Richard Shelby

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 8, 2004 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed hearing.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, Subcommittee on Aging be authorized to meet for a hearing on Arthritis: A National Epidemic during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 8, 2004, at 10 a.m. in SD-430.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 8 at 10 a.m. to consider the nomination of Suedeen G. Kelly, to be a member of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for the term expiring June 30, 2009.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session on Tuesday, June 8, 2004, at 10 a.m. in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to hear testimony on Medicare Drug Card: Delivering Savings for Participating beneficiaries.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Tuesday, June 8, 2004, at 10 a.m. in Room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing on S. 2436, a bill to reauthorize the Native American Programs Act.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on Tuesday, June 8, 2004 at 10 a.m. on ``DOJ Oversight: Terrorism and Other Topics'' in the Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226. The Honorable John Ashcroft, U.S. Attorney General, will testify.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Beyond the Pledge of Allegiance: Hostility to Religious Expression in the Public Square'' on Tuesday, June 8, 2004, at 2 p.m. in SD-226. Panel I: The Honorable Chet Edwards, United States Representative, (D-TX); The Honorable Mary Landrieu, United States Senator, (D-LA); The Honorable Richard Shelby, United States Senator, (R-AL). Panel II: William ``Barney'' Clark, Balch Springs, TX; Nashala Hearn, Muskogee, OK; The Honorable Roy Moore, Former Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Alabama, Birmingham, AL; Steven Rosenauer, Bradenton, FL; Kelly J. Shackelford, Chief Counsel, Liberty Legal Institute, Plano, TX; J. Brent Walker, Executive Director, Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs, Washington, DC. Panel III: Professor Richard W. Garnett, Associate Professor of Law, Notre Dame Law School, South Bend, IN; Professor Vincent Phillip Munoz, Civitas Fellow, American Enterprise Institute, Assistant Professor of Political Science, North Carolina State University, Washington, DC; Professor Melissa Rogers, Wake Forest University Divinity School, Winston-Salem, NC. Witnesses are listed in alphabetical order, not necessarily in order of testimony. THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. subcommittee on national parks

Mr. SHELBY

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

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for 3 minutes.

Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, I rise in strong support of the motion to table the amendment of the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Lautenberg. As chairman of the Banking Committee which has jurisdiction over legislation pertaining to U.S. economic sanctions, I am more than a little familiar with the issue addressed by the amendment of the Senator from New Jersey. While his intent may be laudatory, the language of his amendment and the manner in which it has been proposed are not. There is a reason all administrations oppose legislation such as this amendment. Not only do they argue that it infringes on their constitutional right to conduct foreign policy--an argument we admittedly employ or ignore as the need arises--but, more importantly, the White House invariably recognizes the potential for the law of unintended consequences to come into play. There has been no opportunity for those consequences to be considered in a truly deliberative manner because the legislation has not been brought before the Banking Committee for any type of hearing. I take a backseat to no Member in this body in my support of strong economic sanctions as a vital tool in our foreign policy and national security arsenal, and I have been a strong advocate of closing loopholes that weaken those sanctions. My support for the Helms-Burton legislation was a case in point. In addition, as one of the few Members of the Senate who opposes weakening the Government's ability to prevent the flow of military- sensitive technologies to countries with poor records in the areas of proliferation and support for terrorists, I believe my credentials in this area are quite strong. The intent, as I understand it, behind the amendment of the Senator from New Jersey is certainly meritorious. We all support the war against terrorism and the need to staunch the flow of dollars to terrorist organizations. Under my chairmanship, the Banking Committee has been investigating the issue of terrorist financing for over a year, and has additional hearings scheduled on the subject in the weeks ahead. We are taking this issue very seriously. We are examining the structure of the Federal Government to stem the flow of dollars to terrorist organizations. We work very closely with the Treasury Department Office of Foreign Assets and Control which is the Government's vehicle for enforcing U.S. economic sanctions to further prevent these organizations from gaining access to sources of revenue with which to fund their operation. OFAC, the Federal office responsible for enforcing sanctions, opposes the Lautenberg legislation. I stand ready to work with the Senator from New Jersey to ensure U.S. economic sanctions have the requisite team to accomplish the objective for which they are imposed. But this amendment is not the way to go. I urge my colleagues to support the motion to table.

Mr. SHELBY. I am speaking in opposition to the Lautenberg amendment.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to praise the Acting Secretary of the Army, Les Brownlee, for his wonderful leadership and great job he has done under very difficult circumstances as the Army copes with the stresses of heavy involvement in the Global War on Terrorism, especially in Afghanistan and Iraq, and as he juggles many demands and complex priorities as the Army continues to transform. Acting Secretary Brownlee is indeed a highly distinguished public servant who has performed with great humility, energy and passion on behalf of all our active and reserve soldiers and their families. I was particularly impressed with the article ``Army of One'' by Katherine McIntire Peters which appeared in the latest edition of Government Executive magazine and believe that every member should take time to read it. I ask that this article be printed in the Record in its entirety. The article follows. Army of One Acting Secretary Les Brownlee once again leads troops through tumultuous times. On Christmas Eve 2001, Undersecretary of the Army Less Brownlee took an Air Force C- 130 transport plane to Baghram Air Base in Afghanistan, where about 200 soldiers were battling al Qaeda and the terrorist organization's Taliban sponsors. It was a dangerous flight. To reduce their chances of drawing enemy fire, the pilots landed at night, with their lights extinguished. Brownlee spent the evening and following day meeting with soldiers, listening to their experiences and offering encouragement and praise for their service. He had been in office less than two months when he made the Christmas visit, but it established a pattern. With little fanfare and no press attention, Brownlee has spent every holiday since then in the field with soldiers. Brownlee's boss at the time, Army Secretary Thomas White, was the public face of the Army, testifying before Congress and participating in Pentagon press briefings with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, while Brownlee was quietly managing an expanding portfolio of responsibilities. In March 2002, Brownlee was made acting assistant secretary of the Army for civil works, taking on oversight responsibility for the Army Corps of Engineers, a position that would last until this past August, when President Bush appointed John Paul Woodley to the job. In the meantime, Rumsfeld fired White last April and Brownlee became acting Army secretary. For four months last year, Brownlee simultaneously held the positions of Army secretary. For four months last year, Brownlee simultaneously held the positions of Army secretary, undersecretary and director of civil works. During this time, the Army went to war in Iraq and began the biggest civil works project since World War II--the $18 billion program for rebuilding Iraq. Despite his enormous role in what is arguably one of the most profound shifts in U.S. military posture, Brownlee has received very little media attention, a fact that clearly suits him. ``He's a humble and completely dedicated man,'' says John Hamre, deputy Defense secretary during the Clinton administration and a former colleague of Brownlee's when both worked on the Senate Armed Services Committee, Brownlee for Republicans and Hamre for Democrats. ``He does not seek press. He refused to let me have a dinner in his honor when he became undersecretary. He just said, `I don't think that's right.' Les is one of my best friends, and I said `Les, please, this is for you,' and he said, `Please don't do it. I know how much you care,' '' Hamre recalls. ``He completely wants to dissolve his own personal identity into the good of the Army,'' Hamre says. ``Without question, he is one of the finest people I've ever worked with.'' a `get-it-done fellow' If a Hollywood producer were casting a film about the Army, the service secretary might very well look like Brownlee. In an interview in March he appeared tanned and fit, handsome, square-jawed, blue-eyed, silver-haired. He wore a navy suit, a white shirt French cuffs and a red, white and blue tie, the uniform of official Washington, but for the Silver Star pin in his lapel, a hard-earned award for valorous conduct on the battlefield nearly four decades ago. Brownlee earned two Silver Stars in Vietnam, along with three Bronze Stars and a Purple Heart. He may look like a politician or a banker, but he is a soldier's soldier. Brownlee's bearing is formal and gentlemanly and he speaks in a measured, low voice. After introducing himself at the beginning of an interview, his first comment is: ``I've never really done this before.'' A press hound he is not. Brownlee's resume is remarkably suited to his responsibilities. A highly decorated infantry company commander in Vietnam, he served a full career in the Army before retiring as a colonel in 1984, after serving as executive officer to James Ambrose, one of the most dynamic Army undersecretaries in modern history. ``I though he was a real comer and a very effective fellow,'' recalls Ambrose. ``I think of Brownlee as a superb organizer--a get-it-done fellow.'' After leaving the Army, Brownlee went to work on the staff of Sen. John Warner, R-VA., a stalwart on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Three years later, Brownlee joined the committee staff, where he worked for 14 years, several years as staff director under the late Sen. Strom Thurmond, the committee chairman whose failing health greatly impaired his participation in Senate business. ``Les single-handedly ensured the authorization bills were produced in some very difficult years,'' recalls Hamre. ``Had it not been for Les to hold the committee together and move those bills forward . . . there were a couple of years we weren't going to have authorization bills. Les made it happen. While working for the Senate, Brownlee oversaw some of the most profound changes in military posture since the Korean War. He was a major player in decisions surrounding the reduction in military forces and the cancellation of major weapons programs following the end of the Cold War, and he played a key role in establishing requirements aimed at helping the services navigate the strategically messy decade of the 1990s. In the summer of 2001, Bush administration officials asked Brownlee if he would take the job as Army undersecretary. He was still mulling it over on the morning of Sept. 11, when he turned on the television in his Senate office in time to watch terrorists fly a second plane into the World Trade Center towers in New York. A short while later he spoke to his son, A U.S. attorney in Roanoke, VA., who told him: ``You know you have to take the job now.'' ``I knew he was right,'' says Brownlee.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the University of Alabama School of Law for their outstanding ranking among the country's law schools. U.S. News and World Report recently released its annual list of the Top 100 Law Schools, and ranked the University of Alabama School of Law fortieth in the Nation. This ranking places the Law School in the top tier of law schools nationwide, which is phenomenal considering the institution was ranked in the third tier just 8 years ago in 1996. As a graduate of the law school myself, I am proud to see their elevation to one of the premier law schools in the Nation. I believe that much of the school's success must be attributed to the dean of the Law School, Kenneth Randall. Dean Randall holds four law degrees, including a doctorate from the Columbia University School of Law, 1988; a master's from Columbia, 1985; a master's from Yale University, 1982; and a juris doctor degree from Hofstra University, 1981. Additionally, Dean Randall received a bachelor of arts degree in English literature from Aldelphi University on Long Island. Indeed, his educational background is outstanding, and he has demonstrated a true enthusiasm for the law. Since taking the reins as dean in 1993, Dean Randall has provided a clear vision for the institution. He takes great pride in the success of the law school, and has done so since joining the faculty in 1985. I am hopeful that his career path keeps him here in Tuscaloosa for many years to come. The education of our young people is critical to the success of our Nation, and the University of Alabama School of Law is committed to providing students with the tools necessary to succeed. I believe the dedication of Dean Randall, the administration, faculty, and alumni has created an environment that allows students to achieve their goals and exceed their own expectations. I extend my sincerest congratulations to the University of Alabama School of Law for its remarkable success and look forward to celebrating more achievements in the future.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, as we continue to debate the Federal Government's fiscal year 2005 budget, I can think of no better time to discuss the need for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. It is for that reason that I stand before you today--to introduce a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. This is the same amendment that I have introduced in every Congress since the 97th Congress. Throughout my entire tenure in Congress, during the good economic times and the bad, I have devoted much time and attention to this idea because I believe that one of the most important things the Federal Government can do to enhance the lives of all Americans and future generations is to balance the Federal budget. Our Founding Fathers, wise men indeed, had great concerns regarding the capability of those in government to operate within budgetary constraints. Alexander Hamilton once wrote that ``. . . . . there is a general propensity in those who govern, founded in the constitution of man, to shift the burden from the present to a future day.'' Thomas Jefferson commented on the moral significance of this ``shifting of the burden from the present to the future.'' He said: ``the question whether one generation has the right to bind another by the deficit it imposes is a question of such consequence as to place it among the fundamental principles of government. We should consider ourselves unauthorized to saddle posterity with our debts and morally bound to pay them ourselves.'' I completely agree with these sentiments. History has shown that Hamilton was correct. Those who govern have, in fact, saddled future generations with the responsibility of paying for their debts. Over the past 30 years, annual deficits have become routine and the Federal Government has built up massive debt. Furthermore, Jefferson's assessment of the significance of this is also correct: intergenerational debt shifting is morally wrong. Over the years, we have witnessed countless ``budget summits'' and ``bipartisan budget deals,'' and we have heard, time and again, the promises of ``deficit reduction.'' But despite all of these charades, the Federal budget remains severely out of balance today. The truth is, it will never be balanced as long as the President and the Congress are allowed to shortchange the welfare of future generations to pay for current consumption. This is evidenced by the fact that I stood in this same place, introducing this same legislation during both the 106th and the 107th Congresses while the Federal budget was actually in balance. But alas, I stand here today with an enormous Federal deficit and a ballooning Federal debt. A balanced budget amendment to the Constitution is the only certain mechanism to break the cycle of deficit spending and ensure that the Government does not continue to saddle our children and grandchildren with the current generation's debts. A permanently balanced budget would have a considerable impact in the everyday lives of the American people. A balanced budget would dramatically lower interest rates thereby saving money for anyone with a home mortgage, a student loan, a car loan, credit card debt, or any other interest rate sensitive payment responsibility. Simply by balancing its books, the Federal Government would put real money into the hands of hard working people. Moreover, if the government demand for capital is reduced, more money would be available for private sector use, which in turn, would generate substantial economic growth and create thousands of new jobs. More money in the pockets of Americans and more job creation by the economy can become a reality with a simple step--a balanced budget amendment. On the other hand, without a balanced budget amendment, the Government will continue to waste the taxpayers' money on unnecessary interest payments. In fiscal year 2003, the Federal Government spent more than $318 billion just to pay the interest on the national debt. That is more than the amount spent on all education, job training, and crime programs combined. We might as well be taking these hard-earned tax dollars and pouring them down the drain. I believe that this money could be better spent on improving education, developing new medical technologies, finding a cure for cancer, or even returning it to the people who earned it in the first place. But instead, about 15 percent of the Federal budget is being wasted on interest payments because advocates of big government continue to block all efforts to balance the budget. A balanced budget amendment to the Constitution can be the solution to this perpetual problem. A balanced budget amendment will put us on a path to paying off our national debt, which is currently more than $7 trillion. This amendment will help ensure that taxpayers' money will no longer be wasted on interest payments. Opponents of a balanced budget amendment treat it as if it is something extraordinary. They are right, a balanced Federal budget would be extraordinary. And I believe that adopting an amendment that would require the Federal Government to do what every American already has to do--balance their checkbook--is exactly what this country needs to prove that Washington is serious about accomplishing this extraordinary feat. A balanced budget amendment is simply a promise to the American people that the Government will spend their hard-earned tax dollars responsibly. I think that we owe our constituents and future generations of Americans that much. We do not need any more budget deals or false promises from Washington to reduce the deficit. What we need is a hammer to force Congress and the President to agree on a balanced budget, not just this year, but forever. A constitutional amendment to balance the Federal budget is the only hammer forceful enough to make that happen. I urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, as we continue to debate the Federal Government's fiscal year 2005 budget, I can think of no better time to discuss the need for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. It is for that reason that I stand before you today--to introduce a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. This is the same amendment that I have introduced in every Congress since the 97th Congress. Throughout my entire tenure in Congress, during the good economic times and the bad, I have devoted much time and attention to this idea because I believe that one of the most important things the Federal Government can do to enhance the lives of all Americans and future generations is to balance the Federal budget. Our Founding Fathers, wise men indeed, had great concerns regarding the capability of those in government to operate within budgetary constraints. Alexander Hamilton once wrote that ``. . . . . there is a general propensity in those who govern, founded in the constitution of man, to shift the burden from the present to a future day.'' Thomas Jefferson commented on the moral significance of this ``shifting of the burden from the present to the future.'' He said: ``the question whether one generation has the right to bind another by the deficit it imposes is a question of such consequence as to place it among the fundamental principles of government. We should consider ourselves unauthorized to saddle posterity with our debts and morally bound to pay them ourselves.'' I completely agree with these sentiments. History has shown that Hamilton was correct. Those who govern have, in fact, saddled future generations with the responsibility of paying for their debts. Over the past 30 years, annual deficits have become routine and the Federal Government has built up massive debt. Furthermore, Jefferson's assessment of the significance of this is also correct: intergenerational debt shifting is morally wrong. Over the years, we have witnessed countless ``budget summits'' and ``bipartisan budget deals,'' and we have heard, time and again, the promises of ``deficit reduction.'' But despite all of these charades, the Federal budget remains severely out of balance today. The truth is, it will never be balanced as long as the President and the Congress are allowed to shortchange the welfare of future generations to pay for current consumption. This is evidenced by the fact that I stood in this same place, introducing this same legislation during both the 106th and the 107th Congresses while the Federal budget was actually in balance. But alas, I stand here today with an enormous Federal deficit and a ballooning Federal debt. A balanced budget amendment to the Constitution is the only certain mechanism to break the cycle of deficit spending and ensure that the Government does not continue to saddle our children and grandchildren with the current generation's debts. A permanently balanced budget would have a considerable impact in the everyday lives of the American people. A balanced budget would dramatically lower interest rates thereby saving money for anyone with a home mortgage, a student loan, a car loan, credit card debt, or any other interest rate sensitive payment responsibility. Simply by balancing its books, the Federal Government would put real money into the hands of hard working people. Moreover, if the government demand for capital is reduced, more money would be available for private sector use, which in turn, would generate substantial economic growth and create thousands of new jobs. More money in the pockets of Americans and more job creation by the economy can become a reality with a simple step--a balanced budget amendment. On the other hand, without a balanced budget amendment, the Government will continue to waste the taxpayers' money on unnecessary interest payments. In fiscal year 2003, the Federal Government spent more than $318 billion just to pay the interest on the national debt. That is more than the amount spent on all education, job training, and crime programs combined. We might as well be taking these hard-earned tax dollars and pouring them down the drain. I believe that this money could be better spent on improving education, developing new medical technologies, finding a cure for cancer, or even returning it to the people who earned it in the first place. But instead, about 15 percent of the Federal budget is being wasted on interest payments because advocates of big government continue to block all efforts to balance the budget. A balanced budget amendment to the Constitution can be the solution to this perpetual problem. A balanced budget amendment will put us on a path to paying off our national debt, which is currently more than $7 trillion. This amendment will help ensure that taxpayers' money will no longer be wasted on interest payments. Opponents of a balanced budget amendment treat it as if it is something extraordinary. They are right, a balanced Federal budget would be extraordinary. And I believe that adopting an amendment that would require the Federal Government to do what every American already has to do--balance their checkbook--is exactly what this country needs to prove that Washington is serious about accomplishing this extraordinary feat. A balanced budget amendment is simply a promise to the American people that the Government will spend their hard-earned tax dollars responsibly. I think that we owe our constituents and future generations of Americans that much. We do not need any more budget deals or false promises from Washington to reduce the deficit. What we need is a hammer to force Congress and the President to agree on a balanced budget, not just this year, but forever. A constitutional amendment to balance the Federal budget is the only hammer forceful enough to make that happen. I urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. As the chairman of the Transportation, Treasury and General Government Appropriations Subcommittee, I, too, wish to echo the adamant view of Chairman Stevens that this provision must be enacted into law in the next few weeks.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I acknowledge today, February 12, as the seventieth anniversary of the Export-Import Bank, the principal export credit agency of the United States. Since 1934, the bank has played a unique role in helping to facilitate U.S. exports, ultimately supporting thousands of jobs. As an independent U.S. Government agency, it assumes credit and country risks that the private sector is unable or unwilling to accept. Eximbank has assisted in financing more than $400 billion in U.S. exports. On average, 85 percent of its transactions directly benefit small businesses which are clearly struggling in today's economy. Historically, the Bank has a loan-loss rate of under 2 percent, which is a respectable record for any financial institution. As the United States has become economically interdependent with a growing number of foreign trade partners, the Bank's role in leveling the playing field for American companies seeking to market their goods and services overseas continues to grow. In turn, Eximbank plays a vital part in enabling U.S. companies, both large and small, to turn export opportunities into concrete sales. Mr. President, I am pleased to make not of Eximbank's important contribution to the U.S. economy and hope the institution continues to honor its mission through the twenty first century.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I will work with my colleagues from Michigan to address this issue in conference and provide this critical funding for their transit systems.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, the text of this amendment is identical to the legislation that the Banking Committee ordered reported from the committee by a voice vote yesterday. In other words, it was a unanimous vote in the Banking Committee. I rise today in support of the Federal Public Transportation Act of 2004. This is the bill, as everyone knows, that was successfully reported out of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs yesterday. I am proud of this piece of legislation which was crafted on a bipartisan basis with cooperation from the distinguished Senator from Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes, the committee's ranking member. This amendment, which I hope will be part of the bill, provides record growth for public transportation at $56.5 billion--a 57-percent increase over TEA-21. This funding level tracks with the growth in the highway program to $255 billion. This combined funding will go a long way toward improving and expanding upon our Nation's transportation infrastructure. I am pleased, as I said, to be working with the Environment and Public Works Committee chairman, Senator Inhofe, to accomplish this goal. Our amendment, which will be part of the bill, we trust, accomplishes three important policy goals. It creates funding flexibility, increases accountability, and improves the performance and efficiency of the transit programs in the United States. The bill creates several new formulas to better address growing transit needs. A rural low density formula is created to allow for transit services in sparsely populated areas where employment centers and health care are great distances apart. A growing States formula is created to allow communities with populations projected to grow significantly in the coming years to put in place needed transportation infrastructure. A small transit intensive cities formula is created to address the needs of communities where the level of transit service exceeds what their population-based formula provides. Our bill also creates a super-high density formula to provide additional funding for States with transit needs that are particularly great because they have transit systems in extremely urban areas with high utilization rates. The bill increases the accountability within the transit program. It rewards transit agencies to deliver products that are on time, on budget, and provide the benefits that they promised. Further, this bill allows communities to consider more cost-effective, flexible solutions to their transportation needs by opening up eligibility of a new starts fund to nonfixed guideway projects under $75 million in cost. With this change, other solutions can be fostered, such as bus rapid transit, which can produce the majority of the benefit of rail at a fraction of the cost. Finally, the bill seeks to improve the performance and efficiency of transit systems nationwide. It provides incentives for the coordination of human service transportation activities to eliminate duplication and overlap. It increases the focus on safety and security needs with transit systems to insulate them against terrorist attacks. It also enhances the role of the private sector in providing public transportation in an effort to reduce costs and to improve service. In short, the Federal Public Transportation Act is a good bill and one that will dramatically improve the public transportation program to help Americans with their mobility needs in urban and rural areas nationwide. I commend this to the Senate and ask my colleagues for their support.

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

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

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to withdraw the amendment.

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

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that Rich Steinmann and Kate Mattice, detailees from the Federal Transit Administration serving the Banking Committee, be granted floor privileges for the duration of the consideration of this bill.