance the budget on the backs of Social Security recipients. In fact, I believe we should help seniors by repealing the earnings limits for Social Security recipients. However, proponents of the balanced budget amendment believe the solvency of the whole country will do far more to protect the standard of living of every American than making an ineffective attempt to ensure one particular interest group is protected. Which, by the way, those amendments would not do. Primarily, these amendments would not protect anyone because Congress could, and in my opinion would, reclassify programs such as supplemental security income and Medicaid as Social Security. This would allow Congress to avoid balancing the budget by using FICA taxes to pay these benefits. In addition, Congress could redefine terms in the Social Security Act such as the term ``recipient.'' We define who the recipients of Social Security are and as such could change the definition to include any special interest group. Red herring No. 2: The balanced budget amendment is not enforceable. The amendment would curtail the authority of and respect for the Constitution. Section 2 of the amendment requires a three-fifths vote to increase the debt ceiling. If you consider that insignificant, I ask why do we vote every year to increase the debt limit? Why does the President submit his budget by the first Monday in February every year? Neither of these procedures are identified in the Constitution. Indeed, these budget procedures are based on statute. As U.S. Senators, we are obligated to abide by the law. If one suggests that Members will arbitrarily disregard the Constitution, then I content you are completely off base and your lack of confidence in the institution undermines our role as a legislative body in a participatory democracy. Red herring No. 3: The people have the right to know how this is going to affect them. Proponents of the balanced budget amendment should map out the way they will achieve a balanced budget within 7 years. It is true the people need to know what their legislature is doing and how its decisions affect them. For the most part, I think they have the general idea. However, as former Nobel Laureate of Economics James Buchanan has so eloquently stated, ``This argument reflects a failure to understand what a conflates within-rule choices and choices of rules themselves.'' We have debated year after year and day after day ways to cut spending. We have also debated year after year and day and day whether or not we should increase taxes. Unfortunately we have been unable to achieve significant deficit reduction within the framework we have. The choices we have made as a collective body have placed us deeper in debt. As a result, we are sincerely trying to rectify the problem by changing the framework in which we operate. The idea that we are trying to pull the wool over someone's eyes is false and seemingly disingenuous. Furthermore, I would like to know where right to know advocates were when Congress passed the Endangered Species Act and the wetlands legislation? Wouldn't one assume the people would like to have known ahead of time that a puddle that stands for more then 2 weeks of the year would be considered a wetland and that their property rights thereof would be foregone? I think they would. Do you think the American people would like to have known the inflationary impact of the 1993 Tax Act before it was passed? I'm sure they would have. The point is that there is no way to tell an individual that the balanced budget amendment will reduce their Government subsidy by exactly $342.34 or that a particular service will be taken from the States and therefore State taxes will be increased by exactly $43.25 You can see how absurd that request really is. The point is the citizens of the United States know all too well the problems of Federal spending. They want to see us pass a balanced budget amendment to stop the fiscal hemorrhaging from the Nation's Capital. The opponents are correct in that the people have a right, but the right they have is for the Federal Government to stop spending this country into bankruptcy. Red herring No. 4: The balanced budget amendment will have dire consequences on the elderly and the children. On the one hand the opponents claim a balanced budget amendment will lead to draconian cuts in very critical programs. According to them every old person, young person, and poor person will be cut off from a dignified standard of living. Red herring No. 2 claims that the balanced budget amendment is not enforceable. No amendment will be able to force the President and Congress to balance the budget. Who is going to sue them they ask. Well, which is it? Are we going to experience draconian cuts or aren't we? The arguments against the balanced budget amendment are faulty according to their own logic. Since the logic is inconsistent, opponents will try to paint a dreadful picture to the American people, hoping this will elevate opposition to the balanced budget amendment. Well, I have a frightening picture I would like to share with the American people. Imagine, one day 30 years in the future, your children are now retired and living comfortably. They have worked all their lives, spent frugally and saved religiously. One day, they wake up and find the value of the dollar has crashed in financial markets. The Federal Reserve cannot stop the falling dollar and in response, the Treasury prints money. Suddenly, your children's assets are worth half of what they were a day before. Inflation is rampant and we are reduced to a Third World country. Everything your children have worked for has been taken from them because Members of the generations represented in this Chamber did not think that addressing the debt was important. Instead, Members chose the immediate gratification of consumption. The opposition to the balanced budget amendment provides significant insight as to why many people do not understand the virtues of capitalism. The idea of capitalism means that one chooses to forego current consumption and save in order to accumulate capital. In other words, deny consumption now for bigger and better things later. To gather capital--which by the way, increases productivity and therefore living standards--we must deny ourselves immediate gratification. In order to pass the America we know on to our children, we must deny ourselves immediate gratification and pay the bills we have incurred. Red hearing No. 5: The balanced budget amendment is just some popular idea we are voting for brought about by the Contract With America. We need time to think about a balanced budget amendment. The fact of the matter is that the balanced budget amendment is not a new idea at all. Thomas Jefferson is well known for saying, ``If I could add one amendment to the Constitution, it would be to prohibit the Federal Government from borrowing funds * * * We should consider ourselves unauthorized to saddle posterity with our debts and morally bound to pay them ourselves.'' In 1936, Representative Harold Kuntson of Minnesota proposed the first constitutional amendment to balance the budget. Since then, a number of balanced budget amendments have been proposed. We have held hearings as far back as 1979 and even passed a balanced budget amendment in 1982. Indeed, the issue has come up several times since then. Several of the Senators opposing the balanced budget amendment have been around for many of those debates. The balanced budget amendment is not a new idea that has not been justly considered. We know the issue all too well. The balanced budget amendment is an idea whose time has come. Red herring No. 6: Federal accounting does not allow for capital budgeting. Federal accounting would throw chills down the spine of any business executive. Trying to confront the arguments against the balanced budget amendment is like following a bouncing ball. When they are defending Social Security, the books are fine, they are in surplus. However, when we discuss the tremendous deficits and debt of the United States, the Federal accounting is somehow inept. Once again, there is an inconsistency in the opponents reasoning. If you maintain the argument that Federal accounting is flawed, then one must take another look at the books of the Social Security trust fund. There is no fund. There is no surplus. According to accounting rules used by business executives, liabilities exceed assets. By definition, that is not a surplus. In addition, I hear analogies being made to the American family in that they enter into substantial debt when they purchase a house. They have to pay mortgage payments monthly, but they are not worse off. Indeed, most would say they are better off. This is true, but lets take that analogy one step further as it applies to our national debt. The difference is that homeowners do not buy a house this year, and another house the next year and another the year after that. A homeowner pays down the principal. As a Government, we never get to this point because we have to borrow just to pay the interest. It is a perpetual problem that feeds on itself. The arguments I have just mentioned are the objections opponents make to the balanced budget amendment. I call them red herrings because I believe such arguments are just distractions from the real issue. The term again comes from the practice of drawing a red herring across a trail to confuse hunting dogs. Mr. President, the trail of debt now tops $4.75 trillion. The red herrings of a balanced budget amendment will not convince anyone on Wall Street or Main Street. Mr. President, the hunting dogs are not confused. The time has come for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, we are involved here in a truly historic debate. The proposed balanced budget amendment will decide the fate of America for years to come. Our decision will dictate whether our children and grandchildren will live free and prosper from the fruits of their labor or, on the other hand, live in a Third World economy subservient to the economic leaders of other industrialized nations in the world. Debtors are never free to choose. They are never free to choose. They are only subject to the dominion of their creditors. We all know this. Interest payments on the national debt now are expected to be $310 billion this year. Interest payments on the national debt are expected to be $310 billion. Think of it. That comes out to be about $4,600 per family, or 52 percent of all individual income taxes collected in America this year. The national debt itself is over $4.75 trillion, going on $5 trillion. Gross domestic product is only about $6.5 trillion. Combined, these numbers produce a debt-to-GDP ratio of 73 percent. As the debt continues to grow, so inevitably does the tax burden on the American people. Granted, Mr. President, we have gotten away with debt in the past, but the time to pay the bill is rapidly approaching. The global markets are beginning to experience a capital crunch. European economies are expanding and picking up steam. Southeast Asian markets are booming. Japan is calling on its reserves to rebuild infrastructure after the earthquake. In short, Mr. President, demand for capital is simply growing faster than can be supplied and, as a result, investors are being more selective about which markets they place their money in, as they should be. A very clear and primary concern of financial markets is a nation's poor economic policies and its debt structure. I submit here today that the lack of budget discipline we display here in the United States is not highly regarded among any investor in the world. Our current account stood at $104 billion in 1993. This means we either sold $104 billion in assets to foreign entities, borrowed $104 billion from foreign entities, or a combination of the two. Although a current account deficit in and of itself is not a bad thing, the accumulation of persistent current account deficits, over time, leads to a great big external debt. These deficits identify a systematic shortfall of savings below investment, due to an expansion of consumption relative to income. The implication is that we borrow to finance current consumption expenditures that have no effect on economic growth or future income in this country. In other words, the Government is borrowing abroad to finance an excess of expenditures over income. We are living beyond our means. Projections of higher current account deficits run well into the foreseeable future. The former Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, Paul Volcker, for whom we all have great respect, has warned of the current account deficit addiction, as he calls it. He said: * * * we simply cannot afford to become addicted to drawing on increasing amounts of foreign savings to help finance our internal economy. Part of our domestic industry--that part dependent on exports, or competing with imports--would be sacrificed. The stability of the dollar and of our domestic financial markets would become hostage to events abroad. If recovery is to proceed elsewhere, as we want, other countries will we do not know when, the process eventually would break down. Those are not my words. They are the words of Dr. Volcker. We cannot, Mr. President, continue to finance our debt through a balance of payments deficit unless we want to find ourselves in the same type of crisis as Mexico, or perhaps Canada. Mexico, as we all know, is in dire financial straits. The cause of Mexico's problems is based on large budget and current account deficits. Mexico tried to finance consumption by running a current account deficit at nearly 8 percent of the gross domestic product, living well beyond their means. Financial markets realized the risk of holding Mexican currency and proceeded in a widespread selloff of the peso. Mexico was virtually helpless in its ability to manage monetary policy due to what? Their structural debt problem. Now, Mr. President, private investors will not even prop up the peso without a guarantee from the United States or something similar to that, the President announced. If you look to our north, another neighbor is financially destitute. Canada's long-suffering dollar is at a 9-year low. Canada has the second highest ratio of debt-to-gross domestic product of any industrialized country, and 35 percent of all Federal revenues in Canada go to service the debt. In addition, Canada ran a $30 billion balance of payments deficit in this past year. Canada is in serious trouble. Some Third World countries have a better handle on their debt than our neighbor to the north. The fiscal order of Canada is forcing real budget decisions and real budget cuts. No fiddling around the edges, Canada is on the verge of becoming a Third World country if they do not take immediate and radical steps to address their debt problem. Mexico and Canada, for us, provide valuable, tangible lessons of what happens if a country does not address its debt. Some will agree but then point out that a balanced budget amendment is not the means to achieve fiscal restraint. We have heard it before. They say, ``All we need is the will to balance the budget.'' That is a common refrain. Unfortunately, Mr. President, the collective will is not present in this body. In a 1932 radio speech, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt said, ``Any government, like any family, can for a year spend a little more than it earns. But you and I know that a continuance of that habit means the poorhouse.'' Well, President Roosevelt knew what he was talking about. Our continued habit has produced deficits in 33 out of the last 34 years in this country. Can you imagine? In 33 of the last 34 years we have run a deficit. Presently, there is no end in sight. I believe every Senator has the will to balance the budget. What they will not agree on is the way to get there. The nature of this institution instills incentives to vote for additional expenditures and deficit financing. No one likes to take the heat for cutting specific programs. Indeed, many Senators do not vote to cut programs for that very reason. That is why we need a balanced budget amendment--to instill the individual will for action on the collective body. Planning strategic cuts over a period of 7 years will be much less painful than waiting until the debt collector is standing at our door. Currently, 48 States possess one sort of a balanced budget requirement or another. For them, these restrictions provide a source of discipline throughout the budget process. It is an extremely aristocratic notion to believe we are better than the States and do not need such forced discipline to help us balance the budget, because we all know better. Congress has proven we cannot balance the budget on our own, and we will not. Canada and Mexico are wake-up calls. I do not want the United States to be like Britain in the 1970's or New Zealand in the 1980's. Both had to call in the International Monetary Fund to stabilize its falling currency. We had a scare last year and unless we pass this amendment, we may very well experience far worse in the future. Government deficits reduce national savings. As a result, the economy accumulates less domestic capital and fewer foreign assets. The lack of Government investment means that borrowing is not being used to finance increased productivity and therefore will not provide a foundation for future repayment of the debt. Federal Government surpluses are pertinent to the repayment of the public debt. Some will say we can raise taxes. I, for one, will not support an increase in taxes. It has been proven time and time again, higher taxes do not eliminate the deficit. Instead, experience suggests Congress will spend all tax revenues plus the highest deficit markets will accept. The accumulation of debt will cause our children and grandchildren to have lower standards of living, because they will inherit a smaller capital stock and because they will have to pay more interest to foreign investors. This reduction in future living standards reflects the true burden of Government debt. To vote against this amendment is to disregard the obligation we have to protect and serve not only this country but the children that we bequeath this burden to. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Mowa Band of Choctaw Indians Recognition Act. This particular piece of legislation has passed the Senate three times in the past two Congresses. While I would prefer not to have to pursue congressionally granted recognition for the Mowa Choctaws, this course of action has been dictated by the institutional resistance of the Bureau of Indian Affairs to Federal recognition of the Mowa. The Mowa Choctaws originally applied for Federal recognition in 1983. A State-recognized tribe with 3,500 members, the Mowa live within the boundaries of the original Choctaw Nation in Mobile and Washington Counties of Alabama. Mowa ancestors were signatories of the treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek which provided for the nonremoval of Indian families. Under the treaty, the signatories and their descendants were entitled to retain their rights to Choctaw citizenship. The Mowa Choctaws have maintained an intense Indian identity over the past 160 years and have petitioned Congress for Federal recognition or to redress treaty grievances several times, beginning as early as 1836. Because of the failure of the BIA to act upon their petition in a timely manner, the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs reported the bill in both the 102d and 103d Congress with the recommendation that the Mowa be granted full Federal recognition. Only recently has the BIA acted upon the petition. In December, the BIA, after 12 years of delay, issued a preliminary finding denying the Mowa petition. However, the BIA only acted upon the petition when it became likely that the bill would pass the Congress and be sent to the President for his signature. I find this conduct at best suspicious, and most likely reflective of the BIA's longstanding bureaucratic disposition against the proposal. Mr. President, I have no intention of dropping this issue, regardless of the position of the BIA. Indeed, Congress granted Federal recognition to one-half dozen Indian tribes last year without the approval of the BIA. Congress writes the laws of this land. Career and appointed bureaucrats do not. The Mowa case is stronger than scores of past petitions for recognition that were approved, and I will continue to work to see that Congress rectifies this bureaucratic injustice and grants the Mowa Choctaws the Federal recognition that they deserve.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I feel compelled to rise in opposition to the Senator from North Dakota's amendment--an amendment, which in my view is misplaced, unwise, and dangerously myopic. The independent role of the Federal Reserve in setting monetary policy remains critical to the long-term stability of this country. Cries for more public input in monetary policy decisionmaking misapprehend the necessary role of a central bank in our market system and jeopardize a carefully crafted balance between independence and public accountability. Public accountability, in contrast to public input, already exists under the current structure of the Federal Resource. The Fed and its activities are already highly scrutinized by both Houses of Congress pursuant to the Humphrey-Hawkins Act--and I dare say that Chairman Greenspan spends about as much time on the Hill testifying before one committee or another than he does at the Federal Reserve engaging in monetary policy decisionmaking. This amendment is not about public accountability, Mr. President. Rather, this amendment is about a trade-off between long-term stability and short-term gain. This amendment represents a rough attempt to influence monetary policy for short-term political purposes. And yet even if it were successful in its purpose--to try and keep interest rates artificially low--it would still be ineffective, Mr. President, because long-term interests rates are not determined by U.S. monetary policy alone. The Fed does not make decisions in a vacuum. Long-term bond and currency values reflect international confidence in the conduct of our monetary policy, not simply the Fed's pegged Federal funds rate. And a loose monetary policy, set through a politically influenced decisionmaking process would send a strong message to the rest of the world. It would basically be telling our international neighbors that we are more concerned with macroeconomic gain than price stability and strong, long-term economic growth. Mr. President, soft money means a soft economy. Adopt the view endorsed by this amendment and we won't have to worry about bolstering the Mexican economy through billion-dollar subsidies--we can make the peso look good by encouraging a lack of confidence in United States monetary policy and the dollar. This amendment is not only unwise and myopic, it is misplaced. It would force the Fed to report to Congress and the White House what costs are imposed on the market every time it raises interest rates. How do you define what comprises costs on the public and private sector? Do you net costs and benefits? Would the proponents of this amendment agree the way many of them did during the health care debate that the short-term costs are outweighed by the long-term benefits? It would appear so. Even if you could quantify such costs--which I nonetheless believe would be a specious exercise at best--this amendment is an unnecessary regulatory nightmare. Congress already has the ability to ask the Fed about the costs of raising interest rates and it has, both through committee oversight and by individual Member queries to the Fed. So what is the purpose of this amendment? To bog the Fed down in more reporting requirements and politicize its decisionmaking process by triggering the reporting requirements only when the Fed decides to increase interest rates. Mr. President, the amendment also misapprehends its populist appeal. It seems to me that on November 8 the American people were pretty clear about a couple of things--one of which is that they can rarely trust Congress to conduct the responsibilities it already has, like making fiscal policy. I'm quite sure that such a healthy skepticism for this body's abilities would certainly extend to any ideas of Congress extending its reach further into Fed monetary policymaking. I bet the American people would be much more interested in seeing the Congress report on the costs to the public and private sectors every time it votes to raise taxes. I like low interest rates, too, Mr. President, but I'm not willing to sacrifice the long-term health of our economy to obtain them. Mr. President, this amendment has nothing to do with unfunded Federal mandates, but instead is strictly about challenging the role of the Fed in setting monetary policy by making it more politically accountable to Congress. Costs imposed by rising interest rates are not unfunded Federal mandates. As I've stated before, the Fed can only do so much to affect interest rates, the market will influence the rise or fall in interest rates no matter what the Fed does. If anything, this amendment is about imposing new mandates by requiring the Fed to comply with new and extensive reporting requirements. Mr. President, this bill is not the appropriate piece of legislation for this amendment and I would urge my colleagues to support the Senator from Idaho's motion to table the Dorgan amendment. Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Judge Gilbert Calvin Steindorff, Jr., retired probate judge in Butler County, AL. Judge Steindorff dedicated his life to the service of the citizens of Butler County and for that we are eternally grateful. Judge Steindorff's first service to his country was a tour of duty in the Army during World War II. In February 1946, he returned to Butler County to help his father run the family business. Not long after his return from France he married Maxine Darby, his wife of nearly 50 years. The couple has one son, Gilbert Calvin Steindorff III, who lives in Montgomery with his wife Debbie and Calvin's grandson, Gilbert Calvin Steindorff IV. In February 1947, after selling the family business, his service to the citizens of Butler County began. With the support of many influential people in the county, he was chosen from a field of eight applicant to replace Butler County Tax Assessor Frank Herlong at the young age of 21. He served at this post for the next 28 years. In 1975, then Probate Judge James T. Beeland became ill and would not resign until he was sure Calvin Steindorff would take his place. Calvin has been there ever since. He was well known throughout Greenville and Butler County as one who is ready to listen and eager to help with everything including road work and garbage pickup. His desk was always neat and his demeanor cheerful. The people of the county warmly refer to him as ``Judge.'' Judge Steindorff called his office his second home and is not sure how he will spend his time now that he does not head for the Butler County Courthouse at the crack of dawn every morning. He may spend more time fishing, woodworking, and working on his antique clock collection, but it is certain that many will miss seeing the ``Judge'' regularly on the streets on downtown Greenville. Judge Gilbert Calvin Steindorff, Jr. has spent his life serving the people of Butler County with devotion, commitment, and selflessness. He is an example to us all. H

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to honor and congratulate U.S. Sgt. Manuel Bojorquez-Pico of Alabama's Redstone Arsenal, on the day of his swearing-in ceremony as a U.S. citizen. A dedicated patriot and loyal protector of this country and its people, Sergeant Bojorquez is not only an inspiration and role model but a symbol of American democracy and freedom. Born in Mexico, Sergeant Bojorquez obtained permanent residency status while living in the United States as a child. For a short period of time he moved back to Mexico due to a family illness, but returned to the United States as an adult and applied to reactivate his permanent residency. It was granted and he enlisted in the Army. A few years later, the Board of Immigration Appeals reversed its decision and ordered Sergeant Bojorquez deported. For several years he filed motions and appeals, and in a final attempt to become a citizen of this country, Manuel contacted the President on July 12, 1994, and requested that he designate the Persian Gulf war a period of military hostility which would allow active duty aliens, such as himself, to apply for naturalization. Despite the concern, support, and assistance of Representative Cramer and myself, 2 weeks before Thanksgiving the District Director of the Immigration and Naturalization Service informed Manuel he would be deported on February 1, 1995. With little hope left, Manuel contacted the President again and finally his prayers were answered. Impressed by Manuel's commitment to serving his adopted country, the President passed an Executive order which not only allows Manuel to become a citizen, but also includes other active duty aliens who fought in the Persian Gulf war. This young, vibrant family man proved to us all that the American dream still lives. Manuel's selfless dedication to defending our country, which he could not call his own until today, is a superior example to all American citizens. I applaud him for his tireless efforts and I thank him for the reminder of how lucky we are to live in this great Nation.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to address the continued deterioration of individual property rights. Environmental regulations are increasingly interfering with the ability of private property owners to use and develop their land. Contrary to popular belief, protecting the property rights of individuals and protecting our environment are not mutually exclusive principles. All too often, I hear stories that landowners are being deprived of the ability to build a house because the Corps of Engineers has designated their property as a wetland; or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has prohibited cultivation of land for fear it might jeopardize an endangered species. A landowner may even be required to pay exorbitant mitigation fees or fines in order to regain the use of their property. That is, of course, if they are lucky enough to regain the right to use their property. Not only does the enforcement of such land use statutes abuse the rights of the property rights owners, but they impose the cost of enforcing these public goods on individual owners rather than the public at large. If the land is regulated in the name of a public good, surely we can distribute the cost among the public as well. The mounting cases regarding regulatory takings necessitate Congressional action. The Domenigoni family experience is a good example. Cindy and Andy Domenigoni are fifth generation farmers in Riverside County, CA. First cultivated in 1879, their farm has traditionally been home to the Stephen's kangaroo rat, which was listed as an endangered species in 1988. In 1990, Fish and Wildlife Service officials ordered them to stop cultivating their 800 tillable acres and warned them that disking this land would warrant their arrest. Punishment for disking land that had been cultivated for the previous 100 years would now result in jail time, a $50,000 fine, or both. As a result, the Domenigonis' land lain idle, producing no crops for 4 years. They lost $75,000 in foregone biological consultation fees, legal fees, and other costs associated with fighting this regulatory taking. Ironically, on November 1, 1993, shortly after devastating southern California fires destroyed thousands of acres of kangaroo rat habitat, FWS biologist John Bradley determined that the rats had left the area before the fire, because the years of leaving the fields fallow had made the brush and weeds grow too thick for the rats. I must say this kind of policy is reckless and haphazard. When elected to the Senate, we had to take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. I do not believe confiscating the economic value of ones property would be considered upholding the Constitution. Indeed, I believe most would agree that such action is nothing less than the taking of property without compensation. In another case, Mr. and Mrs. Howard Heck were denied building on their 25 acres of land because a federally threatened plant species was ``within 5 miles of the proposed project site.'' Mr. Heck has said, ``We were proud to be Americans in a land where * * * our children were to have the opportunity to achieve any goal we wanted. Now we are ashamed of our country and Government that allows the bureaucrats to steal from its citizens * * *.'' I, too, am ashamed the Government in this Nation can effectively steal the economic value of one's land and rob this elderly couple of their dignity and peace during their remaining years on this Earth. In still another instance, a Corps field agent to the regional chief of enforcement signed a memo stating a particular family in Maine, ``would be a good one to squash and set an example * * *.'' The Government of the United States of America has no business ``squashing'' hard working Americans or plundering away their wealth. The very reason the Constitution was established was to protect individuals, not to harm them. The atrocities previously mentioned need to be addressed with a clearly defined policy for Federal agencies in order to stop the abuse of Government bureaucrats. The two laws most responsible for imposing the heavy burden on property ownership are the Endangered Species Act and section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Although the intention of these acts is commendable, they have created perverse incentives for private property ownership. Individuals are reluctant to develop or build on land for fear the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Corps of Engineers or the EPA will soon visit. A visit from the IRS is more welcome than a visit from these Federal agencies. The negative impact of these perverse incentives directly affect the housing and agricultural industries as well as many others. Every house that is not built and every farm that is not cultivated costs us jobs. Not only do the present policies crush an individual's hopes and dreams, but it hinders those still trying to achieve them. As a result of the inequities in the current policies, Senator Nickles and I are reintroducing legislation entitled the, ``Private Property Owners Bill of Rights.'' This bill would insure that private property owners are protected by the Federal Government, its employees, agents, and representatives. Our bill requires notice and consent from property owners before Federal agencies and their agents can enter a private property owners land for purposes of the Endangered Species Act or wetlands laws. In addition, this legislation ensures that property owners rights are considered and respected when agency decisions or actions are taken pursuant to these two laws by providing an administrative appeals process. The process calls for the owner to be given access to the information collected, a description of the way the information was collected, and an opportunity to discuss the accuracy of the information. Lastly, and most importantly, it requires the agency itself to determine whether a taking has occurred and if so to compensate the private property owner for the loss in fair market value of the property. A property owner who is deprived of at least 20 percent or more of the fair market value of $10,000 or more is entitled to receive compensation. The agency would be required to pay the fair market value of the property if purchased or the difference between the fair market value of the property without the restrictions and the fair market value of the property with restrictions. I believe our legislation addresses the serious problem of property rights abuse. It will enhance the foundation necessary for contracts and commerce and in doing so, will foster an environment essential to achieving the American Dream. I strongly urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation and support this cause on behalf of every property owner in America. I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be listed as original cosponsors of this legislation: Senator Nickles, Senator Burns, Senator Hutchison, Senator Lott, Senator Packwood, Senator Pressler, Senator Inhofe, Senator Thomas, and Senator Brown.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to designate English as the official language of the U.S. Government. Last year, tax forms were printed in a language other than English for the first time in the 131 year history of the IRS. In addition, the Immigration and Naturalization Service is now conducting non-English language citizenship ceremonies. I find these policies very disturbing. The Government is sending a clear message that to live in the United States, one must not learn the English language. I believe such Government policies establish a dangerous and expensive precedent. The idea that the U.S. Government can accommodate better than 300 foreign languages now found in America, is absurd. In order to assimilate the various cultures and ethnic groups that comprise this great land, we must use English. Of all the different homelands and dialects introduced to the United States in the 18th century, the language the immigrants choose was English. They did not choose French, German, or Spanish. A common, established language allows individuals to engage in conversation, commerce and of course political discussion. A common language serves as a bridge unifying a community by opening the lines of communication. In this diverse land of ours, English is the common line of communication we share. English is what allows us to teach, learn about and appreciate one another. It is therefore important that the Federal Government formally recognize English as the language of Government and pursue efforts to help new citizens assimilate and learn the English language. The inability to communicate fosters frustration and resentment. By encouraging people to communicate in a common language, we actually help them progress in society. A common language allows individuals to take advantage of the social and economic opportunities America has to offer. The ability to maintain a law abiding citizenry is hindered and the ability to offer true representation is certainly hampered if individuals cannot communicate their opinions. There might be concerns that this legislation will deprive non- English speaking individuals of certain rights or services. Let me assure you it will not. This legislation does not deny individuals their right to use native languages in their private lives nor does it deny critical services. This bill only affects the official functions of the U.S. Government. If anything, this legislation reflects the need to provide services that help non-English speaking people learn English and assimilate to America. Participatory democracy in this country simply requires people learn the English language. I strongly urge my colleagues to join in this effort to establish a national language policy for the U.S. Government by cosponsoring the Language of Government Act of 1995.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to designate English as the official language of the U.S. Government. Last year, tax forms were printed in a language other than English for the first time in the 131 year history of the IRS. In addition, the Immigration and Naturalization Service is now conducting non-English language citizenship ceremonies. I find these policies very disturbing. The Government is sending a clear message that to live in the United States, one must not learn the English language. I believe such Government policies establish a dangerous and expensive precedent. The idea that the U.S. Government can accommodate better than 300 foreign languages now found in America, is absurd. In order to assimilate the various cultures and ethnic groups that comprise this great land, we must use English. Of all the different homelands and dialects introduced to the United States in the 18th century, the language the immigrants choose was English. They did not choose French, German, or Spanish. A common, established language allows individuals to engage in conversation, commerce and of course political discussion. A common language serves as a bridge unifying a community by opening the lines of communication. In this diverse land of ours, English is the common line of communication we share. English is what allows us to teach, learn about and appreciate one another. It is therefore important that the Federal Government formally recognize English as the language of Government and pursue efforts to help new citizens assimilate and learn the English language. The inability to communicate fosters frustration and resentment. By encouraging people to communicate in a common language, we actually help them progress in society. A common language allows individuals to take advantage of the social and economic opportunities America has to offer. The ability to maintain a law abiding citizenry is hindered and the ability to offer true representation is certainly hampered if individuals cannot communicate their opinions. There might be concerns that this legislation will deprive non- English speaking individuals of certain rights or services. Let me assure you it will not. This legislation does not deny individuals their right to use native languages in their private lives nor does it deny critical services. This bill only affects the official functions of the U.S. Government. If anything, this legislation reflects the need to provide services that help non-English speaking people learn English and assimilate to America. Participatory democracy in this country simply requires people learn the English language. I strongly urge my colleagues to join in this effort to establish a national language policy for the U.S. Government by cosponsoring the Language of Government Act of 1995.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to address the seemingly perpetual problem of immigration. We are often told the United States of America was established by immigrants. Indeed, immigration has been the cornerstone of America. I could not agree more about the positive impact immigrants have played in America, nor will I dispute the positive role immigrants will play in the future. We are taught to believe that immigration to America has been, and should be, a perpetual and unlimited right. However, our capacity, as a country, to process and assimilate the heavy flow of immigrants is not sustainable. Excessive demands on social, medical and welfare services accentuate the necessity to address the problem immediately. A quick survey of the condition of State budgets, particularly those of California, Florida, Illinois, New York, and Texas will illustrate the overwhelming demands on education, health care, welfare, prisons, and other social infrastructure. California, Florida, and Texas are actually suing the Federal Government for billions of dollars they have had to spend for such immigrant related costs. The dilemma before us is not limited to illegal immigrants as the media often implies. While approximately 300,000 illegal immigrants come here each year, we actually admit almost 1 million legal immigrants a year. Legal immigration creates a demand more than three times greater than illegal immigration. Simply put, States do not have the resources to provide services to an additional 1.3 million persons a year. Some will say that these immigrants do not come over here for a hand out, but that they come over to work and live the American dream. However, if we assume this to be true--that they come to America to work--then this means they increase the supply of the labor force. Of the 974,000 immigrants that were granted legal permanent residence in 1992, 672,303 were between the ages of 20 and 64. If these immigrants enter the job market, their entry effectively reduces wages by increasing the labor supplied. At a time when real income is stagnant if not declining, immigration policy should not contribute such a strong downward pressure on real income. Such a policy does not make fiscal or social sense. The scenario just mentioned is the optimist view. If one chooses to assume the opposite, that immigrants choose not to work, the inevitable result is an increase in the demand of social services. As mentioned earlier, the demand is already too high for many states. Neither of the two scenarios paint a pretty picture. Indeed, both of these scenarios are costly to the American taxpayer. As a result, I am introducing legislation to provide relief to the American taxpayer. This bill would lower the amount of legal immigrants from about 1 million to 325,000. This figure would include around 175,000 spouses and children of U.S. citizens which has traditionally been the case. The bill also includes a 50,000 level for refugees/asylees, 50,000 for highly skilled workers and 50,000 for other relatives of U.S. citizens. In addition, my legislation would reduce the admissions backlog by freezing it at the current level. New applications would not be accepted until the end of the moratorium unless the applicant came from one of the allowable categories under this legislation. This legislation would ease the demands on State governments while also minimizing the negative economic consequences immigrants have on the labor force. Although this is only a temporary 5-year remedy, it will allow us the time needed to pass a complete, long-term solution to the problem. I support comprehensive reform efforts, but believe immediate relief is needed. It is important that we strive for a rational and equitable immigration policy that takes into account the economic and social needs. We must do this without compromising the social and economic stability of this country and the quality of life for every American. In order for immigrants to live the American dream, there has to be a healthy, prosperous economy and a diverse, harmonious society. To offer anything less, would be to cheat them of the American dream. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.